The impact of liberalism, secularism, and atheism on Catholicism

[Darryl_B]

Study military psychological warfare techniques. The simplistic idea that “our group has better ideas than your group” is a cover story. Oh sure, people don’t have to be Christians to have a workable idea that many could benefit from, but in the end, who is God? Man is god or God is God. Or is politics god? Which needs to be manipulated by the most well-funded and evangelical lobbyists until we “have the votes”?

Just be honest with yourself. Serve God or serve the god created by men. Here is the current impact as words are invented and old words/labels are relabeled. And old ideas repackaged.

"Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]

Commentary from The Practical Catholic:

“Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression. Political correctness has asked us to abandon our value-laden language and to pick up a new language proper to the secular forum. However, this secular newspeak is value-laden against the traditional claims of the Western world and as such, is a poison rather than a new order. We can and should bring our own conviction laden language to the table, if we’re going to have any sort of real dialogue at all. Misinformation and restrained convictions are not the proper building blocks for a democracy.”

I watched as the mass media gradually dripped poison into the Body of Christ over a 40 year period in the West. It didn’t happen by itself. The slow, gradual poison was accepted at first because it didn’t feel that bad but decade after decade, it kept getting worse. And worse.

Turn your back on it my brothers and sisters. Renounce it. Because it is literally not good for you.

Ed

Agreed my friend.

 

[Russell_SA]

Study military psychological warfare techniques. The simplistic idea that “our group has better ideas than your group” is a cover story. Oh sure, people don’t have to be Christians to have a workable idea that many could benefit from, but in the end, who is God? Man is god or God is God. Or is politics god? Which needs to be manipulated by the most well-funded and evangelical lobbyists until we “have the votes”?

Just be honest with yourself. Serve God or serve the god created by men. Here is the current impact as words are invented and old words/labels are relabeled. And old ideas repackaged.

Liberal values are demonstrably better than religious ones for a prosperous society:

1. Rule of Law instead of unalterable dictated pronouncements
2. Rights of all instead of a cast system of patriarchy
3. Freedom of speech instead of blasphemy laws
4. Everyone gets an equal say in the discussion, but every bat-s**t crazy idea is allowed its public ridicule because of the freedom of speech.
5. Good ideas are argued and reasoned and mutually agreed upon instead of read on tablets and then worked around to justify them.
6. Rights of women to be people
7. Rights of children to be people
8. Rights of people’s sexual private lives between consenting adults
9. Right to pee without harassment
10. Right to have a cake made for you by a public business as long as you can afford it, regardless of your private usage of it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Liberal values are demonstrably better than religious ones for a prosperous society:

Liberal values and religious values are mutually exclusive? Oh boy…

So what is the law predicated upon? According to the American Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

Concerning your disdain for dictated pronouncements, you seem woefully uneducated on how state-atheism worked during the 20th century…

Lastly, what is a “public business”? How does it differ from a “private enterprise”?

 

[Vonsalza]

I really don’t see a difference between “No Blacks Allowed” and “No Gay’s Allowed” in the cake business. Could you explain how that’s different because they seem to be the same to me, obviously.

Sorry, I missed this.

Sure. Being black is an inherent quality. It was not something they chose to be/not be. It is not a life-style or culture. Any statement otherwise is quintessentially racist by definition.

Being gay, however, has not been conclusively established as inherent, despite the zillions of articles on “the gay gene”. What little I touched on it in school, there appear to be a few different factors for generating homosexual behavior. I recall a curious case of identical twins where one was and one wasn’t. After all, if homosexuality was purely genetic, it sort of self-selects in favor of extinction, doesn’t it?

So if it’s behavioral, why do those bakers have to affirm that behavior in their products?

 

[Russell_SA]

Liberal values and religious values are mutually exclusive? Oh boy…

Fair-minded readers, did I imply this? No, I pointed out where liberal values superseded religious ones. There are values that the religious overlap with liberal values, but the liberal values always have been better for society through out history and it took a while for the religious organizations to change and adapt correctly. Unless you can point out where the religious values superseded liberal ones? I’d like to learn that so I could bring it into the future conversations where this topic comes up. But so far, it appears that religion is always 20 years behind the times from everyone else in just normal everyday society.

So what is the law predicated upon? According to the American Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

This is poetic language by the people of this time. Even if it was for religious reference, it is of no matter to me, since this country is now our country, not theirs. This country is a gift to the next generation that must maintain it, so what ever the founders intended it to be is irrelevant to me.

Concerning your disdain for dictated pronouncements, you seem woefully uneducated on how state-atheism worked during the 20th century…

Fair-minded readers, is this a red-herring here? I believe it is. I was discussing liberal values over religious ones, not about atheism. I’ll take this as an acknowledgement of my point and you concede to it’s validity and would like to now move on to discussing 20th century history. FYI: atheism is not a world view or political movement. Example: Person A believes that 2 exists based on the argument 3+1=2. Person B does not believe that 2 exists based on that bad reasoned presentation. Now, has Person B made any claims about 2 at all? No, no they haven’t. 2 may still exist. If Person A presented the argument of 3-1=2, then Person B would believe that 2 exists, but Person A did not. Now can you assume anything about the personal and political beliefs of Person B because of their response to the question about 2? No, no you can not.

Lastly, what is a “public business”? How does it differ from a “private enterprise”?

As I understand it, a public business is one that sales their goods to everyone in the community while a private enterprise sales their goods only within the confines of their group. So a cupcake business within a church, can sell only to the church members and can refuse sales to people outside that organization. Same as a private golf resort. If the cupcake business is on Main St., then they can not refuse sales to anyone in the public based on sexual orientation, but they can refuse sales to individual people that they think are just being a jerk to them. Or do you see this differently?

 

[Russell_SA]

Sorry, I missed this.

Sure. Being black is an inherent quality. It was not something they chose to be/not be. It is not a life-style or culture. Any statement otherwise is quintessentially racist by definition.

Being gay, however, has not been conclusively established as inherent, despite the zillions of articles on “the gay gene”. What little I touched on it in school, there appear to be a few different factors for generating homosexual behavior. I recall a curious case of identical twins where one was and one wasn’t. After all, if homosexuality was purely genetic, it sort of self-selects in favor of extinction, doesn’t it?

So if it’s behavioral, why do those bakers have to affirm that behavior in their products?

This argument never really works on me since I reference my personal experience of never choosing to be my sexual orientation, anymore than I assume, everyone else has too. To everyone else I’ve asked this to, they’ve never chosen their orientation either, regardless of nature vs nurture. So the idea of nature vs nurture is irrelevant to me since either way, we still don’t seem to make a choice in the mater. Or do you see this differently?

 

[Vonsalza]

Fair-minded readers, did I imply this?

Did you not state “Liberal values are demonstrably better than religious ones for a prosperous society:”?

The operator “than” serves here to exclude.

This is poetic language by the people of this time.

No, it is the selected basis for the given law. If you stayed awake in introductory civics, this would have been covered somewhere around day 2.

Fair-minded readers, is this a red-herring here? I believe it is. I was discussing liberal values over religious ones, not about atheism.

sigh

No, you stated “Rule of Law instead of unalterable dictated pronouncements” in your given context of “Liberal values are demonstrably better than religious ones”.

When Rule of Law is instituted in an officially non-religious society, it is indistinguishable from your rued “unalterable dictated pronouncements”. This is because the basis for law is solely the dictate of the state.

As I understand it, a public business is one that sales their goods to everyone in the community while a private enterprise sales their goods only within the confines of their group.

A private enterprise is literally any business not owned by the state.

 

[Vonsalza]

So the idea of nature vs nurture is irrelevant to me since either way, we still don’t seem to make a choice in the mater. Or do you see this differently?

I do.

