Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

That was (I believe to be) a light hearted jab at another totally seperate conversation we had a few days back in IRC.

DS, while it was indeed light hearted comment, and while I was certainly aware of our prior conversation on that subject, from a logical standpoint I was completely serious.

You had claimed nobody who objects to a religious display [in front of a courthouse] could possibly be offended on constitutional grounds, but was merely acting on the basest instincts.

I see a direct analogy with those who would seek to deny or repeal same sex marriage.


Now, personally I'm unwilling to claim that everyone opposed to gay marriage is "doing it just to be assholes."  I do think they're misguided and wrong from a standpoint of liberty and equality, but that is a different claim.

I believe you should be similarly unwilling to make the former claim about everyone who seeks to remove a religious display on government property.


Regards,

quadz

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

I believe you should be similarly unwilling to make the former claim about everyone who seeks to remove a religious display on government property.


Regards,

quadz

To the above statement I am very unwilling to claim that indeed. I have seen very large crosses on the tops of hills on government land. In noway were they apropriate at all, and It was most certainly a direct violation of church and state.
They had no reason for being there at all, no Christmas, no Christian rally, no nothing. People fought to have these taken down and with good reason and it certainly wasn't to be assholes.

BUT, when i speek of people doing things just to be assholes, i'm refering to people that rune something for the mojority "just because".

I can't help it if I think that way I just do. Every person in this world can tell when something is wrong or just not right. Going to battle against an entire town to take down a simple Nativity scene that is only temporary, that is hurting no one else in the entire town, and is there only because it's Christmas (a national holiday btw) = Asshole.
Some one going after the cross on a government hillside or a bust of Jesus in the courthouse entryway is not being an asshole at all, even as a concerned Christian I would never be ok with something like that. Believe what one will, there is a difference.

But as far as gay marriage, thats a whole different story with both different motivations and reasons for both sides of that coin.

[quadz]

Every person in this world can tell when something is wrong or just not right.

Just like banning gay marriage?

Going to battle against an entire town to take down a simple Nativity scene that is only temporary, that is hurting no one else in the entire town, and is there only because it's Christmas (a national holiday btw) = Asshole.

Going to battle against an entire segment of the population to deny a simple right that is hurting no one else in the entire planet, and that is objected to only because of its Christians (and other mythologies btw) = Asshole.

[|iR|Focalor]

Whether churches which receive government subsidy in the form of tax exemption are truly private, I'll leave for another discussion...

Our church always has (since it's founding in 1904), and always will pay taxes - Jesus did. It's totally incompatible with "render unto Caesar" and fail to pay taxes.

QD

  I LIKE YOUR CHURCH!  Now, if only the other 47 bazillion other churches would quit hiding behind their tax exempt status, maybe the government could loosen their financial noose... which would in turn do far more good for the people than all of the "charity" work these churches claim to do.

As I said before, the authors of the words "separation of church and state" are dead. They did not clearly define what was acceptable as far as displaying religious symbolism or artifacts on government owned property. It seems to me that it is not our job to "interpret" what they may or may not have meant by those words, especially by using any statement that ISN'T included in that same document no matter how relevant it seems. It IS our job to create new laws that cover these areas which they obviously did not foresee when the constitution was penned. I see nothing wrong with amending or changing parts of the constitution.

In the similar way that Quadz described gay marriage...

The constitution also gives us the right to "keep and bear arms". In those days, you had to reload with a ramrod and cartridge and it took an hour to fire more than 50 shots with one gun. People carried guns with them to the general store. These days, we can fire 200 rounds in under a minute with belt-fed M-60. Should I be allowed to walk around the grocery store with a loaded M-60 strapped over my shoulder? Just to make it more ridiculous, should I be allowed to own a mortar cannon that launches nuclear mortars? (because you never know when those might come in handy!)

The government has made new laws which clarify how it interprets the ones that may not have covered certain issues. To my knowledge, there is no federal law prohibiting government buildings from allowing churches to display nativity scenes on the lawn. It is left up to the discretion of the state and local governments what they allow on their property. In my opinion, debating whether or not "separation of church and state" allows for a nativity scene is a waste of time. If a town is predominately Christian, it's fine. It's not going to hurt anyone. It doesn't mean that if I go there wearing a great big turban and a muslim pendant, that I will receive a higher fine for whatever law I've broken. If I do, that's a whole different ball game. THAT would be a clear-cut case of discrimination covered by the phrase "separation of church and state".

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Every person in this world can tell when something is wrong or just not right.

Just like banning gay marriage?

Going to battle against an entire town to take down a simple Nativity scene that is only temporary, that is hurting no one else in the entire town, and is there only because it's Christmas (a national holiday btw) = Asshole.

Going to battle against an entire segment of the population to deny a simple right that is hurting no one else in the entire planet, and that is objected to only because of its Christians (and other mythologies btw) = Asshole.

As I said: But as far as gay marriage, thats a whole different story with both different motivations and reasons for both sides of that coin.

Whether churches which receive government subsidy in the form of tax exemption are truly private, I'll leave for another discussion...

Our church always has (since it's founding in 1904), and always will pay taxes - Jesus did. It's totally incompatible with "render unto Caesar" and fail to pay taxes.

QD

  I LIKE YOUR CHURCH!  Now, if only the other 47 bazillion other churches would quit hiding behind their tax exempt status, maybe the government could loosen their financial noose... which would in turn do far more good for the people than all of the "charity" work these churches claim to do.

Agreed whole heartedly.
I'm not sure if my church pays taxes or not but it most certainly should.

As I said before, the authors of the words "separation of church and state" are dead. They did not clearly define what was acceptable as far as displaying religious symbolism or artifacts on government owned property. It seems to me that it is not our job to "interpret" what they may or may not have meant by those words, especially by using any statement that ISN'T included in that same document no matter how relevant it seems. It IS our job to create new laws that cover these areas which they obviously did not foresee when the constitution was penned. I see nothing wrong with amending or changing parts of the constitution.

In the similar way that Quadz described gay marriage...

The constitution also gives us the right to "keep and bear arms". In those days, you had to reload with a ramrod and cartridge and it took an hour to fire more than 50 shots with one gun. People carried guns with them to the general store. These days, we can fire 200 rounds in under a minute with belt-fed M-60. Should I be allowed to walk around the grocery store with a loaded M-60 strapped over my shoulder? Just to make it more ridiculous, should I be allowed to own a mortar cannon that launches nuclear mortars? (because you never know when those might come in handy!)

The government has made new laws which clarify how it interprets the ones that may not have covered certain issues. To my knowledge, there is no federal law prohibiting government buildings from allowing churches to display nativity scenes on the lawn. It is left up to the discretion of the state and local governments what they allow on their property. In my opinion, debating whether or not "separation of church and state" allows for a nativity scene is a waste of time. If a town is predominately Christian, it's fine. It's not going to hurt anyone. It doesn't mean that if I go there wearing a great big turban and a muslim pendant, that I will receive a higher fine for whatever law I've broken. If I do, that's a whole different ball game. THAT would be a clear-cut case of discrimination covered by the phrase "separation of church and state".

I just can't figure out how I couldn't agree with any more than I do.
Again, another nail hit squarely on the head.
 

[quadz]

As I said: But as far as gay marriage, thats a whole different story with both different motivations and reasons for both sides of that coin.

In my previous responses, I've drawn direct comparisions, pointing out similarities.

You claim there are differences but haven't identified any.


Perhaps I can be of assistance.

Here are some differences that occur to me:

1. There's more constitutional grounds for removing a religious display from government property than there is for denying equal rights to gay people.

2. Advocating for the removal of a religious display from government property on the basis of separation of church and state is compatible with equal treatment of all citizens under the law, whereas denying the right to marry to same sex couples is advocating discriminitory, separate-but-unequal treatment.

3. Denying equal rights to a segment of the population is more harmful to individuals than the relocation of a 'thing' from government land to private land.

4. ... ?


Regards,

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

As I said: But as far as gay marriage, thats a whole different story with both different motivations and reasons for both sides of that coin.

In my previous responses, I've drawn direct comparisions, pointing out similarities.

You claim there are differences but haven't identified any.

No I haven't, because i'm trying to stay off that topic, but you keep trying to bait me in.
If fact I keep trying to work my way out of this one but ya'll keep dragging me back in.

[quadz]

No I haven't, because i'm trying to stay off that topic, but you keep trying to bait me in.
If fact I keep trying to work my way out of this one but ya'll keep dragging me back in.

OK 

[reaper]

Going to battle against an entire town to take down a simple Nativity scene that is only temporary, that is hurting no one else in the entire town, and is there only because it's Christmas (a national holiday btw) = Asshole.

You can't let people keep making the same mistakes.  It leads to bad things.  You could approach the situation with respect, and not make it a big deal.  But you can't have a nativiity scene in a government office (wtf..), everyone should know better.  They're not ruining things, just preventing people from making bad decisions.

 

[deft]

If there was a purpose for the universe (and no one knows what the universe is), life would be the first guess.  Also it appears there is a purpose for all things, you don't have to believe that, that's fine.  design, order , perfection, and purpose are all arguments for the existence of a god.  Feel free to reject the existance of god, with no evidence, a little evidence or however much evidence you think there is.

If you simulate life through an adaptive computer virus/worm, more advanced than we can today, you are surely simulating a form of life. although the virus wouldn't feel pain like we do, so I suppose we need a new defintion of life.  Anyways, that's just an analogy to show that the fundamentals needed for life can be more important in understanding life, than a description explaining life from its "inception".  Funny what you are saying is to complex, and impossible, exists today - not that I think god is the more improbable explanation.

god doesn't add complexiity when you don't have an alternative explanation.  you have a few possibilities at the inceptiopn of the big bang:
1) physical laws form  that don't support life (prominent)
2) physical laws form that support life as we know it (like winning the powerball x 10)
3) physical laws that can support life (2d life, imaginative life.., probablity extremely low)

so because we see things the way they are ,event "2" occured, assuming there was only one big bang,  that's very improbable, so something is wrong (imo) .  You are now hoping for an extrondinary amount of universes, or mulitple big bangs to allieviate the probablity problems.  or the probablities I listed are wrong. You can assume that, but that's not evidence.  Supposedly physics will unify quantom theory with the theory of relativity, and this will help us understand what should happen at this supposed moment of infinte density.  I guess you would hope the probablities change; my guess is they will be similar to our current estimates. ( I could be bastardizing the whole concept, but I believe that's the situation).  Also the universe should die of heat death, and not end in a big crunch which could start again ( I guess with dark energy/matter, we may not be properly calculating the gravity of the universe to know this, but that's what I read from some prominent physicist).

The chances are not looking good that we have a great understanding of things as is, which makes a book like Dawkin's very presumptious, especially when we are considering a billion universes to solve probabliity problems,  or imaginary time, which doesn't agree with the evidence (with one universe).  Also there is more evidence that we should be able to detect mulitple universes.

God is not in our realm of understanding scientifically, so god is not hurt by the probablity problems.  that's my opinion, that we do not know what's going on, so it's ok to give god a 'free' pass.  Again the catholic church loves the big bang, because it fits in with common sense - what the universe should look like if there was a creator.

 

Regards,

JUSTIN

[FYATroll]

You my friend should read Meaning by Polanyi...the entire middle section of the book talks about modern science and the idea of God and how that idea is rejected out right when maybe it shouldn't be..good read if you can handle reading things more than once to understand them fully

[deft]

you take the fear of god away from people who live in the hood, see what type of world you'll end up with.

[reaper]

you take the fear of god away from people who live in the hood, see what type of world you'll end up with.

not one with order or purpose

[deft]

you take the fear of santa claus away from children who live in the hood, see what type of world you'll end up with.

[|iR|Focalor]

you take the fear of god away from people who live in the hood, see what type of world you'll end up with.

Hmmmm... So you're essentially saying that it's the guilt imposed by committing sins that keeps the majority of the dumb herd all in one pasture? The concept of a "God" and his divine moral code is what keeps the civilized order of society from reducing to a state of chaos and bedlam?

Every action has a motivation. What was the motivation behind King James (the governing figure, divinely ordained mind you) deciding to commission the Venerable Bede to translate the hebrew, greek, and aramaic texts into english?

I think I've stated it before, but I'm of the firm opinion that the Holy Bible was written by man to control and govern man. Christianity is nothing more than convincing man to believe in the illusion that he cannot see, which is a true definition of a work of witchcraft and magic. Maybe the Puritans should've been burning their own ministers for being witches...