Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 19:51:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
580 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
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.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?
It doesn't remain, because it doesn't address the original point. I am only
speaking about the "influence" that the commandments had on the founders and
the founding of this country. I made no mention of any effect on the present
manifestation of our country. I'm not saying that they should be taught or
forced on anyone. I simply see the posting of them as being a passive
recognition of the fact that they had an "influence" period.
I did not say they were "in" the above cited documents. There are seven letters
following the little "i" and the little "n" in the word influence. It is not
such a horrible thing to admit that this country had a religious heritage. I
realize that we currently live in a post-christian era, I'm fine with that. I
simply don't agree that hanging them on a wall, where ever that may be, is
forcing anything on anyone. I will state yet again, they currently are on the
wall of the Supreme Court and have no effect on what takes place there. Why
does everybody keep side stepping that point while they go off on some
emotional tirade about imposed religion?
Those who are on the same side of this matter as you are must realize that the
Christian Coalition types (by that I mean those who are politically trying to
do the things you fear) feel the same way about it having been removed from
schools and replaced by secularism as you do about having it put back in
schools. Why do your rights supersede theirs. There has to be a middle ground.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
The statement was rhetorical.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
It has NOT been proven. It just seems to them to be the best possible
conclusion thus far. Science is far from "all that counts".
>
> > > >
> > > > 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.
Not by anyone who believes the way I do. I just object to being lumped into one
big ball and discredited as a whole. Stereotypes never work.
> 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?
I never did. I don't claim to be a Protestant. I don't owe my beliefs to that
fact that I protest theirs. Biblical Christianity existed long before the
Catholic Church.
>
> >
> > > 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.
As I said above, I've never advocated that. I'm simply speaking to the matter
of benignly putting them on public display as a tribute to their contribution
to our way of life. There is no harm in that in a country of religious freedom,
and especially freedom of speech. Posting them does not impose any penalty if
they are not adhered to.
>
> Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes: : (...) Go back earlier in this string. You specifically said schools. As to the rest, splitting hairs, or do you deny that the 10 commanmants are part of your religion? (...) see (...) Why bother (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) I've not been there, so I can't say what the circumstances are. But if they're posted in a way that implies primacy, rather than as one of many examples of laws, that's wrong. (...) Feel free to do so on your private property, but there's a (...) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) oppressive? (...) which (...) You wanted the ten commandments in schools. That's forcing your religion on someone else. (...) have (...) not (...) My point remains: If we aren't teaching prayers and the 10 commandments in school, and we (USA) (...) (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
|
|
|
|
