Political Crossfire Forums

Carlin · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:25 am Post subject:

Quote:
Less likely ... not impossible. However, you're free to prove me wrong in the case of the kids family's who shot up schools.

Why is it even less likely? I don't know the family's religious affiliation and I really don't care. I will say that I doubt they were taught "hey son, it's ok to shoot people because the Christian God isn't real." Just a guess.

Quote: It means the same thing as "Most people who have a drivers license also have a car". Most people who have cars also drive and are held to laws that they must abide by. As I've stated before it's not "freedom FROM religion" it's "freedom OF religion". If you cannot grasp that distinction... I cannot help you understand it.

Hey, driving is a privilege, not a right. They told me that the first day of driving school after I answered with the former. In any case, freedom of and from, my friend, of and from. I have the right to not be expected to abide by laws passed for God. God and religion is for the home and the church.

Quote: Appropriate and Lawful are two different things. Tell me how it's not appropriate? Why wouldn't it be?

It is not appropriate to make kids pray in school. People believe in an array of different things. Sure, most of a student population might be christian in one school, but why highlight the differences of others with something like that? It isn't right to do to kids. It would appear a lot posters on this board are all religious, but why do you suppose the "no" vote got the vast amount of votes in the school prayer thread?

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 10232

Carlin wrote: Quote:
Less likely ... not impossible. However, you're free to prove me wrong in the case of the kids family's who shot up schools.

Why is it even less likely? I don't know the family's religious affiliation and I really don't care. I will say that I doubt they were taught "hey son, it's ok to shoot people because the Christian God isn't real." Just a guess. I'm no pastor, so you should ask a man of clergy. Let me just say that I've already addressed this - that the teachings of the Church and Christianity are that life is precious. Whereas, if those teachings are not present, it may be less likely a person would have the same outlook of "life is precious".

Quote: Appropriate and Lawful are two different things. Tell me how it's not appropriate? Why wouldn't it be?

It is not appropriate to make kids pray in school. People believe in an array of different things. Sure, most of a student population might be christian in one school, but why highlight the differences of others with something like that? It isn't right to do to kids. It would appear a lot posters on this board are all religious, but why do you suppose the "no" vote got the vast amount of votes in the school prayer thread?[/quote] So because others may not share in the opinion or belief of the majority, it's inappropriate? I disagree, obviously... if the majority want prayer in school and it's allowable (or even if it's not allowable) by the law, then they should have it. Because someone doesn't agree to it, or does not believe in the same things means they can start their own prayer group for whatever they believe in, or choose not to participate at all. Freedom of choice. No one is "making" anyone do anything - it's simply toleration. If you don't believe in it... don't do it. Kinda like having the freedom of choice to switch the channel of the TV if you don't like the program.

Apprpriateness is either a.) the wrong word, b.) not being utilized properly or c.) not the issue. It is fully appropriate for kids to pray in school, to pray before lunch in the cafeteria, to say a small prayer before a baseball game or other sporting activity. The political correctness of having to curb one's beliefs because others may not share in those beliefs is what is not appropriate here - not the other way around.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Gilbert1908 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:
One can only assume that you would call someone "nothing more than emotionally unstable" to negate everything they say, rather than deal with what they actually said.

How would you know what he "normally wouldn't say" and what is it you think he said that he "normally wouldn't say".

toddytodd wrote: I never said I knew what he would specifically say, only that in general, people say things they normally wound't when they are upset. It is human nature and people need to consciously act to eliminate that when a situation get 'hairy'.

What then would be the relevance of saying people say things they normally DO NOT say if you were not applying it to the specific things this man said, by questioning his mental state? What would be the point if not to imply this specific man was in such a state and therefore may not have meant what he said?

toddytodd wrote: Quote: ..."nothing more than an emotionally unstable man". He was hurt and upset I would presume (again, unless he is a robot). That is not to say that he is a 'crazy mental case', only that he was upset, and I would think, angry and hurt. This can cause temporary (emotionally) unstable thinking.
Quote: ...but it does NOT speak to the validity of his points or mine. I did not speak to that effect originally, so there is no reason to speak about it now.

You have recognized my point, your response was to talk to the mans mental state which you clearly do not know and NOT the substance he addressed.

What again is the relevance to this specific man and his comments by prefacing your content with the "nothing more than an emotionally unstable man" statement if NOT to negate what he said.

toddytodd wrote: Quote: One can only assume that you would call someone "nothing more than emotionally unstable" to negate everything they say... There is always a reason why people say and do what they do. Your comment can not change this fact. However, you can assume anything you want (incorrectly I might add), I don't much care.
I will say thought, you have a knack for doing that.... must be a gift.

There is always a reason and I did NOT assume to know yours, I ASKED you to EXPLAIN WHY you would characterize a man who calmly outlines his opinions as to the elements of the contributing factors to the decay of morality in society was "nothing but a mentally unstable man" when nothing in his words or his demeanor would lead one to draw that conclusion, unless you wanted to discredit his comments without addressing them specifically?

Ugh :roll:
The relevance is that it was a general comment - suggestion if you will - as to a reason why it was said. I believe he was mentally unstable because he was upset at the situation. If you don't, again, I don't much care.
Quote: You have recognized my point,... I am not sure you even know your point anymore as it changes over time to suite your relentless arguments %* . I don't recognized your point because there isn't one.
Quote: What again is the relevance to this specific man and his comments by prefacing your content with the "nothing more than an emotionally unstable man" statement if NOT to negate what he said. See above statement. I hope you are not truly this dense and are only trying to argue.....ironic I am involved in a conversation about 'mental unstability' with you, G'Bert :lol: (j/k)
Quote: There is always a reason and I did NOT assume to know yours, I ASKED you to EXPLAIN WHY you would characterize a man who calmly outlines his opinions as to the elements of the contributing factors to the decay of morality in society was "nothing but a mentally unstable man" when nothing in his words or his demeanor would lead one to draw that conclusion, unless you wanted to discredit his comments without addressing them specifically? Contrary to your apparent wish and beliefs, I don't seek to discredit anyone, as that would be presumptuous on my part (something I think, honestly, you should learn). Those who can be discredited, do a far better job themselves than I could. I have explained my reasoning, if you don't agree with it, I don't care...really.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5265 Location: Boston, MA

toddytodd wrote:

Ugh :roll:
The relevance is that it was a general comment - suggestion if you will - as to a reason why it was said. I believe he was mentally unstable because he was upset at the situation. If don't, again, I don't much care.
Quote: You have recognized my point,... I am not sure you even know your point anymore as it changes over time to suite your relentless arguments %* . I don't recognized your point because there isn't one.
Quote: What again is the relevance to this specific man and his comments by prefacing your content with the "nothing more than an emotionally unstable man" statement if NOT to negate what he said. See above statement. I hope you are not truly this dense and are only trying to argue.....ironic I am involved in a conversation about 'mental unstability' with you, G'Bert :lol: (j/k)
Quote: There is always a reason and I did NOT assume to know yours, I ASKED you to EXPLAIN WHY you would characterize a man who calmly outlines his opinions as to the elements of the contributing factors to the decay of morality in society was "nothing but a mentally unstable man" when nothing in his words or his demeanor would lead one to draw that conclusion, unless you wanted to discredit his comments without addressing them specifically? Contrary to your apparent wish and beliefs, I don't seek to discredit anyone, as that would be presumptuous on my part (something I think, honestly, you should learn). Those who can be discredited, do a far better job themselves than I could. I have explained my reasoning, if you don't agree with it, I don't care...really.

Its not that I don't agree with it, it is that I can't understand it.

I am sorry if you find my questioning your characterization of someone as "Probably nothing more than a emotionally unstable man" and then adding that "People say (and do) all kinds of things when they are extremely upset" as my erroneous belief that you were seeking to discredit the validity of the editorial without addressing its substance.

But since that was all you offered I don't see how any other conclusion could be drawn about the man who made the comments? Why would you apply a general statement to a specific circumstance or person and not assume people would think you were talking about the specific circumstance or person?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

Ugh :roll:
The relevance is that it was a general comment - suggestion if you will - as to a reason why it was said. I believe he was mentally unstable because he was upset at the situation. If don't, again, I don't much care.
Quote: You have recognized my point,... I am not sure you even know your point anymore as it changes over time to suite your relentless arguments %* . I don't recognized your point because there isn't one.
Quote: What again is the relevance to this specific man and his comments by prefacing your content with the "nothing more than an emotionally unstable man" statement if NOT to negate what he said. See above statement. I hope you are not truly this dense and are only trying to argue.....ironic I am involved in a conversation about 'mental unstability' with you, G'Bert :lol: (j/k)
Quote: There is always a reason and I did NOT assume to know yours, I ASKED you to EXPLAIN WHY you would characterize a man who calmly outlines his opinions as to the elements of the contributing factors to the decay of morality in society was "nothing but a mentally unstable man" when nothing in his words or his demeanor would lead one to draw that conclusion, unless you wanted to discredit his comments without addressing them specifically? Contrary to your apparent wish and beliefs, I don't seek to discredit anyone, as that would be presumptuous on my part (something I think, honestly, you should learn). Those who can be discredited, do a far better job themselves than I could. I have explained my reasoning, if you don't agree with it, I don't care...really.

Its not that I don't agree with it, it is that I can't understand it.

I am sorry if you find my questioning your characterization of someone as "Probably nothing more than a emotionally unstable man" and then adding that "People say (and do) all kinds of things when they are extremely upset" as my erroneous belief that you were seeking to discredit the validity of the editorial without addressing its substance.

But since that was all you offered I don't see how any other conclusion could be drawn about the man who made the comments? Why would you apply a general statement to a specific circumstance or person and not assume people would think you were talking about the specific circumstance or person?

Where is the little face that means "blah blah blah"? :lol:
Quote: ...it is that I can't understand it. I can tell :lol:
There is no reason to be sorry. I offered it as a possibility, not the end all answer, as to why he said what he said, nothing more.
Not once did I claim to know what exactly he was thinking, or what his motives were. I only mentioned a fact: some people say things they don't normally when they are upset. Is this what happened to this guy? It is possible, but I don't know for sure.
See, very simple

Carlin · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject:

Rankor and Pissing wrote:
Apprpriateness is either a.) the wrong word, b.) not being utilized properly or c.) not the issue. It is fully appropriate for kids to pray in school, to pray before lunch in the cafeteria, to say a small prayer before a baseball game or other sporting activity. The political correctness of having to curb one's beliefs because others may not share in those beliefs is what is not appropriate here - not the other way around.

No one is stopping anybody from praying in life, just not in random public places where most people are expected to pray. That is (to use the proper term) inappropriate. I'm not even sure of what else to say.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Carlin wrote: Yes, but what does this have to do with public schools? I don't care what people teach their kids at home or what church youth groups tell kids (no matter how off the mark they are), as long as it isn't expected of everyone.

That's not what you imply in this thread:

www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66675

Carlin wrote: Public outlets are not the place where Christian teachings should be provided. It's simply innapropriate.

So basically, Christians should be quiet about our faith.

Carlin · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject:

perdidochas wrote: Carlin wrote: Yes, but what does this have to do with public schools? I don't care what people teach their kids at home or what church youth groups tell kids (no matter how off the mark they are), as long as it isn't expected of everyone.

That's not what you imply in this thread:

www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66675

You're right. I forgot about what was going on in some of these youth groups when I said that. So yes, obviously some horrible things are going on in that arena that we need to look into.

Carlin wrote: So basically, Christians should be quiet about our faith.

You guys really just don't seem to "get" it. It's not about silencing people. If you want to pray privately, go ahead. It just doesn't make sense to demand a group prayer in a place where you don't know who actually prays or not.

As I've told you before, I don't care who is religious or believes what, as long as they don't expect myself and others to follow the same thing or try to inject their beliefs in public policy. If I had dinner at your house, I would be silent if you prayed before eating. I would not feel bombarded and it would have little effect on me. If we were out to lunch, you could pray their as well and I would wait for you. If you came to my house for dinner and wanted to pray before you ate, I wouldn't even care then. Heck, if you wanted to chant for fifteen minutes, I would provide you the corner and the time to yourself (checking in periodically in the background, wondering what the hell it is you are actually doing). But if you were to ask me to pray with you, or ask for a prayer in some random place (like before a football game) or tell me that I should pray with you, then I gots my issues.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Carlin wrote: perdidochas wrote: Carlin wrote: Yes, but what does this have to do with public schools? I don't care what people teach their kids at home or what church youth groups tell kids (no matter how off the mark they are), as long as it isn't expected of everyone.

That's not what you imply in this thread:

www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66675

You're right. I forgot about what was going on in some of these youth groups when I said that. So yes, obviously some horrible things are going on in that arena that we need to look into.

Carlin wrote: So basically, Christians should be quiet about our faith.

You guys really just don't seem to "get" it. It's not about silencing people. If you want to pray privately, go ahead. It just doesn't make sense to demand a group prayer in a place where you don't know who actually prays or not.

As I've told you before, I don't care who is religious or believes what, as long as they don't expect myself and others to follow the same thing or try to inject their beliefs in public policy.

Ok, I believe that hunger and homeless children is wrong, due to my religious beliefs (and this is the truth). I guess I shouldn't be allowed to express that opinion publicly, or ask politicians to assist with that. Heck, the Abolitionists in the mid-1800s thought that slavery was wrong due to their religious beliefs. I guess it was wrong for them to inject their beliefs into public policy, too. It is impossible for a truly religious person to divorce his religioius views from his political views.

Carlin wrote: If I had dinner at your house, I would be silent if you prayed before eating. I would not feel bombarded and it would have little effect on me. If we were out to lunch, you could pray their as well and I would wait for you. If you came to my house for dinner and wanted to pray before you ate, I wouldn't even care then. Heck, if you wanted to chant for fifteen minutes, I would provide you the corner and the time to yourself (checking in periodically in the background, wondering what the hell it is you are actually doing). But if you were to ask me to pray with you, or ask for a prayer in some random place (like before a football game) or tell me that I should pray with you, then I gots my issues.

Hmm, so you would be offended if I asked you nicely to pray with me? I wouldn't be pushy, I would simply ask. (I would also never bring it up again if you said no).

Carlin · Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject:

perdidochas wrote: Ok, I believe that hunger and homeless children is wrong, due to my religious beliefs (and this is the truth). I guess I shouldn't be allowed to express that opinion publicly, or ask politicians to assist with that. Heck, the Abolitionists in the mid-1800s thought that slavery was wrong due to their religious beliefs. I guess it was wrong for them to inject their beliefs into public policy, too. It is impossible for a truly religious person to divorce his religioius views from his political views.

The thing is, we can provide perfectly valid and sufficient reasons for why those things are harmful to society, rather than to simply scream, "the bible says so!" or "God wants this!" If in addition to someone opposing clearly harmful acts because of personal religious reasons, that's fine, but it can't be the only reason.

Quote: Hmm, so you would be offended if I asked you nicely to pray with me? I wouldn't be pushy, I would simply ask. (I would also never bring it up again if you said no).

If you knew me, you wouldn't ask me. If I had just met you and you asked, no I would not be offended and I would nicely say "no thank you."

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

In a sense, this man is right.

Our moral fabric has changed. However, the connection that he makes with increased crime is incorrect.

Crime has decreased tremendously in the past few decades. Thus, if anything, this change in the moral fabric and losss of "moral absolutes" causes less violence and crime, not more.

Perhaps this is because in a world without absolutes, we are more tolerant? Just a suggestion.

connermt · Joined: 27 Feb 2006 Posts: 1526 Location: CMH OHIO

His "speech" was rather planned out well enough to talk about his own religious belief. I doubt he wrote that himself :roll:
Seems hardly unbiased by the media to say the least.

What in the world does evolution have to do with school shootings? Because we teach evolution in schools, that automatically eliminates religion from people's minds which = more killing? So I guess scholls are the end all teaching tools for soceity....
What ever happened to responsible parenting?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

ieatfood wrote: In a sense, this man is right.

Our moral fabric has changed. However, the connection that he makes with increased crime is incorrect.

Crime has decreased tremendously in the past few decades. Thus, if anything, this change in the moral fabric and losss of "moral absolutes" causes less violence and crime, not more.

Perhaps this is because in a world without absolutes, we are more tolerant? Just a suggestion.

Quote: Crime has decreased tremendously in the past few decades. Thus, if anything, this change in the moral fabric and losss of "moral absolutes" causes less violence and crime, not more. This is very true. In my city, crime has decreased 17% since 1996 (If I remember the study correctly).
Perhaps the reason this is happening is because, without religious damnation being spouted into everyone's head, without people being brainwashed and controlled by religion, we are more understanding and educated about things? Education seems to be the enemy of many religious people, thus the reason why they are trying to pass their beliefs into laws; they can't legitimately uphold their beliefs any longer. Perhaps people are surpassing (or have surpassed) ancient religious beliefs?

