It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Faux Faith of Nancy Pelosi and Mitt Romney

page: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

And the school is an official government building where the business of the state in educating children is carried out. Any activities those children do are officially sanctioned by the state ...

What was you take on Pelosi ripping the speech, btw? Is that not too an *official government document*?

edit on 10-2-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Oblique9043

Why not? Mohammad had some cool things to say about horses.

Honestly, most religions have verses or sayings that carry sentiments most people should be fine with so long as they don't let their anti-x allergies kick in.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Romney has no class and his church should censure him for lying about his faith making him pursue a spiteful political vendetta. He's a POS sell out, same as McCain.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Umm. Ya... sure...
Have you ever been in a school?
There are plenty of things kids do at school that arent sanctioned. Many the school allows, but they arent sanctioning them. We used to play cards quite often during our study halls, I dont think that was sanctioned, it was allowed.
Maybe we just need abe different meanings of the word sanctioned.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Oh, you mean like a teacher picking a personal signature for her emails?




posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

And, just what was that serious error?
And I guess you and ketsuko are also tag teaming??



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Gee, I dont know, I imagine that the school wouldn't let the teachers put anything they wanted on those emails just like the school wouldn't let us play cards for money or play strip poker.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko

Gee, I dont know, I imagine that the school wouldn't let the teachers put anything they wanted on those emails just like the school wouldn't let us play cards for money or play strip poker.


So, on the one hand, the school doesn't let it happen, but on the other hand, they can't stop it? Are you going to be consistent or not?

Btw, you were the one claiming you had no issues with students praying during a daily quiet time, and you never addressed my claim that for the school to provide a quiet time and allow students to choose to pray during that time would be the school sanctioning prayer if it's likewise a state endorsement of religion for the school to provide the teacher an email account and allow her to choose her signature is state endorsement of religion if *she* choose to use that space for a Bible verse or other religious saying.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So, the school sanctions card games??
No, all the school would be doing would provide a slot of quiet time for the kids to get theirselves settled and prepared for the day and for the most part leaving it up to the kids as to what they need to do. If the kid feels that prayer helps them get prepared and their head in the game fine. Someone else may have had a terrible morning and just want to lay their head on the table, close their eyes and try to get their nerves back in order, or try to hurriedly finish the homework assignment they didnt get down.
A moment of prayer is sanctioning prayer. What I am suggesting is giving the kids some time first thing in the morning to prepare for the day ahead with the only stipulation being that they remain seated and not disturb others, and giving them the freedom and trust to know what they need to get prepared, both physically and mentally.
A student shouldnt need permission to pray as long as it's not a disturbance, and they shouldnt be restrained to just a moment at a set time each day. But, neither should they need permission not to pray, which is what your moment of prayer bit would require of them.

As for the teachers signatures, if they had written those emails in the official capacity of their position using the schools email server, they probably broke the school policy, the state govt laws and policies, as well as the federal laws and policies. Mainly the ones that attach strings to the tax dollars they are given I imagine since private schools arent publicly funded and they have much more freedom when it comes to presenting religious material to their students.
Tell me, how do you feel about having a string tied to welfare and food stamps that requires women to be on birth control?



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


And, just what was that serious error?

It was already pointed out to you earlier, and you even acknowledged it. If your memory is that bad, might I suggest a little medical assistance?

Actually, I think you do understand the error you made, but you just don't like the way admitting it fits into your latest narrative.


And I guess you and ketsuko are also tag teaming??

If you want to call it that, knock yerself out.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Are you rambling about that bit that I am holding back again? That which I didnt think was my place to say. That if god wanted you to know, he would reveal it to you...

If so, I am still holding it back, ask god.



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

So is this an acceptable signature?

A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.


How about this one?

Boldly shalt thou tread, as thy path hath been cleared for thee.


Maybe this one?

How much better to get wisdom than gold!
And to get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.


I'm really curious: are any or all of those signatures proper for a teacher?

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Nope, and I'm not gonna play twenty questions with you over your lack of understanding. We'd need 10,000 questions just to get started. How about answering my question in my last post? It's simple enough.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I dont know, ask the danged school district or state or federal officials. Two of them sound like they might be from proverbs and are just words of wisdom. The first one I would be tempted to say might be simply because I would hope that at least a few of the kids would eventually surpass the teachers of his youth and I dont actually accept servant/master relationships as being healthy.
But, those weren't the scripture in question, ya know acknowledge the lord, ect. That one was more like telling the reader to do this.. accept the lord, lean not to your own understanding, ect. You are telling a jewish kid to accept a messiah that his religion rejects.

edit on 10-2-2020 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2020 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ok, I answered yours to the best of my ability, care to answer the question I posed to ketsuko?
How do you feel about tying a string to welfare and food stamp assistance that requires mother to be on birth control?



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


I dont know, ask the danged school district or state or federal officials.

Ah, so you won't answer?

