Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(05-22-2016, 05:34 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have no problem with organized prayer in religious schools,
I should hope not because religious schools are private entities.
Quote: and noe with voluntary and unprompted prayer by students. If some kid wants to say mealtime grace or pray before the spelling test, then that is fine with me.
No worries here, completely protected by the First Amendment. Freedom of religion (which includes the right to lack one) is absolute for students no matter on which side of the school house door they are on.
Quote:The problem comes when some official or even a classroom teacher organizes prayer.
Good thing that is the part which is prohibited. Again I know lots of people have problems with this because they don't think--it is organized and lead prayer by staff which is prohibited.
Quote: There's just too much mischief possible. A prayer might be perfectly innocuous to a Jewish kid until someone says "In Jesus' Name we pray", after which the entire prayer becomes an affront.
I'm pretty sure it would be equally offensive "in the Name of Allah", or "Thor we beseech thee", or invoking any other deity which is not part of one's religion.
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
05-23-2016, 06:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2016, 06:28 AM by Mikebert.)
Kinser79 Wrote:Because I've changed my mind I can say that it would be a good thing.....Trump may be bad for the country...but Hillary is infinitely worse: We know her, she's been in DC since 1992 at least...I'll take my chances with him.
When you were a Marxist the statements you made about Marxism comported with what I knew about Marxism leading me to believe you knew your shit. You supported Trump then, which was completely consistent with historical Marxists who tended to oppose liberals/progressives who sought to ameliorate the lives of workers while preserving the capitalist economic structure since this would delay the revolution. I did not agree with your pov, but I could acknowledged that you generally stuck to facts and mostly argued from logic, meaning your input was worth reading.
You have made no secret of your visceral hatred for Clinton and if you just said you were for Trump because you hate her, that would make sense. Again I would not agree with your position, but I could respect that this was the way you felt.
Instead you are making a full-throated endorsement of Trump. In doing so you now do not stick to facts and instead spout known falsehoods like Trump was against the Libya War:
Donald Trump Wrote:“Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts.
And statements like Trump opposed the Iraq war are also not really truthful:
Donald Trump on the Howard Stern show said: Are you for invading Iraq?” Howard Stern asked him, and Trump answered, “Yeah, I guess so.
Now you could preface both of these statements with Donald Trump says, and then the question of whether the speaker is lying or not rests on Mr. Trump, but when you repeat his statements without that qualifier then it is you who lying. This displays a kind of poor judgment I have not seen previously in your postings, leading me to conclude that your support is emotional and comes entirely from your animus towards Mrs. Clinton.
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
05-23-2016, 07:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2016, 07:19 AM by Kinser79.)
(05-23-2016, 06:25 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Kinser79 Wrote:Because I've changed my mind I can say that it would be a good thing.....Trump may be bad for the country...but Hillary is infinitely worse: We know her, she's been in DC since 1992 at least...I'll take my chances with him.
When you were a Marxist the statements you made about Marxism comported with what I knew about Marxism leading me to believe you knew your shit. You supported Trump then, which was completely consistent with historical Marxists who tended to oppose liberals/progressives who sought to ameliorate the lives of workers while preserving the capitalist economic structure since this would delay the revolution. I did not agree with your pov, but I could acknowledged that you generally stuck to facts and mostly argued from logic, meaning your input was worth reading.
You have made no secret of your visceral hatred for Clinton and if you just said you were for Trump because you hate her, that would make sense. Again I would not agree with your position, but I could respect that this was the way you felt.
Mike let me make this as concise as possible since I think going into detail will probably melt your brain. I mean you're using Buzzfeed as a source--that is only slightly better than using Vice or Salon, in short you're quoting a regressive left rag.
As a Marxist I viewed Trump as potentially not improving through welfare state-ism--not that welfare state-ism can improve the lot of working people. As such supporting Trump on those grounds is consistent with Marxist-Leninist tactics.
As someone whose been personally involved in politics since 1992, and a Marxist for most of that time yes, I do hate HRC. I've been very consistent on hating her. I hate everything about her. I would vote for Hitler if she ran against him. This too is consistent.
Finally, as someone who is opposed to the Neo-Con agenda, and having been opposed to that agenda both as a Marxist and now. As such since the Neo-Cons are supporting HRC but do not support Trump it should be clearly consistent that the person the Neo-Cons don't like are not likely to implement their agenda.
Quote:Instead you are making a full-throated endorsement of Trump. In doing so you now do not stick to facts and instead spout known falsehoods like Trump was against the Libya War:
Donald Trump Wrote:“Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts.
And statements like Trump opposed the Iraq war are also not really truthful:
Donald Trump on the Howard Stern show said: Are you for invading Iraq?” Howard Stern asked him, and Trump answered, “Yeah, I guess so.
Now you could preface both of these statements with Donald Trump says, and then the question of whether the speaker is lying or not rests on Mr. Trump, but when you repeat his statements without that qualifier then it is you who lying. This displays a kind of poor judgment I have not seen previously in your postings, leading me to conclude that your support is emotional and comes entirely from your animus towards Mrs. Clinton.
I'm sorry but I don't consider what anyone says on Howard Stern to be credible or worth contemplating over much. Seriously the show while funny is mainly vulgarity. It would be like making up a political decision on the basis of a SNL skit. Not the action of intelligent persons.
Now let us just suppose for a second that Trump did support action in Libya before but opposes it now cause "it didn't work and now we got terrorists all over the place". Which is basically what he said in the video provided by Buzzfeed, I'm only trusting them as far as I trust CNN because I watched that Debate and still have it on my DVR. In that clip Trump is very clear. He did not discuss taking up actions in Libya, but now that Libya has happened we have terrorists all over the place and we were better off with Qaddafi in place because while he was running Libya he was killing terrorists.
You can try to twist that into a logic pretzel all you want. But if the man says he is against taking action in Libya now even if he was for it before shows that he managed to see the cause and effect of involvement in the Middle East by US/NATO results in more Terrorists. This clearly demonstrates that the man can see that if X is a mistake then one shouldn't do X again.
HRC meanwhile wants to double down on that X, maybe even have exponentials of X in the theory that if we keep doing those things that don't work eventually they will work. I don't know about you but I consider it insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 12:22 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-22-2016, 06:10 PM)radind Wrote: (05-22-2016, 05:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-22-2016, 05:03 PM)radind Wrote: This is the original article( 2012) by Dr. James Emery White.
[/url]
Quote:[url=http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/dr-james-emery-white/are-christians-in-america-under-attack.html]http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/dr-james-emery-white/are-christians-in-america-under-attack.html
Are Christians in America Under Attack?
… "The developing fear is that government will make people choose between obeying the law and following their faith. Of course, the real flash point is the one between religious liberty and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) rights. For example:
*Catholic Charities in Illinois shut down its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples (as the state required).
*A Christian counselor was penalized for refusing to advise gay couples.
*A court clerk in New York was told to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite religious reservations.
*A wedding photographer was sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding.
In each case, the Christian(s) involved were not attempting to impose their religious views on others. They simply didn’t want to be forced to participate or offer tacit support for something they felt was in violation of their religious conscience.”…
This is what Republicans like Ted Cruz use to deceive people that they are protecting "religious liberty." This is not religious liberty; it is permission to discriminate. It is permission to do to gays what is no longer permitted to do to black people.
I don't like Cruz either. The problem for me is that the secular camp seems to leave no room for religious liberty. It comes across as having the same effect as the clash of two religious dogmas. In the US , the secular camp now dominates and can dictate their dogma. This is what I see increasing and I don't know what limits the secular camp will consider.
Although I don't think some in the secular camp necessarily have much awareness about real spirituality and its value, I think they want religious liberty; they don't want the state to make " law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
I hear the words at the same time the secular camp imposes their dogma. They are acting like a religion while claiming they are not. I see no respect for religion. of others.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 880
Threads: 18
Joined: May 2016
05-23-2016, 07:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2016, 07:32 AM by Mikebert.)
Eric Wrote:But don't you think the opposition to abortion is orchestrated by the Catholic and fundamentalist Christian Church authorities?
No. Opposition to abortions comes from two viewpoints, both of which are logically unassailable. The pro-choice position is likely logically unassailable. Hence discussion is pointless. Here's why:
Logical argument against abortion: A person is a human animal with an immortal soul. The soul comes associated with a human body at the point of conception. Therefore a fetus is a person. From this it follows that abortion is homicide. Avoiding the harm caused by an unwanted pregnancy is not a sufficient justification for homicide.
