Jump to content

The Left is Destroying Western Civilization


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

So it is ok to have our traditions come from Christians, but none of our values, and yet religion play a massive part in their lives back then... and we don't have to go back that far the fading of religion is a very recent thing maybe 20 to 30 years...

your naïve to think the bible did not reflect in our values, or laws, when it played a major role in their lives. at one time religion guided everything, from politics to war and everything in-between. there may not be much left to all this religious era today, but in our past history it play a big role, and you can doubt that all you want, but it is recorded in the history books. 

Yes…. We used to have a lot of laws banning being gay, or banning certain sexual activities between consenting adults, or blasphemy laws that punished speech.   
 

I think it’s a good thing we turned our backs on the silly laws based on biblical morality.  Are those the laws you want back on the books?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Yes…. We used to have a lot of laws banning being gay, or banning certain sexual activities between consenting adults,

Just to be clear - it sounds like your argument is that because there's a couple of laws (literally 2) that you feel were biblically based that you don't like, this somehow means that all laws that may descend from biblical belief are wrong.

Murder is a biblical no no. Are you suggesting we should allow it? Pretty sure perjury is too, quite a few others i can think of. Unless you can demonstrate that the majority of laws that come from religious morality are bad, you can't dismiss them just because there's a couple you don't like.

The fact is that we generally run into trouble when we try to base our laws entirely on morality rather than people's rights anyway, but that's another subject.

37 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

 

or blasphemy laws that punished speech.   
 

ROFLMAO - you think we don't have 'Blasphemy" laws that punish speech currently? LOL!  And the ndp are suggesting we should add to that with making it a criminal offense to dare question the use of the term 'genocide' with regards to the first nations :)

We absolutely see that all the time right now, we've just changed the 'religion' involved. We do not live in an era of free speech. You can pay a very heavy price for saying something against the dogma of the day.

Edited by CdnFox
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Just to be clear - it sounds like your argument is that because there's a couple of laws (literally 2) that you feel were biblically based that you don't like, this somehow means that all laws that may descend from biblical belief are wrong.

Murder is a biblical no no. Are you suggesting we should allow it? Pretty sure perjury is too, quite a few others i can think of. Unless you can demonstrate that the majority of laws that come from religious morality are bad, you can't dismiss them just because there's a couple you don't like.

The fact is that we generally run into trouble when we try to base our laws entirely on morality rather than people's rights anyway, but that's another subject.

ROFLMAO - you think we don't have 'Blasphemy" laws that punish speech currently? LOL!  And the ndp are suggesting we should add to that with making it a criminal offense to dare question the use of the term 'genocide' with regards to the first nations :)

We absolutely see that all the time right now, we've just changed the 'religion' involved. We do not live in an era of free speech. You can pay a very heavy price for saying something against the dogma of the day.

I think the fact that it is in the Bible is irrelevant.  We would have laws against murder anyway.  We don't have laws against coveting and adultery.  We shouldn't have any laws banning gay sex/marriage.

Full agreement on the free speech issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think the fact that it is in the Bible is irrelevant.  We would have laws against murder anyway.  We don't have laws against coveting and adultery.  We shouldn't have any laws banning gay sex/marriage.

well we do have laws against adultery. That's still considered a bad thing under the law.

And there are societies historically that didn't have 'murder' as an absolute prohibition . Or had definitions of it so loose we wouldn't recognize it.

Meanwhile many societies without a bible have been against gays. sooooo ...

I think nobody would say that our laws are "Copied" from the bible. But I think that many of the things we perceive as being human rights and worthy of incorporation into society come from the morals we historically derive from the bible and overall those aren't bad moral principles

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Full agreement on the free speech issue.

Yeah. Not happy about being right about that :)  But i think it's human nature, we as a species have always wanted to 'punish' "wrongspeak" and there's only a few brief periods in history where we really manage to rise above that.

Sigh - sometimes it's hard to think of humans as the best we could do with 4 billion years of evolution - but whatcha gonna do :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well we do have laws against adultery. That's still considered a bad thing under the law.

And there are societies historically that didn't have 'murder' as an absolute prohibition . Or had definitions of it so loose we wouldn't recognize it.

