Monday, April 28, 2014

Bundy...Clive, not Ted

So Clive Bundy has made some seemingly racist remarks. On that there is no argument. Whether he meant them the way they have been taken or not, the fact is he said what he said.

I do not support racist remarks under any circumstances, at any time for any reason. However, I totally and completely support Clive Bundy’s (and anyone else who feels inclined to be a racist or to make racist remark) right to be a racist or to make racist remarks.
Does that sound like a contradiction? It is not.

While I detest racism, I support freedom, even when it makes me uncomfortable. That includes the freedom to be a racist, to think like a racist and to speak like a racist. If you do so in my presence, I will exercise my freedom to tell you what a jerk you are, but I will not castigate you for your opinion. You have a right to it, just like the other freedoms you enjoy as an American.
What I don’t support is the federal government getting involved in absconding with someone else’s property or interrupting their lives without cause. Neither do I support the federal government getting involved with someone else’s thought processes, ideas, or the free expression of either.

I don’t support the concept of “hate crimes.” If you murder someone, you ought to fry, no matter why you did it. (By the way, not all killing is murder…just in case you didn’t know that already.) If you are in school and you call a bunch of women unpleasant names, I will call you on it, but I will not ask the federal government to subvert your right to do so.
I do support the right of a community to set standards of decency for its members, including speech, behavior, dress, etc. I do not support the federal government getting involved in such matters.

The only federal crimes should be those that directly and substantively affect the safety and wellbeing of the nation. Clive Bundy has not done either.
So all of you “pundits” out there get off Bundy’s back. Feds, leave him alone. Leave us all alone, unless we do something that directly and substantively affect the safety and wellbeing of the nation. Spend your time defending the nation against intruders, malefactors and nations who would seek us harm. Spend your time keeping the justice system just. Spend your time uniting, instead of dividing us. Spend your time promoting good relationships between the states. Spend your time making sure that our progeny will have a safe, secure nation that is free from burdensome debt and deficits.

In short, get back to Washington where you belong or in your district finding out how to serve your people instead of trying to convince them of what you think they need.
Stop acting like greasy, slimy self-serving con artists. Stop with the corruption and dishonesty. Stop letting lobbyists and consortiums tell you what to do. Stop bastardizing the process of leadership. Stop wheeling and dealing like bad used car salesmen and then pretending you have some level of sophistication. Stop buying votes from other representatives to get your personal agenda passed.  

Real Americans are tired of you and those like you. 

48 comments:

Craig said...

Once again, Joe, you're violating your first principle of True Conservatism, Respect for The Constitution.

Article IV, Section 3

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Only Congress has the power to divest or dispose of federal land, not a gaggle of goons with guns on Bundy's ranch. Bundy's racist views are beside the point (although, we're free to criticize his ignorance). He doesn't recognize the federal government. He's using land that's not his (doesn't matter if it belongs to the feds or another rancher) without recompense.

A strict Constitutionalist, like you, down with vigilantes and anarchist's. You've lost your way.

You'd be running from bulls right now if the federal govt. hadn't purchased Florida from Spain.

Fredd said...

Despite liberals wanting to muddy the waters, spewing irrelevant quotes from the Constitution in a feeble effort to disqualify your input into the arena of ideas as ignorant, your post here supporting the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights (right of free speech) is well thought out, Joe.

Keep it up. I get it, just as liberals don't (and never will).

Dave Miller said...

Joe, a few thoughts... first, were Bundy's remarks racist, or not? What is seemingly?

Second, I agree, he has a right to say whatever he wants, racist or not. And others, have a right to choose not to do business or associate with him. Others, who detest his speech, also have a right to protest that speech.

Third, the Feds have not attempted to abscond with his property without cause. He has not paid his bills, has lost in court, has been shown to be incorrect on his publicly shared facts, and is in violation of the Nevada Constitution.

Did the feds overreact? Yes, stupidly so. But a wrong reaction does not dismiss the original wrong action, to which there is ample proof that Bundy is guilty.

I try to stay out of Florida political issues because it is hard to understand them from afar. Many from around our country would be wise to do the same regarding Nevada.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

One MAIN thing for all governments - fed, state, city, county and whatever. QUIT trying to be a nanny; don't try to rule my life from the cradle to the grave. If I want to eat junk food, let me eat it. If I want a 32 oz pop that isn't your business.

As for Bundy's remarks; they were NOT racist. Only a PCer would call them racist. He was making an analogy with slavery and the current "slavery" to the government. Libs can't handle anything like that. Perhaps if libs learned what analogies are they wouldn't be so paranoid about "racism." Of course it has been proven too many times that the libs are the real racists.

Dave Miller said...

Well Glenn, I prefer to let people that have been affected by racism determine what constitutes racism.

For years racist people in the south told folks that their treatment of black people was nothing personal and not racism.

Also, I noticed you chose not to address Bundy's lawlessness.

As for your choices, I hear what you are saying, but at what point, does the government have a right to intervene?



For example, do uninsured parents have a right to feed their kid foods that will make him, or her obese and require expensive medical care that they cannot afford?

Does government have a role if a parent believes in severe beatings to discipline their child?

How do we determine if and when government has a role in the private dealings of people and a family?

Do those freedoms you value also extend to corporations? Can they operate as they choose too? Why, or why not?


Duckys here said...

I'm all for his freedom to speak also.

He is the type of freak that the right has refashioned the party to attract and I really want you to own him, Joe.

As for the matter of the Feds appropriating someone's property, what does that have to do with Bundy?

Duckys here said...

If you are in school and you call a bunch of women unpleasant names, I will call you on it, but I will not ask the federal government to subvert your right to do so.

-----
Joe, what you are describing is assault.
It falls under state law in most places.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

I prefer to let people that have been affected by racism determine what constitutes racism

I’ve been affected by racism, and I say Bundy’s comments weren't racism.

For years racist people in the south told folks that their treatment of black people was nothing personal and not racism.

Anecdotal, and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Also, I noticed you chose not to address Bundy's lawlessness

I think Bundy has some legitimate grievances, but I think he handled the situation poorly. However, the government also singled him out and handled the situation poorly. Interesting that China seems to be in line for the land - through traitorous actions of people in this administration.

For example, do uninsured parents have a right to feed their kid foods that will make him, or her obese and require expensive medical care that they cannot afford?

Not having health insurance does not give the government the right to tell them what to feed their kids. It’s not the government’s business. Besides, it isn’t what kind of food that makes them obese, it is the amount as well as lack of exercise. It is not the government’s business to be involved in health care or health care decisions. Period.

Does government have a role if a parent believes in severe beatings to discipline their child?

Federal government, no. Local governments, yes. There are laws on the books against assault regardless of the age - and child abuse is assault.

How do we determine if and when government has a role in the private dealings of people and a family?

First, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically give the Fed gov’t rights, then that is the answer. Local governments may or may not need to be involved depending on what the particular issue is.

Do those freedoms you value also extend to corporations? Can they operate as they choose too? Why, or why not?

Corporations are run by people. So they should have pretty much the same rights as if they were individuals.

Your last two paragraphs want a blanket answer when situations would need to be examined individually.

The point is that there are legitimate reasons for government involvement, but the majority of what is happening nowadays are unreasonable government intrusions.

Duckys here said...

However, the government also singled him out and handled the situation poorly. Interesting that China seems to be in line for the land - through traitorous actions of people in this administration.
-------
The government did NOT single him out.
The land is restricted and he's the only one grazing on it and he's skipping his fees to boot.
There have been several court cases over jurisdiction and he has lost them all.

He has lied about his family history using the land.

We'd all love to see the info on the China conspiracy theory. Come on, Glenn let's have some details.

BLM was there as directed by court order. Give unto Caesar and all that, right Glenn?

Duckys here said...

@Glenn --- First, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically give the Fed gov’t rights, then that is the answer. Local governments may or may not need to be involved depending on what the particular issue is.
------------
I assume you're aware that the Nevada state constitution cedes ownership of the land to the Federal government, Glenn.

If Nevada has a claim why doesn't the state sue?

Duckys here said...

There you go again, Craig.

Citing the Bad Constitution not the one Fredd approves of.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky
BLM was there as directed by court order. Give unto Caesar and all that, right Glenn?

I never denied that. I just said I think Bundy has some legitimate grievances but handled the situation poorly. I said the government also handled the situation poorly. There was no need for the snipers and the abuse of the Bundy family.

I'll let you do your own research about China. Harry Reid is involved.

I assume you're aware that the Nevada state constitution cedes ownership of the land to the Federal government, Glenn.

Thanks for taking my statement out of context. It had nothing to do with Bundy, or land, etc. Look at statement I was responding to. I know libs like you have difficulty reading and comprehending so I'll cut you some slack.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, what are the legitimate grievances, aside from a federal overreaction, that Bundy has?

Regarding China, you will be hard pressed to offer proof on that. Even the local conservative RJ is not on board with that and they hate Dingy Harry.

The problem, at least as I see it, with your view that states should handle things is this. It might have worked 200 years ago in a non connected world. But it was that view, a view of extreme non federally involved local control that brought us segregation, slavery, and the Civil War, among other issues.

Is it unreasonable, in an age when information is transmitted in seconds around the country, to expect consistency in laws across state lines?

It took federal action to ensure that local discriminatory laws were struck down. We already went down the states rights track and those advocates lost. Sorry.

And Ducky is 100% right. The Nevada Constitution, where I live, has a paramount clause that cedes all allegiance to the Feds. And that was the Northern Feds who disagreed with states rights.

And our state affirmed that view twice before joining the union. Bundy has no claim, owes the feds, and us, the money and needs to pay. Period. He has said he does accept the Federal Government at all in any instance. That sounds at best like a stance of anarchy and at worst treason.

He should be glad he is not in jail for fomenting armed rebellion.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

what are the legitimate grievances, aside from a federal overreaction, that Bundy has?

Not germane to the post.

Regarding China, you will be hard pressed to offer proof on that.

Believe what you like. I have no desire to continue that subject as it is not germane to the topic of the post.

The problem, at least as I see it, with your view that states should handle things is this. It might have worked 200 years ago in a non connected world. But it was that view, a view of extreme non federally involved local control that brought us segregation, slavery, and the Civil War, among other issues.

The problem with your viewpoint is that you look at the Constitution like libs look at the Bible. Culture bound. If the Feds obeyed the Constitution we wouldn’t be trillions of dollars in debt with the Feds in everybody’s business. Your understanding of the issues demonstrates revised history on your part. Public education has served you well to be a liberal lemming.

Is it unreasonable, in an age when information is transmitted in seconds around the country, to expect consistency in laws across state lines?

That depends on what the laws are. I certainly don’t want asinine California environazi standards being forced on every other state.

It took federal action to ensure that local discriminatory laws were struck down. We already went down the states rights track and those advocates lost. Sorry

Straw man. I’ve already acknowledged that there are needs for federal laws.

Again, all your drivel about Nevada has nothing to do with anything I have written.

You apparently believe the Feds have the right to behave as Storm troopers.

Dave Miller said...

Nice try Glenn... using your logic, your opening comment on cradle to grave care, is not germane to anything in the post today.

You do this often, as do other often misguided conservatives. You open up a topic, then when you do not like the direction it goes from there, you shut down, claiming some mythical high ground.

You choose not to respond to issues and direct questions that are frankly, problematic for many people. Chiding me about my constitutional viewpoint does not change the fact that a states right view propagated slavery and segregation.

I'd love to hear how I revised history in my comments. Please. Believe me, if I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it.

You said Bundy has legit grievances and brought up the "China Connection." Then when you were asked for proof, or to provide an example, you bailed saying they were not germane to the conversation.

Why is that Glenn? isn't the entire post on Bundy?


Xavier Onassis said...

Clive Bundy is a criminal. He is breaking the law. He is grazing his cattle on federal lands and refusing to pay the grazing fees that every other rancher pays.

By the way, that fee is incredibly small compared to A) Buying enough land of your own to graze your cattle, or, B) Buying enough grain to feed them, or, C) Paying a feedlot to feed them.

"The Federal grazing fee, which applies to Federal lands in 16 Western states on public lands managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service, is adjusted annually and is calculated by using a formula originally set by Congress in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Under this formula, as modified and extended by a presidential Executive Order issued in 1986, the grazing fee cannot fall below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM); also, any fee increase or decrease cannot exceed 25 percent of the previous year’s level. (An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.) The grazing fee for 2014 is $1.35 per AUM, the same level as it was in 2013."

It is the most economical way to feed a herd of cattle and Bundy refuses to pay the money that he legally owes the taxpayers.

He's a criminal. But he made matters worse when he and his supporters threaten armed violence against the legally authorized agents who were dispatched to enforce the law! The so called "snipers" didn't arrive on the scene first. The armed idiots on horseback who rallied to Bundy's defense arrived before the first federal agents ever showed up! The federal agents brought armed backup to ensure their safety as they enforced the law!

Bundy has said that he does not recognize the legitimacy of the government of the United States of America. This is part of his argument why he refuses to pay the grazing fees despite having lost 4 court cases and owing the American tax payers over a million dollars.

OK, Mr. Ignorant-Hate-Filled-Racist-Bigot. If you don't recognize the United States of America as being a legitimate, legal authority, then you can't claim protection under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America for the stupid that spills out of your pie-hole, and you and your supporters can't claim the right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment of a document establishing a government that you don't recognize.

Ride your little cowboy horsey to the nearest federal courthouse and renounce your citizenship. You're talking the talk, walk the walk.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "The problem with your viewpoint is that you look at the Constitution like libs look at the Bible. Culture bound. If the Feds obeyed the Constitution we wouldn’t be trillions of dollars in debt with the Feds in everybody’s business. Your understanding of the issues demonstrates revised history on your part. Public education has served you well to be a liberal lemming."

Not germane to the post.

"That depends on what the laws are. I certainly don’t want asinine California environazi standards being forced on every other state."

Not germane to the post.

"Straw man. I’ve already acknowledged that there are needs for federal laws.

Again, all your drivel about Nevada has nothing to do with anything I have written.

You apparently believe the Feds have the right to behave as Storm troopers."

Not germane to the post.

I'm surprised you haven't been able to shoe-horn some reference to the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" into this discussion yet.

It's like you're just phoning it in.





Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Actually, the article was NOT about Bundy. It was about government intrusion and claims of racism about what Bundy said. Bundy’s case was used as a stepping-off point.

My comment about cradle to grave had to do with continuous government intrusion in our lives, ergo germane to the topic.

The China connection has nothing to do with the government intrusion charge or the racism charge. I just mentioned it as part of the reason for the heavy-handed government reaction. I said I believed the issue with China was part of the problem, but that was given as a possible motive for the stupid way the government handled the situation. I NEVER said the government had no right to intervene. NEVER. I only said Bundy had legitimate grievances. I believe his grievances about government charges for use of the land are legitimate. I believe his grievances about how the government was handling the issue are legitimate. You can disagree. He believed they are legitimate and took actions based on his belief. I stated he handled the situation poorly. I said the government handled it poorly. And yet you keep harping on me for this, which I don’t understand why you have an issue with me believing both sides handled the situation poorly.

You want to believe the issue with China and Harry Reid is nothing but a conspiracy theory. More power to you. I think there is some truth to it which is being obfuscated. So what? Does it alter the main point of my statement that BOTH sides handled the situation poorly?

States rights was NOT about slavery. It was about economics, etc, which included slavery. Nevertheless, I stated that there were legitimate constitutional reasons for Fed intervention. I said that. Yet you act as if I said there should never be federal intervention in anything. Thanks for misrepresenting my position.

Slavery and segregation are moral issues and are harmful to the USA as a whole, which is why it was right and proper for the Feds to intervene.

What I find quite amusing about you libs is all your yammering (as X.O.) about Bundy being a criminal and wanting him strung up, and at the same time supporting all the criminals crossing the Mexican border and wanting to give them citizenship so they can vote Demokrat. Stinking hypocrites.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

All your "not germane to the post" comments are stupid. I wasn't addressing the post, rather I was responding to Dave's questions.

Boy, you sure are stupid.

Joe said...

Craig: Way to misread, misuse and misapply TCUS!

Fredd:"... irrelevant quotes from
the Constitution..."

Not only are they not relevant to the situation, they are deliberately spun to prove something they don't prove.

DM: I say "seemingly" because I was not there and not privy to the context. But I will give you that his remarks are racist and trump you with, "So what?"

GEC: " QUIT trying to be a nanny..."

Sadly, that isn't going to happen. They are about, and only about, the power to control you and me.



Ducky: "He is the type of freak that the right has refashioned the party to attract..."

And you are....?

XO: " He is grazing his cattle on federal lands..."

Just like the feds said he could.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "XO: " He is grazing his cattle on federal lands..."

Just like the feds said he could."

Yeah, IF HE PAYS THE GRAZING FEE!!!

Duckys here said...

XO, you forgot to mention another option.

He can graze his livestock on private land. The fee is about eight times what the Federal government charges.

How Glenn and Joe can defend this skip is beyond me.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "All your "not germane to the post" comments are stupid. I wasn't addressing the post, rather I was responding to Dave's questions.

Boy, you sure are stupid."

In your very first response on this thread you said "One MAIN thing for all governments - fed, state, city, county and whatever. QUIT trying to be a nanny; don't try to rule my life from the cradle to the grave. If I want to eat junk food, let me eat it. If I want a 32 oz pop that isn't your business."

That was NOT GERMANE to the subject of Cliven Bundy's criminal violation of federal grazing laws.

You then went on to say "As for Bundy's remarks; they were NOT racist. Only a PCer would call them racist. He was making an analogy with slavery and the current "slavery" to the government."

Although that was "germane", it was just about the most ignorant, uninformed, racist, bigoted comment I've ever seen you make. And that's saying A LOT!

"I think Bundy has some legitimate grievances..."

Like what? That he should be allowed to graze his cattle on federal lands without paying the same grazing fee that every other rancher has to pay?

That he should be allowed to rip off the American tax payer, break the law and not be held accountable?

Exactly which "grievances" that this criminal claims do you consider legitimate?

"I'll let you do your own research about China. Harry Reid is involved."

OH MY GOD!!! Harry Reid so China!!!

You are INSANE!

"One MAIN thing for all governments - fed, state, city, county and whatever. QUIT trying to be a nanny; don't try to rule my life from the cradle to the grave. If I want to eat junk food, let me eat it. If I want a 32 oz pop that isn't your business."

In no way is any of that germane to the argument.

"As for Bundy's remarks; they were NOT racist..."

Oh yeah, they really, really were. Only another racist would defend his comments.

"He was making an analogy with slavery and the current "slavery" to the government."

No one is enslaved by the government! Do you even know what the word "slavery" means?

If the government enslaved people, there is no way you would be allowed to wander around under your own supervision in such a completely delusional state of mind. You would be in a straight jacket in a padded room screaming "CLOWARD-PIVEN! ABORTION! CLOWARD-PIVEN! MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE! APOSTATES! CLOWARD-PIVEN!"









Duckys here said...

Glenn here's some research on China and Bundy


Looks like Glenn Beck did you wrong once again. You really should stop listening to that bimbo.

Xavier Onassis said...

Ducky - "Glenn here's some research on China and Bundy


Looks like Glenn Beck did you wrong once again. You really should stop listening to that bimbo."

Oh Sweet Baby Jesus!!!

Are they really that stupid?

Rhetorical question...of course they are.

Craig said...

Craig: Way to misread, misuse and misapply TCUS!

Maybe you could elaborate. I was responding to this part of your meandering post,

The only federal crimes should be those that directly and substantively affect the safety and wellbeing of the nation. Clive Bundy has not done either. So all of you “pundits” out there get off Bundy’s back. Feds, leave him alone.

Why should the feds leave him alone? He clearly violated court orders. He doesn't recognize the legitimacy of federal ownership of land he was grazing his cattle on. Contrary to what is unambiguously stated in the clause I posted. How is that misapplied or misread?

Bundy thinks he can act outside the law, the Constitution doesn't apply to him. He's an anarchist and you are siding with him.

Fredd says your post is a defense of the 1st amendment. No one has stopped Bundy from making the media rounds. By all means, keep digging, Clive.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

“In your very first response on this thread you said “One MAIN thing for all governments - fed, state, city, county and whatever. QUIT trying to be a nanny; don't try to rule my life from the cradle to the grave. If I want to eat junk food, let me eat it. If I want a 32 oz pop that isn't your business.”

That was NOT GERMANE to the subject of Cliven Bundy's criminal violation of federal grazing laws.

You, like your buddy Dave, apparently don’t know how to read and comprehend. The post was NOT about Bundy - Bundy was used as the example, the stepping off point. The post was about government intrusion, as well as liberal ideology being forced down our throats.

Although that was "germane", it was just about the most ignorant, uninformed, racist, bigoted comment I've ever seen you make. And that's saying A LOT!

Well, that just shows how ignorant, uninformed, racist, and bigoted YOU ARE.

You and Dave make rabbit trails and then expect us to kow-tow to you.


"One MAIN thing for all governments - fed, state, city, county and whatever. QUIT trying to be a nanny; don't try to rule my life from the cradle to the grave. If I want to eat junk food, let me eat it. If I want a 32 oz pop that isn't your business.”
In no way is any of that germane to the argument.

Yes it was, as noted above. The article was about intrusion of the government into our lives, with Bundy as an example.

And no, his comments were not racist. The very black Alan Keyes agrees with with me:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/black-leader-says-bundy-remarks-not-racist/
But you libs yell “racist” as your primary victim card.

You sure have a lot of anger issues with all those rantings you posted. Talk about insane and dangerous - perhaps you need to see psychiatrist

Xavier Onassis said...

http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/bundy-ranch-uncensored#comments

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,

I'm well aware of what your leftist have to say about the China/Reid connection to the Bundy case.

I'm also well aware of what your leftists had to say about Benghazi being caused by a video.

Hitler had a lot of similar propaganda going out to obfuscate what he was really doing.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, OK, let's say we believe you on the China/Reid thread... do you have any proof, or are you just speculating?

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, you said "Slavery and segregation are moral issues and are harmful to the USA as a whole, which is why it was right and proper for the Feds to intervene.'

How is it determined when an issue is harmful to the US as a whole so as to warrant federal intervention?

Is there an objective standard that we can use?

Clearly, even though slavery and segregation, as you say were moral issues and harmful, millions disagreed with the right of the federal government to act to end those horrible practices.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Glenn, OK, let's say we believe you on the China/Reid thread... do you have any proof, or are you just speculating?

I'm not taking this rabbit trail farther. I bore with your first statements/questions directed at me rather than the post, but I don't want to take the string any farther away from the topic. I know you libs have a difficult time staying on topic, but that's your problem.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

The objective standard for morality is God's word. Millions disagree with that. Just because millions disagree with something, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Xavier Onassis said...

Dave, so no, he doesn't have any proof. But if you click through to the Esquire article I linked to you will see Bundy and his followers ranting about the Reid/China thing as well as humans implanted with microchips, Project MK Ultra, and how the BLM isn't a part of the federal government but are really part of the U.N. Glenn would feel right at home on Bundy's ranch.

Dave Miller said...

XO... here's an article by Jon Ralston, Dean of Nevada Political Writers.

He is a man well respected by leaders in both parties, and is generally no fan of Reids.

He is also a bulldog when investigating. If something was there, he'd have found it, and reported it.

I find it funny that Glenn brought up the China/Reid connection, but when questioned, he claims we are off topic.

Maybe we are off topic because he knows he has no evidence for what he believes.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn... but who gets to determine exactly what God's Word says?

There have been legitimate differences on that for centuries.

Are you saying that the Bible should be the standard around which our societal laws are fashioned? And again, if so, what do we do when there is disagreement on the interpretation of those laws?

What if a majority of our country does not agree with this view in a pluralistic society?

Dave Miller said...

Xo... oops, here's the link...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/the-not-so-jolly-rancher-106117.html?hp=t1

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

My original comment which included the statement about China was in regards to YOUR question. I don't need to continue taking off topic.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Regarding the Bible as standard for morality:

It is true regardless of what other people want to believe. Our moral laws have ALWAYS been based on the Biblical standard. They are the objective truth. If a majority of the country disagrees, that doesn't alter the fact that it is true.

Most "differences" in understanding have not been in regards to morality. The only questioning of morality has been recently by the homosexualists who try to justify that which is not justifiable.

Now, I've responded to your question about what the moral standard should be, and I've responded to your question of clarification. Now stay on topic.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn... on topic... where was China first mentioned on this thread? I've reread my comments over and over.

No one else mentions China either, before you did.

Sorry, facts are difficult aren't they?

What are moral laws? Was slavery based on moral biblical law? How about certain people being valued less than others? What about genocide Glenn?

Were all of those factual things our founders did to people, in the name of God and country, sound, moral Godly principles?

We might believe we founded our country on biblical values way back then, but any fair study of our actions would show we certainly did not follow what the bible taught.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

You are being intentionally stupid. Go back to YOUR second comment, when you noted that I never addressed the Bundy's lawlessness. In response I gave you what I believed about the situation, and that is where I wanted to leave it because beyond that it was off the topic of the post - which wasn't Bundy!

The main moral law would be to love your neighbor as yourself. Which would preclude enslaving people in the type of system the USA had. All people are of equal value, but not all cultures are.

Genocide would also be proscribed by The Biblical morals.

The country WAS founded on Biblical values, but man is a sinner.

Xavier Onassis said...

"Genocide would also be proscribed by The Biblical morals."

You "god" committed the the most heinous genocide in history when he wiped out every man, woman, child and baby on the face of the Earth except for Noah and his family! Don't talk to us about Biblical morals.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.,

Idiots like you keep whining about the FLOOD, which you don't believe in, and are furious with a God you don't believe it. Why so angry at that which doesn't exist?

God had ample reason to destroy everyone on earth. Everyone was corrupt and all sorts of horrible things were going on --- wait, isn't that just like the world is now?!?!?

God is the creator and HE gets to decide what is right and wrong. You don't get to make such decisions. Poor baby.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, we keep hearing about the Biblical values our country was founded on but I don;t see it.

If people refused to practice those values, it is hard to argue for their importance.

What specific biblical values were we founded on?

I would agree that we based some of our laws on certain Old Testament laws, or expectations, but our values?

I think that is hard, given our performance, to claim.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - Your "god" has the emotional development of a petulant child who throws a fit and becomes violent because people don't love him and do what he says.

Your "god" knows every horrific disaster, war, famine, plague, kidnapping, rape, cancer, torture, genocide that will ever happen and yet he sits back and allows them to occur.

Your "god" claims to be infallible but keeps trying to correct his own mistakes.

If I were inclined to believe in and worship a god, I would demand a far better god than yours.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

You misrepresent the God of the Bible in the way a tempter-tantrem-throwing child misrepresents his parents.

But that really demonstrates your ignorance of what the Bible says.

You are still angry at someone you don't believe exists. How foolish.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Your problem, as with all those of your ilk (and even many who claim to be Christians), is that you don't understand the seriousness of sin. So you think God is horrible for punishing sin. But He is the one who created everything and therefore has the right to determine the severity of sin and the severity of the punishment for it.

Until you acknowledge that you are indeed a sinner condemned to eternity separated from God, and seek salvation from the punishment for your sin - well, you will remain in your sin and suffer for it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I forgot to include this link with my last comment. It gives a bit of an analogy about the seriousness of sin.

http://www.solasisters.com/2014/04/of-sin-and-mirrors-and-god.html