Many people feel that a fetus is a baby because it resembles a baby, and at the time of birth it asymptotically approaches being a baby. As a result other people's abortions make them very uncomfortable, like the use of the n-word by white people. Hence they want to ban the practice out of PC concerns. There is no argument here because it is about feelings.
Logical argument in favor of pro-choice: A fetus is not a person; there is no such thing as a soul. Any empirical definition of person would involve functionality (e.g. persons are 'above' other animals because of people's superior intellectual abilities) and biological (persons are genetically human). A human fetus is not functionally more advanced than other mammalian fetuses, and certainly not intellectually more capable than many adult mammals. The genetic argument is ruled out by the fact that a cancer tumor is a genetically human organism that can live independently of the body, yet is not considered to be a person. In fact, they are routinely removed from their hosts and allowed to die.
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 12:24 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: (05-22-2016, 04:52 PM)radind Wrote: (05-22-2016, 03:10 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Uh...I have news for you. Christians in Syria are being killed. I don't think anyone in the us is killing Christians.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7121/i...christians
In Egypt Coptic Christians are routinely discriminated against, almost on par with Blacks in the Jim Crow days.
https://www.mnnonline.org/news/egypt-pra...hristians/
In Nigeria Boko Haram regularly murders Christians or forces them to convert to Islam.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014...ution.html
Where exactly in secular America are Christians being murdered or discriminated against? By whom are they being discriminated against? Inquiring minds want to know. I will require citation too. I don't care about "feels".
I think you misread the quote.
The point is that there is " growing pressure to marginalize Christianity".
Quote:... " He rightfully declares, however, that Christians in America are not persecuted nearly to the degree that they are in such places as "Nigeria, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt or Syria."...
First point. America is not a Christian nation, never was, never will be. This fact goes back to the very founding. Any argument that this is not true is based on a myth. The truth can be found in reading the very letters of the Founders or better yet the Treaty of Tripoli of 1795
Treaty of Tripoli of 1795 Wrote:Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
As such there is no state marginalization of any religion. The simple fact of the matter is that Christianity is losing popularity as a religion. I have news for you religions come and go. Typically they seem to have about a run of 2000 years on average before they die. Christianity has had a good run but like Roman Paganism its time for something new.
Point Two. Perhaps I did misread the quote. That being said, the Christian preoccupation with being persecuted in the US is absurd. While some incredibly small people are bothered by others wishing them a Merry Christ-mas they are people who walk around finding things to be offended by.
I agree that the US is not a Christian nation. My take is the the secular camp is attacking Christian values in the same way as if the secular camp were a religion.
Being offended is not the issue. Limiting freedom of religion is the issue. I understand that no one in the secular camp will understand or feel the pressure. Their values and dogma are being pushed.
I would be happy to see 'Christmas' abolished since it was based on a pagan holiday anyway.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 12:31 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-22-2016, 05:57 PM)radind Wrote: (05-22-2016, 05:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-22-2016, 05:13 PM)radind Wrote: (05-22-2016, 05:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Hillary says love trumps hate, and that what we need in this country is more love and kindness. It is Hillary who stands for Christian values. Trump trashes them in his every statement and behavior. That's attacking Christianity far more than any slogan that he or any Republican religious right figure might utter. Who would Jesus insult in order to make himself look strong?
We have a different impression of Clinton. In my opinion both Obama and Clinton are in the secular camp and both are politicians( who say lots of things that don't believe). I think that Trump is basically areligious .
The pressure for Christians to conform to majority secular dogma is coming from the secular camp. Trump is not a good man, it is just that I see the real threat to Christian values coming from the secular majority. It is understandable that those in the secular camp don't see any threat. They agree with the Obama/Clinton agenda.
I look at the quote in your signature, and I recall Hillary's words about love and kindness and love trumps hate, and it looks to me that it's Hillary that upholds Christian values. Anything else it seems is irrelevant. Forcing people to conform to religious authority has nothing to do with Christian values. It's the way we treat people that has to do with Christian values. Christian values are about love and kindness, the things Jesus taught; not about obedience to church authority or using issues like abortion and gay rights to divide people.
I don't believe Clinton's nice words. I can't see Christians supporting the killing of unborn babies. People's action are what is relevant , so I agree the issue is how we treat each other.
The intent of my objection to abortion is not to divide people, but I do think that abortion is wrong and un-Christian.
Obedience to church authority has no significance to me. I think that many of the problems with 'Christianity' comes from the large religious organizations where bureaucracies and political power abound. I do not belong to such religious organizations. In my view each one is responsible for his own views ( secular or religious).
But don't you think the opposition to abortion is orchestrated by the Catholic and fundamentalist Christian Church authorities?
Don't you think that a feminist candidate like Hillary can support a woman's right to choose, and still be genuinely interested in love and kindness? Why would you judge a person un-Christian if they disagree with you on abortion? They might be "good Christians" in many other ways.
I understand the objection to abortion, and I think different people in the "secular camp" would have different opinions on abortion. I think this issue should be dealt with through compromise. Make the abortion pill available and then limit abortions to the first trimester. Make adoption more available. I don't think Americans should make abortion the basis for political culture wars.
There are far more important issues about which compromise cannot be made so easily, especially our oligarchical and corrupt political and economic system, climate change and pollution, police behavior and our biased and misguided justice system, and foreign policy.
As I mentioned before, I have no use for any large Christian organizations and my views are my own. I think that the rights of the unborn are being ignored and don't see how supporter of abortion could be considered Christian.
There are many things that could be done to reduce abortion, but the death of the unborn babies remains.
There are other concerns( abortion is just a clear line of demarcation). It is easy to say compromise without recognising that religious liberty has no meaning for Christians in this secular country. Calling this a 'political culture war' assumes that Christian values have no meaning for the secular camp. It is closer to a religious war in effect.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 07:27 AM)Mikebert Wrote: No. Opposition to abortions comes from two viewpoints, both of which are logically unassailable. The pro-choice position is likely logically unassailable.
I would argue that the so-called pro-life camp's argumentation is illogical in so far as it rests on religious doctrine. I will go into detail below why, but I don't think that one can apply logic to those who are arguing from an idealistic conception to start with.
Quote: Hence discussion is pointless.
The so-called pro-life vs pro-choice discussion is pointless and I'll not get into it. But I will point out the illogicality of your example. This is more a digression as to the illogical of the argument you've presented, which often do not present themselves in non-boomer circles.
Quote: Here's why:
Logical argument against abortion: A person is a human animal with an immortal soul.
The Illogicality: There is no evidence that a soul exists. This must be taken on faith alone, faith being the opposite of logic.
Quote:The soul comes associated with a human body at the point of conception. Therefore a fetus is a person. From this it follows that abortion is homicide. Avoiding the harm caused by an unwanted pregnancy is not a sufficient justification for homicide.
This argument has the appearance of being logical if one takes the illogical position that souls exist and further that souls are created at conception, thus making a first trimester fetus or zygote a human being. Taken to it's logical extent that a clump of cells that contain human DNA are in fact a human one can also argue that a cancerous tumor is also a human and that therefore radiation therapy, chemotherapy and other cancer treatments are in fact assault, attempted homicide and homicide. Since no "pro-lifer" takes such a positon they are therefore acting on an illogical basis.
Quote:Many people feel that a fetus is a baby because it resembles a baby, and at the time of birth it asymptotically approaches being a baby. As a result other people's abortions make them very uncomfortable, like the use of the n-word by white people. Hence they want to ban the practice out of PC concerns. There is no argument here because it is about feelings.
This is the basis of the 'why' people are pro-life. Likewise, myself, while I'm pro-choice feel that abortion should be considered the last option on the table, and would prefer to prevent abortions themselves by having social structures in place so that the parents can take care of the child (the main reason why abortions happen to start with), and also comprehensive objective sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancy to start with.
I do not believe in the concept of "unplanned" pregnancy. Failing to plan to prevent pregnancy or to have the life style structures in place to care for one's child should one become pregnant is indeed a plan to fail. It is like saying someone playing Russian Roulette accidentally shot themselves.
Continuing on to the illogical pro-choice argument.
Quote:Logical argument in favor of pro-choice: A fetus is not a person; there is no such thing as a soul. Any empirical definition of person would involve functionality (e.g. persons are 'above' other animals because of people's superior intellectual abilities) and biological (persons are genetically human). A human fetus is not functionally more advanced than other mammalian fetuses, and certainly not intellectually more capable than many adult mammals. The genetic argument is ruled out by the fact that a cancer tumor is a genetically human organism that can live independently of the body, yet is not considered to be a person. In fact, they are routinely removed from their hosts and allowed to die.
I've bold-ed the illogical part of the argument. That functionality of intellect sets humans apart from other animals. Evidence demonstrates that humans are exactly like other animals we just happen to be much smarter than other animals. Taken to the logical conclusion that functionality can be used to determine the termination of a fetus leads us down the road where one could terminate the mentally ill or a retarded person due to lack of functionality. Naturally that argumentation is repugnant to anyone with any sense of morality (objective or otherwise)
Therefore I've concluded that the entirety of the pro-life stance is inherently illogical as it is based on a premise for which there is no evidence, likewise that the pro-choice stance is equally illogical unless one's pro-choice stance is based on the premise that sometimes women become pregnant, they might not be able to care for their children and it is better to terminate a pregnancy early in order to prevent graver social ills, and furthermore, that even if abortion itself were illegal women would still seek them out, have them performed illegally in potentially unsafe manners endangering her life as well.
I would call the italicized argument the "pro-public-safety" stance.
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 07:56 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: (05-23-2016, 07:27 AM)Mikebert Wrote: No. Opposition to abortions comes from two viewpoints, both of which are logically unassailable. The pro-choice position is likely logically unassailable.
I would argue that the so-called pro-life camp's argumentation is illogical in so far as it rests on religious doctrine. I will go into detail below why, but I don't think that one can apply logic to those who are arguing from an idealistic conception to start with....
For me the current debates are in effect a religious war with the secular camp. My starting point on the state of religion in the US is Barna.org. In my opinion a Biblical worldview is necessary to be a Christian. Barna clearly shows that the vast majority in the USA do not have a Biblical worldview.
https://barna.org/barna-update/transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years#.VuS_bsc_ZGI
… "The same questions were asked of respondents in national surveys by Barna in 1995, 2000 and 2005. The results indicate that the percentage of adults with a biblical worldview, as defined above, has remained unchanged for more than a decade. The numbers show that 7% had such a worldview in 1995, compared to 10% in 2000, 11% in 2005, and 9% now. Even among born again adults, the statistics have remained flat: 18% in 1995, 22% in 2000, 21% in 2005, and 19% today.”…Barna.org
https://www.barna.org/component/content/...uTde8c_ZGI
… “One of the largest gaps was between Republicans ( 10% of whom had a biblical worldview), Independents ( 2%) and Democrats ( 1%).”…
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 07:33 AM)radind Wrote: I agree that the US is not a Christian nation.
Indeed, the US is a secular nation, has always been a secular nation. Being secular has nothing to do with attacking any religion, rather it means that the state does not use a religion as its basis of justification and legal code.
Quote: My take is the the secular camp is attacking Christian values in the same way as if the secular camp were a religion.
There is no "secular camp". What you're describing is the Regressive Left, and yes they are attacking Christians and Christian values. As for them being a religion, I would say that they are an ideological group with cult-like tendencies. So I think we're probably agreeing while quibbling over semantics.
That being said, there is no secular camp. I'm secular and have no interest in attacking Christianity or Christians. Seriously my BF goes to mass most Sundays. Likewise I have no interest in attacking Paganism (in its various forms) or Pagans. My son is a pagan...but don't ever call him that. He prefers to call himself a heathen.
Quote:Being offended is not the issue. Limiting freedom of religion is the issue.
I completely agree. I oppose any attempt to legislate what people should believe. Of course that is because I'm a cultural libertarian.
Quote:I understand that no one in the secular camp will understand or feel the pressure.
Maybe the problem is that you're looking at the wrong thing. As I pointed out above there isn't a "secular camp". If you get 10 secular people into a room you're going to get 10 different opinions on all sort of manner of issues. Rather what you are describing is a particular ideology that is authoritarian in nature and that I call the Regressive Left.
Quote: Their values and dogma are being pushed.