Carlin · Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:55 am Post subject:

connermt wrote: His "speech" was rather planned out well enough to talk about his own religious belief. I doubt he wrote that himself :roll:
Seems hardly unbiased by the media to say the least.

What in the world does evolution have to do with school shootings? Because we teach evolution in schools, that automatically eliminates religion from people's minds which = more killing? So I guess scholls are the end all teaching tools for soceity....
What ever happened to responsible parenting?

The man's speech had absolutely nothing to do with the Amish shooting either. He merely found his excuse to rant on about his conservative religious beliefs.

I'm confused about the evolution connotation as well. Isn't Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" primarily mean species? That some species survive because they can more adaquetely use the Earth's resources? This would have nothing to do with individuals killing individuals because they're viewed as "weaker." So that completely refutes that argument.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5265 Location: Boston, MA

toddytodd wrote: ieatfood wrote: In a sense, this man is right.

Our moral fabric has changed. However, the connection that he makes with increased crime is incorrect.

Crime has decreased tremendously in the past few decades. Thus, if anything, this change in the moral fabric and losss of "moral absolutes" causes less violence and crime, not more.

Perhaps this is because in a world without absolutes, we are more tolerant? Just a suggestion.

Quote: Crime has decreased tremendously in the past few decades. Thus, if anything, this change in the moral fabric and losss of "moral absolutes" causes less violence and crime, not more. This is very true. In my city, crime has decreased 17% since 1996 (If I remember the study correctly).
Perhaps the reason this is happening is because, without religious damnation being spouted into everyone's head, without people being brainwashed and controlled by religion, we are more understanding and educated about things? Education seems to be the enemy of many religious people, thus the reason why they are trying to pass their beliefs into laws; they can't legitimately uphold their beliefs any longer. Perhaps people are surpassing (or have surpassed) ancient religious beliefs?

And what did the drug use, prostitution, violent crime rate look when you compare 1995, with 1960? It takes a little while for social trends to take hold, look at the crime rates within the 60s, 70s and 80s and then look what happens begginning in 1995 when people got fed up and things like mandatory sentencing, 3 strikes laws came into being. There is a direct ratio to the increase in the prison population going UP and the crime rate GOING DOWN.

This father's point is that there is a direct relationship between the losing of religious values in society and the loosening of morality.

Drugs did become more acceptable socially and crime skyrocketed in the 30 years post 60s.

Sex without marriage DID become acceptable and pregnancy rates among single women skyrocketed, which lead to fatherless children in poverty which lead to increased drug use and even more crime. And the solution to this is NOT to adjust the behavior but to terminate the life created by the irresposible behavior.

This was his point and any objective view can easily see the direct link between the relaxation of societies attitudes toward sex and drugs (thank you 60s) and the stunning increase in drug related crimes, teenage and single parent pregnancy and all of the negatives that come from young uneducated women having a child to take care of with little or no help.

That trend DID not begin in 1996!!! Try looking at crime stats beginning in 1960 and you will see a startling set of numbers starting in the mid 60s and growing rapidly into the 80s then in the mid 90s, lead by methods employed in New York City, there comes the decline.

But the gentleman's point is a valid one, society has changed its moral compass and NOT for the betterment of its citizens.

Carlin · Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:49 am Post subject:

Quote: Drugs did become more acceptable socially and crime skyrocketed in the 30 years post 60s.

You say that like it's a bad thing. JK. Personally, there is only one illegal drug that I see as fairly socially acceptable, due to the fact it has few hazardous health effects, and that is of course weed.

Quote: Sex without marriage DID become acceptable and pregnancy rates among single women skyrocketed, which lead to fatherless children in poverty which lead to increased drug use and even more crime. And the solution to this is NOT to adjust the behavior but to terminate the life created by the irresposible behavior.

There is the fantasy that everyone prior to the 1960's only had sex in marriage and never before, that there were never fatherless children, that nobody who wanted to get an abortion could, then there's the reality that none of that was ever true.

Quote: This was his point and any objective view can easily see the direct link between the relaxation of societies attitudes toward sex and drugs (thank you 60s) and the stunning increase in drug related crimes, teenage and single parent pregnancy and all of the negatives that come from young uneducated women having a child to take care of with little or no help.

It's because people don't hold to the strictest dosctrine of religion that these things happen? Maybe religious rules are oppressive towards women and to the potential development of all people?

Quote: But the gentleman's point is a valid one, society has changed its moral compass and NOT for the betterment of its citizens.

Unfortunately for you, society has to move forward. Clinging to primitive, worn out and dated beliefs would inhibit that.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject:

I have a few questions for all of you who believe that the problems of modern American society have arisen from a decline in Christian moral values among the population.

1) What specifically are "Christian moral values" and how do you define them?

2) At what exact point in time were Christian moral values at their peak in American society?

3) Would you say that these values have been at the core of our society since 1776, or do you trace them to some other point in time? If so, when?

Thank you.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: ieatfood wrote: In a sense, this man is right.

Our moral fabric has changed. However, the connection that he makes with increased crime is incorrect.

Crime has decreased tremendously in the past few decades. Thus, if anything, this change in the moral fabric and losss of "moral absolutes" causes less violence and crime, not more.

Perhaps this is because in a world without absolutes, we are more tolerant? Just a suggestion.

Quote: Crime has decreased tremendously in the past few decades. Thus, if anything, this change in the moral fabric and losss of "moral absolutes" causes less violence and crime, not more. This is very true. In my city, crime has decreased 17% since 1996 (If I remember the study correctly).
Perhaps the reason this is happening is because, without religious damnation being spouted into everyone's head, without people being brainwashed and controlled by religion, we are more understanding and educated about things? Education seems to be the enemy of many religious people, thus the reason why they are trying to pass their beliefs into laws; they can't legitimately uphold their beliefs any longer. Perhaps people are surpassing (or have surpassed) ancient religious beliefs?

And what did the drug use, prostitution, violent crime rate look when you compare 1995, with 1960? It takes a little while for social trends to take hold, look at the crime rates within the 60s, 70s and 80s and then look what happens begginning in 1995 when people got fed up and things like mandatory sentencing, 3 strikes laws came into being. There is a direct ratio to the increase in the prison population going UP and the crime rate GOING DOWN.

This father's point is that there is a direct relationship between the losing of religious values in society and the loosening of morality.

Drugs did become more acceptable socially and crime skyrocketed in the 30 years post 60s.

Sex without marriage DID become acceptable and pregnancy rates among single women skyrocketed, which lead to fatherless children in poverty which lead to increased drug use and even more crime. And the solution to this is NOT to adjust the behavior but to terminate the life created by the irresposible behavior.

This was his point and any objective view can easily see the direct link between the relaxation of societies attitudes toward sex and drugs (thank you 60s) and the stunning increase in drug related crimes, teenage and single parent pregnancy and all of the negatives that come from young uneducated women having a child to take care of with little or no help.

That trend DID not begin in 1996!!! Try looking at crime stats beginning in 1960 and you will see a startling set of numbers starting in the mid 60s and growing rapidly into the 80s then in the mid 90s, lead by methods employed in New York City, there comes the decline.

But the gentleman's point is a valid one, society has changed its moral compass and NOT for the betterment of its citizens.

I never said it began in 1996 - what's wrong with you? :gdgf:
If that is what you took from my comment, then there is absolutely no reason to reply to your post
:bnghd:

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: I have a few questions for all of you who believe that the problems of modern American society have arisen from a decline in Christian moral values among the population.

1) What specifically are "Christian moral values" and how do you define them?

2) At what exact point in time were Christian moral values at their peak in American society?

3) Would you say that these values have been at the core of our society since 1776, or do you trace them to some other point in time? If so, when?

Thank you.

Being that morality is subject to the person and to the time frame one speaks of, I don't think there is any true moral definition, much less one everyone can agree on.

Carlin · Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject:

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: I have a few questions for all of you who believe that the problems of modern American society have arisen from a decline in Christian moral values among the population.

1) What specifically are "Christian moral values" and how do you define them?

2) At what exact point in time were Christian moral values at their peak in American society?

3) Would you say that these values have been at the core of our society since 1776, or do you trace them to some other point in time? If so, when?

Thank you.

Your avatar rocks! It fits you perfectly. Those are good questions; the kind every single Christian on this board will have a different answer for.