Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:54 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319600476' post='363970

Funny, you claimed to know a few posts back, and replied according to what you claimed to know.
Actually this is what I said:

Quote:
Your faith wouldn't get mocked if you didn't stuff it down everyone's throats, and didn't use the hand of the state to do that.
I don't care about the content of your faith, only that you want the state to endorse it. In my quote I was also speaking of the royal "You" - Christofascists who do want the state to enforce their religion.


You said, "Your faith...." without any qualifications.



I don't want the government "enforcing" (whatever the hell that means) my faith any more than I want it enforcing yours.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:57 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
I elaborated my comment after posting. Regardless, what you advocate is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 08:11 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
I elaborated my comment after posting. Regardless, what you advocate is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.


No, what you advocate is a clear violation of the First Amendment ... which you and other atheists try to dodge with your dishonest assessment of atheism as "not a religion."



You want the government to promote your religion.



And moreover, you are rude, superior, and mocking to those who don't share your religion.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 08:22 PM   #54
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,216
A well-articulated if un-PC view of atheism as a religion.





Quote:
Has Atheism Become a Religion?
Quote:



Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:



1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.



2) The U.S. Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal. This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.



3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.



4) Finally -- and you probably knew this was coming -- consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)



Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.



While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.



1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs -- in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God -- that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.



2) Religious faith -- and I'd argue atheistic faith -- doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist.



Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.

Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.
http://www.huffingto...n_b_867217.html



Atheists want to impose their version of strict sharia law. It's so un-PC to say this, but it needs to be said.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 08:31 PM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319601435' post='363974

I elaborated my comment after posting. Regardless, what you advocate is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
No, what you advocate is a clear violation of the First Amendment ... which you and other atheists try to dodge with your dishonest assessment of atheism as "not a religion."



You want the government to promote your religion.
That's just utter nonsense, as I've demonstrated. If I were a Hindu I'd be arguing the same thing - that the state shouldn't be sponsoring your prayers or mine.



What you want is the start of a very slippery slope. The state either has to sponsor a prayer which is so watered down and vague as to satisfy no one (is there common prayer ground between atheists, Wiccans and Southern Baptists?), or it has to become sectarian. When it does the latter you end up with what Denmark is doing to its state church regarding gay marriage, or you end up with a 30 years war. Ignoring the extreme examples, you do end up with a violation of the 1st Amendment.



A moment of silence works for everyone and doesn't shit on the constitution.





Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
And moreover, you are rude, superior, and mocking to those who don't share your religion.
I think I've been "rude, superior, and mocking" to you and Gary (you both deserve it), but how have I been "rude, superior, and mocking" to William or other people of faith here? I was raised in a religious household and have no problem with people of faith - as long as they don't force it on me or try to get the state to endorse it.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 09:06 PM   #56
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319602312' post='363976

No, what you advocate is a clear violation of the First Amendment ... which you and other atheists try to dodge with your dishonest assessment of atheism as "not a religion."



You want the government to promote your religion.
That's just utter nonsense, as I've demonstrated. If I were a Hindu I'd be arguing the same thing - that the state shouldn't be sponsoring your prayers or mine.


How would you "know" that? Oh, that's right. You "know" and you believe it's your duty to mock those who have spiritual beliefs ... oh, oh, wait. Like a lot of racists who have a black friend, you "have no problem with people of faith" as long as they stay within your parameters. A public prayer at a football game which 99.99 percent of the people present have no problem with ... even the ones raised in a religious home but who've decided what they were taught was BS, but still, they don't have any problem with people praying to an imaginary friend ... that's over the line for you.



Intolerance on display....



You don't know. Of all religions to pick, the Hindu religion was a bad one, as Hindus will tell you: All religions agree with the Hindu religion.



As I've evolved as a Christian disciple, I see the truth in that Hindu belief. I see that all religions if practiced in their higher expressions, do lead to the same place ... and it's not atheism.





Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319602312' post='363976

And moreover, you are rude, superior, and mocking to those who don't share your religion.
I think I've been "rude, superior, and mocking" to you and Gary (you both deserve it), but how have I been "rude, superior, and mocking" to William or other people of faith here? I was raised in a religious household and have no problem with people of faith - as long as they don't force it on me or try to get the state to endorse it.


You display what I've said about what you say about yourself. You admit you've been rude, superior, and mocking, and then you quickly justify it. The world according to skrekk.



Your being "raised in a religious household and have no problem with people of faith" sounds an awful lot like: Well see man, I've GOT lotsa black friends.... Sure. Perfect alibi for admittedly being rude, superior, and mocking. Why, it makes being rude, superior, and mocking a noble act. Sir Skrekk, our humble lord.



You atheists are as ridiculous and determined as the Farwells of the world. You are as dangerous as they are, to me. You're both nuts, in my humble opinion. I don't stand with either one of you, though I stand for your respective rights to be wingnuts. Yessir. I stand for that.



And I watch the funny/not funny drama of each side declaring the other to be the real wingnuts. Yeah, right.



Both sides "know." I don't. I know some things about this universe and the life on earth, which certainly implies design, doesn't prove it, but implies it. Honestly, there is a critical dividing line: Those who accept the unexplained, and those that have to rationalize the unexplained. The theist category include all of all religions that believe the order of the universe reveals its design. From that point, opinions differ, and differ in a bad way. The other category, the atheist category, concludes fundamentally that this universe just happened, just somehow originated, just somehow "is."



Maybe. But, that belief is no more scientifically justifiable than the belief that God exists. Science is mute on origins. The theist's and atheist's central concept isn't scientific. Both are based on faith, assumptions outside of what is scientifically provable.



The idea that one person's "opinion" overrides the faith, or tolerance, of 5,999 people is an example of increased tolerance??? THAT is a faith-based determination. To see that as a victory, is to see a victory of one faith over another when seen objectively.



I'm finished with the likes of either of you. You push on me. I don't push on you. You're both adversaries of Liberty. You both have your own versions of sharia law.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 11:09 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
The idea that one person's "opinion" overrides the faith, or tolerance, of 5,999 people is an example of increased tolerance??? THAT is a faith-based determination. To see that as a victory, is to see a victory of one faith over another when seen objectively.



I'm finished with the likes of either of you. You push on me. I don't push on you. You're both adversaries of Liberty. You both have your own versions of sharia law.
Thankfully, SCOTUS is finished with the likes of you too, since their role is to protect the civil rights of a minority of one from the tyranny of a majority of 5,999.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 04:52 AM   #58
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319596420' post='363957

But just so that I am at least more fully informed as to the position of the atheist in such things as Constitutional interpretation, Shrekk, I hope that you will give me your Atheists interpretation of the following passage of the Constitution from Article VII, which states:



"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."



1. In the atheist's understanding of this passage, who is the 'Lord" (note in capital letters) to Whom Article VII refers?
That's the way dates were given back then. It has no legal relevance regarding a recognition of religion whatsoever.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
2. According to Article VII, what would be the year in which the United States of America became independent?
What's the relevance and your point? I'm not your google poodle.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
And for the bonus round, just for kicks,

3. According to the Constitution, what rights as a United States citizen do you possess and from where did they originate? Please give me the Article and passage you reference.
In the US the people are the sovereign, and thus the rights we enjoy originate from the people.

By the way, I think you're confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, and probably meant to refer to the Declaration in your phoney question. FYI, the Declaration merely refers to a "creator", which in the minds of many of the founders who were Deists doesn't correspond to your imaginary friend, nor does it acknowledge or endorse any particular cult or imaginary friend. It also has no legal weight under US law, and was simply a symbolic reference in the context of freedom from a theocratic empire.



Let's put it this way - the founders had the opportunity to write your imaginary friend into the constitution, and they deliberately chose not to. In fact, they specifically followed the Rhode Island model of a secular state, and the Virginia model of religious freedom.


Shrekk- "That's the way dates were given back then. It has no legal relevance regarding a recognition of religion whatsoever."



Hank- Sorry Shrekk, The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing about the Constitution is therefore not Supreme Law. It is therefore Supreme Law that the Constitution was proposed for ratification on the "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." That date stamp carries every bit of the same authority as does any article, any stipulation, and dotted 'I,' any punctuation mark, any intention, any meaning or any relevance of the Constitution to our lives as Americans. There is no source of authority for Shrekk to dissemble the Constitution into pieces that apply to him and pieces that do not. The term "our" refers directly to the individuals of the sitting congress at the time. Those individuals represented each and every citizen of the United States. The citizens of each state authorized these men to represent them proposing this Constitution. Those representatives were the authorized agents of every American citizen. And so when those representative act in the person of "We the people of the United States," the actions that those representatives take, all of the actions, Shrekk, are no less than the actions of each and every American whom they represented. That is the bedrock principle of republican government. There is no more basic principle on which our Constitution depends. And so the date stamp, and the manner in which the state's representatives chose to define the proposed date of ratification of that that supreme law, is no less supreme law than any other stipulation in that document. That said, you can continue to remain in denial on this, and say that it has no relevance, or you can answer the question I asked you. To whom does "our Lord" refer in Article VII of the Supreme Law of the Land of the United States of America, Shrekk?



Hank- (From previous post) " According to Article VII, what would be the year in which the United States of America became independent?



Shrekk- "What's the relevance and your point? I'm not your google poodle."



Hank- I will establish relevance. On that you have my word. You will need no google search for this. The year the Constitution was proposed for ratification was 1787. That year was the twelfth year of the independence of the United States. So you can use your fingers, possibly needing a couple of toes as well, to count backward to understand the year that the United States became independent. After you do that, and have time to put your shoes back on, please tell me the answer.



Shrekk- "In the US the people are the sovereign, and thus the rights we enjoy originate from the people."



Hank- Then since the Constitution is the Supreme Law governing those people, then there must be an article, or a passage that supports what you say. Please give me your constitutional reference to support that the people of the United States are sovereign and from what source they received that authority. This question is relevant because the people in other nations throughout history have been no less human than Americans. Yet according to the governments of the nations of which they are and were citizens disagree with you. According to those governments, any rights of the people are given to them by the government. So if Americans are different, then there must be a passage somewhere within its supreme law that supports your conclusion. Otherwise, the government is free to take the same position as any other nation throughout history that has subjugated its people. So again, where does the Constitution tell us that the American people are sovereign?



Shrekk- "FYI, the Declaration merely refers to a "creator", which in the minds of many of the founders who were Deists doesn't correspond to your imaginary friend, nor does it acknowledge or endorse any particular cult or imaginary friend."



Hank- I'm sorry again, Shrekk. Your statement that the Founders were Deists, is indisputably factually incorrect. During the period in question, that period which spans the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the ratification of the supreme law in place at the time of the proposed ratification of the Constitution, each of the representatives of every colony or state, which men represented every citizen of the entire United States, was not only a professed Christian, but was also LEGALLY CHRISTIAN. That is by virtue of the fact that each the original colonies, which became a states as of July 4, 1776, had as legal requirements that members of government professed to be Christians, owing allegiance to God of the New Testament. Yes, each colony/state had an establishment clause in their respective constitutions or colonial charters. I can save you from having to Google that. You can simply click right here...http://undergod.proc...p?resourceID=69. So any reference in the Declaration of Independence pertaining to God, or the Creator, or the Supreme Judge of the World, by virtue of the laws authorizing those men to represent the people of their colonies/states, is God of the Bible and New Testament. The representative of the colonies and states would have had no authority to refer to any other god, or concept of God, than the one they were bound by oath to profess faith. That what I tell you is undeniable, that fact should help you to determine the answer to the question I asked earlier, which queried the identity of the 'Lord' to whom the representative submitted themselves in Article VII. So maybe now that your facts have been straightened out, you might take another stab at answering my question. To Whom do the representatives who proposed the Constitution for ratification refer when they speak of 'our Lord.'



Shrekk- "Let's put it this way - the founders had the opportunity to write your imaginary friend into the constitution, and they deliberately chose not to. In fact, they specifically followed the Rhode Island model of a secular state, and the Virginia model of religious freedom."



Hank- Sorry again, Shrekk. Once again, during the period in question, which spans the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, which was the supreme law as of the proposed ratification of the US Constitution, both Rhode Island and Virginia had establishment clauses which required that each representative of government profess to be Christians. Therefore, again, any reference to God in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, God of the Bible and New Testament. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was not passed into law until 1786, 5 years after the Articles of Confederation were ratified. And the AoC refers to God twice, once as the 'Great Governor of the World,' and once as "Lord" in a date stamp which provided the model for the Constitution. Here are the passages:



"And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands in Congress.



"DONE at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennfylvania, the 9th day of July, in the Year of our Lord 1778, and in the third year of the independence of America."



So once again, considering your newly discovered knowledge, please answer the questions that I have placed before you.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 05:24 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319605593' post='363982

The idea that one person's "opinion" overrides the faith, or tolerance, of 5,999 people is an example of increased tolerance??? THAT is a faith-based determination. To see that as a victory, is to see a victory of one faith over another when seen objectively.



I'm finished with the likes of either of you. You push on me. I don't push on you. You're both adversaries of Liberty. You both have your own versions of sharia law.
Thankfully, SCOTUS is finished with the likes of you too, since their role is to protect the civil rights of a minority of one from the tyranny of a majority of 5,999.


That's "promote" the civil rights of a minority of one....
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 07:48 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319612984' post='363985

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319605593' post='363982']

The idea that one person's "opinion" overrides the faith, or tolerance, of 5,999 people is an example of increased tolerance??? THAT is a faith-based determination. To see that as a victory, is to see a victory of one faith over another when seen objectively.



I'm finished with the likes of either of you. You push on me. I don't push on you. You're both adversaries of Liberty. You both have your own versions of sharia law.
Thankfully, SCOTUS is finished with the likes of you too, since their role is to protect the civil rights of a minority of one from the tyranny of a majority of 5,999.
That's "promote" the civil rights of a minority of one....

[/quote]

No, it's "protect", since the rights of the majority to freely worship are not hindered.
skrekk is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa

Tags
law, libya, sharia, strict



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Libya Embassy Security Zack Current Events 44 October 28th, 2012 09:19 AM
Top Revelations from Libya Hearing Jimmyb Current Events 21 October 12th, 2012 09:57 AM
$25 MILLION in aid on its way to Libya Dude111 Americas 2 April 22nd, 2011 02:08 PM
One more reason to Despise Sharia... tadpole256 Religion 5 August 6th, 2010 04:59 PM
Canada struggles with Islam's Sharia law Steven M Religion 3 September 8th, 2005 08:11 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.