Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on March 03, 2005, 10:41:20 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20050303/ts_latimes/houseoksbillonfaithbasedjobs
The House on Wednesday approved a job-training bill that would allow faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions.
First they allow "faith-based" organizations to receive federal funds - and nobody listens to me about the bad step that is and how it's unconstitutional
now they make it even more blatantly obvious
"Atheists Need not Apply"/
"Catholics Need not apply"/
"Muslims need not apply"/
"X-religion need not apply" signs here we come!
Way to make my argument for me
-
I know how you feel... my bang-head-on-keyboard-method of ranting hasn't worked on how this is a bad idea.
But it's not unconstitutional... there is no mention of 'seperation of church and state' in the Constitution. Trust me, that was just a phrase invented by a professor to condone the conjoining of moral and religion into the same sentence (i think). But that's another issue.. Morals should come naturally... but it seems that everyone has to say you have to be religious to be have morals...pfft.
-
rejindo:
actually that phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson himself to summarize the meaning of the establishment clause of the constitution into laymens terms - the seperation of church and state exists and was meant by the origional authors of the constitution to be high and inpregnible
-
I think you guys need to move to another country :)
-
Why? I like it here. It's my country. I just thing some of the policies of the current government are absolutely ridiculous.
-
whoa timewarp - and i agree with corsair
what america is supposed to stand for is GREAT .. what the current admin and it's supports are doing to it is absolutely disgusting
-
If that's the case... then it should be written as an amendment. I would be totally for it, if it was presented to Congress. To think... we have under 30 amendments in the entirety of the existance of the U.S.
-
Rejindo
US Constitution
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
by giving money to religious organizations it's making a "law that respects an establishment of religion" (even if it's generically religion of the lack of religion)
by allowing organizations getting government funds to descriminate based upon religion is doing so even more strongly
to put "in god we trust" on our money "under god" in the pledge is doing so as well
-
Kaz...
You make an interesting point - but the truth is, Atheism is not a religion. Allah is just another word for God in the Muslim's religion, if that's the point in case - the founding father's founded the Nation on Judeo-Christian beleifs. Being the point that "in god we trust" is not a law as well as "under god" is a statement in the very speech we use to define oursleves, there is no infringement on religious discrimination.
I agree with you on the point of government funds for a private organization, though.
-
Originally posted by Rejindo
Kaz...
You make an interesting point - but the truth is, Atheism is not a religion.
you are correct -
however freedom of religion includes freedom from religion - because it's our exercise of our "right to religious expression" to not have a religion
Originally posted by Rejindo
the founding father's founded the Nation on Judeo-Christian beleifs.
wrong - this country was founded on enlightenment principles and several very prominent members of the constitutional convention were agnostics (ex: jefferson), atheists (ex: franklin), and all demoninations of christians agreed right alongside them
Furthermore Article 11 of the Treaty With Tripoli (remember treaties come right after the constitution in legal strength) states
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
the Senate of the United states ratified this treaty UNANIMOUSLY - this is one of the oldest treaties we have and Article 11 sets precident reinforcing the Establishment Clause of the 1st ammendment
Originally posted by Rejindo
Being the point that "in god we trust" is not a law as well as "under god" is a statement in the very speech we use to define oursleves, there is no infringement on religious discrimination.
this judgement is based upon faulty knowledge of the constitution and the laws of the united states - see above
-
*shrug*
Does it make sense for a Baptist organization to hire a Catholic or a Muslim? As for the federal funds, there's plenty of worse things they could be spent on that charities, faith-based or otherwise.
Would you complain if a Chinese restaurant hires only Chinese people, or that an African cultural center refuses to hire Swedes? Same thing.
-
...that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Ha! Seems that both the Bushes and Bin Ladens forgot to follow their own agreements :p
Of course technically it is two 'countries' not two 'peoples' but the absurdity stands.
-
For every abuse by Conservatives(or neo-cons) of the constitution, Liberals do the same. *Hints as general welfare clause.*
That is all I am saying about this issue, except that I believe in banning all subsidies completely. Why fund a crusifix in a jar of urine under the guise of art?
Also seems kazan will have to move to a 3rd party...Democrats like the idea, in particular Hillary Clinton.
For the record, legislature during the drafting tried to have the word christian mentioned in the constitution but was voted down several times.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Would you complain if a Chinese restaurant hires only Chinese people.
Damn right I would! They can demand that the applicant speaks chinese if that's the language most of the kitchen staff use but if they only hire chinese people that's no less racist than a company refusing to hire black people.
-
I think it's unfair to allow discrimination of any type.... why is this legislation even necessary? What change will it make to the existing scenario? Is there some great scandal of Muslims working for Christian faith-groups I've not heard of?
-
aldo_14: it'll allow governmentally-funded organizations to descriminate
-
There is a difference between discrimination and being compltely and intentionally blind to race, religion, nationality, gender, age or whatever. The fact is, different cultures/religions/nationalities have their own customs, and its not at all discriminatory that they insist on hiring people who fit into the same group. When you see a woman in a burqa, you assume she's Muslim. When you see a man wearing the Russian hat thingy (I forget what its called), you can rightly assume that he is from the territory of the former Soviet Union or somewhere is Eastern Europe. Thats not discrimination, thats common sense.
To give you an example: it would be perfectly acceptable that a Baptist church hire only Baptists, because that is the central issue in the organization's identity. However, it would not be OK if they hired only Baptist males, if females we equally capable of performing the job. See the difference?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
There is a difference between discrimination and being compltely and intentionally blind to race, religion, nationality, gender, age or whatever. The fact is, different cultures/religions/nationalities have their own customs, and its not at all discriminatory that they insist on hiring people who fit into the same group. When you see a woman in a burqa, you assume she's Muslim. When you see a man wearing the Russian hat thingy (I forget what its called), you can rightly assume that he is from the territory of the former Soviet Union or somewhere is Eastern Europe. Thats not discrimination, thats common sense.
To give you an example: it would be perfectly acceptable that a Baptist church hire only Baptists, because that is the central issue in the organization's identity. However, it would not be OK if they hired only Baptist males, if females we equally capable of performing the job. See the difference?
What if i decided my businesses main identity was conservative right wing; would that make it right for me to discriminate against political opinions when hiring? And doesn't disclosure of religious affiliation require disclosure of sensitive personal information, and isn't there a potential privacy/data protection issue there?
Why would, for example, the cleaner or receptionist in a Baptist church need to be Baptist? If the job is itself centred around the faith, then knowledge of that faith would thus be part of the requirements; you wouldn't give the job to a non-Baptist (for example), simply because they were not qualified to that job (they don't have the religious knowledge).
But for certain personnel who have no need of this knowledge to do their job, why discriminate against them? Surely a job which, by definition, requires no religious knowledge or belief (otherwise you could fairly discriminate based upon a competence to do the job basis), doesn't require religious discrimination in the first place? What is the need for this legislation?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
To give you an example: it would be perfectly acceptable that a Baptist church hire only Baptists, because that is the central issue in the organization's identity. However, it would not be OK if they hired only Baptist males, if females we equally capable of performing the job. See the difference?
I 100% agree that when hiring a priest or a choir you have to hire someone from the same religion.
But why should I as a non baptist pay for it when the job doesn't involve faith. And if the job does involve faith why should I have to pay for it at all?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I 100% agree that when hiring a priest or a choir you have to hire someone from the same religion.
But why should I as a non baptist pay for it when the job doesn't involve faith. And if the job does involve faith why should I have to pay for it at all?
On the same token why should I have to pay for offensive art or services I don't use.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
On the same token why should I have to pay for offensive art or services I don't use.
Because someone else pays for the services you do use and which they don't?
-
Given: there exsists an organisation with a religious base that has a proven track record of provideing some sort of service.
I have no problem giveing this organisation government cash to preform this service so long as they adhere to the same rules as any other government contractor.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Because someone else pays for the services you do use and which they don't?
TOUCHE!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Given: there exsists an organisation with a religious base that has a proven track record of provideing some sort of service.
I have no problem giveing this organisation government cash to preform this service so long as they adhere to the same rules as any other government contractor.
which requires them to keep their preaching and charity entities COMPLETELY SEPERATE - ie the money is not going to the church, but ti a charity organization
that just happens to be run by a church (they cannot use it to preach passively or actively)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Given: there exsists an organisation with a religious base that has a proven track record of provideing some sort of service.
I have no problem giveing this organisation government cash to preform this service so long as they adhere to the same rules as any other government contractor.
Ah, but do they adhere to the same rules or do they start giving preferencial treatment to those who have the same faith as them?
Remember that big stink about the boy scouts refusing to take on non-christians. Why should the government be funding that?
Originally posted by redmenace
On the same token why should I have to pay for offensive art or services I don't use.
The point is that you can use it. If you choose not to then fine. Whether you likes it or not or use it or not is completely irrelavent. What matters is that the choice to go see it or not is yours.
If the government started saying that only members of the so called liberal elite could see it then I'd have a real problem with it too. If only they could see it then only they should pay for it.
-
Soon, the wheel will come into motion and the world shall be divided into three casts. Warrior, Religious and Worker. We will go bald, grow a bone on our skull and fly fish-like ships into space.
...
What? Someone needed to lighten up this dark, dreary thread with a bad joke... :p
-
But I have no need for certain services offered. My view on this is that the Gov't is to provide for common defense and postal system etc. Such things and as a common defense we all use. However, I promised my self I would no get entrenched into this argument because I have a über economics paper and midterm I have to write.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
But I have no need for certain services offered. My view on this is that the Gov't is to provide for common defense and postal system etc. Such things and as a common defense we all use. However, I promised my self I would no get entrenched into this argument because I have a über economics paper and midterm I have to write.
Tough. You're in now. :p
Whether you have no use is irrelavent too. If we discontinued every service that people said they had no use for there wouldn't be much left of anything. The government spends bucket loads of money on things that you don't use. Should we cancel them all just because of that?
Remember the example of the boy scouts? The big stink was over them being faith based but by your logic we shouldn't funding them at all regardless of that because you don't use them.
Space probes. You don't use that. Bin them.
Foreign aid (including money sent to Israel!). Don't use that. Dump it.
I could go on.
The argument is silly. The government always has funded projects that the majority of the citizens don't use. The simple fact is that the faith based agencies that are the entire topic of this thread are one such entity. So for once we agree on something. The money for them should be binned.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
But I have no need for certain services offered. My view on this is that the Gov't is to provide for common defense and postal system etc. Such things and as a common defense we all use. However, I promised my self I would no get entrenched into this argument because I have a über economics paper and midterm I have to write.
In brief; other people have use of them. I'd be there are other people have no use of services you use; regardless they are provided. The old system of providing the bare minimum government 'interference' (laissez faire government) was pretty much proven not to be effective with the introduction of democracy.
In addition there can be said to be a national interest in preserving the national identity of a country, which includes its art, for a specific example.
-
In the US constitution, I think it is very explicit that the gov't role is to provide for the general welfare. In later writings, by the author, he said that the clause was meant to be a limiting factor of Gov't.
-
And does the preservation of culture not cover the general welfare of a country?
-
No, not really.
-
Wait, so why is it not fair that a Catholic can't apply for a job in a Protestant organization. This is like the Boy Scouts vs. homosexuals if I understand it correctly.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
No, not really.
Why?
-
After Kazan's post about my ill-informed views of the constitution last nite, I decided to step back and read my constitution again... and I can say that, even though I am Independant in my political beliefs, I think I have to agree with the non-conforming government to a religious standard. I decided to discern what I was listening to: Christians - they obviously believe it was THIER god-given rght of foundation upon the country... and to make it a short story >> I concede my lack of constituional knowledge, And that the constituion was made as a broad document, able to change with a changing society.
That being the case: Kazan is right.
-
Originally posted by Rejindo
That being the case: Kazan is right.
Don't say that, you'll give him a heart attack!
:p :)
-
SSSShhhh! You'll give it away!
*SHIFTY EYES!*
-
haha VICTORY IS MINE :D
maybe i'll go back to being patient again because for once one of them has finally understood
----
Kudos to Rejindo for proving beyond a doubt that they are mature by doing the thing that is hardest for us all to do: admit when we're wrong
-
Kaz, you don't realize how much more effective you would be if you adopted a slightly less imposing approach.
People on the defensive are much less keen to listen you as they are too busy into finding a defensive mean depending on the nature of the subject.
I guess you would greatly benefit to trying teach some class somewhere, possibly with a non 100% receptive audience.
Also, when expecting people declare you're right it's like expecting them to drop much of their ego and pride, something very unlikely for most human beings ;)
-
Atheism is not a religion.
Ummmm... Dont think so. Buddhisim, for example, does not believe in a god. (Buddha is considered a prophet), so they are atheists, but Buddhisim is a religion.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Kaz, you don't realize how much more effective you would be if you adopted a slightly less imposing approach.
People on the defensive are much less keen to listen you as they are too busy into finding a defensive mean depending on the nature of the subject.
I guess you would greatly benefit to trying teach some class somewhere, possibly with a non 100% receptive audience.
Also, when expecting people declare you're right it's like expecting them to drop much of their ego and pride, something very unlikely for most human beings ;)
I'm too low-esteemed to have an ego or any pride. I stand back and take the approach that is best for me, not any particular party or political orginization. I was wrong in my judgement, but not my independant, truth-seeking political belief.:eek: So, no one really lost. I actually gained something: knowledge. And that's always a good thing. :cool:
-
Ummmm... Dont think so. Buddhisim, for example, does not believe in a god. (Buddha is considered a prophet), so they are atheists, but Buddhisim is a religion.
Not quite. Buddhism makes no specific reference to a god, but it is quite possible to be a Buddhist and believe in god. Buddhism teaches one to refrain from resisting the natural ebb and flow of the universe and strive to see its total unity, thus achieving enlightenment. It does not attempt to predict what one will find after achieving enlightenment. It might be a kind of Emersonian clarity, it might be god, or the two might be one in the same.
Atheism is the positive assertion that there is no god. By the strict definition of the term, an atheist can still be a Buddhist, but I think most people who call themselves atheists also reject other spiritual concepts along with god.
-
True. I consider atheism one of the three categories that all religion must fall into (Monotheism, Polytheism, and Atheism) Since Buddhists make no reference to a god, I classified them as atheists, but since they don't predict what you may encounter at enlightenment, I suppose they could be all three.
-
kappawing your classifications are flawed
atheists have _no_ religious/spiritual/superstitous beliefs (therefore some individuals who call themselves atheists are not)
montheism, polytheism, spritualism, agnosticism, atheism would be a slightly more complete set - but by no means all encompassing
sry kappa but professionals with doctorates in religious studies > you
-
professionals with doctorates in religious studies
You are one?
Well then I guess there's no point arguing! :)
-
no, but i know a couple
and i can read books from them too
-
You are one?
Well then I guess there's no point arguing!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
no, but i know a couple
At least our Derek is more honest than the other Derek.
His reply would have been:
_of_ COURSE I have a PHD in religion! It is _necessary_ for any game designer you _primitive_ mundane!
-
hehe :D
yes - i am not a phd in anything - but i live in a university town, it's not difficult to know (And discuss things) with PhD's and PhD candidates
[edit]
BLEH time warp
-
Originally posted by Kazan
kappawing your classifications are flawed
atheists have _no_ religious/spiritual/superstitous beliefs (therefore some individuals who call themselves atheists are not)
montheism, polytheism, spritualism, agnosticism, atheism would be a slightly more complete set - but by no means all encompassing
sry kappa but professionals with doctorates in religious studies > you
Technically he is right. Atheism means 'Godless' or 'without God(s)'. And since Buhddism has no God(s) and thus is technically an Atheist belief. :D
What? :nervous:
Also, Atheist DO have spiritual beliefs. Spiritual does not just refer to religion or superstition. It also refers to morals, your perception of what is right and what is wrong. You believe that you are control of your own life, and not god or some other higher being. This too is a spiritual belief.
Yes, 'spiritual' is often used in conjunction with religion, but it is much broader then that.
Once again this refers to the real meaning of Atheism. Atheism is a belief without a god. It can be the belief in one self as well.
And if you get right down to it, atheism is a religion on it's own. :)
re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "Religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
- A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief.
- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
These two point adequately describe you, Kazan (from what I've seen anyway).
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Once again this refers to the real meaning of Atheism. Atheism is a belief without a god.
No. Atheism is a LACK of belief. I don't believe that there is no God any more that I believe that I'm sat here typing this.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
No. Atheism is a LACK of belief. I don't believe that there is no God any more that I believe that I'm sat here typing this.
Atheism is derived from the greek word 'atheos'.
'a-'; without
'theos'; God
'Without God' or 'Godless'.
The meaning of the word 'atheism' is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" or "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".
Also, you cannot have a lack of belief unless you are braindead. You always have a belief. Even science is a form of belief.
-
What about the old man in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
-
*looks at thread*
:sigh:
All that's old is new again, huh Kaz?
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Atheism is derived from the greek word 'atheos'.
'a-'; without
'theos'; God
'Without God' or 'Godless'.
The meaning of the word 'atheism' is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" or "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".
Also, you cannot have a lack of belief unless you are braindead. You always have a belief. Even science is a form of belief.
Wrong yet again. Your own quote states that Atheism can be a lack of belief in something. Why are you then arguing that the definition you picked is wrong?
Theism, broadly defined, is simply the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.
From Here (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism.htm)
And science is not a belief either. Science is a method. You can't say that Science is a belief any more than you can say that going to the shops is a belief.
-
Ehm, that quote from the article says the exact same thing I say;
Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods
NOT the absence of belief itself.
And science is not a belief either. Science is a method. You can't say that Science is a belief any more than you can say that going to the shops is a belief.
So, you don't believe science is right? You don't believe science proves stuff?
Christians believe God knows all. Scientists believe that all the answers can be found through science.
Belief is a MUCH broader term that you give it credit for. belief isn't 'just' religion. It is everything. Do you believe in yourself? Well, then you have you own belief system that has nothing to do with god or other holy figures.
And your comparison is simply flawed. Comparing science to shopping is like comparing a star to spacedust. :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Also, you cannot have a lack of belief unless you are braindead. You always have a belief. Even science is a form of belief.
this is where you're wrong
I don't believe in pixies/faeries - therefore i LACK belief in them
!(Tiara > PhD's in Religious Studies)
I'll go with the UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT among the PhDs of: Atheism is not a religion
Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200
-----------------
Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
-
oh - BTW Tiara
stop abusing the multiple definitions of the word "Belief"
there is "Belief" without evidence: ie faith (see: religion)
there is "Belief" WITH evidence: ie science (see: using your ****ing brain)
im so tired of you abusing the definitions of words to try and miscategorize atheists and agnostics -
-
Originally posted by Kazan
this is where you're wrong
I don't believe in pixies/faeries - therefore i LACK belief in them
So, that makes you an atheist? :wtf: You are completely missing the point.
!(Tiara > PhD's in Religious Studies)
I'll go with the UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT among the PhDs of: Atheism is not a religion
I NEVER SAID IT WAS A ****ING RELIGION, I SAID IT WAS A BELIEF.[/u]
Why do people always twist my words :doubt:
Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200
Ah, yes. The ever so snide comments... :wtf:
Atheism is the condition of being without theistic beliefs,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
And you 'conveniently' left out the second part of that sentence;
or the disbelief in the existence of deities.
You can be an atheist AND STILL believe in something. hence the word 'or'.
Really, I'd expect better from you Kazan. I don't mind if you want to argue with me but do it in normal manner, without twisting my words and without 'conveniently' leaving out facts.
oh - BTW Tiara
stop abusing the multiple definitions of the word "Belief"
there is "Belief" without evidence: ie faith (see: religion)
there is "Belief" WITH evidence: ie science (see: using your ****ing brain)
im so tired of you abusing the definitions of words to try and miscategorize atheists and agnostics -
Abusing? ROFL! If anything, you're abusing it because you limit it to a single meaning while it in fact is not as limited.
Get your head out of the sand and smell the cow**** that's sitting on top of it. Not everything is as simple as 1 2 3. You seem to think that for everything there is an absolute answer. Well, guess what, there isn't.
Just because you are so damned limited that you can't see beyond your own nose, isn't my fault.
-
*rolleyes*
-
Can you people resolve this decently, or is this going to go downhill from here?
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Can you people resolve this decently, or is this going to go downhill from here?
go downhill?
-
kal you did notice that i chose not to respond to her post
-
Originally posted by Kazan
there is "Belief" without evidence: ie faith (see: religion)
there is "Belief" WITH evidence: ie science (see: using your ****ing brain)
[/b]
That's a nice inflammatory comment there.
im so tired of you abusing the definitions of words to try and miscategorize atheists and agnostics[/B]
As an agnostic, I believe it is impossible to know whether God/s exist. I'm not really feeling miscategorised.
And as far as atheism goes, disbelief is really still a form of belief.
-
ransom: wrong
agnostic: we cannot know
atheist: (aka weak atheist) there is no evidence for one so i don't believe in one
counter-theist: (aka strong atheist) there isn't one
me: there is no evidence for one so i don't believe in one, and since there is no evidence for one it is irrational to believe in one
-
Originally posted by Kazan
me: there is no evidence for one so i don't believe in one, and since there is no evidence for one it is irrational to believe in one
I even agree with you on this.
I simply disagree with your catagorization. You twist my words and you leave out facts. That's not really a way to convince me that you are right.
Most of what you say comes down to 'I'm right and you are wrong.' You base your assumptions on half-truths, opinions and, very ironically, you own beliefs.
That you choose not to respond to me is fine, it's your choice. But you proven nothing.
-
atheist = counter theist.
That's the exact same thing. :sigh:
-
KappaWing: no it's not
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
atheist = counter theist.
That's the exact same thing. :sigh:
Nope. A counter-theist believes that there is no god.
An atheist simply doesn't believe.
Atheist != Counter theist.
Tiara is mixing the two up.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ransom: wrong
agnostic: we cannot know
atheist: (aka weak atheist) there is no evidence for one so i don't believe in one
counter-theist: (aka strong atheist) there isn't one
Okay, fair enough. But I'm not sure how your point about agnostics disproves what I said about them.
-
The english language sucks... we need to be like the Chinese and have 50,000 different characters...one specific one for every signle word... single meanings is so much better. *rolleyes*
We are arguing over definition and categorizing. The post was about government funding religious orginizations when it is supposed to be a privately funded organization. i.e. - by the church/denomination it belongs to.
-
Right. Back On Topic.
I think it's rediculous that taxpayers must pay to benifit a religion that they may not even be a part of. If a religious orginization needs money, they should ask it from their 'loyal' supporters. If their orginization goes kaputt, it's because their supporters weren't loyal enough to keep them going.
-
for once kappa and i completely agree
-
Ok?:nervous: does anyone mind telling me if this is a politic thread or a religous one?
And in the politic part, I don't belive it is fair to show more favor to the religous orginizations, same with the Evolutionist orginizations. But, I do think they should have the right to say who can join and set religous bondries as long as it isn't goverment supported.
-
"Evolutionist" is not a word
and the concept you're trying to put forward in it's usage is apsurd
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"Evolutionist" is not a word
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Evolutionist
:p
-
the crap they put in the dictionary these days
-
point is there is no organiseation devoted to the promotion of it that would get put under the same catagory as the religous organiseations we are discussing.
when the government is giveing you funding they have the right to dictate to you what you do and how you act.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok?:nervous: does anyone mind telling me if this is a politic thread or a religous one?
And in the politic part, I don't belive it is fair to show more favor to the religous orginizations, same with the Evolutionist orginizations.The goverment shouldn't show favor" But, I do think "they" The leader of organizations NOT supported by the goverment " should have the right to say who can join and set religous bondries as long as it isn't goverment supported.
Is that clearer?
-
Evolutionism is a beleif system, a theorized beleif system with credible dating, I suppose. But -- is this more or less the religious standard then Creationism? Creationism bascially says that the world was made mature, and that there is a higher power.
Evolutionism then would be a religion of sorts, wouldn't it?
-
"evolutionism" if you want to use such a bastardization of terminology is not a religion
because it is not based on faith
-
So, you mean it's ok for the Goverment to support Evolution and pay support to it's orginziations, but not Christain ones? Just because it's not a religion. And it's ok for Christains to pay taxes to support Evolutionist stuff that We don't belive in, but you grumble your butt off when they try to get you to support Christain stuff? If they do support Evolutionist Stuff, I think it is even to support Christain ones as well. As long as you do it evenly, cause if they don't they are breaking the Constitution by showing favortisum.
-
Evolution, a scientific theory, has it's own organizations?
I've got to see this...
-
Both are theories, neither 100% confirmed or denied. The evidence is there for both cases, but both are a theory, and both are 'belived' to be true through a 'faith' of sorts. So, neither one should be funded, really. There are many scientists who can suggest as the evolutionists can, that creationism is scientifically correct. Let's not be bias towards an agenda here.
-
Yeah, that should be like it nether should be funded.