 

[PDXSeeker_1975]

Liberal values are demonstrably better than religious ones for a prosperous society:

1. Rule of Law instead of unalterable dictated pronouncements
2. Rights of all instead of a cast system of patriarchy
3. Freedom of speech instead of blasphemy laws
4. Everyone gets an equal say in the discussion, but every bat-s**t crazy idea is allowed its public ridicule because of the freedom of speech.
5. Good ideas are argued and reasoned and mutually agreed upon instead of read on tablets and then worked around to justify them.
6. Rights of women to be people
   7) Rights of children to be people
7. Rights of people’s sexual private lives between consenting adults
8. Right to pee without harassment
9. Right to have a cake made for you by a public business as long as you can afford it, regardless of your private usage of it.

 

[Russell_SA]

Did you not state “Liberal values are demonstrably better than religious ones for a prosperous society:”?

The operator “than” serves here to exclude.

That is why I went on to explain that religious values can over lap with liberal ones because liberal values already started out with those values. There are bad religious values that I pointed out that liberal values always were better than religious ones on those points. That is why the descriptor “are demonstrably better than religious” because I have yet to come across religious values that were in place before liberal ones for the betterment of society. It’s always been the case that religion was dragged forward by liberal cultures, not vice versa. If you have examples where this was not the case, let me know or if you know of values that liberals have currently that are not conducive to the prosperous society, let me know.

No, it is the selected basis for the given law. If you stayed awake in introductory civics, this would have been covered somewhere around day 2.

I’ll try again then, these people were of a religious society, whether or not they themselves were personally religious or not, so this language is just poetic to me, just as Disney’s references to Poseidon for the law of the sea would be.

No, you stated “Rule of Law instead of unalterable dictated pronouncements” in your given context of “Liberal values are demonstrably better than religious ones”.

When Rule of Law is instituted in an officially non-religious society, it is indistinguishable from your rued “unalterable dictated pronouncements”. This is because the basis for law is solely the dictate of the state.

Laws can be changed by the people submitting to be governed. Can you change the laws of heaven and hell that you are subject to? Do you have a choice to be subject to those laws or does society have a choice to be governed by those dictations by the dear leader?

A private enterprise is literally any business not owned by the state.

Ok, so in our culture, any company that services the general public are bound by the laws of the land to serve anyone in that public space regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If they do not, go setup in a church or private club.

Hope you’ve got the day off today. I’m stuck at work, but since everyone took the day off, it’s pretty slow here today.

 

[Russell_SA]

I do.

So you’d be the first person to have “chosen” your orientation I’ve met. I go by what is statistically the norm though.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s always been the case that religion was dragged forward by liberal cultures, not vice versa.

Interesting. I always heard primarily religious arguments for the abolition of American slavery while the arguments against were largely economic and anti-interventionist.

I’ll try again then, these people were of a religious society, whether or not they themselves were personally religious or not, so this language is just poetic to me, just as Disney’s references to Poseidon for the law of the sea would be.

If you’d like to change the basis of personal freedom from something religious, what non-arbitrary thing do you suggest for replacement?

Can you change the laws of heaven and hell that you are subject to?

Matthew 18:18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be** loosed in heaven.”

Do you have a choice to be subject to those laws or does society have a choice to be governed by those dictations by the dear leader?

How much of this theoretical freedom do you actually think you have right now? Especially in this age of Comrade Trump… Conflict theory needs no religion to exist.

Ok, so in our culture, any company that services the general public are bound by the laws of the land to serve anyone in that public space regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If they do not, go setup in a church or private club.

As Bradski and I agreed in a sort of back-handed way, those boundary lines are still being set; if they are ever fixed at all.

So you’d be the first person to have “chosen” your orientation I’ve met. I go by what is statistically the norm though.

When asking if I disagreed with your complex statement, you assumed which regard. I think you may have chosen incorrectly. I reject “So the idea of nature vs nurture is irrelevant to me”.

I don’t think it’s irrelevant.**

 

[Russell_SA]

Interesting. I always heard primarily religious arguments for the abolition of American slavery while the arguments against were largely economic and anti-interventionist.

How I understand it, cultural christian people were involved in the abolition, just as secular people were. Were they on hopping on at the end when the cultural push against it was strong? Not sure. But we can reference how the cultural christian people are jumping the LGBT movement and see that as a data point to look at to see how the religious help promote liberal change at the end of the movement. It’s the end of the movement once the religious begin to shift their anti-LGBT stances that promoted this bigotry to begin with. Biblically though, it is indefensible to say that the bible is a good reference for being anti-slave as well as pro-LGBT.

Can you point to liberal values that were promoting slavery at that time? I was not talking about the governmental power in charge, but about liberal values.

If you’d like to change the basis of personal freedom from something religious, what non-arbitrary thing do you suggest for replacement?

Having a moral compass that is from “god’s law written on our hearts” vs “directed natural evolutionary instincts written on our hearts”, both are no different since the results are the same and we can’t tell a difference between the two. So their reference to the divine, just comes across to me as poetic language.

Matthew 18:18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be** loosed in heaven.”**
Is it talking about people’s attitudes that they bring with them to the situation? So if you play baseball in reality but sulk a lot when you strike out, you will sulk a lot when you strike out playing baseball in heaven? But both areas, you still have to abide by the rules of baseball. No one that I have meet have ever presented the case that they can tell god how they would like to be governed or not and that deity actually implementing those changes.
Vonsalza;14753846:

How much of this theoretical freedom do you actually think you have right now

? Especially in this age of Comrade Trump… Conflict theory needs no religion to exist.
This world and government is temporary and alterable, the idea of your deity and supernatural realms is not or do you think that is a wrong assessment based on the normal conversation everyone understands about this topic?

As Bradski and I agreed in a sort of back-handed way, those boundary lines are still being set; if they are ever fixed at all.

Of course, because it is up to the people to create the governmental laws they want to be governed under. I agree here.

When asking if I disagreed with your complex statement, you assumed which regard. I think you may have chosen incorrectly. I reject “So the idea of nature vs nurture is irrelevant to me”.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. People’s personal reasons for living the good life is lower than their application of living the good life to me. If someone else’s expressions of love towards the people they love and those people accept and reciprocate that love with each other, both consensually and respectfully to each other without interfering with others, then I really don’t care how they choose to express that. They can get together, wear wookie outfits and watch Will and Grace or do anything else that gives other people an “icky” factor. But “icky” isn’t an argument to me, that is the only way I have seen the religious argument go for being anti LGBT. I don’t really see this as a moral issue at all. It’s like saying sitting on the couch next to your lover is immoral.

 

[Vonsalza]

Can you point to liberal values that were promoting slavery at that time? I was not talking about the governmental power in charge, but about liberal values.

No. The “liberals” here were religious people citing their religion.

…“god’s law…” vs “directed natural evolutionary instincts…”, …we can’t tell a difference between the two.

I disagree. God’s law universally condemns rape. Natural evolutionary instinct does not. Moreover, most sexual reproduction across sexual species is non-consensual.

Is it talking about people’s attitudes that they bring with them to the situation?

No. He (Christ) is talking about the visible Church’s right and responsibility to change where it can and should.

This world and government is temporary and alterable, the idea of your deity and supernatural realms is not or do you think that is a wrong assessment based on the normal conversation everyone understands about this topic?

I don’t strongly subscribe to the notion of “Truth via Bandwagon”. And I think “this world and government is temporary and alterable” is substantially less true that you think.

On the flip side, the interpretation of “deity and supernatural realms” is substantially more fluid than you think as well. However, there are a few things “etched in stone”. No different from your perception of secular law.

If … they love … each other without interfering with others, then I really don’t care how they choose to express that.

I think the owners of the bakery would argue that they are being interfered with.

 

[Russell_SA]

No. The “liberals” here were religious people citing their religion.

This is where there is an overlapping agenda between the culturally religious people and the secular liberals that were fighting to free the slaves. But there are direct texts within the bible referenced from the direction of the deity that instruct people on how to treat and own people as property. So I can link christianity’s texts to the promotion and institution of slavery, but I don’t need religious texts for the ending of it. Again though, can you point to any liberal movements and values that the religious were ahead of those groups on? I know this seems unfair to imply that all positive social movements are based on liberal values, so that’s why I keep asking for examples of where the religious were ahead of the times socially than the rest of the country. That’s why I had a limited list of how liberal values still supersede the religious ones now.

