|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/15/2005 09:14:07 PM · #501 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
On a slightly different note, I have before been accused of being a liberal. In the UK, that reflects the political movement of liberalism, ie reduction of state involvement in individual lives. I understand that it means something different in the US, however, and is generally regarded as an insult. Should I have been offended? |
In the US, 'liberalism' reflects the INCREASE of state involvement in individual lives. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 10:20:29 PM · #502 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Canadians as a whole seem more interested in working out reasonable solutions to recognized problems, without turning every into a holy war. Basically, I'm agreeing with most of your observations about US politics, and crediting the Canadians for doing a bit better. |
Would you like to live there? |
Everyone wants to live in Canada. |
Not me. Nothing against Canadians in general, I just do not like cold weather! |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 10:43:14 PM · #503 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
First off, you're mixing oranges and apples. You're talking about blue laws passed ages ago. |
Laws passed ages ago but still on the books in several parts of the country.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I myself, am what you'd call one of those religious people. Or right-wing conservative fascist (as I've been termed by some). |
Religious freedom is a right guaranteed under the First Amendment. Iâve never called you a right-wing conservative fascist. Do you see yourself that way?
Originally posted by theSaj:
But the first part that you said is an oxymoron.
Originally posted by milo655321:
I have no problem with religious people having a say in government. I do have a problem with people injecting their religious beliefs into government. |
|
No. I stand by my statement. It is not an oxymoron.
Originally posted by theSaj:
This thought might work in a dictatorship, monarchy, etc. But not in a Democracy. What you just said is. Our government is a "by the people". In otherwords, that which our government establishes is by the beliefs of the people. |
If Iâm reading you correctly, I currently disagree. Could you please clarify what you mean when you write âthat which our government establishes is by the beliefs of the peopleâ? People believe a lot of different things â not all of them true.
Originally posted by theSaj:
To forbid a person to act on their beliefs simply because they're religious is in fact to forbid religion. |
Does this include Islamic extremist suicide bombers or self-proclaimed Christians who murder doctors who perform abortions?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's still a belief. It may not be a regulated religion or a belief but it is one. And it fundamentally affects one's decisions and outlook on life. |
I would challenge your definitions. Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. It is not a positive statement.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Would it be fair to say: "I have no problem with atheists having a say in government. I do have a problem with people injecting their atheistic beliefs into government."
??? |
Firstly, as Iâve written, weak atheism is the lack of belief in gods not, as is strong atheism, a belief that there are no gods. Secondly, we are living under a religiously neutral government. It is not the governmentâs job to tell the individual which religious beliefs are correct. That is the job of the individuals within the society. By injecting your religious beliefs into laws that affect all citizens, you, as the government, are effectively tell the citizen which religion is the correct religion and remove the rights of religious conscience of individuals who do not agree with your beliefs.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Only atheists should be allowed to make a decision on what laws should be passed.
Who makes that argument? Iâve never heard any credible spokesperson for atheists, as if there were such a thing, agree to or make anything like the above statement. I would likely define it as a good example of the Strawman Argument. |
YOU DO! You just said it in your post. You just said a religious person should not have the right to make governmental decisions based on religious beliefs (which is their beliefs). You just said they should not have the right to make decisions on laws. And if the religious can't than it must be the atheists. |
You write this because youâve misunderstood the nature of my argument. There can and are religiously neutral arguments made by people of religious faith for laws that affect all citizens within a society. If the only way you can back up your argument for the implementation of a particular law is by referring to a particular religious text, then you are injecting your religious beliefs into society at the expense of the religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of individual members of that society who do not subscribe to said religious text. Secular and religious arguments can coincide toward the same goal, but to rely solely upon an religious text in order to create laws that affect all citizens of a religiously diverse society serves to infringe upon the rights the religious minority.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Is the issue really, that "religious people should not be allowed to vote and make decisions on laws based on their beliefs" or is it simply....you don't like the reversal of decisions via the established system? |
I more concerned with the arguments used to support said laws. Can the enact of such hypothetical laws be supported by more than the fact that itâs contained the text of a particular religious text? Do you want the government to decide which religious beliefs are the correct religious beliefs?
Originally posted by theSaj:
I find it funny, that liberal judges have re-interpreted much of our law and made decisions that are constitutionally supposed to be in the hands of the legislature. I find it also funny, that the liberals are now saying that "conservative values" makes a judge ineligable to sit on the supreme court. However, this wasn't an issue when their judges who were much more liberal were appointed? I find it funny for them to say "only the left half are eligable to be a supreme court judge, the right half is not eligable because they're in the right half". |
Interesting sidetrack, but I donât see how this fits into our current discussion. I donât consider myself âliberal,â if that makes a difference.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I actually don't fight for these as adamantly. Although numerous government buildings had judeo-christian religious icons, ten commandments, etc. before the 50's. And I'll even grant you the money. Might even grant you the pledge. |
You ARE generous.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Though I believe there are enough religious comments in memorials, government buildings, cemetaries since the inception of our country. That to rip them all down seems a bit ludicrous. Much akin to fanatical witch hunt. |
Iâm not all fanatical about that myself. I like Moses on the Supreme Court facade next to Hammurabi and Confucius. As a mild concession, Iâll grant you Anno Domino (AD) carved into dates on buildings. Who wants to remove religious memorials from cemeteries?
Originally posted by theSaj:
I for one would not advocate their destruction for the sole reason that they are historical. |
How about not destruction, but removal to a more appropriate spot?
Originally posted by theSaj:
But I can accept and understand this argument. And I believe the fight over this is because many christians feel as though (especially thanks to the ACLU) that the intent is not just to bring a balance but to bring an exclusion. (ie: students suspended for reading their Bibles quietly alone in the playground or for a group of believers on a Volleyball team to pray and ask God that everybody have a good game and no one from either team get's hurt.) |
I donât have a problem with people praying of their own volition â in private, in public or on government property. I have a problem with people being coerced, through action or inaction, by representatives of the government into praying. The line can be fine sometimes.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Who said the phrase âseparation of church and stateâ was in the Constitution? |
Numerous people I've encountered. And numerous lawyers, TV shows, etc. have quoted it as an established legal and binding clause when it is not. |
Well, we can agree theyâre wrong if they said the Constitution includes those words. We can argue some more over whether that was the intent.
Originally posted by theSaj:
So should Federal monies be excluded from The Salvation Army and similar entities simply because they are religious? Let me ask you a question....where did the Federal
monies come from? From the citizens...many of whom are in fact religious. |
I think I covered this when I wrote:
If The Salvation Army can keep its humanitarian efforts separate from its religious efforts while using federal funds, there is little to which to object. There are instances of religious agencies, however, which have found it difficult to separate their religious and humanitarian efforts while using federal funds. This was one of the major concerns over the Faith Based Initiatives among its critics.
Originally posted by theSaj:
So, should all the religious stop paying taxes? I mean, if we (and the programs we support) are ineligable to receive Federal monies....perhaps we should not pay Federal taxes? No taxation without equal representation... |
I didnât say that humanitarian efforts run by religious organizations shouldnât qualify for federal fund under the faith based initiative project. Refer back to previous answer.
Originally posted by theSaj:
My point being "Only if they are unable to keep separate their religious and humanitarian missions while receiving federal funds." is not a reasonable statement. Because there is no way that said funds can be said to be kept completely seperate. |
And why not? Running a soup kitchen is not the same as running a church service. As youâve listed, there are purely humanitarian aspects to a soup kitchen which are not religious in nature. There was an instance in Pennsylvania (I think) wherein a church receiving federal funds under the faith based initiative required recipients of their humanitarian services to listen to a sermon before the meal was served in violation of the federal rules for receiving funds. This is the type of abuse to which critics of the faith base initiative were addressing.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Likewise, I have been to many events where I have had to listen to Democrat speakers rant against Republicans and conservatives. "Hey wait a minute, I thought I was at a gathering to celebrate female felons who have worked hard to return as successful and productive members of to society?" Why is political and philosophical rants allowed. My tax money pays for this? If I could count the number of times I've seen such crap and get a $1 for each time I could buy a new car....and not a KIA either. |
Personally, Iâm not that interested in politics.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
"I donât see the problem if they can keep their religious and humanitarian missions separated while receiving federal funds." |
First off, because there will never be a way to "keep" funds seperate enough to satisfy everyone. Someone will always object. |
Yes. Thatâs unfortunate. Iâll reiterate: I donât see the problem if they can keep their religious and humanitarian missions separated while receiving federal funds.
Originally posted by theSaj:
For example: in many colleges and schools "Christian Groups" are not allowed. You can have a "Homosexual Group" a "Native American Group" even a "Upside Down Tiddly-Winker Group" or any other "student organized and run" group. But if you have a "christian group" guess what. You're ineligable for activity funds. Why? Because these colleges receive government funding. Thus, some see money given to a christian student group as a violation of the concept of "seperation of church and state". Now wait a minute....those students paid activity fees. And the activity money is supposed to fund varying student groups (many of which are extremely political). But a christian group (even though membership is open to all students) is not allowed. |
I take it the Upside Down Tiddly-Winker Group is religiously neutral. Are there non-Christian religious groups receiving funds?
Originally posted by theSaj:
So how can you take an activity fee from said christian students. Give money from those student's activity fee to groups that promote beliefs extremely counter to those of the christians. And then tell the christians they are ineligable to receive those same funds. |
But not promoting religious beliefs extremely counter to those of the Christian, I take it. If they are, you should complain.
Originally posted by theSaj:
My friend, THAT is an "establishment violation". You just established a prohibition. And you might say that you did not...that those students are still free to exercise their religion. Are they? They just had $$$ taken away and were unable to access it in return. The result? is far from "free exercise" |
Campus groups that have Christians as members are unable to receive activity funds? I donât agree with that. Someone should complain.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It works BOTH ways...
I think a big problem, is that our government was NEVER intended to run the social programs we do today. In it becoming the big financier it created a "breakdown of seperation". You see, you cannot "tax" me for social programs. Then at the same time tell me that if I am running a said social program I am ineligable to receive any funding because of my religious faith. |
Who said your social program is unable to receive federal funding because of your religious faith?
Originally posted by theSaj:
If that is the case, then likewise, the government is ineligable to tax me for social programs (except by brute force of strength...in this case the IRS). |
Religious organizations donât pay taxes in the US.
Originally posted by theSaj:
They should be allowed to receive funds for particular offerings (ie: a soup kitchen, or aid provision) which must be open to all citizens. But they should not receive daily "operating funds" for their church (offices, staff, pastors, etc.) of which are restricted based on their religious beliefs.
If there are monies ear marked for soup kitchens. As long as the soup is given then any group (religious or otherwise) who can perform the function should be eligable to compete(recieve) said funds. |
I think an allowance could be thrown in for things like gas for cooking, lighting, etc.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Kudos, I am glad that you see that this is indeed the "right" way for it to be done. I think it quite interesting that logically speaking we have two people on both sides saying it is right. |
Well, you call yourself a conservative and I call myself a moderate, so not âbothâ sides. Iâm sure there are others.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I will say, I think you should consider re-visiting your "two people" rule. There are quite a few who argue for successful examples and in fact added stability in multi-parent homes. There is furthermore, often more economic stability and workloads more evenly distributed. It used to be in most cultures that a family often lived in the same house as grandparents. So it was very much akin to having two moms and two dads. The results actually tended to be quite good on the average. We've lost that family structure. There are many (although very few christians) who argue that multi unions could offer similar family benefits and stability. |
The workload idea is interesting. My concern was more with idea of the wealthiest males âmarryingâ numerous younger females taking them out of the availability pool. Younger males, who tend to be the most violent in society, do better with the social bond of âmarriageâ to causes him to plan and think for the future.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Now mind you, you've got a "christian" arguing the view of the polyist right now. So it's kinda a comical reversal. But IMHO, the government should not exclude on that basis either. |
There are as many gods as there are people willing to make them up. :)
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:52:03 AM · #504 |
Laws passed ages ago but still on the books in several parts of the country.[/i}
Yes, and baths are still illegal in Boston courtesy of Doctors. You're point? And in fact most states are in the processing of removing the blue "liqueur" laws. Few religious even care. They either don't drink and it's irrelevant. Or they think it's stupid.
Those were more cultural laws than anything else.
[i]
Religious freedom is a right guaranteed under the First Amendment. Iâve never called you a right-wing conservative fascist. Do you see yourself that way?
You was plural not singular. (Sadly, english doesn't quite allow for differentiation. But i've been called it a few times on the site. So it was a general statement.)
If Iâm reading you correctly, I currently disagree. Could you please clarify what you mean when you write âthat which our government establishes is by the beliefs of the peopleâ? People believe a lot of different things â not all of them true.
The entire question is "what is the truth". Democracy, the entire reason for it's existence, is as a system to establish the truth. Although imperfect, it attempts to establish what the majority believe is true. This can, and has, led to grave mistakes. But it is the accepted method of determination within our country.
To forbid a person to act on their beliefs simply because they're religious is in fact to forbid religion.
Does this include Islamic extremist suicide bombers or self-proclaimed Christians who murder doctors who perform abortions?
Actually, it does... you see, it is not their beliefs in this case that cause addressing. But rather their actions. The act of a suicide bomber, or of the man who murdered an abortion doctor, is unacceptable. The reason one forbids in this case is not because it is a religious act, there are plenty of religious acts that cause no harm and many that benefit, but rather because of the acts of murder. Of which, our society deems deviant and abhorrent.
I would challenge your definitions. Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. It is not a positive statement.
I'll accept the first revision... "atheism being the belief there is no God or gods." And disagree with the latter. As the lack of belief or indetermination of the existence of god or gods would be "modern agnostic" (as opposed to classical gnosticism, etc.).
It is not the governmentâs job to tell the individual which religious beliefs are correct.
But it seems that there is a trend to make it the job of the government to state which are wrong. And that is my issue of contention.
By injecting your religious beliefs into laws that affect all citizens, you, as the government, are effectively tell the citizen which religion is the correct religion and remove the rights of religious conscience of individuals who do not agree with your beliefs.
Likewise, those with atheistic evolutionary beliefs, infused their views as well. One result was the concept of uber-human and sub-human. It was this concept that created cause for a pygmy african to be put in a zoo. And for the NAZI party to deem the Jews inhuman.
I state this to demonstrate that the issue is NOT as you would have it "religious beliefs" but rather beliefs in general.
Which stems from which? Do people believe because they are part of a religion? or do people join a religion because they believe? The chicken or the egg? Why does one accept the tenants of a religion? For instance, if i felt stealing was okay then I likely would not be a practicing christian "for it says thou shalt not steal". If I thought polygamy was wrong then likewise. However, how many choose to adhere to a religion because it approximates their belief set? I do not agree with everything that the Republican party does but I am a member because it more closely represents my belief set.
Now, fundementally what is the difference between being a religion and having beliefs, and being in a political party and having beliefs? By saying, that a religious individual should not be able to decide on laws based on his beliefs is idiotic. Should a Republican not be able to vote on laws because of his beliefs? (Oh, i forget, when it comes to court nominees this is the liberals belief.) But really, what should one base their belief on? Do you think the only reason christians believe murder is wrong is because they're christians? do you think if they STOPPED being a christian they would suddenly be okay with murder?
Well, guess what, I know quite a few people who once were christians and they STILL believe murder is wrong. So should they not be allowed to vote on laws according to their beliefs?
Religion, does not need a deity. There are numerous religions, philosophies, and ideologies that do not have a deity but are in deed religious. Religion is nothing more than a moral law or concept.
Please, do tell me, just what one should base their beliefs upon? do you believe murder is wrong? theft? adultery? why? please show me how/why you believe such. Define the method of your understanding! Or are you simply carrying on hundreds of years of religious legacy. Do you have reasoning behind your decisions? (Note, I once sat there with a friend (atheist) and we endeavored to establish logical reasoning behind such outside of religion. We did so for afew based on certain presumptions we accepted. But I've been hard pressed to get most others to do the same.
Cannibalism is objected to as morally wrong within our society. But other societies accept. Where does one establish their morals (outside of one's gut or religious beliefs)?
There can and are religiously neutral arguments made by people of religious faith for laws that affect all citizens within a society.
Please provide an example....
If the only way you can back up your argument for the implementation of a particular law is by referring to a particular religious text, then you are injecting your religious beliefs into society at the expense of the religious beliefs
I'll take the "abortion" issue. I have numerous points as to why it is wrong and should not be allowed in it's current fashion. Only one of those points is "it's an abomination before God" every other point is a logical and/or scientific based argument.
Please show me a modern issue where there is no cause outside of a simple "the Bible said it"...please show me something (and not some 100 yr old law about not selling alcohol on Sundays).
Secular and religious arguments can coincide toward the same goal, but to rely solely upon an religious text in order to create laws that affect all citizens of a religiously diverse society serves to infringe upon the rights the religious minority.
I have addressed every issue, from a religious and logic standpoint. Never, have I said, something is simply wrong without providing an understanding for it. Perhaps, if given more ear, one might understand that there is more behind the religious right than "these things are in a book".
"I more concerned with the arguments used to support said laws. Can the enact of such hypothetical laws be supported by more than the fact that itâs contained the text of a particular religious text? Do you want the government to decide which religious beliefs are the correct religious beliefs?"
Most of the contentious laws and those of real issue, have numerous additional arguments. I've yet to hear as many non-emotional arguments from the left as i've given out on occasion regarding abortion. To me, that is a "religious" argument on the part of the left.
Secondly, i've admitted there are a few questionable cases. "In God we trust" on money being one. But those are fairly minor. As opposed to the real contentious ones.
You ARE generous.
Why thank you, actually, i'm a historic romantic. So I am somewhat opposed to the destruction or alteration of history. And even though some of those changes were done in the 50's it was all done before i was born therefore it's a bit nostalgic.
;)
Who wants to remove religious memorials from cemeteries? Oh a few here and there who believe removing "In God We Trust" is not enough and essentially want the removal of God from any federal structure, monument, etc.
How about not destruction, but removal to a more appropriate spot?
Absolutely not....if there is an engraving on Grant's tomb, etc. I do not think that should be removed. Now, mind you, perhaps it should not be implemented on any new construction (excepting memorials in which the individuals made clear expression for such). But to me, that is dangerously in the realm of historical revisionism.
Kinda like changing the text of the declaration of independence in all our schoolbooks to read: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by random chance with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
To me, that just seems wrong. I'd rather we keep our history accurate. Even if it might show our mistakes. I believe if we do not we are doomed to repeat them. Likewise, i think the changing of such would be most inappropriate.
I donât have a problem with people praying of their own volition â in private, in public or on government property. I have a problem with people being coerced, through action or inaction, by representatives of the government into praying.
Funny, i have the same issue. But i also have an issue with the government infringing on that individual right. And thanks to the ACLU it has happened numerous times.
I didnât say that humanitarian efforts run by religious organizations shouldnât qualify for federal fund under the faith based initiative project. Refer back to previous answer.
Than we have no contention. I speak in reference to those who opposed faith based iniatives (or more simply put, government finances towards tasks that federal monies have been ear-marked regardless of whether the provider of said service is religious or not.
To me, it'd be silly to say that a religious doctor, perhaps a graduate of a catholic university even, who has a cross in his private practice should not be allowed to be paid by Medicare cause medicare is the federal government and that could be seen as establishment. Most people would say htat's crazy. Butg essentially many religious service providers are attacked in just that fashion.
And why not? Running a soup kitchen is not the same as running a church service. As youâve listed, there are purely humanitarian aspects to a soup kitchen which are not religious in nature. There was an instance in Pennsylvania (I think) wherein a church receiving federal funds under the faith based initiative required recipients of their humanitarian services to listen to a sermon before the meal was served in violation of the federal rules for receiving funds.
Agreed that is in violation (and a fairly rare case too). As Federal funds were involved all citizens should have equivalent access and opportunity. When I volunteered at a Salvation Army they did in fact have a service before the soup kitchen. And you couldn't enter until after the service was over. But once it was over the soup kitchen opened and regardless of whether one attended service or not, one was served in the soup kitchen.
And what you say, i agree with, but this is not the opposition of many. Many want absolute exclusion. And that to me is unconstitutional in it's form.
I take it the Upside Down Tiddly-Winker Group is religiously neutral. Are there non-Christian religious groups receiving funds?
No, but there are many "atheist" groups who received funds.
Who said your social program is unable to receive federal funding because of your religious faith?
Various people i've encountered who believe no monies what so ever should ever be put in the hands of religious people. (Um, i agree when it comes to most tele-evangelists...*lol*)
Religious organizations donât pay taxes in the US.
Really, ever heard of the concept of church membership? The members pay taxes. For example: most church members tithed a percentage of their income.
If I make $50,000 and the government takes $10,000. The result is $40,000 and if one tithed (contributed) 10% that would be $4,000.
However, let's fast forward. The government expands it role to include numerous socialist and welfare aspects. The result is that much more taxes are required.
Now, I make $50,000 and the government takes $20,000. The result is $30,000 and if one tithed (contributed) 10% that would be $3,000. There is a net loss of $1,000.
For instance, many people donate less to charity now because they look at their paycheck and all the social programs and simply say " I donate more than enough. If there is a shortage of $$$ it's cause it's mismanaged and I'm not going to give any more." (Sadly, this is a growing attitude in America.)
Well, you call yourself a conservative and I call myself a moderate, so not âbothâ sides. Iâm sure there are others.
I've never met a liberal who did not call themselves a moderate. *lol* But, in your case I'll actually grant you that I think you might be a moderate.
We agree on a lot more than may first appear. And on many of the incidents (on both sides) we believe things to be wrongly handled. We both believe there are certain concessions of understanding, or rather methods of implementation. And so long as the methods are adhered than all is well but to fail to adhere breaches acceptance.
"My concern was more with idea of the wealthiest males âmarryingâ numerous younger females taking them out of the availability pool. Younger males, who tend to be the most violent in society, do better with the social bond of âmarriageâ to causes him to plan and think for the future."
I agree, but does not the above preclude possibility of male/male relationships? Furthermore, I do believe males do much better when attached to females because they often increase in the area of attitude (for) responsibility. And I believe, given time the wealthy females might take an equal number of males out of the availability pool.
Kinda akin to my friend's reason for hating lesbians. He's got nothing against them really. Except every lesbian couple eliminates TWO potential females from the mating pool. *lol*
Likewise, I have female friends who feel somewhat similar regarding homosexual males.
Anyways, I believe that you and i have different moral fibers but excepting a few issues would find ourselves in workable form with each others ideologies inside a society system.
- Jason "The Saj"
PS - do I dare say that I might have actually found a moderate on this site? *salutes* the guy in the middle. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 08:24:41 AM · #505 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Religious freedom is a right guaranteed under the First Amendment. Iâve never called you a right-wing conservative fascist. Do you see yourself that way?
Originally posted by theSaj:
You was plural not singular. (Sadly, english doesn't quite allow for differentiation. But i've been called it a few times on the site. So it was a general statement.) |
|
I believe that this is a reference to my reaction in the wake of the London bombing to your rhetoric accusing Islam of killing many women every day and of Muslims not caring for their children because they used them as suicide bombers. I did not call you a fascist or a Nazi. I did point out that the only political party making statements in the UK using the language that you were using was an ultra right wing and fascist party (the BNP). I specifically stated that I did not ascribe all their policies to you. The purpose of the comparison of their language to yours was to demonstrate that your language in relation to race and religion was expressed in an inflammatory fashion and (IMO) risked fomenting religious hatred (similar language by the BNP is intended to do so). I found it objectionable. You later softened some of your language and clarified your earlier meaning , from which I took it that your earlier statements were objectionable partly due to careless expression, rather than solely because of your political views.
Originally posted by theSaj:
The entire question is "what is the truth". Democracy, the entire reason for it's existence, is as a system to establish the truth. Although imperfect, it attempts to establish what the majority believe is true. This can, and has, led to grave mistakes. But it is the accepted method of determination within our country. |
You appear to be suggesting that democracy is the application of law by decision of the majority. It is a very sad thing to hear you dismissing in such a fashion the great thinking of millennia of political theorists including the founders of your nation.
One of the many aspects of modern Western democracy that ensures its principles far exceed the base standard of majority rule (or "mob rule") is the imposition of a system of checks and balances to protect minority interests (controlling a recognised deficit in the democratic system). Fundamental to this is protection of religious expression. That is, all religions, not just the religion of the majority.
Originally posted by theSaj:
To forbid a person to act on their beliefs simply because they're religious is in fact to forbid religion.
Originally posted by milo655321:
Does this include Islamic extremist suicide bombers or self-proclaimed Christians who murder doctors who perform abortions?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Actually, it does... you see, it is not their beliefs in this case that cause addressing. But rather their actions. The act of a suicide bomber, or of the man who murdered an abortion doctor, is unacceptable. The reason one forbids in this case is not because it is a religious act, there are plenty of religious acts that cause no harm and many that benefit, but rather because of the acts of murder. Of which, our society deems deviant and abhorrent. |
|
|
I think that you are dangerous ground here, Jason, and in danger of hoisting yourself on your own petard.
Isn't it better to protect the right for all people to express themselves religiously but prevent them from enforcing their religious views upon others? Isn't it better to prohibit acts if they are detrimental to society (or other religiously neutral bases upon which a system of laws can be established) regardless of whether or not they are religiously motivated? The alternative, the application of law in accordance with religious scriptures, is something that you have previously condemned when the scripture in question is not the Bible (eg your criticism of Middle Eastern states with legal systems derived from the Qu'ran).
Originally posted by milo655321:
I would challenge your definitions. Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. It is not a positive statement.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I'll accept the first revision... "atheism being the belief there is no God or gods." And disagree with the latter. As the lack of belief or indetermination of the existence of god or gods would be "modern agnostic" (as opposed to classical gnosticism, etc.).
|
|
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. Atheism is the absence of belief in any God, which can be expressed as a belief in the absence of a God. However, belief in the absence of a God is fundamentally different to a belief in religion, in that it does not take any form or scripture: it is merely an expression that all religion is invalid, rather than any one religion being more valid than the others. It does not prescribe arbitrary rules or requirements. Atheism does not "tell the citizen which religion is the correct religion and remove the rights of religious conscience of individuals who do not agree with your beliefs". Religion does.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Likewise, those with atheistic evolutionary beliefs, infused their views as wellâ¦.
I state this to demonstrate that the issue is NOT as you would have it "religious beliefs" but rather beliefs in general. |
You are confusing "belief" (as in religion) with "theory" (as in science).
Originally posted by theSaj:
Do you think the only reason christians believe murder is wrong is because they're christians? do you think if they STOPPED being a christian they would suddenly be okay with murder? Well, guess what, I know quite a few people who once were christians and they STILL believe murder is wrong. So should they not be allowed to vote on laws according to their beliefs? |
Do you believe that there is a law against murder only because that is one of the Ten Commandments?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Religion, does not need a deity. There are numerous religions, philosophies, and ideologies that do not have a deity but are in deed religious. Religion is nothing more than a moral law or concept. |
"Religionâsometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief systemâis commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief." (//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)
A philosophy is very different from a religion. A logic test: Moral codes do not require any religious connotations. Religions tend to implement a moral code. Religion is the same as a moral code. Spot the obvious mistake.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Please, do tell me, just what one should base their beliefs upon? do you believe murder is wrong? theft? adultery? why? please show me how/why you believe such. Define the method of your understanding! Or are you simply carrying on hundreds of years of religious legacy. Do you have reasoning behind your decisions? (Note, I once sat there with a friend (atheist) and we endeavored to establish logical reasoning behind such outside of religion. We did so for afew based on certain presumptions we accepted. But I've been hard pressed to get most others to do the same. |
Are you serious? Do you really think that our system of self governance is religiously determined? If so, there are some tax laws for which I should be grateful for a theocratic objectionâ¦
Originally posted by theSaj:
I'll take the "abortion" issue. I have numerous points as to why it is wrong and should not be allowed in it's current fashion. Only one of those points is "it's an abomination before God" every other point is a logical and/or scientific based argument.
Please show me a modern issue where there is no cause outside of a simple "the Bible said it"...please show me something (and not some 100 yr old law about not selling alcohol on Sundays). |
Are you arguing that the appropriate basis for determining issues that divide society is by "logical and/or scientific based argument". That it is inappropriate to resolve disputes using the sole reason that "the Bible said it"? If so, I think that you are arguing with milo and me against those in society who think that, just because a majority of people in a society may be Christian, principles and rules derived from Christianity should be implemented solely because the Bible says so.
Originally posted by theSaj:
No, but there are many "atheist" groups who received funds. |
Did they enforce or encourage their atheism upon subscribers?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Well, you call yourself a conservative and I call myself a moderate, so not âbothâ sides. Iâm sure there are others.
I've never met a liberal who did not call themselves a moderate. *lol* But, in your case I'll actually grant you that I think you might be a moderate. |
|
I have found out the difference between US and UK interpretations of liberality.
An extract from a summary of some of the core principles for me:
"Under liberal principles, the form of society is determined by the outcome of competitive processes in a defined framework. The state, according to liberal ideology, should guarantee the process, but not interfere with the outcome: most liberals therefore see a limited role for government. In the economic sphere, liberalism advocates the free market as the ordering principle, and the production of goods and services by competing entrepreneurs. "
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Liberalism_today
Important to note are the distinctions between economic and social (as in societal) liberalism. Certain facets I do not agree with: I do not agree with interventionism, though this is an aspect of some liberal theory.
The US interpretation of the word has been tainted by political debate and identification with left wing groups. //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Liberalism_in_various_countries.
Hence, presumably, the addition of "left wing" to "liberal" when I am (unwittingly by me) being slurred. Though "left" or "right" wing labels (within their own connotations) are somewhat irrelevant to the questions of liberal v illiberal, and interventionist v non-interventionist.
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 08:26:37.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:24:07 PM · #506 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
You appear to be suggesting that democracy is the application of law by decision of the majority. It is a very sad thing to hear you dismissing in such a fashion the great thinking of millennia of political theorists including the founders of your nation. |
Now, mind you...America is actually a Republic (which is based on Democratic principles but adds checks and balances and beaucratic regulations to help limit drastic pendulum swings in decisions and provide more balance and stability within a society).
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I think that you are dangerous ground here, Jason, and in danger of hoisting yourself on your own petard. Isn't it better to protect the right for all people to express themselves religiously but prevent them from enforcing their religious views upon others? Isn't it better to prohibit acts if they are detrimental to society (or other religiously neutral bases upon which a system of laws can be established) regardless of whether or not they are religiously motivated? The alternative, the application of law in accordance with religious scriptures, is something that you have previously condemned when the scripture in question is not the Bible (eg your criticism of Middle Eastern states with legal systems derived from the Qu'ran). |
I think you misunderstood me, I believe we agree on this. You see I stated that the reason for forbidding should NOT be the fact that the act is religious. But should be the act itself. For instance, there are terrorist bombers for political causes as well. They have no association to religion. It is the act of terrorist bombing that is at hand. As it infringes on the livelihood of another's freedom. (Now, I know once I say that it some will point to the pro/anti-abortion debate. Mind you, the question and argument on both sides is one of infringing. One side sees the mother's life infringed and the other sees the child's life infringed. Hence, the moral debate that currently is ensuing.)
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable. Atheism is the absence of belief in any God, which can be expressed as a belief in the absence of a God. However, belief in the absence of a God is fundamentally different to a belief in religion, in that it does not take any form or scripture: |
When was the last time you were in college? I knew numerous "religious/spiritual" people who's beliefs did not entail a form or scripture. On the flip side, I know one individual who believes in a deity which made ducks in it's own image. (Odd individual for sure.) And in fact, there are numerous codecs of belief. Not all are put forth as religious works. Many are philosophical, or scientifically based. We can look "Phlogiston" which was a scientific theory. One that in looking back in hindsight was more a religious belief than science fact.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
it is merely an expression that all religion is invalid, rather than any one religion being more valid than the others. It does not prescribe arbitrary rules or requirements. Atheism does not "tell the citizen which religion is the correct religion and remove the rights of religious conscience of individuals who do not agree with your beliefs". Religion does. |
I don't know, I've heard enough evolutionists make those exact statements. Sure sounds like "religion" to me. See I look at "religion/ideology/philosophy/etc" are all very similar and in the same boat. The Communist Manifesto and Red Revolution was in all implementations a "religion", a set of beliefs and understandings thus implemented in daily lives.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
You are confusing "belief" (as in religion) with "theory" (as in science). |
You mean like phlogiston?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Do you believe that there is a law against murder only because that is one of the Ten Commandments? |
I believe there are numerous reasons for a law against murder. Just to list a few:
a. to prevent it's common occurrence
b. to help maintain stability
c. to prevent population decline
d. to encourage family and community building
e. because I believe life is precious (now this IMHO needs a philosophical or religious argument to support it)
f. economics
g. in my personal case, i believe man was made in the image of God and thus such is an affront to God as well (religious/philosophical argument)
Now, the fact that it is in the Ten Commandments helps to affirm my understanding of said viewpoint. It is not my only reason. But it shows that likewise either a) God shared similar understanding and wisdom in his decree or b) the multitude of men who formulated such a law in the name of a non-existent God did so based on evidence within their social environment to the need of such a law.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
"Religionâsometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief systemâis commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief." (//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)
A philosophy is very different from a religion. A logic test: Moral codes do not require any religious connotations. Religions tend to implement a moral code. Religion is the same as a moral code. Spot the obvious mistake. |
I do believe you posted the first paragraph once before. As for the latter your using a rudimentary logic test using an example similar to square & rectangle. And as phrased, yes I would disagree with it.
But, my arguments are "Moral codes require a belief of implementation." "Religions tend to implement moral codes out of their beliefs." "Both religious and non-regligious moral codes are drawn from beliefs."
Now, please...tell me how you measure the validity of beliefs? As I understand it, in America, we do so thru a democratic based republic.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Are you serious? Do you really think that our system of self governance is religiously determined? If so, there are some tax laws for which I should be grateful for a theocratic objection⦠|
Our method of determination. No...but a lot of our default "beliefs"...why yes I do. You believe cannibalism is wrong, right? Why?
There is an abundant population of humans. Many other species of animals perform such actions. Why would it be improper morally?
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
No, but there are many "atheist" groups who received funds.
Did they enforce or encourage their atheism upon subscribers? |
If you mean, did they require members to be "atheists" no. (But neither did the christian clubs require members to be christian.) Do some share their philosophies and views. Yes.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Under liberal principles, the form of society is determined by the outcome of competitive processes in a defined framework. The state, according to liberal ideology, should guarantee the process, but not interfere with the outcome: most liberals therefore see a limited role for government. In the economic sphere, liberalism advocates the free market as the ordering principle, and the production of goods and services by competing entrepreneurs. |
This is very informative....and shows the cultural differences and challenges (even between two English speaking populaces). The definition of "liberal" in U.K. is probably closer to our definition of a "Libertarian" (and both seem to have the similar root of "Liberty"). Liberal in the U.S. has been taken, more akin to "give me a liberal portion of gravy on my potatoes please" as in "an open morality", and as some see it a "morality of my rights over all other things". "Libertarian" usually refers in the U.S. to those who advocate small government involvement. And free economics." "Liberalism" in the U.S. often entails a hybrid of "moral freedom" on particular morals (abortion, sex, etc.) and restrictions and outlawing of other morals (ie: smoking even in bars, use of cell phones, etc.) combined with a heavy tax burden to supply certain social aspects.
I am rather bizarre, and perhaps a tumultous mix seemingly at odds with one's self. Recently I've tried to place my feelings and realized that the closest I can come too in describing myself is a "communist libertarian".
By this, I prefer minimal government involvement (restrictions to prevent harm toward others, taxing to pay for diplomatic relations and defense). I believe much of our social conflict stems from taxation for social programs. Individuals vary in their opinion of how best to address certain social issues.
I've felt that with modern technology, that a good solution would be to allow for directed taxes. In otherwords, a portion of one's taxes could be directed to certain endeavors. (Outside of the core government agencies.) So things like NASA, education, arts, welfare, environment, etc. Would be optional funding. So 80%-90% of one's taxes would go to mandatory funding that maintains the government, courts, infrastructure, defenses, etc. The rest of it would be able to be allocated by a citizen. Take the issue of abortion. Many individuals who are against abortion have much difficulty knowing that their taxes are going toward killing children. However, if they could exclude their taxes from going to such causes. I am sure, there are enough pro-choicers who would contribute funds. The issue being when the government takes on the burdens of such social causes it forces it's members to go against their core beliefs. I would even allow for an exclusion for those who are absolute pacifists to exclude their taxes from going toward the national defense. In stead, it would go into the other main budget areas.
I believe this would help to eliminate a lot of emotional difficulties individuals have.
It's an idea (one I think unlikely to happen). But I think it would be of great benefit. (That, and eliminating "political parties" and making candidates stand on their own.)
Anyways, thank you LegalBeagle for posting that about U.K. "Liberals". It is DEFINITELY much different than American "Liberals".
- Jason
PS - I think we're all doing better on name calling, rhetoric, etc. As of late. I know I began re-acting to some of the comments, names and references. I eventually "over-reacted" and elevated things further.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:29:43 PM · #507 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
You are confusing "belief" (as in religion) with "theory" (as in science). |
You mean like phlogiston? |
When this theory was shown by scientific evidence to be a less-effective means of describing what happens in the "real world" than another theory, it was discarded.
I can't say the same for any religions, not that any would admit to any scientific testing of their belief system. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:33:37 PM · #508 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
You are confusing "belief" (as in religion) with "theory" (as in science). |
You mean like phlogiston? |
When this theory was shown by scientific evidence to be a less-effective means of describing what happens in the "real world" than another theory, it was discarded.
I can't say the same for any religions, not that any would admit to any scientific testing of their belief system. |
How do you scientifically test a belief system? |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:41:00 PM · #509 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
PS - I think we're all doing better on name calling, rhetoric, etc. As of late. I know I began re-acting to some of the comments, names and references. I eventually "over-reacted" and elevated things further. |
Yes, thank you to both theSaj and legalbeagle...I much prefer this type of discussion (and am learning a lot more) than some other rants that involve little more than compartmentalizing and posting links to support one's position. Great conversation here... |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 12:45:04 PM · #510 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
How do you scientifically test a belief system? |
That's the problem. Rationalists take the point of view that the proponents of a religion should prove their hypothesis is true. The religious hierarchies insist that the rationalists try and prove it false.
Since neither is possible, given the fundamental precept of all religions -- that they are "supernatural" or outside of natural law -- it all depends on which system of logic you prefer to use.
For example, we take the position that the prosecution has to prove a defendent guilty to gain a conviction. In some places (e.g. 17th-Century Salem) the burden of proof fell on the defendent to prove they didn't commit the crime.
Most people who study logic systems would probably hold that affirmative proof is the fairer approach. Thus, I am willing to accept the existence of God (or Allah, or whatever), when someone can objectively and scientifically prove She/He exists. The Pope/Imams say I should take it on faith that such an entity exists, until someone "proves" it does not. I prefer to live in the world of transistors, not transubstantiation.
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 12:46:59. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:04:02 PM · #511 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I prefer to live in the world of transistors, not transubstantiation. |
Hehe...cute...
Um...I guess this would have to be another thread altogether. I've seen proof (mind you, experiential proof...nothing on paper) that God exists...or at least, that the 'supernatural' exists.
It's sort of like finding "proof" that my wife loves me...should I not believe it because I can't see real proof?
Please believe me, I swear that this 'argument' isn't from some "christian" book on how to "defend the faith" or anything lame like that...it's just a parallel situation that came to mind.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:07:48 PM · #512 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I prefer to live in the world of transistors, not transubstantiation. |
That's great! May I use that quote at some time?
I am a little confused by some conflicting statements that you have made Jason.
1) You defend the right of the Christian majority to make laws based upon their Christian beliefs, which have a Biblical basis, rather than a logical/scientific basis. That is mixing the church and the state, and the imposition of religious beliefs upon the populace (inlcuding the oppression of religious minorities).
2) At the same time, you argue that the law ought to protect all beliefs, be based upon logic and science, be independent of religion. That is maintaining a strict divide between church and state, so that no single belief set based in any one religion can be imposed upon the populace as a whole.
Let me know from which side you are arguing.
No time to respond to other issues here (am going to the pub) - will think over the w/e. But in particular - scientific definition of theory is v different to belief. Phlogiston is an excellent example - scientifically theorised, researched, and ultimately disproved. Many other theories (including evolution) are overwhelmingly proved (proof = scientific definition of proof, not colloquial "proof") by scientific method. But always subject to refinement.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:09:19 PM · #513 |
"Experiential" proof doesn't count. Plenty of people "see God" after a couple of hundred micrograms of LSD, but I don't think that qualifies as "proof."
I'm not arguing that it might not even be perfectly true, just that it's not a valid basis for designing a legal system/society on the basis of someone's personal vision of God's message. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:10:55 PM · #514 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I prefer to live in the world of transistors, not transubstantiation. |
That's great! May I use that quote at some time? |
You just did : )
Sure, enjoy -- maybe if you make up Tshirts or something you could send me one.
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 13:11:31. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:13:08 PM · #515 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I prefer to live in the world of transistors, not transubstantiation. |
That's great! May I use that quote at some time?
|
How about "crucibles, not crucifixes" or "logic, not logos"...haha...sorry... |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:14:55 PM · #516 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Experiential" proof doesn't count. Plenty of people "see God" after a couple of hundred micrograms of LSD, but I don't think that qualifies as "proof."
I'm not arguing that it might not even be perfectly true, just that it's not a valid basis for designing a legal system/society on the basis of someone's personal vision of God's message. |
Hmmm, you didn't address the part about needing "proof" to believe that your kids or spouse loves you.
As for your second paragraph, I'm not sure I would argue against that at all...not in this day and age, anyway. Even when Moses came back to rescue Israel from Egyptial slavery, he had "proof" that he was to be their leader...he didn't just say "hey everyone, believe me please".
Same with Jesus. According to his own words, the signs and miracles were integral to getting people to believe that he was the real thing.
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 13:19:00. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:22:33 PM · #517 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I can't say the same for any religions, not that any would admit to any scientific testing of their belief system. |
Clearly untrue. I'm a research scientist (meteorologist). I became a Christian because I studied the Bible from a scientific perspective and was unable to prove any substantial part of it wrong. Even now I continue studying and testing it in much the same way I test scientific theories.
And I know I'm not the only one.
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 13:23:52. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:31:42 PM · #518 |
Originally posted by postoakinversion:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I can't say the same for any religions, not that any would admit to any scientific testing of their belief system. |
And I know I'm not the only one. |
Fantastic.... I for one eagerly await the study reports. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:51:05 PM · #519 |
"When this theory was shown by scientific evidence to be a less-effective means of describing what happens in the "real world" than another theory, it was discarded."
But until that point, it was essentially treated as fact by many if not most. And adamantly and "dogmatically". And this is the aspect I approach. I don't give a darn if x theory is disproved and corrected in a 100 yrs. If x theory is currently approached dogmatically and religiously. It is, no different than a religion.
And there are quite a few religions that have, perhaps not been discarded but had their understandings re-clarified.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
1) You defend the right of the Christian majority to make laws based upon their Christian beliefs, which have a Biblical basis, rather than a logical/scientific basis.
No, I disagree with your assumption that there is no logical basis for the said laws within the Christian beliefs. (I will grant, that there are some uneducated individuals who believe blindly...and they are in the same shame as the masses who believe science or philosophy simply because they're told.) In fact, in Scriptures Paul exemplified the Bereans for being more noble in that they searched it out to see if it was true. People who believe that one should simply have blind faith are a tad mistaken in my opinion.
There is a book, I forget the name, something like "You shall eat none of these things." or "None of these diseases" (something like that). And it addresses the kosherite laws regarding food. And how, the kosherite laws essentially eliminated many diseases from being communicated. They also prevented a decline of most top predators ensuring the sick and weak "prey" animals were eliminated helping to ensure healthier food populations. And they eliminated many creatures with potential for toxicity buildup. Now, in our day and age we understand bacteria, the need to cook things to a certain temperature to kill off bacteria, refrigeration, etc. Many of those potential pitfalls no longer plague us because of both our technology and our understanding. But how would you explain the consquences of microbiology to a man in 4th century B.C. Sure, you try to explain to him there are millions of tiny creatures living inside the meat, even inside of him. Some good and some bad. (And he'll think you're talking spirits not science.)
Anyways, the point is to show that there tend to be logical social reasons within most of the laws contained within religion. Before you criticize an individual for choosing to vote on a law in line with his religious beliefs. Ask, ask them "why,...what implecations are there...why do they think God would institute such, and why should they vote in such manner". (Now, don't ask the naive who is not well thought in any matter but ask one who is well thought out and who does seek understanding.) I can pretty much give an answer and reasoning behind all my decisions regarding laws and morality. Doesn't mean we'll agree. But I have my reasons and understandings.
[quote="legalbeagle"]
2) At the same time, you argue that the law ought to protect all beliefs, be based upon logic and science, be independent of religion. That is maintaining a strict divide between church and state, so that no single belief set based in any one religion can be imposed upon the populace as a whole.
|
There is a balance. For example: If all Bacharites believed in the eating of people with green eyes. Our society should not allow such. As it imposes outside the bounds of said religion with potential harms to non-members. Another example, Muslim head coverings for women. I do not believe such should be mandatory but I believe Muslims should have the right to wear such if they so choose. Now, this gets tricky. Because we forbid people to walk around naked...why? Why is it right to forbid such but we look upon women wearing headcoverings as restrictive and improper. While at the same time requiring women to keep their breasts covered? And this is exactly the issues that democracy and our Republic are designed to solve via a regulated form of democracy.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Phlogiston is an excellent example - scientifically theorised, researched, and ultimately disproved. Many other theories (including evolution) are overwhelmingly proved (proof = scientific definition of proof, not colloquial "proof") by scientific method. But always subject to refinement. |
I find that thru the study of the history of science. Many of the disproved and now laughed at theories were regarded and nearly overwhelmingly proved and accepted.
I for one believe our understanding of "C" (speed of light in a vacuum as a constant) is quite possibly incorrect. And that we will in time realize that we are greatly mistaken and have quite a bit of overhaul in our understanding of the universe because of this.
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
"Experiential" proof doesn't count. Plenty of people "see God" after a couple of hundred micrograms of LSD, but I don't think that qualifies as "proof." |
I myself am still waiting to see proof of evolution. I've seen proof of breeding. The ability to refine already existing traits so as to make them dominant. For instance. Greyhounds were bred for speed, sleekness and very short hair. A breed, is a reduced code library set. One can always take mutts and breed down to refined trait state. Two greyhounds, make two greyhounds. The amount of effort to derive a long haired St. Bernard type canine from a pair of greyhounds would be extremely challenging, if even possible.
When one points to a bacteria adapting or becoming resistant to anti-biotics. We are really seeing "breeding" of the bacteria to a refined state where the quality that gives a bacteria resistance to an anti-biotic has been brought to a dominant state. But that quality was already there.
Even looking at the human race, the difference between caucasian and african is still "melanin". Just in one, the trait of "melanin" has been made dominant.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 03:33:05 PM · #520 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Laws passed ages ago but still on the books in several parts of the country.
Yes, and baths are still illegal in Boston courtesy of Doctors. You're point? And in fact most states are in the processing of removing the blue "liqueur" laws. Few religious even care. They either don't drink and it's irrelevant. Or they think it's stupid. |
I also mentioned sodomy laws which, until very, very recently, were still being selectively enforced in parts of the country. My point was that people used their own personal religious beliefs to enact laws affecting all citizens including those who didnât agree with said religious beliefs. You non-bathing doctor is an example of bad science getting into public policy which is a different matter entirely.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Those were more cultural laws than anything else. |
No. Blue laws were specifically enacted for religious reasons.
Originally posted by theSaj:
You was plural not singular. (Sadly, english doesn't quite allow for differentiation. But i've been called it a few times on the site. So it was a general statement.) |
Fair enough.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
If Iâm reading you correctly, I currently disagree. Could you please clarify what you mean when you write âthat which our government establishes is by the beliefs of the peopleâ? People believe a lot of different things â not all of them true. |
The entire question is "what is the truth". Democracy, the entire reason for it's existence, is as a system to establish the truth. Although imperfect, it attempts to establish what the majority believe is true. This can, and has, led to grave mistakes. But it is the accepted method of determination within our country. |
I disagree. Democracy is not a system to determine what is âtruth.â Democracy is a system wherein each member participates in determining how best to govern themselves. As Iâve mentioned before, the United States is not a true democracy but rather a representative democracy with, as mentioned by legalbeagle, as series of checks and balances to help protect minorities from âmob rule,â including provisions which prevent the government from establishing religion for the nation. The meaning of âestablishmentâ and to what extent the First Amendment should apply is at the heart of what we are discussing.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by theSaj:
To forbid a person to act on their beliefs simply because they're religious is in fact to forbid religion. |
Does this include Islamic extremist suicide bombers or self-proclaimed Christians who murder doctors who perform abortions? |
Actually, it does... you see, it is not their beliefs in this case that cause addressing. But rather their actions. The act of a suicide bomber, or of the man who murdered an abortion doctor, is unacceptable. The reason one forbids in this case is not because it is a religious act, there are plenty of religious acts that cause no harm and many that benefit, but rather because of the acts of murder. Of which, our society deems deviant and abhorrent. |
So you are arguing for a restriction of religiously motivated acts which conflict with the laws of our current government. I would agree with you. I would also extend that argument to the making of laws in a religiously neutral society. Enacting laws purely based upon religious grounds is an act which infringes upon the religious minority and, in order to protect the religious minority, secular arguments for such laws must be made by all parties involved. I donât care that your religious. I care that any laws for which you argue affecting all members of society are religiously neutral.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
I would challenge your definitions. Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. It is not a positive statement. |
I'll accept the first revision... "atheism being the belief there is no God or gods." And disagree with the latter. As the lack of belief or indetermination of the existence of god or gods would be "modern agnostic" (as opposed to classical gnosticism, etc.). |
But you havenât, as you said you have, accepted my first revision. You left out the word âstrong.â Agnosticism can include the belief in the existence of unknowable gods. For instance, there may be invisible teapots orbiting the planet Saturn, but I donât consider myself âagnosticâ about their existence. In fact, I donât believe invisible teapots are orbiting Saturn, but Iâm willing to look at the evidence for their existence. In much the same way, I donât believe (or âIâm atheisticâ) about the existence of gods, but Iâm will to look at the evidence. What constitutes evidence can be saved for another discussion. I prefer âweak atheism.â
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
It is not the governmentâs job to tell the individual which religious beliefs are correct. |
But it seems that there is a trend to make it the job of the government to state which are wrong. And that is my issue of contention. |
It seems more that the government is, or should be, saying that it is wrong for one religious group to use government influence to tell another religious group that it is wrong. You can, for religious reasons, privately believe itâs wrong for people to wear clothing made out a mixed-weave cloth, but you canât have the religiously-neutral government or representatives of that government behave as if it were true.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
By injecting your religious beliefs into laws that affect all citizens, you, as the government, are effectively tell the citizen which religion is the correct religion and remove the rights of religious conscience of individuals who do not agree with your beliefs. |
Likewise, those with atheistic evolutionary beliefs, infused their views as well. One result was the concept of uber-human and sub-human. It was this concept that created cause for a pygmy african to be put in a zoo. And for the NAZI party to deem the Jews inhuman. |
Youâve gone far field and have scraped the lower depths with this reply. Science, by definition, is methodologically naturalistic and no more a religious belief than godless relativity, godless electromagnetism, godless astronomy, or godless gravity. Please refrain from trying to deflect the discussion. If you would care to discuss the validity of the Theory of Evolution and its abuse by those would distort it to justify their a priori prejudices, please start a new thread.
As a side note, I could bring up several instances of Hitler referring to his belief that he was doing the work of god, but that is neither here nor there. Unless we are actually talking about Nazis, please donât bring them up again. It only serves to degrade the discussion and make you appear as if youâre grasping at straws.
Originally posted by theSaj:
I state this to demonstrate that the issue is NOT as you would have it "religious beliefs" but rather beliefs in general. |
However, religious beliefs donât open themselves up to empirical testing and religious believers tend to ignore evidence which conflicts their religious beliefs.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Which stems from which? Do people believe because they are part of a religion? or do people join a religion because they believe? The chicken or the egg? Why does one accept the tenants of a religion? |
A vast majority of people in the world accept tenants of a particular faith because their parents taught them as children that the tenants of that faith were true.
Originally posted by theSaj:
For instance, if i felt stealing was okay then I likely would not be a practicing christian "for it says thou shalt not steal". |
Firstly, Christianity is not the only religion that has precepts against theft. Secondly, religion is not necessary for a moral code with the precept that stealing is wrong.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Now, fundementally what is the difference between being a religion and having beliefs, and being in a political party and having beliefs? By saying, that a religious individual should not be able to decide on laws based on his beliefs is idiotic. Should a Republican not be able to vote on laws because of his beliefs? (Oh, i forget, when it comes to court nominees this is the liberals belief.) |
Iâm not interested in discussing politics. Iâm sure there are others here who are more than willing to oblige you. Iâm saying, as Iâve said before, that a religious individual can vote on and contribute to the laws governing a group of people in a representative democracy without imposing his private religious beliefs on other members of society that donât share the same religious tenets. You say itâs idiotic because you donât understand my argument. If my religious beliefs, say, in the almighty Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, include that it is wrong to eat meat on Friday, I can still practice my beliefs without trying to force other members of society to abide by my personal religious beliefs.
Originally posted by theSaj:
But really, what should one base their belief on? Do you think the only reason christians believe murder is wrong is because they're christians? do you think if they STOPPED being a christian they would suddenly be okay with murder? |
Youâre the one who seems to be making that argument. I take it we agree that a person can be a moral person without religion?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well, guess what, I know quite a few people who once were christians and they STILL believe murder is wrong. So should they not be allowed to vote on laws according to their beliefs? |
I think youâre making my point for me here.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Religion, does not need a deity. There are numerous religions, philosophies, and ideologies that do not have a deity but are in deed religious. Religion is nothing more than a moral law or concept. |
I disagree. Such a broad definition of religion donât serve our discussion. I could define oranges as encompassing all citrus fruits, but that doesnât make it so.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Please, do tell me, just what one should base their beliefs upon? do you believe murder is wrong? theft? adultery? why? please show me how/why you believe such. Define the method of your understanding! Or are you simply carrying on hundreds of years of religious legacy. Do you have reasoning behind your decisions? (Note, I once sat there with a friend (atheist) and we endeavored to establish logical reasoning behind such outside of religion. We did so for afew based on certain presumptions we accepted. But I've been hard pressed to get most others to do the same. |
If I could convince you today that there were no gods, would you go out and start murdering, raping and robbing banks tomorrow? You suddenly act as if, if one were an atheist, there are no longer any consequences for ones actions. There are decisions I make every day that have consequence, both beneficial and detrimental to me, in the here and now. As far as my experience has taught me, there is no ultimate âpurposeâ to the universe, so I must create my own purpose. To an atheist, the realization he/she is the one wholly responsible for their actions and that their thoughts and beliefs are their own is the process of growing up. No more superstition, please.
âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equalâ is one of the finest political sentiments of the Enlightenment. Political equality does not depend on any gods because the âtruthsâ political equality are âself-evident.â Before you start your retort, my creator is a billions of year old process of evolution.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Where does one establish their morals (outside of one's gut or religious beliefs)?
Originally posted by milo655321:
There can and are religiously neutral arguments made by people of religious faith for laws that affect all citizens within a society. |
Please provide an example.... |
You donât think that are secular arguments against murder or theft? A religiously neutral argument can be made that murder of one individual by another individual is wrong.
As a follow up, since we are on the subject of morals and religion, let me ask you this: is something moral because (a) god(s) say(s) it is moral or is do morals exist apart from (a) god(s)?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Please show me a modern issue where there is no cause outside of a simple "the Bible said it"...please show me something (and not some 100 yr old law about not selling alcohol on Sundays). |
Get thee to a sodomy law.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Secular and religious arguments can coincide toward the same goal, but to rely solely upon an religious text in order to create laws that affect all citizens of a religiously diverse society serves to infringe upon the rights the religious minority. |
I have addressed every issue, from a religious and logic standpoint. Never, have I said, something is simply wrong without providing an understanding for it. Perhaps, if given more ear, one might understand that there is more behind the religious right than "these things are in a book". |
Great. If you can address something purely from a logic standpoint, the religious standpoint is superfluous to the discussion and need not be brought up.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Most of the contentious laws and those of real issue, have numerous additional arguments. I've yet to hear as many non-emotional arguments from the left as i've given out on occasion regarding abortion. To me, that is a "religious" argument on the part of the left. |
You can argue with someone else about the pros and cons of abortion. Secular arguments have been made both for and against its availability. I will just leave it by saying I will never, never, never get one.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Absolutely not....if there is an engraving on Grant's tomb, etc. I do not think that should be removed. Now, mind you, perhaps it should not be implemented on any new construction (excepting memorials in which the individuals made clear expression for such). But to me, that is dangerously in the realm of historical revisionism. |
I think I, for the most part, can agree to that.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Kinda like changing the text of the declaration of independence in all our schoolbooks to read: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by random chance with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." |
I would be against that. As a side note to be saved for the evolution thread you may feel free to start, you do know that the process of evolution (ânatural selectionâ) is not purely random chance, correct?
Originally posted by theSaj:
To me, that just seems wrong. I'd rather we keep our history accurate. Even if it might show our mistakes. I believe if we do not we are doomed to repeat them. Likewise, i think the changing of such would be most inappropriate. |
I agree. I donât think we should try to change our history, just as I donât think we should whitewash the bad parts of our history either ⦠religious or otherwise.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Funny, i have the same issue. But i also have an issue with the government infringing on that individual right. And thanks to the ACLU it has happened numerous times. |
Could you name some specific cases where the ACLU has infringed upon an individuals right to freedom of religion while not serving in a government sponsored function or as a governmental agent? There are cases where the ACLU has defended Christians seeking to express their beliefs as an individual in a public forum. For instance, the ACLU would fight the placing off a Ten Commandments upon the grounds of a county courthouse, but they would defend the rights of an individual to place a copy of the Ten Commandments on their own private property.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Than we have no contention. I speak in reference to those who opposed faith based iniatives (or more simply put, government finances towards tasks that federal monies have been ear-marked regardless of whether the provider of said service is religious or not. |
Then we have no contention. My reference is only to organizations that appear to be unable to separate their humanitarian efforts from their religious missions while receiving federal funds for the sole use of supporting their humanitarian efforts.
Originally posted by theSaj:
To me, it'd be silly to say that a religious doctor, perhaps a graduate of a catholic university even, who has a cross in his private practice should not be allowed to be paid by Medicare cause medicare is the federal government and that could be seen as establishment. Most people would say htat's crazy. Butg essentially many religious service providers are attacked in just that fashion. |
I think we can agree on this. The doctorâs purpose is medical and his practice is private and the doctor is not working solely as an agent of the government. Unless the doctor required the patient to listen to a sermon before treating him while receiving federal funds, I donât see how his private religious beliefs expressed in his private practice affect his performance as a doctor.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
I take it the Upside Down Tiddly-Winker Group is religiously neutral. Are there non-Christian religious groups receiving funds? |
No, but there are many "atheist" groups who received funds. |
Iâm curious. What are these âatheistâ groups and how do they promote atheism?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Who said your social program is unable to receive federal funding because of your religious faith? |
Various people i've encountered who believe no monies what so ever should ever be put in the hands of religious people. (Um, i agree when it comes to most tele-evangelists...*lol*) |
But under the faith based initiatives, a religious organization providing a purely humanitarian service should be eligible for federal funds so long as it can maintain a separation between those functions. I suppose we could both agree the main argument is what constitutes separation.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Religious organizations donât pay taxes in the US. |
Really, ever heard of the concept of church membership? The members pay taxes. For example: most church members tithed a percentage of their income. |
Now youâre stretching. Church membership is taken at the members own volition. Citizens within a religious membership are not exempt from taxes simply because they belong to a tax free organization.
Originally posted by theSaj:
If I make $50,000 and the government takes $10,000. The result is $40,000 and if one tithed (contributed) 10% that would be $4,000. |
Tithing to a religious institute is your own choice and not mandated by the government. Itâs a weak argument. You do not give up citizenship in a state simply by joining a religious organization.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Well, you call yourself a conservative and I call myself a moderate, so not âbothâ sides. Iâm sure there are others. |
I've never met a liberal who did not call themselves a moderate. *lol* But, in your case I'll actually grant you that I think you might be a moderate. |
Well, I could call myself more of a social liberal-economic conservative, if that will make you happy.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 04:00:22 PM · #521 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Hmmm, you didn't address the part about needing "proof" to believe that your kids or spouse loves you.
|
Whether they do or not has no significant impact on greater society. Their declarations and actions will suffice as evidence for a working hypothesis, until contradictory evidence is presented.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
As for your second paragraph, I'm not sure I would argue against that at all...not in this day and age, anyway. Even when Moses came back to rescue Israel from Egyptial slavery, he had "proof" that he was to be their leader...he didn't just say "hey everyone, believe me please".
Same with Jesus. According to his own words, the signs and miracles were integral to getting people to believe that he was the real thing. |
But nowadays we'd just say it was trick photography.
I personally haven't seen any "miracles" occur of the type Jesus is reported to have performed, and the only evidence we have for those miracles are anonymously-written eyewitness (or second-hand) 2000 year old reports, as translated from a "dead" language.
Given the known fallibility of eyewitness evidence (many studies done on the subject), I just cannot see any basis for believing that those writings are the result of a human channeling God.
One day I was walking to the bus when a guy asked me if I "believed in Jesus."
My response was that if we'd all spend more time living accoding to the rules He outlined, and less time arguing the question of his divinity, the world would be a lot better off.
Personally, I'd like to think that as rational human beings, being able to live in a stable society which cares for its disadvantaged -- perhaps the characteristic which truly distinguishes Homo sapiens from the "lower" animals -- is enough reward in itself to "do the right thing", without need for either the threat of eternal damnation nor the bribe of eternal bliss.
It really comes down to "rationalists" believing that humans are essentially good and that most will do the right thing because it's advantageous to a stable society to do so, while the religious believe that we are inherently evil and require the threat of Hell to keep us in line, rather like the criminal justice system.
So, which concept of humanity appeals to you more, rational beings who agree to live cooperatively, or ravenous beasts ready to devour each other the moment the lion tamer's back is turned? Do you really think most of us don't rob and steal and murder because of the threat of jail, or just because we think it's "wrong" to do so? |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 04:19:34 PM · #522 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, which concept of humanity appeals to you more, rational beings who agree to live cooperatively, or ravenous beasts ready to devour each other the moment the lion tamer's back is turned? Do you really think most of us don't rob and steal and murder because of the threat of jail, or just because we think it's "wrong" to do so? |
Hmmm, while you've tilted the options to make one a lot more appealing than the other, I'll still answer your question...but before I do, take note that the which concept is more appealing has nothing to do with what I would believe. The idea is to seek truth, not comfort. Strange that in one breath you would accuse the religious of soaking in platitudes while with the next breath you tell them they've chosen the more inconvenient belief.
Now, to your question...but first, let me rephrase the options to reflect a more neutral point of view from the questioner (or perhaps, inadvertently reflecting my point of view) with the recognition that you haven't provided the most comfortable option for me - the grey area.
Option 1) Humans are generally good. Evil can be explained by assuming that those humans which do acts of great evil are an anomaly.
Option 2) Humans are generally not good. Evil is the norm, and 'good humans' could be good for a number of reasons. Perhaps they are just an anomaly or they are being forced to 'be good' because of their belief in a higher power ready to punish them.
Option 3) Humans generally know good and know evil. Humans can do good and do evil. By default, humans in the world are generally filled with corruption (different connotation than evil). The connotation is that we know good, we can do good, but we often don't do good...we often serve self.
Option 3 is the one I believe. I think it best explains why people gossip, why I get irritated so quickly, why money and power are so tasty to people, why hunger and preventable disease happens when there are more than enough resources to stop it, why war happens over the pride of a country's leader, why it's not safe to walk around town at night, why we try to find a way around paying taxes, why I can't grow to like that noisy guy in the next cubicle, etc. I think that it helps to use the word corruption because I think most of us can see it in ourselves...we'd prefer not to call it evil, though.
I wanted to clarify that, because you make it sound like we're not evil because we don't rob and murder and rape...but we complain and grow bitter and lie. That to me indicates some sort of presence of ungoodness, whatever you wish to call it. And it's in all of us.
So hopefully that clarifies where I stand on this tiny piece of debate and that the two options you presented are incomplete and very black/whitish...
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 04:27:14 PM · #523 |
Being that this is already way off the original topic, I'll ask this. Do good and evil only exist as a result of religion over the course of times, or are good and evil functions of humanity that would exist with or without religion of any kind?
I guess it's a chicken and egg kind of thing. I know that as a child growing up, my ideas of good and evil were developed solely because of the threat of hell and the promise of heaven. If no religion existed, would I have been raised to believe that there was a "good" way to act and an "evil" way to act? That's rhetorical, btw.
I have done a lot of study in regard to nature vs. nurture...whether genetics or environment have more of an impact on child development over the course of time. I think that the study of good/evil vs. religion/lack thereof would be fascinating as well.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 04:30:40 PM · #524 |
| My ideas about good and evil were largely shaped without religious intervention -- I daresay they are pretty mainstream for all that, perhaps with a little less respect for greed and more concern for the truly disadvantaged than our current prominent Faith-based leadership. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 04:40:42 PM · #525 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
My ideas about good and evil were largely shaped without religious intervention -- I daresay they are pretty mainstream for all that, perhaps with a little less respect for greed and more concern for the truly disadvantaged than our current prominent Faith-based leadership. |
I have so much more respect for people when they just answer a question and don't take little jabs whenever they have the opportunity. Normally that doesn't describe you, General...but like I said before, anything having to do with christianity has you attacking like a cobra whenever you get the chance.
Personally, I would say my ideas of good and evil are now very much based on Jesus' words. More focus about the intent of the heart and motives for doing something rather than actual actions. Mind you, I know non-christians whose views on good/evil have also been shaped by the teachings of Jesus (as well as others).
The idea of a prostitute showing more 'goodness' than the religious leaders of the time were enough to piss off a lot of people, but it sits so well with me.
As for the president accurately representing "faith-based" views of good and evil, I know many christians who would disagree...a lot.
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 16:42:30. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:22:09 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 05:22:09 PM EDT.
|
