Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-21-2022, 09:13 AM   #1
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
ReAwaken tour,

Was reading a story about how the Rights newest ploy is to somehow blame Biden for Putins threats to use nukes .. then I saw a reference to ReAwaken tour, so I did a quick search

Seems it’s some Christian nationalist movement



“We’re under warfare,” one speaker told them. Another said she would “take a bullet for my nation,” while a third insisted, “They hate you because they hate Jesus.” Attendees were told now is the time to “put on the whole armor of God.” Then retired three-star Army general Michael Flynn, the tour’s biggest draw

I heard this brainwashed idea the Christians were under attack 10 plus years ago from another correctional officer I worked with for 20 plus years. It’s what he heard in his church every Sunday

A poll by the University of Maryland conducted in May found that 61% of Republicans support declaring the U.S. to be a Christian nation.

Religion and politics don’t mix

Christian nationalism really undermines and attacks foundational values in American democracy. And that is a promise of religious freedoms for all,”

I agree with that statement .

And some thought I was crazy to compare today’s republicans to the Shia or the Sunnis in Iraq .

When people start looking to build a Army of God .

It goes on.

From the stage, speakers stirred up fear and hatred. Immigrants are rushing over the border “to take your place,” one said. Homosexuals and pedophiles are classified in the same category: sinful people who don’t honor God. Life-saving vaccines are creating “a damn genocide.” “The enemy wants to muzzle you,”

This is the current GOP message all rolled into one

But I’ve been told Democrats want a totalitarian system of Government.. lol

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...-america-tour/
wdmso is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 09:48 AM   #2
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Religion and politics don’t mix

[/url]
The USA was literally founded, as an experiment in religious freedom. The Judeo-Christian principles that our founding fathers relied on to construct the nation from the ground up, are the exact reason why (despite our MANY flaws) we are the greatest country the earth has ever known.

Religion is why there aren't any black slaves living on your street. And it's why, for now at least, blacks and whites can go to the same schools and eat in the same restaurants.

When you tell a Christian baker his choices are (1) violate his religious beliefs and stay open, or (2) close his business, that's where we run into problems in this country.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean (doesn't even come close to meaning) that religion is excluded from setting public policy. It means there's no official religion that gets preferential treatment over others. Today, many Christians feel like they're getting the short end of the stick.

I'll take public policy influenced by faith, over godless public policy, any day. Democrats feel the opposite. One reason why I say it's time for 2 countries, because that's a tough divide to bridge.

You say it's brainwashed for Cjristians to feel we're under attack. When many democrats were opposed to Amy Barrett specifically because of her catholicism, that's a direct attack on religious liberty. It's long settled in the US that there's no religious litmus test to serve in public office. We don't exclude people for religious reasons, at least, we didn't used to.

The left, at least the progressive left, despises faith. Because the judeo christian principles that were used as the foundation of the nation, are incompatible with current liberalism. They want people to believe in government, not God. You are absolutely entitled to that, and we are entitled to say "no thanks" to that.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 10:42 AM   #3
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
So you’ll be attending the next ReAwaken tour, when it comes Around . Got it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 10:45 AM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
So you’ll be attending the next ReAwaken tour, when it comes Around . Got it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
never heard of it. But you’ll say they speak for
me.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 12:22 PM   #5
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The USA was literally founded, as an experiment in religious freedom. The Judeo-Christian principles that our founding fathers relied on to construct the nation from the ground up, are the exact reason why (despite our MANY flaws) we are the greatest country the earth has ever known.

Religion is why there aren't any black slaves living on your street. And it's why, for now at least, blacks and whites can go to the same schools and eat in the same restaurants.

When you tell a Christian baker his choices are (1) violate his religious beliefs and stay open, or (2) close his business, that's where we run into problems in this country.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean (doesn't even come close to meaning) that religion is excluded from setting public policy. It means there's no official religion that gets preferential treatment over others. Today, many Christians feel like they're getting the short end of the stick.

I'll take public policy influenced by faith, over godless public policy, any day. Democrats feel the opposite. One reason why I say it's time for 2 countries, because that's a tough divide to bridge.

You say it's brainwashed for Cjristians to feel we're under attack. When many democrats were opposed to Amy Barrett specifically because of her catholicism, that's a direct attack on religious liberty. It's long settled in the US that there's no religious litmus test to serve in public office. We don't exclude people for religious reasons, at least, we didn't used to.

The left, at least the progressive left, despises faith. Because the judeo christian principles that were used as the foundation of the nation, are incompatible with current liberalism. They want people to believe in government, not God. You are absolutely entitled to that, and we are entitled to say "no thanks" to that.
If the authors of the constitution had wanted a religious state they would have written it.
They didn’t.
They were wise enough to realize organized religion is a means of control and purposely differentiated it from government.

When 2/3 of the Supreme Court is compromised of one religion and the Court has issues as an institution, perhaps it is wise to question.

