Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-03-2014, 07:25 AM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,588 posts, read 6,582,895 times
Reputation: 17966

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ View Post
What IS it with the zombie threads lately, anyway?

I keep answering threads and then looking back and seeing that they were started years ago. Where are these fossils coming from?
Darned if I know. We have no reliably accurate dating methods!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-03-2014, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
10,688 posts, read 7,656,145 times
Reputation: 4674
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth View Post
What is definitely right is for us to grow and spread our understanding. You really have to take all those affected by your actions into account. Rights are what you fight for and get angry about, it has a lot to do with feelings of autonomy. I doubt many would like or appreciate for you to "use any means" against them; how would you tell at what line abuse begins? You must understand your humanity first, you do not know. If you don't want your nation's laws broken I wouldn't suggest you rebegin a standard that might ultimately come back to bite you. I don't really think people have established believes, just tentative ones. leading others usually requires their consent the and consent of their guardians.
if you feel that endangering people is worth it, then I don't see what you would have dissonance about, it seems your mind is thinking about whether to value worldly damage more than your ideas of possible afterlife. Doing illegal things, even if it feels moral and your conscious is clear, is very dangerous. public facilities are supposed to be equal access (in my understanding and personal wishes), so you'd have to be ready to allow others to do that same right back, or to be more critical during the process than those accustomed to it.
As a Christian, I too, think this is a poignant statement that reflects the thoughts of too many so-called Christians.

Personally, I don't believe the thought of an afterlife should even enter a Christian's head. Finding faith in God makes REAL Christians so excited that they serve by accepting and loving others as Christ required of His followers WITHOUT ANY thought of afterlife.

I prefer to be a Christian whether or not there is anything to come. And the purpose of a spirit filled life is obedience---in other words to paraphrase one of Kevin Costner's movie lines, if one builds one's own life on Christ--they will come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 08:33 AM
 
7,381 posts, read 7,669,494 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by allosaur_E View Post
Hello Woodrow LI

You said,
"Those of us that adhere to a religious belief tend to have a desire to share our religion with others,

The problem is at what point does our desire/obligation to share become a violation of the rights of others?

No matter how strongly I feel that I must bring others what I believe to save them from eternal punishment, do I have the right to use any means to do so?

Do I have the right to break the laws of a nation to bring my religion to the people of that nation?

Do I have the right to lead the adherents of another belief away from their established beliefs?

Do I have the right to use means that may endanger people or cause a mess they have to clean up?

If my religious belief is outlawed in a nation, am I permitted to use illegal means to bring it into that nation?

Am I permitted to use public facilities to bring others to my religious affiliation?"
__________________

My Answers one by one:


1. Q: The problem is at what point does our desire/obligation to share become a violation of the rights of others?

Before I answer, May I ask since when did it become a violation of another's rights to share with him what's good? But if he sees the good as a violation, it's because of a perception error.

A: Ones desire/obligation to share gospel truth becomes a violation of the right of others when it's done in a way that violates just law or the hearer's dignity or both. I will not shoot you if I shared the gospel with you and you chose not to follow. Neither would you eliminate your sweet little daughter if she for some reason falls away from the path you take. You still love her because love is the nature of your motives and the gospel. Do you remember the prodigal son? Let's not also forget that one may violate another's rights simply by failing to inform him of truth he needs to know.

2. Q: No matter how strongly I feel that I must bring others what I believe to save them from eternal punishment, do I have the right to use any means to do so?

A: Yes as long as the means line up with what I said in no. 1. Your use of the word, "any" does not apply to any way that's wrong. Don't we all have the right to share with others the availability of whatever made a positive difference in our lives? Don't we all have the right to share needed knowledge? Doesn't the one to whom it is shared have the right to know it instead of having it hidden from him? But you wont force it with a holdup at gunpoint, would you?

