The more Godless America becomes, the more 'uncivil' it also becomes

My bad

 

Only when what they quote is the opposite of the point they were trying to make in the original post, which is exactly what you did.
Why are you even defending this?

 

You sorta contradict yourself. In a written forum with much time between responses it is easy to do.

Where has the gov't eliminated any religion from the USA? Or public eye?

Usually, if a gov't restricts religious displays, it is NOT because they want it gone, but, because they can't handle all the different religions that would, could, display their religious Icons on the same property.

 

The extremely short answer is yes.
Unless, you state why you didn't include the whole post. It gives the appearance of hiding something. Intentional or not, who would know?

 

Why am I defending myself? Because I think you're wrong. Whatever it is you think I said or did, I did out of ignorance. I always try to deal with people honestly.

 

ok. I'll try to do better next time. I don't know how it can be dishonest when the other post is still there. I routinely will just respond to the part that is my intended target, whatever I'm focusing on.

As I've said on here before, I'm not good with the quote function. I've tried to do the multi-quote thing but evidently I'm too stupid to figure it out.

 

Then honestly be consistent and stand up for your belief that people who hear God talking to them are nuts!

 

The "multi-quote thing" is an irrelevant distraction, and you are good enough at quoting to be able to edit one to change its meaning 180 degrees.

 

I'm not in the place to judge if a person heres from God, are you?

- - - Updated - - -

You believe whatever your fallen mind has allowed you to read and interpret.

 

You already posted that you thought these people were crazy, and if you thought God was telling you to do something nuts we should stop you at all costs, even to the point of violence.
Is this a mischaracterization in any way?
My "fallen mind" seems to be reading fine and remaining a whole lot more cogent and consistent than your inspired one.

 

I said "I would be crazy" if I believed God was speaking to "me". I have talked to missionaries, that have said they witnessed to people that said they dreamt that God would send the missionary to them. I am/was in no place to say that God did not speak to them. I'm not omniscient.

 

Do you want me to quote you again where you said others are nuts when they think so?
Really?
Again?

 

I'm taking "taikoo's" advice and shutting up.

 

Why not just be a man of integrity and simply admit to what you said?
Wouldn't that be easier and more honest and transparent?

 

FYI Taikoo: "Asian wood shedding"

Came across this tid bit about Singapore (Singapore is the world's fourth leading financial centre, and its port is one of the five busiest ports in the world. it has had a massive increase in wealth, and is one of the Four Asian Tigers.)

Taikoo, what's with all this violence in your Asian part of the world?!!

 

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State. It isn't "Godlessness" but a lack of a culture of militia service that is detrimental.

 

Your idea of how to reply to a question is to ask a question?

Singapore is as bit over the top with their laws, but that caning stuff is random street violence.

It is highly directed and highly effective.

You'd prefer keeping someone in jail (no violence there, noooo) at 80K per year?

Which do you supposed gets fewer repeat offenders, american jail or singapore caning?

Before you get too far off base (too much further) recall that it yoursorry excuse for a thesis that Christianity is somehow the key to a civil society and that being "godless" leads to violence and anarchy. Buncha crap.

As illustrated by numerous examples around the world, and thru history.

 

Sounds as if my previous post regarding Christian colonization/occupation and the large Christian population in Hong Kong, S. Korea, and the civil laws accompanying the Christian influence are evidenced in 'YOUR area' of the world in YOUR prosperity!

Sorry if the facts offend YOU (as does your response does sounds) but the proof is in the pudding..you are out of touch with the facts or in denial....sorry that 'facts' do offend you of one looking for 'an education' in the states!

EDIT: Your attitude indicates that for one who lives in a city with a Christian church on every corner but slams Catholics, are a 'bigot!" Sorry that fact does trump your 'liberal' attitude (supposedly being non-judgmental) but the truth does eventually shine thru..you've been exposed!!

 

And yet they remain civil laws, not tied to any religion.
Gotcha.

 

Sorry, but 'founded on' does matter!

You know, like the nations such as Britain that has a 'cross' on their flag, and Christian founded America with a Supreme Court having the 10 Commandments on their wall, and "In God We Trust" on their money....that is the heritage of those prospering Asian countries either colonized/conquered/or occupied in that area of the world...aka, 'civil' countries!

 

Altho you tried to present a 'sweet' pacifist Asian attitude originally on this thread, your anti-Christian/anti-Semite bigotry has been uncovered..

'Bigotry' when exposed does get ugly...doesnt it?!

 

And the laws are still independent of all that, as are ours.

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I tend to only post a quote which has information I wish to address. Quoting an entire post wastes time, energy and band width. Though I do make every effort not to take what I quote out of context.

 

me too, but I'm having to try and reform my ways. Some people have a problem with partial posts even though they can go back and see the original, even though the rest of it may have nothing to do with what I address.

 

You know that is disingenuous, elijah. You snipped a sentence in half, the part you left out saying you didn't agree with the first half, and presented it as your new position. You are better than that and you really should stop this charade. You don't have to quote the whole post, but to say the rest had "nothing to do with what I address" is not just slipshod, in the case that brought this up its an outright lie. The part you left out specifically disagreed with the part you left in, and the part you left out said it was the part you actually believed.
I am amazed you are defending this. I seriously am. We disagree often, but I don't see you as dishonest, but this is a real blindspot for you that you aren't embarrassed by how you handled this. I'm shocked by it. This does not seem like you at all.