Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 210
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    I don't consider you to be an atheist. A true atheist simply does not believe there is a god. Being such, a true atheist could care less about swearing on the bible and would have no problem doing it since they would be conscious that it means nothing to them and consequently would be a complete non-issue. You are too threatened by religious beliefs to be an atheist.

    That you insisted on being affirmed to tell the truth instead of swearing on the bible underlines this. It demonstrates that you do believe in a God and just have such an aversion to him that you feel the need to show animosity towards him by refusing to participate in any type of act that could be construed as an affirmation of him. In other words, if you didn't believe in God you wouldn't feel threatened by swearing on a bible. You probably believe in God to the extent that you blame him for all the things you believe are unjust in the world or in your life. So to get him back you denounce him every opportunity you get for a little bit of payback. Doing anything to affirm the existence of God in such a case is threatening to you because it would mean that some being is responsible for the things in your life that suck. I felt that way once and moved on. Now I don't give much thought at all to such issues.

    It's like having an ex-lover that you still having feelings for and trash at every chance while trying to convince friends that you don't still have feelings for that person but everyone knows you do, versus having an ex-lover that never even crosses your mind for years because you have truly gotten over them.
    Yea, you just crossed the line there. I went past the intellectual, "Let these primitive monkeys have their ritual." to "This is not right." Realize the diff and step up a level on maslow's hierarchy.
    Last edited by daThomas; 06/27/2005 at 11:41 PM.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    I don't consider you to be an atheist. A true atheist simply does not believe there is a god. Being such, a true atheist could care less about swearing on the bible and would have no problem doing it since they would be conscious that it means nothing to them and consequently would be a complete non-issue. You are too threatened by religious beliefs to be an atheist.
    Bob: although this may be true...you assume that DA makes his decisions concerning religious issues solely on his decision on being an atheist. The other possible conclusion (there might be others) is that he is an atheist that makes decisions on religious issues based on a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the constitution. They dont appear to be mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    That you insisted on being affirmed to tell the truth instead of swearing on the bible underlines this.
    Or it underlines what I just said above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    In other words, if you didn't believe in God you wouldn't feel threatened by swearing on a bible.
    Like I said, only IF he looked at it simply from the perspective of being an atheist. (which I don't think he does).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    You probably believe in God to the extent that you blame him for all the things you believe are unjust in the world or in your life. So to get him back you denounce him every opportunity you get for a little bit of payback.
    Bob...I like the analysis and supporting argument...but you seem to be making some sort of psychological evaluation based on a few writings from DA on the establishment clause...You do see the humor in this right? (I assume as well that you arent being all that serious).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    It's like having an ex-lover that you still having feelings for and trash at every chance while trying to convince friends that you don't still have feelings for that person but everyone knows you do, versus having an ex-lover that never even crosses your mind for years because you have truly gotten over them.
    This was awesome (and no I havent felt that way )
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #63  
    bobc,

    So, walking around without a care in the world is what atheism is all about? You've really cleared things up here. I realize now that I'm not really an atheist either. Thanks.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The same thing could be asked of you....Do you respect the Christian belief system?

    I am in no way pushing one belief system over another here. I am saying that our society is based on this belief system. It is only logical, if for no other reasons than historical, that some of the Christian belief system are going to be evident in our society.

    Is it respectful to remove all religious comments from our constitution, change the reality of our history books, every religious aspect of the public arena, etc... just because the fraction of the minority "might" see that there is a different point of view than their own. Edit: Would removing all references to any religion to satisfy an atheist view, be endorsing atheist theology?