I disagree. God’s law universally condemns rape. Natural evolutionary instinct does not. Moreover, most sexual reproduction across sexual species is non-consensual.

Are there not passages in the bible where god directs his conquering armies to keep the virgin women as spoils of war? Where the mob asking for the angles being kept in his home were mollified by the father giving up his daughters as playthings instead. The implication of how god values women is very clear there and promotes violence towards women.

Evolutionary, we may have started off with rape as part of our culture since we didn’t really live much longer after child rearing age. Now that we have the ability to survive long beyond child bearing and raising, we have evolved our other social skills to be just as much or more so than just reproducing. This is why our psychological well-being is just as important as our physical well-being. We will go insane if subjected to just a rape object and that insane person would not be able to care for a child and thus those cultures would die off and be removed from the gene pool. Since we only have evidence for a natural reality and we do have evidence of people acting morally towards each other, isn’t that evidence for a naturally evolved social creature with social values towards each other? Where is the evidence for a supernatural source of this that matches with the evidence of a natural reality? And the argument for “It has to be this way because without it would be bad.” is an argument of “I don’t like how reality presents itself, therefore I’ll present my own that I like.” How we would prefer reality to be has no bearing on how it actually presents itself.

No. He (Christ) is talking about the visible Church’s right and responsibility to change where it can and should.

Okay, not too familiar with the bible and it’s contexts when one sentence is taken out. So the church can and should change this world, but the point was does it have the power to change the divine realms on how those realms are governed? Personally I would not want to be governed in a realm with thought crime, so where would I go to if I can’t change that?

I don’t strongly subscribe to the notion of “Truth via Bandwagon”. And I think “this world and government is temporary and alterable” is substantially less true that you think.

I don’t either, ideas stand on their own or don’t. But is it “bandwagon” to say that 1+1=2? We all agree on a good idea or one that is reasoned out. We all can become convinced. Is that bandwagon? If so, I’m not too worried about it if we can not find a reason why that is the current best solution to the problem. Once we discover or argue for a better one, then I’ll change. But it has to be discussed and presented first.

On the flip side, the interpretation of “deity and supernatural realms” is substantially more fluid than you think as well. However, there are a few things “etched in stone”. No different from your perception of secular law.

Sorry, I was under the assumption that in the deity’s realm, it’s laws were immutable. I can hang out with a deity that allows us to govern ourselves and it is involved in the discussion as much as we are for coming to a consensus of living the good life. But that does not appear to be biblically accurate to me though or what has been presented as the norm on this topic.

I think the owners of the bakery would argue that they are being interfered with.

Their business is open to the public and as such, can not discriminate against their customers based on bigotry. They can if the people are jerks on an individual basis, IE: We can exercise the right to refuse service to anyone. Anyone can choose to be a jerk unless they have a mental disorder.

 

[Vonsalza]

This is where there is an overlapping agenda between the culturally religious people and the secular liberals that were fighting to free the slaves.

Well, then we certainly can’t separate them cleanly, can we?

Are there not passages in the bible where god directs his conquering armies to keep the virgin women as spoils of war?

God? Nope. Other dudes? Yeah.

The implication of how god values women is very clear there and promotes violence towards women.

I’m not so sure it is clear there. Is is addressed clearly here:
She is worth far more than rubies. (Prov. 31:10)
The passage seems to suggest a value that transcends material wealth…

Evolutionary, we may have started off with rape as part of our culture since we didn’t really live much longer after child rearing age.

Flatly incorrect. Before written history, if you made it to 15, you were probably going make it to your 50s.

Your entire argument based on your feelings here is thus virtually unfounded.

Personally I would not want to be governed in a realm with thought crime, so where would I go to if I can’t change that?

If God or the state have deemed it as necessary, there’s nowhere you can go. Thus this isn’t a suitable basis for marginal distinction.

I don’t either, ideas stand on their own or don’t. But is it “bandwagon” to say that 1+1=2?

No, but it is bandwagon when you say “…based on the normal conversation everyone understands about this topic?”.

But that does not appear to be biblically accurate to me though or what has been presented as the norm on this topic.

To put it roughly, “tradition” can be changed, but “Tradition” can’t (notice the “t”).

Either way, we would likely agree that if objective reality exists, it does so fully independent of whatever-the-hell you or I think/feel about it. To drive the point home, if you think gravity is somehow unfair; tough. Deal with it as best you can because it is reality.

Their business is open to the public and as such, can not discriminate against their customers based on bigotry.
We can exercise the right to refuse service to anyone.

Appears you have a disharmony there…

 

[Russell_SA]

Well, then we certainly can’t separate them cleanly, can we?

There is an overlap of commonality, so it implies that you do not need religion to stop slavery. The values of liberal ideas is the over arching commonality. You can use christian biblical references to start slavery though.

God? Nope. Other dudes? Yeah.

Numbers 31:18 God and Moses’ battle against the Midianites
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

Oy now that’s taking up useless space in my head. Limited space for other useless knowledge.

I’m not so sure it is clear there. Is is addressed clearly here:
She is worth far more than rubies. (Prov. 31:10)
The passage seems to suggest a value that transcends material wealth…

Is there anywhere in the bible that men, not male slaves, but free men are compared in value to items of trade? This passage implies that women are a tradable commodity. Yes they are valued more than rubies, but less than…? If not, then why are there no passages at all about the value of men in comparison to rubies, cattle, oxen, trade goods? Women are never to be compared to tradable goods in their worth, but to their innate value as people.

Flatly incorrect. Before written history, if you made it to 15, you were probably going make it to your 50s.

Your entire argument based on your feelings here is thus virtually unfounded.

Disagree completely based on the points I presented. Good thing we got over those cultural values that compared women’s worth to rubies. But I see your point, it does take time to change our cultural values. Just as it took millions of years for social evolution to evolve, it’s not a quick process. But it gets faster with the ease of access to information and cultural dialogue that is not suppressed through blasphemy laws.

If God or the state have deemed it as necessary, there’s nowhere you can go. Thus this isn’t a suitable basis for marginal distinction.

I can keep fighting the government till there is a change in this till it kills me and I can escape it. Can I do the same in the divine north korea of heaven?

No, but it is bandwagon when you say “…based on the normal conversation everyone understands about this topic?”.

It’s not unreasonable to assume that most religious people of a certain faith have the norms of that faith. Individual who do not follow those norms need to explain why they do not agree and are expected to explain why they think their views are correct in the face of the mainstream cultural presentation of those religions. For example, RINO - Republican In Name Only. They are expected to explain why they differ from the norm of the party to clarify assumed positions that go with that label of Republican.

To put it roughly, “tradition” can be changed, but “Tradition” can’t (notice the “t”).

Either way, we would likely agree that if objective reality exists, it does so fully independent of whatever-the-hell you or I think/feel about it. To drive the point home, if you think gravity is somehow unfair; tough. Deal with it as best you can because it is reality.

Sounds good, just hope that becomes the normal presentation instead of the inerrancy of the deity. This sounds like a shift to follow good for its goodness, regardless of the deity involved. Looks like progress of a sort.

Appears you have a disharmony there…

I’ll leave that to the fair-minded readers’ intelligence to follow that conversation. I don’t think their that thick.

 

[Vonsalza]

There is an overlap of commonality, so it implies that you do not need religion to stop slavery. The values of liberal ideas is the over arching commonality. You can use christian biblical references to start slavery though.

Oh trust me, you don’t need the OT of the bible to have slavery. The practice predates the written word likely by millennia.

Numbers 31:18 God and Moses’ battle against the Midianites

Ah, good ole Numbers 31. A supposedly just God certainly seems to allow for slavery of some fashion, doesn’t he?
Still lookin’ for where God commanded rape…

This passage implies that women are a tradable commodity.

