Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 138 of 138

Thread: America: Not religous enough

  1. #121
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Your notion that Christians are "forcing" their religion on people is exactly what I am referring to. People believe, that becuse Christianity is so prominent in this country...any mention of those beliefs in school, on money, in speeches, in the pledge etc is going to result in it becoming the state sponsered religion. I don't even know what your viewpoint on those things is...but from the way you are speaking, it would seem that you support them. I also never stated that people are trying to suppress Christians from practicing their religion. I stated that they try to suppress it being expressed or exposed to the general public through displays, speeches etc. They go nuts anytime Chrisitianity is talked about or plays a part in some aspect of school. I don't mean it being taught religiously in school, I mean afterschool activities, the word "God" in the pledge, the mentioning of genesis, etc.

    Having a large voice comes from the fact that they make up the majority of our country....that is how a democracy works. Apparently since that is offensive to some people..that the democratic system awards power to the majority...who happen to be Chrisitians...they must use the courts to try and suppress this expression of one's beliefs in either lawrs or in general.

    To answer your question..YES, you do need to bring up those examples. Please show me some cases in which Christians tried to force their beliefs on others. That means exactly what you said it means...not that a majority of people who are Christians supported a law or act that others did not, and they won. It means a case in which Christians actually tried to force someone to believe in Christianity. The courts upholding a law that is supported by Christians does not mean that Christians are forcing thier beliefs on anyone.

    Sadly, I could look up many cases in which Christianity and its display, mention, terminology, etc were directly the topic and the result was that they were supposed to be removed or altered. To be even more clear...seperation of church and state is not even mentioned in the Constitution other than there being no government sposored religion, which Christianity is not and isn't even close to being.

    I don't know where you have been living...but in the past I have classified myself as an atheist and I didn't get discriminated against. I haven't heard any stories of such, and it is never reported on. How someone responds to your telling them that you are an athiest is completely individual. There is not mass discrimination against atheists, nor have any Christians I have met ever done anything other than ask me to come to their church, or pray for me to convert. No one insulted me, or tried to force their beliefs on me. Since you are going off personal experience, I guess my own will serve as a counter to that. Please give me some valid examples of where atheists other than yourself were continually discriminated against. If there are any, I haven't heard of them.

    Christianity isn't under attack from every angle...but there are enough people who dislike it or want to reduce it's exposure that it gets to the courts, is on the news, and has books written that specifically mention it.

    THIS President is "devoutly" Christian..not all have been...not even most. He didn't want to amend the Constitution for his OWN personal beliefs...he wanted to because the majority of Americans wanted that change. It's funny...because what you mention makes sense. The nation is made up of a majority of Christians. So...if your school is 80% Christian..and they are all going to take off Christmas day, etc (not to mention teachers)...then it makes sense to just close the school for that holiday. Anyone, from any other religion can take off any day they want from school for w/e holiday they want. However..you don't just close the whole school for a Jewish holiday, when there are only 5 Jewish people in the school. Once again...most businesses are run by AMERICANS...and America is made up of CHRISTIANS for the most part...so you are upset because Christians are displaying images of their faith? Now a Christian has to display Muslim and Jewish symbols as well, even though he (and most of the country) aren't of that religion? No school provides "creation textbooks". A "disclaimer" that states that evolution is only a theory is actually correct. Given that evolution isn't even as well supported as claimed, it makes sense that it shouldnt be taught as FACT, when it is not. Those biology textbooks you like so much still have the peppered moth experiment as valid, and the speculative, completely unsupported drawings of horse evolution, as well as the Miller-Urey experiment. All WRONG. We don't need to make this an evolution talk though, just pointing that out. Basically you are demonstrating exactly what I am talking about. This politically correct, bias against Christianity. It's completely wrong. If YOU don't like the way this country is run, then why don't you move away? I LOVE my country...besides, you are in California, which is almost another country already.

    ~Kiva

  2. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,044
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Originally posted by Only-now

    @ Roog -- I understand what you mean...and I do not view other cultures as less than my own. I have respect for the unique customs, rituals, religions, techniques, etc...that other culture exhibit. However..when I refer to their people as "primitive"...I am referring to the technological, medical, philosophical, scientific etc. They are less advanced in these areas...which more cleary means..that our culture was once in their "position" but we PROGRESSED to where we are today. The word "primitive" can be defined as rerferring to an earlier stage of development. Their lifestyle IS an earlier stage in human development, simply because we have advanced past that lifestyle in many key areas. So...no, their cultural differences are not primitive to our own, just different (though one can argue that certain practices like human sacrafice, or certain governmental practices are less advanced than others). However, their are many areas in which our society is more advanced than theirs, and thus they are living at a "primitive" stage of human development.

    I don't believe that comparing cultures is a bad thing. There has to be a reference point. Of course, at the same time...studying cultures independently has benefits as well. However, we are not studying cultures here. I was responding to the attitude that was presented here (and that is present in many circles currently) that somehow their lifestyle is what we SHOULD be living like. It is impossible not to compare their culture to ours when that is the very topic I am responding to. That attitude, of the simple, hunter-gatherer lifestyle being better comes from many places. Distaste with capitalism and industry (and thus individual wealth etc) is one motivation for this attitude. So...I responded to that attitude with my belief that our current advancements in these key areas are beneficial and important...and that it would not be a good thing to return to a time in which we did not have these things...such as in the tribal groups. I do not like the attitude that a less advanced, tougher, more painful lifestyle is better because someone is dissatisfied with various aspects of our current lifestyle. Challenge those things directly, instead of championing the return to a time without the advancements and benefits we have today.

    ~Kiva
    That's all good...but, still, "primitive" is a poor word to use. It fails to satisfy the description of a culture because it tends to be vague. There are better ways to describe what you want to describe. But I feel that we have happened upon a stalemate.

    And California > Rest of America...

  3. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Originally posted by Only-now Your notion that Christians are "forcing" their religion on people is exactly what I am referring to. People believe, that becuse Christianity is so prominent in this country...any mention of those beliefs in school, on money, in speeches, in the pledge etc is going to result in it becoming the state sponsered religion. I don't even know what your viewpoint on those things is...but from the way you are speaking, it would seem that you support them.
    It's not a matter of people feeling that any mention of the religion is bad, it's the unfair treatment of the religion in comparison to other beliefs, as I already explained. There is a big difference between normal exposure and exposure specifically in favor of a single belief system. And honestly, I don't mind some excess exposure of Christianity, because I understand that there are many Christians in the US. It is actually a small minority of atheists that rally against things like God stamped on money, which is part of the reason that's not been changed yet. However, for someone to come in and say that Christians are being oppressed or under-represented when they already have an extreme advantage is just absurd. I'm not arguing for less representation of Christianity in all circumstances, I'm arguing against more, while you seem to be arguing for more, which is why I ask the question, just how much do you want?

    I also never stated that people are trying to suppress Christians from practicing their religion. I stated that they try to suppress it being expressed or exposed to the general public through displays, speeches etc. They go nuts anytime Chrisitianity is talked about or plays a part in some aspect of school. I don't mean it being taught religiously in school, I mean afterschool activities, the word "God" in the pledge, the mentioning of genesis, etc.
    Again, that's a small minority of people who freak out over the simple mention of the word God. What the majority of atheists are upset by is the encouragement of Christianity above any other belief system. You should hardly feel threatened because of a select few people complaining about the use of the word God in a school play. I don't see why that makes you say, "America is not religious enough."

    To answer your question..YES, you do need to bring up those examples. Please show me some cases in which Christians tried to force their beliefs on others. That means exactly what you said it means...not that a majority of people who are Christians supported a law or act that others did not, and they won. It means a case in which Christians actually tried to force someone to believe in Christianity. The courts upholding a law that is supported by Christians does not mean that Christians are forcing thier beliefs on anyone.
    Can do.

    In 2006 the US Supreme Court ruled that the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal church in New Mexico was exempt from the law against taking hallucinogenic drugs (which everyone else was still required to follow) on the grounds that they claimed the only way for them to understand God was to use these drugs.

    In 2004, a family sued a school for telling their 12 year old son not to wear a shirt to shcool which read "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!" They won the lawsuit. I don't know how anyone could consider that appropriate attire for an elementary school and it baffles me that the parents actually won the case on the basis that their "religious freedoms" were being violated.

    I don't think I should even need to cite the number of times the issue of evolution has been brought up in school board meetings and courts. Everyone should know about that by now.

    Sadly, I could look up many cases in which Christianity and its display, mention, terminology, etc were directly the topic and the result was that they were supposed to be removed or altered. To be even more clear...seperation of church and state is not even mentioned in the Constitution other than there being no government sposored religion, which Christianity is not and isn't even close to being.
    I'd like to hear some specific examples and why you feel they're problematic.
    And no, the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, but the sentiment is clearly implied. The definition of separation of church and state is "no government sponsored religion."

    I don't know where you have been living...but in the past I have classified myself as an atheist and I didn't get discriminated against. I haven't heard any stories of such, and it is never reported on. How someone responds to your telling them that you are an athiest is completely individual. There is not mass discrimination against atheists, nor have any Christians I have met ever done anything other than ask me to come to their church, or pray for me to convert. No one insulted me, or tried to force their beliefs on me. Since you are going off personal experience, I guess my own will serve as a counter to that. Please give me some valid examples of where atheists other than yourself were continually discriminated against. If there are any, I haven't heard of them.
    How long were you an atheist and how vocal were you about it? I'm not nearly as vocal about my atheism as many Christians are about their Christianity, but if I were I can only imagine how people would treat me if how people react to my atheism now is any indication. People who know me are understanding and respectful, but extremely religious strangers are not. I'm not saying this never goes both ways, I'm just saying it seems to be socially acceptable to belittle or bash atheists, but it's considered intolerant or rude to belittle or bash Christians. I'd just like some consistency is all. I don't want to have to walk on eggshells around the beliefs of others but I want those who debate with me to treat me with the same level of courtesy that they'd want me to show them.

