logo Sign In

The Things We Hate And Love Thread . — Page 97

Author
Time
Well, I mostly watch it to see how Kenny will die this time.

4

Author
Time
The Jeffersons was the best episode i seen so far.
"A Jedi can feel the force flow through him".
Author
Time
No, that one sucked too.

Except for Kenny finally getting to talk outside his hood.

4

Author
Time
oh well the first three seasons were the best.
"A Jedi can feel the force flow through him".
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Warbler
Ok JediSage I owe you an apology. The was an actual reported case of a teacher throwing Bibles into the trash. Althought the lawsuit has been dropped and the school district denies that any Bibles were thrown into the trash. So its just a question of who you believe. Again I'm sorry I jumped the gun. Its just I had never heard of the incident and found it difficult that it could have happened without me knowing since I watch the news and read the paper daily. I apologize. However it would seem to be an isolated incident.

No problemo....I probably over-reacted, however it's a very stressful time for me right now.

Originally posted by: JediSage


I find it odd that we need to oppress freedom in order to attain it, however, I'll bite:



I never said that. All I meant was that how can someone have true freedom of religion, without having to right to chose no religion at all? without being able to chose not to belief
in God?

No argument. But this is far from your original comment. You originally said you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, which on the surface implies that all semblances of religion in public must be eliminated. Not quite the same as saying that one should have the right to choose none at all.

Originally posted by: JediSage


So, in other words, anyone who assumes public office or works in government automatically abbrogates their right to the free exercise of religion? Must they now take a vow of official atheism prior to taking the position?


No, what it means is that they can use/abbuse their position to support their religion

example: A school teacher can't use their position to preacher their religious views to thier students. However, that same school teacher has every right to practice his/her faith, As long as doing so doesn't violate someone else's rights.


Again no argument, however, the "Supreme" Court has ruled that saying a religion neutral prayer before a football game on school grounds is unconstitutional, somehow construing this to mean that the person saying it is really congress and that this act constituted establishment of a nation-wide religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". A student body is NOT congress.

Originally posted by: JediSage


Keep in mind that appeasing all faiths via a position of no faith is just as much of a philosophy as any religion. By definition it's excluding the people who believe and practice their faiths.


Now, just how is the Government excluding you by appeasing you? Maybe its a philosophy as any religion as you say, but if it is, does that mean we should drop it and just pick a religion to support and what one should that be and why? Whichever one we pick is going to offend someone. All I am saying is the Government shouldn't be in the position of deciding what religion is right and what religions aren't. It should treat all religions equally and that includes Atheists.


No...the government should not pick a religion to appease anyone. No, government should not pick which religion is right, but I don't think that should mean curtailing religious liberties in any manner...and that IS what is happening. If Aetheists want equality they should respect that there are billions of people on the planet who are not aetheists and who do not appreciate attempts at being erased. It's a two way street.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Shimraa
and i just like to add that athiests dont try to convert people of religion to not believe in god, however it is the opposite with religions. so by chooseing a stance that infringes on peoples rights the least would indeed been the best choice.


Wow...that sounds quite...totalitarian. Wasn't someone arrested in Canada for quoting a verse in the bible regarding homosexuality? Very...tolerant.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Originally posted by: TheSessler
I don't want to really offend anyone here, but of all the people I know, the atheists are the ones that are most tolerant of other people's beliefs regarding their organized religion association.

All of the "religous" people I know are always the ones telling other people that their way of thinking is wrong and they will "go to hell" or what have you unless they repent and follow the way they see fit according to whatever text they follow.


With the same caveat about not offending anyone: I find it ironic that those who claim to be the most tolerant are usually the ones who cannot tolerate non-leftist points of view. For example, anyone who doesn't support abortion on demand, gay marriage, gun control, unlimited entitlement programs and a complete surrender of national sovereignty to the UN is called a bigot, ultra-conservative religious nut.

Am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe certain practices are wrong based on my own understanding of morality? Yes. Does that make me intolerant? No. There's a biiiiiig difference between tolerance and acceptance. I refuse to accept certain things as being right because someone may call me intolerant.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: Shimraa
and i just like to add that athiests dont try to convert people of religion to not believe in god, however it is the opposite with religions. so by chooseing a stance that infringes on peoples rights the least would indeed been the best choice.


Wow...that sounds quite...totalitarian. Wasn't someone arrested in Canada for quoting a verse in the bible regarding homosexuality? Very...tolerant.


when was that.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Shimraa
Originally posted by: JediSage
Originally posted by: Shimraa
and i just like to add that athiests dont try to convert people of religion to not believe in god, however it is the opposite with religions. so by chooseing a stance that infringes on peoples rights the least would indeed been the best choice.


Wow...that sounds quite...totalitarian. Wasn't someone arrested in Canada for quoting a verse in the bible regarding homosexuality? Very...tolerant.


when was that.



Article
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
ok so in the quran it states that all whoa re not muslims are infidels and it probably also has a lot of other antisematic talk about christians. so i were to go on to a church on easter, or christmas eve and stated that christians are infidels, and that they need to change there beleives or die in hell. what would happen to me. this guy quoted a very hateful quote from the bible of all the weeks of the year on GAY PRIDE WEEK, in responce to gay pride. i'd say the guy deserved what he got for sheer stupidity, what did he think would happen. and the guy wasnt arrested, he was fined, big difference, that quote was indeed hateful. how would you feel if i said to you that your chirstian you should be beheaded in repayment for all the crimes that christians did in the cursades and all throughtout history, you wouldnt like it, nor would a gay person. and the court is not saying that the bible is hateful he says the quote was hateful, again big difference. it just shows how when christians over react whenever one thing goes wrong in there favour.

and ill remind you, everyone has freedom of religion, however no one has the freedom to persicute and infringe on the rights of other people. which is what was done when the guy printed those verses.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: JediSage

No argument. But this is far from your original comment. You originally said you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, which on the surface implies that all semblances of religion in public must be eliminated. Not quite the same as saying that one should have the right to choose none at all.


Freedom from religion simples means that one is not forces to choose to practice a relgion. And it means that the government must be free of religion. This is different from saying that all semblance of relgion in public must be eliminated.


Originally posted by: JediSage


Again no argument, however, the "Supreme" Court has ruled that saying a religion neutral prayer before a football game on school grounds is unconstitutional, somehow construing this to mean that the person saying it is really congress and that this act constituted establishment of a nation-wide religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". A student body is NOT congress.


Just how in the world can you have a religion neutral prayer? Any prayer is not neutral to an Athiest. While a student body is not congress, if a prayer done as part of an offically sanctioned event at a school fuction, it the equivalent of the government supporting a specific religion over others or religion in general over nonreligion.




Author
Time
Originally posted by: Warbler
Just how in the world can you have a religion neutral prayer? Any prayer is not neutral to an Athiest. While a student body is not congress, if a prayer done as part of an offically sanctioned event at a school fuction, it the equivalent of the government supporting a specific religion over others or religion in general over nonreligion.


Warbler, I think it's possible to be "religiously neutral". I consider myself to be an agnostic, which is a neutral view on God, but still I belive on some of the so-called "religious morales". I've read the Bible and I think everyone should read it and do as the Bible says, but you don't have to follow a specific dogma regarding "worshiping God". If you do good to everyone around you, does it really matter if you get on your knees and begs to a invisible man for his supposedly forgiveness? Other religions, such as budism, are more "philosofy" related, and their philosofy can be practiced even if you don't have it as a religious faith. I attend a budhist temple sometimes, but I don't consider myself a budhist, as much as I don't consider myself a catholic anymore. If the government comes to my house and asks what is my religion, for census or anything like that, I'd say catholic, but I'm not really a "catholic". I agree with much of what is on the Bible, I think the gospels should be read by everyone even if you don't belive in Jesus or in God, because it dosen't matter! Even if you atheistic, it dosen't matter, it's your whole attitude that matters, is how good you are to the human beings next to you that matter.

I don't think the government should rule for a specific religion, I think that's wrong. I do think religion could and should be taught in school to open the people's mind regarding its philosofies. You don't have to impose faith on it, you don't have to make people belive in untangible, unknown concepts such as gods, but you can teach some good stuff. I don't think someone who has been educated CORRECTLY on religious morale would turn into crime. I mean, consider the terrorist fundamentalist thought. I have NOTHING against the islamism, I swear, but the way it's teached to a small part of the followers is WRONG, it's not teaching GOOD concepts such as love for the other and doing good like not killing, it's teaching WRONG things. So it dosen't matter if you worship Allah or God or a scientologist demon inside a volcano, all it matters is how you put religious philosofies, rules and concepts into practice.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Teaching the facts about religions is fine, but preaching religions in public schools is not. imho. And I still say that a prayer can not be religion nuetral and certainly not neutral for Atheists.


And may I remind everyone, I am not an Atheist, I am Protestant.
Author
Time
athesist dont care thou warbler, for the most part if there is a prayer they will just stand there and think to themselves or something.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Shimraa
athesist dont care thou warbler, for the most part if there is a prayer they will just stand there and think to themselves or something.


Exactly. Nobody is FORCING the an athiest to pray. If one doesn't want to pray, he/she can just standthere until it's over.

4

Author
Time
I think of praiyer as a meditation, as a mantra, call as you want. I have my personal reasons to belive there isn't a God listening to our secret thoughts and wishes as we pray (I'm still not sure about the whole "God exists" thing, so I'm agnostic), but I think it's a good practice. It keeps one mind in focus, help to sets goals and stuff... I'm not very fond of the whole kneeling down and praying with hands close together thing, I think it's way too medieval, but a silent thought to oneself is always welcome.

BTW, I gotta teach you guys a little "mental self help" exercise I've created to make one focus in your goals and keep an optimistic point of view, I'll do that later.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Shimraa
ok so in the quran it states that all whoa re not muslims are infidels and it probably also has a lot of other antisematic talk about christians. so i were to go on to a church on easter, or christmas eve and stated that christians are infidels, and that they need to change there beleives or die in hell. what would happen to me. this guy quoted a very hateful quote from the bible of all the weeks of the year on GAY PRIDE WEEK, in responce to gay pride. i'd say the guy deserved what he got for sheer stupidity, what did he think would happen. and the guy wasnt arrested, he was fined, big difference, that quote was indeed hateful. how would you feel if i said to you that your chirstian you should be beheaded in repayment for all the crimes that christians did in the cursades and all throughtout history, you wouldnt like it, nor would a gay person. and the court is not saying that the bible is hateful he says the quote was hateful, again big difference. it just shows how when christians over react whenever one thing goes wrong in there favour.

and ill remind you, everyone has freedom of religion, however no one has the freedom to persicute and infringe on the rights of other people. which is what was done when the guy printed those verses.


There can be no discourse on the subject so long as one side of the argument can be silenced with the help of the police power of government. A government/people cannot make the claim of being tolerant while intimidating those who would disagree. If they silence those who disagree on the basis of their religious beliefs, how long until they silence those who just say "homosexuality is wrong"? Does a person's right to speak get suspended during gay pride week?

In response to your question of beheading, I'd say no surprise. It's been hundreds of years and the left still screams "CRUSADES!!" in response to anyone who dares raise a moral or religious issue in a public forum the same way they scream "McCarthyism!!" when someone points out a socialist voting record. Of course most people still don't "get" that the Crusades were in response to a Muslim invasion of Europe.

A fine is a punishment for something for which you've been arrested. If I get a speeding ticket, I've been arrested for speeding. It doesn't matter how miniscule the crime or punishment is.