I don’t want to damage your post-modern sensibility, but before the advent of bankruptcy laws, all slaves were tradable commodities regardless of the equipment between their legs. And if you got into more debt than you could repay - congrats! You were a slave too!

Yes they are valued more than rubies, but less than…?

So context counts when you need it to, but not when others do?

Disagree completely based on the points I presented. Good thing we got over those cultural values that compared women’s worth to rubies. But I see your point, it does take time to change our cultural values. Just as it took millions of years for social evolution to evolve, it’s not a quick process. But it gets faster with the ease of access to information and cultural dialogue that is not suppressed through blasphemy laws.

Fair-minded readers can identify extemporizing and hand-waving…

I can keep fighting the government till there is a change in this till it kills me and I can escape it. Can I do the same in the divine north korea of heaven?

I agree. The ultimate basis for a perfectly secular government is “The Right of Might.” It’s the only one that fits a naturalist view.

It’s not unreasonable to assume that most religious people of a certain faith have the norms of that faith. Individual who do not follow those norms need to explain why they do not agree and are expected to explain why they think their views are correct in the face of the mainstream cultural presentation of those religions. For example, RINO - Republican In Name Only. They are expected to explain why they differ from the norm of the party to clarify assumed positions that go with that label of Republican.

More hand-waving…

Sounds good, just hope that becomes the normal presentation instead of the inerrancy of the deity.

Oh they’re not mutually exclusive. Rather the opposite.

I’ll leave that to the fair-minded readers’ intelligence to follow that conversation. I don’t think their that thick.

So, cop-out?

Thanks for the chat.

 

[edwest2]

Fair-minded readers, did I imply this? No, I pointed out where liberal values superseded religious ones. There are values that the religious overlap with liberal values, but the liberal values always have been better for society through out history and it took a while for the religious organizations to change and adapt correctly. Unless you can point out where the religious values superseded liberal ones? I’d like to learn that so I could bring it into the future conversations where this topic comes up. But so far, it appears that religion is always 20 years behind the times from everyone else in just normal everyday society.

This is poetic language by the people of this time. Even if it was for religious reference, it is of no matter to me, since this country is now our country, not theirs. This country is a gift to the next generation that must maintain it, so what ever the founders intended it to be is irrelevant to me.

Fair-minded readers, is this a red-herring here? I believe it is. I was discussing liberal values over religious ones, not about atheism. I’ll take this as an acknowledgement of my point and you concede to it’s validity and would like to now move on to discussing 20th century history. FYI: atheism is not a world view or political movement. Example: Person A believes that 2 exists based on the argument 3+1=2. Person B does not believe that 2 exists based on that bad reasoned presentation. Now, has Person B made any claims about 2 at all? No, no they haven’t. 2 may still exist. If Person A presented the argument of 3-1=2, then Person B would believe that 2 exists, but Person A did not. Now can you assume anything about the personal and political beliefs of Person B because of their response to the question about 2? No, no you can not.

As I understand it, a public business is one that sales their goods to everyone in the community while a private enterprise sales their goods only within the confines of their group. So a cupcake business within a church, can sell only to the church members and can refuse sales to people outside that organization. Same as a private golf resort. If the cupcake business is on Main St., then they can not refuse sales to anyone in the public based on sexual orientation, but they can refuse sales to individual people that they think are just being a jerk to them. Or do you see this differently?

A review on amazon.com “Keep your Bible out of my government.” The former USSR collapsed. This kind of thinking will also collapse. Time changes nothing. Only people change things.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

A review on amazon.com “Keep your Bible out of my government.” The former USSR collapsed. This kind of thinking will also collapse. Time changes nothing. Only people change things.

Secularists are nothing but equal opportunity advocates. So it’s ALL scripture. ALL religious laws. ALL demands born of supernatural beliefs.

And Ed, you are with me 100% on this with the one exception. You want your specific religion to be exempt.

It has always been thus.