Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 31 of 112 (704112)
08-04-2013 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by marc9000
08-03-2013 11:03 PM


I don't trust individual humans, who may actually be tyrants, to dictate how the planet should be saved.
What do you mean "may be tyrants"? It's not actually difficult to find out whether someone is a tyrant or not. You look for little signs like where he bans elections and has the opposition shot. So, I agree, let's ignore those people and their views on "how the planet should be saved". Let's ask someone else who isn't a tyrant but is a subject-matter expert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by marc9000, posted 08-03-2013 11:03 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 112 (704113)
08-04-2013 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by marc9000
08-03-2013 10:55 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
You haven't explained what you and your co-religionists would permit and not permit, nor what would be mandatory.
Nor have you explained who would decide.
Also, I want to know what your ideal theocracy would do about the Constitution, science, those who believe other than you folks do, and atheists.
Would you be planning on using the power of the government to enforce your particular brand of religious belief?
Give us some details. Your reference back 200 years doesn't answer the question. How do you plan to go forward?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by marc9000, posted 08-03-2013 10:55 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2013 7:37 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 33 of 112 (704114)
08-04-2013 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by marc9000
08-03-2013 10:55 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
Some would say liberty stopped in 1913 when individuals started being taxed.
Is there some sort of zoo where we can look at these people, maybe feed them peanuts?
Or the separation of church and state that happened in 1948.
1791.
I personally think the governance of me and my co-religionists ended in 1963 when prayer in schools was outlawed.
No it wasn't.
As one example, did you know that there was a school bus accident in Kentucky in 1958 that killed 26 school students, and no lawsuits were filed?
Unless that's because there used to be a law against filing lawsuits, what in the world does that have to do with anything?
Killing, stealing, those sorts of things. Like early U.S. history, there wouldn't be any state lotteries, public gambling ...
Ah yes, the good old days.
Benjamin Franklin organized a lottery to raise money to purchase cannon for the defense of Philadelphia. Several of these lotteries offered prizes in the form of "Pieces of Eight." George Washington's Mountain Road Lottery in 1768 was unsuccessful, but these rare lottery tickets bearing Washington's signature became collectors' items; one example sold for about $15,000 in 2007. Washington was also a manager for Col. Bernard Moore's "Slave Lottery" in 1769, which advertised land and slaves as prizes in the Virginia Gazette.
At the outset of the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress used lotteries to raise money to support the Colonial Army. Alexander Hamilton wrote that lotteries should be kept simple, and that "Everybody ... will be willing to hazard a trifling sum for the chance of considerable gain ... and would prefer a small chance of winning a great deal to a great chance of winning little." Taxes had never been accepted as a way to raise public funding for projects, and this led to the popular belief that lotteries were a form of hidden tax.
At the end of the Revolutionary War the various states had to resort to lotteries to raise funds for numerous public projects.
... ambulance-chasing lawyers advertising on television.
I'll give you that one. During the whole of the eighteenth century, not one single lawyer advertised on television. Or chased an ambulance, for that matter.
But I guess now that they do advertise on television, we should pass laws forbidding them to do so ... er ... for liberty!
Can we ban other groups from advertising too? I can think of a few people who annoy me. But perhaps you feel that the First Amendment should protect the people I don't like.
Again, examples of any commands would be present in early U.S. history. I can't think of many, other than avoiding intruding on other people's liberties.
I think there was also one saying you had to give back any escaped slaves that took refuge with you. Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by marc9000, posted 08-03-2013 10:55 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2013 7:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 34 of 112 (704126)
08-04-2013 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Dr Adequate
08-04-2013 12:33 AM


Cherry picks? My dear marc, the whole darn Bible's a cherry pie smothered in cherry sauce and topped with cherries. This is a book that regulates what sort of clothes people can wear, what crops they can plant in their own fields, what sort of meat they can eat, how they can shave their beards, and whether they can plow with an ox and a donkey in the same yoke, and forbids the breeding of mules. It's not exactly a manifesto for individual liberty.
Actually it is, you just don't understand it, and you refuse to learn anything. The U.S. founders referred to it more than anything else as they put together the U.S. Constitution. It's atheism and science that are not manifestos for personal liberty, if you disagree, then maybe you could supply proof that they are.
