Will we survive religion?

[Mirdath]

In other words neutral toward all religions, not “only atheism, agnosticism and maybe secular humanism are allowed while others are forbidden”

Yes, and I see no indication that it’s any way other than that.

Unfortunately, this has been overruled by court cases which basically outlaw theism in any shape way or form on government property. You really need more up to date documents.

Key words: on government property. Atheism is still a theistic hypothesis, and it is not allowed to proselytize there either. The Church of Satan, an atheist organization, is just as barred from putting up the Satanic Code on courthouse walls as the Catholic Church is.

But that’s the thing: We have judges trying to forbid anyone from even mentioning Jesus’ name or get tossed in jail. People are fired for just saying the G-word. We’re not talking about people trying to forcefully convert using government power. We’re talking basic freedom of speech being stepped on if someone dares to posit a theistic viewpoint.

Anecdote for anecdote: I’ve seen people fired for being non-theists.

This is 100% equivalent to ATHEISM IS THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RELIGION.

Nonsense. Agnosticism is, however, the official government stance, and that is quite a different thing.

And where is freedom FROM religion in the constitution? If someone is not a theist, they’re practicing another religion: Atheism or Agnosticism. Humans, if they’re not worshipping the supernatural, will worship the natural (like mirrors, for example, as many politicians and celebrities do)

Freedom from religion is in the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights. ‘Congress shall make no law regarding…’ etc. doesn’t just give us the choice of which part of the giant religious buffet to partake, it gives us the choice not to go to the buffet at all.

Agnosticism is by definition not a religion.

“If there is no God, therefore I am a god” - that’s the logical conclusion.

Intermediate steps please?

So where do they get off outlawing murder, rape, child molesting, sexual harassment, and the like? All that moralizing needs to be away from government, right?

That’s not (necessarily) moralizing, it’s ethicizing. Ethicizing is the government’s job, and God need not be present for it.

Agnosticism is a religion. Its theology is that 1) God’s existence cannot be known and 2) there is no way to know which religion (including atheism) is right and 3) There is no way to know if there is an afterlife.

Theology? Check.

Quack. What a nice duck.

Just try answering ‘uhh… I don’t know’ on a theology exam and see how far that takes you. Many agnostics simply aren’t interested in questions of God or religion. Agnosticism is the absence of theology – there’s no defined ‘theo’ to study.

Now, show me ONE COURT RULING that PROHIBITS ATHEISM, or AGNOSTICISM or SECULAR HUMANISM on government property.

I guess only certain religions are permitted on government property, eh?

Aside from agnosticism and secular humanism not being religions, organized atheists aren’t nearly as missionary-minded as you guys, minus a couple annoying exceptions. Give them some time, you’ve had 2000 years to evangelize the unwilling, they’ve only had a few decades. But if they do try to evangelize on government property, I have every expectation they’ll be kicked right off it.

And the idea of agnostic missionaries is just absurd. ‘Whatever, where can I get a bagel?’ doesn’t make many converts and isn’t trying to.

 

[BobCatholic]

Yes, and I see no indication that it’s any way other than that.

That’s false. If I were to mention Jesus’ name at a high school graduation, a texas judge would throw me in jail. If I were to say “there is no God” - that would not violate that court ruling.
Anti-Christianity is permitted on government property.

Key words: on government property. Atheism is still a theistic hypothesis, and it is not allowed to proselytize there either. The Church of Satan, an atheist organization, is just as barred from putting up the Satanic Code on courthouse walls as the Catholic Church is.

Show me the court ruling that says atheism, agnosticism and secular is not allowed on government property. Is there a reason why you’re avoiding this?

Nonsense. Agnosticism is, however, the official government stance, and that is quite a different thing.

You haven’t proven that Atheism, Agnosticism or Secular Humanism is not permitted on government property yet. Not one court case citation.

Not one.

So are you expecting me to accept your claim on blind faith?
And I did also say that Agnosticism is the official government religion as well. As is secular humanism. In addition to Atheism.

Freedom from religion is in the Establishment Clause in the Bill of Rights. ‘Congress shall make no law regarding…’ etc. doesn’t just give us the choice of which part of the giant religious buffet to partake, it gives us the choice not to go to the buffet at all.

So you’re also saying freedom of speech requires me to remain silent then?

If “freedom of speech” rulings operated under the same way the “freedom of religion” rulings have been going, we’d have the government outlawing speech on government property. Sorry, none of that free speech stuff. Only with governement approval can you speak.

Agnosticism is by definition not a religion.

It has theology, and only religions have theology. It quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, so it is a duck.

Its theology is that 1) God’s existence cannot be known and 2) there is no way to know which religion (including atheism) is right and 3) There is no way to know if there is an afterlife.

Theology? Check.

Quack. What a nice duck.

Intermediate steps please?

“If there is no God, this means there is no superior being to me. Therefore I am the superior being. Therefore I am God”

That’s not (necessarily) moralizing, it’s ethicizing. Ethicizing is the government’s job, and God need not be present for it.

So when people want to overturn abortion rulings they’re accused of trying to impose their religion on others. Instead of trying to restore human rights to the smallest, most helpless, and innocent human beings (Hello, they’re human beings! This is a scientific fact!) those who fight abortion are seen as religious zealouts trying to impose their religion.

So when the government proposes unethical things like abortion, “gay marriage” and euthanasia, this means the government is not doing its job according to your standard.

So, are you going to protest these unethical things?

Agnosticism is the absence of theology – there’s no defined ‘theo’ to study.

There is no ‘absense of theology’ - they have a school of opinions about God, the afterlife, and other religions. I’ve already posted it. Please read it (above)

Aside from agnosticism and secular humanism not being religions

Secular humanism is not a religion?

organized atheists aren’t nearly as missionary-minded as you guys,

Except in courtrooms. There they want their religion imposed on the government. They know they can’t evangelize by persuasion, so they use the force of law.

That’s why they get a judge to throw kids in jail for mentioning Jesus’ name in a high school graduation. “Sorry, you’re not allowed to thank Jesus for your diploma. None of this freedom of religion nonsense on government property or you go to jail!”

Give them some time, you’ve had 2000 years to evangelize the unwilling,

Christianity is supposed to be done by persuasion, not by force. You really must read “Fides et Ratio” and see what we really believe. Don’t think that we believe what you’re told we believe. Go to direct sources, not those who hate the direct sources and tell you propaganda.

And yeah, atheists have done this quickly. Look at the former USSR from 1917 on. Go from Russian Orthodox being the dominant religion to atheism being the dominant religion in only a few years.

And not by persuasion.

The relativism of atheism, agnosticism and secular humanism will make sure that when it is time to slaughter whole bunches of Christians who won’t convert to their belief system, there won’t be any objections.

they’ve only had a few decades. But if they do try to evangelize on government property, I have every expectation they’ll be kicked right off it.

They won’t. The courts will make sure of that.

 

[Mirdath]

That’s false. If I were to mention Jesus’ name at a high school graduation, a texas judge would throw me in jail. If I were to say “there is no God” - that would not violate that court ruling.

Would saying ‘Jesus never existed!’ at a high school graduation get me jail? I mentioned the name after all

Show me the court ruling that says atheism, agnosticism and secular is not allowed on government property. Is there a reason why you’re avoiding this?

Because atheists and agnostics (secular is by definition not a religion, thank you) have not yet tried to proselytize or put up monuments to their beliefs on government property yet. Christians have, and Christians have been rightfully stopped from doing so.

And I did also say that Agnosticism is the official government religion as well. As is secular humanism. In addition to Atheism.

Pick one! :whacky: Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive – and secular humanism is secular: not religion.

So you’re also saying freedom of speech requires me to remain silent then?

‘Freedom of speech’ is not as general as it may seem. Obscenity, libel, slander, blatant proselytization – all exceptions. You are not allowed to force your words on anyone who doesn’t want to hear them.

Its theology is that 1) God’s existence cannot be known and 2) there is no way to know which religion (including atheism) is right and 3) There is no way to know if there is an afterlife.

The root words of ‘theology’ translate to ‘study of God’. Agnosticism has no defined God to study. It is diametrically opposed to theology. Saying ‘we don’t know’ does not a unified discipline make, no matter how much you insist that just mentioning God makes something theological.

“If there is no God, this means there is no superior being to me. Therefore I am the superior being. Therefore I am God”

That falls completely apart at the second sentence. Neither atheism nor agnosticism postulate that the self is the highest being – okay, LaVeyan Satanism does, but that’s a small subset of radical atheists, and they’re not at all ashamed of it

So when people want to overturn abortion rulings they’re accused of trying to impose their religion on others.

To be perfectly fair, you are trying to impose your religion on others by that. They don’t believe it’s immoral; you do; you’re trying to legislate things your way; therefore, you are trying to impose your religion on them. Pretty simple.

So when the government proposes unethical things like abortion, “gay marriage” and euthanasia, this means the government is not doing its job according to your standard.

I believe all three of those are, in fact, ethical, and I wish the government would move a little faster on them. Especially on the last two, which none can say harm the unwilling or unconsenting – what’s the ethical hangup? Why are the things that least affect others still illegal?

There is no ‘absense of theology’ - they have a school of opinions about God, the afterlife, and other religions. I’ve already posted it. Please read it

‘School of opinions’? Pretty high-falutin words for ‘uh, we don’t know, and we really can’t be bothered to care all that much’.

That’s why they get a judge to throw kids in jail for mentioning Jesus’ name in a high school graduation.

Hey, I’m against excessive mealy-mouthedness on any side. In that one, single, solitary case, bounds were thoroughly overstepped – but to say that it happens universally is preposterous.

Christianity is supposed to be done by persuasion, not by force. You really must read “Fides et Ratio” and see what we really believe. Don’t think that we believe what you’re told we believe. Go to direct sources, not those who hate the direct sources and tell you propaganda.

I was raised highly orthodox Catholic, I know quite well what you guys believe. Persuasion is a form of force – it’s just (sometimes) nicer about it. I’d rather see evangelists present their side, discuss their beliefs, answer any questions, and then shut up and lead by example while letting their audience make up their own minds.

And yeah, atheists have done this quickly. Look at the former USSR from 1917 on. Go from Russian Orthodox being the dominant religion to atheism being the dominant religion in only a few years.

And not by persuasion.

Look at England. From Catholicism to Protestantism in a only a few years, then back in only a few more, then Protestant again, etc., etc., etc. And not by gentle persuasion.

The relativism of atheism, agnosticism and secular humanism will make sure that when it is time to slaughter whole bunches of Christians who won’t convert to their belief system, there won’t be any objections.

Are you Jack Chick?

 

[BobCatholic]

Would saying ‘Jesus never existed!’ at a high school graduation get me jail? I mentioned the name after all

Not sure. I’m sure the judge will let you slide since he hates Jesus anyway.

Because atheists and agnostics (secular is by definition not a religion, thank you) have not yet tried to proselytize or put up monuments to their beliefs on government property yet. Christians have, and Christians have been rightfully stopped from doing so.

Atheists and agnostics do proselytize. They do it on college campuses and courtrooms

Pick one! :whacky: Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive – and secular humanism is secular: not religion.

Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive, that doesn’t make one or the other not a religion

Agnosticism and atheism are both religions since they have theology

You are not allowed to force your words on anyone who doesn’t want to hear them.

Yup. Except in schools. Where Christian beliefs are ridiculed by the elites.

The root words of ‘theology’ translate to ‘study of God’. Agnosticism has no defined God to study. It is diametrically opposed to theology. Saying ‘we don’t know’ does not a unified discipline make, no matter how much you insist that just mentioning God makes something theological.

It doesn’t have to be a disciplined study, it could just be a simple school of opinions.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/theology

theology

noun

1. the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth
   **2. a particular system or school of religious beliefs and teachings; “Jewish theology”; “Roman Catholic theology” **
2. the learned profession acquired by specialized courses in religion (usually taught at a college or seminary); “he studied theology at Oxford”

Definition 2 fits agnosticism, atheism and secular humanism’s opinions about God, the afterlife and religious issues. Thus they have theology.

That falls completely apart at the second sentence. Neither atheism nor agnosticism postulate that the self is the highest being –

It doesn’t have to specifically do so. It is called logic.

premise: There is no God.
premise: There is no superior being.
premise: I exist.
premise: There is no superior being to me.
conclusion: I am the superior being.
conclusion: I am God.

To be perfectly fair, you are trying to impose your religion on others by that. They don’t believe it’s immoral; you do; you’re trying to legislate things your way; therefore, you are trying to impose your religion on them. Pretty simple.

Actually you’re on the wrong side of this, rationally speaking.
Abortion is the killing of a human being. The unborn children from time of conception to full birth are 100% human beings. This is a scientific fact. Unborn children have human DNA and are of the genus Homo sapiens. By supporting abortion, that is the supporting of the slaughter of innocent human beings - this is murder. In order to support abortion, you must dehumanize the unborn. Now, if you’re for the slaughter of innocent unborn children, please tell me how you’re not imposing your morals on the unborn children? And their families?

By protecting the unborn, I prevent people from imposing their morality on the unborn. Just as protecting the murder victim by law prevents people from imposing their morality on others.

 

[BobCatholic]

[Boy, our debate is getting pretty long winded, I’m forced to cut into two different posts to get around the 5,000 char limit ]

I believe all three of those are, in fact, ethical, and I wish the government would move a little faster on them. Especially on the last two, which none can say harm the unwilling or unconsenting – what’s the ethical hangup? Why are the things that least affect others still illegal?

Nope.

Abortion is not ethical because it dehumanizes the unborn - by law. If we can dehumanize the unborn, why dehumanize others? WW2 Germany did that. First they came for the Jews. Then they came for everyone else. We’re following in the same footsteps. First we dehumanize the unborn. Then the disabled (Terri schiavo) and now old folks, and who’s next? Where does the blood stop flowing?

Gay Marriage? If we can redefine marriage (we’ve done so too many times already!) why not redefine it more? Instead of two, why not make three? Five? Polygamists are already making noises! If not man and woman, why not adults and children? Dutch pedophiles are pushing this particular agenda too.
The relativism of the gay agenda speaks volumes against them.

Euthanasia: See my objection about abortion. You must dehumanize the one being euthanized, which is morally objectionable.

Hey, I’m against excessive mealy-mouthedness on any side. In that one, single, solitary case, bounds were thoroughly overstepped – but to say that it happens universally is preposterous.

That judge didn’t just make up his ruling, he had PLENTY OF CASE LAW to draw from. If it ain’t “happening universally” it is definitely happening too much.

I was raised highly orthodox Catholic, I know quite well what you guys believe. Persuasion is a form of force

So you should stop arguing in this thread right now. You’re using force and thus violate the very thing you’re railing against.

Look at England. From Catholicism to Protestantism in a only a few years, then back in only a few more, then Protestant again, etc., etc., etc. And not by gentle persuasion.

Yup. This is what happens when the government is NOT NEUTRAL toward religion (as I’m trying to argue for)
The government must treat all religions equal under the law. None of this “Only Agnosticism, atheism and secular humanism are allowed on govt. property.” nonsense.

Are you Jack Chick?

No way. I reject the relativism of sola scriptura (look for the discussion of sola scriptura, where I

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Actually you’re on the wrong side of this, rationally speaking.

Abortion is the killing of a human being. The unborn children from time of conception to full birth are 100% human beings. This is a scientific fact. Unborn children have human DNA and are of the genus Homo sapiens. By supporting abortion, that is the supporting of the slaughter of innocent human beings - this is murder. In order to support abortion, you must dehumanize the unborn. Now, if you’re for the slaughter of innocent unborn children, please tell me how you’re not imposing your morals on the unborn children? And their families?

By protecting the unborn, I prevent people from imposing their morality on the unborn. Just as protecting the murder victim by law prevents people from imposing their morality on others.

I just wanted to say that your posts have been spot on excellent. All of them.

The whole discussion related to atheism, agnosticism and secular humanism having religious facets has been awesome too.

 

[Mirdath]

Not sure. I’m sure the judge will let you slide since he hates Jesus anyway.

Atheists and agnostics do proselytize. They do it on college campuses and courtrooms

How in the world does an agnostic proselytize? As for the rest, Christians have their Campus Crusade for Christ, which eliminates colleges as grounds of unequal airtime, and as for courtrooms, again, where, when, and how?

Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive, that doesn’t make one or the other not a religion

But both cannot be the official state religion, where you are saying that three mutually exclusive ideas are the quasi-official state religion. Pick one.

Yup. Except in schools. Where Christian beliefs are ridiculed by the elites.

I’d like to see that fly at Oral Roberts U, or at any Jesuit school. Even in public schools, sure, we’re so short of teachers that you’re going to get a few bad apples who can’t manage to keep their mouths shut about religion or anti-religion or a-religion, but that’s far from the whole picture. It’s a tiny few, and the only reason you think Christians are being overwhelmed in schools is that they make good, fiery press. It remains a fact that atheists are the least-trusted minority in America – there are polls that show this.

premise: There is no God.
premise: There is no superior being.
premise: I exist.
premise: There is no superior being to me.
conclusion: I am the superior being.
conclusion: I am God.

Try replacing ‘superior’ with ‘divine’ and then you’ll get the first three right, at least. Lack of belief in divinity does not equate to ego supreme.

An atheist could never say ‘I am God’, because they don’t believe in any God. An agnostic wouldn’t say it because then they would no longer be agnostic.

Please tell me how you’re not imposing your morals on the unborn children? And their families?

By imposing nothing – I leave the choice open to the mother.

By protecting the unborn, I prevent people from imposing their morality on the unborn. Just as protecting the murder victim by law prevents people from imposing their morality on others.

Yet you impose your morality on those people. And you haven’t prevented anybody from doing anything, unless you were terrorizing them or the clinics.

(abortion’s been covered so I’m going right to #2-#3)

Gay Marriage? If we can redefine marriage (we’ve done so too many times already!) why not redefine it more? Instead of two, why not make three? Five? Polygamists are already making noises! If not man and woman, why not adults and children? Dutch pedophiles are pushing this particular agenda too.

Children and animals cannot give consent – it’s that simple. As for multiples, if they can work it out legally and fairly, why not? It’s not going to affect you. In fact, there’s already a case on the books in the Netherlands – a man married two women early last year. It hasn’t been detrimental to anyone yet, as far as I can tell, and believe me, it’d be in the news if it was.

Euthanasia: See my objection about abortion. You must dehumanize the one being euthanized, which is morally objectionable.

What if the one being euthanized wants to die? It’s a matter of informed consent.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the death penalty?

That judge didn’t just make up his ruling, he had PLENTY OF CASE LAW to draw from. If it ain’t “happening universally” it is definitely happening too much.

The judge interpreted the existing law to make up his ruling. It’s his job. The existing law does not have to be a 100% match by any means; that is why we have the interpreters of the judicial system, so we can match up law with unique cases.

So you should stop arguing in this thread right now. You’re using force and thus violate the very thing you’re railing against.

My intent is expository, not necessarily persuasive. I present my stance, argue for it if need be, and leave people to draw their own conclusions. If some find it persuasive, that’s their burden.

 

[BobCatholic]

How in the world does an agnostic proselytize?

Simple. He files a lawsuit complaining that someone said “God” on government property. He’ll have no less than three left wing legal groups getting into a fistfight for his case

As for the rest, Christians have their Campus Crusade for Christ, which eliminates colleges as grounds of unequal airtime, and as for courtrooms, again, where, when, and how?

That is privately funded organization. When left wing professors ridicule Christianity and other forms of theism, they’re paid by the government to do so. Let’s see. Atheism: paid for by the government. Christianity: Not. Yup. That’s equal.

But both cannot be the official state religion, where you are saying that three mutually exclusive ideas are the quasi-official state religion. Pick one.

1. The relativism of modern society allows for this to happen - to have three “mutually exclusive” religions to be the official state religions.

I’d like to see that fly at Oral Roberts U, or at any Jesuit school.

But it flys at blackhawk university, Harvard (which used to be a theological seminary!), and “secular schools”

Try replacing ‘superior’ with ‘divine’ and then you’ll get the first three right, at least. Lack of belief in divinity does not equate to ego supreme.

But too many times, lack of belief in a superior, results in mirror worshipping.

An atheist could never say ‘I am God’, because they don’t believe in any God. An agnostic wouldn’t say it because then they would no longer be agnostic.

But they sure act that way!

By imposing nothing – I leave the choice open to the mother.

No, you deny the choice to the little one. She has every right to do as she pleases with her own body. But when another body is involved (the unborn child) her rights stop. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face because of this principle.

Yet you impose your morality on those people.

Again, make a claim without proof. How does protecting the innocent from being killed “impose my morality”? If one is allowed to be killed, how is that not imposing the killer’s morality?

Children and animals cannot give consent – it’s that simple.

However, if we can redefine marriage to eliminate the requirement that the sexes be opposite, to eliminate the lifetime committment (due to easy divorce), why not eliminate consent? We’ve done it before legally with slavery, so why not? Isn’t relativism fun?

As for multiples, if they can work it out legally and fairly, why not? It’s not going to affect you. In fact, there’s already a case on the books in the Netherlands – a man married two women early last year. It hasn’t been detrimental to anyone yet, as far as I can tell, and believe me, it’d be in the news if it was.

Who makes the judgment that something is “detrimental”? Interesting how the feminists are not railing against the polygamists for “devaluing women”

What if the one being euthanized wants to die? It’s a matter of informed consent.

Terri didn’t give her consent. So it is not an issue for relativistic modern society. This is why it is scary.

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the death penalty?

I’m against putting innocent people to death. That’s called murder.

The judge interpreted the existing law to make up his ruling. It’s his job. The existing law does not have to be a 100% match by any means; that is why we have the interpreters of the judicial system, so we can match up law with unique cases.

Right.

Each case was a building block to put up a wall that blocks freedom of religion.

Also, a judge’s interpretation is not the same as the law being interpreted. That’s a common error being spouted in legal circles. That’s like when a certain king said “the law is in my mouth”

My intent is expository, not necessarily persuasive. I present my stance, argue for it if need be, and leave people to draw their own conclusions. If some find it persuasive, that’s their burden.

Nope. According to your statement, using persuasion is using force.

Interesting backpedaling

(abortion’s been covered so I’m going right to #2-#3)

Actually no. You’ve yet to present the logical reason why human rights cannot apply to all human beings.

 

[Mirdath]

Simple. He files a lawsuit complaining that someone said “God” on government property. He’ll have no less than three left wing legal groups getting into a fistfight for his case

That is not proselytization.

That is privately funded organization. When left wing professors ridicule Christianity and other forms of theism, they’re paid by the government to do so. Let’s see. Atheism: paid for by the government. Christianity: Not. Yup. That’s equal.

When Christian teachers ridicule non-theism (and yes, it does happen), they’re also paid by the government. Equal enough, but neither’s good.

1. The relativism of modern society allows for this to happen - to have three “mutually exclusive” religions to be the official state religions.

The laws of logic do not! There can only be one official state religion, not multiple beliefs or stances that discount all others – and, once and for all, America has no official religion.

But too many times, lack of belief in a superior, results in mirror worshipping.

That it can doesn’t mean it does. Plenty of religious people are more vain and self-worshipping than many non-religious people. Autolatry is not solely the domain of the non-theist.

But they sure act that way!

Even me?

No, you deny the choice to the little one. She has every right to do as she pleases with her own body. But when another body is involved (the unborn child) her rights stop. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face because of this principle.

When an embryo can tell me what it wants to happen I’ll agree. This is going into other-thread territory though, and there are, in fact, other threads about this already.

Again, make a claim without proof. How does protecting the innocent from being killed “impose my morality”? If one is allowed to be killed, how is that not imposing the killer’s morality?

Here’s the difference between us on this: you say ‘make it illegal’. I say ‘leave the option open’. You impose, or attempt to, through legislation; I favor allowance of free will. If abortions rub you the wrong way, here’s the simple, easy way to take your morally upright stance on the issue: don’t get an abortion. Should be pretty easy… Bob

However, if we can redefine marriage to eliminate the requirement that the sexes be opposite, to eliminate the lifetime committment (due to easy divorce), why not eliminate consent? We’ve done it before legally with slavery, so why not? Isn’t relativism fun?

Now you’re just being ridiculous. Eliminating the need to look between the legs of both parties to ensure your ‘sanctity of marriage’ is not violated (nice going with that 60% divorce rate in heterosexual marriages, by the way – real sanctified there) does not question consent at all.

For the record, I’m an ethical absolutist.

Who makes the judgment that something is “detrimental”?

Society as a whole polices itself. If something is detrimental it will be excised.

Interesting how the feminists are not railing against the polygamists for “devaluing women”

Why should they? Devaluing women is a matter of how they are treated, not who they are married to. And polygamy covers both polygyny and polyandry.

Right.

Each case was a building block to put up a wall that blocks freedom of religion.

Also, a judge’s interpretation is not the same as the law being interpreted. That’s a common error being spouted in legal circles. That’s like when a certain king said “the law is in my mouth”

When a judge interprets, the law is being interpreted. How is it that difficult to understand?

Further, I don’t see a ‘wall that blocks freedom of religion’ getting very far in this country which is run almost entirely by Christians, unless it is for the purpose of establishing a Christian theocracy.

Nope. According to your statement, using persuasion is using force.

Interesting backpedaling

No backpedaling about it. I state my beliefs, I discuss them further when asked; when attacked, I defend. I am not here to convert or persuade anyone; if you think I am, that’s your problem.

 

[BobCatholic]

That is not proselytization.

So when the judge FORCES people to NOT say Jesus at a high school graduation, you’re claiming that is not the proselytization of atheism? The government is not forcing the atheistic viewpoint on others?

When Christian teachers ridicule non-theism (and yes, it does happen), they’re also paid by the government. Equal enough, but neither’s good.

If you look at the number of publicly funded atheistic teachers doing this and Christian teachers doing this, guess which has more money going toward them? That’s right. The secular schools. With secularist teachers.

The laws of logic do not! There can only be one official state religion, not multiple beliefs or stances that discount all others – and, once and for all, America has no official religion.

Then you have not refuted why judges are REMOVING theistic religions from government property, which logically speaking, leave only the atheistic religions.

Autolatry is not solely the domain of the non-theist.

Agreed.

When an embryo can tell me what it wants to happen I’ll agree.

So if someone is unable to speak for themselves they may be slaughtered by another. This is the foundation of the culture of death. If one disabled human can be slaughtered, all of them can be. Echoes of “useless eaters” that Hitler called them.

Remember, if you think this is an extreme viewpoint, I agree. However, it is the law in the USA. And most of the world.

We started with the smallest of unborn, the embryos, zygotes, and dehumanized them. Then we dehumanized the rest of them up to even birth. Now we got Peter Singer saying we should allow infanticide up to 30 days. We got the Terri Schiavo case where a disabled woman was killed by government fiat because she was dehumanized. We got elderly being killed left and right because they’re dehumanized.

Who’s next? Well, if we can dehumanize the totally disabled, why not 90% disabled? or 80%? or 50%? or 10%? Ohoh, I wear glasses, to the gas chamber I go

Here’s the difference between us on this: you say ‘make it illegal’. I say ‘leave the option open’. You impose, or attempt to, through legislation; I favor allowance of free will. If abortions rub you the wrong way, here’s the simple, easy way to take your morally upright stance on the issue: don’t get an abortion. Should be pretty easy… Bob

These exact same arguments were argued before. Against black people in the USA in the past.

Here’s the difference between me and a Klansman: I say make lynching illegal. They say “leave the option open” I am accused of imposing or attempting to do so through legislation; they claim to favor “allowance of free will” They’ll say “If lynchings rub you the wrong way, here’s the simple, easy way to take your morally upright stance on the issue: don’t do any lynchings. Should be pretty easy… Bob ”

It comes down to dehumanizing the unborn. The Klansmen did that to the blacks, and we had to take a moral stand against it. But hey, since we’re now dealing with disabled human beings, unable to speak for themselves…things are “DEEEEEEEFRENT”

Yeah, I’m worried about “will we survive religion” if the religion is atheism, agnosticism…

Now you’re just being ridiculous. Eliminating the need to look between the legs of both parties to ensure your ‘sanctity of marriage’ is not violated (nice going with that 60% divorce rate in heterosexual marriages, by the way – real sanctified there) does not question consent at all.

Actually, not all “heterosexual marriages” are sacramental. I’m talking about the original definition of marriage - which is a RELIGIOUS institution.

If you take a look at those who are Catholic, and go to church every week, the divorce rate is 1 in 50. If they pray everyday and practice their faith, the divorce rate is 1 in 1012. Now THAT is SANCTITY.

Don’t try to compare Britney and K-Fed’s “marriage” or Carmen Electra’s 10 minute “marriage” in a secular chapel with a couple that’s been together 50 years and love each other and practice their faith. They’re not the same thing.

When a judge interprets, the law is being interpreted. How is it that difficult to understand?

Right. So is an interpretation of the law the same as the law?

If it is, then that interpretation must be written in the text of the law.

Further, I don’t see a ‘wall that blocks freedom of religion’ getting very far in this country which is run almost entirely by Christians, unless it is for the purpose of establishing a Christian theocracy.

Actually, we already have that. It is for the purpose of establishing an atheocracy or an agnost-cracy.

Building block by building block.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

So when the judge FORCES people to NOT say Jesus at a high school graduation, you’re claiming that is not the proselytization of atheism? The government is not forcing the atheistic viewpoint on others?

