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.
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?
Disagree. We can't start anew. You wouldn't want to start anew. Where we are now -- this is an accumulation, progression, and sum of human development throughout thousands of years, and hundreds of generations, one standing on the shoulders of the preceding one.
Religion represents for most people a comprehensive belief-system edited, abridged, and polished by other mortals, and published in many versions and flavors.
Your argument does not also hold water from an evolutionary perspective, biological or social.
Our society, through trial and error, and improving its faults, true progress, has built a framework of norms, rules, traditions, and morals which guide us now. And these are changing too.
Why would we want to erase this evolution? Would we also want our succeeding generation to have the same attitude against tradition and experience? Why would our species start now?
You are telling me I should scratch the progress that we as species have done in thousands of years, and start anew. Ok, I'll play along -- who decides which value is now our starting point? You truly believe that billions of people will fall in line to whatever you or I think should be their moral compass? Don't know about you, but I myself don't agree with myself in many issues. How can I possibly trust that others will agree with mine? Which values of mine, which sometimes also shift?
We have religion, just like birds have wings -- that mechanism offered that species the best chance of survival and re-production. We humans are almost perfect machines. Perfection will come via incremental improvements, mutations included, not start from scratch.
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.
Who loves war? We had more war under Obama than we've had since Vietnam. And our "treatment of minorities" is just expecting the same from them as anyone else.
And hoping they get sick of being patronized by Democrats.
Discussing or mentioning Communism is not banned in this Forum. Personal attacks are. So you are asking me to reciprocate unfairly. No go.
I care far less about the rules of this forum as compared to the want of an honest and intelligent exchange of opinion. I didn't "personally attack" you in the first place, but you might have taken my comment more personally than I intended. My apologies for that, but I'm not really trying to make a deal here as much as I'm just asking you not to "mix apples with oranges," communism with secularism.
Of course the discussion or mention of Communism is not banned in this forum, but your comments about communism in light of my comments about secularism are simply not appropriate or reasonable if you want to consider what I am explaining objectively.
You have added much more since my last comment that I'm not sure I have the time to fully address this morning, but I'll see what I can do (knowing full well the effort is futile)...
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.
Yes, these definitions are important, but not so much for you. We should stick to the generally accepted definitions, not yours personally. I won't bother with the distinctions between "religion" and "religious institutions," because I am well aware of the difference despite your suspicion to the contrary. Here are the definitions to focus upon in my opinion and/or what I have been commenting about:
religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
secularism: the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14
I posted the actual text that you are riffing off of here in another thread yesterday that got promptly removed. Seems like the Christians are a bit touchy when they are shown Christ's actual words, because they know that their policies fly directly in the face of what Christ preached. Seems they don't like facing their own hypocrisy.
If Christ returned today he'd take one look at the people who are masquerading as his followers and turn his back on the lot of them.
He would forgive them, for they know not what they do.
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.
No. With all due respect, wrong...
There are certain universal truths we all generally hold in common. For example; the Earth is round (though there are those who even argue to the contrary about this), gravity, geology, science. There is the great majority of facts, reason and logic taught in our schools that are not subject to debate. As such, there is little question the teaching is valid and appropriate.
On the other hand, there is whatever anyone otherwise chooses to believe, or what any group of people may choose to believe, not in keeping with universally accepted truth. These are the beliefs the state/government should not have a hand in promoting, preaching, let alone teaching.
More specifically, for example, when I go to a public place, government facility, recreational park, school, I don't want me or my family to be presented with propaganda that promotes any particular deity or anything not generally accepted as universal truth. I don't want my government exposing me (suggesting to me or my kids) what is right to believe and what is not right to believe. I want only what is neutral, not partial or imposing in this regard.
If I want to pay homage to Buddha, I'll go to a Buddhist temple. If I want to express my faith along with fellow believers of any particular faith, religion, cult or belief system, I will attend that designated place of worship or do as I wish in my own home at my own family table. People should be free to worship as they wish, rainbows, the stars, the Gods -- whatever -- but in the privacy of their own homes and/or where those who share the same faith wish to congregate. Their space, not public space shared with others who do not necessarily share those beliefs.
That the government do what is appropriate to avoid government sponsorship or promotion of any such religion or faith is secularism, and this is as the government should do, in order to respect the many varied beliefs that all people may have for whatever their personal reasons, not to teach in schools or present in public spaces a preference or inclination of one over the other. Secularism is fair and reasonable in this regard, leaving the state out of the picture when it comes to spirituality and leaving all such notions for people to indulge personally as they may -- but without imposition on others who do not share those beliefs.
That the Bible cannot be taught in a pubic institution does not prevent anyone from studying the Bible. On the other hand, if/when the Bible were to be used as a textbook in a public school, then there is a significant problem of imposition on all the students subject to that teaching, and needless to say, also in all fairness..., if one holy book or religion or faith were to be taught in a public institution, then all holy books, religions and faiths would also be required to receive the same benefit. Better still, simply allow a class like I took in college, "The Religions of Man." Where religion is taught as a subject of its own, fairly and without bias toward one over another.
To suggest this effort toward unbiased teaching is an "imposition by the state" and/or communism or simply another "religion" is so wrong on so many levels. You entirely misunderstand what Jefferson intended, what secular government is all about, and most importantly, what is ultimately the right thing to do for ALL concerned! To separate government from the business of people who want to impose their particular beliefs in the supernatural on others. To allow ALL to live and share our public spaces and institutions without bias or favoritism toward anyone's beliefs unless they are for the most part universally common. Let's enjoy the Redwood Trees, lakes and streams, or maybe a statue of Jefferson who we all know is REALLY one of our founding fathers. Let us NOT have a copy of The Book of Mormon distributed to all who enter the White House. Right?
Secularism is about universally accepted truth rather than the spiritual notions of one group versus another, over another.
That's about the best I can do before I need to sign off and attempt to accomplish something that actually produces REAL results, not imagined...
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
secularism: the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
Which keeps the church safe from government intervention. I would also hope that it would keep the state's politics out of the church, but sadly no. Which brings this back to the OP.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
The law being the Torah, which is a far more vindictive and stringent law than ours today. Death was the penalty for many lawbreakers.
"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Be sure your sins will find you out. There is no escape from God's Judgement.
Lawbreakers take note. Repent now.
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
The Old Testament is blood and gore. The New Testament is fire and brimstone. Don't confuse it with Sesame St.
So 9 pages of Fake News based thread and not one Christian supports the fake false thread premise....thread fail.
"9 pages of fake news?" Apparently you don't know what Fake News means...
"Not one Christian supports the fake false thread premise?"
"Thread fail?"
This comment is more like brain fail if you ask me, but I agree the subject or issue of separating state from church is perhaps the more intelligent and interesting over the OP's question.
The OP's question, put another way perhaps, is still a good one though. Conservatives, Christians, should be more tolerant and accepting of gays, for example, other faiths, and maybe less inclined toward military force, war, in the Middle East for example...
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.
