Democratic convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter livnlern
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cornbread_r2 said:
I find it odd that you’d be willing to answer multiple questions I posed to another poster, but as yet haven’t answered a very straightforward question I posed to you earlier.

I’m reasonably confident that a priest and nun I speak with regularly would disagree with your assessment of my knowledge of Catholicism – especially compared to many of the faithful, practicing Catholics they encounter on a daily basis. No offense, but their extended exposure to my knowledge base would seem to be a much more trustworthy basis upon which to form an opinion than is your very limited exposure.
Click to expand...
Ok. If you say so…:cool:
 
SamH said:
I believe that post reveals more about democrats (and why they removed “God” from their platform) than the poster ever intended.
Click to expand...
Indeed!! For if rights are to come from the Gov’t. as the Democrats are soooooo adamant about, then one just has to wonder-“Gee!! Why would that be?”

Perhaps the Democrats are preparing to take even more rights away?

Do ya think!!!?? :rolleyes::mad:

Soon America will have it’s own Stalin methinks.:cool:

The Democrats are revealing their long term (perhaps short term?) strategy methinks.

It goes like this: Create a catastrohe, (destroy the economy with Socialism) then charge in on a White Horse with a ‘solution’ but, oh hey - to fix this, you, the people are going to have to give up* all* your rights if you want to eat…:cool: These tactics are classic.
 
Nimzovik said:
There are degrees of truth to both of the above statements.

However, in view of the Thread Title, and the rather alarming subject matter of the Democrats brazenly** (believe me- I could go on ad infinitum with the faults of the Republicans but they are not the focus, here, currently) deleting God ishorriffic.

Why?

Where do I* begin?*
  1. It is a bald faced erosion of this Nation’s Histroy. Revisionism will (already is among **Democrats **:cool:) run rampant.
  2. It undermines many a precept that grants this Nations citizenry the undeniable by Gov’t. ‘inalienable rights’ from God.
  3. If God is gone -* What* replaces God? The President? Gee! What Political Party would not like to have that power? Evolution and Science?(Le Gasp!! :eek:- then we humans are nothing more than mere… Bio - machines… and the law of the Land will be ‘Survivial of the Fittest.’ The richest and and the Politically Connected will be ‘more equal’ than all others and ultimately, the have nots **will **become grist for the mill.)
  4. It indicates just how far the disease of Atheistic Secularism has run unchecked.
  5. We can look forward to even more of, IMHO,Planned Parenthoodesque policies of not only abortion but Euthanasia, Eugenics a la Margaret Sanger, cloning to make superior beings, Big Business owning/buying **embryos (for embryos are not humans already thanks to ‘Enlightened/Rational’ Secular Thinking), for purposes of producing cloned workers, sex slaves, genetically engineered space travelers, soldiers, etc. etc. etc. Let’s face it. There is *money to be made here! Money is the true ‘Guiding Light’ of Secular Politicians -yes? Can this be denied? Look at what all the monies of Planned Parenthood has purchased in terms of Political Influence already. Enough influence to induce a Society that it is really mighty fine to abort one’s children. Can this really be debated? Methinks not. *
America is the land of "This is true, this I know- for my TV told me so…" :cool:
I**s it not?:confused:

6)* Need* I go on here?🤷
Click to expand...
Nobody’s taking God out of anything that He hasn’t already been excluded from by human beings.

I have gone through this ‘word correctness’ (if I may be allowed to coin a term) in the public school system. A word on its own signifies nothing if it has been divorced from its original meaning or if that meaning has been altered/watered down/stripped of its context.
 
Ender said:
I read past this comment too quickly and missed its significance. This is the central idea behind our form of government: “that all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. Either we believe that our rights are unalienable or we must accept that our rights are whatever our government says they are, and if we don’t believe that our rights are endowed by a Creator why would we believe they are unalienable? If Democrats reject the idea that our talents are God-given why should we expect them to believe that our rights are? We may not be able to foresee where this perspective will eventually take the Democrat party but we should all be able to recognize where it is leading it.

Ender
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is the argument at all. It’s clear that people have inalienable rights, even if I were, for argument’s sake, to accept the opinion that they came from govt, parents, society etc. Inalienable does not necessarily refer to the giver, but to the possessor.

