Poll: Judge Roy Moore leads competitors in runoff

[specsaregood]

Show up to protest (actually to vote, but since that's all kinds of illegal, the flyer doesn't put it quite that way) and get $50





http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...participation/

that is obscene

[r3volution 3.0]

It's not a myth. Only stupid Christians actually believe the USA was founded on Christian ideals, when it was actually a complete rejection of political Christianity, which plagued Europe for centuries and led to millions of deaths. Thomas Jefferson, the most influential founder, wasn't even a Christian, and interpreted the first amendment as " building a wall of separation between church and state."

Bunk.

Not bunk

The Founders were children of the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment was in very large party a rejection of Christianity: or "superstition" or "ignorance" or "priestly tyranny," etc, as they would put it. Christianity virtually died out in the United States around the turn of the 18th century as a result of Enlightenment thought. [And when it returned during the revival movement a few decades later, it was radically changed, having become low-church, do-gooder Yankeeism (which eventually dropped the theological clothing altogether and became modern progressivism), but I digress...] Point is, the First Amendment was definitely intended to be a radical break from the previous traditions of European Christianity, and it in fact was. The US around the founding may have been a more Christian society (at least by customs, if not by actual belief) than it is today, but it was in no way founded as a Christian state. It was founded as a secular state in self-conscious opposition to the Christian states of Europe. Any traditional European Christian in 1790 let's say, would have looked at what was happening in France with regard to religion and thought "O boy, it's happening again, I knew we shouldn't have helped those colonists," lumping the anticlerical elements in Paris in with the American revolutionaries, and with good reason (developments in the US had been much less radical, of course, but they moved in the same direction and under the same impulse).

*note that I have little but contempt for the Enlightenment, and am fairy sympathetic to (at least high-church) Christianity

[Swordsmyth]

Not bunk

The Founders were children of the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment was in very large party a rejection of Christianity: or "superstition" or "ignorance" or "priestly tyranny," etc, as they would put it. Christianity virtually died out in the United States around the turn of the 18th century as a result of Enlightenment thought. [And when it returned during the revival movement a few decades later, it was radically changed, having become low-church, do-gooder Yankeeism (which eventually dropped the theological clothing altogether and became modern progressivism), but I digress...] Point is, the First Amendment was definitely intended to be a radical break from the previous traditions of European Christianity, and it in fact was. The US around the founding may have been a more Christian society (at least by customs, if not by actual belief) than it is today, but it was in no way founded as a Christian state. It was founded as a secular state in self-conscious opposition to the Christian states of Europe. Any traditional European Christian in 1790 let's say, would have looked at what was happening in France with regard to religion and thought "O boy, it's happening again, I knew we shouldn't have helped those colonists," lumping the anticlerical elements in Paris in with the American revolutionaries, and with good reason (developments in the US had been much less radical, of course, but they moved in the same direction and under the same impulse).

*note that I have little but contempt for the Enlightenment, and am fairy sympathetic to (at least high-church) Christianity

It's bunk, regardless of anyone's opinion of the enlightenment or America or Christianity, some members of the enlightenment may have completely rejected Christianity but others merely wanted to change it and while America may have reduced the interaction of church and state it was never intended to reduce the presence of Christianity in society, and in any case American legal theory was based on Christian culture and tradition.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's bunk, regardless of anyone's opinion of the enlightenment or America or Christianity, some members of the enlightenment may have completely rejected Christianity but others merely wanted to change it and while America may have reduced the interaction of church and state it was never intended to reduce the presence of Christianity in society, and in any case American legal theory was based on Christian culture and tradition.

If you define "Christian culture" as any culture which isn't Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc, sure.

But that'd be silly, since no one's claiming that the Founders belonged to some other religion's culture.

If there was such a thing as secular, non-Christian culture in the West at the 18th century, the Founders were part of it.

If not, because you define "Christian culture" so broadly, then the debate is meaningless.

[Krugminator2]

https://dougjonesforsenate.com/priorities/

• Health care is a right, not a privilege limited to the wealthy and those with jobs that provide coverage.
• Coverage must meet basic standards that protect individuals. Nobody should have to sell their house because a family member has cancer. A “cheap” plan that won’t cover preventative care, serious illness, pharmaceutical coverage, mental health, maternity care, birth control or other care for women is a sham. So is a policy that nobody can afford.

