Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11. First paragraph. Read it.
Duck Dynasty: TV pastor points out demonic nature of homosexuality, liberals foam at mouth..
- Thread starter Hiphoplives4eva
- Start date
Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11. First paragraph. Read it.
George Washington
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle
And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle
Does that mean such a statement is true? Granted they didn't understand fukking evolution back then?
I guess we're just gonna ignore that massive hole in the logic of religious people in the 18th century
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
He doesn't even really believe most of this shyt...not extremely as he appears to here anyway. That was made apparent on the podcast that he started. He literally said religion is a bunch of bullshyt and lies up there.
He just gets some kick out of being a grumpy, cantankerous anti-liberal/anti-science/pro-Christian 
in HL, following in the footsteps of his idol Mowgli I guess.lol, look at the particular religions discussed... then think of what poster u quoted...
I read it before.
Still, lets me real they know that the laws are based on....
the code of hammurabi?
some of the knuckle draggers has me wanting to toss my laptop across the roomHe doesn't even really believe most of this shyt...not extremely as he appears to here anyway. That was made apparent on the podcast that he started. He literally said religion is a bunch of bullshyt and lies up there.
IDK, i was under the assumptions that there were intelligent and reasonable people back then.Does that mean such a statement is true? Granted they didn't understand fukking evolution back then?
I guess we're just gonna ignore that massive hole in the logic of religious people in the 18th century
In the year 2386 people are going to say "in the year 2013
They didn't even know blah blah blah"first off... dude was religious...the code of hammurabi?
Second off.. chief architect of the Constitution aka james madison credits most of his political ideas from his religious teachers.
IDK, i was under the assumptions that there were intelligent and reasonable people back then.
In the year 2386 people are going to say "in the year 2013
saying you need religion to be "moral" is like saying you can't be moral without thinking someone is watching you.
or non-christians can't be moral.
so I guess something called the "enlightenment" didn't happen
it's not my job to put words in CAC mouths... that's what he claimed.so I guess something called the "enlightenment" didn't happen
those aren't religious laws.
Those are laws made by people who inferred tehy came from "god" as a means of controlling people...
its the same as people believing kings/queens get their right to rule from "god"