And you're only going to address two of my quotations? Er ... so that would be ... um ... what sort of fruit would you say you were picking there?
The anti-moving-the-goalposts fruit of atheist gangs on scientific message boards. I'm surprised there are only 3 of you - usually it's 5 or more that demand more and more detail from a single opponent, so they can overwhelm their time constraints, then mock and jeer and slap each other on the back for their scientific victory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2013 12:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2013 11:33 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 35 of 112 (704127)
08-04-2013 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
08-04-2013 12:36 AM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
You haven't explained what you and your co-religionists would permit and not permit, nor what would be mandatory.
I can't really do that in any greater detail than I did earlier in this thread, because I don't have the mindset to make rules and give orders. I prefer to let the legislative process do that, under the small government guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. One of John Adams most famous quotes goes like this;
quote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
That's why I answered the opening poster's multiple choice question the way I did. I don't believe government can be small, or keep from growing out of control under secularism/atheism, and I don't think it can stay small under a false religion like Islam.
Nor have you explained who would decide.
Also, I want to know what your ideal theocracy would do about the Constitution, science, those who believe other than you folks do, and atheists.
The Constitution works well for a diverse society, as long as the majority have the morals and religion that John Adams was referring to. Plenty of atheists and even some middle eastern religions existed in the U.S during the 19th century. They had the same personal liberties as everyone else, but they were obliged by the traditions and standards of the majority to refrain from trying to publicly establish their unusual personal behaviors for everyone else to watch, participate in, or pay for. As those morals are largely gone in the U.S. now, so is those minorities respect for traditional morals and western religion, hence the public debt, demands for gay marriage, scientific use of public funds to "weaken the hold of religion", on and on.
Would you be planning on using the power of the government to enforce your particular brand of religious belief?
No. It wasn't necessary in the 19th century, and it wouldn't work now. Religion and morals should be voluntary, not enforced by big government. I believe that’s what John Adams meant.
Give us some details. Your reference back 200 years doesn't answer the question. How do you plan to go forward?
Go forward? There's no going back to the liberty and small government of the 19th century. Too much "me first" secularism has replaced morals and religion. An economic crash is coming, probably in the 2040's or 2050's. I’m 58 years old, so I'll be outta here by then.
Now how about answering some of your questions from your point of view. You're a political conservative, and you know you're a tiny minority among the scientific/evolution mindset. How do you expect a completely secular government, minus the morals and religion that John Adams referred to, to promote liberty and small government?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2013 12:36 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2013 10:56 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 36 of 112 (704128)
08-04-2013 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
08-04-2013 1:26 AM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
marc9000 writes:
As one example, did you know that there was a school bus accident in Kentucky in 1958 that killed 26 school students, and no lawsuits were filed?
Unless that's because there used to be a law against filing lawsuits, what in the world does that have to do with anything?
There was no law against filing lawsuits, but in that era's morality and tradition, the jackpot mentality that's been common since the mid seventies didn't exist, and society was far better (more free) because of it. Read all about that accident here;
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kyjohnso/Bus.htm
Investigations were done, but it's clear that their purpose was to simply find out what happened, to learn from it. Little question that the accident was the bus driver's mistake, yet parents of the dead children voted to share the insurance money with his family. The owner of another damaged vehicle gave his insurance money to the victims families. A thing called compassion, something practically unheard of in public accidents today. The bus maker, the bus body company, and any other utility within a quarter mile of the accident was not sued, thereby keeping the general public from having to cover all those costs for decades into the future.
I referenced it to help show the contrast that I referred to earlier, in the vast differences in U.S. society from the 1950's to the 1970's, and later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-04-2013 1:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2013 12:28 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-05-2013 4:39 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 37 of 112 (704129)
08-04-2013 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by marc9000
08-04-2013 7:37 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
My version of liberty--
To begin with, it would be based on rationality, not superstition and old tribal myths.
And it would involve leaving other people alone and expecting them to leave me alone. Just because you believe in rubbing blue mud in your naval on alternate Thursdays doesn't mean I have to do so, or that I have to respect that practice. And I will resist any attempts to make me do so.
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.
Edited by Coyote, : speeling

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2013 7:37 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2013 12:42 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:03 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 38 of 112 (704135)
08-04-2013 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by marc9000
08-04-2013 7:18 PM


Actually it is ...
A book which tells you how to trim your beard and what clothes to wear, which criminalizes freedom of speech and of religion, and which urges complete submission of subjects to kings and slaves to masters, is a manifesto for individual liberty?
If you want me to believe that, you'll have to do more than just say so.
... you just don't understand it ...
If so, then I seem to be in good company. You know who else didn't understand it? The Jews. When they read all that stuff about stoning unbelievers and annihilating entire towns for religious unorthodoxy, they didn't rush out and pass a bill of rights enshrining freedom of religion. The apostles, also, may have had the gifts of tongues, of healing, and of prophecy, but they couldn't understand the Bible like you did, or they'd have drafted an early version of the U.S. Constitution. The Protestant reformers, too, seem to have overlooked the message of the Bible in this respect --- how fortunate you are that your Biblical scholarship is better than theirs.
The U.S. founders referred to it more than anything else as they put together the U.S. Constitution.
But without referring to it in the U.S. Constitution. Funny that, isn't it? It's almost as if you're ... wrong.
It's atheism and science that are not manifestos for personal liberty, if you disagree, then maybe you could supply proof that they are.
I never said they were. However, at least atheism doesn't tell us that there's a God who wants complete submission of slaves to masters and subject to kings. So it's got that going for it.
The anti-moving-the-goalposts fruit of atheist gangs on scientific message boards. I'm surprised there are only 3 of you - usually it's 5 or more that demand more and more detail from a single opponent, so they can overwhelm their time constraints, then mock and jeer and slap each other on the back for their scientific victory.
If you don't like being debated, you could stop posting on forums devoted to debate; if you don't like being proved wrong, you could try acquiring some opinions that aren't wrong; and if you don't know what "moving the goalposts" means, you could stop using the phrase.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2013 7:18 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 39 of 112 (704140)
08-05-2013 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by marc9000
08-04-2013 7:48 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
There was no law against filing lawsuits, but in that era's morality and tradition, the jackpot mentality that's been common since the mid seventies didn't exist, and society was far better (more free) because of it.
Glossing "better" as "(more free)" doesn't actually make them synonymous.
Investigations were done, but it's clear that their purpose was to simply find out what happened, to learn from it. Little question that the accident was the bus driver's mistake, yet parents of the dead children voted to share the insurance money with his family. The owner of another damaged vehicle gave his insurance money to the victims families. A thing called compassion, something practically unheard of in public accidents today.
Event held to support victim of spinal cord injury
Kansas Inmates Raise Money For Boston Bombing Victims
Brunswick boosters hold fundraiser for crash victims
Fundraiser for victims in fatal Schaghticoke crash
Youngstown News, Fundraiser planned for accident victim
Raising Money for Crash Victim
Dropkick Murphys Raise Over $300,000 For Boston Marathon Bombing Victims
Community Supports Local Tornado Victims
Runners hit trail to raise money for Boston Marathon bombing victims
Local group raises money for Boston marathon victims
Community raised money to help children of young couple who was shot and killed on McFaddin Beach
Gambrills dance troupes help raise money for hurricane victims
Shelton and J.C. Penney raising money for tornado victims
Fundraiser at Mongolian BBQ raises funds for OK tornado victims
Byrd students raise money for injured classmate
Wallingford fifth-graders come to aid of tornado victims
Local Children's Lemonade Stand Helps
Community answers call for Oklahoma tornado victims relief
Tourney aids victim of boating accident
Fundraiser collects money for Orange deputy
Indian Valley Middle School helps Oklahoma victims
"Miracle on the Hudson" survivor gives back
Frigid dip raises money for Stony Point Sandy victims
'Crowdfunding' sites pay medical bills, raise hopes
New fundraising goal for bus crash victims already met
Austin shoppers raise money for wildfire victims
26.4.26 Foundation to Deliver $30K From Marathon to Sandy Hook
Corvallis residents rallying around GAN victims
Crash victim's father delighted by memorial cruise response
Raising money, hope and spirits: Events to aid victims bring in millions of dollars
Fundraiser held for victim killed in gas explosion
Kids pitch in to help superstorm Sandy victims across Long Island
2 burn survivors join Ohio State 5K to help victims
Newtown students come together to help Oklahoma tornado victims
Charlotte Helps Children of Couple Killed in Accident
Yeah, where'd all the compassion go? And why are these two suing each other ... Son of victim comforts driver in crash ... oh, wait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2013 7:48 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 08-05-2013 4:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 112 (704142)
08-05-2013 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coyote
08-04-2013 10:56 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
Once we get done with that topic we can discuss what manner of secular government we would prefer.
Blasphemer! There can only be one secular government! It must be in accordance with the word of not-God, as revealed to his not-prophets and codified in the non-Bible. The not-Pope was very clear about this in his latest not-an-encyclical, and if you don't believe me you should consult your not-pastor. If you commit the non-sin of conservatism, you risk you not-immortal non-soul, not to mention not-excommunication from the non-church. That's what you get for joining a monolithic non-religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2013 10:56 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 41 of 112 (704158)
08-05-2013 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by marc9000
08-02-2013 7:53 PM


Rise of the Nerds
When religion is suppressed to the point where there are no morals, where scientific leaders become rulers in government bureaucracies.
Then you have the wrong understanding of what "secular" means. You're describing some kind of science fiction political government.
Secular just means religious ideologies don't govern political decisions and law making. Which is what you want when it comes to things like Sharia Law.
So you can relax, atheist are the least of your worries.
Not all, a lot of us don't want atheist liberals in charge of politics, with all its associated environmentalism, redistribution of wealth, and big government.
What if it was a Christian/Muslim/Buddist/Hindu who was a liberal, environmentalist, who wants to redistribute the wealth? Would that change your opinion just because they were religious? Or isn't that what we're trying to avoid?
Including the scientific community's worship of themselves and the earth.
Do you make sense to yourself? Because I can't really take you serious when you say ridiculous shit like this.
A small government - that's the only way it can stay neutral.
Right...but still secular.
Only a few, but there are a lot of them that would like their religion to offset the increasing establishment of atheism through science education, and the associated big government that goes along with it.
YOU seem to associate scientific knowledge with big government. I imagine there are others like you who also believe ridiculous things like that as well.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by marc9000, posted 08-02-2013 7:53 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 42 of 112 (704159)
08-05-2013 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by marc9000
08-03-2013 10:55 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
Like early U.S. history, there wouldn't be any state lotteries, public gambling, ambulance-chasing lawyers advertising on television, dishonest government greed, etc. You know, morality.
What a great moral government that enslaved and segregated certain individuals because of their skin color. Allowed for them to be brutally killed with little to no consequences. Same government didn't let certain religious groups hold political positions. Same government didn't allow women to vote, and pretty much treated minorities like second class citizens.
Some morality...
And that's the government you want to go back to? Over my dead body.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by marc9000, posted 08-03-2013 10:55 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:57 PM onifre has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 43 of 112 (704184)
08-05-2013 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
08-05-2013 12:28 AM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
marc9000 writes:
There was no law against filing lawsuits, but in that era's morality and tradition, the jackpot mentality that's been common since the mid seventies didn't exist, and society was far better (more free) because of it.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Glossing "better" as "(more free)" doesn't actually make them synonymous.
I have to give marc9000 a nod for having the sac to address this question, because it is indeed a quagmire. There is no question that women, minorities, and pretty much everybody except rich, WASP males was not more free in the fifties than in the seventies or eighties.
Most of the posters who come here, and who express a longing for the good old days have enough savvy not to fall into the trap of specifying the exact period they are nostalgic for. I can recall, for example Buzsaw ducking this question repeatedly.
I have to presume that those who express a preference for the 50's and even for the early nineteenth century as some commentators on American Family Radio are wont to do, have a very crabbed view of what freedom means. It is certainly not a view that requires any respect whatsoever.
But more to the point, the absence of law suits for major causing major casualty and injury makes you free to do what? Be absolutely reckless and careless with the life and limb of others with impunity?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2013 12:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:17 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 44 of 112 (704190)
08-05-2013 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by marc9000
08-04-2013 7:48 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
I referenced it to help show the contrast that I referred to earlier, in the vast differences in U.S. society from the 1950's to the 1970's, and later.
People who relish in the past always seem to forget that it is what has lead us to the present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by marc9000, posted 08-04-2013 7:48 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 45 of 112 (704231)
08-06-2013 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
08-01-2013 1:06 PM


Don't forget the whole gay killing bits.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 08-01-2013 1:06 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024