attacking religion (breaking off the constitutiional thread)

[foxpaws]

the only reason religion gets attacked is that the gov't doesn't want ANY form of solidarity with the people. They (gov't) due what ever it takes to keep the people at each others throats that way they can do what they want without conflict

Correct...and with the complicit media keeping us in a "state of fear," they can control the populace.

And after this mess you really think that mixing God and government is a good idea?

Gosh, right now I can't imagine anything better than going to a state supported church and watching my stock in God go down...

Plus, the government could regulate it... Think of all the new regulations that could go into effect.

Maybe we could have quotas. Maybe we could have forced contributions (think a church tax). Maybe we could give preferential treatment to people who believe correctly. Maybe we could get out a new edition of the Bible that reflected the 'true word of God', printed on government presses.

Maybe we could round up certain people who believe differently and place them where we could control them.

Maybe we need a new police force to make sure all these regulations are followed.

Maybe some of this sounds familiar.

 

[jhargarage]

foxpaws, I am not sure what you are saying

 

[foxpaws]

Mr. Garage... Since we, in the constitutional thread, were talking about whether or not we should continue to keep the wall between state and church I thought we should probably discuss the whole "religion gets attacked is that the gov't doesn't want ANY form of solidarity with the people" and "state of fear," in a new thread...

Otherwise in the context of that thread it looks like you might be condoning state religion...

Which I am probably wrong about - but, the constitutional thing is about intent vs meaning...

 

[jhargarage]

ok understood, thought I upset you and that was not my intent

 

[foxpaws]

Nope, not upset... just wanted to get things separated out - I would really like to keep the constitutional thing pretty much just based on the constitution... sort of hard to do, and I have seen other threads sort of degrade... And that one was going pretty good, keeping on track. hrmwrm would like to distract us too... so, maybe he can come over here on this thread and talk...

 

[jhargarage]

yes I have noticed that about this forum, this is the first real forum I have participated in, and the threads do seem to spiral off in a different direction so don't be afraid to point these things out to me remember I am a man

need I say more............LOL

 

[foxpaws]

So, a man who asks directions - oh my gosh - a keeper!!!!!

I sort of made my response a bit inflammatory, just to make sure people notice

 

[hrmwrm]

i have nothing against religions personally, contrary to some popular beliefs, just as long as it keeps where it belongs. in the home and your preferred place of worship. that is where shag and fossten have a hard time. they think it should be prevalent in society. i was not intending to distract, just put another ideal and pov forward that isn't all that unbelievable.

the men behind the constitution of the states were free thinkers. i'm sure even they envisioned a plausibility, which is why in wording there is nothing about the flavour of a belief in god, which rules out a concept of a christian base. it comes from years of tyranny within european christian ideals and the effort to make a country free in belief not dictated by the state. with fossten and shag so caught up in christian idealism it is hard for them to fathom the fact of it not being christian in base, although society was predominately christian at the time.

 

[jhargarage]

Things were a lot better off before Christianity was removed from society and "put in its place", and the Constitution was written with freedom of religion in mind.

 

[fossten]

i have nothing against religions personally, contrary to some popular beliefs, just as long as it keeps where it belongs. in the home and your preferred place of worship. that is where shag and fossten have a hard time. they think it should be prevalent in society. i was not intending to distract, just put another ideal and pov forward that isn't all that unbelievable.

the men behind the constitution of the states were free thinkers. i'm sure even they envisioned a plausibility, which is why in wording there is nothing about the flavour of a belief in god, which rules out a concept of a christian base. it comes from years of tyranny within european christian ideals and the effort to make a country free in belief not dictated by the state. with fossten and shag so caught up in christian idealism it is hard for them to fathom the fact of it not being christian in base, although society was predominately christian at the time.

You're clearly trying to flame bait here. You really have no idea how I think or how Shag thinks. You're very presumptuous and arrogant to pigeonhole others like that. And you're a one trick pony with only one topic to discuss, much like our resident trollbot Mick Jagger.

Since you never have anything to offer this forum other than insults to the Christians here, I'm putting you on my block list. Have fun talking to yourself.

 

[hrmwrm]

Things were a lot better off before Christianity was removed from society and "put in its place", and the Constitution was written with freedom of religion in mind.

really? elaborate how. i'd like to know how you believe that. you only mean that things were better for the christian view and it's intolerances? of course this would apply to any religion that is intolerant. christian and heretics, muslim and infidels.

and christianity hasn't been "put in it's place". it's merely been slowly taken out as the deciding factor within societal ideas. (although it still has strong influence). thus relegated to where the constitution itself left it. as a freedom of personal choice.

 

[jhargarage]

well I guess I can start by saying, families first, when God was a part of everyday family, everybody sat down together for dinner said a prayer ate to together. There was respect from kids to parents, kids respected them selves didn't blam everyone else for there mistakes. Pregnant without marriage was bad looked down a pone as apposed to now where it is everyday. Yes God is a freedom of choice that is how it has been "free will". Out of time right now more to come.

 

[Mick Jagger]

jhargarage
religion gets attacked

How exactly do believe religion is being attacked?

 

[jhargarage]

It gets attacked cause of being an organized group of people to which the gov't does not like groups of anything. Trying to take God out of everything, like pledge of allegiance, trying to remove "in God we trust" these are all attacks on religion.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Trying to take God out of [the] pledge of allegiance [is an] attack on religion.

Trying to remove God from the Pledge would, in my view, be an attack on the evil demonic institution of government established religion, which is a sinful trespass upon God's absolute and exclusive authority over the duties we owe him regarding the manner and method of rendering him proper homage.