Secularism does not have a core set of values except that religion and the state should be separated--IE Freedom of Religion. Therefore any values which are contrary to that value is not being pushed by secular people. Values contrary to freedom of religion can only come from the religious (doesn't matter what the religion is) or those with an opposing ideology. In the case of the US right now, the attacks on secularism is coming from the Regressive Left as they are seeking to implement their ideology not only on you Christians but also on anyone else who opposes their ideology on different grounds: Conservatives (many of whom are also Christians), Classical Liberals/Cultural Libertarians, Libertarians more generally and even other leftists who do not subscribe to their pure ideology.
Case in point Odin calling me reactionary scum while I was still a Marxist-Leninist (you know because I didn't share his Regressive Left ideology and was therefore the spawn of whatever they use as devil figure).
Quote:I would be happy to see 'Christmas' abolished since it was based on a pagan holiday anyway.
It is interesting that I said the same thing when I was still a Christian. The BF who is a Christian isn't interested in it either. My mother and kid celebrate the Winter Solstice instead which kinda makes sense from an agricultural perspective.
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 08:18 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: ...There is no "secular camp". What you're describing is the Regressive Left, and yes they are attacking Christians and Christian values. As for them being a religion, I would say that they are an ideological group with cult-like tendencies. So I think we're probably agreeing while quibbling over semantics.
That being said, there is no secular camp. I'm secular and have no interest in attacking Christianity or Christians. Seriously my BF goes to mass most Sundays. Likewise I have no interest in attacking Paganism (in its various forms) or Pagans. My son is a pagan...but don't ever call him that. He prefers to call himself a heathen.
I tend to agree with this article( repost) that uses the term secular religion. I know that the 'secular camp' denies that they are a religion, but it appears to me that they are operating as a religion , with the result that there is no more separation of church and state in practice. It is a matter of semantics and definitions, but what counts for me is the actual effect in practice. I understand that when we try to characterize groups such as Christians or the 'Secular camp" that not everyone in the group will have the same views. I am in favor of drug legalization which puts me at odds with almost all of my associates.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/201...-religion/
The Rise of Secular Religion
… "American liberalism, it is often remarked, amounts to a secular religion: it has its own sacred texts and taboos, Crusades and Inquisitions. The political correctness that undergirds it, meanwhile, can be traced back to the past century’s liberal Protestantism..”…
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
I think the problem here is that in calling all secular people "the secular camp" you are ultimately setting yourself up for failure. The simple fact is that there isn't this monolithic structure called "the secular camp". In order to be secular one merely needs to desire everyone to have religious freedom--which is a cultural libertarian perspective anyway.
In order to achieve that religious freedom the state MUST be secular, if the state is not, let us say the First Amendment was tossed out today and Congress made Catholicism the state religion that would go against the freedoms of all Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox Christians, Jews of all stripes, Muslims of all stripes and any other person of religions not Catholicism or completely lacking a religion (such as myself).
Conversely let us say that the First Amendment was tossed out today and Congress prohibited all religions...That impinges on the liberty of everyone who chooses to have a religion.
No one who is secular wants to abolish first amendment except the Regressive Left. They also have problems with people saying whatever they want too. Are they secular? I'd argue no. They wish to impose their ideology on everyone else which is against the core tenant of being secular--namely that in order for everyone to have freedom of religious consciousness the state cannot have a role in religious consciousness.
They are in fact the opposite of Cultural Libertarianism (it is also called Classical Liberalism--what passes for liberalism these days is really democratic socialism [an oxymoron I know] or some bastardized version of Marxism). As it is that Classical Liberalism which is the very foundation of the Republic, a Republic they seek to destroy.
They have converted the Democratic Party into a party of authoritarianism and must therefore be destroyed for the good of the Republic. As such the milquetoast, quasi-conservatism of the GOP Establishment had to be broken and Trump has managed that. Now it is time to take that cultural war to the voting booth because I am starting to believe that once he is elected they will try to destroy the country, much like the South tried to destroy the country following Lincoln's election.
Posts: 604
Threads: 68
Joined: May 2016
We are not a secular nation. We are a non-sectarian nation.
There is a huge difference.
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" - Justice David Brewer, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(05-22-2016, 05:13 PM)radind Wrote: As I mentioned before, I have no use for any large Christian organizations and my views are my own. I think that the rights of the unborn are being ignored and don't see how supporter of abortion could be considered Christian.
There are many things that could be done to reduce abortion, but the death of the unborn babies remains.
There are other concerns( abortion is just a clear line of demarcation). It is easy to say compromise without recognising that religious liberty has no meaning for Christians in this secular country. Calling this a 'political culture war' assumes that Christian values have no meaning for the secular camp. It is closer to a religious war in effect.
It is both, I am sure. But it's a war we don't need. I don't see where Jesus said to oppose abortion. Quote me chapter and verse? And claiming that fetuses are "babies" is not a religious statement; it's largely a scientific one. No, it's not a demarcation of Christianity. It's just a conviction that you and others have, and I understand it, and that you will continue to uphold it; but it's mostly orchestrated by church authority, even if it's not in your case.
Today, "Christian" largely means what Church Authority says it is. Very few people in America today understand what Jesus was really teaching and demonstrating. In most cases, they advocate the opposite.
"Secular" means that the state does not enforce or establish a religion. It is well known that this secular principle is GOOD for freedom of religion, AND for religion generally. There is no more religious country than the USA, and I expect this to continue, despite the passing trends among civic generations. The same "humanist" wave happened in the thirties, and the GI or Greatest Generation were somewhat less religious too. But even so, in the 1950s America became festooned with churches, which is how one writer put it (Howard Zinn? I forget).
Posts: 604
Threads: 68
Joined: May 2016
05-23-2016, 12:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2016, 12:09 PM by Anthony '58.)
There is a huge difference between remaining neutral among different beliefs and remaining neutral between belief and non-belief.
"Separation of church and state" is 5% getting to tell 95% to STFU.
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" - Justice David Brewer, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 09:35 AM)Anthony Wrote: We are not a secular nation. We are a non-sectarian nation.
There is a huge difference.
There is no difference to the group with no religious rights.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 09:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I think the problem here is that in calling all secular people "the secular camp" you are ultimately setting yourself up for failure. The simple fact is that there isn't this monolithic structure called "the secular camp". In order to be secular one merely needs to desire everyone to have religious freedom--which is a cultural libertarian perspective anyway.
In order to achieve that religious freedom the state MUST be secular, if the state is not, let us say the First Amendment was tossed out today and Congress made Catholicism the state religion that would go against the freedoms of all Protestants, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox Christians, Jews of all stripes, Muslims of all stripes and any other person of religions not Catholicism or completely lacking a religion (such as myself).
Conversely let us say that the First Amendment was tossed out today and Congress prohibited all religions...That impinges on the liberty of everyone who chooses to have a religion.
No one who is secular wants to abolish first amendment except the Regressive Left. They also have problems with people saying whatever they want too. Are they secular? I'd argue no. They wish to impose their ideology on everyone else which is against the core tenant of being secular--namely that in order for everyone to have freedom of religious consciousness the state cannot have a role in religious consciousness.
They are in fact the opposite of Cultural Libertarianism (it is also called Classical Liberalism--what passes for liberalism these days is really democratic socialism [an oxymoron I know] or some bastardized version of Marxism). As it is that Classical Liberalism which is the very foundation of the Republic, a Republic they seek to destroy.
They have converted the Democratic Party into a party of authoritarianism and must therefore be destroyed for the good of the Republic. As such the milquetoast, quasi-conservatism of the GOP Establishment had to be broken and Trump has managed that. Now it is time to take that cultural war to the voting booth because I am starting to believe that once he is elected they will try to destroy the country, much like the South tried to destroy the country following Lincoln's election.
I don't see any option since the 'secular group' is now the majority( most Democrats plus some Republicans), and acting no differently from another religion.
We still need separation of church and state, but the state has been taken over by a 'religion'. The 'secular group' can and will deny this, but the operational effect is the same.
If the majority still favored true religious freedom, I would be less concerned. In my opinion , there are ~ 10% with a Biblical worldview. I don't think that all of the remaining 90% are in the 'secular camp', but I do think that there is a working majority in the 'secular camp'.
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 1,499
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2016
Honestly I think you're looking at the wrong issues. Religious liberty is wrapped up with every other liberty and the fight will ultimately come down to one between the cultural authoritarians (the Regressive Left and other stateists) which are actually a minority they are just very very loud, and cultural libertarians.
A great deal of it will come out during the Election and even after particularly during Daddy's first term but the authoritarians will lose, like they always do, because the American people have a particular affinity for liberty and the generation in mid-life is shifting from the crusading Boomers to practical Xers.
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 11:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-22-2016, 05:13 PM)radind Wrote: As I mentioned before, I have no use for any large Christian organizations and my views are my own. I think that the rights of the unborn are being ignored and don't see how supporter of abortion could be considered Christian.
There are many things that could be done to reduce abortion, but the death of the unborn babies remains.
There are other concerns( abortion is just a clear line of demarcation). It is easy to say compromise without recognising that religious liberty has no meaning for Christians in this secular country. Calling this a 'political culture war' assumes that Christian values have no meaning for the secular camp. It is closer to a religious war in effect.
It is both, I am sure. But it's a war we don't need. I don't see where Jesus said to oppose abortion. Quote me chapter and verse? And claiming that fetuses are "babies" is not a religious statement; it's largely a scientific one. No, it's not a demarcation of Christianity. It's just a conviction that you and others have, and I understand it, and that you will continue to uphold it; but it's mostly orchestrated by church authority, even if it's not in your case.
Today, "Christian" largely means what Church Authority says it is. Very few people in America today understand what Jesus was really teaching and demonstrating. In most cases, they advocate the opposite.
"Secular" means that the state does not enforce or establish a religion. It is well known that this secular principle is GOOD for freedom of religion, AND for religion generally. There is no more religious country than the USA, and I expect this to continue, despite the passing trends among civic generations. The same "humanist" wave happened in the thirties, and the GI or Greatest Generation were somewhat less religious too. But even so, in the 1950s America became festooned with churches, which is how one writer put it (Howard Zinn? I forget).
It appears to me that others( including the 'secular group') are defining what they consider Christianity to be. If a specific Christian has a different view, then religious freedom can become just a myth.
The phrase ‘book, chapter, verse’ remind me of discussions with friends at church. I call this the engineering approach to interpretation.
Here is one article.
Quote:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/e...bible.html
… "the Bible clearly prohibits the killing of innocent people (Exodus 20:13). All that is necessary to prove a biblical prohibition of abortion is to demonstrate that the Bible considers the unborn to be human beings.
Personhood in the Bible
A number of ancient societies opposed abortion, [2] but the ancient Hebrew society had the clearest reasons for doing so because of its foundations in the scriptures. The Bible teaches that men and women are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). As the climax of God's creation mankind has an intrinsic worth far greater than that of the animal kingdom placed under His care. Throughout the Scriptures, personhood is never measured by age, stage of development, or mental, physical, or social skills. Personhood is endowed by God at the moment of creation - before which there was not a human being and after which there is. That moment of creation can be nothing other than the moment of conception.
The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament to refer to the unborn (Exodus 21:22-25) is yeled, a word that “generally indicates young children, but may refer to teens or even young adults.” [3] The Hebrews did not have or need a separate word for unborn children. They were just like any other children, only younger. In the Bible there are references to born children and unborn children, but there is no such thing as a potential, incipient, or “almost” child.”…
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
Posts: 333
Threads: 6
Joined: May 2016
(05-23-2016, 03:37 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Honestly I think you're looking at the wrong issues. Religious liberty is wrapped up with every other liberty and the fight will ultimately come down to one between the cultural authoritarians (the Regressive Left and other stateists) which are actually a minority they are just very very loud, and cultural libertarians.
A great deal of it will come out during the Election and even after particularly during Daddy's first term but the authoritarians will lose, like they always do, because the American people have a particular affinity for liberty and the generation in mid-life is shifting from the crusading Boomers to practical Xers.
My sense is that the cultural authoritarians are now in the majority. If your view is correct, there would be reason for hope in the future.
An interesting article on tolerance.
Quote:http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/the-three-ds-of-tolerance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ColdCaseChristianity+%28Cold+Case+Christianity%29
The Three D’s of Tolerance
… “Like all worldviews, Christianity offers an explanation for reality that excludes many other options. If Christianity is true, other views of the world that deny the existence of God (or postulate a god who is characteristically different than the God of the Bible) are false. If these other views are true, Christianity is false. When worldviews offer opposite and contradictory explanations, both may be incorrect (or one may be correct) but both cannot be true. We need a strategy, therefore, to deal with people who hold views that are different than our own.”…
… whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Phil 4:8 (ESV)
|
