h a l f b a k e r yClearly this is a metaphor for something.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I'd like to see a 3-panel debate between Christian
lawmakers,
Islamic lawmakers, and secular lawmakers where each
explains why their brand of law is more legitimate than the
others. Specifically, I'd like to hear the Christians from the
U.S.A. explain why they feel their religion is exempt
from
the
mandated separation of church and state.
[link]
|
| |
The second sentence in this idea is a non sequitur. |
|
| |
Well the main thrust of the debate I'd like to see
encompasses all nations, not just the USA. However,
since most members of one of the two major political
parties in this country claim that their decisions are
based on Christian religious views, and the author of
our nation's Constitution wrote that there should be
a separation of church and state, I think that issue
has a place in a debate on the legitimacy of their
views. |
|
| |
bit of a speedbump: Western society is based on Judao-Christian traditions, ie: from the time when church influenced state.
|
|
| |
However, much as I would personally like to see a bunch of idiots ranting at each other (TV, not live)[+], the proscription might be that the organized religion not be in charge of the state, not that individuals who believe in their religion shouldn't hold office. |
|
| |
I don't feel that folks of religious persuasion shouldn't
hold office. I would, however, like them to be
required to take an oath of policy secularism, to
promise that they will make all decisions based on
logic and fairness rather than dubious moral codes
dictated by a religious leader. |
|
| |
I have a deja vu feeling saying this but, would having the politicos say "I believe..." mollify you, as opposed to "The Bible says that..."
|
|
| |
On the other hand you could take it as a warning that whoever starts a sentence "God says..." has no real grounding in reality per the subject matter.
|
|
| |
I actually agree with your point btw. If you could link to your previous post, as well as whatever news-story brought on this resurgence, it may help. |
|
| |
It wasn't brought about by a particular news story. I've simply
noticed an awful lot of religious influence in the stated views of
Republican politicians. I've also seen several debates between
atheists and Catholics, and between atheists and other religious
leaders, arguing whether or not we'd be better off without
religion. I've seen debates where Republicans claim that Islam is
dominated by radicals and that Islam is not a religion of peace.
|
|
| |
I have never heard a 3 panel debate between atheists,
Christians, and Islamists. |
|
| |
Since my own religion has historically tended to go off in blatantly self-centered directions on occasion, far be it from me to posit that "Islam wants peace" is used in the sense that "Islam wants other people to be peaceful".
|
|
| |
Your 3-way debate would end with the Christian glassy-eyed and smiling rictusfully, the Muslim red-faced and yelling, and the atheist head-down on the table hands over his/her ears, mumbling "oh god...". |
|
| |
Sorry for abandoning this argument with you in the exams for politicians idea, but I didn't want to pollute that idea with a pointless debate.
|
|
| |
// ...oath of policy secularism, to promise that they will make all decisions based on logic and fairness //
|
|
| |
Please define logic and fairness. If you don't define it fully than the oath is meaningless. It is perfectly logical to take instruction from the God of the universe as communicated by his prophet, son, spokesperson, etc. What better way to ensure the well being of the people than to take instructions from the benevolent creator who knows all? If you do fully define what logic and fairness are, then you have created a belief system and are demanding that everyone make laws based on it, therefore establishing a religion, even if you won't call it a religion.
|
|
| |
All laws are based on what people believe is right (for whatever reason). Most laws are tempered by the understanding that some people disagree about the principle behind the law, so is it designed to harm the disagreeing party no more than people would be willing to be harmed themselves if they were on the minority side of a different disagreement.
|
|
| |
Clearly the world isn't perfect, so there are many laws you could argue go to far one way or the other. Those are valid arguments and worth having. Trying to say that one position is somehow fundamentally correct and other opinions on the issue shouldn't be considered is asking for trouble when you are on the other side. |
|
| |
Well fairness is pretty simple. Here's a prime
example of the
difference between fairness and morality: gay
marriage.
Religious groups oppose it because they feel it is
immoral, but
who is it actually unfair to? Nobody. If it's not
unfair to anyone
who can actually speak on his/her own behalf
(thus, God's
opinion doesn't count) then how can it be
considered immoral,
and how can you justify banning it? The way I
define 'logic and fairness' is, does it make sense in
any context outside that of religion? Things like
murder, theft, and perjury have been illegal in just
about every system of laws since the Code of
Hammurabi, which was written over a thousand
years BC. There are certain things we simply don't
need a deity to tell us, and that sort of thing is
what should be allowed. |
|
| |
Marriage has nothing to do with fairness. It is inherently UNFAIR to give some people (those who are married) a different legal status for tax and other purposes.
|
|
| |
There are many laws that are not fair, but are arguably good, or less bad than the alternative. For example, a progressive tax system is not fair, but I think it is probably better than a flat tax system. Child tax credits are not fair, but either we are encouraging people to raise children or feel sorry for them.
|
|
| |
Why in the world did the government get involved with marriages in the first place? Maybe people thought it was a good idea to encourage a single man to stay with a single woman, by creating an unfair legal status for those pairs of people. Naturally it would be called marriage because that's what society has called it. Why does fairness require that the definition be changed to include something that people don't wish to encourage? If you BELIEVE that a homosexual relationship is the exact moral and practical equivalent to a heterosexual relationship, then of course it seems only fair to call it a marriage. If you don't believe that, then it isn't.
|
|
| |
Regarding logic, here is one simplified yet possibly common line of reasoning based on someone's beliefs. Homosexual relationships are unhealthy. More people will become homosexual if it is viewed as normal and endorsed by the government in the form of laws. Therefore the government should not pass laws that encourage homosexuality.
|
|
| |
Now you can certainly argue that those beliefs are false, but for someone who believes those statements are true, I'd say the conclusion is logical.
|
|
| |
If you want to change the law, change what people believe. That has definitely shifted some over the years. And if you think that repeatedly saying "that's not fair" will change people's beliefs, by all means keep it up. |
|
| |
However did a Japanese digital imaging company get mixed up in all this? |
|
| |
Undisguised rant stuck on the end of a marginal idea.
[-] |
|
| |
//Undisguised rant stuck on the end of a marginal idea
|
|
| |
//Regarding logic, here is one simplified yet
possibly common line of reasoning based on
someone's beliefs. Homosexual relationships are
unhealthy. More people will become homosexual if
it is viewed as normal and endorsed by the
government in the form of laws.//
|
|
| |
That's not logic though. To say that homosexual
relationships are not healthy is illogical because
there are no empirical facts to support that claim.
To say that more people will become homosexual if
encouraged is, again, illogical. There is no
scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality
is a choice, and there have been countless studies
and experiments which suggest that it is not.
|
|
| |
Where evidence is available, the legal argument
has got to go to the side that is supported by it.
|
|
| |
By the way, this is not a rant. The idea is for a
debate where each side can present their
evidence. |
|
| |
//The idea is for a debate where each side can present their evidence.// But that is grossly unfair when you know that only one of the three sides has any evidence. |
|
| |
//However did a Japanese digital imaging company get mixed up in all this//
They paid more for the advertising rights than Sony or Nikon. |
|
| |
'Christian law' seems like a pretty sketchy term to
me, and I'd bet you'd end up with at least 14,000
varieties and interpretations, which I don't doubt
was one of the reasons the West secularized. |
|
| |
"Separation of Church and State" is nonsense. Read the 1st amendment and then read the letter to the Danbury Baptist association from whence that phrase hails and tell me any honest interpretation of the writings take you to the place we are today. Empirically, our society has had a hard time of it since we decided that the government should kick religion out of everything it touches.
|
|
| |
Quest, you are making a LOT of baseless/ill-defined claims. I could counter them all one at a time, but for the sake of brevity let me just say this. The USA was founded upon principles derived from the Bible and, in 200 years the USA accomplished what the rest of the world could not in 5,000 years. Technological, societal and educational advancement spread over most of the world because of those principles.
History is pretty clear on which path we, as a nation, should choose – as only one has taken us to a place we want to be.
|
|
| |
I do find it sad that we have fallen to the point where the things I have just said are not common knowledge, and that, in our collective arrogance, we think we know better than does the collective memory and experience of all who have come before. |
|
| |
//The USA was founded upon principles derived from the Bible and, in 200 years the USA accomplished what the rest of the world could not in 5,000 years.// ha! - funny. Mind you, just think how much further the USA would have progressed if it hadn't been held back by those "principles derived from the Bible". |
|
| |
@Hippo
France tried that. It didn't turn out well. ;) |
|
| |
I looked up the correspondence Andy mentions and it appears Thomas Jefferson is being asked to keep a separate Christian group from taking over. There is also a letter of Thomas Jefferson to Adams, angrily denouncing religious people in the same state (enlightenment?). How many Christians on the end of the pen? |
|
| |
// France tried that. It didn't turn out well.//
Oh, I don't know - given the choice of living in Paris or DC, I know which I'd choose. |
|
| |
@rcarty
1. Same principles, huh? That is not what Washington said.(one would think that he, of all people, would know.) And the results, I believe, speak for themselves. Read the actual writings from the two revolutions and THEN tell me the principles were the same.
2. It is a lot of actual data, but is pretty easy to come by if you look at it. Look at the US criminal justice stats and tell me what happened when we kicked God out of school – it isn’t exactly the kind of trend a civilized people would rationally put up with.
3. LOL You are funny given that the French revolution was in 1789 and the Constitution was signed in 1787. Maybe some Frenchmen went back in time…
4. There is a rather large difference between calling yourself a Christian nation and actually following the principles of the Bible… They used to teach that stuff in school.
|
|
| |
@4and20
Indeed. I am as stalwart a Christian as you are likely to find and I am happy to fight against “Christians” who violate Christian principles. (Jim Wallace and Jeremiah Wright come to mind)
Jefferson would have been intellectually dishonest to do any differently. (Frankly, the targets of his ire deserved it. )
|
|
| |
@ AbsintheWithoutLeave
Lol! Touche’ (Though, as bad as DC is, we haven’t beheaded people en-mass there yet…) |
|
| |
You've gone insane. Have fun living forever in magic land, idiot. |
|
| |
//Though, as bad as DC is, we haven’t beheaded people en-mass there yet//
But the beheadings were part of the enlightenment of the era - a scientific approach to execution without undue suffering. |
|
| |
Am in no way religious, but it's possible countries were addressing capricious power of various churches. Religion itself may be as old as human nature. It's also human nature to simplify belief -- i.e. to use gravity as a universal fundamental when its measure and nature are still under intense debate. Above all, you can't detroy people's hope, which sometimes includes religious belief. |
|
| |
It amuses me when idiots say our nation was
founded on Christian principles. Our
founders FLED persecution from a Christian
church. Do you suppose the fact that some
of our laws happen to echo some of the 10
Commandments means they are BASED on
the Commandments? That's just ignorant.
Hammurabi's Code, which predates Christ by
over a thousand years, banned murder, theft,
and perjury. Even Islamic nations ban those
things. Ever notice over half the
Commandments were left OUT of our legal
system? Honoring your parents, keeping the
Sabbath day holy, banning graven images,
banning adultery, banning covetousness...
our nation was founded
on Christian principles but we left all those
things out? Please. Our founding fathers may
have been Christians, but they did their
damndest to draft a secular legal framework.
|
|
| |
Upon doing some research, it appears the myth of
being founded as a Christian nation is based on
lots of non-Constitution documents drafted a
hundred years or more before we declared our
independence. The Mayflower Compact? Really???
A few state charters? These are not nation-
founding documents. |
|
| |
//Even Islamic nations ban those things.
|
|
| |
As tedious as this may be to everyone else, when I could be bothered to try and learn something about Islam ( I was living in Egypt), in their own scholars' writings it says the Koran is book three, with the Talmud as book one, and the Bible as book two.
|
|
| |
There are connections between all three of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so don't be at all surprised if they cover the same stuff. |
|
| |
It doesn't surprise me at all. There are certain things
that are universally recognized as bad, even by
atheists. |
|
| |
(yawn) when do the devotees of Isis and Osiris get a look in please? |
|
| |
Hmm, let's talk about jihad, the violence spike and tourism.
|
|
| |
Moslems seem to have given up converting the world roughly when the Ottoman empire gave up trying to incorporate east Europe, which would be about 1699. Christian jihad never really finished until the end of the the 19th century, bringing civilisation to Africa and Asia, let's not forget the conquistadors in South America. In fact you still find Christian missionaries in all kinds of improbable places, like Birmingham (truly a lost cause).
|
|
| |
The violence spike, yes all religions go through a violence spike period until they seem to reach a limit, the violence spike for Christianity seems to have lasted about 1800 years, seeing as Islam really only started in about 610 AD, it had a much shorter violence spike, about 1100 years.
|
|
| |
Tourism, ok let's imagine a city built on religious tourism. Crowds come to see the statues of the many gods, eat something etc. Then some bugger turns up and says "No, there is only one god, and you can't see him anyway". At this point burghers of said city get a bit antsy and decide to spend a lot of time and effort to knock off annoying person and his followers..at this point the religion espoused by the guy takes a radical turn, stops being happy-clappy smiley and becomes a lot less liberal and more cellular in structure.. absolutely no prizes for guessing the name of the city, or it's main industry these days.. |
|
| |
I've listened to some interesting debates on the
subject of religion. One was put on by Intelligence
Squared, in the UK, and the motion being debated
was 'The Catholic Church is a force for good in the
world' The 2 people arguing against the motion
were Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, and
they roundly defeated the motion something like
1,800 votes to 200. Another was titled 'The world
would be better off without religion', put on by
Intelligence Squared U.S. This time, the motion
(arguing against religion) was strongly upheld by
A.C. Grayling and the grandson of Charles Darwin.
There have been other debates with similarly
titled motions featuring A.C. Grayling and Richard
Dawkins, and in every one, the atheists win over
the voting audience.
|
|
| |
You can say what you want about the history of
religion, but the future of it is quite predictable:
religion is on the decline in 1st world nations
because education is on the rise, and educated,
intelligent people don't subscribe to superstition. |
|
| |
// intelligent people don't subscribe to superstition// but Stevie
Wonder had such a great hit with it. |
|
| |
// educated, intelligent people don't subscribe
to superstition //
|
|
| |
How does that play out when the bulk of the
population are educated, but unintelligent? |
|
| |
Or intelligent, educated and uninspired? (o,i,e,a,u and sometimes y) |
|
| |
Sounds like an application for an IF-ELSE
clause…
|
|
| |
Any suggestions as to the truth table for that
function? |
|
| |
The problem with binary logic is: you're either right or you are. But, missed the "bulk" in your sentence, turning the table completely on me. |
|
| |
Is there something in the halfbakery water lately? |
|
| |
There will now be a short pause while we take a collection. Please give generously. |
|
| |