Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people?
Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,212 Views)
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
The declaration of independeance is not law. It was declaring independance.

If you were refering to the right of "the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," that is not a law. It had intentions behind it, but has no legal standing.


The declaration of independance, the federalist papers and congressional debates have all been used during supreme court heaerings to defend the founders intent. As such it does have legal standing in constitutional law.

Did I say say law anywhere within my last post ?

Since you want to talk about law. How about the fact that the supreme court had to ignore the law to grnat the right to an abortion (any right not reserved by the federal government, belongs to the state or individual) or the fact that the supreme court had to invent rights not embodies in the constitution to support the right to an abortion.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Coda
Member Avatar
Commander
Well, looks like I got a dressing down by the Admiral. Lol...

Of course some of your points were spot on Admiral, others amiss, and some made me laugh out loud.

I like someone who is clear. I thouroughly enjoy your post. Don't change.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Min-
Quote:
 
^^^ Can the majority take away the Bill of Rights???

No they cannot - and that is my point. If a simple majority was allowed to do whatever they wanted then they might decide to do something like that. You are looking at things very simplistically. What is the power enforcing the Bill of Rights? The courts.

You are the one spouting simplistic nonsense.


You have made two errors in this post.

1. Dan has already pointed out that the Bill of Rights (and other Amendments) can INDEED be taken down by a super-majority.

2. You have totally ignored the fact that I have stated that the rights of the minority should in some way be protected from the dominance of the majority. I stated that the Bill of Rights is a check on the power of the majority but that the majority has the right to change whatever is not in the Amendments of the Constitution (and in some cases their dominance goes even into that area).

What you are saying, that a minority has the right to tell the majority what it can and cannot do, is not applicable to ANY definition of democracy. It is a definition of dictatorship. Ergo to make such claims about democracy is utter nonsense. Also, government MUST be simplistic in the area of who has the authority in different matters. If it is overly complex and there are continuous questions about who has power over what, you will have factions pop up and eventually a civil war.

Twilight-
Quote:
 
I am only against christianity imposing its beliefs onto me because the goal of christianity is absolute power, consolidated under one man. It is apparent that without followers to enforce the pope' opinions on others, the pope would have no power. And the funny part is, he promises rewards after they die, for doing what he says. Gee, thanks.


A total untruth, only a couple of denominations of Christianity see the Pope as the human head of their church. The Protestant faiths (Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.) and the Orthydox churches do not have these views. Saying that all Christians submit to the Pope is like saying that all blacks are criminals and that all Jews are greedy.

Quote:
 
If this country was founded on people wanting religious freedoms, we should ask ourselves why could they not practice their beliefs in their native countries?


Probably for the same reason they cannot practice their religions in this country. Individuals who just can't stand ideas other then their own go to the courts or lawmakers and whine to them until they make it so that the practice of religion in public is prohibited.

Quote:
 
Summarily, it would appear that two religions in one country, won't work. I think that is why the founders allowed freedom of all religions to be practiced here, and preferred religious beliefs separated from goverment laws. And that would mean a distribution of power, or checks and balances. No absolut power under one person, such as a pope or monarchy. There exist many countries that are run by a religious group. If you look at those countries, objectively, I don't think you would want to live there. Unless, perhaps you are a member of the ruling religion. Those ruling religions don't change easily, though. Of the ones I can name off the top of my head, change only occurs through violence.


We have hundreds if not thousands of different religions in this country. Many of the countries that have religious governments have multiple religions. Unless you wish to further explain your line of thinking, your statement makes no sense.

Also, the goals of the makers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights differed. The Federalists indeed wanted more power to the central government whereas the Anti-Federalists wanted it more dispersed to the people. I have yet to read any opinion by these men on this matter that explicitly states that the Constitution was made to ensure that religion had no place in government.

Quote:
 
If President Bush is not enforcing his personal religious beliefs on others, why has funds to constitutionally legal family planning centers been eliminated around the globe?
And why are my tax dollars going to faith based curriculums that advocate abstinance only? The most recent study mentioned on CNN Nov 24th (I apologize to those looking for details, I did not get the name of the organization that did the analysis, It might have been a university), states that from the beginning of a program started in 1997, till the end of 2003, there was no change in the proportional results from people of that program, compared to the general population. So, How can I keep my money from subsidizing abstinance only promotions? I would much rather my money go to education on human sexuality. And, one that celebrates us. Educates boys and girls, men and women, on their rights and responsibilities.


As Bill has already said, if you can demand that your views on government funded abortion clinics be paid for with my tax dollars (forcing your morals on me), why can not I force you to pay for abstinance backed programs? Are you saying that your morals are somehow superior to mine?

Quote:
 
My point is that humans should use their brains. And each human should contain their own beliefs. If each human life is precious, I would think that their life if precious because each is unique. I am unique because my experiences are different than others. Therefor, on the larger scale, anothers belief is not applicible to me. And I resent the fact that religious people hi-jack the word faith, as if religion has a monopoly on faith. I have faith, and I am not religious.


This would all work out just fine if we lived in anarchy and everybody could do whatever they wanted to. But we live in a society and that means that society at large (i.e. the majority of the people) get to pick which direction the society goes. We have lived through an era where the seculars were judging where we should go and now we are going into an era where the fundamentalists are in the majority. It is not necessarily a step backwards or forwards, but just a progression of a cycle that has lasted for centuries.

Quote:
 
Someone asked the question how is religion any different than others groups, Well, IMO, I think the other groups have some degree of accountibility. Meaning those responsible can be replaced at any time. And the figurehead or director, does not dictate all the rules. And what rules are created are negotiated to be made workable for all. They are discussed among the group or party. I think that it is different in christianity, and that the pope decideds the laws.


If the Pope were to do something extremely immoral, there is little doubt in my mind that he could be replaced. He is only human. I would also say that many political leaders are not fully accountable to their parties regardless of how religious they are. For example (and no, I'm not trying to start a fight), John Kerry ignored his job for the bulk of the last election, but his people (Mass.) did not hold him accountable for these actions. You will find that, if you look around, that there are a great number of people who are not held accountable for their actions that have no connection to religion at all.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Coda
Member Avatar
Commander

Dr Tobe,

Greetings, I was unaware of the hidden generalizations that Blacks are criminals and Jewish people are greedy. I apologize if that is what you understood me to mean. That was not my intention. I am honestly of the opinion that generalizations are of no use, and often lead to the wrong conclusion when applied to individuals. Each person is a unique blend of chemistry and experience, and should be treated as such.

I am sure you are only stating your belief when you say that the practice of religion in this country is prohibited..

Yes, we do have many religions in this country. I am not saying that is a bad thing. In fact, of my friends, I can name seven. And I have learned much from them...

I am sure that there was much contention ratifying the constitution, as well, there should be. ..


I have no problem with abstinance being explained as an option. It should always be an option. ..

I agree that John Kerry did ....well, to clarify, I am unconvinced he that he ignored his elected responsibilities, as much as CHOSE to abandon his elected responsibilities, in the attempt to further his career. I truly think the Democratic party is hard up and forced someone that they thought had name recognition to challenge Bush. So, clearly, I do agree that religion was not the cause for him losing the election.

Lastly, You are correct, in my opinion also, many elected and appointed officials are not held accountable..
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Quote:
 
Greetings, I was unaware of the hidden generalizations that Blacks are criminals and Jewish people are greedy. I apologize if that is what you understood me to mean. That was not my intention. I am honestly of the opinion that generalizations are of no use, and often lead to the wrong conclusion when applied to individuals. Each person is a unique blend of chemistry and experience, and should be treated as such.


I am stating that not all Christians want to put the Pope in power, or even think of him as an authority figure for that matter.

Quote:
 
I am sure you are only stating your belief when you say that the practice of religion in this country is prohibited..


PUBLIC practice of religion. To see for yourself, try putting up a Nativity scene in a public park or putting a cross up. There are a number of groups in this country that attacks religion at every chance on the misguided belief that religion should only be allowed to happen in private areas (and yet they would say the same view being used on minorities and gays is racism to the highest order).

Quote:
 
Yes, we do have many religions in this country. I am not saying that is a bad thing. In fact, of my friends, I can name seven. And I have learned much from them...


This would contradict your earlier statement in which you said:
Quote:
 
Summarily, it would appear that two religions in one country, won't work.
which is why I wanted clarification.

Quote:
 
I am sure that there was much contention ratifying the constitution, as well, there should be. ..


But there was no contention that religion should be COMPLETELY excised from government. Doing so would violate the rights of the people as much as denying women or blacks to vote.

Quote:
 
I have no problem with abstinance being explained as an option. It should always be an option. ..


Then what is your problem with taxpayer support of said programs?

Quote:
 
I agree that John Kerry did ....well, to clarify, I am unconvinced he that he ignored his elected responsibilities, as much as CHOSE to abandon his elected responsibilities, in the attempt to further his career. I truly think the Democratic party is hard up and forced someone that they thought had name recognition to challenge Bush. So, clearly, I do agree that religion was not the cause for him losing the election.


Then based on this choice, the people of Mass. should hold him accountable for not keeping the responsibilities that he had for them. We can therefore see that even non-religious groups hold single people above accountability (and, in case somebody wants to raise a stink, YES, it DOES happen on both sides).

Quote:
 
Lastly, You are correct, in my opinion also, many elected and appointed officials are not held accountable..


Then how can you have a problem with that happening in religion when it already happens in politics anyway?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Coda
Member Avatar
Commander
OK Dr Tobe, I will use the word 'you' from now on only in a figurative sense, I am not reffering to you personally.

christians do not have a choice of who they want in power. Only 400 men do. And they select only amongst themselves, in secrecy. They let YOU know who will be your religious leader, By a smoke signal. Thanks.

If not all christians want , or should I say 'agree with' the pope, what then are your options? You can't impeach him. He is your leader until he decides otherwise, or dies.

And if all christians do not agree with the pope, doesn't that fracture the church, I mean who should I follow? Is the bible open to any individuals interpretation? Surely not! Otherwise, what need have I of Church? I do know how to read, And so do many others.

There exists many public displays of religion. Have you ever used American money?


There are many religions IN this country, I did not say that I agree with A religion RUNNING this country.

The problem I have with taxpayer support is that I don't want any more taxes !
If I could get rid of taxpayers paying for family planning centers I would! I don't want any more unwanted babies than the next taxpayer. You assume I am for family planning centers. I am for education. Christianity apppears to promote abstinance.
That is absurd. Abstinance is/should always be a option. In some cases, however, it is not. Since that is the reality, then those children should be allowed the latest medical knowledge and options available. Why is christianity so against sexual awareness? Is it knowledge that individuals, particularly women, have an ability to make a choice? Is that what christianity is against, choice ?

If MA SHOULD hold Kerry accountable for missed votes, then why not TX for Bush?
This would tie up everybody for years to come!

I do have a problem with the lack of accountability in politics and religion. You are suggesting that if someone doesn't mind unaccountability in politics, then, its OK for them not to be held accountable in Religion. I Believe people SHOULD be held accountable, unlike you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Twilight - the mistake you are making about the Pope is that he is only the religious leader of Roman Catholics.

He does not represent Baptists, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Methodists, etc... These people are all Christian and have nothing to do with the Pope. That is why Doctortobe said you were generalizing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Beat me to it, Min... elsewise we could be talking about that eeeeeevil Archbishop of Canterbury, too! :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response


We can't be doing too badly here if we have a Jew explaining relative importance of the Pope to various Christian faiths.

Twilight, I regard the Pope as a remarkable man because he is a remarkable man, not because of his religion. I respect the fact that he is the leader of his religous faith. I do not follow his religous teachings.

Abstinance-based funding PREDATES the Bush Administration. I know that it existed throughout the Clinton Administration because I was writing grants then for girls programs and ran into the clause over and over. I suspect that it also predated the Clinton Administration.

As to the funding of clinic overseas ... That issue has been a political football and has gone back and forth a number of times. The Constitution is NOT relevant to the question because they are OVERSEAS clinics. We ultimately (as does every other country on the face of the world) have the right to fund NOTHING overseas. Every program funded should be judged on its own merits periodically because the world does change.

Are you (Twilight) aware that one of the reasons Americans are disliked around the world is BECAUSE we fund programs like contraception? You don't have to convince me that condoms should be available to help combat the spread of AIDS, etc, but we also MUST take into account the cultural and religous norms of the region ... Unless you are advocating that we IMPOSE our norms?

BTW, what ARE you referring to re: Bush and TX? The Senate votes he missed? :brow: (J/K)

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Wichita - since you brought in overseas funding as an issue I have an article from today's Toronto Star on the subject. I wouldn't say the world is upset with the US for funding programs - in fact many are upset about a program the US has pulled out of - apparantly under false pretenses.

Canada boosts funding for U.N. program

Quote:
 
Canada boosts funding for U.N. program
40% increase in contributions for Population Fund
Investment flies in face of boycott by the United States


SUSAN DELACOURT
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF

OTTAWA - Canada will raise a small flag of independence during George W. Bush's visit this week, when it announces a major funding increase for a United Nations program boycotted by the Bush administration.

While Bush is still in Canada, International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll will unveil an almost 40 per cent increase in annual contributions to the U.N. Population Fund. The U.S. has refused to support the fund for the past three years because it contends that the program encourages forced abortions in China.

"Being friends with the United States doesn't mean agreeing with everything," said a senior adviser in Prime Minister Paul Martin's government.

Carroll, who has also been invited to sit on a U.N. "leadership council" on women and AIDS, will announce Wednesday that Canada is increasing its annual $13.1-million contribution to the population fund to $67.4 million over four years — about $16.9 million each year.

Most of that will go toward core financing of the program that has been seriously damaged by the U.S. boycott over the past three years.

About $9 million of Canada's $67.4 million, meanwhile, will be specifically directed to a fund for birth-control supplies such as condoms.

The United States sent $34 million a year to the U.N. Population Fund until 2002, when the Bush administration cut off the American contribution, alleging the program helped support coerced abortions and forced sterilization programs in China.

The U.N. Population Fund, which helps finance population and reproductive health programs, denies the allegations and continues to press the United States not to punish women and children worldwide through this boycott. It argues that the U.S.-conservative-driven cut may have caused more abortions than any it claimed to prevent.

Senior Canadian government sources said Martin might speak to Bush about the fund boycott when the two sit down to discuss global and African issues tomorrow.

Until now, Canada has preferred to make its opposition to the boycott known more tactfully, allowing the dollars of its continuing contributions to speak for themselves.


According to the program's own estimates, the money the U.S. has withdrawn since 2002 could have helped prevent more than 6 million unwanted pregnancies, 2.4 million abortions, more than 14,000 maternal deaths and more than 200,000 child deaths.

Moreover, the Bush administration has failed to prove any of the allegations against the U.N. Population Fund. A fact-finding mission by its own state department earlier this year actually concluded that the claims about support for abortion in China were groundless.

The state department report of May stated: "Based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the (People's Republic of China). Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices."

Yet last July, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell once again announced the ban in financing, stating: "We are prepared to consider funding the U.N. Population Fund in the future if its program in China is restructured in a way consistent with U.S. law or if China ends its program of coercive abortion."

There are moves afoot in the U.S. Congress to rescind the ban, along with several other grassroots attempts to help the fund, including an appeal by a group calling itself "friends" of the fund, trying to get 34 million Americans to contribute $1 each to help make up for the shortfall.

Canada has never supported the U.S. boycott and has quietly, if somewhat diplomatically, tried to help make up for the missing $34 million over the past few years with modest increases.

Canada was among the first countries, for instance, to step forward with $4 million in the immediate aftermath of the American cut-off in 2002, but the announcement then from the government just said that it was doing so to help make up for "an unexpected budget shortfall."


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Minuet
Nov 29 2004, 06:07 PM
Wichita - since you brought in overseas funding as an issue


Personal Response

But I didn't ... I was RESPONDING to someone else.

As to the rest...

Since you have brought up Canadian funding of the program, let me respond.

It's their business, not mine.

Wow, that was tough.

As to the article ....

The United Nations wakes up in the morning and tries to determine what they can condem the United States for on any given day. They did not stop the genocide in Rwanda, they can't even figure out if genocide is occurring in Sudan, and their top official took payoffs to ignore a 23 BILLION dollar scam being run by Sadaam Hussein. Not only did he run the scam, but he systematically ruined a previously decent health care system and destroyed part of his own ecosystem so he would have sick and starving people to show them ... and they did nothing.

The staff of the United Nations itself has issue a "no-confidence" vote in the instituion and it's senior management.

False pretense? :rolleyes: The article you quoted uses the word "knowingly".

How much confidence should anyone have in an institution whose staff doesn't trust senior management, whose Security Council has been largely bought off, and who don't understand the word "genocide"?

Where's the outrage at UN OFFICIALS who were kicked out of the Congo for sexual assaults of the Congolese? Where's the United Nations outrage at the French whose soldiers opened fire on crowds in the Ivory Coast killing over 50 people?

If anything is "clear" is that the UN doesn't "knowingly" do anything because they don't "know" how to do much.

I'm happy the Canadians are helping out. I like Canadians. They helped out our hostages in Iran and I've will always appreciate them as a result.

But I am not a liar. The comments I referred to came from articles I've read on the AIDS crisis in Africa. Despite the death and destruction caused by AIDS, it is still tough to get people to use condoms because it is seen as interfering with the cultural and religous norms of the region.

Oh, I forgot, the United Nations has also done a great job helping to protect Africa from the AIDS outbreak. (/sarcasm off)

By all means, they are experts.



End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Wichita - I was not calling you a liar - merely pointing out that you were not totally correct. Your point about Africa is well taken, however.

You know that I am not a big fan of the UN - they have neglected many areas of the world that need attention. I think the difference between Canada and the US in relation to the UN is that when Canada thinks that something is not being handled correctly they try to change it through diplomacy. The current administration of the US tends to make more of a knee jerk reaction. In the case cited it appears that the reaction could at least partially be agenda driven and the agenda seems strongly influenced by Bush's religious views. I don't have proof of that and up to this point I have not made any accusations against Bush - but it is something to think about. I think the statistics on the good that the money could have done is also very important. It's easy to list what the UN has not done - but at least part of that could be because of a lack of funds for which the US bears some responsibility (I am refering to unpaid dues now - not voluntary funds)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Minuet
Nov 29 2004, 07:18 PM
Wichita - I was not calling you a liar - merely pointing out that you were not totally correct. Your point about Africa is well taken, however.

Personal Response

Quote:
 
Are you (Twilight) aware that one of the reasons Americans are disliked around the world is BECAUSE we fund programs like contraception?


How have you pointed out that this statement is not correct? :shrug:

Quote:
 
You know that I am not a big fan of the UN - they have neglected many areas of the world that need attention. I think the difference between Canada and the US in relation to the UN is that when Canada thinks that something is not being handled correctly they try to change it through diplomacy.


Canada has done yeoman's duty as a go-between in any number of negotiations when one side has refused to deal with the other. Having us for a neighbor is not an easy thing.

I'm curious though. Other than their support for the US, have you ever thought they did something wrong internationally? It's something to think about.

Quote:
 
The current administration of the US tends to make more of a knee jerk reaction. In the case cited it appears that the reaction could at least partially be agenda driven and the agenda seems strongly influenced by Bush's religious views. I don't have proof of that and up to this point I have not made any accusations against Bush - but it is something to think about.


Yes, you certainly haven't provided any proof of that.

Given that the funding hasn't always existed, there is actually proof of the opposite.

What has he INITIATED that reflects his imposition of his religous views? WHAT religous view has he imposed? Simple criticism of him is also somewhat a knee-jerk response.

Quote:
 
I think the statistics on the good that the money could have done is also very important.


If you ignore the on-going incompetence of the United Nations in general and forget that the people of the countries involved may not have wanted to services to be imposed on them, yes, the statistics are theorectically interesting if derived at questionably.

Quote:
 
It's easy to list what the UN has not done - but at least part of that could be because of a lack of funds for which the US bears some responsibility (I am refering to unpaid dues now - not voluntary funds)


When it was true that the US had not paid its dues - to my knowledge that is not true now - they constituted only 60% of the dues that were unpaid. How is the other 40% doing?

How much could the United Nations save by not passing their weekly resolution condemming Israel?

End of Personal Response



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Problem is that for every country that wants change in the UN, there are probably 2 or more countries that don't want things changed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Quote:
 
How much could the United Nations save by not passing their weekly resolution condemming Israel?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That was at least 8 :lol:s on a scale of 10.

Kind of reminds me of the phoney-baloney racism summit a few years back which was nothing more than a blame the US and Israel for all the terrible things that happen in Africa in spite of the fact that of all these places Africa is the only place in which slavery still exists.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus