|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
And so far, no one can make the case that it's good for society. And so far, no one can make the case that it's bad for society. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
I've already explained that something doesn't necessarily have to be specifically mentioned to be an inspiration for something.
You can assert things all you want, but until you present evidence you have nothing. Since you have presented no evidence to back this assertion, I will assume you have nothing and it is just crap you are spouting.
If you don't agree, then we should agree to disagree.
Ahh yes the old agree to disagree. That is what you fundies like to say when they have no evidence. Classic and typical.
Please don't use the F word again.
I will use any word I want to. It really is just a word. It won't hurt you.
Me writes:
It is not a document of the USA it is pre-USA.You writes:
Do these mean the same thing? No. Not even close. Nice try troll. So the Declaration has nothing to do with the founding of the U.S.? A document can easily not be a US document and still have to do with the founding of the US. Is the Virginia Constitution of 1776 a US government document? No. Does it have anything to so with the founding of the US? Yes. A heck of a lot actually.
Yep, you said it! I love this place!
So have you always been a masochist?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
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. Yeah, in other words, like most of your nonsense, no evidence. But don't let that stop you, it never does.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mqrc9000 writes:
You contradict yourself. 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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But they referred to it in the Declaration of Independence ... No.
Do you really believe that if something isn't directly referred to by a document, then that document can't possibly have a thing to do with it? Do you really believe that the U.S. founders really didn't refer to the Bible at all? Here's a hint. You can find out what I really believe by reading what I really say, rather than by making up shit in your head for no reason. I have never denied that the Founding Fathers referred to the Bible from time to time. For example, Thomas Jefferson referred to the Bible when he wrote that he considered the Book of Revelation "merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams" and added "I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being".
I never said I don't like being debated. I just find the "shout down" tactics of the same collegiate atheist mindset that came up with all the "logical fallacies" lists to be quite amusing. If the imaginary things in your head didn't amuse you, they would serve no purpose whatsoever.
Atheists seldom show much passion for free speech, do they? What a peculiar lie. And a peculiarly random lie at that. Why did you choose to tell that particular lie at that particular juncture? I'm intrigued. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And so far, no one can make the case that it's good for society. (1) Freedom is good.(2) Giving gay people the freedom to marry makes them more free. (3) Society includes gay people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
A car is an "effect" that the fourth amendment describes
the car isn't being searched, the waste products of the car are, it's no different from the police going through your garbage after it's gone to the dump. If you don't want your exhaust examined, hold on to it.It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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. 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.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I've come across winteryknight before, and know him to be a fraud using bogus statistics. Don't pass on anything he says without looking at the primary source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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. Tell you what, you can balance the imaginary establishment of atheism with an imaginary establishment of religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
So, the Bible condemns homosexuality but it shouldn't be illegal in the U.S. - yet homosexual marriage should be illegal? How can you make a contract between two people illegal when nothing in the contract is illegal?
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024