Health care is not a right and private citizens shouldn't be forced to violate their religious beliefs to provide coverage.

Roy Moore is a clown and not very libertarian. Even excluding the fact that he is a child molester, he is bad on numerous economic issues and catastrophically bad on most social issues. All of that said, I would vote for him because the Senate is 52-48. Conceding a vote from a Republican state is really bad when Clarence Thomas, Ginsurg and Kennedy all might retire soon. I am not eager to see a guy who wants single payer health care to win.

[Influenza]

The Bible was lightyears ahead of other religions, the church, and the secular world in terms of sanitation and health. The Bible actually commands bathing and washing, among other sanitation laws, while the Jews had/have other extra washing rituals. In that context, Jesus' statement means something different from how you took it; He is just saying that rituals and excessive washing are unnecessary. But at any rate, what does this have to do with Roy Moore?

More lies of course. That's the only way christians can justify their idiotic religious texts

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topi...-For-Cleansing

Notice how only two of the verses are from the new testament, you know the book about jesus and stuff. And one of those verses is specifically about NOT WASHING. and then there's the obligatory foot fetishizing from jesus. Imagine if Jesus washed his hands more thoroughly than what the mosaic law prescribed. We would never hear the end of it from Christians who would proclaim that Jesus knew about the importance of cleanliness. Unfortunately that's not true, and we just laugh as you make excuses for the nonsense you believe.

And if christianity was so advanced in sanitation, why were all the Christian european countries the filthiest on the planet for so long? That's why half of everyone in Europe died from the Bubonic plague, because they were disgustingly filthy.

And you know how it's related to Roy Moore? Because the only reason he has any support at all is because of christianity. If that sick religion was dead, roy moore would not have even a single voter.

[Swordsmyth]

If you define "Christian culture" as any culture which isn't Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc, sure.

But that'd be silly, since no one's claiming that the Founders belonged to some other religion's culture.

If there was such a thing as secular, non-Christian culture in the West at the 18th century, the Founders were part of it.

If not, because you define "Christian culture" so broadly, then the debate is meaningless.

It is not meaningless, this started when I pointed out that our Constitution and laws were based on Christian legal tradition and that it was impossible for an avowed muslim who wanted to use a koran instead of a bible to take the oath of office to protect and defend them.

Islamic culture and legal theory are directly in opposition to our culture of GOD given rights including the right to freedom of religion.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is not meaningless, this started when I pointed out that our Constitution and laws were based on Christian legal tradition and that it was impossible for an avowed muslim who wanted to use a koran instead of a bible to take the oath of office to protect and defend them.

You could say exactly the same thing about an avowed Christian (hell, like Moore!), which proves my point.

Islamic culture and legal theory are directly in opposition to our culture of GOD given rights including the right to freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is not an aspect Christian culture any more than it is of Islamic culture; it was a secular idea developed in the Enlightenment.

...in direct contradiction of Christian culture as it had existed for the better part of two millenia.

[Influenza]

You have made some really idiotic points. If you are trolling, congratulations. That's some grade A material. I hope you are getting a good laugh. If you are serious, you should reevaluate your sense of reality. You are a bit off kilter to put it mildly.

How does it make you feel knowing that Jesus made it a point to NOT wash his hands? If he did the opposite, Christian and atheist alike would hail him has a revolutionary genius. Jesus clearly said that only foolish people wash their hands before eating, citing that God created everything both on your hands and inside your body. What those verses mean is really obvious. I'm sorry you're so miserably brainwashed that all you can do is ignore how laughable your religion is and instead berate me for pointing it out

[Swordsmyth]

You could say exactly the same thing about an avowed Christian (hell, like Moore!), which proves my point.

Bunk

Freedom of religion is not an aspect Christian culture any more than it is of Islamic culture; it was a secular idea developed in the Enlightenment.

...in direct contradiction of Christian culture as it had existed for the better part of two millenia.

Does "Love thine enemy" ring a bell? Christians did not attempt to suppress other religions until the Roman empire hijacked the church.
And freedom of religion was a protestant ideal that was resurrected in Christianity to help keep protestants from fighting among themselves and giving an advantage to Papists in the religious wars.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bunk

Is there anything which the federal government could do Constitutionally, which would contradict Christian principles?

