Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 76 of 112 (704425)
08-09-2013 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by marc9000
08-09-2013 4:47 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:47 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2013 10:19 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 77 of 112 (704426)
08-09-2013 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Theodoric
08-09-2013 4:40 PM


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:
The Declaration was a document proclaiming the severing of ties. It is not a document of the USA it is pre-USA.
Yep, you said it! I love this place!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2013 4:40 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2013 5:10 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 99 by Theodoric, posted 08-12-2013 6:46 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 78 of 112 (704427)
08-09-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by marc9000
08-09-2013 4:56 PM


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:
So the Declaration has nothing to do with the founding of the U.S.?
Do these mean the same thing? No. Not even close. Nice try troll.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:56 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by marc9000, posted 08-12-2013 7:53 PM Theodoric has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 79 of 112 (704428)
08-09-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by marc9000
08-09-2013 4:32 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:32 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 80 of 112 (704448)
08-10-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by marc9000
08-09-2013 4:47 PM


mqrc9000 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:47 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2013 10:13 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 81 of 112 (704474)
08-10-2013 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by marc9000
08-09-2013 3:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 3:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(2)
Message 82 of 112 (704475)
08-10-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by marc9000
08-09-2013 4:47 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2013 4:47 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 83 of 112 (704482)
08-10-2013 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Coyote
08-09-2013 4:00 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
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:
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
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 right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 08-09-2013 4:00 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by DrJones*, posted 08-10-2013 10:29 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 87 by Coyote, posted 08-10-2013 11:23 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2013 1:14 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 84 of 112 (704484)
08-10-2013 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ringo
08-10-2013 12:35 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 08-10-2013 12:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 08-11-2013 3:08 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 96 by Larni, posted 08-12-2013 9:32 AM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 85 of 112 (704485)
08-10-2013 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Theodoric
08-09-2013 4:51 PM


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:
Claim: about 58% of traditional marriages last longer than 20 years.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
Claim: about 5% of same-sex unions last longer than 20 years.
Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census
quote:
Claim: 85% of married women and 75.5% of married men report being faithful to their spouses. For homosexual males, the number is 4.5%
Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170.
To big of a burden on the U.S. court system. The U.S. can't afford it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2013 4:51 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-11-2013 1:09 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 86 of 112 (704487)
08-10-2013 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
08-10-2013 10:04 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2013 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 87 of 112 (704490)
08-10-2013 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
08-10-2013 10:04 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2013 10:04 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by marc9000, posted 08-11-2013 8:08 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 88 of 112 (704492)
08-11-2013 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by marc9000
08-10-2013 10:19 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2013 10:19 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 89 of 112 (704493)
08-11-2013 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
08-10-2013 10:04 PM


Re: Your version of "liberty"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2013 10:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 90 of 112 (704518)
08-11-2013 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
08-10-2013 10:13 PM


marc9000 writes:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2013 10:13 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 08-11-2013 7:45 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024