Mario Cuomo said in 1984:

“The Catholic who holds political office in a pluralistic democracy — who is elected to serve Jews and Muslims, atheists and Protestants, as well as Catholics — bears special responsibility,” Cuomo said. “He or she undertakes to help create conditions under which all can live with a maximum of dignity and with a reasonable degree of freedom; where everyone who chooses may hold beliefs different from specifically Catholic ones — sometimes contradictory to them; where the laws protect people’s right to divorce, to use birth control and even to choose abortion.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 01:01 PM   #6
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
If the authors of the constitution had wanted a religious state they would have written it.
They didn’t.
They were wise enough to realize organized religion is a means of control and purposely differentiated it from government.

When 2/3 of the Supreme Court is compromised of one religion and the Court has issues as an institution, perhaps it is wise to question.

Mario Cuomo said in 1984:

“The Catholic who holds political office in a pluralistic democracy — who is elected to serve Jews and Muslims, atheists and Protestants, as well as Catholics — bears special responsibility,” Cuomo said. “He or she undertakes to help create conditions under which all can live with a maximum of dignity and with a reasonable degree of freedom; where everyone who chooses may hold beliefs different from specifically Catholic ones — sometimes contradictory to them; where the laws protect people’s right to divorce, to use birth control and even to choose abortion.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
they didn’t want a state sanctioned religion. but they didn’t exclude religion from the public square. Religion is on our currency, hindus mentioned in the founding documents, congressional
sessions often start with prayer…

there’s no official state religion like there is in Iran. but our principles are rooted in judeo christian principles. no one cares if you don’t happen to like that.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 02:43 PM   #7
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
never heard of it. But you’ll say they speak for
me.

Guess you didn’t take the time to read the article

But had time to write a lengthy response about a group you never heard of.?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 03:05 PM   #8
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Guess you didn’t take the time to read the article

But had time to write a lengthy response about a group you never heard of.?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
i didn’t write one syllable about that group, i have zero knowledge for jen and can’t say anything about them

Me thinks this is going to be a very fun election night.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 03:45 PM   #9
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
they didn’t want a state sanctioned religion. but they didn’t exclude religion from the public square. Religion is on our currency, hindus mentioned in the founding documents, congressional
sessions often start with prayer…

there’s no official state religion like there is in Iran. but our principles are rooted in judeo christian principles. no one cares if you don’t happen to like that.
Actually Jim our laws are based on English law and many of those are based on Norse laws.
Probably the Vikings, Scots, Gauls and so on would disagree with you, though they at best would run you out as a Papist, if they let you live.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 10-21-2022, 03:48 PM   #10
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Actually Jim our laws are based on English law and many of those are based on Norse laws.
Probably the Vikings, Scots, Gauls and so on would disagree with you, though they at best would run you out as a Papist, if they let you live.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
so, judeo christian principles didn’t play a meaningful
role in the founding of the USA. my bad, thanks for clarifying.

England had a monarchy. We didn’t. So we didn’t replicate english law.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-22-2022, 04:12 AM   #11
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

Was reading a story about how the Rights newest ploy..... then I saw a reference to ReAwaken tour, so I did a quick search

Seems it’s some Christian nationalist movement

[/url]
keep doing that solid research...
scottw is offline  
Old 10-22-2022, 07:30 AM   #12
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
keep doing that solid research...
Keep hiding your head in the sand . you are very proficient at it .
wdmso is offline  
Old 10-22-2022, 07:31 AM   #13
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Keep hiding your head in the sand . you are very proficient at it .
do they have good music on that tour?
scottw is offline  
Old 10-22-2022, 03:30 PM   #14
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
so, judeo christian principles didn’t play a meaningful
role in the founding of the USA. my bad, thanks for clarifying.

England had a monarchy. We didn’t. So we didn’t replicate english law.
Once again you’re wrong. In fact in overturning Roe Alito incorrectly cited Blackstone.

The Origin of Law

So where does law come from? In America, our law system came from Great Britain. The settlers of the original thirteen colonies came from Europe, and they brought with them their own set of rules and principles to be used in their new society.

The English common law was the system of law in England at that time and was quickly adopted throughout the colonies. The English common law is rooted in centuries of English history. Much of the common law was formed in the years between the Norman Conquest of England in the early 11th century and the settlement of the American colonies in the early 17th century.

The English Common Law

The English common law is based on a cultural system of settling disputes through local custom. The early tribes of England each held their own set of customs, but this system became increasingly formalized as those early tribal peoples came together and organized. These ancient customs are the basic principles that eventually became part of the American system of justice.

Under English common law, disputes between two parties were handled on a case-by-case basis. However, the decision-maker did not act without guidance. The decision-maker was required to look to similar, previously decided cases and use those established guidelines and traditions. The customs of England were built upon and expanded for centuries, all through court decisions. By carrying forward and preserving these customs, the courts assured that the law was truly 'common' to all.

