Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I'm not a Christian but I am a Conservative. However, my DEMOCRAT mother is quite religious and because of that, we had to go to church every Sunday while growing up. So, I actually know a few things that Christians believe. One of the biggest idealogies that my mother has is: You need to do for yourself and not ask others to do for you. In other words, she has no patience for those who ask for handouts, she definitely has no patience for law breakers, she also relies on facts when discussing a situation, she doesn't make blanket statements, she doesn't blame an entire group of people on one person, and she supports keeping American safe.
Before you write some nonsense displaying that you don't know anything about Christianity, go ahead and read that Bible that you think you're referencing. Here's a hint: "Turn the other cheek" doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. Nor does "thou shalt not murder". I also find it interesting that you pretend to know what anyone who has died is "finding" once they reach these so called "heaven's gates". You're not supposed to speak FOR God, you know that right? Oh...you don't, because you're not Christian. If you were, you wouldn't dare do such a thing.
Correct.
What if rather than trying to figure out who said what some thousands of years ago or who's Holy book is holier than the next, translated, twisted and written by still many others over time, in all different languages..., what if we just evaluated right versus wrong with our best critical thinking skills applied toward the circumstances of our day today, without the influence of any particular religious preaching from before the Dark Ages?
Regardless of religion, sex, race, color, ethnic background or sexual persuasion, who can't agree with the principle of "live and let live" as long as how we choose to live doesn't affect how others choose to live?
Possible?
This to me is what it means to abide by a secular form of government rather than one influenced by religious order...
If we are instead to insist on what Jesus intended, we must also consider what Mohammad intended, the Buddha, Joseph Smith, and good luck with all that (though I think we're best off with the Buddha given those choices)...
We're talking about two different things here, and I am not sure you understand the difference.
Secularism and state's imposition of secularism are two different things. We have plenty of examples how state has been and is imposing secularism, which is just another belief system, into individuals. So in that regard, state is imposing a "religion."
You understand TJ's secularist attitude as if TJ wanted the state to impose it. Quite the opposite.
Besides, discussion of state imposing Christianity or theocracy is pretty much an esoteric concept in US. In reality, pendulum swings the other way -- state wants to impose secularism. This was not TJ's intent whatsoever.
In this regard, whether in America, or in Communist Europe, there is no difference -- state's imposition is essentially the same. And not by coincidence.
Leaving Animal Planet talk aside, this is my last response to you if you keep up the personal attacks.
I believe I understand plenty well enough, but I am struggling with your understanding...
I also didn't mean to make a "personal attack," but I do find people are a little sensitive when exchanging different points of view. I used an analogy to demonstrate how two things can be the same in one respect but not the same in important other respects. That's all, but I'll try to be more careful, because I am far more interested in exchanging honest opinion, substantiated as you seem wanting to do, well over insults of any kind.
Plain and simple, secularism is not a religion. If by the "state's imposition," you mean the laws that guide the manner in which our society is expected to abide, then you would have to argue that all our laws, including the Constitution are some sort of religion.
Look up the definition of religion and secularism (and save me the trouble of providing those definitions here). Yes, secularism cannot exist without the "state's imposition" of secularism over theology, just like we cannot really have any law and order without the "state's imposition," but secularism is all-inclusive in that at least here in America we are all free to practice whatever beliefs as we feel fit, but not if it imposes those beliefs on others!
That I not be required to read the Bible in school, for example, does not mean that people can't read the Bible wherever they wish that does not impose on others. Right? That's secularism. I don't want me or my kids to be forced to read the Koran in school for that matter, or have any religious book promoted publicly over another. That is secularism, and of course that cannot come to be unless "the state imposes" those boundaries.
Again, I'm not going to bite into your ongoing reference to communists, because I also don't believe in communism, and you are wrong to insist that secularism is somehow inherently tied to communism. There is a big difference between ALLOWING freedom of religion (as I believe is right) versus NOT ALLOWING freedom of religion (which I believe is wrong).
If you can't understand this, then I'm really not sure what more I can explain that I haven't already simply explained after a good many attempts now, but I remain fairly confident that you are the one who doesn't really understand where Jefferson was coming from, what secularism really is vs theology, and/or where I am coming from...
PS: I'll do my best to refrain from what you feel are "personal attacks," if you promise not to keep bringing up communism while discussing secularism. Fair?
PS: I'll do my best to refrain from what you feel are "personal attacks," if you promise not to keep bringing up communism while discussing secularism. Fair?
Discussing or mentioning Communism is not banned in this Forum. Personal attacks are. So you are asking me to reciprocate unfairly. No go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Plain and simple, secularism is not a religion....
Look up the definition of religion and secularism (and save me the trouble of providing those definitions here).
Discussing definitions is a good discussion. I think it's important to clarify the two concepts -- religion, and religious institutions.
Reading your comments, it appears to me that for you these two are the same. For me, they are not. Since I view religion as one's religious beliefs (salvation, after-life, non-believe, polytheism, etc) -- for me secularism when the state demands and imposes it -- for me state is going institutional.
Church (which is not the same as religion) forces you or your kids to hear about gospel for example -- yes, this is an imposition -- however, church's imposition is a mouse's thumbprint in comparison to State's dictate that you shouldn't hear gospel.
As a side note, I suspect your definition of state is very different from mine. Otherwise you wouldn't equivocate state's imposition of secularism to another citizen with church's imposition of gospel onto you.
Back to A1. TJ and others wrote, debated, and compromised on the 1A as a barricade against the Federal Govt, to not only not intervene in one's religion (for example force you to believe in a govt-sanctioned God), but also barricaded citizens and their local institutions / associations from any Federal state's interventions on what, if, when and how such institutions / associations should preach.
Founding fathers put a very-far out boundary so that the Feds wouldn't come and help you against fellow citizens reading the bible aloud. The issue is that Fed Govt has busted thru that boundary -- that to me is a lot more concerning than you and your kid having to hear something you might not hear if you exited the door or put on ear-plugs.
But instead of you solving the matter within your local community, you would rather see the Federal Govt come to your local community, bust thru the doors of your local school and dictate everybody what not to read aloud or engrave in some rock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Again, I'm not going to bite into your ongoing reference to communists, because I also don't believe in communism, and you are wrong to insist that secularism is somehow inherently tied to communism. There is a big difference between ALLOWING freedom of religion (as I believe is right) versus NOT ALLOWING freedom of religion (which I believe is wrong).
I will explain the communist textbook because I know it very well, and if you don't care to know than you can ignore it.
Yes, push for secularism is totally part of the Communist's comprehensive battle against the Capitalist society. It is also a historical fact that for the last 150 years people leading the push for Secularism are closeted Marxist / communists.
Marxist / Leninist view of religion is very straight forward -- Religion for MLs is part of the superstructure, which includes Politics, Arts, Education -- social sciences, so to speak. Such infrastructure reflects and is in the service of the Base, which for ML it is economy, economic relations, method of production, means of production, etc.
For ML, Capitalists use religion to further the Capitalist society, because according to them, Religion is in the service of social forces which take part the relations of production. For Marx, religion is another means of furthering worker's exploitation. According to Marx, Capitalism needs religion like fish needs its water.
So, overthrow of Capitalist Society must be associated with overthrow and destruction of its institutions -- religion is smack in the middle of communists' crosshair.
American Communists' blueprint has been graduality, incrementalism. So has been the advance of state's into religious matters.
If you think this is a coincidence, you are very wrong.
There is no argument that the word of God / teachings of Jesus and your support of killing and hate are not compatible. Those standing outside heaven's gates with a resume of supporting pre-emptive bombings, defending cops who gunned down innocent unarmed black kids, and turning their backs on refugees/homeless/the hungry/etc are finding they're being turned away as they did to others.
They can't, but they'll try. There is virtually nothing Christian about the modern-day conservative movement.
Conservative? Define that first
Conservatives love Jesus? Prove that
Love of war? Conservatives? That is laughable.
To conserve is to save, nothing more/less. It has nothing to do with minority, Jesus, or war LOL
Both terms "conservative" and "progressive" are misleading and misrepresenting. If anything, they mean the opposite.
Conservativism represents a very innovative, and cutting edge form of Govt, which the US Constitution established. It still remains the most advanced form of Self-Government man has ever devised and implemented.
Progressivism represents a very old, stale, anti-human form of Govt -- an omni-powerful tyrannical centralized Govt, viewing citizens as its deplorable subjects, that it needs to manage, coerce, and demean.
Nothing is progressive about modern liberals. It is about a central, boot-to-the-throat type of Govt, bloated, and omni-present.
It is same old, same-old tyranny dressed up as "progressivism" "liberalism", etc. It's just new lipstick on a very old pig.
Both terms "conservative" and "progressive" are misleading and misrepresenting. If anything, they mean the opposite.
Conservativism represents a very innovative, and cutting edge form of Govt, which the US Constitution established. It still remains the most advanced form of Self-Government man has ever devised and implemented.
Progressivism represents a very old, stale, anti-human form of Govt -- an omni-powerful tyrannical centralized Govt, viewing citizens as its deplorable subjects, that it needs to manage, coerce, and demean.
Nothing is progressive about modern liberals. It is about a central, boot-to-the-throat type of Govt, bloated, and omni-present.
It is same old, same-old tyranny dressed up as "progressivism" "liberalism", etc. It's just new lipstick on a very old pig.
What if rather than trying to figure out who said what some thousands of years ago or who's Holy book is holier than the next, translated, twisted and written by still many others over time, in all different languages..., what if we just evaluated right versus wrong with our best critical thinking skills applied toward the circumstances of our day today, without the influence of any particular religious preaching from before the Dark Ages?
Regardless of religion, sex, race, color, ethnic background or sexual persuasion, who can't agree with the principle of "live and let live" as long as how we choose to live doesn't affect how others choose to live?
Possible?
This to me is what it means to abide by a secular form of government rather than one influenced by religious order...
If we are instead to insist on what Jesus intended, we must also consider what Mohammad intended, the Buddha, Joseph Smith, and good luck with all that (though I think we're best off with the Buddha given those choices)...
You need to be quoting the OP. I didn't start the thread asking about Jesus and Conservatives.
There is no argument that the word of God / teachings of Jesus and your support of killing and hate are not compatible. Those standing outside heaven's gates with a resume of supporting pre-emptive bombings, defending cops who gunned down innocent unarmed black kids, and turning their backs on refugees/homeless/the hungry/etc are finding they're being turned away as they did to others.
Let the Lord be the judge.
How can liberals endanger the lives of citizens by encouraging illegal immigration which brings drugs, human trafficing prostitution and murder?
How can liberals sit by and watch the greater majority of christians be slaughtered by a small minority of muslims?
How can liberals embrace a former KKK officer in their ranks?
How can liberals ignore the preponderance of BOB crime and support a lie about cops killing innocent blacks? And at the same time endorse killing of cops.
How can the OP actually believe conservatives stand accused as charged?
Hoew can the OP stand by as the government wastes money collected for those in need of help as they accept corruption, graft, waste, inefficiency to deprive the needy?
blacks gun down innocent black kids by the hundred, BLM interested? Nope not a bit. How can anyone support that terrorist organization and hope for salvation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
