Impeach George W. Bush! - Page 3

Whit · 01-24-2003, 08:05 PM

     Actually Russotto, I think Radar said that. Of course you may have assumed that most people had stopped reading his stuff due to his aproach.

     It is a good point though, the word God isn't in use. I must say that given the beliefs of those who wrote that, they were almost certainly referring to the christian god/creator. Regardless, these were the same men who also wanted to keep church and state seperate. So, Christian society or not, the church isn't meant to overly effect the state. Personnaly I don't think the state should dictate personal beliefs, or morals. I don't think that's it's job. That's the job of religion.

Radar · 01-24-2003, 09:23 PM

Russotto is correct, America is a secular nation. Neither our government, nor our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles or religion and we have no "national morality". It's not the place of government to legislate morality.

Quote:

I must say that given the beliefs of those who wrote that, they were almost certainly referring to the christian god/creator.

It's interesting you would think that because the vast majority of our founding fathers weren't Christians. They were diests and unitarians which don't believe in the judeo-christian concept of god.

And since Griff likes quoting Washington so much, here's a quote from the Washington.

Quote:

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
- George Washington (Treaty of Tripoli)

elSicomoro · 01-24-2003, 10:03 PM

The AP died Griff...Tob killed it off, that stupid bastard. I'd invite you to join the Sycamore Party, but I think there would be ideological conflicts.

I find motivation to be incredibly important. Whit touched on it earlier, but motivation here can be the difference between something worthy of debate, or something (and someone) laughable.

Griff · 01-25-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore
The AP died Griff...Tob killed it off, that stupid bastard. I'd invite you to join the Sycamore Party, but I think there would be ideological conflicts.

Maybe, maybe not, Radars just about convinced me to quit the LP and be more pragmatic.

elSicomoro · 01-25-2003, 10:46 AM

Send me your address and I'll mail you the Sycamore Party Indoctrination...er...Introduction Kit.

Remember Griff, there are extremes in every party...even in the "lesser" parties.

Undertoad · 01-25-2003, 10:52 AM

But Griff, Radar's the Minister of Outreach. Hasn't he developed a broadly appealing, positive message that speaks to what's in it for you?

Griff · 01-25-2003, 11:02 AM

He's too inclusive for me. He needs to sharpen the message.

tw · 01-25-2003, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
Re Washington, that's what I'd expect someone to say before two centuries of scientific findings made it despicable.

I have no problem with what Washington was quoted. After all, religion is not just about Christian, Judism, Muslim, or even Buddism. Religion has branched out into mathematics, psychology, astronony, quantum physics, economics, etc. They are all studies of god's laws. But neo-classical religions foolishly preach only they have all the answers. We have not stopped learning new god's laws everyday which is why mankind has "advanced in the image of god".

To say that morality was only found in those myopic parts of neo-classical religion is indeed foolish. Examples of such pathetic mentalities include Jimmy Swiegart, Pat Robertson, and Ayatolla Khomeni.

When conventional religion failed to provide all the answers, then even Socrates and his disciples began seeking and finding a more logical and comprehensive religion.

Neo-classic religion is something only between you and your god. That which hypes illogical conclusions based upon speculative and convenient myths had no business being used to enforce other's lives. But real world religion, also known as science or other equivalent terms, is really where honest morality comes from.

Does a moral person speed 100 MPH through a crowded parking lot? Of course not. Basic physics combined with other real world principles such as statistics says that is immoral. However neo-classical religions fear any idea that they don't have know all god's laws. Neo-classicals foolishly insist that only they are the 'true' religion.

In god we trust - and his disciples Newton, Franklin, Einstein, Hilbert, Plato, DiVinci, Currie, etc who provide us more of god's laws.

Torrere · 01-25-2003, 05:52 PM

Actually, the Constitutional viewpoint on religion is fairly vague.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

There were state churches in several of the 13 colonies before the Constitution. The establishment clause existed partially to protect the religious establishments that existed before the Constitution.

Since we have a very religious populace, how could we not have at least a slightly religious government?

elSicomoro · 01-25-2003, 06:05 PM

Outstanding last point, Torrere. Though I wouldn't call this country very religious...more like fairly religious.

I'm not saying I like religion in my government (you've got your religion in my government...you've got your government in my religion), but to think that the two will not dance together at some point these days seems naive.

Look at the uproar over "one nation under God." That San Francisco appeals court ruling was a sound legal decision, IMO. But then everyone and your mom got worked up into a frenzy, including the government.

I don't see a change in this until people move more markedly away from Christianity in this country...or the Libertarians get into serious positions of authority. These should both occur around the 12th of Never, but you never know.

tw · 01-25-2003, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore
Outstanding last point, Torrere. Though I wouldn't call this country very religious...more like fairly religious.

No other western nation is more religious than the US. Sycamore may not call this country very religious, but then basic knowledge was not one of his stronger characteristics. Numbers say otherwise. US has more church goers in both numbers and in percentages (60%) than any other western nation. The strongest growth of religion is in the developing world and in America - mostly due to evangelicalism. As usual, when it comes to basic facts, Sycamore again demonstrates his knowledge.

elSicomoro · 01-26-2003, 12:38 AM

When I think of "very religious," I think of near-fanaticism. You do see that on some levels here, but it's not the norm from what I've seen. Hence why I would say the United States is a "relatively religious" nation.

Come on tw, let out that hurt, that anger, that frustration...I'm here for you, buddy.

Torrere · 01-26-2003, 01:49 AM

Though we do have a share of religious fanatics, I was referring to the percentage of the population that was religious. I think it is mostly because of the Great Awakening religious revivals from a couple hundred years ago.

For the past sixty years the number percentage of American Protestants has been in decline, from 75% of the population to a bit less than 60%.

I forgot to mention in my previous post that the state of Virginia was planning to impose a tax on it's citizens to fund the state church. Jefferson and some of his friends stopped this and had them pass the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom instead.

Undertoad · 01-26-2003, 12:47 PM

In England I was forced to sing hymns and recite religious things that I did not believe in, in public school. And there was, for centuries past, an official state religion. But they had fewer churches, and possibly fewer churchgoers, because the country wasn't as wealthy as the US.

Griff · 01-26-2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
In England I was forced to sing hymns and recite religious things that I did not believe in, in public school. And there was, for centuries past, an official state religion. But they had fewer churches, and possibly fewer churchgoers, because the country wasn't as wealthy as the US.

I think that the lack of a free market of ideas in the religous sector leads to a smaller number of church goers. In America there is a church for anyone who is interested in such things. We've got Unitarians, Quakers, Methodists, Presbeterians, Baptists, Catholics East and West, Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, Bahai, Hindu, Buddist, almost anything goes. Its like the schools in America, I'm already paying for my local school so why would I bother finding something better.

Jefferson saw the incompetence of the state supported church in Williamsburg. The worst debris of the Church of England got that backwater posting. He could see how the local church was corrupted by the free ride.

01-24-2003, 08:05 PM	#31
Whit Umm ... yeah. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Arkansas, USA Posts: 949	Actually Russotto, I think Radar said that. Of course you may have assumed that most people had stopped reading his stuff due to his aproach.      It is a good point though, the word God isn't in use. I must say that given the beliefs of those who wrote that, they were almost certainly referring to the christian god/creator. Regardless, these were the same men who also wanted to keep church and state seperate. So, Christian society or not, the church isn't meant to overly effect the state. Personnaly I don't think the state should dictate personal beliefs, or morals. I don't think that's it's job. That's the job of religion. __________________ A friend will help you move. A true friend will help you move a body.

01-25-2003, 11:02 AM	#37
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	He's too inclusive for me. He needs to sharpen the message. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

01-25-2003, 06:05 PM	#40
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Outstanding last point, Torrere. Though I wouldn't call this country very religious...more like fairly religious. I'm not saying I like religion in my government (you've got your religion in my government...you've got your government in my religion), but to think that the two will not dance together at some point these days seems naive. Look at the uproar over "one nation under God." That San Francisco appeals court ruling was a sound legal decision, IMO. But then everyone and your mom got worked up into a frenzy, including the government. I don't see a change in this until people move more markedly away from Christianity in this country...or the Libertarians get into serious positions of authority. These should both occur around the 12th of Never, but you never know. Last edited by elSicomoro; 01-25-2003 at 06:09 PM.

01-24-2003, 10:03 PM	#33
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	The AP died Griff...Tob killed it off, that stupid bastard. I'd invite you to join the Sycamore Party, but I think there would be ideological conflicts. I find motivation to be incredibly important. Whit touched on it earlier, but motivation here can be the difference between something worthy of debate, or something (and someone) laughable.

01-25-2003, 10:46 AM	#35
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Send me your address and I'll mail you the Sycamore Party Indoctrination...er...Introduction Kit. Remember Griff, there are extremes in every party...even in the "lesser" parties.

01-25-2003, 10:52 AM	#36
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	But Griff, Radar's the Minister of Outreach. Hasn't he developed a broadly appealing, positive message that speaks to what's in it for you?

01-25-2003, 05:52 PM	#39
Torrere a real smartass Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,121	Actually, the Constitutional viewpoint on religion is fairly vague. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There were state churches in several of the 13 colonies before the Constitution. The establishment clause existed partially to protect the religious establishments that existed before the Constitution. Since we have a very religious populace, how could we not have at least a slightly religious government?

01-26-2003, 12:38 AM	#42
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	When I think of "very religious," I think of near-fanaticism. You do see that on some levels here, but it's not the norm from what I've seen. Hence why I would say the United States is a "relatively religious" nation. Come on tw, let out that hurt, that anger, that frustration...I'm here for you, buddy.

01-26-2003, 01:49 AM	#43
Torrere a real smartass Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,121	Though we do have a share of religious fanatics, I was referring to the percentage of the population that was religious. I think it is mostly because of the Great Awakening religious revivals from a couple hundred years ago. For the past sixty years the number percentage of American Protestants has been in decline, from 75% of the population to a bit less than 60%. I forgot to mention in my previous post that the state of Virginia was planning to impose a tax on it's citizens to fund the state church. Jefferson and some of his friends stopped this and had them pass the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom instead.

01-26-2003, 12:47 PM	#44
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	In England I was forced to sing hymns and recite religious things that I did not believe in, in public school. And there was, for centuries past, an official state religion. But they had fewer churches, and possibly fewer churchgoers, because the country wasn't as wealthy as the US.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)