    As for other examples of discrimination against atheists, here's a fun little exchange between our president and Robert I Sherman, an author of an atheist magazine:
    Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

    Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

    Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

    Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

    Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

    Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.
    Here are some more examples: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.c...ygallup_1.html Note which group had the least number of votes.

    The Boy Scouts of America do not allow atheist members.

    Here's some fun excerpts from various state constitutions:

    * The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

    * North Carolina's Constitution of 1971, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God....". This was challenged and overturned by Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).

    * South Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

    * Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
    Christianity isn't under attack from every angle...but there are enough people who dislike it or want to reduce it's exposure that it gets to the courts, is on the news, and has books written that specifically mention it.
    Again, I need specific examples to comment on. And books are written about it? God forbid! Citizens in a country with a policy of free speech dare to right books about how they don't like Christianity? How could they?! (Is that seriously one of your complaints?)

    THIS President is "devoutly" Christian..not all have been...not even most. He didn't want to amend the Constitution for his OWN personal beliefs...he wanted to because the majority of Americans wanted that change.
    I never said all other presidents ever were devoutly Christian. I was simply citing that as one of the examples of the extremely Christian-supportive state our country is in at the moment. And he wanted to amend the constitution based on religious law. That would have been a violation of the 1st amendment regardless of how many people supported it. They'd have to out-vote the 1st amendment first.

    It's funny...because what you mention makes sense. The nation is made up of a majority of Christians. So...if your school is 80% Christian..and they are all going to take off Christmas day, etc (not to mention teachers)...then it makes sense to just close the school for that holiday.

    Anyone, from any other religion can take off any day they want from school for w/e holiday they want. However..you don't just close the whole school for a Jewish holiday, when there are only 5 Jewish people in the school.
    Actually, the majority of the students at my high school were Jewish. Odd that we never got any Jewish holidays off though, just Christian ones.

    And schools have a restriction on the number of absences students can have. Additionally, there's a difference between getting a holiday, and actually taking the day off when school is still in session and thereby missing your classwork for the day. So it's not really a simple matter of them just taking the day off whenever they want.

    Once again...most businesses are run by AMERICANS...and America is made up of CHRISTIANS for the most part...so you are upset because Christians are displaying images of their faith?
    I'm not upset by that at all. I don't care how someone decorates their store, again, I'm not arguing for the removal of Christian ideas/symbols in ALL circumstances, I'm simply pointing out that it is ridiculous to claim Christians are generally treated with an unfair and oppressive bias in this country.

    No school provides "creation textbooks".
    Got any sources on that? Or do you just not know of any schools that do this so you assume it doesn't happen? A friend of mine was educated with a science text entitled: Exploring Creation with Biology.

    A "disclaimer" that states that evolution is only a theory is actually correct. Given that evolution isn't even as well supported as claimed, it makes sense that it shouldnt be taught as FACT, when it is not.
    That is not quite what it says:
    "The Oklahoma State Textbook Committee voted Nov. 5 to require all new biology textbooks to carry a disclaimer stating that evolution is a "controversial theory" that can refer to "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."
    http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/...oklahoma.shtml

    That is an incredibly flawed and misleading description of evolution.

    Additionally, here's more of this committe's mission statement:
    he State Textbook Committee shall have the authority to insert a one-page summary, opinion, or disclaimer into any textbook reviewed and authorized for use in the public schools of Oklahoma.... SECTION 3. When adopting science textbooks, the Committee shall ensure that the textbooks include acknowledgment that human life was created by one God of the Universe." Passed the House of Representatives the 5th day of April, 2000.
    And actually evolution is as well-supported as is claimed. I believe last time you and I had a debate on this, you got tired of the debate and left after I kept pointing out that you were making some incredibly flawed assumptions and massive misunderstandings about the theory. Just because you do not understand it well enough to accept the validity of it does not mean you know better than the scientific community as a whole.

    Those biology textbooks you like so much still have the peppered moth experiment as valid, and the speculative, completely unsupported drawings of horse evolution, as well as the Miller-Urey experiment. All WRONG.
    The peppered moth experiment was extremely valid. Why do you say it was not? Additionally, what specifically do you consider invalid about the Miller-Urey experiment? And the "unsupported drawings of horse evolution," can you provide some sources on what specifically you are referring to?

    Basically you are demonstrating exactly what I am talking about. This politically correct, bias against Christianity. It's completely wrong. If YOU don't like the way this country is run, then why don't you move away? I LOVE my country...besides, you are in California, which is almost another country already.
    Throwing the "why don't you leave" argument back at me isn't the least bit effective since it shows you completely missed my point in stating it the way I stated it.

  4. #124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Ah I see SpiritWolf has already replyed. Nice!
    Here's my two cents

    Originally posted by Only-now

    Basic points:
    1 - *the democratic system awards power to the majority*
    2 - *YES, you do need to bring up those examples.*
    3 - *Please give me some valid examples of where atheists other than yourself were continually discriminated against.
    4 - *Christianity isn't under attack from every angle...but there are enough people who dislike it or want to reduce it's exposure that it gets to the courts, is on the news, and has books written that specifically mention it.*
    5 -*So...if your school is 80% Christian...-...then it makes sense to just close the school for (Christmas). Anyone, from any other religion can take off any day they want from school for w/e holiday they want. However..you don't just close the whole school for a Jewish holiday, when there are only 5 Jewish people in the school.
    6 - *No school provides "creation textbooks".*
    - *Given that evolution isn't even as well supported as claimed, it makes sense that it shouldnt be taught as FACT, when it is not.*
    - Those biology textbooks you like so much still have the peppered moth experiment as valid, and the speculative, completely unsupported drawings of horse evolution, as well as the Miller-Urey experiment. All WRONG.
    7 - If YOU don't like the way this country is run, then why don't you move away? I LOVE my country...besides, you are in California, which is almost another country already.
    Ok, points time!

    Number 1 - The majority has not always been the "correctly minded" percentage of the population. For example, slave traders and people who owned slaves (vast majority) wanted to continue that way and not let it change. It got forced through congress.

    Number 2 - Apply that to yourself and we'd... for the use of a better word... progress in the debate. Not talking *my own experience* here.

    Number 3 - See Number 2
    Number 4 - Freedom of speech work both ways my dear, you don't like that system? Move away!
    Number 5 - Yes, you should close the school for Jewish/Hindu/Buddist/Muslim holidays. You do it for Christians, why not all other religions? I don't think you'd see anyone complaining except the conservatives/people-who-don't-like-other-religions-than-their-own. Its unfair discrimmination otherwise and a fair courtcase. If a Muslim takes a day off a working school day for religious purposes, it will be marked against him as an absense, and he loses a day of education. Again, unfair discrimmination.

    Number 6 - Creation Textbook, Creationist Book (under biology) and oooo.... its Creationist!
    - It is unfortunate but science is still *under development*. My teachers always said that nothing in life is 100% FACT, but all theories have basis in solid facts. We aren't likely to know the facts of everything but theories are helpful for educational and social purposes.
    - Ok, the peppered moth experiment has been used as an example of how an experiment's hypothesis is not always correct. My teachers/lecturers were educated enough to tell me this. Which biology teachers did you have?
    - Palentologists and scientists have actually managed to piece together a more complete picture of the horse's evolutionary lineage and any other creature. This is because they were common as muck, thus more likely to get fossils from. (Yeah not much of an argument... I'm actually interested in where you base your claim on, please link it!)
    - How is the Miller-Urey experiment wrong? For its time, the experiment is extremely advanced. True, we don't know exactly what was going on on earth at the beginning of its life but theories and experiments going into it help us understand possible ways in which life was created. Do you even know the possible ways in which life was created? I was actually taught that in the very first lecture I attended. Sure you went to the right school?
    - Please produce evidence other than your own experinece that shows these as wrong, rather than just claiming them so.

    Number 7 - Firstly, thats one of the main problems with America. The general attitude of *You don't like it? Move elsewhere then!* is very backwards and possibly even lazy. Its the same attitude for gays and just about any other minority group. Well I for one hope they do move, we'll get ourselves the intelligent people while evolution works backwards for you guys.
    - Secondly, what kind of child would remark is it to say that *You live in another state, thus your state is obviously not as good as mine.*

    Last of all - not flaming please Kiva, this is meant to be a serious but adult debate.
    Carry On!!

  5. #125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Miller-Urey produced a vast amount of tarlike material that would have been toxic to the amino acids produced.

    And yes, evolution is a theory proposing that complex life has come to be from "random, undirected forces." The description put on textbooks is correct, not misleading in the slightest.

    (you two seem hell-bent to ensure this debate is anything but mature)

  6. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Originally posted by Darkslash
    [B]Miller-Urey produced a vast amount of tarlike material that would have been toxic to the amino acids produced.
    And what source do you have that states this? I can't find anything other than some forum debates and a few Creationist pages (which requote the same thing over and over again without providing citations) that states it's scientifically known that the chemicals produced as a result of that experiment would have been toxic to whatever live evolved in those conditions. In any case, the intent of the experiment was simply to show that the organic compounds necessary for creating life could result from natural processes. The experiment was never intended to actually create life.

    Furthermore, how does this show any problems with evolutionary theory? Evolution and Abiogenesis, while capable of being discussed together because they are related topics, are not co-dependent on each other. If you provided absolute concrete proof against abiogenesis that would still not affect the scientific validity of evolution. Evolution is the theory which discusses the development of life, not the creation of it.

    And yes, evolution is a theory proposing that complex life has come to be from "random, undirected forces." The description put on textbooks is correct, not misleading in the slightest.
    No, that's not correct at all. Evolution is not random and undirected. It is specifically directed by natural selection.

    (you two seem hell-bent to ensure this debate is anything but mature)
    If this is directed at me, I don't see where I was being immature. Feel free to point it out.

  7. #127
    Aka STM (Administrator ) Sadiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,081
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Originally posted by Dyani
    Number 5 - Yes, you should close the school for Jewish/Hindu/Buddist/Muslim holidays. You do it for Christians, why not all other religions? I don't think you'd see anyone complaining except the conservatives/people-who-don't-like-other-religions-than-their-own. Its unfair discrimmination otherwise and a fair courtcase. If a Muslim takes a day off a working school day for religious purposes, it will be marked against him as an absense, and he loses a day of education. Again, unfair discrimmination.
    well I think there is a reason for why schools aren't closed for every religion holiday, I mean if that would be the case I don't think there would be summer breaks sinse there would be so many day offs every now and then. I think the way christan holidays are set on year are on perfect places to give enough time for students to get mind of from studies. And what comes to christmas being off, I think it sets to middle of winter break ( not that it wouldn't be off otherwise )

    Originally posted by Only-now
    1 - *the democratic system awards power to the majority*
    Unfortunetly it's like that even with religions, I have said it many times on this thread already and I keep repeating it over and over again, religion should never be part of politic, religion and what you beleave is your indovidual thing, which no one should attack against or neither which you should be able to use to deffend your statements. If you want to beleave the God excist then you do, no one should deny it doesn't excist, yet the person who beleaves in god can't either tell person who support evolution theory that god created the world and all the living things and that the theory the person beleaves in is rubbish. People should just leave their beleave as their personal thing and concentrate on the important things.
    7 - If YOU don't like the way this country is run, then why don't you move away? I LOVE my country...besides, you are in California, which is almost another country already.
    nearly every country is run based on relitiong somehow, like I said Sweden is only country I'm aware of where religion and goverment are totally seperated. Also, even I don't like a lot of things how United States goverment handle things especially about things that are outside of US that doesn't most of time even belong under their consideration, I still do want to move living in US, no matter if the president or goverment is as it is... and even system is corrupted ( yes acording to corruption survey 2006 US was 20th least corrupted country in the world and even then quite corrupted as the corruption level being 7.3 / 10)

    Originally posted by Darkslash
    (you two seem hell-bent to ensure this debate is anything but mature)
    as much as I have read this topic which is not all of the last 20 posts or so I do say that I haven't seen anyone really being immature on this topic, just rather stubborn about their point of view.
    It's obibious you guys disagree about evolution and the way Bible explanes things well no one can say one is right either can say one is wrong.

    And I do have to say that Bible have way less prove about being true than evolution theory does, all the whole religion bases on is written text and stories that have carried for over 2000 years. ( and no I don't say those things can't be true, just saying it's not possible to prove that god excists or any of the things bible says )

    Lea members I have met: Fuzzy, Naline, Boos, Ruska, Tima, Talfasi, JambaB, Sharifu, Vidan, Muruwa, Taneli, Shadow, nathalie, Lucy , Amaryllis, This Land, Daniel, Lion King Stu, King Simba, Nephilim, KanuTGL, Lion_King_300, 2DieFR, Kenai, A-non-a-mus, Eva Janus, dlb138, Levin, HasiraKali, Revo, Simba The Enigma, Azerane and Xacheraus.

  8. #128
    Senior Member Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    sweden
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    holy mother of all thats glory this thread still moving on?..well i might aswel read a little and catch up "last pages" but il try not to get so upset the last time...good discussion training but i wont get "angry" like last time...

  9. #129
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    It's not a matter of people feeling that any mention of the religion is bad, it's the unfair treatment of the religion in comparison to other beliefs, as I already explained. There is a big difference between normal exposure and exposure specifically in favor of a single belief system. And honestly, I don't mind some excess exposure of Christianity, because I understand that there are many Christians in the US. It is actually a small minority of atheists that rally against things like God stamped on money, which is part of the reason that's not been changed yet. However, for someone to come in and say that Christians are being oppressed or under-represented when they already have an extreme advantage is just absurd. I'm not arguing for less representation of Christianity in all circumstances, I'm arguing against more, while you seem to be arguing for more, which is why I ask the question, just how much do you want?
    No, it IS a matter of that. That is what I am talking about...and your differentiation between that, and "unfairness" is wrong. Your argument is PART of the movement I am describing. I believe you are misunderstanding my argument here. We are discussing Christianity...as the religion in question. I am saying, that I believe that attacking Christianity on the basis that it is unfairly represented in public etc is wrong. I am not stating that there is a major movement of people dedicated to irradicating all religious expression. I am stating, that there is a group of people in this country that are intent on lessening the public representation of Christianity based on political correctness, political motives, or an all out dislike of religion (Christianity is the largest target). So, your argument that you believe it is represented unfairly is precisely what I am talking about.

    Again, that's a small minority of people who freak out over the simple mention of the word God. What the majority of atheists are upset by is the encouragement of Christianity above any other belief system. You should hardly feel threatened because of a select few people complaining about the use of the word God in a school play. I don't see why that makes you say, "America is not religious enough."
    Apparently you believe this is a discussion about atheists and Christians? I am talking about THOSE people...the people who DO react that way. I am not saying that all atheists hold this point of view. I didn't even mention atheism. The Democratic Party supports the views of the people I am against. The ACLU does as well. Those are not miniscule, minority groups...they are major groups with a lot of influence. If your view is right..that most atheists are upset about Christianity being displayed above others...then the majority of atheists support the measures I am arguing against.

    Before I reply about those court cases, I shall look them up and read more about them. Can you give me the title of the one about the 12 year old, so I can look it up as well?

    To reply about what I did read on that case of the drugs. The claim by that church was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They did not claim they needed it to "understand God". It was used in a tea during a ritual that was essential to that churches beliefs. I am not stating that I agree with the ruling, but I am painting the picture that they did have a legal reason to challenge this. They are also not a major Christian sect...as they are part of a small group from Brazil, so this type of ruling is very rare. As for evolution being brought up....well, it still seems to hold out in every school, in every state, and in every college. I don't think YOU need to worry about a threat to that pseudoscientific theory anytime soon. Any mention of it usually does not assert that there need to be mention of God. Most of the time it is simply that they state it is not supported well, which IS the case.

    I'd like to hear some specific examples and why you feel they're problematic.
    And no, the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, but the sentiment is clearly implied. The definition of separation of church and state is "no government sponsored religion."
    Sure thing, I am about to leave for work..but I will look some up, and get some from the book I was just reading. I stated that I understood the definition...and being as it is...there IS no state sponsored religion. However, "seperation of church and state" is cited numerous times when religion comes into contact with school, as if any connection or mention will result in Christianity being the state sponsored religion.

    How long were you an atheist and how vocal were you about it? I'm not nearly as vocal about my atheism as many Christians are about their Christianity, but if I were I can only imagine how people would treat me if how people react to my atheism now is any indication. People who know me are understanding and respectful, but extremely religious strangers are not. I'm not saying this never goes both ways, I'm just saying it seems to be socially acceptable to belittle or bash atheists, but it's considered intolerant or rude to belittle or bash Christians. I'd just like some consistency is all. I don't want to have to walk on eggshells around the beliefs of others but I want those who debate with me to treat me with the same level of courtesy that they'd want me to show them.
    People bash Christians ALL the time, and it is applauded by the left, and even perpetuated by them. They perpertuate the idea that every stance that Christians take..no matter the facts is because they are a religious "zealot". You disagree with evolution?! You must believe in God and think the world is flat!

    I don't see where you get this idea that atheists are "bashed" all the time. They are criticized..sure...but that is allowed from anyone, on any subject. I notice you said "extremely religious people". Well, it sort of makes sense that those people would react more harshly to you. Now..I highly doubt that if someone who was devoutly Christian asked you "do you believe in God" and you said "no" they would start "bashing" you. That isn't what their religion teaches...and anytime I have answered that question that same way..their next response is "why not?". I don't believe that most moderate Christians would react that way either.

    Here is that same person you mentioned, stating how the AMerican Atheists filed that same lawsuit about the pledge we were discussing that you stated most athiests don't support:

    "Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"

    The answer isn't really important...obviously they didn't like it, but regardless they support the very things I am arguing against. The funny thing you also forgot to mention is that that was not our current Presdient. That was his father, George H.W Bush. Not to mention, just because he has the belief that belief in God is important to America...and thus does not support atheism, does not mean he is going to revoke the citizenship of these people. That was his personal belief...and unfortunately for you, there are others who share it. Right or wrong, it isn't important unless someone enacts a law proclaiming atheists are not citizens.

    I will continue later...I have like 6 minutes before I have to leave for work.

    ~Kiva

  10. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    how does this show any problems with evolutionary theory?
    Did I say it did? Jumped right into that conclusion, did we?

    Evolution is not random and undirected. It is specifically directed by natural selection.
    Accidents of gene replication leading to abnormalities within a species leading to the increased fitness of one mutation over another leading to natural selection of the most fit... is completely random. Who can tell when, where, and if a species will end up naturally selected? That's the beauty of the theory. (Do you even know where I stand on evolution?)

  11. #131
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    ^ I agree with your view on Evolution Darkslash Evolution <3
    And I think SpiritWolf was referring to Only-Now when she said that, but not sure.

  12. #132
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Originally posted by Only-now No, it IS a matter of that. That is what I am talking about...and your differentiation between that, and "unfairness" is wrong. Your argument is PART of the movement I am describing. I believe you are misunderstanding my argument here. We are discussing Christianity...as the religion in question. I am saying, that I believe that attacking Christianity on the basis that it is unfairly represented in public etc is wrong. I am not stating that there is a major movement of people dedicated to irradicating all religious expression. I am stating, that there is a group of people in this country that are intent on lessening the public representation of Christianity based on political correctness, political motives, or an all out dislike of religion (Christianity is the largest target). So, your argument that you believe it is represented unfairly is precisely what I am talking about.
    It IS represented unfairly in many circumstances. And the fact that you're not just complaining about this movement, but actually arguing this country is not religious -enough- already suggests to me that what you'd really like is for this to be a Christian nation with a government sanctioned religion.

    Apparently you believe this is a discussion about atheists and Christians? I am talking about THOSE people...the people who DO react that way. I am not saying that all atheists hold this point of view. I didn't even mention atheism. The Democratic Party supports the views of the people I am against. The ACLU does as well. Those are not miniscule, minority groups...they are major groups with a lot of influence. If your view is right..that most atheists are upset about Christianity being displayed above others...then the majority of atheists support the measures I am arguing against.
    If you're going to discuss "people who are frustrated with the over representation of religion" you are typically discussing atheists. Obviously people of other religious faiths are also probably annoyed at the over representation of one religion but it depends on whether we're discussing religion or Christianity. You keep jumping back and forth. Do you think America is not -religious- enough or not -Christian- enough? The latter would be even more absurd than the former. And the democratic party as a whole, as in every single democrat, is not out to suppress religion. Many democrats ARE Christian. Probably the majority of democrats are Christian or of some other religious faith. You keep generalizing and lumping groups together. I'm not a democrat, by the way, if that is at all relevant.

    Before I reply about those court cases, I shall look them up and read more about them. Can you give me the title of the one about the 12 year old, so I can look it up as well?
    I don't know the precise title of the court case but I can get you the boy's name later. The book I read the account in is at my apartment and I'm in class at the moment.

    To reply about what I did read on that case of the drugs. The claim by that church was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They did not claim they needed it to "understand God". It was used in a tea during a ritual that was essential to that churches beliefs. I am not stating that I agree with the ruling, but I am painting the picture that they did have a legal reason to challenge this. They are also not a major Christian sect...as they are part of a small group from Brazil, so this type of ruling is very rare.
    But see, the very fact that a church CAN get such a ruling and be exempt from a regular law is precisely why I feel this country is too focused on religion to the point where they often consider it untouchable. You said yourself that you disagree with the ruling, yet you're arguing for this kind of unequal "religious freedom?"

    As for evolution being brought up....well, it still seems to hold out in every school, in every state, and in every college. I don't think YOU need to worry about a threat to that pseudoscientific theory anytime soon. Any mention of it usually does not assert that there need to be mention of God. Most of the time it is simply that they state it is not supported well, which IS the case.
    Yes, it holds out and usually wins the court cases because of its scientific validity. Anyone who actually understands evolution to a thorough degree realizes this and realizes that Creationism and ID, regardless of how fervently people might "believe," are -not- science. Their conclusions were not developed based on the scientific method and their conclusions contradict with observable fact. They're trying to make the facts fit their theories as opposed to developing theories that fit the facts. That's not the way science works. They're the psuedoscience, not evolution and it's a little sad that you keep insisting on belittling and dismissing it when you can't even argue against it. This is precisely the reason evolution wins these cases. You can't just -make- something wrong because you want it to be wrong. You actually have to back up your opinion with valid scientific and logical reasoning which Creationists and ID proponents fail at doing.

    Evolution is incredibly well-supported and if you're so convinced it's not, then I'd like to see you back that up. Go ahead and start a new thread explaining what you feel are the flaws in evolution and then we'll see if you have any validity in making that claim. But don't make claims you can't back up.

    Have you read the rulings of these court cases? I've never seen a single one which includes the qualifier "not-well-supported." The rulings generally state something along the lines of: Creationism and ID have no footing in this debate. They don't belong in a science classroom because they're not science, whereas evolution is and is extremely well-supported.

    Sure thing, I am about to leave for work..but I will look some up, and get some from the book I was just reading. I stated that I understood the definition...and being as it is...there IS no state sponsored religion. However, "seperation of church and state" is cited numerous times when religion comes into contact with school, as if any connection or mention will result in Christianity being the state sponsored religion.
    Trying to include religious beliefs in non-religious classroom subjects is a violation of separation of church and state.

    People bash Christians ALL the time, and it is applauded by the left, and even perpetuated by them. They perpertuate the idea that every stance that Christians take..no matter the facts is because they are a religious "zealot". You disagree with evolution?! You must believe in God and think the world is flat!
    Again with the generalizations. I have rather liberal views and I don't "bash Christians all the time." Nor do I applaud Christian-bashing. And most of my liberal friends are extremely tolerant of religion, or religious themselves. Do you assume there's no such thing as a left-wing or liberal Christian?

    What I don't like is fundamentalists, or anyone who feels religion should play a bigger role in -everyone's- lives whether everyone wants that or not. I also get frustrated by people who are determined to ignore accepted science because they're buying into fundamentalist propaganda.

    I don't see where you get this idea that atheists are "bashed" all the time. They are criticized..sure...but that is allowed from anyone, on any subject. I notice you said "extremely religious people". Well, it sort of makes sense that those people would react more harshly to you. Now..I highly doubt that if someone who was devoutly Christian asked you "do you believe in God" and you said "no" they would start "bashing" you. That isn't what their religion teaches...and anytime I have answered that question that same way..their next response is "why not?". I don't believe that most moderate Christians would react that way either.
    I'm not saying that all Christians bash atheists or that any time any atheist mentions their beliefs, they're attacked for them. My point was that you're complaining about oppression of religion in a primarily Christian country. My point was that if you see Christian bashing in this country, can you imagine what it's like for atheists and other minority beliefs? My point was that it's absurd for you to whine about how Christians are the victims in this country when they make up the -majority-.

    You might as well be saying this country isn't "white" enough and there's too much "white oppression" in America.

    Yes there are other religious beliefs here. Yes there is bashing of Christianity that occurs. But compared to every other belief system in this country, Christians have it great. And now that other religions are starting to ask why they can't get the same kind of representation, or ask that Christianity be more on level with other beliefs, people are upset because no one likes to have power or comfort taken away from them once they have it.

    Here is that same person you mentioned, stating how the AMerican Atheists filed that same lawsuit about the pledge we were discussing that you stated most athiests don't support:

    "Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"

    The answer isn't really important...obviously they didn't like it, but regardless they support the very things I am arguing against. The funny thing you also forgot to mention is that that was not our current Presdient. That was his father, George H.W Bush. Not to mention, just because he has the belief that belief in God is important to America...and thus does not support atheism, does not mean he is going to revoke the citizenship of these people. That was his personal belief...and unfortunately for you, there are others who share it. Right or wrong, it isn't important unless someone enacts a law proclaiming atheists are not citizens.
    I didn't quote Sherman to say I agree with his views (although frankly it's a little silly that people are up in arms so much over God being removed from the pledge of allegiance seeing as it wasn't even in it originally anyway and if people really want to still say it with the word God, no one's stopping them) I posted that quote as an example of intolerance towards atheists because you asked for examples. My apologies on not realizing which Bush it was...they have the same name so I'm not exactly sure why it's a massively important mistake. My point stands regardless which president said it (especially since Bush father and son tend to share similar views from what I've heard them say on various issues). The point is, if anyone dared say that about a Christian, people would be up in arms. But an atheist? Most people don't care. You yourself didn't seem shocked by it or even seem to consider it a problem, or at least you certainly didn't comment on it. You actually seemed to be agreeing with him. Do you believe atheists don't deserve to be considered citizens? Do you believe that's the sort of thing a president of our country should be saying about a group of people based solely on their religious (or lack thereof) beliefs?

  13. #133
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Missed the new posts while I was typing the previous one.

    Originally posted by Darkslash
    Did I say it did? Jumped right into that conclusion, did we?
    Only-Now did. It was more directed at him but I wasn't sure if you agreed with him since you didn't correct him, just tried to further explain his point.

    Accidents of gene replication leading to abnormalities within a species leading to the increased fitness of one mutation over another leading to natural selection of the most fit... is completely random. Who can tell when, where, and if a species will end up naturally selected? That's the beauty of the theory. (Do you even know where I stand on evolution?)
    Regardless of where you stand, what you said was inaccurate. Believing in evolution doesn't automatically make you an expert on it or garuntee that you understand it properly. What you're saying here is more accurate (although not entirely, I'll get to that in a moment*) but that book's disclaimer was most definitely inaccurate to imply that evolution is entirely undirected. It suggests evolution is all one big coincidence, which is incredibly misleading, since coincidence has nothing to do with it.

    *Evolution works through both mutation (gene copy mistakes, I assume those were the "accidents" you were referring to) and simple genetic drift (offspring in species that reproduce sexually do not have the exact same DNA as their parents). Also, mutations or genetic drift do not always necessarily result in increased fitness. Most mutations don't have any significant effect on the animal's ability to survive at all. Of the ones that do, most have negative effects. Additionally, what's "most-fit" in one environment may not necessarily be "most-fit" in another. Sudden environmental changes can affect evolution just as much as genetic changes can.

    Also, still waiting for an answer to this:
    "If this is directed at me, I don't see where I was being immature. Feel free to point it out."

  14. #134
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    ^Same with me, point out the immaturity in my stuff if its there.

    Also, can you (Only-Now or Darkslash) answer my questions? I'd like to see your evidence

  15. #135
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Sorry for double posting but I remebered a good rant by a reliable esteemed personage.

    Sir Two talk about "Intelligent Design"

    !!!THIS GUY SWEARS BUT HE HAS A POINT!!! Be a big person and ignore his swearings and it will make you a better person later in life.

  16. #136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Home now, looked up that lawsuit for you Only-Now: http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.as...=487&DID=36777
    I also actually found the shirt: http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/...ntolerantb.jpg

    And here's some irony: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article...2&in_page_id=2

  17. #137
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I already sent you that PM..so before I reply here, I am going to wait until we discuss this on MSN and get things straight. You have my point of view completely twisted...and I would prefer, as I said, to discuss this on MSN before I continue anything here.

    Thank you for the link to the lawsuit, I read it, and I will do a bit more research on that as well.

    ~Kiva

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 21st, 2011, 12:47 AM
  2. Same Sex Unions In America
    By Dyani in forum The Shadowy Place
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: January 24th, 2007, 10:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •