Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

Do or Die · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2010 11:34 pm

twinks wrote:

Quote:

Comparing a Day of Prayer with the 4th of July is a bit naive. Everyone who lives in America is an American. Not everyone who lives in America is religious. If people want to pray, LET THEM DO IT ON THEIR OWN TIME.

July the 4th isn't about being an American. Its about patriotism. There are un-patriotic Americans.

Quote:

I'M the one being childish, and you bring out a WW2 example. FINE, let's talk WW2, since you want to lose a debate so badly. Without Hitler, the Great Depression would have ended YEARS later. Are the 6 million people he killed 'necessary'? What about all the billions of damage done to property, and the countless lives of soldiers taken during WW2? Were those NECESSARY? Do the ends REALLY justify the means THAT MUCH to you? Cause if they do, I feel sorry for you as a human being.

WWII wasn't something we wanted to do. In fact it was something we didn't want to do, even in the wake of a depression. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike they forced our hand.

While it may be grim to say so, the war did bounce the US economy back. It wasn't a choice we made, so calling it a necessity is a bit of a stretch.

Do or Die, your points show little forethought. Please leave the debating to ducky. I at least have to think for a minute before responding to him.

Cause I'm bored and don't really care that much. If this was something that had actual meaning to me, you'd see a different me.

EDIT: Playing Sins of a Solar Empire right now, can't be bothered to think up anything clever to say. My mind is focused on expanding my grip on the galaxy! Also, I'm still wondering why we NEED a Day of Prayer. I mean, seriously, if people want to pray, can't they do it on their own time?

mrducky · **Posted:** Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:06 am

mrducky wrote:

DUCKY IS HERE <3

twinks wrote:

i think its fine since it doesnt specify a particular religion. it is touchy to specify prayer though. perhaps if modified only slightly to encompass other religions.

your first amendment bro
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

"The phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in an 1802 letter"

a founding fathers ideas directly imprinted into that first sentence, he summed it up as seperation of church and state

TIt isn't a law in the sense of it carrying a penalty. It is merely a designation.

James Madison: But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms. In this sense, I presume you reserve to the Govt. a right to appoint particular days for religious worship throughout the State, without any penal sanction enforcing the worship.

Jefferson meant that the church should have no direct role in religion.

that last sentence lost me.

as for madison...

# The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

# Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

# Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

what penalty? the judge just said that the thingy was unconstitutional, not that everyone involved gets sentenced to 5 years in jail

Take a look you will not find it. The term was used by Jefferson when addressing a community that came to America to escape English rule and religious prosecution. He used this term in his speech to remind the "new comers" that although our country was established on Christian beliefs our country will not make Christianity the church of America.

OBJECTION! he is notioning to the fact that USA will be a secular nation, untouched by the problems of theocracy that europe was encountering (kings help the church, the church helps the king, the people suffer.) since then, most countries have indeed worked off that, and are secular nations, that is, an unbiased indifference to religion.
that is, keep religion and government seperate to prevent becoming a country like Iran or Medieval kingdoms where the excessive wealth of the church was supported by the government as the church would keep the populus content.

And what exactly does this have to do with a day designating on a calendar for non-denominational prayer?

nothing, i was just answering that particular part which i feel you have put it wrong
oh and that the government is secular in nature and regardless of a christian populus being its history it shouldnt be swayed by the christian heritage because... well it was created inherently secular

-

hence, theocracy. its what happens when a religion affects government. see: modern day Iran

OBJECTION! Theocracy is a method of governance with a god or deity being the state's leader or form of government with a state being controlled by people who are considered as guided by a god.

touche
look into theonomy. i think that was the point i was making...
a theocracy would make theonomic laws

-

franklin is it? here i was thinking its jefferson. i would like to point out that the FF were deists and as such were persecuted by the church of england for NOT being christian

Jefferson*

Quote:

This ruling as unconstitutional is just another liberal-atheist attempt at destroying religion!!!

im loling now, please do continue, i find glenn beck entertaining, not educational, you are the same <3

i think the atheists rather call it JUSTICE, they are merely upholding the law. the bias is obvious

. public buildings shouldnt display crosses, if the library of congress had a massive scientologist symbol on it, i would hope you be outraged.

Am I wrong? Any type religion is mentioned or seen on something public atheist feel threatened. Forcing everything to be non-religious is in itself a type of discrimination, no? Religion is apart of the United States history.
not forcing everything to be non religious, just public/governmental property which is supposed to be secular and not lean towards a particular religion. dont strawman.

That we should eliminate all of it from the record books, and pretend that those times didn't exist is an insult to our founders. While you might look at religion and think of all the evil things it did, you never like to think of the good it did.
no... again with the strawmen, how many ducks can you scare away with those strawmen?
btw, texas is about to implement a more "conservative" education and plan on pushing jefferson out of schools in favour of more "conservative" people. i think your finger is pointing the wrong way, should be 180 degrees around.

The catholic church built most of western society. It encouraged charity, and love for your fellow man. While it may have done a lot of evil and wrong things, it also did much to help create all that you enjoy right now.
http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/45191277.html
also, more recently ive read some bishops are blaiming the scandal on
1. zionists
2. homosexuals
3. the devil

w00p dee w00p
encouraging charity while hoarding money.
encouraging love for your fellow man and you look into the inquisitions and crusades. the witch hunts, oh the joy. if you weigh it all up, if you factor in the fact that they spent 1 billion dollars+ in hush money in USA alone for molestation charges. if you look into the history of how they supported certain abusive monarchies simply so they could maintain power and wealth.
the catholic church has no moral high ground, dont try to allude to the existence of one.

So think about that the next time you decide that everyone believing in a divine being are just ignorant sheeple.
believing in the divine =/= sheeple
being a serious member of an organised religion = sheeple almost by default

Quote:

Yet Atheists will defend the right of someone to display a urine-soaked cross down to the last lawyer citing free speech.

ive come to say the following sentence A LOT
"lying for jesus is still lying."

You didn't refute this point.
you actually call that a point?
until you bring up such a case of that happening, you dont have a point, you have just have an absurd case of hate.

twinks · **Joined:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:04 pm **Posts:** 36

Quote:

that last sentence lost me.

~Im having trouble turning old English modern right now, so Ill forfeit that point.
_____________________________

what penalty? the judge just said that the thingy was unconstitutional, not that everyone involved gets sentenced to 5 years in jail

~Im saying that it wasn't a law, or legislation. It was merely a day designated on the calendar. It carried no penalties for non participation. Refuting the idea that It was law.

_______________________

nothing, i was just answering that particular part which i feel you have put it wrong
oh and that the government is secular in nature and regardless of a christian populus being its history it shouldnt be swayed by the christian heritage because... well it was created inherently secular

~The day of prayer is in itself non-denominational. While it may have been designated by Christians, It itself encourages prayer by all religions, cultures, and creeds. Key word being encourage.

_______________________________

OBJECTION! Theocracy is a method of governance with a god or deity being the state's leader or form of government with a state being controlled by people who are considered as guided by a god.

touche
look into theonomy. i think that was the point i was making...
a theocracy would make theonomic laws

~Indeed it would. That would be under the pretense that the government is making laws. Im secular myself. The government has no right making laws in regards to religion. Or including religious morality in its laws. However this is about them designating a day, that encourages peoples of all religions, races, and creeds to take time out of their day for prayer.

_____________________________

~If you want to call it strawman, fine. We'll move on.

_____________________________

btw, texas is about to implement a more "conservative" education and plan on pushing jefferson out of schools in favour of more "conservative" people. i think your finger is pointing the wrong way, should be 180 degrees around.

~It's their right as a state. If the majority wants to change the education their children receive its not my business. If people feel it shouldn't be they should get off their butts and head to the polls. I feel history should be learned as it was when it was written, but then even history itself is bias. Ah well, what can you do?

_____________________________

The catholic church built most of western society. It encouraged charity, and love for your fellow man. While it may have done a lot of evil and wrong things, it also did much to help create all that you enjoy right now.

Quote:

http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/45191277.html
also, more recently ive read some bishops are blaiming the scandal on
1. zionists
2. homosexuals
3. the devil

w00p dee w00p
encouraging charity while hoarding money.
encouraging love for your fellow man and you look into the inquisitions and crusades. the witch hunts, oh the joy. if you weigh it all up, if you factor in the fact that they spent 1 billion dollars+ in hush money in USA alone for molestation charges. if you look into the history of how they supported certain abusive monarchies simply so they could maintain power and wealth.
the catholic church has no moral high ground, dont try to allude to the existence of one.

~I've never said they have the moral high ground. They've done many MANY horrible, evil, hell worthy things. However it is upon the catholic church's foundation that most of modern society was built. You see the church as an evil, malevolent, maniacle organization built on world domination. However this isn't a comic book.

While those at the top may have been influenced by greed, hedonism, or the wish to protect the purity of the church, not every clergyman is a child molester. Not every clergyman supports the inquisition. Not every nun believes that homosexuals are just horrible people with demons in their brains. It's just that those crackpots end up on TV most often.

The good someone or something does is often overpowered by the evil it does. We can't count how many times a the church has cared for the sick, the needy, or the amount of happiness it given. We can count the amount of money they've spent on covering up molestation. We can count how many people died in the crusades. We can count the amount of people tortured during the inquisition. However ignoring the good its done is a fallacy.

_________________________________

So think about that the next time you decide that everyone believing in a divine being are just ignorant sheeple.
believing in the divine =/= sheeple
being a serious member of an organised religion = sheeple almost by default

~Hardly. While there are many sheeple in religion. Believing that they would acquiesce to anything a religion says is short sighted. (Not that I didn't expect such from you) There are many examples of people rejecting the ideals of the church. Every non catholic christian denomination represents people who decided enough is enough.

_________________________________

Quote:

Yet Atheists will defend the right of someone to display a urine-soaked cross down to the last lawyer citing free speech.

You didn't refute this point.
you actually call that a point?
until you bring up such a case of that happening, you dont have a point, you have just have an absurd case of hate.

~It is a non existent example however its relative to my point. At what point do we decide that offending the religious is the same as offending atheists. Anything religious is liable to offend or make an atheist uncomfortable. However something anti-christian making christians uncomfortable is considered cool in modern culture.

There would be a huge amounts of publicity for an anti-Semitic art, however for some reason Christians don't warrant the same respect.

(Yes this point is getting off topic. After your next reply to this I suggest we return to the initial topic. You have a way of turning this discussion into a theological battlefield.)

mrducky · **Posted:** Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:18 am

twinks wrote:

Quote:

that last sentence lost me.

~Im having trouble turning old English modern right now, so Ill forfeit that point.
_____________________________

what penalty? the judge just said that the thingy was unconstitutional, not that everyone involved gets sentenced to 5 years in jail

~Im saying that it wasn't a law, or legislation. It was merely a day designated on the calendar. It carried no penalties for non participation. Refuting the idea that It was law.

it isnt law, its procedure. keep the government and religion seperate to prevent any influence, negative or otherwise. he states such a day is unconstitutional. it hasnt gone to the supreme court so as far as i can tell, it is merely his professional opinion.

_______________________

nothing, i was just answering that particular part which i feel you have put it wrong
oh and that the government is secular in nature and regardless of a christian populus being its history it shouldnt be swayed by the christian heritage because... well it was created inherently secular

~The day of prayer is in itself non-denominational. While it may have been designated by Christians, It itself encourages prayer by all religions, cultures, and creeds. Key word being encourage.

i agreed in my first post that it was perfectly fine, i simply suggested a different word from prayer

_______________________________

OBJECTION! Theocracy is a method of governance with a god or deity being the state's leader or form of government with a state being controlled by people who are considered as guided by a god.

touche
look into theonomy. i think that was the point i was making...
a theocracy would make theonomic laws

~Indeed it would. That would be under the pretense that the government is making laws. Im secular myself. The government has no right making laws in regards to religion. Or including religious morality in its laws. However this is about them designating a day, that encourages peoples of all religions, races, and creeds to take time out of their day for prayer.

but is such a day needed? so many public holidays are all ready designated for the christian religion alone, it is covered under religious discrimination protection that allows some people to pray and take time off work for religious reasons. i still opt for a name change.

_____________________________

~If you want to call it strawman, fine. We'll move on.

Quote:

Forcing everything to be non-religious is in itself a type of discrimination, no?
...
That we should eliminate all of it from the record books, and pretend that those times didn't exist is an insult to our founders.

dont try to pretend you didnt strawman.
_____________________________

btw, texas is about to implement a more "conservative" education and plan on pushing jefferson out of schools in favour of more "conservative" people. i think your finger is pointing the wrong way, should be 180 degrees around.

~It's their right as a state. If the majority wants to change the education their children receive its not my business. If people feel it shouldn't be they should get off their butts and head to the polls. I feel history should be learned as it was when it was written, but then even history itself is bias. Ah well, what can you do?

even if the majority want change, the constitution prevents the majority from abusing the minority. the majority can effectively do whatever they want, provided it doesnt infringe with the freedoms of the minority, this is one of the PRIMARY purposes of the constitution. hence protesters are allowed to voice their opinions regardless how marginalized/a minority they are (ie. westboro baptist church). i brought it up because you were brilliant enough to use a strawman, so i flipped around on you. i was pointing to the obvious religious interference in the move (if you've read the changes, its quite frightening how much they are changing history, you can draw obvious parallels between 1984 and the new "implementations")
btw, Texas has the textbook industry, they will, in turn affect other states who cant simply start up a new industry out of thin air. butterfly effect~~
_____________________________

The catholic church built most of western society. It encouraged charity, and love for your fellow man. While it may have done a lot of evil and wrong things, it also did much to help create all that you enjoy right now.

Quote:

http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/45191277.html
also, more recently ive read some bishops are blaiming the scandal on
1. zionists
2. homosexuals
3. the devil

w00p dee w00p
encouraging charity while hoarding money.
encouraging love for your fellow man and you look into the inquisitions and crusades. the witch hunts, oh the joy. if you weigh it all up, if you factor in the fact that they spent 1 billion dollars+ in hush money in USA alone for molestation charges. if you look into the history of how they supported certain abusive monarchies simply so they could maintain power and wealth.
the catholic church has no moral high ground, dont try to allude to the existence of one.

~I've never said they have the moral high ground. They've done many MANY horrible, evil, hell worthy things. However it is upon the catholic church's foundation that most of modern society was built. You see the church as an evil, malevolent, maniacle organization built on world domination. However this isn't a comic book.

While those at the top may have been influenced by greed, hedonism, or the wish to protect the purity of the church, not every clergyman is a child molester. Not every clergyman supports the inquisition. Not every nun believes that homosexuals are just horrible people with demons in their brains. It's just that those crackpots end up on TV most often.

welcome to the 21st century, the news is always like that now. yes, i know protestants have a higher rate of molestation cases but get almost zero publicity. i dont try to glorify hitler even though he laid the foundations of modern europe through WWII. sure, trying to draw comparisons with a Hitler jugend member Benedict and a psychopath is unfair, but i cant see how your reasoning means that religion is given an untouchable pedestal because "they laid the foundations" of the west.

as for your claim they dont try to take over the world, compare the churches wealth over the years to most kings and nobles, note how they influenced and controlled the taking of gold from south america. note the reasons for the crusades. p
ower corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
wearing a big hat does not fix human nature.

The good someone or something does is often overpowered by the evil it does. We can't count how many times a the church has cared for the sick, the needy, or the amount of happiness it given. We can count the amount of money they've spent on covering up molestation. We can count how many people died in the crusades. We can count the amount of people tortured during the inquisition. However ignoring the good its done is a fallacy.
oooh, tell me which fallacy

_________________________________

So think about that the next time you decide that everyone believing in a divine being are just ignorant sheeple.
believing in the divine =/= sheeple
being a serious member of an organised religion = sheeple almost by default

~Hardly. While there are many sheeple in religion. Believing that they would acquiesce to anything a religion says is short sighted. (Not that I didn't expect such from you) There are many examples of people rejecting the ideals of the church. Every non catholic christian denomination represents people who decided enough is enough.

yes yes, i know there are more than 34 000 denominations of christianity. i think that points more to a text that is heavily interpretable or that people how found many ways to get tax free income from sheeple. look to the televangelists, completely commercialized churches.
organised religion collects money, uses money to grow, collects more money.
_________________________________

Quote:

Yet Atheists will defend the right of someone to display a urine-soaked cross down to the last lawyer citing free speech.

You didn't refute this point.
you actually call that a point?
until you bring up such a case of that happening, you dont have a point, you have just have an absurd case of hate.

~It is a non existent example however its relative to my point. At what point do we decide that offending the religious is the same as offending atheists. Anything religious is liable to offend or make an atheist uncomfortable. However something anti-christian making christians uncomfortable is considered cool in modern culture.

what kind of culture do you live in? its never been socially accepted to be cool to yes there is anti religious stuff, yes there is stuff that will offend atheists, but the point is whether or not it is on governmental buildings. take the 10 commandments which are on some courts... ignore the fact that it doesnt contain "dont rape" because rape is fine if you produce 20 pieces of silver...
but just look at the first 4

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

how is that not religious?

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
only 6 and 8 can be regarded as something to do with law.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
9 might be obstruction of justice/aiding and abetting

as you can see, the ten commandments have no right to be on public property. they misalign all non abrahamic religions, not just atheists/irreligious. especially those first 4. if madison or jefferson could have a say, im sure even you could figure out their opinion on this.
btw, this is actually on topic in a way.

There would be a huge amounts of publicity for an anti-Semitic art, however for some reason Christians don't warrant the same respect.

(Yes this point is getting off topic. After your next reply to this I suggest we return to the initial topic. You have a way of turning this discussion into a theological battlefield.)
you notice just now?

National Day of Prayer