[Deepblue]

*sighs* Why can't people just get along with each other...

[ShadowWolf_IH]

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?

[Kazan]

shadowwolf: about the constitution obviously, and they're in history books

[Bobboau]

"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.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

what are these documents called?

[Liberator]

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.

[aldo_14]

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?)

[Liberator]

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.

[Kazan]

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"

[aldo_14]

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.  Scarcely fiction.

But, anyways  - tell me, what would faith have told you to do when trying to help reduce heart disease?

[Liberator]

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.

[WeatherOp]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[Liberator]

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.

[Kazan]

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

[ShadowWolf_IH]

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.

[Liberator]

Kazan definition of better person:

overly intellectual
loud mouthed
planetary sized ego

Somebody lock this please.

[Kazan]

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

[Bobboau]

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.

[Bobboau]

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