149 replies to this topic

[arunma]

Originally posted by Ganondorf@Sep 17 2004, 04:20 PM
I don't believe in a Trinity and I have read the bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You'd get along well with Davogones.

Not that I don't get along well with Davogones too. We just have our differences in opinion on the Trinity. Despite believing in the Trinity myself, I admit he provides a really good argument against it.

[Ganondorf]

You know, Jesus said that we're all sons of God, thus the prayer Our FATHER.

[Oberon Storm]

Originally posted by Dirk Amoeba@Sep 17 2004, 03:01 PM
::sigh::

Free Exercise, Free Exercise, Free Exercise. And for good measure, Free Exercise.

The constitution says all religions are acceptable, but for some reason we read this as "all religions are UNacceptable." If you claim that religion has no place in politics, that's a restriction frrom Free Exercise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it isn't. We say religion has no place in politics because religion should not decide policy. It is OK for the senators and congressmen to pray in chambers because that prayer is not deciding policy. The motto "In God We Trust" is OK because that is not policy.

What is not OK is administrative led prayer in public schools (student led is just fine) even if the students are given a choice. That creates an atmoshphere where someone who does not participate can be harrased and ridiculed. It is kind of the same thing when talking about displaying the Ten Commandments in a court room. Undue pressure is place on those that do not believe in the Ten Commandments even if it is just a fundamental law of man not to kill.

And then there is the issue of gay marriage. The only reason anyone can give for banning it is the sanctity of marriage. Banning gay marriage to protect sanctity is using religion to create policy. Besides, the idea of marriage and the exchange of properety (ie dowry and bride prices) predate the Bible. And other faiths that do not believe in God have marriage. But that is another argument.

As for abortion, it gets more complicated. The is some science behind reasons for its illegalization. But then there is science that argues against that. But you cannot use religion as a reason banning abortion.

See what I am saying? It is OK for politicians to use faith to GUIDE their decisions but not make policy over it.

[Flint]

Originally posted by Chief Fire Storm@Sep 17 2004, 05:50 PM
No it isn't. We say religion has no place in politics because religion should not decide policy. It is OK for the senators and congressmen to pray in chambers because that prayer is not deciding policy. The motto "In God We Trust" is OK because that is not policy.

What is not OK is administrative led prayer in public schools (student led is just fine) even if the students are given a choice. That creates an atmoshphere where someone who does not participate can be harrased and ridiculed. It is kind of the same thing when talking about displaying the Ten Commandments in a court room. Undue pressure is place on those that do not believe in the Ten Commandments even if it is just a fundamental law of man not to kill.

And then there is the issue of gay marriage. The only reason anyone can give for banning it is the sanctity of marriage. Banning gay marriage to protect sanctity is using religion to create policy. Besides, the idea of marriage and the exchange of properety (ie dowry and bride prices) predate the Bible. And other faiths that do not believe in God have marriage. But that is another argument.

As for abortion, it gets more complicated. The is some science behind reasons for its illegalization. But then there is science that argues against that. But you cannot use religion as a reason banning abortion.

See what I am saying? It is OK for politicians to use faith to GUIDE their decisions but not make policy over it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Two thumbs way, way up for that.

[arunma]

Originally posted by Ganondorf@Sep 17 2004, 04:32 PM
You know, Jesus said that we're all sons of God, thus the prayer Our FATHER.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus said that we're sons of God, but we're sons of God through him. He's the Son of God (without the capital S, because there are no caps in ancient Greek).

[Flint]

The state does NOT impose Agnosticism. It doesn't impose any belief.

Also.. arunma, you posted this in the "We We Are" thread, and since we aren't to be debating in there, i'll bring it here.

Originally posted by arunma
Regarding religion in politics. Religion should play an important role in politics, but I certainly don't want the state taking over the church.

Now, I can't help but see anything but hypocrisy in that statement. Religion should be included in government, but state law has to keep its feet out of houses of worship?

State isn't going to "take over" church. Separation of Church and State exists to prevent religious fanatics from ruling the state on their beliefs, thus negating freedom of religion. Not the other way around.

[arunma]

Originally posted by Flint@Sep 17 2004, 09:53 PM
Now, I can't help but see anything but hypocrisy in that statement. Religion should be included in government, but state law has to keep its feet out of houses of worship?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You were right to bring that up here instead.

Anyway, how is that statement hypocritical? All religions can play an equal role in government. Letting atheism have a corner market on politics is hypocritical.

[Flint]

I mean its hypocritical to say religion is allowed to get involved with government, but government isn't allowed to touch religion.

Thats like saying...well.. I can't come up with an anology.

[arunma]

Originally posted by Flint@Sep 17 2004, 10:09 PM
Thats like saying...well.. I can't come up with an anology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can. It's like saying that the NRA can mess with the government, but the government can't mess with the NRA.

Wait...that does happen!

[Flint]

That works.

[arunma]

So you see that the hypocrisy is when you give this freedom to secular groups like the NRA, but deny it to religious institutions simply because they are religion-oriented. Right?

[Flint]

But i'm not saying religious people can't run for government office. i'm saying religious views (which only matter to the individuals who have and share these views) need to be kept seperate from political decisions (which matter to the whole, secular nation.)

[arunma]

Why only religious views and not NRA views? The NRA has killed more people than Christianity has (in America, at least).

[Flint]

I don't know enough about the NRA to really comment further. In fact, all I know about the NRA is that it stands for National Rifle Association.

[arunma]

It's not just the NRA. Literally hundreds of lobbyists are at Capitol Hill every day peddling their political wares. Why are only religious "lobbyists" disallowed?

[GraniteJJ]

Originally posted by arunma@Sep 17 2004, 11:32 PM
It's not just the NRA.  Literally hundreds of lobbyists are at Capitol Hill every day peddling their political wares.  Why are only religious "lobbyists" disallowed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because religious lobbyists would be everyone? You've claimed many a time that atheism is a religion. By your own definition, every lobbyist is disallowed. :S

[arunma]

Originally posted by GraniteJJ@Sep 17 2004, 10:35 PM
Because religious lobbyists would be everyone? You've claimed many a time that atheism is a religion. By your own definition, every lobbyist is disallowed. :S

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh, I can't say that's a bad thing!

But seriously. We're talking about Flint's opinion on who should be allowed to influence the government and who shouldn't. Not my opinion.

[Oberon Storm]

Originally posted by Dirk Amoeba@Sep 17 2004, 09:10 PM
The state right now imposies a religion: agnosticism. My point is that if you want to run on religious platforms, do it. If you want to vote a certain way because you believe it is God's will, do it. If you want to make a law that interferes with religion: No no no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like Flint said, the state doesn't impose anything. Or at least it isn't supposed to. To run on a religious platform or to pass a law because you believe it is God's will is creating policy based on what a specific religion says and that is wrong in a nation like our, not only because the Constitution does not allow it.

Arunma. We have been over this a million times. Before and now after the hack. Atheism does not have "a corner market on politics". In the last post I made I stated that the concept of separation of church and state allows for politicians to be guided by their beliefs. They just cannot creat policy based on ANY diety's will.

I think something peole are forgetting is that the separation of church and state doesn't only keep religion out of politics. It keeps politics out of religion. I use the gay marriage issue as an example. While that separation says we cannot ban it, it also means we cannot force a church to perform gay marriages because it would infringe on their right to free excersize.

The lobbyist thing will be hard to explain. Let me think on it.

[Flint]

But seriously. We're talking about Flint's opinion on who should be allowed to influence the government and who shouldn't. Not my opinion.

Its not who should be allowed to influence, but what. Not everybody in this nation shares the same religious belief. therefore, our government shouldn't run on the basis of or support a particular religion.

[Oberon Storm]

Originally posted by Flint@Sep 17 2004, 10:56 PM
Its not who should be allowed to influence, but what. Not everybody in this nation shares the same religious belief. therefore, our government shouldn't run on the basis of or support a particular religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah. People like Jerry Falwell just need to realize that. They can lobby all they want. Just like the NRA can lobby to their hearts content.

[arunma]

Originally posted by Chief Fire Storm@Sep 17 2004, 10:55 PM
I think something peole are forgetting is that the separation of church and state doesn't only keep religion out of politics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK.

But like you said; some people are forgetting that.

[Alakhriveion]

OK, here's the deal- We'll teach evolution in schools, and you won't have to write it into the bible. Mmmkay?

[SteveT]

In the case of microevolution, that's letting atheism control politics, and interfering with religious freedom.

[arunma]

Originally posted by Alakhriveion@Sep 18 2004, 01:19 PM
OK, here's the deal- We'll teach evolution in schools, and you won't have to write it into the bible.  Mmmkay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've got a better deal. We'll teach Bible-based creationism in school, and all evolutionists are burned at the stake as witches.

[Alakhriveion]

Hmm... I'm gonna have to go with "no" on that one.

[Flint]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 18 2004, 02:25 PM
In the case of microevolution, that's letting atheism control politics, and interfering with religious freedom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How is teaching evolution (which is science) letting atheism "control politics"?

Schools aren't saying "this is what happened 30 million years ago and this is where humans came from" by teaching evolution.

[Alakhriveion]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 18 2004, 01:25 PM
In the case of microevolution, that's letting atheism control politics, and interfering with religious freedom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. Schools tech the truths that can be proven better than others. If you want to teach according to something else, like alien seeding or the bible, you have to do it yourself. So, as long as you stop bothering us for it, we let you keep your sunday schools and bibles and let you treat children what you want. The Reciprocity of Church/State seperation, like we've been saying.

[arunma]

Originally posted by Flint@Sep 18 2004, 01:49 PM
Schools aren't saying "this is what happened 30 million years ago and this is where humans came from" by teaching evolution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If what you say is true, then why is the school teaching a lie? If they're going to teach evolution, they better admit that they consider it to be true.