Subject:
|
Re: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:49:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1909 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> OK, what if it's equally valid to claim pagan-animist value system and
> governance because those are the antecedent of Judaism?
You'd need to prove conclusively that this is the case. The New Testament is
proof enough that Christianity evolved directly from Judeism, just as the Koran
is proof enough that Islam did as well. The Old Testament doesn't claim to have
evolved from a previously standing religion, and science hasn't been able to do
anything but spout conjecture as to the origin of Judeism on the unproven
assumption that it is not true.
> But since several of the thinkers of the time were openly hostile to
> religion in general and clearly not Christian (and certainly, not Jewish),
Some of the evidence for that has been debunked. Benjamin Franklin was
supposedly quoted from a journal written during the 2nd Continental Congress as
saying that Jews should be excluded from entrance into the US, but this has been
deemed to be untrue on the basis that A. no such journal has been presented for
study or proven to have existed through proven historical documents, and B. he
once ran a fund-raiser to help form a synagogue in Philadelphia. There's also
plenty of provenly documented evidence showing that there were people who did
try to make the US exclusively Christian, if not locked into a particular
denomination thereof. Still, the very fact that the vast majority of them
developed their sense of what is right and what is wrong from a culture that
grew up around the Judeo-Christian faith says that even those who were decidedly
atheist were still influenced by J-C morality.
> > All religions including atheism
>
> Why do you people continue to assert this falsehood?
>
> re·li·gion (r-ljn)
> n.
> 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious
> devotion.
That last one. Show me how Newdow does not fit that definition to the letter.
> Actually, the basement, foundation, and footers are more important than the
> fourth floor for this purpose. (Though certainly, your comment about design
> choices and layout is true, but the basement is much more important.)
Every floor below the new one influences what you can do with the next floor by
the arrangement of load-bearing structure. If your building has load-bearing
exterior walls, you can add a new floor on top of a studio apartment. If it
doesn't, you can't. Either way, you have to get really tricky if you want to
build a new floor that strays very far from the area enclosed by the previous
floor's footprint.
> Wait, aren't you and John the ones making the "big stink" about it now?
No, my arguments have largely been restricted to the idea that the US was
founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals. I've never once actually stated my opinion
on whether same-sex marriage should or should not be allowed. It's my opinion,
I have my reasons for holding to it, and I don't see that it's particularly
relevent to the question of whether the federal government can or cannot affect
its legal status.
> Dave is merely pointing out that we're not in any meaningful way reliant on
> some happenstancial ties to religions of the past.
You mean besides the fact that this nation wouldn't exist without them? We are
always reliant upon history insofar as it is the very thing which has gotten us
where we are, for better or for worse.
> And most people came here "in the first place" because they though they could
> make a buck.
That's not entirely true. Many do, but many of those people also end up
returning to their homeland (just look at all the Mexicans who commute to the US
for work, but return to Mexico to live). Many of the people who migrate here to
become US nationals or citizens do so because of the freedom we enjoy everyday.
> Our justifaction cited is George III's "history of repeated injuries and
> usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
> Tyranny over these States."
That includes the tyranny of telling you what you are and are not allowed to
think, which covers the realm of religion.
> No one cared then to make a big stink about our "Judeo-Christian heritage"
> but they did about our Enlightenment ties. Most of the people who could
> write tried studiously to avoid such silly religious distinctions.
Oh, really? What about Galileo? He was a devout Christian. His goal was not
to disprove Religion, but to get Religion to accept the findings of Science.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
