|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc900 writes: But they referred to it in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution followed what the Declaration said. What the fuck does that mean? It means what many consider to be the most important statement in the Declaration; "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." - the constitution was largely about the preservation of those rights. The constitution followed that statement.
The Declaration was a document proclaiming the severing of ties. It is not a document of the USA it is pre-USA. It has nothing to do with the foundation of a new governing system. The Constitution was the founding document of the new country. Previous documents are not part of USA. If that were true we would look to the Articles of Confederation for guidance too. So the Declaration has nothing to do with the founding of the U.S.?
That being said the Declaration says nothing about the bible or christianity. It mentions a creator.
Well I guess if you dont understand why something is a logical fallacy you should just call people names and make ad hominem attacks. Nah, vulgar 4 letter words work better, don't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Well, if that routinely happens, I'm quite sure you can find and present a few examples of it, yes? No, goalpost runner. You're a new member of the big gang, so if you don't believe it, I'm afraid I can't help you today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
So you disagree specifically with the proposition that the joining of Adam and Eve means one man/one woman marriages for the rest of us? Yes, since 1 Corinthians 7:1 says; "It is good for a man not to marry". Contradictory? If one believes that all men are completely equal robots, with the same interests, same looks, height, weight, life expectancy, etc. it could be taken as contradictory. If the Bible was one set of instructions for everyone to follow. But it takes into account that people are different, with different skills, interests, personalities. It's up to us to apply what the Bible says to the circumstances we find ourselves in. Some are best to be married (one man/one woman) some are best to stay single. But no one can really make the case that the Bible condones gay marriage, if that's what you mean. And so far, no one can make the case that it's good for society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
No the Constitution laid out the formation of the government. The Bill of rights added individual rights. You still have failed to show where the Constitution mentions the christian god or the bible, or the Declaration for that matter. I've already explained that something doesn't necessarily have to be specifically mentioned to be an inspiration for something. If you don't agree, then we should agree to disagree. Please don't use the F word again.
marc9000 writes: So the Declaration has nothing to do with the founding of the U.S.? Did I say that or are you still trolling? Nice strawman. Well let's see;
quote: Yep, you said it! I love this place!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
We are speaking of religious beliefs, not secular matters. We're speaking of the imposition of laws on society, my reason for being involved in this thread is to show that secular laws can be just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than religious laws.
quote: The same can be said of science and environmentalism. These forums are a crutch for some people, followers of the screaming, arm waving Al Gore are also satisfying their need for a crutch.
marc9000 writes: Can you name any attempts by the religious to make you do anything like that? I've named something the secular environmentalists required me to do. Name yours, and we'll compare. Blue laws. From Wiki: Bergen County in New Jersey is notable for their blue laws banning the sale of clothing, shoes, furniture, home supplies and appliances on Sundays kept thru county-wide referendum. Paramus in New Jersey have their own blue laws even more strict than the county itself has banning any type of worldly employment on Sundays except necessity items such as food and gasoline. In Texas, for example, blue laws prohibited selling housewares such as pots, pans, and washing machines on Sunday until 1985. In Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Jersey, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, car dealerships continue to operate under blue-law prohibitions in which an automobile may not be purchased or traded on a Sunday. Maryland permits Sunday automobile sales only in the counties of Prince George's, Montgomery, and Howard; similarly, Michigan restricts Sunday sales to only those counties with a population of less than 130,000. Texas and Utah prohibit car dealerships from operating over consecutive weekend days. In some cases these laws were created or retained with the support of those whom they affected, to allow them a day off each week without fear of their competitors still being open. Okay, now for that comparison. It should first be noted that the words "Sundays excepted" appear in Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. "If any bill shall not be returned by the president within 10 days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law...." That didn't necessarily establish or promote laws concerning Sunday activity, but it did recognize Sunday as a day not completely identical to all the others. A case where the founders recognized a Christian trait as beneficial to a secular society. As your link said, in some cases those blue laws were created or retained by those whom they affected. I don't see them as a big deal concerning personal liberty, I think I could re-arrange my buying habits to make it work. But I agree with you that they are restrictive, religious based laws. Now let see how they compare to the secular law that I referred to earlier. The fourth amendment reads like this;
quote: The words that I bolded clearly show that the founders were opposed to all encompassing searches which auto emissions testing obviously is. A car is an "effect" that the fourth amendment describes. The technology exists today to set up spot checks along the road with manned, emissions detecting equipment, that would identify heavily polluting autos. To make everyone in a certain area take their car to a government establishment, and pay to have it "tested" obviously violates the fourth amendment. These types of tests have come and gone in my area a few times over the past few decades, probably not because anyone recognized their constitutional violation, but because they were simply a waste of time and money. But they also could have been another kind of test, a measurement of just how much public outcry and other problems there would be, to prepare for a future federal auto testing program, for every car (and truck) in the U.S. A federal program would never go away. Not only a cash cow for the government, its pollution standards could be adjusted up and down, to adjust several economic conditions, such as increases in scrap metal as more non-compliant cars would have to be scrapped, more new car sales as fewer used cars would be in compliance, differences in gasoline sales, as more (or less)government mandated economy cars would be in use, etc. My secular example is much more anti-constitution, anti freedom, than yours.
Look at the Texas schoolbook controversy, where creationists keep stacking the board that approves new texts so they can force their religious beliefs on everyone else. Also, in Kansas and some southern states the legislatures keep addressing teaching creationism in schools. Thankfully those bills are rarely passed any longer. But it took litigation to get the Dover School Board to stop promoting creationism in the school system. This has been gone over many times before, these aren't necessarily a forcing of religion, they're intended to be a balance for the current atheism that's established in schools. That's yet another problem that happens in a secular society, an establishment of atheism in science education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: It's up to us to apply what the Bible says to the circumstances we find ourselves in. Some are best to be married (one man/one woman) some are best to stay single. But no one can really make the case that the Bible condones gay marriage, if that's what you mean. You contradict yourself. If we find ourselves in the circumstance of wanting to marry or if we find ourselves in the circumstance of not wanting to marry or if we find ourselves in the circumstance of being gay, what's the difference? It's not a contradiction, the Bible condones being single, it condones marriage between one man and one woman, and it condemns homosexuality. There is no law in the U.S. that makes it illegal to be homosexual, (as there shouldn't be) but homosexual marriage is bad for society, and should be made/kept illegal, for secular reasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: And so far, no one can make the case that it (homosexual marriage) is good for society. And so far, no one can make the case that it's bad for society. I'm afraid they easily can. Gay marriage debate: a secular case against same-sex marriage | WINTERY KNIGHT
quote: quote: To big of a burden on the U.S. court system. The U.S. can't afford it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
So, the Bible condemns homosexuality but it shouldn't be illegal in the U.S. - yet homosexual marriage should be illegal? Exactly. Under the U.S. Constitution, a homosexual should have the same access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just the same as anyone else. His private life in his own home with his partner is no one else's business. But he shouldn't have the right to the public institution of marriage, if the majority sees it as a public burden.
How can you make a contract between two people illegal when nothing in the contract is illegal? I don't think they need a contract for anything - single people don't have a contract.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
A balance by what? By religion, of course! And if that's not promoting religion I don't know what is. And your comment about atheism in science is absurd. Science follows the evidence, and you folks, much to your regret, have been unable to provide any evidence. But not having any evidence doesn't stop you from trying to push your religious beliefs on everyone else. This is a good place to reference the Wedge Document of the Discovery Institute. They too want to push theism on us, and they write in that document, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Note, this has nothing to do with evidence, but everything to do with forcing science to kowtow to their unevidenced religious beliefs. That this would destroy the scientific method doesn't seem to bother them. Face it, in spite of your denials there are a lot of folks attempting to push religion on the rest of us. And lest you restort to that "balance" nonsense, you should realize that "secularism" (which relies on evidence) is the norm, and unevidenced religious beliefs, myths, superstitions and old-wives-tales, of which there are tens of thousands of different versions, are the contrast. Yes yes, I was drawn into off topic stuff, and you took off with that without commenting on my comparison of your example of religious oppression and my example of secular oppression. Other slightly different variations of Wedge Document opinions have been posted at EvC dozens of times before. Are you finished now, you have nothing else to say about my message 83? Back in message 35, you said this;
This discussion centers around ridding government of the ability to promote or coerce any and all religious beliefs. Once we get done with that topic we can discuss what manner of secular government we would prefer. That's a whole different thread. Following the question asked by the opening poster of this thread (who starts threads and then abandons them?)
Greatest I am writes: Which of these three sets of laws do you think are superior and why? I've made the case that a secular government can be more oppressive than a religious one, and no one has shown any evidence to the contrary. I'll be watching if you or anyone else would like to start a thread about "what manner of secular government we would prefer." I'd particularly like to see a description of any secular government in the present day and age that wouldn't have government promoted health and safety as one of its top priorities, with the scientific community heavily influencing its leadership.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
The differences between various secular and religious governments are not the real focus of this thread. It is a given that there could be a wide range of variation in each, from extremely oppressive dictatorships or theocracies to benign examples of each. That's not the issue. The issue is the promotion of religious law vs. secular law. I don't see a difference. The only way to analyze religious law vs. secular law is to analyze the governments that would apply them.
Many believers seem to feel that their particular religious beliefs should be followed by everyone else, and that these beliefs should be enforced by law. It's never been a problem in the U.S. While there may be some very small religious groups in the U.S. that believe this, they are far too small to be taken seriously. And there's no evidence that they're growing in strength, in fact, there is evidence for just the opposite. In yesterday's Sunday newspaper, I read a column by one E.J. Dionne, a liberal Washington Post columnist. I don't know what his religious affiliation is, and it's not important - I believe the statistics he cites, though I don't trust all those who answer questions in these types of surveys. This column I'm referring to was easy to find on the net; http://www.washingtonpost.com/...369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html He shows some statistics there that should ease your mind as an atheist, and scare you do death if you're a conservative. Just a few highlights;
quote: (hmmm, must be devout Diests) Now here comes the big one;
quote: The "rising generation of voters", students from today's atheist science classes, young voters who grow up with two mommies and no daddies, or two daddies and no mommies.
For example, Malays do not have the freedom to choose their religion. It is written in the constitution that all ethnic Malays must, by definition, be Muslim. Are you in favor of this kind of nonsense? You know I'm not, and you know it's not a threat in the U.S. Are you in favor of the scientific 4th amendment trashing that I described in message 85?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc - can you describe what the public burden of a homosexual marriage is? In your own words? I'm trying to think of one. It's pretty well described in the link in my message 85. I don't feel like going into more detail about here, it's too far off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: I've made the case that a secular government can be more oppressive than a religious one Marc9000, I hope you understand that this statement illustrates exactly how poor a showing you've made here. Can't say I agree with that, I've compared Coyote's example of inconvenience of Sunday shopping to my example of a scientific trashing of the fourth amendment, and now it seems that about everyone here now wants to discuss gay marriage.
Anyone can easily cite a counter example. But no one seems to be anxious to do it. Maybe because there are no actual serious threats to liberty by religion in the U.S. and there are plenty of serious threats to liberty in the U.S. by secular science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
So do you concede this is something else you are absolutely wrong about? That WHAT is something that I'm wrong about? You didn't quote anything from message 77 - the main thing there seemed to be your denial of something you actually said.
Wintryknight? Really? That is your source? You are making things way to easy. Yes, someone else performed the fallacy of poisoning the well on that one too. I'd like to have explored his reasoning about that, but if I'd have asked him about it he'd have flown into a rage and denied that he said anything about it. Rather than mocking the source, why don't you read what it actually says?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
A document can easily not be a US document and still have to do with the founding of the US. I was referring to its influence on the constitution of the U.S. and that's when you told me it wasn't a founding document of the U.S. So if you believe it DID, or COULD HAVE had influence, what was your purpose to say that it wasn't a document of the U.S.?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024