|
Author
|
Topic: Organized Religion & personal Spirituality
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 8 of 130 (197277)
04-06-2005 2:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by IANAT
04-06-2005 2:32 PM
|
|
Re: upside down
I have less objection the flag supporters compared to the porn coming from Hollywood over airwaves, and homosexual parades wanting to march in holy land of Jerusalem. Let them march anywhere else, but not in our lands, thank you. Good gravy. It's off topic, so let's try to nip this one in the bud quick as a bunny by jumping right to the chase. If you don't like porn, you don't have to watch it. If you don't like homosexuals, you don't have to associate with them. That is the start and end of your choice in the matter. You get to decide for your life, without interference. Nobody can make you renounce your God, or suck a wang, or what-have-you. Nor do you get to have your godly ways intrude and interfere with others by stopping their pride parade, or preventing them from making porn, or what-have-you. This is why separation of church and state is such a fantastic thing. You get to adhere to your beliefs, everyone else gets to adhere to theirs. Tra-la. Simple, isn't it? And as a quick side note... if you think that you, living in Texas, have a claim to Jerusalem as your land, but a homosexual living in Jerusalem does not, then you seriously need to get over yourself.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by IANAT, posted 04-06-2005 2:32 PM | | IANAT has not replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 26 of 130 (197485)
04-07-2005 2:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by IANAT
04-07-2005 2:08 PM
|
|
Re: upside down
The Christians, Muslims and Jews could probably agree on common moral laws. You haven't paid a whole lot of attention to American law, have you? Without separation of church and state, the very first thing that would happen is that your children would be forced to acknowledge Christ as their savior in public school. I don't say this as some sort of doomsaying prophecy; I say it because only 45 years ago, my Jewish mother was forced to do so.
It would be the atheists that want to be legally wild. And, what... the atheists are somehow not part of the state?
An Islamic state may require certain ways, but those do not preclude practicing other religions in peace. The rituals of my religion involve watching porn and sucking dick. It's called the First National Church of Piss off and Mind Your Own Business. Here's hoping you're cool with my practicing it in peace.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by IANAT, posted 04-07-2005 2:08 PM | | IANAT has not replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 73 of 130 (198271)
04-11-2005 11:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 61 by IANAT
04-10-2005 12:53 PM
|
|
Re: upside down
I feel that I am starting to go in circles trying to explain this concept of an Islamic state, so I think I will give the subject a rest. The thing is, IANAT, we get it. Islam is a way of life. Understood. And you should go ahead and feel free to live that way of life as fully as you please. What you don't seem to be getting is that we are not Islamic. Therefore, the Islamic way of life holds absolutely no sway over our decisions, or authority over our lives. Why on Earth would it?
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 61 by IANAT, posted 04-10-2005 12:53 PM | | IANAT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 74 by Chiroptera, posted 04-11-2005 1:13 PM | | Dan Carroll has not replied | | | Message 75 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 1:15 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 76 of 130 (198340)
04-11-2005 3:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
04-11-2005 1:15 PM
|
|
Re: upside down
So tell us, young Skywalker...what does hold sway over your decisions? What authority DO you recognize? As far as moral authority goes? My own. Why do you ask?
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 1:15 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 77 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 3:46 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 78 of 130 (198353)
04-11-2005 3:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
04-11-2005 3:46 PM
|
|
Re: upside down
I was just checking who was gonna be responsible for the bill when you check out of here, thats all. I'm a bit busy for a round of dueling cryptic posts. If you're driving towards a point, then wake me when we get there.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 3:46 PM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 79 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 4:04 PM | | Dan Carroll has not replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Focus Factors
Really? Becuase it seems to me to consist of a bunch of people telling a Muslim that they feel they are superior. It does not appear to be about spirituality at all, but Muslim-baiting. The next time someone starts arguing in favor of a Christian theocracy, and the exact same arguments that are in this thread start appearing, I hope you'll show up and tell everyone that they're just Christian-baiting.
Why is your country relevant or important? Largely because IANAT began this argument by condemning the separation of church and state in the western world ( post 5), then narrowed his focus to the supposed lack of moral control in the USA. ( Post 23). So yes, it would seem that the relative merits of US law, specifically the first amendment, are fairly relevant to the conversation at hand.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Focus Factors
Yes, so? Was your patriotic nerve hit such that you had to come out of your corner swinging and frothing at the mouth? Actually, if you go back to my first post in this thread, it was less "frothing at the mouth" and more "jokes about sucking dick". Common mistake, really.
Was it not possible to simply argue the opposite case and present your opinion instead of leaping to accusations of tyranny? Time for a fun game... guess how many times the word "tyranny" has been used in this thread. Hint: the first use was in post 98.
I cannot see why - I'm confident IANAT would advance EXACTLY the same criticism of the UK, or France, or whatever. Perhaps he would. However, the country he did lob the accusation at was the US, specifically referring to a clause in the US Constitution. In other words, he began a conversation about US law, and now for some reason, you have a problem with people responding by talking about... US law.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Focus Factors
Well of course he did, becuase people go "well I'm an AMERICAN" (cue national anthem "and in AMERICA we are free" (flag in soft focus) "unlike you barbarians." Fun game #2: Count the number of times the word "barbarians" has been used in this thread. Hint: the first use was in post 102.
So, umm "duh". "Duh" to what? Your only response is to complain about accusations of barbarism that no one on this thread has made. So no, I still don't see how US law is irrelevant when responding to a criticism of US law.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Focus Factors
"we do it differently" is not a criticism, idiot. Fun Game #3: Count the number of times the phrase "we do it differently" has been used in this thread. Hint: Yeah, you guessed it... the first use was in post 104. Oddly enough though, IANAT's first post in the thread did refer to "the problem with western society". Which sure sounds like criticism. But then, I'm an idiot. So what do I know. So in my idiocy, I'm left still wondering how US law can possibly be considered irrelevant when responding to a criticism of US law. Or, if the use of the word "criticism" gets that far up your ass, when disagreeing with a post about US law. This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-13-2005 10:28 AM
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 104 by contracycle, posted 04-13-2005 11:01 AM | | contracycle has not replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Focus Factors
I read the implication that an Islamic state also have coercive police power to enforce certain behaviors, even when not in themselves disruptive to the well-being of others, even when a significant fraction of the population doesn't agree with the ruling elite's determination of what constitutes proper Islamic "ways". And you were pretty much dead-on, with the exception that it's not exclusively Islamic. In post 23 IANAT pretty clearly lays out his desire for Christians, Muslims, and Jews to get together to decide on moral laws to which everyone should be held. He excludes atheists from this decision making, on the grounds that they will "want to be legally wild". I'm not sure what argument Contracycle's having here, but it doesn't seem to be based on anything that was actually posted on the thread.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by Chiroptera, posted 04-13-2005 11:28 AM | | Chiroptera has not replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Focus Factors
You do not have authority. You merely have power. Iyyyam an anti-christ! Iyyyyam an anar-chist!
I point out further that if you had been doing your job adequately my intervention would not have been required. He's right on this one, Admins. You really dropped the ball by not pulling accusations of tyranny and barbarism that were never made out of your asses, and then berating people for them. Fortunately for all of us, Contracycle here was willing to step up to the plate.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Focus Factors
And I do NOT see why you should get away with abuse merely because the nominal admins give their tacit consent. Well, it's only fair. After all, I still don't see why US law is irrelevant to a conversation about US law. And I asked you that ages ago. But just to be clear... this "abuse" would be all those times I called IANAT a barbaric tyrant, right? This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 04-14-2005 09:42 AM
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Focus Factors
Let me ask you this: Anything to avoid answering the question, huh?
why do Yanks think that everything is About Them Personally? That would be a difficult question to answer, for the same reason that no one believes you when you say the magic goblins in your eyeballs won't stop screaming. You see, it's difficult to take someone seriously who takes such great issue with something that exists entirely in his imagination. If I'm mistaken, and there is some sort of mass campaign of bigotry and personal assault against IANAT on this thread, then please quote an example. Preferably without making stuff up, as you did with "tryanny" and "barbarians". In the meantime, in the spirit of soothing Moose's inflamed cranky pants, I'll back off a bit now. You've had two very specific requests made of you: defend the bigotry charge, and explain your bizarre assertion that US law is irrelevant when discussing US law. Address them directly if you have an answer to them.
"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!" -Jane Christie
|
™ Version 4.2