Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:24:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
649 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> :
>
> > > 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.
>
> 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?
I did go back and I never used the word schools.
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=4329
I responded to Patricia Schempp who mentioned schools. I have concictently been
talking only about the concept of merely posting them, not legislating the
posting of them. And I never said creation *should* be taught, I said it was as
viable a theory as evolution, be it theistic or otherwise.
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> Why bother posting them in places the Supreme Court has ruled against, then?
> Why bother posting them if we are doing fine without them being posted? The
> point absolutely remains: you want them posted, and I say why? Vague
> "influence" isn't good enough reason to violate the 1st amendment?
Again, I'm not saying post them to produce a desired effect. Simply in
remembrance of their influence - there's that word again. And it's not a
violation of anything in the first amendment. Many of the founding documents
contain references to God.
>
> > 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.
>
> Gosh, thanks for telling me! I was so confused!
Sorry, I have SSS - Sudden Sarcam Syndrome. :0)
>
> I was simply indicating that they are in fact NOT any official part of our
> nation and the first amendment applies.
>
> > 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.
>
> Who has denied it? You seem very confused about others not wanting your
> religion inflicted on them as somehow a denial of religious heritage.
But, again, I'm speaking in passive terms.
>
> > 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?
>
> Because you said you wanted them and creationism in schools.
Did not, did not, did not. :~P
And you still side stepped my point.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion. Note the lack of "...except for Christianity." That's the middle
> ground, none is advanced over the other.
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
>
> Or so you thought.
Well...I thought I said it, doesn't that pretty much mean that I would know if
it was or not?!
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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".
>
> If we are talking about science, then only scientific principle counts.
> Evolution is proven: all the details and subtleties are simply the best
> possible conclusion so far, but that evolution happens is not under question • by
> science. That you don't understand that and want to substitute pseudo-science
> that fits your religious agenda is the scary part.
Booo!
I don't have an agenda, I'm just some bald guy in Florida!!
>
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the name of Christianity, yet all the examples given from history were
> > > > > > primarily committed by the Catholic Church - which is exactly the reason • 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.
>
> But you just did that to the Catholics!
Didn't. My statement above is as follows:
yet all the examples given from history were primarily committed by the
Catholic Church.
I said that the examples provided by others in previous messages were
"primarily" Catholic.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> But you condemned them and pretended to be holier than thou with regards to
> other Christian religions.
It was only a matter of time before that charge was dusted off. (yawn)
>
> > 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.
>
> Splitting hairs again. Fine. Substitute non-Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox
> Christians for Protestants.
Cool. I wish I could split hairs - that would give me twice what I have now.
By the way, would splitting hairs require splitting hair atoms - cuz that could
be dangerous.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> No, you *claim* that you don't advocate that. Or you don't understand that
> you do.
You must be psychic - you seem to know more about what I think than I do.
>
> > 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.
>
> So go post them! Just don't violate the 1st amendment by asking it to be done
> in public schools.
Didn't
>
> Bruce
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) on (...) your (...) She said that they shouldn't be and your argued otherwise. You are just splitting hairs. This lack of candor is getting tiresome. (...) been (...) as (...) Shroud your argument how you will, you still want to supplant (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
