|
we the people
|
Freedom wrote: <quoted text>
Admit you have not looked very hard...
I posted a link to an example just a few pages back. This one was even very recent history. Did you forget already? You seem to forget that Communist Atheists really hate religion...unless it is their own twisted version.
Keep looking KZ.
History is littered with them. You have really twisted words and ideas here. If this is the smokers version of an argument, then it is a wonder that smoking is still allowed anywhere. Your poor attempts at logic are the kind made by people with no leg to stand on.
|
|
roffle
|
Freedom wrote: Admit you have not looked very hard...
I posted a link to an example just a few pages back. This one was even very recent history. Did you forget already? You seem to forget that Communist Atheists really hate religion...unless it is their own twisted version.
Keep looking KZ.
History is littered with them. okay, let's assume i am not proud of that particular nation? now what?
|
|
NCF
|
Freedom wrote: <quoted text> Yes...it does matter. Are you not implying that constitutional rights only belong to property owners? The rights in question were removed not "waived" because of governmental decree. It was not the owner who removed them. Both owner and non-owner lost rights. When the government steals rights from property owners the direct result is a loss of rights for those who own no property as well. Nothing "waived"...only rights taken.{/QUOTE]You must not remember the conversation. It was about those who live in a nursing home situation. Those citizens effectively waive certain of their rights in order to live under that roof. It's hardly different from the rights that you'd need to waive in order to live under MY roof. [QUOTE who="freedom"]Back to the subject at hand. ;-) What are your thoughts about this example of the willingness of law enforcement to enter churches without a warrant and demand peoples papers? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php... That prosecutor sounds as if he's a TV cop wannabe. Prosecuting Attorney is not a Law Enforcement position, and he has no place leading any police actions. Police officers have pretty rigorous training to do what they do. Coordinating and/or leading 'raids', or whatever this police action is categorized as, is *not* the way things are done, I'm guessing, in Michigan. In Ohio, the Prosecuting Attorney information and duties & responsibilities are in ORC 309. I can't imagine Michigan law is terribly different in this regard. In Ohio, "probable cause" can be used to justify certain warrantless searches... for meth labs, for instance. Basically, any situation where the immediate intervention by law enforcement officers would prevent loss of life or injury to persons or property. Getting a church music group to stop playing their loud music does not require such immediate intervention. They can, however, act on the complaint, but that usually does not include forced entry and getting IDs. That church, however, probably needs to adjust their volume to be more suitable to their neighbors. But I guess that all depends on the message they want to preach to those neighbors: "turn the other cheek", or "see ya in court"
|
|
NCF
|
roffle wrote: <quoted text>
what i meant was that there would be no bloodshed in the achievement of worldwide secular governments. of course there will be bloodshed afterwards, though.
<quoted text>
anarchy is a myth. it is impossible to achieve.
<quoted text>
how so? would you go as far as to say that a nation of atheists would not be able to assemble a government?
<quoted text>
the will to govern lies not within religion, but within the nature of people themselves. you also essentially speak of morality. while morality can be developed by instilling within one the concept of a wrathful god, it can also mature naturally through empathy, a human emotion. the reason why i don't steal from others is not because i fear the wrath of a supreme overseer, but because i know what it's like to be stolen from. i don't commit violent acts against others because i know what it would be like to have the same done to me.
implying that religion is required to keep people civil is not true. jimmy swaggart comes to mind, as well as all the priests and preachers who molest children. where was there morality? who did they look up to when they committed their acts?
<quoted text>
the purpose of a government is to found and manage a civilization and set laws to obtain a degree of order. its purpose is to unite a people as one entity and to allow growth and prosperity. as i stated earlier, the will to govern lies with us, not the gods we may choose to believe in.
<quoted text>
but this is a purely hypothetical statement because there is always an established government in every human culture. from tribes consisting of 20 natives to civilizations of hundreds of millions, the people will always seek out a leader to speak for their people. Ah, I think I see what's going on here. I am examining your premise from a historical, or even "pre-historical" angle, and I am not limiting the focus to "western" religion. That's far too narrow a perspective. Your selection of Swaggart and pedo-priests gives your narrow focus away. Historically, until "modern" times, there have not been governments formed without the backing of religion. Even the most base mud-hut dwellers have a religion that provides the framework for their daily conduct and governance. Your opinion on morality, too, has a western religiosity to it. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a basic tenet of Christianity -- or at least it's *supposed* to be. But there are many in the world who are not self-governed by that western religious dictum. They will get theirs, while the gettin' is good, so to speak.(Extreme hunger is a good way to test one's restraint of violence against, and deference to, other humans.) Ergo, as much of anarchy as can be attained. This is the way of children, by the way. Children are nice to each other, until they think that they have been wronged, and they will seek immediate retribution. I'm guessing you've read "Lord of the Flies"?
|
|
roffle
|
NCF wrote: Historically, until "modern" times, there have not been governments formed without the backing of religion. Even the most base mud-hut dwellers have a religion that provides the framework for their daily conduct and governance. but this doesn't enforce what you said here: "Without religion, there would never be government." of course there would. it just wouldn't be based on religion. do you suggest that atheists are incapable of forming a government? NCF wrote: Your opinion on morality, too, has a western religiosity to it. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a basic tenet of Christianity -- or at least it's *supposed* to be. actually, that concept was derived from human trials, not christianity. its concept existed long before any religion was ever introduced. in fact, you might say that christians adopted that concept into their fundamental views of morality. NCF wrote: But there are many in the world who are not self-governed by that western religious dictum. They will get theirs, while the gettin' is good, so to speak.(Extreme hunger is a good way to test one's restraint of violence against, and deference to, other humans.) Ergo, as much of anarchy as can be attained. i am confused as to what hunger has to do with it. hmmm. NCF wrote: I'm guessing you've read "Lord of the Flies"? no, but i've seen the movie. i liked it very much.
|
|
“Updated baby picture”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
for those who care.
|
roffle wrote: <quoted text>
but this doesn't enforce what you said here:
"Without religion, there would never be government."
of course there would. it just wouldn't be based on religion.
do you suggest that atheists are incapable of forming a government?
<quoted text>
actually, that concept was derived from human trials, not christianity. its concept existed long before any religion was ever introduced. in fact, you might say that christians adopted that concept into their fundamental views of morality.
<quoted text>
i am confused as to what hunger has to do with it. hmmm.
<quoted text>
no, but i've seen the movie. i liked it very much. Silly misdirection. No, what I am saying is that there effectively were no atheists in ancient days... at least none that got together with their collective intellectual ideals and formed a government. From what I've read, even the Huns had their beliefs. Ergo, without religion there would be no government. Religion has, throughout human history, been at the center of the formation of governments, and intertwined, nigh-inseparable. And as far as what hunger has to do with anarchy, see what happens when people try to survive on fewer resources than will support them. Hunger was just a basic point of reference.
|
|
roffle
|
Non-Cas Fan wrote: Silly misdirection.
No, what I am saying is that there effectively were no atheists in ancient days... at least none that got together with their collective intellectual ideals and formed a government. From what I've read, even the Huns had their beliefs.
Ergo, without religion there would be no government. Religion has, throughout human history, been at the center of the formation of governments, and intertwined, nigh-inseparable.
And as far as what hunger has to do with anarchy, see what happens when people try to survive on fewer resources than will support them. Hunger was just a basic point of reference. you said: "Without religion, there would never be government." isn't this a bit presumptuous? of course there would still be government. it just wouldn't have religious roots.
|
|
Freedom
|
roffle wrote: <quoted text>
okay, let's assume i am not proud of that particular nation? now what? Look back in History KZ. You do know I can provide many more examples...correct? Where are yours? How can that be? Your problem is you must think your line of thought is something new, and that using history as a guide is misdirected....because you are like not those who came before. I find history to be an excellent guide. Perhaps you should look into it?
|
|
|
|
Freedom
|
NCF wrote: <quoted text>
That prosecutor sounds as if he's a TV cop wannabe.
Prosecuting Attorney is not a Law Enforcement position, and he has no place leading any police actions. I thought the same thing...only I found him to be a true zealot.
|
|
Non-Cas Fan
|
roffle wrote: <quoted text>
you said:
"Without religion, there would never be government."
isn't this a bit presumptuous? of course there would still be government. it just wouldn't have religious roots. No, that's not the presumption. The presumption is that without the brace of early religion to bolster early government, humanity would not have developed into the kind of rational, thinking beings that we are today. We'd still be ordering society based on base nature. (That's where the two wolves don't even give the sheep the opportunity to vote.)
|
|
Non-Cas Fan
|
Oh, and anarchy is not truly impossible to achieve, but it is impossible to maintain.
|
|
Freedom
|
we the people wrote: <quoted text>
You have really twisted words and ideas here. If this is the smokers version of an argument, then it is a wonder that smoking is still allowed anywhere. Your poor attempts at logic are the kind made by people with no leg to stand on. Perhaps you should attempt to demonstrate your claim? That's the best you have? This is how you justify allowing agents of the state free access to the office of a church official without a warrant based on nothing more than an anonymous complaint to a smoking ban NARC hotline? Just exactly how do you justify allowing these searches to be carried out by independent contractors? You do know Ohio law allows for this....right? Do you have an historical example that you are particularly proud of to demonstrate the wisdom of laws that allow such madness? If you do, please share it with us.
|
|
Charlie The Greek
|
Judged:
1
Watch out for those Greek clergymen!
|
|
its me
AOL
|
Freedom wrote: <quoted text>
Perhaps you should attempt to demonstrate your claim? That's the best you have?
This is how you justify allowing agents of the state free access to the office of a church official without a warrant based on nothing more than an anonymous complaint to a smoking ban NARC hotline?
Just exactly how do you justify allowing these searches to be carried out by independent contractors? You do know Ohio law allows for this....right?
Do you have an historical example that you are particularly proud of to demonstrate the wisdom of laws that allow such madness? If you do, please share it with us. You have just proved the poster's point. You have twisted what the poster said and have tried to bring the argument around to your point of view. For some reason or another, you continue to try to place this in a historical perspective. That is not possible. The world is a much different place than it was some 70 years ago. People are different than they were 70 years ago. News travels at the speed of light today. Something happens and the world has access to it almost instantaneously. I use google earth and the pictures that I am able to get of North Korea are spectacular. You are stuck in the late 1930s. You want people to point to a government of YOUR choosing. I will point to Great Britain, which has enacted a countrywide smoking ban as MY country that I am proud of. You have no legitimate argument against the smoking ban so you grab at straws. Find me an example, in OHIO of a church that was searched for smoking materials without a warrant. You have YET to do this. For some reason ar another, you seem to forget that in order for the law to be challenged on a constitutional basis, someone has to use the law unconstitutionally. It does not appear to have happened. No one has searched a church in OHIO looking for smoking materials without a search warrant. IF it does happen, then I am sure that the law that allows it will be challenged. By the way, the law that you continually quote is NOT the smoking law. It is a law that was made up for significantly differnt purposes. But, I would not expect someone that twists and turns everything to try and meet his ends to acknowledge that. Plain and simple. You are a liar and a troll. You have proven it with your response to the other poster.
|
|
Freedom
|
its me wrote: <quoted text>
You have just proved the poster's point. You have twisted what the poster said and have tried to bring the argument around to your point of view.
For some reason or another, you continue to try to place this in a historical perspective. That is not possible. The world is a much different place than it was some 70 years ago. People are different than they were 70 years ago. News travels at the speed of light today. Something happens and the world has access to it almost instantaneously. I use google earth and the pictures that I am able to get of North Korea are spectacular.
You are stuck in the late 1930s.
You want people to point to a government of YOUR choosing. I will point to Great Britain, which has enacted a countrywide smoking ban as MY country that I am proud of.
You have no legitimate argument against the smoking ban so you grab at straws. Find me an example, in OHIO of a church that was searched for smoking materials without a warrant. You have YET to do this. For some reason ar another, you seem to forget that in order for the law to be challenged on a constitutional basis, someone has to use the law unconstitutionally. It does not appear to have happened. No one has searched a church in OHIO looking for smoking materials without a search warrant. IF it does happen, then I am sure that the law that allows it will be challenged. By the way, the law that you continually quote is NOT the smoking law. It is a law that was made up for significantly differnt purposes.
But, I would not expect someone that twists and turns everything to try and meet his ends to acknowledge that.
Plain and simple. You are a liar and a troll. You have proven it with your response to the other poster. Here we have a true "troll". Where are all of your posts on this thread? How many ID's do you have? I bet KZ is quite proud of you. Ironic eh? ;-) This example that you have claimed....perhaps you will be a little more specific. England has a very long history with many different personalities that ruled. Perhaps you are refering to King Henry the VIII when he decided he wanted another wife? That would have been a very bad time to be a Catholic eh? If not...please provide this example. "People are different than they were 70 years ago" ROLMAO! Some people never learn. So you justify law that allows for warrantless searches of churches based on anonymous informants complete with a NARC hotline...carried out by independent contractors by saying it has never been used? Amazing. I guess you must have finally figured out that I am correct. This IS allowed for by law eh? You do know the Patriot Act is still with us right? You also must know that "checkpoints" where one must show their "papers" is legal as well......right? It took years to build this nation, and it took years to tear it down... While our rights go up in flames one by one...those like yourself come to these boards to cheer. So sad...
|
|
its me
AOL
|
Freedom wrote: <quoted text>
Here we have a true "troll". Where are all of your posts on this thread? How many ID's do you have? I bet KZ is quite proud of you. Ironic eh?
;-)
This example that you have claimed....perhaps you will be a little more specific. England has a very long history with many different personalities that ruled. Perhaps you are refering to King Henry the VIII when he decided he wanted another wife? That would have been a very bad time to be a Catholic eh? If not...please provide this example.
"People are different than they were 70 years ago"
ROLMAO!
Some people never learn.
So you justify law that allows for warrantless searches of churches based on anonymous informants complete with a NARC hotline...carried out by independent contractors by saying it has never been used?
Amazing.
I guess you must have finally figured out that I am correct. This IS allowed for by law eh?
You do know the Patriot Act is still with us right? You also must know that "checkpoints" where one must show their "papers" is legal as well......right?
It took years to build this nation, and it took years to tear it down...
While our rights go up in flames one by one...those like yourself come to these boards to cheer.
So sad... You are an a**hole as well as a liar and a moron. I am refering to the United Kingdom, which includes quite a bit more than England. Except, that would not fit into your little pea brain. You are a LIAR saying that I justified the law. FFFF YOU. LIAR. I HATE LIARS. You obviously failed history since you cannot tell the difference between now and 70 years ago. More proof that you are a lying simpleton. Now. MORON. What is your argument against the smoking ban?????????? You have NONE. Therefore you grasp at straws. The law banning smoking does NOT call for warrantless searches of churches. NOWHERE does it do that. YOU are a LIAR if you say it does. READ THE LAW, YOU MORON. READ IT. If there IS something that allows for warrantless searches of anything, including churches, it is NOT part of the law banning smoking.
|
|
its me
AOL
|
Freedom wrote: <quoted text>
Here we have a true "troll". Where are all of your posts on this thread? How many ID's do you have? I bet KZ is quite proud of you. Ironic eh?
;-)
This example that you have claimed....perhaps you will be a little more specific. England has a very long history with many different personalities that ruled. Perhaps you are refering to King Henry the VIII when he decided he wanted another wife? That would have been a very bad time to be a Catholic eh? If not...please provide this example.
"People are different than they were 70 years ago"
ROLMAO!
Some people never learn.
So you justify law that allows for warrantless searches of churches based on anonymous informants complete with a NARC hotline...carried out by independent contractors by saying it has never been used?
Amazing.
I guess you must have finally figured out that I am correct. This IS allowed for by law eh?
You do know the Patriot Act is still with us right? You also must know that "checkpoints" where one must show their "papers" is legal as well......right?
It took years to build this nation, and it took years to tear it down...
While our rights go up in flames one by one...those like yourself come to these boards to cheer.
So sad... THIS is the law http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3794 you effin moron. NOWHERE does the SMOKING BAN LAW allow for warrantless seraches of churches. NOWHERE. You have been proved a LIAR. I HATE LIARS. Where in history that you are proud of did some lying moron try and create a country where the health of the population was ignored.
|
|
Freedom
|
roffle wrote: <quoted text>
you said:
"Without religion, there would never be government."
isn't this a bit presumptuous? of course there would still be government. it just wouldn't have religious roots. You do know that those who claim no "religion" are actually acting on faith...right? Have you not figured this out yet? Why do you think those who follow this ideology are so zealous? Look at what you are defending. "Wake Up"...no pun intended. :-) Religion has many forms. I suppose the variables are infinite. What convinces yourself that you are something "new" when history already knows the results...time after time? Those who forget the past will repeat it. Those who deny the past should be feared.
|
|
Linda
|
Freedom wrote: <quoted text>
Here we have a true "troll". Where are all of your posts on this thread? How many ID's do you have? I bet KZ is quite proud of you. Ironic eh?
;-)
This example that you have claimed....perhaps you will be a little more specific. England has a very long history with many different personalities that ruled. Perhaps you are refering to King Henry the VIII when he decided he wanted another wife? That would have been a very bad time to be a Catholic eh? If not...please provide this example.
"People are different than they were 70 years ago"
ROLMAO!
Some people never learn.
So you justify law that allows for warrantless searches of churches based on anonymous informants complete with a NARC hotline...carried out by independent contractors by saying it has never been used?
Amazing.
I guess you must have finally figured out that I am correct. This IS allowed for by law eh?
You do know the Patriot Act is still with us right? You also must know that "checkpoints" where one must show their "papers" is legal as well......right?
It took years to build this nation, and it took years to tear it down...
While our rights go up in flames one by one...those like yourself come to these boards to cheer.
So sad... hISTORY IS IMPORTANT TODAY. iT TEACHES US WHAT NOT TO DO, SUCH AS PAST MISTAKES. yES, AS FOR THE SMOKING BAN, hITLER WAS A GOOD TEACHER FOR THE ANTIS AND IS A GOOD WARNING FOR THE REST WHO VALUES FREEDOMS. OOPS, caps were on, sorry
|
|
Linda
|
its me wrote: <quoted text> THIS is the law http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3794 you effin moron. NOWHERE does the SMOKING BAN LAW allow for warrantless seraches of churches. NOWHERE. You have been proved a LIAR. I HATE LIARS. Where in history that you are proud of did some lying moron try and create a country where the health of the population was ignored. No warrant is need or required to enter the church even on a call in by a liar. The caller does not have to give their name. Sorry, you are dead wrong
|
Judge it!
Poll:
Sagittarius
Most Popular