Christian Prison

[Sir Rhetor]

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/ ... rison.html
http://www.drudge.com/news/127323/oklah ... ian-prison

So apparently Christians saved up enough money to build their very own prison. This prison will hire only Christians, which is certainly against the law. Another important piece of information is that it is not a maximum security prison, and it will only be for prisoners at the end of their sentence.

The prison is obviously set up to be primed for proselytizers, who will share the Bible with the criminals.

Is this a good idea, or is it discriminatory, disastrous, and ironic?

[East of Eden]

Who determines which among the many branches of Christian theology is the "good" theology?

Do you know any who believe in your straw man argument of stoning people?

Abortion clinics for one. They've been bombed, their doctors shot and even killed.

Or are those perpetrators not "true Christians(tm)"?

No they aren't true Christians. They are acting contrary and in spite of the teachings of Christ. He harmed no one. The Islamofascists are acting because of the word and deed of the 'prophet'.

[McCulloch]

You completely missed my point. As I said, the amendment process is the right way to change the constitution, not by judicial fiat as was done with Roe v. Wade.

I'll take that as a retraction of your statement that a living constitution is a dead one. Now we are simply arguing about the means by which a constitution should be changed not whether it should change.

I believe that the role of the judiciary is to interpret not to change the constitution. A court cannot strike down a law merely because the statute is obviously irrational, unjust or arises from legislators' corrupt motives. It may only strike down a law if the flaw in the statute rises to the level of a constitutional violation.

[A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'

In 1967, Loving v. Virginia, the court ruled that laws that prohibit marriage between races (anti-miscegenation statutes) are unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I don't see the judiciary enacting legislation in this decision, nor in Roe v Wade. They are correctly and constitutionally within their bounds, stating which provisions of the constitution are violated with the enactment of anti-miscegenation laws.

A judiciary unmoored from the constitution is government by whim.

If you ever had to sit through a supreme courts deliberation of a constitutional issue, you would not have the audacity to use the word whim to describe the process.

According to my reasoning, yes, you should be able to revise and evolve away from Jefferson's remarkable insight. However, why would you? It has served your country well and has been the model for many other countries' subsequent constitutions.

Just pointing out the double standard. First you say it doesn't matter what the founders said, then you cite Jefferson.

Just pointing out the double standard. You invoke the holy blessing from the Founders, but only when they agree with you.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

Who determines which among the many branches of Christian theology is the "good" theology?

Do you know any who believe in your straw man argument of stoning people?

I was speaking metaphorically, alluding to folks harming others by various means, and not just stoning.

Are you now sufficiently prepared to actually answer my question?

Abortion clinics for one. They've been bombed, their doctors shot and even killed.

Or are those perpetrators not "true Christians(tm)"?

No they aren't true Christians. They are acting contrary and in spite of the teachings of Christ. He harmed no one. The Islamofascists are acting because of the word and deed of the 'prophet'.

If you wanna consider Islam, what if it's the "good" theology and the Christians miss the mark? Since they ostensibly worship the same Abrahamic God, how can we know they don't have the "good" theology?

When one acts according to their interpretation of what their Christian God wants, and blow up or shoot folks how are we to know they aren't following the "good" theology?

Aren't Christians acting according to the 'prophet' Jesus? How can we know Jesus speaks for the Christian God? How can we know Jesus has the "good" theology?

Who determines what constitutes "good" Christian theology?

[East of Eden]

I'll take that as a retraction of your statement that a living constitution is a dead one. Now we are simply arguing about the means by which a constitution should be changed not whether it should change.

I prefer democratic change via amendments as opposed to dictatorial change from an out of control judiciary. It is interesting that many of the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin were sanctioned by the courts. They often do what the elites want, such as in the Dred Scott case, Plessy vs. Ferguson, the 1962 school prayer case, and in Roe.

I don't see the judiciary enacting legislation in this decision, nor in Roe v Wade. They are correctly and constitutionally within their bounds, stating which provisions of the constitution are violated with the enactment of anti-miscegenation laws.

