What is the one true faith (or lack thereof)?

[gwprod12]

First of all: I think most people would know that it's socially unacceptable to purjur, steal, rape and kill one another, simply from the point of view that no one would tolerate being stolen from, raped, killed or slandered/testified against. If the bible didnt exist, people wouldnt be all happy and joyful about being falsely accused or gangraped or beheaded.

 

Second of all: I agree with those rules about killing, stealing, raping and bearing false witness. But why do we need that to be preached when we have laws against it? I'm primarily concerned with people imposing thier subjective morality on me. Take Ted Haggard for example: Let's say that he is in fact a hirer of male prostitutes and a partaker in methamphetamine. He (until yesterday) used his power, position and gravitas to lobby against the very things that we both like quite a bit. Except he hides it, and I dont. People living their own lives shouldnt even be an issue.

 

Obviously the state has a role in physically and materially protecting one citizen from another. But does it really have a right to dictate personal behavior?

[Ouch]

Well to some extent you may be right, but take for example someone with severe mental health problems who is a danger to themselves (although probably not to anyone else) - is it wrong for the state to confine them to an institution against there will in order to protect them? In that regard the state is clearly influencing the personal behaviour of an individual. So if the majority of the state views something as dangerous to a person is it wrong for them to intervine with a law to prevent it happening?

[gwprod12]

I'm not sure if you're really attempting to equate the severely mentally disabled with atheists and people who have abortions. I hope not.

 

Being a United States citizen, and knowing something about the developmentally disabled and the severely antisocial, I can tell you, there is no rationale that will put a human being into a facility against their will, as long as they arent attacking anyone. A suicidal crazy can be held up to 72 hours (depending on where you are), and that's it. Maybe in Britain, they "hospitalize" "undesirables" "for their own good". We dont here though. Though granted, it'd clear up most of the human feces on park bench problems.

 

How does an atheist's godlessness affect the godly so drastically that the constitution needs to be replaced by the ten commandments?

 

When I said the moral/thought police, I meant the conservative anti-freedom cadre. I like freedom. But that's just me.

 

I dont want to be a christian, I dont want to believe in god, and I never will. And I'm sick and tired of people trying to legislate religion, and or convert me "For My Own Good".

[wildcat69410]

How does an atheist's godlessness affect the godly so drastically that the constitution needs to be replaced by the ten commandments?

 

Hey, it's Athiests changing the Constitution now, not a group of Christians. Who's really being intolerant of who here?

 

When I said the moral/thought police, I meant the conservative anti-freedom cadre. I like freedom. But that's just me.

 

Way to pick the most singular extreme of the conservative group. Let's just group athiests under some communistic, secularist order, left-winged extreme as well and call it a day.

 

I dont want to be a christian, I dont want to believe in god, and I never will.

 

Hmm... You accuse Christians of being unreasonable, and yet I fail to see the rationale in that statement. You seem to have just as much unprovable "faith", if I can use the word, in your beliefs, as any Christian would have in his.

 

And I'm sick and tired of people trying to legislate religion, and or convert me "For My Own Good".

 

Ya know what I'm sick of? People trying to pull the 10 commandments from schools, courthouses, etc., all because of their right to "Freedom From Religion". If you want to complain how your rights are constricted, then I'll start too. You complain about intolerance to yourself, yet fail to see the intolerance athiests display towards Christians.

[consolation]

.

Ya know what I'm sick of? People trying to pull the 10 commandments from schools, courthouses, etc., all because of their right to "Freedom From Religion". If you want to complain how your rights are constricted, then I'll start too. You complain about intolerance to yourself, yet fail to see the intolerance athiests display towards Christians.

 

I think the point is that no one is preventing you for being a christian (or worshipping any other religion), we just don't want you cockamamie ideas rammed down our throats in public spaces. Let's just say, aethists feel about the same way about these issues as you would about a group of flat-earthers insisting on the "flat earth" doctrine not being removed from books.

[joe75]

we just don't want you cockamamie ideas rammed down our throats in public spaces.

 

God Damn...God Damn...That Bible Preachin Man

[wildcat69410]

I think the point is that no one is preventing you for being a christian (or worshipping any other religion), we just don't want you cockamamie ideas rammed down our throats in public spaces. Let's just say, aethists feel about the same way about these issues as you would about a group of flat-earthers insisting on the "flat earth" doctrine not being removed from books.

 

Hey, no one's stopping you from being an athiest! And who says they're being rammed down your throats? If you're too sensitive to view the 10 Commandments when you pass a Courthouse, think for a second. Nobody's making you do anything here, you don't have to look at them, don't have to agree with them, and you certainly don't have to remove them.

 

The only cockamamie ideas presented here are yours. You keep on preaching about how better the world would be if we just all lived to ourselves, and let people do what they want. Yet you fail to see the irony in how wanting to remove the 10 Commandments completely violates that want.

 

I also find it funny that you don't even try to go for the overused "It's our Right" {censored}. You just cut right to the chase, you don't want it. That's the issue here, not that it violates rights, not that it hurts you, you just don't want it. And because of that want, you want others to change.

[gwprod12]

Just listen to yourself. Did you get dropped on your head as a baby? We have religious pluralism in our society. If you want to live in a totalitarian religious state, maybe Saudi Arabia would be more to your liking.

[killbot1000]

No, you're not forcing us to be Christian, but there are a few customs that don't really make a lot of sense, for example, swearing on the bible in court even if you're an atheist, like it has an effect on you, but it doesn't. Also having the 10 commandments in public places is kind of dumb, it doesn't really have any relevance, so why is it there? Thats what I'm wondering. If you don't think that making us swear on a bible in court and putting public displays (10 commandments) of Christianity at government institutions isn't pushing Christianity on people, than what is?

 

Contrary to popular belief, our government actually used to be much more secular, "in god we trust" wasn't even added to all our money until the 1930s, "under god" wasn't added to the pledge of allegiance until the 1950's during the mcarthy era in order to have an opposing viewpoint to the "atheist Communists" in Russia. The atheists are just trying to take the country's policies back to the way they used to be. It has nothing to do with making you "less christian" or whatever.

[Ouch]

I'm not sure if you're really attempting to equate the severely mentally disabled with atheists and people who have abortions. I hope not.

 

Legalising things that Christians believe are wrong goes further than simple tolerance of other beliefs - but actively legitimises something which Christians consider to be dangerous to a person's relationship with God. For that reason Christians seek laws against these things from the standpoint of wanting to protect people from themselves.

You may think that is arrogant and interferes with your own beliefs, but my example was to show that we already intervene in someone's personal beliefs in the case of mental illness and you don't consider that wrong because like most people you agree that someone shouldn't be permitted to kill themselves because "the voices" tell them to.

I was trying to illustrate that even atheists can't believe in a completely live and let live (or die) society as you were suggesting - there has to be some limit to the exercising of personal beliefs where the majority recognise the harm they pose to the individual. Of course whether christian beliefs should be the base line here is what we are debating.

 

(I was not inferring atheists are mentally ill - apologies if you thought so)

 

You may argue that morals rather than religious belief are sufficient to determine when it is right for legislation to be intorduced for the protection of the individuals but since morals are determined largely by religious belief - a pluralist religious society leads to a pluralist moral society, in which there is no definite right and wrong and we are left right back at the start with the same problem.

[gwprod12]

I didnt say I agreed with the laws against suicide. I stated that there are such laws. If someone wants to kill themselves, I'm all for that. Just try not to take me with you, or make a mess near me. That's all I ask.

 

I agree with the notion that society should curtail each person's personal freedom to the extent that it impinges apon the personal freedom of another. Forcing someone to not drink and drive is acceptable, to me. Forcing them to wear a seatbelt isnt.

 

It's comforting for people to think there is such a concept as absolute right and absolute wrong. But there isnt. It's total BS. The "One man's trash is another man's treasure" axiom applies here, as well. Current law (In the US) is sufficient for me. Why MUST I 1) Have no other gods before (him) 2) honor my father 3) Honor the sabbath 4) covet not, and 5) swear oaths where god is the guarantor. Maybe it's wise to do those things, but I dont see why anyone should be compelled to do so.

 

I just dont understand how preventing Christianity from being the official religion of the united states harms Christians. No one's stopping them from worshipping whereever they want, in any way they want. No one. And if someone IS stopping you, call the fing ACLU.

 

No one's stopping little children from praying in school. What the courts are stopping is schools directing their students to pray. No one's stopping little children from talking about Creationism with their fellow students. What the courts are stopping is schools teaching Creationism. Public schools arent allowed to teach Creationism, for the simple reason that it is government promoting a specific religion (be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or whatever), prohibited on the federal level by the first amendment, and extended down to the state and municiple levels by the 14th amendment.

 

EDIT: Let us make an argument. Let's say, that atheists in the united states were to unite, and somehow manage to amend the constitution of the united states to ban the practice of Christianity in any way shape or form. Never mind the proscribed punishment. All Bibles and Christian literature are banned, and must be destroyed by federal law. By your own logic, because I feel that Christians are evil and bad for society, I have the right to ban their belief system and the practice thereof. Am I following you correctly?

 

EDIT 2: In the US, we have this little bit of nonsense which we like to call "Compelling State Interest". What that means is that when a law is called into question, it must pass the "Compelling State Interest" test. For example: "Does the State have a Compelling Interest in preventing murder?" Well, obviously. No state can survive that does not criminalize murder. "Does the State have a Compelling Interest in banning Rocky Road as a flavor of ice cream?" No, because even though Christians are morally opposed to Rocky Road, as well as "loud music and loose skirts", Rocky Road, while debatably causing harm to he or she who consumes it, does not cause harm to anyone else, or society at large.

[wildcat69410]

Just listen to yourself. Did you get dropped on your head as a baby? We have religious pluralism in our society. If you want to live in a totalitarian religious state, maybe Saudi Arabia would be more to your liking.

 

You first. You're the one asking people to remove their religious signs from the public eye, not the other way around. I have no want or need to live in a totalitarian religious state. It's athiest's sensitivity to even the slightest sign of religion that causes the majority of the problems with this issue. Notice how Christians and Buddists have no issues. With the obvious exception to the Muslims, Christianity has no real problem with other religions.

 

The problem here deals with the conflict between Christianity and Athiesm.

 

No, you're not forcing us to be Christian, but there are a few customs that don't really make a lot of sense, for example, swearing on the bible in court even if you're an atheist, like it has an effect on you, but it doesn't. Also having the 10 commandments in public places is kind of dumb, it doesn't really have any relevance, so why is it there? Thats what I'm wondering. If you don't think that making us swear on a bible in court and putting public displays (10 commandments) of Christianity at government institutions isn't pushing Christianity on people, than what is?

 

Contrary to popular belief, our government actually used to be much more secular, "in god we trust" wasn't even added to all our money until the 1930s, "under god" wasn't added to the pledge of allegiance until the 1950's during the mcarthy era in order to have an opposing viewpoint to the "atheist Communists" in Russia. The atheists are just trying to take the country's policies back to the way they used to be. It has nothing to do with making you "less christian" or whatever.

 

All I'm saying is that viewing the 10 commandments while entering a courthouse isn't a governmental offense, and really isn't an issue. Athiests are pushing Political Correctivity to another level that just isn't necessary. I don't care if you don't believe in God, I don't care if you despise Christianity (The only Religion Athiests seem to have a problem with anyway), but when you start to use that as an excuse to remove anything Christian form the public, I have a problem.

 

True, our Government used to be more secular in many ways. But the Athiests don't have the noble goal of returning our Nation to how it once was. That isn't the premise of their actions, or they'd have a similar disposition towards other faiths. And you're right, public representation of the 10 commandments has nothing to do with how "Christian" I am. But it also has nothing to do with your belief that there is no God either. It doesn't affect how "Athiest" you are.

 

I just dont understand how preventing Christianity from being the official religion of the united states harms Christians. No one's stopping them from worshipping whereever they want, in any way they want. No one. And if someone IS stopping you, call the fing ACLU.

 

Haha, the ACLU defending Christianity? That'll be the day...

[gwprod12]

Sorry, my univeral translator doesnt include deluded. Try again.

[wildcat69410]

Sorry, my univeral translator doesnt include deluded. Try again.

 

Seriously now, get over yourself. Respond to my arguments or leave. Mental Retardation is NOT an option. Please don't make me repeat that for you slowly...

[gwprod12]

Are you still talking?

[wildcat69410]

Are you still thinking?

[gwprod12]

Constantly. Try it sometime =]

[Ouch]

- we got 20 pages in without the handbags coming out...

 

It's an interesting concept that a state should be without any official religious stance. Historically countries were united by a religious belief (or conquered by one) - if we are to move into a era of complete separation of state from religion then how does a state define itself? On what basis does the british/american government represent a people, who are otherwise completely diverse, as a single entity?

[consolation]

With the obvious exception to the Muslims, Christianity has no real problem with other religions.

 

Right.... So, Christianity has a "problem" with Islam; is that an "official" christian position?

 

The problem here deals with the conflict between Christianity and Athiesm.

 

You are developing a persecution complex. Atheism hasn't got a problem with Christianity, if the state try to push Buddhism I'd find it just as ridiculous. But; you don't see anyone demanding the Tripitaka Baskets publicly displayed at schools.

 

I don't care if you don't believe in God, I don't care if you despise Christianity (The only Religion Athiests seem to have a problem with anyway), but when you start to use that as an excuse to remove anything Christian form the public, I have a problem.

 

Not from public view, we are not talking about banning temples here, just from public SECULAR buildings.

 

True, our Government used to be more secular in many ways. But the Athiests don't have the noble goal of returning our Nation to how it once was. That isn't the premise of their actions, or they'd have a similar disposition towards other faiths. And you're right, public representation of the 10 commandments has nothing to do with how "Christian" I am. But it also has nothing to do with your belief that there is no God either. It doesn't affect how "Athiest" you are.

 

Atheists have no goals as such, there is no Atheist conspiracy. If you wish to practice your quaint rituals, you are welcome to do so - just not in buildings paid for by public taxes

[joe75]

Mental Retardation is NOT an option.

 

Sure it is

[killbot1000]

<cough><cough> - we got 20 pages in without the handbags coming out...

 

It's an interesting concept that a state should be without any official religious stance. Historically countries were united by a religious belief (or conquered by one) - if we are to move into a era of complete separation of state from religion then how does a state define itself? On what basis does the british/american government represent a people, who are otherwise completely diverse, as a single entity?

 

 

I have thought about this myself a lot, and you're completely right when you say that people were once completely held together by religious belief, the problem is globalization, ever wonder why most of the people in big cities are on the average, liberal, and most of the people in small towns, isolated from the world are on the average, conservative? Because people in cities have to live with different groups everyday, so they learn to tolerate/accept them for who they are. People who live in small towns on the average, live with people who think just like they do, so obviously if another point of view comes along, its going to sound weird, and probably unwanted.

 

Back in the day, somebody could go their whole life, and not see another ethnic/religious group, however, the world is a lot smaller than it used to be, so we have to come up with something new to hold our society together, hence the nation-state (which is actually quite a new concept in the scheme of human civilization). And we use Ideals such as democracy, freedom, and tolerance to hold societies together instead of religion, both work, but the latter only works when the vast majority of people in that land are the same religion. The world's been changing for a while, it's time for us to change with it.

 

Separation of church and state works, we're really only having bigger problems with it now because that line has begun to blur (and theres even less people that think the same now), causing tension, people's ideals are going in totally different directions, and the society starts the downward spiral of decline.

[wildcat69410]

Right.... So, Christianity has a "problem" with Islam; is that an "official" christian position?

 

Not at all, all I meant was that Christianity and Islam have had conflicts in the past. I have no problem with Islam, I'm just stating that there was and still is a conflict there.

 

You are developing a persecution complex. Atheism hasn't got a problem with Christianity, if the state try to push Buddhism I'd find it just as ridiculous. But; you don't see anyone demanding the Tripitaka Baskets publicly displayed at schools.

 

But the general opinion of Athiesm is against Christianity. How is the state "pushing" Christianity by allowing a replication of the 10 Commandments to be seen in a Courthouse? The 10 Commandments, historically being a classic example of law, is being displayed in a place that judges law every day! It's not as if the Courts start every day with a prayer, ask everybody to take a 15 minute communion break. They're just simply displaying a public allusion to a set of laws.

 

Sure, you could just as easily make the argument that they could have posted any set of historic law, Hammurabi's Code, etc etc. However, I don't exactly see how the state is "pushing" any religion forth by this measure.

 

Not from public view, we are not talking about banning temples here, just from public SECULAR buildings.

 

What's wrong with a library, for example, having a Christian display around Christmas time? Whenever we start talking extremes, you are going to get into some bad situations. I can see where you're coming, to an extent, but I don't see how a public display instantly has the Government sponsoring a religion.

 

Atheists have no goals as such, there is no Atheist conspiracy. If you wish to practice your quaint rituals, you are welcome to do so - just not in buildings paid for by public taxes

 

Thank you for taking my post WAY out of context. I just quoted killbot's post, where he said that Athiests are just trying to make America how it was before Religion stepped in. I don't think there's a conspiracy, I just was stating that Athiests did not have the goal, or were not trying to nobly bring America back to before the religious conspirators took over.

 

Separation of church and state works, we're really only having bigger problems with it now because that line has begun to blur (and theres even less people that think the same now), causing tension, people's ideals are going in totally different directions, and the society starts the downward spiral of decline.

 

To an extent, I can agree with you. Separation of Church and State can indeed work. However, it is not the blurring of lines that causes problems, it is when it is taken to extremes. When we start having the ACLU suing school systems over a display of a manger, then we know we're not accomplishing what we set out for.

[Ouch]

Separation of church and state works, we're really only having bigger problems with it now because that line has begun to blur (and theres even less people that think the same now), causing tension, people's ideals are going in totally different directions, and the society starts the downward spiral of decline.

 

"Shouldn't we lie down, or put a paper bag over our heads or something?"

"If you like."

"Well, will that help?"

"No, not really."

 

Coming from the UK where the head of state is also the "defender of the faith" for the church of england it's quite an alien concept for me to separate state from religion. Even though the british monarch is officially christian I don't think that really affects anyone in their day to day lives, muslim atheist or otherwise - people are still entitled to believe whatever they want so part of me can't see the problem. Nobody is forced to swear on a bible in court etc so what's the issue? - China is an officially aetheist country but i would have no problem living there as a Christian, so why should it be an issue the other way around. Even if the UK did separate state from church (or become an officially muslim state for that matter) i probably still wouldn't care because it really doesn't affect me.

Is the situation in the US different from this in some way? Do people have to swear on bibles in court?

[killbot1000]

"Shouldn't we lie down, or put a paper bag over our heads or something?"

"If you like."

"Well, will that help?"

"No, not really."

 

Coming from the UK where the head of state is also the "defender of the faith" for the church of england it's quite an alien concept for me to separate state from religion. Even though the british monarch is officially christian I don't think that really affects anyone in their day to day lives, muslim atheist or otherwise - people are still entitled to believe whatever they want so part of me can't see the problem. Nobody is forced to swear on a bible in court etc so what's the issue? - China is an officially aetheist country but i would have no problem living there as a Christian, so why should it be an issue the other way around. Even if the UK did separate state from church (or become an officially muslim state for that matter) i probably still wouldn't care because it really doesn't affect me.

Is the situation in the US different from this in some way? Do people have to swear on bibles in court?

 

Not all courts make people swear on the bible, I don't even think you have to, but most people just do it because its precedure. It's a bit more difficult here though, because leaders will sometimes make decisions that will benefit their faith and no one elses, like GWBush setting up the white house "office of faith based initiatives" which is paid for by taxpayers, but what if ones not christian, they are buddhist? The buddhist has to give money to christianity? thats kinda wrong to me. Its just that separation of church and state is something our nation was founded on, and now its changing, thats all..

[wildcat69410]

Not all courts make people swear on the bible, I don't even think you have to, but most people just do it because its precedure. It's a bit more difficult here though, because leaders will sometimes make decisions that will benefit their faith and no one elses, like GWBush setting up the white house "office of faith based initiatives" which is paid for by taxpayers, but what if ones not christian, they are buddhist? The buddhist has to give money to christianity? thats kinda wrong to me. Its just that separation of church and state is something our nation was founded on, and now its changing, thats all..

 

The Faith Based Initiative is always misunderstood. Nowhere, at all, does the Faith Based Initiative encourage one religious group. Instead, its goal is to create an enviornment within the United States Department of Health and Human Services that welcomes the participation of faith based and community based organizations to help citizens in need. It does not encourage Christianity over Buddism, or over any other religion. It is simply offering a fair playing field for religious groups, as well as community groups, to help citizens in need throughout the United States. How the hell is that breaking the separation of Church and State?

 

Plus, the Constitution didn't have the intent of banning School Prayer, or faith based initiatives. It wanted to ensure that the state did not adopt a state religion (such as the Church of England), nor did it want religion to be a requirement to attain a state office. Separation of Church and State was derived from correspondences from Thomas Jefferson, to which he referred to a wall separating Church and State. Now, not to say that simply because the key phrase wasn't there means that the ideal wasn't implied, I'm just saying that the Constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted to be what politicians want.