Meanwhile many societies without a bible have been against gays. sooooo ...

I think nobody would say that our laws are "Copied" from the bible. But I think that many of the things we perceive as being human rights and worthy of incorporation into society come from the morals we historically derive from the bible and overall those aren't bad moral principles

Yeah. Not happy about being right about that :)  But i think it's human nature, we as a species have always wanted to 'punish' "wrongspeak" and there's only a few brief periods in history where we really manage to rise above that.

Sigh - sometimes it's hard to think of humans as the best we could do with 4 billion years of evolution - but whatcha gonna do :)

Adultery is still considered grounds for divorce but it is not against the law. 

 I don't know of any societies that have opposed gay rights without their being some kind of holy book involved. 

I would imagine that prior to the Bible being written, murder and theft was frowned upon, and that's how they found their way in there.  I guess the book was also written by parents who had a lot of stuff too.  Hence the honouring and the coveting bits.

Freedom of expression is really taking a kicking right now.  I'm a Brit, and sometimes I'm embarrassed by my country's attitude towards free expression.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Yes…. We used to have a lot of laws banning being gay, or banning certain sexual activities between consenting adults, or blasphemy laws that punished speech.   
 

I think it’s a good thing we turned our backs on the silly laws based on biblical morality.  Are those the laws you want back on the books?  

So you agree , that some of out laws and policies are from the bible... and that there are even more of our values are based on our religions. Which is what you've been denying all along. 

We as a people have grown since the bible first was published or atleast i would hope, we don't burn witches, or think the earth is flat, cut the ears off wife's that have cheated.... does not negate the fact that back in the day when everyone had religion deeply imbedded in their life's it would have an effect in our morals and values, including seeping into our laws and policies.  

Have i said that is what i wanted, to turn back the sands of time ? and yet we still have laws and policies based on the bible, do we get rid of them as well becasue of your dislike of religion . 

 

We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This website explains the impact of Christianity on western civilization.  Of course we will have lots of deniers, but the history cannot be denied and is easily verifiable.

The Impact Of Christianity On Western Civilization Essay Example - PHDessay.com

More than one thousand years before the birth of Christ, the biblical requirement given by Moses was that no man is above the law and one witness is not enough to convict any man of a crime he may have committed.  A matter must be established by two or three witnesses.  (Deuteronomy 19:15 KJV).  These two principles are well established in our legal system today.

"15  One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. "  Deuteronomy 19:15 KJV

Another is the general day of rest that most of society enjoys with the exception of those whose job requires them to work. This comes from the principle that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day.  This was first established by law for the nation of Israel as the Sabbath or Saturday, but was changed by the early Roman church council in 325 A.D. to Sunday for the church and as a general day of rest for everyone.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Did other cultures, besides western Christian ones, have laws against murder?

Did other cultures have ancient stories/myths that guided morality?  Are some of them variations of Biblical stories?  For me it’s not about whether you believe the stories are literally true, because they have tremendous metaphorical truths about human nature and they warn of what happens when we stray from the natural order. In the Far East it’s called the Dao (way).

These stories have stood the test of time for a reason. They have been foundational to our democracy and our public morality.  There are many stories about what happens when people ignore the lessons of the past, including factual history, and the Bible does have history within it, even if there’s debate about what isn’t to be taken literally.

You shun past wisdom and think that whatever one wants is good?  Or is it whatever is legal?   Or is it whatever you can get away with?

There are good reasons to learn about and understand your culture and its origins.  If you want to take an atheist perspective, at least understand what it is that you depose.  I don’t respect people who aren’t at least willing to be informed.

At least read some Joseph Campbell comparative mythology.  You don’t seem to understand the universality of most Biblical stories and themes.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Adultery is still considered grounds for divorce but it is not against the law. 

it is against the law. Just not criminal law. It's not just grounds for divorce, it's a LEGISLATED grounds for divorce. Civil law is still law.

 

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know of any societies that have opposed gay rights without their being some kind of holy book involved

There are a number. The scandanavians for example.  And of course there are some where teh religion actually supported it such as Japan, tho it was directly tied to pedophilia with a tradition of priests having an acolyte 'boyfriend' till he came of age as a man and went his own way. Same with the samurai. So i don't know if we want to go there.

But the point is that religion or no pretty much all societies disagree on various aspects of 'morality'. Christianity may form the common basis for what our forefathers considered 'appropriate' including sex, theft, murder etc. But that's not to say that while that may be the genesis (heh) of the laws that it some how means our laws are biblical directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Did other cultures, besides western Christian ones, have laws against murder?

Depends on how you describe murder. Many would allow the killings of people that we would condemn. Hell - many parts of the states would.

And there are many christian countries who have allowed gay relationships for example. France comes to mind, they had a special legal arrangement for it centuries ago.

So.... it's one thing to suggest our laws are based on christian values. It's another to say our laws are directly biblical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

"15  One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. "  Deuteronomy 19:15 KJV

Today this is a general principle but not a limiting factor.  Circumstantial evidence is taken into consideration by a judge or jury.  There are not always witnesses available for every crime.  Other evidence must often be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Your expressing "your" opinions, and then trying to fit them in to my narrative, There are millions reasons why "in my OPINION i thought what Chretien did was nothing more try and make a legacy of his name on the backs of tax payers, and government departments. The fact he was a liberal well that is part of the story, but not the main character. 

If your "narrative" had any nuance and wasn't so invariably one-sided, this might be worth considering.    

15 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I think over all there are much better ways to ensure that budgets are balanced, so they can not really get out of control as they are today... Todays Liberal deficits are mind blowing , how many years do you think it would take to balance those numbers, an entire generation, 2 or 3... is my bet.  

There are only two ways to balance the budget.  You increase revenue, or you decrease expenses.  If taxes and unemployment are already high and you're headed for a sovereign debt crisis (as Canada was in the mid 90's), decreasing expenses is your only option.  Chretien did what was necessary even though it caused pain and was unpopular, rather than kick the can down the road and leave someone else to solve an even worse problem.  It required leadership, whether or not you liked the guy.  

Whoever succeeds Justin Trudeau's Liberal mismanagement will have to make similar (though perhaps not as dire) choices.  Spending is our problem, so program spending is what needs to be fixed.  If you can't give any credit to the only government we've had in the last 40 years to meaningfully tackle this problem, I don't think there's a better example of your bias.  

 

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Just to be clear - it sounds like your argument is that because there's a couple of laws (literally 2) that you feel were biblically based that you don't like, this somehow means that all laws that may descend from biblical belief are wrong.

Most of the "biblical laws" aren't actually biblical at all, but rather ones that exist all over the world and adhere to common-sense theories of order and decency.  

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Murder is a biblical no no. Are you suggesting we should allow it?

Murder is an everywhere no-no.  

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Pretty sure perjury is too, quite a few others i can think of.

Perjury comes from a Latin (Roman) term pre-dating the Bible.  

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Unless you can demonstrate that the majority of laws that come from religious morality are bad, you can't dismiss them just because there's a couple you don't like.

I can demonstrate that the majority of laws are based on universal morality, rather than religious.  Our legal system is based more on Roman (rather than Christian) tradition, which itself was based on Greek traditions, which evolved over hundreds (and probably thousands) of years.   

 

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Chretien did what was necessary even though it caused pain and was unpopular, rather than kick the can down the road and leave someone else to solve an even worse problem.  It required leadership, whether or not you liked the guy.  

Not really. I mean, he did at least try to address the issue and points to him for that.  But - it turns out there's a THIRD way to balance the budget - hand some one else the bill. Which is largely what he did - he downloaded costs to the provinces and kept the money he should have transferred. I believe funding for health care for example went as low as 18 percent.  He downloaded a bunch of other costs as well.

It's not 'leadership' or 'courageous' at all to simply say 'I can't pay this... ummm... here, you pay it" 

The rest of his money came in the end from robbing the EI accounts. He took 70 BILLION dollars in money that had been collected on behalf of tax payers for a specific purpose and stole it to use for his budget. Literally more than all his 'surpluses' combined.

Theft of the people's money isn't 'leadership' either. Even if you can get away with it legally.

Other than that - we paid the deficit down thanks to the GST and massive trade surplus the Free Trade agreement created. Both of which he promised to scrap and both of which he kept.  THat was someone else's leadership.

