Mighty God - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-14-2006, 04:41 PM   #166
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


I would like to know how "further their own ends" compares with doing the work asked of us as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.
I might remind you that most religions object to some of the behavior stated above.
When Hindus start to try legislating that I can no longer eat beef and when Jews start to legislate that I have to keep kosher, we can talk.

If Christian groups would cease and desist from attempting to push their religious beliefs on the general secular populace, many of us would have nothing to complain about.

But I think you really did miss my point.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-14-2006, 04:47 PM   #167
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
But I think you really did miss my point.


yes, totally.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-14-2006, 05:01 PM   #168
JCR
The Fly
 
JCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Higley, Arizona (it's a chunk of land in Gilbert AZ)
Posts: 79
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Hey Bordergirl! I think anitram was merely pointing out that religion imposing its "morality" on government is not a good idea and when politicians make laws to appease or side with a particular religion, such as, making laws banning homosexual couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples or laws that infringe on personal decisions, is unconstitutional. It's in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no laws...
Jefferson said: "The first amendment necessarily implies a wall of separation between church and state."
I daresay that this is a bloody good thing. America is a democratic republic, not a theocratic one...(If you want a theocracy start rooting for Hizbulla (also spelled Hezbollah) and Hamas.)

P.S. I don't find living morally or ethically to be much of a struggle at all.
__________________
JCR is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 06:16 PM   #169
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

If Christian groups would cease and desist from attempting to push their religious beliefs on the general secular populace, many of us would have nothing to complain about.
It seems ego centric to think that when the head of a group, (religious or otherwise) that you do not belong to speaks, they are speaking to you, a non-member.
If you are a practicing (insert your religion here) and yer man/woman is addressing you, you should listen. For those outside the group, listen too if you want, but don't criticize the head of an organization for validly addressing it's members.
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 06:26 PM   #170
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


It seems ego centric to think that when the head of a group, (religious or otherwise) that you do not belong to speaks, they are speaking to you, a non-member.
If you are a practicing (insert your religion here) and yer man/woman is addressing you, you should listen. For those outside the group, listen too if you want, but don't criticize the head of an organization for validly addressing it's members.


ever heard of the Federal Marriage Amendment?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-14-2006, 06:42 PM   #171
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:23 PM
With all the accusations of "legislating morality" flying around, I think that people should keep these 2 things in mind:

(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?

(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms." Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"? It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 06:52 PM   #172
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


It seems ego centric to think that when the head of a group, (religious or otherwise) that you do not belong to speaks, they are speaking to you, a non-member.
If you are a practicing (insert your religion here) and yer man/woman is addressing you, you should listen. For those outside the group, listen too if you want, but don't criticize the head of an organization for validly addressing it's members.
Huh?

I'm not talking about Papal decrees. Are you purposely misunderstanding me?

I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights, control access to birth control, pass through bigoted marriage amendments and so on. These are not people speaking to YOU, they are people who are trying to politicize their religion to restrict the rights of the rest of us who don't follow their beliefs in the first place. So yes, I'll criticize all I want.

ETA: 80s, I really think condoms are a poor example because your premise is all wrong. Schools are not giving them out in order to question the chosen morality of the parents, but they are introducing them as a matter of public health. This benefits the society as a whole. Nobody is telling the children to give up on their virgin pledges or whatever they're called. But they are giving them information about how to best protect themselves AND other people in the event this should become an issue.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 08-14-2006, 06:54 PM   #173
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms." Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"? It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.


the presence of condoms in a school is not the same thing as the distribution of condoms; the message that is sent is not "you're going to have sex anyway" but that "ultimately, teenagers are going to make their own decisions." i think it's much less intrusive to view sexuality as a health matter than a moral matter.

this is a far more respectful attitude towards sexuality than abstinence-only curricula that present outright lies (such as that 50% of gay teens are HIV positive, that HIV can be passed through sweat and tears, that mutual masturbation can get you pregnant) as "fact" in order to frighten teenagers.

but that's neither here nor there in regards to this particular topic, i don't think.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:00 PM   #174
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?
A large portion? That's laughable. Even the Catholic church teaches evolution in their private schools. Just because one has evidence and one is strictly faith doesn't mean that somehow the point being made in here by some is false.

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

(2)The left has long screamed and hollered that morality should be taught at home, not in the schools. But consider the distribution of condoms in the school. Many parents' morality is to tell their children "do not have sex unless you're married". Parents have a right to instill this morality in their children. However, the school, when it distributes condoms are instilling their own particular morality; the morality: "well, we believe you're going to be weak and have sex anyway, so here's some condoms." Why should the school be able to instill a morality that clashes with the morality of the parents, especially when the parents' morality of abstainance is more effective in fighting disease and unwanted pregnancy than so-called "safe sex"? It's ridiculous. Some people don't want the government telling them how to run their own lives, but have no problem with the schools instilling a contradictory set of moral values than what their neighbors teach their own kids at home.
I always love the "passing out condoms" argument. You make it sound like they come with the textbooks. Schools that do have condoms, are obtained by asking the nurse. Once you ask the nurse, you're pretty much on the path. It has nothing to do with a left morality, it has everything to do with prevention. A fire extinguisher doesn't promote fires being set.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:00 PM   #175
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights, control access to birth control, pass through bigoted marriage amendments and so on. These are not people speaking to YOU, they are people who are trying to politicize their religion to restrict the rights of the rest of us who don't follow their beliefs in the first place. So yes, I'll criticize all I want.
But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.

But this is all quite off topic from the original thread.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:10 PM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.

But this is all quite off topic from the original thread.


well, to set aside church and state issues (not least to protect the church from the state ... would you like the state to have input into the moral positions of the church?) and to try to bring it back ... what i think many of us were having a problem with in this thread, and the atheist thread, and the "rapture" thread, was the presentation of religious beliefs as irrefutable fact, as non-negotiatble points of view, and deviation or disagreement with such views was seen as a malfunction of the person who was in disagreement.

of course people have every right to champion whatever they want, however they want, but being dogmatic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the weaver of the fabric of space-time is quite unproductive to dialogue in a forum like this.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:16 PM   #177
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
With all the accusations of "legislating morality" flying around, I think that people should keep these 2 things in mind:

(1) The evolution of mankind is taught in our school systems, despite the wishes of a large portion of our population. If evolution were an undeniable fact, that would be one thing. But it is called a theory because it is not undeniable fact. Is it right to force this theory upon the children of those whom do not subscribe to the theory?
Ah, this thread has taken more turns than a Bollywood movie...

I wouldn't want this thread to veer toward an evolution-vs-creationism angle, but, with regard to your evolution statement above '80s, credible scientists may differ on various theories of evolution, but rarely do they say that evolution did not occur (or, as many say, evolution doesn't presuppose that there's no guiding hand of God at work). Robert Todd Carrol says it best (in his "Creationism" write-up at his web-site):

"Despite the fact that 99.99% of the scientific community considers evolution of species from other species to be a fact, the creation scientists proclaim that evolution is not a fact but just a theory, and that it is false. The vast majority of scientists who disagree about evolution disagree as to how species evolved, not as to whether they evolved."

http://skepdic.com/creation.html
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:23 PM   #178
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


But isn't this more the fault of a democratic, representative government? "I may not agree with what you say," goes the old quote, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Criticizing those whose beliefs run counter to yours is one thing -- criticizing them for putting their beliefs into the public marketplace of ideas (when those with complete opposing views have the same right, and make use of it every day) is another.
Thank you, from all of us here. And may we all have the ears to appreciate the intention, at least, of what is being said.
__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:28 PM   #179
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


I'm talking about groups who want to legislate abortion rights
If human life begins at conception, as is the general consensus amongst embryologists, why do you see abortion as a "right"? There were no "abortion rights" until 1973. Prior to 1973, the courts had embraced the scienctific testimony of those who knew such things, the embyologist.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:40 PM   #180
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


If human life begins at conception, as is the general consensus amongst embryologists,
I'd like you to prove this. I'd like you to show the general consensus amongst embryologists that defines life, the way you define life, at conception.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com