America as seen from abroad.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Man, every time I come on to this site it's politics or religion. Yea we have the space for it but what about kicking it out of recent posts?  Admin- how about it? I'm here for the hunting end of it, I can go else where for the political and religion end of things.

As long as it stays in this section of the forum, and doesnt get too crazy or obscene, its fine. Thats what this section was created for.

[Geno C]

New threats to our liberty:

 

  HEALTHCARE BILL!!  Look what just happened last yr in America!!

 

Scary thought- everyone having access to health care.  That'll be the end of us.

Everyone has access currently.

I don't want to be forced to pay for someone elses.

+1

[2BRKnot2B]

I guess you guys only have the ability to attack the messenger and not the message.  What's the matter, the article too deep for you to discuss?

    It's not that the message is too deep, it's that the messenger is too shallow.  Anyone who uses theology in the context of a political discussion is not to be taken seriously.

So, a Pope who advocated against another religion (Islam), sought to wage war on that religion, for a region of the world (political) which he did not control is injecting theology into politics, and should be discounted? You're insane! Your belief trumps everyone else? You may not be religious, but religion and politics ism and always has been, interconnected. Even our nation was founded on religious principles, and morality. You leftists on here will say you can speak freely, but someone else may not because they inject religion? Last I saw, the first amendment covered both speech and religion. Can you accept one while denying the other? Well, the same applies to the 2A. Yet, you have no trouble insisting that some limits may be placed if they are "common sense," or have some other value to "state security." Bunch of BS.

[virgil]

So, a Pope who advocated against another religion (Islam), sought to wage war on that religion, for a region of the world (political) which he did not control is injecting theology into politics, and should be discounted? You're insane! Your belief trumps everyone else? You may not be religious, but religion and politics ism and always has been, interconnected. Even our nation was founded on religious principles, and morality. You leftists on here will say you can speak freely, but someone else may not because they inject religion? Last I saw, the first amendment covered both speech and religion. Can you accept one while denying the other? Well, the same applies to the 2A. Yet, you have no trouble insisting that some limits may be placed if they are "common sense," or have some other value to "state security." Bunch of BS.

What the hell are you talking about?  Did you forget to take your meds?  You're all over the map.

And, when exactly did the Pope declare war?  I must have missed that one.  I've been to the Vatican- didn't see any signs of an army.  Seriously, what are you talking about?

[2BRKnot2B]

So, a Pope who advocated against another religion (Islam), sought to wage war on that religion, for a region of the world (political) which he did not control is injecting theology into politics, and should be discounted? You're insane! Your belief trumps everyone else? You may not be religious, but religion and politics ism and always has been, interconnected. Even our nation was founded on religious principles, and morality. You leftists on here will say you can speak freely, but someone else may not because they inject religion? Last I saw, the first amendment covered both speech and religion. Can you accept one while denying the other? Well, the same applies to the 2A. Yet, you have no trouble insisting that some limits may be placed if they are "common sense," or have some other value to "state security." Bunch of BS.

What the hell are you talking about?  Did you forget to take your meds?  You're all over the map.

And, when exactly did the Pope declare war?  I must have missed that one.  I've been to the Vatican- didn't see any signs of an army.  Seriously, what are you talking about?

Please do try to follow the conversation. The Pope isn't the current one. The premise is that religion & politics is intermingled. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so, and maks you look ignorant, and ridiculous.

[virgil]

The Pope isn't the current one. The premise is that religion & politics is intermingled. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so, and maks you look ignorant, and ridiculous.

So, exactly which Pope did declare war?  And, who ever said that politics and religion are not intermingled?  And, in my opinion, mispelling simple words makes you look more ignorant.

[2BRKnot2B]

The Pope isn't the current one. The premise is that religion & politics is intermingled. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so, and maks you look ignorant, and ridiculous.

So, exactly which Pope did declare war?  And, who ever said that politics and religion are not intermingled?  And, in my opinion, mispelling simple words makes you look more ignorant.

Pope Gregory VIII. If a typing faux pas makes me look ignorant, than being even more irrationally ignorant of history makes you look like what?

[nyantler]

Virgil knows very well the history he is constantly making up with no proof of what he says... Ignorant is a very good word to discribe him... he's a good spelling analyst though just ask him..

[Mr VJP]

Virgil, when you visited the Vatican, were you awake.  There's a whole army there you must've thought were an entertainment troupe.

January 22nd,  1506, is the official date of birth of the Pontifical Swiss Guard, because on  that day, towards the evening, a group of one hundred and fifty Swiss soldiers  commanded by Captain Kasparvon Silenen, of Canton Uri, passed through the Porta  del Popolo and entered for the first time the Vatican, where they were blessed by  Pope Julius II. The prelate Johann Burchard of Stras­bourg, Master of Pontifical Ceremonies  at that time, and author of a famous chronicle, noted the event in his diary.  In actual fact Pope Sixtus IV made a previous alliance in 1497 with the  Confederates, which forsaw the possibility of recruiting mercenaries, and he  had barracks built for them near where there is, still today, the small Church of St. Pellegrino,  in Via Pellegrino in Vatican City.  Later, renewing the old pact, Innocent VIII (1484-1492) also desired to make  use of them against the Duke of Milan. And Alexander VI also engaged  Confederate soldiers during the time of the alliance between the Borgia family  and the King of France. While the Borgias were so powerful the so called  Italian Wars began in which the Swiss soldiers were always present, in the  front line, at times for France,  and at others to support the Holy See or the Holy Roman  Empire ruled by a German sovereign. When the Swiss mercenaries heard  that Charles VIII, King of France, was planning a great expedition against Naples, they flocked to  enlist. Towards the end of the year 1494, thousands of them were in Rome, passing through with the French army, which in  February of the following year, occupied Naples.  Among the participants in that expedition against Naples,  there was also Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, future Pope Julius II, who under  Pope Alexander VI had left Italy  and gone to France.  He was well aquainted with the Swiss, because some twenty years earlier he had  been granted as one of many benefices, the Bishopric of Lausanne. A few months  later however, Charles VIII was forced to abandon Naples  in all haste and he barely succeeded in forcing a blockade and escaping to France. In fact  Pope Alexander VI had connected Milan, Venice, the Germanic  Empire and Ferdinand the Catholic to form a barrier against the French.

[virgil]

I still don't get your point about the Pope declaring war in the first place.  How was that relevant?

[Mr VJP]

It relates to the statement in your post.

"Anyone who uses theology in the context of a political discussion is not to be taken seriously."

[virgil]

It relates to the statement in your post.

"Anyone who uses theology in the context of a political discussion is not to be taken seriously."

  My statement was referring to a politician who uses his own personal religious leanings to form his political platform.

[arrowflinger]

It relates to the statement in your post.

"Anyone who uses theology in the context of a political discussion is not to be taken seriously."

  My statement was referring to a politician who uses his own personal religious leanings to form his political platform.

Like Pat Robertson.

[Mr VJP]

And Barack Obama.

[2BRKnot2B]

Why is it always only a one way street? Politics, and religion have been intertwined since time immemorial. Ra, the sun god of Egypt was the "king of Egypt.' A politcal/religious figure. Nimrod was a great king, and the author of the Babylonian religion, which later was inculcated into the Roman Catholic religion with some minor changes to "Christianize" the unGodly (see Jeremiah 10) things which God/Jesus denounced in the Pagan/Heathen religions. The Pope was in cahoots with Charlemagne. Successive kings in Europe have always worked for the blessing of the Pope. The Vatican is it's own country within a country, has its own military.

History is replete with rulers thought of as gods. The Nipponese(Japanese), and more. The ignorance of the people here astounds me. They are worried about typo's more than education.

[virgil]

Why is it always only a one way street? Politics, and religion have been intertwined since time immemorial. Ra, the sun god of Egypt was the "king of Egypt.' A politcal/religious figure. Nimrod was a great king, and the author of the Babylonian religion, which later was inculcated into the Roman Catholic religion with some minor changes to "Christianize" the unGodly (see Jeremiah 10) things which God/Jesus denounced in the Pagan/Heathen religions. The Pope was in cahoots with Charlemagne. Successive kings in Europe have always worked for the blessing of the Pope. The Vatican is it's own country within a country, has its own military.

History is replete with rulers thought of as gods. The Nipponese(Japanese), and more. The ignorance of the people here astounds me. They are worried about typo's more than education.

The point was, and still is, that religion has no place in government in this country.  Sure, history is filled with examples where there are one and the same- that's no longer relevant.

Your refusal to acknowledge anyone else's beliefs or opinions, and your ability to copy and paste examples of your outdated ideas does not make our opinions invalid. 

I'm really not hung up on typos- we all make mistakes.  But, when you're trying to represent yourself as having a more valuable opinion than anyone who doesn't agree, the least you can do is use basic english skills.  And, the ability to regurgitate or use Google to find information to support your beliefs does not imply that you have a superior education.  In my opinion, more educated people are usually more open-minded and forward thinking.

[Mr VJP]

Virgil, am I to understand you do not think religious people can be highly educated?  Am I to believe some of the greatest minds of our time, Scientists, Doctors, Physicists, etc. do not, or didn't believe in God?

Is that what you believe?

[virgil]

Virgil, am I to understand you do not think religious people can be highly educated?  Am I to believe some of the greatest minds of our time, Scientists, Doctors, Physicists, etc. do not, or didn't believe in God?

Is that what you believe?

    No.  I never said nor intended to imply any such thing.  I do, however, think that someone's religious beliefs can negatively impact their ability to be receptive to science and reason.

[Localqdm]

Virgil said,"The point was, and still is, that religion has no place in government in this country."

Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, etc, openly referenced their religion in their government.

The Constitutional Congress hired (with tax dollars) a Christian chaplain for the house and one for the senate, as one of the 1st things they did.  Their (general) faith in God was considered to have quite an important place in our government. 

I just want to know why you have no place for others to include God in the government of this country, as it was set up. 

[Mr VJP]

Virgil, am I to understand you do not think religious people can be highly educated?  Am I to believe some of the greatest minds of our time, Scientists, Doctors, Physicists, etc. do not, or didn't believe in God?

Is that what you believe?

    No.  I never said nor intended to imply any such thing.  I do, however, think that someone's religious beliefs can negatively impact their ability to be receptive to science and reason.

OK, I'll give you that, with some people.  But I'll disagree that religion has no place in government in this country.

[Localqdm]

what they wanted to avoid was a police church/state like the roman catholic control in the middle ages or the church of england, etc.  Under these systems the gov't persecuted those deemed unfaithful to the state religion. 

What was established here was quite different (and good)  in that they recognized freedom for each to worship as they saw right, without persecution, but we were given the right to acknowledge God in every aspect of our lives including government.

[nyantler]

Why is it always only a one way street? Politics, and religion have been intertwined since time immemorial. Ra, the sun god of Egypt was the "king of Egypt.' A politcal/religious figure. Nimrod was a great king, and the author of the Babylonian religion, which later was inculcated into the Roman Catholic religion with some minor changes to "Christianize" the unGodly (see Jeremiah 10) things which God/Jesus denounced in the Pagan/Heathen religions. The Pope was in cahoots with Charlemagne. Successive kings in Europe have always worked for the blessing of the Pope. The Vatican is it's own country within a country, has its own military.

History is replete with rulers thought of as gods. The Nipponese(Japanese), and more. The ignorance of the people here astounds me. They are worried about typo's more than education.

The point was, and still is, that religion has no place in government in this country.  Sure, history is filled with examples where there are one and the same- that's no longer relevant.

Your refusal to acknowledge anyone else's beliefs or opinions, and your ability to copy and paste examples of your outdated ideas does not make our opinions invalid. 

I'm really not hung up on typos- we all make mistakes.  But, when you're trying to represent yourself as having a more valuable opinion than anyone who doesn't agree, the least you can do is use basic english skills.  And, the ability to regurgitate or use Google to find information to support your beliefs does not imply that you have a superior education.  In my opinion, more educated people are usually more open-minded and forward thinking.

And your opinion is just that an opinion.. my observation is different.. I usually find that the more book educated a person is the less common sense he usually has... and my opinion of an open mind is someone who hasn't found the truth yet and is still searching.

Regurgitating facts, whether from google or wherever, are still facts.. but you see.. open minded people have trouble with facts because it means they finally have a truth where they can make up their mind yet that would mean a committment... and from my observations open minded people are not good with committment

[Culvercreek hunt club]

It relates to the statement in your post.

"Anyone who uses theology in the context of a political discussion is not to be taken seriously."

  My statement was referring to a politician who uses his own personal religious leanings to form his political platform.

Their religious beliefs form their character and define their moral fiber. It is their beliefs.....and those beliefs frame their leanings in the political arena. There is nothing wrong with it....identify the ones that are most closely aligned with you beliefs and that you believe will follow through in their promises and that is the candidate you vote for. I want a candidate that holds certain principles and values . those are the candidates I support. Regardless of your assertions it is a component of a political candidate. a candidate that runs on a platform of no religious leanings....a declared atheist.....may attract voters that are like minded. I can't think of an atheist that has been elected to a major office in this country though...must be the people really don't have as big of an issue with religious views forming political leanings as you do

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Virgil, am I to understand you do not think religious people can be highly educated?  Am I to believe some of the greatest minds of our time, Scientists, Doctors, Physicists, etc. do not, or didn't believe in God?

Is that what you believe?

    No.  I never said nor intended to imply any such thing.  I do, however, think that someone's religious beliefs can negatively impact their ability to be receptive to science and reason.

one could make an argument on the opposite as well...someones lack of any religious belief  and corresponding moral guide lines could negatively inpact their ability for reason (so anti religion that they are not tolerent of others who believe). They could ...could...could. It is not a guarantee either way. Any religion and the moral guides that accompany them (not talking obout the radical view and perversions that have taken place) are not a bad thing. The total rejection of religion and the moral decay of many aspects of this country has directly coincided with the decrease in popularity of the organized religions. 

[2BRKnot2B]

I actually found it quite insulting that I would be considered such a numbskull that Virgil would think I had to use Google to determine the number of examples of religion & politics mixed. These all came from memory, and from previous study. No use of Google whatsoever. His arguments are from ignorance, or for propaganda purposes solely. His mind numbed drivel is the same I hear from various leftists on various sites. Same old, same old.