Two are from the Bible; one is made up out of thin air. One of those two is from Proverbs. You can't even tell the difference, yet you claim there is something inherently wrong with using a Biblical verse as an email signature! Many of our "common" secular sayings are based on Biblical verses... "the love of money is the root of all evil" (Jesus' own words)... "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (again, Jesus' own words)... these are verses which are applicable to every society. You have probably used variations of Biblical verses yourself without even realizing it.

So I suppose instead you just follow along with your "god"... namely organizations like that Freedom From Religion group. Yes, I called them "your god" because that is exactly what they are. You follow them without question, blindly, faithfully... if they deem something to be offensive, it must be offensive! It's not even unusual... men have been claiming to be God since the beginning of time, and people have followed them since the beginning of time. It can be a powerful and profitable endeavor. Even many of the evangelical preachers claim something similar.

And that's fine. If you want to follow the teachings of a man, go for it. Have fun with that; I'll not degrade you one bit for doing so... until you throw the first punch. You have thrown the first of many punches when your "god" openly and expressly advocates the removal of all competing religions. That is exactly what the organization in question does, and that, my dear, is cultish behavior. Jim Jones refused to allow his followers to even consider any other religion. Charles Manson required strict devotion from his followers, to the absolute exclusion of all others.

It seems the word "God" may have been your problem... well, then, what do you think of this: Student suspended for saying ‘bless you’ at school? That's right: a student was suspended for using "Godly" talk in the classroom, because she said "bless you" to another student who sneezed. That is persecution on religious grounds, although I am sure you will come up with some reason it's just not as bad as an email signature.


But, those weren't the scripture in question, ya know acknowledge the lord, ect. That one was more like telling the reader to do this.. accept the lord, lean not to your own understanding, ect. You are telling a jewish kid to accept a messiah that his religion rejects.

OK, let's look are what you are demanding of me:

They turned their face from God desiring to rule another and while it was turned unknown to them an imposter came on the scene to pretend he was their God. And his name was Satan.

is that a demand that I not "turn my face frorm God"? Who's God? Mine or yours? Are you calling God Satan? Are you saying I worship Satan? Is that a demand that I stop worshiping God?

HOW DARE YOU DEMAND THAT NO ONE WORSHIP GOD!!!!

After all, that is your signature, and we all know from the last page of your posts that a signature is a demand on others!

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


Ok, I answered yours to the best of my ability, care to answer the question I posed to ketsuko?
How do you feel about tying a string to welfare and food stamp assistance that requires mother to be on birth control?

First of all, no, you deferred my question. You gave no answer other than "whatever someone else says."

Second of all, what does that have to do with anything that has been brought up in this thread? We're already way, way off topic just discussing email signatures, and now you suddenly jump to welfare and birth control? Why not ask me what the going rate for Ju-Ju beans in Beijing is?

Start a thread you prefer if you don't like the topic of the one you chose to post in. I'll be happy to answer your question there if you send me a link. Otherwise, that's a comparatively minor issue to me.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

My sig is an observation, it demands nothing of you. It gives really no judgement of any particular person , it offers no reward. It is an observation. And, I wouldn't consider it an appropriate sig for a communication from a school to a child. ATS is a haven of inappropriateness , judgements, and prideful bolstering though, its fits in fine here. I answered to the best of my ability.. not good enough for you, sorry!



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Okay, yous refused to answer my question. Although I have a feeling I know how at least one of yous would have answered. That's the end of me discussing the idea that the aclu is antichistian and the Christian just cant follow their religion. I dont accept that premise still, so I dont accept your assertion that a lawmakers support of the aclu proves that they arent sincere in their faith.
The other bit of your proof you had was that nancy didnt support and abortion ban, although the catholic religion is pretty strict on that one and she is catholic. Well religions dont look kindly on divorce either and the Catholics are still pretty strict on that I think. Should she be crafting laws to ban divorce, restrict it to just cases of adultery?
Faith and religious tenets are something you have to voluntarily accept and follow. You cant voluntarily accept something if there is a legal system set up to force you to. Sure there are laws that correspond with religious tenets, but for the most part, they are laws that all would agree is needed for a safe and peaceful society. Like those proverbs scriptures, they have been accepted and adopted by the people regardless of religion.
Religion is personal, you willing accept it, you do your best to follow its teachings, occasionally failing and. I can only assume that this process, including the choice, including the failures that are only answerable to god, serves a need our spiritual being has.
Laws and government are a different beast all together. They are crafted to serve the material world, not the spiritual. So while ones religion might teach against divorce or abortion, lawmakers have to consider that material, often sinful world where our foster care systems are filled to capacity, women and young girls are raped and end up pregnant, families cant stay together if there was ever a family to begin with, things are just basically messy and the question has become what approach will do the least harm to society. So lawmakers dont, or at least shouldnt let their religious tenets and taboos dictate the laws they support in congess. Their religious tenets are more of an image of how we should be living in a perfect world where everyone is doing what they should be doing and not doing those things they shouldnt. The fact that no one can live in obedience to them should tell you that they probably are suitable for civil laws.



posted on Feb, 11 2020 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


My sig is an observation, it demands nothing of you.

Oh, so let me get this right... your signature is fine because you don't intend to demand anything of anyone... but should anyone else have a signature that you don't like, it then becomes a demand of others?

Hypocrite.


I answered to the best of my ability.. not good enough for you, sorry!

Yes, I think you did answer to the best of your ability. That's the problem! You do not have the ability to even know when the words come from a religious text, or even what religious text those words come from! Are you aware that the Catholic faith has several books in their Bible that are not in the Protestant Bible? A verse could mean something to a Catholic and be totally unfamiliar to a Protestant. There are verses in the Quran that I, as a Protestant, could likely look at and marvel at their truth without even knowing where they came from. There are verses in the Torah (which is a part of the Old Testament and thus familiar to Protestants) that I might look at and think "That's out of context here," despite appearing completely contextual to a Jew.

And yet you, by your support of policies such as we are discussing, have held yourself up to be some sort of higher power able to discern the true meaning behind these verses. That was the point of my question, and you actually did answer it. Your ability to determine the meanings of those verses is impotent. That is the exact reason I made this thread; by their previous actions, Pelosi and Romney have demonstrated their ability to judge the religions they claim to follow is impotent, yet they hold themselves up to be pious.

My ability may be as impotent where others are concerned, but the difference is I do not claim any ability. I claim to try... that is a huge difference from claiming superior position as they and you do. I actually do practice a "live and let live" philosophy... another poster in this thread who I know personally has already stated that our beliefs differ considerably, yet I would never try to demand any religious concessions from him. It's not my place; I have enough trouble trying to keep my own house in order, although that appears to be much less trouble than the average politician has.

Jesus Himself spoke harshly of those who do so. They were called Pharisees and Scribes in those days, elders of the religion, those who tried to project an air of superiority in spiritual guidance. He recognized them by their deeds and words, just as I recognize Pelosi and Romney by their deeds and words today.


Faith and religious tenets are something you have to voluntarily accept and follow. You cant voluntarily accept something if there is a legal system set up to force you to. Sure there are laws that correspond with religious tenets, but for the most part, they are laws that all would agree is needed for a safe and peaceful society. Like those proverbs scriptures, they have been accepted and adopted by the people regardless of religion.

And yet, you seem all bent out of shape because a teacher placed a signature you don't like in an email.

Have you ever looked at history? This country was founded by the Puritans and Protestants, two groups who were religiously prosecuted to the point they risked almost certain death to escape. Many had already been driven out of England before they made the journey here. They didn't just board a steamliner cruise and power across the Atlantic... the trip was based wholly on reports, rumors if you will, of an undiscovered world that lay beyond the horizon. No one knew exactly how long it would take to get here, if here really existed, or if the boats would be devoured by sea monsters en route. When they did get here, they had no social support... no highways, no doctors, no stores, no maps, just their own selves and their faith to sustain them. Most died. But their religious beliefs were strong enough that they would risk all that to not be forced to observe conflicting religious views.

Remember reading about the the Spanish Inquisition? Yeah, that wasn't the governments of man trying to enforce spiritual law... except it was. People who did not accept the doctrine of the official church were accused of heresy. Heretics had two choices: confess to heresy and be executed quickly, or be tortured until they confessed and then be executed. Sort of like we saw just recently in the political news... already guilty, and dammit, if they won't confess that just means something else they are guilty of!

So while the laws of man cannot and do not address spirituality, they can, do, and have for most of human history tried to do so with disastrous effects for some. That is why our Founding Fathers demanded that government stay away from religion... do not establish a religion, do not forbid a religion, do not control a religion, do not have anything to do with a religion! There's no similar restriction on religion, because without government control supporting it, religion cannot be used as a rule of law. The teacher who puts a Bible verse in her signature has no religious authority over a student... neither does the teacher who suspended a student for saying "bless you." In the former case, there was no overt action taken against a student; in the latter, there was. The former is not a problem; the latter is.

You cannot see this, of course, because you allow others of your religion to see for you, but you just used the exact same argument that was used by those adamantly opposed to gay marriage... and if it was a weak argument then, it is still one today. What does it hurt to see words on a page? How are those words, abstract symbols that are arranged in a predetermined order, going to harm someone? They're not... they can only become harmful if backed up by force of law. The teacher with the emails used no force of law against others, but your god organization certainly used force of law against the teacher. In the "bless you" incident I linked to, the student used no force of law against anyone, but force of law was certainly used against her!

That's what this Freedom From Religion group and the ACLU do: they use force of law. Christians as a general rule are not doing that. Get back to me when the USA passes a law that one must "Love the Lord with all thine heart." I'll wait.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join