Topic awaiting preservation: What is your purpose?

What is your purpose? Why are you people so violently trying to destroy God with YOUR philosophies. What is your purpose, to claim God as the athiest do? Do you really wish to help others with this, with your secular humanism, or are you just trying to disprove something you dont understand. Maybe some of you should try reading ALL of the Bible and living it, before you judge anything. How will you ever learn what that Teacher says if you are always contradicting Him? Think about where YOU stand in this. Is this a selfish, destructive action, or are you really trying to help anyone? God is too wise for a human mind to comprehend. Maybe you should just try out the Bible..all of it....God works, whether you believe it or not. Just try it. If I am lying, then let me die a cursed death, but I tell you, that if you truely live out the true meaning of God's word, you shall see truth. Anybody who contradicts me will not be answered. I will only answer to those who are willing and stand with open minds. For who tries to show a light to a blind man?

Are you alive?

Hi Gabriel, welcome to the Asylum.

quote:

---

Anybody who contradicts me will not be answered. I will only answer to those who are willing and stand with open minds.

---

These statements are in and of themselves a contradiction. If you will only speak to those that share your mindset, then who is guilty of the closed mind?

{edit-spelling}

[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-20-2003).]

Welcome to the Asylum.

Please tell me, Gabriel, do you love God?

. . : slicePuzzle

Supposing I am violently trying to destroy God... Yes, my keyboard already feels the pain, I can be very very violent you know. So, you are basically asking why people refute God's existence ?

Because most of the time it doesn't add anything good to people. I don't care about what others people worship, it isn't my problem. But when this thing makes people become lambs, I try to remove it. Because when I speak with religious people, they refuse to consider anything scientific, they refuse to consider anything that is not written is the 'holy writtings'. Humans are already enough stupid to have them close minded.

Because nowadays trusting in God is almost purposeless. During the dark and middle ages, trusting in God was useful because it helped people to bear their harsh life, they had an 'assurance' of a better and easier life after their death. Nowadays, isn't our life luxurious enough ? You need to trust in a probably non-existent after-life to live in happiness and serenity ?

Because in Texas where religious extremists are strong and close of the governement, because in Texas where school books are bought by the state, it is almost impossible to find a book speaking of evolution, and in school, children find in their books "God created the world and every living forms in it". Because teaching false things about our world and history to children is criminal.

Because the Bible doesn't hold the truth. The Bible was written four centuries after the death of Jesus (did you know it ?). All the fantastic events you can read in it are true events that happened, caused by the eruption of a volcano in Mediterranean sea, but magnified by centuries. Talks about objectivity...

"God is too wise for a human mind to comprehend." That's true. Throught history, millions of people fought and died in religious wars whose reaons were only the understanding of a religious point. And thousands of people still die nowadays in his name. That's true, I don't understand the wiseness in it... Can you explain it to me ?

Now you see why I try to 'destroy' God. But I forgot, I won't be answered... As Moon Dancer pointed out, close minded...

Just a side note : I am speaking for most religious people. Some people here proved me they were open minded



[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 08-20-2003).]

I'll answer this, and keep in mind that I am a Christian:

What is your purpose?

Their purpose is to tell others about their religions and philosophies just like you would try and tell someone about your religion and philosophies.

Why are you people so violently trying to destroy God with YOUR philosophies.

I haven't seen that. At least not the violently part. What I've seen are people that contradict what you beleive (*gasp* *shudder*) because they have different beleifs. The Asylum is a melting pot of philosophies, theologies and religions, and when you have all that combined, well, it's like mixing a bunch of diffrent viscosity liquids, they seperate and fight with each other. Just as you would try and pick apart and discredit Islam, a Muslim would try to pick apart and discredit Christianity. And it's generally very civil, not violent.

Do you really wish to help others with this, with your secular humanism, or are you just trying to disprove something you dont understand.

Is their anything wrong with being a secular humanist, or, should I say, anything more wrong than being Bhuddist, Christian or Jewish? And maybe they can help others with secular humanism. And of course they are trying to disprove something that they don't understand, just as I would try and prove the same thing that I don't understand.

Maybe some of you should try reading ALL of the Bible and living it, before you judge anything.

Maybe you should try reading ALL of the Qoran and living as a Muslim before judging it. People have their beleifs, which they think are right. I don't need to be a member of a baby-sacrificing cult in order to be able to pass judgment on it. All that is required to be done before any judgment is passed is thorough research.

How will you ever learn what that Teacher says if you are always contradicting Him?

They can learn what God says by reading the Bible, but they don't nescisarraly have to beleive anything in it. I can learn something that I think is false, like the theory of Macroevolution and still be able to contradict it.

Is this a selfish, destructive action, or are you really trying to help anyone?

Just as much as you, or I am trying to help someone by introducing them to Christianity. They have a world-view and a religious view that they think is right, just like I, and just like you have a world view and a religions view that I think is right.

God is too wise for a human mind to comprehend.

I agree.

Maybe you should just try out the Bible..all of it....God works, whether you believe it or not.

I'd agree that "God works," but if they don't want to try out the Bible, then they don't have to. What do you mean by try it out. Magic works, but I'm not going to go buy a spell book and do spells.

Anybody who contradicts me will not be answered.

Oh, Mr. Christian...God warned against being blind man. Maybe if you had a more open mind, then you'd be able to LEARN something.

I will only answer to those who are willing and stand with open minds.

Hmm. Thats interesting. So what is your idea of an open mind. Someone can have an open mind and still contradict you.

I will only answer to those who are willing and stand with open minds. For who tries to show a light to a blind man?

Wohoooo!!!! Ignor them Gabriel, don't get drawn in to these waste of time and negative and sometimes poisonous offerings. As open minded and as subtle as it may appears some would like nothing better than another target to shoot at... to reiniforce their inabilty to believe and experience. It's all philosophical garbage ...and remember where you posted... 'Philosophy and other Silliness' Don't even try to explain yourself... Jesus did not tell his followers to go to political debates and get into arguments and pointless discussions. He said"'my sheep know my voice"... They will call you closed minded, narrow, contradictory blah blah.. take no notice, keep your peace and thoughts and leave others with theirs. (yes I will get castigated for this but ... so what)

Have a lovely day.




[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 08-20-2003).]

Yeah be stupid, you dont have to study anything beside bible

well that sounds stupid in itself because he did not say that..

quote:

---

Maybe you should just try out the Bible...

---

If you can't see what is right in front of your face... who is really blind?

I'll answer this, and keep in mind that I am an atheistic humanist-rationalist:

What is your purpose?

Define "purpose" and I'll give you an answer.

Why are you people so violently trying to destroy God with YOUR philosophies.

"God" cannot be destroyed if he does not exist. Even if there was "God", what does it matter if people attempt to destroy him? I thought you believed (irrational) that "God" is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and the latest I've heard is that the word "God" is an omniword. As for your emphasis on "your", I should ask, "Why are you people so violently trying to debase the values of the scientific method and force YOUR belief system on us?" Granted, "you people" is a very prejudicial and very general term, and is not a phrase I would normally use under any circumstance.

What is your purpose, to claim God as the athiest do?

Since when have we claimed "God"? By the way, understand the term "atheist" as nontheists have been using for centuries.

A-: without
-theist: god-beliefs.

Atheist: a person without god-beliefs of any kind.

Do you really wish to help others with this, with your secular humanism, or are you just trying to disprove something you dont understand.

Have you ever considered the reality that it is you who does not understand? Have you ever done any scientific research or made any rational inquiries into your belief system? Or have you merely dismissed such practices without taking a second look?

Maybe some of you should try reading ALL of the Bible and living it, before you judge anything.

Perhaps you should attempt to understand the ontogenesis of the Gurwitschian perceptual structure, memetic engineering and its use in the marketing environment, or learn about Darwinism before you (and most of your Christian fellows) create erroneous assertions like "Darwin said we evolved from monkeys." By the way, the founders of the U.S. were Deists not Christians. (Added just for a little more info.)

How will you ever learn what that Teacher says if you are always contradicting Him?

How will you ever become a rational, intelligent human being if you simply believe whatever is preached to you? The prospect of a life such as mine (the propagation and defense of the values of reason, empathy, vision, and education, and the disintegration of dogma, apathy, and hypocrisy) may not appeal to you as much as eternal happiness in the afterlife until you realize that what your belief system offers is entirely fictional.

Is this a selfish, destructive action, or are you really trying to help anyone?

Is the fire that rages across dry plains destructive, or constructive? In any case, the promotion and acceptance of the values I have listed above will definitely ensure the continued survival of our species until the Singularity.

God is too wise for a human mind to comprehend.

Unsupported assertion based on irrational beliefs. All belief is essentially irrational, as belief can only occur where acceptance is not compelled, for if acceptance is compelled, then belief is not required to accept that thing. Belief is thus the acceptance of some thing as being provisionally true where: contradictory evidence exists which throws doubt upon or compels the rejection of the thing being accepted as truth; or where insufficient evidence exists to compel or suggest acceptance of the thing as truth.

Maybe you should just try out the Bible..all of it....God works, whether you believe it or not.

The values I've listed work. In fact, the memes they propagate are far more beneficial than Christianity or any other religion has ever been in the past 4000-5000 years.

Anybody who contradicts me will not be answered.

Then I presume I will be ignored. However, the rejection and fabrication of evidence are not rational actions.

I will only answer to those who are willing and stand with open minds.

Go back to church and preach to the choir if you are unwilling to lend an ear to opposing viewpoints.

counterfeitbacon
Thanks for creating a nicely formatted reply. You made my day a lot easier.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-20-2003).]

Gabriel - and maybe you should read every *other* book on religious value, and try *them* out thoroughly before settling on just one book.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . After all, a closed mind is a safe soul.
Wesley Treat 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

k, moon shadow, do some research before you speak. i went thru public school in texas and contrary to apparent popular belief evolution is taught and creationism is briefly mentioned.

as far as the rest of your comments, despite your disclaimer i'm almost offended. so many people judge christianity on such a small segment of society they've encountered and write the majority of the population off because of it. the thing is, i could grab any person off the street, no matter what their faith, and 90% of them couldn't tell me a thing about creation vs evolution, anything scientific in general, or argue critically about world events going on. MOST people are sheep, regardless of race, color, or creed. critical thinkers (and especially the media) have just found christianity an easier target.

chris

p.s. most of it was huxley's idea


KAIROSinteractive

Some research ? I was inventing facts Fig...

- Norman Spinrad, in the French edition of Other Americas, wrote a preface, in which he denounced what I said.
- And I know a girl of my age who lives in Texas, and who said exactly the same.

And I don't believe they lied. Perhaps it didn't happen to you, but I think it happened and still happens in Texas.

About your second point... It is right that a lot of people nowadays are sheeps. I am willing to admit that they might be as numerous among religious people as among atheist people. But you will hardly withdraw my conviction that religion, most of the time, makes of them even more stupid people.

And my apologizes if I offended you, that wasn't my point, really.

So MS

Speaking as another Texan, I second Fig "do more research"
And he is right about God. There are more faithful belivevers than non-believers in the world
Worldly there are only a small number of athiest, if thats what they really call themselves.

Your statement about religious persons being stupid only shows ignorance on your part. Talking about who is closed minded.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-20-2003).]

Welcome, Gabriel.

May I know something of yourself?

For my own part -

I'm 27, live in the United States, and I am very open minded. I am not a Christian. I am, however, willing to objectively discuss things with you, be they of the religious context or not.

Understand this definition of open minded discussion rules:

• Statements of beliefs are not to be geared towards conversion. This defeats the purpose of open minded, educational discussion.
• No one is to be told that they are wrong in their beliefs. This just creates angst and strife between those few who wish to attack each other and disrupts the learning of the willing. Condemnation is not accepted.
• For the same reasons as above, no name calling, bashing or vulgarity. These are all disruptive to the discussion and cause tempers to flare. Please keep it to a minimum.
• NO EXCESSIVE QUOTING - Open minded discussion requires statements of belief and an understanding of other beliefs. There can be no understanding if someone elses words are used. It gives no real information about the person speaking.
• NO EXCESSIVE EDITING - It is hard to follow what someone is saying when what they have said keeps changing. Typos are expected and usually easy to work through. Too many times have I seen entire posts deleted because of embarassment or persecution. I would prefer that people speak their minds and stand up for what they believe.

If you choose to accept these basic understandings of open discussion I will be happy to talk with you.

These rules are not Asylum rules. These are my basic requirements for a calm, productive, open minded discussion for those willing to learn.

So, care to toe the line, Gabriel?



[EDIT]Added a rule.[/EDIT]

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-20-2003).]

*sigh*

There are 1,100,000,000 people in the world who don't believe in God(s). And yes atheists it is really what they call themselves. That's not exactly a small number I would say. And this number comes from Encarta 2002 Deluxe (in case you didn't trust what I said).

From my readings, from what I know, from the people I know, from the reflections I had, I came to the opinion that :

- Religion throught history was often used as a weapon of mass distraction, to manipulate people. And is still used in this purpose. Does the word "Jihad" echo something in the latest world news for you ? People are still manipulated by religions.

- Religion throught history was often used as a means to prevent questionning (only in western religions, eastern religions praise questionning), and to make people live in situations they shouldn't have agreed with. "Why us peasants must be slaves under this master ? It's God's will !".

- Religion caused thousands of deaths, and stopped progress for decades (not to say centuries). You know, what was called 'inquisition', which threated many scientists to deny their works, otherwise they would be burned as 'heretics' ?

- Religion, nowadays, is widely represented by TV evangelists. "Blessed people" who promise other people the redemption and a safe after-life, given of course they send their money. To me, an exploitation of weak minds.

So, in my humble opinion, religion most of time manipulates people, gives them easy answers instead of letting humans think, making of them super sheeps.

Now tell me why I am wrong.

GD : well spoken, I shall be softer next time

Ah, edited some spellings too.

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 08-20-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 08-20-2003).]

Welcome too, Gabriel.
I love that name.
I named my two sons after angels, Gabriel and Michael.
I am Christian also and am of the family of the Catholic church.

Your views are welcome and I hope to learn from you as I have learned from many posters on this site.

MD, it may happen in some small towns (which i'd doubt is exclusive to texas or any particular country for that matter) but not anywhere of note that i've ever heard of. i'd be curious exactly where your friend went to school, i attended one of the top districts in the state (in a suburb of houston) and creation was barely mentioned and I can't recall ever hearing God discussed in a science class. your comment is the first i've heard of that, sounds like an attempted shot against bush and other conservative leadership (not by you personally, by whomever is perpertrating the rumor).

as far as religion breeding stupidity, i can understand in a sense where you're coming from but i disagree. i personally have a problem with many aspects of organized religion and actually agree with several of your points in the other thread, religion (while well-intended) often completely missed the point and puts things in the way of people and God as opposed to drawing them closer.

at the same time that doesn't change what i believe is truth and that many people, tho misguided or imperfect in their following of the faith, have had a life-changing experience with God and are in a better place because of it. i saw it happen to a kid less than a month ago, he is a completely different person now. without the right guidance its possible he'll live off that one experience, knowing that the God of the bible is very real and has changed him but never exploring further to test more of his faith (which i think is the case with a lot of christians). is that right? well, its certainly not ideal, but does that put him in a better place than the person religiously following MTV, binge-drinking and doing whatever else on the weekends to try to satisfy themselves? that may sound very sterotypical, but i work with teenagers on a regular basis and its very, very real.

and no offense taken, no worries, i'm just trying to get you guys to see that there's two sides to every coin. just like some of you may find bugs, jk, myself, etc. to be atypical when it comes to christians, realize that a lot of you are the same way to us.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig

Thats Ok. I am not offended when you don't lump me into Christianity also. Its not rare that non-catholic christians don't consider, catholics christian.
You have done this on more than one post.




[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-20-2003).]

no offense intended jade, but to be honest i can see you in both categories. i'll admit that i don't consider a lot of catholics as "christian" simply because i don't believe they've accepted and have a personal relationship with christ, the foundation of christianity. i saw this time and time again growing up in the catholic church. i do believe you've got that relationship, so not considering you as christian would be unfair and illogical of me. at the same time some of your comments do seem to indicate a mentality of the church being the end-all of knowledge and simply accepting those truths as opposed to questioning and seeking (which i realize is essentially catholic doctrine). a lot of things the catholic church teaches are IMO contradictory to scripture as we've discussed before.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Welcome Gabriel, (from a Taoist)

I just wanted to say, the views expressed by counterfeitbacon and GrythusDraconis are wonderful. They describe my feelings exactly, but they have presented them in a far better manner than I ever could. Thank you guys If more people thought and acted as you have, this would be a far better planet to live on.
If you are at all interested in my thoughts on your comments, have a peek in my Cell and look for "Tecumseh". Then we can share the (proverbial or not) peacepipe and be.
Tao

quote:

---

Why are you people so violently trying to destroy God with YOUR philosophies.

---

What else can we destroy him with? His own philosophies?...oh, wait...that's right...God doesn't have philosophies, for that would be questioning the nature, and therefore the existance, of God, there for God cannot have philosophies.

But a philosophy is a necessary part of belief. You cannot have belief without a philosophy, because a philosophy is how you define the boundaries of belief. Something with no boundaries is infinite, and infinity cannot exist. Even (the christian) God is not infinite, for God can only exist in a willing mind and a willing heart, and there are minds and hearts out there which are not willing to accept the Christian idea of God. We call them 'people of other religions' (yes...they do exist, there's no use in denying it). They do not accept your idea of God, but they do accept another idea of God. I don't accept your idea of God, but I do accept another idea of God. It's my own personal idea, and it's the way I see God around me in the world everyday. Therefore by calling your God 'infinite' (as I know many do, having been a christian for most of my life) you yourself are proclaiming that he doesn't exist.

But I digress...quite often actually....

What we do here is debate the existance and the nature of God in the world. We don't try to destroy him, for, as Christianity proclaims, God is a supreme being. How can we possibly hope to destroy someone who can spin the heavens and earth out of whole cloth in just *cough* seven days? If in fact you are the staunch Christian you make yourself out to be, you would know this, and you would also be secure in your belief that God cannot be destroyed, for he holds Lordship and Dominion (sounds like Star Trek now) over all. So by the very fact that you come here and accuse us of trying to destroy God using our 'philosophies' you show yourself to be none too secure in your own beliefs.

quote:

---

to claim God as the athiest do?

---

Ha...This point had me laughing for a moment...Athiests...Do you try and claim God? For to claim something is to acknowledge that it exists...you cannot claim that which does not exist. This statement is so wrong that it is actually the direct opposite of what Athiests do.

quote:

---

For who tries to show a light to a blind man?

---

OK...I won't bother trying to show you any light, for you yourself are the blind man that you speak of...you are so engrained in your beliefs that they have turned you in on yourself. You cannot see the light for your own purity. You, my friend, are truly the blind man, not becuase you can't see other's beliefs as valid, but becuase you refuse to see them.

Then again, why am I writing this? You've already said I'm not going to get a reply, becuase I have commited the ultimate sacreligious act...I have contradicted you! *GASP* Dear God no! I don't want to do what you do yourself. After all...why should I help you contradict yourself? You do such a good job on your own .

More later...

[edit]Damn fingers...spell the words right![/edit]

[This message has been edited by Skaarjj (edited 08-20-2003).]

Fig

Thats no news to me. Its been happening since the dawn of Christianity. If some of you posters are not educated in the ways of Christians dissenting with one another on who is more of a christian than others, its very tragic. We dissect Jesus, flesh and bone and pull him apart. How painful it must be.

Maybe Fig your more of a Christian than I am. Regardless, I consider you a christian if you believe you are.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-20-2003).]

jade, i'm not going to argue about semantics or who should be called what (nor did i intend to call or not call anyone anything), i simply don't agree with everything that you do as far as theology (which we've been thru before as i mentioned) and as such you appear somewhat closed-minded at times. if you really want to discuss what makes someone christian vs not start a new thread and i'd be happy to discuss it with you.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Fig

You know, I could say its one wall up against another, but I am open enough to know that Jesus is for everybody. I dont claim more right to him than any other Christian sect.

To go there and debate like we have before doesn't help you or me. Just gives other poster gazers a view on how Christians proclaim to love one another and spread his peace and harmony by butting heads.

If you want to discuss scripture passages and communicate on how you see it without saying your right and I am wrong, I am all for it. I would love it.

Wow.

Skaarjj - Nice post there. Loved the logic behind 'God is infinite' = 'God doesn't exist'. And DS9's also the first thing I think of whenever I hear "Dominion" (Your own... personal... Odo...). When I hear people like Gabriel come so close to ranting about their beliefs, it makes me question the strength of those beliefs. The poster doth protest too much, to paraphrase Shakespeare. And to not even be willing to hear any contradictions or arguments? Why even bother getting on the Internet?

I have to admit, though, to taking a small amount of sadistic pleasure from the idea that people like that probably spend most of their lives very unhappy due to their neverending encounters with people who disagree either with their beliefs, theology, rote rejection of differing ideas or fashion sense.

And if you want a movie that sums up modern religion very nicely, rent "Monty Python's Life of Brian".

My advice? Forget the shoe; follow the gourd...



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

jade, i have no desire to debate with you and wasn't trying to. i was simply trying to make a point to those who write off christians as stereotypical sheep, one that's probably been lost by now due to this sidebar.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

"Even if they should remove this monument -- and God forbid they do -- they'll never be able to remove it from our hearts," said the Rev. Greg Dixon of Indianapolis Baptist Church. From CNN Online.

This quote is in regards to the whole Ten Commandments monument issue in the Alabama state judicial building.

This brings up a couple of thoughts:

1) What if a Muslim judge put up a monument to the Koran? What about a Buddhist judge with a big stone Buddha in the lobby? Would the people at these prayer vigils still be there? Or would they be protesting its presence? If this judge wins, what will they say when someone wants to put up a Star of David?

2) About the quote above, if the Ten Commandments are already in their hearts, why do they need a monument? Isn't having it in their hearts more important than having it in their state judicial building? If it is, shouldn't they be content with that? If it isn't more important, shouldn't it be? It just sounds like a bunch of people who feel the need to forcefully inject their religion into every facet of their lives. Note I said 'forcefully inject'. Some people live their beliefs. Others, it seems, let their beliefs live them. It's the difference between living your life in accord with what you feel is right, and plastering up the symbols of your chosen religion as publicly as possible, so as to convince yourself as much as other people.

"Moore, who installed the monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago, contends it represents the moral foundation of American law and that a federal judge has no authority to make him remove it."

3) The moment that a judge, sworn to uphold the law, claims that they are above that law, it's time for them to go.



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

Wangenstein-
You bring up some very good questions that I have often thought about myself. I have no problem with the 10 Commandments or any other part of Christian Scripture put on public walls - provided- any other religion has the freedom to do the same. Go ahead and put the Commandments on the school walls, right up alongside the Wiccan Rede, the moral guidances from the Q'ran, and the teachings of the Buddha. Somehow I don't think that would fly. 1. Because I think there would be "righteous" protests and 2. I don't think leaders of some of the other religions would seek to do so because they don't have the incessant need to propagandize their faith and force it down the not always so willing masses throats.

[edit Forgot a word... oops. /edit]


[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-21-2003).]

quote:

---

What is your purpose?

---

...sometimes to plant, sometimes to water, sometimes to reap.
And what, might I ask, is your purpose?

*now, I will go back and read the responses to your post...just remember this:

~jeremiah was a bullfrog~

The promotional aspect of Christianity (and other traditional religions) is primarily a Western feature.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

Fig : It is perhaps an attack against the governement... I don't know, I don't know enough American politic to think about it objectively. About Norman Spinrad : Norman Spinrad was formerly American, now he is French. Because he wrote novels in which he criticized the governement, his author's rights were 'stolen' by the tax authorities. That's why now he write in France, there is no censorship about books in France (and he can earn his living). Perhaps what he said was an exagerated attack against the governement, though I wouldn't think that of him. Furthermore, I removed my MSN account (see the topic in Ozone about MSN), but I emailed the girl I know about this topic. I'll let you know when she'll give me her answer.

But thinking more about it, we were disagreeing on what religion brings to somebody. I don't think it is possible to define it. Because everyone is different, perceive things differently, need different believes, nobody will ever find the same thing in religion. I can consider it makes people sheeps because it fills them with believes I don't trust in nor see the interest in our society, but, like in your example, it can truly enlighten someone...

When it comes to human opinions and believes, no generalizations should be made, which everyone, I included, tend to do. And, to come back to Gabriel's post and what GD said, wanting to impose our opinion is necessarily wrong. Ultimately, even considering everything possible in religion probably won't change the way I perceive it because I associate it to an intellectual laziness. But I'll stick to what my mom is used to say : "You need everything to make a world" (my translation is approximate).

Catholics or Protestants, Budhists or Atheists, Hinduits or Taoists (Mr Baybee are you here ? ), whatever. As Wangestein wonderfully said it : " Some people live their beliefs. Others, it seems, let their beliefs live them. It's the difference between living your life in accord with what you feel is right, and plastering up the symbols of your chosen religion as publicly as possible, so as to convince yourself as much as other people.". I wouldn't limit it to religions though. Ultimately, there is no need to shout everywhere our believes, to cry for monuments, to convince of our opinions, because ultimately, our opinion is unique, and will only fit perfectly in ourselves.



[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 08-21-2003).]

I had a good response but OzoneAsylum requires me to fill out a passworod each time. :\

Basically, Moon Shadow, you need to differentiate between "belief" and "truth." The two concepts are not alike.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

Wangenstein, I'll take a shot at answering some of the points you brought up.

quote:

---

1) What if a Muslim judge put up a monument to the Koran? What about a Buddhist judge with a big stone Buddha in the lobby? Would the people at these prayer vigils still be there? Or would they be protesting its presence? If this judge wins, what will they say when someone wants to put up a Star of David?

---

If the local community has a large Muslim and/or Buddhist population, then I have little problem with it. I am pretty sure that the people who are protesting *this* issue in Alabama would not like it and would be protesting Muslim or Buddhist symbols. When they added Wicca to the militaries list of religions to have chaplins for, I believe there was some opposition by other religious groups, so I point to that as an example.

I think I tend more towards Moon Dancer's approach. I want to see more religious freedom in this country and not less.

I seriously doubt this group would have a problem with the Star of David though. American Xians, by and large, are different from European ones. American Xians are very friendly to Jews and hold them in very high regard based on their reading of some of the End Times portions of the Bible. The fact that we're talking about the 10 commandments here is another indication of that. Notice the judge did not post the Golden Rule or any New Testament passage.

quote:

---

2) About the quote above, if the Ten Commandments are already in their hearts, why do they need a monument? Isn't having it in their hearts more important than having it in their state judicial building? If it is, shouldn't they be content with that?

---

Monuments are important. They reaffirm what a country holds in high regard or they remind us of important concepts. This is not, or should not, be an either or situation. The fact of the matter is that our law is based on the Judeo-Christian teachings. Having this monument is just fine with me. What I want to know is why removing it has become such a priority? This is not a violation of a separation of church and state by any stretch of the imagination and I am getting very tired of cultural and religious nazis parading under the banner of "freedom" going around and doing their level best to prevent free expression. The founding fathers did not intend for that phrase to become an excuse to "elimate" any mention of religion from public discourse. It should not be used in that fashion.

Now there are legimate cases that come up where the line between religion and state is crossed but this is not one of them. Basically I support the ACLU when if confines its attacks on those who are taking freedoms away from others or imposing their religion on others but as soon as the ACLU becomes the ones infringing on rights I pull back that support. And I am sad to say they are doing far more of the latter.

metahuman, what exactly do you mean about differentiating belief and truth. (and I always highlight and save my long responses to the clipboard before I post to guard against losing them, I know how much it hurts to lose all that typing)

. . : slicePuzzle

>> [Bugimus said...] The fact of the matter is that our law is based on the Judeo-Christian teachings.

False. The founders of the USA were Deists not Christians. They abhorred Christianity.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

I cannot speak for other religions, but in Christianity our belief is that we are called to make disciples of all nations. We must spread the gospel. The Holy Spirit compels us to do so. To not do so is un-christrian. This includes praying for all to know who Christ was and is without stepping out our front door. So maybe you guys can cut us some slack. We are just trying and I repeat trying to live out our faith. So we cannot be content to live to keep Christ to ourselves. So you can view Christians shoving down Christ in persons throats, but that is not how we see it. If we are criticized, castigated, made fun of, be-littled or have recieved ill treatment because of our faith by others in spreading the gospel, we are according to the words of christ to "shake the dust from our feet" and move on. And also from Christ " All those who hear you, hear me". So for 2000+ years this has been going on and will continue to do so till the end of time. So, Christianity is here to stay. Maybe those who don't want to accept Jesus as the savior could get as educated as they can in scripture so they can know where christians are coming from.

LOL! Ignorance and miseducation in its purest form. ^
At least you are not claiming that evolution unreal and creationism is truth.

You have no idea how much you do not know.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-21-2003).]

quote:

---

If the local community has a large Muslim and/or Buddhist population, then I have little problem with it. I am pretty sure that the people who are protesting *this* issue in Alabama would not like it and would be protesting Muslim or Buddhist symbols.

---

It is not equality if, in the absence of the group in question, the groups rights become unimportant.

quote:

---

I had a good response but OzoneAsylum requires me to fill out a passworod each time

---

You CAN hit the back button (at least in IE). Also, after you have logged in once, go to preferences and click the radio button to have the Asylum remember your Password and Username. It will only work at the location you set it up.



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-21-2003).]

GrythusDraconis: The system erratically remembers my login details despite the options that are set.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

metahuman, before you throw around insults like that you may want to do a little introspection. I'm sorry but I think you are generalizing to the point of inaccuracy. Some of the founders were most certainly deists and many were christians. Nearly all of them based their views on Judeo-Christian teachings. I think if you look into it you will find that is the case. Keep in mind that having a foundation on Judeo-Christian concepts does not mean you are an overtly religious person or for that matter religious at all.

GD, just because local community standards don't represent all peoples does not mean that the things not represented are unimportant. I just think that every community should be allowed to celebrate their own culture. I don't see it any different than expecting to find certain types of music and cuisine when I travel to different parts of the country.

. . : slicePuzzle

MH

quote:

---

LOL! Ignorance and miseducation in its purest form. ^
At least you are not claiming that evolution unreal and creationism is truth.

---

Well, I may not be a scholar like you, but I can put 2 & 2 together to come up with thought that creationism could have worked thur evoultion. It dosen't have to be one or the other.

quote:

---

Maybe those who don't want to accept Jesus as the savior could get as educated as they can in scripture so they can know where christians are coming from.

---

And once again, I have to say - why don't *you* become educated in all of *our* beliefs so that you can know where *we* are coming from? Why must everyone else always learn what you want them to learn, but not the other way around?

Meta - simple solution for you: fill in your password each time you post.

Bugimus - celebrate their culture, sure. But build religious monuments in the court house? No. It's plain and simple - seperation of church and state. Yes, our laws may have a foundation in judeo-christian laws, but they are also basic values that stand quite seperate from any religion, and quite clearly omit the references to god or other religious observances. They are social in nature.

Posting the 10 commandments in the courthouse, complete with commandments speaking of how to treat god, is absolutely wrong. It implies that the court does not uphold the state's laws, but rather their own vision of "god's" laws.

And that is wrong in every possible way.


.

Gabriel - it's good to see that you do actually have some thoughtful insight to bring to this conversation. Good stuff!


[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-21-2003).]

Ok DL.

What is your argument for proof of no God? What is the athiesim creed you go by. I want to get educated on what athiest believe. Give me a list of points to draw on to believe a creator of all does not exist.

In regard to the ten commandemnts in keeping church and state separate, doesn't the president of the USA take his oath of office on a bible, which contains the 10 commandments?

In response to you, Gabriel.

What is your purpose?

- I have no 'purpose' in life, excpet to live it as long as possible, seeking as much fulfillment as possible, while harming as few people as possible.

Why are you people so violently trying to destroy God with YOUR philosophies.

- I am not the one doing so. Any claim that one knows who God/Allah is, if God/Allah is at all, destroys God/Allah. I try never making such a claim.

Do you really wish to help others with this, with your secular humanism, or are you just trying to disprove something you dont understand.

- You do so successfully yourself.

Maybe some of you should try reading ALL of the Bible and living it, before you judge anything.

- I would agree with CFB's assertion above, with one difference: It is not up to me to judge anything more harshly than I would judge myself.

How will you ever learn what that Teacher says if you are always contradicting Him?

- The only good authority is the one that can prove his authority while being questioned, challenged or contradicted.

Is this a selfish, destructive action, or are you really trying to help anyone?

- It is neither selfish, nor destructive. I only seek to understand, and I cannot if I have no proof. I have no proof if I cannot question.

God is too wise for a human mind to comprehend.

- Then why are you so sure you can?

Maybe you should just try out the Bible..all of it....God works, whether you believe it or not.

- Are you certain of that? Are you certain of the Bible man-made interpretation?

Anybody who contradicts me will not be answered.

- Then, why did you post?

I will only answer to those who are willing and stand with open minds.

- You do not know what an open mind is if you are not ready for a challenge to your beliefs..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have one question for you Gabriel.

I have read your statement. It strikes me as biased, short-sighted, arrogant, and provocative. It has drawn quite a reaction, not all of it generous to other responders. Your post is entirely too well scripted.

Did you post this statement to demonstrate your own closed-minded beliefs, or did you post this so others can demonstrate their closed-minded beliefs?

I wish you peace.

Gabriel: My porpoise is a porpoise.

jade:

quote:

---

Well, I may not be a scholar like you, but I can put 2 & 2 together to come up with thought that creationism could have worked thur evoultion.

---

I suppose it would depend on what your definitions of 'creationism' and 'evolution' but as commonly expressed there isn't much cross over - if God created life on earth then this rather does away with the need for evolution.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

DL, the separation of church and state does *not* mean the elimination of religious symbols from government buildings, monuments, etc. I believe that is a distortion of original intent. The clause was meant to prevent a state religion from being established. Having the 10 commandments, a buddha, or anything else like that in a government building does not do that.

Emperor
Why is it so impossible to believe that God did work thur evolution for a purpose that you and I are limited in understanding of? Why does some mankind think they should be allowed to know and have all answers in order to explain the creative nature of the world? Our human limited minds could not fathom what pertains to the essence of the creators intent. They fact that no persons have all the answers about life here and whats out there speaks for itself.

Let's be clear on the words we're using. Creationism (big C) implies that Evolution (big E) didn't happen. Believing that God created the world through evolution (little e) or some other method is not what is commonly referred to as Creationism (big C).

I personally find Creationism very problematic on a couple of different levels. 1) It insists on an extremely literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis and 2) it seeks to discredit legitimate scientific endeavors.

jade-

quote:

---

Maybe those who don't want to accept Jesus as the savior could get as educated as they can in scripture so they can know where christians are coming from.

---

By this statement you are assuming that those who have chosen not to accept Jesus as Savior have never experienced Christianity or given it a chance. I assure you there are plenty of us out there who have studied the faith, who were raised in it, have an intimate understanding of where Christians are coming from, and have still chosen to believe something else - or chosen to not believe at all.

{edit - to appease those who do not believe}




[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-22-2003).]

Well Bugs it depends on how you interpret Genesis. Did God really make all in 7 days? Maybe, maybe not. The writers of the bible used 7 all over scripture to represent fullness and limitness. God made the world in all its fullness is how my faith interprets this. Doesn't mean the writer meant 7 days. But then again it could. The bible references sinning 7x77 times and God will forgive you. Bible story of even bridegrooms, seven lamp stands, seven deadly sins, seven scrolls, etc. You could interpret it like God made the existance as we know it in all its fullness. So how we can interpret creationism depends on how you view the scripture passages. I am open to the possiblity that God might of made mankind in his image, meaning spiritual image and bodily image came way before. God made man in his likeness by then concieveing a soul in him in its perfection. Genesis is story telling handed down like campfire stories till someone decided to write it down. I believe the writers wrote it in a way to make believers understand the essence of who God is thur Gods creative nature. It doesn't have to one or the other.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-21-2003).]

Umm...if we're talking about 'and God did X in X amount of days'...shouldn't you try reading it first. It states 'and on the seventh day, He rested'. God didn't actually create the world in 7 days...he did it in 6. Like all good contract workers God has managed to get the work done ahead of time, take the next day off, but still get paid for it. ...heh...

ROTFL, Skarjj.

Good point, Bugs. I'll have to think on it some more. The basic problem is that this is going on a majority rules assumption. Just because the voices of other religions that want to be represented (if there are any) are drowned out by the majority doesn't mean those voices shouldn't be heard. I think that basically what I was trying to say before. In your cultural context, you can go other places and find other foods/music/etc. but you can still find your more familiar foods/music/etc. You don't find the other things to the complete exclusion of your familiar ways (at least not too often).



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-21-2003).]

GD, the way I see it, if I were a Xian living in a predominantly Buddhist county, I would not expect to be heard over the majority. I wouldn't feel persecuted, I wouldn't impose. It's that simple. In the cases where the majority oppress the minority, ah now that is a different matter altogether. That should not be allowed. But I do not accept the argument that merely viewing symbols that you don't accept on government buildings constitutes oppression. I go back to my original example about me not expecting my minority opinion to dominate the majority.

. . : slicePuzzle

Regarding the Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse... normally, I wouldn't consider a religious symbol to imply a religious entanglement with government. However, in this particular case, the content is too similar. The courthouse is dedicated to enforcing the laws of Man; for it to have a monument proclaiming the laws of God is quite obviously (to my eyes) combining or confusing the secular and religious realms.

Cell 1250 :: alanmacdougall.com :: Illustrator tips

Except it wasn't an opinion directed at removing the symbol. It wasan opinion directed at being equally represented. Taking nothing away from anyone. I agree that the minority shouldn't expect to stop the majority from doing things. But it is the majorities responsibility, by Constituional Law no less, to accept minority equality.

Your right Sk,

I think what I am trying to convey is that the writers are telling us the 7th day of rest gives us the message in regard to mankind 's completion of toil and labor and to reap what we have sowed and then take a rest and be glad and thankful is the story of creation. By offering up to God, we are imitating what God did like God is showing us what to do like a master plan. God worked to give us a good world, saw it, liked it, was content and glad it was done and took rest. We do that too every week. We thank God its Friday, clean, wash clothes, pay bills on Sat and relax on Sun. But how we give thanks is by meeting as a family of belivers praying and worshiping and most of all thanking in a communal way.



[This message has been edited by jade (edited 08-21-2003).]

Um, I go to sleep for 10 or so hours, and there's some 20 more posts... okay...

>> [Bugimus said...] metahuman, before you throw around insults like that you may want to do a little introspection. I'm sorry but I think you are generalizing to the point of inaccuracy. Some of the founders were most certainly deists and many were christians. Nearly all of them based their views on Judeo-Christian teachings. I think if you look into it you will find that is the case. Keep in mind that having a foundation on Judeo-Christian concepts does not mean you are an overtly religious person or for that matter religious at all.

[reply from a 2001 discussion]
The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 7).

If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so? In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women's rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

[in addition...] http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_founders.html http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm

Need I say more?

>> [DL-44 said...] Posting the 10 commandments in the courthouse, complete with commandments speaking of how to treat god, is absolutely wrong. It implies that the court does not uphold the state's laws, but rather their own vision of "god's" laws.

[my reply]
Yes, they might as well post Lollipop Lust Kill's lyrics to "Knee Deep in the Dead."
http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/lollipoplustkill/mysocalledknife.html#5

>> [Jade said...] What is your argument for proof of no God? What is the athiesim creed you go by. I want to get educated on what athiest believe. Give me a list of points to draw on to believe a creator of all does not exist.

[my reply]
An atheist is one who lacks god-beliefs of any kind. The following article ( http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm ) gives a basic rundown on the meanings of "agnostic" and "atheist", the definition of atheist used by Christians, and the definition of atheist that is used by nontheists. It is obvious that communication cannot exist between two entities if each entity uses separate definitions. I urge you to use the nontheist definition as it is less prejudicial than the Christian definition. Many people (including atheists) are miseducated on this issue and some atheists are fanatic in their attempts to dissuade Christians from their faith, to answer the question of "God's" existence, or to bash the "Heaven" out of religionists. This is not the way that many atheists, agnostic or not, advocate, and unfortunately, most of the attacking atheists were former Christians. The pattern is clear.

I would also point out that by using the Christian definition of atheism while we use our accurate definition of atheism is equivalent to skinheads defining blacks and blacks defining themselves. Recently, the Atheist Coalition in San Diego (CA) marched in the Gay Pride parade to send the message, "The Boy Scouts hate us too!" Photos

>> [Emperor said...] I suppose it would depend on what your definitions of 'creationism' and 'evolution' but as commonly expressed there isn't much cross over - if God created life on earth then this rather does away with the need for evolution.

[my reply]
Commonly expressed, this statement is accurate. However, there is a difference between biological evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, and evolution. Religionists tend to see evolution as a competing religion (evolution isn't even a science!) so they resort to creationism or the watered-down version named "intelligent design." Talk.Origins is a good site on both evolution and creationism.

>> [Jade said...] Why is it so impossible to believe that God did work thur evolution for a purpose that you and I are limited in understanding of? Why does some mankind think they should be allowed to know and have all answers in order to explain the creative nature of the world? Our human limited minds could not fathom what pertains to the essence of the creators intent. They fact that no persons have all the answers about life here and whats out there speaks for itself.

[my reply]
Your statement relies on the prejudicial definition of atheism. Your assertions also rely on the existence of a "God", which has also been logically "crucified". And again, your lack of knowledge of the various sciences does not prove your point.

>> [Moon Dancer said...] I assure you there are plenty of us out there who have studied the faith, who were raised in it, have an intimate understanding of where Christians are coming from, and have still chosen to believe something else.

[my reply]
As all belief is irrational... rationalists, humanists, and many atheists would reject to the idea that the majority of humans (which includes themselves) believe in anything. I do not have any beliefs whatsoever.

>> [Jade said...] Well Bugs it depends on how you interpret Genesis. Did God really make all in 7 days? Maybe, maybe not. The writers of the bible used 7 all over scripture to represent fullness and limitness. God made the world in all its fullness is how my faith interprets this. Doesn't mean the writer meant 7 days. But then again it could. The bible references sinning 7x77 times and God will forgive you. Bible story of even bridegrooms, seven lamp stands, seven deadly sins, seven scrolls, etc. You could interpret it like God made the existance as we know it in all its fullness. So how we can interpret creationism depends on how you view the scripture passages. I am open to the possiblity that God might of made mankind in his image, meaning spiritual image and bodily image came way before. God made man in his likeness by then concieveing a soul in him in its perfection. Genesis is story telling handed down like campfire stories till someone decided to write it down. I believe the writers wrote it in a way to make believers understand the essence of who God is thur Gods creative nature. It doesn't have to one or the other.

[my reply]
So many assertions, so little evidence of truth... By the way, interpretation of the Bible is a requirement to gain any information of relevant importance to your life. If you read the Bible objectively, rationally, and critically, you'll find that the Bible holds no value. The Unspoken Bible: What the Church doesn't want you to hear

>> [Bugimus said...] GD, the way I see it, if I were a Xian living in a predominantly Buddhist county, I would not expect to be heard over the majority. I wouldn't feel persecuted, I wouldn't impose. It's that simple. In the cases where the majority oppress the minority, ah now that is a different matter altogether. That should not be allowed. But I do not accept the argument that merely viewing symbols that you don't accept on government buildings constitutes oppression. I go back to my original example about me not expecting my minority opinion to dominate the majority.

[my reply]
The issue is far more complex than the mere viewing of inappropriate symbols and doctrines on government property. Nontheists are oppressed in the USA to some level. That level is described on many sites, which if you had researched beforehand you would not be making such blatantly false statements. As for the majority to dominate over the minority, in the future, please keep in mind the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights when laying your fingertips to the keyboard.

>> [Jade said...] I think what I am trying to convey is that the writers are telling us the 7th day of rest gives us the message in regard to mankind 's completion of toil and labor and to reap what we have sowed and then take a rest and be glad and thankful is the story of creation. By offering up to God, we are imitating what God did like God is showing us what to do like a master plan. God worked to give us a good world, saw it, liked it, was content and glad it was done and took rest. We do that too every week. We thank God its Friday, clean, wash clothes, pay bills on Sat and relax on Sun. But how we give thanks is by meeting as a family of belivers praying and worshiping and most of all thanking in a communal way.

[my reply]
...and now I'll just ignore Jade as he/she seems to be uninterested in discussion, but would rather use this thread as a podium to promote his/her irrational dogma.

Edited: Forgot URL to article on agnosticism.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-22-2003).]

Metahuman-

quote:

---

As all belief is irrational... rationalists, humanists, and many atheists would reject to the idea that the majority of humans (which includes themselves) believe in anything. I do not have any beliefs whatsoever.

---

To defend my statement regarding believing something else, I'm going to quote one of your own sources...

"Atheism:" Belief in no God, and no belief in God" From Religious Tolerance.
You will note that nowhere in my statement did I say anything about belief in another deity or believing in anything else. The "chosen to believe something else," was an all encompassing statement. Whether one has chosen to believe in a different deity(ies) or believes that none exist at all was not a distinction that was made.

The word belief has many definitions: (From Mirriam Webster Online)
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>
transitive senses
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I believe it will rain soon>
- be·liev·er noun

Note that one of those definitions is to hold an opinion. Are you trying to say that you hold no opinions? Or, that you have nothing that you consider or hold to be true? I'm sorry, but you will have to pardon my skepticism on that front.

{edit - spacing paragraphs for aesthetic sake}

[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-22-2003).]

All belief is essentially irrational, as belief can only occur where acceptance is not compelled, for if acceptance is compelled, then belief is not required to accept that thing. Belief is thus the acceptance of some thing as being provisionally true where: contradictory evidence exists which throws doubt upon or compels the rejection of the thing being accepted as truth; or where insufficient evidence exists to compel or suggest acceptance of the thing as truth.

By the way, About.com is in the wrong about a lot of issues, however, they are right to note that Christians and atheists differ in their definition of atheism, which is the reason I cited the source. Dictionaries also define many words wrongly. For instance, the American Heritage dictionary defines atheism as: "1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality." which is incredibly prejudicial. The entry was written by a religionist.

OT comment on Webster's: "Webster's doesn't even use Webster's!"

[from an earlier newsgroup discussion...]
> Peter wrote:
> I'd say illogical more than irrational (for the generalisation on belief).
> For example, it is not logical to be sure that, say, the sun will rise in
> the morning. Considering the odds of it not happening though, it is quite
> rational.

<inclusion of the "all belief is essentially" statement above>

Like Mr. Lee said, part of the problem is vocabulary usage. We accept, not believe, that the sun
will rise in the morning given the evidence (events, etc.) we had acknowledged in the past.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-22-2003).]

Metahuman: this could turn into a long discussion on semantics and connotations thus at this time I am going to refrain from continuing debate. The point of my statement was to clarify that not everyone who is non-Christian has been such since birth and is not entirely ignorant of Christian doctrine, dogma and philosophy. I rarely paint with broad strokes as to avoid speaking for "the masses" in attempt to prevent the resulting misunderstanding above. Obviously this time I erred, and will modify my statement accordingly.

jade-

quote:

---

In regard to the ten commandemnts in keeping church and state separate, doesn't the president of the USA take his oath of office on a bible, which contains the 10 commandments?

---

Constitutionally, taking oath on the Bible is not a requirement. Here is what the US Constitution has to say about procedures when the president takes office...

quote:

---

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

---

Theodore Roosevelt has been the only US president to not take the oath of office on the Bible. Franklin Pierce did not swear the oath of office, but affirmed.

{edit - fixing tags}



[This message has been edited by Moon Dancer (edited 08-22-2003).]

I wonder if we'll ever see Gabriel again...

Speaking of oaths, wasn't the penalty under perjury oath "recently" modified to discard the question, "Do you swear upon the Bible to..."?

I have my doubts, counterfeitbacon.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-22-2003).]

holy crap.... (hm, no pun intended...)

Bugs - getting back to this:

quote:

---

The clause was meant to prevent a state religion from being established. Having the 10 commandments, a buddha, or anything else like that in a government building does not do that.

---

In this case I strongly disagree.

This is more than just a 'symbol' in a government building.

This is a building where LAWS are enforced. To be perfectly clear, the laws of MAN are enforced. Upon entering this edifice of American, Human, Law, we have a monument to RELIGIOUS law. A monument that is obviously intended to declare the righteousness and holiness, and - the part that gets problematic - the applicability of that religous law on the people who come before that court.

It has NO place there. Period.

Jade - I believe I have actually explained a great deal of my views to you on this issue. Number one being, there is no such thing as an 'atheist creed' that I follow. There is no lump sum of what an "atheist" is. An atheist is not something you are so much as a term to describe what the person is *not*. As in, they are *not* someone who beleives in god(s).
I have also never claimed to be able to prove that there is no god. I have simply stated that you cannot prove there *is*. And yes, I know, you "know" there is. And that's all well and good. But you can't prove it any more than I can prove you wrong.

As for the bible issue - yes, you are right. And that is also something that shouldn't be. As is "in god we trust" on our money. As is "one nation, under god" in our pledge of allegience...
But just because there are things that are wrong, doesn't mean that they justify the further addition of wrongs in other governmental areas. That's like saying it's ok to steal something because your friend did it too....



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-22-2003).]

metahuman, the page you linked about the bible's "uselessness" is about as neutral as you are, entertaining reading tho. whatever the case, the broadness of your comments (God having already been logically crucified, the bible being useless) makes you look about as open-minded as gabriel. its really sad to me when i see people so set on intellectual thinking and reasoning that they miss the opportunity to believe in anything.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

It's unfortunate that you came to such an idiotic conclusion. If cannot argue the arguments, don't argue the person.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-22-2003).]

DL: I beg to differ:

quote:

---

There is no lump sum of what an "atheist" is. An atheist is not something you are so much as a term to describe what the person is *not*. As in, they are *not* someone who beleives in god(s).

---

An atheist believes there is no god (or gods). As the existence of some mythical super being can't be disproved even if it seems increasingly unlikely that they do exist (there are always shadowy corners where such an entity may lurk) then to actually think there is no god (or gods) is an act of faith. In the same way I can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny or the Loch Ness Monster and in fact there is probably more proof for Nessy than there is for God .

I have probably listed myself as an atheist a time or two in the past but I'm really an agnostic.

[edit: I do agree with you about the removal of the Bible - if it stays I demand the right to pin up some wisdom of Alisair crowley - pos written in blood on human skin.]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

metahuman, i don't have the energy or the time to go thru everything you stated, nor the desire for that matter, you've already made your conclusion so its rather pointless. you have your beliefs and i have mine, and it is probably unfair of me to generalize you and for that i apologize, after a while one simply tires of over-intellectualizing everything.

i'll go off to live my "value-less" life now...

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Emperor - well sure. But my point was not whether or not an atheist beleives anything.

My point was that being an atheist is not like being a "christian" in that christianity is a specific religion, with specific beliefs beyond simply the belief in a god.

Atheism, on the other hand, simply means not believeing there is a god (whcih can also be called believing in no god...), and does not impyl anything further about the person in question.

In fact I also stated that it can't be proven that there is no god. =)

The statement was meant to illustrate that atheism is not a religion or an organization, but rather a simple disbelief in deities. An atheist's beleifs beyond that are just that: beyond the scope of the term.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-22-2003).]

metahuman,

quote:

---

Need I say more?

---

Other than addressing my point adequately? I guess that's your call. My replies to you are specific and I am not interested in generalizing as much as I am interested in getting our facts straight. I am not suggesting that this is a christian nation founded specifically on christian ideals for christian people as some of the info you cite argues against. That is *not* my point and please don't assume too much about my position before you know it.

You said that:

quote:

---

The founders of the USA were Deists not Christians. They abhorred Christianity.

---

I agreed with you that *some* were deists, but *some* were xians and most were quite ok with xianity. But this is very dependent on how you are defining xianity of that I will agree. A strict definition would leave many of them out, but I wasn't using a strict definition. It would also help to know what *kind* of xianity some of them did have a problem with and that was the dogmatic and unthinking version that was prevalent at the time -- the kind that sought to establish state run religions and require religious tests to hold public office.

What I am hoping we can stipulate is that the Judeo-Christian ideals and concepts are the *foundation* of our legal system and most of the founders were more than supportive of them. *That* is the point I am trying to convey. Some of the material you cite supports this. In fact, Jefferson wrote his own version of the gospels! He said this:

quote:

---

I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man. --Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824

---

I also find it curious, if not ludricrous, to read another quote from Jefferson after reading your point about the "uselessness" of the bible:

quote:

---

The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty ... students' perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens. --Thomas Jefferson

---

One more point for you. You said:

quote:

---

Nontheists are oppressed in the USA to some level. That level is described on many sites, which if you had researched beforehand you would not be making such blatantly false statements. As for the majority to dominate over the minority, in the future, please keep in mind the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights when laying your fingertips to the keyboard.

---

Did I not say that the majority oppressing the minority should not be allowed? Where did I say nontheists are not under attack from theists? Words are important and we should use them according to their meaning. I stand by my point that a nontheist simply *seeing* a religious symbol in public does *not* constitute *oppression*. That was my point. As to exactly what "blatantly false" statements I made, you're going to have to tell me what those were please.


DL, I am going to have to still disagree too. A couple of things, you stated ealier:

quote:

---

Yes, our laws may have a foundation in judeo-christian laws, but they are also basic values that stand quite seperate from any religion, and quite clearly omit the references to god or other religious observances. They are social in nature.

---

It is precisely because of that foundation that these are *not* separate. They were not meant to be completely and utterly separated to the point of revising history. Think about it, it is almost like we are ashamed that our set of social/secular laws partially intersect with the 10 commandments. We need to accept what has come before, and even celebrate it. However it does not mean that we are enforcing religion by recognizing its contribution to who we are.

This monument does have specific commands about how to treat God. It also has commands consistent with our own law. Having it there does not mean that those specific commandments are the law of the United States that the civil authority will be enforcing. It simply states that we recognize our cultural heritage.

Please let me be very clear about this. You know me well enough I hope to appreciate that I am making the case for what I think it *should* be and I do NOT represent nor do I speak for the protesters or that judge. They may very well, I am sure some do, go too far in what they want. But my point is that just having this monument is not a problem and only when the actions of that court over step the boundaries of our law should we act. The higher court says it must come down and they should comply with its ruling, but they should also do everything within legal limitations via appeals and such like to keep the monument there.


Emps, I use the same definitions you do regarding atheists vs. agnostics. But I am also flexible depending on who is involved in the discussions since these definitions seem so fluid sometimes.


GD,

quote:

---

Except it wasn't an opinion directed at removing the symbol. It wasan opinion directed at being equally represented. Taking nothing away from anyone. I agree that the minority shouldn't expect to stop the majority from doing things. But it is the majorities responsibility, by Constituional Law no less, to accept minority equality.

---

I want to make sure I'm clear. Are you saying that everyone must be equally represented in all districts? If not, then we have a problem with having monuments on public property. If that is your point, then isn't that virtually impossible to attain? I would prefer to have the local community's stuff up and then accomodate people that come in and request represtation progressively.

[edit] poor wording and spelling [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-22-2003).]

nicely stated bugs. i personally have had issues with this as i find myself realizing the need to separate my personal beliefs from certain aspects of how government should work based on the idea of freedom of religion. i think the historical context of this is very important tho, good stuff.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

I want to make sure I'm clear. Are you saying that everyone must be equally represented in all districts? If not, then we have a problem with having monuments on public property. If that is your point, then isn't that virtually impossible to attain? I would prefer to have the local community's stuff up and then accomodate people that come in and request represtation progressively.

---

No. I'm not. What I'm saying is that any portion of the community that requests representation in this sort of sense is endowed with the right to have it via the constitution. In other words, There is a monument in the court house. There are people protesting it. Instead of bitching about not being represented (or only a group they don't agree with being represented), they should ask to BE represented. I used to have big issues with religiously directed monuments/postings in schools and government buildings, especially since there are non-religious ways to say pretty much the exact same thing, but not so much anymore... providing that the minority gets represented if they ask to be. If they don't ask to be represented... fine. If they do ask, it better happen. I'm not expecting that once a singular monument goes in someplace that thousands of monuments get added to represent people who aren't there to appreciate it. The point is that there are other people that may want to be represented and I have the feeling that they will be ignored because they aren't the majority. It's just flat out goes against what the constitution says this country should be like.

A point I'd like to make. I don't see our laws as being religiously driven. Nor do I see morality as being relgiously driven. People don't need God to tell them what is right and wrong. Just because God's laws were written 2000 years ago doesn't mean that every law since then has been patterned after the Ten Commandments. Things overlap because, barring the purely religious commandments, the rest just make sense in every context not just religious ones.

[EDIT]Clarification... and typos[/EDIT]


[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-22-2003).]

I think a distinction can be made regarding the foundations of the US laws... The Constitution in and of itself is a purely secular document. In several places where oaths are mentioned, the taker of office is given the choice between a religious oath or a secular affirmation. The creators of this document left room to accomodate both points of view.

However, many of the creators were religious men. They based our laws off of what they felt were fair, just and moral guidelines that came from their varying religious backgrounds (be they Christian, deist, etc...). I agree that secular mores and religious ones overlap. I don't believe however that in the development of the principle laws of this country religious backgrounds were ignored in the spirit of separating Chruch and State.

I don't find this problematic as a non-Christian. It doesn't even bother me so much that the cash in my pocket says In God We Trust. Where my issue comes in is when any one faith tries to exert it's influence in the public sector to forward it's own cause. I don't appreciate only Christian doctrine posted in public schools and a non-Christian teacher is ostracized and criticized for her faith. I would feel the same way were the reverse the case where (take your pick of religion) doctrine is dominant and a Christian teacher driven out.

I feel that education about religion is important. I think that all students should learn (in an objective setting about as many religions as they can to encourage better understanding. The history of religion is inextricably intertwined with the history of the world; learning about them only brings greater understanding to where we have come today.

GD, I an in complete accord with your first paragraph

On the second, I don't quite agree. I think the difference in our opinions would be that in your case right and wrong are wholly defined by MAN and are subject to change. In my view, that is the way it works on our level BUT what we, MAN, decide to be right and wrong may or may not be so as compared to the ultimate judge of right and wrong. That ultimate judge cannot be one of us. It absolutely must be an outside standard AND one with authority to decide. That can only be a creator god.

. . : slicePuzzle

Well... I don't define "right" and "wrong" in my life. It either fits with my Rede or it doesn't. I do see your meaning though. In that aspect however connecting that which connot be of man to mankinds judicial structure seems imprudent. Emulation is one thing but if man's bastardization of the 'outside' judge's intent causes such trouble, and doesn't matter anyway, why do people insist on trying to join the two? Isn't that what is at the heart of the separation of church and state? To allow life to go on without causing strife of this kind? Those who believe that our laws, as far as they go, don't matter because God is the greater judge, don't need to associate the two together because they already believe it doesn't matter. For those who don't believe that, it matters a great deal because the connection has been made between the Ten Commandment and social law. It raises the feeling of persecution those following minority religion feel, even if that isn't the intent of the monument (in this case). Such things start out small and grow into things they ought not to have become. Can you honestly say that you believe this won't start a wave of such connections in the minds of the people in that community? Is it so unreasonable to fear that those connections will apve the way for a 'moral majority' propaganda movement that results in a 'morality court' instead of a 'legality court'? The idea raises dangerous questions, and lots of fear. People get stupid when they are scared. Hence all of the protests about something that makes no sense to protest.

[EDIT]MD - Religiously influenced, yes. But not religiously enforced or mandated. That was my meaning.[/EDIT]



[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-22-2003).]

Gabriellll... say hello to your newww assholeeee

>> [Emperor said...] An atheist believes there is no god (or gods). <snip> I have probably listed myself as an atheist a time or two in the past but I'm really an agnostic.
An atheist is simply one without god-beliefs. Your definition of atheist as well as the definition from American Heritage is wrong, but true for some atheists who think it is their duty to trounce religionists, etc. Anything that is provisionally true is at least theoretically falsifiable. Since the existence of gods (or "God") can neither be proven true or false, it is not a truth. In addition, the question of such an existence is also irrelevant (even though many fanatical atheists will disagree with me). Agnosticism is a concept and it regards how one thinks. Most people who consider themselves agnostic also consider themselves atheistic which is a valid consideration. You can be an agnostic atheist, but you cannot be an agnostic theist since agnostics do not hold god-beliefs either. However, agnostics, like some groups of atheists, are open to the possibility of the existence of gods (or "God"). I know the reason why many agnostic atheists would separate themselves from typical atheists and I also separate myself. In case you didn't read it, I'm an atheistic humanist-rationalist.

OT >> [Fig said...] you've already made your conclusion so it's rather pointless.
Ditto.

>> [DL-44 said...] The statement was meant to illustrate that atheism is not a religion or an organization, but rather a simple disbelief in deities. An atheist's beleifs beyond that are just that: beyond the scope of the term.
Correct.

>> [Bugimus said...] Other than addressing my point adequately? <snip> <insert a bunch of rubbish about Judeo-Christian foundations> <snip> It simply states that we recognize our cultural heritage. <snip> Emps, I use the same definitions you do regarding atheists vs. agnostics. But I am also flexible depending on who is involved in the discussions since these definitions seem so fluid sometimes.
Your point was incorrect and addressed accordingly.

[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter.

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78 (this relates to the posting of the commandments on GOVERNMENT property)

Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:545

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787. (original capitalization of the word god is retained per original)

It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to N. G. Dufief, April 19, 1814 (read Alvin Platinga's Theism, Atheism, and Rationality)

I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives.... It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, August 6, 1816

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, quoted from James A. Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

That sect had presented for the object of their worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.
-- Thomas Jefferson, referring to the god of the Jews under Moses, in his letter to William Short (August 4, 1822)

A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814, referring to the University of Virginia (this also applies to current issues regarding the exclusion of science and the teaching of creationism (or intelligent design))

I've archived Nettelhorsts' Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State.

>> [GrythusDraconis said...] I don't see our laws as being religiously driven. Nor do I see morality as being relgiously driven. People don't need God to tell them what is right and wrong.

It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

>> [Moon Dancer said...] <insert a bunch of good stuff>
I'm going to quote you on that.

OT >> [Sanzen said...] Gabriellll... say hello to your newww assholeeee


>> [Fig & Bugimus said...] <insert something about a statement that the Bible is useless>
I never said that the Bible is useless. I said it holds no value (inherent worth, importance, merit, or usefulness) if reviewed in a objective and critical manner. In this case, "usefulness" is scientific usefulness which is entirely different than the common definition of "useless".

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

A little obsessed with Thomas Jefferson there aren't we? I count 14 seperate quotes from him in that one post...a record I think, for quoting from the one historical source.

Please, I must ask, for the purposes of clear reading and understanding, don't quote that many sources at one time, one after another...boring to the eye, doesn't capture the reader, kinda makes them switch off and it makes it harder for you to get your point across.

Plus the fact that if it is in fact your point...please make it yourself...you don't need to quote one person a million times to make a personal point.

*shrugs*

ADD?

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

Ok, what am I to conclude with all those quotations? Was that supposed to be a review of many of the things I already knew about Jefferson? I don't see how those quotes either support or deny anything I was trying to say. Jefferson was a deist and held the bible and God in the utmost regard. What he hated was all of the superstition that he believed was added to true belief in God via the apostles and later followers. In fact, I would partially agree with that, excluding the apostles though . Certainly other followers went astray in all sorts of ways.

But anyway, perhaps we can take a step back and define exactly what you think I am saying compared to what I'm actually typing with this keyboard. Quotes are great but quotes without your thoughts leave me guessing. You said:

quote:

---

Your point was incorrect and addressed accordingly.

---

It is quite possible you already consider yourself more intellectually gifted than someone whose name begins with b-u-g, so go ahead and spell out exactly what I said originally that was incorrect since I thought I was the one correcting you.

. . : slicePuzzle

Honestly, only 3-4 of those quotes related to this thread. I just couldn't help myself.

As for what you said, well, I cannot find your initial message to which I responded.

By the way, your site is very purple. That's the first purple site I've seen.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-23-2003).]

Yes, it is very purple indeed. I remember when I first told my friends about it here and someone thought I was a girl because of all the purple and pink I used. LOL!!! I've had that homepage design for quite a while now. I am seriously due for a new one.

Back to the 10 commandments in Alabama issue, I'm curious to know whether moving them outside the courthouse would be alright with those who oppose them being in the rotunda?

. . : slicePuzzle

By the way, the commandments weigh 2 tons which is excessive. Bill Maher had a good suggestion on Real Time last night.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

I hear a lot of people saying how the monument will make people think that Xianity is the religion the law will be ruled by in that courthouse, but if it's the 10 commandments, how come no one is worried about Jewish fanatics? After all, they are to be found in the Hebrew canon.

So about the right and wrong thing... without a higher authority above you and above me, how can you say that *anything* I do is right or wrong? Wouldn't that simply be a matter of opinion for each of us? That question is for meta, GD, or anyone else interested

Recommendation: Philosophy 101.

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

You do have your *own* thoughts on these topics, don't you?

Bugimus - I think the difference in our opinoins is very much driven by the fact that you wholly agree with those commandments that relate to god, whereas I wholly disagree

But, I still say the major distinction that determines whether or not they should be there, is the fact that they imply (in part by their mere presence, and in part due to the statements made by the judge in regard to them) that you will be judged on more than just the laws apllicable in this nation. And that is plain wrong.

It's not a matter of being "represented" (though I agree with GD's comments regarding the representation issue!). This isn't a cultural gallery, it's a court of law.

I have no desire to rewrite history, I have no desire to cover the fact that many of the founding father's were rooted in christianity. But they made a wise choice to seperate government and religion. We need to stop revising history to suggest otherwise
We can't allow "god's" laws to overturn America's laws, since we have decided that we can't rightfully determine for the population which god's laws are the right ones.

My main point, I guess, is that this isn't just a random government building that has - in it's area where it places representations of cultural issues - a monument to the 10 commandments. This is a court of law, and the only laws it truly represents are America's laws - regardless of their connection to other things.

As I said - This isn't a cultural gallery, it's a court of law.

=)


{edit - oh, and I missed this before I posted:

quote:

---

without a higher authority above you and above me, how can you say that *anything* I do is right or wrong? Wouldn't that simply be a matter of opinion for each of us?

---

Well, that's been my whole point! WE (collective) have decided and written into state and federal law what is right and wrong!

And one of the things we decided was wrong was government being run by the church =)

And that, as I said above, since we can't decide as a whole (and we have decided that we should *not* decide as a whole) which religion is "right" and which gods' laws are right, there is no way to say that god's laws supercede our own.

You have chosen your higher authority, and that's fine. For you.


{{edit - and have I mentioned that Thomas Jefferson is one of my favorite people of all time? }}

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-25-2003).]

DL-44: The framers were Deists not Christians. Deism is not Christianity. Christianity is not Deism. Some of the framers were Doubters too.

By the way, this is a good book: http://bbs.metavirus.net/viewtopic.php?t=19

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-25-2003).]

Bugs - I have thought about your last statement quite a bit, and I feel I have to address it -

quote:

---

You do have your *own* thoughts on these topics, don't you?

---

Now, I know you well enough to know that you have given great thought and research to your views. I believe ou know me well neough that I respect you for that.

However, I have to say that all things considered the above quoted statement seems a bit hypocritical.

When confronted with a question/issue, you will give your thoughts on it, but they will very often be based on or backed by biblical passages. You will often quote or paraprhase that passage. That, to you, is a wise thing.

Well, in this case, Meta has done more or less the same thing. His source of wisdom happens to be one of the major players in the framing of this countries laws, and I can't see how quoting him is in any way an indication that meta is not thinking for himself. In fact, it is a very logical source of words, and very fitting for this situation.

If I were going to discuss the 10 commandments, I would certainly involve Moses.

If I am going to discuss the difference between them and the basis of American law, I would most certainly quote Jefferson (among others).

I am not going to address any other aspects of Meta's posts in here in this particular post - but I had to address this particular one.

I'll explain exactly why I said that. I was trying to stimulate more discussion on the issue of how we decide what is right and wrong and meta said, "Recommendation: Philosophy 101." That hurt me because I thought he was trivializing the debate and my attempt to keep it going. So I asked him about his "own thoughts" hoping he would explain his thoughts on how we arrive at our views of right and wrong.

You are absolutely correct that I pass on views of those I respect. I really enjoy the exchange of ideas we have here and I really believe that exchange helps us to grow and I have to believe it helps the no doubt numerous lurkers in these insane waters of the Asylum.

So back to the issues at hand.

I can only speak for myself on this, DL-44, but my earlier comments should have shown that I would not be opposing the 5 pillars of Islam, the Wiccan Rede, or some other religious/cultural monument in that rotunda if the local community held it in high regard. I can only ask that you take my word on that.

I would prefer that all peoples follow the path that Christ has shown us, of course. But I recognize that we have created a pluralistic society. In this grand experiment we call the US, we have decided that religious freedom is a very good thing. I agree with it. I believe we should keep state business and religous business separate. We should have a secular government and religious populace. I think that is a winning combination.

Congress shall make no law respecting... and it shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof...

I believe the spirit in which those words were written was NOT to rid ourselves of religion as so many on your side of this issue seek to do. I believe it was to create an environment where we can all freely practice our beliefs whether they involve God or not. I understand that you personally may not be out to eliminate religion from our public discourse but there are those prominant voices who do, Ira Glasser from the ACLU and Alan Dershowitz to name a couple. I am not sure at all whether or not metahuman doesn't fall into that category. Metahuman, do you?

DL, I am very please to hear that you have no interest in revionism and I join you wholeheartedly in that. I oppose revisionism on either extreme of this debate. Period. I want us to be as accurate as we can be with the facts and go from there.

I hold Jefferson in very high regard and notice that I was the first one to quote him directly in this thread. I don't believe he was a Xian by the definition found in the NT. However, there are different definitions of almost everything and in the common definition he could be said to have been a Xian. Herein lies a problem with metahuman and my view.

meta, you keep saying that the founders we Deists. I am going to say this again, that is too broad of a brush stroke. Not *ALL* of them were Deists... *SOME* of them were Christians. Almost all of them held the Bible and the Judeo-Christian beliefs and ethics consistent with their personal views of the Creator.

. . : slicePuzzle

"Nature's God" does not mean "Christian God."
"Creator" (found in the Constitution) does not mean "Christian God."
"Creator" is a reference to "Nature's God."

Deism is not Christianity. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and he even said so!

READ that: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-25-2003).]

*sigh*

I did not say that Deists were Christians. Please READ. I said that some of the founders were Christians. Jefferson was a Deist.

priests? books of war? huh?

Edited. I'll post more in a different thread. This thread is seriously off-topic.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-25-2003).]

That's too much! Fair enough then. Whenever you're feeling in the mood will do, I'll be around

I will have to step up to the plate on something. I have really loved this from Jefferson:

quote:

---

The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty ... students' perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens. --Thomas Jefferson

---

It is quite possible this is one of those spurious quotes that can be found in so many places. I have done a bit more searching on Jefferson lately because of this thread and I'm not sure if the quote is genuine. I withdraw that one.

I believe my point above still holds on the remaining quote that I do believe to be accurate. A search of the Jeffersonian Cyclopedia lists it as authentic.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-foley?specfile=/texts/english/jefferson/foley/public/JefCycl.o2w&act=surround&offset=3415240&tag=2759.+ETHICS,+Law+and.+--+&query=ethic

I consider ethics...

[edit] had trouble with huge link url [/edit]
. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2003).]

Bugimus wrote:

quote:

---

Back to the 10 commandments in Alabama issue, I'm curious to know whether moving them outside the courthouse would be alright with those who oppose them being in the rotunda?

---

Although I'm not an American, I would find religious monuments in or near courthouses to be troubling. Any promotion of deities by the government (even ceremonial deism) automatically excludes some people. Having the Ten Commandments in or near courthouses says to me that the government emphasizes a Christian view rather than a secular view. This automatically excludes me, an atheist, as well as people of other religions. I understand that America was founded by Deists (and Christians too - I'm with Bugimus on this) but that was 200 years ago. The 2003 version of America includes many different religions and cultures as well as atheists and agnostics. It's a melting pot as they say so if the US government is truly secular and interested in the promotion of equal rights, why emphasize Christian values over others? Why not a statue or monument that says "E pluribus unum" or "Out of one, many?" Much cooler.

Edit for grammar

[This message has been edited by Amerasu (edited 08-25-2003).]

Amerasu, I can agree with much of that. Let me pose this question. If I walk into a courthouse that emphasizes a seculare world view... should I be troubled because I am not an atheist?

You should no more be troubled by monuments like this than I should be troubled by secularism everywhere. The point is that our system *should* protects the rights of *everyone*. That means that if a district is imposing religion there is a problem. Having a monument to the foundation of much of our heritage does not do that, IMO.

Western Europe is clearly moving to create a secular society. Religious observance is way down from the numbers I hear. Should religious people in Europe be concerned that their rights will now be in question? *If* the secular laws prevent that, then there shouldn't be a problem, right? Well, I say the converse is also true.

. . : slicePuzzle

It's in a fucking COURTHOUSE, Bugimus! GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Sheesh...

Oh, and your "I'm Christian and I'm scared of secularism" arguments are really, really strange. I know Christians who would think you were a nut for saying that.

[This message has been edited by metahuman (edited 08-25-2003).]

I know several people who think I'm a nut.

It was a rhetorical point... by the way.

> [Bugimus said...] I know several people who think I'm a nut.

Yea, and I'm one of them!

_________________________
A devil's work is never done.

Bugimus wrote:

quote:

---

You should no more be troubled by monuments like this than I should be troubled by secularism everywhere. The point is that our system *should* protects the rights of *everyone*. That means that if a district is imposing religion there is a problem. Having a monument to the foundation of much of our heritage does not do that, IMO.

---

If the Ten Commandments monuments were only a simple representation of American heritage, I don't think I'd have a problem with them. But they're not really just a representation of heritage, at least not yet and not to me. Perhaps in the future? To many non-Christians, the monuments on government property say to us that the American goverment promotes Christianity and Christian values. And this is backed up by your openly Christian president, your Attorney General and US judges who defy court orders. Perhaps if your government attempted to appear more secular, I could accept the monument as a heritage piece but not this year unfortunately

Bugimus wrote:

quote:

---

Amerasu, I can agree with much of that. Let me pose this question. If I walk into a courthouse that emphasizes a seculare world view... should I be troubled because I am not an atheist?

---

I'd like to say no but I'm sure many theists (of any religion) would not be entirely comfortable and I understand that. However, secular courts would not favour or emphasize one religion over another and I feel this would provide a more balanced and fair system for everyone

Amerasu, I would defend your rights as much as anyone else's. Do you think my personal religious beliefs take away from that conviction to hold to the ideal of liberty and justice for *all*? I believe that good citizens, regardless of creed, should do everything in their power to uphold the law of the land.

I can understand why these things trouble you. When government officials cross the line, they trouble me too! There are abuses. But there are abuses by secularists in our system as well. I don't think religion is the source of the problem and I guess that is my main point.

. . : slicePuzzle

Jeesh... go to the north shore foar a weekend and all hell breaks loose.

quote:

---

So about the right and wrong thing... without a higher authority above you and above me, how can you say that *anything* I do is right or wrong? Wouldn't that simply be a matter of opinion for each of us? That question is for meta, GD, or anyone else interested

---

Without a higher authority it falls to society to choose what is illegal (note... not right or wrong... just illegal) or not. Of course personal opinion is going to influence these decisions. Opinions of religious and non-religious people alike.

Now this is a question I'd like to pose to you Bug's. Regardless of whether you think it is legal to have this monument in/on/near/through the courthouse it is obviously causing problems in the community it is in, yes? Is it worth it to cause such strife amongst people for the sake of one man's ambition and one specific group's views (those who feel the monument should be there on principle rather than acceptance... I don't mean Xians)? As I mentioned before, Isn't this WHY the separation laws were made? So that people of different backgrounds and faiths could interact without feeling persecuted so that situations like this wouldn't be caused?

metahuman-

quote:

---

It's in a fucking COURTHOUSE, Bugimus! GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. Sheesh...

---

Government property is ultimately held by the People. Essentially, there is no difference between a government building and a city park as far as the public's physical view. Government property has been littered with religious symbolism since the inception of this country. Not all of it has been Christian. Remember the Mercury dime, with the god Mercury on the face? Or how about our symbol of Justice, the woman with scales? She is based off of several goddesses of antiquity. These are just a couple examples.

There is no need to reiterate that this monument is in a building designed to uphold man's laws and that man & God's laws need to be kept separate. The point I am trying to make is that if Christian symbology (be it doctrine or symbols) must be removed from government property, then all religious symbology must. This is only an issue because it is Christian. No one would be batting an eye if another statue of Themis were being erected in a courthouse.

So long as the government isn't saying that I have to attend church on sunday or be prepared for criminal charges I don't really care. As long as judges are able to make objective, secular decisions (which sometimes they don't-hence the appeals process) than what difference does it make for a set of religious moral guidelines to be erected in a courthouse? As I stated before, I don't care if religion is taught in public schools, provided that all religions are taught objectively.

Just to reiterate, if one religion's symbology is to be removed from government property than they all must. It's only fair.

BTW - I wasn't ignoring y'all, I was happily camped along the North Shore of Lake Superior this weekend...

Excellent question.

First of all, the local community did not have a problem with the monument. The strife was caused by an organization bringing the legal challenge. That is one of the reasons I am so upset with some of our so called civil liberty organizations who pick and choose the constitutional amendments they fight for. They have too often moved from protecting rights to trying to take them away. I'm arguing for a positive approach to this issue, one that upholds religious freedom while at the same time maintaining the original intent of the founders.

HOWEVER, putting the details of this specific case aside, you're asking me whether putting up a monument that created strife in the community would be worth the effort. My answer is no.

As to why the separation was put there in the first place... it was done to prevent a state religion from being established. I truly believe we have lost sight of that. It was not done to prevent people from feeling persecuted. Can you imagine one of the founders talking about feeling persecuted and complaining about that when real persecution was the order of the day? No one should be persecuted for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof... PERIOD.

I am perfectly willing to be reasonable about this issue and compromise but people like Alan Dershowitz would argue that just seeing a cross in public offends him! That is the sort of position on the other side of this issue that drives me utterly apesh*t. They worry me every bit if not more than the religious zealots do because the left has more momentum at this particular moment in our history. Both extremes must be held in check and I just don't want to see us swing into a period of anti-religious bigotry sneaking into our laws anymore than I want to see the imposition of religion sneaking in.

[edit] just saw MD's post... I agree with that, very well put!!! [/edit]

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 08-25-2003).]

Gabriel has not responded yet, and probably will not.

Bugs - I had barely noticed the 'philosophy 101' bit and had thought your comment was directed at the quotations. I see where you're coming from now

As far as the monument goes...I think we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.
=)

(Thank goodness the higher courts saw fit to order its removal )

Moon Dancer -

In my personal opinion, the problem is not that the 'symbol' is christian. It is the implication of the specific symbol in relation to the function of the building.

It is a statement of judeo-christian (not just christian...) law. It doesn't belong in a building that exists for the purpose of upholding American law.

A statue of Arthemis would not hold any particular implication that you will be held to standards that are seperate from American law in the way that this monument to "god's" laws does.

.

Of course, one of my other concerns is - who paid for this monument??



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 08-25-2003).]

You make some very valid points, DL. I'm having a little bit of a hard time seeing the fuss regarding the monument because I give as much creedence to the 10 Commandments as I do the statue of Themis. Both are symbols of religious justice. One is very actively followed, the other only minimally anymore. Neither come from the religion I follow, and I don't see their presence around me as a threat.

That being said, it's time I crawl out of my little box here. I've been discussing this at length with GD. I can see how some may feel that they will be judged unfairly with a monument to God's law towering over them, especially if they do not follow the Judeo-Christian tradition. I can see the precedent this could possibly set. However, I maintain that if a judge cannot base his decisions objectively on US laws - regardless of what stands in the rotunda - then he should not be on the bench.

I have a question: Since the erection of this monument, has anyone appealed a decision made by any judge in that courthouse based on being unfairly judged due to the presence of the Commandments?

As an addendum to my previous post - Removing all religious symbology would be unconstiutional as well, given the government is to promote neither religion nor secularism. It's a very fine line that can be crossed over easily in either direction. Perhaps a compromise in this case would be to add to the monument various laws of other religons and some secular philosophies regarding law. Make it a monument to the heritage of law rather than a monument to one God's law.

OK people...time for a new thread. 105 posts is enough for one thread don't you think?

Go here: http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000992.html