Christofacists at it again

Damocles said:
In this particular thread people consistently confuse tithes with alms which are two separate things. The Church receives tithes to use as it sees fit. You give alms to promote charity and it is a personal responsibility. That the Church spends money on charity from tithes is not a sign that donations directly to that charity are the same as tithes. They are not. Churches rarely, if ever, spend money advertising their charities and therefore more money donated directly to their charities gets to the intended recipients than private charities who promote giving with advertising dollars (United Way)...
Click to expand...

I also thought that the united way pays their executives to run the organization, executive salaries, which also comes out of the money donated on top of the advertising costs and the costs of their drives, their banquets, balls....
 
I say that this specifically says all people, and does not specify all men. It says all citizens. I know it has been argued that the intent was to make the races equal, yet it says all persons, not all men. So whatever the intent, it makes all persons equal under the law.

I've heard this argument before and it is a good one. However looking at original intent as well as the writing of those who crafted the law are important as well. If the 14th did what you say then the amendment granting women the vote would not be necessary.

Also if you use a black letter strict interpretation of the law then you also cannot make age specific legal limitations. Therefore laws setting age limits would also be constitutional. This is why I try to dissuade people from using this argument.

It would ultimately be hypocritical to use the 14th to cast down sex laws but not age laws. With race their is legal support during its creation to show that was exactly what was intended. There is no such thing with sex or age.

Now you can say that the 14th does indeed protect against sex specific laws but be prepared to answer why this doesn't apply to age. There isn't a good counter argument to this that I've seen yet.
 
uscitizen said:
Just bringing up my point of view :) I sure don't dare put an "I am an atheist" sticker on my car. I would probably be the victim of Christian road rage.
Click to expand...

A TRUE Christian would turn their cheek to you...and walk an extra mile with you, and love you, their professed adversary, as they love themselves.... :D

EDIT ADDITION:

So that their kindness would be like burning coals on your head... :)
 
Last edited:
IHateGovernment said:
I say that this specifically says all people, and does not specify all men. It says all citizens. I know it has been argued that the intent was to make the races equal, yet it says all persons, not all men. So whatever the intent, it makes all persons equal under the law.

I've heard this argument before and it is a good one. However looking at original intent as well as the writing of those who crafted the law are important as well. If the 14th did what you say then the amendment granting women the vote would not be necessary.

Also if you use a black letter strict interpretation of the law then you also cannot make age specific legal limitations. Therefore laws setting age limits would also be constitutional. This is why I try to dissuade people from using this argument.

It would ultimately be hypocritical to use the 14th to cast down sex laws but not age laws. With race their is legal support during its creation to show that was exactly what was intended. There is no such thing with sex or age.

Now you can say that the 14th does indeed protect against sex specific laws but be prepared to answer why this doesn't apply to age. There isn't a good counter argument to this that I've seen yet.
Click to expand...

We can't use the same argument we always have? Because I said so?

I think you are comparing women to children, and I dislike that. Women are full citizens as are men, they are no more comparable to children than you are.

And I don't deny that your argument has won thus far. But I am awaiting with interest the big one, and that is going to be the draft. You know full well we can no longer, with any sense of fairness at all, draft men and not women. I think most of us understand this. That's going to be challenged as soon as the draft is instituted again, and if you're paying attention, and I think you are, you can't deny that there is every chance this is going to happen within the next 2 years.
 
uscitizen said:
Just bringing up my point of view :) I sure don't dare put an "I am an atheist" sticker on my car. I would probably be the victim of Christian road rage.
Click to expand...
No, but others use those neato Darwin fish eating the Christian fish decals, etc to get that same point accross. They have to promote their religion to the exclusion to all others ya know. Those Atheistofascists are just so dogmatic!
 
But most christians do not even notice the darwin thing or are too sheeple to understand it. anyway ATHEIST to the thumpers is much worse than the evoloution thing. As Brent has shown it equates to the devil.
 
uscitizen said:
But most christians do not even notice the darwin thing or are too sheeple to understand it. anyway ATHEIST to the thumpers is much worse than the evoloution thing. As Brent has shown it equates to the devil.
Click to expand...
You know those tricky Atheistofascists use the Darwin thing as a secret church symbol. Don't be denying it now!

;)
 
We can't use the same argument we always have? Because I said so?

I think you are comparing women to children, and I dislike that.

You misunderstand me. Beyond that children are full citizens. Citizenship becomes effective after either being born here or naturalized here. It has nothing to do with age.

Actually what I had in mind when I said this is having the drinking age be 21. So we aren't talking about children. So is this unconstitutional?


And I don't deny that your argument has won thus far. But I am awaiting with interest the big one, and that is going to be the draft. You know full well we can no longer, with any sense of fairness at all, draft men and not women. I think most of us understand this. That's going to be challenged as soon as the draft is instituted again, and if you're paying attention, and I think you are, you can't deny that there is every chance this is going to happen within the next 2 years.

Darla I actually disagree with you about the draft. As foolish as this Admin appears to be I don't think they are that foolish. You can fully expect huge draft riots and civil disorder if a draft is instituted. People will not accept a draft to fight in Iran or Syria. The only way there could be a draft is if the government fabricated an attack against us like Pearl Harbor.

Plausible but not likely. I don't think we will have a draft too soon. We'll have to wait on that one. I will say that if the court does rule that women excluded from the draft is unconstitutional that would be revolutionary and I think the question I asked about age will be immediately asked. How will the justices respond. However they do it will be weak and I will be sure to be castigating them with the cliched term of activist judges.
 
Damocles said:
You know those tricky Atheistofascists use the Darwin thing as a secret church symbol. Don't be denying it now!

;)
Click to expand...

You are probably right, at least that is the way it seems to be working out :)
Am I an atheist or is atheism a religion as on the forms at the hospital and other places ? I have no plans to join any atheist organization or anything like that, I just do not believe in an all powerful god, afterlife, etc.
 
uscitizen said:
You are probably right, at least that is the way it seems to be working out :)
Am I an atheist or is atheism a religion as on the forms at the hospital and other places ? I have no plans to join any atheist organization or anything like that, I just do not believe in an all powerful god, afterlife, etc.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between an atheist and an Atheist... One is a religion the other just doesn't believe in religion....
 
Actually its important to differentiate between hard and soft atheism.

Hard atheists say: "There is no god."
Soft atheists say: "I do not have a belief in god."

While the former purports to the ability to have absolute knowledge it is questionable if this is religious in nature.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Actually its important to differentiate between hard and soft atheism.

Hard atheists say: "There is no god."
Soft atheists say: "I do not have a belief in god."

While the former purports to the ability to have absolute knowledge it is questionable if this is religious in nature.
Click to expand...
Properly speaking, that's the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic.
 
Agnostics are atheists technically. Agnosticism is a supporting philosophy of atheism.

Not all soft atheists are agnostics. A person who never considered the existence of a god is a soft atheist but not necessarily an agnostic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top