Not only was the 'right to an abotion' an invention, it ignores the fourteenth amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Can anyone tell us what crimes unborn children have committed for which they should lose their lives? Arguments which support abortion are pure nonsense and evil in nature.

Dissenting opinion on Roe v. Wade:

"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons " convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. ... I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. ... As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." " Justice Byron R. White.

If you ever had to sit through a supreme courts deliberation of a constitutional issue, you would not have the audacity to use the word whim to describe the process.

Whim dressed up in legal trappings, as Justice White more or less said above.

Just pointing out the double standard. You invoke the holy blessing from the Founders, but only when they agree with you.

The Justice Story quote I posted earlier sums up well what the general consensus was among the Founders, whether or not Jefferson was in the majority on that.

[East of Eden]

I was speaking metaphorically, alluding to folks harming others by various means, and not just stoning.

How do other people's beliefs harm you?

If you wanna consider Islam, what if it's the "good" theology and the Christians miss the mark? Since they ostensibly worship the same Abrahamic God, how can we know they don't have the "good" theology?

The triune God of Christianity has little in common with Allah, an Arabian pagan deity who was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess. You won't find many characteristics in Allah such as love, forgiveness, etc.

When one acts according to their interpretation of what their Christian God wants, and blow up or shoot folks how are we to know they aren't following the "good" theology?

Good theology follows the teachings and example of Christ. The few nut extremists you bring up don't do that.

Aren't Christians acting according to the 'prophet' Jesus? How can we know Jesus speaks for the Christian God?

I understand you reject him, but He is God.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 41:

I was speaking metaphorically, alluding to folks harming others by various means, and not just stoning.

How do other people's beliefs harm you?

You're slick as a greased up pig ain't ya?

Let's put that whole section up so the observe can see your continued attempt to dodge my question regarding your claim...

I was speaking metaphorically, alluding to folks harming others by various means, and not just stoning.

Are you now sufficiently prepared to actually answer my question?

Now, let's look at the question I'm asking, and that East of Eden is so adept at dodging...

Not to worry, I'm sure they won't be learning bad Christian theology.

I ask, for the umpteenth time now...

Who determines what is "bad" or "good" theology?

Will East of Eden continue to dodge the question?

Will East of Eden throw up another smoke screen?

Stay tuned. Same bat-time, same bat-channel.

Now, back to the rest...

Continuing from Post 41:

The triune God of Christianity has little in common with Allah, an Arabian pagan deity who was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess. You won't find many characteristics in Allah such as love, forgiveness, etc.

Then why do you keep bringing up Islam?

I see a common theme happening here, where when Christianity is challenged you try to avert attention over to Muslims.

I point the observer to the OP, and the fact that nowhere does it mention Islam.

Good theology follows the teachings and example of Christ. The few nut extremists you bring up don't do that.

I ask for the umpteenth and oneth time then...

Who determines what constitutes "good" theology?

East of Eden? How is East of Eden qualified to determine good theology?

Aren't Christians acting according to the 'prophet' Jesus? How can we know Jesus speaks for the Christian God?

I understand you reject him, but He is God.

Prove it.

I'm seeing a pattern here where East of Eden refuses to address the questions (or is incapable of understanding the questions).

I ask someone to please read the following questions to East of Eden, and ask him to respond directly to the questions and quite trying to sidetrack...

1- What constitutes "bad" or "good" theology, because...
2- How can we know Jesus speaks for the Christian God?

And now...
3- How can we know Jesus is God?

[East of Eden]

You're slick as a greased up pig ain't ya?

And you're about as smart as one if you can't understand simple answers.

Are you now sufficiently prepared to actually answer my question?

Been done, obtuse one. Good theology is that which follows the teachings and example of Christ. Do you want me to post an encylopedia of Christian theology?

Then why do you keep bringing up Islam?

