Rainbow Academy! :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#227 Oct 15 2008 at 12:24 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

What galls me is that polititians then pander to the religions morons instead of actually upholding justice and keeping church and state seperate

There is nothing in the constitution that says politicians should separate their religious convictions with how they govern.

As Ash pointed out, the first amendment does that nicely, I think.

You know, I almost wish Obama was a Muslim and would still win this election just to see the Christians finally lose their place of power in this damn country.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#228 Oct 15 2008 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

knoxsouthy wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

What galls me is that polititians then pander to the religions morons instead of actually upholding justice and keeping church and state seperate

There is nothing in the constitution that says politicians should separate their religious convictions with how they govern.

As Ash pointed out, the first amendment does that nicely, I think.

You know, I almost wish Obama was a Muslim and would still win this election just to see the Christians finally lose their place of power in this damn country.

Yeah there was a piece on NPR the other day about "So what if Obama was a Muslim."

Since when did Muslim become a derogatory term?

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#229 Oct 15 2008 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Yeah there was a piece on NPR the other day about "So what if Obama was a Muslim."

Since when did Muslim become a derogatory term?

Around the same time that people started thinking that the US was a christian nation.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#230 Oct 15 2008 at 12:52 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1613953020893

Scholar

2,453 posts

Pensive wrote:

One of the bad things about this thread is that since most of your stuff is unrated I can only respond to you through what other's have quoted. I apologize if I miss something that's relevant or important, but what I can see really doesn't seem to be so.

ROFL, you'll never find anything relevant or important in any of his posts, don't sweat it.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#232 Oct 15 2008 at 1:43 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Quote:

You people can thank the public education system for completely failing you.

You say this a lot. Did you go to private schools throughout? Or were you perhaps homeschooled?

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#233 Oct 15 2008 at 1:49 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

You people can thank the public education system for completely failing you.

It's obvious you people have no idea regarding the intent of the first amendment. Let's be clear on this so there is no confusion, nothing in the constitution says ANYTHING about separation between church and state.

Allow me to educate;

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This may be understood that elected officials can, and should, exercise their religious beliefs as a means for how they choose to govern. To prohibit this would be a gross violation of the persons right to exercise their religious convictions.

Anyone who says the separation between the church and state concept, and that's what it is, involves denying a member of congress the freedom to voice their own religious convictions simply refuses to acknowledge the rights of religious politicians from expressing themselves free of govn interference.

No, dear, that's not exactly right.

See, the first amendment not only allows polititians to practice whatever religion they want, it also protects those of us who choose not to practice a religion, which therefore means they should not be weilding the power granted to them by the government in a religious way, thereby forcing me to live by the rules of their religion.

See how that works?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#236 Oct 15 2008 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

Have you ever considered that forcing religious people to adhere to immoral govn decisions is a violation of their right to the free exercise of their religion?

No, because no one is forcing you to change anything. You can still practice your religion, you can still think or believe what you want.

Do it your way, however, and allow the government to rule based strictly on religious ideas, and you're forcing everyone who is not a christian to live by your religion.

Do you see the difference? Or are you so dense you can't seem to get it? Making homosexual marriage legal doesn't mean you have to accept it or participate in a homosexual relationship. Making abortion legal doesn't mean you have to like it or force you to have one.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#237 Oct 15 2008 at 2:00 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1670199487804

Scholar

8,619 posts

Just for the record there is no historical references to Jesus written during his lifetime, none, nada, nil, zip, zero.

If you take out the bible references (Which are not historical having been collated and changed to fit a political and social demographic some 300 years later) there are no references to him at all that stand up to any scientific scrutany.

This you should note doesn't mean he didn't exsist, but to claim that there is evidence to prove he did is just plain wrong.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#239 Oct 15 2008 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

You can still practice your religion, you can still think or believe what you want.

But you just can't act on those beliefs?

Who said that?

Knoxy wrote:

You realize one of the key documents that founding fathers used when writing the constitution was the Bible don't you? There are elements of the judeo-christian culture throughout the constitution. Running the govn the way you propose would force the govn to recognize a behaviour at least half the population disagrees with. Not only that but in the case of Roe v Wade liberal politicians subverted the will of the people by having judges create law where they couldn't get a consensus from it's citizenry.

No, I don't realize that. Care to tell me what they pulled from the bible and put in the constitution? Aside, of course, to vague references to a "maker" and the words "under god." I'm talking about actual laws here.

Knoxy wrote:

Quote:

Making homosexual marriage legal doesn't mean you have to accept it

Actually it does. It's govn condoning a practice half the population believes to be immoral.

So @#%^ing what? The government condones the war in Iraq, and I don't think that's moral. Does the government condoning something suddenly take away your freedom to think? The government currently condones abortion, does that mean that you now accept abortion?

Edited, Oct 15th 2008 5:00pm by Belkira

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#240 Oct 15 2008 at 2:11 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1592267273743

Scholar

10,359 posts

Quote:

No, because no one is forcing you to change anything. You can still practice your religion, you can still think or believe what you want.

If his religion commands him to proselytize or convert people, he really can't. There exists a contradiction in the first amendment that varrus is (sigh) right to point out. Sometimes it's just not possible for the state to ignore religious practices when those practices infringe on the people of the state somehow. We could just say that the problem lies in the religion that commands such actions, but we're still regulating it and restricting it.

If you really believe that the practice of homosexuality is some kind of moral atrocity, as commanded by your religion, and that even so much as abetting it's existence in your country imperils not only the homosexual's life but also your own (for failing to fight it), it's hard to fault you for trying to impose that belief through the government.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#243 Oct 15 2008 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1670199487804

Scholar

8,619 posts

Tacticus has been shown to be a total forgery Varus, try again.

Also note the part of within his lifetime, and even in the disputed passage never mentions Jesus.

Tacticus was writing 100+AD.

Edited, Oct 15th 2008 6:13pm by tarv

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#244 Oct 15 2008 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Pensive wrote:

If his religion commands him to proselytize or convert people, he really can't. There exists a contradiction in the first amendment that varrus is (sigh) right to point out. Sometimes it's just not possible for the state to ignore religious practices when those practices infringe on the people of the state somehow. We could just say that the problem lies in the religion that commands such actions, but we're still regulating it and restricting it.

If you really believe that the practice of homosexuality is some kind of moral atrocity, as commanded by your religion, and that even so much as abetting it's existence in your country imperils not only the homosexual's life but also your own (for failing to fight it), it's hard to fault you for trying to impose that belief through the government.

I disagree. The religious person in question simply has to learn to put his religion in his private life, just like the rest of us when we go to work. It is possible to keep that seperate. It involves having the ability to look at something objectively and act according to what is just and fair when you're dealing with government practices, then going to the street corner and shouting out to the entire crowd that you think homosexuals are sinners and they are going to hell.

It may not be a job for everyone, but when your religion impedes your ability to do your job correctly, then it's time to look for a new job.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#245 Oct 15 2008 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent

Driftwood

View User Forum

Scholar

9,395 posts

Quote:

You realize one of the key documents that founding fathers used when writing the constitution was the Bible don't you? There are elements of the judeo-christian culture throughout the constitution. Running the govn the way you propose would force the govn to recognize a behaviour at least half the population disagrees with. Not only that but in the case of Roe v Wade liberal politicians subverted the will of the people by having judges create law where they couldn't get a consensus from it's citizenry.

Didn't they come up with the Separation of Church and State thing too? You know, probably to avoid forcing their religion on the citizens of the US who are, and always have been free to practice the religion of their choice?

Quote:

Actually it does. It's govn condoning a practice half the population believes to be immoral.

Perhaps you should poll the population, without limits on who can be polled, polling the ENTIRE population to avoid results skewed by only polling say, 10000, allowing anyone old enough to understand what they're being asked about to weigh in with their opinion, lets say, 16 and up. I think you'll be surprised.

Also, the government condoning a practice that you find to be immoral does NOT mean that you are condoning this. I don't know why so many of you people can't seem to get the following into your heads: Two guys marrying each other in New England or California does NOT affect you personally, in any way whatsoever. You can still go about your life, hating the gays, and whoever else, and I assume that there are many, that you hate, and nothing is changed just by the fact that they can marry each other.

____________________________

10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.

Alan Watts wrote:

I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning

Eske wrote:

I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#246 Oct 15 2008 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

No, I don't realize that. Care to tell me what they pulled from the bible and put in the constitution?

Besides the 10 commandments?

What about the 10 commandments?

Let's see how many of them are actual laws, shall we?

~~I am the LORD your God, you shall have no other gods before me.~~ Nope, not this one.

~~You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain.~~ Nope, again, not this one.

~~Keep holy the Sabbath day.~~ Oops, not this one either.

~~Honor your father and your mother.~~ Oh, maybe the next one.

You shall not kill. - Yay, this is a law. Of course, are you stupid enough to believe that christianity was the first one to think this one up...?

~~You shall not commit adultery.~~ Nope, not a law.

You shall not steal. - Yes, another law! But... again, really? You think this isn't just common sense? Were our founding fathers that stupid?

You shall not bear false witness. - Here's a law... but I still can't believe this is where we got the idea that purjury was bad.

~~You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.~~ Nope.

~~You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.~~ And no.

Three out of ten. Hmmmm. Try again, Knoxy.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#247 Oct 15 2008 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good

PunkFloyd

View User Forum

Sage

4,901 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

Tulip,

Quote:

No, I don't realize that. Care to tell me what they pulled from the bible and put in the constitution?

Besides the 10 commandments?

Try again.

____________________________

Love,
PunkFloyd

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#248 Oct 15 2008 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592267273743

Scholar

10,359 posts

Quote:

The religious person in question simply has to learn to put his religion in his private life, just like the rest of us when we go to work. It is possible to keep that seperate.

Well sure, that's what the person has to do, but if you have religious compulsions that commands you to be public about it because you have some millenarian ideal for society then obviously the state can't just sit back and let things be. I see such restrictions of religion as entirely justified, but we still have to recognize them as restrictions. I don't want to say that religion has a place in governing and making laws; what i'd rather say is that separating church and state is a ******* hard thing to do when you're trying to respect the opinions of every single individual involved.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#249 Oct 15 2008 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1670199487804

Scholar

8,619 posts

The only reason the Church is public and agressive about trying to convert non christians is Money.

Simple as that.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#250 Oct 15 2008 at 3:40 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1594571105510

6,375 posts