NationStates Jolt Archive

Freedom of religion does not equate the right to get all sorts of special rules, privileges or exemptions. One cannot argue just because one is a 'member' of religion X or Y that one should not have to follow laws that are incompatible with said religion X or Y.

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. Everytime the law and the religion clash, the law must always go first. Religious law should be specifically banned. Especially because so many religions are so utterly bogus with their imaginary deities and socalled/self-proclaimed prophets. It won't be long until someone starts claiming Nazism is a religion, Mein Kampf is the bible and Hitler was a prophet (Hitler did consider himself a prophet).

Then some others will say, but the Nazis killed so many. True, the Nazi will argue, but so did Christians and very much so Muslims also. So apparently, killing scores of people does not disqualify yourself from calling your cult a religion. And that's why religions must be kept as far away from the state and government as possible. No exceptions.

We can start by taking away tax exempt status to churches, take 'In God We Trust" off the money, "Under God" out of the pledge, stop trying to shove the Ten Commandments in government buildings, end the constant bitching about lead prayers in schools, stop making faith a litmus test in elections, let the gay and lesbian community enjoy the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, and in general have the Christians that have managed to dominate just about every aspect of American culture to stop acting like a put upon and oppressed people, accept that they are prevalent and be gracious enough to make room for people who believe other things or even for people who don't have an imaginary friend.

Freedom of religion does not equate the right to get all sorts of special rules, privileges or exemptions. One cannot argue just because one is a 'member' of religion X or Y that one should not have to follow laws that are incompatible with said religion X or Y.

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. Everytime the law and the religion clash, the law must always go first. Religious law should be specifically banned. Especially because so many religions are so utterly bogus with their imaginary deities and socalled/self-proclaimed prophets. It won't be long until someone starts claiming Nazism is a religion, Mein Kampf is the bible and Hitler was a prophet (Hitler did consider himself a prophet).

Then some others will say, but the Nazis killed so many. True, the Nazi will argue, but so did Christians and very much so Muslims also. So apparently, killing scores of people does not disqualify yourself from calling your cult a religion. And that's why religions must be kept as far away from the state and government as possible. No exceptions.

A worthy point, but what brings this on? Usually people have some anecdote or inspiration before they just launch into a treatise. I agree entirely with complete separation of church and state, but I've never bought into the mindset that religion was a great evil of our time.

A worthy point, but what brings this on? Usually people have some anecdote or inspiration before they just launch into a treatise. I agree entirely with complete separation of church and state, but I've never bought into the mindset that religion was a great evil of our time.

I'm one of the 'never let the bar down' types. Once you make one consession, they'll want the whole book.

I'm one of the 'never let the bar down' types. Once you make one consession, they'll want the whole book.

Well, your vigilance inspires us all. :p

and in general have the Christians that have managed to dominate just about every aspect of American culture to stop acting like a put upon and oppressed people, accept that they are prevalent and be gracious enough to make room for people who believe other things or even for people who don't have an imaginary friend.
http://skatje.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/oppressedchristians.jpg

:p

*pic*
:p

Bravo!!! LOL

http://skatje.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/oppressedchristians.jpg

:p

Like a Christian Pacman...

We can start by taking away tax exempt status to churches, take 'In God We Trust" off the money, "Under God" out of the pledge, stop trying to shove the Ten Commandments in government buildings, end the constant bitching about lead prayers in schools, stop making faith a litmus test in elections, let the gay and lesbian community enjoy the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, and in general have the Christians that have managed to dominate just about every aspect of American culture to stop acting like a put upon and oppressed people, accept that they are prevalent and be gracious enough to make room for people who believe other things or even for people who don't have an imaginary friend.

QFT Give me freedom from religion any day of the week.

Like a Christian Pacman...

There's an animated one but I can't find it.

Edit: WOM WOM WOM

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5494/100de9.gif

Freedom of religion does not equate the right to get all sorts of special rules, privileges or exemptions. One cannot argue just because one is a 'member' of religion X or Y that one should not have to follow laws that are incompatible with said religion X or Y.

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. Everytime the law and the religion clash, the law must always go first. Religious law should be specifically banned. Especially because so many religions are so utterly bogus with their imaginary deities and socalled/self-proclaimed prophets. It won't be long until someone starts claiming Nazism is a religion, Mein Kampf is the bible and Hitler was a prophet (Hitler did consider himself a prophet).

Then some others will say, but the Nazis killed so many. True, the Nazi will argue, but so did Christians and very much so Muslims also. So apparently, killing scores of people does not disqualify yourself from calling your cult a religion. And that's why religions must be kept as far away from the state and government as possible. No exceptions.
Godwin's Law.

Someone please call the waaaaambulance.

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. Everytime the law and the religion clash, the law must always go first.

I agree, for the most part. However, no law should be passed specifically to restrict religion - that is not the purpose of the law. A law which has no purpose other than to restrict religion should (a) not be passed and (b) should fall before any challenge.

As an example:

A law passed to prevent public disturbances and noise problems could restrict all public broadcasts to a certain volume level. This might affect church bells, Muslim call-to-worship, etc. but is not targeted at it.

On the other hand, a law passed specifically because of and targeted at these things is inappropriate.

Applicable only to the US.

Our Constitutional freedom of religion is that the government cannot force a religion onto us, like when the King of England (sorry, can't remember who) decided that the only religion would be the Church of England.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that we cannot have the word God in buildings, currency,etc. Just that we cannot be forced to worship a specific religion. The Pilgrims escaped England so that they could worship their religion without being persecuted by the King.

It also means, that if you want to worship the scriptures of the Muslim, Budhist or whatever religious belief, you are free to do so.

Vic

We can start by taking away tax exempt status to churches, take 'In God We Trust" off the money, "Under God" out of the pledge, stop trying to shove the Ten Commandments in government buildings, end the constant bitching about lead prayers in schools, stop making faith a litmus test in elections, let the gay and lesbian community enjoy the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, and in general have the Christians that have managed to dominate just about every aspect of American culture to stop acting like a put upon and oppressed people, accept that they are prevalent and be gracious enough to make room for people who believe other things or even for people who don't have an imaginary friend.
And then we can visit the backstage party in Paradise.

Anyway, E Pluribus Unum sounds far more stately than bailing out to the imaginary friend upstairs. But this is coming from a guy living in a country with an official state religion.

Freedom of religion does not equate the right to get all sorts of special rules, privileges or exemptions. One cannot argue just because one is a 'member' of religion X or Y that one should not have to follow laws that are incompatible with said religion X or Y.

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. Everytime the law and the religion clash, the law must always go first. Religious law should be specifically banned. Especially because so many religions are so utterly bogus with their imaginary deities and socalled/self-proclaimed prophets. It won't be long until someone starts claiming Nazism is a religion, Mein Kampf is the bible and Hitler was a prophet (Hitler did consider himself a prophet).

Then some others will say, but the Nazis killed so many. True, the Nazi will argue, but so did Christians and very much so Muslims also. So apparently, killing scores of people does not disqualify yourself from calling your cult a religion. And that's why religions must be kept as far away from the state and government as possible. No exceptions.
At first I read that as The Nazz killed so many!

Law before religion you say? You might think it a novel idea, but I'll go with "Yes, and? What's your point?" I will...

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that we cannot have the word God in buildings, currency,etc. Just that we cannot be forced to worship a specific religion.

Wrong. 1st Amendment. Read it.

Applicable only to the US.

Our Constitutional freedom of religion is that the government cannot force a religion onto us, like when the King of England (sorry, can't remember who) decided that the only religion would be the Church of England.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that we cannot have the word God in buildings, currency,etc. Just that we cannot be forced to worship a specific religion. The Pilgrims escaped England so that they could worship their religion without being persecuted by the King.

It also means, that if you want to worship the scriptures of the Muslim, Budhist or whatever religious belief, you are free to do so.

Vic

Eh? King Henry?

Wrong. 1st Amendment. Read it.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Amendment Text | Annotations
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

I still don't see where it says we cannot have the word God in building, in our currency,etc. It simply says that the government cannot tell me what religion to worship, and that the government cannot establish a religion.

Vic

At first I read that as The Nazz killed so many!

Didn't he, though? Those poor gerbils.

Eh? King Henry?

Thank you.

Vic

Thank you.

Vic

Well, pretty much every monarch decided that only one religion should be allowed in the country up to the 1800s.

Well, pretty much every monarch decided that only one religion should be allowed in the country up to the 1800s.

Mhm. Before Church of England it was Catholocism. He only changed it because he wanted to divorce/kill his wife.

Have the word God in building, in our currency,etc. It simply says that the government cannot tell me what religion to worship, and that the government cannot establish a religion.

Vic


"God" is generally acceptable because the word "god" does not necessarily endorce any particular religion. Things like the 10 commandments do

"God" is generally acceptable because the word "god" does not necessarily endorce any particular religion. Things like the 10 commandments do

I never liked that excuse becuase that's exactly what it sounds like, an excuse. It doesn't say "In a god we trust," it says "In God (big G) we Trust." Even one of the Abrahamic religions doesn't call 'him' 'god,' but rather Allah. In addition, it's not gods, plural, so out go the Hindus. And it's god at all, I'm an athiest, I don't trust god for shit. Why is it on my money? Or in the pledge? Saying "Oh well, all religions have a god, so we're still cool...even though it's the christians that actually just straight up call thier god God, the come up is purely coincidental." That's bullshit and a copout. By having it there and in the pledge it establishes a religion. It establishes a monothiestic religion supported by the state and really does go against the first amendment. To require it to establish a specific denomination misses the point.

I never liked that excuse becuase that's exactly what it sounds like, an excuse. It doesn't say "In a god we trust," it says "In God (big G) we Trust." Even one of the Abrahamic religions doesn't call 'him' 'god,' but rather Allah. In addition, it's not gods, plural, so out go the Hindus. And it's god at all, I'm an athiest, I don't trust god for shit. Why is it on my money? Or in the pledge? Saying "Oh well, all religions have a god, so we're still cool...even though it's the christians that actually just straight up call thier god God, the come up is purely coincidental." That's bullshit and a copout. By having it there and in the pledge it establishes a religion. It establishes a monothiestic religion supported by the state and really does go against the first amendment. To require it to establish a specific denomination misses the point.

To an extent I agree. Never liked that argument either but, there it is...

I never liked that excuse becuase that's exactly what it sounds like, an excuse. It doesn't say "In a god we trust," it says "In God (big G) we Trust." Even one of the Abrahamic religions doesn't call 'him' 'god,' but rather Allah. In addition, it's not gods, plural, so out go the Hindus. And it's god at all, I'm an athiest, I don't trust god for shit. Why is it on my money? Or in the pledge? Saying "Oh well, all religions have a god, so we're still cool...even though it's the christians that actually just straight up call thier god God, the come up is purely coincidental." That's bullshit and a copout. By having it there and in the pledge it establishes a religion. It establishes a monothiestic religion supported by the state and really does go against the first amendment. To require it to establish a specific denomination misses the point.

And that is one hell of a point. Lets look at the original pledge"
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

First of all, the fact that a "socialist" came up with it would drive conservatives crazy. If my aged memory serves me right, durning the Eisenhower admisistration, the term Under God was put in, because we were fighting the Eevil commies.

http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
This one has the changes that were made, and in which order.
Just a little historical note.

Vic

"God" is generally acceptable because the word "god" does not necessarily endorce any particular religion. Things like the 10 commandments do

That's the legal argument often used. It's also full of shit. The word god does not endorse a particular religion but the word God clearly refers to the Judeo/Christian deity. It can also be argued that it excludes Atheists and goddess worshipers.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Amendment Text | Annotations
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

I still don't see where it says we cannot have the word God in building, in our currency,etc. It simply says that the government cannot tell me what religion to worship, and that the government cannot establish a religion.

Vic

Ah, but by placing "In God we trust" on your currency, the Government *is* forcing Christianity on the masses. God (with a capital G) only refers to the Christian God. Consequently, it's unconstitutional, since it clearly establishes religion, and prohibits my free exercise of atheism.

Am I the only one whose surprised that abortion clinic bombers haven't tried to claim that the murder law conflicts with their religion.

F1 insanity, I may disagree with your opinion of the religion of Islam, but I agree with you here.

Like a Christian Pacman...

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/pacmanchart.png

Also, this thread is made of Godwin.

Again F1 Insanity with his flip-flop view on religion and cults.

If it's not a religion to him, then it's a cult. But a cult is simply a religion that is neither widespread nor accepted in mainstream, so it must be a religion. But if it's not a religion, then it's a cult. But a cult is a religion, so what is it? Etc. Etc.

Oh and according to F1 Insanity, any belief that denies the existence of Jesus Christ as The Son of God rather than acknowledging Jesus did exist historically as a mortal man is not a religion to him.

I guess there's a lot more cults out there in the world than Christianity by that account.

:D

Again F1 Insanity with his flip-flop view on religion and cults.

If it's not a religion to him, then it's a cult. But a cult is simply a religion that is neither widespread nor accepted in mainstream, so it must be a religion. But if it's not a religion, then it's a cult. But a cult is a religion, so what is it? Etc. Etc.

Oh and according to F1 Insanity, any belief that denies the existence of Jesus Christ as The Son of God rather than acknowledging Jesus did exist historically as a mortal man is not a religion to him.

I guess there's a lot more cults out there in the world than Christianity by that account.

:D

Does anyone remember that onion article, "Cult members find new life in Christ" where the place that helps them become christians is exactly like a cult?

I'm one of the 'never let the bar down' types. Once you make one consession, they'll want the whole book.

Sounds like a mantra for the NRA.

Freedom of religion does not equate the right to get all sorts of special rules, privileges or exemptions. One cannot argue just because one is a 'member' of religion X or Y that one should not have to follow laws that are incompatible with said religion X or Y.If it's a federal law, you can. At least, you can since the federal government passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

http://skatje.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/oppressedchristians.jpg

:p

I don't disagree with you in this instance, but I think the underlying premise is flawed as you can see in this chart (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7449036@N03/430728581/). ;)

Just because a religion has tons of members doesn't mean people don't call it a cult. Hare Krishna, Mormons, etc.

Just because a religion has tons of members doesn't mean people don't call it a cult. Hare Krishna, Mormons, etc.

Hare Krsna, surely?

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Amendment Text | Annotations
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

I still don't see where it says we cannot have the word God in building, in our currency,etc. It simply says that the government cannot tell me what religion to worship, and that the government cannot establish a religion.

Vic

I bolded the important part for you. The government cannot establish a religion. Therefore, it cannot "have the word God in building, in our currency, etc." Doing so establishes a single religious viewpoint as the "right" one and is not impartial to the others.

I don't disagree with you in this instance, but I think the underlying premise is flawed as you can see in this chart (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7449036@N03/430728581/). ;)

Nope, the underlying premise is not flawed, since the U.S. and pre-abolishment of apartheid South Africa differ in a very important manner. Specifically, voting rights.

Hare Krsna, surely?

Depends on your definition of a cult. They're as much a wacky offshoot sect of Hinduism as the Mormons are to you lot.

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5494/100de9.gif

Lolz. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE PACMAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!!!!

I have always maintained that freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.

I have always maintained that freedom of religion implies freedom from religion.

I've never understood how it could be otherwise. If the government cannot establish a religion (and it cannot), it affords freedom from enforcement of any religion.

Ah, but by placing "In God we trust" on your currency, the Government *is* forcing Christianity on the masses. God (with a capital G) only refers to the Christian God. Consequently, it's unconstitutional, since it clearly establishes religion, and prohibits my free exercise of atheism.

How does it prohibit your exercise of atheism? I'm atheist and I get along pretty fine with my beliefs with "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on the currency...

At first I read that as The Nazz killed so many!

I am a bloodthirsty madman, after all. My atheism makes me the next Stalin, apparently. :p

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. Everytime the law and the religion clash, the law must always go first.

*snipz0rz*

Is this "angry atheists" day?

I'm one of the 'never let the bar down' types. Once you make one consession, they'll want the whole book.
Or, as a 'wiser man' put it, "my way or the highway".

QFT Give me freedom from religion any day of the week.
What is freedom from religion? How dies it differ from freedom of religion?

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that we cannot have the word God in buildings, currency,etc.
It pretty much does.

I never liked that excuse becuase that's exactly what it sounds like, an excuse. It doesn't say "In a god we trust," it says "In God (big G) we Trust." Even one of the Abrahamic religions doesn't call 'him' 'god,' but rather Allah.
Allah is simply Arabic for God. It's entirely acceptable for Muslims to refer to Him as God when it's English that's being spoken. Similarly, Arabic-speaking Christians pray to Allah. Muslims, Christians and Jews disagree on the nature of the deity, but we all worship the same God.

Legally speaking, of course that just keeps it in the Abrahamic club, exclusing polytheists.

Again F1 Insanity with his flip-flop view on religion and cults.

Oh and according to F1 Insanity, any belief that denies the existence of Jesus Christ as The Son of God rather than acknowledging Jesus did exist historically as a mortal man is not a religion to him.
Oh noes, did he say something against Muslims in the distant past? This surely means you must flame him forever. :rolleyes:

What is freedom from religion? How dies it differ from freedom of religion?

It's usually a straw man tossed out by people who want to argue that the First Amendment doesn't keep the federal government from allowing federal money to be spent on religious stuff--they say "the First Amendment allows freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." It's a pretty stupid argument.

But what I mean by it is that I want the government to be scrupulously neutral toward religion. I want it to be agnostic. I want it to act as though religion is a purely private matter and that no religious group should get any special benefits--like tax exemptions, for example.

How does it prohibit your exercise of atheism? I'm atheist and I get along pretty fine with my beliefs with "under God" in the pledge and "In God We Trust" on the currency...

It doesn't. I violates the establishment clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The most striking thing about the establishment clause that the christian reich simply fail to understand is that it does not say that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, it says that congress shall not respect the establishment of ANY religion, which includes all forms of theism in a society as diverse as ours.

This is the problem with looking to history. Well, Thomas Jefferson supported the use of the bible in schools, so the bible should still be in schools goes the argument. The problem is that the bible was, quite frankly, a primary source for history and social studies at that time. Everyone was basically a christian, either deist (basically all the founders), or otherwise. They scrupulously avoided the government taking a specific stance, establishing christian deism over other forms of protestantism, etc.

Now, we have large communitites of muslims, jews, hindus, and my home state of Washington is 1/4 non-religious. In that context, any establishment of theism, even in general, constitutes the taking of sides by the government in matters of religious belief. That's what the establishment clause of the first amendment was written to preclude.

Hare Krsna, surely?

No, I think that's the Husker Du song.

I don't disagree with you in this instance, but I think the underlying premise is flawed as you can see in this chart (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7449036@N03/430728581/). ;)

No, because the underlying premise in this case includes the majority having power equal to - if not greater than - the minority. In apartheid Africa the white minority had more power (through governmental authority) than the black majority.

Freedom of religion does not equate the right to get all sorts of special rules, privileges or exemptions. One cannot argue just because one is a 'member' of religion X or Y that one should not have to follow laws that are incompatible with said religion X or Y.

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. Everytime the law and the religion clash, the law must always go first. Religious law should be specifically banned. Especially because so many religions are so utterly bogus with their imaginary deities and socalled/self-proclaimed prophets. It won't be long until someone starts claiming Nazism is a religion, Mein Kampf is the bible and Hitler was a prophet (Hitler did consider himself a prophet).

Then some others will say, but the Nazis killed so many. True, the Nazi will argue, but so did Christians and very much so Muslims also. So apparently, killing scores of people does not disqualify yourself from calling your cult a religion. And that's why religions must be kept as far away from the state and government as possible. No exceptions.

It is unfortunate that most people equate freedom with license and feel that almost every freedom is really an invitation to demand special privileges. They completely ignore the responsibility that is inherent in freedom.

Nope, the underlying premise is not flawed, since the U.S. and pre-abolishment of apartheid South Africa differ in a very important manner. Specifically, voting rights.

I'm gonna have to give that one to you, I hadn't considered that.

I am still uncomfortable with the assumption that "majority group identity = cannot be oppressed" though, in all except near-perfect democracies.

There's an animated one but I can't find it.

Edit: WOM WOM WOM

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5494/100de9.gif

I think this wins the thread :D

This is similar to how many people think that "freedom of speech" means that the newspaper MUST print their personal editorial, otherwise they are being oppressed.

If the government declines to spend tax dollars teaching public school kids about your God, you are not being oppressed.

If the city declines to spend public funds to build a monument to your religion on public ground, you are not being oppressed.

If the government decides not to feature religious graffiti on currency or public buildings, you are not being oppressed.

If your place of business declines to have an official holiday scheduled for each of your religious holidays, you are not being oppressed.

If some other person publicly states that your God isn't real, you are not being oppressed.

If you attempt to break one of the common rules which all citizens are obligated to follow, and you then try to use your religion as an excuse for your behavior, and the authorities tell you to get the fuck over yourself and obey the damn rules like everybody else, you are not being oppressed.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean, "You are free to do whatever you want as long as you hold up your religion as your excuse." It doesn't mean, "You can freely do everything your religion says and everybody else has to get out of the way."

But you'd never know any of this, to hear the way the Religious Right in American tells it.

Freedom of religion does not equate the right to get all sorts of special rules, privileges or exemptions. One cannot argue just because one is a 'member' of religion X or Y that one should not have to follow laws that are incompatible with said religion X or Y.

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion.

Funny. I say exactly the same thing about being a "member" (as if it's some sorta club :rolleyes: ) of a religion as I do race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.

This is similar to how many people think that "freedom of speech" means that the newspaper MUST print their personal editorial, otherwise they are being oppressed.

If the government declines to spend tax dollars teaching public school kids about your God, you are not being oppressed.

If the city declines to spend public funds to build a monument to your religion on public ground, you are not being oppressed.

If the government decides not to feature religious graffiti on currency or public buildings, you are not being oppressed.

If your place of business declines to have an official holiday scheduled for each of your religious holidays, you are not being oppressed.

If some other person publicly states that your God isn't real, you are not being oppressed.

If you attempt to break one of the common rules which all citizens are obligated to follow, and you then try to use your religion as an excuse for your behavior, and the authorities tell you to get the fuck over yourself and obey the damn rules like everybody else, you are not being oppressed.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean, "You are free to do whatever you want as long as you hold up your religion as your excuse." It doesn't mean, "You can freely do everything your religion says and everybody else has to get out of the way."

But you'd never know any of this, to hear the way the Religious Right in American tells it.

If the government favors one religion over another, it's not exactly freedom of religion.

Seems to me a few governments are willing to bend over backwards for Islam.

I never liked that excuse becuase that's exactly what it sounds like, an excuse. It doesn't say "In a god we trust," it says "In God (big G) we Trust." Even one of the Abrahamic religions doesn't call 'him' 'god,' but rather Allah. In addition, it's not gods, plural, so out go the Hindus. And it's god at all, I'm an athiest, I don't trust god for shit. Why is it on my money? Or in the pledge? Saying "Oh well, all religions have a god, so we're still cool...even though it's the christians that actually just straight up call thier god God, the come up is purely coincidental." That's bullshit and a copout. By having it there and in the pledge it establishes a religion. It establishes a monothiestic religion supported by the state and really does go against the first amendment. To require it to establish a specific denomination misses the point.

Man how dense. Go look up the word God. It simply means the one supreame being, the creator of the universe. Nowhere does it stipulate exclusively the God of Abraham. Alallah is the Arabic word for God. Again meaning the same.

So if in an English speaking country expect to use the word God, and when in an Arabic country expect to use the word Allah.


As to Hindus, they belive that all gods, are but aspects of the God, so esentilay yes, it does include them.

As to Hindus, they belive that all gods, are but aspects of the God, so esentilay yes, it does include them.

Don't really know anything about Hinduism, do you?

Like I tell my kids, noone is more special than anyone else. We all have to obey the rules, even if we really think we should be able to beat up the other kids because my daddy says so. Whether that's the biological father or the imaginary one.

We can start by taking away tax exempt status to churches, take 'In God We Trust" off the money, "Under God" out of the pledge, stop trying to shove the Ten Commandments in government buildings, end the constant bitching about lead prayers in schools, stop making faith a litmus test in elections, let the gay and lesbian community enjoy the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, and in general have the Christians that have managed to dominate just about every aspect of American culture to stop acting like a put upon and oppressed people, accept that they are prevalent and be gracious enough to make room for people who believe other things or even for people who don't have an imaginary friend.
The thread should end with this ... good job :fluffle:

Seems to me a few governments are willing to bend over backwards for Islam.

Yeah, like Spain, Italy, Vatican City, Poland....

No, wait, that's christianity. Not all governments in the world are secular. Some are Islamic, yes. Some are christian. One of them is even *gasp* jewish.

Was there any point to this little line of yours other than to go "omg some states are islamic!"

Don't really know anything about Hinduism, do you?


Within Hinduism a large number of personalities or 'forms' are worshipped as deities or murtis with the belief that these beings are either: aspects of the supreme Brahman; avatars of the supreme being (Bhagavan); or significantly powerful entities known as devas.

The Hindu religion speaks of many individual deities, called Devas. Goddesses are called devīs. The various devas and devīs are personifications of various aspects of one and the same God


In Hinduism, the Trimurti (also called the Hindu trinity) are three aspects of God in His forms as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Brahma - the creator
Vishnu - the preserver
Shiva - the destroyer

Some other popular Hindu aspects of God include ...

It appears that he knows considerablye more about Hinduism than you as his comment is, essentially, correct. Hinduism is, at its core, no more polytheistic than Christianity. Just as the trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost are aspects of one singular god, so to is the Hindu trinity and others aspects of the same force, "Om"

Yeah, like Spain, Italy, Vatican City, Poland....

No, wait, that's christianity. Not all governments in the world are secular. Some are Islamic, yes. Some are christian. One of them is even *gasp* jewish.

Was there any point to this little line of yours other than to go "omg some states are islamic!"

Sensationalist for the loss. Next he'll tell us some countries have Muslim people in them. Oh noes! :eek: We must stop this travesty! :rolleyes:

It appears that he knows considerablye more about Hinduism than you as his comment is, essentially, correct. Hinduism is, at its core, no more polytheistic than Christianity. Just as the trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost are aspects of one singular god, so to is the Hindu trinity and others aspects of the same force, "Om"

Yup. In effect the devas and devis are equivalent to the Abrahmic angels.

It appears that he knows considerablye more about Hinduism than you as his comment is, essentially, correct. Hinduism is, at its core, no more polytheistic than Christianity. Just as the trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost are aspects of one singular god, so to is the Hindu trinity and others aspects of the same force, "Om"

ownage

We can start by taking away tax exempt status to churches, take 'In God We Trust" off the money, "Under God" out of the pledge, stop trying to shove the Ten Commandments in government buildings, end the constant bitching about lead prayers in schools, stop making faith a litmus test in elections, let the gay and lesbian community enjoy the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, and in general have the Christians that have managed to dominate just about every aspect of American culture to stop acting like a put upon and oppressed people, accept that they are prevalent and be gracious enough to make room for people who believe other things or even for people who don't have an imaginary friend.

So, let me get this straight...

You want to outlaw the collective morality and consience of the entire country?

I'd say christians are a rather embattled people, by people like you who take our kindness and tollerance and turn it against us.

In time, we will get sick of it and teach you what intollerance really is.

Till then, feel secure in you illusion of superiority.

So, let me get this straight...

You want to outlaw the collective morality and consience of the entire country?

I'd say christians are a rather embattled people, by people like you who take our kindness and tollerance and turn it against us.

In time, we will get sick of it and teach you what intollerance really is.

Till then, feel secure in you illusion of superiority.

How very Christian

So, let me get this straight...

You want to outlaw the collective morality and consience of the entire country?

I'd say christians are a rather embattled people, by people like you who take our kindness and tollerance and turn it against us.

In time, we will get sick of it and teach you what intollerance really is.

Till then, feel secure in you illusion of superiority.

To quote from earlier in this thread:

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5494/100de9.gif

Cry me a river.

So, let me get this straight...

You want to outlaw the collective morality and consience of the entire country?

Fail.

Read his post again.

You embody exactly the problem I was talking about earlier. You really seem to think that you cannot have religious freedom unless YOUR religion is tattooed on every area of public life. BS.

"In Vishnu We Trust" isn't on our money, yet somehow Hindu Americans manage to still be Hindu and hold their values. Our government buildings do not feature altars to the Goddess, yet the Pagans manage to still hold their morality. Christians are perfectly capable of having morality and conscience even if we don't blow public money on Christian paraphernalia.


I'd say christians are a rather embattled people, by people like you who take our kindness and tollerance and turn it against us.

What tolerance? You're pitching a fit because people don't want their tax dollars spent on promoting YOUR religion.

There are children in America who do not have enough food to eat. The fact that ANY Christian would even remotely consider spending public money on erected idols to their God is revolting to me, and flies directly in the face of what Jesus actually had to say. The fact that there are Christians who waste time and energy on campaigns to force prayers into public schools while there are children starving to death is the definition of hypocritical.


In time, we will get sick of it and teach you what intollerance really is.

Till then, feel secure in you illusion of superiority.
Such charming Christian threats. No turning the other cheek for you, I guess.

How very Christian


Hey, we're very tollerant people, appreciate and enjoy that.

Try living in an islamic country where someone telling you to shut up is done with an AK 47.

We are also very capable of defending ourselves, and when 2.5% of the population decides to push their weight around, it is only a matter of time before they find out just how little weight that is.

Fail.

Read his post again.

You embody exactly the problem I was talking about earlier. You really seem to think that you cannot have religious freedom unless YOUR religion is tattooed on every area of public life. BS..


I've got news for you, Our religon is tattooed on every area of public and private life. It's in our laws. It's in or social taboos. It's in everything you see, touch, say, and do.

Get over the fact that you want to be a little twirp, because you might be annoying, but you are not going to change that fact.

As for our tollerance, we have almost limitless ammounts of it. We do not care what you do with your life. Who you sleep with, how or if you worship, what you write, what you say, or where you work.

Try this...

Go fight for tollerance in Iran, see what happens./

Hey, we're very tollerant people, appreciate and enjoy that.

Try living in an islamic country where someone telling you to shut up is done with an AK 47.

We are also very capable of defending ourselves, and when 2.5% of the population decides to push their weight around, it is only a matter of time before they find out just how little weight that is.

That's funny.

How's that "getting ID into the school system" thing going? Huh? Mr. 90+% of the population? Huh? What's that? Oh yeah, right, feel flat on its fucking face.

Don't preach tolerance to me, boy. I've had plenty of Christian "tolerance" and I can honestly say you can blow it out your ear.

I've got news for you, Our religon is tattooed on every area of public and private life. It's in our laws. It's in or social taboos. It's in everything you see, touch, say, and do.

Get over the fact that you want to be a little twirp, because you might be annoying, but you are not going to change that fact.

That's funny, because it's slowly being pulled out of everything like the festering weed it is.

No more God in the pledge of allegiance.

Soon, hopefully, no more God on our money.

And hopefully, you pricks can finally keep your God to yourself, like the rest of us.

It appears that he knows considerablye more about Hinduism than you as his comment is, essentially, correct.

Um...yeah...quoting from something written by someone who is, no doubt, writing from a monotheistic perspective, trying to say that "hey, we're really all worshipping one god when it comes down to it." Rubbish.

I've got news for you, Our religon is tattooed on every area of public and private life. It's in our laws. It's in or social taboos. It's in everything you see, touch, say, and do.

Get over the fact that you want to be a little twirp, because you might be annoying, but you are not going to change that fact.

As for our tollerance, we have almost limitless ammounts of it. We do not care what you do with your life. Who you sleep with, how or if you worship, what you write, what you say, or where you work.

Try this...

Go fight for tollerance in Iran, see what happens./

Bullshit. Tell that to those against gay marriage rights, the people who have set laws banning concensual acts between adults (sodomy in some states), and the nutjob fundies who bomb abortion clinics.

Take a look at Fred Phelps, and tell me about your limitless tolerance. I don't think you'll be able to do it with a straight face, but then, who knows what you people are capable of these days.

Um...yeah...quoting from something written by someone who is, no doubt, writing from a monotheistic perspective, trying to say that "hey, we're really all worshipping one god when it comes down to it." Rubbish.

Actually, the general take on Hinduism from within Hinduism is that there is one God.

If you really doubt what I'm saying, I'm a former Hindu who was brought up Hindu. I think I'd know more about this than you.

What is freedom from religion? How dies it differ from freedom of religion?The difference is that freedom of religion can mean that everyone is free to have one, so long as it is a religion. Atheism would be prohibitted. An example for this is the Boy Scouts of America, where you're free to be of any religion, but are treated differently if you're openly athiest. That's an example of freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

I've got news for you, Our religon is tattooed on every area of public and private life. It's in our laws. It's in or social taboos. It's in everything you see, touch, say, and do.

Get over the fact that you want to be a little twirp, because you might be annoying, but you are not going to change that fact.

Wait, I thought that "christians are a rather embattled people"?

So, now you are "embattled" if your religion is "tattooed on every area of public and private life. It's in our laws. It's in or social taboos. It's in everything you see, touch, say, and do"?

Honey, if Christians are "embattled" while having their religion in every area of public and private life, in our laws, in our social taboos, and in everything we see, touch, say, and do, then I humbly submit that you Christians are going to feel "embattled" no matter what the fuck any of us do. So we might as well quit giving a shit about making Christians feel good, because you're never going to be satisfied anyhow.


As for our tollerance, we have almost limitless ammounts of it. We do not care what you do with your life. Who you sleep with, how or if you worship, what you write, what you say, or where you work.

If your tolerance is limitless, then I'm sure you won't object to having your religion treated with precisely the same courtesy as every other faith. Right?

Or do you require that your religion receive special treatment, lest your "tolerance" suddenly come to an end?


Try this...

Go fight for tollerance in Iran, see what happens./
I'm an American, and I believe it is my duty to clean up my own house before I go poking around in somebody else's home. It is pathetic for you to point to Iran and basically say, "Hey, they're doing it too!!! You can't get mad at us, because THOSE fundamentalist whack jobs are even WORSE!"

That's like saying, "Hey, I only gave my wife a black eye! The guy across the street broke his wife's LEG. You can't yell at me, I'm totally a good husband!"

Um...yeah...quoting from something written by someone who is, no doubt, writing from a monotheistic perspective, trying to say that "hey, we're really all worshipping one god when it comes down to it." Rubbish.

Well, actually, having done extensive studies of religons, there is a valid argument that all religons come from one initial set of beliefs, and that the stories and mythos of the following faiths are just edits and embellishments of the preceding religon.

For example, it is quite easy to equate Enki with Zeus with Jehovia, and Marduk with mars with Archangel Michael.

The belief in a half god, half mortal savior is pretty prevelent as well.

As is the existance of various planes of existance culminating in heaven or hell.

This is interesting from a psychological standpoint because there does not appear to be any origin for these beliefs, they just are, and the parallels between the faiths of a tribe in the amazon and the faith of an isolated tibetan village seem a bit more than coincidence, do they not?

As for names involved? What's in a name? Islam supports, what is it, 99 names of god? There is one faith that supports something like 36,000, strangely both are monotheistic.

You know, there's even an argument that christianity is actualy not monotheistic, and some sects of christianity are openly polytheistic.

Basicly, there is a lot you do not know about faith.

Wait, I thought that "christians are a rather embattled people"?

So, now you are "embattled" if your religion is "tattooed on every area of public and private life. It's in our laws. It's in or social taboos. It's in everything you see, touch, say, and do"?

Honey, if Christians are "embattled" while having their religion in every area of public and private life, in our laws, in our social taboos, and in everything we see, touch, say, and do, then I humbly submit that you Christians are going to feel "embattled" no matter what the fuck any of us do. So we might as well quit giving a shit about making Christians feel good, because you're never going to be satisfied anyhow.


If your tolerance is limitless, then I'm sure you won't object to having your religion treated with precisely the same courtesy as every other faith. Right?

Or do you require that your religion receive special treatment, lest your "tolerance" suddenly come to an end?


I'm an American, and I believe it is my duty to clean up my own house before I go poking around in somebody else's home. It is pathetic for you to point to Iran and basically say, "Hey, they're doing it too!!! You can't get mad at us, because THOSE fundamentalist whack jobs are even WORSE!"

That's like saying, "Hey, I only gave my wife a black eye! The guy across the street broke his wife's LEG. You can't yell at me, I'm totally a good husband!"


We are embattled, we are being attacked, and being forced to fight a war we want no part of so that people like you can try to claim a dominance you have no right to.

Our tollerance is meerly nearly limitless, not limitless. And you and other fools like you are both pushing too hard, too fast, and at the wrong time to succeede in doing anything but having your own intollerance slammed back in your face.

And you don't even wanna get started on spousal abuse bitch, I am a man, and I was forced to endure that at the hands of my ex wife because defending myself would have put my happy ass in jail.

Don't even start that shit with me.

We are embattled, we are being attacked, and being forced to fight a war we want no part of so that people like you can try to claim a dominance you have no right to.

Our tollerance is meerly nearly limitless, not limitless. And you and other fools like you are both pushing too hard, too fast, and at the wrong time to succeede in doing anything but having your own intollerance slammed back in your face.

And you don't even wanna get started on spousal abuse bitch, I am a man, and I was forced to endure that at the hands of my ex wife because defending myself would have put my happy ass in jail.

Don't even start that shit with me.

You have an amazing ability to spout out this inane, incomprehensive, wishy washy bullshit. Stop trying to dodge the argument and come up with these lame ass analogies.

Bullshit. Tell that to those against gay marriage rights, the people who have set laws banning concensual acts between adults (sodomy in some states), and the nutjob fundies who bomb abortion clinics.

Take a look at Fred Phelps, and tell me about your limitless tolerance. I don't think you'll be able to do it with a straight face, but then, who knows what you people are capable of these days.

First of all, when was the last time a sodomy case was actually prosecuted?

Second of all, I will probably strangle the next person who puts Fred Phelps up on a pedestal, as you have just done. He represents about 75 people, and is probably as insulting to christians as a gay man who goes around raping children is to gays. The guy makes me and everyone I know sick.

Third, there are nut jobs everywhere, but based on your logic, we should kill every muslim, because they .001% of them that are terrorists are the standard by which to judge all the rest of them.

You have an amazing ability to spout out this inane, incomprehensive, wishy washy bullshit. Stop trying to dodge the argument and come up with these lame ass analogies.


Right back at'cha Bitch!

So, let me get this straight...

You want to outlaw the collective morality and consience of the entire country?


Given the crap our country is currently involved in and has been involved in over the last 200+ years, I don't think you want to tar your religion as being "the collective morality and conscience of the entire country." I mean, unless you want to defend genocide, slavery, and unnecessary war as christian, that is.

Given the crap our country is currently involved in and has been involved in over the last 200+ years, I don't think you want to tar your religion as being "the collective morality and conscience of the entire country." I mean, unless you want to defend genocide, slavery, and unnecessary war as christian, that is.


Interesting...

So the development of the country is to be scorned.

If that is so, should we go back to where we started?

I suppose you want witch trial's too?

We are embattled, we are being attacked, and being forced to fight a war we want no part of so that people like you can try to claim a dominance you have no right to.Speak for yourself. The only people I hear talking about a "culture war" or referring to themselves as "culture warriors" are American hardline conservative Christians.

Speak for yourself. The only people I hear talking about a "culture war" or referring to themselves as "culture warriors" are American hardline conservative Christians.

You're all insane, aren't you?

Interesting...

So the development of the country is to be scorned.

If that is so, should we go back to where we started?

I suppose you want witch trial's too?Are you trying to excuse the atrocities of the past with development?

Right back at'cha Bitch!

Oh, woe is me :rolleyes:

Interesting...

So the development of the country is to be scorned.

If that is so, should we go back to where we started?

I suppose you want witch trial's too?
Uh, did you just bring up witch-burning in relation to an argument that Christianity is the 'collective morality of the entire country'? Am I missing something here?

Kindly explain how Christianity helped technological development in the 20th century, anywhere.

You're all insane, aren't you?Is that your response? I'm calling you on the "war we want no part of." I disagree with you. I see plenty of Christians calling for a battle against whatnot, and it leads me to believe that they do indeed want a part of "this war." While you and many other Christians in the US may not want a part of it, a lot of them apparently do.

Are you trying to excuse the atrocities of the past with development?

Well...

Let's see...

We no longer practice the attrocities of the past no matter haow much people who hate America love them...

I think I'd call that the evolution of society. Or did you think you noble people always existed?

Geez, you'd think these people thought modern convience just made it easier to pick up dates.

Oh, woe is me :rolleyes:At least you got a capitalized "bitch." All I got was a lower-case "insane." :(

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. I have very little problem with people getting 'privileges' or 'exemptions' based on belonging to a certain religion...or even having a certain set of spiritual beliefs. It's no more ridiculous than making allowances for other needs, such as dietary restrictions, religiously based or otherwise.

Now when cultural or religious practices seriously infringe upon the rights of others, then we have a problem. Balancing of the rights involved is needed.

My people 'smudge' before meetings, or in prayer. It involves burning sage or sweet grass. Sometimes a special ceremony involves burning tobacco. Now, some buildings have strict 'no smoking' rules. However, we have generally been able to negotiate (in private buildings) and have been granted (in public buildings) the right to smudge or burn tobacco for our ceremonies. Is this a privilege? Yes, based on a specific, existing cultural practice that has meaning for us. Does it mean that it's terribly unfair that a non-native can't fire up a smoke or burn something? No.

I'm not a huge fan of 'equality', when the concept being pushed is 'treat everyone exactly the same'. I'm a much bigger fan of equity...fairness. Because an important aspect of fairness is realising that the idea of treating everyone the same all the time is actually a big steaming pile of dog shit.

Given the crap our country is currently involved in and has been involved in over the last 200+ years, I don't think you want to tar your religion as being "the collective morality and conscience of the entire country." I mean, unless you want to defend genocide, slavery, and unnecessary war as christian, that is.

Nah, that can't be pinned on any single religion. It's part of the history of humanity, and it's not just the last couple of centuries.

I'm one of the 'never let the bar down' types. Once you make one consession, they'll want the whole book.

I totally know what you mean! It's like when they let the bitches have the vote! It's all been downhill since then!

I totally know what you mean! It's like when they let the bitches have the vote! It's all been downhill since then!

Nah, just since you attained legal voting age, my dear. ;)

Well...

Let's see...

We no longer practice the attrocities of the past <snip irrelevancies>A good thing. But does that excuse doing so in the first place?

To get back to the original point: The Nazz pointed out that the atrocities of the past would be attributed to the "collective conscience of the nation" and should be seen as a failure of said conscience, a conscience which you claimed was Christian.

Either there is such a conscience and it failed miserably in the past, or there isn't such a conscience. Don't try to dodge the point by asking "So progress sucks now, huh?" It detracts from the argument.
I think I'd call that the evolution of society. Or did you think you noble people always existed?Well, considering that the British were freeing slaves during the revolutionary war, since slavery was outlawed in the British Empire, noble people existed elsewhere, at the time they were needed in the US. Yeah, US society has evolved, but on some points, it was a lot slower to do so than others.

Is that your response? I'm calling you on the "war we want no part of." I disagree with you. I see plenty of Christians calling for a battle against whatnot, and it leads me to believe that they do indeed want a part of "this war." While you and many other Christians in the US may not want a part of it, a lot of them apparently do.

Ya know, I'm one of the most reasonable christians you will ever encounter.

I actually have a background in theology, and I didn't get it studying to be a priest.

I support gay rights, and the rights of everyone to worship or not worship as they please.

But I do know this.

You do not care for tollerance, tollerance means you have to accept what other people believe. And if those people outnumber you, you have to change their minds before you can change the laws.

I also know you do not care that you are completely unreasonable, and that you consider your ignorance to be a virtue.

It's obvious that you are so fervent in your beliefs that you care nothing for any opposing view, and nothing for reality.

It's also obvious that you do not really care if any of your views and beliefs ever see progress made.

You just want to hate anything that is different than you are.

Right and wrong do not come in to it as far as you are concerned, and you probably consider right and wrong and truth and facts to be outmoded christian concepts.

Good luck in your efforts, you will need that luck, because intelligence is not your strong suit.

-snippage-

QFT

Yeah, US society has evolved, but on some points, it was a lot slower to do so than others.


But we got there, and most of the world has not.

I totally know what you mean! It's like when they let the bitches have the vote! It's all been downhill since then!

:eek: I think I've finally found the lowest point on the internet!!!

Nah, just since you attained legal voting age, my dear. ;)
Well we all know that when women vote, they cancel out the vote of men!

Wait...does that mean that transgendered people actually end up determining who gets elected?:confused:

Anyway, totally true...the bitches got the vote, and now they want the whole kaboodle...you know, like jobs, and political positions, and being able to accuse their poor spouses of rape and stuff. Ewww. So not right. Someone should have stopped this before it went so far and civilisation began to decay.

Actually, the general take on Hinduism from within Hinduism is that there is one God.

If you really doubt what I'm saying, I'm a former Hindu who was brought up Hindu. I think I'd know more about this than you.

How dare you claim that you know more than a self professed atheist about your own religion?

Well, considering that the British were freeing slaves during the revolutionary war, since slavery was outlawed in the British Empire, noble people existed elsewhere, at the time they were needed in the US. Yeah, US society has evolved, but on some points, it was a lot slower to do so than others.

No offense, Laerod, but a German saying that the US was a bad boy for keeping slavery for as long as it did is kinda like Pol Pot telling Idi Amin he didn't kill enough people.

:eek: I think I've finally found the lowest point on the internet!!!
You mean there is a point on the internet lower than where you've brought this conversation to? It was your use of 'bitch' that inspired me ya know.

Hey, we're very tollerant people, appreciate and enjoy that.

when 2.5% of the population decides to push their weight around, it is only a matter of time before they find out just how little weight that is.

I sense some cognitive dissonance. We are a very tolerant people, so you best appreciate that bitch, now!

Are you appreciating it yet?

How dare you claim that you know more than a self professed atheist about your own religion?

When have I said I'm an atheist? A little reading of my posts on the subject of religion might help you out a bit (but why bother, when you can spew nonsense instead, eh?). Nice try, though.

Even though it was bloody pathetic... :rolleyes:

No offense, Laerod, but a German saying that the US was a bad boy for keeping slavery for as long as it did is kinda like Pol Pot telling Idi Amin he didn't kill enough people.
Your analogy fails. If the action in question is killing people, and Pol Pot believes it to be good, Pol Pot was better at it than Idi Amin and is perfectly entitled to criticise Amin for being sub-standard. ;)

Ya know, I'm one of the most reasonable christians you will ever encounter.

I actually have a background in theology, and I didn't get it studying to be a priest.

I support gay rights, and the rights of everyone to worship or not worship as they please.I'm not denying that.

But I do know this.

You do not care for tollerance, tollerance means you have to accept what other people believe. And if those people outnumber you, you have to change their minds before you can change the laws.Not really. Changing laws is one way to change minds. A good example for that is the Civil Rights movement. I heartily doubt that it is a noble thing to deny people of a different skin color the rights they deserve until the people keeping them away from them are no longer in a majority.

I also know you do not care that you are completely unreasonable, and that you consider your ignorance to be a virtue.Ignorance of what exactly?

It's obvious that you are so fervent in your beliefs that you care nothing for any opposing view, and nothing for reality.

It's also obvious that you do not really care if any of your views and beliefs ever see progress made.

You just want to hate anything that is different than you are.You can judge (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&verse=1&version=31&context=verse) this from how many of my posts?

Right and wrong do not come in to it as far as you are concerned, and you probably consider right and wrong and truth and facts to be outmoded christian concepts.

Good luck in your efforts, you will need that luck, because intelligence is not your strong suit.Now I'm beginning to doubt your reason.

Well we all know that when women vote, they cancel out the vote of men!

Wait...does that mean that transgendered people actually end up determining who gets elected?:confused:

Anyway, totally true...the bitches got the vote, and now they want the whole kaboodle...you know, like jobs, and political positions, and being able to accuse their poor spouses of rape and stuff. Ewww. So not right. Someone should have stopped this before it went so far and civilisation began to decay.

My "you" wasn't directed at women as a whole, Nees, just you. :p

I so enjoy this back-n-forth with you!
:D

-snip-

Still not ready to admit you're wrong huh? I'd call you Corny v.2 but eve online already has that distinction. I'll call you Corny v.3

No offense, Laerod, but a German saying that the US was a bad boy for keeping slavery for as long as it did is kinda like Pol Pot telling Idi Amin he didn't kill enough people.Thank goodness I have an American passport too then ;)

Then again, your analogy is off insofar that neither of us were involved in the acts described and I do not condone the acts of the Nazis regardless of progress they made.

My "you" wasn't directed at women as a whole, Nees, just you. :p

I so enjoy this back-n-forth with you!
:D

Oh, good of you to point it out to me, I'm just such a dizzy broad that I couldn't have figured that out without help!

And back and forth yourself ya perv, I'm not here to provide you with jollies.

But we got there, and most of the world has not.The usual "it's ok to be backward because others are even more backward"? And how can you condemn others for lagging behind if you don't condemn your own countr(y/ies) for the same? By that standard, the atrocities comitted in other countries would be ok so long as they develop...

Still not ready to admit you're wrong huh? I'd call you Corny v.2 but eve online already has that distinction. I'll call you Corny v.3

I'd call you something, but it'd likely get me banned.

Thank goodness I have an American passport too then ;)

Then again, your analogy is off insofar that neither of us were involved in the acts described and I do not condone the acts of the Nazis regardless of progress they made.

Hey, like I said, mate, it was nothing personal, and I know damn well you don't condone the acts of the German government of 60+ years ago. But just as you can say fuck that, I say fuck that to what the US was 150+ years ago. Trying to malign the US of today by dredging up history is silly -- not to mention something some folks really shouldn't be doing, considering their countries' more recent history. That's all I was trying to say.

Oh, good of you to point it out to me, I'm just such a dizzy broad that I couldn't have figured that out without help!

Well, you responded to my post as though it were a lambast against women in general. Misunderstanding the word "you." What fun. :rolleyes:

And back and forth yourself ya perv, I'm not here to provide you with jollies.

Then what the hell are you here for? :p

I'd call you something, but it'd likely get me banned. I don't know why you just can't admit that you're wildly in love with him.

I don't know why you just can't admit that you're wildly in love with him.

I'd say I'd have his two-headed love child, but I'm already carrying Ruffy's. :p

I'd say I'd have his two-headed love child, but I'm already carrying Ruffy's. :p

This...is disturbing.

But you like DS9 so you're not all bad. At least we can relate in geek threads.

Hey, like I said, mate, it was nothing personal, and I know damn well you don't condone the acts of the German government of 60+ years ago. But just as you can say fuck that, I say fuck that to what the US was 150+ years ago. Trying to malign the US of today by dredging up history is silly -- not to mention something some folks really shouldn't be doing, considering their countries' more recent history. That's all I was trying to say.I'm not really maligning the US today, though, so that's largely irrelevant, isn't it?

This...is disturbing.

But you like DS9 so you're not all bad. At least we can relate in geek threads.

It's bothersome to me that I just don't fit in with you geeks. I never thought that being THIS cool would ever be detrimental.

Do you think I could learn how to be a geek? I already have lots of Monty Python and Star Trek quotes memorised...

I'm not really maligning the US today, though, so that's largely irrelevant, isn't it?

We non-USians are always maligning the US, even when we're just talking about belly lint. I thought this was obvious. And it's totally relevant, because then any valid points we bring up can be dismissed.

We non-USians are always maligning the US, even when we're just talking about belly lint. I thought this was obvious. And it's totally relevant, because then any valid points we bring up can be dismissed.Pity that they don't hand out "half-citizen-ships" then :D

Or, as the head of the International Exchange Office at UVA would say: "Oh, you're that special case."

Well, you responded to my post as though it were a lambast against women in general. Misunderstanding the word "you." What fun. :rolleyes: Of course it was more fun to interpret it that way. Duh.



Then what the hell are you here for? :p
To get MY jollies.

Pity that they don't hand out "half-citizen-ships" then :D


Wait! You're a USian? But, that totally means that my theory of dismissal doesn't apply to you. Cluich will have to come up with some other reason to ignore your points. Troubling!

To get MY jollies.

Can't we share? :p

Wait! You're a USian? But, that totally means that my theory of dismissal doesn't apply to you.

Yes, because the automatic dismissal of anything coming out of the US or one of its citizens is perfectly logical. :rolleyes:

Cluich will have to come up with some other reason to ignore your points. Troubling!

I never ignore Laerod's points. Er ist ein intelligenter Kerl.

Yes, because the automatic dismissal of anything coming out of the US or one of its citizens is perfectly logical. :rolleyes:
Read again...I said that according to some, dismissing anything a non-USian says is logical, but that this practice falters when it's a US citizen talking.

Interesting...

So the development of the country is to be scorned.

If that is so, should we go back to where we started?

I suppose you want witch trial's too?I certainly don't want to go back to witch trials--dominated by so-called christians too, which makes me wonder why you use that as an example. I would rather we get away from the fallacious idea that Christianity is necessarily moral and that its imposition on government would make it moral as well. All the things we did and continue to do as a nation are done and have been done with supposedly moral people in control--christians. Maybe it's time we try a different strategy.

I certainly don't want to go back to witch trials--dominated by so-called christians too, which makes me wonder why you use that as an example. I would rather we get away from the fallacious idea that Christianity is necessarily moral and that its imposition on government would make it moral as well. All the things we did and continue to do as a nation are done and have been done with supposedly moral people in control--christians. Maybe it's time we try a different strategy.

Maybe it's time you call off your little personal crusade against Christianity. It's no worse than any other established religion.

Maybe it's time you call off your little personal crusade against Christianity. It's no worse than any other established religion.You have to admit that it makes more sense to rail against the majority religion in your particular country. I'm not about to bash Buddhism when Buddhists are not really a political force here.

You have to admit that it makes more sense to rail against the majority religion in your particular country.

I also don't think Nazz has a "personal crusade against Christianity" anyways. Christianity was brought up, so that is what is under discussion. I'm fairly certain that if Soviestan were to come into the thread and start going on and on about how the government should institute Islamic law, Nazz would argue against that just as vehemently.

Maybe it's time you call off your little personal crusade against Christianity. It's no worse than any other established religion.

I have reason to believe that it (and loads of other religions) are a damn sight worse than LaVeyan Satanism, which, as near as I can tell, has led to a grand total of zero deaths.

I also don't think Nazz has a "personal crusade against Christianity" anyways. I automatically discount the label of 'personal crusade' in general. We all have certain areas of focus, but that does not equal 'crusade'.

Man how dense. Go look up the word God. It simply means the one supreame being, the creator of the universe. Nowhere does it stipulate exclusively the God of Abraham. Alallah is the Arabic word for God. Again meaning the same.

Bolded for emphasis. This expressly rules out polytheists.

Bolded for emphasis. This expressly rules out polytheists.

When aspects of a single god are misinterpreted as indicating polytheism, that bright line rule becomes much more dull.

It appears that he knows considerablye more about Hinduism than you as his comment is, essentially, correct. Hinduism is, at its core, no more polytheistic than Christianity. Just as the trinity of Father Son and Holy Ghost are aspects of one singular god, so to is the Hindu trinity and others aspects of the same force, "Om"

In my understanding it depends largely on the branch of Hinduism one subscribes to.

Hey, we're very tolerant people, appreciate and enjoy that.

Yes, all Christians are incredibly tolerant.

http://www.thisisdorset.net/display.var.1267293.0.pagans_suffer_ritual_abuse.php

(http://http://www.thisisdorset.net/display.var.1267293.0.pagans_suffer_ritual_abuse.php)

I've got news for you, Our religon is tattooed on every area of public and private life. It's in our laws. It's in or social taboos. It's in everything you see, touch, say, and do.


WHERE in our laws is Christianity? You do realize btw that anywhere Christianity IS in our laws it is unconstitutional right?

As for our tollerance, we have almost limitless ammounts of it. We do not care what you do with your life. Who you sleep with, how or if you worship, what you write, what you say, or where you work.


You do however care who I marry. See my previous link for Christians not caring who I worship being bullshit.

You're all insane, aren't you?

No, just me and Lunatic Goofballs.

When aspects of a single god are misinterpreted as indicating polytheism, that bright line rule becomes much more dull.

So I'm misinterpreting my OWN polytheistic beliefs then?

So I'm misinterpreting my OWN polytheistic beliefs then?

I don't know, are you?

Some people belonging to what are traditionally viewed as 'polytheistic' religions do not consider the aspect of their god/s to be polytheistic in nature. Some do.

From the outside, Christianity...Catholicism in particular, looks pretty damned polytheistic. And some people may actually practice it that way. But my interpretation doesn't necessarily make it so.

I don't know, are you?

Some people belonging to what are traditionally viewed as 'polytheistic' religions do not consider the aspect of their god/s to be polytheistic in nature. Some do.


I am what I call omnitheistic in fact and view the separate gods as just that. <edit> And it looks like you admit that there are actual polytheists, so you would agree then that the use of God excludes them, yes?

I am what I call omnitheistic in fact and view the separate gods as just that. <edit> And it looks like you admit that there are actual polytheists, so you would agree then that the use of God excludes them, yes?

No. I wouldn't.

Just to be a bitch.

No. I wouldn't.

Just to be a bitch.

:p

When aspects of a single god are misinterpreted as indicating polytheism, that bright line rule becomes much more dull.

Aye. I have a love/hate relationship with the blank stares whenever I have to explain that Hinduism is fundamentally a monotheistic religion that has been amusingly misrepresented, and that while some sects view them as separate gods, the vast majority do not.

Maybe it's time you call off your little personal crusade against Christianity. It's no worse than any other established religion.

Get your facts straight--it's a crusade (If you can call what I do a crusade of any type, as it's pretty much limited to typing on a computer) against all organized religion. I hold Christianity in no high or lower esteem than any other form of God belief.

Get your facts straight--it's a crusade (If you can call what I do a crusade of any type, as it's pretty much limited to typing on a computer) against all organized religion. I hold Christianity in no high or lower esteem than any other form of God belief.

*Hands Nazz a pen* Here, the old Crusader gear's been rendered obsolete.

Get your facts straight--it's a crusade (If you can call what I do a crusade of any type, as it's pretty much limited to typing on a computer) against all organized religion. I hold Christianity in no high or lower esteem than any other form of God belief.

I prefer DISorganized religion.

I prefer DISorganized religion.

Hail and Praise Sweet Discordia! :D

I prefer DISorganized religion.

It does have the distinct advantage of not doing as much damage.

We can start by taking away tax exempt status to churches, take 'In God We Trust" off the money, "Under God" out of the pledge, stop trying to shove the Ten Commandments in government buildings, end the constant bitching about lead prayers in schools, stop making faith a litmus test in elections, let the gay and lesbian community enjoy the same rights and protections as heterosexual couples, and in general have the Christians that have managed to dominate just about every aspect of American culture to stop acting like a put upon and oppressed people, accept that they are prevalent and be gracious enough to make room for people who believe other things or even for people who don't have an imaginary friend.

hes right!

This is the first time I've seen an OP so thoroughly raped by the first response.

Freedom of religion does not equate the right to get all sorts of special rules, privileges or exemptions. One cannot argue just because one is a 'member' of religion X or Y that one should not have to follow laws that are incompatible with said religion X or Y.

No one should ever be allowed to get privileges or exemptions based on being a 'member' of a religion. Everytime the law and the religion clash, the law must always go first. Religious law should be specifically banned. Especially because so many religions are so utterly bogus with their imaginary deities and socalled/self-proclaimed prophets. It won't be long until someone starts claiming Nazism is a religion, Mein Kampf is the bible and Hitler was a prophet (Hitler did consider himself a prophet).

Then some others will say, but the Nazis killed so many. True, the Nazi will argue, but so did Christians and very much so Muslims also. So apparently, killing scores of people does not disqualify yourself from calling your cult a religion. And that's why religions must be kept as far away from the state and government as possible. No exceptions.

First off, let me state that your bias against religion is so utterly ridiculous that it's could be called thinly-veiled hate speech.

Second, just because you don't have a god gives you no right to oppress any religion. I agree with seperation of Church and State. I even actually agree with taking God out of the Pledge. Hell, why not even remove the pledge? People who hate America will be offended while saying it.

But you people are going ridiculously far. Stripping everything that is a symbol for any religion off of public buildings is going to be virutally impossible. I'm sure there is some pagan religion that somebody still worships that has some kind of bird or plant as it's symbol. So, we'll have to start shooting birds out of the sky, until animal rights wackos start complaining, and then there'll be a lawsuit.

How long will it be before you start tearing down churches because they "offend" you? How long will it be before you have cops on the street beating down old ladies with crosses on necklaces? Quite a while, of course, but, when I look, it's quite possible. Maybe in about 50 years of course, and it's only one possible path, but it's quite possible, and if we don't get off the "hate religion" bandwagon, it's quite likely.

But, that's just how I see it.

I bolded the important part for you. The government cannot establish a religion. Therefore, it cannot "have the word God in building, in our currency, etc." Doing so establishes a single religious viewpoint as the "right" one and is not impartial to the others.

But the Eagle is the symbol of the Icky-Icky-Dugga-Duggas! How dare you use our symbol on your vile buildings!

I don't know, are you?

Some people belonging to what are traditionally viewed as 'polytheistic' religions do not consider the aspect of their god/s to be polytheistic in nature. Some do.

From the outside, Christianity...Catholicism in particular, looks pretty damned polytheistic. And some people may actually practice it that way. But my interpretation doesn't necessarily make it so.

It's kinda hard for redwulf to misinterpret his polytheistic beliefs, since he's pretty much the only one who follows them. :) Having been married to him for six years come May, I can confidently say that he's the only one who follows his particular brand of paganism, just like I'm the only one who follows my own brand of paganism. Neither of us follow established traditions.

First off, let me state that your bias against religion is so utterly ridiculous that it's could be called thinly-veiled hate speech.
If you look at what the OP posts you'll find that he is a hardcore Christian so his bias isn't against religion but against any religion that isn't Christianity. I would go so far as to postulate that this thread was meant to be about non-Christian religions getting special consideration. But since that concern is laughable considering how much special consideration Christianity gets the thread did not turn out that way.

Second, just because you don't have a god gives you no right to oppress any religion.
You aren't really going to try and tell us that Christians are oppressed, are you?
I agree with seperation of Church and State. I even actually agree with taking God out of the Pledge. Hell, why not even remove the pledge? People who hate America will be offended while saying it.
It's not about being offended, it's about establishing a religion. Which is forbidden, for good reasons-for both the church and the state.

But you people are going ridiculously far. Stripping everything that is a symbol for any religion off of public buildings is going to be virutally impossible. I'm sure there is some pagan religion that somebody still worships that has some kind of bird or plant as it's symbol. So, we'll have to start shooting birds out of the sky, until animal rights wackos start complaining, and then there'll be a lawsuit.
Your construction is utterly ridiculous, it's hard to believe that you really buy it. Even if there are cultures that have birds or plants as symbols, they tend to have a specific representation of that that is the symbol of their religion in the same way representations of Jesus aren't just any Jew. Further, there is nothing to say that you can't use space to carry on about your religion until you're blue in the face, so the birds can fly all they want. The government cannot, however, build them a big ass birdhouse so that the faithful can gather around it. Do you understand the difference?

How long will it be before you start tearing down churches because they "offend" you? How long will it be before you have cops on the street beating down old ladies with crosses on necklaces? Quite a while, of course, but, when I look, it's quite possible. Maybe in about 50 years of course, and it's only one possible path, but it's quite possible, and if we don't get off the "hate religion" bandwagon, it's quite likely.
Again, it's not about being offended. No one, NO ONE is trying to take your faith away from you and the only people who are getting resistance to their churches being built are the Muslims, and that resistance is coming from Christians, so you might want to remove the log from thine own eye, or how ever that goes. This is not, nor has it ever been, about churches but instead about separation of said churches and state. Without it then with the preference of Christianity we stop being equal under the law. After all, Bush Sr. doesn't even consider me a citizen-
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
-so you can see how an atheist might be concerned.

But, that's just how I see it.
We have a graphic on the first page of this thread that sums up nicely 'how you see it.'

Hail and Praise Sweet Discordia! :D

Hail!

On the other hand, a law passed specifically because of and targeted at these things is inappropriate.

No it's not. Maybe I don't want to listen to their mahakkanah-allah-praising shit at 4:30 in the morning.

No it's not. Maybe I don't want to listen to their mahakkanah-allah-praising shit at 4:30 in the morning.

Hate to ask you to extend your thinking abilities here, but generally such things are covered by noise ordinances that aren't based on racist 'not wanting to hear their mahakkanah-allah-praising shit'.

Directly targeting such things while allowing other equivalent (in decibels) noises at 4:30 in the morning would absolutely be inappropriate.

Also, this thread is made of Godwin.

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/3930/sandwichgarfieldiw2.png

Don't imageleech.

Hate to ask you to extend your thinking abilities here, but generally such things are covered by noise ordinances that aren't based on racist 'not wanting to hear their mahakkanah-allah-praising shit'.

Directly targeting such things while allowing other equivalent (in decibels) noises at 4:30 in the morning would absolutely be inappropriate.

Awww, Neesika, it's so much more fun to look at these things like a xenophobe. :p

Awww, Neesika, it's so much more fun to look at these things like a xenophobe. :p

No, it's more fun to bash people looking at things like a xenophobe!