NFL: Listen to Tim Tebow’s comeback against the Bears

[phocis850]

(12-18-2011 02:05 PM)cooperbh Wrote:  Mao and Stalin did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burning, abortion clinic bombings, the list goes on and on... all committed in name of Christianity.

Nobody is making assumptions. Christianity is directly responsible for millions of deaths and countless amounts of suffering throughout history. It's a statistical fact. I've never heard a single account of someone being killed or tortured because they rejected atheisim.

Sorry, but two can't play that game.

Yea, I could name countless civilizations that have killed because of what they believed in.

Just last night they had a guy on the news with a Christmas display get vandalized.

You can't use only one eye to see only what you want and ignore the other historical events that would put your argument to rest.

My point back a page or two stands. With every year things will continually change. Either you agree with it or you don't. All that each of us can do is try and change what is around us by starting movebts and voting.

[JDaveG]

(12-18-2011 02:05 PM)cooperbh Wrote:  Mao and Stalin did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burning, abortion clinic bombings, the list goes on and on... all committed in name of Christianity.

Nobody is making assumptions. Christianity is directly responsible for millions of deaths and countless amounts of suffering throughout history. It's a statistical fact. I've never heard a single account of someone being killed or tortured because they rejected atheisim.

Then you should read more. The Holy Martyrs in Russia were absolutely killed precisely because of their Christian faith and precisely because they were not atheists. One of those Holy Martyrs is my eldest daughter's Patron Saint, Saint Elizabeth the New Martyr. Here is a snippet of her story dealing with her martyrdom:

Quote:In 1918, the Communist government exiled her to Yekaterinburg and then to Alapaevsk, where she was violently killed by the local Bolsheviks on July 18, 1918, along with Grand Duke Sergei Mikhailovich Romanov; the Princes Ioann Konstantinovich, Konstantin Konstantinovich, Igor Konstantinovich, and Vladimir Pavlovich Paley; Grand Duke Sergei's secretary, Fyodor Remez; and Nun Barbara Yakovleva, a sister from the Grand Duchess Elizabeth's convent. They were herded into the forest, pushed into an abandoned mineshaft, into which grenades were then hurled. An observer heard them singing Church hymns as they were pushed into the mineshaft. After the Bolsheviks left, he could still hear singing for some time. The last thing Elizabeth did as she lay dying in the mineshaft was to bandage the wounds of Prince Ioann with her handkerchief. Later the White Army briefly recaptured this area, and her relics were recovered and the account of the person who witnessed it recorded. Her relics were first taken by the White Army to Beijing and placed in the Church of St. Seraphim of Sarov, and then they were taken to Jerusalem and placed in the Church of St. Mary Magdalene, which she and her husband had helped to build.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Elizabeth_the_New_Martyr

You want to pretend that didn't happen, and you make this false distinction (that in reality doesn't even exist) that this supposedly was not "in the name of" atheism. And yet atheism is a basic tenet of Communism, at least as it was practiced in the Soviet Union. The blood of the Holy Martyrs in Russia and other Communist states (which, for the record, account for over half of all the martyrs in Christian history) screams against your false distinction.

I would also point out that the Crusades and the Inquisition were hardly sanctioned by all of Christianity, so it is no defense that "all atheists didn't agree with the Bolsheviks." At the end of the day, Eastern Christians were victims of the Crusades, not perpetrators. So taking a portion of Christian believers and extrapolating that to all Christian believers as being "in the name of" Christianity is disingenuous. Particularly when the same arrow can be pointed at the Soviets and atheism.

This is just special pleading on your part (also known as a double standard). You should read some history before you speak further.

[mcsupersport]

(12-18-2011 12:41 PM)Radical Wrote:  And again, Establishment Clause. When you're mixing international policy with religious beliefs with what we do with Israel, you prevent people from purchasing alcohol on specific days because of religious beliefs, you change the national motto to recognize your god, and change the Pledge of Allegiance as well, you're simply wrong to say that isn't overstepped the bounds of the First Amendment. Outside of the most extreme atheists, no one is telling Christians that they can't practice their religion, only that they keep it out of government.

I mean, you're talking about praying in public? It's never been about a bunch of atheists mad about people praying in public. You can pray in school if you want, as long as it isn't an interruption and it isn't being led by government employees during school hours. I call bullshit on you saying most laws have basis in Christian beliefs. Not only is that untrue, but your examples of adultery, theft, and murder were considered crimes in many places before Christianity. The Native Americans, Romans, and even in India it was considered immoral and outlawed. Theft and murder have almost been universally outlawed going back thousands of years. Whatever you're pushing with that, I'm not buying.

The Establishment Clause you so highly push, simply states the Government will not and can not set religion, later Supreme Courts decided it meant something differnent in 1947. Quote from the Wiki: "The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947"

You see in the bolded part the most important part, Government can't ESTABLISH a religion and they can't LEGISLATE TO STOP A RELIGION, yet they are doing so. On so called public property, thus property owned by the Government(thus the people) said people can't practice their religion. The People pay for the land, yet they are prevented from use BECAUSE of their religion.

Murder isn't always classified as illegal, as posted in certain condition in Muslim countries, so it is NOT ALWAYS bad in non-christian countries, and that leaves out the Government murder by rulers. Theft, murder, adultery is usually considered Illegal in countries because it harms the "social" fabric of a society, but there is often a large religious or belief set to define laws. Atheist usually don't mind doctor assisted suicide, yet most Christians and most courts see it as murder. As for Adultery, it was usually the women only who had issues committing it, the men historically can take lovers, even young male children in ancient Greece. I don't think we need to discuss the acts of British aristocracy do we?? The Incas and Aztecs often had a ritualized and religious murders to either appease their gods or seek favor. Many Communist rulers, such as Stalin, will murder millions, and lets not talk about Hitler and Jews.

As for the purchase of Alcohol on Sundays, it is a law like any other, if the majority don't want it to happen, then it doesn't. Yes, religious beliefs will influence the laws passed and since the majority of people are Christians in the US, the laws will have a more Christian flavor. They also outlaw in most states Brothels as well. If you don't want a Christian flavor to your laws, then you will have to go to a democratic-republic country that isn't Christian, because as long as Christians are a majority then all laws will be influenced by the PEOPLE'S beliefs.

People forget this is a government of the PEOPLE, and as such it will take on the flavor of those PEOPLE. Trying to remove all effects of Religion from the Government is infringing on those same people's right to live their beliefs and have a government that represents them. Also it is forcing the ATHEIST's beliefs on those who aren't.

[ggp]

(12-18-2011 02:05 PM)cooperbh Wrote:  Mao and Stalin did not commit their atrocities in the name of atheism.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burning, abortion clinic bombings, the list goes on and on... all committed in name of Christianity.

Nobody is making assumptions. Christianity is directly responsible for millions of deaths and countless amounts of suffering throughout history. It's a statistical fact. I've never heard a single account of someone being killed or tortured because they rejected atheisim.

Sorry, but two can't play that game.

I am not one to get into politics nor theology. However, I feel the need to point out an error on your part. Christianity is not to blame for the Crusades, nor the Inquisiton. Both of those assaults were the results of men craving power and money....nothing more. The whole Christian ideology was simply a cloak to conceal the true motivation and intent.

As a matter of fact, almost every large scale conflict can be traced back to wealth and power.

For the sake of full disclosure, I am against any religious promotional advances. Some call it evangelism; I call it an invasion of autonomy. I believe in living and letting live. I believe in believing and allowing others to believe. I am Catholic and I am proud to say that I have never tried to convince any one else that my beliefs are true.

To tell you the truth, I don't think that anyone has all the right answers. And, if they think they do, then they are truly arrogant. If you believe in a great creator, then you must recognize that said creator opperates at a different intellectual level than we do. Following words written by men, is folly and should be done with great personal reflection and humility. Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, they are just difficult to reconcile.

With respect to atheism. I seem to recall several totalitarianistic regimes that killed in abundance to stamp out the "opium of the masses." Well, the purpose was not to stamp out the "opium", it was to assume control and power over the masses.....religion was simply seen as an obstacle to that end.

Faith should be carried in the heart, not on the sleeve.

[Radical]

(12-18-2011 03:50 PM)mcsupersport Wrote:  The Establishment Clause you so highly push, simply states the Government will not and can not set religion, later Supreme Courts decided it meant something differnent in 1947. Quote from the Wiki: "The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947"

You see in the bolded part the most important part, Government can't ESTABLISH a religion and they can't LEGISLATE TO STOP A RELIGION, yet they are doing so. On so called public property, thus property owned by the Government(thus the people) said people can't practice their religion. The People pay for the land, yet they are prevented from use BECAUSE of their religion.

Murder isn't always classified as illegal, as posted in certain condition in Muslim countries, so it is NOT ALWAYS bad in non-christian countries, and that leaves out the Government murder by rulers. Theft, murder, adultery is usually considered Illegal in countries because it harms the "social" fabric of a society, but there is often a large religious or belief set to define laws. Atheist usually don't mind doctor assisted suicide, yet most Christians and most courts see it as murder. As for Adultery, it was usually the women only who had issues committing it, the men historically can take lovers, even young male children in ancient Greece. I don't think we need to discuss the acts of British aristocracy do we?? The Incas and Aztecs often had a ritualized and religious murders to either appease their gods or seek favor. Many Communist rulers, such as Stalin, will murder millions, and lets not talk about Hitler and Jews.

As for the purchase of Alcohol on Sundays, it is a law like any other, if the majority don't want it to happen, then it doesn't. Yes, religious beliefs will influence the laws passed and since the majority of people are Christians in the US, the laws will have a more Christian flavor. They also outlaw in most states Brothels as well. If you don't want a Christian flavor to your laws, then you will have to go to a democratic-republic country that isn't Christian, because as long as Christians are a majority then all laws will be influenced by the PEOPLE'S beliefs.

People forget this is a government of the PEOPLE, and as such it will take on the flavor of those PEOPLE. Trying to remove all effects of Religion from the Government is infringing on those same people's right to live their beliefs and have a government that represents them. Also it is forcing the ATHEIST's beliefs on those who aren't.

Let me quote the exact phrase for you, straight from the Constitution itself.

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Read that as many times as it takes, because you don't seem to get it. It is against the rules of the Constitution to pass any law that respects an establishment of religion. Tell me, why is alcohol sales banned on Sunday? Because overbearing Christians decided that they need to force their views on the majority. It comes from their brand of Christianity. It is forcing their religion on other people. You can pray in public, the moment you start forcing other people to abide by your religion's rules, you're no longer in the legal right.

That's the reality of it. You cannot govern by simple majority rule, it isn't how it works in this country. That's not how the Constitution set this country up to work. We are not a theocracy, we are not a democracy, we are a democratically elected constitutional republic. People vote for their representatives, the representatives work within the framework of the Constitution for the betterment of those who elected them. Just because the majority hold some form of Christian beliefs, does NOT make it ever right to pass laws FORCING Christian laws upon those who do not follow the teachings of Christianity. Really simple.

Instead of going somewhere else, I'll gladly stick around and watch through the years as slowly but surely, the wrong doings by the religious majority that illegally enforced their will upon everyone is slowly undone.

As for your paragraph about murder, adultery, and theft. You're splitting hairs. You stated that laws against murder, adultery, and theft came from Christianity. It simply isn't true, and I provided a few examples. If you want to split hairs, we could say the Bible condones slavery, but I'm not interested in debating any of this, because it really doesn't matter.

[ATLBound]

There are laws that don't have a neutral ground or in a sense some sort of religious background. It would be foolish to think that anybody can create a system where religion is not in the background in some form or fashion. Every law created is VOTED on by a group of people regardless of race, religion, etc. Hence Majority Vote...

If I were to vote on the law it would be based on how I feel, if you were to vote it would be based on how you feel...etc.

So if the MAJORITY of the voters happened to be Christian based, then how sir do you resolve the issue where religion doesn't influence the laws in any capacity.

Quick Scenario: Atheists believe in the selling of alcohol every day, Christians believe in alcohol being sold Monday - Saturday (honestly the strictest of Christians believe in no alcohol, but this can't be helped)

Option 1: Sell alcohol every day
Option 2: Sell alcohol Monday - Saturday

Either way the influence of religion is involved. Simply put it cannot be escaped, but the religion that usually gets the nudge is the one that the MAJORITY accepts. Sorry is the best that I can say to you.

Only the blatant religious laws can be adjusted

[Radical]

Selling alcohol every day isn't a religious belief though. Give me a reason that alcohol shouldn't be sold every day. If your answer ties into religion, then your reasoning is immediately discounted as outlined by our Constitution.

Your logic is that secularism = atheism = religion, which is flawed. No rule being there doesn't make it an "atheist" law. By your logic, you could enforce pretty much any law a religious majority wanted, simply because the lack of one would constitute an "atheist" view.

My view? Don't have any law about it at all, and if your religion says don't drink, then don't drink. There's no reason for you to enforce your religions laws on me, because I don't practice your religion.

[ATLBound]

(12-18-2011 04:47 PM)Radical Wrote:  Selling alcohol every day isn't a religious belief though. Give me a reason that alcohol shouldn't be sold every day. If your answer ties into religion, then your reasoning is immediately discounted as outlined by our Constitution.

Your logic is that secularism = atheism = religion, which is flawed. No rule being there doesn't make it an "atheist" law.

It wasn't really an example just a scenario. I don't even think Atheism is a religion. I just think it's a position or stance.

Not saying this to be disrespectful by the way.

The whole point of the post is that most of the laws are going to be influenced by religion because the people voting on the law are influenced by religion, regardless of whatever that religion is (including atheists)

It just so happens that in America the majority are Christians...

[Radical]

And I'm saying it's wrong.

[Peyton]

Tebow showed up to play today. That was a hellastudly TD run he just had.