-
Originally posted by Rejindo
Both are theories, neither 100% confirmed or denied. The evidence is there for both cases, but both are a theory, and both are 'belived' to be true through a 'faith' of sorts. So, neither one should be funded, really. There are many scientists who can suggest as the evolutionists can, that creationism is scientifically correct. Let's not be bias towards an agenda here.
Creationism cannot ever be considered "scientifically correct" as it doesn't follow a scientific method, such as arriving to conclusions AFTER analising the data available.
-
Kaz, I thought you were going away to deflate and come back refreshed with a new outlook and be a "Newer, Better" Kazan. But, so far as I can see, you are just rerunning the same old crap over and over again. You've been back less than a week and already you're arguing that religion is evil and that abortion is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You haven't changed a bit and that disturbs me a bit.
-
He has the right to express his viewpoints, correct? Were you expecting him to change all of his views? Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of Democracy, and his moral views are his and his alone, but he has the right to try and convince other people as long as he doesent infringe on their rights.
In this system of 'majority rule' (by voting) it is easy to overlook the minorities and deem them insignificant. Democracy becomes a balance of 'Majority Rule' vs. 'Minority Freedom' and 'Expressing Views' vs. 'overzealous harassment'. Democracy is a complicated system indeed. No wonder all the politicians are wacko, they have to deal with this crap on a daily basis.
Democracy exists in a very delicate balance, so let's not tip the scales, okay? :)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kaz, I thought you were going away to deflate and come back refreshed with a new outlook and be a "Newer, Better" Kazan. But, so far as I can see, you are just rerunning the same old crap over and over again. You've been back less than a week and already you're arguing that religion is evil and that abortion is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You haven't changed a bit and that disturbs me a bit.
i never said anything of the such - i went away because I WAS BUSY
way to once again prove how presumptious you
additionally you also misrepresnet my position
religion is an evil - you got that one correct
"Abortion is the greatest thing since sliced bread" is a gross misrepresentation of my position and you very well ****ing know it
-
I thought you went away when we caused that big fussy spam thread and nearly all got banned?
-
no - it's because i work 40 hours a week, have to drive [edit]50 minutes[/edit] both directions
and im suffering from everquest addiction
-
There are many scientists who can suggest as the evolutionists can, that creationism is scientifically correct.
I don't say this very often, but they are full of ****. We have seen natural selection occur. It is based on absurdly simple logic. Not everything that people spout has equal credence. The only reason that people give any attention to creationism is that it is a deeply rooted relic. People have difficulty seeing the frills torn off of their religious beliefs because it turns their world inside out. The reason that people continue to deny evolution is the same reason that Galileo was bullied into submission, and in time it will become as accepted as heliocentric theory. (Notice that the earth revolving around the sun is still referred to as a theory.)
-
You seem to have alot of spite against religion, Ford and Kaz... can I ask why?
-
I harbor no spite towards religion. In fact, I think there's a lot of beauty in it. It's not the religion I am deconstructing; it's the people who are unable to think metaphorically.
-
Heres a question, why can't evolution and creationism just get along??? One does not exclude the other unless your interpretation is or either extremely (foolishly) strict.
-
Exactly my point Deepblue. I don't discount that evolution takes place, I just draw a line that when people start ranting about how it is the reason we are all here. We are here because we are created beings.
There is simply no way for evolution at the speed that most evolutionists claim that it takes place at could move from single celled organisms to humanity within the geological age that they insist Earth is.
-
4-6 billion years? it's a _realy_ long time
-
Evolution IS real, creationists even agree so - but as Liberator said, the creationists are only saying that there is a higher power, in whatever form you believe that to be, that started it all.
-
but whether or not creationism and evolutionism are compatible or not doesn't matter at this point, does it?
government shouldn't fund religious organisations. what exactly does 'religious organisation' mean, is that like a church, or a charity, or what? and if so it's like a church, then what's wrong with not funding them and funding evolutionists, since presumably evolutionist organisations are devoted to research and science whereas religious organisations (as i understand it, which is not very much) are devoted to preaching and converting. one's enlarging the knowledge base and the other's changing people, which should not be done on government funding but with their own resources. how stupid is it to base spiritual gain on material donations? and if religious organisations refers to charities, then people should be donating, not the government; they shouldn't forcibly take taxpayer money when the taxpayer may not want to donate it to a charity.
anyway that's my random opinion and probably half of it at least is illogical or un-understandable. oh well.
-
Originally posted by Rejindo
Evolution IS real, creationists even agree so.
Not all of them. Not even a large percentage of them. Most creationists seem to spend a huge amount of time trying to explain why evolution can't work at any level beyond bacteria and viruses (They have trouble denying it there cause you can grind their noses in direct, visible evidence).
Originally posted by Liberator
Exactly my point Deepblue. I don't discount that evolution takes place, I just draw a line that when people start ranting about how it is the reason we are all here. We are here because we are created beings.
There is simply no way for evolution at the speed that most evolutionists claim that it takes place at could move from single celled organisms to humanity within the geological age that they insist Earth is.
As I've said before look at the wolf. In the few thousand years we've domesticated it we've taken it as far as the Chihuahua through selective breeding. Natural selection is the same thing but with a deliberate choice being made. It takes longer but billions of years is a hell of a long time.
-
Originally posted by Rejindo
You seem to have alot of spite against religion, Ford and Kaz... can I ask why?
religion is a threat to the survival of our species in the long run
and religion is an immediate threat to my freedom to live how i want
-
There is simply no way for evolution at the speed that most evolutionists claim that it takes place at could move from single celled organisms to humanity within the geological age that they insist Earth is.
I don't know how much time you think it would require, but if you think about a million years, then multiply that by a thousand, then by two or three, that is a lot of Monopoly games. The earth was populated by single-celled organisms for far longer than humans have even existed. Evolution was not fast, in any sense of the word. It was, and is, an incredibly slow process, during which there were periods where almost nothing happened for millions of years.
-
Evolution IS real, creationists even agree so - but as Liberator said, the creationists are only saying that there is a higher power, in whatever form you believe that to be, that started it all.
Hmmm... There seem to be a few types of Creationist, those that believe that god set forth evolution as a way of purification and the more extremest ones that believe in the whole 6 days creation story and the fire + Brimstone stuff.
IMO, only people who believe that life started in the form of single-celled organisms without godly interference can truly be deemed Evolutionists. The less extreme creationists are still creationists because they believe that god started it all.
religion is a threat to the survival of our species in the long run
and religion is an immediate threat to my freedom to live how i want
Amen to that! :nod: If people keep believing what other people tell them even though no-one has ever collected decent proof themselves, things will eventually lead our society collapsing. Only the strong minded and the non-naive humans can truly hold society together from total insanity. In our world today, however, there are very few of these independent thinkers. The way religion is organized today, people are taught to think in hive minds, (like Shivans), and deny their own individuality and discourage broad and intelligent thinking.
But who knows? Look how sucessful the Shivans ended up being! Maybe hive-minded thinking is the right thing for us humans?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Exactly my point Deepblue. I don't discount that evolution takes place, I just draw a line that when people start ranting about how it is the reason we are all here. We are here because we are created beings.
There is simply no way for evolution at the speed that most evolutionists claim that it takes place at could move from single celled organisms to humanity within the geological age that they insist Earth is.
Why?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
religion is a threat to the survival of our species in the long run
and religion is an immediate threat to my freedom to live how i want
What about the people who want to believe in a religion? Aren't you an immediate threat to their freedom?
Not that I disagree - I also think organised religion is a serious problem, though I don't have any problem with individual religious beliefs - just the 'organised' part. I just find your statement somewhat hypocritical (unless you were talking about organised religion anyway, in which case this post is totally pointless).
-
i'm not pushing laws that make an environment hostile to their religion
-
I found this enlightening:
Originally posted by Kazan
religion is an immediate threat to my freedom to live how i want
Now, unless you own a private island somewhere that you're not telling us about, you never had that exact freedom.
I know you're thinking :wtf:
But you are not guaranteed anywhere in the Law that you can live as you want.
While not explicit in it's wording, the Declaration of Independence has this to say about living as you want to:
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.
You are bastardizing that last part. You are free to persue you're happiness, within the boundaries of the Law and general social mores.
However what it sounds like you are after, however, is not a land where all people can live freely and strive toward a higher purpose(however they happen to derive it), but a place where sheeple can act like the base creatures you claim we evolved from.
I pray that I am wrong.
-
Funny how Liberator ignores the part about people like him being a threat to the future of humanity and proceeds to do a holier-than-thou attack :p
Whee! Timewarp! ...or maybe I can claim it it's prescience and start my own religion of fanatical blade wielding zealots? :cool:
-
He never broke any laws, (at least not yet), and living freely and striving for a higher purpose is exactly what he is aiming to do. Living free from the constraints of religious mental-enslavement and seeing through the smokescreen of obscure phophecies and rediculous notions is key to the continuation of our evolution.
a place where sheeple can act like the base creatures you claim we evolved from.
Judging from your approach to this argument, that place which you speak of would be a perfect location for you.
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
Judging from your approach to this argument, that place which you speak of would be a perfect location for you.
O_o
Clarify that part please?
All I see is a bunch of hormone driven cretins who don't want responsibility for the results of their actions doing everything they can to fix it so they can rut around like the buck deer in the spring.
Every action has an consequence. This is true in everything.
If you have sex, you must be willing to accept that it may lead to pregnancy.
Wait...this is about religion, not abortion....dammit:blah:
-
look all I want is the same thing a large number of people in Iran want, not to have to worry about getting taken away in the night for re-education becase we disagree with the national religion.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
religion is a threat to the survival of our species in the long run
and religion is an immediate threat to my freedom to live how i want
:lol: Thats all I'm gonna say.
-
The point of that statement in the document is not to assert whether or not there is a creator. The phrase "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" can be interpreted as meaning that there are rights that all humans want. Now, I'm sure most, if not all, of the founding fathers believed in some sort of god, but the mention of a god-head in that document is still peripheral. The importance of the statement is that it is a boundary against complete relativism, not that it mentions god.
EDIT: I think I may be arguing off the mark here. Sorry if I am; it's late.
-
I didn't even quote that to shift the focus to whether the founders believed in God or not. I was quoting it to reinforce my counterpoint to Kazan's claim that he had a right to live as he want's.
Whether the founder(or framers if you prefer) believed in God or a god is secondary to the main argument of the thread. The understood that religion played a large role in society during they're time and would remain so for quite some time to come. They also understood that any group with the kind of power the church(generic) weilded at the time was highly prone to corruption at all levels. The first ammendment prevents one religious group from making their religion part of the government like Henry VIII did when he created the Anglicans and then use government power to enforce other groups to adhere to their principles. It does not prevent, however, a congressman or President from leading based on the tenets of their religion.
It has only been in recent(post 1960) times that politicans have had to hide their faith because of groups like the ACLU bastardizing and misinterpreting the intent of the framers to suit their political and social agenda.
-
Funny how the thing that leads the world to desctruction is the very thing that is meant to be salvation for them. And no one can deny that this is true.
-
It's lead by men though, and men are inherently prone to corruption, eventually, no matter how pious and good they are. Yes, most people of faith are decent enough, but it only takes one to stain the all of us for a long time.
Basically, what I'm saying is that preists and pastors and such are put into positions of great influence and it's enough to take the shine off of anyone's ethics if they are not careful to keep themselves grounded in their faith.
-
Yes, but the thing is that religion is another battle ground... the christian crusades, the muslim extremists, many other religions on small polynesian islands that promote sacrafice, death, and gods of destruction... religion is made by man, and man is foolish and imperfect. Who is to say that God is not made by man? Though I believe myself that God is real in my own ways, I know that God is a mental projection of what everyone wants - peace, love, and all that good stuff.
-
BTW: the Declairation of Independance, while being an important historical document - is not a legal document within the government of the united states - it predates our government
so quoting from it doesn't support your argument
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It does not prevent, however, a congressman or President from leading based on the tenets of their religion.
It does prohibit them from legislating their religion though - which is what republicans of late have been trying to do
Originally posted by Liberator
It has only been in recent(post 1960) times that politicans have had to hide their faith because of groups like the ACLU bastardizing and misinterpreting the intent of the framers to suit their political and social agenda.
"bastardizing and misinterpreting" in your totalitarian theocratic opinion
the intent of the founding father's is VERY CLEAR and it's supported by other things they wrote to explain to laymen what they were writing in the constitution: religion and government SEPERATE in the united states for all times
100 years after the formation people forgot this, another 100 years later some of us remembered it - we're still fighting to restore the intent of the founding fathers - AND YOU'RE THE ONE FIGHTING AGAINST WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR
I bring to your intention Article 11 of the Treaty With Tripoli
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
treaties are binding at the constitional level - this treaty passed congress UNANIMOUSLY by the very same men who wrote the constitution and ratified the first ten ammendments to the constitution!
-
wether it's legaly binding or not I think the more important thing to note is that it was writen by the founders, therby proveing there position on Church and state.
Originally posted by Liberator
The first ammendment prevents one religious group from making their religion part of the government
thank you, now that's more like it. now get your god the hell out of my government!
-
*sighs* Why can't people just get along with each other...
-
The thing that I have a problem with is that our Government allows certain organized religeons to not pay taxes, yet other churches DO have to pay them. Basically, any church that is not christian pays taxes, while christian churches do not. While i believe that a church should not pay taxes, and no i will not answer to any flaming or discussion of that statement.....i do believe that all churches should be treated equally.
Yeah, i'm a christian and i cry foul against this unfair practice. The United States Government should not favor any religeon over others through tax breaks. I also do not believe that Religeon should be a part of the government, or of the governing process, but that we who do believe should remember to "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" which is written in red in my bible, so if it was highlighted like that it must be pretty important.
The bottom line is, while i disagree with the sentiment that "because a man is a christian and NOT aftraid to show his faith he should not be in government", i also do not agree with some of the unfair practices of our government in this regard. I also disagree with anyone in the christian realm who is trying to change the laws to suit his religeous convictions.
That said....i still do not believe in abortion as birth control, because of where i think life starts. I do believe that english common law (which is what is the actual basis for most laws, without a written record because it was simply an agreed upon standard) is heavily influenced by the ten commandments, which really...are just a guide to decent moral living. That said, when we see the roots of things, i don't see the problem in having that root displayed. If you don't want to see it, you don't have to look. No the constitution and our laws are not founded in the ten commandments. They have roots in the English Common Law, which does have it's roots in the ten commandments.
Before we go farther, i have a question regarding documents which show our founders intent...were they written about the constitution, or the articles of confederation? and where can we view them?
-
shadowwolf: about the constitution obviously, and they're in history books
-
"because a man is a christian and NOT aftraid to show his faith he should not be in government"
/*looks for someone who has taken that position*/
we are only opposed to people who would use there position to try to further a political/religious agenda. like any of the wedge stratigy agendas, wich are working quite nicely.
-
what are these documents called?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
It does prohibit them from legislating their religion though
How exactly can it do that? People of faith typically use their faith in their everyday decisions, so how can they divorce something so embedded in their decision making process when they consider legislation? Especially when it will impact so many people.
The first ammendment is there to prevent one religion from gaining primacy over the others, not to eject religion from public life.
Originally posted by Bobboau
we are only opposed to people who would use there position to try to further a political/religious agenda. like any of the wedge stratigy agendas, wich are working quite nicely.
Then you need to look a little closer to home at groups like the ACLU who have been waging war on religion and morality for decades.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
How exactly can it do that? People of faith typically use their faith in their everyday decisions, so how can they divorce something so embedded in their decision making process when they consider legislation? Especially when it will impact so many people.
Isn't that the problem? If you have any decision based on faith (as opposed to a divorced pragmatic view based on solely numbers, facts, etc; i.e. something neutral and independent), don't you have inherent risk that said decision will encroach on other positions who only differ by the faith that went into their reasoning?
I'm not sure there is a way to have a completely faith neutral decision (of policy, law, etc - i.e. any governmental action), unless you completely remove the faith aspect of it. AFAIk, there is no way to make a decision based on every single religion and thus fair to all - how then can you use your religion as a basis without giving it an inherent precedence?
EDIT; and please don't use this 'wage war on morality' crap. That's your morality, your code. You''re welcome to have it, but don't imply that anyone who believes differently is automatically immoral - have I ever said you are immoral? Do i have a right to make that judgement? And if not, do you? (surely - by what I believe is your own religion - only God can make that judgement?)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Isn't that the problem? If you have any decision based on faith (as opposed to a divorced pragmatic view based on solely numbers, facts, etc; i.e. something neutral and independent), don't you have inherent risk that said decision will encroach on other positions who only differ by the faith that went into their reasoning?
Perhaps, but most people of faith(no matter which one) would come to the same decision when left on their own. Jews, Christians, and Muslims(most of them at any rate) all have basically the same beliefs in how to fix a given problem. Conflict only arises when the tenets of that faith get in the way of understanding. The only people who would come to a different decision are those that feel that they would benefit from using such a law to advance their agenda.
As a conservative, I don't feel it is the government's place to speed up the shifting of cultural norms and mores beyond the natural rate that is induced by the development of technology and the advance of knowledge. I would, or course, prefer that certain norms not change at all, but I do realize that, within reason, they will.
I've also found, aldo, that decisions based on cold numbers and accepted fact(facts can change and become fiction all to often, I remember when red meat was thought to be the cause of Heart Disease) exclusively are usually deemed to bad decisions in hindsight.
-
of course liberator ignores when i actuall cite documents proving him wrong
------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Liberator
Perhaps, but most people of faith(no matter which one) would come to the same decision when left on their own.
that's a false assumption
Originally posted by Liberator
Jews, Christians, and Muslims(most of them at any rate) all have basically the same beliefs in how to fix a given problem.
yeah because they're the only religions that exist, and non-religions don't count
Originally posted by Liberator
Conflict only arises when the tenets of that faith get in the way of understanding.
i'll abstain from commenting on that one - as an act of charity
Originally posted by Liberator
The only people who would come to a different decision are those that feel that they would benefit from using such a law to advance their agenda.
now if that isn't the most narrow minded bull**** ever
Originally posted by Liberator
As a conservative, I don't feel it is the government's place to speed up the shifting of cultural norms and mores beyond the natural rate that is induced by the development of technology and the advance of knowledge.
nah, instead you think it's the governments job to enhance inequality in monitary distribution, tell people what religion to worship, and who they can have sex with
all at the same time as using your religion as a sledge hammer against the developement of science and technology
Originally posted by Liberator
I would, or course, prefer that certain norms not change at all, but I do realize that, within reason, they will.
liberator actually acknowledging reality in some slight way.. im suprised
Originally posted by Liberator
I've also found, aldo, that decisions based on cold numbers and accepted fact(facts can change and become fiction all to often, I remember when red meat was thought to be the cause of Heart Disease) exclusively are usually deemed to bad decisions in hindsight.
the statistics don't bear out on this
PS: too much red meat in your diet is still a bad thing, same thing as too much carbs, too much protein, too much fat
do you notice a trend here -- it's called "Too much"
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Perhaps, but most people of faith(no matter which one) would come to the same decision when left on their own. Jews, Christians, and Muslims(most of them at any rate) all have basically the same beliefs in how to fix a given problem. Conflict only arises when the tenets of that faith get in the way of understanding. The only people who would come to a different decision are those that feel that they would benefit from using such a law to advance their agenda.
As a conservative, I don't feel it is the government's place to speed up the shifting of cultural norms and mores beyond the natural rate that is induced by the development of technology and the advance of knowledge. I would, or course, prefer that certain norms not change at all, but I do realize that, within reason, they will.
I've also found, aldo, that decisions based on cold numbers and accepted fact(facts can change and become fiction all to often, I remember when red meat was thought to be the cause of Heart Disease) exclusively are usually deemed to bad decisions in hindsight.
And decisions based on faith are as equally likely to be bad. The difference is that decisions based upon faith are built on a basis that actively denounces questioning.
I would contend that different religions come to the same decisions; the most blatant is between christian and muslim when it comes to punishments for crimes (the prime example being Shariah law). In fact, I would state that most decisions where religions agree, are decisions that could be made with the aid of logic alone, and where faith is not necessary to make that decision.
I think the implication that logical decisions are somehow less reliable than ones based on faith, to be one which is simply wrong. To talk of fact becoming fiction is not really applicable - because you could just as easily define faith as being fiction, but accepted without question fiction, if you wished.
The very fact that facts themselves can be challenged, revised or reinterpreted makes them an ideal basis for decisions - it means any decision can be corrected if it turns out to be based on the wrong facts. As I said in the first paragraph, faith offers no such leeway for correction - it's purely based on personal belief.
Incidentally, as Kaz pointed out - red meat is bad for you in certain cases, particularly if it is not lean & high in saturated fats. We wouldn't know this, of course, were it not for having a fact about it, and then questioning and exploring from that. Oh... and
Diet high in red meat may increase risk of death from heart disease (http://www.merckmedicus.com/pp/us/hcp/hcp_newsarticle.jsp?newsid=351044&newsgroup=3). Scarcely fiction.
But, anyways - tell me, what would faith have told you to do when trying to help reduce heart disease?
-
I see a disturbing trend:
(the argument is aside on the post as I'm not in the mood)
It seems to me Kazan dislikes religion because it proscribes a specific style of behavior and does so based on a superior morality.
My question is this, as I am trying to understand the position of my opponent, how do you hold a job and why don't you're parents hate you? If you aren't willing to accept superior authority, I'm surprised that you can act in a positive manner at all.
-
I'm still trying to understand what this thread is about now, religion or Hi red meat diets?
And Lib, Kaz don't like religion because it says there is someone smarter than he is.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It seems to me Kazan dislikes religion because it proscribes a specific style of behavior and does so based on a superior morality.
once again your assesment is wrong - it seems that you're truely incapable of fathoming anything beyond your nose
your "assemsent" is yet again another attempt to take a swipe at me as evidence by the following:
Originally posted by Liberator
My question is this, as I am trying to understand the position of my opponent, how do you hold a job and why don't you're parents hate you? If you aren't willing to accept superior authority, I'm surprised that you can act in a positive manner at all.
i dislike religion BECAUSE IT'S THE PRACTICE OF BELIEVING IN SOMETHING YOU DON'T HAVE ONE SHRED OF SUPPORT FOR
how many times do i have to say this before it sinks in
----
another note
ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO HAVE MORALS
-
whatever...I tire of having the same argument over and over again Kaz, I know others do as well.
I thought it would be different when you came back. Obviously I was wrong.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
whatever...I tire of having the same argument over and over again Kaz, I know others do as well.
im tired of having to have the same argument - but you are just too stubborn to listen to reason when it slaps you in the face over and over and over
Originally posted by Liberator
I thought it would be different when you came back. Obviously I was wrong.
because your ASSUMED that i left to "become a better person" as YOU define a better person
----
liberators definition of a better person:
irrational
thoughtless
sheeple
----
i left BECAUSE I WAS ****ING BUSY
-
do we have to once again resort to slaughtering each other? by the way...i'm still wondering what those documents are called so that i may look into them.
-
Kazan definition of better person:
overly intellectual
loud mouthed
planetary sized ego
Somebody lock this please.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kazan definition of better person:
Originally posted by Liberator
overly intellectual
not possible
Originally posted by Liberator
loud mouthed
when they are standing up for themseves - DAMN RIGHT
Originally posted by Liberator
sized ego
yes - because i know i am correct because i am the one with evidence backing him up i have an ego.. right
don't confuse confidence and egotism - it's egotism when you don't have the solid evidence backing you up
so you technically are the one with an ego
Originally posted by Liberator
Somebody lock this please.
whaaa liberator cannot actually stand up to the argument, and he cannot take what he's dishing out in insults
whaaa liberator is loosing on two fronts
whaaa since liberator's god IS GOD then he demands this thread is locked
--------------------------
um no - let's get back to liberator-less (Read: constructive) conversation
-
hows this we don't like religion becase it makes people feel moraly superior, even if they aren't.
we oppose theocracy (government+religion) becase theocracy oppresses science and more importantly freedom. we are Americans, freedom is our primary value. we beleive that you should have the right to live life the way you want so long as it doesn't signifigantly interfere with other people's ability to do the same.
a person can make desisions based on there faith, without legilateing that faith, (unless there faith is "all people in the world must conform to my faith or perish" in wich case makeing desisions based on that faith would be quite tricky to make without legislateing it. is that your faith? I certanly don't think you think that at the very least.)
he just got back from evercrack rehab, what do you expect!?
ShadowWolf:
I forget the name of them, I know that there are a lot of letters writen, I've seen both sides of the argument use them selectively to further there own agendas, though if you read into them you will probly find that the founders were basicly a lot like us today, constantly fighting with each other.
-
ego and confidence are not mutualy exclusive.
Kaz you can make good arguments, but you always fill your posts with this crap
whaaa liberator cannot actually stand up to the argument, and he cannot take what he's dishing out in insults
whaaa liberator is loosing on two fronts
whaaa since liberator's god IS GOD then he demands this thread is locked
that totaly destroys the dialog. it's childish, it makes you look bad, stop it, it's a distraction from the important part of the debate and you only give your opponents fule to divert atention from there faults
-
It's one thing to not agree with someone's religion, it's quite another to ridicule them for it.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
hows this we don't like religion becase it makes people feel moraly superior, even if they aren't.
