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

[JDaveG]

(12-18-2011 06:00 PM)Radical Wrote:  And again, it says flat out that it is against the law to make laws respecting the establishment of religion. No one asked for them to be barred from being in the public, talking, or participating, but it is absolutely wrong for the government to make laws that force other people to respect the laws of their religion.

By changing the national motto, the Pledge of Allegiance, by our actions with Israel, and the various blue laws that we deal with, the religious are enforcing their views on others.

I'm pretty much a separationist, but I see a distinction between (for example) the Pledge or having "in God we trust" on a dollar bill and laws which serve to only promote a religious dogma. I understand both are religious in nature, but they don't really force anyone to adhere to religious dogma (one can refuse to say the Pledge and ignore the statement on the dollar bill), and both are widely pluralistic (i.e., they don't, for example, say "in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit we trust, both now and ever and unto the ages of ages, amen"). I'm NOT saying I think either is a particularly good idea (frankly, I think they're bad theologically speaking -- pluralism is rarely a good thing in theology). I'm just saying they don't strike the the same way that, for example, a law requiring all newborns to be baptized or all males to be circumcised on the 8th day would.

If the only basis for a law (i.e., blue laws) is to promote a narrow religious dogma, that law is a clear violation of the establishment clause. But if a law has a wider, shallower scope or has as strong a secular argument as it does a religious argument, then the fact that there is a religious group that supports the law should not invalidate it. I put abortion -- which can be argued pro or con without regard to religion at all -- in the latter category. Israel is another example -- I firmly believe that our foreign policy with regard to Israel is corrupted by a bad theological presupposition, and yet protection of Israel can be argued solely on geopolitical terms, so while I disagree with our foreign policy, I do think it is Constitutional.

Which is to say I mostly agree with the points you've made, but I wouldn't take it quite as far as you do. To me the question is whether the law can be fairly supported without regard to religious dogma, not whether there might be some religious group who wants to support the law for religious reasons. A law can only be an imposition of religious dogma if religious dogma is the only legitimate basis for the law to be in effect, IMHO.

[Radical]

(12-18-2011 06:35 PM)mcsupersport Wrote:  Last reply and I am done debating religion for another long while...........

The very nature of a democracy or republic is by and large that the majority enforces their beliefs on everyone. Whether you think Brothels are ok, or drugs or riding motorcycles without helmets they are all decisions that taken are most often away by our(American) society. Morals of the society will dictate the laws, and most morals are shaped by Beliefs(ie religion in Christians case). Many think nothing about forcing people to have Health Insurance, wearing a motorcycle helmet, buckling their seat-belt in a car, or outlawing drugs like cocaine, but will turn around and have an issue with no alcohol sales on Sunday because it is religious. There is no difference at all in any of those I listed, they are all basically for "someone's own good" whether it is their immortal soul or health doesn't really change the force involved. If you were arguing that Government shouldn't be able to force actions at ALL, I would have more respect for your argument, instead you seem to have an issue of one belief system over another as the "root cause" of the force.

I come from a more libertarian point of view on most issues.

- People need to have health insurance, because otherwise they end up draining our tax dollars by having hospitals fit the unpaid bill.

- People need to wear motorcycle helmets, because scraping your smashed skull up off the concrete costs our country tax dollars, and it's even more expensive when you're put into a coma and the hospitals have to foot the bill to take care of your vegetablized ass.

- See motorcycle helmets for the question of seat belts.

- No problem with cocaine. Legalize it and tax the shit out of it.

No alcohol sales on Sunday isn't about protecting someone, it's about viewing it as an affront to your deity. Practical applications, as in saving money and safety, are entirely different than enforcing your religions rules upon others. To top it all off, if someone doesn't follow your religion to begin with, what does it matter if they drink alcohol on Sunday or not, that isn't going to save them if they don't follow you religion.

You're right though, this is grossly off topic. I'm not going to continue to discuss it unless you want to start a thread about.

[illmusic]

(12-18-2011 01:45 PM)Jesus Wrote:  If teams would stop playing prevent in the 4th against him then his comebacks would cease. Belichik knows better.

its hilarious, you're the first post in about 5 pages that's on topic, but for a second I was convinced you accidentally posted in the wrong thread

[JDaveG]

(12-18-2011 07:40 PM)illmusic Wrote:  its hilarious, you're the first post in about 5 pages that's on topic, but for a second I was convinced you accidentally posted in the wrong thread

LOL!

[Radical]

(12-18-2011 07:40 PM)illmusic Wrote:  its hilarious, you're the first post in about 5 pages that's on topic, but for a second I was convinced you accidentally posted in the wrong thread

I blame overbearing Christians.

[phocis850]

I'm gonna +1 Jesus for his name just to piss you off Rad

[Jesus]

(12-18-2011 10:34 PM)phocis850 Wrote:  I'm gonna +1 Jesus for his name just to piss you off Rad

Using the name of Jesus to invoke anger?

Isn't that what this thread is all about?

[Radical]

(12-18-2011 10:34 PM)phocis850 Wrote:  I'm gonna +1 Jesus for his name just to piss you off Rad

Jesus is a pretty cool guy. Not the Jesus on here, fuck that guy. The real Jesus was a bro.

[phocis850]

(12-18-2011 10:56 PM)Radical Wrote:  Jesus is a pretty cool guy. Not the Jesus on here, fuck that guy. The real Jesus was a bro.

I just +1'd them both

[Jesus]

(12-18-2011 10:56 PM)Radical Wrote:  Jesus is a pretty cool guy. Not the Jesus on here, fuck that guy. The real Jesus was a bro.

What you don't think I'm black?