Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 221
  1. #61  
    Being real, atheism fits is a religious belief.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Being real, atheism fits is a religious belief.
    Just like bald is a hair color.
  3. g.711's Avatar
    Posts
    550 Posts
    Global Posts
    571 Global Posts
    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Athiests, for example, should indeed have freedom FROM religion. As an athiest, I don't care how anyone worships, but I should not be forced to have laws based upon religious tenets that I don't believe in.
    .
    No one has forced anything on you. If you donít want to observe a given day then donít.
    That is your freedom. Christians donít force you to believe its your free will to believe or not
    On the other hand you should allow others to believe what they want Christians should not be persecuted or restricted from their observances and beliefs.
  4. g.711's Avatar
    Posts
    550 Posts
    Global Posts
    571 Global Posts
    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    We are stuck on the term ďfounded ď I believe America was founded on Christianity. What else could they have based the constitution on? You keep pointing to Treaties and the fact that the exact verbiage of the constitution is not in the Bible. I am not making that case.
    To give a better example: America was founded on the English language.
    Itís the same concept; Christianity is all they knew therefore the rules and laws were and are based on that fact.
  5. jewel's Avatar
    Posts
    638 Posts
    Global Posts
    666 Global Posts
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Athiests number approximately 15% of the population. My sons have incredibly strong ethical values, coupled with an admirable amount of acceptance of others. Their ethical upbringing included no religion. Religion is a path toward ethics...not the only path.
    What do you mean when you say religion is a path toward ethics?
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by hypocaffeinemia View Post
    Just like bald is a hair color.
    Hoot!
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711 View Post
    you should allow others to believe what they want Christians should not be persecuted or restricted from their observances and beliefs.
    I agree whole-heartedly.

    Quote Originally Posted by g.711 View Post
    No one has forced anything on you. If you donít want to observe a given day then donít.
    That is your freedom. Christians donít force you to believe its your free will to believe or not
    That is simply not true.

    Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on the entire country constantly. That is why there are gay marriage bands being pushed by Christian conservatives and why I cannot purchase alcohol on Sunday in Indiana.

    I have no qualms with how anyone else worships but to say that no one is forcing anything on anyone else is either ignorance or lying.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  8. g.711's Avatar
    Posts
    550 Posts
    Global Posts
    571 Global Posts
    #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    I agree whole-heartedly.
    Christians are trying to impose their beliefs on the entire country constantly. That is why there are gay marriage bands being pushed by Christian conservatives and why I cannot purchase alcohol on Sunday in Indiana.
    .
    So this is really personal with you and you have some pent up feelings which make you attack Christians.
    I am sorry if you have been mistreated for not being a Christian.
  9. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711 View Post
    We are stuck on the term ďfounded ď I believe America was founded on Christianity. What else could they have based the constitution on? You keep pointing to Treaties and the fact that the exact verbiage of the constitution is not in the Bible. I am not making that case.
    To give a better example: America was founded on the English language.
    Itís the same concept; Christianity is all they knew therefore the rules and laws were and are based on that fact.
    Again, if what you are saying is that there were a bunch of Christians in the the States that made up the Confederation then you are correct.

    If you are saying the basic underlying tenants of the Constitution drafted at the Convention and then ratified by the states is based on Christianity, you are simply mistaken and do not seem to have offered any arguments as to why you are making that assertion. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

    As has been pointed out in numerous posts the ideas used by the delegates to the convention to come up with the system of government represented by the Constitution, and the system of rights set forth in the Bill of Rights, came from many sources other than religious doctrine (thank goodness or we would have ended up with another monarchy).
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711 View Post
    So this is really personal with you and you have some pent up feelings which make you attack Christians.
    I am sorry if you have been mistreated for not being a Christian.
    Is it personal with me? Any form of hatred bothers me, yes. Do I have pent up feelings? No. I'm only concerned about the here and now. Do I attack Christians? No.

    I appreciate your apology. However, your apology does not represent other Christians and is irrelevant to this conversation. If you are apologetic, you would take a look at this conversation and see your flawed reasoning. Making emotional appeals will not take away from the facts.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711 View Post
    We are stuck on the term “founded “ I believe America was founded on Christianity. What else could they have based the constitution on? You keep pointing to Treaties and the fact that the exact verbiage of the constitution is not in the Bible. I am not making that case.
    To give a better example: America was founded on the English language.
    It’s the same concept; Christianity is all they knew therefore the rules and laws were and are based on that fact.
    Please demonstrate how democratic republics with bill of rights are biblical.

    It most certainly isn't "all they knew".

    Google "The Enlightenment", for starters.

    or click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by hypocaffeinemia View Post
    Please demonstrate how democratic republics with bill of rights are biblical.
    [/url]

    Maybe this will help clarify everything...

    Was the USA Founded as a Christian Nation?
    Sorry about the typing errors; I'm all thumbs.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by lenman View Post
    Maybe this will help clarify everything...

    Was the USA Founded as a Christian Nation?
    Ah, quote mining!

    The problem is half those quotes don't support the argument-- nobody argues that many of the founders weren't Christian, after all, or that they believed their religion to be what guides them.

    Once again, Treaty of Tripoli:

    Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
    That, my friend, was signed by John Adams himself and ratified unanimously by the Senate in 1797. John Adams being a fairly staunch Christian instead of a deist makes it all the more relevant.

    I can just as easily quote Thomas Jefferson, who made his own Bible by cutting out all supernatural events, or Thomas Paine, who beat his own drum, to further support this.

    But once again, this argument speaks for itself: The concept of a democratic republic with bill of rights is nowhere to be found in the Bible. It is most distinctively a product of the ages with roots in ancient Greece.
  14. #74  
    When an individual seriously bases their life around loner superstitious ideas, it's called insane.
    When an isolated group of people build a belief system around superstition, it's called a cult.
    When the masses accept the belief system to the point it gains political power, it's call a religion.

    The only difference between a cult and a religion is that a cult has no political power.

    The founding fathers wanted to ensure no single ideal gained exclusive political power. Let all beliefs and non-beliefs happen. It's only a problem when a government sponsors one of them.
    Sprint Pre, Mugen 2800mah battery
  15. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by lenman View Post
    Maybe this will help clarify everything...
    James Madison was a devout Christian and played a large role in the Constitution. That does not make this a Christian nation.

    Aristotle was probably one of the first to set out, in writing, the idea of the three branches of government (the deliberative, the magisterial, and the judicial). That doesn't make the Constitution and this Nation Aristotelian.

    I don't think anyone here is disputing that Christianity has had an impact on this Country. Around the time of the ratification of the Constitution there were state laws that criminalized blasphemy and people went to jail for saying bad things about the wrong god. There are court cases that upheld the validity of those laws.

    But, yet again, just because there were a bunch of Christians around when the US was formed does not make this a Christian nation. The real founding principles of this great country (Federalism, Separation of Powers, etc.) have been around much longer than Christianity, have no basis within Christian dogma, and have helped to protect the US from the damaging effects of mixing religion and government.

    What the Founding Fathers (Christians and Deists alike) seemed to get, and what present day Christians don't seem to get, is that keeping religion out of the Government of the United States of America is a good thing for both the government and for religion.
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by jewel View Post
    What do you mean when you say religion is a path toward ethics?
    I was responding to this question: "How else does one decide what is right or wrong?". The purpose of my response was to state that religion is a path of determining right from wrong, but not a necessity for making ethical decisions: people have the capacity to tell right from wrong without religion to set those boundaries.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/27/2009 at 09:29 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by g.711 View Post
    That is your freedom. Christians don’t force you to believe its your free will to believe or not
    Did you know that, though a 1961 Supreme Court case made the following null and void, these laws are still on the books. I don't know if it symbolically shows just how "supportive" our society is to non-Christians, but I thought it was sort of fun to read:

    * The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

    * North Carolina's Constitution of 1971, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God....". This was challenged and overturned by Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).

    * South Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

    * Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/27/2009 at 09:59 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Race, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation. We should not discriminate based on ANY of these.
    Again, it all depends on context. There is also a big difference between 'should not discriminate' and 'illegal to discriminate'.
    These are all various aspects of being human
    There are also various aspects of being human which are undesirable and should be discriminated against. The whole tendency to fight and kill each other, for example.
    and RIGHTS should not be withheld based on any of these attributes. We are human regardless and deserve our RIGHTS.
    And again, we have not established that government recognition of a 'marriage' is one of those rights.
    I know someone said something about 'inalienable human rights' in some important document way back when... What were they again? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness? Yeah...
    The Declaration didn't say anything about government endorsement of the method of those pursuits, though.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Again, it all depends on context.
    I, respectfully, disagree. There is NO REASON to discriminate based upon the attributes I listed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    There are also various aspects of being human which are undesirable and should be discriminated against. The whole tendency to fight and kill each other, for example.
    I agree. That is why we as a race (most of us) work toward overcoming those tendencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    And again, we have not established that government recognition of a 'marriage' is one of those rights.
    Equality is a basic tenant of our government. If it is to recognize marriage, the parties should not matter. It is that simple. If we want to ban gay marriage, then all marriages should be banned.

    That is actually the other solution to this problem... One for which I would advocate. Make all marriages 'civil unions' in the eyes of the law and leave the 'marriage' part to the non-government entities. That way, any two people would be allowed to enter into a government-recognized civil union and get 'married' at the supportive institution of their choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The Declaration didn't say anything about government endorsement of the method of those pursuits, though.
    But the government chose to recognize marriage and, thus, that part of the debate is irrelevant. The problem here is not recognizing marriage, but the government's discrimination against a group of people wishing to be married.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    That is actually the other solution to this problem... One for which I would advocate. Make all marriages 'civil unions' in the eyes of the law and leave the 'marriage' part to the non-government entities. That way, any two people would be allowed to enter into a government-recognized civil union and get 'married' at the supportive institution of their choice...
    I have advocated for this as well - makes perfect sense; religions can then decide if they want to support gay marriage, and yet there isn't a "separate but equal" standard for government civil unions.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions