Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on March 22, 2006, 01:13:50 PM
-
Howdy!
I was listening to the radio today, and they were interviewing the author of a book called "American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury" that suggested a connection between our fighting in the middle east, money lending, and religious influence.
It's written by Kevin Phillips, a republican strategist for the Nixon campaign: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Phillips_%28political_commentator%29
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003486X/sr=8-1/qid=1143054966/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2527453-3899344?%5Fencoding=UTF8
His basic idea was (let me see if I can get this right) that in the United States (and elsewhere), there is a growing belief that the end times are approaching, that armageddon (the biblical one, not the hamster one) is around the corner, and that this is both influencing our foreign affairs and our economy.
Foreign affairs
Basically, Baghdad is the site of the ancient city of Babylon, and part of the prophecies say that the anti-christ will attempt to rebuild Babylon as part of the race to the finish. The author suggests that many people believe that Saddam Hussein, by virtue of his rebuilding of Baghdad over the past 30 years, has essentially identified himself as the antichrist by his actions. Also, as supporting data, the author noted that since the end of the cold war, the focus of many influential christians has been to identify Islam as a direct threat and as evil.
Economics
He also says that this has shaped how many people in the US work with money. He uses the Republican party as an example and says that historically, the republicans were about reducing debt, but that the past 20 or so years has seen a ballooning national debt because after all, "if the apocalypse is around the corner, why worry about debt right now?" That might be an oversimplification, but I think that was the gist of it. He says that the GOP in the US has recently been taken over by religious extremists, and that the Democratic party is full of cowards that are unwilling/unable to call the Republicans on it.
I'm not a religious fella, but I found the discussion fascinating. Personally, I _do_ think the republican party has taken a distinctly theological turn, but I think he might be reaching with some of his conclusions. I was wondering if anyone here was more familiar with his book and/or had some alternate thoughts on the subject?
Also, DO the religious types think that a literal battle between heaven and hell will take place in our lifetimes? While I don't share many of y'alls religious beliefs, I do respect that you have them and that it's part of the human experience, and I'm always looking to learn more about how people tick.
Thanks!
EDIT: Fixed book title, added amazon link
-
If a person thinks a thing often and hard enough, that person can convince themself just about anything. Reality is that we -as individuals die, this planet will die, the sun will die, the solar system will die, the galaxy will die, the universe will die.
My point is: Who gives a crap about armaggeddon, One way or another, in some form or another, we each have our own little armageddon eventually. Sooo, just be happy you are even alive, its a miracle each and every day!
And oh yeah, find love and give love away freely.
-
Saw this guy on Stewarts show.. found it intersting.. but kinda ludicrous. Regardless some other points were well made, and I agree that Christian Theology as of late seems to have focused on Islam as the 'bad guys'.
Do Cristians always need 'bad guys' as motivators for their message? Used to be it was 'godless commies'. The New bad guys are 'Jihadists'.
Could be they are correct.. cause despite my 'unbeliver' status regarding either sides dogma, I do see the Islamic Threat as valid.
As far as 'spend, spend spend, the end is coming anyway', this will REALLY tick me off if it's true cause for the first time in my life I'm utterly debt free and refuse to 'spend' beyond my immediate means to stay that way. I could hugely improve my lifestsyle by doing what everybody else seems to do as a matter of course these days... wouldn't that be a heluva karma kickback, wouldn't it? ;)
-
My personal faith is questionable at times but I do consider myself a beleiver.
My parents are what you would call "born again" die hard christians. They go to all sorts of websites like prophacywatch and listen to online sermons about end times.
They've basically got me re-interested in it so to speak. Recently I read the entire series "left behind" (this is the point where seagoon rolls his eyes because IIRC he loathes this book series)
Anywho, I read the series from a prespective of curiosity. I've also read a couple of other books reguarding revelations that describe the several different theorys reguarding "end times"
Personally I find myself fascinated by it all. There can be alot of comparisons made to current events and the "run up" to the BEGINNING of end times. The war we are fighting now, the struggle of Israel, and the "globalization" of economics being some. But, these could just all be coincidences. I don't think for one second that Sadam is the anti-christ, he doesn't fit the biblical description.
I think the guy's GOP theories are kinda interesting as well but sketchy at best. I don't beleive for one second that the ENTIRE GOP is controlled by religious zelots.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
armageddon (the biblical one, not the hamster one) is around the corner
Lol. Armageddon!
Originally posted by Chairboy
Basically, Baghdad is the site of the ancient city of Babylon, and part of the prophecies say that the anti-christ will attempt to rebuild Babylon as part of the race to the finish. The author suggests that many people believe that Saddam Hussein, by virtue of his rebuilding of Baghdad over the past 30 years, has essentially identified himself as the antichrist by his actions. Also, as supporting data, the author noted that since the end of the cold war, the focus of many influential christians has been to identify Islam as a direct threat and as evil.
Uhh, aren't we trying to rebuild Baghdad too?
-
There are some threads I should probably just stay away from, this definitely has all the earmarks of one of them.
Just a few points...
First, having lived in the D.C. metro for several years and having worked as a Sys Admin for a G.O.P. thinktank for a while, I can tell you that the idea that fundamentalist Christians control the Republican party is beyond silly. I was the only person in the entire building who wasn't either a lapsed Catholic, an agnostic, or either a nominal or mainline protestant or Jew. Oh, there were two Mormons who used to argue theology with me on occasion, but their social schedule exactly mirrored that of the other young staffers. I was certainly the only "fundamentalist" on the staff, and was tolerated as a curious throwback because I made the network run and answered their problem calls.
The Republicans in D.C. are largely pragmatists, and while they may rely on the evangelical Christian vote in several states, they rarely have time for them once they are in power. Most of the "bright young things" looking to get ahead in the party that I met in D.C. were about as practically irreligious as their Democratic counterparts, but paid lipservice to a few aspects of social conservatism. There were exceptions to that rule, but they were just that, exceptions.
The vast majority of Repubs in D.C. didn't graduate from Bob Jones, they came from places like Brown, and Yale, and Harvard, Georgetown, USC, and the University of Indiana, and many of them, if they entered those institutions as professing Christians, had parted ways with their faith during their school career. As a result, they generally believed one had to keep the husk of Christian ethics in place, but if you asked them if they believed in Creationism, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Return of Christ, they'd say of course not. Those kind of things had been relegated to the same kind of domain occupied by Aesop's Fables - Helpful tales designed to teach a lesson, but without having to believe in talking foxes.
The myth of an Evangelical G.O.P. is useful, especially when it comes to alarming gullible liberals and mobilizing the more reactionary portions of the Democratic party, but ultimately its no more accurate than thinking that the Democrats are totally controlled by committed Communists.
- SEAGOON
-
I think the whole concept of "end times" is a little outdated. This concept was conceived of at a time when there was basically "the heaven and the earth", there was of course no idea of an earth in the middle of a huge void we call the universe. Now we know that even if we managed to turn the earth into a collection of asteroids, the universe still remains unchanged.
Plus there's the date issue. Weren't the end times supposed to happen a long time ago? IIRC it was supposed to be right around the corner, even in biblical times. Then there was the 1000 AD mark, where nothing happened... So I think this guy is basically nuts.
-
As a Christian, I really don't worry about when the end times arrive. It's not my call . When it happens, it happens. It's not like there is anything you can do about it. If you believe in Christ , whats there to fear in his second coming?
I know some people like to dwell on it and see signs in every newscast, and constantly predict the end times are here. Why they do this I have no idea. To each their own I guess.
-
Seems to me that doomsayers have been crying 'Armageddon' since the concept was first envisioned...thousands of years, at least. Every generation sees the exclamation that things are tougher, weirder, more chaotic than ever before, and this must mean the end of the world is nigh. Hell, every time there's a natural disaster, my own Mother decides it's a sign of cosmic realignment and a harbinger of great turbulence to come.
In our own lives, we've all seen the reports of whole groups of people killing themselves in anticipation of the end...the coming of the millenium, the coming of the comet, etc...Just a week or three ago, I read an article about a problem the government of an African nation (Ethiopia, Nigeria?) was having...seems everytime there's a solar eclipse, the entire nation goes nuts and there are riots in the city streets, as the people fear they are cursed, or that it's the end of the world...again. How's about all the folks who sold off their lives to build survival compounds where they could outlast the imminent collapse that was to be attendant on the coming of the Millenium?
It appears to me that it doesn't take much to get people ready to believe that the end is coming. Perhaps it's just a need to feel special...wouldn't being alive at the (start reverb) End of The World (end reverb) make one special?
Me...I'm not concerned. I think the end will come when we inflict it upon ourselves, not when it's scheduled. In the meantime, I don't have time to waste hunting for justification and meaning to my life by digging around for vague 'prophecies' wrapped in pseudo-academic dissertation. Don't misunderstand, though...I'm only dismissive of those who foment this dreck on otherwise decent, but gullible, people. I believe this stuff has only one purpose...to manipulate folks.
I'm quite certain this three-ring circus will still be here in the morning.
-
wow!!! are you going to be cruising the blvd. with a home made placard??
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Do Cristians always need 'bad guys' as motivators for their message? Used to be it was 'godless commies'. The New bad guys are 'Jihadists'.
Lets see what other reasons did Americans (most of whom are christians) have to think that the Soviet Commies were bad guys during the cold war and now that the jihadists are bad guys today?? Hmmm...
-
At this rate, will armaggeddon be here before TOD?
-
It's ironic that you brought this up, Chairboy. I've gone through a fundamental change in the past 6 months, a change in thinking about the big picture from (too) much reading. The picture beyond the immediate political, financial, religeous and tribal thinking that is distracting us from the big picture of our collective future.
That change makes me say that, as interesting as that theory may sound, it is insignificant and yet another distraction by people who could use their intellect and reasoning to publish and promote something that results in action, not just more talk.
We have evolved a sub-species of continual talkers, talkers who blather on about petty little things that do not matter and have no impact in solving the real Armageddon we are facing. An Armageddon that is but a few short generations away. We thought our Armageddon would be farther in the future, but we have learned in the past few years that we're moving toward it at twice the speed that we thought.
One of the most significant understandings in the history of man (the understanding that we are just a decade away from sealing the fate of our extinction) began the day after the September 11th WTC event. It was not the event itself, it was a reaction by a scientist to an observation made the day after the event. It would be an historic observation and collection of data that started the ball rolling toward a staggering, bolt upright in your chair, sobering timeline for our Armageddon.
We can talk about hope, we can talk about our resilience and innovation, we can talk about politics, we can talk about terror, we can talk about religion, we can talk about nations, we can talk about conspiracy, we can talk about oil, we can talk and talk and talk until we're all talked out about these things that don't really matter, in the big picture, that is.
-
Ummm...WTF, over?
culero
-
Originally posted by Rolex
One of the most significant understandings in the history of man (the understanding that we are just a decade away from sealing the fate of our extinction) began the day after the September 11th WTC event. It was not the event itself, it was a reaction by a scientist to an observation made the day after the event. It would be an historic observation and collection of data that started the ball rolling toward a staggering, bolt upright in your chair, sobering timeline for our Armageddon.
You have my complete attention.
.... but I grasp only smoke; not substance. Is it possible your being a bit obtuse or am I just getting slower on the uptake?
-
I think we are treading on unsafe ground here
-
I'm thinking he's talking about Global Warming. Hence the discover on Sept 12th wich I beleive had to do with the complete lack of airplanes in the sky.
-
Well if it is, it will be amusing to be around to watch it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm thinking he's talking about Global Warming. Hence the discover on Sept 12th wich I beleive had to do with the complete lack of airplanes in the sky.
enh?
lost me. I wuz kinda buzy fer a bit after the towers fell. WTF did I miss?
-
I'm not trying to be obtuse, honest.
The no doo-doo conclusion is that all our modeling has been wrong. Dead wrong. All the scary stuff about global warming and climate change happening a few hundred years from now is wrong. It's on our front door step. This is not the stuff of eco science fiction - this is the stuff of recent data that is making scientists cringe.
In 100 years, the planet will be as hot as it was 4,000,000 years ago - before humans existed - and half of the all the species on Earth will be extinct or near extinct. If that isn't Armageddon, I don't don't what is.
There are a lot of pieces and I'll try to lay it out in sections so it can be digested. I'm trying to think of a step-by-step, concise format that doesn't require a month of reading and put people to sleep. I'll do it in a new thread and apologize for bringing it up in Chairboy's Christian thread.
And yes, it started from temperature observations during the 3 day period when all commercial air traffic was grounded. The sky was so clear from the reduced particulate matter that the average temperature in the US rose 1 degree C - an astounding change - which led to...
-
Global Warming?
......oh.
(http://www.hangtimes.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/gilda22.jpg)
Nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
His Basically, Baghdad is the site of the ancient city of Babylon, and part of the prophecies say that the anti-christ will attempt to rebuild Babylon as part of the race to the finish.
Actually Babylon was about 30 miles south of Baghdad and on the Euphrates river not the Tigris (which flows through Baghdad).
Basically I think that people have been claiming the end of the world is upon us since about 10 minutes after Christ died... And trying to literally equate Baghdad and Babylon is rubbish.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Global Warming?
......oh.
Nevermind.
You're right. What was I thinking? :eek:
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Foreign affairs
Basically, Baghdad is the site of the ancient city of Babylon, and part of the prophecies say that the anti-christ will attempt to rebuild Babylon as part of the race to the finish. The author suggests that many people believe that Saddam Hussein, by virtue of his rebuilding of Baghdad over the past 30 years, has essentially identified himself as the antichrist by his actions. Also, as supporting data, the author noted that since the end of the cold war, the focus of many influential christians has been to identify Islam as a direct threat and as evil.
[
bagdad is not the site of babylon, and saddam was not rebuilding bagdad, he was building marble palaces (26) for himself and his two idiot sons.
if you believe in prophecies i have one for you, you will be dead in less than 100 years.
we already had armageddon, we called it world war one and two.
-
well then... it will all work out.. once about half of the useless population is dead we can all go back to minding our own bussines.
lazs
-
pssssst..... June 6th, 2006.
:noid
Mac
-
I just hope that all you girls who are afraid of firearms are stocking up on food and stuff for me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AWMac
pssssst..... June 6th, 2006.
:noid
Mac
See, I new it would be here before TOD. :mad:
-
Originally posted by AWMac
pssssst..... June 6th, 2006.
:noid
Mac
haha.. yep, just as it appears in the scriptures... 6606
Hmm, wait, somethings not right about that...
Maybe you meant June 6 year 6? Only 2000 years late...
-
St,Malachy, irish monk, predicted 1000 years ago 112 popes untill the end of the days, or maybe the end of cristianity, we have the Benedict #111 now, he is 80 years old.
During the next/last one "Petrus Romanus', the Vatican/Rome will be destroyed,
Wrote St. Malachy of the last pope: "In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge the people. The End."
This guy predictied with accuracy 111 popes since year 1100, i don't think he is wrong about last one,
The arabs will invade Europe and maybe win WW3, acording with many prophecies,
-
Nobody worries about debt because they know that in the near future the oil supplies will be exhausted and that will be the end of modern life as we know it.
Our whole economy and way of life is directly based on cheap sources of energy. When that goes away so does our way of life. And some experts say this might be 20-30 years away unless a huge breakthrough in alternative energy sources happens.
-
Whew... at least I've still got time to order a pizza!
-
Yeah but you better hurry. I hear Chinese are getting hungry too. :D
-
Isn't solar and nuke power cheap power? Right now solar panels are 3% efficent... it takes a roof full to power a typical house...
Talked to an engineer the other day who has a friend who's panels are in the 80% efficiancy range using focuwsing mirrors.. think 2 4' x 8' panels to power a house. Think about $2,000 for the entire system and think about the whole system going on sale a lowes or home depot and then a year or two later and Sams club... Your energy bill to run your house would essentialy be zero..
sorry to ruin such a gloomy mood but... things are looking up not down.
lazs
-
His basic idea was (let me see if I can get this right) that in the United States (and elsewhere), there is a growing belief that the end times are approaching, that armageddon (the biblical one, not the hamster one) is around the corner, and that this is both influencing our foreign affairs and our economy. - Choirboy
There are very credible reports that Ahmedinehajad in Iran fervently believes in an immenent apocolypse, and is actively seeking to expedite the event which he believes will bring the Messiah. It might be prudent for western democracies and Israel to base foreign policy on this fact.
As far as the author is concerned, I think he overlooks the Muslim influence in this country because they don't fit his apparent premise that Christian belief is the problem. Muslims believe in the end times too. In fact, all three major religions believe in the coming of the Messiah.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Isn't solar and nuke power cheap power? Right now solar panels are 3% efficent... it takes a roof full to power a typical house...
Talked to an engineer the other day who has a friend who's panels are in the 80% efficiancy range using focuwsing mirrors.. think 2 4' x 8' panels to power a house. Think about $2,000 for the entire system and think about the whole system going on sale a lowes or home depot and then a year or two later and Sams club... Your energy bill to run your house would essentialy be zero..
sorry to ruin such a gloomy mood but... things are looking up not down.
lazs
With a proper setup, a bank of batteries, and/or the optional windmills... you can easily generate enough power to sell the excess back to the power company. Your meter will literally spin backwards. On top of that, many states have subsudies available for people who want to install these systems. iirc, most systems pay for themselves within 5 years... and that's with using panels of normal effeciency.
For you boat guys, it's very similiar to a system you'd see on a live-aboard sailboat... just scaled up to fit a house.
-
solar systems are fairly common here... with the rebates they run about 10K or so... still too high but 2 people I work with have em.
most energy companies do not like to buy back power and ours around here don't.... what this means is that, for these guys... they have essentially a zero bill in the sunny months and a allmost normal one in the winter months. they average about a $50 per month bill... this is in large homes that normally would see 200-400 dollar a month bills.
The new panels are going to be here... they will be cheap and unobrtusive and probly not even roof mounted.
lazs
-
The solar power isn't going to keep a factory running too long. The batteries wear out, take a lot of space and cost like b***. Solar power isn't an option during winter. To put it simply, solar power is viable only in areas that have a pleasant climate and for uses which are not too power consuming.
Even then commuting and especially air travel will be extremely hard without oil. Many things in our (or our childrens) lives will change in a huge way.
-
My guess, within 5 years, we'll see buried kinetic batteries for sale instead of chemical batteries. You'll have a big flywheel underground with magnetic bearings, and your solar panels will be pumping power into accelerating the flywheel until night. At night, the electric motor turns into a generator. It's spinning at thousands of RPM by this point and lasts until morning, at which point the whole thing starts again.
No chemicals, no plates to get crusted and wear out, and I bet it would be more efficient than batteries. You bury it so that if there's a failure, the ground absorbs the explosion.
-
ripley... it works here and it will get better.... you make cheap electricity and everything else will follow...
sorry to throw all that sunshine on your gloom.... you are welcome to ignore all the good news and go back to suicidal depression if you like. I have heard that it is common in countries that don't get a lot of sun for the citizens to get a little nutso by this time of the year.
lazs
-
Sorry to rain on your parade lazs but you can't produce megawatts of energy required to power a factory 24 hours per day using solar panels. You can't produce fertilizers for agriculture using solar panels. etc. etc.
If someone can power their refrigerator using solar panels problems are far from solved. But I do realize your area of perception is limited to the closest gun range and fridge full of beer. :D
-
I'm quite worried that anyone with those views is allowed to advise a President!
This Christianity v Islam issue has been going on for a very long time and we Christians have been messing with their lives when it was quite fankly none of our business for far too long! Christians were sent there to kill muslims by the pope - the more they killed the more likely they would go to heaven! I think it very lucky we got beaten most of the time!
The middle east has one thing going for it and that is oil so any excuse about religion is just that! The whole issue is so hypocritical as guess who put Saddam there in the first place and sold him all the means to kill lots of people!
We are just seeing the start of what is going to be a long term problem, some countries just are not meant to be democratic as their tribal and religious beliefs are just too strong - they need someone very strong to keep them all together.
Yes there are alot of issues with this (namely that he is a genocidal maniac!) but alot more people are going to die now than ever under Saddam's rule - just wait and see!
-
There were always those crazy idiots claiming that "the end is near". Armageddon already happened about 20 km from where I live 1939 years ago. Since then it happened many more times if you listen to the religeous extremist of each time in history. I predict it will happen several times more before the sun swells and kill us all.
By the way, the forces of darkness won the original battle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
There were always those crazy idiots claiming that "the end is near". Armageddon already happened about 20 km from where I live 1939 years ago. Since then it happened many more times if you listen to the religeous extremist of each time in history. I predict it will happen several times more before the sun swells and kill us all.
By the way, the forces of darkness won the original battle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon
Bozon
Absolutely right. Throughout history there has always been someone or a group who can find some religion or ancient civilization who predictws the end is near.
-
There were always those crazy idiots claiming that "the end is near".
The end is always near for individuals. :)
And for the planet earth and the populations that live on it, I don't think we've ever been closer to monumental events, converging from several different directions, that can take us so far out of our comfort zone we may never see it again.
IE: not necessarily in order of importance - viral mutations, nuclear proliferation with cultural confict, and environmental attrition.
And don't forget, the Messiah may come and catch you with your pants down, so... REPENT
-
i predict that a plague will kill 1/3 of all europeans in the middle ages.
-
ripley... you have to see past your nose and the snow bears on the porch.....
once the power plants are at half or less capacity you will conserve other fuels... electric cars for short trips and such... solar grids will continue to improve...other things will also happen from biofuels to nukes to who knows what.. In the U.S. a huge part of our energy demands are because of the inneficient power grid used to heat and cool homes... you have to pump all that power through small lines cause..... nobody wants em in their back yard...
The money put back into the economy from people who are saving 100-700 bucks a month on energy would be staggering.
There are a myriad of facinating solutions on the horizon.
lazs
-
new york city yellow cab co is changing to ford hybred minivans, they report fuel savings of 50%,
for the math inpaired that means they burn half as much gas.
-
we are a crisis oriented species... that is, we perform best when things are the most desperate.
My using up all the fuel I can is the solution to getting people off their duff and finding something better... those who conserve because it makes em feel better are really a part of the problem.. they are slowing any real progress.
lazs
-
yeah, and when the ***** hits the fan, they got no gas, no guns, and you can go and take their stuff away from them :lol
-
According to the book of Revelations, the Beast causes the whole world to worship the Anti-Christ (or at least his image) and restores him to health after he receives a wound in the head.
The population of the world cannot buy or sell anything without having the mark of the Beast in their foreheads.
I have often thought that the appellation "Beast" may be a metaphor for something that is not human.
Try this on for size: Take the letters of the English alphabet and assign to each a value based on the number six: A is 6, B is 12, C is 18, and so forth.
Now, take the values of the letters to the word "computer" and total them up.
The sum is 666.
-
increadible!
If you do that for "Bozon" you get 432 which multiplied by the natural logarith e gives 666 with almost exact left over of 30!
:t
Bozon
-
Hmmmm............
and here I thought 666 meant 6th trump, 6th sign, 6th vial/seal.
Silly me.
-
even more important.... does chairboy really believe that there is a substantial amount of christians out running wild and going on spending sprees because.... well.... it's all over anyway?
Look at yourelf chairboy... you are getting silly.
lazs
-
Noooo, I'm asking questions. I heard an interview that asserted that, and I'm asking whether the author was off his rocker or if there were people out there who believed it. As the thread shows, there are, but they are in the minority.
Can I help you with something else?
-
Ok... so you knew that the vast majority of christians (and everyone else) don't think like that guy who.... probly 99% of the human race thinks is a nutjob....
that being the case.... then why did you post it? Why pretend that you "didn't know" if most people (religious or not) felt that way...
hell.... look at all the junk science "global warming" threads started.... probly a lot more people ready to slit their wrists over that drivel than any religious end of times.
lazs
-
I never assumed that most people would subscribe to it, but I _was_ curious if anyone did. I also wanted to hear Seagoon's thoughts on the subject because I know that he tracks most of what's happening in christian communities.
C'mon, thread stalking?
-
Laz thinks atheists are stupid, therefore he's a lefty liberal. See I can do it to.
-
suave... not what I said... I said that atheists religion was based on dishonesty or stupidity or both.
chair...obviously there will allways be a couple or more people that will subscribe to any nut job theory that comes down the pike. I am sorry but.... your explanation for starting the thread does not ring true. Are you saying that you did not start it in order to make fundamental christians look foolish?
lazs
-
I like Choirboy, but misleading headers and hidden agendas seem to be his MO in his political posts. It illustrates that the term "liberal" has become a dirty word. A lot of liberals are just afraid to just stand up and say what they mean, or admit that they are liberal or have those tendancies.
-
Lazs, I think that the wacky extremists in any religion can do that themselves without my help.
My intention was to find out what the community thought and nothing else. You want dishonesty? How about your motivations for questioning my inquiry? I don't ever see you criticizing Seagoon or others for testifying or praising jesus.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a hypocrite for being so one sided when you criticize ONLY the atheist inquiries.
Also, for crying out loud, why do you guys keep calling me a liberal? I'm no democrat, I own a bunch of guns and believe in the entire bill of rights (not just the convenient ones), I think that the smaller the government the better, and I criticize the entitlement based welfare state the US has become. Where the frack does this stupid 'omfg chairboy is teh liberal' crap come from?
-
chair... do you really not get it? seagoon admits that his beliefs are based on faith. Why would I criticize him?
It would do no more good than to get all angry and mean with the people I know who believe in aliens visiting us.... for all I know both they, and seagoon are correct and.... in the case of seagoon.... I believe that he does good. Far from a threat.... I see him as a positive influence on the human condition.
If he says anthing that threatens me and is based soley on his faith.... watch me then.
But so far as being dishonest? I don't detect that in him. So... he either really believes or he has fooled me.
I criticize the athiest because he will not admit his dishonesty.... it seems a very liberal "end justifies the means" sorta religion very.... liberal socialist thinking... they seem to be wanting to stamp out any other belief too. Say.... if 80% of the taxpayers believe in god and support the government with their money...
Shouldn't they be able to have the simple word "god" on their money or the buildings they built or in the oaths they make their paid and elected officials take? Certainly, those who do not believe in god are welcome to ignore the word.
I do not feel threatened by it.
lazs
-
oh... and sorry about the liberal label.... It is just that for the most part... when you scratch an athiest you find a liberal.... perhaps you are not dishonest...
perhaps "stupid" does not even describe you well.... probly "naive" and "ignorant" is more apt... I do not use ignorant in the negative way here.... it is probly that you simply have not much experiance with athiests.
for example.... several countries were populated with athiests allmost exclussively... they were communist countries. Today.... the more socialist a country becomes the more athiest. the worship of big government leaves no room for god.
lazs
-
You still haven't explained where the dishonesty of atheism comes from. Why is my non-belief in christian superstition dishonest while Seagoon's faith is somehow holy?
You're being dishonest with yourself. I think you should take a moment to examine your motives.
-
can't explain it any better.... it is dishonest to say that you BELIEVE WITH NO PROOF that there is no god but refuse to say that athiesm is based soley on faith.
seagoon claims that god exists (along with many other things) but.... he admits that it is entirely based on faith that he can't prove.
If athiest were not dishonest then there would be no need to have a seperate category called...... agnostic. If you were to claim to be agnostic then that would seem an honest and plausable belief.
my motives are simply based on the above. I simply want people to admit their agenda without hiding behind a word or words.
Seagoons agenda seems quite clear... and agnostics agenda, likewise... but athiesm..... see my point?
lazs
-
That's bollox. There's NO EVIDENCE that god exists, so I don't believe it exists.
There's also no evidence that Santa Claus exists, so I don't believe he exists.
Am I dishonest for not believing in Santa Claus?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Also, for crying out loud, why do you guys keep calling me a liberal?
Because you don't love jesus, and you don't dislike islam, and you might be a jew, and not the isreali kind either.
Seriously though, why do care what the fifth ward thinks of you?
-
Originally posted by Suave
Seriously though, why do care what the fifth ward thinks of you?
I'm just calling attention to the tactics that Lazs and whatshisname are using. How weak does an argument need to be to switch to lies, ad hominems and misdirection? I've been completely straight here, and ironically Lazs accuses me of dishonesty while HE fabricates personal attacks.
Beautiful.
-
I can't say for certain that there is no santa claus.... I kinda doubt it but...
I can't say for certain that there are no aliens visiting.
I would probly not look to foolish on the first... even if the damn guy came out of hiding.... not gonna go on a "there is no santa" crusade every xmas tho..
I would probly be ok on the second too... maybe not... I am not gonna go on a "there are no aliens" campaign...
might be a bigfoot too... who friggin knows?
I am saying that I believe there is a god. a creator.... I have no idea what form he takes. I admit that I have no proof and that I base my belief soley on faith. It just seems right to me on a personal level.... I do not ask you to share my belief.
So far I have not seen any evidence that it is not possible for there to be a supreme being, a creator....
Now, conversely.... when you tell me that all faith in things that can't be proven is ignorant superstition but then turn around and say that without doubt.... even tho you can't prove it..... there is no god.
How could you be trusted?
-
Conversely, when you say that you think "something" magical created things, how can YOU be trusted?
Why is one better than the other?
-
You can "trust" that I will tell you what I believe. You can "trust" that I have as good a theory as anyone else and that I am only taking the resposibilty for it.
lazs
-
Then why is my theory NOT as good as any other? You're pushing a religious POV and you don't even realize it. You're being dishonest with yourself and the rest of us by claiming you're not.
-
Choir, its possible you don't even realize that you are submarining. Its obvious you have an agenda against Christians, and I believe, against the so-called "religieous right."
Sorry about anything that seemed ad hominem. I noted what appears to be submarineing in a couple of your other threads, we discussed it to no good end, and I had resolved to just let my peeve about it go. I posted in this thread earlier without mentioning it. but Lazs hit on it and I had to chime in. Maybe there is something to it?
-
ok chair... I am not "pushing" anything.... I have said that my belief is a personal one based soley on faith and that I expect no one to believe the same as I do.
but.... as I said in another thread.... we can clear this all up.... perhaps I was wrong about you...
Soooo are you saying..... That you do not think that there is a god but that you do not think that is impsossible that one could exist?
lazs
-
I've never ever said that it's impossible for a god to exist. I just don't think that one does.
Atheism means "without theism" as in "without god". Religionists have made atheism into such a wacky boogyman and have convinced folks like you that atheists are all militant anti-christians. We just don't think that a god exists, and that's it.
"So you're agnostic?" you ask.
No, agnostics aren't sure. They're 'wishy washy', to use the language from earlier in the thread. They say "gosh, I dunno...."
I just don't think there's a god, but that doesn't mean I'm part of some anti-god religion.
From an atheism faq:
"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.
"What is agnosticism then?"
The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.
In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.
To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".
Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".
Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out about the universe.
-
I ain't 'wishy washy'. Neither are you. There are plenty of things completely unexplained by science or current logic or religionists that force continual re-evaluation of man's 'existence'. To deny outright 'God', without reliable proof is assinine.
I don't pretend (as religionists do) to know the answers. I await (and seek) the answers.
Till the question is answered by reliable proof, I remain an agnostic.
-
well....now I am confused...
an agnostic is wishy washy because he says he doesn't know.... he says this because, of course..... How could he? He says that it is possible that there is one he simply has no faith that there is.
the chairboy model of the athiest says that there is no god but that it is possible that there is one he simply has no faith that there is.
either the possibilty is there or it isn't. Possibility without faith makes you an agnostic.
belief in god without proof makes you a theist.
belief that a god does not, can not, exist..... without having any proof other than personal faith makes you an athiest (and probly a commie).
Same for aliens. Not santa tho....apparently he is real.
Still not sure about bigfoot... gonna have to go with agnostic on that one..
lazs
-
Chair, I'd like to make amends. I'm not very good at expressing myself in this format.
Incidently, I understand your position in not believing in God. My comments referred only to the difference between your thread title and the real topic you apparently wished to discuss, which seemed to be a swipe at Christianity, quite different from the title of your post.
And you chose to ignore my comment that Islam as well as Christianity believes in an impending apocalypse.... for all I know, Judaism may believe this too. All three believe in the coming of the Messiah. It isn't just Christianity, as the author, and you, seem to assert.
-
No worries, Gunthr, it's a contentious topic. The fact that none of us have started calling each other Nazi's yet is a good sign! :D
I have no hidden agenda, as I stated in my original post, I wanted to know how commonheld those beliefs were (if at all) because the interview made interesting claims. The 'atheists are the debil!!!! nay, christians are evul!!!!!' posts leaked over from another thread, it's all good. :)
Ignore what comment? I think all the religions are silly. Islam, judaism, christianity, etc. I'm not fixated on christianity, if that's what you're asking.
EDIT: Oh, I misread what you wrote. Islam and Judaism think that too, but the author was saying that influential christians were making policy based on that belief, a different conversation.
-
Does that stupid term "agnostic" used in this meaning anywhere outside america to differentiate from "Atheist"?
You americans seem so worked up about this it begins to worry me. Next we'll have a division into Atheist sects and denominations, plus reformed Atheists, reborn Atheists and a man standing on a box in the street, waving "On the Origin of Species" book and shouting: "do not repent, the Messiah is not comming".
Really, what's the big deal?
Bozon
-
I think its because if you simply say "I believe God does not exist" - you leave yourself open to the assertion that, in absence of proof, you rely on faith just as much as a religious person. So the thing has to be parsed.
Sort of like, I love you baby, but I'm not in love with you :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lazs, I think that the wacky extremists in any religion can do that themselves without my help.
My intention was to find out what the community thought and nothing else. You want dishonesty? How about your motivations for questioning my inquiry? I don't ever see you criticizing Seagoon or others for testifying or praising jesus.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a hypocrite for being so one sided when you criticize ONLY the atheist inquiries.
Also, for crying out loud, why do you guys keep calling me a liberal? I'm no democrat, I own a bunch of guns and believe in the entire bill of rights (not just the convenient ones), I think that the smaller the government the better, and I criticize the entitlement based welfare state the US has become. Where the frack does this stupid 'omfg chairboy is teh liberal' crap come from?
Is it possible that your answer is in the METHOD used by yourself????????
The WAY things are put forth? Choice of words used?
Pretty much anything can be said to anyone! It's HOW it gets said!
-
Can you rephrase that in the form of... english?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Can you rephrase that in the form of... english?
You talkin to me?
If so.........
The method used = the wording + the possible HIDDEN agenda that SEEMS to be.... GET the christians no matter what.
Don't recall anyone telling you are anyone else for that matter that you must believe there is a god. Perhaps if this were a islamic country? Yet over and over and over SEEMS like what is seen is ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK?????????
You gonna drag out the blue laws again? Why? They were put in place during another time and are largely ignored now. During that time many believed they were doing right. They didn't have cures for many of the STDs present at the time. Didn't even fully understand how some were tranfered but the saw the result and were afraid.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I think its because if you simply say "I believe God does not exist" - you leave yourself open to the assertion that, in absence of proof, you rely on faith just as much as a religious person. So the thing has to be parsed.
How do you prove something does not exist? Can anyone prove that green dragons do not exist?
Even if we pass that obstacle, what does it matter if I believe god does not exist or I dont care if it does? If I'm agnostic/atheist it also means I couldn't care less what the religeous types think of me, unless they plan to do something about it. As long as they leave it to their "god" to deal with me, that's just fine.
That just suddenly made it clear for me!
This terminology and the need for finer classification is done for the religeous types. They cannot leave anything outside of some godly order and now they can give theological excuses as to why "no god" groups exist. This is religeous thinking. That way god may smite the agnostics and not just Mr. Johnson from across the street and a bunch of random others. They need to define the enemy in order to deal with it.
How's that for a thesis?
In that case you have my permission to call me what ever you like. Even "hypocrite".
Sort of like, I love you baby, but I'm not in love with you :)
I've got the feeling that this is what he told Merry when he got dressed and left her :D
Bozon
-
Let me hear you say that when you're standing tall before THE MAN, Bozon.
You're gonna be sizzling and sputtering nicely, like a fat, greasy chorizo in a hot skillet, being turned by pitchforks in your own private corner of hell by the time God's done with your blasphemous soul... :t
-
I don'y think you'd fare much better than me if it turns out that THE MAN calls himself Alla.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
I don'y think you'd fare much better than me if it turns out that THE MAN calls himself Alla.
Bozon
lol funny retort, coming from the once and future chorizo.
-
bozon... I have no idea if there are green dragons or not... according to some here... there are limitless planets with limitless possibilities tho.
you may be right that one form of religion or another has a handle on it... I doubt it and.... if they do... I am probly better off not joining since, even dead, I probly wouldn't fit in with em.
I also question chairboyus motives since it does SEEM that the whole thread was just a way to take a shot at chritians whom he hates passionately since...
None of the rest of us had ever even heard, or were likely to... the nutjob guy he felt compelled to quote. His phony sincertity and compassion for the poor christian multitudes that were believeing this drivel was not convincing either.
lazs
-
Lazs: I appreciate that you have a different opinion than I do, and I think that's great, but I have a request.
Stop making things up. Stop saying that I hate all christians. You're fabricating stuff when you say that, and it's really disapointing. You did the same thing in the other thread, and I find it really off base.
My challenge to you: Let's continue these conversations, but try and avoid lying to make your argument sound better. It's an insult to both of us when you do that.
-
I didn't say you hate "ALL" christians.... I said that you hate christians. I don't think that anyone who reads what you write would dispute that. You are the one who rephrases what I say to make your arguement sound better so.... It is not me that is lying.
I have been nothing but honest in this whole discussion... trying to pin you down is difficult tho.
Sooo.... do you really believe that the nutjob you quoted is a spokesman for the christian religion? Do you think he represents a large portion of chritians or christian thinking? simple question.
I don't.... I suspect that you are not that dumb either soooo.. How can I not asign a motive to your post?
lazs
-
Squirm all you want. I've been straight forward and honest, and all I get in return is fabrication from you couched behind your scornful belief that atheism is, by its very nature, somehow illogical.
I don't hate christians. I respect that they have beliefs that differ from mine. I don't think that all christians think that the end times are coming, but I just saw a news report that said something to the effect of 1/3rd to 2/3rds of american christians believe that the apocalypse will happen in their life time, and hey, that's fine. If it's 2/3rds, then I suppose I DO think that, by definition, 'most' believe it.
What I don't like, and what you seem to be confused about, is when christians take their religion and use it to shape public policy to dictate to me and my non-christian neighbors what we can and cannot do.
How can YOU, a fellow opponent of big government, be in favor of special interest groups passing NEW LAWS restricting things? I don't get it, you're either a hypcrite or just not getting it. I'm assuming the latter, because I have no reason to believe you're malicious.
Tell me what my motive is, please, because apparently you have been gifted with a magical ability to see that which is not there. My life would be ever so much simpler if you could tell me what I really thought.
I asked a question, and I explained why I was asking the question. Everything outside of the scope of that is your own creation.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Squirm all you want. I've been straight forward and honest, and all I get in return is fabrication from you couched behind your scornful belief that atheism is, by its very nature, somehow illogical.
I don't hate christians. I respect that they have beliefs that differ from mine. I don't think that all christians think that the end times are coming, but I just saw a news report that said something to the effect of 1/3rd to 2/3rds of american christians believe that the apocalypse will happen in their life time, and hey, that's fine. If it's 2/3rds, then I suppose I DO think that, by definition, 'most' believe it.
What I don't like, and what you seem to be confused about, is when christians take their religion and use it to shape public policy to dictate to me and my non-christian neighbors what we can and cannot do.
How can YOU, a fellow opponent of big government, be in favor of special interest groups passing NEW LAWS restricting things? I don't get it, you're either a hypcrite or just not getting it. I'm assuming the latter, because I have no reason to believe you're malicious.
Tell me what my motive is, please, because apparently you have been gifted with a magical ability to see that which is not there. My life would be ever so much simpler if you could tell me what I really thought.
I asked a question, and I explained why I was asking the question. Everything outside of the scope of that is your own creation.
Hmmm...........
If memory serves me correctly Mosaic law has a VERY strong hand in creating what we have as a country and a government?
I must agree with Laz. I've seen it over and over. You don't like christians or the christian belief IMHO. Post after post made by you SEEMS to ATTACK............
Hey what is the big deal? Why all the seeming hostility? To my knowledge there really is very little that you or anyone else needs to fear from christians with a political agenda.
The supreme court is very likely to shoot down anything you would find offensive.
I think we all KNOW the U.S. is NOT going to require anyone to become a christain, or a muslim, or a budhist, or any other such.
So what exactly is driving this .... hmm is it hatered?? perhaps anger??
What exactly has been created, or is being created, that tells you and your neighbors what you can and can't do???????????? PLEASE explain.................
-
Give me an example of an attack I've made.
Mkaythx
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Give me an example of an attack I've made.
Mkaythx
No Problem :D
You will do it for me, I only need to wait. Really don't feel like doing all the look ups of your postings where I've seen it.
I do ask that you remember this thread though.
We'll Git-R-Done :D
Go ahead and start screamin cop put, or what ever. I only need to wait and watch.
OH and FYI I do believe Laz has said pretty much the same thing. Perhaps others have seen it too?
OOOHHHH and also before I answer your question I have noticed YOU have avoided answering mine............
so again just what is the problem?????????????
-
Actually, I don't have a problem. And I'm still waiting. I invite you to provide an example, otherwise I'll take that as an admission that you made a mistake.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
special interest groups passing NEW LAWS restricting things? I don't get it,
All laws "restrict things". It's what laws do; define limitations.
Further, every law is supported by a "special interest group". Some of these groups are large, some are small, but NO law gets passed without some support from some "special interest group". Somebody has to initiate the drive to get the bill written in the first place.
For example, the First Amendment was put forward by a "special interest group" and it put a restriction on the power of the government.
So your point was?
-
My point? Look at our law books, they're full of tens of thousands of laws that try to micromanage every little aspect of our lives. We need less laws, not more. Can't think of a new law I've supported in quite a while, the stuff already on the books cover just about everything they need to, but instead of proper enforcement, every politician seems to think that they get paid by the inch (of legislation they pass).
-
You belabor the obvious.
However, allow me to rephrase.
How is it that this:
christians take their religion and use it to shape public policy to dictate to me and my non-christian neighbors what we can and cannot do
[/b]
is any different from all the public policy shaping that has gone on the last 200 odd years and resulted in the "thousands of laws that try to micromanage every little aspect of our lives"?
Why do you single out Christians? As I've pointed out, it has ALWAYS been some "special interest group" or other behind all those laws.
What's special?
-
Because christians are the majority and hold the most sway. If a Scientologist tried to pass legislation mandating that children learn the wacky Xenu+thetans+rocket powered DC-8s+atomic bomb volcano theory of creation in school, I suspect they'd be laughed out of the senate.
But when Christians do it... well, in some states, it's passed.
Also, the groups behind prohibiting science classes from talking about evolution or saying things like "the earth is 5 billion years old" (instead of 6,000 years old) are all self identified as Christian.
That's why I assert that christian interest groups are working to blur (if not erase) the line between personal beliefs and the law.
-
So your complaint is that in a Democracy they are a majority? (And I'm not sure Christians really have a majority.)
:rofl
Uh... in a democracy, do you think the minority should win the votes and pass the laws?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That's why I assert that christian interest groups are working to blur (if not erase) the line between personal beliefs and the law.
BTW, change that to read:
" All special interest groups are working to blur (if not erase) the line between personal beliefs and the law."
And I'd agree.
The Christians are no different than the Pro-Abortionists, Flat-Taxers, Anti-War-ists or any other special interest group you'd care to name in that regard.
-
Toad: I object when laws are passed based on religion to control others. Our constitution tries to protect us from a theocratic state being formed, but people still try to make it happen.
Do you understand better now? I aim to be clear.
-
No, I don't.
You see, the Constitution is also designed to allow the majority to pretty much have their way within the bounds of the Constitution.
That being an unassailable fact, it leads to... the Supreme Court.
Have the dreaded Christians united in that unseemly majority and passed any laws that were found unconstitutional?
If not, no harm, no foul.
If so, then the laws were rendered harmless by the SC.
So I still fail to see your problem.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Have the dreaded Christians united in that unseemly majority and passed any laws that were found unconstitutional?
You mean, like the 18th amendment?
-
On February 20, 1933, Congress proposed the 21st Amendment to the Constitution repealing the 18th Amendment. On December 5, Utah became the thirty-sixth state to vote for ratification assuring acceptance of the 21st Amendment.
It wasn't found unconstitutional by the SC.
Try again. ;)
-
Walks like unconstitutional, quacks like it too.
The 21st censured the 18th, seems pretty clear, but if that makes ya sleep better at night... :D
-
I'm sorry sir but you're creating things that are not there.
I guess it seems unconstitutional to YOU because, well, .... that's the way you wish it had been but wasn't.
U.S. Constitution: Twenty-First Amendment
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
Amendment Text | Annotations
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Effect of Repeal
Where is the censure of the 18th in the text of the 21st?
Can you cite ANY SC cases that dealt with the constitutionality of the 18th? Was the 18th EVER challenged at the SC level?
I don't believe you can.
That said, I doubt you can find any support for your notion that the 18th was even remotely unconstitutional as written amongst experts on constitutional law.
I challenge you to do so.
I believe you are alone in your assessment.
-
Well, I walked into that trap. You tried to make this about christian laws being called unconstitutional, and I let you do it, my bad. Amateur mistake, I gotta be more watchful.
My original assertion stands, that there are influential christian groups working to legislate biblically, and I think that's counter to the intentions of the founders of our great nation.
-
...and of course, as soon as I back down on that point, I stumble across an example:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/1323/section/evolution.disclaimer.sticker.ruled.unconstitutional/1.htm
Go figure.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, I walked into that trap. You tried to make this about christian laws being called unconstitutional, and I let you do it, my bad. Amateur mistake, I gotta be more watchful.
My original assertion stands, that there are influential christian groups working to legislate biblically, and I think that's counter to the intentions of the founders of our great nation.
There was no trap at all, but I believe your clear bias makes you want to believe there was one.
You rail against "Christian laws" but in point of fact "Christian laws" are no different than any other laws promoted by ANY special interest group. None, zip, zero, zilch.
Laws restrict; it's what they do. So you've no beef there.
As for the founders, if they did not mean for people to act in concert through their legislators and pass laws, just what is the system?
Much to your dismay, this is EXACTLY how the system is supposed to work.
You are just unhappy because the Christians have found the power of the ballot box and are using it.... as the founders intended for any group with shared goals/ideas.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
...and of course, as soon as I back down on that point, I stumble across an example:
What you stumbled across isn't an example of what you are railing against at all.
Those sneaky Christians DID NOT pass a law mandating "evolution stickers" on the text books.
The was no "law" at all. Read the article. The stickers were a decision by the local school board, not State or local legislation.
Further, that school board decision did not withstand a court challenge, so it was ruled unconstitutional in a US District Court.
Where's the problem? The stickers are gone.
Again, it fails to illustrate your argument. This case was based on no "law passed by Christians" and the school board decision was struck down.
-
Chair,
I have a solution to the problem of "Christian" groups pressuring Congress to pass religious laws; repeal the First Amendment, or at least the parts that established the rights of assembly and petition for redress of grievances.
That is one answer to the attempts by Christian groups to "force" their morality on others. Or you could form your own organization of liberal atheists to oppose those attempts. If you recruit well enough and the contributions come pouring in you stand a good chance of "forcing" your views of morality on the populace via congressional legislative action.
That's how the system works. It will remain that way until Congress or the States trash the Constitution and write a new one.
Regards, Shuckins
-
chair said..
"What I don't like, and what you seem to be confused about, is when christians take their religion and use it to shape public policy to dictate to me and my non-christian neighbors what we can and cannot do. "
CHRISTIANS them.... those people... Not, "some christians" but "christians" you asked for an example and that is one from only a couple of your posts back. you seem to have a particular fear of christians..
Then you say that I should be on your side because I hate big government...
Well... I have told you that I like all groups in power to be weak... that includes christians.
Where we differ is that you are paranoid and think that christians have all this power and I think that government is thousands of times more of a threat. Ain't no christians trying to take away my guns or hot rods....
I think christians are a pretty weak group and I don't worry about em..
As toad says... so long as they stay within the bounds of the constitution.
lazs
-
chairboy we are currently living in a decidedly post christian America. we are a secular republic.
-
Storch, I respectfully disagree.
Lazs, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Though you blithely disregard my concerns, I hope you will pay attention to the efforts that special interest groups are making to twist and exceed the bounds of the constitution, christian or not.
And finally, y'all can keep saying I hate christians over and over, but it still doesn't make it true. Perhaps it's easier to repeat that mantra than to acknowledge that it's possible for someone to disagree with you without being crazy? I can only speculate.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Actually, I don't have a problem. And I'm still waiting. I invite you to provide an example, otherwise I'll take that as an admission that you made a mistake.
LOL even after I tell you why I don't care go to all the trouble to find it.
You still insist LOLRF
NOPE I do not admit that I made any kinda mistake! I've been watching your post. Should have copied some of your stuff.
Your gona cry foul now huh? Fine REMEMBER this THREAD PLEASE!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Storch, I respectfully disagree.
Lazs, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Though you blithely disregard my concerns, I hope you will pay attention to the efforts that special interest groups are making to twist and exceed the bounds of the constitution, christian or not.
And finally, y'all can keep saying I hate christians over and over, but it still doesn't make it true. Perhaps it's easier to repeat that mantra than to acknowledge that it's possible for someone to disagree with you without being crazy? I can only speculate.
LOLROF
Wake UP!!!
If this were say 100 years ago you MIGHT have a valid argument.
Now? It's been steadly going secular for SOOOO long!
Think you have issues that are way over blown.
-
If you can't find an example, then I guess you could retract your claim. No harm done, I won't even ask for an apology. People make mistakes every day.
:D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you can't find an example, then I guess you could retract your claim. No harm done, I won't even ask for an apology. People make mistakes every day.
:D
Nope I do not retract. I'm gonna wait. You can ask for one but not coming.
-
In that case, please provide evidence for your claim. If I attacked anyone in this thread, I'd like to know so I can make amends!
If you can't provide an example, then I guess you made a claim that's not supportable by facts. The polite thing to do in such a situation is to retract it.
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
In that case, please provide evidence for your claim.
I will ask the same of you.
Originally posted by Chairboy
What I don't like, and what you seem to be confused about, is when christians take their religion and use it to shape public policy to dictate to me and my non-christian neighbors what we can and cannot do.
How can YOU, a fellow opponent of big government, be in favor of special interest groups passing NEW LAWS restricting things?
Give me an example of christians passing new laws that dictate to you and your non-christian neighbors what you can and cannot do.
And no, the school board ruling was not a law and, in fact, it really didn't dictate what you could or could not do and it was found unconstitutional and discarded.
OK, go ahead.
-
How about all the anti-sodomy laws for one? Those directly affect me and most people on this board, and they come straight out of the bible. Hells bells, look at the name!
There are hundreds of these in effect across the country.
I'm guessing, based on past posts, that you'll dismiss my example, but I'm hoping you'll reconsider. Now will you provide that example please?
-
Well, how about anti-sodomy laws.
Let's take a look.
I haven't looked but you say "there's some on the books". I accept that.
What that means is this: somewhere a legislature passed that law.
If it's still on the books, it hasn't been found unconstitutional.
Therefore, it is within the bounds of the Constitution.
Some special interest group, perhaps Christians perhaps just multi-denominational folks (Christian, Muslims, Jews, Agnostics and Atheists, etc) found common cause and got their legislature to pass that law.
So what exactly is your beef here? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Are you angry because a law was passed with which you do not agree? (Hmm.... THAT is an unusual occurrence that has never happened to anyone else.)
Are you angry because such a law is Constitutional? You always have that Constitutional amendment process open to you.
Are you angry because some special interest group pursued their own interests successfully? (Hmm.... THAT is an unusual occurrence that has never happened before.)
Or are you just angry in general?
What exactly is your beef? Those laws were legally passed and ARE apparently Constitutional.
They reflect the "will of the majority". Isn't that what a democracy is supposed to do?
-
Actually, your most recent question had nothing to do with unconstitutionality, you asked if I could provide an example of christians imposing their morality on everyone else through the passage of laws.
I provided an answer, and asked you to answer my request for an example of the attacks you accused me of. I still await your answer.
-
I'm sorry, Chair. Really sorry.
You get SO upset when your stuff is called.
Please review the ENTIRE thread and see if you can find a post by TOAD that accuses you of any sort of attack at all.
You are confusing yourself.
Now, back to the topic.
OK, you cite anti-sodomy laws as "christians imposing their morality on everyone else ".
Do you have ANY proof whatsoever that it was ONLY Christians that backed those laws? No one else? CHRISTIANS did it?
No, I don't think you do. So it's an assumption on your part, although it's likely most Christians would support such laws. But it's also likely some non-Christians would as well.
Now I ask you a direct question:
Why are you upset that Christians perhaps banded together, used their Constitutionally guaranteed rights and promoted laws that THEY feel make for a better society over all?
What is YOUR problem with what they did?
I think your only problem is that you don't agree with them and they won.
You can't have a problem with using one's Constitutional rights... I hope.
-
Howdy!
First of all, I appreciate your concern, but I'm not upset about anything right now. I'm concerned about what I see as an effort by christians to make the bible into the law of the land.
I think you're being a bit ingennuos about the christian influence/backing of those laws.
Another question, why do you keep posting as if I'm some sort of spitting, angry animal spewing hatred against Christians? You keep telling me to calm down and saying how upset I am, but I'm not sure why. Perhaps you're reading emotion into my posts that's not there?
-
OK, I forgive you for making that accusation against me. I take it you reviewed the thread and realized you had lost track of who you were discussing what with and when.
I'm concerned about what I see as an effort by christians to make the bible into the law of the land.
Again, why?
Because they are adept at using their Constitutional rights?
Once again, you need to remember they can't do anything the Constitution doesn't allow. Were they to pass such a law, the SC would strike it down in short order. Sort of like what happened in your "evolution sticker" example.
Perhaps you're reading emotion into my posts that's not there?
Perhaps you need to step back and read your own posts with an unbiased eye?
I'm not the first one in this thread that views much of what you've posted in that light.
It's either a bunch of us mistaken ...or, dare the thought.... YOU are unaware of how you come across.
-
It seems to me that the two folks who have suggested I was frothing at the mouth are both folks who disagree with my. Far be it for me to question your motives, but it makes a fellow wonder.
-
So the other day I was chattin with the "Big Man" and he chuckled a bit and mentioned that we haven't seen nothing yet.
I just hope 2006/6/6 goes smooth....
BTW if I died someday I wan't to be buried naked...cuz if I go to Hell I'll be cooler than those in new suits and if I go to Heaven I want to impress the Angels!
:aok
Mac
-
I see you don't want to answer the question.
Here let me bring it to your attention once again:
I'm concerned about what I see as an effort by christians to make the bible into the law of the land.
Again, why?
Because they are adept at using their Constitutional rights?
Once again, you need to remember they can't do anything the Constitution doesn't allow. Were they to pass such a law, the SC would strike it down in short order. Sort of like what happened in your "evolution sticker" example.
Why are you concerned?
[/size]
-
I am concerned when people think religion should be involved in any way with politics.
-
Wow. Look who's shouting now.
-
Again, why?
Because they are adept at using their Constitutional rights?
Once again, you need to remember they can't do anything the Constitution doesn't allow. Were they to pass such a law, the SC would strike it down in short order. Sort of like what happened in your "evolution sticker" example.
Why are you concerned?
Whoa, calm down, buddy. No need to shout.
Any time I provide an example, you brush it off and essentially say "yeah, but that doesn't count". I'm not interested in sitting here and citing law after law, only to have you act like I haven't said anything at all.
So anyhow, take a few deep breaths and sit back from the computer. It seems to me that you're the one that's fired up, and life's too short to get upset about this stuff. All we can do is vote our hearts, be aware of our responsibilities as citizens, and for some of us, do our best to uphold the values of the constitution.
You may feel that as a christian, it's your duty to mold our society to conform to the bible. I feel differently, and that's fine. The great thing about our country is that we have the privilege to believe what we want.
-
:rofl
I see you failed to answer a very simple question once again.
As for me being a Christian, I don't know of any sect that would claim the likes of me, nor do I claim being a member of any sect.
It's not a matter of "brushing off" your example. I accept your anti-sodomy example.
The question to YOU, which YOU refuse to answer apparently is
Why does it bother you?
Those folks just exercised their constitutional rights to support and pass a constitutional law.
Why does that bother you? What part of it are you against?
Feel free to dodge again... and I know you will.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I am concerned when people think religion should be involved in any way with politics.
Are you also concerned that religious people take part in politics?
Where in the Constitution does it require people to "check their religion" at the door prior to entering the voting booth?
The Constitution allows you to vote your beliefs... all of them.
-
Originally posted by z0rch
Wow. Look who's shouting now.
Wow, look at why the increase in size was needed.
I doubt he'll ever answer the question, but there's no doubt he at least SAW it that time.
;)
-
Why does it bother you?
Because I don't think religion and government should mix. Both parties lose when it happens.
If a law is passed, it should be because someone made a persuasive case on the merits of the issue at hand. It shouldn't be because "god says so" or "because it's in the bible". When a legislator can question the moral fiber of anyone objecting because they didn't agree with the bible, then religion's involvement in legislation has taken an ugly turn.
Religion and government are NOT like chocolate and peanut butter. They do not go well together.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Are you also concerned that religious people take part in politics?
Where in the Constitution does it require people to "check their religion" at the door prior to entering the voting booth?
The Constitution allows you to vote your beliefs... all of them.
I am talkin about the separation of religion from politics..Not your constitution..What country are you from anyway?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If a law is passed, it should be because someone made a persuasive case on the merits of the issue at hand.
[/b]
You seem to imply then that the bi-cameral legislatures of the States and the US do not pass laws based on "merit".
Is that what you are saying? That the system doesn't work at all?
It shouldn't be because "god says so" or "because it's in the bible". When a legislator can question the moral fiber of anyone objecting because they didn't agree with the bible, then religion's involvement in legislation has taken an ugly turn.
Again, however, all that has happened is that a "special interest group" has united to push an agenda.
I'm sure you realize it's not just "Christians" that do this. It is, in fact, pretty much the way the system works now. ALL special interest groups practice this skill/art/bribery.
Why single out "Christians"?
And a legistlator sure CAN question someone's moral fiber "because they didn't agree with the bible". There is no restriction on the type or content (short of slander/libel) that a legislator can make when trying to sway votes to his side. However, that legislator ought to laughed out of the building by the others.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
I am talkin about the separation of religion from politics..Not your constitution..What country are you from anyway?
You can no more separate religion from politics on a personal level than you can separate other personal beliefs from politics.
Humans vote and involve themselves in politics based on their beliefs.
Some even believe it's best not to participate at all.
I'm from the US, thanks for asking.
The place where one of the first acts of the very first Senate was to hire a Chaplain. The place where some of the founders/first Senators and Representaives were ministers and bishops. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Toad
And a legistlator sure CAN question someone's moral fiber "because they didn't agree with the bible". There is no restriction on the type or content (short of slander/libel) that a legislator can make when trying to sway votes to his side. However, that legislator ought to laughed out of the building by the others. [/B]
I agree, they should, but they aren't.
That's what I've been trying to say, thanks for acknowledging it!
-
What you're saying and I'm acknowledging is that your "Christian" mantra is no different than any other special interest group. No more or no less dangerous to your freedom than Mother's Against Drunk Driving, the Gay/Lesbian Alliance, the NRA, Moveon.org, etc., etc., etc..
They are all the same....special interests groups.
Glad you agree.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Actually, your most recent question had nothing to do with unconstitutionality, you asked if I could provide an example of christians imposing their morality on everyone else through the passage of laws.
I provided an answer, and asked you to answer my request for an example of the attacks you accused me of. I still await your answer.
You Sir remind me of someone. Your methods, your approach. He and I did NOT see eye to eye either.
He finally offered me a passing grade if I did NOT attend his class at college.
Why? Because I called him on nearly everything. How? With the truth about his beloved communist and what I SAW done to Vietnamese civilians and U.S. personel by his beloved communist. You want a crusade? You want something to fear? Fear them and what they will do should they ever truely get into power. Fight them and stop worrying about a group of people that have so little power. A group of people that mean you no REAL harm.
As to your reference to anti-sodomy laws. Where are they enforced? Who is enforcing them? I can answer you, they are not. They are old laws that remain on the books. Laws that were put in place during another time. I add in here it was a time when they HAD NO KNOWN CURES for many diseases! And yet some of the newest sexually transmitted diseases that have been spreading around, that also have no known cure, PERHAPS they had a point when the added them.
You keep asking me to prove, to produce, OK you just did it here by trying to use laws that have been in place since nearly the birth of this nation as your tool. Laws that to my knowledge aren't even being used or enforced anywhere by anyone. You want em off the books? Then seek the removal of those laws. Or is that TOO SIMPLE? Or does that MISS your TRUE GOAL?
You SEEM to be deliberately misleading? You SEEM to be clouding a fairly clear issue? An Issue that SEEMS dear to you.
The christains are coming the christains are coming HIDE the baby Ethel!
What is it you see being done by Christains lately to attack you and yours?????????
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It seems to me that the two folks who have suggested I was frothing at the mouth are both folks who disagree with my. Far be it for me to question your motives, but it makes a fellow wonder.
FOR YOUR RECORDS SIR I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU!
If your stated goal is really your stated goal.
I DISAGREE WITH YOUR REASONING AND TECHNIQUE.
I DISAGREE WITH YOUR SINGLING OUT OF ONLY ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE OVER SO MANY OTHERS THAT SEEM TO WANT TO CONTROL ALL PEOPLE.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I agree, they should, but they aren't.
That's what I've been trying to say, thanks for acknowledging it!
There ya go..................
That technique again LOL..........................
Get real, please, the majority of the people will vote according to their beliefs.
Don't you vote according to your beliefs? HUH?
You gonna answer that one? I answered your sodomy statement.
-
Originally posted by wrag
As to your reference to anti-sodomy laws. Where are they enforced? Who is enforcing them? I can answer you, they are not.
(a bunch of exclamation points and text snipped for clarity)
Here's an example:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txnews16.htm
-
Originally posted by wrag
FOR YOUR RECORDS SIR I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU!
If your stated goal is really your stated goal.
I DISAGREE WITH YOUR REASONING AND TECHNIQUE.
I DISAGREE WITH YOUR SINGLING OUT OF ONLY ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE OVER SO MANY OTHERS THAT SEEM TO WANT TO CONTROL ALL PEOPLE.
Whoa, calm down. No need to lose your temper. I've been calm this whole time, and I'd like you to do it too. Remember, something like 7% of communication is the words themselves in face to face conversation, so written communication can be fraught with peril. There's no body language, no tone of voice, etc etc.
-
Not to nitpick, okay, I'm nitpicking... but don't you guys mean religion and governing, not religion and politics?
-
Hmmm, good point. I think I've been guilty of confusing the two in this conversation. I'm talking about religion and governing, which is partially connected to the legislation angle.
-
Then you'd probably be concerned about Paine Wingate.
-
Originally posted by Toad
What you're saying and I'm acknowledging is that your "Christian" mantra is no different than any other special interest group. No more or no less dangerous to your freedom than Mother's Against Drunk Driving, the Gay/Lesbian Alliance, the NRA, Moveon.org, etc., etc., etc..
They are all the same....special interests groups.
The Gay/Lesbian movement is not a special interest group...They are fighting to get equal rights..ie..marriage,adoption,same sex benifits etc(and equal treatment in the eyes of the law)
Why is it legal for a M/F to have oral/anal sex but for same sex consenting adults,you get thrown in jail in four states?
It's like saying the equal rights movement in the 50'/60's was just a special interest group for blacks.
-
Is it punishment?
I though prison is just some sort of queer fantasy camp.
-
Ain't it ironic that the freedom spouters are largely the same people who would deny his countryman the same rights afforded to him.
-
^ You appear to have missed the gist of the thread.
-
Ok chair... you gave sodomy laws as the one reason why you fear christians and have to be vigilant against them.
Firat of all... as toad points out... they should be challenged if they are unconstitutional but...
You need to answer some questions if sodomy laws are your example.... first.... When was the last sodomy law passed? what year? Which of the sodomy laws passed was passed soley by christians? and.... if you took a poll of the people living at the time of the sodomy law being passed....
Would it have been a popular law or one that had only the backing of christians?
See.... times change... they are changing... I can't think of any modern sodomy laws. I also believe that when sodomy laws were passed there were very few people in the area that would have objected.
I personly believe that they are not constitutional and that they are none of governments business.... religions are free to make any internal laws they like however.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I personly believe that they are not constitutional and that they are none of governments business.... religions are free to make any internal laws they like however.
lazs
You and I agree on this, why would any of the rest of the post matter? It's none of their business, but religious interest groups MAKE it their business and use government to push their agenda. As that link I sent showed, these laws are still being enforced.
Also, to the poster that asked why heterosexuals could perform 'sodomy' but gays couldn't? The laws apply to the heterosexuals too. There are plenty of places where oral sex is illegal in this country, but any enforcement is one sided.
-
There are plenty of places where oral sex is illegal in this country, but any enforcement is one sided.
What do you mean by "one-sided" enforcement, Chairboy?
-
I'm pretty sure that the homosexuals are arrested more often than the heterosexuals, but I can't prove it. I might be wrong, but when I read articles like the one I linked to about people being arrested for performing sodomy (which oral sex is part of) in private, it's usually the gays.
Since I can't provide numbers to support that, I'll retract that sentence to be on the safe side. At this point, I guess I'm just sharing my perception. Whether it's accurate or not, I can't tell.
-
Hi Chair,
Way back before the thread turned into being about Christian bogeymen out to take over the government and force everyone to obey the Ten Commandments and other similarly horrible things (actually, if you checked out my post on page one, I guessed that was what the thread would eventually turn into and tried to deal with the issue of real political influence vs. mythical threats) you essentially asked about my view of eschatology, and did I think it was the end times.
As far as end times madness is concerned, I'm probably going to end up dissapointing you as I'm Amillennial in my eschatology which means that I believe that we have been in what Christ called "the last days" since his advent and that all that remains is His return which can happen at any moment (and only God knows when). And that the millennium was a figurative way of speaking of the period between His ascension and His return. As an Amillenialist I believe that the struggle between good and evil will continue until that return, that the gospel will continue to be preached, but that there will be no "golden age" prior to that, but that Christ and his Apostles taught us the following things in scripture:
1. Jesus will return
2. The dead will be raised
3. Heaven and earth as we know them will be consumed
4. A new heavens and a new earth will be created
5. A great judgement will be held
6. The last of the ages will begin, which will continue for eternity
For a brief summary of what these things entail: The End of the World (http://www.evangelical-times.org/articles/may%2099/jun99a10.htm)
and how they work out in history: Keeping Watch (http://www.modernreformation.org/kr04keepingwatch.htm)
Anyway, the following links may be of help to those wondering what Christianity has historically taught about "the end of the world"
For a brief comparison of the 4 major Christian views of the end times you might want to look at this page: Millennial Views (http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99738.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim)
Not as "sexy" as the prevailing modern dispensational view that most American Evangelicals hold to (its the view of the "Left Behind" novels for instance). But then again Dispensationalism has only really been around since the 1800s.
Hey but one of the many benefits of being boring is that I'm not always misidentifying the antichrist or setting dates that don't come to pass like Hal Lindsey and company... ;)
- SEAGOON
-
There are plenty of places where oral sex is illegal in this country
OK, let me get this straight.
In america there are written laws about where I can or cannot stick my d!
Why does the state care if two adults like to sodomize each other? And now you also have the three strikes law. If I stick it 3 times into the wrong hole I might get life.
Next time I'm in the US I must remember to be careful of where I point my thingy.
Bozon
-
Good points.
Thanks, Seagoon! Yours was the first straight answer to my question, and I appreciate your insights.
Even though I'm an atheist, I think I share your feelings regarding our current status as a world in trouble, except in a non-theological way. It certainly does feel like everything is winding up to some sort of explosion.
Of course, I bet every generation before us has thought the same thing. :D
Thanks again,
Ben
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Whoa, calm down. No need to lose your temper. I've been calm this whole time, and I'd like you to do it too. Remember, something like 7% of communication is the words themselves in face to face conversation, so written communication can be fraught with peril. There's no body language, no tone of voice, etc etc.
No temper invovled. Just wanted to be sure you read what was typed.
Although I'm coming to believe nothing anyone has to say/type is going to make a bit of difference.
I've also come to believe that when something is said/typed no real effort is made by you to comprehend, all the effort made by yourself is to try and twist whatever is said the direction you wish in order to demanize.
That is what I've come to believe after reading your post.
I have NO PROBLEM with you desire or belief, my problem is with your approach or technique you use.
I'm NOT argueing for atheist or theist.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
In that case, please provide evidence for your claim. If I attacked anyone in this thread, I'd like to know so I can make amends!
If you can't provide an example, then I guess you made a claim that's not supportable by facts. The polite thing to do in such a situation is to retract it.
Thanks!
Twisting things here????
Who said you are attacking an individual? Not me!
You seem to be afraid of christians.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
(a bunch of exclamation points and text snipped for clarity)
Here's an example:
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/texas/txnews16.htm
I ask you this. Are those laws being enforced? Has the SC upheld?
I don't think so.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You and I agree on this, why would any of the rest of the post matter? It's none of their business, but religious interest groups MAKE it their business and use government to push their agenda. As that link I sent showed, these laws are still being enforced.
Also, to the poster that asked why heterosexuals could perform 'sodomy' but gays couldn't? The laws apply to the heterosexuals too. There are plenty of places where oral sex is illegal in this country, but any enforcement is one sided.
Interesting. I think I understand better now. One sided?
Conditions apply I think. Location as well perhaps.
If one does one thing in the privacy of ones home it's rather difficult to say it even happened. If however one does the same outside, or in a public area of some sort, that is another thing.
Frequently the exchange of certain bodily fluids when done in a public place be it hetro or homo or whatever is prosecuted.
I'm inclined to think it isn't so much what is being done but WHERE it is being done.
I've known people that thought doing such in public was just fine. However this attitude does not take into consideration the rights of those being forced to observe such.
Example? I may not wish to turn a corner and suddenly be confronted by people preforming sex upon each other. Basicaly wether I wished it or not I was just forced to watch.
You perhaps tell me well don't turn the corner. HUH? Say what? Ahh so now I cannot travel as I will on the public streets?
So you don't want to be prosecuted GET A ROOM?
-
It really is quite simple..If there is a victimless crime(consenting adults & nobody is harmed)..the gov't should mind it's own damn business.
In just about every country in the world,the laws are made based on moralistic veiws from religion.
eg..Weed(i know off topic)...i can't think of a single reason it is contraband other than smoke is unhealthy(can think of lots of legal stuff though that is a lot more harmfull)
say for instance someone invented a drug that had no harmfull effects(non addictive,no toxins whatsoever etc)..the govt (pressured by the religious right)would come up with some nasty sounding name for it and you would face jail for possession of it.
-
Originally posted by wrag
I ask you this. Are those laws being enforced? Has the SC upheld?
I don't think so.
I'm guessing you didn't read the link, it describes people being arrested for violating the sodomy laws. That's one well accepted definition of "enforcement".
-
Originally posted by wrag
You perhaps tell me well don't turn the corner. HUH? Say what? Ahh so now I cannot travel as I will on the public streets?
So you don't want to be prosecuted GET A ROOM?
Wrag,
These laws make no differentiation between what people do in their homes versus in public, you're making a bit of a straw man argument here. I've never advocated public sex, but then again, I have evidence that you didn't read the article I sent that showed that people were being arrested for what they do in their own homes, so I can see how you'd be confused.
Take a moment to study the issue a bit better, and please be civil. We're adults here, right?
-
Ok.. so when was the latest anti sodomy law passed and who passed it?
contrast that with all the athiests trying to get anti gun laws passed all the time.
lazs
-
why u labelling athiests anti-gun Lazs?..i think any free-thinker knows illegal possesion/smuggling of arms is the problem.
-
A lot of christians are pro firearms rights... a lot of athiests are anti firearms rights.... I can lump em all together like chair can't I?
lazs
-
it's too easy to blame societal problems on objects i agree...
much harder to deal with actual criminals.
-
sirloin.... too easy for politicians to do so... I agree. Too old a trick for anyone of any brains to fall for too I would think but..... Just watch for some of beets posts for instance.
Makes ya lose faith in humanity or.... try to avoid it when it bunches up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A lot of christians are pro firearms rights... a lot of athiests are anti firearms rights.... I can lump em all together like chair can't I?
lazs
Really? Athiests are pro-ban?
I really never equated the two. I'll start asking tho.. wonder whut the connection is.
Henh.
Laz; I hate it when yah make me think.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wrag,
These laws make no differentiation between what people do in their homes versus in public, you're making a bit of a straw man argument here. I've never advocated public sex, but then again, I have evidence that you didn't read the article I sent that showed that people were being arrested for what they do in their own homes, so I can see how you'd be confused.
Take a moment to study the issue a bit better, and please be civil. We're adults here, right?
Hmmm.......
Exactly how am I being uncivil? Is this an attempt at misdirection?
Hmmmm.....
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1997218#post1997218
yes the laws make no differentiation between home and public. You are saying that law enforcment people are going into people homes?
How are they finding out that these things are happening???????
Further I'm pretty sure, regarding occurances within a private home, the SC has slapped it down if it reached that far.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
contrast that with all the athiests trying to get anti gun laws passed all the time.
lazs
What? I'm an atheist, and I'm anti-ban. I'm a gun owning, 2nd amendment spouting, NRA member.
I don't know any atheists who are pro-ban. Can you provide any examples in this country?
-
Originally posted by wrag
yes the laws make no differentiation between home and public. You are saying that law enforcment people are going into people homes?
Further I'm pretty sure, regarding occurances within a private home, the SC has slapped it down if it reached that far.
If you had read the article, you would have seen that yes, police DID go into peoples homes, and that the Supreme Court did not overrule it.
You've brought a knife to a gunfight, please learn the facts to avoid looking silly. The sodomylaws link you responded to talked about this, I believe, but apparently you didn't get a chance to review it.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you had read the article, you would have seen that yes, police DID go into peoples homes, and that the Supreme Court did not overrule it.
You've brought a knife to a gunfight, please learn the facts to avoid looking silly. The sodomylaws link you responded to talked about this, I believe, but apparently you didn't get a chance to review it.
After giving the matter what I consider due consideration. I'm done here.
I have repeatedly expressed my opinion of your techniques. How you address an issue. The methods you use.
From my point of view all you will do, and have done, is duck the issue accept when you seem to feel you can twist what is said to what you consider an advantage. IMHO it's not worth the time to attempt communication with anyone that uses such techniques. I could go into WHY I don't trust, but that would be a VERY long thread.
I really don't care if you believe there is or is not a supreme or higher being.
After all, if there is, then in time you will know. If there is not, then there is no problem. Either way that isn't any of my business.
As to the arrest you refer to. There has to be something that is NOT being fully revealed here. I have very little trust in the major media and it's ability to accurately report issues. Further due to the techinques that I preceive you useing I don't fully trust what you say.
Again.... could go into WHY I don't trust, but that would be a VERY long thread.
-
There are few attempts to enforce anti-sodomy laws today. At least, the authorities don't seem to make a habit of kicking down doors in the middle of the night to catch people in the act.
Where the sodomy is performed is undoubtedly the key to understanding why some are arrested for violating such laws. Perform ANY sexual act in public and you are liable to find you buh-hind in the slammer...where it deserves to be.
-
I will bet that if you looked at the politicians who are introducing gun laws you will find that more of em are athiests or, like chair "strong agnostics" than are christians.
I bet a lot of em are just mad because someone took their walking fish magnetic thingie and placed it on the ground by their car.
chair... I guess it boils down to.... at this point.... I just don't think you are a real athiest... you want to wear the uniform and get the chicks but....
you just can't bring yourself to say you have the faith..
lazs
-
Buddy, I don't believe there's a god. I'm an atheist, but since I believe in small government and the constitution, you don't think I'm a _real_ atheist?
That's just silly.
There ain't no god. God is a fairy tale created to provide answers when there was nothing better, but we have something better now. Believing in magical spirits does not automatically confer some sort of special insight into how the universe works, despite what many theists suggest.
There _are_ dishonest people in this thread, people who are dishonest with themselves. For instance, I think wrag honestly believes that he's not making ad hominem attacks and really thinks that he's a beacon of light and purity. I bet that you, lasz, honestly believe that there's some sort of obvious dishonesty with the idea of being an atheist, but like wrag, you just can't vocalize it.
We're all entitled to different opinions, and boy howdy, some of y'all sure have some imaginative ones.
I give my christian friends the benefit of the doubt, I respect their decision to believe what they want, but you know what I get in return? Condescension, mocking, and worse. This thread illustrates this nicely. Talking with a christian about religion is an excercise in frustration.
-
wrong thread
-
chair... you didn't and haven't read waht I posted.... I do no say anywhere that your believing in a small government has anything to do with your athiesm.
You just now said... "There ain't no god. God is a fairy tale created to provide answers when there was nothing better, but we have something better now. Believing in magical spirits does not automatically confer some sort of special insight into how the universe works, despite what many theists suggest."
you are stateing what you believe... you, of course, have no proof that this is true at all (that there is no god) but.... you have "faith"
I would venture to say that in no other thing would you bother to give yourself a faith based name for not believeing in something.... I would say that, you probly would leave room for doubt about such things as bigfoot or aliens or PSI or auras even...
To take such a strong stand on god when you have no proof would be a leap of faith equal to the most fervent snake worshiper.
When asked about a belief in god... the honest man who does says, "yes I do, To me the proof is all around me but it is really a matter of faith"
Another case of an honest man would be... "I really don't know"
Another honest man would say.... "I do not believe in god even tho I have no proof but I have my own faith to cling to."
A dishonest and /or stupid man would say... " there is no god and I know this for a fact and I have no agenda by proclaiming myself to be an athiest... my belief is fact not faith based"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.... I would say that, you probly would leave room for doubt about such things as bigfoot or aliens or PSI or auras even...
I believe in PSI: I have 35 to 40 of them in each of my tires. I have 100+ in my bike's tires.
-
Lazs: We're back to the basic problem of you not understanding the difference between not believing there is a god and believing there is NO god.
I just don't believe there's a god, and there's no faith required. I also don't believe there's an easter bunny, and I don't believe that pokemon are real creatures that people train and fight against each other.
You can call me stupid if you want, but it doesn't change the facts of the matter. I just don't believe a god exists, and decoding the distinction between that and faith will just have to be an excercise for the reader.
BTW, I don't think you're stupid or dishonest, I just think you're confused. I respect that your beliefs are different from mine, that's just how the world works. You asserted that I wasn't a real atheist, feel free to explain how that's the case. If it's because I don't fit your preconceived notions of what an atheist looks like (Tax and spend democrat, perhaps? Some sort of communist assassin that slouches towards Bethlehem?), then perhaps it's time to re-evaluate those images.
-
chair... and why wouldn't you respect my beliefs? I have been up[ front with you about them... I have said that they were entirely faith based and ask nothing of you. I don't go around proclaiming a name for my belief like "athiest" even.
And.... I have met dishonest libertarians and constitutionsalists and small government types.... we are not imune from dishonesty. I have left room for this in my thinking. It is perhaps not as poured in concrete as yours.
If you can't say that there may be a god then you are either dishonest or stupid or both.... If you loudly proclaim this belief and even give it a name "athiesm" then you have taken your belief out of the realm of science and into the world of "belief" and/or agenda. Many who have used the term athiest have indeed had an agenda.... that of making the government and it's leaders the only god.
lazs