Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court

[Baraka]

Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear.

It hardly sounds like a winning platform, and of course President Bush isn't openly espousing these positions. But he did say in his last campaign that his favorite Supreme Court justices were Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and the nominations he has made to the lower courts bear that out. Justices Scalia and Thomas are often called "conservative," but that does not begin to capture their philosophies. Both vehemently reject many of the core tenets of modern constitutional law.

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/opinion/18mon3.html?ex=1099078970&ei=1&en=70167ae6a9117a49)

[100% ILL]

Of course the "devil incarnate" would be opposed to the spreading of the gospel.



Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there was no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
John 8:44-45

[Ace42]

Don't the gospels warn of people misrepresenting the word of God? Somewhere near talking about the dangers of false prophets.

[100% ILL]

Don't the gospels warn of people misrepresenting the word of God? Somewhere near talking about the dangers of false prophets.

His user name was devil incarnate. It was a play on words. Another opprotunity to practice Mark 16:15 (y)

[Ace42]

So it was... Just shows how much attention I pay to those. Disregard.

[racer5.0stang]

Matthew 7
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

[Baraka]

Thanks for turning my thread into Bible Quoting 101.

[infidel]

The Mexican border would finally be tightened up to stop the flood of Americans crossing for abortions.

[yeahwho]

Thanks for turning my thread into Bible Quoting 101.

Thou haveth thus probemth with thee Gospel of Thee Beastie? Boooooy?

I think what I'm getting from this is that the New York Times is the "devil incarnate".

[Baraka]

The New York Times joined the rest of the American corporate media by championing the invasion of Iraq and getting into bed with this current administration. So I'm not a fan. However the LA Times is pretty good.

[yeahwho]

The New York Times joined the rest of the American corporate media by championing the invasion of Iraq and getting into bed with this current administration. So I'm not a fan. However the LA Times is pretty good.

LA Times does have that electorate map that I check on from time to time, I think your correct, it is a better paper. But...it may be a tool of Satan, I've seen similiar concerns about Supreme Court appointments in there scrolls too.

[Baraka]

And more kudos to the LA Times for picking up that Allawi story (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0729-11.htm) that everyone else ignored.

[stillill]

Wow, thanks for the link. I am continually disgusted by the media's lack of coverage on virtually anything that is actually news. Bring back journalism!

[100% ILL]

Thanks for turning my thread into Bible Quoting 101.


I don't understand what is wrong with Christianity. I see nothing wrong with having a morale compass. The humanistic agenda has been sucessfully doing everything in it's power to destroy christianity for decades. First they took away prayer in school, then it was the pledge of allegiance in the class room, apparently some people were offended by the words "under God".
Society is becoming more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. They want to teach tolerance of the homosexual in schools. Tolerance is a sign of a person with no conviction. I love my son, but I am not tolerant of errant behavior on his part. My intolerance of the errant behavior in no way diminishes my love for him. I said that to illustrate a point. Society thinks christians are unaccepting and narrow minded, because we are uncompromising on some issues. The principles that we stand on are principles that are in the Bible. Some people say the Bible is out dated and cannot hold any bearing in today's world. The same people are quick to get offended if a scripture is quoted. If the scripture is not applicable why would a person become offended?
I would prefer that the Supreme Court justices have Biblical and moral conviction, than be tolerant. If you do not stand for something you will fall for anything.

[racer5.0stang]

2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

[Baraka]

How would you Christians feel then if those on the Supreme Court had Islamic convictions?

Exactly. You can't legislate one's belief system on an entire nation, a nation that is suppossed to be free, diverse and tolerant.

But then again, one of them just said that they'd prefer Supreme Court justices "to have Biblical and moral conviction" and not be tolerant. So, according to Evangelicals, it's either their way or no way. I love the way you people think.

[100% ILL]

How would you Christians feel then if those on the Supreme Court had Islamic convictions?

Exactly. You can't legislate one's belief system on an entire nation, a nation that is suppossed to be free, diverse and tolerant.

But then again, one of them just said that they'd prefer Supreme Court justices "to have Biblical and moral conviction" and not be tolerant. So, according to Evangelicals, it's either their way or no way. I love the way you people think.

I simply feel that legislating my belief system out of exsistance is immoral and wrong, and by your own words not very tolerant. This nation was founded on Biblical principles from the beginning, and has been slowly turning away from them ever since. You also said you can't legislate one's belief system on an entire nation. What about the teaching of the theory of evolution in America's class rooms? That is in direct contradiction to my belief. It would seem that the current system is tolerant of everything but Biblical teachings because they are in direct opposition to world views. Of course no one wants to hear that they are wrong and their actions are in direct violation of God's principles. No one is interested in that.

