»Is the USA losing the separation between church and state?«
|
|||
 stinkz: Such views are completely irrational It would be good if you could find the time to adapt your language too. You keep using that same word over and over again! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqIs the USA losing the separation between church and state? |
|
|||
 fatpie42: It would be good if you could find the time to adapt your language too. My language is perfectly understandable, thank you. If you wish, I will call your irrational arguments "unreasonable" or "illogical" from now on. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fourthedefender: you're right, it was the british who were responsible for that. america had nothing to do with that. now, if you want to talk about the native americans, then that would be a different story God damn it! How many times do I have to point out that USA is not America! posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: If you wish, I will call your irrational arguments "unreasonable" or "illogical" from now on. A better explanation for WHY it is unreasonable than "it isn't a Christian viewpoint" would be nice. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is quite obvious why mathematics is not merely a completely changable "man-made" system, as you have suggested. There is nothing "Christian" about that viewpoint. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
What about Godel's incompleteness theorem which states that even if we had the wrong mathematical system we would have no way of knowing? I simply wish to argue that morality suffers from the same kind of problem. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: that even if we had the wrong mathematical system we would have no way of knowing? How would this at all promote your point? Obviously, scientists do not see this "theorem" as a reason for scrapping "traditional mathematics." Why then must we scrap traditional morality? posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Traditional maths is still useful. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
correct me if im wrong, but this country was founded on christian beliefs. from george washington to lincoln, to bush. amlost every president has been religous and has praised god in the open. the constitution says nothing about seperation of church and state. but that the state shall not force a certain religion among its people. and because bush is a devote christian doesn't mean he is making you. so get over it. -ONE LOVE posted by N2daOrviel |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Traditional maths is still useful. Ahhh, so morality is no longer useful, in your opinion. Boy am I glad that humanity disagrees with you. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought you said yourself that no one seems to care about Christian traditional principles anymore? Sounds to me like people are adapting their moral systems. That is because those old traditional values have died with the old God. I didn't say that I didn't agree with morality. I said that I didn't agree with a 'fixed' morality. You seem to have trouble telling the difference between these statements. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
N2daOrviel: correct me if im wrong, but this country was founded on christian beliefs. from george washington to lincoln, to bush. amlost every president has been religous and has praised god in the open. the constitution says nothing about seperation of church and state. but that the state shall not force a certain religion among its people.
and because bush is a devote christian doesn't mean he is making you. so get over it. -ONE LOVE Irrelevant. America SHOULD have separation of Church and state regardless of the constitution. *Fatpie is now bombarded with rocks by screaming patriotism-obsessed Americans* posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: I didn't say that I didn't agree with morality. I said that I didn't agree with a 'fixed' morality. You seem to have trouble telling the difference between these statements. That's because there is no difference. Belief in a changing, adaptable morality, is the same as no morality at all. Either morality is rational and objective (as I have stated), or it is merely a changing man-made system (as you have stated) used to control the masses. Most people aren't ready to accept your faulty conclusion. For your type of morality is incompatible with democracy. fatpie42: America SHOULD have separation of Church and state The word "should" can have no meaning, with your views on morality. If you were to say someone "should" do something, on what ground can you make that claim, without the supposition of a universal morality? posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: ...The purpose was, by no means, to slaughter indians, though most of the tribes they encountered were savage ones. Or so it is written - by the Invading force. stinkz: ..he wrote of a few of the tribes who were peace-loving, with whom they attempted to get along with, and even present the gospel to. So they were already peace loving, and the Christian settlers gave them what? Guns and Bibles - very civilised. stinkz: fatpie42: And you are trying to tell me that Christianity is suppressed in America? Very much so! Are you blind? Oh wait, you don't live here. Nevermind... Please tell us how the Dominant Religion is supressed? stinkz: Gosh, atheists are so pompous. Every one of you think that your secularism is somehow the "default" religion, which is the only one that's OK to teach in schools. I'm so sick of it. Your religion causes so much more corruption in America than Christianity ever has. I'm sure the feeling is mutual - but I'm not an Athiest  stinkz: I seriously hope we go back to having private schools, which use the Bible as a primary teaching device. Now look at what you just said in the context of what you think of Athiests - Pompous, Default Religion and all that. stinkz: I see no problem with promoting a rational religion (Christianity) over an irrational one (materialism)...
...Exposing kids to all the irrational religions out there, is practically choosing atheism for them. And, besides, that's pretty much how it is, now. All the religions are taught, but with an atheist bias. I say, if there has to be a bias towards one particular religion, Christianity over materialism, anyday. So your no better that the Athiests you despise. stinkz: So, bringing up children as materialists is practically choosing for them. And how is this is different from the Christian education you prescribe? stinkz: The whole Church and State issue is bogus. It is used as merely a way for atheists to get rid of Christianity whenever they don't want to see it. Athiests don't care about Christianity, to them its as false and irrational as Atheism is to you. Perhaps part of the desire to make the seperation is not to persecute christianity, but to prevent more travesties such as invading non-christian countries "in the name of God". stinkz: I'm tired of seeing irrational atheism! Then try looking at some of the Rational Athiests stinkz: The only thing that should be forbidden is the state regulating religion, which is what we see now. That, and there shouldn't be a religious test to get into office. These are the only things mentioned in the Constitution. At last, something we agree on. But what good is seperating religion from state, if all the kids which grow up to be politicians are educated in a biased religious environment? posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Belief in a changing, adaptable morality, is the same as no morality at all. So your saying that the moral framework on which your faith is based is as good today as it ever way and shouldn't be changed? The problem with Christianity and morality is that it is based on the Bible, written by men, compiled by men and edited by men in predominantly mysoginistic times. Times Change It is written from the perspective of a minority, oppressed and looking for hope and guidance. Well it got it's churches, it's phenomenal wealth (despite the teachings of the book it holds so dear), it got power over a great deal of the world. So now what? The (allegedly) most powerful man in the world can make a list of countries and proclaim them evil - simply because they don't believe what he does. And perhaps the most Ironic part of all this is that part of this "Axis of Evil" was identified because of it's treatment of Women - treatment not unlike the way women have been treated by Christianity for the better part of 2000 years. Where's the morality in that? posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 22:07 php B.B. |