Law
-
The christian version. It has a better track record. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
The christian version.
Yup... We haven't burned any witches in a while.
Scottish Developers events: * .NET debugging, tracing and instrumentation by Duncan Edwards Jones and Code Coverage in .NET by Craig Murphy * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Let's just skip to the end, where I say "the right to restrict rights isn't a right," and you disagree while making a disparaging comment about leftists eating live kittens.
OK. Thats my favorite part anyway. (Except that I would brilliantly point out the obvious that in addtion to the kittens, secularists have been restricting rights they don't like for a long time now.) :-D "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
secularists have been restricting rights they don't like for a long time now.
Only one: the right of fanatical, live-puppy-eating religious extremists to restrict everyone's rights.
-
And yet he apparently saw state involvement in religion to be just as oppressive. What do you think his opinion would be of any state -- or community -- that attempted to codify religious beliefs as law?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet he apparently saw state involvement in religion to be just as oppressive.
That is because it is just as oppressive. But just not as oppressive as the central federal government imposing its will to affect religion one way or another or to promote some other set of opposing philosophical principles. Find me some example of Jefferson saying "Gee, I sure wish those supreme court guys would outlaw prayer in the schools of Virginia so we would never have to decide the issue for ourselves!" "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
teaching children a secular world view
It amazes me that you can't see that not teaching a religious world view is not at all the same as teaching a secular world view.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
not teaching a religious world view is not at all the same as teaching a secular world view.
But teaching a secular world view is teaching a secular world view. A couple of years ago I attentend a weekend highschool band competition that my son was participating in one weekend at a nearby school. While waiting for him to play, I was walking around the cafeteria and happended to notice that the walls were covered with "Compassion" posters. There were posters invovling famous quotes from famous people about compassion, Martin Luther King, jr. Gandhi and every body you could possibly think of except for any quotes from Jesus or the Bible. No "Do unto others..." No goldern rule. Nothing. I would submit to you that represents an example of the secular state promoting a moral agenda of its own formulation, designed specifically and purposefully to present children with a non-christian, pro-seucular world view, in order for them to see the secular state as a legitimate source of moral authority rather than the church. Modern scularism is not the same thing that Jefferson would have understood as secularism. It is not the benign, all inclusive, compassionate, multi-cultural philosophy the left tries to push. It has positioned itself as a competitive set of moral and philosophical principles. It is in fact nothing less than the state finally finding a way to force its moral will upon a people precisely as was once done by the church. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
secularists have been restricting rights they don't like for a long time now.
Only one: the right of fanatical, live-puppy-eating religious extremists to restrict everyone's rights.
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't want people buring a flag in our community? "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
espeir wrote:
You believe that the people should not be entrusted with the Democratic authority to govern themselves.
No, I'm just one of those leftists (by your standards) who interpret the establishment clause as expressing the intent for government to remain a secular institution of moral and ethical men and women, preserving *everyones* personal right to worship as they choose.
espeir wrote:
And you have a Democratic right to push for such laws. However, you go a step further in stating that the people cannot be entrusted to decide which laws are reasonable. As you just stated, you fear the Democratic process because of your faulty perception of it. Again, I thank our founding fathers that our country is safe from people like you.
I don't fear the democratic process; I fear religious tyranny, and those who believe that religious tyranny is acceptable so long as enough people voted for it.
espeir wrote:
This one! Sheesh!
So quote me, jackass! Sheesh!
espeir wrote:
Extremists will always view the mainstream world as extremist, so this is of no surprise to me.
Good thing your brain is immune to logical inconsistency.
espeir wrote:
Fortunately, the founding fathers did well to assure that our country is not ruled by small groups of people who hold views contrary to the general populace.
Fortunate, indeed. Otherwise people like you might frighten rather than amuse.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I fear religious tyranny, and those who believe that religious tyranny is acceptable so long as enough people voted for it.
So you fear your neighbors, but trust the government to protect you from tyranny. How very Jeffersonian of you. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
not teaching a religious world view is not at all the same as teaching a secular world view.
But teaching a secular world view is teaching a secular world view. A couple of years ago I attentend a weekend highschool band competition that my son was participating in one weekend at a nearby school. While waiting for him to play, I was walking around the cafeteria and happended to notice that the walls were covered with "Compassion" posters. There were posters invovling famous quotes from famous people about compassion, Martin Luther King, jr. Gandhi and every body you could possibly think of except for any quotes from Jesus or the Bible. No "Do unto others..." No goldern rule. Nothing. I would submit to you that represents an example of the secular state promoting a moral agenda of its own formulation, designed specifically and purposefully to present children with a non-christian, pro-seucular world view, in order for them to see the secular state as a legitimate source of moral authority rather than the church. Modern scularism is not the same thing that Jefferson would have understood as secularism. It is not the benign, all inclusive, compassionate, multi-cultural philosophy the left tries to push. It has positioned itself as a competitive set of moral and philosophical principles. It is in fact nothing less than the state finally finding a way to force its moral will upon a people precisely as was once done by the church. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
non-christian
Non-Christian, not anti-Christian.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the secular state as a legitimate source of moral authority
So they were presenting secular quotes from very religious men, and they left one out. I don't see the problem. It is the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to present children with the option of seeing religion as a source of moral authority.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Modern scularism is not the same thing that Jefferson would have understood as secularism. It is not the benign, all inclusive, compassionate, multi-cultural philosophy the left tries to push. It has positioned itself as a competitive set of moral and philosophical principles. It is in fact nothing less than the state finally finding a way to force its moral will upon a people precisely as was once done by the church.
The state is a source of moral and philosophical principles. When those principles are secular, they don't compete with any religion.
-
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't want people buring a flag in our community? "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't like that pesky "free speech" stuff? That people of other religions should be driven from our community? That thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
non-christian
Non-Christian, not anti-Christian.
Stan Shannon wrote:
the secular state as a legitimate source of moral authority
So they were presenting secular quotes from very religious men, and they left one out. I don't see the problem. It is the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to present children with the option of seeing religion as a source of moral authority.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Modern scularism is not the same thing that Jefferson would have understood as secularism. It is not the benign, all inclusive, compassionate, multi-cultural philosophy the left tries to push. It has positioned itself as a competitive set of moral and philosophical principles. It is in fact nothing less than the state finally finding a way to force its moral will upon a people precisely as was once done by the church.
The state is a source of moral and philosophical principles. When those principles are secular, they don't compete with any religion.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It is the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to present children with the option of seeing religion as a source of moral authority.
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
When those principles are secular, they don't compete with any religion.
They do when they are intentionally crafted to. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't like that pesky "free speech" stuff? That people of other religions should be driven from our community? That thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't like that pesky "free speech" stuff? That people of other religions should be driven from our community? That thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
What about it? You don't seem to understand at all that those same problems are not remedied by simply giving more and more power to centralized federal authorities. That somehow magicially if you just get enough power in the hands of the right set of people there can no longer be any possibility of witch burning. The truth is quite the contrary. As the founders well knew, witches are far safer with power distributed among the people than concentrated in the hands of a few. Our entire form of government was predicated upon a trust in people and a distrust in government. The modern, Marxist, left stands those principles on their head and calls it Jeffersonian in order to obfuscate their ugly little truth. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 20:05 Tuesday 18th July, 2006
-
espeir wrote:
You believe that the people should not be entrusted with the Democratic authority to govern themselves.
No, I'm just one of those leftists (by your standards) who interpret the establishment clause as expressing the intent for government to remain a secular institution of moral and ethical men and women, preserving *everyones* personal right to worship as they choose.
espeir wrote:
And you have a Democratic right to push for such laws. However, you go a step further in stating that the people cannot be entrusted to decide which laws are reasonable. As you just stated, you fear the Democratic process because of your faulty perception of it. Again, I thank our founding fathers that our country is safe from people like you.
I don't fear the democratic process; I fear religious tyranny, and those who believe that religious tyranny is acceptable so long as enough people voted for it.
espeir wrote:
This one! Sheesh!
So quote me, jackass! Sheesh!
espeir wrote:
Extremists will always view the mainstream world as extremist, so this is of no surprise to me.
Good thing your brain is immune to logical inconsistency.
espeir wrote:
Fortunately, the founding fathers did well to assure that our country is not ruled by small groups of people who hold views contrary to the general populace.
Fortunate, indeed. Otherwise people like you might frighten rather than amuse.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, I'm just one of those leftists (by your standards) who interpret the establishment clause as expressing the intent for government to remain a secular institution of moral and ethical men and women, preserving *everyones* personal right to worship as they choose.
No...You specifically stated that Democracy cannot be trusted. In a previous example, you tried to claim that a slim majority would send the minority to gas chambers. Claiming that you have certain positions on certain issues is one thing. Claiming that the our constitutional rights to self government should be stripped is quite another.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I don't fear the democratic process; I fear religious tyranny, and those who believe that religious tyranny is acceptable so long as enough people voted for it.
And yet you say that the citizens of a state do not have the right to pass a law disallowing the sale of alcohol on Sunday, even though there is no religious practice forced upon or denied from the people.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So quote me, jackass! Sheesh!
I already did. You said in this post and the last that you oppose the constitutionally granted democratic right to self-government whenver it conflicts with your own anti-religious wishes.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Good thing your brain is immune to logical inconsistency.
Apparently you're just incapable of basic logic. Here's a picture for you:
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
You Most People Militant IslamBeing the same distance from both you and militant Islam on this scale, we reasonable people see both groups as crazy extremists. Notice how Islam thinks America is extreme? Get the picture? Probably not...Extremists rarely do.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Fortunate, indeed. Otherwise people like you might frighten rather than amuse.
You should join Islam. At least you'd still have company.
-
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't like that pesky "free speech" stuff? That people of other religions should be driven from our community? That thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
There aren't that many extremists...even in your neighborhood.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, I'm just one of those leftists (by your standards) who interpret the establishment clause as expressing the intent for government to remain a secular institution of moral and ethical men and women, preserving *everyones* personal right to worship as they choose.
No...You specifically stated that Democracy cannot be trusted. In a previous example, you tried to claim that a slim majority would send the minority to gas chambers. Claiming that you have certain positions on certain issues is one thing. Claiming that the our constitutional rights to self government should be stripped is quite another.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I don't fear the democratic process; I fear religious tyranny, and those who believe that religious tyranny is acceptable so long as enough people voted for it.
And yet you say that the citizens of a state do not have the right to pass a law disallowing the sale of alcohol on Sunday, even though there is no religious practice forced upon or denied from the people.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So quote me, jackass! Sheesh!
I already did. You said in this post and the last that you oppose the constitutionally granted democratic right to self-government whenver it conflicts with your own anti-religious wishes.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Good thing your brain is immune to logical inconsistency.
Apparently you're just incapable of basic logic. Here's a picture for you:
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
You Most People Militant IslamBeing the same distance from both you and militant Islam on this scale, we reasonable people see both groups as crazy extremists. Notice how Islam thinks America is extreme? Get the picture? Probably not...Extremists rarely do.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Fortunate, indeed. Otherwise people like you might frighten rather than amuse.
You should join Islam. At least you'd still have company.
espeir wrote:
No...You specifically stated that Democracy cannot be trusted. In a previous example, you tried to claim that a slim majority would send the minority to gas chambers. Claiming that you have certain positions on certain issues is one thing. Claiming that the our constitutional rights to self government should be stripped is quite another.
I never claimed any such thing. If that's the way you interpret what I say, you are an idiot.
espeir wrote:
And yet you say that the citizens of a state do not have the right to pass a law disallowing the sale of alcohol on Sunday, even though there is no religious practice forced upon or denied from the people.
Sure there is. The practice of abstaining from alcohol on that religion's Sabbath. How about no meat on Friday? Or banning the sale of pork altogether? Or alcohol? Or birth control? None of those are intrinsically religious practices, yet all stem directly from tenets of religion that other religions do not share. How about we limit the rules to prohibiting doing physical or mental harm to others, denying them property, and the other rules that have developed across cultures because they are what society needs to function, and leave the religious rules up to the individual to follow or not, depending on their faith? How's that sound? Not restrictive enough for you? Then move to the Middle East and enjoy life with the rest of the people who value the rules of a state religion over personal freedom. Enjoy.
espeir wrote:
I already did. You said in this post and the last that you oppose the constitutionally granted democratic right to self-government whenver it conflicts with your own anti-religious wishes.
You have yet to supply a direct quote, instead offering only your twisted interpretations of what I say. You can't understand the simple fact that people can want to keep a single religion -- even their own religion -- from dominating and controlling their government, while not being "anti-religion". Secularism is not against religion, it is without consideration of religion. You can't comprehend that. You are terminally clue-challenged.
espeir wrote:
Apparently you're just incapable of basic logic. Here's a picture for you:...
Notice how you label me an extremist. Recall your observation that extremists c
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And yet he apparently saw state involvement in religion to be just as oppressive.
That is because it is just as oppressive. But just not as oppressive as the central federal government imposing its will to affect religion one way or another or to promote some other set of opposing philosophical principles. Find me some example of Jefferson saying "Gee, I sure wish those supreme court guys would outlaw prayer in the schools of Virginia so we would never have to decide the issue for ourselves!" "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
How about we just keep government -- all government, top to bottom, president to dog catcher -- from instituting religious rules, period. Keep the rules limited to those which prevent people from harming each other or depriving each other of property, and the minimum administrative regulation necessary to keep society and government functioning. How's that sound? If your religion says don't drink on Sunday, then you, yourself, and other believers don't drink on Sunday. No images of your prophet? Don't f**king draw any. Don't like sex on TV? Don't get Cinemax. Keep either organized prayer or government out of the schools. You can have one or the other, but not both. Remove "under God" from the pledge. Remove "In God We Trust" from currency. Remove the commandments from every government building. If a judge wants a ten commandments bumper sticker next to the NRA sticker on his Hummer, or wants to wear ten commandments boxer briefs under his robes, fine; just don't indicate to me that coveting my neighbor's ass will influence the outcome of a court case. This, I truly believe, was the founders' intent, and is the desire of the quiet majority of people in this country; a secular government, filled with people of any and all religions -- or no religion at all -- making decisions for the good of the country from a firm moral and ethical grounding.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It is the parent's responsibility, not the state's, to present children with the option of seeing religion as a source of moral authority.
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
When those principles are secular, they don't compete with any religion.
They do when they are intentionally crafted to. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron. There is also no "secular agenda". Secularism is barely an "-ism" at all, and certainly doesn't merit an agenda, unless you count keeping your religion out of my kids' classroom, and mine out of yours. If you believe that it is okay for the religion of the majority to be taught in public schools to everyone, it is most certainly you who hasn't the slightest clue about separation of church and state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They do when they are intentionally crafted to.
I'm sure that, somewhere in Idaho, there exists a compound of like-minded people who would welcome you. You should seek them out.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
How about my right to come together with my neighbors and decide that we don't like that pesky "free speech" stuff? That people of other religions should be driven from our community? That thou shalt not suffer a witch to live? The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.
What about it? You don't seem to understand at all that those same problems are not remedied by simply giving more and more power to centralized federal authorities. That somehow magicially if you just get enough power in the hands of the right set of people there can no longer be any possibility of witch burning. The truth is quite the contrary. As the founders well knew, witches are far safer with power distributed among the people than concentrated in the hands of a few. Our entire form of government was predicated upon a trust in people and a distrust in government. The modern, Marxist, left stands those principles on their head and calls it Jeffersonian in order to obfuscate their ugly little truth. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 20:05 Tuesday 18th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
What about it? You don't seem to understand at all that those same problems are not remedied by simply giving more and more power to centralized federal authorities. That somehow magicially if you just get enough power in the hands of the right set of people there can no longer be any possibility of witch burning. The truth is quite the contrary. As the founders well knew, witches are far safer with power distributed among the people than concentrated in the hands of a few.
Explain to me how, in this bizzare anarcho-fascist utopia of yours, power would not remain in the hands of the few. The only difference I see is that their power would not extend to the whole country, but they would be free to turn "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" into statute in their state, fiefdom, city, or walled fortress.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What about it? You don't seem to understand at all that those same problems are not remedied by simply giving more and more power to centralized federal authorities. That somehow magicially if you just get enough power in the hands of the right set of people there can no longer be any possibility of witch burning. The truth is quite the contrary. As the founders well knew, witches are far safer with power distributed among the people than concentrated in the hands of a few.
Explain to me how, in this bizzare anarcho-fascist utopia of yours, power would not remain in the hands of the few. The only difference I see is that their power would not extend to the whole country, but they would be free to turn "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" into statute in their state, fiefdom, city, or walled fortress.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
this bizzare anarcho-fascist utopia of yours,
Actually, that should read " this Jeffersonian Democracy which the US enjoyed for the better part of 150 years or so" of mine...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
would not remain in the hands of the few. The only difference I see is that their power would not extend to the whole country, but they would be free to turn
Federalist 51: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. . . . There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single [centralized] republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [state and federal], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests
-
How about we just keep government -- all government, top to bottom, president to dog catcher -- from instituting religious rules, period. Keep the rules limited to those which prevent people from harming each other or depriving each other of property, and the minimum administrative regulation necessary to keep society and government functioning. How's that sound? If your religion says don't drink on Sunday, then you, yourself, and other believers don't drink on Sunday. No images of your prophet? Don't f**king draw any. Don't like sex on TV? Don't get Cinemax. Keep either organized prayer or government out of the schools. You can have one or the other, but not both. Remove "under God" from the pledge. Remove "In God We Trust" from currency. Remove the commandments from every government building. If a judge wants a ten commandments bumper sticker next to the NRA sticker on his Hummer, or wants to wear ten commandments boxer briefs under his robes, fine; just don't indicate to me that coveting my neighbor's ass will influence the outcome of a court case. This, I truly believe, was the founders' intent, and is the desire of the quiet majority of people in this country; a secular government, filled with people of any and all religions -- or no religion at all -- making decisions for the good of the country from a firm moral and ethical grounding.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
How about we just keep government...
Fine, the vast majority of Americans want that, but the argument is how best to maintain those kind of freedoms. Your fear of this mythical beast of the "religious right" compels you to put more and more of your faith in the federal government to protect you from it. Most of your neighbors are undoubtedly as worred about this boogey man as you are. Get together with them and kick the religious right's ass in your local community - the way Jefferson, et al, intended. But don't go running behind the skirts of the federal courts for protection like so many goddamned European peasants flocking to their lord and master in time of trouble. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not the state's responsibility to teach children anything other than what the parents prefer be taught. But clearly the state has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting a secular moral agenda. If that doesn't bother you than you don't have the slightest clue what separation of church and state was intended to achieve.
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron. There is also no "secular agenda". Secularism is barely an "-ism" at all, and certainly doesn't merit an agenda, unless you count keeping your religion out of my kids' classroom, and mine out of yours. If you believe that it is okay for the religion of the majority to be taught in public schools to everyone, it is most certainly you who hasn't the slightest clue about separation of church and state.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They do when they are intentionally crafted to.
I'm sure that, somewhere in Idaho, there exists a compound of like-minded people who would welcome you. You should seek them out.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron...
And that is the fundamental basis of our disagreement. I maintain that modern secularism is a component of the Marxist dialectic..[^] And represents in every way a theological foundation for a "god-less" religion, or at least a religion where government serves in the role of God. It is altogether obvious that Marxist thought and theory is the driving philosophical principle behind the left in the west and the US democratic party. Secularism has been allowed to evolve into a tremendous threat in our society, it is dangerous, and it needs to be opposed in the same way and for the same reasons that our founders opposed the establishement of state sanctioned religion. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
espeir wrote:
No...You specifically stated that Democracy cannot be trusted. In a previous example, you tried to claim that a slim majority would send the minority to gas chambers. Claiming that you have certain positions on certain issues is one thing. Claiming that the our constitutional rights to self government should be stripped is quite another.
I never claimed any such thing. If that's the way you interpret what I say, you are an idiot.
espeir wrote:
And yet you say that the citizens of a state do not have the right to pass a law disallowing the sale of alcohol on Sunday, even though there is no religious practice forced upon or denied from the people.
Sure there is. The practice of abstaining from alcohol on that religion's Sabbath. How about no meat on Friday? Or banning the sale of pork altogether? Or alcohol? Or birth control? None of those are intrinsically religious practices, yet all stem directly from tenets of religion that other religions do not share. How about we limit the rules to prohibiting doing physical or mental harm to others, denying them property, and the other rules that have developed across cultures because they are what society needs to function, and leave the religious rules up to the individual to follow or not, depending on their faith? How's that sound? Not restrictive enough for you? Then move to the Middle East and enjoy life with the rest of the people who value the rules of a state religion over personal freedom. Enjoy.
espeir wrote:
I already did. You said in this post and the last that you oppose the constitutionally granted democratic right to self-government whenver it conflicts with your own anti-religious wishes.
You have yet to supply a direct quote, instead offering only your twisted interpretations of what I say. You can't understand the simple fact that people can want to keep a single religion -- even their own religion -- from dominating and controlling their government, while not being "anti-religion". Secularism is not against religion, it is without consideration of religion. You can't comprehend that. You are terminally clue-challenged.
espeir wrote:
Apparently you're just incapable of basic logic. Here's a picture for you:...
Notice how you label me an extremist. Recall your observation that extremists c
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I never claimed any such thing. If that's the way you interpret what I say, you are an idiot.
You have claimed in every single post in this thread (and numerous times elsewhere) that the people should not have the right to govern...That they don't have the right to pass a law that "restricts rights" (which, according to your definition of "rights", includes all laws). I don't expect you to outright admit that you hate Democracy, but saying that the people should not have the right to pass laws is the exact same thing.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Sure there is. The practice of abstaining from alcohol on that religion's Sabbath. How about no meat on Friday? Or banning the sale of pork altogether? Or alcohol? Or birth control? None of those are intrinsically religious practices, yet all stem directly from tenets of religion that other religions do not share. How about we limit the rules to prohibiting doing physical or mental harm to others, denying them property, and the other rules that have developed across cultures because they are what society needs to function, and leave the religious rules up to the individual to follow or not, depending on their faith? How's that sound? Not restrictive enough for you? Then move to the Middle East and enjoy life with the rest of the people who value the rules of a state religion over personal freedom. Enjoy.
Again, you're attacking the principles of Democracy. You're assuming that Americans are as radical as you and militant Islam and pass unreasonable laws. If a community wants to restrict the sale of meat on Friday they have that right. Few communities in America would want that, however. I'm sure it's hard for you to understand more moderate people, but Catholics actually respect other peoples' religions unlike you and militant Islam.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You have yet to supply a direct quote, instead offering only your twisted interpretations of what I say. You can't understand the simple fact that people can want to keep a single religion -- even their own religion -- from dominating and controlling their government, while not being "anti-religion". Secularism is not against religion, it is without consideration of religion. You can't comprehend that. You are terminally clue-challenged.
You JUST SAID that people should be restricted from being able to pass any restri