US Russian Hoax

[CadyandZoe]

By what standard are you calling someone a "domestic enemy"? What does someone have to do to earn this title?

Surely you know the answers to these questions.

Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.

Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent

Why is it that I have to explain everything?

Of course people should be allowed to debate defunding the police. This is a free country, and if citizens or their elected official choose to cut police funding that is their right. Of course they will have to live with the consequences of a smaller police force, which is probably higher crime.

Isaiah warned you about the evil shepherd. Isaiah warned you about a time when the nation would be ruled by women and children, i.e. people who lack wisdom.

Some unwise and inexperienced people got elected. They defunded the police. Crime skyrocketed.

But tell me this. Did we really need to debate the issue? Any adult with common sense would never have entertained such an idea let alone debate it.

Your philosophy doesn't work in the real world today. Back when the country was first founded, the nation was ruled by men who were well versed in the classics and the nation began to build libraries and public schools in order that the country would be led by wise individuals. Today, libraries are on life support; public schools are indoctrination camps; schools no longer teach the humanities. Churches and Synagogues are no match for those who drive world culture, especially when it comes to moral training. Who is listening to the wise?

The Lord is allowing stupid people to have a great influence on the public, causing confusion, fear, panic, uncertainty, distrust, and mass delusion. We are being led by fools,  who not only lack experience but can't think critically or honestly about the real world.

So no, not today. I don't think we should allow stupid people to enter into the chambers of government in order to have an equal voice with the wise.  No, I don't think teenage minded, bartenders, who lack life experience and are easily manipulated to serve in government.

You can say, "well, that's the choice of those who elected her." To that I say, "prove she was elected."

Again, who gets to decide who is an "enemy infiltrator"? It sounds so I dunno, Soviet?

Surely you know the answers to these questions.

Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.

Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent

[CadyandZoe]

Why should anyone accept what you think, and not what another Christian thinks?

And when religion and politics have been too intertwined, it has led to things like the Inquisition where the "correct" Christian thinking has been imposed on other Christians. By force.

Or if a modern day example is needed, think of the Taliban.

No theocracy is going to create a functioning state in the modern world. Certainly not in the west, where personal freedom is foundational.  In the messianic era, when the world is united under God's rule, that's a different story.

What's different about it? I mean, what do you think will be different?

[RabbiKnife]

By what standard are you calling someone a "domestic enemy"? What does someone have to do to earn this title?

Surely you know the answers to these questions.

Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.

Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent

Why is it that I have to explain everything?

Of course people should be allowed to debate defunding the police. This is a free country, and if citizens or their elected official choose to cut police funding that is their right. Of course they will have to live with the consequences of a smaller police force, which is probably higher crime.

Isaiah warned you about the evil shepherd. Isaiah warned you about a time when the nation would be ruled by women and children, i.e. people who lack wisdom.

Some unwise and inexperienced people got elected. They defunded the police. Crime skyrocketed.

But tell me this. Did we really need to debate the issue? Any adult with common sense would never have entertained such an idea let alone debate it.

Your philosophy doesn't work in the real world today. Back when the country was first founded, the nation was ruled by men who were well versed in the classics and the nation began to build libraries and public schools in order that the country would be led by wise individuals. Today, libraries are on life support; public schools are indoctrination camps; schools no longer teach the humanities. Churches and Synagogues are no match for those who drive world culture, especially when it comes to moral training. Who is listening to the wise?

The Lord is allowing stupid people to have a great influence on the public, causing confusion, fear, panic, uncertainty, distrust, and mass delusion. We are being led by fools,  who not only lack experience but can't think critically or honestly about the real world.

So no, not today. I don't think we should allow stupid people to enter into the chambers of government in order to have an equal voice with the wise.  No, I don't think teenage minded, bartenders, who lack life experience and are easily manipulated to serve in government.

You can say, "well, that's the choice of those who elected her." To that I say, "prove she was elected."

Again, who gets to decide who is an "enemy infiltrator"? It sounds so I dunno, Soviet?

Surely you know the answers to these questions.

Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.

Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent

Who gets to pick the white hats and the black hats?  By what power mechanism will you enforce those decisions?  What is the consequence if those decisions are not to your liking?

[Athanasius]

What's different about it? I mean, what do you think will be different?

Answering for myself: renewed creation, humanity, etc. We won't think, act or behave sinfully. God is just and righteous. Big differences, no?

[Athanasius]

By what standard are you calling someone a "domestic enemy"? What does someone have to do to earn this title?

Surely you know the answers to these questions.

Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.

Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent

Why is it that I have to explain everything?

Of course people should be allowed to debate defunding the police. This is a free country, and if citizens or their elected official choose to cut police funding that is their right. Of course they will have to live with the consequences of a smaller police force, which is probably higher crime.

Isaiah warned you about the evil shepherd. Isaiah warned you about a time when the nation would be ruled by women and children, i.e. people who lack wisdom.

Some unwise and inexperienced people got elected. They defunded the police. Crime skyrocketed.

But tell me this. Did we really need to debate the issue? Any adult with common sense would never have entertained such an idea let alone debate it.

Your philosophy doesn't work in the real world today. Back when the country was first founded, the nation was ruled by men who were well versed in the classics and the nation began to build libraries and public schools in order that the country would be led by wise individuals. Today, libraries are on life support; public schools are indoctrination camps; schools no longer teach the humanities. Churches and Synagogues are no match for those who drive world culture, especially when it comes to moral training. Who is listening to the wise?

The Lord is allowing stupid people to have a great influence on the public, causing confusion, fear, panic, uncertainty, distrust, and mass delusion. We are being led by fools,  who not only lack experience but can't think critically or honestly about the real world.

So no, not today. I don't think we should allow stupid people to enter into the chambers of government in order to have an equal voice with the wise.  No, I don't think teenage minded, bartenders, who lack life experience and are easily manipulated to serve in government.

You can say, "well, that's the choice of those who elected her." To that I say, "prove she was elected."

Again, who gets to decide who is an "enemy infiltrator"? It sounds so I dunno, Soviet?

Surely you know the answers to these questions.

Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.

Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent

Who gets to pick the white hats and the black hats?  By what power mechanism will you enforce those decisions?  What is the consequence if those decisions are not to your liking?

Me, and I'll execute anyone who doesn't agree with me, along with any living relatives, and friends. And pets. I'm just skipping to the end, of course.

[IMINXTC]

Yep.

[IMINXTC]

History will make the assertion (already making it)  that the evangelicals came out against the constitution and, ultimately, democracy itself.

[Fenris]

Surely you know the answers to these questions.

No, I really don't. At least, not in the context that you're implying.

Define Enemy
a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.
a hostile nation or its armed forces or citizens, especially in time of war.

This is really broad. I mean, technically people running for public office are enemies under this definition. But they're not enemies, they are political opponents. Using this definition, anyone running against your CadyandZoe (TM) approved candidate is an enemy of the country.

Define Traitor
a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.
a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

What does "betray" mean? You seem to think that someone who has a different opinion on the size and role of government is somehow "betraying" the country.

Define Infiltrator
a soldier, intelligence agent, or other person who moves surreptitiously and gradually into an organization, territory, community, or the like, especially with hostile intent

But again, you're applying this to people who have different political views form you. Which is actually protected speech under the Bill of Rights.

Why is it that I have to explain everything?

Because you use words in an atypical meaning. "Enemy", "betrayal", etc.

Isaiah warned you about the evil shepherd. Isaiah warned you about a time when the nation would be ruled by women and children, i.e. people who lack wisdom.

Isaiah's warnings were for his generation i.e. ancient Israel. Not contemporary liberal democracies thousands of years after he lived.

Some unwise and inexperienced people got elected. They defunded the police. Crime skyrocketed.

But tell me this. Did we really need to debate the issue?

That's what people in democracies do. I spent two decades in law enforcement and thought it was a terrible idea. But that's life in a democracy- people discuss ideas and vote on them.

Your philosophy doesn't work in the real world today. Back when the country was first founded, the nation was ruled by men who were well versed in the classics and the nation began to build libraries and public schools in order that the country would be led by wise individuals. Today, libraries are on life support; public schools are indoctrination camps; schools no longer teach the humanities. Churches and Synagogues are no match for those who drive world culture, especially when it comes to moral training. Who is listening to the wise?

So in your ideal democracy only "smart people" get to vote? Because people don't study the classics they shouldn't have a say so in our country's future?

The Lord is allowing

Proverbs 19:21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.

So no, not today. I don't think we should allow stupid people to enter into the chambers of government in order to have an equal voice with the wise.

When you say "wise" what you really mean is "people who agree with me", right?

You can say, "well, that's the choice of those who elected her." To that I say, "prove she was elected."

We have a certain process that gets followed. Surely you know this?

[Fenris]

What's different about it? I mean, what do you think will be different?

According to the prophets, there will be world peace and universal knowledge of God. Only a society united under God's rule can be run as a theocracy.

[Athanasius]

So in your ideal democracy only "smart people" get to vote? Because people don't study the classics they shouldn't have a say so in our country's future?

No no, clearly you've misunderstood. Only "smart men" get to vote, the kind who speak Latin, learned the classics, can recite "The Closing of the American Mind" by memory in an upper-class East Coast US accent that isn't quite English. The same men who slept around, and flirted with boys (only out of respect for Socrates), and went to bars and beat their wives every Friday night at 11:04 PM sharp.

[RandyPNW]

What I find amusing is that you, a Jew, are arguing for relative morality.

As Athanasius has pointed out, I am not speaking about morality at all. I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical to complain about the fear of you being censored while at the same time calling for censorship of others with whom you disagree.

You have fear that free speech will lead to a country that is no longer America, and your solution is to ban free speech; you don't seem to understand that will lead to this country no longer being America.

I disagree. The whole idea of political law is dependent on one's morality. If it is theocratic in nature, ie a society based upon a common religion, then laws are going to proscribe elements that amount to sedition. Certain kinds of free speech would constitute a political challenge to the established religious morality of the State. It would pursue candidates for political office that would seek to overturn established moral values.

Quite often the argument against this is, If a State is truly religious overall, then no political threat wilil gain traction at the polls, and no serious contender for the religious State will be able to overthrow it. Why not let things play out in the interest of freedom, since too much political control can lead to repression of legitimate concerns?

But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation. The pull towards paganism is a threat even to those with Christian convictions because we are weak towards things like greed and sexual permissiveness. It's best not to allow public temptations to get established and to multiply like a cancer in a Christian society. That's what Scriptures said to the ancient Hebrews under the Law of Moses!

What this means in a more practical sense is that when, in a democracy, there are underlying Christian currents, allowing a homosexual parade down Main Street would be viewed not just as free political speech, but more, as a threat to social order and a menace to a specifically-Christian society with established morals. They don't want their children subjected to this kind of "free speech."

[Fenris]

No no, clearly you've misunderstood. Only "smart men" get to vote, the kind who speak Latin, learned the classics, can recite "The Closing of the American Mind" by memory in an upper-class East Coast US accent that isn't quite English. The same men who slept around, and flirted with boys (only out of respect for Socrates), and went to bars and beat their wives every Friday night at 11:04 PM sharp.

Oh yikes. Guess I'm out.

[Fenris]

But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation. The pull towards paganism is a threat even to those with Christian convictions because we are weak towards things like greed and sexual permissiveness. It's best not to allow public temptations to get established and to multiply like a cancer in a Christian society.

So it will be to people like you to decide what is "temptation" and therefore not permissible in the public square? That's the antithesis of freedom and certainly not what this country was founded on.

That's what Scriptures said to the ancient Hebrews under the Law of Moses!

Which nobody today is suggesting should be the foundation of a modern society. Except you and the Taliban I guess.

What this means in a more practical sense is that when, in a democracy, there are underlying Christian currents, allowing a homosexual parade down Main Street would be viewed not just as free political speech, but more, as a threat to social order and a menace to a specifically-Christian society with established morals. They don't want their children subjected to this kind of "free speech."

People are free to do "Non-Christian" things in a free society. You're free to not watch or listen to them.

[Fenris]

But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation.

By the way, one of the answers to the oft asked question "Why do Jews vote Democrat?" is this sentence right here. Jews have long memories. And in Europe, the inclusion of religion in government had catastrophic consequences for Jews. And Democrats (for all their faults, of which there are many) are opposed to the inclusion of religion in government.  I am a lifelong Republican who has never voted Democrat in a national election, and I would vote for Joe Biden 100 times before I voted for a Republican who thinks like this. 

[Athanasius]

But in a Christian society, in particular, minority views that are the antithesis to Christian beliefs are not just exercises in free speech, but actually a temptation. The pull towards paganism is a threat even to those with Christian convictions because we are weak towards things like greed and sexual permissiveness. It's best not to allow public temptations to get established and to multiply like a cancer in a Christian society. That's what Scriptures said to the ancient Hebrews under the Law of Moses!

Do you realise that if your theocratic state was instituted, and it followed the prescriptions of, say, American Christians over the last ~60 years, that I would be considered to have a "minority view" that is antithetical to said state?

Since you're talking about views as temptation, you certainly also understand that these cannot be banned, and so, what isn't allowed publicly flourishes privately. I'd like to imagine I would have quite the following.