toldailytopic: If I had 10 million dollars, I'd....

[Squishes]

Is this because of the religious tests for office?

Yes, and the implementation of Christian laws.

 

[Psalmist]

toldailytopic: If I had 10 million dollars, I'd....​

Give...One time gift

To each of our children $100,000.
To each of our children's spouses $50,000
To each of our grandchildren over 21 $50,000.
To each of our grandchildren under 21 a $50,000 something for their future.
To each of our great grandchildren a $25,000 something for their future.

Next...

Divide $1,000,000 among 20 people I knew who were struggling.

$1,000,000 to the SonShine Society, a very faithful ministry for large print hymnals and other materials for nursing home ministries.

$1,000,000 to the Nursing Home Ministries (NHM), a nursing home chaplaincy ministry.

$5,000 to each of the NHM chaplains.

$1,000,000 to God Cares Ministries (a nursing home helps).

$125,000 to each of Mrs Psalmist' sister's and brother.

$1,000,000 investment Treemont Retirement/Healthcare Community Center.

$100,000 to TOL.

$150,000 to support the I’m against abuse in nursing homes.

$150,000 to support the I’m against abortion cause.

Personal…

$30,000 for a new entry level Chrysler Town and Country van, I like the T/C, it is a great car.

$145,000 for living expenses.

The remaining money would be kept in reserve for future help and honorariums.​

 

[Delmar]

What can anyone do with a lousy 10 million? lain:

Bob Enyart Live and Doug McBurney's Weekly Worldview on internet TV!

 

[Samstarrett]

Yes, and the implementation of Christian laws.

As far as religious tests for office go, it's little different in a secular democracy, where a candidate will no doubt feel 'pressured' to believe or say he believes whatever most of the voters believe.

As far as the implementation of Christian laws goes, all laws are based on the beliefs of the legislators. Are you surprised or offended that the laws I would make are based on mine?

 

[mighty_duck]

Now, my current plan as to how to obtain sovereignty is to get the land in Oregon, then secede under Article 1 of the Oregon Bill Of Rights, which declares the people's right to abolish the government at any time and replace it as they see fit.

Lay off Oregon! I hear Montana is beautiful though.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Federal Government is none too friendly to secession attempts. And you may be misreading the Oregon Bill of Rights, which seem to suggest that the majority of the people in the state can replace the state government, not that any old group can abolish the government from their land.

Then again, the prospect of duty free shopping this close to home is enticing.

 

[Town Heretic]

Lay off Oregon! I hear Montana is beautiful though.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Federal Government is none too friendly to secession attempts. And you may be misreading the Oregon Bill of Rights, which seem to suggest that the majority of the people in the state can replace the state government, not that any old group can abolish the government from their land.

Then again, the prospect of duty free shopping this close to home is enticing.

Ignore him Sam. Remember, if at first you can't secede, try, try again. :thumb:

:think: Something like that...and if that doesn't interest you we can double our chances by going in together on the whole lottery/scratch off idea I have going.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That is a lot of cigars.

:think:

:chuckle: :BillyBob:

 

[Samstarrett]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Federal Government is none too friendly to secession attempts.

Neither was Australia. But Hutt River is still there.

And you may be misreading the Oregon Bill of Rights, which seem to suggest that the majority of the people in the state can replace the state government, not that any old group can abolish the government from their land.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. State boundaries are arbitrary; why should a new government have to have precisely the same borders as the old?

Then again, the prospect of duty free shopping this close to home is enticing.

You have to pay the atheist tax.

 

[Samstarrett]

Ignore him Sam. Remember, if at first you can't secede, try, try again. :thumb:

:think: Something like that...and if that doesn't interest you we can double our chances by going in together on the whole lottery/scratch off idea I have going.

Twice the chance of half the money. Assuming neither risk-love nor risk-aversion, it's indifferent. But then, I am somewhat risk-averse, so if this whole 'having my own country' thing doesn't work out, maybe I'll give you a ring.

 

[Stripe]

Bob Enyart Live and Doug McBurney's Weekly Worldview on internet TV!

Oh, come on! Those shows have to be worth much more than that!

 

[Squishes]

As far as religious tests for office go, it's little different in a secular democracy, where a candidate will no doubt feel 'pressured' to believe or say he believes whatever most of the voters believe.

It depends, then. Will your test be the same as the kind of test we have in the US? Because most politicians here merely pay lip-service to a religion but are largely secular. Obama admitted to agnosticism in his biography but was elected anyway. Is your test a mere yes to the question "are you a Christian"? Because while that is a silly test, it probably isn't very damaging in the big picture. But checking church attendance, impeaching if they say something un-Christian, etc, are harmful policies.

As far as the implementation of Christian laws goes, all laws are based on the beliefs of the legislators. Are you surprised or offended that the laws I would make are based on mine?

This is neither true or desirable.
I do, in fact, this it is offensive that a law is based on a personal belief. For example, I am agnostic but I would never consider an "agnosticism" test for public employees. Further, I have personal moral rules against eating fast food which many US citizens do not share. I would never think about legislating my beliefs. I would legislate general secular rules that allow people to live as they see fit within these general rules. To do otherwise is presumptuous and destructive to human flourishing.

 

[Samstarrett]

It depends, then. Will your test be the same as the kind of test we have in the US? Because most politicians here merely pay lip-service to a religion but are largely secular. Obama admitted to agnosticism in his biography but was elected anyway. Is your test a mere yes to the question "are you a Christian"?

It requires a solemn oath that one affirm basic Christian doctrine.

Because while that is a silly test, it probably isn't very damaging in the big picture. But checking church attendance, impeaching if they say something un-Christian, etc, are harmful policies.

One can be declared ineligible for office if he denies a basic Christian doctrine as defined in the Constitution, whether he already holds the office or not. Church attendance is not checked. The King and those in line to the throne are expected to adhere to standards of Christian morality, and in particular the Constitution requires that they adhere to Christian sexual morality. These restrictions do not apply to Representatives in the House of Commons or to Lords.

This is neither true or desirable.
I do, in fact, this it is offensive that a law is based on a personal belief. For example, I am agnostic but I would never consider an "agnosticism" test for public employees. Further, I have personal moral rules against eating fast food which many US citizens do not share. I would never think about legislating my beliefs. I would legislate general secular rules that allow people to live as they see fit within these general rules. To do otherwise is presumptuous and destructive to human flourishing.

Sounds like those last two sentences are a belief that you hold on which you base what laws you would write. So your argument is self-refuting.

 

[Squishes]

It requires a solemn oath that one affirm basic Christian doctrine.

Do you have a statement of faith in mind? Or do you have a unique one?

One can be declared ineligible for office if he denies a basic Christian doctrine as defined in the Constitution, whether he already holds the office or not. Church attendance is not checked. The King and those in line to the throne are expected to adhere to standards of Christian morality, and in particular the Constitution requires that they adhere to Christian sexual morality. These restrictions do not apply to Representatives in the House of Commons or to Lords.

Can you tell me the thinking behind this? I'm not sure what you mean by Christian sexual morality, but why not force your version of congress to abide by these rules as well?

Sounds like those last two sentences are a belief that you hold on which you base what laws you would write. So your argument is self-refuting.

Not quite. If anything, it is a law to not make a certain kind of law. Further, it isn't based on any belief of mine; it's a pragmatic justification of a method-- the method of secularism. Besides, I never said one shouldn't base laws on beliefs, but rather that one shouldn't make laws based on religious beliefs, since those sorts of laws are likely to be detrimental to a good portion of society.

 

[TomO]

No one expects the Aven(that's our demonym; the kingdom is called Avengard) Inquisition!

:sherlock: I'll start by keepin' an eye on Squishes and The Duck......and maybe TH too.

Yeah, I know he hasn't stirred up dissent yet but he is a Lawyer after all. :think:

 

[TomO]

Not now you can't.

Well, what's the fun of being the Secret Chief of the Secret Police if no-one knows it. :idunno:


If they don't know who I am then they won't be scared of me. :sigh:

 

[Samstarrett]

:sherlock: I'll start by keepin' an eye on Squishes and The Duck......and maybe TH too.

Yeah, I know he hasn't stirred up dissent yet but he is a Lawyer after all. :think:

With apologies to Town Heretic:

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

 

[Samstarrett]

Well, what's the fun of being the Secret Chief of the Secret Police if no-one knows it. :idunno:


If they don't know who I am then they won't be scared of me. :sigh:

Are you going to have a big sign over your building that says 'Secret Police Station'?

 

[Samstarrett]

Do you have a statement of faith in mind? Or do you have a unique one?

It's unique and found in the Constitution. It's designed to be inclusive of all Christians and no others:

I, X, do solemnly swear and affirm that I believe in one God, the maker of Heaven and Earth, and in His Son Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of Mankind, and in the Holy Spirit. I believe in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as a Revelation of God Almighty. I further solemnly swear and affirm that I make this statement freely and voluntarily and with no mental reservation of purpose of evasion.

Can you tell me the thinking behind this? I'm not sure what you mean by Christian sexual morality,

Christian sexual morality in a nutshell:

Sex ought to be:

1. Only heterosexual.
2. Only within marriage.

And there ought to be:

3. No divorce except for sexual immorality or if an unbelieving spouse initiates the divorce.

Further those under this limitation may marry only Christians who have not been divorced for sexual immorality and whose lifestyle and profession is in keeping with Christian standards of morality.(For example, the King may not marry a stripper.)

We do allow a prince who had a single youthful indiscretion before being married and is judged to have thenceforth behaved honorably to all concerned to become King, but no adulterer may ever become King of Avengard.

but why not force your version of congress to abide by these rules as well?

Because to me, a king is something on a whole other level from a legislator, count, or duke. The King of Avengard is more than just a chief executive; he is the Defender of the Faith, the living embodiment of the nation, and he ought to reflect what we stand for.

Not quite. If anything, it is a law to not make a certain kind of law. Further, it isn't based on any belief of mine; it's a pragmatic justification of a method-- the method of secularism.

Nevertheless, you believe it's the right thing to do, right? And that secularism is a good method--that's one of your personal beliefs also.

Besides, I never said one shouldn't base laws on beliefs, but rather that one shouldn't make laws based on religious beliefs, since those sorts of laws are likely to be detrimental to a good portion of society.

Where do you draw the line between religious beliefs and other beliefs? I have no moral beliefs at all that are not in some way religious. Further, how do you expect legislators to legislate? Do you expect a Christian legislator who believes human life begins at fertilization to set aside that belief and vote to legalize abortion?

 

[Quincy]

I'd buy 9 million dollars worth of stuff. Then I'd set up a charity with the other million to make sure people all over the world got stuff. Stuff being rather vague on purpose mwhahahaha. Could be medical, could be housing, could be Ninja Turtle figurines. Who knows. Whatever people need.

 

[Samstarrett]

I'd buy 9 million dollars worth of stuff. Then I'd set up a charity with the other million to make sure people all over the world got stuff. Stuff being rather vague on purpose mwhahahaha. Could be medical, could be housing, could be Ninja Turtle figurines. Who knows. Whatever people need.

I don't know how far you'd get trying to provide 'stuff' to people all over the world on 1 million dollars, but hey, maybe you're more creative than I am.