View Full Version : Seperation of Church & State


Phydeaux
Sep 05, 2003, 10:00 AM
Ok who said that and do you think it means we should remove the ten commandments off of state land?
Is the ten commandments realy the church?
Could it be that who ever said that ment that the state can't tell the church what to do?:D Hehe

Thanks.

G-Man
Sep 05, 2003, 10:39 AM
I don't know who invented it, I think the more wiedly used term is one of "seperation of state and religion", as few of those believing in it will want the church to go away just to be replaced by some otherreligion or religious institute.
As to if the ten commandments should be off of a state's land, that's (in a democracy atleast) not something absolute. If the majority of people believe the non religious laws in them should be implemented the country should do so. However if a country adopts them as a religious symbol I think that would be anti democratic, as people who don't believe in them would feel like second grade citizens.
The ten commandments are definately a term symbolizing christianity and judeism, though some of the laws written there represent global values.

Phydeaux
Sep 05, 2003, 10:57 AM
So if the majority wanted the ten cammandments in there city then it should be put there right? Dose that mean that they should not teach evolution in school because people who don't believe in evolution would feel like second grade citizens? Sorry for get a little off subjet but lol.

Vrylakas
Sep 05, 2003, 11:52 AM
*Sigh* :rolleyes:

This is one of those debates that seems to come up every few months on the CFC forums. Against my better judgement I'll step into this one.

In the wider Western context the separation of Church and State dates back to Friedrich Barbarossa's "Drang nach Südden" and his struggles with Pope Alexander III over primacy in Europe. Effectively, the post-Roman collapse Europeans had been trying since Charlemagne to re-establish a Christian empire, Roman-style, in Europe but hadn't quite gotten it right. One of the biting questions about this empire was who should ultimately be supreme ruler of it - the secular emperor who achieved his position through conquest and blood lines, or the Pope? In other words, should ultimate power rest with the church or the state? Should there be a difference between the two? With Friedrich's failed attempts to bring Italy under his sway, the two remained separate. The Protestant reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries led to two centuries of warfare between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in the big finale of the Thirty Years War, leaving a lot of people in Europe wondering if religion was all it's cracked up to be.

This was the mindset of the first English settlers to the Americas. The English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell's tyranny and the so-called "Bloodless Revolution" of 1688 left a deep impression on English colonists, who created a movement called "Deism" in the Enlightenment. American Deists' beliefs were simply that though they believed strongly in God, they distrusted religions as imperfect human attempts to define and understand God. They looked at the Catholic Church of their day as a bloated, corrupt bureaucracy that wanted power and Earthly wealth. They were committed Protestants who believed Henry VIII's separation from the Catholic Church was absolutely necessary but they also saw the resulting Church of England - the Anglicans - as having become just as corrupt as the Catholics had been. The lesson they drew from the Anglican experience was that when religion is mixed with government, the inevitable result is corruption of/by both. This is a source of confusion for many modern American religious extremists, who can't seem to bridge that understanding between the American Founding Fathers' being quite devoted to God (except for atheists like Ben Franklin) but yet distrusting religion. Modern American Christian fundamentalists love to quote ad nauseum religious citations from the Founding Fathers without reading the context in which those remarks were made.

The American Constitution was framed therefore with a strict division between state and religion, quite simply. It was not intended to be anti-religious, but it was saying simply that while religion has its place in society, that place is not in the government. Anyone can practice whatever religion they want in the country, but they do not have the right to force anyone else to practice that religion, and especially commensurate with that aspect the government is not allowed to endorse or in any way support any particular religion. This is why, in rather clear form, putting a religious monument on government property in the U.S. is unconstitutional. One can erect a monument to the Ten Commandments on private property, on a church, on a private organization's property - anywhere (abiding by local building codes) except government property. This is an aspect of American society that mystifies me; American religious zealots have this convoluted logic that says they should be able to put their religious symbols anywhere and everywhere they want, disregarding the Constitution and local laws, and if they can't impose their religious views in this way on others then it is an abridgement of their religious rights. Since their religion says they must prosyletize, any attempt to stop them from doing so, all laws be damned, is against their rights. WTF? That's circular logic.

The aspect of Separation of Church and State you seem to be missing is that it is not about majorities, it's about all of society. Clearly, even if they are a minority, there are some people in that town who do not want such religious symbols on their public property - and it is their public property as much as it is those who want it there. This would be a clear case of a majority enforcing their religious beliefs on a community against the will of some in that community. This is taking place in a microcosm of small-town Alabama and makes much more sense in a place like New York or California where diversity is extreme, but the law is universal within the United States and is clear: a government cannot support or endorse any religion. Putting a religious monument on government property is a de facto tacit endorsement for that religion. Again, the Constitution is not anti-religion, it simply makes a clear distinction between the public (government) and private (non-government) practice of it.

The Alabama case you are alluding to is clear-cut. the Constitution says no; it's that simple. Move the monument somehwre else onto private property, or have local interested townspeople get a collection together and buy a small but prominent piece of land where it can be put on display. This the Constitution protects as religious expression. Putting it on government property was a no-brainer, obviously intended to provoke just such a national response in the same spirit as the John Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925. The sight of an Alabama Supreme Court Justice refusing to uphold the law he is supposed to represent - i.e., refusal to do his job - seriously undermines the credibility of his court, and in almost any other country in the West he would have been drummed out of the court in disgrace. If he doesn't believe in the laws he is working for, then perhaps a career change is in order. He does not have the luxury of selectively upholding only the laws he likes. He should be fired. I have met some people from Alabama in my travels and they've seemed to me to be upright, intelligent and modern people, but unfortunately this kind of idiocy re-enforces old stereotypes about religion-bludgeoned school-deprived backwoods hicks. I am reminded of the last few lines of the Neil Young song:

What are you doing Alabama?
You got the rest of the union
to help you along
What's going wrong?

Titan2018
Sep 05, 2003, 11:54 AM
The 1st amendment makies it clear that the government should stay out of religion. Several of the Founding Fathers (including Jefferson in the "Danberry Babtist Letter") make it clear that it was ment to form a "wall of seperation" between the two. Since the government can't provide space for an endorsement of ALL religions it shouldn't provide space for ANY. Posting the ten commandments make non-Judeo-Christians feel like second class citizens.
As for teaching evolution, science IS NOT a democracy. The facts are the facts and support evolution no matter how many people don't want it taought is schools. Since evolution is science and "ID theory" (dressed up creationism) is not then acceptence of ID theory amounts to religion and teaching it in public schools amounts to proslityzing (sp?).

Phydeaux
Sep 05, 2003, 01:29 PM
:) Thanks Vrlakas.

Phydeaux
Sep 05, 2003, 01:34 PM
As for teaching evolution, science IS NOT a democracy. The facts are the facts and support evolution no matter how many people don't want it taought is schools. Since evolution is science and "ID theory" (dressed up creationism) is not then acceptence of ID theory amounts to religion and teaching it in public schools amounts to proslityzing (sp?).

Ok what you just said was science is not a fact.:confused:

Kryten
Sep 05, 2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Vrylakas
This is one of those debates that seems to come up every few months on the CFC forums. Against my better judgement I'll step into this one......


What a clear, detailed, and informative post.
Very well put Vrylakas. :)
(I would say this post was more than worthy of addition to XIII's list)

We just don't seem to have this kind of problem here in Britain.
Over here, people who want religion have it, those that don't want it don't have it, and the two sides don't seem to try and force their views on each other.
I don't know why this is. Maybe it's because we have already had our taste of 'Religious Governments' in our long history, what with Queen Mary burning the Protestants 1550's, and then the dour intolerant po-faced Puritans of the 1650's.

Vrylakas
Sep 05, 2003, 05:24 PM
Thanks Kryten.

We just don't seem to have this kind of problem here in Britain.

A few years ago I recall reading in the New York Times' editorial page during one of these religious rights debates that constantly flair up in this country a comment by an Australian woman living temporarily in New York City:

"I am very thankful that we [Australians] got the criminals and you [Americans] got the Puritans...."

Knight-Dragon
Sep 05, 2003, 05:54 PM
@Kryten - I think so too.

Then instead of repeating his argument, Vrylakas can just link to his article, and say, 'Read this'. :) One reason for my project.

Mongoloid Cow
Sep 05, 2003, 07:08 PM
]"I am very thankful that we [Australians] got the criminals and you [Americans] got the Puritans...."

Vrylakas, I like that quote :D I also reckon that post above was among the best ever that I've seen on any site.

mrtn
Sep 06, 2003, 12:49 AM
I agree with the others; good post Vrylakas! :thumbsup:
But I think I have to disagree with Kryten; I don't think it's as simple as saying "We've had our share" + "The religious went to America". (I'm not claiming this is the only thing you could say about it, just what's come up here in this thread. ;) )
I'm thinking about Sweden here; here it wasn't religious "cultists" (not the word I want, but close) who went to America, but the poor. Sweden was as religious as other countries up to the 20th century, and had our part of religious sects (I'm thinking about the Laestadians here, if anyone has heard of them. :hmm: It was a strict religious sect in Northern Sweden, mostly among the Sami (aka Lapps).), but are now one of the most secular countries in the world.
In the US you have to believe in God to be a politician, while the Swedish "Christian Democratic Party" are seen as slightly goofy. There must be some other reason why the US are so impregnated in religion. :hmm:

Phydeaux
Sep 06, 2003, 02:16 PM
In the US you have to believe in God to be a politician

:confused: I never heard that and I live in the U.S.:lol: I think you just have to have good records wich is good.:king:

Kryten
Sep 06, 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
:confused: I never heard that and I live in the U.S.:lol: I think you just have to have good records wich is good.:king:

I think that what Vrylakas means is that in America you have to SAY that you believe in God if you want to be a politician. After all, you wouldn't want to drive away any potential voters would you (remember, image is everything ;) ).

Again, here in Britain (the only country I am qualified to talk about), it makes absolutely no difference....we all know that our politicians are liars, so nobody believes anything they say anyway. :lol:

Phydeaux
Sep 06, 2003, 05:52 PM
I think that what Vrylakas means is that in America you have to SAY that you believe in God if you want to be a politician. After all, you wouldn't want to drive away any potential voters would you (remember, image is everything ).

Again, here in Britain (the only country I am qualified to talk about), it makes absolutely no difference....we all know that our politicians are liars, so nobody believes anything they say anyway.

Thats tru. That because most ppl want a God believing man to do the work because they want some one who cares about the world and what they do.
I think most evolution don't believe in right and rong as much as God believers.

Xen
Sep 06, 2003, 06:30 PM
thats simply not true, ALL the Atheists I know (and I know more then a few) are FAR more moralistic then 9 out of 10 theists (but they are a bit... out there...)I know, and while that in its self is hardley qualified for all atheists, it dose say somthing about a president, I have come to the firm conclusion that Atheists do right, not because of a want to please a god, or gods they do not worship, but rather out of caring for there fellow man... and while that too cannot be applied to all, I think it can be applied to those who reached Atheism through there own "journey" of interpratation of the world around them....

Phydeaux
Sep 06, 2003, 06:59 PM
thats simply not true, ALL the Atheists I know (and I know more then a few) are FAR more moralistic then 9 out of 10 theists (but they are a bit... out there...)I know, and while that in its self is hardley qualified for all atheists, it dose say somthing about a president, I have come to the firm conclusion that Atheists do right, not because of a want to please a god, or gods they do not worship, but rather out of caring for there fellow man... and while that too cannot be applied to all, I think it can be applied to those who reached Atheism through there own "journey" of interpratation of the world around them....

You are probly right. I didn't say they don't care at all just as much. ALL the Atheists I know (and I know more then a few) are FAR more moralistic then 9 out of 10 theists. How many God belvers do you know? How do you know Atheists are more moralistic then 9 out of 10 theists? I just said I think not that it's tru. The reson why is because to atheists think that humans are just monkeys and thats why most ppl would rather vote for God believers then atheists. I know that atheists reaspect other ppl because thats how they want to be treated.
Not that I real think that way but that how other ppl act.
AlsoI just wanted to see how an evolution peson would act if I said some thing about there fath.

Also I don't just do it to plz God but I care for the fellow man. I want other ppl to be happy. That also is a reson why we want you to serve Him because we care.

Oda Nobunaga
Sep 06, 2003, 07:05 PM
Oh, damn...not that tired old piece of anti-atheist propaganda...

First off, believing in evolution does not preclude believing in one or more divine being, including the christian ones. It precludes believing in a LITERAL, ABSOLUTE reading of the bible, which the fundamentalist christians seems to like. That's a major difference. And given the number of known proven facts (not just "theories") which the bible openly defy in a literal reading anyway (such little proven fact as the non-flatness of the earth ; the fact that it's the earth that moves around the sun, that the moon has no light of its own ; the fact that there was NO roman custom to set free prisonners at passover, the fact that roman census were for tax purpose and thus would be concerned with place of WORK, not place of BIRTH, etc, the fact that the end of the world would come within the days of Jesus' apostles - which are sort of long past)...

So, your comment about "evolution believers" vs "god believer" is completely out of place. There's no such division. The division you are talking about is between god believers and atheists (or christians and non-christians, but if you believe THAT one...meh)

Secondly, even atheists believe in right and wrong. Not all have the same definition of it, but there's absolutely no truth to "atheists don't believe in right or wrong" point. Of course, what atheists consider right or wrong differ from what is in the bible, but then again MOST sane individuals today have a definition of right or wrong that doesn't exactly match some of the stuff in the bible...

Example :
-The Bible constantly put women as dependant to men, and inferiors. Yet most sane people today (including many religious people) would tend to consider that as WRONG, despite the bible being quite empathic that it is the RIGHT thing.
-Similarly, the Bible sets out an institution of slavery. That would make slavey RIGHT by the bible. Again, most sane individuals see it as WRONG today, including many christians.

Therefore, right and wrong do not derive from the bible. And obviously, some religious people have notion of "Right" that are QUITE at odd with our owns - Bin Laden seems to think its RIGHT to send planes to ram into building packed with civilians, and he's definitely religious, believing in a God (a god which, one may add, is pretty much the same god as the Judeo-Christian one). I think most sane individuals, including atheists, would agree that one is WRONG, too.

NOTE : I am only adressing a literal interpretation of the bible above. Most christians are fortunately NOT literal these days, and therefore are not concerned by my points about how a literal reading of the bible does not agree with modern perceptions of right and wrong.

mrtn
Sep 06, 2003, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Kryten


I think that what Vrylakas means is that in America you have to SAY that you believe in God if you want to be a politician. After all, you wouldn't want to drive away any potential voters would you (remember, image is everything ;) ).

Again, here in Britain (the only country I am qualified to talk about), it makes absolutely no difference....we all know that our politicians are liars, so nobody believes anything they say anyway. :lol: Here after it's Mr Mrtn to you, whatever your name was. ;) You where right in the interpretation, however. :)

Shadylookin
Sep 06, 2003, 09:17 PM
Separation of Church and State is good(i believe in God just so you know). If church and state is together and then they would make it so you have to believe the the world was made in 6 days(which it couldn't have been since the thing we measure days with "the sun" wasn't made until the fourth day or so) then i say i don't believe it so i get hung for treason because i went against the state. Besides Jesus didn't try and force people into religion he let the believers come to him of their own free will, this is what we should do becuase it is better to have someone come to God by their choice then to just pretend they do out of fear that we will kill them. The bible says we shouldn't condem people and judge them let God do it. also just because you dont' believe the world was made in 6 days doesn't mean your an atheist.

Politics and God 2 words that should never be in the same sentence.

Phydeaux
Sep 06, 2003, 11:21 PM
Oh, damn...not that tired old piece of anti-atheist propaganda...

First off, believing in evolution does not preclude believing in one or more divine being, including the christian ones. It precludes believing in a LITERAL, ABSOLUTE reading of the bible, which the fundamentalist christians seems to like. That's a major difference. And given the number of known proven facts (not just "theories") which the bible openly defy in a literal reading anyway (such little proven fact as the non-flatness of the earth ; the fact that it's the earth that moves around the sun, that the moon has no light of its own ; the fact that there was NO roman custom to set free prisonners at passover, the fact that roman census were for tax purpose and thus would be concerned with place of WORK, not place of BIRTH, etc, the fact that the end of the world would come within the days of Jesus' apostles - which are sort of long past)...


:lol: Where in the bible did say that the earth was flat? Where in the bible dose it say that the moon has light of its own or that the earth dose not go arond the sun?

matthew 27:15
15Now at the Feast [of the Passover] the governor was in the habit of setting free for the people any one prisoner whom they chose.

1 It dose not say it was a roman custom it said it was the governors

2 It sound like some thing governor did it for plublicity (to make the people like him better).

1IN THOSE days it occurred that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole Roman empire should be registered.
2This was the first enrollment, and it was made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.
3And all the people were going to be registered, each to his own city or town.
4And Joseph also went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the town of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,

census = counting people so they could know how much tax money they should expect

I think the reason they were told to go to their place of birth was because the people were working in so many little towns it was hard to count them all. Having the people return to their place of birth would have made it eaiser for them to count every one.

I'll get back to you about the days of Jesus' apostles - which are sort of long past) thingy later right now it's 1:17 AM and I need some :sleep:.

Kryten
Sep 07, 2003, 12:37 AM
Oops!
Sorry Mr Mrtn ( ;) ). I quoted the wrong person. :spank:


Originally posted by Phydeaux
Also I don't just do it to plz God but I care for the fellow man. I want other ppl to be happy. That also is a reson why we want you to serve Him because we care.

And if someone DOESN’T want to believe, then what?
Make it a law that they must….? (as so many countries have done in history).
Exclude them from office….? (as the English did with the Catholics until 1828).
Start to imprison and punish people….? (like the Catholic Queen Mary burning Protestants in the 1550’s).
Where does it stop?
History shows us time and time and time again the outcome of mixing religion and government.
As I said before: “In Britain, people who want religion have it, those that don't want it don't have it, and the two sides don't seem to try and force their views on each other.”
In America, still a relatively young and volatile nation, they have had to make some very sensible laws to enforce the separating of religion from government.
Shadylookin summed it up: “Politics and God….2 words that should never be in the same sentence.”

If anything, a strict belief in the bible DISTORTS peoples perception of ‘right & wrong’.
How else do you explain a thousand years of religious persecution, leading to the misery, torture, and murder of so many millions? And all perpetrated in the name of God, by other bible believers.

On a side note, how can so many people claim to be bible believing Christians when they own a gun?
Hand guns are designed for one specific purpose and one purpose only; to kill people!
In fact, how can anyone in the military claim to be believe in the bible?
Isn’t one of the main rules of the 10 Commandments “Thy Shall Not Kill”?
Aren’t these people just self deluding hypocrites, taking the bits and pieces that they want, discarding the 'inconvenient' bits, and completely ignoring the true message contained within?

I myself am an atheist, and the only moral code I go by to tell me what is right and wrong is “to treat others as you would want them to treat you”.
This is also mentioned in the bible….but it’s a shame that it too is so often ignored. ;)

Knight-Dragon
Sep 07, 2003, 08:56 AM
Pls keep it historical. Thanks.

PS Maybe I shld move this to OT... :hmm:

Xen
Sep 07, 2003, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Phydeaux


You are probly right. I didn't say they don't care at all just as much. ALL the Atheists I know (and I know more then a few) are FAR more moralistic then 9 out of 10 theists. How many God belvers do you know? How do you know Atheists are more moralistic then 9 out of 10 theists?

becase those are the number si have encounterd in my comings and goings, Ididnt mean everybody anywhere, but just out of my experiences



Originally posted by Phydeaux

The reson why is because to atheists think that humans are just monkeys

people who accept evolution do NOT belive we are monkeys, nor that we evolved from them, but we evoloved from anape-like ancestor, it may not sound like it, but there is a world of differnce between the two, not to mention, that we are by far more advanced then any simian, and, despite our similarites on a gentic scale, we are still differnt species

Originally posted by Phydeaux

Also I don't just do it to plz God but I care for the fellow man. I want other ppl to be happy. That also is a reson why we want you to serve Him because we care.

and that is the reason why so many people dont like the christianity based faiths- they have no reason, only blind devotion, they have there followers ask no questions about the world around them, but just to have faith in your god. Just one of the many reasons I'm a polytheist (and no, that not pagan, which means "forset people", last time i checked the Religio Romana was not for some back woods modern "barbarians"!) I reached the the conclusions i have by looking at the world, and trying to make sense of it, using, or at least trying to, use logic, and reason to figure everything out, and the more I looked, the more and more the classical religions appealed to me, as truthful, and rather an ideal fit for human, and godlly nature that fits the description of the world around us

edit- XIII, i think this belongs in OT, but do we really want another religious thread in there?

Oda Nobunaga
Sep 07, 2003, 11:55 AM
No mention of flat world? There are mention of seeing ALL THE WORLD from the top of a mountain (Jesus, specifically, taken there by the devil) which is impossible if the earth is not flat ; mentions of the four corners of the world (a sphere does not have corners, buddy) - therefore a literal reading DOES say the world is flat.

IIRC, right in Genesis the moon is called a light. But the moon has no light of its own.

We have historical records of Pontius Pilate turn as governor, not only is he depicted as quite harsh and unforgiving (hence the bible by portraying him as "nice" and "pro-common-people" is out-of-whack with established historical facts), but there is absolutely not the slightest note of his having a so-called custom of releasing a prisoner once a year, no name of other prisoners released - we have only the bible telling us that. And it doesn'T fit at all with what other sources have to say of Pilate.

Most likely it was a nice addition thought up by the writers of the bible (not to be confused with the names on top of the gospels) to shift the blame for the death of the Christ from the then-masters of the world (Romans) to the "evil people who refused Jésus's teaching" - the Jews. We're all woefully aware of the horrors this eventually paved the way too.

Again - you miss the point entirely on the census. Yes, they did it for tax purpose. For tax purpose, you want to know where people LIVE and WORK, not where their families CAME FROM. No roman census has ever proceeded by having the families go to the place of origin - there's not a single grain of truth there. Likely, the author of Matthew (who invented that particular piece of bollock), hit on the notion that Jésus had to be born in Bethléhem (much like he hit on the notion that Jésus had to ride two donkeys at once when entering Jerusalem on his last visit) and thus tried to contrive some sort of explanation why Joseph would be hanging around Bethlehem.

The claim that census had people moving to the town of origin of their families, though, is a load of bollock openly contradicting established historical facts. Census just didn't happen this way, no matter what the bible may like to make you think.

In other words : the bible is NOT to be taken literally. There's at the very least a LOT in the way of exxageration, expressions and colorful verbal illustrations.

It must be remembered the bible was written well over two millenium ago, as a basis for FAITH based on tradition - oral MYTHS AND LEGENDS (Jericho, for one - we know for a fact the city was already deserted and in ruin by the time the Israeli moved in. They likely came up with the myth of how one of their king had caused the city to crumble to explain it). It was not written "upon the fact", but years later during the exile to Babylon, where people compiled oral tradition from the past millenium(s). That give plenty of time for mistakes to sneak in, errors to show up in the story, etc.

The gospel are much the same, written long after the fact for the most part, not by the authors listed above their names, but by some of their disciples, or disciples of their disciples, and they were written with more of an attention to fitting the needs of the then community (shifting the blame from Roman to Jews ; making Jesus seems to fit the prophecies, introducing the notion that Jésus was the son of god right off the bat - where Paul apparently seems to think otherwise - etc). They were far from the only account written, but they were the only four thought to be "fitting" by the early church - again, a choice that could not help but be partly motivated by the desire to make the Church grow.

Given that kind of history, taking the bible for anything else than it is (which is, a religious book) is a terrible mistake. It is NOT a history textbook, nor a science textbook - in both roles it would fail miserably due to being riddled with incoherences (even the four gospels can't seem to get their act straight on certain points). What the bible says in terms of science (which includes the completley facts-defying creationism) and history (such as the Census matter) should be taken not as facts - something they most certainly are NOT - but as texts written to demonstrate and illustrate the greatness of the Judeo-Christian God.

They are nothing more.

PS - Xen, care to back me up on the roman history side of things? You're the knowledgeable one here ;-)

Xen
Sep 07, 2003, 04:21 PM
The Roman side of Things? backing you up?

you sir need no help, as you have hit the nail on the head! and i have said it far more eloquentlly then I, and most other people could :goodjob:, though If there is anything specific you would like just ask, and i will see if i can provide an answer :)

YNCS
Sep 07, 2003, 04:57 PM
In 2nd Chronicles, Chapter 4 Verse 2, the Bible has pi equal to 3.

Phydeaux
Sep 08, 2003, 08:47 AM
Oops!
Sorry Mr Mrtn ( ). I quoted the wrong person.



quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phydeaux
Also I don't just do it to plz God but I care for the fellow man. I want other ppl to be happy. That also is a reson why we want you to serve Him because we care.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if someone DOESN’T want to believe, then what?
Make it a law that they must….? (as so many countries have done in history).
Exclude them from office….? (as the English did with the Catholics until 1828).
Start to imprison and punish people….? (like the Catholic Queen Mary burning Protestants in the 1550’s).
Where does it stop?

If they don't want to then it's there loss.

Phydeaux
Sep 08, 2003, 09:09 AM
And if someone DOESN’T want to believe, then what?
Make it a law that they must….? (as so many countries have done in history).
Exclude them from office….? (as the English did with the Catholics until 1828).
Start to imprison and punish people….? (like the Catholic Queen Mary burning Protestants in the 1550’s).
Where does it stop?
History shows us time and time and time again the outcome of mixing religion and government.
As I said before: “In Britain, people who want religion have it, those that don't want it don't have it, and the two sides don't seem to try and force their views on each other.”
In America, still a relatively young and volatile nation, they have had to make some very sensible laws to enforce the separating of religion from government.
Shadylookin summed it up: “Politics and God….2 words that should never be in the same sentence.”

If anything, a strict belief in the bible DISTORTS peoples perception of ‘right & wrong’.
How else do you explain a thousand years of religious persecution, leading to the misery, torture, and murder of so many millions? And all perpetrated in the name of God, by other bible believers.

On a side note, how can so many people claim to be bible believing Christians when they own a gun?
Hand guns are designed for one specific purpose and one purpose only; to kill people!
In fact, how can anyone in the military claim to be believe in the bible?
Isn’t one of the main rules of the 10 Commandments “Thy Shall Not Kill”?
Aren’t these people just self deluding hypocrites, taking the bits and pieces that they want, discarding the 'inconvenient' bits, and completely ignoring the true message contained within?

I myself am an atheist, and the only moral code I go by to tell me what is right and wrong is “to treat others as you would want them to treat you”.
This is also mentioned in the bible….but it’s a shame that it too is so often ignored.

People have done bad things in the life even God believers. I am not part of the Catholic church. I bellieve that every one should be able to choose what they believe in and NO ONE should force any one to do any thing or believe in any thing.

Phydeaux
Sep 08, 2003, 09:20 AM
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phydeaux


You are probly right. I didn't say they don't care at all just as much. ALL the Atheists I know (and I know more then a few) are FAR more moralistic then 9 out of 10 theists. How many God belvers do you know? How do you know Atheists are more moralistic then 9 out of 10 theists?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

becase those are the number si have encounterd in my comings and goings, Ididnt mean everybody anywhere, but just out of my experiences




quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phydeaux

The reson why is because to atheists think that humans are just monkeys
------------------------------------------------------------------------


people who accept evolution do NOT belive we are monkeys, nor that we evolved from them, but we evoloved from anape-like ancestor, it may not sound like it, but there is a world of differnce between the two, not to mention, that we are by far more advanced then any simian, and, despite our similarites on a gentic scale, we are still differnt species


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Phydeaux

Also I don't just do it to plz God but I care for the fellow man. I want other ppl to be happy. That also is a reson why we want you to serve Him because we care.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

and that is the reason why so many people dont like the christianity based faiths- they have no reason, only blind devotion, they have there followers ask no questions about the world around them, but just to have faith in your god. Just one of the many reasons I'm a polytheist (and no, that not pagan, which means "forset people", last time i checked the Religio Romana was not for some back woods modern "barbarians"!) I reached the the conclusions i have by looking at the world, and trying to make sense of it, using, or at least trying to, use logic, and reason to figure everything out, and the more I looked, the more and more the classical religions appealed to me, as truthful, and rather an ideal fit for human, and godlly nature that fits the description of the world around us

edit- XIII, i think this belongs in OT, but do we really want another religious thread in there?

They believe that ape came from monkys right?
Posted by me in another forum,

I don't know a way of proving God exists. But God talks to me I talk to Him. I know you think I'm crazy but God still talks just like in the bible. Thats good proof for me.
Dose not a polytheist believe that every thing is god?

Phydeaux
Sep 08, 2003, 10:23 AM
No mention of flat world? There are mention of seeing ALL THE WORLD from the top of a mountain (Jesus, specifically, taken there by the devil) which is impossible if the earth is not flat ; mentions of the four corners of the world (a sphere does not have corners, buddy) - therefore a literal reading DOES say the world is flat.

Matthew 4:8-10
8Again, the devil took Him up on a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory (the splendor, magnificence, preeminence, and excellence) of them.
9And he said to Him, These things, all taken together, I will give You, if You will prostrate Yourself before me and do homage and worship me.
10Then Jesus said to him, Begone, Satan! For it has been written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him alone shall you serve.

I think that he showed Him a vistion. Even was flat you could not see the whole world that is more spiritual then physical.


IIRC, right in Genesis the moon is called a light. But the moon has no light of its own.

gen 1:14-17
14And God said, Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs and tokens [of God's provident care], and [to mark] seasons, days, and years,(3)
15And let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light upon the earth. And it was so.
16And God made the two great lights--the greater light (the sun) to rule the day and the lesser light (the moon) to rule the night. He also made the stars.
17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth,

It did not say that the moon genrated light. The moon does reflect light from the sun.

We have historical records of Pontius Pilate turn as governor, not only is he depicted as quite harsh and unforgiving (hence the bible by portraying him as "nice" and "pro-common-people" is out-of-whack with established historical facts), but there is absolutely not the slightest note of his having a so-called custom of releasing a prisoner once a year, no name of other prisoners released - we have only the bible telling us that. And it doesn'T fit at all with what other sources have to say of Pilate.



Acts 4:26-27
26The kings of the earth took their stand in array [for attack] and the rulers were assembled and combined together against the Lord and against His Anointed (Christ, the Messiah).(3)
27For in this city there actually met and plotted together against Your holy Child and Servant Jesus, Whom You consecrated by anointing, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and peoples of Israel,(4)

This verse says that Pontius Pilate plotted against Jesus wich would not be nice.


No roman census has ever proceeded by having the families go to the place of origin - there's not a single grain of truth there.

Ok so what you mean is there is no proof. That does not mean it is not tru.

Phydeaux
Sep 08, 2003, 10:36 AM
Example :
-The Bible constantly put women as dependant to men, and inferiors. Yet most sane people today (including many religious people) would tend to consider that as WRONG, despite the bible being quite empathic that it is the RIGHT thing.
-Similarly, the Bible sets out an institution of slavery. That would make slavey RIGHT by the bible. Again, most sane individuals see it as WRONG today, including many christian

The bible never suported these things in fact the jews where in slavery and it was believed to be wrong.

Oda Nobunaga
Sep 08, 2003, 10:05 PM
A few notes from teh King James bible :

First Corinthian :

"14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Or from Genesis :

"3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.

From Exodus, on slavery :

"21:20
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21:21
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

"he is his money" - in better terms, he is his property. Beat the slave (note : there are reference to actually buying maidservans and manservants a few chapters ahead - buying humans IE SLAVERY) for a few days before he dies, and you're just fine.

"21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

21:3
If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him."

And

"21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

So yes, maidservant and manservant above refer plainly to slavery.

Perhaps this passage from Leviticus?

"25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Maybe Joshua would be a more convincing source?

"9:23
Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God."

Jeremiah brooch on the topic as well :

"17:4
And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."

Old testament only? No. Jesus himself compare his Father to a slave-owner - that's not exactly being AGAINST the practice.

"12:46
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

12:47
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Ephesians :

"6:5
Should we
serve God alone?
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;"

again, Colossians

"3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;"

(incidentally : "3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.")

The same Paul, for the records, sends an escaped slave back to its masters (Philemon). He also repeat the kind of comments found in Colossians in 2 or 3 other books.

As for the contradict openly known facts part, I'll make a post on the topic later. I'll EVEN stick to history in the bible (and this or that amusing quote, such as the one about every animal fearing humans - I'm sure the white shark is dreadfully afraid of lunch, yes).

Knight-Dragon
Sep 09, 2003, 06:40 AM
Moved to OT... throwing this to the wolves... :evil:

Speedo
Sep 09, 2003, 08:04 AM
While it could be argued that the 10 commandments are a symbol of the history of law and do belong in a courthouse, everyone and their extended family is going to view them as a symbol of judaism (sp?) or christianity.

Phydeaux
Sep 09, 2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
A few notes from teh King James bible :

First Corinthian :

"14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

Or from Genesis :

"3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.

From Exodus, on slavery :

"21:20
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21:21
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

"he is his money" - in better terms, he is his property. Beat the slave (note : there are reference to actually buying maidservans and manservants a few chapters ahead - buying humans IE SLAVERY) for a few days before he dies, and you're just fine.

"21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

21:3
If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him."

And

"21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

So yes, maidservant and manservant above refer plainly to slavery.

Perhaps this passage from Leviticus?

"25:45
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."

Maybe Joshua would be a more convincing source?

"9:23
Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God."

Jeremiah brooch on the topic as well :

"17:4
And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever."

Old testament only? No. Jesus himself compare his Father to a slave-owner - that's not exactly being AGAINST the practice.

"12:46
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

12:47
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Ephesians :

"6:5
Should we
serve God alone?
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;"

again, Colossians

"3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;"

(incidentally : "3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.")

The same Paul, for the records, sends an escaped slave back to its masters (Philemon). He also repeat the kind of comments found in Colossians in 2 or 3 other books.

As for the contradict openly known facts part, I'll make a post on the topic later. I'll EVEN stick to history in the bible (and this or that amusing quote, such as the one about every animal fearing humans - I'm sure the white shark is dreadfully afraid of lunch, yes).

I don't know much about the women thing.
The slave thing I do know about. Some of these verse are talking about obeying you masters which I believe you should do. The others about about being nice to your slaves. The part when Jesus speaks He's talking about serving God. Which is also good. You wondering why they are even talking about slaves? Because they had slaves when this was written and they needed instructions on how to treat them.

I think the main thing is God created us to worship and love Him. He wanted us to have a choice (not just be like robots having only one choice). We have all chosen to go our own way (sin) and now there is a gap between God and us. The penalty of sin is death (eternal seperation from God). Jesus paid that penalty when He died on the cross for us. We need to accept that God is God, God is perfect and we are not. Jesus is the only way to God.
It's not realy about the bible it's about God.;)

Peace.

Phydeaux
Sep 09, 2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Speedo
While it could be argued that the 10 commandments are a symbol of the history of law and do belong in a courthouse, everyone and their extended family is going to view them as a symbol of judaism (sp?) or christianity.

Um why does that matter?

Global Nexus
Sep 09, 2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Phydeaux


Um why does that matter?

Because not EVERYONE is a Christian or Jew.

Kryten
Sep 09, 2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
The slave thing I do know about. Some of these verse are talking about obeying you masters which I believe you should do. The others about about being nice to your slaves. The part when Jesus speaks He's talking about serving God. Which is also good. You wondering why they are even talking about slaves? Because they had slaves when this was written and they needed instructions on how to treat them.


A good point.
The bible is of course a product of it's time, and in those days, slavery was not considered to be evil.
And it does broadly say "be nice to your slaves".

This message did have an effect, as by the 5th century, once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, slaves did begin to recieve some limited rights (you could no longer kill a slave without permission for example), as well as the cult of the gladiators being actively and effectively discouraged.

Xen
Sep 09, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Global Nexus


Because not EVERYONE is a Christian or Jew.

Like me, a Roman Polytheist :D, and your main source for the archaic near-forgotten when compred to christianity wisdom of the Gods :D

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Global Nexus


Because not EVERYONE is a Christian or Jew.

Yeah your right. Does that mean that the government should not teach evolution in schools? Because not EVERYONE is a evolutionist.:p

Hamlet
Sep 10, 2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
Yeah your right. Does that mean that the government should not teach evolution in schools? Because not EVERYONE is a evolutionist.:p

Beliefs are seperate from what we glean through scientific understanding, and generally accepted logical and factual understanding for the basis of the universe/society/whatever.

You may as well argue that schools shouldn't teach that the earth is spherical, for fear of offending flat-earthers.

It's completely different from teaching a set religion or set of beliefs, which by their nature can only be determined by the individual through spiritiual discovery.

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by Hamlet


Beliefs are seperate from what we lean through scientific understanding, and generally accepted logical and factual understanding for the basis of the universe/society/whatever.

You may as well argue that schools shouldn't teach that the earth is spherical, for fear of offending flat-earthers.

It's completely different from teaching a set religion or set of beliefs, which by their nature can only be determined by the individual through spiritiual discovery.

What I am suggesting is that we don't teach evolution in schools,
1 because as far as I know it has not ben proven (like that God made the world has not ben proven).
2 Because there are other believes on how the world was put in place suggesting happened.
This does not mean I am suggesting we teach other believes

It has ben proven that the earth is spherical when people went around the world and went in to space.

Speedo
Sep 10, 2003, 07:32 AM
Evolution is a scientific theory that has plenty of evidence to support it- just no definite proof. Though I believe that God created teh world/universe/etc I don't see any scientific proof that He snapped his fingers and made it pop into existence.

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Speedo
Evolution is a scientific theory that has plenty of evidence to support it- just no definite proof. Though I believe that God created teh world/universe/etc I don't see any scientific proof that He snapped his fingers and made it pop into existence.

What about this http://www.halos.com/ ?

Free Enterprise
Sep 10, 2003, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
No mention of flat world? There are mention of seeing ALL THE WORLD from the top of a mountain (Jesus, specifically, taken there by the devil) which is impossible if the earth is not flat ; mentions of the four corners of the world (a sphere does not have corners, buddy) - therefore a literal reading DOES say the world is flat.

IIRC, right in Genesis the moon is called a light. But the moon has no light of its own.


Yep, this attempt is still going around.....

Ok first of all the earth IS NOT a perfect sphere. The world is more like a pear or a fruit. Do you think actually think the world is perfectly round? Mountains, buddy.

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 08:20 AM
@Free Enterprise Did you not read what I said? The fact that it's more like a pear is not the piont.

Hamlet
Sep 10, 2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
1 because as far as I know it has not ben proven (like that God made the world has not ben proven).

That's a rather bizzare argument. Bibilical Creationism cannot be proved, or disproved, as it's a belief, not a theory. Evolution can be proved or disproved, and has a whole host of evidence to support it.

There are, incidentally, plenty of other theories that are taught in classrooms; science can only operate on the avalible analysis of the universe and the world, and the best way of interpreting the data on them. If you demanded 100% proof for everything taught within Science lessons, you probably wouldn't have much to teach in the first place.

Originally posted by Phydeaux
Because there are other believes on how the world was put in place suggesting happened.

Belief is irrelevant to scientific analysis. You shouldn't take something off the scientific curriculum because it does not correlate with someone's beliefs on that particular subject.

If you did that, you probably wouldn't have a curriculum.

Children should be taught about different faiths and beliefs within appropriate lessons; namely, religious education.

Originally posted by Phydeaux
It has ben proven that the earth is spherical when people went around the world and went in to space.

There is proof, and good proof of such a 'fact'; flat earthers chose to believe in an alternative interpreation of how the world is structured. There is not totally reliable 100% proof that you can give a person to say the earth is spherical, but there is plenty of good evidence for it.

Evolution also has lots of proof to back it up as a theory, and a possible fact. Likewise, there is a good amount of evidence, but Creationists simply believe in an alternative interpreation.

I fail to see the ultimate distinction between the two.

Hamlet
Sep 10, 2003, 09:04 AM
DP.

WillJ
Sep 10, 2003, 09:13 AM
Phydeaux, evolution HAS been proven. Take a look at dog breeds. Did those dog breeds exist 500 years ago? No. Treat a disease with medicine. Eventually the bacteria will become immune to the medicine. That's evolution. The same applies with pests (cockroaches, etc.) and various means of pest control. Even perfectly natural means of evolution with simple organisms (such as bacteria and fruit flies) has been documented first-hand.

There is no 100% proof that humans and apes share a common ancestor, but there is very, VERY strong evidence. If it takes 100% certainty for you to believe something, you shouldn't believe in gravity. With your logic, the teaching of gravity in schools should be forbidden. And most history shouldn't be taught either; the study of history usually relies on evidence that doesn't prove something, but only strongly supports it.

Another thing: Teaching something is different from forcing someone to believe it. If you're taught evolution in school, will they shoot you in the head if you tell them your Chrisitian beliefs? No; you're completely allowed to think evolution is a bunch of crap.

Education is the key to progress, and if scientific theories weren't taught until they were proven, they'd never be proven.

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Hamlet


That's a rather bizzare argument. Bibilical Creationism cannot be proved, or disproved, as it's a belief, not a theory. Evolution can be proved or disproved, and has a whole host of evidence to support it.

There are, incidentally, plenty of other theories that are taught in classrooms; science can only operate on the avalible analysis of the universe and the world, and the best way of interpreting the data on them. If you demanded 100% proof for everything taught within Science lessons, you probably wouldn't have much to teach in the first place.



Belief is irrelevant to scientific analysis. You shouldn't take something off the scientific curriculum because it does not correlate with someone's beliefs on that particular subject.

If you did that, you probably wouldn't have a curriculum.

Children should be taught about different faiths and beliefs within appropriate lessons; namely, religious education.



There is proof, and good proof of such a 'fact'; flat earthers chose to believe in an alternative interpreation of how the world is structured. There is not totally reliable 100% proof that you can give a person to say the earth is spherical, but there is plenty of good evidence for it.

Evolution also has lots of proof to back it up as a theory, and a possible fact. Likewise, there is a good amount of evidence, but Creationists simply believe in an alternative interpreation.

I fail to see the ultimate distinction between the two.

Alot of it can be disproved and some of it can be used for suporting creationisom. Creationisom looks for things that mach up with the bible like a fast creation of the world. Send the flat earthers into space and see what the say:p .

Kilroy
Sep 10, 2003, 10:16 AM
Hey Phydeaux, you live in the Bible Belt, right? How about you guys just secede again and you can perform whatever backwards quasi-religious social experiment you like until the whole area either sinks into the ocean or becomes Cuban territory?

I mean, you've demonstrated countless times that you're either unable or unwilling to process new data and incorporate it into your worldview. Whatever anybody, anywhere, anytime, ever tells you about anything, anything at all, will pass directly through your ears and out into the void.

So I guess what I'm saying is, why did you post this thread if you don't care what anyone has to say, and aren't willing to entertain their thoughts? Are you a troll, because that's what I'm thinking.

Anyway this is you:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 10:25 AM
I don't know I'll think about it.

Free Enterprise
Sep 10, 2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
@Free Enterprise Did you not read what I said? The fact that it's more like a pear is not the piont.

I was responding exactly to what the person I quoted said.

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by WillJ
Phydeaux, evolution HAS been proven. Take a look at dog breeds. Did those dog breeds exist 500 years ago? No. Treat a disease with medicine. Eventually the bacteria will become immune to the medicine. That's evolution. The same applies with pests (cockroaches, etc.) and various means of pest control. Even perfectly natural means of evolution with simple organisms (such as bacteria and fruit flies) has been documented first-hand.

There is no 100% proof that humans and apes share a common ancestor, but there is very, VERY strong evidence. If it takes 100% certainty for you to believe something, you shouldn't believe in gravity. With your logic, the teaching of gravity in schools should be forbidden. And most history shouldn't be taught either; the study of history usually relies on evidence that doesn't prove something, but only strongly supports it.

Another thing: Teaching something is different from forcing someone to believe it. If you're taught evolution in school, will they shoot you in the head if you tell them your Chrisitian beliefs? No; you're completely allowed to think evolution is a bunch of crap.

Education is the key to progress, and if scientific theories weren't taught until they were proven, they'd never be proven.

Ok what you say is right about that the dog stuff I'll look in to it. The gavity Isn't the reason why it's a thery because it has not ben proved how it works or some thing like that? Maybe you should try jumping off a cliff and come and tell me if gravity is a fact or a thery.

sourboy
Sep 10, 2003, 11:01 AM
Ok, I couldn't read more then a few posts as it seemed about as useful as a dog chasing it's tail, so forgive me if this has been said already:

Basically what we are all seeing is the fall of Theology, due to the gain of knowledge by science. This is a re-occuring trend that is necessary to the evolution of our views. It's kind of like the Ying-Yang theory. We need to reach a point of balance. We will keep swaying back & forth between two sides, slowly getting closer to the center point as we correct our previous wrongs.

On one side we have religion. The basic idea behind religion is to answer the 'unknowns' (who are we, why are we here, what is our purpose, etc), give us comfort (we are protected by a higher power, after-life bliss/heaven, etc), and eventually those who create it add things that teach us to be better to one another (10 commandments, do unto others..., etc). There's other things I have left out, but I'm trying to be vague as it would be off-topic to get into details.

On the other hand, there is science. The pursuit of knowledge. All that we claim to be true, based upon the world as we know it, to gain a better understanding. Notice I said 'better.'

Einstein once said something along the lines of 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' That's my point.

Once upon a time, many people believed in something called Mythology. In this theory, people believed there was a god for just about everything. If you fell out of a boat, you would think that it was because Poseidon (or some other variation) was mad at you. Eventually science stepped in and threw out facts like center of mass and gravity.

Mythology took the problems of their time and gave answers. It brought peace of mind. The power of placebo...a few prayers led seafarers to sleep better. At the same time, however, it encouraged another group of people: scholars. They spent their time trying to put the puzzle together with the few facts (or pieces) they had.

It was only a matter of time before science swung the pendulum of balance to their favor. They had factual answers that proved Mythology false. The problem is that new facts opened the way for new questions...and problems. Morale was low, as praying was deemed relatively pointless. Religion needed to return the pendulum of balance back in their direction. Enter Theology. The effects were staggering, since everyone was living in a dark age and desperately sought hope.

Back to the topic of the thread, I say again: Basically what we are all seeing is the fall of Theology. Science has made the Bible and other religious icons seem...well to avoid a flame back at me... seem less then what it was intended to be. In time Theology will seem as comical as Mythology does now, in terms of its reason. However, as we all know - it played a huge role in our history, and without it - who knows where we'd be today?

We can already see what the next new religion will be based upon. I always describe it as (seriously, just listen...) something along the lines of the 'Force' as decribed in Star Wars, and here's why:

When George Lucas created the films and needed to give a description of the Force, he decided to take a look at all the major religions of the world and then combine the common aspects. Why? Because the Force needed to be the 'religious' side of the story. It needed to be looked up to, as the story is relatively lame if the Force is lame. Would you really care if Anakin or Luke turned to the 'dark side' of the Force if the Force was comical? Common aspects were needed so everyone who had any religious thoughts could relate to the story, at least enough to think 'it's possible.'

How does this relate? Well if say Christianity tumbles, what are its followers going to do? Some will be traumatised, some will live on personal morals, some will convert to other religions, others will disect other religions - afterall, if Christianity was false, how do they know Buddhism isn't false too? From another standpoint, there's also pride. It would be tough to swallow the fact the Buddhism was the right answer - and in front of their faces all along - while they believed in Christianity. I'm not implying anything about Buddhism or Christianity, this is only an example.

The point I'm making is that if one falls, it would be rather likely others would follow suit shortly thereafter for various reasons. Assuming that were to happen, a new religion would eventually be formed. There are people reading this thread who live in dozens of different countries. By the time the process of Theology & other religions fall - and the need for a new one arises - the world will be much closer then it is now. A new religion could very easily be a global creation. If that happened, it would be created the same way Theology was created. Take the best parts of the previously adored religion, recycle them, add a bit of this & that - and unveil the 'new age.'

It's my belief that George Lucas stumbled upon our future. The Force is described as "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together" followed by "Life creates it, makes it grow. It's energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not ... crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you...me...the tree...the rock...everywhere!" Then there is the 'do good' aspect: "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack."

Now I'm not saying make the Force a religion. It's an example. I'm not sure what will happen in the future, but I do know this: science has the upper hand - and it's gaining. In time things will change. Religion will take hold again, and the cycle will continue.

Gothmog
Sep 10, 2003, 11:45 AM
@sourboy - nice post overall, but I am wondering what you think could cause Christianity to 'tumble'?

WillJ
Sep 10, 2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
The gavity Isn't the reason why it's a thery because it has not ben proved how it works or some thing like that? Maybe you should try jumping off a cliff and come and tell me if gravity is a fact or a thery. Basically, if I'm not mistaken, the theory of gravity is that when an object falls to Earth, it's falling because of a force between Earth and the object, and it's the same force that keeps the planets and sun, etc. etc. together and in motion.

However, how do you know that when you fall off a cliff, it's because of a natural force instead of an invisible man constantly pushing you downward? Or that you and the cliff are constantly getting bigger, so of course you and the cliff get closer and closer together, and you don't notice the change in the cliff's size because you're getting bigger too? There's other explanations too. They all sound absurd, but the point is that you can't be 100% sure of the force we've labeled "gravity."

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by WillJ
Basically, if I'm not mistaken, the theory of gravity is that when an object falls to Earth, it's falling because of a force between Earth and the object, and it's the same force that keeps the planets and sun, etc. etc. together and in motion.

However, how do you know that when you fall off a cliff, it's because of a natural force instead of an invisible man constantly pushing you downward? Or that you and the cliff are constantly getting bigger, so of course you and the cliff get closer and closer together, and you don't notice the change in the cliff's size because you're getting bigger too? There's other explanations too. They all sound absurd, but the point is that you can't be 100% of the force we've labeled "gravity."

Your right. So does this mean that if I find some proof that God made the world then it will be put in schools?:lol:

Phydeaux
Sep 10, 2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by sourboy
Ok, I couldn't read more then a few posts as it seemed about as useful as a dog chasing it's tail, so forgive me if this has been said already:

Basically what we are all seeing is the fall of Theology, due to the gain of knowledge by science. This is a re-occuring trend that is necessary to the evolution of our views. It's kind of like the Ying-Yang theory. We need to reach a point of balance. We will keep swaying back & forth between two sides, slowly getting closer to the center point as we correct our previous wrongs.

On one side we have religion. The basic idea behind religion is to answer the 'unknowns' (who are we, why are we here, what is our purpose, etc), give us comfort (we are protected by a higher power, after-life bliss/heaven, etc), and eventually those who create it add things that teach us to be better to one another (10 commandments, do unto others..., etc). There's other things I have left out, but I'm trying to be vague as it would be off-topic to get into details.

On the other hand, there is science. The pursuit of knowledge. All that we claim to be true, based upon the world as we know it, to gain a better understanding. Notice I said 'better.'

Einstein once said something along the lines of 'science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' That's my point.

Once upon a time, many people believed in something called Mythology. In this theory, people believed there was a god for just about everything. If you fell out of a boat, you would think that it was because Poseidon (or some other variation) was mad at you. Eventually science stepped in and threw out facts like center of mass and gravity.

Mythology took the problems of their time and gave answers. It brought peace of mind. The power of placebo...a few prayers led seafarers to sleep better. At the same time, however, it encouraged another group of people: scholars. They spent their time trying to put the puzzle together with the few facts (or pieces) they had.

It was only a matter of time before science swung the pendulum of balance to their favor. They had factual answers that proved Mythology false. The problem is that new facts opened the way for new questions...and problems. Morale was low, as praying was deemed relatively pointless. Religion needed to return the pendulum of balance back in their direction. Enter Theology. The effects were staggering, since everyone was living in a dark age and desperately sought hope.

Back to the topic of the thread, I say again: Basically what we are all seeing is the fall of Theology. Science has made the Bible and other religious icons seem...well to avoid a flame back at me... seem less then what it was intended to be. In time Theology will seem as comical as Mythology does now, in terms of its reason. However, as we all know - it played a huge role in our history, and without it - who knows where we'd be today?

We can already see what the next new religion will be based upon. I always describe it as (seriously, just listen...) something along the lines of the 'Force' as decribed in Star Wars, and here's why:

When George Lucas created the films and needed to give a description of the Force, he decided to take a look at all the major religions of the world and then combine the common aspects. Why? Because the Force needed to be the 'religious' side of the story. It needed to be looked up to, as the story is relatively lame if the Force is lame. Would you really care if Anakin or Luke turned to the 'dark side' of the Force if the Force was comical? Common aspects were needed so everyone who had any religious thoughts could relate to the story, at least enough to think 'it's possible.'

How does this relate? Well if say Christianity tumbles, what are its followers going to do? Some will be traumatised, some will live on personal morals, some will convert to other religions, others will disect other religions - afterall, if Christianity was false, how do they know Buddhism isn't false too? From another standpoint, there's also pride. It would be tough to swallow the fact the Buddhism was the right answer - and in front of their faces all along - while they believed in Christianity. I'm not implying anything about Buddhism or Christianity, this is only an example.

The point I'm making is that if one falls, it would be rather likely others would follow suit shortly thereafter for various reasons. Assuming that were to happen, a new religion would eventually be formed. There are people reading this thread who live in dozens of different countries. By the time the process of Theology & other religions fall - and the need for a new one arises - the world will be much closer then it is now. A new religion could very easily be a global creation. If that happened, it would be created the same way Theology was created. Take the best parts of the previously adored religion, recycle them, add a bit of this & that - and unveil the 'new age.'

It's my belief that George Lucas stumbled upon our future. The Force is described as "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together" followed by "Life creates it, makes it grow. It's energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not ... crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you...me...the tree...the rock...everywhere!" Then there is the 'do good' aspect: "A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack."

Now I'm not saying make the Force a religion. It's an example. I'm not sure what will happen in the future, but I do know this: science has the upper hand - and it's gaining. In time things will change. Religion will take h
old again, and the cycle will continue.

Maybe...

WillJ
Sep 10, 2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
Your right. So does this mean that if I find some proof that God made the world then it will be put in schools?:lol: Well, I suppose if you provide strong evidence for it, it will.

Quasar1011
Sep 10, 2003, 02:02 PM
Seems to me the separation of church and state, is discriminatory. After all, I don't hear any cries of "separation of mosque and state" or "separation of synagogue and state". Why single out Christians as objects of government oppression?

Free Enterprise
Sep 10, 2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Hey Phydeaux, you live in the Bible Belt, right? How about you guys just secede again and you can perform whatever backwards quasi-religious social experiment you like until the whole area either sinks into the ocean or becomes Cuban territory?


Well, the North could have decided not to be an imperial force. The Cuban territory idea is completely laughable if not a joke.

WillJ
Sep 10, 2003, 05:23 PM
I just realized I never answered the question that this thread is about, and heck, I live right in the area of discussion.

The first ammendment has NOTHING to do with not being able to put the Ten Commandments on public property. Here is the first ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Making a display of the Ten Commandments is not establishing a law. However, someone said earlier that the Alabama constitution doesn't allow display of religious symbols on public property, and I don't know whether that's true or not.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with displaying the Ten Commandments. I mean, how could anyone be offended by them? Go ahead and throw in the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism for all I care. No one's forcing me to live by them.

GerrardCapashen
Sep 10, 2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Quasar1011
Seems to me the separation of church and state, is discriminatory. After all, I don't hear any cries of "separation of mosque and state" or "separation of synagogue and state". Why single out Christians as objects of government oppression?

Is this a joke? The term "separation of church and state" refers to a separation, originally envisioned to be as solid and unyielding as a brick wall, between the government and religion. The reason the word church is used is because Christianity is the predominant Western religion, and also because it is usually the Christians who are more successful in getting their religious icons/symbols into government buildings. When's the last time you heard of a carving of the Five Pillars of Islam prominently placed in a government building, as was the case with the recent 10 Commandments furor in Alabama?

GerrardCapashen
Sep 10, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by WillJ
I just realized I never answered the question that this thread is about, and heck, I live right in the area of discussion.

The first ammendment has NOTHING to do with not being able to put the Ten Commandments on public property. Here is the first ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Making a display of the Ten Commandments is not establishing a law. However, someone said earlier that the Alabama constitution doesn't allow display of religious symbols on public property, and I don't know whether that's true or not.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with displaying the Ten Commandments. I mean, how could anyone be offended by them? Go ahead and throw in the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism for all I care. No one's forcing me to live by them.

A display of the Ten Commandments may not be legally binding, but it does gives the impression that Judeo-Christianity is the preferred religion of the government. It implies that Judeo-Christianity is the one religious grouping that is accepted enough by the government that they get to display their code of behavior, as is not the case with Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Taoism, and all the other religions that I can't think of at the moment. If you include one, you must include all so as to show no preference. Including all is unfeasible, as government buildings should use their space to serve the taxpayers, not to host an impromptu museum of religious symbols.

Anyway, my point was that any government sanctioned display implied government endorsement of that particular religion, and so I think that the 1st Amendment is perfectly clear as to who is in the right in this case. (I also think the same about money and the Pledge of Alliegiance) Please, don't anybody (not talking about you WillJ, more about people like Zarn) make some lame comeback like "If you don't want your money because of "In God We Trust ", give it to me."

I've never heard of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism; I always thought it was the Eightfold Path. Perhaps you could explain this, because I would be interested to learn more about it.

Quasar1011
Sep 10, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by GerrardCapashen

Is this a joke? The term "separation of church and state" refers to a separation, originally envisioned to be as solid and unyielding as a brick wall, between the government and religion.

I think you are trying to re-write history! Our founding fathers made dozens of statements indicating the moral foundation of our American government, was rooted in Judeo-Christian values.
The so-called separation of church and state does not exist in our founding documents. The term arrived via a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson, well after the Constitution was framed.

Originally posted by GerrardCapashen
The reason the word church is used is because Christianity is the predominant Western religion, and also because it is usually the Christians who are more successful in getting their religious icons/symbols into government buildings.

Thank you for making my point for me. As you said, the separation was "originally envisioned to be as solid and unyielding as a brick wall, between the government and religion".
Why not call it separation of religion and state then? That way, all religions would be treated the same. To separate the church from the state, while making no mention of other religions, is intolerant and discriminatory.

WillJ
Sep 10, 2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by GerrardCapashen
A display of the Ten Commandments may not be legally binding, but it does gives the impression that Judeo-Christianity is the preferred religion of the government. It implies that Judeo-Christianity is the one religious grouping that is accepted enough by the government that they get to display their code of behavior, as is not the case with Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Taoism, and all the other religions that I can't think of at the moment. If you include one, you must include all so as to show no preference. Including all is unfeasible, as government buildings should use their space to serve the taxpayers, not to host an impromptu museum of religious symbols.

Anyway, my point was that any government sanctioned display implied government endorsement of that particular religion, and so I think that the 1st Amendment is perfectly clear as to who is in the right in this case. (I also think the same about money and the Pledge of Alliegiance) Please, don't anybody (not talking about you WillJ, more about people like Zarn) make some lame comeback like "If you don't want your money because of "In God We Trust ", give it to me."Point taken, but so what if it displays that Judeo-Christianity is the preffered religion of the government? The government isn't establishing any sort of official religion, and it is my opinion that the people in government can express their religious feelings however they want. When the governor of Alabama decides to establish an Inquisition, THEN we've got a problem. :)Originally posted by GerrardCapashen
I've never heard of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism; I always thought it was the Eightfold Path. Perhaps you could explain this, because I would be interested to learn more about it. Here ya go:

http://ky.essortment.com/whatarefourno_ritl.htm

The Eightfold Path is included in the Four Noble Truths, IIRC.

Pontiuth Pilate
Sep 10, 2003, 07:15 PM
Seems to me the separation of church and state, is discriminatory. After all, I don't hear any cries of "separation of mosque and state" or "separation of synagogue and state". Why single out Christians as objects of government oppression?

How is the government oppressing you, Quasar?

I think you are trying to re-write history! Our founding fathers made dozens of statements indicating the moral foundation of our American government, was rooted in Judeo-Christian values.

Enlightenment values, not Christian values. The founding fathers decried slavery, and many wanted it permanently done away with, although people from your area of the world prevented that. Since when does the Bible actively condemn slavery? Heck the Bible says I can sell my daughter into prostitution if I want.

Some, many actually, of the values that we enshrine today - due process of law, for instance, since it applies to this 10-commandments-in-the-courthouse case - all these values come from Hellenistic or Roman traditions, revived by the Humanists, and passed on to our country by the American Enlightenment thinkers. In places where those traditions were ignored or reviled, trial by ordeal, the Christian tradition, continued.

Jesus Christ contributed a heck of a lot to our legislative, our judicial, and our governmental traditions, but HE WAS NOT ALONE.

Why not call it separation of religion and state then? That way, all religions would be treated the same.

All religions ARE treated the same, except in two cases:

1. Yours, where you pretend to be wounded and oppressed in order to garner sympathy for pushing your religious symbols onto the public podium.

2. That Alabama judge's, in which his wonderful faith carried him away so much that he forgot to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW.

With such examples to guide us, who can complain that that wall of separation between religion and state should be battered down? We certainly don't want any more of either of you.

Kryten
Sep 10, 2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Quasar1011
Why single out Christians as objects of government oppression?

"Government oppression"!? It is nothing of the sort.
I hope that Vrylakas does not mind my quoting from the very clear post on page one of this thread.....

Originally posted by Vrylakas
This is an aspect of American society that mystifies me; American religious zealots have this convoluted logic that says they should be able to put their religious symbols anywhere and everywhere they want, disregarding the Constitution and local laws, and if they can't impose their religious views in this way on others then it is an abridgement of their religious rights. Since their religion says they must prosyletize, any attempt to stop them from doing so, all laws be damned, is against their rights. WTF? That's circular logic.


Edit: Oops! Too slow Kryten....Pontiuth Pilate posted before I did.

GerrardCapashen
Sep 10, 2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Quasar1011
I think you are trying to re-write history! Our founding fathers made dozens of statements indicating the moral foundation of our American government, was rooted in Judeo-Christian values.
The so-called separation of church and state does not exist in our founding documents. The term arrived via a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson, well after the Constitution was framed.

But not. If you will look at WillJ's above post, you will see the First Amendment, which clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Since the laws passed by Congress are the highest law in the land, and federal laws override state laws, it follows that religion cannot be involved in the legal system of the United States. You are mistaken as to the religious perspectives of the Founding Fathers, many of whom were deistic, agnostic, or even atheistic. But this is not your most grievous error, which is that you mistake the moral foundation of America (which I freely admit to be based on Christianity) for the legal justification of allowing religion to be supported and endorsed by the government. The two are not related.



Thank you for making my point for me. As you said, the separation was "originally envisioned to be as solid and unyielding as a brick wall, between the government and religion".
Why not call it separation of religion and state then? That way, all religions would be treated the same. To separate the church from the state, while making no mention of other religions, is intolerant and discriminatory.

Making your point for you? I think not. If you ask me, the overall attitude of people in the U.S.A. is much more influenced towards supporting Christianity in the government by their religious views that they are repelled by the specific common use of Christianity-specific vocabulary in our term for the separation of government and religion. I personally would much prefer the term "separation of religion and state" because it is all-inclusive rather than using vocabulary specific to a certain set of religion. I merely use the term for convenience, so as to be understood better. I expect that the pro-democracy students in Iran are calling for the "separation of mosque and state", and nobody is complaining that that is anti-Muslim because that isn't the issue, nor is it a problem.

Edit: Darn, Pontiuth Pilate beat me to the punch.

Quasar1011
Sep 10, 2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
How is the government oppressing you, Quasar?
It isn't, at least not in this area. My point was, if the government begins to restrict the expression of Christianity, while not restricting all religions, then it will have crossed the line into oppression. Which it has done so in Alabama in Judge Roy Moore's case.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
The founding fathers decried slavery, and many wanted it permanently done away with, although people from your area of the world prevented that. Actually, the people from my area of the world wanted to do away with slavery, considering I am a Yankee transplant in the south. Northern Christians went by the idea of "loving another as yourself", and even "think of others as being higher than yourself", which would obviously preclude owning slaves. My area of the world is Sylvania. :D

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Yours, where you pretend to be wounded and oppressed in order to garner sympathy for pushing your religious symbols onto the public podium. I neither need nor want sympathy. Symbols I do not have. If CFC be a public podium, then so be it. So far, I am getting what I want, which is the right to express my views without interference.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
2. That Alabama judge's, in which his wonderful faith carried him away so much that he forgot to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW. Judge Roy Moore had no official duty to the nation, only to the State of Alabama. But even with regards to the U.S. Constitution, the judge was follwing the law, not violating it. Judge Roy Moore’s own words:

"One nation under God was their cry and declaration, Upon the law of Nature's God they built a mighty Nation. For unlike mankind before them who had walked this earthen sod, These men would never question the Sovereignty of God.

"That all men were 'created' was a truth 'self-evident,' To secure the rights God gave us was the role of government. And if any form of government became destructive of this end, It was their right, their duty, a new one to begin."

"The issue in this case is the state of Alabama can acknowledge God," Chief Justice Moore told Fox News. The state constitution 'invokes the favoring guidance of Almighty God and no federal court has declared [Alabama's] constitution unconstitutional."

"It's very important that, as the chief administrative officer of the justice system, that I uphold my oath to the Alabama Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. Neither the First Amendment nor the Alabama Constitution forbid an acknowledgment of God."

Therefore, what you see as the Judge's failure "... to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW.", I see as his supporting and upholding the law in the face of runaway judicial rulings. If, as the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", then no law is allowed to be passed which restricts the judge from exercising his freedom of religion.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
-John Adams, 2nd President of the United States of America

Kilroy
Sep 10, 2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Quasar1011

I think you are trying to re-write history! Our founding fathers made dozens of statements indicating the moral foundation of our American government, was rooted in Judeo-Christian values.

John Adams:

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Additional quotes from John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

“...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry. . . .”

Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia (Query 17, “Religion”):
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. . . .”

“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”

Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”

James Madison:

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

Benjamin Franklin:

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Thomas Paine:

From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning....Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”

Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”

Ethan Allen:

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

The so-called separation of church and state does not exist in our founding documents. The term arrived via a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson, well after the Constitution was framed.

More than just Thomas Jefferson thought that way.

If Congress were to pass a law that required the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all federal courthouses, that would be unconstitutional as it is related to the establishment of a religion. Same goes for any other religious symbol, regardless of what religion they're from. This argument that "church" is somehow descriminatory is rubbish - it clearly refers to all religions and besides, the word "church" doesn't appear in the first amendment anyway.

The first amendment and the fourteenth amendment, when taken together, amount to a restiction against state legislatures in regards to making laws respecting the establishment of religion. However, this is not a legislature, this is a court. Does it apply? Probably not, furthermore the Alabama legislature can't pass a law prohibiting it, because that would be a law respecting the establishment of religion! However if, for example, it were prohibited by the state constitution, then the judge would have to remove the monument.

In any case, this does not run counter to the US Constitution.

Thank you for making my point for me. As you said, the separation was "originally envisioned to be as solid and unyielding as a brick wall, between the government and religion".
Why not call it separation of religion and state then? That way, all religions would be treated the same. To separate the church from the state, while making no mention of other religions, is intolerant and discriminatory.

I can't speak for Jefferson, but I'm almost sure that's what he meant. Don't be so pedantic - it's a piss-poor way to argue.

Pontiuth Pilate
Sep 10, 2003, 10:15 PM
Edit: Oops! Too slow Kryten....Pontiuth Pilate posted before I did.

Edit: Darn, Pontiuth Pilate beat me to the punch.

Fast Fingers beats them all to the draw :D :10gallonhat:

@ Quasar:

My point was, if the government begins to restrict the expression of Christianity, while not restricting all religions, then it will have crossed the line into oppression. Which it has done so in Alabama in Judge Roy Moore's case.

Nonsense. To restrict one religion is unconstitutional. To restrict some religions, and some more than others, is discriminatory on top of being unconstitutional, sort of like adding insult to injury. Fortunately, no such circumstances are under consideration here. It is not oppression to forbid you to put a bronze Bible in a courthouse, because to do so is unconstitutional. If you find that following the Constitution equals oppression, then you can move to Iran. Nor is it discrimination, because nobody else, of any other religion, can put their tenets, or a monument symbolizing them, on govt property, and that covers the gamut from animism to Anglicanism.

I note here that only the Christians are thick-headedly unadvised as to the Constitution's contents, or perhaps so secure of their dominance in your parochial state, as to ask for this unconstitutional monument. The other religions know their business, namely:

There are plenty of other ways to display your Bible, if you wish, in crass and crude prominence. You can buy a plot of land in the city center, tear down all the buildings on it, and erect a 50-story high bronze monument of Moses if you like. Your property, your rights. I imagine the zoning code wouldn't like it though.

The point is, the courthouse is yours, it's mine, it's everybody's, and therefore it can't be the place to advocate religion, because then the republic is advocating it, not individuals. That's not oppression, that's protecting you from Buddhist monuments and me from Christian monuments.

It protects everyone's rights equally by ignoring religion altogether, on public property. This is the safest path any nation can tread.


"One nation under God was their cry and declaration, Upon the law of Nature's God they built a mighty Nation. For unlike mankind before them who had walked this earthen sod, These men would never question the Sovereignty of God.

Bullsh*t. Kilroy provides some excellent examples of why this is Christian propaganda, but these are the cream of the crop, not the entire harvest. Believe me, there's more. I can find some if you insist on being stubborn.

"That all men were 'created' was a truth 'self-evident,' To secure the rights God gave us was the role of government. And if any form of government became destructive of this end, It was their right, their duty, a new one to begin."

And some did not believe in God. Unlike you, the Founding Fathers were not selfish in their philosophy - they knew that people would disagree, and they had seen the harm that a state religion had wrought. So, even though a FEW , even though a FEW believed in God, they did not make the govt force people to believe in God.

"The issue in this case is the state of Alabama can acknowledge God," Chief Justice Moore told Fox News. The state constitution 'invokes the favoring guidance of Almighty God and no federal court has declared [Alabama's] constitution unconstitutional."

What about the Alabaman atheists? Can the State of Alabama acknowledge that God does not exist? Or was Mr. Moore not thinking of them?

Just because something is popular, does not mean it is right. That's mob rule, not democracy. No matter how large a majority there is, a democracy PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF EVEN THE SMALLEST MINORITY. And that includes what is probably the smallest of all: atheists in Alabama.

"It's very important that, as the chief administrative officer of the justice system, that I uphold my oath to the Alabama Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. Neither the First Amendment nor the Alabama Constitution forbid an acknowledgment of God."

They do forbid that Congress, and by extension [by interpretation of the Supreme Court, to whom this renegade judge IS responsible] all the government, favor one religion over another. And that includes putting this monument in the courthouse.

Therefore, what you see as the Judge's failure "... to do his duty to the nation and SUPPORT & ENFORCE THE LAW.", I see as his supporting and upholding the law in the face of runaway judicial rulings. If, as the first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...", then no law is allowed to be passed which restricts the judge from exercising his freedom of religion.

The judge's religion is irrelevant.

[B]The judge's jurisdiction is to determine whether this monument is legal or illegal. Since it CLEARLY FAVORS one religion over others [no Buddhist monument, remember?], since it CLEARLY ENDORSES that religion [symbolizing that the 10 commandments are the root of our judicial system] and since it CLEARLY IS ON PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, and therefore is representative of the views of the government, this monument is CLEARLY ILLEGAL. No question about it.

Let me make this absolutely clear. Even if our nation was founded by devout Christians [which it wasn't], and even if the Judeo Christian ethic is the parent of our modern legal system [which it isn't], and even if absolutely nobody raised an objection [which, of course, has failed to happen], THIS MONUMENT WOULD STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Hamlet
Sep 11, 2003, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
Alot of it can be disproved and some of it can be used for suporting creationisom. Creationisom looks for things that mach up with the bible like a fast creation of the world.

How is this relevant? Creationism isn't a scientific theory, and it certainly isn't a serious scientific comeptitor to evolution.

Originally posted by Phydeaux
Send the flat earthers into space and see what the say:p .

The point being, ultimate, total faith in belief will ultimately disregard 100% total evidence. That's not the current case with this subject, but the point stands - current scientific understanding should not be completely dictated to by theological/spiritual position to the extent where science is stamped on by subjects that aren't relevant to understandign based on observations.

FredLC
Sep 11, 2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
Send the flat earthers into space and see what the say:p .

It will probably be something like "our eyes cannot capture the work of God; earth is flat, it just seens round because the light reflected is distorted by a misterious energy that science haven't explained yet".

That's what creationists do about fossil record and genetic evidence, so I don't see why flat earthers can't also rely on plain denial.

Regards :).

Phydeaux
Sep 11, 2003, 10:42 AM
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hamlet


How is this relevant? Creationism isn't a scientific theory, and it certainly isn't a serious scientific comeptitor to evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If God made the earth then there would be evidence of Him doing so right?
Maybe you should reasearch on Creationism do searchs like creation yong earth and stuff like that. Here http://www.texasoutside.com/glenrose/creation-museum.htm a web page to get you started.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hamlet


The point being, ultimate, total faith in belief will ultimately disregard 100% total evidence. That's not the current case with this subject, but the point stands - current scientific understanding should not be completely dictated to by theological/spiritual position to the point where science is stamped on by subjects that aren't relevant to understandin based on observations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your right nothing is 100%. Science can not understand the spiritual world.
Science is for looking at the earth not for looking spiritual. The spiritual is for looking at God. None of the facts in the bible on how the world was made has ben proved wrong and we have found evidence that God made the world. Evolution is just another way of looking at how the world was put into place.

Free Enterprise
Sep 11, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by FredLC


It will probably be something like "our eyes cannot capture the work of God; earth is flat, it just seens round because the light reflected is distorted by a misterious energy that science haven't explained yet".

That's what creationists do about fossil record and genetic evidence, so I don't see why flat earthers can't also rely on plain denial.

Regards :).

Narrow characterization and blatantly misleading analogy with flat earth.

Hamlet
Sep 11, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
If God made the earth then there would be evidence of Him doing so right?

No, not neccesarily. It would depend on what you meant by 'Creationism.'

As far as I understand the term, it would imply that you simply believed that god created the Universe and everything in it. And unless he leaves a tree with 'GOD WAZ ERE' on it, then there shouldn't be any direct scientific evidence for that.

As I said, evolution is the most reliable theory for explaining natural development. It's probably not without holes in it in some areas - but it's the best analysis based on the avalible data.

How exactly do you suppose evolution came to be so widely accepted by people and scientists, anyway?

Originally posted by Phydeaux
None of the facts in the bible on how the world was made has ben proved wrong

He who suggests must prove.

As I said, Creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a belief; it can't be proved one way or the other.

Originally posted by Phydeaux
and we have found evidence that God made the world.

Really? Or have you merely found discrepencies within evolution?

Originally posted by Phydeaux
Evolution is just another way of looking at how the world was put into place.

Evolution/science is based on physical understanding. In this, it differs totally from creationism in the classical sense, which relies in the infalibility of scripture for legitimacy as a belief.

The fact that some creationists feel compelled to compile some sort of evidence or pseudo-evidence is, in fact, a tacit admission that the classical basis for creationism is flawed. It's an adoption of the scientific method in an attempt to prove something that can't, ultimately be proved. I find that rather amusing, tbh.

Phydeaux
Sep 11, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Hamlet


No, not neccesarily. It would depend on what you meant by 'Creationism.'

As far as I understand the term, it would imply that you simply believed that god created the Universe and everything in it. And unless he leaves a tree with 'GOD WAZ ERE' on it, then there shouldn't be any direct scientific evidence for that.

As I said, evolution is the most reliable theory for explaining natural development. It's probably not without holes in it in some areas - but it's the best analysis based on the avalible data.

How exactly do you suppose evolution came to be so widely accepted by people and scientists, anyway?



He who suggests must prove.

As I said, Creationism is not a scientific theory. It's a belief; it can't be proved one way or the other.



Really? Or have you merely found discrepencies within evolution?



Evolution/science is based on physical understanding. In this, it differs totally from creationism in the classical sense, which relies in the infalibility of scripture for legitimacy as a belief.

The fact that some creationists feel compelled to compile some sort of evidence or pseudo-evidence is, in fact, a tacit admission that the classical basis for creationism is flawed. It's an adoption of the scientific method in an attempt to prove something that can't, ultimately be proved. I
find that rather amusing, tbh.

What I mean by Creationism is a theory that God created the world. There would be proof that the earth was created in 6 days or at least that it didn't take mils of years. The proof is spread out all over and some things that have not yet been discovered. Evolution has all types things but have yet to find evidence of something changing in the fossil reckerd. I don't really think evolution has any proof what so ever...

Dr Alimentado
Sep 11, 2003, 06:39 PM
bah! Why does every post even remotely to do with religion end up being a creationist debate!

Phydeaux, if you want to try and discredit evoloution please (for the sake of this lurkers sanity) go and do it in a more appropriate thread.

This thread topic is actually mildly interesting - it will be a shame if it devolves (pun intended) into yet another endless creationist vs ToE thread imo.

Kryten
Sep 11, 2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Phydeaux
I don't really think evolution has any proof what so ever... [/B]

Answer:-
You dig into the ground....
You find remains of creatures that are still alive today, so you dig deeper....
You now find the remains of creatures that are not alive today, so you dig deeper...
You now find only the remains of sea creatures, with no land creatures at all....
Dig deep enough, and you will find NO remains....
(A bit simplistic, but this fact was noticed way back in the 18th century, and is the basis of palaeontology)

Now, why is the real world organised this way?
IF Genesis as laid out in the bible was correct, then as you dig down you should find the remains of ALL the creatures that had ever existed all jumbled together, and then none at all as you get deeper.
But what we find is the exact opposite: certain creatures in certain layers....and the deeper you go, then the less complex they are.

The Englishman William “Strata” Smith was the first modern biostratigrapher. He determined the succession of strata in Britain and their included fossils, a truly monumental achievement. Biostratigraphic correlation was not a new idea, having been suggested by Hooke, but it was untried. Smith, an engineer, travelled widely in Britain surveying mines and canals. Successive strata exposed during excavations demonstrated that characteristic fossil species and assemblages (guide or index fossils) were limited to particular parts of the rock record. The utility of this methodology was demonstrated when Smith’s biostratigraphic schemes were proved to be applicable elsewhere in Europe and the world.

Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2002.
Who do you think is more likely to be right?
* Modern palaeontologists, who spend their whole working career going out into the field, digging up fossil remains, categorising them, studying them, and subjecting items to the full rigours of modern science, and all under the full scrutiny of their peers?
* Or a bunch of primitives, several thousand years ago, living in mud-brick huts, who never thought to look for themselves, had no concept of modern analytical methods, and simply made 'guesses' about how the world was organised?
(And if your answer is the people several thousand years ago, then can I assume that you also don't believe in modern doctors, surgeons and medicine?
Because that is another field that has been built upon categorising, studying, and subjecting items to the full rigours of modern science, instead of making 'guesses' about how things are organised in the real world.) ;)

Edit: Oops yet again!
This time Dr Alimentado posted before I did (I've only got two typing fingers and one brain cell I'm afraid. :crazyeye: )
Yes, this thread is about seperating religion from government....not evolution.
(I'm a naughty Kryten. :blush: )

Pontiuth Pilate
Sep 11, 2003, 07:14 PM
That is because there isn't a debate to be had about the separation of church and state [or religon and state, for the mortally affronted aka Quasar].

The most credible argument I've seen so far is that the wall of separation is an "overinterpretation" and the result of "runaway judicial meddling".

Tough luck, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the law of the land, and if you don't like it you can move to Bhutan, Indonesia, China, Iran, Arkansas, etc.

FredLC
Sep 11, 2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Free Enterprise
Narrow characterization and blatantly misleading analogy with flat earth.

Is it? Let’s see…

There is evidence about the roundness of Earth since Erasthatones (sp?) have done his experiments with triangles; still, many refused to accept or to believe in it, and it was a matter of controversy that existed until Yuri Gagarine traveled to space and saw it with his own eyes.

Well, certainly, not all of us have saw earth with their own eyes… but that’s what cameras and videotapes are for, right?

Of course, that resource is also available to prove that man went to the moon… and still, there are people who doubt it, and make whole websites to advocate their denial. After all, testimonies should always be taken with a grain of salt, and the magic of technology has allowed us to see dinosaurs and matrixes in the screen. So, when we accept those pieces of information, what are we using, if not faith?

And faith in what, exactly? In scientists and their accomplishments, be then space shuttles or videoconference. It’s faith in people that have the same bases to take their conclusions as those used by the ones who defend evolution, or that Erasthatones (sp?) used so long ago to conclude himself, without all the gadgets of modern science, that earth was round.

That’s when we notice that it was not faith at all. It was trust. Trust, because we can walk on their shoes, and test the evidence for ourselves. Because there is no intrinsic factor preventing us from reaching the same conclusions. It’s trust, because we see that when we walk a mile on their shoes, we always end up in the same place.

His conclusion could not be proven beyond doubt in his time (despite mathematics and trigonometry could put it beyond reasonable); it took a few thousand of years until that same mindset that he had – empirical thinking and scientific method – created the tools to provide a virtually irrefutable proof.

That, of course, could be refuted by lack of reasonability – after all, testimonies with a grain of salt, matrixes and dinosaurs, they are still in our heads. And people could, like I said, claim divine intervention, or mysterious energies, to state that the tools of technology, filled with vice inherited from the imperfection of their creators, to advocate that reality does not match what we currently think of it.

And that is when we feel the difference between trust and faith; the first is open to all, allow us to evaluate and analyze it, understand it, repeat it. Nothing can prevent us from getting to it… while the second, well, even if we “open our minds”, we can never analyze it… because it’s all about mysteries and more mysteries that cannot be solved, such as the above mentioned “divine intervention” and “mysterious energies”.

When we apply this logic to the matter of evolutionism, well, what does it have?

We have a theory with profound implications, which exists for less than two centuries. It’s like a fraction of the time that humanity has taken to prove that earth is round, so, here we get the first similarity. The obviousness of the shape of the earth still took such an amount of time to be proven, that your statement, that implicates that flat earthers are less reasonable than creationists, falls flat (pun intended), as they too were able to defend their causes and achieve a stream of successes for a significant period of time.

And what is creationism? Well, it’s again, the intervention of the divine and it’s mysterious energies. Just like the one that support the flat earthers.

We live a moment where we cannot provide a supremely virtuous proof of evolution, just like Erasthatones couldn’t, in his time, provide a perfect evidence of a round earth. Because, in both cases, we have facts that aren’t definitive, but have so much supporting indications that it’s virtually as proven as any indirect evidence can provide. Fossils and genetics and biology are as conclusive as trigonometry and mathematics once were.

And, just like some people say that man never went to the moon, some people deny the evidence of evolution, and refuse to acknowledge the enormous implications of it. And they do it with exactly the same tenacity that people once used to deny the shape of earth.

See why my comparison was never narrow, nor my analogy misleading? In all those cases, we have one side that is supported by a functional methodology, tons of data and by an history of successes in achieving knowledge, being confronted by other that rely on plain faith, lacking any supporting grounds except the faith itself. They fit each other like a glove.

They only masking themselves by partially learning about the technical disagreements of the scientific community on the mechanics of the evolution theory, and repeating them, many times erroneously, to cannibalize the respectability of the technical glossary of science to try to sound like they dispute them with technique, while never proposing anything of minimal validity, except by repeating the same chore of faith that flat earthers used to support their view.

So you please, be careful before you disregard the similarities of creationism with the supporters of the flat-earth theory. In the end, taken out all the make up and all the dancing around, they are fruits from the same tree.

Regards :).

Quasar1011
Sep 11, 2003, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Nonsense. To restrict one religion is unconstitutional.
Hey, that's what I said. Thanks for agreeing, Pontius.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
It is not oppression to forbid you to put a bronze Bible in a courthouse, because to do so is unconstitutional.

Exactly. It is unconstitutional to forbid putting a bronze Bible in a courthouse, if the duly elected Supreme Court Justice of the State
is admonished by the state constitution to "invoke the favor of Almighty God". This is what the 1st amendment means when it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . You seem happy to quote the first part of that clause, and forget about the 2nd part.
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
THIS MONUMENT WOULD STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
If it were unconstitutional, then why are similar monuments on display at the United States Supreme Court building? A sculpture over the east portico of the U. S. Supreme Court Building is entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty." At the center of the sculpture is Moses holding the two tablets of the 10 Commandments. The lower portions of the oak doors leading to the Supreme Court's Inner Courtroom are ingraved with the Ten Commandments. Also, the marble bas-relief panel in the Inner Courtroom of the U. S. Supreme Court Building just above the head of the Chief Justice depicts two personages: "The Power of Government" and "The Majesty of the Law." Between these personages is a tablet representing the 10 Commandments. If you don't believe me, go to Washington and see for yourself. You'd see this in the United States Supreme Court building though:

Sims2789
Sep 11, 2003, 10:14 PM
COMPLETE Spereation of Church and State and COMPLETE Freedom of Religion. No Federal, State, County or City or any other government sponsorship of ANY religion OR Athiesm

Quasar1011
Sep 11, 2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by GerrardCapashen
you mistake the moral foundation of America (which I freely admit to be based on Christianity) for the legal justification of allowing religion to be supported and endorsed by the government.

Gerrard, the United States of America, did it begin in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence? Or did it begin in 1789 with the Constitution?

Which document is this quote from? "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Whichever document that is from, asserts that both the legal and moral justification for America's founding, comes from "Nature's God".

:)

P.S. This document also includes an appeal to "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence". Still sounds to me like the founding fathers relied heavily on God, and that they knew from whence their power came.

FredLC
Sep 11, 2003, 10:22 PM
Quasar, let me ask you this... What do you think if I creat a religion that say that I have to make human sacrifices to the full moon? What if I write a gospel advocating that drinking the blood of dead children is the path to eternal salvation?

Would you quote that part of the law, and say that I cannot be forbiden, because the constitution says that Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

You seen to lack comprehention of the fact that your right, despite existing, ceases to be when it starts disrespecting the rights of others.

So, my right to profess religion does not allow me to disrespect the right of living of the children in my neighborhood.

And your right of exercizing religion does not allow you to force your religion in public property.

oh, one more thing... if there is indeed a religious monument in the supreme court, than it's also inconstitutional. The sacred part of a supreme court is not the building where they make the judgements, but the law behind them.

And the law does not allow it, plain and simple.

Regards :).

Sims2789
Sep 11, 2003, 10:35 PM
if we make an official State religion, then i would want California to become it's own country.

GerrardCapashen
Sep 11, 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Quasar1011


Gerrard, the United States of America, did it begin in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence? Or did it begin in 1789 with the Constitution?

Which document is this quote from? "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Whichever document that is from, asserts that both the legal and moral justification for America's founding, comes from "Nature's God".

:)

P.S. This document also includes an appeal to "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence". Still sounds to me like the founding fathers relied heavily on God, and that they knew from whence their power came.

The current basis of the U.S. government, namely the Constitution, was drafted in 1789. independence may have been won and the Articles of Confederation set up in between 1776 and 1789, but there are no legal holdovers in the current system of government from the Articles of Confederation.

The document to which you allude is obviously the Declaration of Independence, which I note was just a catalyst for the eruption of revolution, and certainly not a basis for the government that was set up after the Paris Treaty of 1783. Kilroy has already given many examples of the varied beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and the "reliance on Providence" which seems to speak so much to you was probably just compromise language to satisfy the devout among them, just as the three-fifths compromise later was put in the Constitution to appease the slaveholders who otherwise would not have ratified the Constitution.

To answer your question directly, I say the the United States we live in really began in 1789 with the Constitution, not 1776. The difference in the power and makeup of the federal government is so different from that which existed under the Articles of Confederation that legal questions, most especially those pertaining to the constitutionality or lack thereof of a certain action, that it is to the Constitution and the subsequent judicial interpretations of the law of the land that we should turn to resolve the issue.

I think that the prohibition of establishment of religion is perfectly clear for reasons that I stated earlier in response to WillJ. If you need to see them again then I shall reiterate them.

Free Enterprise
Sep 12, 2003, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by FredLC

See why my comparison was never narrow, nor my analogy misleading? In all those cases, we have one side that is supported by a functional methodology, tons of data and by an history of successes in achieving knowledge, being confronted by other that rely on plain faith, lacking any supporting grounds except the faith itself. They fit each other like a glove.

They only masking themselves by partially learning about the technical disagreements of the scientific community on the mechanics of the evolution theory, and repeating them, many times erroneously, to cannibalize the respectability of the technical glossary of science to try to sound like they dispute them with technique, while never proposing anything of minimal validity, except by repeating the same chore of faith that flat earthers used to support their view.

So you please, be careful before you disregard the similarities of creationism with the supporters of the flat-earth theory. In the end, taken out all the make up and all the dancing around, they are fruits from the same tree.

Regards :).

---------------------------------------------------------
"That's what creationists do about fossil record and genetic evidence, so I don't see why flat earthers can't also rely on plain denial."



That is a overboard generalization in claiming the Creationists all always ignore fossil and genetic records.

FredLC
Sep 12, 2003, 07:57 AM
They don't ignore the fossil record, nor the genetic or biologic evidence... they just ignore the conclusions forcefully taken from them.

But I'll be very pleased if you prove me wrong. Show me one that does not do it.

Regards :).

Gothmog
Sep 12, 2003, 08:52 AM
Actually I think that Quasar exemplifies the reason why it is folly for a state to sponsor a particular religion. He uses the term ‘Natures God’ as if that had anything to do with Jesus or the Christian God. Quite simply it does not. The idea of God does not rest on the shoulders of the Bible. It would be extremely divisive for the state to promote one religion over any other, explicitly disrespecting some peoples deeply held beliefs.

Quasar1011
Sep 12, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Gothmog
Actually I think that Quasar exemplifies the reason why it is folly for a state to sponsor a particular religion. He uses the term ‘Natures God’ as if that had anything to do with Jesus or the Christian God. Quite simply it does not.

Wait a minute... I used the term "Nature's God"? I was quoting the Declaration of Independence! I don't refer to my God as nature's God. I refer to Him as Jesus Christ. This Jesus of the Bible is the Creator of all things. The Declaration of Independence further states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Who is this Creator the founding fathers are referring to? Could it be the same Lord that is mentioned here in the Constitution?: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. Hmmm, I wonder what happened 1,787 years before that constitution was written...

And while we are at it.... exactly which religion is established by erecting a monument to the 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court building? :hmm:

Originally posted by Gothmog
The idea of God does not rest on the shoulders of the Bible. God is not an idea. God is truth. The Bible is not man's attempt at figuring out God. It is God's progressive revelation of Himself to mankind.

Originally posted by Gothmog
It would be extremely divisive for the state to promote one religion over any other, explicitly disrespecting some peoples deeply held beliefs.

Well let's see. The Jews have Israel. Muslims have Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, and a host of other countries. Many countries have catholicism as their official relgion. Are you saying that it is wrong to say, "This is a democracy, founded by Christians. Christians are the majority here. We honor the Christian God here, but all views are welcome."?

Perhaps someone here from Maryland can explain why the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is in the First Amendment. For, Maryland's history holds the key to this question!

sourboy
Sep 12, 2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Gothmog
@sourboy - nice post overall, but I am wondering what you think could cause Christianity to 'tumble'?

Well, many things could trigger it. In the past, major issues such as women's rights, abortion, and today terrorism, have had many people looking deeply into religion for answers. Though Christianity has survived these issues, they are definately weaker from them. People want answers these days, not faith.

I can't tell you what will break the camel's back, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was based off of WWIII - especially if WWIII evolves from a crisis in the Middle East.

I'll think a little more on this and post if I come up with something.

Pontiuth Pilate
Sep 12, 2003, 08:00 PM
It is unconstitutional to forbid putting a bronze Bible in a courthouse, if the duly elected Supreme Court Justice of the State
is admonished by the state constitution to "invoke the favor of Almighty God".

It absolutely constitutional to forbid you to put the monument in the Courthouse because the whole GOAL of the first amendment is to protect the rights of freedom of thought. If you don't believe me you can read again what Adams, Jefferson, and the rest wrote. Jefferson wrote an excellent summary of his views, one of the three things he wanted mentioned on his tombstone, along with the DoI, and that was the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The goal of that document is the same as the goal of the 1st amendment; protect the rights of minority religions and majority religions.

Obviously, putting the Bible in the courthouse is restricting the religious rights of nonChristians, Buddhists, Atheists, whatever.

I don't see how you can use the First Amendment to justify having the government of a country favor one religion or another. That's just word-twisting.

If it were unconstitutional, then why are similar monuments on display at the United States Supreme Court building? A sculpture over the east portico of the U. S. Supreme Court Building is entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty." At the center of the sculpture is Moses holding the two tablets of the 10 Commandments. The lower portions of the oak doors leading to the Supreme Court's Inner Courtroom are ingraved with the Ten Commandments. Also, the marble bas-relief panel in the Inner Courtroom of the U. S. Supreme Court Building just above the head of the Chief Justice depicts two personages: "The Power of Government" and "The Majesty of the Law." Between these personages is a tablet representing the 10 Commandments. If you don't believe me, go to Washington and see for yourself. You'd see this in the United States Supreme Court building though:

And it's equally wrong. You make the classic Christian mistake, namely, There's a precedent, therefore it must be right. I don't care if George Bush has a tattoo of Moses on his forehead. It doesn't change the content of the first Amendment.

Which document is this quote from? "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Whichever document that is from, asserts that both the legal and moral justification for America's founding, comes from "Nature's God".



P.S. This document also includes an appeal to "a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence". Still sounds to me like the founding fathers relied heavily on God, and that they knew from whence their power came.

I guess you're refusing to read what Kryten posted.

The majority of Americans were very religious. Luckily for us present-day Americans, the founding fathers had brains a shade or two above that level. They had to use such language, but it doesn't mean they meant it.

Which is a better indicator of what a founding father REALLY thought? A flowery aside on a public document which he knew would need every bit of help to even get ratified? Or a personal, private letter he wrote to a trusted friend?

We honor the Christian God here, but all views are welcome."?


Inherent contradiction. IF ONE RELIGION IS FAVORED, THEN ANOTHER IS DISFAVORED. Eventually, such things will proceed to extremes.

Again, my sole advice for a devout, dissatisfied young man like yourself is to move to Iran and make yourself comfortable there.

Pontiuth Pilate
Sep 12, 2003, 08:04 PM
I might add that the wordy prose aside in a State constitution is legally superceded by the terse and obvious language of the Constitution of the United States, which, as I have the pleasure of reminding you, is "the law of the land".

Your judge really doesn't know what he's talking about, does he? I imagine they lower the bar for the bar quite a bit in Alabama.

Quasar1011
Sep 12, 2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
I might add that the wordy prose aside in a State constitution is legally superceded by the terse and obvious language of the Constitution of the United States, which, as I have the pleasure of reminding you, is "the law of the land".

Fine. The Constitution is the law of the land. And our founding fathers, intelligent men as they were, knew the importance of it. You said so yourself. Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate Luckily for us present-day Americans, the founding fathers had brains a shade or two above that level. They had to use such language, but it doesn't mean they meant it. So, the supreme law of the land, is only for show, and doesn't mean what the founding fathers meant it to mean. I get it now. What these men, many of which were lawyers, really wanted codified into law, they placed here:
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Which is a better indicator of what a founding father REALLY thought? A flowery aside on a public document which he knew would need every bit of help to even get ratified? Or a personal, private letter he wrote to a trusted friend?]

What kind of convoluted, flawed logic is this? The founding fathers didn't mean what they wrote? That we have to look to their personal letters for legal interpretations? This is exactly why the Constitution, in practice, is not the law of the land. For, there are many judges who go by the creed, "the Constitution is what WE say it is!"

Pontiuth, your logic has failed you. To quote Rush Limbaugh, "WORDS MEAN THINGS!"

Gothmog
Sep 13, 2003, 10:25 AM
@Quasar
Yes you used the term Nature's God quoted from the Declaration of Independence and then proceed to equate that term to Jesus and the Christian God, as I would expect since you are a true believer. This is exactly why it is so important for the state to make no laws wrt religion. You ask "Who is this Creator", it is God - the Hindu God, or the Jewish God, or the Christian God, or the Buddhist concept of God, or the Polytheistic concept of God. It is expressly not just the Christian God - which could have been specifically referred to quite easily. I praise the foresight and wisdom that did not allow that to happen.

The 10 commandments on the Supreme Court building was an unfortunate mistake, people are not perfect. I respect the ideas represented in the 10 commandments, but reject the idea of our state codifying one religion over any others.

Your conception of God may be truth, but truth is still an idea. You believe that the Bible is God's revelation, other people believe that different documents are God's revelation. That is why it is important for the state to remain neutral - so it can represent all its citizens.

I was saying that the founding fathers were remarkably foresighted and intelligent to reject the idea of America as a Christian state. I am very glad that we are not like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, and even Israel (though they are also a democracy) in this respect. I thank God for that blessing (not the Christian idea of God though).

Also, you wont gain much respect around here quoting Rush Limbaugh, you will just make people laugh.

@sourboy
Some people want answers, but it seems even more want faith. I am not sure that will ever change. I will be interested to see your ideas. The Middle East is a hot bed of religious conflict.

Sims2789
Sep 13, 2003, 10:39 AM
If it were unconstitutional, then why are similar monuments on display at the United States Supreme Court building? A sculpture over the east portico of the U. S. Supreme Court Building is entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty." At the center of the sculpture is Moses holding the two tablets of the 10 Commandments. The lower portions of the oak doors leading to the Supreme Court's Inner Courtroom are ingraved with the Ten Commandments. Also, the marble bas-relief panel in the Inner Courtroom of the U. S. Supreme Court Building just above the head of the Chief Justice depicts two personages: "The Power of Government" and "The Majesty of the Law." Between these personages is a tablet representing the 10 Commandments. If you don't believe me, go to Washington and see for yourself. You'd see this in the United States Supreme Court building though

this is also unconstitutional and needs to be removed.

Aphex_Twin
Sep 13, 2003, 11:08 AM
If it were unconstitutional, then why are similar monuments on display at the United States Supreme Court building? A sculpture over the east portico of the U. S. Supreme Court Building is entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty." At the center of the sculpture is Moses holding the two tablets of the 10 Commandments. The lower portions of the oak doors leading to the Supreme Court's Inner Courtroom are ingraved with the Ten Commandments. Also, the marble bas-relief panel in the Inner Courtroom of the U. S. Supreme Court Building just above the head of the Chief Justice depicts two personages: "The Power of Government" and "The Majesty of the Law." Between these personages is a tablet representing the 10 Commandments. If you don't believe me, go to Washington and see for yourself. You'd see this in the United States Supreme Court building though

this is also unconstitutional and needs to be removed.

Isn't that taking political corectnes too far? What about the representation of Greek and Roman gods on public buildings? The secular state can exist very well, even with such icons.

Gothmog
Sep 13, 2003, 02:25 PM
Yes, it could stay. The way things work there would have to be someone who insisted on removing it, most likely taking it to a very high court - perhaps the supreme court.

Just as there are still cities that display crosses, or nativity scenes during Christmas, on public land. The practice is technically against the law and if challenged will certainly lose. I was in San Diego for a big challenge of that nature a decade ago, a cross had to go and later a nativity scene. The city ended up selling the land with the cross to a local church at fair market price, a good solution IMO. However, if Christian forces insist on using the Supreme Court icon as a precedent then it could become necessary to challenge its existence and it would most probably lose. The only way I can see it being allowed to stay is if it is ruled an artistic expression rather than a religious one. The current case in Alabama (?) has no such ambiguity.