|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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, : speelingReligious 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 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 163 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024