Who's the bigger offender: Conservatives or Liberals?

Tell that to the bank.We've been through this before. Suppose your father leaves you a house but the mortgage isn't paid off. You don't want to "take anything back" - except the remaining payments of the mortgage. You want the bank to feel the same. You want them to wipe the slate clean. After the loan officer stops laughing, what do you think he'll say? See above. Making people pay their debts IS likely to make them mad. Is that a reason not to pay debts?

Jar mentions that it is a Christian duty
.. I disagree. It is not my duty to pay my countries "debts" from times before my own.The mortgage analogy is not applicable. As far back in family history as i see we had no llegal obligations...morally or otherwise. You cant sock a national bill to individuals and make them pay except by 2/3 vote.And its not our debt. If so one must legally
document it and have the bill pass both houses.And im not arguing against helping anyone except the justificatiin and method used.Make a legal bill. Make it every voters duty. See if it will pass. Until then we the people individually have our own bills.Edited by Phat, : Spell

What are you implying? Its not a racial issue. Its an economic and legal one. Or it should be. Tbe race card is overused and excessive. Im not out to exploit anyone nor be exploited. We all have one thing in common. We all are Americans.

For the vast majority of US Christians, particularly those who claim to be "Biblical" or "Evangelical" or "Fundamentalist" Christians are all part of the three big Christian Cults of Ignorance and Greed and Immorality; the "What's in it for ME?" cult.Phat could certainly be called the prototypical example.

Im moving beyond just blessing me. I realize tbe value a d benefit to blessing others. What i am against is power politics and mandatory helping of others determined to be in special need by the government. The individual or subgroup should never have a government with any agenda.

Did God build the Ark? During the Exodus did the people have to walk, to gather the mana, the honey, the wild partridges and prepare the food themselves? Did God harvest the surplus, build the granaries, store the surplus and distribute it to the needy? Did God gather up the surplus at the fish fry and distribute it to the hungry? Did Jesus tell us to feed the hungry, comfort the sorrowful, clothe the naked, protect the weak, shelter the homeless, heal the sick?Did some form of government or leadership supervise and orchestrate the activities?

Ye, but what's the point? My argument is that no government (especially a secular humanistic one) has any moral high ground to make the people build anything (back better!) nor should people be forced to give up the beliefs that they have in their heart for the alleged benefit of all. Again, our current government has less intelligence and does NOT know what's best for us. Biden seems as if he loses his train of thought and mumbles off-topic, which scares me because Kamala Harris would be even less qualified to run the place. (Not that Trump was any better, however! ) That's why I say to AZ Paul that his plan to eliminate religion will never get the clear majority to implement that it needs.I believe that the rights of the family supersede the rights of government. The nation is not my higher power. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You are pitiful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!It's not a higher power, it is a tool to allow us to try to do what is right, to acknowledge our manifold sins and wickedness, sincerely regret our past behavior and try to make amends and not repeat past mistakes.

Pretty please...

The Plan^© is to jawbone all the world until you submit!Actually, if the enlightenment of secular human thought continues as it has these last 200 years then religion will eliminate itself by the continued exposure to its own stupidity.I admit it will be a long process but I am confident we can achieve a world majority of secular philosophies before nature makes us go prematurely extinct.

Nor does any government hold a Freedonian Charter. So what? What does any question of whether a government has a "moral high ground" says nothing about its ability to function and to provide for its citizens and other inhabitants.It looks like you're trying to invoke something like that crackpot idea fundies keep hawking about "absolute morality", that nobody can possibly act morally nor can any morality exist unless there exists some "absolute morality" (which they will of course falsely claim to possess). Not only does not such thing as "absolute morality" even exist, but such a requirement as described above also does not exist. Nor do the advocates for "absolute morality" themselves follow that "absolute morality" that they claim to possess -- indeed, they refuse to follow it, sometimes even claiming that they are not subject to it (because Jesus) but rather non-believers are (I shit thee not, I have seen that claim made by "true Christians"™).So what the hell was your point? So where and how is that supposed to happening?Also, please note how EWolf has not repented of calling for the government to impose religious indoctrination on public school children. Plus he has ignored the issue of the parents' own wishes, so the religion in which those students would be indoctrinated would not be of the parents' choosing and that would happen in the vast majority of cases.How would that sit with you? For one thing, our current government has a dysfunctionally split personality: the one party which is trying to govern for the benefit of the nation and of the populaton, the other party is the GQP (formerly known as the GOP) which is trying to turn its Reagan era mantra of "government doesn't work" by seizing power by any means possible, including trying to steal the election, to turn that mantra into a self-fulfilling prophesy.For another thing, many of us do not know what's best for us. Which is evidenced by the MAGAts and other Republicans persistently voting against their own interest (eg, deprive themselves of medical coverage, close many medical facilities closed (especially in rural areas), destroy any hopes for retirement, literally take the food out of the mouths of their families, encourage businesses to send jobs overseas, drive our economy into the shitter, etc).I've told this story before, but my brother-in-law is a life-long Republican and still is. A few years after he had retired we were watching the news covering what the Bush-43 Congress Republicans were pushing for and he commented, "Now that I'm retired I've come to realize that the Republicans are not my friends." And yet he continued to vote for Republicans, though this Thanksgiving he stated that he had not voted for Trump in 2020.Rather, in order to work out what's best for us is to work together as we are meant to as per the Preamble to the US Constitution:

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

We have the mandate to govern ourselves through the Constitution. Nobody else will do it if we don't -- or rather all manner of authoritarians will gladly step in to seize total power by destroying the Constitution, Trump being the current one but others will follow. And false appeals to non-existent requirements some "moral high ground" have nothing whatsoever to do with it. The elimination of religion cannot and will not be accomplished by the government as long as the Constitution and the First Amendment religious protections are still being implemented. If a dictator takes over as the GQP is attempting to do, then whatever the President For Life says about religion will be the law -- that's how dictatorships work.Rather, the elimination of religion will be accomplished by the people voting with their feet; ie, by everybody leaving religion. That is independent of any government (unless it's a religious dictatorship in which case everybody except for members of the government-chosen church is in deep yoghurt). To my knowledge, governments do not have rights, but rather they have powers. In contrast, it is the people (which according to the Roberts court includes corporations) who have rights.So what are you trying to say there? What powers of the government do you see being in conflict with what rights of the family? You're not making any sense. Uh, yes, it is. Which is to say that you are within the jurisdiction of the government and subject to its laws. So, yet again, what is your point?Or are you taking the whacko Hovind-esque path of claiming to be a sovereign citizen who is not subject to US laws. That landed Hovind in federal prison for ten years on tax fraud. If this is what you're thinking about, you'd best give it another thought. And just what the hell is with that nondescript video that you're trying to sneak in? Does it even have anything to do with the topic? It must not, since you are too ashamed of it to saying anything.If you cannot say anything about a video, why should any of us even think of watching it? It's just yet another f*cking useless bare link.

Hey AZPaul3, since we are on the subject I thought it appropriate you post this here.Opinion | Is the West Becoming Pagan Again? - The New York TimesSeems christian is losing faster than I thought.

quote:

---

The millennial generation, which includes most adult Americans under 40, is the first one in which Christians are a minority.

---

One generation at a time. Progress.Onward Secular Soldiers!Edited by AZPaul3, : title

Of course you are. Germany was still paying off its World War ONE debts until recently. (If it makes you feel any better, Hitler agreed with you.) Tell us how it isn't. If you inherit a house, how do you not inherit the associated debts? You seem to be confused about the distinction between legal and moral obligations. The laws were made by the same people who owned the slaves, so you can guess they would let themselves off the hook. But morally, if you inherit the benefits, how can you refuse to pay for them? You can't throw a scum-sucking asshole like Trump out of office either if the scum-sucking assholes in the Senate don't vote for it. Refusing to do what's right doesn't stop it from being right. Again, think about what's right, not what you can get away with legally. You're arguing against paying your moral debts.

So, by your logic, giving black children a second-rate education because we "can't afford" an equal education is an economic issue, not a racial one. But you're out to take advantage of your ancestors' exploitation.

The "moral high ground" isn't very high compared to the example that believers are setting. It's the old joke: We don't have to be more moral than the bear. We only have to be more moral than YOU. Nobody's "forcing" you to give up your beliefs. They're not even asking you to give up your beliefs. They're asking you to pay your debts. And you're wrong.. Remember the Good Samaritan?