The real point of disagreement from my perspective, is that, all rights are necessarily regulated/protected by some structure or authority in society (whether it be government, religion, cultural norms etc) so that everyone can enjoy them without infringing on the ability of others to do the same. It’s part of living in a community: even rights have limits, boundaries and, like I stressed before - unavoidable responsibilities.
 
seekerz said:
The difference I see is that Republicans tend to stress God-given rights over God-given responsibilities. The two are, for all intents and purposes - inseparable.
Click to expand...
I take it you missed Sandra Fluke’s speech at the DNC?
 
SamH said:
I take it you missed Sandra Fluke’s speech at the DNC?
Click to expand...
I missed most of the speeches at both conventions. What I really want to hear are specifics about what candidates plan to do or undo - not who is the cuddlier teddy bear; conventions tend to be more about the latter than the former…😦
 
seekerz said:
I think that is oversimplifying the issue, but I see your viewpoint. Rights do come from God and anyone who upholds the Constitution is implicitly admitting that fact.

The difference I see is that Republicans tend to stress God-given rights over God-given responsibilities. The two are, for all intents and purposes - inseparable.
Click to expand...
So it is my God given responsibility to pay for other peoples contraception?
 
seekerz said:
It’s clear that people have inalienable rights, even if I were, for argument’s sake, to accept the opinion that they came from govt, parents, society etc. Inalienable does not necessarily refer to the giver, but to the possessor.
Click to expand...
What is the source of those inalienable rights and why should I believe they exist? Given the chasm over this point among different people and countries it is not at all “clear” that they exist or why your or anyone’s version of them is valid. I think this is precisely the issue and why that seemingly minor squabble at the convention is significant.
The real point of disagreement from my perspective, is that, all rights are necessarily regulated/protected by some structure or authority in society (whether it be government, religion, cultural norms etc) so that everyone can enjoy them without infringing on the ability of others to do the same.
Click to expand...
Do we have an unalienable right (Jefferson’s term) to oppose same-sex marriage or may the government define that as hate speech and outlaw it? The belief that a government that can define our unalienable rights will be benign is contradicted by the evidence.

Ender
 
*Personally I believe the issue is much deeper than just being “dumb.”

I watched what I could of the video before my computer froze and some of the reasons people gave for thinking it was awesome to belong to the government really stuck me.

Some of them felt it was like they belonged to something bigger and others felt it was like being a part of one great big family. I believe what they are finding in the government is what they should be finding in a true Christian society. Please think about this a little bit before you crucify me for saying this but we do live in a day and age were almost all of us are so wrapped up in our own, what ever it may be, world that we do not have any time for anyone else. We have come a long way from a literal neighbor helping neighbor kind of country. Like a country that is a great big family. The government, to them, is the only system that still offers that sense of belonging to something and being a part of something bigger than themselves…I believe what I hear them saying is they like being part of a big community and I see nothing wrong in that in and of it’s self. What I do not like, for the most part, is the kind of community it is that they belong to.

I believe we as Christians should be able to understand this. After all our faith is explained to us so often as God being Our Father and we His adopted children through Our Lord Jesus Christ. We do belong to a family that is bigger than just our immediate biological family. I wonder if this is what they are hungry for and right now the government is seemingly the only place that they can find it. If that is true then it does not say very much for us “Christians” now does it.
I was watching Cardinal Dolan’s Benediction that he gave at both the RNC and DNC and when the camera swept over those gathered there it seemed to me that those at the DNC were more sincerely praying along with him than those at the RNC. I could be wrong. It could just be the specific choice of those editing but it did seem that way to me.*
 
estesbob said:
It highlights a fundamental difference between the two party’s. Republicans believe rights flow ftom God. Democrats believe They flow from the govt. It is no coincidence that they dropped God from the platform at the same time they added homosexual mattige to it.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure. Many Republican politicians and voters seem to think our rights come from the military. They say I should thank the military for any freedom I have, which is less and less. According to this most popular way of thinking the government is in fact the provider of rights. If it weren’t for the government and its military I’d have no rights outside of an academic claim. There is really no difference in the positions.
Ender said:
I’ll start by pointing out that the objectionable phrase referred to God-given talents, not God-given rights but if you want to make the case that it is reasonable to oppose the use of the phrase God-given rights in the Democratic platform would it not be just as reasonable to oppose its use in the Declaration of Independence? Shall we remove the phrase from there as well? If the phrase is objectionable to Democrats surely we would expect them to repudiate references to God whenever and wherever they arise - on our currency, in the Pledge of Allegiance, and in our founding documents. Is this not actually what we’re seeing?
Click to expand...
God was inserted into the pledge in the 1950s to distinguish us from the atheist communists (and a good thing too because the 1960s would have made it impossible to tell the difference). It was first placed on coins when the US was making war on its brothers and sisters in the South. It was added to paper currency, which had been removed from the gold standard through FDRs gold confiscation in the 1930s, in 1957. God is not mentioned in the US federal constitution but was mentioned and prayed to in the Confederate constitution. God was largely ignored by the US federal government throughout most of its history except as a political device in wars to claim God is on our side e.g. Gott mit uns.
 