    I am for respecting all points of view. I am against trampling other points of view. If someone has a concern with a historical document such as the 10 commandments (and yes the 10 commandments are an historical document with a religious origin that has had a HUGE influence on the history of the world), petition to include another historical document that supports their point of view NEXT to it....and not try to remove and erase everyone else because you don't agree with that specific point.
    Da....I answered your question, but you did not answer mine in the last paragraph. I am sincerely interested in your view of it.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    bobc,

    So, walking around without a care in the world is what atheism is all about? You've really cleared things up here. I realize now that I'm not really an atheist either. Thanks.
    Yes. Absolutely. This is what certain factions want everyone to believe atheists are.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Da....I answered your question, but you did not answer mine in the last paragraph. I am sincerely interested in your view of it.
    It's an obviously religiously based historical document.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am in no way pushing one belief system over another here. I am saying that our society is based on this belief system. It is only logical, if for no other reasons than historical, that some of the Christian belief system are going to be evident in our society.
    I do agree with this Hobbes. Although the position of the establishment clause seems to indicate that 'we' should try to limit this where possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Is it respectful to remove all religious comments from our constitution, change the reality of our history books, every religious aspect of the public arena, etc... just because the fraction of the minority "might" see that there is a different point of view than their own.
    It may not be respectful to that particular religion (i.e. Christianity) however it appears to be respectful to all religions to not show preference of one over others. Plus the reason why is not because the 'minority "might" see that there is a different point of view than their own' but because the Establishment Clause has been interpreted to restrict it.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am for respecting all points of view. I am against trampling other points of view. If someone has a concern with a historical document such as the 10 commandments (and yes the 10 commandments are an historical document with a religious origin that has had a HUGE influence on the history of the world), petition to include another historical document that supports their point of view NEXT to it....and not try to remove and erase everyone else because you don't agree with that specific point.
    Well first, the 10 commandments are not just a historical document with a religious origin. To many people, if not all, they are a religious symbol of Christian Law.

    Second, although I like your approach of not removing religious symbols from public buildings, having to petition seems to indicate a process that can be accepted or denied (very subjective). Further, how could we possibly have every single religious symbol on every public building, etc. (because if we allow one, then we have to allow all.) Logistically, it seems like a difficult proposal.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Well first, the 10 commandments are not just a historical document with a religious origin. To many people, if not all, they are a religious symbol of Christian Law.
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's an obviously religiously based historical document.
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    based on a strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the constitution
    Two points:

    1) To call the 10 Commandments a Christian document wouldn't it be an insult to Jews, who wrote it to begin with, and to Islam that does honor many aspects of the old testament....including the 10 commandments? This is NOT a Christian document, but is a historical document that had religious roots that have been adopted by a wide range of religions that represent a vast majority of the population of the world....not just a view of a single thread of religion known as Christians. And as such has had a tremendous influence over several millennia of the world's history. If the 10 Commandants are an attempt of proselyting, then for what religion? Jewish because they wrote it? Christians because they have adopted it? Or Islam because the honor it?

    The Establishment Clause of the constitution does not say the gov cannot reference anything religious (or our money, the oath in court, the pledge of allegiance, the oath in congress, and oath of the president, etc... would all be unconstitutional). Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretense, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . .

    Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Although the clauses were intended by the framers to serve common values, there is some tension between the two. For example, some people might suggest that providing a military chaplain for troops stationed overseas violates the Establishment Clause, while others might suggest that failing to provide a chaplain violates the Free Exercise Clause rights of the same troops. At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It has grown through court law to basically include that it cannot support the establishment of one religion over another, which the 10 commandant clearly does not represent just one religion or even just one form of religion.

    The relationship between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses varies with the expansiveness of interpretation of the two clauses. In a general sense both clauses proscribe governmental involvement with and interference in religious matters, but there is possible tension between a requirement of governmental neutrality derived from the Establishment Clause and a Free-Exercise-derived requirement that government accommodate some religious practices. So far, the Court has harmonized interpretation by denying that free- exercise-mandated accommodations create establishment violations, and also by upholding some legislative accommodations not mandated by free exercise requirements. ''This Court has long recognized that government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.'' But the court rulings starting in 1947 have varied widely on many issues of this nature, which I personally believe depended more on whether the Supreme Court bench had more liberal or conserative members on it at the time of the rulings than anything else.


    2) As stated over and over again including why the reason the Supreme Court upheld this ruling is that the 10 Commandments are a historical document that had profound influence on the world's history and specifically on the foundation of our own nation. It does not matter whether you believe in God, to appreciate the values (if not beliefs) our country was founded on. It is history. It is factual. It is historical....regardless of 10 commandment's religious origins. No matter what you believe, it has influenced the foundation of our country and if you live in America it effects you today because of this historical fact, no matter how many history books are changed or how many references to the 10 commandments are taken down. Since the 10 Commandments does not give preference to any one religion keeping true to the Establishment Clause....And when placed in this historical context, no matter where our current laws or society may take us, I believe it is appropriate as a reminder of where we started as Americans.





    The Statue of Liberty has become a symbol of what our country is built on, but it was originally a gift from the French. It was originally designed to be lighthouse, though smaller, for the Suez Canal. The French hated it, so they decided to give it to us. Now lets say I absolutely despise the French for everything they pulled during the last several years in several attempts to undermine and minimize the US in the global order of political hierarchy. I boycott French cheese and wine, never watch a movie with a french actor in it, will only use sliced bread for sandwiches so I don’t have to taste French bread or Croissants, will never either ride in or watch another Tour De France, and I eat American Fries only. Should I fight to have the Statue of Liberty removed because of it's French origin and recognition of a potential preference of France over our closest ally of GB or appreciate it for what it has come to stand for in our national history, despite it's origin and it's original intent?








    ( BTW I cannot wait until Saturday to watch Lance racing for 7! )
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 06/28/2005 at 05:31 AM.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    2) As stated over and over again including why the reason the Supreme Court upheld this ruling is that the 10 Commandments are a historical document that had profound influence on the world's history and specifically on the foundation of our own nation.
    With all due respect, this is not true at all. I guess many people believe this, but when you actually read the ten commandments and think about it for a while, you will realize that they either don't apply, or that they are commonplaces:

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me:
    Wrong. All Western constitutions (including the one in the US) specifically state that you may have as many gods as you like, or none. This commandment bluntly contradicts the constitution.

    2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...:
    Wrong again. Even Christians make images of god all the time, preach in front of them, etc. Certainly no Western nation ever cared whether you do that or not.

    3. Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain...:
    Again, totally irrelevant, certainly no "profound influence on the world's history and specifically on the foundation of our own nation".

    4. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy:
    Is 24/7 illegal in the US? Does anybody care? Is this a founding principle of any nation, or of major importance outside of religion?

    5. Honour thy father and thy mother:
    Trivial. Every society on earth says that, it is certainly not specific to Christianity.

    6. Thou shalt not kill:
    Trivial. Every society on earth says that, it is certainly not specific to Christianity.

    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery:
    That's not part of the legal system, unless of course in fundamentalist nations such as Iran or Saudi-Arabia. Why mention this sentence in a court then?

    8. Thou shalt not steal:.
    Trivial. Every society on earth says that, it is certainly not specific to Christianity.

    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor:
    Trivial. No society encourages lying. Apart from that, it depends whether this is illegal or not. Most of the time, it isn't.

    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor anything that is thy neighbour's:
    Only to covet is certainly not illegal, nor is it considered immoral, nor is this commandment of any importance to the foundation of any nation.



    I would be far more impressed if some quotes from Jesus like "Love your enemies" were placed in courtrooms (ok, maybe not courtrooms), at least those are not trivial, and some of them may even have had some influence on our society, though this seem far from certain to me.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The Statue of Liberty has become a symbol of what our country is built on, but it was originally a gift from the French. It was originally designed to be lighthouse, though smaller, for the Suez Canal. The French hated it, so they decided to give it to us. Now lets say I absolutely despise the French for everything they pulled during the last several years in several attempts to undermine and minimize the US in the global order of political hierarchy. I boycott French cheese and wine, never watch a movie with a french actor in it, will only use sliced bread for sandwiches so I don’t have to taste French bread or Croissants, will never either ride in or watch another Tour De France, and I eat American Fries only. Should I fight to have the Statue of Liberty removed because of it's French origin and recognition of a potential preference of France over our closest ally of GB or appreciate it for what it has come to stand for in our national history, despite it's origin and it's original intent?
    This would be valid if those who advocate separation of church and state were hate-fueled nationalists, oblivious to the fact that their sh*t stinks too. However, the cognition behind this is instead for anti-discrimination, in respect to all religions in this country.

    I realize you're being sarcastic, but I congratulate you on providing one of the most misdirected and backwoods examples of the "With us, or against us" slippery slope. Very funny!
  11. #71  
    The ten commandemts was founded by judaism...

    Moses, upon freeing the slaves (jews) from paraoh of egypt, and finding mana to rest, asscending into the mountains (mount sianai) where god spoke to him. And on tablets god forged 10 rules to which people should live by.

    Upon moses' descent, he was sickened to see what had happend to the jews he had just freed. He dictated the commandments in the order god had forged them. He yelled among the people, to stop and follow these commandments. Some did and were saved...the others, god caused a nice big earthquake which caused all sinners to tumble down into the gates of hell..

    Also you gotta love the fact how similar the jewish, christan, and muslim faith are to each other

    Case and point

    Jesus:
    1. Jewish: Believed he existed, but was not the messiah (jesus was a jew)
    2. Christan: Existed and was the messiah
    3. Muslims: Believed he existed, but was not the messiah, he however although a strong character was replaced as the messiah (bad choice of words here) by mohammed. Mohammed a prophet was one day contacted by Allah (which is the arabic word for God), in which Allah said to Mohammed, to lead the people to a holy place in which we all can be together. That place he ended up finding, was mecca. Mecca is the place where when Muslims pray around the world, they are to face the direction where they are to that of mecca. Hence why sometimes you will see some people with compasses as to get their bearings of where they are.

    The Jewish and Muslim faith are more common by themselves. They both carry the same customs, but choose to blow each other to kingdom come, based on fightings that have begun since the crusades (with the christans) and with the jewish people post world war 2

    EDIT: Sorry if my english and spelling sucks...i was sick all last night so I am not all here at present
  12.    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by hofo_mofo
    EDIT: Sorry if my english and spelling sucks...i was sick all last night so I am not all here at present
    This is no excuse. If you want to post in english, make sure that your grammer and punctuation are correct. Mon Dieu
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    With all due respect, this is not true at all. I guess many people believe this, but when you actually read the ten commandments and think about it for a while, you will realize that they either don't apply, or that they are commonplaces:

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me:
    Wrong. All Western constitutions (including the one in the US) specifically state that you may have as many gods as you like, or none. This commandment bluntly contradicts the constitution.

    2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image...:
    Wrong again. Even Christians make images of god all the time, preach in front of them, etc. Certainly no Western nation ever cared whether you do that or not.

    3. Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain...:
    Again, totally irrelevant, certainly no "profound influence on the world's history and specifically on the foundation of our own nation".

    4. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy:
    Is 24/7 illegal in the US? Does anybody care? Is this a founding principle of any nation, or of major importance outside of religion?

    5. Honour thy father and thy mother:
    Trivial. Every society on earth says that, it is certainly not specific to Christianity.

    6. Thou shalt not kill:
    Trivial. Every society on earth says that, it is certainly not specific to Christianity.

    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery:
    That's not part of the legal system, unless of course in fundamentalist nations such as Iran or Saudi-Arabia. Why mention this sentence in a court then?

    8. Thou shalt not steal:.
    Trivial. Every society on earth says that, it is certainly not specific to Christianity.

    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor:
    Trivial. No society encourages lying. Apart from that, it depends whether this is illegal or not. Most of the time, it isn't.

    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor anything that is thy neighbour's:
    Only to covet is certainly not illegal, nor is it considered immoral, nor is this commandment of any importance to the foundation of any nation.
    Ah, but these things you call trivial, are they not verification that the 10 Commandments are indeed an historical document and not by necessity a specifically religious document?(I speak specifically of 5-10 as I believe one would be hard pressed to say the same of 1-4

    Incidentally, there was a time when more of the commandments were followed, even in Western countriues, more than they are today. In the not too distant past, there was no 24/7.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Ah, but these things you call trivial, are they not verification that the 10 Commandments are indeed an historical document and not by necessity a specifically religious document?(I speak specifically of 5-10 as I believe one would be hard pressed to say the same of 1-4

    Incidentally, there was a time when more of the commandments were followed, even in Western countriues, more than they are today. In the not too distant past, there was no 24/7.
    Why do you keep trying to go down this road. The very definiion of the 10 coms is that they were handed down by the hand of gawd to that Moses guy. That would be religion.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Why do you keep trying to go down this road. The very definiion of the 10 coms is that they were handed down by the hand of gawd to that Moses guy. That would be religion.
    True, but to dislpay them does not necessarily endorse religion - that's why I continue to go down this road

    If the information contained in them is "trivial" and practiced around the world in an entirely non-religious fashion, at some point they cease to be religious and become common knowledge, don't they?
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    This is no excuse. If you want to post in english, make sure that your grammer and punctuation are correct. Mon Dieu
    Grammar.

    I hate to be the nitpicker, but the irony...

    It is so often that when one corrects another's English, they make a boo-boo as well.

    Happy spelling!!
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Ah, but these things you call trivial, are they not verification that the 10 Commandments are indeed an historical document and not by necessity a specifically religious document?(I speak specifically of 5-10 as I believe one would be hard pressed to say the same of 1-4
    Only 6 (thou shalt not kill) and 8 (thou shalt not steal) overlap with the legal system of the US (and other Western countries). The first and the second commandment openly contradict the US constitution. Placing the ten commandments in a court is not only an endorsement of religion (since it obviously is from the Jewish and Christian bible and sets that book above other religious books since it is the only one represented). It is also, well, not very clever because important parts of the ten commandments are in conflict with the constitution and the laws represented by that court.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by atnight
    This would be valid if those who advocate separation of church and state were hate-fueled nationalists, oblivious to the fact that their sh*t stinks too. However, the cognition behind this is instead for anti-discrimination, in respect to all religions in this country.

    I realize you're being sarcastic, but I congratulate you on providing one of the most misdirected and backwoods examples of the "With us, or against us" slippery slope. Very funny!
    But at times when those who are bringing issues of this nature to court do present it a Us vs Them. Everyone else is religous, We are not so it offends us. This is a general statement, I know, but I have seen court cases, interviews, etc.. where that example does hold true.

    But you did not acknowledge the actual points in the post
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    True, but to dislpay them does not necessarily endorse religion - that's why I continue to go down this road

    If the information contained in them is "trivial" and practiced around the world in an entirely non-religious fashion, at some point they cease to be religious and become common knowledge, don't they?
    I believe that's what the Supreme Court stated and pointedly said must be secular.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Only 6 (thou shalt not kill) and 8 (thou shalt not steal) overlap with the legal system of the US (and other Western countries). The first and the second commandment openly contradict the US constitution. Placing the ten commandments in a court is not only an endorsement of religion (since it obviously is from the Jewish and Christian bible and sets that book above other religious books since it is the only one represented). It is also, well, not very clever because it is in conflict with the constitution and the laws represented by that court .
    Your definition of endorsement is much different than mine. To me, to endorse something is active, I don't believe that just because something exists in a given location that it is necessarily endorsed.

    Given what I preceive as your definition, would not the Swiss flag be an endorsement of Christian religion by the Swiss Government?
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions