Are Christian fundamentalists apologists for genocide?

by **Ivan** Fri Oct 21, 2011 12:55 pm

First topic message reminder :

Professor Richard Dawkins has refused to take part in a debate with William Lane Craig, a self-styled philosopher who argues that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered.

Most modern preachers wouldn’t defend the instruction in Deuteronomy 20:13-15 to kill all the men in a conquered city and to seize the women, children and livestock as plunder. Verses 16 and 17 are even worse: "When you capture cities in the land that the Lord your God is giving you, kill everyone. Completely destroy all the people."

If Christians take every word of their Bible literally, does it mean they condone mass murder? And if they don’t accept all that’s written there, aren’t they being hypocrites for cherry-picking what they accept and don't accept?

Read more of what Richard Dawkins has to say on this:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

by Shirina Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:54 pm

And Shirina, that is standard left wing response. He didn't destroy them over the issue of hospitality customs. He destroyed them because they made a total mockery of God's gifts to humanity.

Are you referring to the supposed angels? And, considering Lot didn't even know they were angels after spending time with them, how was the crowd outside supposed to know who or what they were?

Of course, the idea that the entire population of two cities would show up outside of Lot's door just to have sex with two strangers is an absurdity in and of itself, but we won't let that stand in the way.

by Farley Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:13 pm

gator wrote:-
Farley, are you Canadian? And, if so, are you old enough to have lived through M. Rock's bit of insanity known as the Long Gun Registration?

Yes. I don't believe it has ever been the Canadian Governments intent to make gun ownership illegal however. Folks like you hear something like "register all your guns" and take it to mean "we will soon make it illegal to own a gun". I don't make that leap.

by ROB Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:01 pm

The Hebrew Bible begins at Genesis 1:1. Consistency is absent when a person chooses to believe that anything following Genesis 1:1 is true while simultaneously choosing to believe that Genesis 1:1 is false.

by ROB Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:24 pm

Shirina wrote:
Except that the Christian religion is predicated on imposing human morality on God.

Christianity, i.e., seeking God by choosing to follow Jesus’ teachings, is not “predicated on imposing human morality on God.” If you choose to posit otherwise, please provide one or more examples of Jesus teaching that Christianity “is predicated on imposing human morality on God.”

by ROB Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:04 pm

United States Constitution, Amendment 1, in its entirety:

“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.”

Each clause of Amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;
Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion];
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech;
Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom… of the press;
Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble;
Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For each of the six clauses of Amendment 1, the ‘who’ is “Congress” and the ‘what’ is “shall make no law.” This common ‘who’ and ‘what’ prohibits certain legislation (“shall make no law”)

The first clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, prohibits Congress from making a law “respecting”, i.e., officially recognizing, granting special privileges to, granting special status to, “an establishment”, i.e., an organization, an agency, a bureaucracy of a certain type, “of religion”, i.e., religious.

Shirina wrote:
As I'm sure you know, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the passing of laws for religious reasons.

Please identify where the first clause of Amendment 1 “prohibits the passing of laws for religious reasons” or mentions in any way “the passing of laws for religious reasons.”

by jackthelad Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:25 pm

An hour west of the sunset, it appears Gator is on thin ice, hope it doesn't break before he rides off into the sunset.

by Shirina Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:53 pm

Please identify where the first clause of Amendment 1 “prohibits the passing of laws for religious reasons” or mentions in any way “the passing of laws for religious reasons.”

Rock, the government (federal, state, local) cannot make the laws of a particular religion the law of the land. If the government bans something because it's banned in the Bible, it is passing a law "respecting the establishment of religion." It does not merely mean that the government cannot set up an officially decreed state religion. If that's all it meant, then the clause becomes powerless.

by Shirina Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:00 pm

Christianity, i.e., seeking God by choosing to follow Jesus’ teachings, is not “predicated on imposing human morality on God.”

Simply following Jesus' teachings does not make one a Christian by the most commonly accepted definition. I follow the teachings of Jesus as well as anyone, but I do not claim to be a Christian. Being one requires a lot more. For instance: Believing in Christ's divinity, etc.

You might have a different definition, but it is not one the majority shares.

by Farley Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:07 pm

semantics

by ROB Wed Oct 26, 2011 1:42 am

Shirina wrote:
Please identify where the first clause of Amendment 1 “prohibits the passing of laws for religious reasons” or mentions in any way “the passing of laws for religious reasons.”
Rock, the government (federal, state, local) cannot make the laws of a particular religion the law of the land. If the government bans something because it's banned in the Bible, it is passing a law "respecting the establishment of religion." It does not merely mean that the government cannot set up an officially decreed state religion. If that's all it meant, then the clause becomes powerless.

Shirina,

Here’s the exact text the first clause of Amendment 1:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

Here’s the precise exposition of the first clause of Amendment 1:

“The first clause, ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’, prohibits Congress from making a law ‘respecting’, i.e., officially recognizing, granting special privileges to, granting special status to, ‘an establishment’, i.e., an organization, an agency, a bureaucracy, of a certain type, ‘of religion’, i.e., religious.”

Shirina wrote:
… the government (federal, state, local) cannot make the laws of a particular religion the law of the land.

Please show me wherein the first clause of Amendment 1 states that “the government (federal, state, local) cannot make the laws of a particular religion the law of the land.”

Left field, you’ve inaccurately referenced “government” in two ways, (1) it’s governments, plural, particularly when referencing federal and state governments, each of which, fifty-one total, is sovereign, and (2) neither the sovereign governments of any of the several sovereign states nor the local governments created by the sovereign governments of the several sovereign states can “make… the law of the land.” Just for your information.

Shirina wrote:
If the government bans something because it's banned in the Bible, it is passing a law "respecting the establishment of religion."

Please show me wherein the first clause of Amendment 1 states “[if] the government bans something because it's banned in the Bible, it is passing a law ‘respecting the establishment of religion.’”

Moreover, please show me wherein the first clause of Amendment 1 states “respecting the establishment of religion” (note emboldened, italicized text).

If the text actually read as you’ve rendered it, the meaning of the phrase “an establishment of religion”, a noun (“an establishment”) with a modifying prepositional clause which acts as an adjective clause (“of religion”), which clearly means (exact synonyms in meaning) “religious establishment”, “organization of religion”, “religious organization”, “agency of religion”, “religious agency”, “bureaucracy of religion”, “religious bureaucracy”, clearly a noun of a certain type, would be fundamentally altered, in fact adulterated.

As you’ve rendered this key text, “the establishment of religion” (rather than “an establishment of religion”, the actual text), you’ve changed it from a noun (of a certain type) to a verb form (“the establishment”) with a prepositional phrase, (“of religion”), which would prohibit Congress from establishing a religion, i.e., making a religion, creating a religion.

That prohibition, not found in Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution, even if it were, would at best be redundant, as the federal government is a created government with specifically delegated powers clearly identified in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution, and these specifically delegated, clearly identified powers do not include the power to establish a religion (make a religion, create a religion).

Shirina wrote:
It does not merely mean that the government cannot set up an officially decreed state religion.

The first clause of Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, “merely” means exactly what it says, precisely exposited below:

“[It] prohibits Congress from making a law ‘respecting’, i.e., officially recognizing, granting special privileges to, granting special status to, ‘an establishment’, i.e., an organization, an agency, a bureaucracy, of a certain type, ‘of religion’, i.e., religious.”

Shirina wrote:
If that's all it meant, then the clause becomes powerless.

Nonetheless, the first clause of Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, means exactly what it says:

“[It] prohibits Congress from making a law ‘respecting’, i.e., officially recognizing, granting special privileges to, granting special status to, ‘an establishment’, i.e., an organization, an agency, a bureaucracy, of a certain type, ‘of religion’, i.e., religious.”

by GreatNPowerfulOz Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:52 am

The preclusion from making law respecting an establishment of religion does not prohibit making laws reflecting morality rooted in religious teachings...it precludes Congress from establishing a STATE religion. The founding fathers had NO problem with "christian values" being reflected in the laws regulating behavior...what they didn't want is the government to use religion as a leverage point to keep the population "in line" as the King of England had done with the Anglican church.

by ROB Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:32 am

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
The preclusion from making law respecting an establishment of religion does not prohibit making laws reflecting morality rooted in religious teachings

True.

This differentiation is profoundly important. In fact, the morality in which the Government of the United States and the guaranteed republican forms of government of the several states is encapsulated in the first few verses of Romans 13. Of particular interest to you might be the affirmation of taxation contained therein.

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
it precludes Congress from establishing a STATE religion… what they [the founding fathers] didn't want is the government to use religion as a leverage point to keep the population "in line" as the King of England had done with the Anglican church.

True.

There is no official “Church of the United States of America”; in fact, the very idea of such “an establishment of religion” is foreign to the “American USV psyche.”

Conversely, what we in America USV call “the Anglican Church” or “the Episcopal Church” is to anyone living under the jurisdiction of the de facto republican form of government of the United Kingdom “The Church of England”, the one official church, the sole official religion, of the United Kingdom, to which the Sovereign and Sovereigns-in-Waiting, Chief of State and the Chiefs of State-in-waiting, must belong to retain their status.

It might make garnering enough votes to be elected improbable, but anyone who aspires to become the Chief of State of the United States of America can be a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, or nothing at all of a religious nature, as ling as that person meets the Constitutional requirement for the job.

GreatNPowerfulOz wrote:
The founding fathers had NO problem with "christian values" being reflected in the laws regulating behavior

True.

One need only pay attention to the documents authored by the founding fathers, including the two legal documents which (1) establish the existence(s) of the United (united) States of America (the Declaration of Independence) and (2) establish the sovereign central government, guarantee to each sovereign state a republican form of government, and establish the relationships one with another between the then fourteen and now fifty-one sovereign governments which comprise the United States of America (US Constitution) to discover the indisputable truth of this statement.

by ROB Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:25 am

Shirina wrote:
Christianity, i.e., seeking God by choosing to follow Jesus’ teachings, is not “predicated on imposing human morality on God.”
Simply following Jesus' teachings does not make one a Christian by the most commonly accepted definition.

Since Jesus is the sole head of Jesus’ ecclesia, Jesus’ church. Jeuss’ definition of his disciples, those who show their love for their master, Y’shuah Moshiach, Jesus the anointed, Jesus the Christ, is the sole correct definition, and thus the only definition that matters.

According to Jesus, a disciple of Jesus the Christ, thus, a “Christian”, is one who chooses to follow Jesus’ teachings and to keep Jesus’ few commandments, one of which is conditional, “if you love me, keep my commandments”, and portal, as Jesus’ conditional, enabling commandment (“keep my commandments”) applies only to those who love him (“if you love me”).

Shirina wrote:
You might have a different definition, but it is not one the majority shares.

Left field: It is interesting that you appeal to the majority herein while pointing out the ever-existent tyranny of the majority which, when unchecked, often serves to distort truth and justice, as it does in 2011, as the tyranny of the democracy in Belgium and France, by denying the inalienable rights of, a certain minority to attire themselves as they choose.

Shirina wrote:
I follow the teachings of Jesus as well as anyone, but I do not claim to be a Christian.

Christians, i.e., disciples of Jesus the Christ, choose to follow the teachings of Jesus, while you choose which teachings of Jesus to follow. Crucial difference.

by Shirina Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:14 pm

As I've said many times before, one cannot have freedom of religion without having freedom from religion. Establishing a national religion has about as much significance to our day-to-day lives as establishing a national bird. The Establishment Clause doesn't even make sense unless it was designed to prevent America from becoming a religious tyranny since everything else in the Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from tyranny. Establishing a national religion does not equate to tyranny whereas laws forcing everyone in America to abide by the tenants of a specific religion is, in fact, tyrannical. What good is the Establishment Clause if the government can still pass laws that amount to a de facto national religion that we must all adhere to? How does that afford us the freedom to worship (or not) as each individual sees fit?

And no, the government (state, local, or federal) cannot vote in laws that violate the US Constitution without changing the US Constitution, so states are not sovereign enough to make religious law and civil law synonymous. There is precedent all over the place for that. It is why Sunday Closing Laws have been abolished; it is why school-led prayer is not allowed; it is why the displaying of the Nativity Scene on government property has been successfully challenged, etc. The US Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in a far different manner than you have, and those interpretations have been upheld for over half a century in some cases. I think I'll defer to its judgment.

by tlttf Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:52 pm

To jump in on the entertaining comments being made by Rob, Gator and Shirina regarding God (or Gods). I watched Professor Dawkins on his programme regarding how the universe was formed. Towards the end he explained that though he didn't believe in god and nobody has ever proved his/her existence, he could not disprove the existence.

by ROB Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:05 pm

tlttf wrote:
To jump in on the entertaining comments being made by Rob, Gator and Shirina regarding God (or Gods). I watched Professor Dawkins on his programme regarding how the universe was formed. Towards the end he explained that though he didn't believe in god and nobody has ever proved his/her existence, he could not disprove the existence.

Tlttf,

Only God can prove the nonexistence of God. No human, be he Professor Dawkins, Freddy On The Corner (FOTC), or his brother, Billy On The Block (BOTB), has ever proved or will ever prove the nonexistence of God.

Here’s one more interesting bit. Big Bang is accepted by all who allow the data to steer their common course as the only damned near verifiable model of the beginning of everything that has been generated by scientific inquiry.

Big Bang posits that, at the beginning of everything (when) at “the singularity”, a point, a location in space/time prior to the existence of space/time (where), immeasurable, incomprehensible power (who) exploded everything into existence from nothing (what). Big Bang theorists continue to study the “how” without concerning themselves about “why.”

Note that since a point has no dimensions. A point is only a location in space/time; thus, a point that is a location in space/time prior to the existence of space/time is nothing, since a point without location is nothing. Accordingly, the “where” of Big Bang, the singularity, is actually “nowhere”, nothing, and immeasurable, incomprehensible power exploded into existence everything from nothing. And please don’t believe me; examine the data for yourself and choose whether or not to believe the data.

Genesis 1:1 states that, at the beginning of everything (when) at/from “nothing” (where), immeasurable, incomprehensible power (who) exploded everything into existence from nothing (what). Genesis 1:2 and following continues to examine the “why” without concerning itself about “how.”

Something to think about.

by oftenwrong Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:27 pm

I've thought. The debate concerns something which can neither be proved nor disproved.

Is that a rewarding discussion for adults to pursue?

by ROB Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:42 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
I've thought. The debate concerns something which can neither be proved nor disproved.

Is that a rewarding discussion for adults to pursue?

Perhaps.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:49 am

It's an absolutely ludicrous proposition that laws may not be instituted if they reflect "religious" ideology. In any society, the laws reflect the values of that society...if a society is (or was) predominantly Christian then the laws enacted will certainly reflect those "Christian" morals.

Given the published works of the various authors of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is absolutely clear that their intent was to prohibit the creation of a state religion and not the unilateral prohibition of the codification of any more or value based on religious teachings. They held that the very 'unalienable righs' to which we lay claim with the Constitution were granted to humanity by God...as is clearly and unequivocably stated in the Declaration of Independence.

No...Shirina, the "evolution" of the interpretation of the seperation of church and state has been at the behest of secular humanists. The idea that we are not to codify "religious values" into law is just ludicrous...people want laws to reflect their values and have a right to expect those values to be represented in both those elected to represent them and their government as a whole. A government with no conscience is truly a road to anarchy.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:13 am

Further...after re-reading your post where you state that the establishment of a "state religion" is not "tyrannical" whereas establishing laws reflecting the moral constitution of the general population of a society is clearly demonstrates that you don't have a good grip on how oppressive a "state religion" is. In a society with a state religion, your standing as a citizen and your entire life's fortune is predicated upon willing participation in a religion.

I know libtards try REALLY REALLY had to equate Christian fundamentalists with radical islamists by labelling them things like "The American Taliban"...but, in truth...that dog just don't hunt. The comparison is rhetoric at best...moronic at face value. It's nothing more than a direct attempt to discredit your "enemy" by comparing them to "the worst thing possible" to create that association in the minds of people. Sure, the lemmings follow along like clockwork are regurgitate the pablum...the thinking folks really don't want to embarrass themselves by stooping to such ridiculous comparisons, now do they?

by Shirina Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:55 am

It's an absolutely ludicrous proposition that laws may not be instituted if they reflect "religious" ideology.

Laws have to pass certain litmus tests. "Because it says so in the Bible" is not one of them. Laws can reflect religious ideology, but religious ideology cannot be the CAUSE. So I ask again: What is the point of the Establishment Clause if the government can pass one religious law at a time until only Christian values are represented? How does that grant us religious freedom? Jefferson himself wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State." - Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1st, 1802.

Or how about this, written in the Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams in 1797:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This goes well beyond simply not declaring a state religion. You simply cannot have "freedom of religion" in a nation that passes laws forcing people to adopt the practices and adhere to the laws of a specific religion because, like it or not, doing so is passing laws "with respect" to religion. Before the US broke away from Britain, there were all sorts of religious laws on the books and some places, most notably Boston, did require by law mandatory church attendance. There are well documented accounts of people being criminally prosecuted for things like laughing on Sunday or kissing in public, and these types of oppressive laws were precisely what the Founding Fathers wrote the 1st Amendment to protect us against.

They held that the very 'unalienable righs' to which we lay claim with the Constitution were granted to humanity by God...as is clearly and unequivocably stated in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence states that each person's unalienable rights comes from "their" Creator. Not The Creator. Not our Creator. Not God. Not Jehovah. Not Yahweh. Not Jesus Christ. Using the word "their" in that context shows that the Founders meant that the nature of God and religion is a personal matter, not a collective ideology to be hammered into the hearts of every American through the use of legal force.

The idea that we are not to codify "religious values" into law is just ludicrous...people want laws to reflect their values and have a right to expect those values to be represented in both those elected to represent them and their government as a whole.

Now we're back to the Tyranny of the Majority again. Religious freedom - and freedom in general - cannot exist only for the majority. Look around at any nation that does not offer this protection and what do you find? Ethnic cleansing, mass murders, forced relocation, and second class citizenship for the minority. That goes double when those boundaries are set by religion. If your interpretation were true, then Polygamy would still be legal in Utah. But it's not. Slavery might still be legal in certain Southern states. But it's not. Women might still be denied the right to vote. But they're not. Only with this protection from the majority could the US government send in the National Guard to desegregate a certain Montogmery school or remove "Colored Only" signs from restrooms and water fountains. If the people vote into law any old "value" they shared, then the US Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on.

A government with no conscience is truly a road to anarchy.

And how many governments ruled by its religion are NOT in a state of anarchy?

by Shirina Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:06 am

In a society with a state religion, your standing as a citizen and your entire life's fortune is predicated upon willing participation in a religion.

Britain has a state religion. Given the number of British posters here, perhaps one of them can tell you whether their standing as a citizen is predicated upon their participation in their state religion.

Let me approach this differently, then. If you had to choose, would you rather:

a) Have a declared state religion but with no specific laws requiring you to register, declare, participate in, or adhere to the beliefs of that particular religion

or

b) Have no state religion but have a plethora of laws that require you adhere to religious rules and/or prohibit you from acting in a manner contrary to a particular religion

Which one is more oppressive and tyrannical?

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:11 am

I'm sorry but "the tyranny of the majority" rhetoric is played-out when it comes to social moral values.

If 95% of a society believes that stealing is "wrong", a thief has no reason to complain about the "tyranny of the majority" for oppressing him with their morality. Societies, since antiquity, have been ever increasing collectives of people with SHARED values; this is a fact of human social evolution. "The tyranny of the majority" makes great rhetoric and sounds really, really bad...but it's simply a fabrication crafted out of ignorance of the fundamentals of human social evolution.

Societies can and have for millenia set the conditions for behavior which people are expected to conform to be members of that society 'in good standing". The "tyranny of the majority" looks great on a college protest walkboard...it's simply just not true.

by GreatNPowerfulOz Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:12 am

lol. "have a state religion but no requirement to participate"...? then, it's not really a state religion, then is it?

by Shirina Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:30 am

If 95% of a society believes that stealing is "wrong", a thief has no reason to complain about the "tyranny of the majority" for oppressing him with their morality.

That's a flimsy example given that having no laws against theft is a direct and demonstrable threat to society as a whole. One does not need religion to understand that nor is religion needed as a justification to have those laws.

Societies, since antiquity, have been ever increasing collectives of people with SHARED values; this is a fact of human social evolution.

And most societies do a piss poor job of dealing with those within their midst that do NOT share those values. America hasn't done a stellar job, either, and we can point to Blacks, women, Native Americans, Chinese laborers, the Irish of the northeast, etc. as just a handful of examples. I wouldn't use this as a sterling example of why the Tyranny of the Majority is just "rhetoric." Tyranny always looks like fun and games when you're a part of the majority. America has always fashioned itself as a nation of immigrants, not a homogeneous colossus where there is only one right way of doing things.

"The tyranny of the majority" makes great rhetoric and sounds really, really bad

That's because it is bad when the majority is deciding what the rights and beliefs of a minority ought to be.

but it's simply a fabrication crafted out of ignorance of the fundamentals of human social evolution.

So slavery was a fabrication? How about the second-class citizenship of women? Was the Cherokee Trail of Tears a fabrication, as well?

The "tyranny of the majority" looks great on a college protest walkboard...it's simply just not true.

See above.

lol. "have a state religion but no requirement to participate"...? then, it's not really a state religion, then is it?

Of course it is. A nation can declare a state religion while still recognizing all other religions - nor does such a declaration involve denying everyone not a member of it the freedom to practice a different religion.

by tlttf Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:36 am

Well I guess in England, you could argue that we have a national Christian religion C of E, though in reality our head of state (the Queen) hold no power either. Lets be honest if it hadn't been for "r enry" telling the catholic church to piss off (for his own reasons naturally). The whole of the western world would be run by the tyranny of Rome. Not previously known for it's tolerance to other religions nor in fact to it's own worshippers.

Time has certainly moved on, nowadays most christian worshippers (ever since education became a fact for all and not simply the rich and priests) have decifered the bible to take out the bits that really count for humanity to move forward as a social unit, hence our politics are loosely based on the 10 commandments.

by ROB Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:28 pm

Shirina wrote:
The Establishment Clause doesn't even make sense unless it was designed to prevent America from becoming a religious tyranny since everything else in the Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from tyranny.

The first clause of Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution (which you insist on calling by a name found nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America) says what it means, the meaning which you can discover in my precise, accurate, excellent exposition, and which you have as yet neither referenced or provided evidence of understanding.

If the first clause of Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution “doesn’t even make sense” to you as written, so be it.

Shirina wrote:
How does that afford us the freedom to worship (or not) as each individual sees fit?

By prohibiting Congress from recognizing an establishment of religion as the official religion of the United States of America (thus prohibiting Congress from exerting covert and/or overt pressure upon the citizens and residents of the United States of America to “officially” become members of that recognized establishment of religion), the first clause of Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution “afford us the freedom to worship (or not) as each individual sees fit.”.

Shirina wrote:
It is why Sunday Closing Laws have been abolished

Erroneous.

“Blue laws” in the Sovereign State of Texas were altered by vote of the duly-elected representatives of We the people of the Sovereign State of Texas.

These “blue laws” exist in Texas today at the will of We the People of the Sovereign State of Texas:

“Car dealerships must remain closed on either Saturday or Sunday, at the option of the dealer.^[45]”
“You cannot buy any alcohol (beer, wine, spirits) on Sundays before noon. Liquor stores are ALWAYS closed on Sundays and must be closed by nine o'clock every day of the week. Beer and wine can be sold at any retailer that can supply, but liquor (spirits) must be sold at specialized stores only.”
45. "'Blue Law' for car sales upheld by Judge", KVIA, March 22, 2006. Accessed May 28, 2008. "A Texas judge has upheld an old law that requires car dealerships in the Lone Star state to close one day each weekend. They must now choose to open either Saturday or Sunday."
Retrieved 26 October 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law#Texas

Shirina wrote:
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in a far different manner than you have

I’ve not “interpreted the Constitution”; I’ve exposited, clearly and absolutely accurately, the precise meaning of the first clause of Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution.

Shirina wrote:
and those interpretations have been upheld for over half a century in some cases.

The interpretations of the sitting Supreme Court Justices when Plessey v. Ferguson was handed down were upheld for fifty-seven years.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that this, “”, is an example of “bandwagon propaganda.”

Shirina wrote:
I think I'll defer to its judgment.

I think I’ll defer to the precise meaning of the first clause of Amendment 1 of the United States Constitution.

by ROB Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:08 pm

Shirina wrote:
The Declaration of Independence states that each person's unalienable rights comes from "their" Creator. Not The Creator. Not our Creator.

Note emboldened, italicized test:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they [all men] are endowed by their Creator [of all men] with certain unalienable Rights… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America).

Same Creator for all men, whatever they [all men] might believe or disbelieve.

Shirina wrote:
Using the word "their" in that context shows that the Founders meant that the nature of God and religion is a personal matter, not a collective ideology to be hammered into the hearts of every American through the use of legal force.

True. Nonetheless, it’s the same Creator for all men, whatever they [all men] might believe or disbelieve.

by blueturando Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:52 pm

I am not going to get into the 'God' argument because you guys have done it to death on this thread and still have gotten nowhere.

What does confuse me though is that....and I will rely on my American friends here. Does being right wing and a Christian fundamentalist go hand in hand across the US? Can you be one without being the other?

by ROB Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:29 pm

blueturando wrote:
Does being right wing and a Christian fundamentalist go hand in hand across the US?

No.

blueturando wrote:
Can you be one without being the other?

Yes.

I've a number of conservative friends. I've a number of Christian friends. I've a number of conservative Christian friends. I've no "Christian fundalmentalist" friends.

by Shirina Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:12 pm

What does confuse me though is that....and I will rely on my American friends here. Does being right wing and a Christian fundamentalist go hand in hand across the US? Can you be one without being the other?

Rock is very very very succinct, but correct nonetheless. Being right-wing and a fundamentalist are not mutually inclusive, and a person can be either one without being the other.

However, there is a caveat. Left-wing and right-wing religion are often very different as a general rule (yes, there are exceptions but I would have better luck finding a pot of gold in my attic than I would finding those exceptions).

The biggest and perhaps most important difference is that you never actually see left-wing religion, which is why you had to ask that question to begin with. It sure does seem like all right-wingers are fundamentalists. That's because it's the only religion you see. The right-wing evangelicals and fundamentalists are always the ones pushing religion, demanding that the population at large adhere to an almost Puritanical interpretation of religion. The left-wing Christians tend to focus on the actual teachings of Jesus Christ whereas the right-wing Christians tend to focus on the wrathful, angry words of the Old Testament God. If there is a movement of any kind to ban books, music, and movies, there is a very good chance they have right-wing political views. If there is a Christian shaking his fist at social programs or government funding for the poor, they are almost without exception right-wingers. The worst of the right-wing Christians are also extremely fascist and theocratic.

The only exception to this rule is the Fred Phelps church, the ones notorious for the "God hates fags" signs and protesting funerals. They are actually registered as Democrats, and Democrats are generally left-wing. However, being registered a Democrat does not mean they even vote or have left-wing views.

It should also be pointed out that, as a percentage of the population, the radical right-wing Christian fundamentalists make up only a small portion of the total US population. The danger is their exposure, and they get a lot of it. More than any other religious group in America, they have the most chances to spread their poison, and it's too easy for others to hop on board their bandwagon.

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:20 pm

It's rather strange that so many people WANT to be labelled as a member of some Faith or other.

In military service I got used to writing "C of E" on various Forms from time to time because the alternative would be a long pointless argument. God knows what my belief is, and I really don't care what anyone else may think about that.

by ROB Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:03 pm

Shirina wrote:
The only exception to this rule is the Fred Phelps church, the ones notorious for the "God hates fags" signs and protesting funerals. They are actually registered as Democrats, and Democrats are generally left-wing. However, being registered a Democrat does not mean they even vote or have left-wing views.

The Patriot Riders are bikers and former military persons. They gather and form en masses at funerals of active and former military persons when they suspect that the Phelps beasts might disrespect and denigrate the deceased by their despicable behavior.

I’ve seen the Patriot Riders in action once, at a funeral held at a building of worship close to my home. The Riders, perhaps three-hundred-fold, were quiet, orderly, and respectful, standing solemnly beside their parked bikes outside the building. My companion and I spoke briefly to one, a Marine no longer on active duty (there are no “ex-Marines”, as he reminded us) who assured us that the procession to the gravesite would be fully escorted and orderly.

One Patriot Rider, a friend, is a Navy SEAL (no longer active) who rides with his brothers in Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties, California. As is true of a significant number of Patriot Riders, he is a conservative and registered Republican. Knowing this gentleman, I suspect that he would welcome a physical attack against his person by Fred Phelps.

by Shirina Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:44 pm

The Patriot Riders are bikers and former military persons. They gather and form en masses at funerals of active and former military persons when they suspect that the Phelps beasts might disrespect and denigrate the deceased by their despicable behavior.

I love these guys, and if I could, I'd hug each and every last one of them. I saw a video of them once (never got to see them first hand), and as they rode in to cordon off Phelps and his gang, I couldn't help but get a little misty-eyed.

I couldn't help, also, to wonder what was going through the minds of the Phelps clan as hundreds of bikers roared in and surrounded them. "Holy shit!" doesn't seem a strong enough term!

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:46 pm

"the Fred Phelps church"

Are these people serious?

by ROB Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:58 pm

OW,

Unfortunately, yes.

by blueturando Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:31 am

I would love to see some group in the US kidnap Phelps and his gang nasty followers and dump them alone in the middle of Helmand Province. I wonder how long it would be before they start crying like babies for the US military to save them???

by ROB Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:07 am

blueturando wrote:
I would love to see some group in the US kidnap Phelps and his gang nasty followers and dump them alone in the middle of Helmand Province. I wonder how long it would be before they start crying like babies for the US military to save them???

I would hope that the cacophony would be so loud and intense that no US, UK, Canadian, or Aussie troops could hear.

Those fine human beings are so damned decent that, to a woman and man, they would sacrifice their lives to keep these despicable excuses for homo-sapiens alive.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:18 am

Perfesser [loosely called] Dawkins refuses to debate a lot of people. wrote:gator

It's professor, not Perfesser, so well done there champ.

Is it just possible that he won't debate people if there is any chance at all that other people would turn him into dogmeat in a debate? Personally, I wouldn't waste so much as a penny buying his schlock wrote:gator

Is it just possible that for once we can have an honest theist admit they have no refutation of Dawkins work, which is why they snipe at him with ad hominem attacks like this rather puerile, and poorly spelled attempt of yours gator. As usual we see a theist intent on empty rhetoric and ad hominem, only to inadvertently admit they haven't even read any of his books, how sadly predictable.

but I did buy a book refuting The God Delusion [[b]The Dawkins Delusion, McGrath and McGrath [/b]ISBN 978-0-8308-3446-4]and they did turn his book into something a lot less than a reasoned discourse on theology. wrote:gator

By all mean keep reading just one side of the argument, how else after all can one sustain belief in such a puerile ancient superstition apart from an utterly blinkered approach. cyclops

I believe is the appropriate emoticon for your posts.

From what I have read of Dawkins, his main ambition in life is to destroy Christianity.He is not content to not believe in God and he insists that everyone else also not believe in God. wrote:gator

Try reading a little more, from sources not quite so blinkered and bitter at the refutation of their beliefs, and you might not appear such an ill informed fool as you clearly have with that statement.

This is standard left wing tactics and I'll have no part of it. A lot of people over the centuries have tried to destroy Christianity and they are all gone and Christianity keeps chugging on. wrote:gator

So only left wing politics are atheistic, and Dawkins politics are left wing? Two more assumptions you don't even attempt to validate with evidence. As for christianity still chugging along, well so is cancer and malaria, but we every reason to be optimistic that science can eradicate the evil of all three.

by Bellatori Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:48 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Perfesser [loosely called] Dawkins refuses to debate a lot of people. Is it just possible that he won't debate people if there is any chance at all that other people would turn him into dogmeat in a debate?
Boxing fans will readily understand Professor Dawkins' caution in sparring with whom he chooses. A contender has to work through various opponents before qualifying to meet The Champ.

...and this is more a case of the chump wanting to meet the champ Laughing

by Greatest I am Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:59 pm

Is the Pope slamming Islam for what the Vatican and Christianity used to do?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-pope-slams-deviant-forms-of-religion-in-wake-of-paris-attacks-9971981.html

Compare the tactics of Islam to those of Christianity when it ushered in the Dark Ages and Inquisition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Are those tactics and ways not the same and does that not say that all idol worshipping religions, especially Christianity and Islam are evil?

Regards
DL

by Sponsored content