away4real:

I totally agree with you that the constitution allowed for civil and voting rights. I never disagreed on the fact, i was pointing to the intent, it didnt literally state it but it suggested it, but the imperfect men that interpret the constitution chose to ignore it.

As well you have not shown where the constitution and declaration shows health care as a responsibility?

My point is that the interpretation of the consitution should be a fluid because the documents is a fluid document moving with time but the principles and guidelines should be static. If the founding fathers were alive today based on the strength of the union what do you think they would want for the citizens in terms of healthcare. I think the declaration is clear on welfare and right to life, it depends on what interpretation we all choose to give it.

You stated you couldnt afford health care in Nigeria but didnt deem it fit as a right, u didnt answer my question in America now if u can't affod it will your views change.

You took a shot at Liberals and stated you are a republican for lack of an alternative, i really don't get that. Bush big govt and all, Legislature being part of the govt, i was suggesting a check on the executive and hence limit of powers. I wont divert too much, lets continue from ur response.

I agree with your point there that the interpretation of the constitution should be fluid. However, I don’t think that if the founding fathers had been alive today, they would necessarily deem Healthcare a right. Welfare and right to life is one thing but making HealthCare a RIGHT is a completely different issue in my opinion.

Based on the polls you will say Obama has the best chance, but you can never trust those whites,they might decide not to vote for him come elections day simply because he his black, but i sincerely hope he wins

Romans 13: 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Didnt need the amendment but thank you for this. Personally Im not against the death penalty but I am pro-choice

toshman, yours didnt answer my question.

uthman4u:

Based on the polls you will say Obama has the best chance, but you can never trust those whites,they might decide not to vote for him come elections day simply because he his black, but i sincerely hope he wins

That's not the only problem he has. He's not even guaranteed all the minority votes.
Anyway, he's going to win as long as people keep viewing Mccain as another 4 yrs of Bush!

guys no need to argue, it's all over

Lmao why the hell is Michelle backseat to Hiliary?

all of you stucking ya neck about obama,should get ready 4 another tragedy to suprress your fears,obama!! will surely be assasinated,heard he's close to one terrorist,,the story's been circulating around town,and it's sth that is inevitable,so embrace yaselves//.never say i never told ya'll

They both did but Obama outshined him.

alisigwe:

all of you stucking ya neck about obama,should get ready 4 another tragedy to suprress your fears,obama!! will surely be assasinated,heard he's close to one terrorist,,the story's been circulating around town,and it's sth that is inevitable,so embrace yaselves//.never say i never told ya'll

another tragedy to suppress our fears? whoever suppresses fears using tragedy?

so you buy the terrorist thing too? Ayers committed those crimes when Obama was 8 years old and you want him (Obama) to answer for the crimes? No yawa, we will continue to stuck our necks and embrace ourselves for the assassination. Our desire for now is to see him become America's first Black president. It's about time.

toshmann:

new testament? ananaias and saphira were killed instantly for lying before the holy ghost.(act chapter 5) got it.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Acts+5&book_id=51&version1=9&tp=28&c=5

old testament? sodom and gomorah were annihilated. any other testament?

@toshmann,

Questions for you:
Were they (Ananias and Saphira) killed by humans?
Were they sentenced to die by a human?
If God or the Holy Spirit killed them, why must we humans then act for God? Why can't we allow God to kill judge those He wants to judge?
Why did Jesus object to the execution of the woman caught committing adultery when the law recommended that she be put to death?

The problem with many in the Christian Right aka Republican Base is that they can justify all their hate with the Bible. They justified slavery using the Bible, they've justified killing of innocent Iraqi civilians using the Bible, they've justified killing innocent Japanese civilians using the Bible and they'll justify killing innocent Iranian civilians using the Bible.

Why do they shy away from the teachings and actions of Jesus that clearly show an aversion to hate, bigotry and taking human life, even when the law requires it? Why?

@Tayo-D,

Your argument is fickle at best.

You agree that voting is a right yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the US Constitution explicitly state that voting is a right. After two centuries, the Voting Rights Act was passed, and all the fickle debates ended. I'm sure people like you were the ones arguing against voting as a right, pointing to documents that can be interpreted in myriad ways.

Now on health care, you are waiting to see "health care is a right" explicitly stated in either the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution to consider it a right, even though you never saw "voting is a right" explicitly stated. What double standard!

Why did Jesus object to the execution of the woman caught committing adultery when the law recommended that she be put to death?

True that.

Over to you, Tayo-D and toshmann

If God or the Holy Spirit killed them, why must we humans then act for God? Why can't we allow God to kill judge those He wants to judge?

shots fired.

KarmaMod:

Lmao why the hell is Michelle backseat to Hiliary?

Good question

When is the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DATE, i heard from CNN that is about 20 days to go, please confirm this.

Thank you
BRB Guys

once the race takes off, young men must beat old men!

Why did Jesus object to the execution of the woman caught committing adultery when the law recommended that she be put to death?

THE LAW IS CREATED BY A MAN AND CAN BE OBJECTED BY A MAN((((( besides, Jesus is not just a man, he has the power to forgive sin.))))

plappville:

THE LAW IS CREATED BY A MAN AND CAN BE OBJECTED BY A MAN((((( besides, Jesus is not just a man, he has the power to forgive sin.))))

So what's your point?

That Jesus didn't want the woman stoned to death, but would bless and praise us if we caught another adulteress and stoned her to death?

Jesus was clearly against any law that required taking the life of the offender as punishment.

Don't forget that Baba Jesus also blessed and forgave a condemned robber. The death penalty is anti-Christian!

An eye-for-an-eye cannot be considered a Christian teaching. However, many in the Christian Right would conveniently ignore Christ's teachings and go to the darkests corners of the Old Testament to uproot instances of God-sanctioned mayhem, infanticide and genocide.

RichyBlacK:

So what's your point?

That Jesus didn't want the woman stoned to death, but would bless and praise us if we caught another adulteress and stoned her to death?

Jesus was clearly against any law that required taking the life of the offender as punishment.

Don't forget that Baba Jesus also blessed and forgave a condemned robber. The death penalty is anti-Christian!

An eye-for-an-eye cannot be considered a Christian teaching. However, many in the Christian Right would conveniently ignore Christ's teachings and go to the darkests corners of the Old Testament to uproot instances of God-sanctioned mayhem, infanticide and genocide.

thank u so much bro. i look at toshman and i wonder how he sees christainity. how about the God that says he is not interested in the death of the sinner but in his repentance? how about saul that repented and became paul, if he was executed as some people here suggest, for his executionable offences, and there were lots of them, how cld we have got all those sections he wrote. see what God can do with a repented sinner? who says God loves to kill? i'm tired of this kind of debate. so if God killed ananias and saphira for lying, and God supports the death penalty, why haven't all the thousands of yeye pastors and holier-than-thou hooligans that pose as religious people in nigeria? God is a God of another chance. his patience is too good . . .phew. . . i'm tired . . . pls

alisigwe:

all of you stucking ya neck about obama,should get ready 4 another tragedy to suprress your fears,obama!! will surely be assasinated,heard he's close to one terrorist,,the story's been circulating around town,and it's sth that is inevitable,so embrace yaselves//.never say i never told ya'll

That is jst one of the political propaganda from the Mc Cain's attacking Dog,Palin.She has actually shown her political inexpirience on the federal level.When is Obama is busy creating ideas for the solutions of America's present economic crises and she is busy searching for lies to crucify his character.Do she thing the Election is a fight within the face-me-i -face-you compound.Everytime she picks up microphone all she could say is how Obama is unpatrotic without giving a sigle solution to America's present critical economic situations.Only high school students she could get their vote with that.But an average American knows Republicans got no solution for their present economic problem.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7664777.stm

I think Bush was the last warning for americans.If americans vote in the republicans into power again, after 8 years of econamic desaster, jst becos of racism, then i think they just started a new journey into another 8yrs of economic downfall,more suffering, and more hatred from arround the world http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7647459.stm.

@away4real,

I didn't plan to get involved here today because I am so busy. But there seems to be so many interesting points here that I fell the need to responde, albeit breifly.

I totally agree with you that the constitution allowed for civil and voting rights. I never disagreed on the fact, i was pointing to the intent, it didnt literally state it but it suggested it, but the imperfect men that interpret the constitution chose to ignore it.

The Declaration of Independence clearly stated that the government must be institued through the consent of the governed. That is a direct refernce to voting. Voting gives people the opportunity to express thier consent or dissaproval of tjheir government. What more proof do you want?

Reverse, what part of the documents clearly contradicts health care being a right?

The principle is clear in the Declaration of Independence. Whatever is God-endowed and common to all men through creation is the key. Poverty and riches are not God-endowed, neither is health-care. Do you get it?

As well you have not shown where the constitution and declaration shows health care as a responsibility?

The principle clearly shows it is not a Right. Healthcare is purely a responsibility. It is my responsibility to see to it that my family has adequate healthcare. As long as the govt does not put any stumbling block in my way to obtaining that healthcare, then all is well and good. If healthcare is a right, doe that mean the govt has the powers to force you to take a shower and live a healthy lifestyle? Those are your responsibilities.

My point is that the interpretation of the consitution should be a fluid because the documents is a fluid document moving with time but the principles and guidelines should be static.

I agree with this statement in its entirety. The question now is, what part of the principles or guidelines mandates healthcare as a Right? Is healthcare God-given?

If the founding fathers were alive today based on the strength of the union what do you think they would want for the citizens in terms of healthcare. I think the declaration is clear on welfare and right to life, it depends on what interpretation we all choose to give it.

Of course you know what my answer will be based on my understanding of the documents they produced. There is no point belabouring this issue any longer.

You stated you couldnt afford health care in Nigeria but didnt deem it fit as a right, u didnt answer my question in America now if u can't affod it will your views change.

Why would my views change? Its all going to be a matter of priorities. I will most likely get a second job to get enough money to buy health insurance. I have a friend who works for an insurance agency and i know individuals do buy insurance from him. So I do not see that happening, really.

You took a shot at Liberals and stated you are a republican for lack of an alternative, i really don't get that. Bush big govt and all, Legislature being part of the govt, i was suggesting a check on the executive and hence limit of powers. I wont divert too much, lets continue from ur response.

By the way, the check is also vice versa.

@RichyBlack,

Your argument is fickle at best.

Your opinion.

You agree that voting is a right yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the US Constitution explicitly state that voting is a right. After two centuries, the Voting Rights Act was passed, and all the fickle debates ended. I'm sure people like you were the ones arguing against voting as a right, pointing to documents that can be interpreted in myriad ways.

Go read the Declaration of Independence again. The govt must be instituted through the consent of the governed. What more do you want? So what are you advocating? An ammendment that establishes healthcare as a human right? In which case, the govt will be given extraordinary powers to ensure you are healthy? Men, that thought is scary!

Now on health care, you are waiting to see "health care is a right" explicitly stated in either the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution to consider it a right, even though you never saw "voting is a right" explicitly stated. What double standard!

Voting as a right is exclusively staed. Here it is again: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Tayo-D:

@RichyBlack,

Go read the Declaration of Independence again. The govt must be instituted through the consent of the governed. What more do you want? So what are you advocating? An ammendment that establishes healthcare as a human right? In which case, the govt will be given extraordinary powers to ensure you are healthy? Men, that thought is scary!

Voting as a right is exclusively staed. Here it is again: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

@Tayo-D,

I'm sorry but your entire argument has just been torpedoed by justices of the US Supreme Court! Read:

"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States"

United States Supreme Court Bush v. Gore (2000)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=531&page=98


While the title of the Voting Rights Act might imply that it established an explicit right to vote for President for U.S. citizens, there is no such federal right. However, the Voting Rights Act and three constitutional amendments that prevent discrimination in granting the franchise have established in United States Supreme Court jurisprudence that there is a "fundamental right" in the franchise, even though voting remains a state-granted privilege. However, states are given considerable leeway when it comes to this "fundamental right".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_act#No_affirmative_right_to_vote

I await your esteemed explanations

@karmamod,

Why did Jesus object to the execution of the woman caught committing adultery when the law recommended that she be put to death?
True that. Over to you, Tayo-D and toshmann

@RichyBlack,

So what's your point?
That Jesus didn't want the woman stoned to death, but would bless and praise us if we caught another adulteress and stoned her to death?
Jesus was clearly against any law that required taking the life of the offender as punishment.
Don't forget that Baba Jesus also blessed and forgave a condemned robber. The death penalty is anti-Christian!
An eye-for-an-eye cannot be considered a Christian teaching. However, many in the Christian Right would conveniently ignore Christ's teachings and go to the darkests corners of the Old Testament to uproot instances of God-sanctioned mayhem, infanticide and genocide.

I will respond to both questions as one, though the answer wont come easy.

I think the an eye-for-an-eye is the most misunderstood phrase in the entire Bible. People have used it to mock our faith and try to prove inconsistencies where there is not. Of course, this is nothing short of a lack of understanding of what the bible is all about.

I will relate this phrase to a contemporary principle adopted by the United States and Britain. I'm sure you've both heard of cruel and unusual punishment. This is exactly what an  eye for an eye is all about. It is about the punishment fitting the crime. If you kill, you must be killed in return - plain and simple.

Now please be aware that the power to kill is invested only in the government. This is why the mob did not just stone the adulteress until they get the go-ahead from an authority figure - Jesus. This is why modern law also ensures that a person has a right to defend themselves before the authority before they are punished. This practiced is enmeshed in biblical law.

Now there is a caveat I need to bring our attention to. There are laws and there are higher laws. For instance, Paul talked about faith, hope and love, and yet declared that love is greater than all. Same way, God declares that He will have mercy over sacrifices. Does that mean sacrifices are no longer required? No. It means while offering sacrifices, never overlook the importance and the need to not violate mercy. This explains Jesus' decision on the Adulteress.

Regarding death penalty, I pointed out earlier in the Romans that God establishes govt and gives them the power to execute judgement. The judgement must of course follow His eye-for-an-eye principle (otherwise known as no cruel and unusual punishment principle). Based upon this, I have no aversion to death penalty where it is clearly proven that the intial intent was to kill. That is why our laws make a distinction between murder and manslaughter. While both are punished, they are not punished in the same way.

Tayo-D:

@away4real,

The Declaration of Independence clearly stated that the government must be institued through the consent of the governed. That is a direct refernce to voting. Voting gives people the opportunity to express their consent or dissaproval of tjheir government. What more proof do you want?
The principle is clear in the Declaration of Independence. Whatever is God-endowed and common to all men through creation is the key. Poverty and riches are not God-endowed, neither is health-care. Do you get it?
The principle clearly shows it is not a Right. Healthcare is purely a responsibility. It is my responsibility to see to it that my family has adequate healthcare. As long as the govt does not put any stumbling block in my way to obtaining that healthcare, then all is well and good. If healthcare is a right, doe that mean the govt has the powers to force you to take a shower and live a healthy lifestyle? Those are your responsibilities.
I agree with this statement in its entirety. The question now is, what part of the principles or guidelines mandates healthcare as a Right? Is healthcare God-given?
Of course you know what my answer will be based on my understanding of the documents they produced. There is no point belabouring this issue any longer.

Tayo two things, this principle was so clear it took 200 years to achieve? Why was that??

Secondly this notion "Whatever is God-endowed and common to all men through creation is the key". So i guess we were all born sick, health care is not God endowed and not common to all men? What is this "right to life"?

The point you seem to clearly ignore is that you cannot literally lay hold to this so called clear principles you are forcing into the declaration and constitution. It was an interpretation and remains an interpretation of men who lay hold to power at a time it all depends on who is/was interpreting it.

So based on the above it is essential that the debate of health care cannot look only to the declaration and constitution alone, we should use this docs as guidelines but be wider in scope.

Richy has brought up that ludicrous judgement, Richy u are a correct guy. Some aspects of conservative ideology to me is so dangerous when people try to justify their actions through religion and christainity am disturbed, thats y its easily swallowed by the not so enlightened, and when u can question it objectively they say are an extreme liberal.

With the four point agenda that Obama just laid down today, i believe strongly that Obama has what it takes to bring america out of his present economic crisis. For me, i have followed both great personality but i can tell that Obama his the man. It is time for change, Obama go on jo. You are the man that the world is waiting for.

Tayo-D:


Now please be aware that the power to kill is invested only in the government. This is why the mob did not just stone the adulteress until they get the go-ahead from an authority figure - Jesus. This is why modern law also ensures that a person has a right to defend themselves before the authority before they are punished. This practiced is enmeshed in biblical law.

the mob didnt try to get a go ahead from christ. he (christ) had no legal authority. their intention was more to try to get him to go against his teachings and/or the present day authority.

About these elections, both parties have put out their strong reasons why they should be president, and some are quite reasonable enough. But the one thing I find very rile is the hate in the McCain campaign. Its too negative and almost violent

@ mystikal,

the mob didnt try to get a go ahead from christ. he (christ) had no legal authority. their intention was more to try to get him to go against his teachings and/or the present day authority.

You took the words out of my mouth keyboard.There is no way the people would have refered to Jesus for a go ahead on the prostitute's harakiri or its endorsement as he(Jesus) wasnt an authority in the land as infered by Tayo D 's post.He is only an accepted leader amongst his immediate constituent(12 disciples) and his followers,eventually known as christians.

It was more like a test for him(their taking her to him) and he won the day by letting all of them know they were not infallible.Though not recorded in the bible,i was in a church where the pastor even claimed he mentioned each and everyone's name and gave them date and time they also commited a "similar sin" as he was scribbling on the ground,the reason they all left with out looking back.

There is no way christians alive or dead cld say Jesus whom we all worship will support killing in any form,be it as a result of retribution or when it is serving as a punitive measure.H

@ mystikal,

the mob didnt try to get a go ahead from christ. he (christ) had no legal authority. their intention was more to try to get him to go against his teachings and/or the present day authority.

You took the words out of my mouth keyboard.There is no way the people would have refered to Jesus for a go ahead on the prostitute's harakiri or its endorsement as he(Jesus) wasnt an authority in the land as infered by Tayo D 's post.He is only an accepted leader amongst his immediate constituent(12 disciples) and his followers,eventually known as christians.

It was more like a test for him(their taking her to him) and he won the day by letting all of them know they were not infallible.Though not recorded in the bible,i was in a church where the pastor even claimed he mentioned each and everyone's name and gave them date and time they also commited a "similar sin" as he was scribbling on the ground,the reason they all left with out looking back.

There is no way christians alive or dead cld say Jesus whom we all worship will support killing in any form,be it as a result of retribution or when it is serving as a punitive measure.He sais he came to seek and save the sinners,thus if all sinners are killed or made to get a punishment to commensurate their sin,who will be left to be saved?

I wish American's the best whoever they decide to elect,@ least they do not av candidates that are inundating them with archaic promises a la naija.My heart goes with Obama though,for obvious reasons hes black.Hope that doesnt seem racist though

The McCain Campaign is too negative? Let me guess, you do not live in America? Politics in this countries has been based on negativity. The Democrats are majority in house today because they ran a negative campaign against their opponents. I am sorry but to suddenly say McCain is too negative is preposterous. How can anyone who has any clue of how politics goes in America say such a thing?? By the way, compared to what happened back in 2006 election, McCain is a saint. According to the polls, many do not think McCain is running a negative enough campaign. I may be a McCain supporter but come on, this is freaking America, a land where winning has become about how much trash you can expose of your opponent in the media.

kay_pumpin:

@ mystikal,

the mob didnt try to get a go ahead from christ. he (christ) had no legal authority. their intention was more to try to get him to go against his teachings and/or the present day authority.

You took the words out of my mouth keyboard.There is no way the people would have refered to Jesus for a go ahead on the prostitute's harakiri or its endorsement as he(Jesus) wasnt an authority in the land as infered by Tayo D 's post.He is only an accepted leader amongst his immediate constituent(12 disciples) and his followers,eventually known as christians.

It was more like a test for him(their taking her to him) and he won the day by letting all of them know they were not infallible.Though not recorded in the bible,i was in a church where the pastor even claimed he mentioned each and everyone's name and gave them date and time they also commited a "similar sin" as he was scribbling on the ground,the reason they all left with out looking back.

There is no way christians alive or dead cld say Jesus whom we all worship will support killing in any form,be it as a result of retribution or when it is serving as a punitive measure.He sais he came to seek and save the sinners,thus if all sinners are killed or made to get a punishment to commensurate their sin,who will be left to be saved?

I hope an atheist does not pin you in the corner some day with verses from your own bible on the above statement which you make.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Read up where Jesus speaks of his coming back for more details,

kay_pumpin:

@ mystikal,

the mob didnt try to get a go ahead from christ. he (christ) had no legal authority. their intention was more to try to get him to go against his teachings and/or the present day authority.

You took the words out of my mouth keyboard.There is no way the people would have refered to Jesus for a go ahead on the prostitute's harakiri or its endorsement as he(Jesus) wasnt an authority in the land as infered by Tayo D 's post.He is only an accepted leader amongst his immediate constituent(12 disciples) and his followers,eventually known as christians.

It was more like a test for him(their taking her to him) and he won the day by letting all of them know they were not infallible.Though not recorded in the bible,i was in a church where the pastor even claimed he mentioned each and everyone's name and gave them date and time they also commited a "similar sin" as he was scribbling on the ground,the reason they all left with out looking back.

There is no way christians alive or dead cld say Jesus whom we all worship will support killing in any form,be it as a result of retribution or when it is serving as a punitive measure.He sais he came to seek and save the sinners,thus if all sinners are killed or made to get a punishment to commensurate their sin,who will be left to be saved?

I wish American's the best whoever they decide to elect,@ least they do not av candidates that are inundating them with archaic promises a la naija.My heart goes with Obama though,for obvious reasons hes black.Hope that doesnt seem racist though

Thank you.

A lot of the Christians in the Republican Right today use their religion as a convenient excuse to hate.