Is there anything which the federal government could not do Constitutionally, which Christian principles say it ought to?

How about for state government, where the sphere of Constitutional action is much larger?

Does "Love thine enemy" ring a bell? Christians did not attempt to suppress other religions until the Roman empire hijacked the church.

So, only since the early 4th century AD...

...only for the vast majority of Christianity's existence.

And freedom of religion was a protestant ideal that was resurrected in Christianity to help keep protestants from fighting among themselves and giving an advantage to Papists in the religious wars.

Protestants favored toleration when they were in the minority, e.g. in France.

In Protestant ruled states, e.g. England or Massachusetts, they were at least as intolerant as Catholics.

[RJB]

I am sorry. I assumed you were intelligent enough to realize that Jesus was speaking of what makes a person spiritually unclean. I won't give you that benefit of the doubt in the future.

The lesson was: it's what is in your heart rather than a ritual (in this case washing of the hands) that makes someone holy. (Jesus did not come into the world to save germs, LOL) If you are implying that Christians don't wash their hands, yes, I think you are goofing around-- at least I hope you are.


Furthermore, pointing out fringe Christians like odd posters on the forum or tyrants who furthered their desires misusing a belief to judge all Christians is as silly as me using fringe atheistic posters such as yourself and atheistic tyrants like Stalin to judge all atheists. I would not do that. There are atheist who I respect for there intellect and honesty.

How does it make you feel knowing that Jesus made it a point to NOT wash his hands? If he did the opposite, Christian and atheist alike would hail him has a revolutionary genius. Jesus clearly said that only foolish people wash their hands before eating, citing that God created everything both on your hands and inside your body. What those verses mean is really obvious. I'm sorry you're so miserably brainwashed that all you can do is ignore how laughable your religion is and instead berate me for pointing it out

[Superfluous Man]

almost all the founders fit in that "non-religious" category

Of all people who have ever lived and are alive today and ever will live, the number of nonreligious ones is zero.

If the religion that informed the views of the people you refer to as the founders was something other than a biblical faith, it was not on that account any less religious.

[Superfluous Man]

Jesus clearly said that only foolish people wash their hands before eating

Jesus never said that.

[Influenza]

I am sorry. I assumed you were intelligent enough to realize that Jesus was speaking of what makes a person spiritually unclean. I won't give you that benefit of the doubt in the future.

The lesson was: it's what is in your heart rather than a ritual (in this case washing of the hands) that makes someone holy. (Jesus did not come into the world to save germs, LOL) If you are implying that Christians don't wash their hands, yes, I think you are goofing around-- at least I hope you are.


Furthermore, pointing out fringe Christians like odd posters on the forum or tyrants who furthered their desires misusing a belief to judge all Christians is as silly as me using fringe atheistic posters such as yourself and atheistic tyrants like Stalin to judge all atheists. I would not do that. There are atheist who I respect for there intellect and honesty.

Oh I see, so Jesus refused to wash his hands before eating and taught his followers the same in order to make a point about a concept as arcane and useless as "spiritual purity." That makes a lot of sense.

btw, I was referring to those "fringe Christians" because they are the most honest Christians of all - they believe what is written, and don't throw out and ignore all the ugly parts of their religion. And because of that, they are awful people.

[Influenza]

Of all people who have ever lived and are alive today and ever will live, the number of nonreligious ones is zero.

If the religion that informed the views of the people you refer to as the founders was something other than a biblical faith, it was not on that account any less religious.

More dishonest theistic propaganda. Beliefs and ideas that are not based on blind faith have absolutely NOTHING to do with "religion."

[RJB]

Oh I see, so Jesus refused to wash his hands before eating and taught his followers the same in order to make a point about a concept as arcane and useless as "spiritual purity."

Are you capable of reading comprehension? What you are writing is silly.

That makes a lot of sense.

If you wish to post as a clown, please stop using the Ron Paul picture and please use an avatar with a person with a big red ball for his nose.

btw, I was referring to those "fringe Christians" because they are the most honest Christians of all - they believe what is written, and don't throw out and ignore all the ugly parts of their religion. And because of that, they are awful people.

Again, I am sure my atheistic friends are glad that I don't lump them in with you and Stalin.