I suggest you take a look at your own response when accusing someone of overreacting, and your reply about the bible/Christians being hateful is dripping with hypocrisy.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Warbler
Originally posted by: JediSage

No argument. But this is far from your original comment. You originally said you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, which on the surface implies that all semblances of religion in public must be eliminated. Not quite the same as saying that one should have the right to choose none at all.


Freedom from religion simples means that one is not forces to choose to practice a relgion. And it means that the government must be free of religion. This is different from saying that all semblance of relgion in public must be eliminated.


This brings us back to my original point. The ACLU, with the tacit approval of the US government (via taxpayer funding) is relentlessly attacking towns, cities, states, courts, schools, etc...forcing them to remove any and all religious symbols, to deny employees the right to read the bible or pray on their own time, the list goes on and on. That is the big difference. In it's effort to embrace neutrality, it has instead embraced hostility. In the absence of a supreme power, the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong is the state.


Originally posted by: JediSage


Again no argument, however, the "Supreme" Court has ruled that saying a religion neutral prayer before a football game on school grounds is unconstitutional, somehow construing this to mean that the person saying it is really congress and that this act constituted establishment of a nation-wide religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". A student body is NOT congress.


Just how in the world can you have a religion neutral prayer? Any prayer is not neutral to an Athiest. While a student body is not congress, if a prayer done as part of an offically sanctioned event at a school fuction, it the equivalent of the government supporting a specific religion over others or religion in general over nonreligion.


"To an unknown God..." please help our team win this game

How's that?

Again, taking the "establishment" clause and reading it as it is written, not "interpreted", the school(s) in question are NOT congress acting to establish a religion. No agency or person has the right to say that they may not pray before the game. How do we go from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion" to "Schools, government employees, Boy Scouts, the military...etc cannot pray or read the bible, or hand out tracts, or wear religious jewelry...."?
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Originally posted by: Shimraa
athesist dont care thou warbler, for the most part if there is a prayer they will just stand there and think to themselves or something.


Exactly. Nobody is FORCING the an athiest to pray. If one doesn't want to pray, he/she can just standthere until it's over.


Actually I wouldn't even go that far. Nobody should have to even stand, if they wish.

I hate...Going off topic!!!!
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Sounds cool. Are you ready to share yet?


This belongs on a different thread, but what the heck. Might sound dumb or silly, but it kinda works.

First of all, think of something you really want to achieve or get. It must be something possible to do or get, and you must know what you might need to do in order to get it. You can't say something like "I'd like to be able to fly", because that's impossible, but you could say something like "I'd like to learn how to fly an airplane", because it's possible and because you sort of know what you need to do.

Now, with that thought in mind, make up a little sentence that summorizes that wish. It must be short and easy to memorize. With the example above, a good sentence would be "To fly an airplane". Make sure you memorize it, and don't tell it to anyone, at least not yet.

You'll keep that sentence in your mind like a small mantra and will repeat to yourself in two key moments: when something really good happens to you, and when something really bad happens to you. Whenever you feel like something good has happened to you, it dosen't matter how small, mentally repeat to yourself that sentence whenever you're in a quite place or in a relaxed situation. Whenever something bad happens to you, something that makes you feel down or depressed, you also gotta mentally repeat that sentence to yourself.

Sound silly I know, but it worked for me and for others.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
And is the idea that eventually you will achieve your goal of, for example, flying an aeroplane, or is it just too make you feel good and deal with everyday crap that comes your way?

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
I think I'll use Triumph's sentence....

"For me to Poop on!"
Author
Time
"to understand why I'm repeating this sentence"
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
Author
Time
Jumping back on the bigger topic (I don't swing by as much as I used to, but I picked up as much context as I could...)

Just a thought: to believe in truth is immediately to believe in falsehood. Any philosophy/religion that espouses truth immediately segregates all beliefs or fundamentals into true and false. To eliminate falsehood you have to eliminate truth, and you arrive at relativism. This is the prevailing philosophy in Europe and (I believe, but I apologize if I'm wrong) the American left. A bit of that philosophy enfuses any modern western mentality. Differences between beliefs become classified as differences in perspective, culture, upbringing, personality...the differences remain but they are now just that - differences.

One concept of freedom is the freedom to be whoever/whatever you desire without any strife or struggle about it. This concept cannot exist alongside falsehood, because if there is falsehood, there are certain things that people will disagree with. If what you want to be is wrong in some people's opinion, you will have to bear the weight of their disapproval. Thus, these people do not feel perfectly "free", they are in conflict with other people. So they abolish absolute truth in order to abolish falsehood, and thus be "free".

Other people start from the concept of truth - they believe that there are things that are true, or good, or right, and therefore there are other thigns that are false, or evil, or wrong. Christians fall into this category; Jesus says "no one gets to the Father but by me" and other things, stating that there is only one way to heaven, only one way to survive Judgment (namely, by accepting the fact that we need a savior since we have broken the law, and then accepting that Jesus is the only one with the authority to save us). If there is only one way to get to heaven, then there are lots of ways that don't get to heaven.

Bear with me, I'm bringing it around to the point -

So, for a Christian who believes that to say to someone "You need Jesus and this other stuff is wrong" is no more oppressive or intolerant than a doctor who says "you have an infection and you need antibiotics, your daily vitamins aren't going to make this go away." It's simply the way things are.

Now, for the Christian to force Jesus (a la the Inquisition) or for the doctor to force antibiotics down your throat IS oppressive. It isn't the doctor's decision whether or not you want to get better. He's just there to give his best judgment of the situation and use his knowledge to help you if you want it. I realize that a doctor is more trusted than a Christian today, but for a Christian who believes the bible, he acts from the same perspective as the doctor. It's just not heard from the same perspective.

Continuing with the example, Christians will always believe that some things are wrong and will say so, explicitly or implicitly by their actions. Parties like the ACLU that believe that first version of freedom (that you can be what you want *without* disapproval) will therefore see Christianity as opposing freedom, and will restrict a Christian's ability to live according to their beliefs - all they have accomlished is lifting disapproval from themselves and oppressing a different group.

That's because that vision of freedom is flawed. Freedom is being able to be what you want *despite* disapproval. Allowing Christians to pray before they play in a game will naturally make some people feel denounced and excluded. Putting a Christians into a science class teaching evolution will make them feel denounced and excluded. It is a consequence of freedom, it's something we all have to deal with.

I'm tired of special interest groups telling other special interest groups "you can't make me feel bad, you need to celebrate me." Back to the Christianity example, if the Christian believes that making another group feel bad is the *only* way to save them, by all means make them feel bad. If the scientist believes the Christian is a fool and blinding people to truth, by all means make him feel bad. Just don't force any decision on them. That is what freedom is about. Even though someone thinks I'm wrong, I don't have to change.

And that's why I get upset (finally relating the principle to what JediSage has been talking about) when groups limit Christians' right to express themselves. They are preventing Christians from living how they want so that they don't feel bad. And, to be fair, there are times that Christians go too far as well and limit other groups' ability to act. That isn't the example that Jesus set - when the rich young ruler didn't want none of it, Jesus let him walk away. The Christian role is to tirelessly, relentlessly express and live our beliefs and welcome anyone who chooses Jesus, not to choose Jesus for them. That choice happens between God and that person.

But this nation was founded on Christianity, so as it grows increasingly non-Christian it will face the backlash as people revolt against the Christian values inherent in the system and the culture.

Bottom line - groups shouldn't fight other groups because they feel bad, they should only fight when they are forced to become something they don't want to be. Just because someone is praying on your campus or a teacher said Christianity is wrong doesn't mean your rights are being threatened.
If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!