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 Amazing Palin-Dobson Interview

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 




Get off her neck, and quit whining, Obama says things that should scare the crap out you but here you are sweating the small stuff. We get it, you hate religion, you hate palin, you'll do everything you can to sensationalize everything she says pointing out how silly it is with a religious like zeal that can only be appreciated by other whining militant atheists, gay activists, most liberals etc Blah Blah Blah

Get over it you're doing the same thing pushing YOUR point as well the only difference is SHE has made it all the way to being a Mayor, who did so well they wanted her to be Governor Of Alaska while you're still talking like someone who has all the business acumen of the employee of the month at meat on a stick at your local malls food court.


Ouch. How did you know I am a cashier at Orange Julius? Are you actually watching me?
Seriously though, for dialogue purposes, as that is why we are all here, yes? can you please explain the following in your post quoted above:


Get off her neck, and quit whining

1) I am not whining. I posted a story that has ramnifications regarding where her ultra-right religious beliefs stand (note DOBSON FocusonFamily)

Obama says things that should scare the crap out you

2) what things has Obama said that should "scare the crap out of me"? Please post at least two.

but here you are sweating the small stuff

3) Conspiracy through various right wing organizations to implement "their" idea of America through change in govt is not "sweating the small stuff"

We get it, you hate religion, you hate palin, you'll do everything you can to sensationalize everything she says pointing out how silly it is with a religious like zeal that can only be appreciated by other whining militant atheists, gay activists, most liberals etc Blah Blah Blah

Now, that was just mean. I think I need my Where is Matt video to make me feel all goodygoody again. Ok.
1) you are wrong that I "hate religion" and no where in any of my posts have I indicated anything other than a TREMENDOUS amount of fear regading the mixing of politics and religion (see constitution). To deduce as such is to simplify the argument.
2)I don't "hate" Palin. I believe she is completely unit for the role of VP, although after Cheney the bar isn't set too high.
3) My "zeal" in pointing out her foibles makes me: A whining, gay, militant-atheist liberal activist? Man, that's a mouthful. I must admit though, even though the description couldn't be further from the truth, I feel a strange sense of pride in being called these names - or at least I smiled when I read it anyway. Again, re-read with slightly less tined glasses - and to the idea that she can change law based on her religion - well she cannot implement laws or affect the outcome of goverment specifically by imposing her religious beliefs. It's against the law. Again, we have laws that control the idea of religion in government. Do you disagree with the idea of seraration of church and state? Thanks.

ColoradoJens




posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TH3ON3
 


But the same argument you use for your faith as being the true faith and God can be used by the other religions. You believe yours is the only real religion and real God and the others believe the same of theirs. Feel free that have your belief but that only makes it true for you. You can say otherwise but then so can the others. There is the Bible, the Koran and the Torah, each will use it as their basis of truth.

Edit:

I do agree that violence tends to show lack of true following of the teaching of any religion.


[edit on 10/24/2008 by roadgravel]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by ColoradoJens
It's against the law. Again, we have laws that control the idea of religion in government. Do you disagree with the idea of seraration of church and state? Thanks.

ColoradoJens


Yes I disagree with it because I know the history of how the separation powers came to be and that she has just as much right to her religious expression as you have a right not to fear her religious views won't be made into a state Religion, you know,, sort of like Darwin's Evolution has become for Atheists.

I think the Government goes too far when they take down WW ll landmarks of a Giant Cross or the ten commandments and many other traditional icons of our Nations history whether they are "no longer in style" for many or those that whine saying things like that offend them but if you don't like the websites pics of their lesbian lovers latest my space pic wearing her Bimbo in Bondage latex and Playtex, you are told to just close your eyes if it bothers you.

I see the separation powers being used by the ACLU to keep any conservative voice from having any say at all because where ever you get your frame of reference, what ever becomes your standard of truth whether you read it in the Bible and it makes sense to you and you believe it, OR you get it out of the latest "New Woman" magazine or from one of the girls at your last "power lunch" it doesn't mean someone who thinks Marriage should be only between a man and a woman,is because it is religion but it will be INSISTED upon that is what it is by Gays.

It shouldn't matter if someone DID develop their philosophical views from reading books but as long as that book isnt the BIBLE! I mean you can believe in any God you want, they tell us, AS LONG AS IT ISN'T THAT ONE NAMED JESUS!

What follows are usually sarcastic innuendos about a spaghetti creature that flys or I'm not sure.

MANY of these concepts and Ideas CAME from Christian Judeo belief. Now if that is what a person wants to see be established such as a VP and she actually takes pains to being that kind of legislation to fruition, IT AIN'T AGAINST THE LAW! Not only that, same wall of separation means THAT YOU CANT ASK THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE SIDES because THAT is what it means.

It has been used to strong arm a materialist agenda that has gotten so idiotic if I say God Bless you after someone sneezes, I may get a law suit for offending the snot nosed whiny wimp.

I am already having images flashing in my mind of Sam Harris taking such a frivolous law suit all the way to the supreme court with the ACLU there making sure he has his rights to freedom of speech protected but my speech had the word God in it which means religious which means I can't say it because we were in the Motor Vehicles Dept and that is Government employees there and yata yata .

The separation of Church and State is not even mentioned in the constitution and you know it and you know how it got there but you will use a stretch of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists to mean what we have today. Now I don't have a problem with Church and State, in fact I am counting on it protecting us when Muslims say it doesn't say Mosque and State and want to install Sharia Law here as they did in the UK.

HOWEVER,, I think I see people talking about this as much as you have been and I think your fears are for the most part, baseless .

I have read volumes on the arguments of Church and State and I believe it means people got to work it out for themselves and don't make the Government play referee every time some secularist just got finished swallowing Christopher Bhitchens latest book "God must Die by any means necessary" and decides all of a sudden to sue everyone with a nativity scene in the public Library or after being wished a merry Christmas, he barks,, "It's Happy Festivus! Ya Xian Moron!"

There ya have it,, I hope I don't sound too bitter

hee hee



[edit on 24-10-2008 by MAINTAL]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MAINTAL
 


Hey Manital, thanks for the thoughts. It is clear that you are earnest in what you say and even though you would never believe this, I too share some of your sentiments. I am trying to have a dialogue, wherein we can respond to each others assertions with discussion. It seems more like you are interested in stream of thought - that's ok. I've been the same at times here too. Just because it is more my style, I'd like to respond to your latest post as I normally do; by discussing what it is you said:


Originally posted by ColoradoJens
It's against the law. Again, we have laws that control the idea of religion in government. Do you disagree with the idea of seraration of church and state? Thanks.
ColoradoJens

Yes I disagree with it because I know the history of how the separation powers came to be and that she has just as much right to her religious expression as you have a right not to fear her religious views won't be made into a state Religion, you know,, sort of like Darwin's Evolution has become for Atheists.

I can honestly say you are the first person to come outright and say to me that you are against seperation of church and state. Most people hide it within various arguments. Your reasoning for disagreeing with it I don't understand. Can you explain how "the history of how the separation powers came to be" is your stated reason for disagreeing with it. Please elucidate. The remainder of the quote does not make sense to me. Perhaps I am slow

I think the Government goes too far when they take down WW ll landmarks of a Giant Cross or the ten commandments and many other traditional icons of our Nations history whether they are "no longer in style" for many or those that whine saying things like that offend them but if you don't like the websites pics of their lesbian lovers latest my space pic wearing her Bimbo in Bondage latex and Playtex, you are told to just close your eyes if it bothers you.

Your opinions are just that. Opinions. You are, as you have noted several time, entitled to them. In regard to the ten commandments, they are not a "traditional icon of our Nations history" rather than of all Christendom; What Giant Cross and why was it taken down - source?
Again, you seem to have a hard time distinguishing this one simple fact that you and I live under a form of government that made it a point to add to the fabric of the nation by proclaiming in it's constitution that we will specifically give all religions the freedom to practice in peace, and no religious screed will be inherited by a SECULAR govt. NOT A THEOCRACY.(and why are you so intent on throwing out the homosexual references? Are you still angry at Ted Haggard?)

I see the separation powers being used by the ACLU to keep any conservative voice from having any say at all because where ever you get your frame of reference, what ever becomes your standard of truth whether you read it in the Bible and it makes sense to you and you believe it, OR you get it out of the latest "New Woman" magazine or from one of the girls at your last "power lunch" it doesn't mean someone who thinks Marriage should be only between a man and a woman,is because it is religion but it will be INSISTED upon that is what it is by Gays.

The ACLU wasn't around in 1776. Again, a gay reference and then more that has me baffled. Again, I'm slow so forgive.

It shouldn't matter if someone DID develop their philosophical views from reading books but as long as that book isnt the BIBLE! I mean you can believe in any God you want, they tell us, AS LONG AS IT ISN'T THAT ONE NAMED JESUS!

Here is an untrue but hypothetical situation: Barak Obama proclaims that he is Indeed a Muslim and that his intent when President is to alter the constitution and begin Sharia Law. I would post the same thing against Obama. It doesn't matter what religion. Again, by your posts, you clearly have no idea about my faith or religion nor do I hope you ever do. Why are you saying this? The discussion is about the separation of church and state. Regardless of religion, again.

I am already having images flashing in my mind of Sam Harris taking such a frivolous law suit all the way to the supreme court with the ACLU there making sure he has his rights to freedom of speech protected but my speech had the word God in it which means religious which means I can't say it because we were in the Motor Vehicles Dept and that is Government employees there and yata yata .

Ah, what? This sounds like something my aunt Judy, or Ju-Ju as we like to call her would say.

The separation of Church and State is not even mentioned in the constitution and you know it and you know how it got there but you will use a stretch of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists to mean what we have today. Now I don't have a problem with Church and State, in fact I am counting on it protecting us when Muslims say it doesn't say Mosque and State and want to install Sharia Law here as they did in the UK.
HOWEVER,, I think I see people talking about this as much as you have been and I think your fears are for the most part, baseless .
ex]

No, no Jefferson. How about a couple statements from James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"


Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

You also at first stated you disagree with the separation powers and then now you say you want them to keep out the Muslims. You can't have it both ways. It is the will of the people, not God (s).

ColoradoJens

[edit on 24-10-2008 by ColoradoJens]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537

Palin isn't trying to push her beliefs on anyone, so why worry about it?


Really? I wonder if her grandson is real excited about the promise of more Faith Based abstinence only education that worked sooooo well for his mommy. I also wonder if the self declared 'single' guy feels at all pushed by her beliefs by being, well pushed to marry her promiscuous and sexually ignorant daughter. I cannot wait until every school has a daycare because children are no longer alowed to learn where babies come from.

[edit on 24/10/08 by Tiamanicus]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
It doesn't matter what religion.


Actually I would have to disagree with you on this. If you can point out where it says in the NEW TESTAMENT to go out and kill a Muslim hiding behind a tree, I will apologize for saying you haven't a clue.

It is a known fact that the KORAN states just that, except I believe it mentions killing a JEW hiding behind a tree, or perhaps it states a heretic I forget which, but my main point is that by the very nature of the muslim holy book saying that it makes it a dangerous religion.

Again, in the NEW TESTAMENT which all practicing Christians know is what we are to live by, it never once tells followers of Jesus to go out and kill the infidels, or heretics, or Jews!!!

So, on the one hand you have the Christian Bible that has no command or incitement to do harm to another because of the fact that they believe differently, and on the other you have the Koran which states exactly that.

Now I know I will have some moderate non fundamental Muslim come on here and tell me that is not what it really says, but it is being interpreted in the wrong way.

But if that is the case, then why so much hatred toward Christians and Jews, and Buddhists, etc. and I can back that up with numerous examples from antiquity to present.

** Edit to add...And don't even try to use the lame old excuse of the inquisition or crusades. We true Christians know this was mandated by evil men and NOT GOD...and NOWHERE in the Bible did it state to do that!





[edit on 24-10-2008 by TH3ON3]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 



But if an Athiest or New Ager or whoever else gets in office they will not change the constitution (To Include homosexual marriages,humanistic experimenting on humans and animals,cloneing and GOD Knows whatever else ) ...and they will not push any liberal ideas down anyones throats in speeches or in passing bills etc right >?They are all just gonna sit around and sing cumbya ...and or course invite all of the Evangelicals or Christians to come on up to the white house and eat a steak with ya right ? ....yeah ok.

Is that right ?Because thats what I am seeing on these threads ..double standards ...and one accusing the other of doing something that the other wants to do ..Is this jealousy or what ?


Here is a good line of thougt to consider as again, the constition prohibits this:


The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State. (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).


Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832 & Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).


Said by the Father of the Constitution of the United States of America, James Madison

ColoradoJens

[edit on 24-10-2008 by ColoradoJens]



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TH3ON3
 



Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Article Six establishes the Constitution, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding." It also validates national debt created under the Articles of Confederation and requires that all federal and state legislators, officers, and judges take oaths or affirmations to support the Constitution. This means that the states' constitutions and laws should not conflict with the laws of the federal constitution and that in case of a conflict, state judges are legally bound to honor the federal laws and constitution over those of any state.

Article Six also states "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


Please explain how your story about some guy behind a tree in the Koran relates to this. Islam existed in 1787. Also, it's pretty weak to say yours is a kind and benevolent God only when in your own Bible, I think HE did some pretty upsetting things...
I think the difference is that I understand that the founding fathers of this country were a lot smarter than me - or you.

ColoradoJens



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
[
Please explain how your story about some guy behind a tree in the Koran relates to this. Islam existed in 1787. Also, it's pretty weak to say yours is a kind and benevolent God only when in your own Bible, I think HE did some pretty upsetting things...
I think the difference is that I understand that the founding fathers of this country were a lot smarter than me - or you.

ColoradoJens


Well would you be kind to the millions of Muslims that would demand you shut up because your a woman? Would you be kind to the muslim who beats you because you had the audacity to talk back to him. Would you be kind to the "false christian" that killed you because you thought it ok to have an abortion?

That's how!

You see GOD is much smarter than everyone put together, and if He want's to exact justice on the true pagans of this world He will do it regardless of whether you think it right or not.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TH3ON3
 


Look, the discussion is about the separaton of C&S and I raised the question if her integrity regarding that issue may be difficult to maintain. I am against ANY religion absorbing government power - it isn't about who's is good bad or ugly. Let me pose a question, you continue to demean the entire Muslim faith and pray one does not enter the office. Why will a Muslim change our constitution any more than a Christian? By the way Obama is a christian, you know this, correct? But that is moot in the argument; If a buddhist came to office you'd be screaming for separation of church and state. The same goes with Hinduism, Judiasm, or even the Latter Day Saints! YOU are now determining through your world wide wisdom who is good, who is bad, who deserves what punishment, etc. I am merely defending the constitution of the United States.

Edit to add: If indeed there came the day that Sharia Law took hold in this country, it would be a government by the people, for the people as in elected officials would be the only was to pass it. But don't hold your breath...

Also, check this out - it sounds like your kind of church. Strange that the second priest echos my sentiments. Sounds like a division within the ranks or is it as the newspiece says, not accepted by the mainstream church? Their sign reads: 'Annihilate Islam' :

www.liveleak.com...

ColoradoJens

[edit on 24-10-2008 by ColoradoJens]

[edit on 25-10-2008 by ColoradoJens]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 





You know as well as I do that the ACLU was not in existence back then but I guess you couldn't resist with that comment.

It was a delight to see we have SOME things we can agree on and I apologize for coming off presumptuous but the reason I said I get it that you hate religion is because I can't imagine myself going to that much trouble having that much "fear" as you call it without having one helluva an angst for Religion. No you didn'nt say you hated it but everything you said sure didn't offer any affinity for it . I suppose you could have taken my post as saying I was totally against C&S but I mentioned that I am counting on it and I was serious about that.

I see you are a James Madison Fan, and so am I. I like James Madison for saying things like this



when the United States Constitution was officially ratified, the drafters granted freedom of and from religion to those who wished to be part of America. However, as time passed, this freedom of and from religion began to take on new interpretations that the original drafters of the Constitution may not have foreseen.

Technically, the Establishment Clause does not mention ANYTHING about a "separation between church and state." the idea, originated from a letter written by President Jefferson to the Danbury Connecticut Baptists to support the "Establishment" Clause, has now become a major source of discussion in the Supreme Court. In fact, the Establishment Clause is fiction, it doesn't exist PERIOD.

This idea that their is a "separation between church and state" has been the deciding factor for many Supreme Court decisions that have little to do with establishing a national religion.


January 1, 1802, represents the creation of the phrase, "separation between church and state." Now keep in mind the letter Jefferson wrote to the danbury Batists where his use of the word "wall" was just another way he was trying to describe the ammendment and was merely speaking extemporaneuously without really meaning such a line exists. In fact The Establishment Clause "affirmatively mandates accommodations, not merely tolerance, of all religions, but forbids hostility toward any."

The Establishment Clause, like the Due Process Clauses, is not some legalese written as an enforceable provision capable of ready application. The purpose of the Establishment Clause 'was to state an objective, not to write a statute. The last area of concern is the way it has been used singling out Christianity, as is it is the only thing these Atheists who make this their lifes mission to sue the Government using the establishment clause as a tool to single out and attack Christianity while other religions,, I just don't see them being kicked out of Schools, Libraray's etc. The fact is the Government has NO right to keep Bibles out of Public Schools no more than it has any right to keep the any Books about Wicca or Scientology out.

The biggest area of hypocrisy is this push to pidgeon hole God into being about religion. Example Dover VS Kitzmiller where we see ID said to be about creationism ie; GOD = Religion when God according to Dawkins doesn't exist and ID only attempts to explore the possibilities but to say GOD is about religion so he isn't allowed to be researched is ludicrous. Just what Religion is God anyway?

If Man can make God a religion he can make darwinism one also and if I am not mistaken only Darwin was actually in a religion for a time.

The fear of religious implications attached to things like this isn't about God and has nothing to do with any Concept of God I have heard of

GOD is NOT synonymous with a particular religion but religions are created around the figure and we see a dogmatism begin and behaviors similar to what we see in every single Christianity VS Atheist thread I have ever seen here and BOTH camps look so similar in their arguments and their passion it gets hard to tell which one is the Religion and which one is the antithesis of Religion.

If the separation powers is to keep religion at bay then it is equally incumbent to it keep BOTH from usurping GOD for its self or to alienate God from any part of the Government as it says, one nation UNDER GOD. Where the same Constitution seeks to throw GOD under the bus



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


What is the difference between Christian fundimentalists and the Taliban?
Wardrobe!



[edit on 25-10-2008 by Office 4256]

[edit on 25-10-2008 by Office 4256]




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join