[Baraka]

You're completely oblivious to the seperation of Church and State. The United States of America was not created to be a strict Christian state. It was founded so people of all different religious faiths could worship freely, without the fear of being persecuted by the British. The theory of evolution is based in scientific fact, whereas the teachings of the bible or any other religious text are exactly that: text which was written hundreds or thousands of years ago, and have no basis in science. What you say are "God's principles" are your principles. Not everyone believes in god, nor does everyone in America or in the world believe in your god. It isn't fair to have an Islamic, Christian, Catholic or Buddist state, because their individual religious doctrines would be forced upon those who don't share those views or believe in that faith.

[100% ILL]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Seperation of church and state was originally designed so that the state cannot impose it's will to the detrement of the church. But of course it is now being interpreted that the church is to be quiet. And don't display the Ten Commandments in a court house that's crazy!!! Prayer in school is unconstitutional, but let's have a movie called Mary has two mothers to promote awareness and acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in public schools. Teen pregnancy is out of control so let's pass out condoms in the schools!!! This country has lost it's mind.

[Ace42]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Buy a microscope, take some slides of protozoa from a pond, alter the conditions on the slides surface, watch them evolve. It is observable fact. Whether or not it is responsible for man's evolution into the dominant sentient lifeform on the planet, that has not been proven conclusively (and could not be, irrespectively).

However, evolution can be observed. And there is a lot more evidence for it than there is for creationism. All science in all manner of fields discredits "literal" creationism (as fundamentalists would have us believe) and while that does not discount the existance of god, it does make literal belief of the bible's account woefully irrational.

Seperation of church and state was originally designed so that the state cannot impose it's will to the detrement of the church.

No. That is like saying the unification of church and state in Vatican City means that the state controls the church. The inverse is true. In Vatican City, the church controls the state. The seperation of church and state is to prevent the church interferring with the operation of the state, not the other way around. A state controlled by the church can only operate for the church not against it - that should be common sense.

And don't display the Ten Commandments in a court house that's crazy!

Yes, how could you prosecute internet fraudsters without worshiping no other god but the Christian one, without persecuting the worship of false idols, or compelling people to respect their father and mothers, no matter how bad they are.

[quoteTeen pregnancy is out of control so let's pass out condoms in the schools![/QUOTE]

Yes, because condoms actually increase the rate of pregnancy. Duh.

[100% ILL]

You as usual are simply trying to be argumentative. My point about the condoms being that passing them out in school would encourage the action. I of course know that condoms are designed to prevent pregnancy. (duh)

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth.
He is before all things and by him all things consist.
Colossians 1:16-17

[59 Chrystie St.]

BASIC
INSTRUCTIONS
BEFORE
LEAVING
EARTH

[Ace42]

You as usual are simply trying to be argumentative.

I am trying to establish precision, as usual. I'll defend your arguments on the theological, for as long as they remain consistant with logic, theology, the facts. If you are going to start making stuff up or stating that a subjective interpretation of the bible is "the truth" then I am going to pull you up on it. The Bible is a text, not a set of tarot cards or a thematic apperception test, where you put you put in your own meaning on an otherwise blank and meaningless medium.

The bible, like all theological matters, deals with things that are beyond verification or understanding. But faith aside - if the bible said "the sea is flourescent yellow" it would still be WRONG, no matter how what or why you perceive god to act. Stick to things that can't be refuted, like the eternal ponderables, and I won't refute it. Explain why illustrable fact is not necessarily "true" and I will accept that, or at least persue the matter further until we can agree. Just make blanket statements that are illustrably false, I am not going to let it slide. That simple.

[100% ILL]

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
I Corinthians 3:19-20

[Ace42]

Are you implying by that quote that only foolish people are Christians / godly? Or merely that we should all be living in a hole in the ground, due to all technology being the product of vanity?

[100% ILL]

Are you implying by that quote that only foolish people are Christians / godly? Or merely that we should all be living in a hole in the ground, due to all technology being the product of vanity?


I am saying that the "wisdom" of man takes him away from God. There are intelligent Christians. I'm saying that man has an ingrained need to worship something/someone, and too often that someone becomes himself.

[Ace42]

That is true. A good christian is humble before God. But that doesn't mean that persuing truth or reasoning against established chruch dogma is foolish in the eyes of God. As I understand it, sentience, the ability to discover, learn, adapt, reason are faculties given to man by God. It is man's intelligence that gives him dominion over the other animals, and this is because God created man in his own image - this includes the ability to reason. Thus neglecting sound scientific methodology in favour of unthinking obediance to dogma is preferable. This is how I view the significance of Jesus's manifestation on Earth. It was not solely necessary for him to die for mankind's sins (he could've just come and died) but to reform the accepted orthodoxy of Judaism at the time. Much as Jesus broke Jewish law (which was supposedly the word of God, remember. The Jewish preachers quoted scriptures at him, trying to tell him he was wrong) because it was out of date, so isn't discounting obsolete dogma no worse?

[100% ILL]

That is true. A good christian is humble before God. But that doesn't mean that persuing truth or reasoning against established chruch dogma is foolish in the eyes of God. As I understand it, sentience, the ability to discover, learn, adapt, reason are faculties given to man by God. It is man's intelligence that gives him dominion over the other animals, and this is because God created man in his own image - this includes the ability to reason. Thus neglecting sound scientific methodology in favour of unthinking obediance to dogma is preferable. This is how I view the significance of Jesus's manifestation on Earth. It was not solely necessary for him to die for mankind's sins (he could've just come and died) but to reform the accepted orthodoxy of Judaism at the time. Much as Jesus broke Jewish law (which was supposedly the word of God, remember. The Jewish preachers quoted scriptures at him, trying to tell him he was wrong) because it was out of date, so isn't discounting obsolete dogma no worse?

Your statement is incorrect. Jesus did not break the law. Being God if he broke his own law he would be a sinner and Christ could not have sinned otherwise he could not have become a sin offering before God on behalf of man.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

[100% ILL]

That is true. A good christian is humble before God. But that doesn't mean that persuing truth or reasoning against established chruch dogma is foolish in the eyes of God. As I understand it, sentience, the ability to discover, learn, adapt, reason are faculties given to man by God. It is man's intelligence that gives him dominion over the other animals, and this is because God created man in his own image - this includes the ability to reason. Thus neglecting sound scientific methodology in favour of unthinking obediance to dogma is preferable. This is how I view the significance of Jesus's manifestation on Earth. It was not solely necessary for him to die for mankind's sins (he could've just come and died) but to reform the accepted orthodoxy of Judaism at the time. Much as Jesus broke Jewish law (which was supposedly the word of God, remember. The Jewish preachers quoted scriptures at him, trying to tell him he was wrong) because it was out of date, so isn't discounting obsolete dogma no worse?

Your statement is incorrect. Jesus did not break the law. Being God if he broke his own law he would be a sinner and Chrsit could not have sinned otherwise he could not have become a sin offering before God on behalf of man.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Romans 5:17-18

[Ace42]

Jewish law stated you could not walk around and do things (toil in the field, cook, etc) on the Sabbath. Jesus did. Jesus was thus breaking Jewish law.

[Vladimir]

This is semantics. Having an argument based on Bible passages is futile, because they are completely impossible to prove one way or the other. They are too old. Ace accused Jesus of doing something which would cancel out his status as "without sin" - you countered that by saying that Jesus could not have sinned because that would make him a sinner, and the Bible says he is "without sin." The argument is moot; all you are doing is reiterating what he is saying isn't true. The whole conversation is pointless, as well as totally alien to the original idea to the thread.

It is ridiculous to say that because the pilgrims who came here were Christians, that therefore our country has to follow Puritanical moral codes. The country is moving away from the "Christian morals" that you claim were believed in by our founders, because fewer and fewer people believe in them. This is not the 17th century, and you can't legislate your religious beliefs. There is a difference between a scientifically supported theory and an idea that someone wrote down in a book 5000 years ago. It's called progress. You may have also noticed that we have fancy things like computers now that they didn't have back around the beginning of Judaism. Does that mean we shouldn't use them because they are new? No it doesn't, because they allow you to post on such delightful forums as this one. What do you suggest they do to curb the teenage pregnancy problem, tell the kids not to touch each other? That's unrealistic, naive, and essentially synonymous with ignoring the issue altogether. Prayer in school is not by any means unconstitutional, it is simply unconstitutional if the school is endorsing it, thus providing government-funded church sessions. That's not what public schools are for. If you want your kids to learn things like that, you can send them to a Christian Private school.

[Ace42]

That's not what public schools are for. If you want your kids to learn things like that, you can send them to a Christian Private school.

Or Church. I gather they have very flexible opening hours.

[Vladimir]

Well said. :D

[stillill]

Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

There are no facts in science. Things can never be proven to be true, only to be false. I think that you may have the common misconception that a theory is not accepted as true. In science, a theory is closer to what a layperson might call a "Fact." It is accepted by the scientific community, has never been falsified, and is generally thought to be "true."

Surely you are not suggesting that creationism is a fact.

[Schmeltz]

I don't understand what is wrong with Christianity.


Nothing really, but you must admit that not everybody is a Christian. Therefore removing things like prayer and references to Christian religion from public schools open to all segments of the population is nothing if not right, proper, and just. Same with any element of the public domain. Ever since the Enlightenment, the Western world has been moving toward a culture based on empiricism and objectivity, not faith and subjectivity, and like it or not that's not going to change anytime soon. By all means practice your faith within your own home, but please don't try to turn back the clock - it just makes you and your religion look foolish.

You wanna see what a theocracy is like? Check out Iran or Saudi Arabia, where religion is law. The West has it better.

[100% ILL]

Nothing really, but you must admit that not everybody is a Christian. Therefore removing things like prayer and references to Christian religion from public schools open to all segments of the population is nothing if not right, proper, and just. Same with any element of the public domain. Ever since the Enlightenment, the Western world has been moving toward a culture based on empiricism and objectivity, not faith and subjectivity, and like it or not that's not going to change anytime soon. By all means practice your faith within your own home, but please don't try to turn back the clock - it just makes you and your religion look foolish.

You wanna see what a theocracy is like? Check out Iran or Saudi Arabia, where religion is law. The West has it better.

I am not suggesting a church state. I am merely pointing out that this country's moral's have been in rapid decline for decades.

Turn back the clock? So what your suggesting is that something is only wrong if we percieve it to be? I am aware that most people are not christian, but right and wrong are fundamentally ingrained in everyone. If you do wrong enough, it becomes normal and accepted. Then it only gets worse as more wrong things become accepted.
I'm just archaic and old-fashioned I suppose. I don't expect you will even try to see what I am saying.

[Ace42]

but right and wrong are fundamentally ingrained in everyone.

Nietzche would disagree. PM JRGowans, I expect he'd love the opportunity to wax lyrical about being Beyond Good and Evil.

[Schmeltz]

Nearly everybody has a sense of right and wrong, but it's not the same for everybody and yes, it does change over time. How do you feel about women having the right to vote? How about letting black people fraternize with white people? Many many people used to consider these things wrong, until it was realized that personal prejudices and belief systems are not valid excuses for denying fundamental rights to other human beings. You think prayer in the public domain is right, I think it's wrong.

Morality is simply not cut-and-dried like you imagine. You only think of it this way because you have bound your way of thinking to a text that remains static while the dynamic society around it changes and reacts to other things. I know exactly what you're trying to say because I have a background in fundamentalist Christian thought myself - and sorry, but it doesn't wash.

[100% ILL]

Nearly everybody has a sense of right and wrong, but it's not the same for everybody and yes, it does change over time. How do you feel about women having the right to vote? How about letting black people fraternize with white people? Many many people used to consider these things wrong, until it was realized that personal prejudices and belief systems are not valid excuses for denying fundamental rights to other human beings. You think prayer in the public domain is right, I think it's wrong.

Morality is simply not cut-and-dried like you imagine. You only think of it this way because you have bound your way of thinking to a text that remains static while the dynamic society around it changes and reacts to other things. I know exactly what you're trying to say because I have a background in fundamentalist Christian thought myself - and sorry, but it doesn't wash.

The Romans felt the same way you do, and the Corinthians, and the Sodomites. You know..... the "cultural elite" of the day.

[Baraka]

There are no facts in science

All of these people who are completely out of touch with reality have infested my thread.

[yeahwho]

All of these people who are completely out of touch with reality have infested my thread.

The word "Supreme" brings them out.

[Vladimir]

Because all people are supposed to be seen as equal, one group's moral code or "compass" (that is, what is right and what is wrong) cannot be used as the whole populace's code. In my opinion, it is wrong to try to impose your own moral code on others. But that is my opinion, and other people can do that if they want to. They just won't have very many friends. Your statement that we have been moving away, for better or worse, from the moral code that people used to have - however, that is most likely because the majority of the populace has a less conservative moral code than those people in the past. I think the point is that life is not a James Bond movie, and there is no black-and-white Good Guys and Bad Guys. In my opinion, Osama Bin Laden is the Bad Guy because he is a mass murderer, but I'm sure in the view of him and those who share his viewpoint I am the Bad Guy. Most people in America would agree with me that he is the Bad Guy in this scenario, but there is no way to decide that one person's opinion or one group's opinion is more important or valid than another's. If you buy into religion, that is god's place and not ours. If you don't, that's what courts are for. The court is the only place where one person's opinion or a group's opinion can be established as a standard, because the assumption is that their decisions reflect the moral compass of the populace as best as is possible. For example, since polls have shown that as much as 80 % of Americans want more Stem Cell Research, the courts should be allowing that because they are supposed to reflect the will of the people. The people's moral compass has evolved since the times of slavery and unfair voting rights. Now I believe that your moral compass is off-kilter, but that's just my opinion and nothing more, and really shouldn't have any bearing on how you live your life. I should hope you show the same consideration towards others.