 

[shagdrum]

i was not intending to distract, just put another ideal and pov forward that isn't all that unbelievable.

Not intending to distract?

In response to the idea that the Framers believed that "Natural rights come from God; specifically being made in God's image entitles humans to certian rights that cannot be taken away by anyone less then God (without due process)." in the context of a debate on the Framer's religious influence, you wrote...

so you have a problematic debate on whether god is real. because if god doesn't exist, then natural rights don't exist. sounds like it's hinged on a pretty flaky basis. if truly fought on the existance of god, it crumbles.

What you wrote was totally irrelveant to the debate! Weather rights come from God or not is irrelevant; the Framers assumed that they did and understood them as such when they wrote the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If you were not "intending to distract", you should made it look like you were...

the men behind the constitution of the states were free thinkers.

And that negates them being Christian, or having Christian influences and understandings?

with fossten and shag so caught up in christian idealism it is hard for them to fathom the fact of it not being christian in base, although society was predominately christian at the time.

When did I become caught up in Christian "idealism"? You somehow know my religious views now?

I am no "idealist"...I simply don't automatically write off any idea about Christianity and its views that doesn't line up with athiest orthodoxy.

 

[shagdrum]

really? elaborate how. i'd like to know how you believe that. you only mean that things were better for the christian view and it's intolerances? of course this would apply to any religion that is intolerant. christian and heretics, muslim and infidels.

...another loaded statement from hrmwrm. It assumes Christianity is inherently intolerant.

But it is Fossten and I who are Christian "idealists" that can't get past our own bias, right?

It seems the more you type, the more you show your biased outlook.:eyeroll:

 

[jhargarage]

I think I am 100 IQ points shy of understanding some of this thread.

 

[97stscaddy]

Since you never have anything to offer this forum other than insults to the Christians here, I'm putting you on my block list. Have fun talking to yourself.

Cuz that's the mature thing to do. I don't like what you say about my religion, so Ill block you? Come on.

Christianity is inherently intolerant.

Not Christianity, Christians. Christians are inherently intolerant.

Spanish inquisition?

 

[foxpaws]

Not Christianity, Christians. Christians are inherently intolerant.

You can't make prejudicial statements like that sts - it isn't any different than being biased towards blacks, women, any group.

As with all groups - you have good and bad. With that statement you are placing yourself in a whole different intolerant group.

The founding fathers' belief in God did dictate how this country was formed, governed, and ruled. Their belief in God, along with the way they viewed Natural Rights that they believed came from God helped make this country great.

Now, as far as their views on organized religion - that was perhaps something different.

So, Shag - are you ready to continue the other debate... I noticed a David Limbaugh posting - actually I have been looking at his book Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, you can read a lot of it on googlebooks for free.

Oh, Mr Garage - ask someone who is about 65 or older to say the Pledge of Allegiance and see if they falter at "under God". It didn't arrive on the scene until 1954.

 

[hrmwrm]

technically you're right shag. it is the fundamentalist's and extremists that give a bad name to religion now. but go back just a short time in history and you will see the intolerance was the norm. the days of the inquisition and the crusades as being some of the blackest. (do you believe in god? no? you're dead.) (do you believe in god? yes. do you believe in my god? no? you're dead)(about sums up the middle ages and even early america. remember salem?)

and as for the constitution, what are you going to rely on if the god ideal is ever gone? and no. it's not a radical statement nor implausible.

religion is not being attacked. extremism, in that everybody should believe the word, is.

and actually foxpaws,97stscaddy is not that far off. but it's not just christianity. the religious run around talking like all believe. that all follow the same traditions and ideals. lay a line down that you don't believe and see how the treatment starts. even with people who aren't strong on belief. but then i have my defense for that.

after all, you're not born believing, you have to be told to believe.

 

[shagdrum]

technically you're right shag. it is the fundamentalist's and extremists that give a bad name to religion now. but go back just a short time in history and you will see the intolerance was the norm. the days of the inquisition and the crusades as being some of the blackest.

Actually, no, it was never "the norm". You are cherry picking and exagurating those incedents...

(do you believe in god? no? you're dead.) (do you believe in god? yes. do you believe in my god? no? you're dead)

I have that Carlin album too!

 

[fossten]

Anybody who lumps Catholics and Christians together in order to hang the Spanish Inquisition around the necks of Christians (read: Protestants) shows either gross ignorance or is deliberately smearing.

 

[97stscaddy]

You can't make prejudicial statements like that sts - it isn't any different than being biased towards blacks, women, any group.

I just did. I wasn't trying to place blame on Chirstians I was merely pointing out that Christianity, as a religion, is (at least is supposed to be) tolerant. The people, Christians, who claim said religion are not.
But you're right there are "good and bad" in any religion and not everyone can or should, be lumped together into one group. But when the rest of the group does not condemn the actions of the ones who are intolerant of other people due to race, religion, sexuality, gender, etc; it makes the entire group look bad. The phrase "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" comes to mind.

Matter of fact if not for "the bad" I might still be willing to call myself Christian. Christians drove me away from Christianity.

Anybody who lumps Catholics and Christians together in order to hang the Spanish Inquisition around the necks of Christians (read: Protestants) shows either gross ignorance or is deliberately smearing.

Is Catholicism not a Christian religion?

 

[rubberducky700]

Anybody who lumps Catholics and Christians together in order to hang the Spanish Inquisition around the necks of Christians (read: Protestants) shows either gross ignorance or is deliberately smearing.

This might be the only thing I understood in this whole thread, FoxFoot, elaberate on what you believe in or on, so I can get what this is about. Not trying to be arrogant but I read it 3 Times and Im unsure about what is being discussed