Political Chatter

[dillon]

The US has no law compelling national identity documents; having such was debated at length in the months following 9-11 and rejected by the Congress. That sets us apart from most of the rest of the world. Believe me, I have been through the bureaucracy of identity in Latin America, and we are a better country, IMO, for rejecting it. As a practical matter, some identification is required for employment, credit, driving privileges, etc, in virtually every aspect of life, especially under the identity-theft climate we suffer. But we are almost unique in not having national identity documents as a matter of criminal law, and I think that's a good thing. It's a mark of the security Americans hold in their own system, as I see it, and something of which we should be proud.

And my mistake about spell-check; it isn't perfect either, as I often find disputes between it and Merriam Webster; I go with the dictionary.

Exaggerating the threat to "national sovereignty" is popular rhetoric these days, though I suspect few of those who zealously and frequently employ the expression, can actually define sovereignty. I found this concise and, I feel, appropriate definition online, though there are a lot of other definitions out there as well:

Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

The individual states of the United States do not possess the powers of external sovereignty, such as the right to deport undesirable persons, but each does have certain attributes of internal sovereignty, such as the power to regulate the acquisition and transfer of property within its borders. The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

[crfriend]

The US has no law compelling national identity documents; having such was debated at length in the months following 9-11 and rejected by the Congress. That sets us apart from most of the rest of the world.

There's a subtle difference between what's technically true and what's operative in practise. Correct, there are no statutes requiring citizens to carry on their persons at all times a Federal Identity card, but just try going about your daily activity without proxies for a Federal Identity card such as a State-issued driver's license or getting an above-board job without a Social Security card or your birth certificate.

And my mistake about spell-check; it isn't perfect either, as I often find disputes between it and Merriam Webster; I go with the dictionary.

No worries. I just didn't want any confusion on the matter. The auto-corrupt on my browser very frequently gets me when I commit the occasional inevitable typo and it mangles it into something incomprehensible thereby making me look like a git. My vocabulary is also larger than most computer-dictionaries.

Exaggerating the threat to "national sovereignty" is popular rhetoric these days, though I suspect few of those who zealously and frequently employ the expression, can actually define sovereignty.

As I alluded to in another post, the Federal and State governments have more than enough fire-power to keep the citizenry in line. Sovereignty is not under threat by one whit.

[Judah14]

The US has no law compelling national identity documents; having such was debated at length in the months following 9-11 and rejected by the Congress. That sets us apart from most of the rest of the world. Believe me, I have been through the bureaucracy of identity in Latin America, and we are a better country, IMO, for rejecting it. As a practical matter, some identification is required for employment, credit, driving privileges, etc, in virtually every aspect of life, especially under the identity-theft climate we suffer. But we are almost unique in not having national identity documents as a matter of criminal law, and I think that's a good thing. It's a mark of the security Americans hold in their own system, as I see it, and something of which we should be proud.

Philippines too does not have a compulsory national ID system as of now, and implementing one has been debated on (and rejected) by Congress every now and then. However there is an optional Unified Multi-purpose ID for efficient delivery of government services such as SSS, PhilHealth, etc. Then there are driver's licenses, voter's ID's, and other government-issued identification cards.

[Sinned]

In the UK we are don't have any form of national identity document and the requirement for one has always been recently rejected. For a brief period during the second world war citizens carried identity cards but that need expired many decades ago. Nor are we required to carry any form of identification including a driving licence which originally was a very small booklet with red cover and space to glue in endorsements for traffic violations. This then went to a green paper document then pink paper and finally now we have a credit card sized photo licence. Well most do, MOH still has the green paper document and I still have the pink one. There is no compulsion to upgrade the document, only in certain circumstances such as change of address, traffic violation. Generally if you break a traffic law you are required to produce licence, car insurance and other nominated documents at a nominated police station and have seven days in which to do so. Since we have lived in our house since New Years Eve 1982 and we have not broken any traffic laws we have not had reason to change our licences.

For certain events such as changing employment or opening a bank account we do have to provide evidence of identity from a list of documents such as passport, birth certificate and proof of address such as a recent utility bill or bank statement. Above that, zilch.

[Milfmog]

In the UK we are don't have any form of national identity document and the requirement for one has always been recently rejected.

Strictly speaking, that should say that we have no requirement to hold or carry a national identity document in the UK. We certainly have such documents and the issue of them is recorded on the official national identity database. The passport is one such document, the driving licence is another and several other documents held by smaller numbers of people have a similar official identity status. (I offer this information as a member of the team that worked with the Identity and Passport Service to design and produce the UK passport that was first issued in October 2010).

The entire fuss about not having a national identity card was a fine example of a political smoke screen. It was used to head off any pressure over a national identity database. The database was proposed as a part of the ID card scheme. When the card scheme was dropped, the database was not but the papers clamed their campaigns had brought victory and the sort of people who read the red top rags were happy with that. Score one for sneaky civil servants, zero for informed democracy.

Have fun,


Ian.

[bobmoore]

Speaking of Bob,

Entire denominations have fabricated their own religion and pasted on a veneer of scripture. As Paul said of the Jews, circumcision is a matter of the heart, not of a cutting in the flesh done with hands. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, without regard to public show. The same is true of Christians, of course. Because real saving faith is a gift of God, not on account of anything man does or can do, those who are not, or not yet, called can in no wise grasp the actual content of scripture. Arguing with the spiritually blind is a fool's errand. As someone else once said, "Trying to teach a pig to sing only wasted your time and annoys the pig".

The church has been endowed since the beginning with brilliant, blessed teachers and apologists. It has also been plagued with heresy and error. The Bible tells us that the world is in a fallen, corrupt state, and that the ruler on earth right now is Satan, the father of lies. What better can he do than convince people, as he did in the beginning, that God didn't really say what he said, or that if he did say it, that it was for a different time and place.

"By their fruit we know them". When you see someone ranting and raving, with their hand held out, promising a blessing for money, or calling curses down on the heads of people you can be sure that you are not listening to a Christian. The fruits of the Spirit are clearly enunciated. Where the fruit is,lacking, so is the Spirit.

Bob, it's clear that your adherence and understanding of the Christian faith is fair and reasonable. However it seems that an increasing percentage of those who claim to be Christian follow the tenets that are underlined above. So many Christians I know, family, friends, colleagues, etc seem to fall under that category. Those are the people that worry me, those are the people who want to make life for people like me impossible. They want to force my hand into conversion by denying me the right to participate in society. Those are the ones that tried to get me fired. Those are the ones that would love to beat the sh!t out of me even for using the men's room. Those are the ones that think someone like me has no right to buy a gallon of fuel or groceries unless I change my "wicked ways".

And I believe those are the ones, who harbor hate in their heart that are the real reason our nation and world is falling into a corrupt state.

[/quote]

Moon, what I'm trying to convey is the idea that professing faith, and possessing faith are entirely different things. Any man can claim whatever he pleases, but claiming does not make it so. No Christian would ever treat you as you describe, but many with empty professions will do exactly that. The secular church is just that: secular, with the trappings of Jesus' church layered over deep legalism. It deceives and enslaves people by laying on them all manner of rules and regulations that are foreign to scripture. 1Corinthians 4:5 is a clear command to "not go beyond what is written". But that is just what the legalists do. They do what the Pharisees did. Just as the Pharisees set aside the Law for their traditions, so the secular Church sets aside the gospel, and the freedom it brings in Christ, for their own rules and regulations. Flee such a place. Its well is poisoned.

Make no mistake though. The scriptures are quite clear that some currently fashionable practices are condemned. Freedom in Christ is not a free pass to do as we please, as some churches espouse. Jesus asks us, "Why do you call me Lord and not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46)

One must understand that it is the Spirit who calls men to faith, changes their hearts, and opens the scriptures. The outward call of the gospel causes many to say to themselves, "Wow, good deal, I'll try Jesus", but then they fall away because all they ever had was outward. Romans 11:29 assures us that "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable". Those who permanently fall away never were saved in the first place. There are literally dozens of places that talk about election, but, since that seems to many to be elitist, what is plainly taught is ignored because the pride of fallen men demands that they are the prime actors in salvation. The result is what I've just described: man made religion styled around man's rules.

[Orange Apple]

There's a subtle difference between what's technically true and what's operative in practise. Correct, there are no statutes requiring citizens to carry on their persons at all times a Federal Identity card, but just try going about your daily activity without proxies for a Federal Identity card such as a State-issued driver's license or getting an above-board job without a Social Security card or your birth certificate.

I have to disagree with you on this one, although perhaps it depends on the definition of "daily activities".

The only time I need any kind of proof of ID is when I check into a hotel, or when I fly on an airplane. I do each of these infrequently. I have gone months without ever needing to produce any kind of proof of my identity. One of the things that I do not do is write checks; back in the days when I did, people might ask me for my driver's license.

Personally, I wish that the US did have some kind of identity card. Right now we are enmeshed in a stupid political squabble related to a Federal requirement for minimum standards for driver's licenses (the REAL ID rules). My state decided to tell the Federal government to stuff it, and now I'm in the position of not being able to use my state-issued ID to board a flight because the TSA won't accept it. Identification is something that it makes sense to do on a country-wide basis. I am the same person in my home state as I am in any other state.

[dillon]

Dillon asks,

Pray tell, Bob, but when did Fundamentalist Religion EVER EVEN CONSIDER embracing critical thinking? I must have missed the banner headlines that day, because last time I saw a televangelist ranting and raving about public education, it was pretty obvious that critical thinking was anathema to Belief and antithetical to Scripture; for them, Belief =Truth= Everything, Alpha to Omega; reason, intellect and reality itself being just cursed stumbling blocks to their smug, sanctimonious, self-serving world view.

It is pretty evident that your knowledge of Christianity is quite limited. Apparently you are of the opinion that all claims to faith are valid. News flash! They aren't. Entire denominations have fabricated their own religion and pasted on a veneer of scripture. As Paul said of the Jews, circumcision is a matter of the heart, not of a cutting in the flesh done with hands. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, without regard to public show. The same is true of Christians, of course. Because real saving faith is a gift of God, not on account of anything man does or can do, those who are not, or not yet, called can in no wise grasp the actual content of scripture. Arguing with the spiritually blind is a fool's errand. As someone else once said, "Trying to teach a pig to sing only wasted your time and annoys the pig".

The church has been endowed since the beginning with brilliant, blessed teachers and apologists. It has also been plagued with heresy and error. The Bible tells us that the world is in a fallen, corrupt state, and that the ruler on earth right now is Satan, the father of lies. What better can he do than convince people, as he did in the beginning, that God didn't really say what he said, or that if he did say it, that it was for a different time and place.

"By their fruit we know them". When you see someone ranting and raving, with their hand held out, promising a blessing for money, or calling curses down on the heads of people you can be sure that you are not listening to a Christian. The fruits of the Spirit are clearly enunciated. Where the fruit is,lacking, so is the Spirit.

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Where was critical thinking employed in any part of your very preachy post? Because I read nothing but a chastising sermonette. It appears that your concept of critical thinking only confirms my assertion that it isn't an art that could possibly coexist with dogmatic theology. If you don't care to employ that which you implied to be "Christian", but rather sit in pious judgement of another's faith, how can we even debate? If you have lost the ability to even communicate in an empirical context, then how can critical thinking possibly be valid in your theologically-invented universe? I am pretty thick-skinned about my own Faith and don't get rattled by people who look down their noses. I try to be tolerant of all Faiths up to the point that one claims the authority to redefine reality; you are pushing that envelope. Please re-read what you posted, then translate into rational terms.

[bobmoore]

The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

Where was critical thinking employed in any part of your very preachy post? Because I read nothing but a chastising sermonette. It appears that your concept of critical thinking only confirms my assertion that it isn't an art that could possibly coexist with dogmatic theology. If you don't care to employ that which you implied to be "Christian", but rather sit in pious judgement of another's faith, how can we even debate? If you have lost the ability to even communicate in an empirical context, then how can critical thinking possibly be valid in your theologically-invented universe? I am pretty thick-skinned about my own Faith and don't get rattled by people who look down their noses. I try to be tolerant of all Faiths up to the point that one claims the authority to redefine reality; you are pushing that envelope. Please re-read what you posted, then translate into rational terms.

Thank you. Without intending to you have provided a brilliant example of what I have said. And your thinly veiled threat is duly noted. It doesn't become you.

Speaking of reality, you seem to want to define it to suit yourself, and you are certainly welcome to do that.

As for judging faith, I not only can do that with biblical criteria, I MUST do that by biblical command. Discernment is essential, else one is vulnerable to every wind of doctrine which is precisely what has happened in the secular Church. I'm not telling you what to believe, but I am qualified to teach those who have ears, and recognized as such by ordination as a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. You are free to believe as you please.

As someone else recently noted, if one doesn't like a post, then don't read it.

[crfriend]

Gentlemen,

As is public knowledge here, I am more than willing to tolerate vigorous debate on differing ideas and ideologies; what I will not tolerate is things degenerating to the point where individuals are denigrating other individuals. Ad hominem behaviour has no place in civil discourse. The primary reason why the rules here forbid discussion of politics and religion (and which rules I am willing to let slide if things remain civil) is that almost invariably they ultimately degenerate into name-calling and general incivility.

Likely the root reason why these sorts of debates seemingly invariably "go south" is that rational thought and faith may be mutually incompatible. Perhaps nothing in this realm can be politely discussed between those who hold faith in primacy and those who deal in purely rational thought.

Feel free to kick the snot out of ideas, but when it turns into name-calling and personal invective a line has been crossed that I'm not going to put up with. Consider this the final warning.

[dillon]

I'd have to argue that one must read a post in order to know that one disagrees. Is that not logical? Especially if one sees ones own post quoted, then one would anticipate that it is a response. Am I denied comment on a post where I am quoted?

For Carl's sake, however, I am finished with this dispute. I can only add that the point about "teaching a pig to sing" certainly goes both ways. At least I have reality on my side.

[Ray]

That is somewhat logical.

I'm fascinated by all this. The USA seems to be very religious, but not all on the same page....

(No ad hominem remarks here, I hope)

[Fred in Skirts]

And this is why I don't engage in political or religious debate or at least try not to.

Fred

[Jim]

The US has no law compelling national identity documents; having such was debated at length in the months following 9-11 and rejected by the Congress. That sets us apart from most of the rest of the world.

There's a subtle difference between what's technically true and what's operative in practise. Correct, there are no statutes requiring citizens to carry on their persons at all times a Federal Identity card, but just try going about your daily activity without proxies for a Federal Identity card such as a State-issued driver's license or getting an above-board job without a Social Security card or your birth certificate.

I don't carry any identity cards most of the time. I have to drive into town 3 days a week, so I've got my ID for a few hours those 3 days. When I go fishing I have my fishing license in my backpack, but no one has ever asked to look at it.

[skirtedMarine]

SkirtedMarine,

Your response seemed to be at least 85% if not 90% rant, and a repeating of the problems. I asked for solutions not a repeat of the problems.

I wasn't being sarcastic when I said I didn't know what to do, I really don't. But what I do see is a failure on both sides in regards to compassion and compromise. Both sides, far right and far left want it all their way, and neither side is compassionate towards the other.

Your reply would make a politician proud, it said a lot without saying hardly anything meaningful at all. It was an masterpiece of passive aggression peppered with little jabs at liberals. I doubt Trump could have done it any better!

BTW: Please don't pigeonhole me in some political agenda, liberal, conservative, or otherwise. I have no allegiance to any party or agenda, my views are centered on reason, respect, tolerance, and compassion. In that order.

But anyway, lets dissect the reply:

I'm just a dumbass, old retired Marine

I don't think you're a dumbass at all. I understand a lot of what you are saying, and have shared many of your rants over the years. You seem to have put a lot of thought into your convictions, and nobody is wrong 100% of the time. Everybody deserves a time to speak. Many aspects of the country you served is going to hell in a handbasket, you of all people are somewhat entitled to be a little pissed off.

And thank you for your service to our country by the way. With your service abroad you have a unique understanding of the world that many of us who have never done so would lack, and so yes I personally read with interest and an open mind to your responses... even if you do think I'm a flaming liberal.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Not a hard issue,
1.Iliminate the "Anchor baby " loophole
2. Enforce the laws that we already have.I'll not rub the current administrations lawlessness in the face of You who think We shouldnt have boarders. So they can get more Democrat voters...
3. Stop changing the language from "Illegal Immigrants "
To "Undocumented" Citizens, (They are not entitled to our healthcare, welfare, free education, or even the right to work here. At 20 trillion in debt, We can't afford to let them bring their corruption, gangs, Drugs, crime and so on, Just so they'll be registered Democrats.
4 . They broke the law by entering the United States Illegally, (So Get out, and take your anchor baby with you!)

No. 1) Okay... baby pops out stateside... send him/her back south. Fair enough
No. 2) Which laws? Who said exactly that we "shouldn't have borders"? While we're sending back illegals, do you think that all Anglo Saxon citizens should pack up and go back to our European nation of origin? What exactly gives any one class the any more right over another to occupy a piece of the planet? This question isn't rhetorical... it's genuine... think about it.
No. 3) Fair enough.
No. 4) Didn't really address anything different that wasn't covered in the first three.

So I'm left to assume that you think anyone who isn't a naturalized citizen needs to get out. Okay, fair enough. Who's going to fill all those cheap labor positions that open up? A U.S. worker? What policy can you enact to prevent runaway cost as farmers, contractors, etc must resort to employing legal citizens even at the minimum wage, subject to labor law, unemployment insurance, liability, etc. Again, not rhetorical. This is the can of worms we open... I'm genuinely curious as to how we will deal with it.

POVERTY
IT is, and always has been with us, please understand, We as Americans did depend on our Churches to be our Welfare board, Our Marraige Councilor, Our Pregnancy Counceling clinic, Through our Churches, In Whatever our faith,, We all pitched in, and did the right thing,
1.I'LL MAINTAIN THAT ANYTHING YOU LET THE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, IT WILL TURN TO CRAP AT TEN TIMES THE COST, WITH FAMILIES GENERATION AFTER GENERATION LIVING OFF OF THE BACKS OF THE TAX PAYERS...

First section (the non caps part): Sounds like a perfect world scenario. Tell me, if it worked so well, how did we devolve into having the government needing to step in? I seem to recall stories of things getting pretty ugly in the crash of '29 prior to all those modern day welfare programs. When we allow the church say in our lives in regards to marriage and pregnancy counseling, what prevents us as a society from slipping into a similar situation that society faced in the dark ages? Who will be an advocate for the heathen, the atheist, the homosexual, the transgendered? Are they just SOL because they might not necessarily follow the doctrine of the Christian Church?

Second section: (the part in caps) Can't really argue with that. Although a lot of government's problems is the constant stale mates we find ourselves in, and brings policy making to a stand still. Nobody is willing to compromise at all.

LGBT RIGHTS
OK, I'll go there
So I've lived in the Middle East, have you noticed that the immigrants from anywhere in the UAE Arent interested in becoming Americans? Their "Religion" is their government, And they bring their Understanding of it with them, This is a culture that Allowes Men to rape boys,( but They're not really gay) This is a culture that cuts the Clitorous off of a girl because women are not allowed to enjoy sex, This is a culture that requires 4 male wittnesses to prosicute a man for rape of a woman
This is also a culture that will kill men for bieng gay, with a man unless it was a boy. Or a goat, Sorry , Where else in the world do the LGBT folks have more rights than the Straight Small buisness bakery? Why do you folks on the left make it a problem? Again, too many GD Lawyers, and 90% of them are so called indoctrinated "Liberals".

What does any of that have to do with the LGBT issue here state side?

I have noticed that in the middle east, their religion is their government. I also notice it here too. Just a different religion. Pro-right Christian zealots may not be cutting the heads off of homosexuals or transgendered people, but they sure don't make it easy to function in society. There are NO federal prohibitions on LGBT discrimination. For those who say such a lifestyle is a choice and they should "choose" to live a more "moral" (Christian) lifestyle, I submit that religion too is a choice. If a employer should be allowed to terminate someone for their sexual/gender orientation... then why not be allowed to terminate based on religion as well? Further, why stop at LGBT discrimination, why not go all the way and follow the Bible to the letter? Why pick and choose what we discriminate over? If one has a tattoo, eats pork, commits adultery, is on a second marriage, etc lets kill them!

Where do we draw the line? Again, not rhetorical. Where do we draw the line? Why should a cake baker who is on her third marriage, has a tattoo on her arm, eats bacon sandwiches turn a homosexual away? What does baking a cake have to do with Christianity anyway? How does she (the baker) know that her supplies weren't delivered by a homosexual? How does she know that the bacon sandwich she ate for lunch at McDonalds wasn't prepared by someone who's transgender? Maybe people who are that fundimental should just drop out of the American economy and live in some sort of a evangelical commune. At least then they wouldn't sound like such a hypocrite.

Gun Rights
We have a Constitution,
Ive been a responsible gun owner since I was 16 years old, and I even have an AR 15, (what you people call an "Assault Weapon", Gun rights, .... ?" The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" . The guns arent the problem, Society has become the problem, Its like saying "The spoon makes people fat"
Again, Boarders, Language, Culture...Why are all the mass shootings done by Democrats, And GD Muslims?

Fair enough... but are you suggesting that law biding Democrats and law biding Muslims who are U.S. citizens shouldn't have the same right? And where do we draw the line on what's an acceptable weapon for ordinary citizens to own? Should I be allowed to own a nuclear warhead?
Another common denominator among mass shootings is that the guns involved are almost ALWAYS obtained legally. So how will relaxing gun laws solve that?
Now let me just say, that I'm pro-2nd. Go back and re-read that... I'm PRO GUN. But I'm simply looking at the issue critically. It's not white and black.

It's a complicated issue. You offered no solutions, you simply blamed liberals. Remember, you're the president! How will relaxing gun laws keep firearms out of the hands of killers with no criminal history? How will you tell the good guys from the bad ones? How do you know I'm not planning a massacre as we speak? I've never even had a speeding ticket, but I could be a ISIS sympathizer, how would you be able to tell? (I'm not by the way... STAND DOWN NSA)

"Terrorism"
Stop unlimited Immigration,
Its about to get alot worse, Get over it, Trump has this one right!

See my notes above....

Religious freedom"
A hard subject if you think that Islam is an actual religion rather than a political idology. Otherwise, We have a first amendment, and its covered, and not confusing. You can believe in the door knob if you so chose, but don't insist that I do or call me an "infidel " and try to kill me if I refuse to believe what you believe.

Through the middle ages, Christianity could have been considered a political ideology. To this day, in some ways it still is as it plays a big role in our secular law making process. Your response didn't really tackle any current issues. Let me be more clear.... the turning away of people from your SECULAR business who don't align with your religious views?

Healthcare
Its not the Governments job ( again, everything the government touches turns to crap!)

So runaway profits of the health care industry is okay? Millions of healthcare bankruptcies are acceptable? So are you advocating a complete de-regulation of all things health care? Tell me how that is going to benefit anyone but those who are wealthy enough to afford it?

I hope you got at least a chuckle out of my response,

It's been a hoot!

Well, your confusion is entertaining!