The Seperation of Church and State

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Hahahaha! Heaven's Cloud don't even bother. I don't want to sound mean or anything, but once, a couple of years ago, I was so bored I tried to explain how to derive the formula for a derivative to a fifth grader. Around that same time I caught one of my roommates reading some book that had "scientific arguments" against evolution (they were about as scientific as The Matrix, if you know what I mean). Anyway I tried to explain to him that what he was reading was complete bullcrap, and I used actual evidence and tried to use simple logic and what not.

Guess which of those two situations I made more progress with?

Anyway, I'd just say leave most people to their own devices. It's hard to get over it sometimes, but that's the way it is. I recommend moving to Japan, personally.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Actually it's quite fair. We're just pointing out how wrong you are. It's unfair you are so uninformed.[/quote]Or I'm pointing out how wrong YOU are and it just so happens that the people who dis-agree with me are more liberal than I am. Have you ever considered the positibility that you are wrong, and that I am right? I've done so.
[quote]
Very good, you want a cookie for knowing what usually and most means?

I can't help what people use as scapegoats. The bottom line is they use religion. Sorry but that makes religion responsible for it. Something in that religion made them go all crazy. I suppose religion was just a scapegoat for the people killed in the crusades too right? Cause religion had NOTHING to do with that. The bottom line is, it is because of religion that some of the worst things in this world have happened. Whatever way you put it that fact stands, there's no going around it. Just accept it.[/quote]Why yes, I would like a cookie. I haven't had myself an oatmeal one in awhile, so...

So that means I can use YOU as a scapegoat and have you blamed for it, or you could use Jeb as a scapegoat and he gets blamed for it? Hardly not. I doubt that a lot of these more recent violent acts are actually about religion, rather than the guy just making up an excuse. You do know how a sect gets started, right? Then you should know how a radical sect gets started, right? How both those get started involve one thing: Time. Over time, things change. The Catholic church and Protestant church weren't so different when they first split, as they are now. In the modern day where everything moves faster, these radical ideas move faster, too. In a matter of a few years, they can start. But the religion is not to blame for it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns is their scapegoat. If there weren't guns, people would use knives and baseball bats. If you've seen [u]Bowling for Columbine[/u], you'll know what I'm talking about.

Little history behind the Crusades: when Muslims inhabited the Christian churches in Rome, the resident rulers of Europe didn't like that, and went to war for political reasons alone, instead of just kindly asking them to leave. They weren't acting in the name of God when they went to war.
[quote]
And so are so many of the religions today. Does that mean they are all the same? Or made up by the same person? Take a mythology course and you'll see how closely related almost every religion is to one another despite the fact some of them originated with complete issolation from the other.
[/quote] Possibly. They were possibly made up by the same person. As you may or may not believe, there are thousands of years since the first men. In a thousand years, a lot can happen. Just look at the most recent 1000 years. And the teaching of mythology is part of the highschool English course in LV. You seem to be forgetting that they are not originated within complete isolation of eachother, since organized religions cannot be isolated. So much as one traveler can change a lot of things. One man started up Christianity, one man started up Confusionism. If all it takes is one man, then isolation isn't really existant in the religious perspective.


[quote]What? No i wouldn't have been. If his name was Jeb anything I wouldn't be for what he's doing. It has nothing to do with his political party or his last name.... it has to do with what he's doing to this state which I live. Do you live here? Do you experience what he does? You know nothing about it.[/quote]Heighnsight Biased. And I know everything that is being posted up in this thread about it. You've demonstrated before that you have a raw and almost mindless hatred for the name Bush, so I won't put it past you. And do you work in the resident government? Do you have copies of every single law, bill, and action that is going on? So then you yourself are making statements based on limited data.
[quote]Seems all it takes is money to pretend someone is a believer.... lol
[/quote] No. Seems like all it takes is money to get someone in the school, not to be a believer.
[quote]

And the opinion of yourself doesn't change the fact you're still wrong and too ignorant to accpet that fact.[/QUOTE]

Let me tell you a story. One time in a presidential debate, one of which you stated that I was just a little kid, and I would never understand. And then you say this statement. The last time I heard this statement was when three 7-year-olds were fighting over who got to play with the a ball. You claim to be superior to me in thought simply because of age, Yet your post has un-provoked and reasonless insults placed in them. Why is that?

Number 2:
[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]"Having evolution shoved down their throats."

Stating that evolution and religion are based on the same kind of belief is like saying that whipped cream and brussel sprouts are the same kind of dairy product. One is nice and foamy, there to make you feel good, and the other is something you have to accept, simply because it's good for you. Not to mention they can't even be brought to the same level.
[/quote]I never said that evolution and religion are based on the same kind of belief. I said that they were both beliefs. Also, evolution has so many holes in it it's rediculess. Not even it's own creator believed it. Evolution is NOT fact, nor has it even been close to proven as one without some kind of extreme alteration or made up result to an experiment.

Listen: I [u]TRY[/u] to not go around saying that my way of Christianity is the only way out there. I really do. But as I can see, you do not have the same restraint with your beliefs. Have you ever taken into consideration that evolution might not be true?

[quote]However, this isn't a debate over whether or not we evolved from nameless blobs floating in the vast oceans. [/quote] True. So now everyone else should move on, and I'll leave this alone.
[quote]
The argument that people improve through finding religion is a new idea to me. The vast majority (80%, maybe...I'm not about to go through the wearying process of calculating this and debating with myself...) of the most intelligent people I know are atheists. However, this is personal experience, and cannot be applied to every one.
[/quote]Define intelligent. Being able to calculate advanced math? Knowing the structures of a cell? Winning a spelling B? Knowing about the human psyche? They are deemed smart, because that is what you percieve as smart. These materialistic knowledge isn't something I can define as smart. More like memorization.

Now do me a favor and ask them why they don't believe in religion. I bet that half of them will say something full of holes and is based on a mis-read account. Now ask the other 20% on why they do believe in a religion. Now ask the stupid people why they don't have a religion, and ask the stupid people why they do believe in religion. You'll get a whole lotta answers
[quote]
Why should the church stay out of the school system?

One could argue that religious schools bring children of the same faith together. And that is what is wrong with them--they're bringing children of different faiths apart.
This point may seem irrelevant, but think about it: if you're constantly surrounded by people who follow your beliefs, what will you learn to think? That they, and they alone, are the right way to see things? In one school system, where there are no devisions (aside from inevitable ones brought upon by the students themselves) based on religion, race or social status, we learn to at least accept the views of others. I don't mean we outwardly tollerate them, but understand, inwardly, that they hold value, as well.[/quote]True, that is why we must not remove religion completely out of schools, and should either teach Evolution as a myth as well, or not teach any side as a myth or fact. This is why my parents debated whether I should be stuck in a christian school or not. But even though I am for ethnic and religious diversity (despite the discrimination that comes from it soley from parental views alone), there is still reason to have these religious schools.

[quote]As far as adultery goes, I am not talking about prostitution (which I am against). That is an entirely different issue. I'm talking about the mutual attraction between to people who happen to be married to others.[/quote] Girls want someone to love, guys want someone to screw. And attraction can be defined more than one way.
[quote]
I don't see why this should be illegal, but I do find it wrong (Simply because it means breaking your vows to stick with one person--unless you are divorcing or something, and are no longer really in a relationship, beyond legalities...) This isn't the issue at hand, however.[/quote] According to seperation between church and state, there isn't a reason to have charges. [u]Personally[/u] I think that it should be illegal, because permiscuosity has led to multiple emotional and physical damages amongts the masses. The drive for sex posed as a problem during the revolutionary war. It poses a problem in war now. It poses a problem in the moral values of society. But that's just me. So lets move on.


[quote]There seems to be alot of misconception as to what atheism is. It is not a "belief", as so many people seem to interperate it. It's not a philosophy, either. It's not necessarily a strict acceptance of everything that can be proven scientifically (though science is the way to go, IMO). It's simply a lack of belief in any kind of "devine power". [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
A belief that there isn't a divine power. My statement stands.

TN, this is an example of someone who is a lot nicer in a debate.

Third personal taking in this debate:
[quote]I can't believe that I am taking the time to write this post, but I really think that there is a chance that you will understand what I am syaing if I word my thoughts very carefully and you read very, very slowly. Fortunatly I have complete access to my school's library and I have taken a little time to gather and cite real books by real historians and scientists all of which I will cite at the end of this post (on a side note, because I am at the library I will be writing this on notepad so this will probably have horrible spelling mistakes, I apologize in advance).
[/quote]Apology excepted. But I've seen books that are wrong before, such as ones about World War 2.

[quote]This is the statement that piqued my initial curiosity. You explicitly state that marriage was a "religious ceremony" but, as I attempted to point out before, although marriage has become a traditional practice in most religions but marriage was not originally a religious institution. "Early evidence of marital practice can be found in nearly all ancient societies. Ancient Egyptians kept detailed records of unions between sons and daughters that were arranged to bind business transactions (1)". Similar practices can be seen in nearly all other ancient cultures that kept written records. This is evident in early Asian culture as well. Most Japanese men married even though their two major religions advised against it (both Buddism and Taoist philosophy shared the similar motto that women posioned men's spirits). They married because it was considered to be a traditional way to bind both political and financial goals. Therefore, marriage was a societal tradition long before it ever was religious philosophy.
[/quote]About time we get something more real than a word of mouth. But here is what I'm percieving of this: Ancient Egyptians kept detailed records between sons and daughters BECAUSE they were arranged to bind business transactions. No business, no record needed. Note how you said similar and nearly all, not all and same. That means that there were ancient cultures that did have marriage as a religious ceremony. And if someone had wanted political and financial goals, the greed for currency can counteract the religious beliefs, as illustrated by Winter very recently. I'm sure that many used the religious purposes as a scapegoat for the finacial goals.

[quote]Well, what I say may not be true, nor do I claim it to be true, I just know that I have evidence backed up by scientific fact. However, I will play along with your last statement. Marriage is considered a religious ceremony, and since several Christian denominations are willing to marry homosexuals, thereby allowing them to wed in holy matrimony, why shouldn't the government recognize them as married?
[/quote]The government shouldn't recognize anyone to be married. There should be no benifits, nor draw-backs to it. I think that we should eliminate all benifits of marriage. That way the down-trodden marrying soley for the financial benifits would disapear, and the those who are there to be wed in holy matrimony would remain. It clearly states in multiple Bibles that a man shall not sleep with another man, and the same goes for women. But many churches go against what the Bible actually teaches. Their actions do not make them right.
[quote]
Also can you support your statement that government borowed orginization from religion?
[/quote]I don't seem to remember stating that. I remember stating that religion was before government, and that organized religion came around when civilization came around. I guess I was implying it somehow. My apologies. You see, the Bible doesn't state that government came from religion.
[quote] The first known documented government was a neolithic culture in Mesopotamia that inhabited and farmed the area between 6000-5000 BC building
[/quote]There were cave drawings depicting afterlife and spirits before any government. Actually, scientists claim that they were "Pre-Man Drawn"
[quote] several small cities and villages. Ancient pictographs were found depicting various forms of daily life including the process of determining a leader by physical combat (2). Now while I too think that religion was around before this civilization was formed, there is no evidence supporting a religion before this time. Again, I could logically conclude that scientific evidence points to organized community and government before religion began. Is it too radical for you to ponder the possibility that a person or group of people could have borrowed "orginization" from simple government and then built a religion around it?
[/quote]I find that an orginization adopting a religion to be more possible.
[quote] Remember the definition of religion is "a set or institutionalized system of worship". Sure, the idea of government could have gained orginization from religion, but the inverse is also a possibility, and one that has some shreds of evidence. [/quote]
Religion, no. Religous beliefs, now there is where it lies.
[quote]Oh my god, you are so right! I forgot all about Darwin and how he threw together the idea of Evolution right around the time the dirty hippies were preaching peace and love in America. when did Darwin publish his most noteable work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection again? 1859? Wow, those dirty hippies flocked to it immediatly. I think you are thinking of the Scopes Monkey Trial, which occured because a teacher suggested the possibility of something besides Adam and Eve and Genisis in a classroom (which Scopes taught along with evolution). If you can't even get simple facts right I am going to be writing quite a few of these long winded posts in an attempt to at least make you admit that there is a feasible possibility to what I am saying.[/quote]
My sister did a report on evolution and creationism. He himself said it was amazing how quickly people accepted a lie. I'm sure I got the date wrong, but not the general idea. Want me to attach the college report? It is evolution-bashing, though. But people think she played both sides equally.

[quote]What question did I dodge? I was providing an example of transmutation, the process of one religion adopting another's traditions in order to soften the hardships of mandoatory religious conversion. It was an example I used to aide my presentation on how marriage believed to be a transmutable trait that was eventually adopted by various religions.[/quote]
I read my post wrong and thought the question I was asking was a different one. Sorry, my bad. I'll try to avoid that in the future.

[quote]I hope that isn't an attempt to quote a book that so obviously doesn't exist. Plagarism is not a good way to further a debate. [/quote]
I was Plagarizing the dictionary. You'll be suprised how the word religion somewhat changed to incoorperate orginization in it. I'll post the entire definition.

[quote]a. [b]Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.[/b]
b. A [b]personal or institutionalized[/b] system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.[/quote]

I bolded the important parts.

Now TN, while this debater was a little more stern in his post, he was not unprovoked and had ground to stand on.

And introducing the fourth and hopefully final competitor's encore:
[quote]Hahahaha! Heaven's Cloud don't even bother. I don't want to sound mean or anything, but once, a couple of years ago, I was so bored I tried to explain how to derive the formula for a derivative to a fifth grader. Around that same time I caught one of my roommates reading some book that had "scientific arguments" against evolution (they were about as scientific as The Matrix, if you know what I mean). Anyway I tried to explain to him that what he was reading was complete bullcrap, and I used actual evidence and tried to use simple logic and what not.

Guess which of those two situations I made more progress with?
[/quote]. The 5th grader of course. When a person believes something, it's next to impossible to get them to change what they think. And was what he was reading absolute bullcrap? You'll be suprised. You see, you have yourself a belief in evolution, and you cannot be persuaded of it. So no matter what arguement is brought up to you, you will regard it as absolute bullcrap.

O.K. Did you read the entire book? I bet not. Now, there are a lot of scientific proof for religion, and against evolution. The simplest but more powerful one I've seen is the woodpecker, which according to evolution woudln't exist. Another good one is the Dolphin.

[quote]Anyway, I'd just say leave most people to their own devices. It's hard to get over it sometimes, but that's the way it is. I recommend moving to Japan, personally.[/quote]
That under no grounds gives you the right to put down the devices of another person you do not agree with, which is what you have done.

[quote]I should also say that I completely detest any remarks about religions being "inherently moral" and non-religious people therefore not being "inherenly moral." Let me point out that moral codes were not created by religions; they were adapted by religion in order to accomodate society. They are, more than anything else, social moral codes (NOT religious ones). To say that religious people, because they "believe" in a moral system, are more likely to follow it, is just plain idiocy. The thread starts with a discussion of faith-assisted PRISONS, and you bring up such completely unfounded generalizations. Shame on you.[/quote]

I try to leave someone to their own devices, but when someone makes a comment about what I believe that I don't like, I'm gonna come back with sword-in-hand.

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Or I'm pointing out how wrong YOU are and it just so happens that the people who dis-agree with me are more liberal than I am. Have you ever considered the positibility that you are wrong, and that I am right? I've done so.[/quote]

Yeah I did do that, then I laughed so hard I couldn't breathe cause there is NO way in hell YOU could ever be right when you post your ridiculous none-sense.

[quote]Little history behind the Crusades: when Muslims inhabited the Christian churches in Rome, the resident rulers of Europe didn't like that, and went to war for political reasons alone, instead of just kindly asking them to leave. They weren't acting in the name of God when they went to war. [/quote]

Little history behind the crusade. The muslim people were VERY tolerant of ANY religion within their lands (you could believe and practice any religion). It was the Christians who brought war upon the Muslims because of the fear of the Muslim expansion into the so called Christian lands, in fact thats the reason for the Muslims dislike towards Christians today. . The whole reason they went to war was because of religion and fear that maybe, maybe the muslims were better people. The reason they went to war was because of religion. If it was because of political reasons it wouldn't be called a Crusade... or do you need a dictionary to go with your BS...

[quote]Possibly. They were possibly made up by the same person. As you may or may not believe, there are thousands of years since the first men. In a thousand years, a lot can happen. Just look at the most recent 1000 years. And the teaching of mythology is part of the highschool English course in LV. You seem to be forgetting that they are not originated within complete isolation of eachother, since organized religions cannot be isolated. So much as one traveler can change a lot of things. One man started up Christianity, one man started up Confusionism. If all it takes is one man, then isolation isn't really existant in the religious perspective.[/quote]

There is no possibly. Hinduism started in a totally different place than Christianity. Yet both are similar if you look at the stories. And they can't be organized religions when they originate... Something just doesn't originate with a huge following.... I said they originated in isolation, not became popular due to isolation, maybe you need to take a reading course along with that Mythology course.

[quote]Heighnsight Biased. And I know everything that is being posted up in this thread about it. You've demonstrated before that you have a raw and almost mindless hatred for the name Bush, so I won't put it past you. And do you work in the resident government? Do you have copies of every single law, bill, and action that is going on? So then you yourself are making statements based on limited data. [/quote]

No, I live here. I DEAL with every single bill passed. I DEAL with every single law passed. YOU don't. You have no idea what Jeb Bush is doing. On a seperate note, the Bush family has continued to proove their stupidity and ignorance in their political offices. I only precieve them as they are. Just as when I see your name on a topic, I automatically assume your responce will be one that I can laugh at because of it's pure silly-ness and lack of intelligence.

[quote]No. Seems like all it takes is money to get someone in the school, not to be a believer. [/quote]

One normally goes to a catholic school because they believe in catholism.... or else they'd call it a "school" and not a "catholic school." And if they kicked her out for NOT believing, then let her in because of money, that also insiuates that the money can look past the conception of not believing. Therefor they pretend she is believing because of the amount of money they recieved. Did you not read that post either? You should really take a reading course.

[quote]Let me tell you a story. One time in a presidential debate, one of which you stated that I was just a little kid, and I would never understand. And then you say this statement. The last time I heard this statement was when three 7-year-olds were fighting over who got to play with the a ball. You claim to be superior to me in thought simply because of age, Yet your post has un-provoked and reasonless insults placed in them. Why is that?[/quote]

Oh no, my posts here don't have any insults in them, they tell only the facts (maybe if you read them you'd know that). If you want to see what I really say about you when I use insults, you can read myOtaku.

Look, it's obvious you're getting no where. Probably because you're consistantly wrong. But I don't hold that against you, you just don't know any better. When you posted above that 3 against 1 isn't fair, thats because we can see just how insanely silly your posts are. It's like reading a comic strip and you're the joke.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Guys guys let's leave him alone. I suppose it's amusing and all, but seriously, there's Ninja Gaiden to play, Starsky and Hutch to watch, and the warming (slowly) weather to enjoy! As you can see you're not doing him any favors making him have to answer all your arguments, and nobody is really getting an edge on each other. It's like a fight between a drunk Van Damme and a sober Van Damme. It's just a complete fiasco.

If there's any new posts I'll check them out just for laughs, but really spare yourselves the trouble.

[color=darkred] Please PM me exactly how this post benefits the thread... -Drix[/color]

[Japan]

Chris, this is the last straw.

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]
Little history behind the crusade. The muslim people were VERY tolerant of ANY religion within their lands (you could believe and practice any religion). It was the Christians who brought war upon the Muslims because of the fear of the Muslim expansion into the so called Christian lands, in fact thats the reason for the Muslims dislike towards Christians today. . The whole reason they went to war was because of religion and fear that maybe, maybe the muslims were better people. The reason they went to war was because of religion. If it was because of political reasons it wouldn't be called a Crusade... or do you need a dictionary to go with your BS...
[/QUOTE]

The purpose of the crusade was to look for artifacts from The Last Supper, and to spread the good news of Christianity. No one knows exactly every detail that they did during that time.

[QUOTE]
No, I live here. I DEAL with every single bill passed. I DEAL with every single law passed. YOU don't. You have no idea what Jeb Bush is doing. On a seperate note, the Bush family has continued to proove their stupidity and ignorance in their political offices. I only precieve them as they are. Just as when I see your name on a topic, I automatically assume your responce will be one that I can laugh at because of it's pure silly-ness and lack of intelligence.[/QUOTE]

I too live in the US and I too deal with every single law passed. Me not quite 18 yet doesn't mean I don't have the right to protest and write petitions. I will be 18 in July, so I can vote then. How can you tell that the Bush family is doing a horrible job? Are you that liberial? What if Al Gore was president? What would Al Gore do that was any better?


[QUOTE]
One normally goes to a catholic school because they believe in catholism.... or else they'd call it a "school" and not a "catholic school." And if they kicked her out for NOT believing, then let her in because of money, that also insiuates that the money can look past the conception of not believing. Therefore they pretend she is believing because of the amount of money they recieved. Did you not read that post either? You should really take a reading course.
[/QUOTE]

Though Catholicism is a bit more materialistic than other denominations or non denominations, not all of Christianity is that way. If you ever researched Protestant or Lutheran, or even Methodist, you would find out that not all Christian based schools are about the money.

[QUOTE]
Oh no, my posts here don't have any insults in them, they tell only the facts (maybe if you read them you'd know that). If you want to see what I really say about you when I use insults, you can read myOtaku. [/QUOTE]

How can you be 100% sure that they are the facts? Have you read about every single thing about these subjects? Not just the liberial sources, but also the conserative sources? Have you even read the Koran all the way through? The Bible? Every religious text? If you haven't, how can you know all the "facts?" Chris, why must you bash every member and thing you don't like repeatedly on you MyOtaku? I read your MyOtaku and it wasn't very nice. You or anyone shouldn't put people down like that. Talking behind someone's back is something I look greatly down upon.

[QUOTE]
Look, it's obvious you're getting no where. Probably because you're consistantly wrong. But I don't hold that against you, you just don't know any better. When you posted above that 3 against 1 isn't fair, thats because we can see just how insanely silly your posts are. It's like reading a comic strip and you're the joke.[/QUOTE]

Again, how do you know that you are 100% right? You should know that you don't know every single thing about everything. You may be the wrong one. If you say that Crimson may not know any better just because of his religion, that is pretty shallow minded. You may just be a stubborn. It seems like you are, Chris. It is not 3 against 1 anymore. Crimson is not alone anymore. If you thrash about me on your MyOtaku, so be it. Maybe you'll understand better someday, Chris.

[Guest Wandering Mage]

Hmm...

I really think that separation of church and state is essential for our failing government to pull itself out of this rut that it seems to be in. Not being religious by most standards anyway (being Wiccan/a Witch does that), I think this whole thing is completely ridiculous. I mean, what's with trying to instill a sense of the 49 whatsits in our [B]government workers[/B] for Goddess' sake?! I mean, it's exactly like PrincessGoneral says, not everyone is Christian. I'm living proof of that statement. Alas, November cannot come fast enough. C'est la vie, I guess.

[Shinken]

I'd have to agree with Wandering Mage on the point that separation of church and state isn't going so well in this country any more. It seems to me that President Bush is pushing the beliefs of his religion upon the entire country, despite the fact that not everyone is Christian (myself partially included). I, too, can't wait for November. I only wish I was able to vote in this election... I'd go on a rant about how the current administration rubs me the wrong way, but that'd be off-topic. Unfortunately.

It seems to me that separation of church and state has only been a so-so prospect in this country, as Christianity has always seemed to have the most effect/pull on the government. But that's just my opinion... ^^x

(Oh, and Japan, just to clear up, the Crusades' purpose was also to 'reclaim the Holy Land', or at least that's what I've ben taught since the seventh grade. ^^x As for "spreading the good news about Christianity", what makes it such good news when compared to any other religion? Personally, I hate it when one religion tries to force itself upon another. It's hypocritical, and nobody has the right to do so, in my opinion. Again, that's just me.)

Itte ki masu! :glasses:

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]I agree with Shinken. And not just about the [I]itte ki masu[/I] thing. >_>

While some values that are shared throughout most religions are also basic moral values of humanity [I]in general[/I], the church still has no business in state affairs.

It would also seem that prisoners held in these religion-based prisons are given shorter time...? If you can tell me how that is at all correct (morally), via the use of [I]reason[/I], I will be amazed.
Also, if the purpose of these institutions is to help the convicts "find Jesus", wouldn't it be indirectly implying that the religious prison system is useless? After all, they choose to go to these prisons because they've already "found Him". Right? That is, unless you count all those non-Christian individuals who are just after shorter time and a better prison environment.
[/FONT]
[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Yeah I did do that, then I laughed so hard I couldn't breathe cause there is NO way in hell YOU could ever be right when you post your ridiculous none-sense.[/quote]Once again, the needless and unprovoked rudeness in your posts. I'll have you know that quite the good some of people agree with me. They aren't willing to post up, for fear of your childish antics.

[quote]
Little history behind the crusade. The muslim people were VERY tolerant of ANY religion within their lands (you could believe and practice any religion). It was the Christians who brought war upon the Muslims because of the fear of the Muslim expansion into the so called Christian lands, in fact thats the reason for the Muslims dislike towards Christians today. . The whole reason they went to war was because of religion and fear that maybe, maybe the muslims were better people. The reason they went to war was because of religion. If it was because of political reasons it wouldn't be called a Crusade... or do you need a dictionary to go with your BS... [/quote] Religion was a scapegoat in this manner. People used it as an exuse, so people believed it. So this crusade was caused by a political needness. I'll post the exact section that my book has written, bolding the important part.

[quote]The Byzantine emperor Alexius I urgently asked Pope Urban II for Christian knights to help him fight the Turks. Although Roman popes and Byzantine emperors were longtime rivals, Urban agreed.
At the Council of Clermont in 1095, Urban incited bishops and nobles to action. "from Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople comes a grievous report,"" he began. "An accursed race... has violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire." Urban then called for a crusade to free the Holy Land.
[color=green]Motives[/color] "God wills it!" roared the assembly. By 1096, thousands of knigths were on their way to the Holy land. As the crusading spirit swept through Western Europe, armies of ordinary men and women inspired by fiery preachers left for the Holy Land, too. Few returned.
[b] Religious zeal and other factors motivated the crusaders Many knights hoped to win wealth and land. Some crusaders sought to escape troubles at home. Others yearned for adventure[/b].
[b]The pope, too, had mixed motives. Urban hoped to increase his power in Europe and perhaps heal the schism, or split, between the Roman and Byzantine churches. (see next chapter.) He also hoped that the Crusades would set Christian knights to fighting Muslims instead of one another.[/b][/quote]
As you can read, religion was the scapegoat.


[quote]There is no possibly. Hinduism started in a totally different place than Christianity. Yet both are similar if you look at the stories. And they can't be organized religions when they originate... Something just doesn't originate with a huge following.... I said they originated in isolation, not became popular due to isolation, maybe you need to take a reading course along with that Mythology course.[/quote]
I never said that they became popular because they were in isolation. Where did you get that from? (be sure to actually answer the questions I ask.) Yes, the general idea based off of something started in totally different places. First of all, Christianity didn't come around until Christ came. Hinduism came a long time before that. Get your times strait.
[quote]
No, I live here. I DEAL with every single bill passed. I DEAL with every single law passed. YOU don't. You have no idea what Jeb Bush is doing. On a seperate note, the Bush family has continued to proove their stupidity and ignorance in their political offices. I only precieve them as they are. Just as when I see your name on a topic, I automatically assume your responce will be one that I can laugh at because of it's pure silly-ness and lack of intelligence.[/quote] No, you don't. All these little political actions made by people don't even make a dent in their everyday lives. The only time people care is when someone brings it up, then suddenly it's all a big deal where in fact no one was complaining. And I suppose it was stupid how Bush's tax-cuts raised the economy up at a steady 8% increase over 8 months? I suppose he was wrong when he put a hault to the 12 chemical and nuclear weapons programs that were in Iraq. Now how dare he pass a bill to prevent partial-birth abortions. Little fact about the government of the USA: The president actually has little power. Everything must go through the house of represenatives, and then it must go through the senate, then it reaches the president, then if he dis-agrees with it, it goes back to the house of represenatives and the senate, and they get the final word. The outlawing of partial birth abortions must first climb up the ranks from mayor, to governer, then to the whitehouse. Bush barely proposes anything at all. So pointing the blame squarely at him is childish nonsence. And once again you bring up the childish antics. If you don't stop, I'll report you for flaming.

[quote]One normally goes to a catholic school because they believe in catholism.... or else they'd call it a "school" and not a "catholic school." And if they kicked her out for NOT believing, then let her in because of money, that also insiuates that the money can look past the conception of not believing. Therefor they pretend she is believing because of the amount of money they recieved. Did you not read that post either? You should really take a reading course.[/quote]Or one normally goes to a Catholic school because their parents placed them there. BTW, I all of that. "No. Seems like all it takes is money to get someone in the school, not to be a believer.", which means that money can look past the concept of believing. So I'll take the course when you do.

[quote]Oh no, my posts here don't have any insults in them, they tell only the facts (maybe if you read them you'd know that). If you want to see what I really say about you when I use insults, you can read myOtaku. [/quote]Now you rise to the level of 10-year-olds. I've heard this one before, and is itself nothing but a mindless insult. So you are meaning to tell me that you specifically go out of your way to make a hatred-post in your my Otaku? I don't know about you, but that seems childish to me.

[quote]Look, it's obvious you're getting no where. Probably because you're consistantly wrong. But I don't hold that against you, you just don't know any better. When you posted above that 3 against 1 isn't fair, thats because we can see just how insanely silly your posts are. It's like reading a comic strip and you're the joke.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes. I mess up a date, or only know half of the story. At the beginning, I was just pointing out how there were 3 guys going against me. It's really no trouble to debate all of them. And you just happen to dis-agree with me, and not see how insanely silly my posts are (which is another demeaning insult). You try to justify your dis-agreement with someone by using these antics of someone who's balls havent even dropped yet. Everyone can see how childish you are acting, such as [quote]Guys guys let's leave him alone. I suppose it's amusing and all, but seriously, there's Ninja Gaiden to play, Starsky and Hutch to watch, and the warming (slowly) weather to enjoy! As you can see you're not doing him any favors making him have to answer all your arguments, and [b]nobody is really getting an edge on each other[/b]. It's like a fight between a drunk Van Damme and a sober Van Damme. It's just a complete fiasco.
[/quote] You see, HE has a point here. So unless you can cut the crap, I'm gonna report you. No one else here has to resort to these underhanded ploys. Only you.

Thanks for the support Japan_86, though try not to down on the seperate branches that are dubbed Christianity.

[quote]I really think that separation of church and state is essential for our failing government to pull itself out of this rut that it seems to be in. Not being religious by most standards anyway (being Wiccan/a Witch does that), I think this whole thing is completely ridiculous. I mean, what's with trying to instill a sense of the 49 whatsits in our government workers for Goddess' sake?! I mean, it's exactly like PrincessGoneral says, not everyone is Christian. I'm living proof of that statement. Alas, November cannot come fast enough. C'est la vie, I guess.[/quote]
Remeber the first statement of the thread?

[quote]Jeb has introduced a program called ?Character First!?. Government employees are coached in 49 ?key biblical qualities?, eg. Deference, Virtue, Loyalty, and Meekness. (Modelled after an evangelical Christian program called the ?49 Commandments of Christ?.)[/quote]

And I replied [qoute]This is just coaching of advice. Not forcing them to be Christian. Has Jeb himself stated that he is making people become Christian, or is this just the view of an onlooker?[/quote] Although I meant that the resident medai would've been the onlooker, the statement applies.

[quote]I'd have to agree with Wandering Mage on the point that separation of church and state isn't going so well in this country any more. It seems to me that President Bush is pushing the beliefs of his religion upon the entire country, despite the fact that not everyone is Christian (myself partially included). I, too, can't wait for November. I only wish I was able to vote in this election... I'd go on a rant about how the current administration rubs me the wrong way, but that'd be off-topic. Unfortunately. [/quote]
Well, we all have different ways of viewing things. It seems to me that President Bush is using morals and ideas from the Bible to influence his decisions, and not necissarily to force everyone to be Christian.

[quote]It seems to me that separation of church and state has only been a so-so prospect in this country, as Christianity has always seemed to have the most effect/pull on the government. But that's just my opinion... ^^x[/quote] Christianity does have the most effect on this country. It was partly founded on it, and many of the laws in the country had it's roots in Christianity, and the majority of the country is Christian.

I already commented on the Crusades before.

[quote]While some values that are shared throughout most religions are also basic moral values of humanity in general, the church still has no business in state affairs.[/quote]The basic morals of humanity came from religion. And the state having religious influences always seemed like a good idea to me.
[quote]
It would also seem that prisoners held in these religion-based prisons are given shorter time...? If you can tell me how that is at all correct (morally), via the use of reason, I will be amazed.[/quote]
That's a toughy. I personally think that they should be held in there for the same amount of time, but I don't always agree with what other religious people do. Well, if someone were to get salvation within the first 2 years of his 10 year stay, the other 10 years would be somewhat of a waste. I personally don't agree with the statement, but any side of a debate can be argued.

[quote]Also, if the purpose of these institutions is to help the convicts "find Jesus", wouldn't it be indirectly implying that the religious prison system is useless? After all, they choose to go to these prisons because they've already "found Him". Right? That is, unless you count all those non-Christian individuals who are just after shorter time and a better prison environment.
[/quote]
You'll be suprised how many people without salvation will seek him. We aren't born Christian. We're made. The Majority of the USA was made Christian. 63% of the nation argued that the 10 comandments should stay in that one building, and all claimed to be born-again. You cannot find salvation unless you are actually seeking him. But your point holds ground, because I saw this point when I made my first post and was preparing myself for days now for when it came up, because I simply wasn't ready for it when the thread started:

The institution should in itself either not let someone out untill they actually find Salvation, and/or keep a person for a longer time than their actual sentence, due to the more friendly atmosphere of the prision in general. Even with the more friendly atmosphere, this is still a prison and it still has people sitting hours in a metal box. Meaning that you would have to endure a longer sentence for your choice. Rather that we have ourself the influence of Religion on these persons, because spending time in the slammer with no re-habilitation other than punishment is on the in-effective side. But of course, many people are blinded to reality by faith, and don't see this problem, whereas the rest of the plebian see it a mile away, so I doubt that my more-improved plans would ever come to order.

On the re-habilitation side, there iis a magnet on my refridgerator that has a very good point.

If a child lives with criticims,
He learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostillity,
He learns to fight.
If a child lives with ridicule,
He learns to be shy.
If a child lives with shame,
He learns to feel guilty.
If a child lives with toolerance,
He learns to be patient.
If a child lives with encouragement,
He learns confidence.
If a child lives with praise,
He learns to appreciate.
If a child lives with fairness,
He learns justice.
If a child lives with security,
He learns to have faith.
If a child lives with approval,
He learns to like himself.
If a child lives with acceptance and friendship,
He learns to find love in the world.

[Vegitto4]

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]

Oh yeah, and under our current president, there is no such thing as seperation of church and state, apparently he forgot to read the constitution.

[/QUOTE]


A good question would be this. Where in that great Constitution of ours does it say seperation of church and state? It isn't a part of the document. I've read it multiple times, and had discussions about it in my Government class. The only thing regarding religion in the Constitution is the Establishment Clause in the 1st Ammendment. Which denys the establishment of a certain religion over the [b]whole country[/b]. If you can quote the Article, and Section of the Constitution where it says that I'll shut up, hand you a cookie, and drop that argument. If you can't, then just begin the process of Foot Chewing. Then let me know how it tastes.

The reason that Christianity is so noticeable in today's government is because the founding fathers were mostly Christian(I do believe that was already pointed out). It has resonated down through the precedents set forth by them, into today's form of Government.

What I have noticed is that so many people who didn't vote in the last election, are the ones who are complaining the most. It's similar to a child whining to it's parent because the sibling recieved something that the whiner did not. It's quite childish really. Complaining in the voice of the media, or on talk shows does nothing but stir up more annoying persons. What you should do, is write a letter to the representatives of your county, state, what have you. They will do a better job at changing any Bill passed than you would yourself.


Now, on to the rest of this post. The prison idea I think is a good one. Keep in mind, that it is [b]Voluntary[/b]. So, you may be transferred only if you ask, and are selceted from the quarry that was requesting transfer.


Now, how the crusades, and the muslims, and other religions were pulled into this, I have no idea. According to what I read of the first post in the thread, they have nothing to do with it at all. (stop me if I'm wrong)


I'm not surprised by the quotes I've read from transtic. If you guys haven't gotten sued to His bantering, I would do it quickly. It's His way of proving a point, and retorting against him makes him even more right(not saying that I agree with hardly a thing he says, but I do tend to read it with an open mind).


I figure, dont whine about what you can't change. That is just annoying and does nothing but stir up trouble for everybody.

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][color=darkred]Religious prisons? No. I don't think so. Not unless they're going to be exactly the same as public prisons, but with religion as well. Otherwise people, who just because they're religious, will get off easier. A much more practical and acceptable approach would be to have the oportunity of a "Religious Package" for the duration of their stay at "the hospitable New York Maximum Security Penitentiary". They can say prayers, have a service, eat buffalo on Thursday nights, or whatever it is. But they still are in jail with everyone else. Why should they get what will [probably] be an easier deal? They're criminals. That is the whole point of it, isn't it? [i]Criminals[/i].

Religious child-care? I don't see why not, but Government funding should not be allocated to these... because they are out of the system, and segregate children. They are more like a private school because certain criterium need to be met to gain entrance. Right? So therefore, Government funding should not be given to them. If parents want a religious up-bringing for their children...it is their choice. However, funds [i]should not[/i] be allocated to those schools.

Now, Crimson Spider...as for "Having evolution rammed down their throats" that isn't the case for anyone I know, and shouldn't be if it is. Like those stupid things where some guy comes into school for religious purposes [the ones I took to get out of schoolwork...actually everyone did] they should have it for people who want to go.

"So kids. If you believe in God, go with Mr. Christian. If you believe in Evolution, go with Mr. Darwin. If you don't really care, go with Mr. Beret and do fingerpainting."

You see? Religion, indeed, any form of beliefs should be removed 100% from school situations. Evolutionism is practically a religion, in the fact that it is a belief-system [as such]. Therefore it, like religion, has no place in any Goverment system.

-Josh[/color][/size]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Japan_86']The purpose of the crusade was to look for artifacts from The Last Supper, and to spread the good news of Christianity. No one knows exactly every detail that they did during that time. [/quote]

The purpose of the crusades was a holy war (hence it's name), not to look for something. Looking for something isn't a war, and many many muslims and Christians wouldn't have been killed looking for the Holy Grail. King Author had it anyway if you read those legends. The Crusades was the slaughter of many Muslims by Christians because they "wanted to spread the word" which apparently was "believe us or die".... seems so much like today. If you don't believe in Christianity, well you must certainly be wrong about everything else. I also didn't know the "Good news" of Chirstianity included the death of any Muslim who stood in their way. I wouldn't call that "Good News"... would you? I also didn't know I had picked any of your other straws.

[quote]I too live in the US and I too deal with every single law passed. Me not quite 18 yet doesn't mean I don't have the right to protest and write petitions. I will be 18 in July, so I can vote then. How can you tell that the Bush family is doing a horrible job? Are you that liberial? What if Al Gore was president? What would Al Gore do that was any better?[/quote]

Live in Florida under Jeb Bush. Before Jeb Bush we had summer schoo in almost every schooll, now because of Jeb Bush NO school in Florida can AFFORD it and now are beginning to CHARGE people to take summer school classes. Schools don't get any money, teachers are paided much less than they should be and Florida continues to be ranked among the last in education. Now, that might be only one example of the many but I simply don't have time to address every single issue that Jeb has screwed us over with. now tell me that this great school system Jeb Bush has put in place isn't horrible? If you think its not try getting an education here. What if Al Gore was president? What if? He's not. I can't tell you what he would do, I can only tell you what Bush has done. I personally didn't like Gore, I liked John McCain. A REPUBLICAN! OHHHH TN LIKES A REPUBLICAN! WRITE IT DOWN QUICK! So lets not talk about Gore, lets talk about What if John McCain was president? I am not a compelte liberal, I like who is best for the job and George W Bush is NOT the best person to be president, therefor I don't like him. Have a problem? Too bad.

[quote]Though Catholicism is a bit more materialistic than other denominations or non denominations, not all of Christianity is that way. If you ever researched Protestant or Lutheran, or even Methodist, you would find out that not all Christian based schools are about the money.[/quote]

So may be the case, but that has no relevance. I was only posting a responce to the statement by Winter. Which was pretaining to a Catholic school. I had no intention of refering to other religions that were never stated.

[quote]How can you be 100% sure that they are the facts? Have you read about every single thing about these subjects? Not just the liberial sources, but also the conserative sources? Have you even read the Koran all the way through? The Bible? Every religious text? If you haven't, how can you know all the "facts?" Chris, why must you bash every member and thing you don't like repeatedly on you MyOtaku? I read your MyOtaku and it wasn't very nice. You or anyone shouldn't put people down like that. Talking behind someone's back is something I look greatly down upon.[/quote]

I never bashed anyone here. I told the facts about what CS is (Thats what I refering to when I said facts, not any opinions I might have had). He's ignorant. If you can't see that, you are too. And I'm not talking behind his back. I posted in a public place where he can read it all he wants. I can't say what I said in MyOtaku here or I'd get banned, which is why I said it in MyOtaku. If you don't like it, idon't read it. No one is forcing you to. And on a side note, I'll talk about who ever I want, whenever I want and I will say whatever I want about them. You, CS, James, and GOD can't stop me from doing it.

And have you read the Qu'ran all the ay through? The Torah? even the Bible? Many Christians haven't even read the bible all the way through, how can you expect me to. I bet CS hasn't even read the bible all the way through, neither have you probably.

I also don't use liberal "facts." I don't like the words liberal or conservative, only people wholike to seperate things use those words. People who can't think of people as united and who must divide themselves from others use those words. I use only my opinion and the truth, nothing more, nothing less.

[quote]Again, how do you know that you are 100% right? You should know that you don't know every single thing about everything. You may be the wrong one. If you say that Crimson may not know any better just because of his religion, that is pretty shallow minded. You may just be a stubborn. It seems like you are, Chris. It is not 3 against 1 anymore. Crimson is not alone anymore. If you thrash about me on your MyOtaku, so be it. Maybe you'll understand better someday, Chris.[/QUOTE]

I understand myself perfectly fine. Its you who doesn't understand me. If you believe CS, fine, thats your choice, but if you do what he does, you'll be wrong too.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to CS, my point was made, he just doesn't see it yet. What I said in Myotaku was practically agreed with by EVERYONE who responded to my post. Not one person who responded to my post said that I was wrong. Now if everyone agreed with me, that makes me think that I am right in my assumptions.

And the seperation of church and state is IMPLIED int he constitution. So has been said by the founding fathers and so has been said MANY times after. There is an understanding of a seperation of Church and State in this country.

[Winter]

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]


I'm not even going to bother to respond to CS, my point was made, he just doesn't see it yet. What I said in Myotaku was practically agreed with by EVERYONE who responded to my post. Not one person who responded to my post said that I was wrong. Now if everyone agreed with me, that makes me think that I am right in my assumptions.

[/QUOTE]

Then you are deluding yourself.

Just because everyone agrees with what was said, doesnt make what was said actual, factual truth.

If you said the world was flat, and everyone agreed, that doesnt mean it is true. Popular opinion doesnt always equal absolute truth.

[Japan]

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]
And have you read the Qu'ran all the ay through? The Torah? even the Bible? Many Christians haven't even read the bible all the way through, how can you expect me to. I bet CS hasn't even read the bible all the way through, neither have you probably. [/QUOTE]

I have read the Bible all the way through, thank you very much.

[QUOTE]
I'm not even going to bother to respond to CS, my point was made, he just doesn't see it yet. What I said in Myotaku was practically agreed with by EVERYONE who responded to my post. Not one person who responded to my post said that I was wrong. Now if everyone agreed with me, that makes me think that I am right in my assumptions. [/QUOTE]

I would of replied saying that you were wrong on your MyOtaku, but I know you well enough that you would just delete my comment, so I didn't bother.

[QUOTE]
And the seperation of church and state is IMPLIED in he constitution. So has been said by the founding fathers and so has been said MANY times after. There is an understanding of a seperation of Church and State in this country.[/QUOTE]

It was officially stated in a court in the 1960's that Atheism was a type of religion. If you believe that there is no God, or gods, then you believe in something, thus, Atheism a kind of religion. Then I demand that Atheism goes against Separation of Church and State. If Christianity can't be in the court systems, then Atheism shouldn't be in the courts either.

Also, about what you said of those Evangelists that stuff Christianity down your throats from a day to day basis. You get upset and claim that all Christians are like that. In fact, not at all. This whole situation reminds me of a story.


"One time you go to this one resturant. The service was horrible, the waiter was rude, your food that you ordered was late. When your food finally came, it wasn't the best quality too. They made you pay a lot of money for it. After that first horrible experience with that specific resturant, you decide that you will not go to any other resturants that belong to that food resturant chain. You ignore all of those resturants, and one of those may have a nicer staff, better service, and better food."

What I am saying, is that you can't have one or two bad experiences and label all Christians that way. In fact, I don't really like those Evangelists. They are way too straight forward and in your face. I feel that if believers of Christ did that, they would just end up rejecting all chances with that non believer.

[Godelsensei]

Religion [I]n.[/I]
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Atheism [I]n.[/I]
1.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Atheism is not a religion. A religion is an organized form of worship. This is not the issue at hand.

Schools do not teach that there is no God, nor should they teach that their is one. Religion is a personal thing, and should not be imposed on others. Enough said.

Schools teach children the scientific discoveries we have made as a species. One cannot call this teaching atheism in schools, as it is simply the sharing of knowledge.
If teaching that disease is caused by germs, that our vision is based on the reflection of light, that water evaporates as oppose to dissapearing and countless other facts of life is considered "atheism", I am very glad that I am an "atheist".
If one has a religion, that's fine and dandy, but this should not get in the way of seeking knowledge. If "God" "gave" you a brain, then it is only logical to use it.

[I]"There was a time where people lived only for their faith, and the Church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.[/I][/FONT]


[/COLOR]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Japan_86']I would of replied saying that you were wrong on your MyOtaku, but I know you well enough that you would just delete my comment, so I didn't bother. [/quote]

I haven't deleted anyone else's comment, I don't see why I would delete yours. You have a right to your opinion whether I think it's wrong or right. I wouldn't delete your comment, I would simply respond to it, like I am here.

[quote]It was officially stated in a court in the 1960's that Atheism was a type of religion. If you believe that there is no God, or gods, then you believe in something, thus, Atheism a kind of religion. Then I demand that Atheism goes against Separation of Church and State. If Christianity can't be in the court systems, then Atheism shouldn't be in the courts either.[/quote]

By law, the United States has to determine what is and isnot a religion due to certain tax breaks religions get in this country. Atheism in the courts has nothing to do with seperation of church and state. They aren't preaching atheism in our government like they are preaching Christianity. Plus as stated above, Atheism isn't a religion, it is a lack there of. It's more of a belief than a religion. There is a difference as I'm sure you know.

[quote]Also, about what you said of those Evangelists that stuff Christianity down your throats from a day to day basis. You get upset and claim that all Christians are like that. In fact, not at all. This whole situation reminds me of a story.

What I am saying, is that you can't have one or two bad experiences and label all Christians that way. In fact, I don't really like those Evangelists. They are way too straight forward and in your face. I feel that if believers of Christ did that, they would just end up rejecting all chances with that non believer.[/QUOTE]

I don't remember saying anything about evangelists. I rememebr saying that I don't like people who shove religion in my face, regardless who they are. They could be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. If they shove it in my face and tell me I'm wrong because I don't believe in their silly nonesense then I won't like them. I know damn well that all Christians don't shove their religion in everyone's face. My mom's a Christian and she never forced me to goto church or went against me when I came out of the closet. My mom's parents are Christians too and I'm closer to them then I am any of my other family. One of my good friends on this board is a devote Christian, and I respect him more than anyone else here cause he doesn't throw it in my face. I don't care what religion you are but don't shove it in my face and don't let your religion get in the way of your logic. When you do that you lose all view of the real world.

[Justin]

It doesn't matter how much Bible anyone here has read. You can read it once, go back and read it again and get something entirely new.
It doesn't matter why the Holy War was so ignorantly fought. Yes, I said it--I think the Holy Wars were a waste of time, and a true embarassment to both the Muslim nations and Christian nations involved. Both societies were extremely backwards in their tolerance of other beliefs. Both persecuted those who did not comply.
And the even sadder fact is that both [i]continue[/i] to be intolerant.

I do ot agree with those who hold other-than-Christian ideals--but I will not persecute them, even if they will persecute me, as Jesus said that they will. I'll bring the message of Christ's love, and count on the Holy Spirit to work on their hearts.

Remember what I say now, and later on it will come back to your memory--If this nation turns from the one true God, Jehovah, Jesus Chris-- it will fall. And I don't care who it is, all knees will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord of all.

-Justin

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Japan_86']It was officially stated in a court in the 1960's that Atheism was a type of religion. If you believe that there is no God, or gods, then you believe in something, thus, Atheism a kind of religion. Then I demand that Atheism goes against Separation of Church and State. If Christianity can't be in the court systems, then Atheism shouldn't be in the courts either.[/quote]

Who the heck is this?

First of all, whatever court stated that Atheism was a religion was completely retarded. Second, That last sentence makes absolutely no sense. What does it mean? That Buddhism should be in the courts? The whole paragraph is wrong because your premise is wrong. Ugh, I've never seen anything so completely devoid of reason on these boards.

[Shinken]

How is allowing other religions a chance, and not forcing Christianity upon those who don't believe in it, 'turning away from God'? I don't see any fervent denouncing of the Bible being displayed on CNN, instead I see people's rights being violated because of a man (Bush) who takes his religion and crams it down everyone else's throat. Need an example? Read my latest MyOtaku post.

Also, I, along with many people, I'm sure, don't really appreciate being preached to. I respect your beliefs, and I encourage you to have them. However, I don't see why you have to push it upon others as the only way, and that their beliefs are wrong. It's irritating, for one thing, and it's also somewhat insulting, because you inadvertently stated that their religion is definitely wrong, and then you pulled out the dogma card. Not everyone (read: nobody) appreciates having their religion insulted, and then being told that there is only one way, etc.

Please, Justin, refrain from pushing your beliefs on others. It's not really appreciated, and it's insulting.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]o_o

I actually went and read that latest post, Shinken, and I must say: the irrelevant issues people bring up are unimaginable. I wasn't referring to you, by the way._ _U

This debate really isn't going anywhere: worse, it would seem that it has lost its original purpose.
This is what happens when you challenge people's belief even to the slightest extent. Even if you're not challenging them, and directly saying you respect their beliefs, but don't want them force-fed to you, they jump to their own defence, as if they were being attacked.

As far as I am concearned, religion is an irrelevant issue. What matters is a person's moral standards, and their acceptance of differences.

There's a reason that it is illegal to ask what religion some one follows, when it comes to job interviews. People are too damn biased.

The state (and its laws) is a communal thing, that all people, regardless of who or what they think is sitting in the clouds watching them, are part of. It can be applied to all people. Any specific religion cannot. Perhaps, if every one was of the same religion, it would be "right", simply because no one would care to think otherwise.
But, as it is, we all have two options:

1. Go through life happily not caring whether or not some one believes in the same things as you do.

[I]Or...[/I]

2. Get yourself worked up over something that you probably can't change anyway.

The choice is yours.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Winter]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]

As far as I am concearned, religion is an irrelevant issue. What matters is a person's moral standards, and their acceptance of differences.

[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

What about the people whose base of morality is stemmed from their religion? Those people do exist, so knowing that would go without saying that whether you believe it is or not, religion is far from an irrelevant issue. A lot of times, its what societies are structured from.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New] Faith [I]n.[/I]
1. [B]Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[/B]
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6.[B] A set of principles or beliefs.[/B]

Faith and religion are different things, Winter. Faith, as the dictionary states, is the belief in something's being correct. Faith isn't necessarily religious. You can have faith in the fact that KILLING=BAD. This is not necessarily a religious ideal.
Religion is an organized form of worship. Attending some form of Church, or, as Baron suggested, eating buffalo on Thursday (for spiritual purposes *laughs*), are examples of religion.

You do not have to sit in a church every Sunday and pray in order to have faith in a set of perfectly reasonable morals (that do not have to be spiritual, themselves).

Our society, on a non-religious base, teaches us that we must not kill, steal etc... This has nothing to do with eating buffalo, ever.

Let's [I]try[/I] to stay on topic. [I]Please?[/I][/FONT]
[/COLOR]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Well many times it's in a non-secular setting that people get their "what's wrong and what's right" from. In that sense religion does spread a moral code. But the mistake people make is they think that's where the moral codes originated from, and that's simply not the case. For some reason, it seems to me that many people think that prior to Moses receiving his 15.... oops... I mean 10, [i]10[/i] commandments, ... that killing was okay and adultery wasn't a big deal.

Anyway, we've already discussed that whole thing, and I don't want the thread to cycle, so just forget about responding to what I said above.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is it's stupid to consider "godless" people in the same way as the church does (godless = immoral).

Moral codes are adopted by religions, which then change them to fit their doctrines (which are made to be more receptive by whoever the church wants to convert or keep). People of those religions then form their own societies, and feel that their moral codes come FROM THEIR RELIGION. But the moral codes would've been there the whole time anyway. Without them, societies don't exist.

[Winter]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New] Faith [I]n.[/I]
1. [B]Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[/B]
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6.[B] A set of principles or beliefs.[/B]

Faith and religion are different things, Winter. Faith, as the dictionary states, is the belief in something's being correct. Faith isn't necessarily religious. You can have faith in the fact that KILLING=BAD. This is not necessarily a religious ideal.
Religion is an organized form of worship. Attending some form of Church, or, as Baron suggested, eating buffalo on Thursday (for spiritual purposes *laughs*), are examples of religion.

You do not have to sit in a church every Sunday and pray in order to have faith in a set of perfectly reasonable morals (that do not have to be spiritual, themselves).

Our society, on a non-religious base, teaches us that we must not kill, steal etc... This has nothing to do with eating buffalo, ever.

Let's [I]try[/I] to stay on topic. [I]Please?[/I][/FONT]
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Very clever, albeit winded, way of going around my point. *applauds*

But in response to your essay of a post, I'll say that religion and faith do go hand in hand. I mean, what reasonable person can be religious, and believe in a supreme boogyma....er...being, without having faith?

And here is another tidbit for you. Our society was constructed with quite a bit of help from the Freemasonic statutes, which *gasp* are religiously driven. Why do I make that corellation? Well because many of our founding fathers were Freemasons.

Deny it all you want, there are some people who need their religion to sustain a sense of morality.

[Shinken]

Ah, but there are just as many who have a sense of morality, but don't necessarily belong to a religion.

Also, our nation may have been founded by religious people, but that in no way justifies how any one religion can force its way into the government at the exclusion of other religions, as our society is a democracy. One of the tenets of our democracy is freedom of religion, which means that all people have a right to worship freely without interference. Any one religion having power over another seems to qualify as interference to me.

(I'd post more, but I'm in need of a shower. And not a golden one. ;) Just kidding.)