|
Post by krzych32 on May 29, 2010 11:22:42 GMT -5
TorterraOats, I'm sure Narok can take a joke.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 29, 2010 12:05:22 GMT -5
For a mostly atheist community, this forum spends a lot of time talking about religion..... Atheism is a religion, and a lot of people talk about their religion. I hate when people say it is an absence of religion. The definition? Quoted directly from dictionary.com; 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.Now, back on topic, this is ridiculous. We need to let people practice their own religion without trying to force their religion on others. That means Christians shouldn't try to make Atheists believe, and Atheists shouldn't try to make Christians not believe (And any combination of any religion). If people could keep to themselves and not force anything on anyone and also make laws based on morals, not relgion, most religion drama will be over. Just because something is a doctrine doesn't mean it's a religious doctrine. Atheism is a view concerning religion, yes, but in itself, it is not a religion. People don't "practice" atheism. Many atheists ignore religion all together. I can see how someone could try and classify atheism as a religion, but it's really not, and many atheists would be insulted if someone did try to classify it as such. In response to the second part of your post, most religious people derive their morals from their religion. People who base their opinions off of their religion cannot debate without it, so I doubt we'll ever be able to eliminate religious drama unless we somehow eliminate religion (which I don't see happening anytime soon). As for the topic at hand, I'm the first to complain when religion is brought up in school, but that teacher wasn't doing anything wrong. Silently practicing religion is fine. I graduated high school a few weeks ago, and there was a prayer during the ceremony. It pissed me off. This teacher praying silently, on the other hand, is okay in my book.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 29, 2010 12:31:35 GMT -5
krzych32: It's cool. But you wouldn't believe how many people like to reign threats of hellfire on us and are actually serious about it. At this point I just regard them as rather silly and a lost cause. @randi: It's probably true, but it's because we are given so many reasons to be angry about it. But keep in mind that a lot of it is also just perception. It's not that you don't see atheists talking about other things, it's that when they're talking about other things they don't generally identify as atheists in the first place. It's not like we're mindlessly focused on it, it's just that (a) only atheists would argue against religion as a whole, and (b) atheists don't usually identify as atheists where religion isn't a topic. So the only time you see people identified as atheists is in a religious debate, and the only time religion is being debated against, it must be atheists (or less commonly agnostics and deists). Cortney: Said everything I was going to! Except I wouldn't say the religious derive their morals from religion. They do associate the two, but nobody gets their morals exclusively from the good book. After all, Christians don't support slavery. Many Christians are no longer anti-homosexual. The basic morals are still a mix of human biological traits (the desire not to kill other humans, to protect children, etc., etc.) and society (politeness, various freedoms, etc.). Religion teaches them and extrapolates on them, but it is not truly the source of them, except perhaps in the case of some of the most extreme fundamentalists.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 29, 2010 13:15:23 GMT -5
Okay, so here in the USA we have it. I lol'd. Theoretically, we have it, but in reality, we don't. Why don't we have gay marriage? Religion. Why can't you buy alcohol on Sunday? Religion. What's that phrase that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954? Oh yeah, "under God." Being separate from religion does not mean you have to go against religion, it is such a mentality which keeps countries away from this. Just because a country is separated from the church, it does not mean it should remove all blue laws. Does being adult mean you must lose your virginity? No. Therefore a government being separated from the church does not necessarily mean that they should allow gay marriage. With that said, separation from the church as both its pros AND cons. The church has done a lot of good things around the world, it has educated people, fed the hungry and clothed the poor. So being all secular might not be all that good in the long run.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 29, 2010 13:32:17 GMT -5
Does being adult mean you must lose your virginity? No. Therefore a government being separated from the church does not necessarily mean that they should allow gay marriage. lolwut? Anyway, what I get out of your post is, "Just because our government is said to be separated from the church doesn't mean we can't have church in our government!" Makes no sense. I agree with everything Chels said. If the only reason gay marriage is illegal is religion, then no, church and state are not separate.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on May 29, 2010 13:44:24 GMT -5
I lol'd. Theoretically, we have it, but in reality, we don't. Why don't we have gay marriage? Religion. Why can't you buy alcohol on Sunday? Religion. What's that phrase that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954? Oh yeah, "under God." Being separate from religion does not mean you have to go against religion, it is such a mentality which keeps countries away from this. Just because a country is separated from the church, it does not mean it should remove all blue laws. Does being adult mean you must lose your virginity? No. Therefore a government being separated from the church does not necessarily mean that they should allow gay marriage. With that said, separation from the church as both its pros AND cons. The church has done a lot of good things around the world, it has educated people, fed the hungry and clothed the poor. So being all secular might not be all that good in the long run. I understand that this could apply for certain things. Like, religions are against murder, and government shouldn't condone it either, regardless of what religions think about it. But that's not the case with gay marriage. There is no logical reason to ban gay marriage. Most of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage or homosexuality in general are "I don't want it because it's weird/unnatural," or the slightly more legitimate, but religious-based, "Marriage is a Christian unity, and homosexuality is not allowed in Christianity, therefore gays can't have a Christian unity." But then that's a religious reason and doesn't explain why gays can't have the same legal rights as straight couples, just without having a Christian marriage.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 29, 2010 14:11:04 GMT -5
That is the biggest non-sequitur I've seen in a while. Or basically, everything Cortney just said.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 29, 2010 19:36:11 GMT -5
The point of this discussion is not gay marriage, it is the state and the church. I love the way people on this forum relate everything to gays, it shows that that there is no argument in any topic since: "Oh gays need rights!" is the reply to every post, and they stop reading posts the second one speaks out against gay marriage.
My point is that the church as done more good than harm to society, and even though gays are not allowed to marry: It does not mean a secular state is the solution.
The government does not need to legalize anything to prove to people that it is secular. Secularism isn't something the constitution defines, it is something the culture defines therefore if gay marriage is illegal in some states - it is illegal for a reason. Once the population thinks such laws should be set, the constitution follows en suit. Democracy > secularism.
ps. I am in favor in gay marriage, I am against Pro-secular-atheist-liberal-bs propaganda which a lot of the people on here preach.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 29, 2010 19:51:10 GMT -5
The only reason we got on the subject of gay marriage is because you brought it up, bro. Chels mentioned it briefly among other examples of religion controlling law, and you emphasized it (with an example that I still don't understand).
Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs. - From Wikipedia
If the government is secular, then the laws should be secular. If a person or family chooses to be religious, that's fine. However, if that religion is imposed on the entire nation, that is not okay.
Democracy can co-exist with secularism, and basic human rights come before everything (which is the case with gay marriage).
Just because the church has done more good than harm for society (which, b.t.dubs, is an opinion) doesn't mean that it should be allowed to play a role in deciding laws.
In a country that goes on and on about freedom, a secular state is the ideal solution. It allows individuals to practice their religion, and those who don't want to practice don't have to. Gays could get married, and if someone doesn't like it, they can humph and groan about it all they want, but it doesn't affect them. In a secular society, beliefs can coexist. In a non-secular society (where democracy > secularism, as you said), the majority opinion wins and everybody else has to deal with it. Uncool, IMO.
Also, I can say I'm against all of the pro-Republican-religious-conservative-bs propoganda everybody preaches about down here in the South, but it doesn't get me anywhere. Just sayin. =P
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on May 29, 2010 19:53:13 GMT -5
TheIslander, LOL. I gave more reasons that just gay marriage. YOU only responded to that one of my reasons. Don't accuse me of only focusing on gay rights when you're the one that started the conversation. So tell me, why does our secular government have "under God," in the pledge? And we don't live in a direct democracy, so the laws don't necessarily represent what the population wants. Our representatives are supposed to be educated, intelligent individuals that can choose what's right for us using their best reasoning. But they don't do that. They make decisions based on their own ridiculous beliefs which have no logical grounding.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 29, 2010 19:56:17 GMT -5
The constitution is there to make sure certain rights can't be just voted away by a majority. One of those rights is for religion not to be imposed on people. If the ONLY reason for gay marriage to be banned is that it offends Christianity, then there is no legal reason for gay marriage to be banned. (If the only reason were homophobia, then they should fare no better against the discrimination law.)
|
|
|
Post by Lex on May 29, 2010 19:57:17 GMT -5
Gays shouldn't be barred from being married just because the general straight population in one area doesn't like it. That's stupid. It's like asking one person for permission whether or not to give someone else a tattoo. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 29, 2010 20:22:25 GMT -5
The only reason we got on the subject of gay marriage is because you brought it up, bro. Chels mentioned it briefly among other examples of religion controlling law, and you emphasized it (with an example that I still don't understand). Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.- From Wikipedia If the government is secular, then the laws should be secular. If a person or family chooses to be religious, that's fine. However, if that religion is imposed on the entire nation, that is not okay. Democracy can co-exist with secularism, and basic human rights come before everything (which is the case with gay marriage). Just because the church has done more good than harm for society (which, b.t.dubs, is an opinion) doesn't mean that it should be allowed to play a role in deciding laws. In a country that goes on and on about freedom, a secular state is the ideal solution. It allows individuals to practice their religion, and those who don't want to practice don't have to. Gays could get married, and if someone doesn't like it, they can humph and groan about it all they want, but it doesn't affect them. In a secular society, beliefs can coexist. In a non-secular society (where democracy > secularism, as you said), the majority opinion wins and everybody else has to deal with it. Uncool, IMO. Who are the ones who elect the government Courtney? The people. If the people are not secular, no matter what the government does - nothing will be secular. Beliefs already co-exist in the US, gay marriage not being legal does not mean beliefs don't co-exist. Just because you believe in something it doesn't mean it should happen. There is a government, it is there to satisfy the people. Thus and only thus, the US is as secular as it can get. TheIslander, LOL. I gave more reasons that just gay marriage. YOU only responded to that one of my reasons. Don't accuse me of only focusing on gay rights when you're the one that started the conversation. So tell me, why does our secular government have "under God," in the pledge? And we don't live in a direct democracy, so the laws don't necessarily represent what the population wants. Our representatives are supposed to be educated, intelligent individuals that can choose what's right for us using their best reasoning. But they don't do that. They make decisions based on their own ridiculous beliefs which have no logical grounding. Your last post spoke only spoke about gays, and the alcohol law varies from state to state. Your government is not my government and I am unaware of what is written in your "pledge", but be aware that the concept of having a god does not mean you are not secular. Secularism, as Courtney defined it is the state being separate from religion or religious beliefs - not ignoring any spiritual beliefs. "And we don't live in a direct democracy, so the laws don't necessarily represent what the population wants." : Eh? Do you even know what a direct democracy is? A direct democracy is un-related to what you are trying to say if I understood right. The point of democracy is to represent the people.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 29, 2010 20:31:55 GMT -5
The constitution is there to make sure certain rights can't be just voted away by a majority. One of those rights is for religion not to be imposed on people. If the ONLY reason for gay marriage to be banned is that it offends Christianity, then there is no legal reason for gay marriage to be banned. (If the only reason were homophobia, then they should fare no better against the discrimination law.) Lol, so now you're calling me a homophobic simply because I said secularism isn't all that good? Well let us see what the church has done for us: + Relief from the Barbarian invasions of the early middle ages + Rescued Christian and pre-christian literature + Spread agricultural and animal husbandry knowledge + Started and protected universities + Sponsored and supported science and medicine + Created International Law theory + Developed and sponsored modern economic theory + Invented charity as we know it + Codified, expanded, and improved Western Law + Developed Western Morality + Created just war theory + Sponsored and influenced art and architecture + Developed the concept of inalienable rights I am not saying that secularism is bad, I am saying that the decision to become secular is not all that easy since under a theocratic state - good things HAVE happened.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 29, 2010 20:39:34 GMT -5
Who are the ones who elect the government Courtney? The people. If the people are not secular, no matter what the government does - nothing will be secular. There is a government, it is there to satisfy the people. Thus and only thus, the US is as secular as it can get. Just because the people elect the government does not mean that the government accurately represents what the people want. My point is that in a secular society, those who are religious can still be religious. It does not work the other way around. When it not happening means people are missing out on basic human rights, yes it should happen. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't affect those who are against it (other than annoying them). Keeping it illegal affects the entire lifestyle of those who are gay. Having religion in the pledge is combining the state with religion. There is a difference between separating and ignoring - religion plays an active role in the government. Removing that active role does not mean it is ignored. Direct democracy = the people represent themselves. Representative democracy (i.e, the US) = the people elect representatives to represent themselves. In the latter, the majority of the population would be represented, so the opinion of the majority would be in place in the government (ideally). However, as Chels pointed out, politicians suck and don't represent the majority well at all. According to Wikipedia, 16.1% of America is non-religious (which sucks, btw). 80.2% of Americans believe in the Christian God. Obviously, the majority is Christian. Allowing this majority to use their religion to decide the laws would completely ignore the freedom our country is founded upon. Creating and abiding by secular laws allows the non-religious population to remain non-religious, and the religious population to practice their religion. Here's an example: Timmy and Tommy want to play at the park. There are two parks to choose from. One park has swings and a slide, and the other has only swings. Timmy doesn't like to swing, and Tommy doesn't like to slide. If they go to the park with the slide, then Timmy can slide and Tommy can swing. If they go to the other park, Tommy can swing and Timmy has to sit there and do nothing. The park with both is secularism, the park with one is democracy in such an overly religious nation. In the latter, Timmy can still dislike swings (beliefs can co-exist), but he can't do anything about it (i.e, laws based on religion prevent gay marriage, or buying alcohol on Sunday). In the first example, they can each do what they like (no religious laws, but families / people can follow their own personal guidelines).
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on May 29, 2010 20:41:45 GMT -5
The church doing good things in society does not mean the government shouldn't be secular. Under a secular government, there are still churches. Your argument makes no sense.
Vegetables are good for us, let's make everybody eat vegetables, as opposed to vegetables are good for us, let's let those who like vegetables eat them, and those who don't like them eat something else.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 29, 2010 20:48:39 GMT -5
I did not call you homophobic. I said that if the only reason that people were against gay marriage was homophobia, then it's discrimination and ought to be discarded. I never accused you of it.
But let's see what else the church did:
- Started invasions of other countries; but these weren't barbaric, because it was the church - Quashed any literature that spoke against their beliefs - Owned incredible portions of land and tithed everyone who worked it - Started universities that preached known lies to be true. - Attempted and continues to attempt to hold back science where they disagree with it - Constantly fights against constitutional law keeping them out of government, yet would happily oppose any other religion having those rights - Claims to be responsible for morality despite the fact that morals clearly exist outside Christian nations, and can be demonstrated to be the cause of both biology and society. - Does the above despite constantly violating their own moral code, then covering it up, and continuing to deny it after being caught.
Hmm, bad things have happened too. And I would argue this: most good things today that the church is supposedly responsible for -- charity, community... whatever else -- can exist with or without the church. But many of the bad things -- terrorism, obscurantism, fundamentalism -- are basically only possible with religious dogma, or at least with some similar faith-over-reason dogmatic indoctrination. Furthermore, some of the charities of the more distant past aren't necessarily the church's doing -- if one wanted to do good in those times, their inclination was to go to the church to do so by default; they saw no other option. The church was not the cause of the morality, just the only available means, due to their overwhelming economic control of their land. The morality came from the individuals, as it always has.
But this isn't even about whether the church is good or bad. It's about whether it's okay for it to be in government. Laws that enforce a religion's views do not belong in government. If a law agrees with a religious view, but also has good non-religious reason for existing -- say the law against murder -- then that's fine. But if the only reason for a law's existence is that one church or another says so, then it doesn't belong in the rule books.
Why? Because it infringes on the rights of everyone not of that church. And I don't just mean non-Christians, I mean even Christians who disagree with that interpretation. Allowing the church for no other reason than they say it's a sin to keep homosexual marriage out of the law books punishes Christians in favour of homosexual marriage just as much as everyone else. If the church wants to make decisions like that, let them make it in the church. Unless there is a good non-religious motivation for an act of government, it does not belong there.
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on May 29, 2010 20:51:56 GMT -5
My last post only spoke about gays because that's what you responded to! And why does the fact that the alcohol law varies from state to state make it exempt from discussion? Gay marriage varies from state to state, but you have no problem debating that... Religions are focused around gods. Christianity is focused on God. Our Pledge of Allegiance asserts the United States to be "one nation, under God." I don't see how that's secular. It's directly integrating the central focus of religion into our country pledge.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 29, 2010 20:55:36 GMT -5
1. Nakor did not call you Homophobic 2. You brought up Gay Marriage as a primary focus - Chels only brought it up very early on as a passing comment and it had not been talked about for a page and a few posts. 3. The church doing more good than harm IS an opinion (define what is "good for everyone" and "harm for everyone" - you'll find a very short list) 4. Nakor is right in his last post: The constitution is there to make sure certain rights can't be just voted away by a majority. One of those rights is for religion not to be imposed on people. If the ONLY reason for gay marriage to be banned is that it offends Christianity, then there is no legal reason for gay marriage to be banned. (If the only reason were homophobia, then they should fare no better against the discrimination law.) From our constitution - any law that prohibits gay marriage (If based on the fact that marriage is christian, gay is anti-christian, and thus gay people cannot have marriage) is unconstitutional - separation of church and state (the actual argument here). This law would be based in a religious viewpoint which is not to be imposed on the people. This is regardless of how we elect leaders. Nakor was also simply commenting in his parenthetical that any law based in homophobia (it's not natural, it creeps me out, we just don't like it) is equally unconstitutional by discrimination, but is irrelevant to this thread as it has nothing to do with separation of church and state. 5. The United States is a Democratic REPUBLIC, we elect representatives, the representatives only represent a majority of the voters, more specifically the majority in the area of which they represent. So not every voice gets heard. In Direct Democracy, EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL who can vote, MUST VOTE. Everyone has a voice, and EVERY voice is heard. The US is not a direct democracy (the truest form of democracy, I might add). 6. Even with religious leaders, a country can be secular if no law, or judgement of government is based in religious views. So, even if the representatives who make laws, use religious views to come up with just means, so long as the law or passing of any form of judgment does not explicitly state or use religious views, the government is considered secular. Ex: A senator can decide that he should sign a law against capital punishment because his religion and religious views are against capital punishment. The law, however, is not a religious one. 7. The pledge of which Chelsea spoke in her first post, is the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America. And everyone who argues about the pledge should check out this link, the original Pledge of Allegiance was secular. /thread?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 29, 2010 20:56:36 GMT -5
It's not. It's a violation of the first amendment because the government is endorsing monotheistic religion with it. But good luck trying to get it out without every Christian in the nation in an uproar because they're being attacked again. Incidentally, it was not there originally, it was added later.
|
|