It was a qualifier in an answer to your silly fear that we Christians will start stoning people.

I see a common theme happening here, where when Christianity is challenged you try to avert attention over to Muslims.

Pot, meet kettle. The reverse is more often true.

I point the observer to the OP, and the fact that nowhere does it mention Islam.

Funny, I didn't see you object when I was specifically asked if I would support a similar Muslim prison.

Prove it.

I can't, it is my opinion. Like your opinion that God doesn't exist.

How can we know Jesus is God?

And I'm the one that changes subjects? Start another thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 43:

And you're about as smart as [a pig] if you can't understand simple answers.

And I'd bet even a pig can see when folks are trying to doge the question.

Been done, obtuse one. Good theology is that which follows the teachings and example of Christ. Do you want me to post an encylopedia of Christian theology?

How do we know Jesus speaks for God?

It was a qualifier in an answer to your silly fear that we Christians will start stoning people.

I've already said it was a metaphor for any harmful action folks may do in the name of the Christian God.

How can we know God doesn't actually want us to harm one another?

How can we know God does actually want us to harm one another?

I see a common theme happening here, where when Christianity is challenged you try to avert attention over to Muslims.

Pot, meet kettle. The reverse is more often true.

HUH?

Please link to where I've tried to avert attention from challenges to my claims/statements, or have the honor to retract.

I point the observer to the OP, and the fact that nowhere does it mention Islam.

Funny, I didn't see you object when I was specifically asked if I would support a similar Muslim prison.

Please link to and quote verbatim where I've asked you this.

This thread will be my evidence that it was you who responded to my challenges by mentioning Muslims/Islam.

Prove it. [Prove Jesus is God, a claim made by East of Eden]

I can't, it is my opinion. Like your opinion that God doesn't exist.
[/quote]
Please link to and quote verbatim where I've claimed God doesn't exist, or have the honor to retract.

How can we know Jesus is God?

And I'm the one that changes subjects? Start another thread.

I point you, and the observer to Post 41:

Aren't Christians acting according to the 'prophet' Jesus? How can we know Jesus speaks for the Christian God?

I understand you reject him, but He is God.

I asked how we can know Jesus speaks for God, as a means to determine what constitutes "good" or "bad" theology based on your previous statements.

It was you, East of Eden that claimed He is God.

You made the claim in this thread.

I challenged it in this thread.

Will you offer your evidence, retract, or continue to skirt around challenges to a claim you brought up?

[Sir Rhetor]

Are you now sufficiently prepared to actually answer my question?

Been done, obtuse one. Good theology is that which follows the teachings and example of Christ. Do you want me to post an encylopedia of Christian theology?

Calling names is not helping your case. Now, over the "encyclopedia of Christian theology", yes. Humor me and post it. All the theology in the world is not helpful to the actual question. I'm not surprised that you think it would answer the question, though. Theology is the study of God and religion, and not about the origin of morals. Joey has spent several posts just trying to squeeze an answer out of you (like Giles Corey, but for a good reason ), with no avail. Referencing supposed "previous answers" is a facile but inadequate game to play. The world is waiting for you to give an actual answer.

[JoeyKnothead]

Are you now sufficiently prepared to actually answer my question?

Been done, obtuse one. Good theology is that which follows the teachings and example of Christ. Do you want me to post an encylopedia of Christian theology?

Calling names is not helping your case. Now, over the "encyclopedia of Christian theology", yes. Humor me and post it. All the theology in the world is not helpful to the actual question. I'm not surprised that you think it would answer the question, though. Theology is the study of God and religion, and not about the origin of morals. Joey has spent several posts just trying to squeeze an answer out of you (like Giles Corey, but for a good reason ), with no avail. Referencing supposed "previous answers" is a facile but inadequate game to play. The world is waiting for you to give an actual answer.

I think East of Eden has given up trying to support his obviously unprovable claim.

So I challenge anyone to show what constitutes good or bad theology, and how we can confirm to know the wants or wishes of any god.