| 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: |
| Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,211 Views) | |
| Coda | Nov 29 2004, 09:22 PM Post #136 |
|
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 | Nov 29 2004, 09:51 PM Post #137 |
|
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. 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 | Nov 29 2004, 10:19 PM Post #138 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Crankiness apology accepted. So why still so cranky? :rolleyes: 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.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Nov 30 2004, 08:32 AM Post #139 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ I wish the both of you would stop being cranky.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 30 2004, 09:26 AM Post #140 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
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.
The comments I assume you are referring to from the article you posted:
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.
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. Perhaps because the report also contains the sentence ...
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 | Nov 30 2004, 11:51 AM Post #141 |
|
Unregistered
|
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 has no basis. But I thought the "struggle for freedom" part was cute. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Fesarius | Nov 30 2004, 12:28 PM Post #142 |
|
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 | Nov 30 2004, 01:02 PM Post #143 |
|
Unregistered
|
Isn't this a response? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| somerled | Dec 1 2004, 02:54 AM Post #144 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Weekly ? Suggests back that one with some evidence. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 1 2004, 07:37 AM Post #145 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
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 | Dec 1 2004, 09:19 AM Post #146 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
OK. Fair enough. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| DEFIANT | Dec 2 2004, 03:10 PM Post #147 |
|
Commodore
|
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 | Dec 2 2004, 07:11 PM Post #148 |
|
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.
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?
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.
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 | Dec 3 2004, 09:02 AM Post #149 |
|
Admiral
|
Anova the cute, Well said!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 3 2004, 10:28 AM Post #150 |
|
Unregistered
|
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.
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.
His personal beliefs are personal. He should not seek to impose them on people who do not share his beliefs.
Yeah, the constitution is the supreme LAW of the land.
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 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 » |


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.

3:18 AM Jul 11