God was inserted into the pledge in the 1950s to distinguish us from the atheist communists (and a good thing too because the 1960s would have made it impossible to tell the difference). It was first placed on coins when the US was making war on its brothers and sisters in the South. It was added to paper currency, which had been removed from the gold standard through FDRs gold confiscation in the 1930s, in 1957. God is not mentioned in the US federal constitution but was mentioned and prayed to in the Confederate constitution. God was largely ignored by the US federal government throughout most of its history except as a political device in wars to claim God is on our side
Click to expand...
Agreed…I object to God being used as a political device…I have a feeling He does too,

John
 
Regardless of where you live, you’re gonna be owned by someone at some point. I think the American government so far has been a fair government and I don’t necessarily hate that I’m owned by them at this point
Click to expand...
What this guys is true, at least the first sentence. All people on Earth are claimed by some government. If you are born in the territorial US you belong to the US government. The US government claims the right to tax your earnings no matter where on Earth you earn them. This is unusual. Most governments only tax you if you make money on their territory. If you want to leave the US boundaries you need your papers, a passport, and permission to leave. If you want to transfer your ownership to another government you will be charged an exit tax on your wealth and wages you would have earned in the future. If the government needs labor, especially fodder in wars it has the right to compel you to work. I’m more offended at the Republican voters who will pretend like all these rights of ownership, which they fervently support, are not in fact ownership.
 
exnihilo said:
I’m not so sure. Many Republican politicians and voters seem to think our rights come from the military. They say I should thank the military for any freedom I have, which is less and less. According to this most popular way of thinking the government is in fact the provider of rights. If it weren’t for the government and its military I’d have no rights outside of an academic claim. There is really no difference in the positions.

s.
Click to expand...
You have confused defending rights with conferring rights. The military does not confer rights on anyone and no republican claims that. they do, however, risk their lives defending our rights.
 
oldcelt said:
Agreed…I object to God being used as a political device…I have a feeling He does too,

John
Click to expand...
Some people say that the Politicians wave the American flag as a ‘political device.’

St. Jean D’Arc had her favorite Saints and Our Lord on her Banner/Flag. I am sure the Brits thought that was a Political device as well.

I would not agree with the Brits… :cool:

See below.
 
Nimzovik said:
Some people say that the Politicians wave the American flag as a ‘political device.’

St. Jean D’Arc had her favorite Saints and Our Lord on her Banner/Flag. I am sure the Brits thought that was a Political device as well.

I would not agree with the Brits… :cool:

See below.
Click to expand...
That’s just awesome:cool:
 
Nimzovik said:
Some people say that the Politicians wave the American flag as a ‘political device.’

St. Jean D’Arc had her favorite Saints and Our Lord on her Banner/Flag. I am sure the Brits thought that was a Political device as well.

I would not agree with the Brits… :cool:

See below.
Click to expand...
The difference being that the US flag is a secular object, while God, most certainly, is not.

John
 
estesbob said:
You have confused defending rights with conferring rights. The military does not confer rights on anyone and no republican claims that. they do, however, risk their lives defending our rights.
Click to expand...
The exact explanation is irrelevant to my point which is that most Republicans believe that without a powerful government and its powerful military we would have no rights. Sure we’d have de jure rights but not de facto rights. There are plenty of non believers in the Republican party. The Democrat party may not be the party of God but neither is the Republican. Regardless the Republican positions seems to be rights flow from God through the US military. The Democrat position is they flow from somewhere (maybe Platonic ideals) through the government (maybe the military but more so the Department of Justice and Supreme Court). That is not that big a distinction in my mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top