| 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: |
| Why is it wrong for Christians to impose; their morals on people? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 05:47 PM (2,212 Views) | |
| ANOVA | Nov 28 2004, 04:20 PM Post #121 |
|
Vice Admiral
|
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 | Nov 28 2004, 04:58 PM Post #122 |
|
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 | Nov 28 2004, 11:04 PM Post #123 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Min-
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-
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 | Nov 29 2004, 12:29 AM Post #124 |
|
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 | Nov 29 2004, 12:50 AM Post #125 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
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.
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).
This would contradict your earlier statement in which you said: which is why I wanted clarification.
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.
Then what is your problem with taxpayer support of said programs?
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).
Then how can you have a problem with that happening in religion when it already happens in politics anyway? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Coda | Nov 29 2004, 01:55 AM Post #126 |
|
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 | Nov 29 2004, 10:03 AM Post #127 |
|
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 | Nov 29 2004, 11:54 AM Post #128 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Beat me to it, Min... elsewise we could be talking about that eeeeeevil Archbishop of Canterbury, too!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 29 2004, 12:55 PM Post #129 |
|
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? (J/K)End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Nov 29 2004, 01:07 PM Post #130 |
|
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
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Nov 29 2004, 02:03 PM Post #131 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
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 | Nov 29 2004, 02:18 PM Post #132 |
|
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 | Nov 29 2004, 02:37 PM Post #133 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response
How have you pointed out that this statement is not correct?
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.
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.
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.
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 | Nov 29 2004, 02:42 PM Post #134 |
|
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 | Nov 29 2004, 06:49 PM Post #135 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
: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 | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


(J/K)


3:18 AM Jul 11