gowlerk
-
Content
14,867 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
118 -
Feedback
0% -
Country
Canada
Everything posted by gowlerk
-
I have often wondered and researched why a seven day week evolved. I seems so arbitrary.
-
You keep calling religions "culture". They are not the same thing. Why do you do that? Some of us occasionally make fun of ridiculous theological beliefs. That is not the same as insulting your culture which is your way of life. I am more than willing to make fun of cultures which insist that women be covered from view at all times. But no one here would object, so where is the fun in that? Edit, I Ron's case I sometimes do ridicule his culture. And I make no apologies for that. He has made a choice to withdraw from the larger society and make a redoubt in the hills awaiting the 2nd coming and embracing the 2nd amendment.
-
BTW, are you talking about the same Ron who refers to non believers and those who believe but don't hold the same political views as him as Luciferians?
-
There is no God but God. Inshalla.
-
The autopsy says differently.
-
Every time anyone proposes even weak legislation the 2nd Amendment defenders jump all over it and claim that it is a "slippery slope". Why? Because it is. I like your proposals. But they are irrelevant because they can't be enacted. You have to give something up to solve the problem and you are not yet willing to.
-
So, can you not see that YOU were not mocked. RON was not mocked. The Christ Easter myth was mocked.
-
Don't forget Xmas trees and yule logs.
-
I think it has something to do with conspiracies and Masons.
-
No, it is ok to think that. It is unwise to complain about it here though.
-
But they would if they could. Okay, not the merely nominal ones. But the leaders would and the followers who are presently harmless would just fall in line.
-
It won't be just MN. Although I do believe that any conviction at all will ward off a large part of the anger.
-
I agree that the comment you were responding to (which was not mine) was disrespectful of Christian belief. To me to say it is discriminatory would mean that the commenter only disrespects that particular set of believers and that some harm was done to them. I am grateful to live in a society where it is safe to insult the fantastical beliefs of the majority religion. It is not something I take delight or pleasure in doing. Even so, I will push back when Christians complain that they are not respected. You have to be kidding. Christians wield so much power in your country that politicians need to at least pretend to be Christian to get elected. Unless they are born into another faith, then sometimes a few can be successful.
-
I disagree. As an LEO he will probably get off on murder and be convicted of manslaughter. A far better deal than he would get if the situation was reversed. And better than he deserves. He did not need to do what he did and a reasonable person could foresee death as a possible outcome. It is possible that he did not care one way or another if Floyd lived or died, and it is possible that he wanted him to die. Either way it was murder.
-
If you mean me I offer no apology whatsoever. He is an intelligent man and as far as I am concerned the way he chooses to write is disrespectful and also a form of attempting to talk down to us.
-
The reference to the nation presupposing a supreme being comes from a ruling written by William O. Douglas under a case dealing with "Accommodation" which is the principle that allows for holidays on Christmas, Thanksgiving, and the many refernces to God in civic life. In the United States, religious-based federal holidays and observances, including the National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving, as well as Christmas, exist based on accommodationist principles.[11] Accommodationism also is seen in the national anthem since 1931, in the Pledge of Allegiance since 1954, and in the official motto of the United States since 1956, In God We Trust, as well as in the judicial oath So help me God as early as 1789.[11] Notably, William O. Douglas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, sounded the "clarion call for accommodation" when he stated in his ruling:
-
The centrality of the "separation" concept to the Religion Clauses of the Constitution was made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), a case dealing with a New Jersey law that allowed government funds to pay for transportation of students to both public and Catholic schools. This was the first case in which the court applied the Establishment Clause to the laws of a state, having interpreted the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applying the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal legislature. Citing Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." I can not now find a reference to the nation being founded under a supreme being. However it is that principle that leads to things like US currency having "In God We Trust" printed on it. And having Congress be opened by a chaplain leading a prayer.
-
What a simple concept, eh?
-
It would be helpful to both the rest of us and to your point if you would use more standard diction instead of the oh so phony intellectual "freeform" semi-nonsense that you seem to think is going to impress people.
-
As I understand it there is a wall. And there is a dispute over how high it is. The rulings seem to suggest that the nation is founded on the presumption that a supreme being exists. However the government is not entitled to presume anything about that supreme being.
-
I just did that. Trump tried to use weasel words to avoid saying too much about the illegal demonstration when as POTUS his duty was to come out and clearly condemn the people organizing it and their clearly stated objectives. And he did so because they are part of his base and he wants their support. Trump failed to do what is expected of a president for the most crass of motives. That was and still is interpreted by all sides a tacit support of white nationalism. Having a white nationalist named Miller as a close adviser and policy maker throughout the entire 4 years of the debacle of his presidency is further proof of his willingness to support white nationalism. You are attempting to revise a clearly understood history and you will fail.
-
The demonstration at Charlottesville called "Unite the Right". Was predominantly a white nationalist organized event. It used statue removal as a rallying point and excuse. It attracted KKK and Nazi sympathizers from all over the nation. THERE WERE NOT FINE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
-
It certainly did a good job of hiding the problem. I will concede that Trump and Miller's plan to deal with the problem by ignoring the law and the international obligations was much tidier for the US. It is a shit show and there are no good answers.
-
That is what the world heard because the POTUS wanted them to hear it. By that I mean the he wanted the white nationalists to hear that message. Because he wants their support and he was not willing to lose it. https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
-
Those words are not. But the principle that the concept is derived from is in the 1st Amendment. As you are well aware. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