While i can understand this sentiment, and can actually agree that this does in fact happen, it is not how things are meant to be. it's our vanity that forces our beliefs on each other. I know that i am not perfect, Physically, spiritually, or morally. my beliefs tell me that i will never be. That's fine, i don't have to be. i think that what alot of the people that you would call "So called christians" miss is that while we strive to be perfect, it isn't a destination, it's a journey, one that by nature we can never complete. We will never be perfect people, but we can strive to be as close to it as possible. Part of that perfection is to simply judge not. Kazan i will apologize now for this, it's an example and nothing more.....Kazan is an overbearing egomaniac. That's judging. if i am not mistaken i have also said as much in another thread. You have my apologies. We are peers and equals and as such we have no room to judge one another. Whether or not you agree isn't an issue, i disagree with my own actions toward you in thread. please leave it with that apology.
what i should have done was to have said "Kazan while your points are valid, they are valid from your point of view, and not all of us have that point of view, or choose to live life in the same manner that you do. While you dislike religeon (organized) because you feel that it attempts to infringe on your rights to live as you see fit, we feel the same way and will become just as defensive about our beliefs as you are about yours. You are a highly intelligent and learned individual, but in some cases science is like money, it has value because we accept it. Much like religeon. We have not as yet found the common ancestor to the best of my knowledge, and until such a time, the battle between creation and evolution will rage, and will probably worsen when we do. We each vehemently defend our position, and even more vehement will we defend that position when we feel it attacked. I hope this explains a bit of how we feel as christians about that subject, i sincerely do.
we oppose theocracy (government+religion) becase theocracy oppresses science and more importantly freedom. we are Americans, freedom is our primary value. we beleive that you should have the right to live life the way you want so long as it doesn't signifigantly interfere with other people's ability to do the same.
while i agree that the bible is a great guide to moral living, i do not agree with the bible as a guiding force in government. choices need to be made that while morally questionable, are in fact necessary, and therefore, i do not think that a political position should be allowed to enfore personal religeous beliefs. i certainly don't think that this is right in country that i beleive was founded on religeous freedom. Freedom to believe as we will, and not be persecuted by the beliefs of others. So here, i have to agree, if for a different reason.
a person can make desisions based on there faith, without legilateing that faith, (unless there faith is "all people in the world must conform to my faith or perish" in wich case makeing desisions based on that faith would be quite tricky to make without legislateing it. is that your faith? I certanly don't think you think that at the very least.)
he just got back from evercrack rehab, what do you expect!?
ShadowWolf:
I forget the name of them, I know that there are a lot of letters writen, I've seen both sides of the argument use them selectively to further there own agendas, though if you read into them you will probly find that the founders were basicly a lot like us today, constantly fighting with each other.
i agree, they were probably just like us, each trying to do what they honestly believed to be the best course, and having a very hard time finding a middle ground.
-
"they were probably just like us, each trying to do what they honestly believed to be the best course, and having a very hard time finding a middle ground."
and that's why the laws were so ambiguously written, enough to allow continued argueing to this day.:)
-
and it's the same arguement, the literalists vs the religous, both believing that they are defending a position, and arguing against each other instead of arguing toward the same point. That point being "what is best for all concerned?" At least that's how i see it.
-
the best for all concerned is to keep religion out of government, and government out of religion - a high and inpregnible wall of seperation
the best for all concerned is to make all decisions be based upon facts derived from evidence
the best for all concerned is to make it so that we can stop arguing about this crap and make it so some of us are not daily defending our rights
you know why im such an ahole about this? i've been fighting this same war for eight years - this last election year finally ran my patience out
-
I think that we should have the right to believe (or not to) as we choose, and that my particular faith should not be forced on you, anymore than yours should be forced on me. and i think that on certain issues....such as abortion, our views oppose one another to such extremes that when one of us wins a legal battle, our belief is then forced on the other. We need to find a middle ground on it instead of forcing it one way or the other. We may both walk away grumbling, but that is a damned site better than charging one another shouting.
-
When a conflict like that arises I think it's sensible to decide on the option that gives people more choice/freedom rather than try to find a middle that neither side likes. If abortion is illegalized then a belief is forced on people. If it is legal people have a right to not abort a baby.
Note that an embryo doesn't have the capacity for choice.
In the case of euthanasia the patient has a right to request it. A doctor has no right to end the life at their own discretion though, that limits choice.
Back to the subject, the discrimination law would limit freedom and so it shouldn't be passed. Imagine the extreme case of if all organizations were faith based and you were non-theistic (Testing the extremes of a case is an important programming principle... :nervous: ).
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
I think that we should have the right to believe (or not to) as we choose,
that's exactly what bobboau and I, etc are pushing for
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
and that my particular faith should not be forced on you, anymore than yours should be forced on me.
exactly - that means no religious things in/on government documents/property
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
and i think that on certain issues....such as abortion, our views oppose one another to such extremes that when one of us wins a legal battle, our belief is then forced on the other.
here is where you're wrong - when the court decision says "you have a choice" that is not having anyone's position forced upon you - you can choose not to have an abortion
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
We need to find a middle ground on it instead of forcing it one way or the other.
There is no middle ground on this issue by your definition - there is either "right" in your opinion, which means limiting abortions (violation establishment clause, and right to privacy) - or "wrong"
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
We may both walk away grumbling, but that is a damned site better than charging one another shouting.
you wouldn't be grumbling at all if you realize that when the ability to CHOSE is upheld everyone wins
-
see....to me...human life begins at conception. i know it's very basist, but it's my personal belief, so when an abortion takes place, the child loses. I think that regulating, not abolishing is the answer.
-
that position relies on religion - so legislating based upon that is violating the establishment clause
period
-
I would not be opposed to limiting abortions in the late term in exchange for expanded protection of abotion in early term, though I must admit I don't honestly feel right makeing such judgements being both a man and not haveing anything close to a girlfrend.
and to prempt you Kaz, he represents a substantial percentage of the population, you must be willing to compromise. further, such abortions (thinking late 7-9th month) are relitively rare IIRC, so little is being lost, for protections in the more important stages. it seems to me that six months is enough time to make up your mind, and unless you'r going to tell me that there is some magical moment during delivery (the same way that Liberator asserts that there is some magical instant at conception) I do see some creedence to the assertion of some limitations (with the obvius exeptions for medical emergencies) on abortion in the latter terms. I am something of a gradualist on the subject, it doesn't make logical sence to me that the diference of one hour can change a non-liveing fetus into a fulling self-contained human entity with all the rights involved (even if the legal technicalities involved are clear, legalisms are bull**** when it comes to the real world). now I am fully aware of the wedge stratigy and the political reality of the situation, but if some individual is willing to compromise there position I think it is wise to be willing to consiter doing the same. at least for the purpose of debate.
-
it's not based on my religeous beliefs. it's based on spaghetti sauce. the ingredients are sauce when they are combined :) It's what i beleive.
-
remember my definition of when it becomes an individual is the medical one
able to live outside the mothers body without the aid of medical technology
----
and no - we will not compromise on this -- just because they're a large part of the population (not as a large of part as they make themselves sound either) doesn't mean we should compromise on the solidity of the establishment clause
-
Originally posted by Kazan
that position relies on religion
actualy, were in the Bible does it actualy define this, it is one of the things that has bothered me about there side of the debate for some time. IIRC, Jewish law states that first breath is the point of life, so were did these two religiosly based deffonitions end up roughly 9 months apart.
honnestly I think this whole argument has mor to do with pollitics than anything else (ie the afore mentioned 'wedge strategy')
-
bobboau: don't bother pointing out their position is inconsistent with the bible - they never listen to that, they don't give a rats arse
(http://www.terragalleria.com/images/asia/japa6313.jpeg)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
able to live outside the mothers body without the aid of medical technology
so if it can be reasonably assumed that a fetus is capable of surviveing outside the mother, then you would be willing to say, no to an abortion.
-
without the aid of modern medical technology - obviously
so long as the mothers health/life isn't in danger
[edit]
obviously this takes a physician to determine on a case-by-case basis
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
see....to me...human life begins at conception. i know it's very basist, but it's my personal belief, so when an abortion takes place, the child loses. I think that regulating, not abolishing is the answer.
This may sound cruel but even if this embryo were human it doesn't have the capacity to make choices. So its choice/freedom can't be considered by the government when making abortion laws.
A similar example is a mentally incapable patient with an incurable disease. They won't be able to make a choice because of their condition, so even if they wanted to die the doctor cannot let them.
Another situation is consentual sex with a mentally retarded person or a minor. They are incapable of making a rational choice about the situation so it is illegal to have sex with them.
In these situations there is no choice limited so they are acceptable (not necessarily fully satisfying, I don't like the idea of terminating embryos) in my view.
By the way, what do you mean by regulation rather than abolishment? Do you mean legalising it for special cases like non-consentual sex? (Semi-related: I like the idea of special cases for non-consentual sex because it allows abortion for underage teens along with rape victims)
-
so are you saying "you hold it for another three weeks missy" or "time for induced labor"
-
kamikaze tread lightly on this statement "doesn't have the capacity to make choices. So its choice/freedom can't be considered by the government when making abortion laws. "
a baby cannot make the choice to be/not be circumcised - but circumcising it is still violating it's right to genital integrity
-
to me it isn't about religeon, it's about life. I believe in life....and you know what mean by that. So i tend to think about how the taking of it is wrong when that life will probably become a human being. I just don't think that a child's life should be an alternative. again i agree with the medical emergencies.
[edit] actually teen sex is a sore point with me, an abortion during these years teaches that it is a viable form of birth control. non consentual sex is a tough one...because in some women, the psychological damage created by aborting the child is greater than the psychological damage created by carrying it full term, in others the popsite is true. so how do we regulate this?
not to open another can o worms, but i was watching discovery a few months ago, and scientists have linked being a thrill junkie with a gene, it has two forms, long and short, short version is a librarian, long version is a surfer who never learned to swim...oh wait that's me [/edit]
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so are you saying "you hold it for another three weeks missy" or "time for induced labor" [/QUOTE
probably the first - considering they waited that long then they already chose to carry it through the hard parts
simplier solution: don't reach this point in the first place, improve comprehensive sex education, and improve birth control technology - completely eliminate "abstinance-only" (ignorance only) education
-
agreed :)
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
to me it isn't about religeon, it's about life. I believe in life....and you know what mean by that. So i tend to think about how the taking of it is wrong when that life will probably become a human being. I just don't think that a child's life should be an alternative. again i agree with the medical emergencies.
so then we go back to the nebulus definition of life. why is it that sperm+egg = human, how is there this magical instant were before you had nothing and after you have the most valuable thing posable, don't tell me it's a mirical as we can watch the mechanics of it unfold, and yet at some point during this proces there is an instant were you atribute full status of liveing human life to it, even when it is clearly not a fully liveing human life.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
it's not based on my religeous beliefs. it's based on spaghetti sauce. the ingredients are sauce when they are combined :) It's what i beleive.
-
From Kazan:
a baby cannot make the choice to be/not be circumcised - but circumcising it is still violating it's right to genital integrity
That's a toughie. I'd say that circumcision is entirely a religious decision and that forcing the baby to physically adhere to a religion isn't acceptable.
The issues of abortion, euthanasia and non-consentual sex are issues that are controversial even among the non-theistic. So even after religious decisions on those issues are axed there will still be a standstill where limiting choice will have to be considered.
So that method of deciding is a last resort when even informed, non-theistic opinions clash.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
an abortion during these years teaches that it is a viable form of birth control.
on the other hand a baby will destroy her future, I've seen it happen about two dozen times. as stated sex education can help here emincely. and abortions are not cheap, a condom is nothing in comparison, this negates the 'viability' of abortion as birth controle emencely in my oppionion
non consentual sex is a tough one...because in some women, the psychological damage created by aborting the child is greater than the psychological damage created by carrying it full term, in others the popsite is true. so how do we regulate this?
I say the simplest answer is: we don't
-
alright, so humans = 1 sperm+ 1 egg.
emotions, thought, metabolism, are all irrelivent?
To me cake isn't cake untill it's finished cooking.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
actually teen sex is a sore point with me, an abortion during these years teaches that it is a viable form of birth control.
Do you think that with better sex ed. that could work out?
non consentual sex is a tough one...because in some women, the psychological damage created by aborting the child is greater than the psychological damage created by carrying it full term, in others the popsite is true. so how do we regulate this?
I suppose that's a disadvantage to regulation. If abortion were regulated then I think the best way to deal with it is to go with what the majority of women experience. That's still unfortunate for many women but it's better than no abortion at all. It'd be interesting if there were some way to test which would be more damaging to a particular individual. I'm not sure women would necessarily trust a psychologist's evaluation though.
-
I am all for regulating abortion, but as i have shown here, there are alot of scenarios that i don't have the answer to. I haven't the foggiest how to get around them.
Now we can throw in the fact that we have linked a personality trait directly to genetics. So we bring about the legal issues of other scenarios. What happens if someone actually gets away with "genetics" as a defense in a murder case? i know that this is far fetched, but considering that we have linked being a thrill junkie to genetics...is it really THAT far fetched? What if there is a murderer gene? Or a rapist gene? Or....broad spectrum, a gene that controls violent behavior? do we force an abortion because that child will probably grow up to be a violent criminal? I'm not being sarcastic, because these are some of the questions that i thought immediately on learning about genetics being linked to a personality trait. The legal ramifications of it.
which also then begs the question...is it a personality trait controlled by genetics that dictates which will be more damaging? Abortion, or carrying a product of violent crime?
what are your thoughts?
-
that would essentaly be eugenics, a misguided atempt to controle evoultion, wich was doomed to failure from the begining do to the fact that evolution by definition cannot be controled. traits we see as 'bad' may indeed have positive benifits, the only way to find out is to let it play. if someone has a 'murder gene' it does not excuse them from the law, it simply means they have some degree of hightened likelyhood that they are going to break it, and receve the same, evolutionaraly dead ended, consequences.
perhaps there is a gene that gives some women a higher disposition to accepting abortion, in a few generations there will likely be far fewer of these women.:)
but this is looking at the situation objectively and externaly, probly not the perspective you are interested in. just because a person has a gene does not mean they will act on it. as my previous statment explains reasoning that if someone has a trait that they are destoned to exibit it, from a scientific point, is foolish and will not yeild the desired results. every person has above all else the ability to think and chose
-
i agree with all of being able to think and choose...yet we have people getting off on insanity pleas because they didn't get hugged enough as a child. we are already blaming the parents for aberrant behavior. The legalities of some of the genetics stuff just friggin scares me when you view it in the light i am viewing it in.
-
It's already been done in other forms in the past. Nazi Germany had a eugenics system for creating "ideal" populations. I'm glad it didn't survive.
I'd be against any eugenics system. I think anyone has the chance to be a murderer or a saint whatever their genes say.
EDIT: In my opinion any murderer should get rehabilitation (I'm against capital punishment) so the insanity plea thing is moot to me. If they're insane they should get treatment for that. Of course, maybe this isn't practical with the resources governments have (capital punishment and lifetime jailing uses up a lot of tax money too though and society gets no net benefit from these).
-
if a person TRUELY is insane when they kill someone, then it realy is little more than man slaughter, they didn't know what they were doing. such people are a danger to the larger population, given that they can wrec fatal consequences without realiseing what they are doing, so for safety reasons the nut has to be locked away.
if you are pathologicly 'bad', as in you know your killing someone, but you like it, or something to that effect, this is not an excuse, your gett'n the chair.
any court ruleings that violate these rules I oppose.
-
ya know, i like the fact that texas didn't do away with Death Row, we put in an express lane. To be honest, i think that if more crimes carried the death penalty people would be lass apt to commit them.
Yeah an insane person needs help, and in order to protect the populace he needs to be locked away, but some people need a very painful and inhumane punishment. damn i am hardline about that. at any rate, now that the thread has calmed down and started to make sense again, i am off to bed.
-
as am I
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
That's a toughie. I'd say that circumcision is entirely a religious decision and that forcing the baby to physically adhere to a religion isn't acceptable.
You do realise that circumcision is also an acceptable medical treatment, right?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
You do realise that circumcision is also an acceptable medical treatment, right?
If it's the best way to treat the condition I wouldn't care. I think Kazan was referring to the issue of religious circumcision anyway though.
-
It's so nice to wake up to this kind of thing. Again.
Kazan, Lib - I'm making you both "monkeys" for the time being. Please don't complain about it as you bought it on yourselves.
That is all.