Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:09:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
548 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > > My personal summation of the matter is as follows:
> > > (not that anyone should or will care)
> > >
> > > Ultimately, this matter started over the issue of posting of the ten
> > > commandments and teaching creation. Still, it's hard to say that the simple
> > > posting of the commandments is government mandated religion. Advocating a
> > > particular religion is not a violation of anyone's rights - re: national
> > > recognition of Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, etc. Posting of the ten
> > > commandments does not mean that everyone is subject to them. They are • currently
> > > posted at the Supreme Court and we still got Roe V. Wade. Why is it that
> > > religious people are supposed to remove all reference to religion out of
> > > respect for the non-religious, but the non-religious are not capable of • seeing
> > > the ten commandments without being bent out of shape? Who is more • oppressive?
> >
> > This has been addressed in this string already. If you don't want the 8 fold
> > path forced on you, it is only reasonable that you shouldn't force the 10
> > commandments on someone else. It's that simple.
>
> Once again, these are knee-jerk reactions to things I haven't said. No one is
> talking about forcing anything on anyone. My point above is that even though
> they're posted at the Supreme Court they have no effect on what's done there.
> And the 8 fold path had nothing to do with the founding of this country - • which
> is what I was talking about.
You wanted the ten commandments in schools. That's forcing your religion on
someone else.
> >
> > >
> > > The ten commandments did, in fact, have a great deal to do with the founding • of
> > > this country - which, as I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, gives • at
> > > least some credibility to them. Our founders were greatly impacted by
> > > judeo-christian principles. Some have called Christianity an evil system • which
> > > consistently produces flawed people - yet how did such flawed followers of • such
> > > an evil system conceive such a great nation where freedom and prosperity • have
> > > flourished like never before in the history of man. In other words, how did
> > > such flawed people create the greatest nation ever? I'm speaking ideally, • not
> > > necessarily of the current manifestation.
> >
> > If we aren't teaching prayers and the 10 commandments in school, and we
> > (USA) are the greatest country in the world, I'm not sure I see what the
> > problem is.
>
> Again, I was speaking of our foundation.
My point remains: If we aren't teaching prayers and the 10 commandments in
school, and we (USA) are the greatest country in the world, I'm not sure I see
what the problem is. Could you also please enlighten me where the 10
commandments are in the Declaration of Independence, in the Constitution, or
the Bill of Rights?
> >
> > >
> > > You cannot ignore the fact that the constitution guarantees our rights • because
> > > they are given by our "Creator". Is it not plausible that if we do away with
> > > our "Creator" we then do away with our rights? Is it not possible that some
> > > fancy Johnny Cochran type can come along and challenge the Constitution on • this
> > > basis? Far fetched? Maybe. Who would've thought 100 years ago that we would • be
> > > arguing some of the issues that are commonplace today?
> >
> > Ummmm, can you point out to me where we are doing away with our creator?
>
> Some people are - i.e. atheists who are trying to remove every trace of Him
> from our society
And some people think the world is flat. In any case, "we" as a society is
certainly not a few hell-bent atheists, and trying to define society as such is
disingenuous.
> >
> > >
> > > Some have expressed the opinion that weak minded people turn to religion as • a
> > > crutch - no more so than others turn to "education" as an anesthetic.
> >
> > Some do, some don't, but it's neither here nor there on whether one specific
> > religion should be force-fed to everyone.
>
> Again, I'm not talking about forcing anything. Recognition and forcing are two
> different things.
> >
> > >
> > > As for creation/evolution: neither can be scientifically proven,
> >
> > That evolution happens is scientifically accepted (proven). You wanna argues
>
> Accepted, not proven.
Proven as concerns science, which is all that counts.
>
> > the specifics and dynamics, well, join in with every scientist there is!
> >
> > > although the
> > > existence of God can be realized by the one who seeks Him to the degree that • it
> > > becomes evidence to that person. I have come to personally KNOW God and yet
> > > those who have not personally witnessed evolution call me foolish. • Proponents
> > > of evolution, when backed into a corner over the lack of evidence will use
> > > "theistic evolution" as a wild card.
> >
> > Lack of evidence? Only if you shut your eyes and cover you ears. The "lack
> > of
> > transition forms" is the favorite of creationists, but when backed into a
> > corner and confronted with the transition forms, creationists either clam up • or
> > make spurious claims that the evidence is faked (but can't back it up).
> >
> >
> > > Without God, evolution has the same
> > > dilemma as creation: where did the matter of the Big Bang come from (as • opposed
> > > to "where did God come from?").
> >
> > Evolution has no problem with there being a God. You somehow equate that
> > evolution = atheism.
>
> For some it is. That's why I addressed evolution with and without God.
Only for creationists, and that's part of their problem: define everything you
disagree with as the boogeyman.
> >
> > > We cannot deny that we all strive for meaning, for identity, for purpose,
> > > significance, acceptance and love. These are not mere biological by-products • or
> > > chemical reactions. They are evidence of something more. These things cannot • be
> > > seen with a microscope yet they exist and impact each one of us to the point • of
> > > defining who we are - in respect to whether we acheive them or not. The fact
> > > that we desire more, seek to be more, means that there is more.
> > >
> > > Those who have decried the "evils" of religion must be fair and admit that • true
> > > followers of every religion have made immeasurable contributions to the
> > > betterment of the world as a whole. Many heinous acts have been perpetrated • in
> > > the name of Christianity, yet all the examples given from history were
> > > primarily committed by the Catholic Church - which is exactly the reason for
> > > the Reformation. Protestants separated from the Church because they felt it • had
> > > become tyrannical and had abandonned Christian principles. This is simple
> > > history not opinion. All Christians cannot be held responsible for the • actions
> > > of ignorant zealots, whether they were parents or some other authority • figure,
> > > who have abused those they have come in contact with. If the exceptions • define
> > > the rule - then those who have truthfully practiced what they believe negate
> > > the assertion that christianity is inherently flawed.
> >
> > Protestants' hands are clean of blood? All those slave-holders in this
> > country
> > were Catholic?
>
> Slavery was more economic than religious. Yet it was, primarily, nothern
> Christians that were the catalyst to ending slavery. (notice the words
> primarily and catalyst - nitpick loopholes)
Slavery was more economic than religious, but it was justified by religious
means. And whether any particular religion helped end slavery, Protestants had
their hands in bringing it about and continuing it.
Are you still trying to seriously state that Protestants' hands are clean of
blood?
>
> > The Counter-Reformation didn't happen in part because of
> > Protestant excesses? Henry the 8th was a saint? There were zealots on all
> > sides - at least the Catholics learned to leave science to the scientists, • and
> > the founders of this country were wise enough not to establish a state
> > religion, whether they were Protestant or not.
>
> Yet again, I do not advocate state religion.
Then don't advocate your religious tracts be part of public education.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) fold (...) I was speaking about the posting of them in general, not necessarily in schools, and certainly not about the teaching or preaching of them. Besides, their from Judaism and I'm not Jewish. (...) founding (...) It doesn't remain, (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) seeing (...) Once again, these are knee-jerk reactions to things I haven't said. No one is talking about forcing anything on anyone. My point above is that even though they're posted at the Supreme Court they have no effect on what's done (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 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
|
|
|
|
