Minneapolis Finder Forum MN
RegisterSearchTutorialsMemberlistLog in
Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2
quotes
Author Message
Reply with quote
Post  
Thanks for the quote above. I read a bit about the guy quoted, he led an interesting life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis

Reply with quote
Post  
I'm in the midst of training for my first full marathon (Grandma's on June 18th in Duluth), so this one resonated with me:

"The genuine marathoner is a rare breed indeed: half athlete and half poet; part rock-bottom pragmatist and part sky-high idealist; completely, even defiantly individual and yet irrevocably joined to a select group almost tribal in its shared rituals and aspirations."

Joel Homer, Marathons: The Ultimate Challenge

Reply with quote
Post  
"If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition - and then admit that we just don’t want to do it." ~Stephen Colbert

Reply with quote
Post  
Interesting that the Left only hauls out the "Christian Nation" moniker when they want to shame us into following their policies, and roundly denies the notion when anyone wants to publicly display any symbolism attached to that belief system, or seek any support for private institutions that contribute to the common good despite their religious origins, or preserve laws that require some modicum of public decency for personal conduct.

If you're going to be secular, be secular. Form your social and governmental financial policies on prudent national self interest, not charitable ones based on religious philosophy. If religious beliefs are a private and personal matter, then perhaps people acting on those beliefs should be done at their private discretion too, and not forced upon them by government officials who pull out those religious tenets when it's convenient backup for the laws and policies their parties favor. Policies that, incidentally, also manage to rain plenty of taxpayer dollars on the rapidly growing ruling class that depends on the growth of government largesse distribution to widen its political base and influence.

If you're going to quote Christianity as the basis for your argument, remember one particular line that Christ said: "The poor you shall always have with you..."

Reply with quote
Post  
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who tout America as a Christian nation. That sure struck a nerve, huh?

It's not the secular who cite Christianity as the basis for public policy.

Reply with quote
Post  
Can't have it both ways, Dora. Reread the quote.

When you're using the terms "if this is going to be", "we've got to" "or we've got to", that clearly communicates that if you accept the premise, then you've got to follow through with X. Again, it relies on the acceptance of the premise and all that entails.

Personally, I don't accept the premise that this is a Christian nation. One that has many Christians in its population, no doubt. But not operated by Christians nor encoding Christian doctrine as its laws- nor should it be. Want a theocracy? Try Iran. That's a Muslim nation, following Muslim law, not just one that happens to have a Muslim majority. There's a difference.

It struck no nerve for me personally, aside from the amusing hypocrisy of people who shunt aside and mock religion at every opportunity, yet use it to browbeat others into accepting their collectivist philosophy as a logical extension of religious beliefs that they themselves do not share.

Further amusing that this discussion falls after a week in which Michelle Bachman found and channeled her inner Iowan while on the stump testing the presidential waters. Funny how people can pull things out that serve their interests at the time, and just as quickly throw a blanket over them when they don't. I'll be she won't be giving that speech in Stillwater when she's running to retain her seat in Congress.



Last edited by thrice on Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Reply with quote
Post  
thrice wrote:
Can't have it both ways, Dora. Reread the quote.

When you're using the terms "if this is going to be", "we've got to" "or we've got to", that clearly communicates that if you accept the premise, then you've got to follow through with X. Again, it relies on the acceptance of the premise and all that entails.

Personally, I don't accept the premise that this is a Christian nation.


Right. Then the rest of the quote doesn't apply to you.

It's an if-then statement. Addressed to those who go around trumpeting the "if" part of the statement as fact, but refuse to accept the "then" correlation. Those who reject the "if" part of the equation have no obligation to accept the "then." You're fine. That's the point.

They hypocrisy isn't coming from those who point out the logical black hole in those who are religious. THey're not saying Christianity should be used for public policy. THey're saying, "If YOU think that, then you better understand what Christianity actually entails."

Reply with quote
Post  
Can't disagree with that a whit.

Display posts from previous:
Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
Goto page Previous  1, 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum