This makes me wanna vomit (So help me God, it turned into a climate debate)

#1
D

dantheman617

Walking on sunshine
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
8,645
Likes
6
#1
If it "offends" them that "so help me God" is used, why wouldn't it offend Christians to remove it? Why please a small part of the population, compared to the masses? If Obama wants to mention God, its a free country and he should be able to do so. This stuff makes me more angry than anything else in the world. Read and give your thoughts Lawsuit seeks to take 'so help me God' out of inaugural - CNN.com
 
#3
#3
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

the Michael Newdows of the world would have you believe that that means that religion of any kind should be barred from public places.

I'm agnostic and religious displays on government property don't offend me in the least. My rights aren't being violated by "In God We Trust" on the currency, swearing in on a Bible prior to court testimony, or the Cross being part of the seal of some municipality.

The ONLY public display of religion that bothers me is when Al Gore trundles his fat ass out in public to give a screed about the evils of the mythical anthropogenic global warming.
 
#5
#5
MG1968 said:
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

the Michael Newdows of the world would have you believe that that means that religion of any kind should be barred from public places.

I'm agnostic and religious displays on government property don't offend me in the least. My rights aren't being violated by "In God We Trust" on the currency, swearing in on a Bible prior to court testimony, or the Cross being part of the seal of some municipality.

The ONLY public display of religion that bothers me is when Al Gore trundles his fat ass out in public to give a screed about the evils of the mythical anthropogenic global warming.
Click to expand...

Good post, agree with you on all points, although we do differ slightly on global warming itself.
 
#6
#6
MG1968 said:
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

the Michael Newdows of the world would have you believe that that means that religion of any kind should be barred from public places.

I'm agnostic and religious displays on government property don't offend me in the least. My rights aren't being violated by "In God We Trust" on the currency, swearing in on a Bible prior to court testimony, or the Cross being part of the seal of some municipality.

The ONLY public display of religion that bothers me is when Al Gore trundles his fat ass out in public to give a screed about the evils of the mythical anthropogenic global warming.
Click to expand...

I agree. I am a christian but have many friends agnostic, etc. I dont see how "in God we trust",etc bothers anyone. It is not like they are making a atheist swear upon a Bible.
 
#8
#8
dantheman617 said:
I agree. I am a christian but have many friends agnostic, etc. I dont see how "in God we trust",etc bothers anyone. It is not like they are making a atheist swear upon a Bible.
Click to expand...


The only defense that I can come up with for this action is that if Obama was an atheist and decided to change the wording when he is sworn in, I could see many Christian groups going crazy.
 
#10
#10
Newdow is nothing more than an attention whore. He used his daughter, who he has no visitation rights with, to sue California because her school recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
#11
#11
emainvol said:
Good post, agree with you on all points, although we do differ slightly on global warming itself.
Click to expand...

I am still waiting for solid evidence for global warming being the main reason for global temperature rise. As it stands right now there is not enough evidence to say that the changes we see are caused by man (in whole or part).

My main problem with the agenda as it stands is they want us to dismantle our economy before knowing what the role man has played. I want us to have the cleanest environment possible, I just don't want to implode the country in making it better.
 
#12
#12
OE, is that your new cop uniform? It must make traffic stops on the turnpike interesting.
 
#13
#13
emainvol said:
The only defense that I can come up with for this action is that if Obama was an atheist and decided to change the wording when he is sworn in, I could see many Christian groups going crazy.
Click to expand...

I think some would. I know I wouldn't find it offensive in any way. You can't force your beliefs on someone else. If he would choose not to then so be it.
 
#14
#14
KB5252 said:
I am still waiting for solid evidence for global warming being the main reason for global temperature rise. As it stands right now there is not enough evidence to say that the changes we see are caused by man (in whole or part).

My main problem with the agenda as it stands is they want us to dismantle our economy before knowing what the role man has played. I want us to have the cleanest environment possible, I just don't want to implode the country in making it better.
Click to expand...

I am one of those "better safe than sorry" kind of people. Neither side of the debate has done a great job of proving themselves though.
 
#16
#16
emainvol said:
I am one of those "better safe than sorry" kind of people. Neither side of the debate has done a great job of proving themselves though.
Click to expand...

I would agree with better safe than sorry to an extent. Have to weigh the unintended consequences on both sides of the issue. In many cases I just don't see that prohibiting the output of ________ would benefit us when company A, B, and C are put out of business because of it.
 
#17
#17
emainvol said:
The only defense that I can come up with for this action is that if Obama was an atheist and decided to change the wording when he is sworn in, I could see many Christian groups going crazy.
Click to expand...

I can understand that. With that being said, I dont think a Atheist would ever get elected anytime soon in america.
 
#18
#18
I am the main attraction at the trooper association meetings.

What drives me crazy about global warming is to think for a second we have power over the earth.

The earth can cause eruptions more powerful than an atomic weapon, the earth can carve out continents, the earth can change her temperature when she well pleases without our help.
 
#19
#19
OrangeEmpire said:
I am the main attraction at the trooper association meetings.

What drives me crazy about global warming is to think for a second we have power over the earth.

The earth can cause eruptions more powerful than an atomic weapon, the earth can carve out continents, the earth can change her temperature when she well pleases without our help.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying OE...and it is a popular point....the earth is going to do what she is going to do...or as I've heard some say..."the earth will take care of herself." But, I ask, is the argument whether we have power over the earth or the power to influence the earth? I would argue that the concept of global warming (or global climate change) is that it is a point of power to influence, not power over. If the sun and earth want to do something, they will do it - we have little power to change that. However, it is obvious we have power to influence the earth's tendencies. We can seed clouds to cause rain - or prevent it in other places, with some degree of success. We have raised the local temperatures of specific areas by building cities there and causing urban heat traps. We have caused the rain's pH to change significantly enough in some areas to kill plant life through acid rain.

We certainly can and have influenced the earth's otherwise natural tendencies. The impacts are small on the scale of ice ages, plate tectonics, etc. When it comes to issues such as these, we currently have little or no power to influence them. The earth's climate will cool again - and we will have an ice age (unless we find a way to install a giant lens in space). However, that doesn't mean that man can have no influence over otherwise natural tendencies on time scales shorter than these very slow dynamics.
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
TennTradition said:
I see what you're saying OE...and it is a popular point....the earth is going to do what she is going to do...or as I've heard some say..."the earth will take care of herself." But, I ask, is the argument whether we have power over the earth or the power to influence the earth? I would argue that the concept of global warming (or global climate change) is that it is a point of power to influence, not power over. If the sun and earth want to do something, they will do it - we have little power to change that. However, it is obvious we have power to influence the earth's tendencies. We can seed clouds to cause rain - or prevent it in other places, with some degree of success. We have raised the local temperatures of specific areas by building cities there and causing urban heat traps. We have caused the rain's pH to change significantly enough in some areas to kill plant life through acid rain.

We certainly can and have influenced the earth's otherwise natural tendencies. The impacts are small on the scale of ice ages, plate tectonics, etc. When it comes to these issues, we currently have little or no power to influence them. The earth's climate will cool again - and we will have an ice age (unless we find a way to install a giant lens in space). However, that doesn't mean that man can have no influence over otherwise natural tendencies on time scales shorter than these very slow dynamics.
Click to expand...

The earth has survived for billions of years and all of sudden humans are going to destroy the earth in the next 30 years?

Honestly.......
 
#22
#22
OrangeEmpire said:
The earth has survived for billions of years and all of sudden humans are going to destroy the earth in the next 30 years?

Honestly.......
Click to expand...

Of course not, OE. Did you honestly get that from my post?

It isn't a matter of destroying the earth. It is simply a question of altering the earth's environment to a point that causes negative consequences for it's inhabitants. It isn't an apocalyptic doomsday scenario...
 
#23
#23
OrangeEmpire said:
The earth has survived for billions of years and all of sudden humans are going to destroy the earth in the next 30 years?

Honestly.......
Click to expand...

The earth will be here no matter what we do. The difference will be what species exist on it, and the argument isn't that we are leading ourselves to an apocalyptic destruction, but that we are trending in a direction that could have dire consequences for a decent chunk of the population both human and otherwise. Frankly, I wish scientists would stop trying to predict what will happen so they don't have egg all over their face when it doesn't.

What we do know is that the earth is warming significantly faster than in other periods of its history, and that greenhouse gases are a major player in the process. If you want to ignore that it is certainly your prerogative, but I'd rather play it safe than assume nothing horrible is going to happen. If nothing else we can be assured that the earth is losing a large portion of its fresh water supply as the glaciers melt. Supplying fresh, clean, water to our population is already becoming an issue and we're losing significant portions of the earths reserves.
 
#24
#24
TennTradition said:
Of course not, OE. Did you honestly get that from my post?

It isn't a matter of destroying the earth. It is simply a question of altering the earth's environment to a point that causes negative consequences for it's inhabitants. It isn't an apocalyptic doomsday scenario...
Click to expand...

I am not talking about you, you are 100% reasonable.

I am talking about the pinheads who say the earth is going to burn up in 30 years unless we tax cows because they fart and we need to drive cars like the flintstones.
 
#25
#25
TreeGreen said:
The earth will be here no matter what we do. The difference will be what species exist on it, and the argument isn't that we are leading ourselves to an apocalyptic destruction, but that we are trending in a direction that could have dire consequences for a decent chunk of the population both human and otherwise. Frankly, I wish scientists would stop trying to predict what will happen so they don't have egg all over their face when it doesn't.

What we do know is that the earth is warming significantly faster than in other periods of its history, and that greenhouse gases are a major player in the process. If you want to ignore that it is certainly your prerogative, but I'd rather play it safe than assume nothing horrible is going to happen. If nothing else we can be assured that the earth is losing a large portion of its fresh water supply as the glaciers melt. Supplying fresh, clean, water to our population is already becoming an issue and we're losing significant portions of the earths reserves.
Click to expand...

I do?

:blink:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top