|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Great religious falsehoods | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I want to see religion taken out of our laws as specified in the constitution. What do you mean by this? What do you mean by having religion "taken out"? I suppose you're referring to this:
quote: What do you think it means to respect an establishment of religion? My understanding of the 1st Amendment seems to be very different from yours. I don't think it is saying that a law cannot be religious in nature nor that all laws must be secular. Is that what you think it means?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Duh! Of course our the founders of our country wanted to keep religion out of our laws. What do you mean by "keeping it out" though? Religion can inspire laws, no problem. People can certainly vote for legislaters for religious reasons. Or is that not religion "in" the laws? It seems like it to me and I don't think the founder's were against that. I think they were against having a state sponsored religion like the Church of England. Not that they wanted no religious inspiriation for laws. Maybe not purely religious inspiration, but there's nothing wrong with having religion "in" the laws.
Have you read no historical writings? I find it hard to believe that you are actually an adult when I read your posts. You are a very naive adult if you are indeed of age! Hrm. That's very..... childish of you. .|.. ^.^ ..|.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
Yes, it is a problem. It is a huge problem. Are you aware that the impostiion of christian doctrine into the governments was a primary cause of the dark ages? Are you aware of the unmitigated brutality of the Taliban in the name of their religion? Religion can inspire laws, no problem. The evidence I read shows all governments that have been based on religious belief have subjugated, tortured, killed and other wise mistreated the citizens who take a view opposing that of the dominant church. The CATHOLIC CHURCH has repeatedly demonstrated this. A small example, they continue to this day by restricting birth control in places where it is desperately needed. Have you ever heard of Malleus Malefactorum? It is part of YOUR catholic history. It is the document that CATHOLICS wrote to justify burning witches at the stake. Possibly hundreds of thousands of people were killed under this religious horseshit. That is what happens when laws are based on religious principles. And that is indeed what the writers of our constitution sought to prevent in the very first phrase of the very first article of what is known as the Bill of Rights. Phail. You're Affirming the Consequent. That a religiously inspired law has caused problems does not mean that religiously inspired laws must cause problems. Plus, that's a Strawman.... ("ZOMG! THEMZ RELIGIONS IZZA SOOO EVIL!1!) I'm not saying that a religiously inspired laws can't be a problem. I'm saying that religously inspired laws are capable of being of no problem. For example: Dry Counties Some counties have opted to be dry for religious reasons and passed laws to make them dry. This is not unconstitutional because of the seperation of church and state. The 1st amendment isn't meant to "keep religion out" in that sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Each of these religiously inspired laws intrudes on the rights of those who do not follow the particular religion that inspired the law. How so? You don't have to follow the religion, just the law. The counties have the right to be dry if they want too, no matter if the dryness was religiously inspired or not. It being religiously inspired doesn't force poeple to follow the religion.
You might feel that a single law, or two or three, is fine, but what is the logical extension of this? Right, a theocracy.
Not neccessarily. Besides, our constitution prevents us from becomming a theocracy. And we've been a democracy with religiously inspired laws fairly well without becomming a theocracy.
Why don't we just leave religious beliefs out of the legal system, eh? Because poeple are religious and we live in a democracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think they were against having a state sponsored religion like the Church of England. Not that they wanted no religious inspiriation for laws. Maybe not purely religious inspiration, but there's nothing wrong with having religion "in" the laws.
I fundamentally disagree. Laws have to be rationally founded to be viable. Even if we disagree with a particular law there has to be a basis on which it's merits (or otherwise) can be rationally argued. Society will benefit, national security demands it, the rights of the individual etc. etc. etc. etc. If a law is ultimately based on "I believe in something unprovable" then why should anyone who does not share that particular belief or ideology follow that particualar law? No viable argument can be made in favour of that law. The reasoning behind such laws effectively amounts to 'Because I say so'.
I agree with you on the need for rationality. That's what I meant by saying not purely religous inspiration. There should be more to it than that. And with the example of dry counties, there is. But they still were inspired by religion. I don't think that the religious inspiration matters. What jag wrote in Message 37 is:
quote: Now, he never clarified what he meant by "taken out", but I read it to mean that these reigious inspritations shouldn't be there and that the constitution specifies this. I think it is a common misconception that the seperation of church and state means no religion in the laws whatsoever. I don't think this is what the 1st was meant to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, yes, they are unconstitutional. Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
quote: Eberle v. Michigan I do not agree in the religious position that I should not be allowed to buy a beer or a glass of wine in any given county. Why do you think you have a right to prohibit me from buying a beer? By the same right the government has the right to pass any law.
You are not knowledgeable of our constitution. You have not taken the time to make yourself aware of the circumstances of its creation and of the people that wrote it. There's no need for ad hominems, ass.
Yes, the purpose of the first amendment is to keep religion out of our laws. Prove it. I've already shown otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
By that statement you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge of our constitution.
By the same right the government has the right to pass any law. By that statement you have demonstrated that you cannot refute my argument. CS=1jag=0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The starting premise was one of the great falsehoods of religion claim: god is not subject to science. God is subject to science. Example: Prayer can be scientifically tested. That doesn't necessarily mean that god is subject to science. He could purposely not answer prayers when people are "testing" him. Also, I'm not convinced by your argument because, yeah prayer can be scientifically tested, but prayer is not god.
Witness: They claim the right to tell me I cannot buy a beer in many counties. When asked why, effectively, because they said so. You can't buy beer in those counties because it is illegal to sell beer in those counties. The poeple of those counties have the right to make it illegal to sell beer in their county.
How can rational people deal with those of faith that will not and indeed cannot justify their positions yet have an overwhelming desire to force the world to live by their standards? All you did was avoid my questions and dodge the support for my position. You're just as bad as the people you're bitching about. Its called hypocracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
coyote writes: Bastinado seems about right. ; - ) That sounds good. So you're going to bitch about all the bad things the Catholics did and then allow torture if it supports your personal opinion on the way things should be. Wow, you really are a hypocrite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I’ll not respond to any more of your posts until they demonstrate a reasonable comprehension of reality. So, you can't refute my arguments.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024