[Swordsmyth]

Is there anything which the federal government could do Constitutionally, which would contradict Christian principles?

Yes, as could any government including a Christian theocracy.

Is there anything which the federal government could not do Constitutionally, which Christian principles say it ought to?

Not to my knowledge, if you have anything in mind let me know.

How about for state government, where the sphere of Constitutional action is much larger?

Same answers as above.

So, only since the early 4th century AD...

...only for the vast majority of Christianity's existence.

That's right, REAL Christianity didn't suppress other religions and many people understood that, that is why freedom of religion was accepted by many Christians especially Protestants who were willing to admit that Rome had become heretical.

Protestants favored toleration when they were in the minority, e.g. in France.

In Protestant ruled states, e.g. England or Massachusetts, they were at least as intolerant as Catholics.

Some acted that way, others did not, England is a good example their religious tolerance varied, at one time it was said that "the French have a hundred sauces and one religion, while the English are a nation of a hundred religions and one sauce".

Those Protestant sects that were persecuted by the majority came to America and sought to establish states with religious tolerance like Pennsylvania.

[Superfluous Man]

More dishonest theistic propaganda. Beliefs and ideas that are not based on blind faith have absolutely NOTHING to do with "religion."

If blind faith refers to beliefs that people hold without first proving them, every person who ever has lived or ever will live has those.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, as could any government including a Christian theocracy.

Not to my knowledge, if you have anything in mind let me know.

Same answers as above.

So then how could a Christian take an oath to uphold the Constitution (federal or state)?

He would face the same conflict of conscience as a devout Muslim, no?

That's right, REAL Christianity didn't suppress other religions and many people understood that, that is why freedom of religion was accepted by many Christians especially Protestants who were willing to admit that Rome had become heretical...

Some acted that way, others did not, England is a good example their religious tolerance varied, at one time it was said that "the French have a hundred sauces and one religion, while the English are a nation of a hundred religions and one sauce".

Those Protestant sects that were persecuted by the majority came to America and sought to establish states with religious tolerance like Pennsylvania.

In England, Mass was outlawed while attendance at Anglican services was made mandatory. Catholics were required to pay tithes to support the Anglican Church. Catholic schools were outlawed. Catholics were legally prohibited from serving on juries, holding university positions, being lawyers, serving in the military, voting, or holding most public offices. Hundreds of Catholic priests and others were executed for treason simply for public practice of their religion. Most of these restrictions lasted into the 1820s. It was more or less the same story throughout Protestant Europe (and in Catholic Europe, in reverse).

Christianity around the time of the Founding was not tolerant, Protestant or otherwise.

The Founders were reacting against the Christian culture of the day.

[Swordsmyth]

So then how could a Christian take an oath to uphold the Constitution (federal or state)?

He would face the same conflict of conscience as a devout Muslim, no?

Islam demands that the state do things that would violate the Constitution, Christianity does not, a Christian can protect and defend the Constitution until it required him to violate his principles then he can resign when it does.

In England, Mass was outlawed while attendance at Anglican services was made mandatory. Catholics were required to pay tithes to support the Anglican Church. Catholic schools were outlawed. Catholics were legally prohibited from serving on juries, holding university positions, being lawyers, serving in the military, voting, or holding most public offices. Hundreds of Catholic priests and others were executed for treason simply for public practice of their religion. Most of these restrictions lasted into the 1820s. It was more or less the same story throughout Protestant Europe (and in Catholic Europe, in reverse).

Christianity around the time of the Founding was not tolerant, Protestant or otherwise.

The Founders were reacting against the Christian culture of the day.

The "war" against Rome was a large exception to the growing belief in religious liberty but hardly any concept is fully implemented from it's birth and it was Protestant Christians who began the movement.

And Pennsylvania did not persecute Catholics even if other colonies did.

[r3volution 3.0]

Islam demands that the state do things that would violate the Constitution, Christianity does not

There are/have been many Christian-inspired policy proposals which are clearly unconstitutional at the federal level: e.g. alcohol prohibition, banning abortion, banning gay marriage. On the other side, there are many Constitutional things at the state level (e.g. funding abortions) which Christians could not support in good conscience. In either case (the Christian wanting to do unconstitutional things, or refusing ti enforce constitutional laws, there's an oath problem).

a Christian can protect and defend the Constitution until it required him to violate his principles then he can resign when it does.

