Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people?
Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,211 Views)
Coda
Member Avatar
Commander
LOL..! I wish I had an explaination for how I managed to combine all of christiandom under the leadership of the pope, but, all I can say is that I am glad that that was my last post of the evening. If I had visited knob creek any longer and who knows what I may have said.....HA !
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

I must apologize for my earlier crankiness. Being told that the US is responsible for 200,000 children dying - and the words Afghanistan and Iraq not even mentioned - just set me off.

I still think the UN just pulled the numbers out of their often wrong A$$, but it was a startling number.

:doh: I just forgot that, as an American, we are simply responsible in the eyes of the UN. Too early, too late, too hands off, too hands on ... we are just at fault and nothing will change that.

But, in the spirit of the thread, they ARE assuming their way of thinking should be imposed. Otherwise, the numbers in the article could never happen.

Going back to Doc's original premise, SOME values are seen as OK to be imposed. Others are not. It just depends on which values you support.

The UN's numbers demonstrate that.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Crankiness apology accepted.

So why still so cranky? :rolleyes: :P

Wichita - I never said the US was responsible for all the ills of the UN. I just happened to read the article just before I read your comments and they just seemed to go together well to move the discussion forward.

What gets me cranky is that it appears that the administration is using the excuse of China even though it is clear by thier own investigation that the programs they object to in China are not funded in any way by this UN program.

It would be nice if they were at least honest about the real reason they don't want to send funds to the program. Then at least we would KNOW instead of being left wondering why. :shrug:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I wish the both of you would stop being cranky. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Minuet
Nov 30 2004, 03:19 AM
Wichita - I never said the US was responsible for all the ills of the UN.

Personal Response

I never said that you said the US is responsible for all the ills of the UN.

I never said it.
I never meant that.
I never thought it true.

In fact, the thought never crossed my mind.

WHAT I SAID was that I (me, me, me) think that the UN thinks that the United States is responsible for all the ills of the world.

Quote:
 
What gets me cranky is that it appears that the administration is using the excuse of China even though it is clear by thier own investigation that the programs they object to in China are not funded in any way by this UN program.


The comments I assume you are referring to from the article you posted:

Quote:
 
Moreover, the Bush administration has failed to prove any of the allegations against the U.N. Population Fund. A fact-finding mission by its own state department earlier this year actually concluded that the claims about support for abortion in China were groundless.

The state department report of May stated: "Based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the (People's Republic of China). Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices."


Yesterday, the 200,000 number through me for a loop. Today, when I went back and looked again, the first thing I noticed was the lack of capital letters on the word State Department. What a journalistic lapse, I thought. Then I checked out the report ... about 20 seconds of effort on the Internet.

Quote:
 
In closing, we wish to express our appreciation to those officials of the State Department, American Embassy Beijing, American Consulate General Shanghai, and American Consulate General Guangzhou who facilitated our efforts and who scrupulously avoided any effort to shape our opinions.


Interesting that it is supposedly a State Department report, but the report itself says that the State Department "scrupulously avoided any effort to shape our opinions".

It might be because it wasn't a "state department report", it was a report submitted to the State Department. In fact, it looks like the report might have been written by the UN for submission to the State Department.

I don't know if the lie came from the paper or from the UN, but it certainly makes me wonder why the need for reporting the information under false pretenses. :whistle:

Perhaps because the report also contains the sentence ...

Quote:
 
UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively.


So they didn't "knowlingly" do it, but they are unable to monitor their own program effectively enough to say whether it happened or not.

For anyone who actually wants to read the report,

here it is.

The definition of "coercion" is discussed which does fit in with the theme of the thread nicely.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

ANOVA
Nov 25 2004, 11:42 AM
Quote:
 
I think you are looking at this too simplistically. A President's job as chief executive is to enforce the law whether or not it conflicts with his religious faith


You're wrong;

His (or her) job is to lead, to craft laws that aid in out struggle for freedom. The attorney general enforces the law.

It's not simplistic. The church sees abortion as the murder of the unborn. No catholic can vcaim to be in support of the church and the right to commit murder at the same time. That is why I say the Kerry's religious faith is the moral equivalent of personal opinion.

ANOVA
Before one can live freely, one must live.
Therefore, the right to life has premacy over all other rights.

You seem a little confused. The President is the Chief executive of the Federal Government. Article II of the Constitution defines his powers. Dictionary.Com defines Executive as:

1. A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.
2. The chief officer of a government, state, or political division.
3. The branch of government charged with putting into effect a country's laws and the administering of its functions.

The Attorney General serves under the President of the United States. Furthermore, the President can issue executive orders but he has no legislative powers as such. The power to legislate is invested in the Congress by Article I of the Constitution. So your statement
Quote:
 
His (or her) job is to lead, to craft laws that aid in out struggle for freedom.
has no basis. But I thought the "struggle for freedom" part was cute.

| Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
For the benefit of those who may not know, a '^^^' means a poster is responding to the post directly above their own. When this is missing, it indicates something else. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Isn't this a response?
| Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
38957
Nov 29 2004, 06:49 PM
Quote:
 
How much could the United Nations save by not passing their weekly resolution condemming Israel?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That was at least 8 :lol:s on a scale of 10.

Kind of reminds me of the phoney-baloney racism summit a few years back which was nothing more than a blame the US and Israel for all the terrible things that happen in Africa in spite of the fact that of all these places Africa is the only place in which slavery still exists.

Weekly ?

Suggests back that one with some evidence.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
somerled
Dec 1 2004, 07:54 AM
38957
Nov 29 2004, 06:49 PM
Quote:
 
How much could the United Nations save by not passing their weekly resolution condemming Israel?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That was at least 8 :lol:s on a scale of 10.

