Robertson and Bush...
-
JoeSox wrote: Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. The conclusion doesn't follow the facts. A president holding strong religious convictions in no way leads to "a state established religion", which is what seperation of church and state is all about. Note that you are quoting a man who was deeply religious, who was agreeing with the very men who helped to create our government, who were also deeply religious. Way too often in modern times do we misrepresent what our fore fathers said, through poor reasoning. William E. Kempf
William E. Kempf wrote: The conclusion doesn't follow the facts I am having trouble understanding you comment. I must be me I think I am getting burned out on this thread X| :-D 1) I never stated the pres had to be atheist. I reply that religion separation is important(never quoting anyone). William E. Kempf wrote: Way too often in modern times do we misrepresent what our fore fathers said, through poor reasoning. what is good reasoning?:-D Later,
JoeSox -
Joshua Guy wrote: I feel much better about Bush being in office I'd rather have some guy getting a BJ then some guy making money off of his wars, while getting advice from Pat Robertson.:laugh: We should just elect Homer Simpson Later,
JoeSoxYou Sir are an idiot. I challenge you to back up the statement(s) either the profit taking from war or the advice of Pat Robertson. If you can - I apologize -if not I stand by the character assement I have already stated. And I know that I will not have to make an apology. Richard I must have liberty Withal, as large a charter as the wind, To blow on whom I please. As You Like It. Act ii. Sc. 7. William Shakespeare
-
Chris Austin wrote: Paul Watson wrote: So what do you believe on the matter then? I believe that it hasn't been proven. Damn Chris, you are taking tips from the politicians aren't you? ;) Guess many of us could learn from you in being able to admit we have no opinion on the matter when we do not know the facts.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
Paul Watson wrote: Guess many of us could learn from you in being able to admit we have no opinion on the matter when we do not know the facts. Opinions are not facts and should not be considered as such. You can form an opinion with out facts, with out all the facts, or with untruths - as long as you are willing to change that opinion as you knowledge increases. The problem comes in with the changing - so many are unwilling to do so. Richard I must have liberty Withal, as large a charter as the wind, To blow on whom I please. As You Like It. Act ii. Sc. 7. William Shakespeare
-
JoeSox wrote: It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Are you saying that religion is equal to morality?
-
Of course not. Faith requires Morality, but Morality doesn't require Faith. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if everyone did have Faith, but realistically it's not going to happen anytime soon...and I'd rather not have religion jammed down the throats of those who don't have Faith. It doesn't work. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
I have faith, it just doesn't involve religion :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
You Sir are an idiot. I challenge you to back up the statement(s) either the profit taking from war or the advice of Pat Robertson. If you can - I apologize -if not I stand by the character assement I have already stated. And I know that I will not have to make an apology. Richard I must have liberty Withal, as large a charter as the wind, To blow on whom I please. As You Like It. Act ii. Sc. 7. William Shakespeare
Richard Stringer wrote: You Sir are an idiot You are quick to judge;P Richard Stringer wrote: I challenge you to back up the statement(s) either the profit taking from war or the advice of Pat Robertson. I am not going to do this on CP. But you should start researching this yourself. Start with learning about George Bush's Grandfather and the family history (both side's of the story) and Follow the money trail. I really am getting burned out on this thread, sorry maybe oneday I'll get enough motivation to come up with a better response. Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
-
I have faith, it just doesn't involve religion :rose: The tigress is here :-D
:)
-
William E. Kempf wrote: The conclusion doesn't follow the facts I am having trouble understanding you comment. I must be me I think I am getting burned out on this thread X| :-D 1) I never stated the pres had to be atheist. I reply that religion separation is important(never quoting anyone). William E. Kempf wrote: Way too often in modern times do we misrepresent what our fore fathers said, through poor reasoning. what is good reasoning?:-D Later,
JoeSoxJoeSox wrote: I never stated the pres had to be atheist. I reply that religion separation is important(never quoting anyone). Yes, you did quote someone, and here it is again: "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when choosing your representatives....Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. " And I suppose it could be I who misunderstood you, but what reason is there to bring up seperation of church and state in this thread if you were not implying that Mr. Bush's religious beliefs were a violation of this? JoeSox wrote: what is good reasoning? Reasoning not based on logical fallacies. See http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/[^], in particular, http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/introtof.html[^]. Unless I totally misunderstand what you're trying to say in this thread, you're guilty of the fallacy "Affirmation of the Consequent" (http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/afthecon.html[^]). "When a president violates the rule of seperation of church from state, he has strong religious convictions" "George Bush has strong religious convictions" "Therefore he's violating the rule of seperation of church from state" (Note that the first quote above has its own set of logical fallacies.) William E. Kempf
-
JoeSox wrote: I never stated the pres had to be atheist. I reply that religion separation is important(never quoting anyone). Yes, you did quote someone, and here it is again: "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when choosing your representatives....Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. " And I suppose it could be I who misunderstood you, but what reason is there to bring up seperation of church and state in this thread if you were not implying that Mr. Bush's religious beliefs were a violation of this? JoeSox wrote: what is good reasoning? Reasoning not based on logical fallacies. See http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/[^], in particular, http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/introtof.html[^]. Unless I totally misunderstand what you're trying to say in this thread, you're guilty of the fallacy "Affirmation of the Consequent" (http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/afthecon.html[^]). "When a president violates the rule of seperation of church from state, he has strong religious convictions" "George Bush has strong religious convictions" "Therefore he's violating the rule of seperation of church from state" (Note that the first quote above has its own set of logical fallacies.) William E. Kempf
I started the thread just to let others know that GB has strong right religious believes that are kind of scary and I wanted other's opinions. My friend has told me that GB consults with Pat Robertson frequently and I wondered if anyone else has heard of that. The 1st post's last line from the article somes up my opinion. "His (Pat Robertson's) vision of an old and better world order is at times more terrifying than the scary one he warns about in his best seller." As for as critical thinking (which I got an A+ in college for), might have some holes in it since I am trying to post and think and do my regular work at the same time.:rolleyes: William E. Kempf wrote: "When a president violates the rule of seperation of church from state, he has strong religious convictions" Not what I said/mean. so your misunderstanding. "George Bush has strong religious convictions" Change that to Radical religious convictions, Plus other motivations which I am aware of, which leads me to currently think why he is leading this witch hunt and all other Nations are against. Our own CIA doesn't understand what evedience their is to support going to Iraq, which I just heard. "Therefore he's violating the rule of seperation of church from state" Church and state just came up in a sub thread, and I was trying to debate that some Politicians forget how to govern occording to our fore fathers. good discussion:-D Later,
JoeSox -
Lets go with number 1. It seems the most ambiguous. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
In the case of the State, Morality is defined by laws, voted by representants of the people. They can evoluate, being removed, reappear. In the case of religion Morality limits are defined once forever and are not a subject of discussion. Anything else? ;)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
-
I started the thread just to let others know that GB has strong right religious believes that are kind of scary and I wanted other's opinions. My friend has told me that GB consults with Pat Robertson frequently and I wondered if anyone else has heard of that. The 1st post's last line from the article somes up my opinion. "His (Pat Robertson's) vision of an old and better world order is at times more terrifying than the scary one he warns about in his best seller." As for as critical thinking (which I got an A+ in college for), might have some holes in it since I am trying to post and think and do my regular work at the same time.:rolleyes: William E. Kempf wrote: "When a president violates the rule of seperation of church from state, he has strong religious convictions" Not what I said/mean. so your misunderstanding. "George Bush has strong religious convictions" Change that to Radical religious convictions, Plus other motivations which I am aware of, which leads me to currently think why he is leading this witch hunt and all other Nations are against. Our own CIA doesn't understand what evedience their is to support going to Iraq, which I just heard. "Therefore he's violating the rule of seperation of church from state" Church and state just came up in a sub thread, and I was trying to debate that some Politicians forget how to govern occording to our fore fathers. good discussion:-D Later,
JoeSoxJoeSox wrote: "George Bush has strong religious convictions" Change that to Radical religious convictions, Evidence? If it's only his relationship with Pat Robertson, then you're guilty of another fallacy. JoeSox wrote: Our own CIA doesn't understand what evedience their is to support going to Iraq, which I just heard. Evidence of this claim? JoeSox wrote: "Therefore he's violating the rule of seperation of church from state" Church and state just came up in a sub thread, and I was trying to debate that some Politicians forget how to govern occording to our fore fathers. But you failed to do so. The only evidence you gave to this conclusion was Mr. Bush's relationship with Pat Robertson, but as I pointed out, that's a logical fallacy. William E. Kempf
-
I think you have been reading that kind of tripe for far too long. It has appearently turned you into just as much a bigot as Pat Robertson, only at the other extreme. :suss: Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
Rob Graham wrote: It has appearently turned you into just as much a bigot as Pat Robertson, only at the other extreme. You have got to be kidding me. Did you know: According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. In fact, President Bush himself is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed in a blind trust in 1980 by his father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush. Throughout the Bush family's decades of public life, the American press has gone out of its way to overlook one historical fact – that through Union Banking Corporation (UBC), Prescott Bush, and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, financed Adolf Hitler before and during World War II. It was first reported in 1994 by John Loftus and Mark Aarons in The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. Later,
JoeSox -
The problem is is I don't belive that there is a "they". Who are "they"? The best thing I have ever seen that has covered this is "The Ilumanatis Trilogy"...frickin hillarious. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
I know who they are. But if I told you I'd have to kill you. ;) Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
The Unitarian-Universalists would likely not object to your memmbership. Not all protestant cristian organizations intitutionalize bigotry as part of their creed, just a radical few. I suspect you wouuld get a bit of flack from any Islamic congregation as well tho... :rose: Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
Rob Graham wrote: The Unitarian-Universalists would likely not object to your memmbership. Not all protestant cristian organizations intitutionalize bigotry as part of their creed, just a radical few. I suspect you wouuld get a bit of flack from any Islamic congregation as well tho... Neither would the Quakers hun...a friend I know through one of the support groups I'm a member of is an Elder in a Quaker Church. :-D Unfortunately, the "radical few" are more than you'd expect. The sad fact is that most TS Christians seem to lose their Churches - the lady I mentioned above is the only exception among those I know. :(( As far as the Moslem faith is concerned - I know one TS girl who is Moslem and she's had so much trouble she's afraid to leave her house. I think that says it all. Don't even get me started on the Islamic countries themselves...TS people there are all too frequently suject to persecution, violence and murder. :(( These days, the West and Far East are much more enlightened. The 50% Rule (50% of transsexual people will be dead before they reach 30) no longer applies - though violence and murder still happen more often than they should, even here. I wish I could say the same for the rest of the world. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
morality:The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. You can not separate this definition of morality from State. State is made up of people, people are humans, all humans have morality. This definition of morality implies morality has a sliding scale, good morality, bad morality, etc. You need some sort of morality to govern, good or bad. Religion is not needed to govern. What do you think?;P Later,
JoeSoxJoeSox wrote: Religion is not needed to govern. But, otherwise, it is OK for the government to have a moral agenda? In otherwords, it is OK for the government to force Pat Robertson to submit to your moral agenda, your standards of right and wrong, but not you to his, because his are based on christianity and yours are not. Do I have that right? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Are you saying that religion is equal to morality?
Just asking a simple question. Do we sepearate church from state becuase we do not want the state to enforce one set of moral parameters on everyone? If so, than should the state have any moral authority at all? If it does, who gets to determine what they are, and why aren't religious moral views as relavent as anyone elses? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Just asking a simple question. Do we sepearate church from state becuase we do not want the state to enforce one set of moral parameters on everyone? If so, than should the state have any moral authority at all? If it does, who gets to determine what they are, and why aren't religious moral views as relavent as anyone elses? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Do we sepearate church from state becuase we do not want the state to enforce one set of moral parameters on everyone? No. We do so to avoid enforcing one set of world views (beliefs) on everyone. Whether religion has or claims to have morals is completely irrelevant. Stan Shannon wrote: should the state have any moral authority at all? IMO state should not be a moral authority. Thomas Jefferson said "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Stan Shannon wrote: why aren't religious moral views as relavent as anyone elses? This is the whole point of separation of state from church. The point is that they are relevant but not superior to any other views and it is not government business to promote or support ANY views over the other views.
-
Rob Graham wrote: The Unitarian-Universalists would likely not object to your memmbership. Not all protestant cristian organizations intitutionalize bigotry as part of their creed, just a radical few. I suspect you wouuld get a bit of flack from any Islamic congregation as well tho... Neither would the Quakers hun...a friend I know through one of the support groups I'm a member of is an Elder in a Quaker Church. :-D Unfortunately, the "radical few" are more than you'd expect. The sad fact is that most TS Christians seem to lose their Churches - the lady I mentioned above is the only exception among those I know. :(( As far as the Moslem faith is concerned - I know one TS girl who is Moslem and she's had so much trouble she's afraid to leave her house. I think that says it all. Don't even get me started on the Islamic countries themselves...TS people there are all too frequently suject to persecution, violence and murder. :(( These days, the West and Far East are much more enlightened. The 50% Rule (50% of transsexual people will be dead before they reach 30) no longer applies - though violence and murder still happen more often than they should, even here. I wish I could say the same for the rest of the world. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: Unfortunately, the "radical few" are more than you'd expect. Sadly true. I have little use for organized religion (of any flavor) as a result. :rose: Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Do we sepearate church from state becuase we do not want the state to enforce one set of moral parameters on everyone? No. We do so to avoid enforcing one set of world views (beliefs) on everyone. Whether religion has or claims to have morals is completely irrelevant. Stan Shannon wrote: should the state have any moral authority at all? IMO state should not be a moral authority. Thomas Jefferson said "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." Stan Shannon wrote: why aren't religious moral views as relavent as anyone elses? This is the whole point of separation of state from church. The point is that they are relevant but not superior to any other views and it is not government business to promote or support ANY views over the other views.
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: The point is that they are relevant but not superior to any other views and it is not government business to promote or support ANY views over the other views. I understand that in theory. However, in reality that does not appear to be the result. The state *does* promote a specific moral agenda. Every state does. In fact, the more you remove religion from the equation, the more the state is free to promote a moral agenda, and *must* promote such. For example, the state removes prayer from school, and then immediately begins indoctrinating children into a more secular moral authoritarianism. Issues concerning race or sexuality begin to be promoted as 'moral' standards. i.e. It is immoral to be 'homophobic' because the state says so, rather than it is immoral to be homosexual because the church says so. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but a moral agenda is a moral agenda. And one finally has to ask the question - what is the point of separation of church and state if the state is thereby freed to become the church - an agent of moral authority? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: The point is that they are relevant but not superior to any other views and it is not government business to promote or support ANY views over the other views. I understand that in theory. However, in reality that does not appear to be the result. The state *does* promote a specific moral agenda. Every state does. In fact, the more you remove religion from the equation, the more the state is free to promote a moral agenda, and *must* promote such. For example, the state removes prayer from school, and then immediately begins indoctrinating children into a more secular moral authoritarianism. Issues concerning race or sexuality begin to be promoted as 'moral' standards. i.e. It is immoral to be 'homophobic' because the state says so, rather than it is immoral to be homosexual because the church says so. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but a moral agenda is a moral agenda. And one finally has to ask the question - what is the point of separation of church and state if the state is thereby freed to become the church - an agent of moral authority? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
I understand that in reality things are far from ideal. For example, most of the state officials these days are Christians and they are pushing their morals on everyone. But let's ignore this for the time being. According to a popular believe state is representing people (all the people) of the nation. We elect officials based on our views. State is representative of views of the people. If people voted for officials who thinks that "homophobic" behavior is immoral than the majority of population agrees with that view. The state is not just there making up moral doctrine. The doctrines come from our society. But rather than representing one particular set of views state represents a mixture or an average if you will of all the world views in our country. If you are holding far right or far left views the chances are you will always feel misrepresented by officials, because the majority of people will always be somewhere around the middle and so state is likely to push the centrist (majority) agenda rather than far views.