Chretien did do  a few noteworthy things and you can't blow off his achievements entirely, but your portrayal of his debt fighting is not accurate nor warranted. He did not beat the problem by leadership.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I didn't dismiss them, as they are largely mine anyway.  I am merely saying goodbye.

The divisions will be "repaired" so to speak as we boomers die off, just as the sexual mores held by our parents went.

Yeaaaah, no. In forty years it will be the millennials' turn to be sneered at as "old' and "bigoted' by whatever ignorant rabble are young at the time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Yes…. We used to have a lot of laws banning being gay, or banning certain sexual activities between consenting adults, or blasphemy laws that punished speech.   

We still have laws banning sexual activities between consenting adults and blasphemy laws - though they're about offensive or 'hateful' speech rather than religious speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Most of the "biblical laws" aren't actually biblical at all, but rather ones that exist all over the world and adhere to common-sense theories of order and decency.  

I think that's a bit of a circular argument and to be honest it's not accurate. Laws vary a GREAT deal all around the world. If morality was ubiquitous as you suggest that wouldn't be the case.

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Murder is an everywhere no-no. 

No it isn't. In fact, the definition of it varies a HUGE amount. What is murder in one place might be perfectly lawful homicide somewhere else.  Consider the US - there are places where in some circumstances you can shoot and kill someone legally where the same circumstances in Canada would be called murder and net you our harshest penalties (3 months in a halfway house, no pizza  i believe is the current max).

So no. It isn't.

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Perjury comes from a Latin (Roman) term pre-dating the Bible. 

And? Is your point that if the bible didn't create the language for something then it's not biblical?  Nobody claimed that perjury didn't exist before the bible.  Murder did too, and the bible touches on that, so did coveting for that matter :)  The bible didn't CREATE these things, it only discusses how "god" sees these things and how you should view them.

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I can demonstrate that the majority of laws are based on universal morality, rather than religious. 

No you can't.  the fact is that there is no universal morality. At all. Even countries with common backgrounds and ethnicity don't have that.  If you feel like it give it a shot but good luck with that.  At best you might be able to come up with a few general principles but even then there will be exceptions.

19 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Our legal system is based more on Roman (rather than Christian) tradition, which itself was based on Greek traditions, which evolved over hundreds (and probably thousands) of years.   

If you mean 'legal system' in the sense of our courts and such  then it's a null issue - there wasn't a proscribed biblical model for how to try someone for a crime other than a few guidelines here and there so there;s nothing to compare,

If you mean our actual laws then no. Like hell no' :)

If you mean our base morality then you'd still have a very rough time making that case. And lets not forget that the western roman empire (the byzantine) lasted a lot longer that the eastern one, influenced the world even more and was christian.

Morality be it biblical or otherwise often does have a practical element. In a way that's a chicken and egg argument.  But there is no doubt that the specific collection of moral beliefs generally attributed to Christianity as a whole is unique as a system when compared to others.

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Yeaaaah, no. In forty years it will be the millennials' turn to be sneered at as "old' and "bigoted' by whatever ignorant rabble are young at the time.

Of course, but there will be a short golden era in between :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the NBA held its all star game the other night. And they apparently consulted some Canadians about who to get to sing the Canadian anthem. Now, the thing about Canada's media and artists are they've taken their cues from academics. Anti-patriotism is fashionable. They chose some nobody who's black because, after all it's 'black history month' in Canada. Who then went on to shit on Canada in front of tens of millions of American viewers.

Shitting on Canada gets you praised for your bravery and honesty by the rest of the mostly talentless welfare artists of Canada's cancon. So I'm quite certain she'll be fawned over and praised and the politicians won't dare say a word of criticism - particularly since she'll hold up the race shield. 

Now, it's her right to be a shrill, Canada-hating c*nt. This is a free country, after all. And none of the laws the Liberals are considering to control offensive or hateful speech will ever challenge people who deliberately set out to offend large groups of people who aren't members of preferred identity groups. 

But this talentless, Canada-hating sow is the child of immigrants we allowed to come and stay here from Jamaica. So it seems to me if she doesn't want to be dismissed as a sanctimonious hypocrite she should stop being a colonizing occupier of native land and leave. Wouldn't that make sense? She and her parents and her siblings should pack up, leave whatever land they might own here to the natives, and go back to the shithole they came from. They've all still got Jamaican citizenship, after all. Most Canadians don't have that option. They do. But they've decided to stay here and occupy the natives' land. 

While shitting on Canada in front of American audiences. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. They chose some nobody who's black 

2. Shitting on Canada ... it's her right to be a shrill, Canada-hating c*nt.  

1. Jully Black (who's Black) is not a nobody.  I have heard of her and not you.
2. Yeah... you are overreacting.  Just like people who are going out of their way to say this is a monumental change .... getting all snowflakey about it isn't helpful either.

She just changed a word to make a point, let's move on lest people think white people can't take a poke...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not really. I mean, he did at least try to address the issue and points to him for that.  But - it turns out there's a THIRD way to balance the budget - hand some one else the bill. Which is largely what he did - he downloaded costs to the provinces and kept the money he should have transferred. I believe funding for health care for example went as low as 18 percent.  He downloaded a bunch of other costs as well.

It's not 'leadership' or 'courageous' at all to simply say 'I can't pay this... ummm... here, you pay it" 

It's still cutting costs, and considering the provincial governments are in charge of delivering health care in their provinces, it forced them to do their own soul-searching and cost-cutting.  

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The rest of his money came in the end from robbing the EI accounts. He took 70 BILLION dollars in money that had been collected on behalf of tax payers for a specific purpose and stole it to use for his budget. Literally more than all his 'surpluses' combined.

So a defacto income tax.  Fine.  

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Theft of the people's money isn't 'leadership' either. Even if you can get away with it legally.

Because it isn't theft.  ?

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Other than that - we paid the deficit down thanks to the GST and massive trade surplus the Free Trade agreement created. Both of which he promised to scrap and both of which he kept.  THat was someone else's leadership.

Other than cutting expenses down by a whopping ~17% (after adjusting for inflation) you mean?  Sure.  

 

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

If your "narrative" had any nuance and wasn't so invariably one-sided, this might be worth considering.    

There are only two ways to balance the budget.  You increase revenue, or you decrease expenses.  If taxes and unemployment are already high and you're headed for a sovereign debt crisis (as Canada was in the mid 90's), decreasing expenses is your only option.  Chretien did what was necessary even though it caused pain and was unpopular, rather than kick the can down the road and leave someone else to solve an even worse problem.  It required leadership, whether or not you liked the guy.  

Whoever succeeds Justin Trudeau's Liberal mismanagement will have to make similar (though perhaps not as dire) choices.  Spending is our problem, so program spending is what needs to be fixed.  If you can't give any credit to the only government we've had in the last 40 years to meaningfully tackle this problem, I don't think there's a better example of your bias.  

 

My narrative must be worth something you keep coming back to it.

I agree, but what he did was declare war, and stripping government departments to the bone for a full decade was a perfect example of what not to do. It cost the federal government more to repair the damage done to all these departments than what was actually saved.

And then the question of was it all worth it, all the gains was destroyed by successive governments within a short period of time. He had lots of options available to him, burning the place to the ground should have been the last resort. 

And if that was a crises , then what are we about to enter?

It seems that kicking things down the road is the liberal way, and to be fair most other parties as well. You call it leadership i call it excessive, if it was as bad as you described why did successive governments not continue with the program of cuts , instead they went the other direction, and wiped out those gains and drive the deficit up even further. which draws the question, was these drastic cuts even needed to save the day, or is that more government misdirection.  

You don't need to have examples of bias, I freely admit I do not like many ideas, policies, or actions from the left. That been said i have been vocal of the right down falls as well.  

But one can say the same thing about your posts, you spend 50 % of them defending liberal actions, and the other 50 % arguing with the right side of the house... And if you had not openly declared yourself a conservative no one would have been able to tell. And of course there is your bias 

We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,804
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Quietlady
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Experienced
    • Legato went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • CrakHoBarbie went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Videospirit went up a rank
      Contributor
    • SkyHigh went up a rank
      Experienced
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...