The Seperation of Church and State

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]I wasn't skirting your point, Winter. I was stating why it was not applicable.

Religion needs faith, but faith does not need religion.

What you stated, Shinken, is accurate. Just because the founders of a country were of a specific religion, it does not mean this trend needs to be continued.
As it stands, there are too many people, with too many different beliefs, all committing crimes.
What is the point of giving criminals options based on their spiritualtiy? If they have gone and broken the laws of both the state and the church (whichever one it may be), they should not have the right to such an option. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Winter]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]I wasn't skirting your point, Winter. I was stating why it was not applicable.

Religion needs faith, but faith does not need religion.

What you stated, Shinken, is accurate. Just because the founders of a country were of a specific religion, it does not mean this trend needs to be continued.
As it stands, there are too many people, with too many different beliefs, all committing crimes.
What is the point of giving criminals options based on their spiritualtiy? If they have gone and broken the laws of both the state and the church (whichever one it may be), they should not have the right to such an option. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

First, let me say that I believe that religious motives shouldnt be a factor in political ideals. I get the impression that you think otherwise, so I'm just getting that out in the open.

Moving on, you stated that religion need not be a force in govt like it seems to be just because it was from the start; of course it neednt be. Who are you telling? But the fact of the matter is; it is. Period.

Bush is toting the bible, in his campaign against abortion, and certain types of marriage, why? Support.

He's lost support from most reasonable sources around the country, but he still has a grasp on southern bible touters. So to keep that, he's got to do what he's got to do. And lets keep in mind that when it comes to presidency, you must realize that in order to gain support from the majority of voting Americans, you've got to play the religious angle, especially Christian.

You want a society that seperates all aspects of religion from state; it just aint gonna happen.

Laadeedaa, if we could elect people of stable mind, and sound morality that neednt rely on religious doctrines; but we cant, and we dont. Like I said before, religion is an important aspect for many voting Americans.

Sure, we can strive to create a religiously neutral society, we can strive to an ideology of equality, freedom, tolerance; but the reality is those are goals that will never be met. Only forever sought after. I'm sure history is enough proof to support that claim.

There will be always some portion of society that weighs influence, and is coincidently subconciously governed by a set of ideals from a metaphysical source. Thats the way human nature is. In the end, people are of fragile minds, and look to hold onto even the most abstract of concepts. Until we are controlled by beings that are incapable of thinking monotheistically, or multitheistically, we will always have religion seeping up as a covert, driving force in the world.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Now, now, Winter, not every society has Bush as its head. ~_^

There really isn't anywhere else to go with this debate. We could run around in circles, making jabs at each other's intelligence, but I have already stated my opinion, and why it is such.

Just out of curiosity, Winter, where do you stand? You have neglected to state whether you are for religion in prisons and schools...>_> Either that, or I've missed it.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][color=darkred] Shinken: To me it didn't sound remotely like Justin was forcing his beliefs on anyone. The last...sentence or two was quite...zealous, but in the sentences prior to that, he stated that he didn't force beliefs on people. Which he didn't.

Faith and Religion are separate things. I have faith in my ability to rock-climb, but I don't believe in a God. Religion is a form of faith, specifically in some type of Supreme Being. Faith can also stand alone though.

If there are people who only have moral laws because they're religion commands it...they're not moral people. If anything, they're immoral and highly religious. I don't have any form of religion...but I have morals. Hell, morals are anything. You could be raised to believe that stabbing a person in the back is the moral thing to do. Screw over others before they screw over you. Morals are anything. Morals are separate from religion. In the region of morals, religion has little bearing, because, most people, regardless of their religion know what is right and wrong.

Why must we be governed by these 'Metaphysical ideals'. I know I'm not Christian, Buddhist, Catholic, Luciferian, Judaist[?] or anything else. But I have morals. There are basic things that are right and that are wrong, and there are basic rights and privileges, and [i]everybody[/i] knows this. It doesn't matter who you are. You all [should] know the vasics. Does that indicate that our moral structure could withstand the fall of religion?

I think so. Some people use religion as a crutch. I don't understand that, but if they want to that is fine. All I am saying, is that unlike a true cripple, the crutch of religion can be removed without the moral system falling over. Religion does not make a person. Upbringing does. Religion is not a necessity to a good upbringing. Can you argue otherwise?

I don't believe that you can.

-Josh[/color][/size]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]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've already quoted from a book that it wasn't.

[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.
Motives "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.
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] You can't get much clearer than that.



[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.[/quote]The Clark County School District is over 100,000,000 million dollars in dept (even after the 70,000,000 that our district recently recieved) and is ranked 43rd in the educational value. We have no problem with having summer school here.
[quote]
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] My problem is with the needless, childish, and arrogant Bush-Bashing that you stubbornly adheive to based on limited data and refuse to even let the thought that he can do something good for this nation. You deliberately go out of your way to voice your raw hatred for the Bush name. It seems to me like you are trying to justify your hatred. And to think I thought that [b]I[/b] was arrogant.

[quote]I never bashed anyone here.
[/quote]Obvious lie.
[quote] 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.[/quote] You ever heard of psychology? Yeah. That branch of science that studies why people do stuff. Well, you are right now in the "Demeaning another person whom you don't agree with in desperation to seek justification for self-rightous actions" catagory. Just because you don't like me, you NEED to justify your hatred towards me. You seek reasons why, which is often why some people resort to projection: "Oh everyone hates him". Refusing to accept this is denying simple fact. Why else do you think that YOU are the only one who has to engrade insults? (If you don't answer this one, this will be the third unanswered question I've asked you). People aren't disliking me. They're agreeing with you. You go out of your way (which you once said that you have such a busy schedual that you don't have the time to right replies, yet you do this) to write up why you hate me and [u]seek[/u] reassurance from other people who don't like me just because you don't. Why else would you do this? And not behind my back? You didn't pre-empt me that you were writing it. You didn't even tell me you wrote it until after awhile. That's like starting a rumor, and then revealing a week later that you were the one who started it. That is quite behind my back. I don't go around reading your and your's only myOtaku. Otherwise it would be like I would follow you around all day to see if you are starting any nasty rumors or not. Now go on and predictably deny it all, as any drug-doer would deny his addiction until he's pratically on his death bed. Or are you going to avoid it? "I'm not going to bother replying to him." Or choice two: "Your post is off-topic and shouldn't be here," while you did the same. Or how about the other one of "I don't even care anymore." Then there is always you not posting at all and holding it in just to write in myOtaku later. Go on and pick one.

[quote]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]Define fact. How can you prove that this word is [color=green]Green[/color]? What is percieved as reality is merely speculation based on random data. How are you sure that the color I'm seeing is your orange?

[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.[/quote]Or we'll be right and you'll be wrong.

[quote]I'm not even going to bother to respond to CS, my point was made, he just doesn't see it yet.
[/quote]Ah yes, your point. First, you declair that my simple sentence wasn't true, where as the actual statement wasn't arguementive. Then you state that indevidual religion came first, then you go on a needless 2 paragraph Bush-Bash, then you use a phantom quote from someone too arguement that America wasn't found on Christianity. I don't see a point other than for you to vent.

I mean, crap man. The only person I've really had on-topic discussion with is Godelsensei.

[quote]
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]Someone already commented on this, and I already commented on this.


Now for [b]on-topic[/b] discussion.

[quote]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.[/qoute]
I really don't see it as forced, nor do I see any religion having a power over another in the government.
[quote]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.[/quote]
It seems like you'll always believe this. Nonetheless, I've stated my belief that moral codes came from religion, because unless there is a third person, there isn't a right or wrong, because there would be no punishment for your actions. Children aren't nice when they are born. They have to be raised to be nice, because otherwise they turn out to be selfish and rude. Or there is some magic force that causes them to be nice.

The moral codes of religions have quite the differences. Only their realitive base are the same. True that the church did (in the middle ages) change around the doctorine in order to convert people (Nowhere does the Bible justify this action). Even with the changes, there was a base code that came from the original religion trying to convert the people.

The societies past the very first civilization all had themselves either a religion, or a system of which someone giving power or assumed power would lead around people like sheep, and they themselves dictate what*is right or wrong. But the latter is rare. What is meant by converting people is changing people from religion to religion, or basically getting them to their own religion. Untill someone is able to percieve the existance and concept of "Why" they would follow blindely anything brought to them.

Well, I pretty much agree with Winter on these issues, though there are some details I differ opinion on.

[quote]If there are people who only have moral laws because they're religion commands it...they're not moral people. If anything, they're immoral and highly religious. I don't have any form of religion...but I have morals. Hell, morals are anything. You could be raised to believe that stabbing a person in the back is the moral thing to do. Screw over others before they screw over you. Morals are anything. Morals are separate from religion. In the region of morals, religion has little bearing, because, most people, regardless of their religion know what is right and wrong.[/quote]Indevidual morality between persons differs by a large margin. The "Morals" that are stated are based on what you are told is "Moral" by some third person. People lack the ability to tell what is right and wrong without a third person. If there is no third person, there is no right and wrong. While many claim that they have no third person in their standings, if they grew up in an organized country their perception of right and wrong is drastically changed, or if you lived stranded on an island with 3 people or more beings, there would be an influence of right and wrong. Religion, ladies and gents, is this third person. Religion determined what was right and wrong since the very first civilizations, possibly the first ever. When people didn't go along with their perception of what their religion taught, they felt that what they were doing is wrong.

Remember: It's all realitive. In our ever changing perspective of the universe around us, what we define as fact is nothing more than mere speculation based upon random data.

[quote]Why must we be governed by these 'Metaphysical ideals'. I know I'm not Christian, Buddhist, Catholic, Luciferian, Judaist[?] or anything else. But I have morals. There are basic things that are right and that are wrong, and there are basic rights and privileges, and everybody knows this. It doesn't matter who you are. You all [should] know the basics. Does that indicate that our moral structure could withstand the fall of religion?[/quote]We don't have to be governed by anything, actually. That's just how things fell into place. The morality and opinions of yourself is based and was influenced by the morality and opinions of your resident area. There are tribes in Africa who find that Slavory and Cannibilism is the way to go.

The fall of religion is a scary thought. The statement before the previous quote has actually eaten at somebody's concious. Pondering existance as a whole. If religion were to fall, I theorize that society would aswell. Firstly, the belief in nothing. There are bound to be people with morals that exist in a society that religion fell, but their own values would be based on a preset preferance which would later be regarded as worthless. Once this happens, laws are regarded as worthless. Over a long period of time, the moral decline in value, until they make little difference.

[quote]I think so. Some people use religion as a crutch. I don't understand that, but if they want to that is fine. All I am saying, is that unlike a true cripple, the crutch of religion can be removed without the moral system falling over. Religion does not make a person. Upbringing does. Religion is not a necessity to a good upbringing. Can you argue otherwise?[/quote]

Without the moral system falling over immediatly, that is. Parents don't have sole controll over a child. His friends and TV shows matter more. A child with a good upbringing can become one mean SOB rather easily (genetics also play a role). Even with religion, the downtrodden, or the immoral people, are a plague. Without religion, the very foundation that these are considered downtrodden would be removed, and the morals view would be seen as nothing more than mere preferance.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

CS I think you have a surprisingly uneducated idea of how religion spreads and what it actually does. When I said that morals exist independent of religion, I didn't mean that they would be the same, but I did mean that they would still exist. Because religion is not necessary for the development of a moral code, and the truth is it never was. It may spread a [i]certain[/i] moral code as it dominates a culture, but it never replaces the [i]absence[/i] of one, rather one that existed prior. But it often gains support under the guise of a "moral force." Anyway I'm not going to you history lessons because you seem to discount those anyway.

As far as the "define a fact" goes people really should stop using colors being relative to a person to make a point. An object's physical properties include the wavelengths of light it reflects. What those wavelengths [i]are[/i] is a fact, not an opinion nor self-interpretation. If you say something is green meaning it reflects a particular wavelength of light (510 nm) and you happen to be right, then the people that say it's orange (regardless of how they perceive it) will be wrong. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. ...But that's a bit off topic.

Oh, and those first two replies you made to T.Nerve were completely self-contradictory.

[maikiratori]

Normally I don't get into these kind of discussions because it stirs a whole can of worms and people get heated. But I say to every person their own. These kind of discussions are pointless because the two sides of the argument are the same and nothing new is said, no new points are made, and neither side [I]usually[/I] wants to bend to anything the other says. Feelings about thses things are so strong that no one wants to try and understand another's point of view. However, from what I've read, most people here have been relatively open-minded, but I'd like ot ask one question: Why whas this thread started in the first place? I understand wanting to know what others think and feel and believe, but why dose one ask questions that will get heated answers?

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='maikiratori']Why whas this thread started in the first place? I understand wanting to know what others think and feel and believe, but why dose one ask questions that will get heated answers?[/quote]

Hah. Well first of all the thread started because someone was complaining about the Bush administration (and Florida's as well) blurring the lines between church and state, so to speak. Faith-assisted prisons, etc.

Why do we ask agrressive questions? Well, it's to guarantee a reply. It's no fun if everyone concedes right from the start. Though I personally don't feel like getting into any heated discussions in this thread, I get something to address whenever I log onto otakuboards. It's boring only seeing "what manga would YOU make" threads because you post once, get no replies, and move on.

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The Clark County School District is over 100,000,000 million dollars in dept (even after the 70,000,000 that our district recently recieved) and is ranked 43rd in the educational value. We have no problem with having summer school here.[/quote]
I don't care if you have summer school or not, thats not the subject, or did you not read the thread. It's about Jeb Bush's pollicies. And under Jeb Bush, we don't get summer school. I couldn't give a damn about whether or not you do.

[quote]My problem is with the needless, childish, and arrogant Bush-Bashing that you stubbornly adheive to based on limited data and refuse to even let the thought that he can do something good for this nation. You deliberately go out of your way to voice your raw hatred for the Bush name. It seems to me like you are trying to justify your hatred. And to think I thought that [b]I[/b] was arrogant.[/quote]
I don't go out of my way, I WANT to tell you how horrible Bush is cause apparently you are also running on limited data if you believe he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's a horrible president who takes away my freedoms, lies to the american public, and who is caring less and less about the environment which we live in. And that's just naming 3 things wrong with him. I'm not arrogant, I'm simply saying I think Bush is horrible.

[quote]Obvious lie.[/quote]
Calling you ignorant is NOT bashing you, it's telling the absolute truth, cause you are one the most ignorant people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. Besides those rednecks down the street.

[quote]Why else do you think that YOU are the only one who has to engrade insults? (If you don't answer this one, this will be the third unanswered question I've asked you).[/quote]
Because they won't say it here because they are fearing they might get banned if they say what they really think. I don't fear that and I'm more than willing to tell you how much I can't stand you. And it's also not my priority to answer every question you ask. I don't have to answer ANY question you ask. You most certainly aren't God.

[quote]People aren't disliking me. They're agreeing with you.[/quote]
lol, thats the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. So if I say I hate you and they agree, they aren't saying they hate you.... so if President Bush says we should ban gay marriage and you agree with him, you don't actually think we should ban gay marriage? Thats your logic. Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Maybe you should read what you write before you post it. After you take that reading course that is.

[quote]You didn't even tell me you wrote it until after awhile. That's like starting a rumor, and then revealing a week later that you were the one who started it. That is quite behind my back.[/quote]
I wrote it before I posted that reply. I'm sorry i didn't PM you first thing to have you read it. It's in a public forum, there's been a link in my signature and by my username since I wrote it. EVERYONE can see it. Thats not behind your back. And the reason I posted it there is because I can't post it here. It would be deleted.

[quote]"Your post is off-topic and shouldn't be here," .[/quote]
I couldn't agree more with everything you've posted

[quote]Define fact. How can you prove that this word is [color=green]Green[/color]? What is percieved as reality is merely speculation based on random data. How are you sure that the color I'm seeing is your orange? [/quote]
Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences. I'm experiencing your ignorance in real life, therefor by deffinition, you are ignorant.

[quote]Or we'll be right and you'll be wrong.[/quote]
Yes, when hell freezes over.

[quote]Ah yes, your point. First, you declair that my simple sentence wasn't true, where as the actual statement wasn't arguementive. Then you state that indevidual religion came first, then you go on a needless 2 paragraph Bush-Bash, then you use a phantom quote from someone too arguement that America wasn't found on Christianity. I don't see a point other than for you to vent.[/quote]
A sentence can be non-argumentative and still not be true (ie: Wendy's is owned by McDonalds. This is a non argumentative sentence yet, it is not true). Individual religion did come first. Do some research if you don't believe me. When there is no civilization, one cannot have organized religion. I think several other people made that quite clear. Those two paragraphs were on topic about Jeb Bush. And the quote was by John Adams, perhaps you have heard of him... if not let me say that he was a founding father who was the second president of the United States. His wife Abigail Adams was one of the first women to stand up for their rights in America. And it was a true quote, telling me you think it's phantom just shows me how true your ignorance really is. I'm simply either replying to what you or someone else said in all these cases or replying to the topic. Maybe you should go back and read my posts.

[quote]I mean, crap man. The only person I've really had on-topic discussion with is Godelsensei.[/quote]
Maybe cause you stray off topic with everyone else, including me.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Oh great? church and state? As for Jeb Bush?s policies, I?d only support them in consideration of popular sovereignty. I?m not a big fan of the "rehabilitation" prison system. I?m more advocate of the metal 5x3 box, bread and water, system. One must approach religion and state with a certain amount of stoicism. All peoples, including the highest form of government are entitled to their personal rights; speech, religion, etc.

Consider religion for a moment. It is a system of moral beliefs, not necessarily associated with a higher power. Moral translates into "right and wrong". If President Bush extrapolates his information from a moral system, whether that be religion or not. He does his job well, in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Shinken]
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.[/QUOTE]

Holy crap, this irritates me. Once again, the "moral" litigation comes from the woefully oppressed! Oh, woe be me who is "forced" to reads Justin?s post. Is it anyone?s fault, but one?s own who would stay his hand? Shake your head in contempt all you want, his argument is as legitimate as yours. As soon as God comes into the picture, people start getting offended. Are you not pushing your beliefs as much as he?

HOW do you justify your rights people? How can we justify our individual sovereignties? What dictates what we "deserve"? In spite of Adams and his denial, the country would be nothing without the serious contributions of not only Protestant British, but Catholic Portuguese, Spanish, and French. Our rights aren?t restricted to a belief system, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. They do, however, recognize the inherent necessity for us to justify our own unalienable rights. How do we justify them? The Declaration of Independence declares our rights were "endowed by our Creator".

Is atheism a belief system? OF COURSE IT IS! Is it a religion? That?s depends on your definition of religion. You see, atheism confuses me more than agnosticism does. How could one justify our rights based on atheism? Our current form of government establishes an absolute medium of truth [I]without[/I] necessitating the unity of it?s people to any religion. In short, why are we arguing about what theist principle (or atheist for that matter) derives the truth if we have the individual freedom to believe what we [b]choose[/b]. I say, nod your head in appreciation at the Judeo/Christian PHILOSOPHY, and quit overusing the trite "You are shoving religion down my throat" bid.

And as for the Crusades; limiting it down to a question of religion or religious artifacts is absurd. The crusade is far more complex than a matter of religion. The fervor, of religiously "ordained" political systems only monopolized on the zeal of the states people. Justin was right in saying that both sides were wrong. What?s funny is that the Christians weren?t in the right according to their philosophy, but the Muslims were. Lastly, Chris, the Muslims were not at all "accepting" of other religions in the middle period of the 11th-15th centuries. Ever heard of the Moors? How about the Turks? Bedouins? Jihad was word of the day, and that meant killing or converting the "infidels". I?ll leave the details to the professionals:

[url]http://historymedren.about.com/cs/crusades/index.htm?terms=the+crusades[/url]

I have to drink a glass of water and read a bit of Franzen before I could bring myself to read this:
"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.

Or...

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

I don?t know how you generalized something so obviously complex, unexplainable, and obscure as ones morality and religion? I would contest that if a society had picked option number one, it wouldn?t exist. I would also assert that you haven?t given relative opposites at all? as option number two is useless and obviously practiced by everyone who actually posted on this thread?

[Shinken]

Go TN!

Anyways, seeing as how this thread was started on the separation of Church and State, I figure I may as well bring up some more good-old "Bush-Bashing". :D

[url]http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=130336[/url]

Read the first (very long) post in this thread, and be amazed. I do realize that a lot of the article contained in the thread may indeed be mere speculation, but Bush's religiously-motivated actions (along with the insane amount of sources in the article) lead me to believe that at least one part of that article is true.

Part of the article deals with Christian Reconstructionists, a group that basically wants to throw out the US constitution, and make the United States a Christian autocratic theocracy (read: One guy ruling over the US, which would be only for Christians). Now, usually, one takes news of these people with more than a pinch of salt, but when (as mentioned in the article) you hear that Bush 1.0 gives financial aid to a reconstructionist minister, and both Bushes are close friends/ "spiritual allies" (I believe the article said) with the man, it adds some reality to the situation.

