Page 1 of 1
What the hell happened to Chuck Norris? Did the fundementalist zombies get him?
#1
Posted 10 March 2010 - 08:59 PM
This plug is pretty sickening.
I find it disheartening that he actually connects the forefathers of America with religious education, when, correct me if I'm wrong, the very first amendment states that religion and state needs to be kept separate.
What more, I hate statistics. Why must speakers always try to cram sensationalist statistics down my throat to try and sway me? Don't tell me about other people (you probably handpicked) that agree with you, convince me why I should agree with you with logic and facts.
I find it disheartening that he actually connects the forefathers of America with religious education, when, correct me if I'm wrong, the very first amendment states that religion and state needs to be kept separate.
What more, I hate statistics. Why must speakers always try to cram sensationalist statistics down my throat to try and sway me? Don't tell me about other people (you probably handpicked) that agree with you, convince me why I should agree with you with logic and facts.
#2
Posted 10 March 2010 - 11:11 PM
its unbelievable. do you think he's trying to get back at the people makin up lies about him? just telling ridiculous lies about the constitution and trying to put bibles in public schools? sure if you wanna have a christian school go ahead. but not in public schools. i hate all this twisting and ignoring of the founding fathers actual beliefs to religious ends.
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
- Oscar Levant
- Oscar Levant
#3
Posted 11 March 2010 - 02:14 AM
weren't a whole bunch of the founding fathers self proclaimed atheists?
Take good care to keep relations civil
It's decent in the first of gentlemen
To speak friendly, Even to the devil
It's decent in the first of gentlemen
To speak friendly, Even to the devil
#4
Posted 11 March 2010 - 02:52 AM
Sinisdar Toste, on 10 March 2010 - 11:11 PM, said:
its unbelievable. do you think he's trying to get back at the people makin up lies about him? just telling ridiculous lies about the constitution and trying to put bibles in public schools? sure if you wanna have a christian school go ahead. but not in public schools. i hate all this twisting and ignoring of the founding fathers actual beliefs to religious ends.
No man he is completely serious he was the biggest Huckabee supporter in world and is diehard christian fundamentalist
#5
Posted 11 March 2010 - 03:25 AM
knight of shadows, on 11 March 2010 - 02:52 AM, said:
Sinisdar Toste, on 10 March 2010 - 11:11 PM, said:
its unbelievable. do you think he's trying to get back at the people makin up lies about him? just telling ridiculous lies about the constitution and trying to put bibles in public schools? sure if you wanna have a christian school go ahead. but not in public schools. i hate all this twisting and ignoring of the founding fathers actual beliefs to religious ends.
No man he is completely serious he was the biggest Huckabee supporter in world and is diehard christian fundamentalist
FWIW, it's his wife's fault.
He just hasn't fought the crazy since he got married - dove in head-first, in fact.
I finally have an avatar ... and it's better than yours.
#6
Posted 11 March 2010 - 06:02 AM
Aptorian, on 10 March 2010 - 08:59 PM, said:
I find it disheartening that he actually connects the forefathers of America with religious education, when, correct me if I'm wrong, the very first amendment states that religion and state needs to be kept separate.
The First Amendment states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. The term 'separation of church and state' comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson (the 3rd president) to the Danbury Baptists.
Sinisdar Toste, on 10 March 2010 - 11:11 PM, said:
its unbelievable. do you think he's trying to get back at the people makin up lies about him?
From the look of the video, I'd say it was made in the 80s?
Morgoth, on 11 March 2010 - 02:14 AM, said:
weren't a whole bunch of the founding fathers self proclaimed atheists?
Nah, most of them were Christians. Some of them were more Enlightened than others. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist (there were a few of those), and he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus or the miracle stories at all, so to Christians, he was the next thing to an atheist. His idea of the 'wall of separation' was, in fact, mainly accepted because the Christians were fearful of one denomination of Christianity gaining official sanction, not because they felt that atheists were real people.
Edited for a memory blip.
This post has been edited by Terez: 11 March 2010 - 10:01 AM
The President (2012) said:
Please proceed, Governor.
Chris Christie (2016) said:
There it is.
Elizabeth Warren (2020) said:
And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
#7
Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:09 AM
Sinisdar Toste, on 10 March 2010 - 11:11 PM, said:
i hate all this twisting and ignoring of the founding fathers actual beliefs to religious ends.
well, to be quite honest with you here, it was them that started doing it. Seeding bigotry and fundamentalism was a tool these "founding fathers" used to rouse the population against the Quebec and the catholics living there, just so that they and other kinda rich and influential people could claim the Ohio territory.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
#8
Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:49 AM
Also, I should probably point out that they are referring to elective religious education courses, where the Bible is taught as 'history and literature'. And while I'm aware that the Bible isn't much of a historical document, it does have historical significance, and I see no problem with teaching it as literature. Of course, most of the teachers doing this course are probably making it into a religious instruction opportunity, but again, it's an elective. No one is being forced to take the class.
But yeah, Chuck Norris is a douchebag. And as one of your Reddit friends pointed out in the YouTube comments....Chuck Norris jokes originally got popular precisely for that reason. They were mocking him. Thanks to your 4chan friends, it all got twisted into hero-worship somewhere along the way.
But yeah, Chuck Norris is a douchebag. And as one of your Reddit friends pointed out in the YouTube comments....Chuck Norris jokes originally got popular precisely for that reason. They were mocking him. Thanks to your 4chan friends, it all got twisted into hero-worship somewhere along the way.
The President (2012) said:
Please proceed, Governor.
Chris Christie (2016) said:
There it is.
Elizabeth Warren (2020) said:
And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
#9
Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:57 AM
So, what? People are now slamming Chuck Norris because he isn't actually like they make him out to be on teh interwebz? And that he has beliefs and stands up for them? No wonder the world is going down the pan...
A Haunting Poem
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
#10
Posted 11 March 2010 - 03:44 PM
Tiste Simeon, on 11 March 2010 - 10:57 AM, said:
So, what? People are now slamming Chuck Norris because he isn't actually like they make him out to be on teh interwebz? And that he has beliefs and stands up for them? No wonder the world is going down the pan...
Yes, lying is a good way of getting your point across, and people calling out other people on lies is why the world is going down the pan, obviously.
Monster Hunter World Iceborne: It's like hunting monsters, but on crack, but the monsters are also on crack.
#11
Posted 11 March 2010 - 07:19 PM
Sorry who is lying about what now?
A Haunting Poem
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
I Scream
You Scream
We all Scream
For I Scream.
#12
Posted 11 March 2010 - 07:28 PM
Tiste Simeon, on 11 March 2010 - 07:19 PM, said:
Sorry who is lying about what now?
According to my GF (Who has a BA in American History), more than 50% of the 'founding fathers' who signed were either Deisits or Athiests, and it is suspected that many of those who were claimed by religion (or the other way around) and paid only lip service to said religion?
The Country was founded for freedom of religion, or freedom for a lack of religion. There was no agreement or even suggestion by any kind of majority of the founding fathers to push a christian teaching in public schools.
At least this is what the GF was telling me last night. My personal knowledge is that Ben Franklin was the original slick willy, and he was a dirty ole bastard.
Monster Hunter World Iceborne: It's like hunting monsters, but on crack, but the monsters are also on crack.
#13
Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:28 PM
Obdigore, on 11 March 2010 - 07:28 PM, said:
According to my GF (Who has a BA in American History), more than 50% of the 'founding fathers' who signed were either Deisits or Athiests
None of them were declared atheists, and only a few were declared Deists, though there were some Quakers and Unitarians in the bunch. The vast majority of them were Episcopalian. (Here is a roundup, and though it's done by a Christian group with an agenda, I can't find anything that convincingly refutes the info on the page.) But yes, most of them only paid lip service to religion.
The Treaty of Tripoli. Was forged during Washington's tenure, and completed shortly after John Adams took office, and has his signature on it. It says, in Article 11: 'The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' Case closed, as far as I am concerned....
This post has been edited by Terez: 12 March 2010 - 08:39 AM
The President (2012) said:
Please proceed, Governor.
Chris Christie (2016) said:
There it is.
Elizabeth Warren (2020) said:
And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
#14
Posted 14 March 2010 - 11:33 PM
I don't know what is more funny, how Chuckie defines 'Biblical principles', or that anyone should be very upset about a 'biblical curriculum' per default. But in all fairness, considering how some individuals in the US defines 'biblical curriculum', I'd get upset too.
Also, you have to forgive me, but I find it hilarious that the question whether the US was 'founded on Christianity' or not boils down to bureaucracy. The definition of what faith is, should not and is not, something that can be put into some sort of bureaucratic or legal text. That the lawmakers were inspired by their own beliefs and knowledge is completely normal, however it's a moot point and doesn't give evidence on what was built on what. Man, it's so funny that people get hung up on things like this.
Also, you have to forgive me, but I find it hilarious that the question whether the US was 'founded on Christianity' or not boils down to bureaucracy. The definition of what faith is, should not and is not, something that can be put into some sort of bureaucratic or legal text. That the lawmakers were inspired by their own beliefs and knowledge is completely normal, however it's a moot point and doesn't give evidence on what was built on what. Man, it's so funny that people get hung up on things like this.
This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 14 March 2010 - 11:40 PM
_ In the dark I play the night, like a tune vividly fright_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
So light it blows, at lark it goes _
invisible indifferent sight_
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1