Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Interesting quiz
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 16 of 79 (282434)
01-29-2006 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
please do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 10:47 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 79 (282435)
01-29-2006 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 10:36 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
2. How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution?
Ok, so we are talking about God here, right? Wrong?
the answer is zero. the constitution does not mention god, a creator, etc, one single, solitary time.
3. How many times does the Declaration of Independence refer to Christianity or Jesus?
the declaration mentions "creator" once. this is a very ambiguous reference, and probably used as an idiom. but the declaration of independence is not the document that forms the government of our country.
But the consititution does mention the creator.
i promise you, it does not.
How did it jump from God, to Christianity. well because if it asked you if God was mentioned in the declaration of independence, then you would have to answer YES!
right. but which god?
So my question to is that a quiz to determine your knowledge of what the term separation of church and state means, or to see just who hates Christianity?
Try again.
except that these are all questions of factual knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 10:36 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Funkaloyd, posted 01-30-2006 12:13 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 79 (282436)
01-29-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 10:51 PM


Re: Have a clue?
This also does not mean we should be Godless.
Perhaps God neutral.
It DOES mean that Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and the God of Abraham and Isaac must get equal billing.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 10:51 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 19 of 79 (282437)
01-29-2006 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
Why did they jump from God, to Christianity?
they where quizing people on the fact that most people when they think of "creator" they think of the christian god, its been drilled into thier head for years that it means jesus
Separation of church and state does not mean we are an atheist nation, plain and simple.
who says we are? you are dictating we are if we do not include christianity in everything
Show me were in any of the constitution, or Decrlaration of Independence that we cannot use bilical principals, or anyother form of morals to make up who and what we are.
so who's god is the right god? whos belief is true, whos views are right? we have to decide this for any christian beliefs to overwrite anyone elses
Show me were it says we are to use only atheistic moral, or morals governed by science to determine or laws?
we don't use "atheistic" moral we use reason and logic and compassion for mankind to decide our laws
I should start a new nation, and the first ammendment will read, a separation of science and state. Especially since nothing in science is proven.
this is just plain unessesary i won't even answer it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 10:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2006 8:04 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 79 (282452)
01-30-2006 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
01-29-2006 10:57 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
I got 18.
arach writes:
but which god?
I'd venture that that heretic Jefferson had his own personal creator deity in mind.
This message has been edited by Funkaloyd, Mon, 30-Jan-2006 05:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 01-29-2006 10:57 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2006 12:45 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 79 (282455)
01-30-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Funkaloyd
01-30-2006 12:13 AM


Re: Bunch of crap
i think at best we can say the deist god. (which deist god? jefferson's own personal one like you say?)
but i think a more accurate rendering is a universal and generalized one. it's "THEIR creator" whichever god that may be. the point in saying "their creator" is that it is not specific at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Funkaloyd, posted 01-30-2006 12:13 AM Funkaloyd has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 79 (282457)
01-30-2006 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
Why did they jump from God, to Christianity?
Because they're the ones with the theocratic agenda.
Show me were in any of the constitution, or Decrlaration of Independence that we cannot use bilical principals, or anyother form of morals to make up who and what we are.
The First Amendment. Oh, you can be inspired by the Bible to make a law, sure. But your justification for the law has to be its secular purpose, not its appearance in the Bible.
Show me were it says we are to use only atheistic moral, or morals governed by science to determine or laws?
It's right there in the quiz. It's called "the Lemon test." If you can't justify your proposed law with a secular purpose, it's religion.
I should start a new nation, and the first ammendment will read, a separation of science and state.
Who's stopping you? One less theocrat to muck things up here, if you ask me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 10:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2006 8:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 79 (282473)
01-30-2006 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 10:47 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
Separation of church and state does not mean we are an atheist nation, plain and simple.
no, it means we have a government that stays out of it.
Show me were in any of the constitution, or Decrlaration of Independence that we cannot use bilical principals, or anyother form of morals to make up who and what we are.
it's that pesky first amendment that lets us, actually. the whole idea of the government not being to legislate religion is that we can choose any religion we want. it's the religious freedom provided for in the first amendment that allows fundamentalist christianity, roman catholicism, lds, hinduism, buddhism, satanism, atheism, and scientology. what makes you think that if the government were to legislate religion, it would be YOUR religion? we protect freedoms universally, not just for specific groups. your freedom to pratice your religion relies on everyone else having the very same freedom, which means the government has to stay out of it all together.
Show me were it says we are to use only atheistic moral, or morals governed by science to determine or laws?
because legislating the morality of a specific religion violates the first amendment because it is in effect enforcing the rules of a specific religion over another. our laws in this country have to have a secular purpose. see the lemon test:
quote:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia
I should start a new nation, and the first ammendment will read, a separation of science and state. Especially since nothing in science is proven.
riverrat, you were participating on this board reasonably for a while. why the sudden lapse into irate fundamentalist nonsense? you know the difference between science and religion, i'm sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 10:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2006 7:50 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 79 (282479)
01-30-2006 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by riVeRraT
01-29-2006 10:52 PM


Secular v Religious v Xian
Heheheh... I got a 19, though one question I got right was because I knew what they wanted and it was wholly biased. Randman's assertion of rewriting history with a secular bent does get some backing with that test. However...
I meant to say declaration of independence, like the question askes.
It was not trying to be hateful, rather showing that in contrast to claims made by some fundamentalists, the US was not founded on Xian principles or doctrines.
Some fundamentalist leaders do claim that the DoI contains references to the Xian god and Jesus, rather than the more neutral references which actually exist. The test works to see if you understand what is actually written, or if you have read into what is there, or whether you listen to others who want you to read into what was there.
If Jewish fundies were the ones actively trying to change how it is perceived, my guess is the test would have said Judaism and Moses (or something like that).
The key is to get some of the facts straight before rational discussion can be had.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2006 10:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2006 9:35 AM Silent H has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 25 of 79 (282494)
01-30-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ben!
01-29-2006 10:54 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
I didn't see the message as inherently hateful either.
But there was clearly an agenda.
Then why single out Christianity?
There is more than one representative of things on the walls of capitol hill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 01-29-2006 10:54 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Ben!, posted 01-30-2006 8:21 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 26 of 79 (282497)
01-30-2006 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by arachnophilia
01-30-2006 4:05 AM


Re: Bunch of crap
Separation of church and state does not mean we are an atheist nation, plain and simple.
no, it means we have a government that stays out of it.
No it means we have a church that stays out of government. Not a governement that stays out of church, or does not believe in God, or does not adhere to "biblical morals", whether they got them from the bible or not.
The church has to answer to governemt.
which means the government has to stay out of it all together.
Then why do churches need a 501 c 3 ?
because legislating the morality of a specific religion violates the first amendment because it is in effect enforcing the rules of a specific religion over another.
It doesn't matter where you get your morals from. One way is not more right than another.
Just because you can relate a law in governement to a Christian value, does not make it Christian.
you know the difference between science and religion,
I also understand the similarities, and I have covered that before too.
I am asking that one not be more correct than the other, and that we have the freedom to choose whatever moral base we want. I think that is fair.
A scientific study is not a law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2006 4:05 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 02-01-2006 1:03 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 27 of 79 (282500)
01-30-2006 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
01-30-2006 1:02 AM


Re: Bunch of crap
Why did they jump from God, to Christianity?
Because they're the ones with the theocratic agenda.
Apparently not.
But your justification for the law has to be its secular purpose, not its appearance in the Bible.
We have a right to believe whatever we want, for whatever reason we want. It is not excluded to secular reasoning.
quote:
Finally, the Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive"
The lemon test was made in 1971, In God we trust was adopted in the 50's, which one holds more water?
The Declaration of Independence is a bit older than that.
The word secular, does not mean atheist.
One less theocrat to muck things up here, if you ask me.
I think your the theocrat, with an agenda.
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 01-30-2006 08:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2006 1:02 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 28 of 79 (282504)
01-30-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by ReverendDG
01-29-2006 10:59 PM


Re: Bunch of crap
so who's god is the right god?
That's not what I am saying.
I am saying we have a right to believe whatever we want, wether it's atheist or God. One is not more valid than the other.
We the people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ReverendDG, posted 01-29-2006 10:59 PM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2006 11:53 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 55 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-02-2006 10:35 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 29 of 79 (282508)
01-30-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by riVeRraT
01-30-2006 7:42 AM


Re: Bunch of crap
Then why single out Christianity?
There is more than one representative of things on the walls of capitol hill.
My best guess is because they view the Christians as ones who are currently acting outside of these historical examples of what it means to have a separation of church and state.
What do you mean "There is more than one representative of things on the walls of capitol hill." I'm not very good at government & politics, so... I don't catch innuendos very well.
I only got the agenda of the quiz because it really was that obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2006 7:42 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 30 of 79 (282513)
01-30-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coragyps
01-29-2006 10:16 PM


The Brits here will likely beat the Yanks on scores, though.
I got 11

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2006 10:16 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024