3. Q: Do I have the right to lead the adherents of another belief away from their established beliefs?

A: Truth takes precedence over any belief that doesn't line up with it whether the belief is established or not. Because we walk the path of life only once, that which fails to line up should be forsaken. Would you want to live out your life according to a falsehood? As for what one should believe, shouldn't it only be what lines up with truth? Please remember what the Bible says about foundations. But again, we cannot force it against his will.


4. Q: Do I have the right to use means that may endanger people or cause a mess they have to clean up?

A: Of course not! No one should use any means that would endanger the hearer of truth that is shared! If I wanted to show you where to find $1 million, do I need to use any means that would endanger your life to do so?

5. Q: If my religious belief is outlawed in a nation, am I permitted to use illegal means to bring it into that nation?

A: That depends on the nature of the law and what the law is meant to protect. Is the law of that land protecting justice or is it protecting someone's unjust intentions. Dr. M. L. King went to jail for breaking unjust segregation laws that were prevalent in the South during his day. After having been whipped by governing officials, the disciples in the Bible preached the name of Jesus even more boldly because they obeyed the mandates of God instead of the mandates of fallible men that were unjustly against the God's mandate.

If I were a preacher sent by God to a foreign land to preach the gospel and that the law of that land forbade it, I would respect the magistrates of that land during my approach. If God truly sent me, He would have a way for me around the laws that would otherwise obstruct my carrying out the assignment.

6. Q: Am I permitted to use public facilities to bring others to my religious affiliation?

A: I trust that you are speaking of gospel truth instead of a mere religious affiliation. Religion without the gospel is nothing regardless the affiliation.

Yes, one should be permitted to use public facilities to proclaim gospel truth as long as he stays with the truth. Why not if truth is meant for all to hear? What man is sovereign above God to oppose the mandate to publicly proclaim truth? It is written: "Be instant in season and out of season." Do you remember Billy Gram's crusades in football stadiums? What about visitations in hospitals by ministers? Please remember the First Amendment phrase, "or (not) prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Although misdeeds should be discouraged and outlawed, the gospel rightfully presented is not a misdeed.


Take care,
Earl
Earl, it seems that you continue to confuse your "beliefs" with "truth" or "good" in your answers. Do you not know that this is a subjective assessment that you've made and would not be considered the "truth" or "good" by others? If you substitute these words in your answer with the words "my beliefs", your answers provide an interesting different perspective which is not moral or lawful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,501 posts, read 16,988,825 times
Reputation: 7539
Quote:
Originally Posted by allosaur_E View Post
Hello Woodrow LI

You said,
"Those of us that adhere to a religious belief tend to have a desire to share our religion with others,

The problem is at what point does our desire/obligation to share become a violation of the rights of others?

No matter how strongly I feel that I must bring others what I believe to save them from eternal punishment, do I have the right to use any means to do so?

Do I have the right to break the laws of a nation to bring my religion to the people of that nation?

Do I have the right to lead the adherents of another belief away from their established beliefs?

Do I have the right to use means that may endanger people or cause a mess they have to clean up?

If my religious belief is outlawed in a nation, am I permitted to use illegal means to bring it into that nation?

Am I permitted to use public facilities to bring others to my religious affiliation?"
__________________

My Answers one by one:


1. Q: The problem is at what point does our desire/obligation to share become a violation of the rights of others?

Before I answer, May I ask since when did it become a violation of another's rights to share with him what's good? But if he sees the good as a violation, it's because of a perception error.

A: Ones desire/obligation to share gospel truth becomes a violation of the right of others when it's done in a way that violates just law or the hearer's dignity or both. I will not shoot you if I shared the gospel with you and you chose not to follow. Neither would you eliminate your sweet little daughter if she for some reason falls away from the path you take. You still love her because love is the nature of your motives and the gospel. Do you remember the prodigal son? Let's not also forget that one may violate another's rights simply by failing to inform him of truth he needs to know.

2. Q: No matter how strongly I feel that I must bring others what I believe to save them from eternal punishment, do I have the right to use any means to do so?

A: Yes as long as the means line up with what I said in no. 1. Your use of the word, "any" does not apply to any way that's wrong. Don't we all have the right to share with others the availability of whatever made a positive difference in our lives? Don't we all have the right to share needed knowledge? Doesn't the one to whom it is shared have the right to know it instead of having it hidden from him? But you wont force it with a holdup at gunpoint, would you?

3. Q: Do I have the right to lead the adherents of another belief away from their established beliefs?

A: Truth takes precedence over any belief that doesn't line up with it whether the belief is established or not. Because we walk the path of life only once, that which fails to line up should be forsaken. Would you want to live out your life according to a falsehood? As for what one should believe, shouldn't it only be what lines up with truth? Please remember what the Bible says about foundations. But again, we cannot force it against his will.


4. Q: Do I have the right to use means that may endanger people or cause a mess they have to clean up?

A: Of course not! No one should use any means that would endanger the hearer of truth that is shared! If I wanted to show you where to find $1 million, do I need to use any means that would endanger your life to do so?

5. Q: If my religious belief is outlawed in a nation, am I permitted to use illegal means to bring it into that nation?

A: That depends on the nature of the law and what the law is meant to protect. Is the law of that land protecting justice or is it protecting someone's unjust intentions. Dr. M. L. King went to jail for breaking unjust segregation laws that were prevalent in the South during his day. After having been whipped by governing officials, the disciples in the Bible preached the name of Jesus even more boldly because they obeyed the mandates of God instead of the mandates of fallible men that were unjustly against the God's mandate.

If I were a preacher sent by God to a foreign land to preach the gospel and that the law of that land forbade it, I would respect the magistrates of that land during my approach. If God truly sent me, He would have a way for me around the laws that would otherwise obstruct my carrying out the assignment.

6. Q: Am I permitted to use public facilities to bring others to my religious affiliation?

A: I trust that you are speaking of gospel truth instead of a mere religious affiliation. Religion without the gospel is nothing regardless the affiliation.

Yes, one should be permitted to use public facilities to proclaim gospel truth as long as he stays with the truth. Why not if truth is meant for all to hear? What man is sovereign above God to oppose the mandate to publicly proclaim truth? It is written: "Be instant in season and out of season." Do you remember Billy Gram's crusades in football stadiums? What about visitations in hospitals by ministers? Please remember the First Amendment phrase, "or (not) prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Although misdeeds should be discouraged and outlawed, the gospel rightfully presented is not a misdeed.


Take care,
Earl
Peace Earl,

Very good and interesting points. The only problem is what we see as truth does differ. I believe my beliefs are the Truth and the correct path to reach heaven,

Can you see the difficulties that would arise if I were to proselytize Islam here in the USA by those 6 methods?

Take Care,
Woodrow
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 10:00 AM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,300,124 times
Reputation: 4333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile View Post
I don't agree with that message, but if it's that important to them, I'm more than willing to trade a good-sized chunk of my constitutional "freedom not be bothered" for their freedom to spread their word.
I'm not willing to trade even a sliver of my rights.

Keep in mind, they already have the right to be heard, to express themselves, and to freely associate within churches and cults.

What more do they need?

What "good-sized chunk of constitutional freedom" would we have to trade away so that the religious among us have an even greater toolbox with which to convert people?

And why are the things that are important to them MORE important than that which is important to me or other atheists and non-believers?

Do we, for instance, throw the LGBT community under the bus so conservative Christians can sleep a bit easier tonight? Do we throw open the doors of our public schools so that Intelligent Design and creationism can be taught in our science classrooms? Do we teach Biblical history as actual history?

I have really big issues with giving up our constitutional rights merely to cater to Christianity. Because of religion's absolutism, it would exploit any crack in our secular armor in the same way a flood gradually erodes our dikes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 10:18 AM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,098,228 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Hence why many atheists are against religion.

The idea that it would be wrong to obey Man instead of God is essentially saying your religion trumps any law made by Man - including such documents as the U.S. Constitution.
Yes. It does.
Quote:
It means that many Christians even today seethe in anger over the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teachers cannot lead the class in a prayer to a deity - not even a non-specific deity - because it would represent an entanglement of government with religion.
I suppose it does anger many.
Quote:
Even so, for over 200 years American public schools freely and knowingly violated the Constitution by turning those schools into Christian indoctrination centers. Not only were prayers to God recited before the beginning of the school day, Bibles were used to teach children how to read. Neither the kids or the parents had any means of recourse should they happen to be atheists or members of a different religion.
In this case, the rights of others mattered little when religious absolutism took hold. A screwball belief in eternal punishment for not joining the right cult or worshiping the right god took precedent over the rights of the individual to decide for him/herself what to believe.

Whenever religious law conflicted with Man's law, we were all expected to choose religious law - or more accurately Biblical law - regardless of our individual beliefs. Thus for over two centuries our public schools were de facto churches for young people.
You do realize that 9 of the 13 original states had official religions, right? The founding fathers never intended to whitewash all religion out of society--or they would have been in violation from the beginning.

If the vast majority of the people in a community are of a certain religion, the idea was that they should be free to practice it.
Quote:
During the same time, government-run poorhouses were operated based on ugly Puritanical rules and assumptions. Anyone living in a poorhouse was obviously being punished by God. Therefore, these facilities were designed to make people as miserable as possible since it wasn't up to Man to interfere with God's verdict. In this case, interfering meant making God's punishment less severe by allowing poorhouse inmates (yes, they were actually called inmates) to have any comforts or luxuries. It didn't matter if you were disabled or elderly and destitute. If you were in a poorhouse, you were being punished.
and historically it's been Christians that have taken care of the poor.
Quote:
Once again we have religion leading government around by the nose - one reason I have always been dead-set against abolishing government-run welfare and handing over all "charity" to the churches. Religion can be downright mean and nasty when it wants to be, and there is always plenty of Biblical verses to justify it.
I'm not suggesting that religion dictates how we do government. Neither did the founding fathers.
Quote:
And so again, today, we have states trying desperately to ban gay marriage - mainly because homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. For those of us who are atheists, non-Christian, or Christian but liberal, we say: "Who the hell cares?" Yet those of a fascistic bent - those who feel they have to obey God and not Man - didn't care about the rights of others. All that concerned them was to make their God's rules superior to all others in the nation; your individual beliefs do not count.
Or maybe because a "marriage" involves a "husband" and a "wife". Those are gender-based roles. Like it or not, society has always seen it that way. Maybe there is an actual reasonable, logical answer to it other than "they just don't like you".


Quote:
Thus anyone who says they must obey God rather than Man is a danger to freedom, democracy, and liberty. I've said a thousand times that religion is inherently fascistic, authoritarian, totalitarian, and quite often cruel. Thus we have so many stories such as the recent one about a church refusing to bury a woman who fell behind on her tithes. Or an older story involving a mother and daughter who were excommunicated from the Catholic church for aborting a pregnancy caused by being raped by her stepfather (and she was only 8 years-old; the pregnancy put her life in extreme danger). Perhaps the worst one was when Saudi morality police stood guard over a burning school refusing to allow rescue workers to save a dozen girls who were not wearing the proper religious head gear.
I find it ironic that you consider religion to be fascistic, yet you fail to see the fascism of the state telling people they cannot practice religion, or that our tax money will be used for something that is considered morally wrong.
Quote:
All too often we have had to look beyond the Bible to find our morality. We've had to ignore egregious commands like murdering gays, witches, rebellious kids, and anyone disrespecting a priest. Plus, we've had to add our own morality such as abolishing slavery and making sex with children a crime (neither of which is in the Bible).

Your religion may command you to share your religion with others - and in this country you are free to do so. However, such preaching becomes immoral when there is a captive audience. Badgering motorists waiting at traffic lights, for instance, or forcing children to recite prayers at school when attending school is compulsory.
You must live in abject fear of telemarketers that JUST WON'T STOP CALLING!!!!!!
Quote:
Unfortunately, some Christians feel so strongly about superstitions that others find utterly ridiculous (eternal punishment in Hell, for instance) that these Christians feel justified in using any tactic, trick, and method available to them in order to spread their "good news." They forget that their beliefs are just that - beliefs - and are not proven in any way whatsoever. Calling their beliefs "truth" is disingenuous at best, outright lies at worst.

It is wrong to preach to people who have no desire to listen. While yes, free speech still exists, religion falls into a different category of free speech - namely because of the high emotions and intense friction that can result if a Christian starts spouting off to a Muslim, for example, saying the Muslim is worshiping a false god and believing in a false religion. Atheists, on the other hand, simply don't want to hear it.
I agree. If someone does not want to hear my message, it would not be reasonable to expect to share it with them.

Likewise, the atheist that makes it his life's work to rid the public eye of any form of religion is also just as wrong, when 99% of a community WANTS certain religious expression in it.
Quote:
But placing God's laws above human laws is only asking for conflict.
Oh well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 11:41 AM
 
6,324 posts, read 4,300,124 times
Reputation: 4333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Yes. It does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
I suppose it does anger many.
Good. It should come as no surprise to you next time when we have an "uncivilized" conversation. Anyone who thinks that religion trumps our secular law is just a step away from public stonings in the town square.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
You do realize that 9 of the 13 original states had official religions, right? The founding fathers never intended to whitewash all religion out of society--or they would have been in violation from the beginning.
They WERE in violation from the beginning. Unfortunately, religion had such a stranglehold everyone's lives in those days that there was never enough political clout to challenge those states. It's just like prayer in public schools. For over 200 years they prayed, and schools were in violation of the constitution from day one. It just so happens that no one challenged it until the 1960's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
If the vast majority of the people in a community are of a certain religion, the idea was that they should be free to practice it.
They are free to practice it individually. They are NOT free to make anyone else practice it - or adhere to its laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
and historically it's been Christians that have taken care of the poor.
And they've done an abysmal job of doing so. Even today, the most outspoken haters of the poor and our social welfare system are fundamentalist Christians. Yeah, like I would want my life to rely on THOSE people - who are just as likely to claim my medical condition is a result of sin as they are to say it is a medical condition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Or maybe because a "marriage" involves a "husband" and a "wife". Those are gender-based roles. Like it or not, society has always seen it that way. Maybe there is an actual reasonable, logical answer to it other than "they just don't like you".
Nope ... it's because you just don't like gays. What they do "bothers" you so your clique must do everything it can to keep it pinned under your foot. The semantic games you're playing about "husband" and "wife" might fool the dim-witted, but I've been paying attention to the hateful rhetoric being bandied about by churches. If anyone expected me to believe that all of the time, money, and resources sunk into banning gay marriage was all about preserving a dictionary definition, then you folks overplayed your hand by leaps and bounds. Sorry, but no ... the cat is out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube, the cork is out of the bottle, and now your charade has been exposed for what it is - homophobia, bigotry, hatred, fear, and ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
I find it ironic that you consider religion to be fascistic, yet you fail to see the fascism of the state telling people they cannot practice religion, or that our tax money will be used for something that is considered morally wrong.
Really ... and when has the state told you that you cannot practice your religion? Please list the names of states that have banned your religion. I'll wait.

Tax money? Toward what immoral purpose is your tax dollars being spent? A war of aggression against Iraq, perhaps?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
You must live in abject fear of telemarketers that JUST WON'T STOP CALLING!!!!!!
Telemarkers tick me off ... especially when they call during our Thanksgiving dinner like they did this time around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Likewise, the atheist that makes it his life's work to rid the public eye of any form of religion is also just as wrong, when 99% of a community WANTS certain religious expression in it.
You will almost never get 99% agreement on anything - especially not on a topic as contested as covering a town in religious symbology. I really don't know any atheists who have made it their life's work to scour all religion from the face of the planet. I can think of lots of groups who have made it their life's work to ensure that their religion rules over everyone, though.

It's a bit like taking a tiger and a house cat and trying to convince me that both are equally as dangerous.

Remember that religious icons, expressions, and statuary are all over the place. But if an atheist group rents even a single billboard and places an atheist message on it, the event makes national news - namely because of all the fascist Christians who think we should not be heard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Oh well.
Yeah ... "oh well."

You heard it here, ladies and gentlemen. Even if it means conflict - including violence, war, and bloodshed - religion MUST get it's own way. It will never be content to remain an individual choice.

Oh well if there is conflict. Oh well. <shrug> Just as long as the survivors are Christian, I suppose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 12:08 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,098,228 times
Reputation: 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Good. It should come as no surprise to you next time when we have an "uncivilized" conversation. Anyone who thinks that religion trumps our secular law is just a step away from public stonings in the town square.
Nonsense.
Quote:

They WERE in violation from the beginning. Unfortunately, religion had such a stranglehold everyone's lives in those days that there was never enough political clout to challenge those states. It's just like prayer in public schools. For over 200 years they prayed, and schools were in violation of the constitution from day one. It just so happens that no one challenged it until the 1960's.

Nonsense. There is no reason to believe they'd intentionally implement a constitution that they would be in violation of.
Quote:
They are free to practice it individually. They are NOT free to make anyone else practice it - or adhere to its laws.
I absolutely agree. But if the people of a community want to practice it, they should be able to without a well-meaning busybody atheist interfering.
Quote:

And they've done an abysmal job of doing so. Even today, the most outspoken haters of the poor and our social welfare system are fundamentalist Christians. Yeah, like I would want my life to rely on THOSE people - who are just as likely to claim my medical condition is a result of sin as they are to say it is a medical condition.
Really? It's Christians that run food pantries, homeless shelters, hospitals, dig freshwater wells, etc...etc. Ever wonder why hospitals have religious-sounding names?
Quote:


Nope ... it's because you just don't like gays.
Wow...so you can now read my mind.

Maybe I'll just say you're a meanie because you just don't like people in general. Yah...that's it. You don't like homosexuals, you don't like religious people. I mean...if we get to assign motives, what does it matter if it's true?
Quote:

What they do "bothers" you so your clique must do everything it can to keep it pinned under your foot. The semantic games you're playing about "husband" and "wife" might fool the dim-witted, but I've been paying attention to the hateful rhetoric being bandied about by churches. If anyone expected me to believe that all of the time, money, and resources sunk into banning gay marriage was all about preserving a dictionary definition, then you folks overplayed your hand by leaps and bounds. Sorry, but no ... the cat is out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube, the cork is out of the bottle, and now your charade has been exposed for what it is - homophobia, bigotry, hatred, fear, and ignorance.
Ok, ya bigot. Maybe you should try to like people. Why do you hate homosexuals so much?
Quote:

Really ... and when has the state told you that you cannot practice your religion? Please list the names of states that have banned your religion. I'll wait.

Tax money? Toward what immoral purpose is your tax dollars being spent? A war of aggression against Iraq, perhaps?
Abortion, for starters. Innocent babies are killed with my tax money. But hey...you said we don't like to take care of the needy...so why should we care?
Quote:

Telemarkers tick me off ... especially when they call during our Thanksgiving dinner like they did this time around.
Did you cower in the closet when they called because you just didn't know how to ignore them?
Quote:

You will almost never get 99% agreement on anything - especially not on a topic as contested as covering a town in religious symbology. I really don't know any atheists who have made it their life's work to scour all religion from the face of the planet. I can think of lots of groups who have made it their life's work to ensure that their religion rules over everyone, though.

It's a bit like taking a tiger and a house cat and trying to convince me that both are equally as dangerous.

Remember that religious icons, expressions, and statuary are all over the place. But if an atheist group rents even a single billboard and places an atheist message on it, the event makes national news - namely because of all the fascist Christians who think we should not be heard.



Yeah ... "oh well."

You heard it here, ladies and gentlemen. Even if it means conflict - including violence, war, and bloodshed - religion MUST get it's own way. It will never be content to remain an individual choice.

Oh well if there is conflict. Oh well. <shrug> Just as long as the survivors are Christian, I suppose.
I feel sorry for you. You must really be an angry, ticked off person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 12:13 PM
 
7,708 posts, read 12,557,259 times
Reputation: 12354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Good. It should come as no surprise to you next time when we have an "uncivilized" conversation. Anyone who thinks that religion trumps our secular law is just a step away from public stonings in the town square.
It is because of religion that you even have any moral understanding or guidelines you live by. I'm pretty sure at no point during the evolutionary process we all of a sudden developed thou shalt not kill.

Quote:
They WERE in violation from the beginning. Unfortunately, religion had such a stranglehold everyone's lives in those days that there was never enough political clout to challenge those states. It's just like prayer in public schools. For over 200 years they prayed, and schools were in violation of the constitution from day one. It just so happens that no one challenged it until the 1960's.
They still have prayer in schools. It's just not legally required to do. There's Christian clubs and we always prayed there. And people pray before and after sports games and test. So nothing was really accomplished in that regard.

Quote:
They are free to practice it individually. They are NOT free to make anyone else practice it - or adhere to its laws.
The 10 commandments are what the government and every first world country government is based on. You have to swear on a Bible when you step into court. In God We Trust is printed on every form of currency in our nation. So you're adhering to word of God whether you like it or not.

Quote:
And they've done an abysmal job of doing so. Even today, the most outspoken haters of the poor and our social welfare system are fundamentalist Christians. Yeah, like I would want my life to rely on THOSE people - who are just as likely to claim my medical condition is a result of sin as they are to say it is a medical condition.
Oh please. There are so many atheist waiting on food donations, clothing, and housing from church charities all over the country. Not to mention those wonderful Presbyterian hospitals you utilize. And as for whatever medical condition you have, you're not making it any better with your negative attitude. It's statistical fact that having a negative attitude contributes to sicknesses and mental illness. And pessimist have a higher mortality rate.

Quote:
Nope ... it's because you just don't like gays. What they do "bothers" you so your clique must do everything it can to keep it pinned under your foot. The semantic games you're playing about "husband" and "wife" might fool the dim-witted, but I've been paying attention to the hateful rhetoric being bandied about by churches. If anyone expected me to believe that all of the time, money, and resources sunk into banning gay marriage was all about preserving a dictionary definition, then you folks overplayed your hand by leaps and bounds.
Nope, honey, what we're trying to avoid is legally having to pay more billions in tax dollars than we already do for the treatments of a plethora of diseases homosexuals contract.

Quote:
You will almost never get 99% agreement on anything - especially not on a topic as contested as covering a town in religious symbology. I really don't know any atheists who have made it their life's work to scour all religion from the face of the planet. I can think of lots of groups who have made it their life's work to ensure that their religion rules over everyone, though.
So I guess you've never heard of Richard Dawking or Stephen Hawkings?

Quote:
Remember that religious icons, expressions, and statuary are all over the place. But if an atheist group rents even a single billboard and places an atheist message on it, the event makes national news - namely because of all the fascist Christians who think we should not be heard.
That's because Atheist billboards are condescending and are badly timed. Here's a suggestion. Maybe you shouldn't be touting your angst against religion during the happiest time of the year. Turns people off.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2014, 01:00 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,612 posts, read 4,873,164 times
Reputation: 1408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
No...it means that she is apparently the type of person that can't handle any expression of religion or opinion contrary to her own.
Yeah, lots of people are like that.

So how do you interact with the religious people like Mormons or JWs who come by your home? Do you seriously listen to what they have to say or do you immediately reject them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top