Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Mar 2000 01:05:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd 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.
>
> She said that they shouldn't be and your argued otherwise. You are just
> splitting hairs. This lack of candor is getting tiresome.
I'm not splitting hairs. Words mean things, and I choose mine carefully. Most
of the time - don't talk to my wife though. It is not a lack of candor, it has
to do with being misrepresented and having words put in my mouth. I have said a
bazillion times that I am merely arguing the philosophical point that merely
posting them anywhere doesn't constitute a government mandate - and that is
right from my very first post. Posting them, not legislating, teaching or
promulgating in any way. Talk about tiresome.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Shroud your argument how you will, you still want to supplant science with
> religion. It's the same old scam. Can't get creationism taught because it
> isn't scientific? Hey, try and make sure evolution can't. Leave science to
> science: The Soviet Union didn't and had lots of people starve because of it.
I wouldn't say supplant. I do believe in the literal six day creation for
strictly biblical reasons - and I know that makes me a fool in your eyes but
that's ok - I still "believe" creationism, not in spite of the evidence, I just
don't think the evidence is conclusive. Besides, God could have made the earth
with apparent age and the fossil record can fit into the Noah's ark storyline.
And, no I'm not trying to reopen that debate so don't nuke me.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > > 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.
>
> Mere sophistries. Just hiding the same old agenda.
Again, I have no agenda. Just arguing my points. Not trying to effect anyone.
The worst thing is to make people a part of religion with their wanting to be.
That's part of the problem we both see in past atrocities, protestant or
catholic.
> >
> > >
> > > > 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)
>
> Guess I caught it from you.
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Either say that you do or don't. If you don't, fine, but then you are just
> blowing smoke and I'll leave you to it. If you do, then my statements stand.
I'm not blowing smoke. I just don't understand some people's visceral
hatred/aversion to anything religious. Like I said, it's like Dracula and a
crucifix. I guess I do understand it, actually. I've said to my wife many times
that the church (in general) seems to be doing more harm than good anymore. But
that, too, is what frustrates me, I feel the same way about past and present
abuses as you do and I hate being labeled as one of the ones who does such
things. True, I am very opinionated, but I'm not what Larry calls a
"fundamentalist". I don't use the "KJV only", I do like heavy metal music, I do
enjoy adult beverages in moderation, and I have many gay friends who come to my
house for dinner and to hang out and I never disrespect them or waved a sign in
their faces that says "Repent or Burn!!". I've never harassed them about what
"I" think they should do. I treat them decently as I would anyone else. They
know what I believe and if they want anything to do with it I'm there for 'em.
I just really get sick of being pigeon holed as something I'm not. And you've
done it here many times with this "go ahead, just admit it, this is your agenda
isn't it, isn't it" stuff. Lighten up, I'm just a guy defending what I believe
when I feel it has been misrepresented, that's all.
>
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> Okay, for the sake of argument, you didn't. Fine. Then creationism shouldn't
> be taught in public schools and science should. I'm okay with that. Since
> you
> are not arguing in favor of it, we don't have a conflict. Thanks for agreeing
> with me.
Your welcome.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
>
> Oh hey, do we agree here, too?
>
> >
> > > > 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?!
>
> Evidently not. You didn't identify in a thicket of comments which statement
> was the one meant as rhetorical. And what that has to do with comments wasn't
> exactly clear either.
The one about if God doesn't exist then neither do our rights if they come from
him - I've read a lot of stuff on the net like that.
> > >
> > > 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!!
>
> Oh, how cute. No real answer though, I note.
>
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> Still pretty hypocritical no matter what face you put on it.
No it's not, since I was addressing the people who had raised those examples.
Again, I was addressing a specific point with specific words. Please don't read
any more into 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)
>
> That tends to happen when the charges are accurate. Sneer at what you can't
> refute, eh? (Yawn)
Oh c'mon, cliches are never effective in serious debates. I'm most definitely
not holier than anyone, trust me. And I don't condemn them, I understand full
well why it happened, on both sides. I was trying to show a commonality with
those who had raised the issue.
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> Sneer at what you can't refute, again? (Snore)
>
> >
> > By the way, would splitting hairs require splitting hair atoms - cuz that
> > could
> > be dangerous.
>
> This conversation has descended past the point where I am willing to continue
> it.
Oh c'mon, lighten up! My daughter was sitting on my lap and we were being
silly. And how 'bout your four dead cops and a guy with a wallet remark, huh?
So, what, only you're aloud to joke around. Sorry for being so tedious. I know
now that you're far too sophisticated for me. Just a joke! Lighten up!!
Bill
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