For example, imagine that Smith and Jones own land adjacent to one another. Smith intends to build a barn on his own land, near his border with Jones. However, Smith inadvertently builds his barn on Jones's land. Jones claims ownership of the barn, and the two end up arguing their positions in court.

Let's say the court decides that Smith owns the barn that he built, and now also owns that small portion of land that the barn occupies. This is now the rule to be applied for those cases coming after Smith and Jones. From that moment forward, all landowners must be careful not to allow others to build permanent fixtures on their land. Otherwise, the rule now states they could lose ownership of that portion of their land. Scenarios like this created a gradual development of an extensive system of laws, even though these rules were mostly unwritten at that time.

Blackstone's Contribution

Shortly before the American Revolution in the last half of the 18th century, Sir William Blackstone published Commentaries on the Laws of England as a complete overview of the English common law. This publication spanned four volumes!

Blackstone described the English common law as an ancient collection of unwritten maxims and customs upon which English judicial decisions were made. Judicial decisions are decisions made by a court and are also known as case law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 10-22-2022, 04:34 PM   #15
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Once again you’re wrong. In fact in overturning Roe Alito incorrectly cited Blackstone.

The Origin of Law

So where does law come from? In America, our law system came from Great Britain. The settlers of the original thirteen colonies came from Europe, and they brought with them their own set of rules and principles to be used in their new society.

The English common law was the system of law in England at that time and was quickly adopted throughout the colonies. The English common law is rooted in centuries of English history. Much of the common law was formed in the years between the Norman Conquest of England in the early 11th century and the settlement of the American colonies in the early 17th century.

The English Common Law

The English common law is based on a cultural system of settling disputes through local custom. The early tribes of England each held their own set of customs, but this system became increasingly formalized as those early tribal peoples came together and organized. These ancient customs are the basic principles that eventually became part of the American system of justice.

Under English common law, disputes between two parties were handled on a case-by-case basis. However, the decision-maker did not act without guidance. The decision-maker was required to look to similar, previously decided cases and use those established guidelines and traditions. The customs of England were built upon and expanded for centuries, all through court decisions. By carrying forward and preserving these customs, the courts assured that the law was truly 'common' to all.

For example, imagine that Smith and Jones own land adjacent to one another. Smith intends to build a barn on his own land, near his border with Jones. However, Smith inadvertently builds his barn on Jones's land. Jones claims ownership of the barn, and the two end up arguing their positions in court.

Let's say the court decides that Smith owns the barn that he built, and now also owns that small portion of land that the barn occupies. This is now the rule to be applied for those cases coming after Smith and Jones. From that moment forward, all landowners must be careful not to allow others to build permanent fixtures on their land. Otherwise, the rule now states they could lose ownership of that portion of their land. Scenarios like this created a gradual development of an extensive system of laws, even though these rules were mostly unwritten at that time.

Blackstone's Contribution

Shortly before the American Revolution in the last half of the 18th century, Sir William Blackstone published Commentaries on the Laws of England as a complete overview of the English common law. This publication spanned four volumes!

Blackstone described the English common law as an ancient collection of unwritten maxims and customs upon which English judicial decisions were made. Judicial decisions are decisions made by a court and are also known as case law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
we didn’t merely copy great britain. The british are subjects, below the state. not true if america. try taking a middle
school civics class.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 10-23-2022, 07:38 AM   #16
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
we didn’t merely copy great britain. The british are subjects, below the state. not true if america. try taking a middle
school civics class.
Apparently you didn’t

We did copy British law.
We did not exactly copy their form of government.
If the authors of the Constitution saw the current two party system, they wouldn’t be impressed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 10-23-2022, 09:04 AM   #17
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Apparently you didn’t

We did copy British law.
We did not exactly copy their form of government.
If the authors of the Constitution saw the current two party system, they wouldn’t be impressed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
But they can’t understand our founding Fathers used examples from European country’s to create our own Government

But these same people that attend think Trump won and teachers are sexualizing kids
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline  
Old 10-23-2022, 09:26 AM   #18
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

But they can’t understand our founding Fathers used examples from European country’s to create our own Government


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
who is they and what are you talking about?

Jim is correct in the essential difference and how the individual's rights were established and guaranteed protected which is unique, although I'm sure you big government loons would like to change that
scottw is offline  
Old 10-23-2022, 10:26 AM   #19
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Evangelicals spent a thousand years railing about the AntiChrist, when he shows up they elect him President.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline  
Old 10-23-2022, 11:00 AM   #20
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

Evangelicals spent a thousand years railing about the AntiChrist, when he shows up they elect him President.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wasn't the Evangelical church founded in 1730?
scottw is offline  
Old 10-23-2022, 08:18 PM   #21
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
wasn't the Evangelical church founded in 1730?
Sitting in the low chair still, aren’t you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com