If you look at the number of publicly funded atheistic teachers doing this and Christian teachers doing this, guess which has more money going toward them? That’s right. The secular schools. With secularist teachers.

Then you have not refuted why judges are REMOVING theistic religions from government property, which logically speaking, leave only the atheistic religions.

Agreed.

So if someone is unable to speak for themselves they may be slaughtered by another. This is the foundation of the culture of death. If one disabled human can be slaughtered, all of them can be. Echoes of “useless eaters” that Hitler called them.

Remember, if you think this is an extreme viewpoint, I agree. However, it is the law in the USA. And most of the world.

We started with the smallest of unborn, the embryos, zygotes, and dehumanized them. Then we dehumanized the rest of them up to even birth. Now we got Peter Singer saying we should allow infanticide up to 30 days. We got the Terri Schiavo case where a disabled woman was killed by government fiat because she was dehumanized. We got elderly being killed left and right because they’re dehumanized.

Who’s next? Well, if we can dehumanize the totally disabled, why not 90% disabled? or 80%? or 50%? or 10%? Ohoh, I wear glasses, to the gas chamber I go

These exact same arguments were argued before. Against black people in the USA in the past.

Here’s the difference between me and a Klansman: I say make lynching illegal. They say “leave the option open” I am accused of imposing or attempting to do so through legislation; they claim to favor “allowance of free will” They’ll say “If lynchings rub you the wrong way, here’s the simple, easy way to take your morally upright stance on the issue: don’t do any lynchings. Should be pretty easy… Bob ”

It comes down to dehumanizing the unborn. The Klansmen did that to the blacks, and we had to take a moral stand against it. But hey, since we’re now dealing with disabled human beings, unable to speak for themselves…things are “DEEEEEEEFRENT”

Yeah, I’m worried about “will we survive religion” if the religion is atheism, agnosticism…

Actually, not all “heterosexual marriages” are sacramental. I’m talking about the original definition of marriage - which is a RELIGIOUS institution.

If you take a look at those who are Catholic, and go to church every week, the divorce rate is 1 in 50. If they pray everyday and practice their faith, the divorce rate is 1 in 1012. Now THAT is SANCTITY.

Don’t try to compare Britney and K-Fed’s “marriage” or Carmen Electra’s 10 minute “marriage” in a secular chapel with a couple that’s been together 50 years and love each other and practice their faith. They’re not the same thing.

Right. So is an interpretation of the law the same as the law?

If it is, then that interpretation must be written in the text of the law.

Actually, we already have that. It is for the purpose of establishing an atheocracy or an agnost-cracy.

Building block by building block.

BobCatholic, this post was simply too good for words to describe.

:bowdown:

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

How in the world does an agnostic proselytize?

Ever read the trial transcript for the Scopes Monkey Trial? The famous self-proclaimed agnostic Clarence Darrow mocked religion in a **public **courtroom at Dayton , Tennessee. What is that if not prosletizing?

Darrow’s essay “Why I am an Agnostic” is often included in essay anthologies for college students at **public **colleges, whereas any essay on evolution by the Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton is **never **printed in college essay anthologies.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Again, when I was a college student in the 60’s I had several atheist/agnostic professors in public colleges who didn’t mind foisting their anti-Christian agenda on their students, subtly or openly. As a public college professor myself for thirty years I recall many students complaining to me of other professors who bad-mouthed religion. I don’t remember one complaining of professors who were trying to convert them to Christianity.

So yes, I know from personal experience that BobCatholic’s point is valid. Agnostics/atheists do prosletize through the public sector and routinely get away with it.

 

[Mirdath]

So when the judge FORCES people to NOT say Jesus at a high school graduation, you’re claiming that is not the proselytization of atheism? The government is not forcing the atheistic viewpoint on others?

It isn’t forcing any viewpoint on anyone, it’s forcing a certain viewpoint into silence. So no. I still hold that it isn’t a good thing, and that the judge’s treatment of the student’s rights is questionable at best. Is that not enough?

If you look at the number of publicly funded atheistic teachers doing this and Christian teachers doing this, guess which has more money going toward them? That’s right. The secular schools. With secularist teachers.

Teaching at a public school does not require one to be an atheist first

Then you have not refuted why judges are REMOVING theistic religions from government property, which logically speaking, leave only the atheistic religions.

You have not managed to get out of your own logical quagmire wherein you declared three separate and mutually exclusive concepts, one of which is not even remotely theological, the ‘official state religions’.

The state should be completely agnostic towards religion in general. Trappings of established religions are counter to that end, and I support their removal. Their presence in courthouses and chambers lends the religion in question an aura of government sponsorship. They are not being replaced by an atomic swirl with an A at the nucleus – the logo of American Atheists – nor should they be.

So if someone is unable to speak for themselves they may be slaughtered by another. This is the foundation of the culture of death. If one disabled human can be slaughtered, all of them can be. Echoes of “useless eaters” that Hitler called them.

Did you honestly think I was making a serious argument with such an obviously flippant statement? Sometimes you astound me.

These exact same arguments were argued before. Against black people in the USA in the past.

Here’s the difference between me and a Klansman: I say make lynching illegal. They say “leave the option open” I am accused of imposing or attempting to do so through legislation; they claim to favor “allowance of free will” They’ll say “If lynchings rub you the wrong way, here’s the simple, easy way to take your morally upright stance on the issue: don’t do any lynchings. Should be pretty easy… Bob ”

It’s easily shown to be different if you consider abortion ethical solely due to the fetus’ total dependence on and living within the mother. Lynching just doesn’t compare. I’ve already gone over that in another thread, though, and don’t care to start that particular three-page argument all over again.

Actually, not all “heterosexual marriages” are sacramental. I’m talking about the original definition of marriage - which is a RELIGIOUS institution.

If you take a look at those who are Catholic, and go to church every week, the divorce rate is 1 in 50. If they pray everyday and practice their faith, the divorce rate is 1 in 1012. Now THAT is SANCTITY.

Don’t try to compare Britney and K-Fed’s “marriage” or Carmen Electra’s 10 minute “marriage” in a secular chapel with a couple that’s been together 50 years and love each other and practice their faith. They’re not the same thing.

First, got any references for those numbers? They aren’t all that relevant (and I’m about to get into why) but I’d still be interested in seeing them.

Second, the debate on the ethicality of homosexual marriage is not a case of ‘gay marriage vs. orthodox Catholic marriage, as a religious institution’ . It’s ‘gay marriage vs. straight marriage, as a civil institution’. The loudest argument for preserving marriage as a straight institution is that allowing other people in would violate its ‘sanctity’. Straight marriages end in divorce 60% of the time. What other conclusion am I supposed to come to?

Right. So is an interpretation of the law the same as the law?

If it is, then that interpretation must be written in the text of the law.

It is not and it does not have to be. As I said, it is the interpretation of the law. If you’d rather see a nation without interpretations of the law, I’m afraid you’re in for a long, long wait – long enough for every other human being to die out. The king of nothing is the only ruler whose law is not subject to interpretation.

Actually, we already have that. It is for the purpose of establishing an atheocracy or an agnost-cracy.

Building block by building block.

How then do you account for this wall having been built entirely by Christians, a few Deists who left early on, and a small minority of Jews?

---

Ex Nihilo and Gilbert! I’d missed you guys!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Trappings of established religions are counter to that end, and I support their removal.

**There are no established religions in America **… no religion is established as the official religion of the State or Federal governments, and therefore there are no "trappings’ of established religion to remove.

What you want removed are the trappings of **traditional **religion, not established religion. Fortunately for us, the actions of the Founding Fathers make it clear that they had no intention of removing *those *trappings.

At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – *that God governs in the affairs of men. *And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

 

[Mirdath]

**There are no established religions in America **… no religion is established as the official religion of the State or Federal governments, and therefore there are no "trappings’ of established religion to remove.

What you want removed are the trappings of **traditional **religion, not established religion. Fortunately for us, the actions of the Founding Fathers make it clear that they had no intention of removing those trappings.

I worded that rather ambiguously – forgive me, I’ve had about four hours of sleep in the last three days. I am not referring to the Establishment Clause, but to any religion with a creed, rites, and followers. I’m just as much against Discordian texts on the walls of courthouses as I am against the Ten Commandments.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Agnosticism and atheism are both religions since they have theology.

Religion is defined as the organised worship of a deity.

Exactly which deity do agnostics and atheists worship?

 

[Sixtus]

Della wrote

QUOTE]I cannot agree. What civilization cannot survive is atheism in all its forms. Atheists have killed hundred of millions compared to the millions by those who have waged wars as believers.

I agree. Atheists killed more people in the last 90 years than all who have died in the name of religion in the last 5000 years!

That is not a very good track record for atheism.

If I were atheist, I would keep my head down and say very little about the subject

 

[Mirdath]

Della wrote

I agree. Atheists killed more people in the last 90 years than all who have died in the name of religion in the last 5000 years!

That is not a very good track record for atheism.

If I were atheist, I would keep my head down and say very little about the subject

Hardly a fair comparison considering the size of the human population now compared to its size during the most infamous of the myriad assaults upon others in the name of religion – and don’t think for a second the faults of others are water with which to wash your own hands. Give it a rest.

 

[R_McGeddon]

I agree. Atheists killed more people in the last 90 years than all who have died in the name of religion in the last 5000 years!

This claim is unverifiable and wrong, nobody has been killed in the name of atheism. There have been many killed due to megalomania and religion.

For your information there are people today, still killing in the name of their religion. I’ve seen groups of religious followers hold down a struggling, innocent, civilian while one of them, with a small knife, slowly hack his head off while the rest of them, gleefully, chant to their god!!

That is not a very good track record for atheism.

You have no idea at all.

If I were atheist, I would keep my head down and say very little about the subject

I’m not atheist, but their track record is squeaky clean when compared to that of religion. So why should they keep their heads down?? the religious certainly don’t!