Kind of reminds me of the phoney-baloney racism summit a few years back which was nothing more than a blame the US and Israel for all the terrible things that happen in Africa in spite of the fact that of all these places Africa is the only place in which slavery still exists.

Weekly ?

Suggests back that one with some evidence.

Personal Response

Since I am the source of the original quote, I will respond. The "weekly" comment was for effect only. It came from a post where I was discussing the UN's inability to deal effectively with crisis in the world.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Wichita
Dec 1 2004, 07:37 AM
somerled
Dec 1 2004, 07:54 AM
38957
Nov 29 2004, 06:49 PM
Quote:
 
How much could the United Nations save by not passing their weekly resolution condemming Israel?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That was at least 8 :lol:s on a scale of 10.

Kind of reminds me of the phoney-baloney racism summit a few years back which was nothing more than a blame the US and Israel for all the terrible things that happen in Africa in spite of the fact that of all these places Africa is the only place in which slavery still exists.

Weekly ?

Suggests back that one with some evidence.

Personal Response

Since I am the source of the original quote, I will respond. The "weekly" comment was for effect only. It came from a post where I was discussing the UN's inability to deal effectively with crisis in the world.

End of Personal Response

OK.

Fair enough.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
DEFIANT
Commodore
ANOVA
Nov 28 2004, 04:20 PM

The declaration of independance, the federalist papers and congressional debates have all been used during supreme court heaerings to defend the founders intent. As such it does have legal standing in constitutional law.

Did I say say law anywhere within my last post ?

Since you want to talk about law. How about the fact that the supreme court had to ignore the law to grnat the right to an abortion (any right not reserved by the federal government, belongs to the state or individual) or the fact that the supreme court had to invent rights not embodies in the constitution to support the right to an abortion.

ANOVA

Just because things have used in hearing to show the intent of the founders does not make it a law. A reference in a legal hearing, that's it. The Declaration of Independance itself has no legal standing in constitutional law. Only people give it it's infered authority.

Take a deap breath, you didn't have to mention law, I was bringing it up because it was related. The law could have been infered from your post. My point was that quotes and documents are not law, the declaration of independence could not be used as law no more than the bible can.

I really don't know what your last paragraph was trying to show me. Law is a general catagory. I really didn't want to talk about the supreme court ignoring a law, but their job is to interpret laws. Perhaps you could provide a reference for this event, because maybe they interpreted the law so as not to allow abortions. And I don't know all the factors limiting the way they interpret the law (besides anyone's semantic).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Gvok:

I'm all about cute.

Still the president is not limited to merely executing existing law as was inferred in earlier posts. They are allowed to craft new laws (congress has to vote on them) and to state reasons, both theological and secular for their personal stancee on such laws and their plan to ammend or repeal such laws.

Quote:
 
Another reason why a politician, especially a US President, should not wear his religion on his sleeve is that a citizen should never have to question where his elected leaders' loyalties lay. Their job is to take care of the state. That should be their first priority.


Moral leadership based on religious principle is no different then moral leadership based on secular principles. If an individual derives their moral principles from a theological base should they shopuld not be discounted. It would be silly to denie you a right to be a politician becase of how you derive your moral principles. The alternative is to demand all our leaders or ammoral and therefore nihlistic. From whence should an individual derive thier moral principles and how should they manifest their principles if not in the leadership they give a nation?

Quote:
 
One should not rule the other. They should be kept seperate.


Again asking a person to step out side their basis for moral guidance to embrace...what exactly should a leader replace a lifetime of beleif with? Ammorality would seem to be the only choice if they were denied thier life long theological guidance.

Quote:
 
A President's job as chief executive is to enforce the law whether or not it conflicts with his religious faith.


Actually it is to enforce the constitution, oath, sworn before God makes that plain.

Please read the definition again. the President is not a branch of government. He is not the chief law enforcement officer.

ANOVA

DEFIANT
I'm not ignoring you. I'm going to have to get some background to explain why Roe v Wade is bad constitutional law.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Anova the cute,

Well said! :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Quote:
 
Still the president is not limited to merely executing existing law as was inferred in earlier posts. They are allowed to craft new laws (congress has to vote on them) and to state reasons, both theological and secular for their personal stancee on such laws and their plan to ammend or repeal such laws.


I never said the President was limited merely to executing existing law but that is his primary (i.e., not sole) function. Legislation is the pervue of the legislature.

Quote:
 
Moral leadership based on religious principle is no different then moral leadership based on secular principles. If an individual derives their moral principles from a theological base should they shopuld not be discounted. It would be silly to denie you a right to be a politician becase of how you derive your moral principles. The alternative is to demand all our leaders or ammoral and therefore nihlistic. From whence should an individual derive thier moral principles and how should they manifest their principles if not in the leadership they give a nation?


In my opinion, it is moral, mature, and responsible for a US President to recognize that he is the leader of a diverse society and he should not try to impose his personal theology on people who may not share his beliefs.

Quote:
 
Again asking a person to step out side their basis for moral guidance to embrace...what exactly should a leader replace a lifetime of beleif with? Ammorality would seem to be the only choice if they were denied thier life long theological guidance.


His personal beliefs are personal. He should not seek to impose them on people who do not share his beliefs.

Quote:
 
Actually it is to enforce the constitution


Yeah, the constitution is the supreme LAW of the land.

Quote:
 
Please read the definition again. the President is not a branch of government. He is not the chief law enforcement officer.


The Constitution establishes three branches of government. Legislative (Article I), Executive (Article II) and Judicial (Article III). The President of the US is the CHIEF EXECUTIVE. His primary function is to enforce the law.






| Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus