Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Should government and religion be together?

tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 11:36:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That depends on how you mean "being brought together". If it's a government official talking about his religion then it really doesn't bother me. It gets a little annoying if that's all that they do but it's not a big deal. If you're talking about making laws that clearly favor a religion or theism over atheism then I do believe there's a problem.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 11:48:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The government is a religion.

Religion from the very start was government.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:05:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.

I'd rather no one was =)
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:42:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It also protects religion. Religion often loses it's primary intent when it is given the corrupting influence of politics, and motive of power. Religion is best when it is insulated from those influences.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 2:53:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.

You also have a monarchy, and that wouldn't work out so well for us.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 3:00:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.

I wouldn't really call the constitution inappropriately rigid. It's just meant to properly define the limits and jobs of the major groups of the U.S. government.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 3:04:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:53:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.

You also have a monarchy, and that wouldn't work out so well for us.

You guys go mad for it though. The tourism revenue pays for my education. Sweeeet.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 5:06:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 3:04:19 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:53:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.

You also have a monarchy, and that wouldn't work out so well for us.

You guys go mad for it though. The tourism revenue pays for my education. Sweeeet.

Yeah, Freak shows always attract the most attention in a circus.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 5:14:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.

No.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 5:16:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.

Actually we do, we have about three written constitutions. What you mean is that we do not have a single, codified written one. It's a common mistake. Apart from that I agree with you.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 5:17:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 2:53:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.

You also have a monarchy, and that wouldn't work out so well for us.

I disagree, the American mentality is so much geared towards a royalist attitude.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 5:19:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 5:14:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.

No.

I just love when agnostics and atheists preach the same garbage they blame theists for preaching.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 5:20:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 5:19:02 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 5:14:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.

No.

I just love when agnostics and atheists preach the same garbage they blame theists for preaching.

It's human nature, once you define yourself as a whatever there is a natural instinct to adopt tribalistic attitudes even if these run contrary to the original definition.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 5:41:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 11:48:49 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The government is a religion.

Religion from the very start was government.

Very true.

Caste system anyone?

Catholic Church?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 5:58:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 5:20:58 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/10/2011 5:19:02 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 5:14:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.

No.

I just love when agnostics and atheists preach the same garbage they blame theists for preaching.

It's human nature, once you define yourself as a whatever there is a natural instinct to adopt tribalistic attitudes even if these run contrary to the original definition.

Of course. I understand that. However, agnostics and atheists are or at least should be different because most of them went through the process of inspecting other religions and have arrived at the conclusion that dogma (and thus that "tribalistic attitude" that might come with it) is, for lack of better word, bad. Which is why it is ironic specifically for agnostics and atheists to say things like what Lasagna said.

Lasagna, if you see this, awesome account name.
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 7:10:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 5:06:38 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/10/2011 3:04:19 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:53:08 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.

You also have a monarchy, and that wouldn't work out so well for us.

You guys go mad for it though. The tourism revenue pays for my education. Sweeeet.

Yeah, Freak shows always attract the most attention in a circus.

Woah, hating on the royals. From my, admittedly somewhat limited, experience of Americans, your President constitutes more of a freak show than our monarchy.
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 7:13:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 5:16:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:51:36 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:47:18 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:42:13 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:36:39 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:23:10 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 2:06:41 PM, BennyW wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:32:21 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Only agnostics and atheists should be allowed to run for office.
Which would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment (if you are in the USA that is)

Why should we care?

Because it would be idiotic to ignore someone's political ideas just because you disagree with their religion.

I was moving more towards why should the Constitution matter. I don't agree with having a written constitution.

Why not?

I think it imposes an inappropriate rigidity. We don't have one in Britain and it's going pretty well.

Actually we do, we have about three written constitutions. What you mean is that we do not have a single, codified written one. It's a common mistake. Apart from that I agree with you.

The monarchy aren't raising enough funds. Never again will I trust my teachers. Thanks.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 8:28:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't see how anyone could logically justify a religious person in a governmental role. How can we possibly effect a separation of church and state when we've got religious people in office? Could we elect the pope as our President and expect to remain impartial? I realize that people can't be expected to be 0% religious, because that's perhaps impossible, but I'm saying that it should be a standard that all politicians be religiously ambiguous - if you can tell what they are practicing, then they aren't doing a good enough job of being impartial. People should feel like they have the choice to follow any religion they want without feeling anti-patriotic. If our representatives are openly Christian and making laws and rhetoric to support Christian beliefs, then I don't see how you can make the case that everyone truly has religious freedom.
Rob
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 10:16:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm getting some Mussolini vibes here in this topic.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 3:43:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 10:16:11 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I'm getting some Mussolini vibes here in this topic.

reductio ad mussolinum
Rob