Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

One Nation Under Godlessness

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 14, 2014 9:04 AM
Feel free to check the facts I presented. Please correct me if you feel they're wrong.
In response to:

One Nation Under Godlessness

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 14, 2014 8:58 AM
"Scanning the headlines of the latest scandals in America's schools, it's quite clear that the problem is not that there's too much God in students' lives." As soon as Ms. Malkin said this, I had a feeling she was not going to make a reasonable argument. I agree that anyone who reads headlines is going to get a bad impression about how young people act. But when has the media EVER given an accurate portrayal of an entire culture or sub-group? There's a reason why headlines aren't used in actual research. With a simple web search, Ms. Malkin could've found out that according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the rate of juvenile crime in 2011 was 31 percent lower than it was in 1980 and 59 percent lower than its peak year in 1994. For 30 years, even as Christianity has declined and internet trends have arisen, crime among our youth has gone down considerably. But because of 24-hour news media, internet media, and an uninformed public that doesn't bother to check their facts, fear of crime has gone up. It's completely asinine and Malkin is buying into it. She whines about how teenagers act, but doesn't bother to check whether her whining is actually valid. It makes her complaints about this lawsuit less than credible. Instead of believing her, actually do a web search on the merits of the case. Check the facts. Anyone who would rather whine than face reality is not going to be a source for a credible opinion on matters of religious freedom or youth behavior.
In response to:

God and the Constitution

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Nov 14, 2014 8:49 AM
It doesn't matter that "The Year of Our Lord" is stated in the constitution. It doesn't matter that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians anymore than it matters that they were white. It doesn't matter what famous philosophers believed about Christianity. It doesn't matter that most of the Country identifies as Christian either. The Constitution says outright that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means Christianity has no special place in the government. It cannot be endorsed with public money. It cannot be promoted with public money. Because it is not possible to have freedom of religion without freedom from religion. I don't care that Jerry Newcomb likes to believe that American and Christian values are the same. But his beliefs do not dictate reality or actual legal context. America is not a Christian nation any more than it is a white male nation. It's a nation of people. Wanting to reserve it for Christians is the antithesis of American (and Christian) values.
It's been a while since Mr. Bozell did a column like this where he just basically whines about how dirty TV is. I was hoping he had learned and moved onto better and more pertinent issues. Sadly, he has disappointed once again. I see a lot of whining. I see a lot of "I'm so offended!" talk. I see the typical "Think of the children!" speech. What I don't see is any reasonable recourse. The reason why shows keep pushing the envelope is simple: money. These shows attract viewers. They attract attention. And attention means ad revenue. There's no morality to it. It's just business. If he has a problem with this, then he has a problem with capitalism. What's his solution anyways? These shows do have ratings that warn parents of the content. Would he favor outright censorship? Does the first amendment have a say? By giving these shows attention, men like Brent Bozell just make them more popular. He's cutting his nose to spite his face, along with every other advocacy group. Never mind that crime and deviance are at record lows. They think whining about what's on TV is still a productive use of their time. It's utterly asinine.
This is not an unreasonable test to take. I think it certainly provides some insightful answers into one's character. Those who become lethargic, anxious, indifferent, and self-absorbed tend to limit their opportunities. There are other factors with respect to opportunity, but no matter what those circumstances might be, it all starts with someone having the character to take a chance and be something better.
This sort of doomsaying has been going on for centuries. People make dire predictions, think humanity cannot adapt, and go from there. So far, all these predictions have been wrong. So why would this latest act of doomsaying be any different?
"And its also been shown to be completely absent in them. Read "Slouching Towards Gomorrah" by Robert Bork." This book is not a peer-reviewed science journal with testable evidence. It is not a valid source of information for human behavior.
"A reading of your posts call you a liar, you Christophobic bigot." Insulting me doesn't make you any less wrong. It also makes you a lousy Christian. "Yes, that explains why kids are such selfish hedonists and grow up to be the same way as adults if those traits aren't removed from them by discipline." Kids are not selfish hedonists. If they were, then the crime rate among youth wouldn't be at all time lows at a time when religiosity among youth is declining. Please do some more research in this area. You're making some broad claims here that have no basis in fact. "Why do you fell the need to force your Godless bigotry on the rest of us? It makes no sense, logically or morally." I'll answer your question if you answer mine first.
Ad hominum attacks do not make your approach any less valid. This has nothing to do with being modern. It has everything to do with being kind and compassionate to other human beings. Using the bible to justify disparaging other human beings is not moral, nor is it Christian.
Locations, names, and spelling mistakes still constitute changes. And it is historical fact that certain parts of the bible were edited. Some have even been determined to be outright forgeries. John 7:53 to 8:11, Mark 9:29, and Luke 3:22 are just a few examples. God might not change in nature, but the way people interpret God certainly does. It used to be considered "Christian" to despise Jews, support slavery, and oppose inter-racial marriage. And other religions have gone through that as well, not just Christianity. And if God sought to bring the truth, a book is the worst possible way to do it. Books are subject to interpretation, translation, and forgery. Also, why would God want to use a book at a time when most of the population was illiterate or didn't even speak the language in which the book was written in? Why is it so important that your God speaks through a book? I know you like the book and probably agree with certain parts of it, namely the parts that say homosexuality is wrong. But a book is not God, especially when the evidence is so clear that it was written and edited by men.
If man were incapable of selfess acts outside your narrow interpretation of God, then man would not have survived for as long as it has. A big part of what makes humanity such a robust species is its ability to cooperate and socialize. That's not possible without a certain level of altruism and compassion. There have been plenty of instances of war and slaguther throughout history, but how often has this been justified by arbitrary differences that are reinforced by narrow interpretations of religion? How is that trablisitc hatred of the past any different than the hatred espoused by Christians against homosexuls? It isn't. You simply are assuming way too much about how those who don't believe in God actually think. You are not psychic. But we can study the behavior patterns of those who do identify as non-believers or believers of different faiths. The evidence is pretty clear that human compassion and empathy is present throughout the species, regardless of their method of worship. Also, a book that hasn't changed is not a miracle. It's not something to be proud of either. Things that don't change or adapt remain rigid, dogmatic, and draconian. It hinders the progress of humanity. It does not aid it. Also, the bible has changed in that it has been compiled, edited, translated, mistranslated, and mistranslated again many times over the centuries. Every ancient text has, otherwise we wouldn't be able to make sense of it. That is simple historical fact. To deny it is to deny reality.
Previous 11 - 20 Next