Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Give me a break!!! I'm a believer but is the entire country forgetting that we are governed by the Constitution and not the Bible?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=19329" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I agree with voting your morals but are Americans taking it to the extreme?

catamount man wrote:Give me a break!!! I'm a believer but is the entire country forgetting that we are governed by the Constitution and not the Bible?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=19329" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I agree with voting your morals but are Americans taking it to the extreme?

Good point, Catter. Was watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night and he broke it all down. More than 80% of people coming out of exit polls in nine states which had primaries this year said that their vote was based at least somewhat on the religious affiliation, i.e. Christian, of the candidate. Our country may be intractably in the Stone Ages.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

catamount man wrote:Give me a break!!! I'm a believer but is the entire country forgetting that we are governed by the Constitution and not the Bible?

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=19329" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I agree with voting your morals but are Americans taking it to the extreme?

Good point, Catter. Was watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night and he broke it all down. More than 80% of people coming out of exit polls in nine states which had primaries this year said that their vote was based at least somewhat on the religious affiliation, i.e. Christian, of the candidate. Our country may be intractably in the Stone Ages.

I said it before the last election. I was so sick and tired of hearing about the much coveted "undecideds". Undecided = Dipshit. Too lazy to do some research and vote for who they think will do the best job.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Good point, Catter. Was watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night and he broke it all down. More than 80% of people coming out of exit polls in nine states which had primaries this year said that their vote was based at least somewhat on the religious affiliation, i.e. Christian, of the candidate. Our country may be intractably in the Stone Ages.

I said it before the last election. I was so sick and tired of hearing about the much coveted "undecideds". Undecided = Dipshit. Too lazy to do some research and vote for who they think will do the best job.

Or smart enough to realize they have no good choices.

kalm wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
I said it before the last election. I was so sick and tired of hearing about the much coveted "undecideds". Undecided = Dipshit. Too lazy to do some research and vote for who they think will do the best job.

Or smart enough to realize they have no good choices.

Agreed, but I think we all realize the average person doesn't give a shit to do any work at researching candidates or following any of the issues.

Much of what is actually IN the Constitution was based on Biblical principles. So, yes, one could say that to some degree at least, our contry was founded on the Bible.

Does that make us a pure theocracy? Not even close. Humans are still required to run the show here. However, that does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Biblical principles are important. Very important. But there's a limit on what's applicable.

One also has to factor into the argument what principles are of sufficiently high importance to be placed in the Constitution and what is merely statutory level. Dividing up responsibility and authority between branches and between levels of government is clearly Constitution-level, for example. Sure, there will be occasional gripes between branches and between levels, but that's why we have the judicial branch.

Even this is somewhat Biblically based. One man/woman can't handle it all. There's not enough time in the day. So delegation is required. This is essentially what Moses' father-in-law suggested to him when the administrative burden of governing Israel (with all that entails) was threatening his ability to govern. So people were appointed under him to take care of that. While the systems are different, the principle is still there. That's one of the principles that lay behind our split from England to begin with: too few people were deciding things to the detriment of people over here.

So using Biblical principles to govern isn't just Prohibition and regulation of the bedroom. It's more fundamental than that. Many of the things drawn from the Bible lie behind many of the things in our textbooks in various disciplines from history to leadership to law itself. If you remove anything even remotely connected to the Bible from the law, the result will be anarchy.

What of the Constitution is based on the Bible?

And more importantly, why is 99% of the Biblical laws NO WHERE TO BE FOUND THERE?

Crap! I had a good answer here, but before I could post, I got shifted to a blank Bing page. Argh!

Suffice it to say that the Constitution covers structure more than anything else. The Biblical influence on that is pretty much limited to the idea that one man or woman should not be invested with all power because one person can't handle that. There's not enough time in the day or enough brain capacity in any one individual for that.

For a more direct Biblical influence on society, one must look at the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal") and statutory law. Of course, the Bible doesn't cover everything because it was written in times that didn't foresee things like flying machines and nuclear power, but principles still weave their way through everything. Additionally, certain ideas like prohibitions against murder and theft come straight from the Bible. Without them, we would be left with anarchy. For example, without laws based on the Bible, I could steal the contents of your bank account, Jon, and abscond with AZ's wife with no recourse under the law. But I WOULD be justifiably subject to your wrath. The influence of Biblically-based statutory law protects me from your wrath because I am restrained from doing the things that would cause your wrath. We work out the details (jail time, execution, etc.) on our own, but the general concept that one should not take what isn't his (money, spouses, things, etc.) IS based on the Bible. But that is statutory more than anything else.

Many of the OT laws (mainly dealing with the old sacrificial and dietary systems) do not apply because the basis for them have been eliminated. The sacrificial system went away when Rome destroyed the Temple. The dietary laws were declared by the Apostle Paul in the NT to not apply to Gentiles. That's why we don't have to adhere to many of those. Incidentally, though, while those old things were phrased in language we don't understand very well, many of them HAVE stood up under scientific analysis, particularly the dietary regulations. Our modern cooking techniques prevent us from getting the diseases one can get from eating untreated pork, for example. Since they didn't have those techniques back then, it was more prudent to leave it alone.

Mormons make up 2% of the population, so in effect, if the vote is all based on religion, that's about what Mitt should expect to get on election day.

Now, since there is about 12% of the population that is described as African American, and 16% described as Hispanic, there is likely around 28% that are not white, and therefore not likely Mormon.

Romney is in big trouble if it is all about religion.

Romney is in big trouble if he needs much of that 28% of non whites.

Romney is in big trouble if he is expecting a big boost from females, other than those belonging to the Mormons that is.


I hear that he is getting record turnouts from the wealthy 1%, this is some good news for him. And, since money is the real religion in this country, you could say these folks will be voting with their religion in mind..

SuperHornet wrote:Crap! I had a good answer here, but before I could post, I got shifted to a blank Bing page. Argh!

Suffice it to say that the Constitution covers structure more than anything else. The Biblical influence on that is pretty much limited to the idea that one man or woman should not be invested with all power because one person can't handle that. There's not enough time in the day or enough brain capacity in any one individual for that.

For a more direct Biblical influence on society, one must look at the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal") and statutory law. Of course, the Bible doesn't cover everything because it was written in times that didn't foresee things like flying machines and nuclear power, but principles still weave their way through everything. Additionally, certain ideas like prohibitions against murder and theft come straight from the Bible. Without them, we would be left with anarchy. For example, without laws based on the Bible, I could steal the contents of your bank account, Jon, and abscond with AZ's wife with no recourse under the law. But I WOULD be justifiably subject to your wrath. The influence of Biblically-based statutory law protects me from your wrath because I am restrained from doing the things that would cause your wrath. We work out the details (jail time, execution, etc.) on our own, but the general concept that one should not take what isn't his (money, spouses, things, etc.) IS based on the Bible. But that is statutory more than anything else.

Many of the OT laws (mainly dealing with the old sacrificial and dietary systems) do not apply because the basis for them have been eliminated. The sacrificial system went away when Rome destroyed the Temple. The dietary laws were declared by the Apostle Paul in the NT to not apply to Gentiles. That's why we don't have to adhere to many of those. Incidentally, though, while those old things were phrased in language we don't understand very well, many of them HAVE stood up under scientific analysis, particularly the dietary regulations. Our modern cooking techniques prevent us from getting the diseases one can get from eating untreated pork, for example. Since they didn't have those techniques back then, it was more prudent to leave it alone.

SuperHornet wrote:Crap! I had a good answer here, but before I could post, I got shifted to a blank Bing page. Argh!

Suffice it to say that the Constitution covers structure more than anything else. The Biblical influence on that is pretty much limited to the idea that one man or woman should not be invested with all power because one person can't handle that. There's not enough time in the day or enough brain capacity in any one individual for that.

For a more direct Biblical influence on society, one must look at the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal") and statutory law. Of course, the Bible doesn't cover everything because it was written in times that didn't foresee things like flying machines and nuclear power, but principles still weave their way through everything. Additionally, certain ideas like prohibitions against murder and theft come straight from the Bible. Without them, we would be left with anarchy. For example, without laws based on the Bible, I could steal the contents of your bank account, Jon, and abscond with AZ's wife with no recourse under the law. But I WOULD be justifiably subject to your wrath. The influence of Biblically-based statutory law protects me from your wrath because I am restrained from doing the things that would cause your wrath. We work out the details (jail time, execution, etc.) on our own, but the general concept that one should not take what isn't his (money, spouses, things, etc.) IS based on the Bible. But that is statutory more than anything else.

Many of the OT laws (mainly dealing with the old sacrificial and dietary systems) do not apply because the basis for them have been eliminated. The sacrificial system went away when Rome destroyed the Temple. The dietary laws were declared by the Apostle Paul in the NT to not apply to Gentiles. That's why we don't have to adhere to many of those. Incidentally, though, while those old things were phrased in language we don't understand very well, many of them HAVE stood up under scientific analysis, particularly the dietary regulations. Our modern cooking techniques prevent us from getting the diseases one can get from eating untreated pork, for example. Since they didn't have those techniques back then, it was more prudent to leave it alone.

I got a damn good feeling that Jesus, his Apostles and other figures of early Christianity would be sickened to their stomach of the antics of the "moral majority" in this blessed nation. I can assure you Jerry Falwell NEVER spoke for the precious Christ.

catamount man wrote:I got a damn good feeling that Jesus, his Apostles and other figures of early Christianity would be sickened to their stomach of the antics of the "moral majority" in this blessed nation. I can assure you Jerry Falwell NEVER spoke for the precious Christ.

And just what is it exactly that gives you the authority to spew such drivel?

catamount man wrote:I got a damn good feeling that Jesus, his Apostles and other figures of early Christianity would be sickened to their stomach of the antics of the "moral majority" in this blessed nation. I can assure you Jerry Falwell NEVER spoke for the precious Christ.

SuperHornet wrote:

catamount man wrote:I got a damn good feeling that Jesus, his Apostles and other figures of early Christianity would be sickened to their stomach of the antics of the "moral majority" in this blessed nation. I can assure you Jerry Falwell NEVER spoke for the precious Christ.

And just what is it exactly that gives you the authority to spew such drivel?

funny - i often asked myself the same question of Jerry Falwell...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
And just what is it exactly that gives you the authority to spew such drivel?

funny - i often asked myself the same question of Jerry Falwell...

Isn't he a Liberty fan?

My vote is based on fiscal policy, followed by immigration policy.

I value ethics over morality (they are related, but there is a distinction).

Ibanez wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Crap! I had a good answer here, but before I could post, I got shifted to a blank Bing page. Argh!

Suffice it to say that the Constitution covers structure more than anything else. The Biblical influence on that is pretty much limited to the idea that one man or woman should not be invested with all power because one person can't handle that. There's not enough time in the day or enough brain capacity in any one individual for that.

For a more direct Biblical influence on society, one must look at the Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal") and statutory law. Of course, the Bible doesn't cover everything because it was written in times that didn't foresee things like flying machines and nuclear power, but principles still weave their way through everything. Additionally, certain ideas like prohibitions against murder and theft come straight from the Bible. Without them, we would be left with anarchy. For example, without laws based on the Bible, I could steal the contents of your bank account, Jon, and abscond with AZ's wife with no recourse under the law. But I WOULD be justifiably subject to your wrath. The influence of Biblically-based statutory law protects me from your wrath because I am restrained from doing the things that would cause your wrath. We work out the details (jail time, execution, etc.) on our own, but the general concept that one should not take what isn't his (money, spouses, things, etc.) IS based on the Bible. But that is statutory more than anything else.

Many of the OT laws (mainly dealing with the old sacrificial and dietary systems) do not apply because the basis for them have been eliminated. The sacrificial system went away when Rome destroyed the Temple. The dietary laws were declared by the Apostle Paul in the NT to not apply to Gentiles. That's why we don't have to adhere to many of those. Incidentally, though, while those old things were phrased in language we don't understand very well, many of them HAVE stood up under scientific analysis, particularly the dietary regulations. Our modern cooking techniques prevent us from getting the diseases one can get from eating untreated pork, for example. Since they didn't have those techniques back then, it was more prudent to leave it alone.

Ditto.

Romney...hispanic...he's got my vote...

CID1990 wrote:My vote is based on fiscal policy, followed by immigration policy.

Good to see another Ron Paul supporter around here.

SuperHornet wrote:

catamount man wrote:I got a damn good feeling that Jesus, his Apostles and other figures of early Christianity would be sickened to their stomach of the antics of the "moral majority" in this blessed nation. I can assure you Jerry Falwell NEVER spoke for the precious Christ.

And just what is it exactly that gives you the authority to spew such drivel?

Well there is the whole "My kingdom is not of this world" deal that Jesus spoke about but to look at anybody from the "moral majority" from the 70s onward, they've done just about all they can do to have their own "heaven on earth".

grizzaholic wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
funny - i often asked myself the same question of Jerry Falwell...

Isn't he a Liberty fan?

Used to be. But these days, the word "Flames" has taken on a different meaning for him.

SuperHornet wrote:

catamount man wrote:I got a damn good feeling that Jesus, his Apostles and other figures of early Christianity would be sickened to their stomach of the antics of the "moral majority" in this blessed nation. I can assure you Jerry Falwell NEVER spoke for the precious Christ.

And just what is it exactly that gives you the authority to spew such drivel?

religious beliefs aside, the crimes and hate that is done in his name would make him angry. The moral majority want less government but they want to dictate our love life's. Jesus would be upset. Take off your Hello Kitty blinders.

catamount man wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
And just what is it exactly that gives you the authority to spew such drivel?

Well there is the whole "My kingdom is not of this world" deal that Jesus spoke about but to look at anybody from the "moral majority" from the 70s onward, they've done just about all they can do to have their own "heaven on earth".

Cat-man is bringing his A-Game shit... just laying SH out...