But a Muslim couldn't, because....?

The "war" against Rome was a large exception to the growing belief in religious liberty....

It wasn't an exception, it was the norm throughout Protestant Europe until the 19th century.

I can just as well find examples of tolerant Catholic states, and they too would be exceptions.

[Swordsmyth]

There are/have been many Christian-inspired policy proposals which are clearly unconstitutional at the federal level: e.g. alcohol prohibition, banning abortion, banning gay marriage. On the other side, there are many Constitutional things at the state level (e.g. funding abortions) which Christians could not support in good conscience. In either case (the Christian wanting to do unconstitutional things, or refusing ti enforce constitutional laws, there's an oath problem).

Some Christians may want to do unconstitutional things but Christianity doesn't demand that they be done.

But a Muslim couldn't, because....?

Because islam demands that the government do many things which are unconstitutional.

It wasn't an exception, it was the norm throughout Protestant Europe until the 19th century.

I meant it was an exception to the concept of religious tolerance not that it was an exception to the majority of how states behaved.

I can just as well find examples of tolerant Catholic states, and they too would be exceptions.

Catholic culture saw the advantages of tolerance and copied the Protestants, in any case it was a movement within Christian culture.

[r3volution 3.0]

Some Christians may want to do unconstitutional things but Christianity doesn't demand that they be done.

Because islam demands that the government do many things which are unconstitutional.

Christian: My book says (or I interpret it as saying) demon rum should be illegal, let's ban it.

Muslim: Hey, me too, let's ban it.

What's the difference?

[Swordsmyth]

Christian: My book says (or I interpret it as saying) demon rum should be illegal, let's ban it.

Muslim: Hey, me too, let's ban it.

What's the difference?

The Christian book doesn't say it should be illegal (it doesn't even say it is immoral, even Mormon scripture doesn't say it should be illegal and the passage that is interpreted as forbidding it specifically states that it is advice not a command, the doctrinal change to treat it as a command was heresy, it even specifically allows beer and says that when the end-times are over wine will be acceptable since the advice to avoid it is meant to prevent poisoning plots) and if a particular sect says that it does say it should be illegal then they too should be barred from taking the oath.

[r3volution 3.0]

The Christian book doesn't say it should be illegal (it doesn't even say it is immoral, even Mormon scripture doesn't say it should be illegal and the passage that is interpreted as forbidding it specifically states that it is advice not a command, the doctrinal change to treat it as a command was heresy, it even specifically allows beer and says that when the end-times are over wine will be acceptable since the advice to avoid it is meant to prevent poisoning plots) and if a particular sect says that it does say it should be illegal then they too should be barred from taking the oath.

Your narrow definition of Christian appears to rule out most self-ascribed Christians in America. If you're using a similarly narrow definition of Muslim (only those who believe in some Koranic command to unconstitutional things are real Muslims), well then your argument might be better expressed as "people who think the government should do unconstitutional things shouldn't be allowed to take the oath," which rules out almost all people, Christian or Muslim.

[Swordsmyth]

Your narrow definition of Christian appears to rule out most self-ascribed Christians in America. If you're using a similarly narrow definition of Muslim (only those who believe in some Koranic command to unconstitutional things are real Muslims), well then your argument might be better expressed as "people who think the government should do unconstitutional things shouldn't be allowed to take the oath," which rules out almost all people, Christian or Muslim.

A good idea but it requires some way to determine that they do believe in using the government to do unconstitutional things, being a muslim qualifies for that being a Christian doesn't, being a Democrat should but that would start a civil war.

[dannno]

[sparebulb]

So, can we put Zippy, Rev3, and the Flu down for Doug Jones?

[r3volution 3.0]

A good idea but it requires some way to determine that they do believe in using the government to do unconstitutional things, being a muslim qualifies for that being a Christian doesn't, being a Democrat should but that would start a civil war.

Except you're defining Muslim and Christian in such a way that most people who call themselves Muslims or Christians aren't, by your definition.

So, someone walks into your office and says "I'm a Christian" you still have to determine what that means to them, right?

....and by the way (should have mentioned this earlier),

"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

...?