|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 09/21/2006 : 01:35:26 [Permalink]
|
Well OI, I will admit to writing as if I included all Christians, but just because I didn't write perfect detail. It really is your assumption that offended you. A question of clarification would have resolved the matter rather than a rant about my less than perfect sentences here and there.
As to the links, there is indeed an issue with these mega-congregations all adopting the "global mission" terminology. I'm sorry, but I do find the idea one's goal is to convert every last culture into your own offensive. I don't care that Christians (and Mormons and a few others) believe their religion requires they spread the word, these guys want to spread their religion by less ethical means than merely telling someone what it's all about. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/21/2006 01:39:55 |
 |
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2006 : 04:30:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
What is the difirence between Christians trying to legislate their beliefs, and moral relativists trying to legislate theirs?
Is there evidence that moral relativists have been trying to legislate morality? Being relativists, what morality could they possibly legislate?
Maybe I should have said "trying to fight legislation of" for the moral relativists. The post fits into my other post as thus:
Some groups desire very ordered lives. There should be a place for them free of people who don't and a place for those who don't away from those that do. We have 50 great states in this "United States" that are each working on tearing themselves apart. The partisanship and fighting on the federal level will make itslef down to the states. It is far past time to neuter the Fed and return the power to the states. The states should be able to decide for themselves what is best for the citizens of their states. Some states are gonna blow it, and some states will proseper.
A few years back, and I do not know if this is still going on or not, the libertarians were trying to get a bunch of folks to move to one state, and a Christian group was tryng to do the same. I love the idea. Don't want porn in the open..... move to KY. Hate ciggerretes... move to California. Want to smoke dope, move to Alaska (I wish KY).
It all really hit me when in San Diego..... I was walking down the street smoking a ciggerete, and a man on a bench told me it was disgusting. He was sitting their reading Hustler.....
Some people long for structure, others disdain in it.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2006 : 04:48:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Well OI, I will admit to writing as if I included all Christians, but just because I didn't write perfect detail. It really is your assumption that offended you. A question of clarification would have resolved the matter rather than a rant about my less than perfect sentences here and there.
As to the links, there is indeed an issue with these mega-congregations all adopting the "global mission" terminology. I'm sorry, but I do find the idea one's goal is to convert every last culture into your own offensive. I don't care that Christians (and Mormons and a few others) believe their religion requires they spread the word, these guys want to spread their religion by less ethical means than merely telling someone what it's all about.
Agreed. A question would have benn better then a rant, especially when I can have a bit of a time explaining things myself.
It has been awhile since I looked at statistics, but I am fairley certain that at least a third of the population on the earth is a member of a religion requiring the spreading of their religion. At the center of the debate is the method. Some of the Chrstian groups, and some of the Muslim groups are just plain wrong in the way they go about it.
The rest you have to live with. Spreading the word to hungry people without forcing them to accept is not a wrong practice.
Every freaking month, someone is knocking on my door, be it Jehovas Witnesses, the local Democrats, or the local Republicans. I have developed a bit of a relationship with the JW guy. We talk about the bible more as history. I think he has given up on converting me, but still shows up for a nice conversation. He professes his faith, and I respect it. He respects my beliefs. The Democrats and Republicans are another issue. They don't understand why I would vote for a Republican for this, but a Democrat for that, and tell me my thinking is wrong, and that I need to quit being selfish and nieve.
As far as the mega-chrches spreading the word by less then perfect means... that is sad. But not too much difirent then politicians in Washington. As far as the ones that are really out there (Christian Identity, radical islamists, nazis), anhilation is the answer. To quote the OT (one of my favorite books) "Thus you shall purge the evil from thy midst."
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2006 : 01:33:47 [Permalink]
|
Not just the method, OI, the attempt to re-make the US government into a Christian government. The indoctrination and other aggressive recruiting tactics are a big issue, but pairing with Republicans has had very negative outcomes already.
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2006 : 05:16:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Not just the method, OI, the attempt to re-make the US government into a Christian government. The indoctrination and other aggressive recruiting tactics are a big issue, but pairing with Republicans has had very negative outcomes already.
If the super-majority of Americans want a Christian government, the constitution allows for it, like it or not...... It would be extremely dificult to do so, and is, but it is made easier by anyone who thinks it is a living document, and does not have an original intent mindset when interpreting it.
Any amendment can be repealed, any section can be amended. That is the only way their intention changes with the times. Any time any office holder thinks they can get around it, or does something that circumbents it, they should be immediatly impeached, and that impeachment call must come from both sides, and both sides must convict regarless of who it is, or whose party they belong to.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 12:42:38 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps, but to my knowledge there has not been an amendment, let alone one that has been passed by 2/3 of the states to abolish the separation of church and state and another amendment to adopt a national religion.
But those trying anyway should actually be careful what they wish for. The danger of becoming a theocracy is in whose theocracy one is talking about. The current threatened theocracy may want to make the supposed sin of homosexuality a crime and that may not worry many heterosexuals. But what will stop the more radical religious leaders from making all sorts of behavior criminal? Want to see the courts tied up trying anyone who lies to anyone anywhere? How about making adultery a felony? (I could go for that one actually.  ) Mandatory Christian Church attendance and closure of all businesses on Sundays. Eliminate all science that contradicts the Bible in public schools.
When the amendment passes get back to me. In the meantime the actions to stack the court in favor of fundamentalist evangelical judges is not Constitutional since they would not perform their job of interpreting the Constitution, they would be following the Bible instead. The actions to give my tax dollars to promote their religion is unconstitutional. And so on. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2006 : 20:20:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Perhaps, but to my knowledge there has not been an amendment, let alone one that has been passed by 2/3 of the states to abolish the separation of church and state and another amendment to adopt a national religion.
But those trying anyway should actually be careful what they wish for. The danger of becoming a theocracy is in whose theocracy one is talking about. The current threatened theocracy may want to make the supposed sin of homosexuality a crime and that may not worry many heterosexuals. But what will stop the more radical religious leaders from making all sorts of behavior criminal? Want to see the courts tied up trying anyone who lies to anyone anywhere? How about making adultery a felony? (I could go for that one actually. ) Mandatory Christian Church attendance and closure of all businesses on Sundays. Eliminate all science that contradicts the Bible in public schools.
When the amendment passes get back to me. In the meantime the actions to stack the court in favor of fundamentalist evangelical judges is not Constitutional since they would not perform their job of interpreting the Constitution, they would be following the Bible instead. The actions to give my tax dollars to promote their religion is unconstitutional. And so on.
The "seperation of church and state" is near urban-legend. The amendment also says "free-exercise thereof." Jefferson coined it, and off people ran with it. Mostly these are the same people that swear that the founders could not have meant that all the people be armed when far more people commented to the affirmative on that (not saying you are).
What is the difirence between a fundamentaist christian judge who interprets the constitution wrongly and one that thinks it is a living breathing document that can be changed with a modern interpretation? None, they would both be interpreting it wrongly. There is nothing unconstitutional about nominating whoever the nominator wants to to fill a position. The actions once there could be grounds for impeachment. I am all for impeaching. I don't think it is done near enough. And if a judge said "well God would want me to do this", I would want him gone too......
As far as setting a national religion, that would take an amendment also. The government cannot due that anymore then they can limit free exercise. No chance for a theocracy without a revolution and the scrapping of the constitution.
I think you are to focused on the Christians, and not worried enough about the others that are quieter, or even more obvious, that can, will, and actually do just as much harm.
You may see a "definition of marriage" amendment passed. But I really doubt one on national religion. One of these days they may get the flag protection amendment passed. Icould go either way on this one, as I know the flag means a great deal to a lot of people, but I just assume they protect the ideal, not the symbol... (silly me).
The Constitution is beautiful. People call it ugly, because it endorsed slavery. Had they taken that issue on then, then we probably never would have got off the ground. Times does change the constitution, but should be done properly.
Have faitth in it, and scream bloody murder when anyone, even if it is your guy/gal, usurps it in any way, and even if you like their idea in doing so. Every transgression makes the next one easier.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2006 : 11:03:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
This one, probably not. The radical Islamists.. definitly.
Idiots? That's close-minded bias. If it is Christian, it must be bad?
If you're a proponent of freedom, you're inevitably going to bump heads with religous people. And if those people are taking over institutions - like the government - that have the ability and function of limiting freedom, then we have a formula for disaster.
And it doesn't matter if they're really nice Christians - if you're not part of their group, then you are second class to them. Or worse. No matter what religion it is, it's DANGEROUS for everyone if it's in the role of making laws. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2006 : 11:39:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
...
I think you are to focused on the Christians, and not worried enough about the others that are quieter, or even more obvious, that can, will, and actually do just as much harm.
You may see a "definition of marriage" amendment passed. But I really doubt one on national religion. One of these days they may get the flag protection amendment passed. Icould go either way on this one, as I know the flag means a great deal to a lot of people, but I just assume they protect the ideal, not the symbol... (silly me).
The Constitution is beautiful. People call it ugly, because it endorsed slavery. Had they taken that issue on then, then we probably never would have got off the ground. Times does change the constitution, but should be done properly.
Have faitth in it, and scream bloody murder when anyone, even if it is your guy/gal, usurps it in any way, and even if you like their idea in doing so. Every transgression makes the next one easier.
Peace
Joe
Who is it that has funding, organization and is growing its influence on our government today besides the Christian fundies?
I believe I do rant against the Bush regime's attack on the Constitution quite regularly. Having the two team up is especially worrisome.
Both the marriage and flag amendments are purposeful distractions from the real issues those initiating the two amendments don't want the focus to be on.
Except the anti-US protests in other countries where small groups of shouting men stomp on, then burn the US flag, just how widespread is flag burning? Except for the established way a flag is to be destroyed, there aren't exactly hordes of flag burners that we need legal tools to stop now are there? Care to guess how much money we'd be wasting on such an amendment and compare that to the number of flag burners we would stop? Not to mention the wasted prosecutions when Sally burns her ex-boyfriend's clothes in anger and he charges her with burning the flag patch on the jean's backside.
And the marriage amendment will just be repealed in the future when the social climate drifts a little more toward reason and the evidence homosexuality is physical and not behavioral in origin becomes more conclusive. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/27/2006 11:41:30 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 05:18:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You have fallen for the religious talking point trying to re-write the separation clause. That has been their claim but it doesn't hold muster in the way the Constitution has been interpreted since its inception.
Try a broader bibliography:
The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."
Myths, Misconceptions and Misunderstandings
Separation of Church and State
Modern Documents: Separation of Church and State
There is nothing to re-write. "Freedom of exercise" is part of it, and just as Congress cannot pass laws respecting the establishment, they cannot restrict. Again... It is really quiet ludicrous that people seize on what 1 person wrote on the first amendment, but ignore what so many wrote on the second. Of the two,the second is the most important. Without the second, how do you protect the rest?
quote:
On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
If you are trying to meld a nation full of diests and non-diests of every type, you can't restrict one group. The government can't make a national religion (as in The Church of England), nor can they pass any law that restricts the free exercise a religion. The term wall of seperation is apropriate. It is completely out of their domain to pass any law whatsoever to establish a national religion, or restrict peoples exercise of.
Peace
Joe |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 05:54:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
This one, probably not. The radical Islamists.. definitly.
Idiots? That's close-minded bias. If it is Christian, it must be bad?
If you're a proponent of freedom, you're inevitably going to bump heads with religous people. And if those people are taking over institutions - like the government - that have the ability and function of limiting freedom, then we have a formula for disaster.
And it doesn't matter if they're really nice Christians - if you're not part of their group, then you are second class to them. Or worse. No matter what religion it is, it's DANGEROUS for everyone if it's in the role of making laws.
And they are saying that the folks running the institution are godless, and they are limiting freedoms by causing problems which require laws to be passed to limit freedoms...... This is a formula for disaster as well.
The part about being second class is a pretty big generalization. I am second class to a lot of folks:
Rich because I am not.
Poor because I am not.
Blacks because I am white.
People I grew up with because I am too liberal.
People I grew up with because I am too conservative.
Republicans because I am not one.
Democrats because I am not one.
Christians because I am not one.
Atheists because I am not one.
Someone has to make laws, and they are elected by the people. It dosen't matter whether it be a bible-thumping christian, a Hezbollah sympathizer, or an atheist. As long as the laws pass constitutional muster, they are laws.
I once again advise to scream bloddy murder for impeachment when any elected official tries to circumvent the constitution, whether you agree with the ideal or not, or if it is your candidate or not. Every transgression makes the next easier.
Peace
Joe |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2006 : 06:20:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
...
I think you are to focused on the Christians, and not worried enough about the others that are quieter, or even more obvious, that can, will, and actually do just as much harm.
You may see a "definition of marriage" amendment passed. But I really doubt one on national religion. One of these days they may get the flag protection amendment passed. Icould go either way on this one, as I know the flag means a great deal to a lot of people, but I just assume they protect the ideal, not the symbol... (silly me).
The Constitution is beautiful. People call it ugly, because it endorsed slavery. Had they taken that issue on then, then we probably never would have got off the ground. Times does change the constitution, but should be done properly.
Have faitth in it, and scream bloody murder when anyone, even if it is your guy/gal, usurps it in any way, and even if you like their idea in doing so. Every transgression makes the next one easier.
Peace
Joe
Who is it that has funding, organization and is growing its influence on our government today besides the Christian fundies?
I believe I do rant against the Bush regime's attack on the Constitution quite regularly. Having the two team up is especially worrisome.
Both the marriage and flag amendments are purposeful distractions from the real issues those initiating the two amendments don't want the focus to be on.
Except the anti-US protests in other countries where small groups of shouting men stomp on, then burn the US flag, just how widespread is flag burning? Except for the established way a flag is to be destroyed, there aren't exactly hordes of flag burners that we need legal tools to stop now are there? Care to guess how much money we'd be wasting on such an amendment and compare that to the number of flag burners we would stop? Not to mention the wasted prosecutions when Sally burns her ex-boyfriend's clothes in anger and he charges her with burning the flag patch on the jean's backside.
And the marriage amendment will just be repealed in the future when the social climate drifts a little more toward reason and the evidence homosexuality is physical and not behavioral in origin becomes more conclusive.
I agree about them being distractions, though I would not call them purposeful. The flag burning amendment has been around for awhile, and they always want to waste time on it (again the symbol, not the ideal). It was added more as an insight / rip on the government for wasting the time on it when there are more important things to worry about (like the ideals behind the flag).
The marriage amendment is more too the point of the post. This falls under the same thing... more important things to worry about then the definition of marriage. If it passes, then it passes. If it is repealed, it is repealed. As long as it is done properly, I have no problem with it other then the wasted time.......
The flags on the backside....... I personally despise them, as well as the flag patterned lawn chairs...... But I despise the 4th of July parties that seem to concentrate on getting drunk and the unsafe use of fireworks........
I was not ranting at you personally about screaming over transgressions. I was pointing it anyone that would not want to see their candidate impeached for trying to usurp it. I voted for Bush, and I want to see him impeached........
All funding comes from somewhere, and all funding ends up being paid for in ways that will upset a great number of people... This is a mess, and has been for sometime. Bush has the oil and religious right, Clinton had the Chineese, Bush Sr..... more oil, I don't know about the rest.......... Funding wll take advantage of whatever avenues present themselves.........
Peace
Joe |
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 02:44:22 [Permalink]
|
Those two amendments are purposefully used as distractions from real issues and to bring "the base" out to the polls. The fact people actually care about the issues, the origin and the length of time the amendments have been bantered around doesn't negate the frequent political motives behind bringing them up again and again.
We don't really disagree here except maybe what we each meant by purposefully used.
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2006 : 07:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Those two amendments are purposefully used as distractions from real issues and to bring "the base" out to the polls. The fact people actually care about the issues, the origin and the length of time the amendments have been bantered around doesn't negate the frequent political motives behind bringing them up again and again.
We don't really disagree here except maybe what we each meant by purposefully used.
I can see the flag burnng amendment coming up again and again. It is really a great peice of feel-good legislation that everyone can get their talking points out on. I don't think it will ever pass, because that would take away the talking points for both sides....... Its failing each time is by design (my theory).
The defence of marriage act, well, that is a bit of religious propoganda / political payoff. That could gain some steam and actually pass.......
As far as the base, well they are awake and radicalized. The percieved sins of the previous administration woke them. The contempt for the Red states by the Blue states really irks them.
They would rather be asleep. They prefer simpler lives.
Peace
Joe
|
The Circus of Carnage... because you should be able to deal with politicians like you do pissant noobs. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
