Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So how come all Christain countries are pretty tolerant democracies while for example most Muslim countries are not. Councidence on a global scale? Ha ha ha
Nope, no coincidence - because in the West, Christianity has been tamed and shackled by secular law. They are no longer the big boys on the playground, in control of life and death in society like the Muslims still are in the Middle East. If you actually read your history, Christian countries were alway, and up to just a short time ago just as intolerant and brutal as the Muslim nations of today are. If secular principles had not taken hold in the West thanks to the Enlightenment, Humanism etc then Christianity would still be happily torturing and burning people at the stake. Hell, not even a century ago a Christian nation gleefully murdered millions of Jews..
Quote:
As far as I know all of them were just Christians.
Obviously "as far as you know" isn't very far at all...
Quote:
You should be as even though they fled oppression they were still Christians.
Puritans, Quakers. Not Christians?
According to each sect, many of the others were NOT Christians. But they were still fleeing from oppression in countries with governments based on CHRISTIAN values. They weren't fleeing from your mythological Christian/Bible based Constitutional Republics
Quote:
Yes it does even if not everybody realizes that In democracy majority rules:
Good thing then that the USA isn't a democracy..
Quote:
votes of majority can change any law including constitution. In supreme court majority vote can provide a binding interpretation of any law.
Uhm, no.
Quote:
Why? Slaves didn't revolt neither did women. At some point majority decided that slaves should be freed and women have full rights and it became the law.
Women did indeed revolt. Again you show your lack of knowledge in American history.
Quote:
Majority rule doesn't have to mean oppression of minorities, however for instance due to having Christian majority in the US we outlawed polygamy even though other countries, where other religions have majority, tolerate it.
Mahority rule (i.e. pure democracy) ALWAYS means oppression of minorities. That's why our founders went to great lengths to PREVENT the tyranny of the majority. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner".
Quote:
You pervs are pretty ignorant for someone who wants to hold a discussion in morality, history and constitution.
How exactly am I a perv? And it is pretty obvious that I am hardly the ignorant one here, church boy.
Now back to your parents' basement home-school to study those David Barton textbooks
As I said - this information was already provided to you. Go back and read raison_d'tere's posts. You keep blatantly ignoring the fact that you've been proven wrong. Why must you keep spewing forth bigotry is beyond me.
Burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it DIDN'T happen. If you can't provide that then it's YOU attempting to rewrite history.
Try joining us civilized folk, southern ignorant hick. You might learn something.
I would rather be a hick than a pervert. Anyways, raison never provided me with any supporting evidence and the official version of history, one that I was taught in college and one that is being confirmed by Wikipedia is:
" While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. [2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions."
As you can read, I hope, there is long history of same-sex unions but not same-sex marriage. As Wikipedia says, concept of same-sex marriage is relatively new.
Now, if you want to comtinue this discussion beyond childish name calling you have to provide me with names of same-sex brides and dates such same-sex marriages were performed in ancient Rome or Greece.
If same-sex marriage was in fact a social and legal norm in ancient Greece and Rome you should not have a problem and we should have plenty of reports of such marriages being performed.
If you can't provide any proof just admit you are trying to revise history and go back to your closet.
I would rather be a hick than a pervert. Anyways, raison never provided me with any supporting evidence and the official version of history, one that I was taught in college and one that is being confirmed by Wikipedia is:
" While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. [2] Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions."
As you can read, I hope, there is long history of same-sex unions but not same-sex marriage. As Wikipedia says it is relatively new.
Now, if you want to comtinue this discussion beyond childish name calling you have to provide me with names of same-sex brides and dates such same-sex marriages were performed in ancient Rome or Greece.
If same-sex marriage was in fact a social and legal norm in ancient Greece and Rome you should not have a problem and we should have plenty of reports of such marriages being performed.
If you can't provide any proof just admit you are trying to revise history and go back to your closet.
POT MEET KETTLE .... Your side are the only ones talking about pedophilia, seems it is the only thing on YOUR minds, that, and bestiality. Could be more of that projecting stuff.
WE, on the other hand, are taking about two CONSENTING adults being able to wed, and adopt children if they wish.
Why is this so difficult for you guys?
gays, pedophiles, bestiality, are all in the same black filthy kettle! why is it so difficult! because two guys can never produce a human being or two women can not produce a human being. i think some peoples minds have just been too perverted to see it. i think the people having difficulties are gay people their perversion just doesn't allow them to comprehend their perversion. same goes for a pedophiles they don't see anything wrong having sex with kids i bet they wish they had their human rights to molest kids after all they were probably born that way as well!
Nope, no coincidence - because in the West, Christianity has been tamed and shackled by secular law. They are no longer the big boys on the playground, in control of life and death in society like the Muslims still are in the Middle East.
Aha, so just by coincidence all of Christian countries around the world, in Europe and in Americas had been tamed by secular law while Muslim countries remained religious and intolerant.
Wow, that's again would be a big coincidence on a global scale. I hope you realize stupidy of your theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_
If you actually read your history, Christian countries were alway, and up to just a short time ago just as intolerant and brutal as the Muslim nations of today are. If secular principles had not taken hold in the West thanks to the Enlightenment, Humanism etc then Christianity would still be happily torturing and burning people at the stake.
Really? I know my history and beside Spanish inquisition don't see many examples of intolerance, of course in a historical context. I see however a lots of intolerance in Muslim countries. Again, coincidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_
Hell, not even a century ago a Christian nation gleefully murdered millions of Jews..
First of all Hitler was not exactly a church going Christian, furthermore he completely rejected and fought the church as he saw it as competition for the souls of Germans.
Second, absolutely secular countries like Soviet Union, Cambodia or Mao's China gleefuly murdered even more people while being way more intolerant that Christian church ever was. I can definetely see how atheist are so much moral... LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_
According to each sect, many of the others were NOT Christians. But they were still fleeing from oppression in countries with governments based on CHRISTIAN values. They weren't fleeing from your mythological Christian/Bible based Constitutional Republics
They were fleeing opression and seeking freedom to practive their own flavor of Christianity, yet still idetified themselves as Christians.
That's my point: Christians build America. Not Muslims and not Hindus but Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_
Women did indeed revolt. Again you show your lack of knowledge in American history.
Revolt? When Patriotes revolted to remove the British government they had to take up arms, I am not aware of any women fighting with arms for their right to vote Was there another civil war that I missed?
Womene did not revolt. They were granted their rights by majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_
Mahority rule (i.e. pure democracy) ALWAYS means oppression of minorities. That's why our founders went to great lengths to PREVENT the tyranny of the majority. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner".
Yes. And that's why Mormon minority was forced to abolish polygamy just because MAJORITY did not approve of it on moral grounds and that's how native Indian minority was forced to abandon their land. In democracy, majority rules. You need majority to pass a law, you need majority to amend the constitution, you need majority to overturn president's veto and need majority in Supreme Court to declare interpretation of the law binding and final. You see the common theme here: majority. Majority rules in democracy. American democracy is not an exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky_
How exactly am I a perv? And it is pretty obvious that I am hardly the ignorant one here, church boy.
You are incredibly ignorant. As a matter of fact you are the worst kind of ignorant, one that really believes he knows anything on the subject.
Learned ignorant. You are harmful.
Now, go back to your ignorant closet.
Stupid question. In western civilization thousand years ago ie 1012 rape was definitely not legal.
It was a crime in every legal system that was established including Israelites, ancient Greece and Rome.
Actually it was in some cases.
In ancient Rome:
Quote:
As a matter of law, rape could be committed only against a citizen in good standing. The rape of a slave could be prosecuted only as damage to the owner's property.[13] People who worked as prostitutes or entertainers, even if they were technically free, suffered infamia, the loss of legal and social standing. A person who made his or her body available for public use or pleasure had in effect surrendered the right to be protected from sexual abuse or physical violence.[14] Men who had been raped "by the force of robbers or the enemy in wartime (vi praedonum vel hostium)" were exempt by law from infamia.[15]
There was no statute of limitations for rape; by contrast adultery, which was criminalized under Augustus, had to be prosecuted within five years.[16] The rape of a freeborn male (ingenuus) or a female virgin is among the worst crimes that could be committed in Rome, along with parricide and robbing a temple.[17] Rape was a capital crime, and the rapist was subject to execution, a rare penalty in Roman law.[18]
The victim's consent was usually not a factor in Roman rape cases, since raptus could refer to a successful seduction as well as abduction or forced sex. What had been violated was primarily the right of the head of household (paterfamilias) to give or withhold his consent. The consequences of an abduction or an elopement were considered a private matter to be determined by the couple and their families, who might choose to recognize the marriage.[19]
Christian Empire(after Roman):
Quote:
The first Christian emperor Constantine redefined rape as a public offense rather than as a private wrong.[23] Since under Roman law raptus could also mean cases of abduction or elopement without the head of household's permission, Constantine ordered that if the girl had consented, she should be punished along with the male "abductor" by being burnt alive. If she had not consented, she was still considered an accomplice, "on the grounds that she could have saved herself by screaming for help."[24] As a participant to the rape, she was punished under law by being disinherited, regardless of the wishes of her family.[25] Even if she and her family consented to a marriage as the result of an elopement, the marriage was legally void.[26]
Oh, look even more proof you are wrong.
Quote:
In some cultures, rape was seen less as a crime against a particular girl or woman than as a crime against the head of the household or against chastity. As a consequence, the rape of a virgin was often a more serious crime than of a non-virgin, even a wife or widow, and the rape of a prostitute or other unchaste woman was, in some laws, not a crime because her chastity could not be harmed. Furthermore, the woman's consent was under many legal systems not a defense. In seventeenth-century France, even marriage without parental consent was classified as rape.[27]
The penalty for rape was often a fine, payable to the father or the husband whose "goods" were "damaged".[28]
In some laws the woman might marry the rapist instead of his receiving the legal penalty. This was especially prevalent in laws where the crime of rape did not include, as a necessary part, that it be against the woman's will, thus dividing the crime in the current meaning of rape, and a means for a couple to force their families to permit marriage.
In 2012, Amina Filali, a 16 year old Moroccan girl, committed suicide after she was forced to marry her rapist.[29]
Now I can go into my text books and blow this information way open. However, this as you say should get the ball rolling for you.
Women were property, and raping them was a crime, but not really against them but their owner aka Father or Husband. Slaves really had no rights and could only be a victim if their owner said so. Prostitutes and men also weren't seen as victims. but they did have their legal rights and social standing taken from them if there were raped. This was the tradition back then, should we bring it back for the sake of tradition, heck it even speaks about the so called thousand year old tradition of family and marriage.
Should women be property again? Should they not have the same rights as men? I mean traditionally, they had no rights unless their husband or father said they did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as even though they fled oppression they were still Christians.
