>> ^Jinx:

What is somebody over the age of 3 playing CoD for anyway?


or watching sports for that matter

What is somebody over the age of 3 playing CoD for anyway?

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to be condescending. What they call American history today sanitizes the role of Christianity, to the point that the youth is completely unaware of this nations deeply rooted Christian heritage. The seculization of this country is a recent phenomena. Look at these state constitutions:

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

Chapter VI, Article I [All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and
subscribe the following declaration, viz. “I, _______, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.”

Part I, Article III And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” [p.429]

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It wasn't just a social phenomena. Christianity has shaped our nation at the roots. Consider the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document of the Plymoth Colony:

"In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620."

Consider that the "Old Deluder Satan Act", enacted so that Americans would learn scripture and not be deceived by Satan, is the first enactment of public education in this country.

When you say the say our government was influenced by Deism, and not Christianity, you have a long way to go to prove that. At least 50 of the framers were Christians, out of 55.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Every single president has taken his oath on the bible and referred to God in his inaugural address.

The supreme court, after an exaustive 10 year study, declared in 1892 in the Holy Trinity decison "This is a relgious people. This is a Christian nation.".

The supreme court opens every session with "God save the United States of America.

The reasoning behind the checks and balances is because man has a fallen nature and cannot be trusted with absolute power:

"It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

James Madison

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

Do you not realize that this very letter you are citing, which TJ wrote to the Danbury Baptist association from France, is the entire foundation of the claim of "seperation of church and state"? Those words do not appear in the constitution or anywhere else. It was only a series of court rulings starting in 1947 which interpreted the establishment clause through this particular letter that led to "seperation of church and state" as we know it today. However, this interpretation, in light of the evidence I presented you in the previously reply, is obviously false. The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson is referring to does not mean what you and the liberal courts think it means. If it did, again..why would Jefferson attend church in the house of representitives? Why would he gives federal funds to Christian missionaries? Why would he be okay with teaching the bible in public schools? None of that makes any sense in light of the interpretation that is espoused today. Consider these quotes from William Rehnquist, former chief justice of the supreme court:

"But the greatest injury of the 'wall' notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. . . . The "wall of separation between church and state" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

“It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or the intent of the framers.”

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

There are plenty of founders who believed that Christianity was central to our identity as a nation. Why do you think it says in the declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It says our rights come from God and not from men. Why do the founders say things like this:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

John Hancock

"And as it is our duty to extend our wishes to the happiness of the great family of man, I conceive that we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world that the rod of tyrants may be broken to pieces, and the oppressed made free again; that wars may cease in all the earth, and that the confusions that are and have been among nations may be overruled by promoting and speedily bringing on that holy and happy period when the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and all people everywhere willingly bow to the sceptre of Him who is Prince of Peace."
--As Governor of Massachusetts, Proclamation of a Day of Fast, March 20, 1797.

Samuel Adams

Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

James Madison

“To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

George Washington

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”

Thomas Jefferson

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.
I think the misunderstanding is entirely on your side of the debate. Atheists are basically trying to rewrite history and say this nation was intended to be secular, when all evidence points the other direction.

i sincerely esteem the constitution a system which, without the finger of god, never could have been agreed upon by such a diversity of interests

Alexander Hamilton

Atheists are trying to remove God from every sphere of public life, even suing to remove the word God from logos or remove nativity scenes from public property. That was never the intention of the founders. Many of them were openly religious and felt free to use the government and government funding towards furthering Christianity.

It would be akin to you inviting me to stay at your house, and then I inform you that I am going to completely redecorate it without your permission. I also tell you that you have to stay in your room at all times so I don't have to see you. This is why Christians have a problem with this narrative. This nation has always been predominantly Christian. Our many liberties come directly from biblical principles.

americans combine the notions of christians and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't

We all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. I think anyone is capable of being moral, at least to a point. We're all equal in Gods eyes, and that is the way it should be in this country. I am not interested in establishing a theocracy; that could only work if Jesus returned. This whole idea though of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous. It's ingrained on our monuments, written on the walls of all three branches of government, stamped on our money, and is deeply rooted in all aspects of our history and culture. You cannot seperate the two. We've already seen the shocking moral decline that America has gone through in its departure from biblical morality. This is evidence that if you try to rip out the foundation, the whole thing will crumble.

>> ^LukinStone:

*Audio

What they are talking about isn't as important as the fact that they are communicating on an un-secure channel that can be monitored by anyone with the inclination to do so.

What we really need now is to find the hidden codded message in their obvious conversation

Haha - nice, btw loved the irony of "Need a US Beer because CoD Black Ops is all about AMERICAAA!!! *explosion* - whilst showing Lucy Pinder, a British glamour model!

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.
As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.
As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).
The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.
As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.

Do we really have to go over the differences between physical property and indefinitely replicable information?
If you create something, create it for yourself and be satisfied. If I like it, I'm going to use it. That's how our culture advances.
Do you realise how devastating it would have been to human progress if IP had always been around stifling the propagation of new ideas and technologies? I wonder if we'd have made it to the bronze age yet.


Bollocks, ip doesn't stifle innovation, it encourages it. Take pharmaceuticals for instance, without patent protection companies simply couldn't afford the millions required to research new drugs (yes, drug companies are evil, etc, but theyre still kinda important).

As for the difference between physical property and intellectual property, are you really saying that a sculptor deserves compensation for their work, but a writer/musician/programmer doesn't?

That kind of attitude is why idiotic laws like this get written in the first place.

Well, this is what happens when you combine:
1) Training people to kill, and as such treat the enemy as subhuman as a way to handle doing that
2) Men who aren't that bright to begin with
3) Video games like COD etc. which have reduced warfare and killing to be 'fun', and teaching the correct response to a victory to be tea bagging or worse.

I guarantee that these men see the Taliban as less than human, and if asked if they'd piss on a member of their own troop's dead body they'd cry foul and say 'No man, that's disrespectful'. But think that it's ok here because these men were 'the enemy' and 'just towel heads'.

War is fucked on all these levels. It's people killing each other, it's making some people dead, and the alive a bit dead inside.

Fucked up.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.
As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.
As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).
The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.
As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.


Do we really have to go over the differences between physical property and indefinitely replicable information?

If you create something, create it for yourself and be satisfied. If I like it, I'm going to use it. That's how our culture advances.

Do you realise how devastating it would have been to human progress if IP had always been around stifling the propagation of new ideas and technologies? I wonder if we'd have made it to the bronze age yet.

>> ^gorillaman:

I spend time and effort taking a dump. I don't expect you to pay me for it.
If you can monetize your creativity, great. Do it without calling in government thugs to extract the tribute you imagine you're owed from anyone who presumes to interact with your imaginary property.
The guy who gets coffee for the director is paid for his work. You're suggesting I owe him, what, his future job security? Come on. Tell him to go home, get a webcam and produce his own content for literally a millionth of the cost of the primitive, bloated, dying industry he leaves behind.
How much are we getting paid to make these posts? Love of the craft, man.


First up, read my original post. I do not, in any way shape or form support SOPA or PIPA. In fact, I abhor them. So you can leave the childish "government thugs" line out of it.

As to the rest of your arguments, I'm not going to pay you to take a dump, because I don't want your dump. If I did want your "output", I would expect to pay you for it.

As for "extracting the tribute I'm owed", I don't believe I'm owed a damn thing, until you use what I've created, in which case, pay me. If you don't want to use it, fine. But it's still my ip that I worked hard on. It's not "imaginary" property, it is intellectual property and the principal has been around for longer than you would believe (look up the story of Colm Cille copying art works in medieval Ireland).

The quality of the work is irrelevant. If Transformers or CoD or whatever is so shit, don't watch/play it.

As for these posts, I'm pretty sure that when you signed up to this site, we agreed that posts were made under creative commons, or are the property of siftbot or whatever. The point is that there is no expectation of remuneration here. I have no problem with people sharing their content or whatever, but it's still their decision to make.

>> ^braindonut:

Both the single player and the multiplayer are wonderful. I enjoyed the single player campaign in BF3 FAR more than the last two Modern Warfare games. (Didn't even finish Black Ops and I have no plans on buying MW3...)
Zero Punctuation is hate packaged as comedy. It's not actually a place to go for objective game reviews. The truth is, yes, BF3 has some flaws, but overall, there's a shitload of fun to be had and I feel sad for anyone who is so jaded and cynical that they couldn't find that fun.


Objective Game Reviews? How would you even do that?
Also: IMO Battlefield is BY FAR the best multiplayer-online-shooter out there. For me it's like a combination of CoD 1, Counter-Strike and Battlefield 1942. And this is the holy trinity of online-gaming - again if you ask me.

>> ^Gallowflak:

The reason the SP was hyped up and marketed so much was that it was EA's forced, ridiculous and damaging attempt to have Battlefield 3 compete with Modern Warfare 3. Anyone who knows anything about the series is aware that this is a multiplayer franchise, offering vast battlefields, large playercounts and strategic openness not seen anywhere else in shooters. Except maybe Tribes.
I can't fault anyone for paying undue attention to Battlefield 3's singleplayer, considering how the game's marketing has been handled. But it shouldn't be the reason for investigating BF3. Your reason should be being able to bail out of a jet and top speed, parachute down onto the turret of a tank, plaster it with C4 and blow yourself to oblivion.


That sounds a bit odd since Call of Duty is also heavy on MP emphasis is it not? The problem is that realistically, Battlefield does simply not have the same pull over consumers that CoD does.

That kind of plays into my thinking that what most people want, and indeed buy in their millions, is an explosive, viscerally exciting rollercoaster ride.

Thus I'm not at all surprised that BF3's SP seems to be as shallow as anything Infinity Ward has offered.

I sorta want pernonin' to be a new word.

Perhaps it means to perma-own. Like, when you repeatedly get killed by the same dude in CoD, you're pernowned. Sorta like renowned, but the reverse.

>> ^Gallowflak:

I love the irony of using CoD weapon sound effects for a Battlefield-related video.


yeah, their sound is always really weak.