Bush's ties to evangelical Christianity are, for all intents and purposes, his business. Until he starts trying to force the tenets of his particular faith (especially those concerning gays) on a nation whose population is not entirely Christian.

Thus, the separation of Church and State does seem to be falling apart in this country. Hopefully it doesn't take a turn for the Mid-Eastern worse. (I know it sounds like I'm being pessimistic in the extreme, but I'm only drawing a comparison)

*sits back and waits for the huge amount of pro-Bush, anti-Clarke/Kerry/anything-anti-Bush backlash*

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]first the obvious I think that we should leave the Bush bashing to the Kerry campaign and start on the real subject which is the whole deal with Jeb Bush, Florida, and the separation of church and state.

I really don't care if a state decided to have a Christian only jail and try to reform people by prayer. Go right ahead since it so obviously worked for Jeffery Dommer and Tim McVay.

Yes, some people do turn their lives around by finding religion-of course that religion could be anything from Satanism to Druidism to Islam to Christianity. The basis of the religion doesn't automatically make the follower a good person, what makes a good person is how the individual leads his or her life.

As for this idea of instating a 'faith based coordinator' in every department. I feel that goes a bit too far. Especially when you try to involve yourself in the lives of families.

The very idea of a person suggesting that a government with one of the largest deficites in US history should spend ten million on prayer based marraige counselling is laughable and disturbing at the same time. May Kali help the poor person who tries to suggest my husband and I go through some sort of prayer based marraige counselling if it ever came to NEw York As you can tell, this wouldn't help me because I'm not Christian.

Actually on this same note, I don't see how prayer base counselling will help since if you're praying for an answer, that answer could actually be a divorce.

Then the religious involvement in child care programs. I have no problem if the child care program has already been advertised as Christian or is located in a church since that is to be expected. However, as a Wiccan and a soon to be parent, I don't want my child to go to a child care facility and end up thinking that mommy and daddy are going to hell for not believing in Jesus. However, I have no problems with my child learning about aspects of other religions. Everyone benifits from learning from different belief systems.

Reading the beginning of this post I'm beginning to wonder why the people of Florida haven't following in the footsteps of the people of California and recaled Governor Bush. Of course, with that in mind we shoudl remember that Florida is in the South, the South is the Bible Belt so I'd conclude that many people are Christians in Florida.

As for faith based funding, I find that morally disturbing. Why should a state's or for that matter a company or government should only get funding based on the origin of there religion?

Oh, and finally, before someone decides to claim otherwise,I would have a problem with the policies of the president or the governor of Florida reguardless of surname or political party.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']HOW do you justify your rights people? ... recognize the inherent necessity for us to justify our own unalienable rights. How do we justify them? The Declaration of Independence declares our rights were "endowed by our Creator". [/quote]
So you're saying that without the line "endowed by our Creator" the rights enumerated would be unjustified? There's no way that's what you mean, because it's ridiculous. "Unalienable rights" exist to create order in a society. THAT is the actual justification for them. The Declaration of Independence has that line for the same reason our money has "in god we trust" on it -- the people who created it were Christians. That's all.

[QUOTE]Is atheism a belief system? OF COURSE IT IS! Is it a religion? That?s depends on your definition of religion. You see, atheism confuses me more than agnosticism does. How could one justify our rights based on atheism? Our current form of government establishes an absolute medium of truth [I]without[/I] necessitating the unity of it?s people to any religion. In short, why are we arguing about what theist principle (or atheist for that matter) derives the truth if we have the individual freedom to believe what we [b]choose[/b]. I say, nod your head in appreciation at the Judeo/Christian PHILOSOPHY, and quit overusing the trite "You are shoving religion down my throat" bid.[/QUOTE]
When you say atheism is a belief system, what exactly does that classification mean? Does it mean that it's "baseless" or as devoid of proof as any "theistic belief system"? It seems you are of the bunch that think it takes just as much "faith" to be atheist as it does to be religious. On the contrary, the atheist perspective is that one can't assume something unless certain evidence points in its direction. It's a scientific approach. It's true that one can't "disprove" the existence of a god, but that's a pretty empty statement because one likewise can't "disprove" the existence a planet ruled by apes. Which brings us to agnosticism. In my view, it's not much more than a coward's atheism, and neither a scientific nor a faith-based approach to the idea of a god. It's an avoidance of considering the subject altogether. I don't see how it confuses you less than atheism does.
As for justifying rights based on atheism, well that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can't base anything on atheism, because it's not a base to work off. All it is is the idea that no supreme being exists. A-theism. Of course it doesn't imply any rights. Those have to be thought of and enumerated by a society.
If someone thinks it takes a religious set of beliefs to justify social rights, then that someone is very ignorant. The Soviet Union was, for all intents and purposes, an atheist nation. By far the majority was atheist, including the government. So did nobody have any rights? Was it some anarchistic wasteland? Was it some crime-ridden warzone? No. In fact, the Soviet constitution was extremely similar in the rights it addressed (and protected) to the U.S. one.
Moving on, if you're referring to the Constitution as the "absolute medium of truth" that doesn't bind people to a certain religion, then you're ignoring the fact the Constitution is open to interpretation, which is influenced by someone's religion. And when a decision based on that interpretation is made (by Congress, or by the Supreme Court), then everyone IS BOUND to it. The more an interpretation is influenced by religion, the less of a separation between church and state we have. That's when people like me start complaining. I hope that makes sense.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Shinken]

Part of the article deals with Christian Reconstructionists, a group that basically wants to throw out the US constitution, and make the United States a Christian autocratic theocracy (read: One guy ruling over the US, which would be only for Christians). Now, usually, one takes news of these people with more than a pinch of salt, but when (as mentioned in the article) you hear that Bush 1.0 gives financial aid to a reconstructionist minister, and both Bushes are close friends/ "spiritual allies" (I believe the article said) with the man, it adds some reality to the situation.

Bush's ties to evangelical Christianity are, for all intents and purposes, his business. Until he starts trying to force the tenets of his particular faith (especially those concerning gays) on a nation whose population is not entirely Christian.

Thus, the separation of Church and State does seem to be falling apart in this country. Hopefully it doesn't take a turn for the Mid-Eastern worse. (I know it sounds like I'm being pessimistic in the extreme, but I'm only drawing a comparison)

*sits back and waits for the huge amount of pro-Bush, anti-Clarke/Kerry/anything-anti-Bush backlash* [/quote]

What you must realize is that as long as certain religious organizations are open to government funding, any president can push the agenda to fund them. Don?t feel threatened by the "reconstructionists". As far as I?m concerned, they are shooting for an impossible goal, concerning the first amendment. You are talking about a radical circumstance. Bush and this reverend are Christians?. They are "spiritual allies". Being a "spiritual ally" does not amend the constitution. The constitution was set up by Christians acknowledging God?s plan, as well as the Atheistic agenda. God gave us free will, and as a Christian, I would advocate for a government to allow the freedom to choose a religion, as much as I?d like for people to be Christian. Nothing is "falling apart". The country has been far more "religious" in the past, and far "less" religious in the past. It takes more than popular sovereignty to change the first amendment. As for separation of church and state? I recommend you re-read the little paraphrase in the Constitution concerning that issue. If anything, it protects the church.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']So you're saying that without the line "endowed by our Creator" the rights enumerated would be unjustified? There's no way that's what you mean, because it's ridiculous. "Unalienable rights" exist to create order in a society. THAT is the actual justification for them. The Declaration of Independence has that line for the same reason our money has "in god we trust" on it -- the people who created it were Christians. That's all.[/quote]

Ah, but society has existed LONG before anyone was considered to have rights. The social contract, that we created acknowledged the dignity of humanity. However, as we have seen, we cannot justify our own freedoms at all. Look at history.. who says we deserve to live equally? Martin Luther King Jr rallied his Civil Rights around the Biblical principle that "all men are created equal". All men are, Christian or Atheist, but past governments have failed to recognized that, historically. Governments today don?t recognize that, still? the US has been pretty much a forerunner in the Locke, Hobbes, (etc) philosophies. It just took a group of Christians (and deists) to put it on paper, heh?

It?s all a perception of truth, and a question of truth. The Bible says "thou shalt not kill". It always has said that. It always will say that. The constitution will always uphold the citizen?s right to life. An atheistic philosophy has no bearing against the argument of another atheistic philosophy, it?s only a matter of opinion. I am relieved, they left "life" to an esoteric "Creator? instead of opinion.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
When you say atheism is a belief system, what exactly does that classification mean? Does it mean that it's "baseless" or as devoid of proof as any "theistic belief system"? It seems you are of the bunch that think it takes just as much "faith" to be atheist as it does to be religious. On the contrary, the atheist perspective is that one can't assume something unless certain evidence points in its direction. It's a scientific approach. It's true that one can't "disprove" the existence of a god, but that's a pretty empty statement because one likewise can't "disprove" the existence a planet ruled by apes. [/QUOTE]

The proving of religion, or atheism is irrelevant. Proving something that deliberately refuses any faith-based obligation is also a waste of ATP? why you brought that up is beyond me. Are you also going to say that a scientific approach supports the atheistic theory?

=-Warning: Actual scientific knowledge coming up? those of low or apathy-impaired IQs may suffer random epilepsy bouts, or aneurysms-=

I sincerely suggest people read into it a bit more. Here?s a little statistic for you: the simplest Genome (prokaryotic bacteria) consists of a very specific array of amino acids. Nothing preceded this bacteria? i.e no evolution. So this means, the amino acids had to line up PERFECTLY in order for the organism to survive. The chances of that this event would have occurred on it?s own.. randomly (as scientology evolution ) is 1/10^170?. IT would take more particles than are assumed to exist in the KNOWN UNIVERSE to get this combination RANDOMLY RIGHT. I?ll illustrate this in words: the possible number of ways the amino acids could have been arranged (considering the mechanisms of the bacteria it had to be in a SINGLE PERFECT ORDER) is one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion ways the amino acids could arrange in the 130 slots of the gene? If that?s not faith-based? I don?t know WHAT is.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Which brings us to agnosticism. In my view, it's not much more than a coward's atheism, and neither a scientific nor a faith-based approach to the idea of a god. It's an avoidance of considering the subject altogether. I don't see how it confuses you less than atheism does. [/QUOTE]

No, because an agnostic can believe that there "might" be a God.. or something higher than us, and just may hold contempt for the society that nurtures said religion. In my opinion, Agnosticism is looking in the other direction for an indefinite amount of time, Atheism is gouging one?s eyes out.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
As for justifying rights based on atheism, well that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can't base anything on atheism, because it's not a base to work off. All it is is the idea that no supreme being exists. A-theism. Of course it doesn't imply any rights. Those have to be thought of and enumerated by a society.
If someone thinks it takes a religious set of beliefs to justify social rights, then that someone is very ignorant. The Soviet Union was, for all intents and purposes, an atheist nation. By far the majority was atheist, including the government. So did nobody have any rights? Was it some anarchistic wasteland? Was it some crime-ridden warzone? No. In fact, the Soviet constitution was extremely similar in the rights it addressed (and protected) to the U.S. one. .[/QUOTE]

If you lived in the soviet Union? you had no individual freedoms. Your rights to privacy didn?t exist. The Soviet union was an Autocracy under Stalin, and an Oligarchy under the Kremlin? atheism existed because religion wasn?t allowed.

You said it well enough, Atheists can think for themselves, but they cannot think "against" each other. Without having some sort of higher power? you have no absolute truth. This is huge.. this absolute truth. As far as most of the world is concerned, it DID take the US to stand up and say "The creator endowed us with the right to life, liberty, and the freedom of happiness." Religion, however esoterically it had been approached, does validate these rights.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Moving on, if you're referring to the Constitution as the "absolute medium of truth" that doesn't bind people to a certain religion, then you're ignoring the fact the Constitution is open to interpretation, which is influenced by someone's religion. And when a decision based on that interpretation is made (by Congress, or by the Supreme Court), then everyone IS BOUND to it. The more an interpretation is influenced by religion, the less of a separation between church and state we have. That's when people like me start complaining. I hope that makes sense.[/QUOTE]

Of course it?s open to interpretation! Have you seen how short the document is? I understand it?s rough dealing with the fact that people will use their religions to justify their decision making. The inevitable fact is that this case is unavoidable and respected under the constitution. Saying "I don?t believe we should kill because I think it?s wrong" and "I don?t believe we should kill because God says it?s wrong" are both valid arguments, and neither can be ignored. I know that everyone is afraid of losing their precious separation of church and state.. I understand that it.. "hangs in the balance".. I?m saying that people vastly overestimate that, and as a result lash out at anything having to do with religion, valid viewpoint or no.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I hate to do this, but it has to be done.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Ah, but society has existed LONG before anyone was considered to have rights.[/quote]
You didn't specify the level of society. As soon as a society had any form of law enforcement, there had already been established some concept of "rights," regardless of what they are. What you said was quite incomprehensible. If you're talking about the same rights that our D.ofI. or Constitution list, then of course society's origins preceded those.

You basically seem to say that a "creator said so" is the only proper justification to support basic human rights. Because then it establishes the rights as "fact" rather than "opinion." But in truth, anything protected by law has the power of "law," nothing more and nothing less. People support their own opinions as fervently as the do facts, or more so. I repeat, taking "endowed by our creator" and "in god we trust" will not make a lawless nation, nor will laws suddenly change everywhere.

[QUOTE]It?s all a perception of truth, and a question of truth.[/QUOTE]
No, I think the only question here is what does it take to say a moral code (or set of rights) is valid. Truth has no place here. Human rights are not truth, nor is there an absolute set of right and wrong. It's whatever it takes to have a society work.

[QUOTE]An atheistic philosophy has no bearing against the argument of another atheistic philosophy, it?s only a matter of opinion.[/QUOTE]
First of all, there are no different atheistic philosophies. Atheism is atheism and that's that. There aren't "versions" of it, because it's a bit absolute. I didn't want to address this out of context, but it was a horrid sentence.

[QUOTE]Are you also going to say that a scientific approach supports the atheistic theory?[/QUOTE]
Holy crap of course I will say that. But being religious you wouldn't understand.
Also, that little "statistic" you gave us, can you give me a link to the information? I suppose I can research it myself. But assuming it's valid (as I have no reason to assume otherwise), the simple fact is [i]it happened[/i]. Sure, the odds were completely against it, but just because they came out in life's favor does that mean that divine intervention was involved? Don't confuse the refusal to jump to unfounded conclusions with "faith." There's nothing faith-based about science, and I think every scientist will agree. It's pretty much only creationists on whom the scientific method is completely lost.

[QUOTE]Atheism is gouging one?s eyes out.[/QUOTE]
You imply that atheists refure to acknowledge what they see? Would that happen to be, from your point of view, evidence that god exists or something? I don't know whether you just wanted to insult people or not, but I can say "Creationism is gouging one's eyes out" and at least I'd have something to support what I say. But let's not turn this into a debate over evolution because that only exists among scientists, and not over [i]if[/i] it happened.

[QUOTE]If you lived in the soviet Union? you had no individual freedoms. Your rights to privacy didn?t exist. The Soviet union was an Autocracy under Stalin, and an Oligarchy under the Kremlin? atheism existed because religion wasn?t allowed. [/QUOTE]
Actually, if you lived in the Sovied Union, you did have individual freedoms, and you did have a right to privacy. Don't think it was nothing but oppression, because it wasn't. If you wanted to be religious you could. Nobody would have bothered you. Of course, I'm talking about the USSR after Stalin. And please don't try to argue with me on the subject, because I'm a pretty direct source.

[QUOTE]Atheists can think for themselves, but they cannot think "against" each other. Without having some sort of higher power? you have no absolute truth. This is huge.. this absolute truth. As far as most of the world is concerned, it DID take the US to stand up and say "The creator endowed us with the right to life, liberty, and the freedom of happiness." Religion, however esoterically it had been approached, does validate these rights.[/QUOTE]
What the heck does that first sentence even mean? Atheists thinking "against" each other... total nonsense. Do you mean atheists have nothing to justify their trying to enforce a particular moral system on other atheists? Or other people, for that matter? And the "no absolute truth without a higher power," well that's just crap. I can only assume you're not talking about scientific truths, because those don't take into account a higher being as far as I know. You're talking about a moral truth. Well here's a wakeup call: there is no moral absolute truth. None. I've already said it's whatever makes a society work. That's why some societies have different laws than others, and differrent attitudes towards life. And not all of those societies are "god-fearing."
Religion validating rights... well in your eyes, maybe. But personally I don't give a hoot about what any religious doctrine states. But I abide by the moral code that the U.S. does because I am a part of it, and because my personal philosophy coincides very nearly with a lot of it. Anyway, my point is religion does not validate anything for me, and it doesn't validate anything for anybody who is not a member of that religion (or a similiar one).

[Transtic Nerve]

I agree that Atheism isn't a religion.... Religion, by the definition given is a set of beliefs, values, and practices (one of the 5 or 6 listed). Atheism is not that. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god or gods. There are no values or practices or moral or anything else associated with religion in the belief of Atheism. It's just simply a belief, nothing else, and just because you have a belief doesn't mean it's a religion.

You can have absolute truth without a higher power.... thats called the belief in science. Things don't happen because of God, things happen because it's what supposed to happen scientifically or naturally. Whether or not any of that is true is something we will probably never know.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Actually, atheism isn't a belief in the true sense of the word. An atheist should say "I don't believe there is a god," not "I believe there is no god." There is a difference between the two in terms of semantics, and it matters. The former is a not a belief, while the latter is. But an atheist wouldn't say both, unless he/she doesn't know what he/she is saying.
Elaborating, the statement "I don't believe there is a god" means that the person's viewpoint is that there has been no evidence to support the existence of a god, so theism is not valid. In fact, this is the actual atheism.
The statement "I believe there is no god" means that to the person, either the nonexistence of a god has been proven, or he/she has some unexplained faith (explained implies evidence here) in the idea. That is NOT actual atheism, because it's not logical or reasonable, and one of the virtues atheists hold very dear and embrace is reason.

Anyway, I hope you see what I'm saying. If you disagree, then you should do some research on atheism, because you'll find that I speak for the majority of those who care.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Okay people, vocabulary lesson and then we can try and get back on topic.

[b]Atheism[/b] Dissbelief in or denial of the existance of God. From the Greek Atheos meaning Without a god.

[b]Agnostic[/b]-One who believes that there can be no proof of God, but does not deny that God exists.

Thank you American Heritage Dictionary.

As for the whole idea of Christians taking over the government and a complete breakdown of the separation of church and state. I strongly hope that this will never happen. This country is too diverse with too many religions-despite what current leaders may choose to believe. Even in the Christian community there are too many divisions of belief to completely have a government immersed in such a belief system.

The only example of this I can give is the fact that everyone has the right of free will to think for themselves and determine what is right. This fact everyone has proven atleast five or six times during the course of this topic.

I think that the separation of church and state has been getting a bit frayed these past four years in my opinion and from my point of veiw, it's a bit scary. Especially since I have no true desire to be governed by a country who's soul purpose is to safeguard and idealistic religious belief system. Sure, it may work out well for a few years, but sooner or later there will be too many extra interprtations of the Bible (just like now-Sodom and Gamorra anyone?) and the whole nation will be sent into turmoil because some Fundamentalist tried to pass an ammendment forbidding women to wear pants, shorts, or skirts that didn't cover their ankles.

Yes, the preamble of the constitution (I could be wrong, I've been out of high school for about five years )states that We the people are endowed with inallienable rights bestowed by our creator, but nobody ever specified who the creator was. Yes, 18th century inhabitants would say God, but still it's open to interpretation. Just liek New York State's definition of marriage.

I'll stop here, I think I may have repeated myself and most of my brain power is being focused on having a baby.

-Merry Part[/color]

[Justin]

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
So, sorry. But to answer your question, Jesus commands Christians in the Book of Matthew to preach the Gospel. He also teaches us that no man can enter Heaven, but by Him. This would indicate that all other religions are in fact wrong, according to my beliefs. And since I'm commanded to share my beliefs, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you.

Once again, for those who read my posts, it's never my intention to force Christianity upon anyone. It's got to be a personal choice between you and God. But that does not mean that I can stop speaking the truth. If you don't like to hear it, skip over my posts when you see my name; you won't hurt my feelings any. But I'm not going to stop.

God bless y'all.

-Justin

[Shinken]

Well, it may be within your beliefs, and I have no problem with your doing so. It's just... when you speak of it as the truth, it sounds disrespectful to those with other beliefs, as it says to them, "I'm right and you're wrong." But at least you've said time and again you're not trying to force them into it. People who do that shall feel my personal wrath. ^^x

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Justin']So, sorry. But to answer your question, Jesus commands Christians in the Book of Matthew to preach the Gospel.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]You know how I can get Justin since you've gotten into a debate with me once, so I'm just reminding you.

Yes, in Matthew it does say to preach the good news to those who do not know Jesus. But as my mom says; Jesus didn't go around saying, Hey, you [b]HAVE[/b] to listen to me! I'm right you're wrong! He and His apostles preached to people, but I doubt they tried to shove their beliefs down the good people's throats. Jesus was probably smart enough not to intrude if someone didn't want to listen and didn't pester.[/color]


[quote name='Justin']He also teaches us that no man can enter Heaven, but by Him. This would indicate that all other religions are in fact wrong, according to my beliefs. And since I'm commanded to share my beliefs, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to help you.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I don't beleive that [i]any[/i] of us will know which religion is right or wrong until we die and those we believed in tell us what we did was right or wrong. After all. doesn't your Bible say: Judge not lest ye be judged? Besides for all you know, maybe your religion is wrong and mine is right-after all, mine [i]did[/i] come first. :)

According to my beleifs, I'm supposed to allow you to speak your peice and be respectful of your beliefs since I expect that of you. I'm not commanded to share my beliefs since secrecy is how we usually survive, however, if someone has a question , I feel that they can have an answer. If you don't believe the way I do, all I can hope for is acceptance[/color]

[QUOTE=Justin]Once again, for those who read my posts, it's never my intention to force Christianity upon anyone. It's got to be a personal choice between you and God. But that does not mean that I can stop speaking the truth. If you don't like to hear it, skip over my posts when you see my name; you won't hurt my feelings any. But I'm not going to stop.

God bless y'all.

-Justin[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]I understand that it isn't your intention to force Christianity upon anyone, but when you quote the Bible, it does come off that way. I want to hear what Justin thinks, not what Justin's Good Book thinks.

As for speaking the truth, like I said before, how do you know that your religion is the truth? I've read the Bible before, I managed to speak at a few youth groups meetings and my high school's religion club (catholic school) by quoting the Bible. My husband has also read the Bible, and even went as far as being a youth minister in a Baptist Church. However, this religion didn't really seem to hold much for us since neither one of us follow it. So maybe it's not the truth to everyone and if that's teh case I'm going to start quoting Bucky's Blue Book on here.

May the Lord and Lady bless you

-Chibi Horsewoman[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']CS I think you have a surprisingly uneducated idea of how religion spreads and what it actually does.[/quote]I actually know quite a lot. First the christian religion started out spreading as it should: by word of mouth. Yadda yadda 500 years later the church gets gready anf forces people to convert. But that's only the Christian Church.
[quote] When I said that morals exist independent of religion, I didn't mean that they would be the same, but I did mean that they would still exist.
[/quote]So that's what you meant! I couldn't see what you were getting at for awhile.
[quote] Because religion is not necessary for the development of a moral code, and the truth is it never was. It may spread a [i]certain[/i] moral code as it dominates a culture, but it never replaces the [i]absence[/i] of one, rather one that existed prior. But it often gains support under the guise of a "moral force." Anyway I'm not going to you history lessons because you seem to discount those anyway.[/QUOTE] While it may not be necissary to make a moral code, it's mandatory (or extreamly close to it) to keep one. The majority of civlizations in the past have collapsed not because of their religion, but the corruption and deviation from it. Rome, the Midievel times, the list can go on, but I just don't remember those EXACT details (as you can tell from my chronic date-mixing of events. Next thing I know I'll say Jesus was born in 0034.)


[quote]I don't care if you have summer school or not, thats not the subject, or did you not read the thread. It's about Jeb Bush's pollicies. And under Jeb Bush, we don't get summer school. I couldn't give a damn about whether or not you do.[/quote]My point is that it is very possible that the charge for summers school might not come from Jeb himself, but rather the school itself. The resident govener didn't put CC into dept... And I checked the topic It says:

[quote](I do not wish to offend any religious groups in this post. I am not criticizing their beliefs. I am only commenting on the conduct and organisation of certain individuals. And in case you didn?t get it, MCS stands for Mix of Church and State.)
I believe that the separation of Church and State is an important factor in keeping society relatively sane. As we all know, when these two enemies meet, a violent battle is bound to ensue. Here?s one minor incident where they come in contact with each other.[/quote]Nothing about talking about Jeb there. Then after stating what he did, the maker asks.

[quote]-Would someone be so kind as to explain to me how prayer-based rehabilitation prepares criminals to re-enter the real world?
-Additionally, do you think that this project deserves $200-million for funding? (Given to them by the George Bush-created ?Federal Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.)
-Finally, Can you give me a circumstance in which this approach has been effective?
[/quote]It asks if you think it deserves that much money, not what you think about Bush, or his closest of Kin. Then the next the maker narrorates their view of what is happening in the next article, then says:

[quote]-Again, Do you think $10 million a year is worth it, and can you find me a circumstance in which this worked?
- What if you?re not Christian? How does this help you?[/quote]
With the funding, and not with what you think of Bush or his policies. Then the maker talks about the character first program, which I responded too. Then it talks about what Mr. Regier wants. Then the maker states

[quote]That?s also huge. Christianity appears to be the majority in Florida. (Please correct me if I?m wrong.) Election time is drawing ever closer, and the Republicans need votes. Wherever shall they get them? Republicans look to the evangelical Christians for their faithful vote. President Bush?s 2000 victory margin was so narrow due to the poor turnout of Christian conservatives. The Bush government won?t let this happen again. Florida has is the largest recipient of Washington?s faith-based funding. Those who have noticed this now accused this faith-and-fuding program of being no more than a campaign fund. What do you think?[/quote]
This is from the accusation (they've straight-out lied before) that the Bush administration is only trying to get elected. It's asking what you think of the accusation, not what you think of Bush or his closest of Kin. Then as the final statement
[quote]In conclusion , like vinegar and baking soda, I believe that is necessary for the church to be separated from the state. Because when dealing with religion, there is only one way to go when dealing with a problem, and one cannot debate this way without fear of retribution. When dealing with the government, many different minds can contribute and help to resolve conflicts, in a (hopefully) composed and organised fashion. That is Democracy and Freedom. Aren?t these the two ideas that the United Stated of America are most proud of?

:D Smma wants your input on this issue!
[/quote] Nothing to do with Bush, or his closest of Kin. Now, your first response consists of

[quote]Anyway, it doesn't surprise me about Jeb Bush doing all this stuff. [b]He's the worst thing to happen to the state of Florida since slavery was introduced[/b]. I live in Florida, I experience it first hand. [b]I honestly couldn't see how he got elected to a second term two years ago or whatever it was. I certainly didn't vote for him. [/b]

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]I bolded the useless parts, and the last statement can be easily seen as a put on topic Bush Bash.

[quote]I don't go out of my way, I WANT to tell you how horrible Bush is cause apparently you are also running on limited data if you believe he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.[/quote] So you go out of the way of the topic to make statements about how horrible he is when it clearely isn't about him, nor is it needed. FYI: I took a poll that tallied up how much you agree with each candidate, and I got a 70% agreement with Bush. That means that nearly 1/3rd of the stuff he does I don't agree upon. To even things up, I got a 50% agreement with Kerry. I'll post up the poll if I ever find it again.
[quote]
He's a horrible president who takes away my freedoms, lies to the american public, and who is caring less and less about the environment which we live in.
[/quote]Welcome to earth. The government constantly takes away my freedoms (even though I can go WAY off topic on the absence of your "equal rights"), is accused of lying by the democratic party (who've been caught lying themselves). The only thing that's true is that his natural enviromental polocies are crap.
[quote] And that's just naming 3 things wrong with him. I'm not arrogant, I'm simply saying I think Bush is horrible. [/quote] I remember you once said that I was an arrogant little *** (how you managed to sensor-bypass that is beyond me) because you percieved that I wasn't taking into consideration my opponents arguements in a debate, whereas you do the exact same thing. Talk about the pot calling the pot black.

[quote]Calling you ignorant is NOT bashing you, it's telling the absolute truth, cause you are one the most ignorant people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. Besides those rednecks down the street.[/quote]Prove it then :D. If it is such absolute proof, as what Sicros defined as
[quote]As far as the "define a fact" goes people really should stop using colors being relative to a person to make a point. An object's physical properties include the wavelengths of light it reflects. What those wavelengths are is a fact, not an opinion nor self-interpretation. If you say something is green meaning it reflects a particular wavelength of light (510 nm) and you happen to be right, then the people that say it's orange (regardless of how they perceive it) will be wrong. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. ...But that's a bit off topic.[/quote]Even though I meant that the color that I see as green at a wavelength of 510nm would look like my orange to him, although he will know it as green since that was the definition assigned to it from his percpetion. So one wouldn't stare at the scroll bar and call it another color when it's obviously blue (liquid format). But is the same color you see the same that another person sees? If they see a different color, it will still be labeled as blue.

That being said,
[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.[/quote]So I'll enjoy watching you try.

[quote]Because they won't say it here because they are fearing they might get banned if they say what they really think. I don't fear that and I'm more than willing to tell you how much I can't stand you. And it's also not my priority to answer every question you ask. I don't have to answer ANY question you ask. You most certainly aren't God.[/quote]
So you claim to be of the supreme intrepid of the dis-agree-ers while as I've seen people openly dis-agree with me before. But not here. Noooooo. People here don't have to resort to that, where as other people (obviously more ignorant than you.) try their hardest. Reality check: You aren't this all-appealing role model of all that is absolutely correct. You most certainly aren't God. Don't try to make yourself out to be.
BTW: All the questions I ask and you dodge (presumably out of fear) makes you look ignorant.

[quote]lol, thats the most ridiculous thing you've said yet.[quote]Prove it :D.
[quote] So if I say I hate you and they agree, they aren't saying they hate you....
[/quote]Someone doesn't realize the sheepfulness of society. People who align with you WILL hate me just because of you. I thought I made that clear.
[quote]
so if President Bush says we should ban gay marriage and you agree with him, you don't actually think we should ban gay marriage?
[/quote]Nope. A little more complicated than that. You see, me and Bush don't see eye-to-eye on everything. I don't do stuff just because he says so. I can give about a dozen reasons why I don't support gay marriage that has little or nothing to do with the extreamly weak arguement over it's definition. There are two people in this world: Leaders and followers. A leader can have no followers, and followers can have no leader. Those who go out and take the time to not like me because of what you say aren't leading. If they were, they would be the one making the post in myOtaku, and not you.
[quote]
Thats your logic.
[/quote]No. That is an obvious mis-perception made by you to further demean me.
[quote]Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Maybe you should read what you write before you post it. After you take that reading course that is.[/quote]If they passed you, then I don't see the point. I would get all A's in it anyway. :smirk:
[quote]I wrote it before I posted that reply. I'm sorry i didn't PM you first thing to have you read it. It's in a public forum, there's been a link in my signature and by my username since I wrote it. EVERYONE can see it. Thats not behind your back. And the reason I posted it there is because I can't post it here. It would be deleted.[/quote]
I don't go around reading your myOtaku specifically, or going to each and every link in peoples signitures in a paranoid manner of seeking what others may say about me. That's like making a bunch of posters in the school starting a rumor about someone. Sure, it's in a public place, but you didn't tell me about it until after you did it, and it was in a public place. But unless you go to that specific place, you aren't gonna know. Use a little reasoning before you state your actions. Being in college and all, you should be able to see where I'm coming from (the left, mind you).

[quote]I couldn't agree more with everything you've posted.[/quote]So you dodge it.

[quote]Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences. I'm experiencing your ignorance in real life, therefor by deffinition, you are ignorant.[/quote]Firstly, it's BASED on real occurences. I saw people changing their creed because some street magician made it look like he could float. That's not fact. And let me know if I'm getting this logic right: I experience your raw hatred and psychologically explained antics towards me for your own self-rightous purpose, therefor by definition you are merely venting your hatred toward the what you don't like and therefore are wrong in your accusations that I am ignorant.

[quote]Yes, when hell freezes over.[/quote]
To the residents it might be a cold day.
[quote]A sentence can be non-argumentative and still not be true (ie: Wendy's is owned by McDonalds. This is a non argumentative sentence yet, it is not true).
Individual religion did come first. Do some research if you don't believe me.[/quote]I did the research. And it ends up that if there were infact one base religion that we came from, then it would be that all of the "indevidual faiths" are what people percieved of this first religion, and didn't take it into consideration when they made the first civilization.
[quote] When there is no civilization, one cannot have organized religion. I think several other people made that quite clear.
[/quote]Yes, there cannot be an [u]organized[/u] religion.
[quote] Those two paragraphs were on topic about Jeb Bush.[/quote]The second one was about George Bush alone. I bolded the non-important parts
[quote]And the quote was by John Adams, perhaps you have heard of him... if not let me say that he was a founding father who was the second president of the United States.[/quote]Most people think he's the third, since people keep thinking that Thomas Jefferson was second, though he wasn't.
[quote] His wife Abigail Adams was one of the first women to stand up for their rights in America. And it was a true quote, telling me you think it's phantom just shows me how true your ignorance really is.[/quote]What I mean by phantom is that it came seemingly from nowhere. Not that it didn't exist. The ability to Peruse is a good one. But wasn't John Adams one of the guys who were against the signing of the declaration of independance?
[quote]I'm simply either replying to what you or someone else said in all these cases or replying to the topic. Maybe you should go back and read my posts.[/quote]Uh... dude... when I reply to your posts... I'm kinda reading them.

And now for ON-TOPIC discussion...

[quote]Yes, some people do turn their lives around by finding religion-of course that religion could be anything from Satanism to Druidism to Islam to Christianity. The basis of the religion doesn't automatically make the follower a good person, what makes a good person is how the individual leads his or her life.[/quote]I find that the majority of people aren't really basing their lives around finding religion, but just being with the one that they have. Yes, the basis of religion doesn't make them good (to our standards), but I believe that I had pointed this out once before, though. But what people use as the median for the good person is taken from what a religion taught us, which I noted in my reply to the Baron. But when a religion coincides with our modern standard of morality in our nation (this includes hinduism, too. I'm sketchy on Islamic beliefs right now) that is not an extreme minority, letting that religion have itself a voice in our government seems logical to me.

There were quite a few problems with the strictly church-based governing of the past in Europe. The first and most obvious is this: They gave one specific religion omnipotent power over the people. Once the power goes to the head, heretics (untrue christians, but I'm using it in a sense as anyone faking the religion) use the current situation to benifit their own personal needs. Over a period of a hundred years, what was once a single peace and prosperity was a devided political war that used religion as a sword, and not a law. If we were to simply avoid the absolute controll of the church in the government, and the complete ability to ignor the major factor of belief in people's everyday lives, then we would be just fine.

[quote]As for this idea of instating a 'faith based coordinator' in every department. I feel that goes a bit too far. Especially when you try to involve yourself in the lives of families.[/quote]I find it goes too far too. Jeb should've hired people when the positions were open, not to fire the current.

[quote]The very idea of a person suggesting that a government with one of the largest deficites in US history should spend ten million on prayer based marraige counselling is laughable and disturbing at the same time.[/quote]
You would be suprised. You see, the United States is the richest country in the world. We make more money then the other 9 of the 10 combined. The US government spends 10 mil [i]at most[/i] every minute. This would be mere pocket change.
[quote]May Kali help the poor person who tries to suggest my husband and I go through some sort of prayer based marraige counselling if it ever came to New York As you can tell, this wouldn't help me because I'm not Christian. [/quote]Remember that it is prayer based, and not actually making you pray. That (from what I'm percieving) is having someone who basis their advice off of the Bible that influenced many of the morals we see today give advice on a marriage.

[quote]Actually on this same note, I don't see how prayer base counselling will help since if you're praying for an answer, that answer could actually be a divorce.[/quote]Sometimes it is. The Bible really doesn't say anything against divorces. If you have trouble staying together, it's alright to agree to disagree.

[quote]Then the religious involvement in child care programs. I have no problem if the child care program has already been advertised as Christian or is located in a church since that is to be expected. However, as a Wiccan and a soon to be parent, I don't want my child to go to a child care facility and end up thinking that mommy and daddy are going to hell for not believing in Jesus. However, I have no problems with my child learning about aspects of other religions. Everyone benifits from learning from different belief systems.[/quote]Remember, because the program itself is being held by religion doesn't mean that the religion is being put into the childs minds. Aside from the first half of my reply...
[quote]Having people with a Belief of modern-day moral values to take care of something viewed as innoscent and precious sounds like a good enough idea to me.[/quote] and
[quote]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] go hand and hand with eachother.

[quote]Yes, in Matthew it does say to preach the good news to those who do not know Jesus. But as my mom says; Jesus didn't go around saying, Hey, you HAVE to listen to me! I'm right you're wrong! He and His apostles preached to people, but I doubt they tried to shove their beliefs down the good people's throats. Jesus was probably smart enough not to intrude if someone didn't want to listen and didn't pester.[/quote]They didn't. The forciveness came in later years as the church became more power hungry.

[quote]I don't beleive that any of us will know which religion is right or wrong until we die and those we believed in tell us what we did was right or wrong. After all. doesn't your Bible say: Judge not lest ye be judged? Besides for all you know, maybe your religion is wrong and mine is right-after all, mine did come first.

According to my beleifs, I'm supposed to allow you to speak your peice and be respectful of your beliefs since I expect that of you. I'm not commanded to share my beliefs since secrecy is how we usually survive, however, if someone has a question , I feel that they can have an answer. If you don't believe the way I do, all I can hope for is acceptance[/quote]. I believe that Christianity does have it stated somewhere to be tolerant of other religions (Judge not lest ye be judged?), but we are still encouraged to inform people of what we see as absolute truth. From our standpoint, we are trying to save you.

[quote]As for speaking the truth, like I said before, how do you know that your religion is the truth?
[/quote]Every person has their reason and belief, such as how you believ that your religion is the truth.
[quote] I've read the Bible before, I managed to speak at a few youth groups meetings and my high school's religion club (catholic school) by quoting the Bible. My husband has also read the Bible, and even went as far as being a youth minister in a Baptist Church. However, this religion didn't really seem to hold much for us since neither one of us follow it. So maybe it's not the truth to everyone and if that's teh case I'm going to start quoting Bucky's Blue Book on here.[/quote]Ah yes. The multiple contradicting branches of what can be called Christianity. Did you know that every translation of the Bible comes out different? Some key changes in the words often times are used by opposers as arguements. If we had the original texts in their original language, it would be a lot better than the changed-up version that we have today.

Good luck with the baby!

[quote]Well, it may be within your beliefs, and I have no problem with your doing so. It's just... when you speak of it as the truth, it sounds disrespectful to those with other beliefs, as it says to them, "I'm right and you're wrong." But at least you've said time and again you're not trying to force them into it. People who do that shall feel my personal wrath. ^^x[/quote]I often find the pot calls the kettle black in these situations...
[quote]

[quote]I think that the separation of church and state has been getting a bit frayed these past four years in my opinion and from my point of veiw, it's a bit scary. Especially since I have no true desire to be governed by a country who's soul purpose is to safeguard and idealistic religious belief system. Sure, it may work out well for a few years, but sooner or later there will be too many extra interprtations of the Bible (just like now-Sodom and Gamorra anyone?) and the whole nation will be sent into turmoil because some Fundamentalist tried to pass an ammendment forbidding women to wear pants, shorts, or skirts that didn't cover their ankles.[/quote]But there is hope. The original translation of the Bible from the Greek texts are clearing up a lot of confusion. But then again, having an absolute control corrupts absolutely.

Now something I've deliberated carefully
[quote]Atheism Dissbelief in or denial of the existance of God. From the Greek Atheos meaning Without a god.

Agnostic-One who believes that there can be no proof of God, but does not deny that God exists.[/quote]

But the statements made by Sciros seems to be a little... confusing O.K. If someone were to say that they don't believe there is a God, they aren't saying that they believe there is no God. Um... yeah... are they teaching that in the second semester of philosophy or something? Because I see little difference in the statements. When I get to the proper classes, I'll let you know. Untill then...

[quote]You basically seem to say that a "creator said so" is the only proper justification to support basic human rights. Because then it establishes the rights as "fact" rather than "opinion." But in truth, anything protected by law has the power of "law," nothing more and nothing less. People support their own opinions as fervently as they do facts, or more so. I repeat, taking "endowed by our creator" and "in god we trust" will not make a lawless nation, nor will laws suddenly change everywhere. [/quote]
The power of "Law" can be seen as a mere preferance without the "creator saying so". You can forever question the base of everything with the repitition of the word "Why". The removal of "in god we trust" from our currency would in fact be meaningless to the populace who are naive to the actual statement on the coin. Those who make the ruling, however, will begin to press their point of the seperation of church and state to as far as it will go, since people often times do not have limits. Why, if this statement is indeed insignificant, a big deal? It's not the writing, but those who oppose it who cause the problems.

[quote]No, I think the only question here is what does it take to say a moral code (or set of rights) is valid. Truth has no place here. Human rights are not truth, nor is there an absolute set of right and wrong. It's whatever it takes to have a society work.[/quote] So one can conclude through studies that religion would be a necissity to the workings of a society?

[quote]First of all, there are no different atheistic philosophies. Atheism is atheism and that's that. There aren't "versions" of it, because it's a bit absolute. I didn't want to address this out of context, but it was a horrid sentence.[/quote]So I don't go missing the point, are you saying that aetheism can't argue against itself since the very definition of aetheism leaves the person to have his own belief of morals without contradicting what aetheism is? The ambiguocity of aetheism would be the only solid ground that this statement stands on (one pro abortion, one anti, still both aetheist). But I believe the base of his statement was that one cannot justify morals without the third person there.

[quote]Holy crap of course I will say that. But being religious you wouldn't understand.
Also, that little "statistic" you gave us, can you give me a link to the information? I suppose I can research it myself. But assuming it's valid (as I have no reason to assume otherwise), the simple fact is it happened. Sure, the odds were completely against it, but just because they came out in life's favor does that mean that divine intervention was involved? Don't confuse the refusal to jump to unfounded conclusions with "faith." There's nothing faith-based about science, and I think every scientist will agree. It's pretty much only creationists on whom the scientific method is completely lost.[/quote]You can find anything on the internet.

In my sisters philosophy class, her teacher read an excrept written by a scientist: "If there is a god, and if he ever was proven to exist, we would not accept him as a possible explanation." which is the jist of it. I'm pretty sure that if you are in/passed this class, you knew this. But here is my point: There IS faith-based science, or science that exists to prove the creationistic belief. Sceince isn't exclusive to aethiesm. While most sceintific studies try to disprove aetheists (mainly as a counter-strike), there are those occasional occurences that do prove the existance of a third-person existance other than the 3 physical dimentions we exist in today. Often times they come up with statistics that, like the formation of a prokaryotic cell, are phenominal. You can say "but just because they came out does that mean that divine intervention was involved?", but these little statistics stack up very quickly. (such as the "how many combinations" problems. 4 rocks means 24 possible ways to order them, but 5 rocks gives 120 ways to order them).

[quote]You imply that atheists refure to acknowledge what they see? Would that happen to be, from your point of view, evidence that god exists or something? I don't know whether you just wanted to insult people or not, but I can say "Creationism is gouging one's eyes out" and at least I'd have something to support what I say. But let's not turn this into a debate over evolution because that only exists among scientists, and not over if it happened.[/quote] Boths sides refure to acknowledge what they see. Called Paradigms. But aside from one's comment on his personal view, lets move on.

[quote]Actually, if you lived in the Sovied Union, you did have individual freedoms, and you did have a right to privacy. Don't think it was nothing but oppression, because it wasn't. If you wanted to be religious you could. Nobody would have bothered you. Of course, I'm talking about the USSR after Stalin. And please don't try to argue with me on the subject, because I'm a pretty direct source.[/quote]Don't think it was nothing but freedom. One can look at the sidelines and say "it wasn't so bad", where as the actual first-person would see it differently. I've seen here, and on many other places, people giving responses to questions not on actual fact, but based on what others may want to hear.

[quote]What the heck does that first sentence even mean? Atheists thinking "against" each other... total nonsense. Do you mean atheists have nothing to justify their trying to enforce a particular moral system on other atheists? Or other people, for that matter?[/quote]
That seems to be what I'm percieving from the statement. (pro abortion, anti abortion, both aetheists, both can't justify their choice alone).
[quote] And the "no absolute truth without a higher power," well that's just crap. I can only assume you're not talking about scientific truths, because those don't take into account a higher being as far as I know.
[/quote]Well, you know quite a distance, but it takes trained eyes to see the rock half a mile past that.
[quote]You're talking about a moral truth. Well here's a wakeup call: there is no moral absolute truth. None. I've already said it's whatever makes a society work. That's why some societies have different laws than others, and differrent attitudes towards life. And not all of those societies are "god-fearing."
[/quote]This statement is opinion to the core. Don't try to force your belief that there is no moral absolute truth, that it is only what makes society work. And people don't fear God, mind you.
[quote]
Religion validating rights... well in your eyes, maybe. But personally I don't give a hoot about what any religious doctrine states. But I abide by the moral code that the U.S. does because I am a part of it, and because my personal philosophy coincides very nearly with a lot of it. Anyway, my point is religion does not validate anything for me, and it doesn't validate anything for anybody who is not a member of that religion (or a similiar one).
[/quote]The moral code that the U.S. does came from the english migrants who were seeking religious freedom from prosecution. The moral code you use as a median comes from religion, and regardless of your belief in religion or not, your existance in the society has influenced your views of morals to a greater extent than the majority lets on. Much greater extent.

But I'm only saying what I want, and not actually what Drix wants.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]Okay, so this is a topic about separation of church and state. Yes, there's supposed to be such a thing, but there have been pleanty of times that I can't remember seeing that. Military functions for example. Oh, I can give two very nice examples of how the mainstream religion has been forced upon people at Military functions.

My best example is probably the battalion's 'Holiday' party. There was a prayer before they served food and then throughout the whole event everyone was bombarded with gospel music. Needless to say, we didn't stay too long past the food and Lincoln's 1st sergeant seeing us. This was a required attendance event by the way.

I honestly didn't have too much trouble with the prayer prior to serving everyone, but Christian music isn't for everyone, heck, some Christians don't even want to listen to it 24/7. Why force something like that on people where attendance was required?

I'm not quite sure if this is another show of why there needs to be more definition of church and state, or if this is just an invasion of privacy, but quite a few times prior to being deployed my husband's 1st sergeant has told him that we need Jesus and he's taken picture's of the bumper stickers and liscence plate holder of Lincoln's car as well. Once when Lincoln asked him why he was doing it he said he was going to show the pictures to the commander and make him take the stickers off his car.

Perhaps I'm off subject now, and if I am, I appologize. But I do feel that in some ways the military still forgets that there is supposed to be separation of religion and duty.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']My point is that it is very possible that the charge for summers school might not come from Jeb himself, but rather the school itself.[/quote]
Yes that is quite possible, but thats not the reason for it happening in Florida. It is happeneing because we have no money left in our education budget.

[quote]Welcome to earth. The government constantly takes away my freedoms (even though I can go WAY off topic on the absence of your "equal rights"), is accused of lying by the democratic party (who've been caught lying themselves). The only thing that's true is that his natural enviromental polocies are crap.[/quote]
When i said he lied to the American public (not democrats, you missread that) i was specifically referring to the "weapons of mass destruction" idea that never came true. He validated his whole purpose for war with Iraq on the bases of the so called weapons of mass destruction. And none were found, therefor he lied to the American public. I think I was perfectly understandable in my accusation. And you stated that he does take away your freedoms, or at least the government he heads does, and that you agreed with the environment thing. So I think all three of the things I stated were correct.

[quote]I remember you once said that I was an arrogant little *** (how you managed to sensor-bypass that is beyond me) because you percieved that I wasn't taking into consideration my opponents arguements in a debate, whereas you do the exact same thing. Talk about the pot calling the pot black.[/quote]
Well in my defense, I have never denied being arrogant or ignorant.

[quote]Prove it then :D. If it is such absolute proof, as what Sicros defined as
Even though I meant that the color that I see as green at a wavelength of 510nm would look like my orange to him, although he will know it as green since that was the definition assigned to it from his percpetion. So one wouldn't stare at the scroll bar and call it another color when it's obviously blue (liquid format). But is the same color you see the same that another person sees? If they see a different color, it will still be labeled as blue.[/quote]
Everyone is ignorant in some sort of way, you not being able to see that, among other things, just simply makes you more ignorant than everyone else.

[quote]So you claim to be of the supreme intrepid of the dis-agree-ers while as I've seen people openly dis-agree with me before. But not here. Noooooo. People here don't have to resort to that, where as other people (obviously more ignorant than you.) try their hardest. Reality check: You aren't this all-appealing role model of all that is absolutely correct. You most certainly aren't God. Don't try to make yourself out to be.
BTW: All the questions I ask and you dodge (presumably out of fear) makes you look ignorant.[/quote]
No I don't claim to be anything. I'm sorry, could someone point out where I said that? Now who's making assumptions CS? Yeah.... I'll let you slide on that one.
PS: I'm certainly not afraid of you. If I were afraid of you I wouldn't post at all. All the things you missread that I say makes you look less intelligent.
Like I said, I don't respond to your questions because I simply either don't want to, don't feel like it, or don't want to give you the pleasure of. Maybe I don't even know the answers to them, but neither would you if you're asking the question. I'll make you a deal, you go and find the questions you wrote that I didn't answer and I'll try my best to answer them this time.

[quote]I can give about a dozen reasons why I don't support gay marriage that has little or nothing to do with the extreamly weak arguement over it's definition[/quote]
Could you PM me with these reasons, I'd like to know them. If you wouldn't mind ofcourse

[quote]There are two people in this world: Leaders and followers. A leader can have no followers, and followers can have no leader.[/quote]
I'm sorry, by deffinition, that doesn't work, so would you please clarify?

[quote]No. That is an obvious mis-perception made by you to further demean me.[/quote]
I'm not the only one who made it. My boyfriend was standing right next to me while I typed my reply to you and even he couldn't figure out how that was a miss-perception. From what you said, your logic is how I posted. I bet you can ask anyone here that and they would agree, but that wouldn't mean anything.... by your logic.

[quote]I don't go around reading your myOtaku specifically, or going to each and every link in peoples signitures in a paranoid manner of seeking what others may say about me. That's like making a bunch of posters in the school starting a rumor about someone. Sure, it's in a public place, but you didn't tell me about it until after you did it, and it was in a public place. But unless you go to that specific place, you aren't gonna know. Use a little reasoning before you state your actions. Being in college and all, you should be able to see where I'm coming from (the left, mind you).[/quote]
I used reasoning. If I posted that on OB, I would be banned, therefor I posted it on MyOtaku. Thats reasoning right there. But I see your point. Sorry, nothing I can do about it. It's not like I showed you the link 3 weeks after I posted it. More like 2 days. Give or take. And it wasn't anything new about you. Its not like the people who read it were enlightened by what I had to say. If I can't say what i want to say here, I will say it someone else. Whether or not you know its there. I have to vent sometimes, and I'd rather do it on a journal than anywhere else. I'm not going to be looking out for your self interests in the process. Reality check: Since when has society been ones to look out for each others self interests.

[quote]So you dodge it.[/quote]
I don't see how agreeing with you is dodging anything, unless ofcourse you're dodging it yourself.

[quote]Firstly, it's BASED on real occurences. I saw people changing their creed because some street magician made it look like he could float. That's not fact. And let me know if I'm getting this logic right: I experience your raw hatred and psychologically explained antics towards me for your own self-rightous purpose, therefor by definition you are merely venting your hatred toward the what you don't like and therefore are wrong in your accusations that I am ignorant.[/quote]
If thats the way you see it. I'm not one to tell you how to precieve the world. I have a question though. How can you define what isn't a fact when its quite obvious you don't even know what IS a fact? (this is according to your debating of the word 'fact' which is seen above)

[quote]To the residents it might be a cold day.[/quote]
If you consider a cold day to be 300,000 degree.

[quote]I did the research. And it ends up that if there were infact one base religion that we came from, then it would be that all of the "indevidual faiths" are what people percieved of this first religion, and didn't take it into consideration when they made the first civilization.[/quote]
Thats crap. Because you'd know, if you did in fact do research, that those would be opinions on the origin on religion and faith. One does not know the true origin of faith in this world. We only have theories.

[quote]But wasn't John Adams one of the guys who were against the signing of the declaration of independance?[/quote]
I couldn't tell you. I don't know that much about John Adams. How does this pretain to the topic, or even the sub-topic concerning John Adams?

[quote]Uh... dude... when I reply to your posts... I'm kinda reading them.[/quote]
Yes, indeed you are reading them, however you interpret them wrong.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Yes that is quite possible, but thats not the reason for it happening in Florida. It is happeneing because we have no money left in our education budget.[/quote]Let me guess who told you: the media? According to the media (atleast 9/10ths of it in the western side of America), it is compeletly Bush's fault for the attack of 9/11.
Don't forget to take into consideration the people themselves. In NV, power companies raise up the prices of power right before summer, and end it right before winter. One can say that they need the money, but in fact they don't. They raise up this money because they want change in their pocket. The media doesn't tell you that.


[qoute]When i said he lied to the American public (not democrats, you missread that) i was specifically referring to the "weapons of mass destruction" idea that never came true.[/quote]
True that we didn't find actual WMP, but we did find a dozen different funded and in-action programs that were trying to manufacture chemical and nuclear weapons.
[quote] He validated his whole purpose for war with Iraq on the bases of the so called weapons of mass destruction.[/quote]The whole purpose was the safety of America and our friends. WMP was just one of the big factors for that.
[quote]
And none were found, therefor he lied to the American public.
[/quote]He wasn't the first one to claim that WMP were in Iraq. Other intelligences claimed*that, and he re-fed the information givin to him to the public. He wasn't lying, because he himself was lied too. If I remember many of his speaches correctly, the word "suspect" and "believe" were thrown everywhere. Remember to pay attention to what he says, not what others who possibly don't like him percieve of what he says.
[quote]
I think I was perfectly understandable in my accusation. And you stated that he does take away your freedoms, or at least the government he heads does, and that you agreed with the environment thing. So I think all three of the things I stated were correct.
[/quote]The enviroment thing was the only thing I agree with. That's his flaw. And HE doesn't TAKE away rights. The president actually is just the final, over-throwable word. If he veto's a bill, it goes back to the House and Senate where they revote on it. If they vote it to be passed, it gets passed against his will, and he gets the blame for it. "Bush Administration" is just the whitehouse with the word Bush slapped in front of it.


[quote]Well in my defense, I have never denied being arrogant or ignorant.[/quote]I remember you laughing at the accusations of another person that you were arrogant in other topics.


[quote]Everyone is ignorant in some sort of way, you not being able to see that, among other things, just simply makes you more ignorant than everyone else.[/quote]Where did you get the opinion that I can't see that someone isn't ignorant in some places and smart in others? Remember, I did say
[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. [/quote]


[quote]No I don't claim to be anything. I'm sorry, could someone point out where I said that? Now who's making assumptions CS?
[/quote]I'll gladly point out the very obvious implication.
[quote]Because they won't say it here because they are fearing they might get banned if they say what they really think. I don't fear that and I'm more than willing to tell you how much I can't stand you.
[/quote]
Here, you are stating that you are braver than anyone else here, as with the very first sentences of what you quoted. Througout the topic, you've been upholding the idea that you are absolutely right, and I and others are absolutely wrong (which ususally was your first statement)
[quote] Yeah.... I'll let you slide on that one.
PS: I'm certainly not afraid of you.
[/quote]Prove me wrong :smirk:
[quote] If I were afraid of you I wouldn't post at all. All the things you missread that I say makes you look less intelligent.[/quote]There are many grades of fear, and many things hatred can overcome.
[quote]Like I said, I don't respond to your questions because I simply either don't want to, don't feel like it, or don't want to give you the pleasure of.[/quote]It would be wise if you would. Even a simple "I don't know" is better than silence when someone points it out.
[quote] Maybe I don't even know the answers to them, but neither would you if you're asking the question.
[/quote]The asking of questions that I know the answer to is often used for a person to admit their actions. Parents, realitives, teachers... they all do it.
[quote] I'll make you a deal, you go and find the questions you wrote that I didn't answer and I'll try my best to answer them this time.[/quote]
O.K. The more recent question of:"Why else do you think that YOU are the only one who has to engrade insults?", you claimed that you were braver than the people here after not answering it for awhile. Then there was: "I never said that they became popular because they were in isolation. Where did you get that from?" Then there is the question inclosed in this post of: "Where did you get the opinion that I can't see that someone isn't ignorant in some places and smart in others?". Those are the ones that weren't sarcasm.

[quote]I'm sorry, by deffinition, that doesn't work, so would you please clarify?[/quote]
O.K. A person that can be classified as a "leader" is a person that basically thinks for themselves. While many people claim that they think from themselves, they actually aren't. An example would be many of the fashion trends of today. The person that came up with it was a leader, and the rest who adore it are followers. But if a person were to come up with an outfit that nobody openly liked, then they would be a leader without any followers. A follower consists of those that follow leaders, or the general populace. A follower without a leader is someone who doesn't know what to think, and often thinks of nothing, or stammers in responses. If that person were to be asked about the specific outfit and respond "I don't know... it's... it's kinda nice." are often times followers without a leader. Not everything is about definition.


[quote]I'm not the only one who made it. My boyfriend was standing right next to me while I typed my reply to you and even he couldn't figure out how that was a miss-perception. From what you said, your logic is how I posted. I bet you can ask anyone here that and they would agree, but that wouldn't mean anything.... by your logic.[/quote] You were the one typing though. What you failed to realize is the depth of the statement I made, and then claim what your and your boyfriend's mis-interpretation was fact. You see, it's their agreement with a person that manipulates their opinion.

[quote]I used reasoning. If I posted that on OB, I would be banned, therefor I posted it on MyOtaku. Thats reasoning right there. But I see your point. Sorry, nothing I can do about it. It's not like I showed you the link 3 weeks after I posted it. More like 2 days.
[/quote]Three weeks was the analogy, not the fact.
[quote] Give or take. And it wasn't anything new about you. Its not like the people who read it were enlightened by what I had to say.
[/quote]The agreement and manipulation of opinions could be considered enlightement. In a debate, not everyone thinks of the same arguement. When the arguement is brought fourth, one can agree with it, even if that persons original statement was on the line of what the other person said.
[quote] If I can't say what i want to say here, I will say it someone else. Whether or not you know its there. I have to vent sometimes, and I'd rather do it on a journal than anywhere else. I'm not going to be looking out for your self interests in the process. Reality check: Since when has society been ones to look out for each others self interests.[/quote] Logical reasoning. I usually listen to angry rock/metal music to vent. Reality check answer: the moral population of society often looks out for others self interests.

[quote]I don't see how agreeing with you is dodging anything, unless ofcourse you're dodging it yourself. [/quote]You dodged the very large paragraph that the statement was in, which includes the general idea of the statement itself.


[quote]If thats the way you see it. I'm not one to tell you how to precieve the world. I have a question though. How can you define what isn't a fact when its quite obvious you don't even know what IS a fact? (this is according to your debating of the word 'fact' which is seen above)[/quote]Good ole reversal. What I define as fact is what I percieve as fact. I was using the logic in your statement to rebuke it.


[quote]If you consider a cold day to be 300,000 degree.[/quote]I remember a thread a while ago that had a lot of sceintifical theories about a persons soul and spirit. One of them said that hell was a state of mind, since it takes up no space in the phyiscal dimensions that we are in today, and since it does not, it does not experience temperature, but rather the emotion of a burning pain. But that was another person, and not me.


[quote]Thats crap. Because you'd know, if you did in fact do research, that those would be opinions on the origin on religion and faith. One does not know the true origin of faith in this world. We only have theories.[/quote]One can and often states that these theories and opinions are absolute fact. I was just doing the what the norm debater does.


[quote]I couldn't tell you. I don't know that much about John Adams. How does this pretain to the topic, or even the sub-topic concerning John Adams?[/quote]It has to do with opinion. If one does not agree with something, they will deny it because they don't like it.


[quote]Yes, indeed you are reading them, however you interpret them wrong.[/QUOTE]
So correct me, and I'll interpret them right. I try to inform you of the mis-interpretations that you make of my statements.


[quote]Okay, so this is a topic about separation of church and state. Yes, there's supposed to be such a thing, but there have been pleanty of times that I can't remember seeing that. Military functions for example. Oh, I can give two very nice examples of how the mainstream religion has been forced upon people at Military functions.[/quote]There are many things that one with a religion on their own will pushes onto other people.

[quote]My best example is probably the battalion's 'Holiday' party. There was a prayer before they served food and then throughout the whole event everyone was bombarded with gospel music. Needless to say, we didn't stay too long past the food and Lincoln's 1st sergeant seeing us. This was a required attendance event by the way. [/quote]It shouldn't be mandatory. Even though I think that religion should have some influence on the choices that the state makes, this shouldn't be one of them. I remember my sister having to go to a meeting at 2:00 AM right before a big test, and this meeting was deemed mandatory (though it wasn't) and was enforced by the threat of losing ones job. The state has a tendancy toi do these acts, regardless of religion.

[quote]I honestly didn't have too much trouble with the prayer prior to serving everyone, but Christian music isn't for everyone, heck, some Christians don't even want to listen to it 24/7. Why force something like that on people where attendance was required?[/quote]I know. I find most christian music annoying and boring. Let alone I wouldn't be able to listen to it for 24/7 (is this an actual fact or an exagguration of the event?). Like nightclubs, it shouldn't be mandatory. But the state interferes.

[quote]I'm not quite sure if this is another show of why there needs to be more definition of church and state, or if this is just an invasion of privacy, but quite a few times prior to being deployed my husband's 1st sergeant has told him that we need Jesus and he's taken picture's of the bumper stickers and liscence plate holder of Lincoln's car as well. Once when Lincoln asked him why he was doing it he said he was going to show the pictures to the commander and make him take the stickers off his car.[/quote]Christianity does NOT enforce these actions. It's the personal preferances of the person that does this. Religion is still the goat of scape.