Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Seperation of Church and State

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 10:53:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I want to post a topic and have an educated discussion.

Please post educated statements supported by fact. This should preclude several notorious people from posting. You know who you are.
Please avoid blathering.

As to the Topic.
I am a firm believer in this and agree with the intention of the founding fathers.

I believe that the Government should make no law against Christianity based on denominational preferences. (This was the intent of the laws and the founding fathers wishes)
I believe the Government can make laws that bar other religions that are not Christianity when they go against the Christian moral value systems. However, they cannot bar any orthodox Christian viewpoint.

It is affirmed that the founding fathers were all Christians. If there is any belief they were deists or atheists it can be easily resolved by reading (in context) their letters which show they are indeed Christian. I in fact believed they were atheists until I read their work and understood the Anglican vs. Presbyterian arguments of the day. It was Platonian beliefs vs. orthodoxy.

Separation of Church and state intended by the Founder is as follows:
- No single Christian denomination would have government preference.
- The Church was to be very involved in Government
- Nothing about the government eliminating the church from its daily function.
- I do believe that the Government can and should restrict all other religions that disagree with Christian moral values. This is currently what we do.

Please let me know what your opinion is that is supported by data. For example if you believe Jefferson was an atheist please post not just a random quote but the primary source document as well.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 10:58:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The same logic that drives not wanting any particular demonination of christianity also applies to not wanting any particular religion. The founding fathers came to escape religious oppression, quite common in christianity. Sure they originally only meant for it to be christianity at the time, but it logically follows to all religion. Saying that it doesn't is like saying freedom of speech only applies to words used back in the 18th century and new words and communication methods are okay to oppress.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 11:01:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 10:53:43 AM, Gileandos wrote:
I want to post a topic and have an educated discussion.

Please post educated statements supported by fact. This should preclude several notorious people from posting. You know who you are.
Please avoid blathering.

As to the Topic.
I am a firm believer in this and agree with the intention of the founding fathers.

I believe that the Government should make no law against Christianity based on denominational preferences. (This was the intent of the laws and the founding fathers wishes)
I believe the Government can make laws that bar other religions that are not Christianity when they go against the Christian moral value systems. However, they cannot bar any orthodox Christian viewpoint.

They make no mention of Christianity at all.


It is affirmed that the founding fathers were all Christians.

No it is not.

If there is any belief they were deists or atheists it can be easily resolved by reading (in context) their letters which show they are indeed Christian. I in fact believed they were atheists until I read their work and understood the Anglican vs. Presbyterian arguments of the day. It was Platonian beliefs vs. orthodoxy.

Separation of Church and state intended by the Founder is as follows:
- No single Christian denomination would have government preference.
- The Church was to be very involved in Government
- Nothing about the government eliminating the church from its daily function.
- I do believe that the Government can and should restrict all other religions that disagree with Christian moral values. This is currently what we do.


Please let me know what your opinion is that is supported by data. For example if you believe Jefferson was an atheist please post not just a random quote but the primary source document as well.

No rational argument will convince 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
10/14/2011 11:02:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 10:58:08 AM, Diagoras wrote:
The same logic that drives not wanting any particular demonination of christianity also applies to not wanting any particular religion. The founding fathers came to escape religious oppression, quite common in christianity.

No they didn't.
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.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 11:13:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Forgetting the contention over the founders' intentions, why would we, as a modern society, want to make laws against non-christian religions? I'm going to go ahead and wait for this to devolve into an argument over moral value systems.
"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
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 1:45:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Separation of Church and state intended by the Founder is as follows:
- No single Christian denomination would have government preference.
This is true.

- The Church was to be very involved in Government
You will need to define that more. The did not want an institutional religious influence in government. I would be happy to debate you on that.

- Nothing about the government eliminating the church from its daily function.
I don't fully understand, please clarify.

- I do believe that the Government can and should restrict all other religions that disagree with Christian moral values. This is currently what we do.
This is not what we do, and i would like to hear where you got that information.

They invisioned a small "c" Christian country simply because anyother was just not imaginable at the time. They did not want the states or the federal government to have any financial intermingling, and there was a lot prior to the revolution.

Generally speaking both sides get this wrong, the secularists think that the country was founded in a purely secular context with no influence of religion upon the government. The religionists think that the country was to be a Christian run and sponsored government, and the truth is in the middle.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 2:28:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Seperation of Church and state refers to a clause in the 1st amendment.

Ratified on December 15th 1791, the 1st Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The phrase Seperation of Church and state comes from Thomas Jefferson, who was opposed to State interferance in religion, such as the Church of England.

On January 1st 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for
his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government
reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus
building a wall of separation between church and State.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 2:35:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
" I do believe that the Government can and should restrict all other religions that disagree with Christian moral values. This is currently what we do."

Let us pray to God that no one like you ever gets elected president of this great nation. I'm starting to believe that religion is inherently destructive to peaceful society. People can have beliefs, that is fine, but it is when you try to extend those beliefs onto others that you are committing (being as sardonic as possible) A SIN!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 2:42:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whether or not it was founding father's intent or not, religion should be kept separate from the state.

Though, that is kind of silly anyway, because the state is a religion.
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
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 2:59:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 2:28:43 PM, DanT wrote:
Seperation of Church and state refers to a clause in the 1st amendment.

Ratified on December 15th 1791, the 1st Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The phrase Seperation of Church and state comes from Thomas Jefferson, who was opposed to State interferance in religion, such as the Church of England.

On January 1st 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for
his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government
reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus
building a wall of separation between church and State.

The origins of freedom of religion being a major factor in this country stems from William Penn and the Quakers. Their experience and the guarranty to the settlers of his 'plantation' of religious freedom that was set into the Pennslyvanian foundation. He is one of the most underrated, and least well known contributors to religious freedom in the US.

After that the various states had begun putting forth taxes that would go toward the religion of the state, like the New Hampshire Presbyterian church or some such. Catholics and Jews were not permitted in many colonies to practice their faith.

Later, when the revolution was at full fury and the French entered into the mix, there was a giant fear that the Catholic French would dominate, and there would be a papist influence in the government, and this scared the bejeezes out of a lot of people then, and it was one of the fears that Benedict Arnold had and one of the reasons for him switching sides.

Interesting little factoid, after Jefferson died, Monticello was falling apart, and was depleted of most assets because of the financial mess he left his estate in. A Jewish couple bought Monticello and restored it and donated it to Virginia in gratitude for the religious freedom he championed.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 3:22:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's interesting to me that in Britain there is no separation of church and state, and yet it isn't a problem because everyone would be outraged here if any laws were passed based on religious arguments.

In any case, the idea that the American government should actively promote Christian morality (much of which I find abhorrent) while barring other moral beliefs is ridiculous.

The beliefs that homosexuality is morally wrong and that terminating a collection of cells is equivalent to murder in particular have caused large amounts of suffering. The doctrine of hell is quite possibly the most morally objectionable common belief ever invented.

No.
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 5:51:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
morons. constitution never placed separations from church and state.

the legal divorce between church and state was established through supreme court rulings.

it still is today - such as public funds being used to transport school children to private religious schools.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:13:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 11:13:48 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Forgetting the contention over the founders' intentions, why would we, as a modern society, want to make laws against non-christian religions? I'm going to go ahead and wait for this to devolve into an argument over moral value systems.

I believe a discussion about morals is an evolution in any conversation.
When we are discussing laws and government morals are always the backbone of the discussion. It rarely stands with a simple preference.

"I prefer not to pay 98% of my income in taxes" is fundamentally different than "it is my God given unalienable right to have liberty from tyranical taxes."
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 6:29:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 2:35:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
" I do believe that the Government can and should restrict all other religions that disagree with Christian moral values. This is currently what we do."

Let us pray to God that no one like you ever gets elected president of this great nation. I'm starting to believe that religion is inherently destructive to peaceful society. People can have beliefs, that is fine, but it is when you try to extend those beliefs onto others that you are committing (being as sardonic as possible) A SIN!

How many beliefs do you have that you force upon people?
Do you believe it is wrong to rape people? (no matter the source of your moral perspective)
Do you force this belief upon the rapist by punishing him for raping?
How about murder? Do you force your morals on the murderer?
The pedophile? Do you force your moral restrictions on the pedophile?

In America we do restrict other religions. For example Sharia Law is illegal in the country. Many of the actions of oppression cannot occur in America.
As well if you are a Pagan belief system you are not allowed to sacrifice children, nuns etc...

You do not have freedom of religion in this Country. You have freedom of Religion as long as it does not go against a Judeo Christian value system.

You cannot start the church of prostitution for example or the church of people beaters.

We completely supress religions that go against a Judeo Christian moral value system. Now I realize that alternate opinions (not just Christian) are starting to be reflected in our Judicial system, though not in written laws.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:07:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 1:45:19 PM, innomen wrote:
Separation of Church and state intended by the Founder is as follows:
- No single Christian denomination would have government preference.
This is true.

- The Church was to be very involved in Government
You will need to define that more. The did not want an institutional religious influence in government. I would be happy to debate you on that.

From the very beginning of the nation both government rituals/prayers and the buildings themselves depict the desire for the Christian God to be involved in the government.
Hopefully that clarifies.
Though the Government could not select a specific denomination the government was clear that the Christian God's involvement was instrumental to the success of the nation.
I can cite examples if you have not explored American Historicy before.


- Nothing about the government eliminating the church from its daily function.
I don't fully understand, please clarify.

I point to some examples like prayers prior to Government services and the submission of the governmental functions to the Christian God in many aspects including the laws that govern the land and the recognition to divine providence/guidance.

The Church was clearly instrumental in creating the government as well as guiding it.
I am referencing the Church universal body(to further clarify)


- I do believe that the Government can and should restrict all other religions that disagree with Christian moral values. This is currently what we do.
This is not what we do, and i would like to hear where you got that information.

We currently do not allow religions that go against Christian moral value systems.
The religious practice of the Church of Satan subsects that have rites of sacrificing nuns.
We do not allow Sharia Law that restricts inherent personal liberties.
We oppress LDS sects that have multiple wives and molest little girls.

These actions are allowed by their religious beliefs but we do not allow them to practice it.

I could go on to past examples where Christians have oppressed other religions due to the abhorrent moral practices of those religions.

Does this clarify?


They invisioned a small "c" Christian country simply because anyother was just not imaginable at the time. They did not want the states or the federal government to have any financial intermingling, and there was a lot prior to the revolution.

Generally speaking both sides get this wrong, the secularists think that the country was founded in a purely secular context with no influence of religion upon the government. The religionists think that the country was to be a Christian run and sponsored government, and the truth is in the middle.

I also held this view that the American government was a religious influenced but mostly secular generation.
That was until I studied the private works of the founding fathers, the private works of the signers of the declaration of independence etc..
I also compared the laws written by the Governments both state and federal to the sources that pastors cited for the creation of the system we had in the beginning.

After those studies I could only come to one conclusion:
The Christian God was the foremost force in view of the founding fathers.
The desire for the children of the Christian God to be active in the daily actions of the government was clear from the historical documents, rituals and prayers in the governmental practice and even in the governmental art/building works.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:13:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 2:54:03 PM, Rusty wrote:
Gileandos, were the founding fathers "orthodox" Christians?

Depends on how you define Orthodoxy.
They were not part of the Eastern Orthodoxy.

They all held to the tenents of the Nicean Creed, but at the end of Ben Franklin's life for example he questioned the Divinity of Jesus.

Each person like all Christians are on a spiritual pilgrimage and at times work on a question from their question bag. That does not invalidate their "Christianness". God's call is that we question and explore the revelations He has given to the Church.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:22:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 3:22:29 PM, Kinesis wrote:
It's interesting to me that in Britain there is no separation of church and state, and yet it isn't a problem because everyone would be outraged here if any laws were passed based on religious arguments.

So your saying there is a functional seperation of church and state?


In any case, the idea that the American government should actively promote Christian morality (much of which I find abhorrent) while barring other moral beliefs is ridiculous.

The beliefs that homosexuality is morally wrong and that terminating a collection of cells is equivalent to murder in particular have caused large amounts of suffering. The doctrine of hell is quite possibly the most morally objectionable common belief ever invented.

Which moral system do you prescribe to?
What makes your position "right" that killing unborn babies is not murder?
What makes your position that an unclean act like Homosexuality is "good"?

How can you pick and choose what you do or do not like?
If you have a naturalistic viewpoint, why would you still not err on the side of caution concerning the murder of unborn babies?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:27:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 5:51:52 PM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
morons. constitution never placed separations from church and state.

the legal divorce between church and state was established through supreme court rulings.

it still is today - such as public funds being used to transport school children to private religious schools.

I agree with this except the moron part.
Most people simply have not put enough time into studying early American history.
The public education system has failed to teach many things properly.

This means most here are more than likely uninformed as opposed to moronic.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:27:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 6:13:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 11:13:48 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Forgetting the contention over the founders' intentions, why would we, as a modern society, want to make laws against non-christian religions? I'm going to go ahead and wait for this to devolve into an argument over moral value systems.

I believe a discussion about morals is an evolution in any conversation.
When we are discussing laws and government morals are always the backbone of the discussion. It rarely stands with a simple preference.

"I prefer not to pay 98% of my income in taxes" is fundamentally different than "it is my God given unalienable right to have liberty from tyranical taxes."

The problem with the discussion becoming about morality is that not everyone agrees with your moral system and it's really an utter waste of time to argue in favor of a particular religious moral system because there really isn't a way to prove that yours is superior/correct, thereby nullifying any reason to legislate in favor of such a moral system.
"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
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:38:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:27:08 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:13:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 11:13:48 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Forgetting the contention over the founders' intentions, why would we, as a modern society, want to make laws against non-christian religions? I'm going to go ahead and wait for this to devolve into an argument over moral value systems.

I believe a discussion about morals is an evolution in any conversation.
When we are discussing laws and government morals are always the backbone of the discussion. It rarely stands with a simple preference.

"I prefer not to pay 98% of my income in taxes" is fundamentally different than "it is my God given unalienable right to have liberty from tyranical taxes."

The problem with the discussion becoming about morality is that not everyone agrees with your moral system and it's really an utter waste of time to argue in favor of a particular religious moral system because there really isn't a way to prove that yours is superior/correct, thereby nullifying any reason to legislate in favor of such a moral system.

Interesting viewpoint. The fact that I have landed on a particular moral system I believe should show that it is possible to convince a person of a superior moral system.

Additionally, "a" moral system will indeed be chosen as laws to govern society will be made. The question will always be which is superior.

Athiests argue for a moral system that is utilitarian and naturalistic as opposed to a religious one etc...
Someones moral view will inevitably be restricted. I argue that the fact that this nation has been great in the past when it was governed by Christian moral values places it as historically superior.

Athiestic/Naturalistic values caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.
The Islamic middle eastern nations, not even muslims want to live there...

I think we can make a historical argument that the greatness of this nation is clearly due to the Christian moral value system.
Of course if you like any of the other moral value systems you can relocate to those countries and test the veracity of your viewpoint first hand.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 7:54:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:38:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:27:08 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:13:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 11:13:48 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Forgetting the contention over the founders' intentions, why would we, as a modern society, want to make laws against non-christian religions? I'm going to go ahead and wait for this to devolve into an argument over moral value systems.

I believe a discussion about morals is an evolution in any conversation.
When we are discussing laws and government morals are always the backbone of the discussion. It rarely stands with a simple preference.

"I prefer not to pay 98% of my income in taxes" is fundamentally different than "it is my God given unalienable right to have liberty from tyranical taxes."

The problem with the discussion becoming about morality is that not everyone agrees with your moral system and it's really an utter waste of time to argue in favor of a particular religious moral system because there really isn't a way to prove that yours is superior/correct, thereby nullifying any reason to legislate in favor of such a moral system.

Interesting viewpoint. The fact that I have landed on a particular moral system I believe should show that it is possible to convince a person of a superior moral system.

I said prove, not convince.

Additionally, "a" moral system will indeed be chosen as laws to govern society will be made. The question will always be which is superior.

Athiests argue for a moral system that is utilitarian and naturalistic as opposed to a religious one etc...

You lump atheists into one single ideological category with no good reason. Not all atheists are moral nihlists or utilitarian. I personally know several atheists that hold moral ideas based entirely on emotion.

Someones moral view will inevitably be restricted. I argue that the fact that this nation has been great in the past when it was governed by Christian moral values places it as historically superior.

I'll leave that part to the others.

Athiestic/Naturalistic values caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.

Lolwut? Brutal dictator a$$holes caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.

The Islamic middle eastern nations, not even muslims want to live there...

I think we can make a historical argument that the greatness of this nation is clearly due to the Christian moral value system.
Of course if you like any of the other moral value systems you can relocate to those countries and test the veracity of your viewpoint first hand.

"If you don't like it then you can geeeet out."
"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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:21:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 10:53:43 AM, Gileandos wrote:
I want to post a topic and have an educated discussion.

Please post educated statements supported by fact. This should preclude several notorious people from posting. You know who you are.
Please avoid blathering.

As to the Topic.
I am a firm believer in this and agree with the intention of the founding fathers.

I believe that the Government should make no law against Christianity based on denominational preferences. (This was the intent of the laws and the founding fathers wishes)
I believe the Government can make laws that bar other religions that are not Christianity when they go against the Christian moral value systems. However, they cannot bar any orthodox Christian viewpoint.


Slavery was very christian, denying women pain relief in child birth was very christian. Who shall tell us what is christian and what is not, men of course, men speaking for God, men like Gil, men like Gils teachers and what could possibly go wrong there ? God wants this, do it or go to hell, end of argument.

There is nothing more christian than the bible, and that means christian "morals" will be based on the bible. We have been down this road following the "morals" of the bible have we not ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 8:23:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 7:54:24 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:38:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:27:08 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:13:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 11:13:48 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Forgetting the contention over the founders' intentions, why would we, as a modern society, want to make laws against non-christian religions? I'm going to go ahead and wait for this to devolve into an argument over moral value systems.

I believe a discussion about morals is an evolution in any conversation.
When we are discussing laws and government morals are always the backbone of the discussion. It rarely stands with a simple preference.

"I prefer not to pay 98% of my income in taxes" is fundamentally different than "it is my God given unalienable right to have liberty from tyranical taxes."

The problem with the discussion becoming about morality is that not everyone agrees with your moral system and it's really an utter waste of time to argue in favor of a particular religious moral system because there really isn't a way to prove that yours is superior/correct, thereby nullifying any reason to legislate in favor of such a moral system.

Interesting viewpoint. The fact that I have landed on a particular moral system I believe should show that it is possible to convince a person of a superior moral system.

I said prove, not convince.
I offer myself as proof of the ability to convince. I offered the proof historically below that Christianity is a superior system.


Additionally, "a" moral system will indeed be chosen as laws to govern society will be made. The question will always be which is superior.

Athiests argue for a moral system that is utilitarian and naturalistic as opposed to a religious one etc...

You lump atheists into one single ideological category with no good reason. Not all atheists are moral nihlists or utilitarian. I personally know several atheists that hold moral ideas based entirely on emotion.

Morals from Emotion is still naturalistic. Unless you are suggesting that naturalists believe emotion is a supernatural force? I stated utilitarian or naturalistic. I do not know any other system that can come from an athiestic viewpoint. Naturalistic moral system would encompass anything you would come up with that was not a supernatural religious view.


Someones moral view will inevitably be restricted. I argue that the fact that this nation has been great in the past when it was governed by Christian moral values places it as historically superior.

I'll leave that part to the others.

Athiestic/Naturalistic values caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.

Lolwut? Brutal dictator a$$holes caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.

Perhaps a review of history would be in order? Were you aware that all of these moral systems were naturalistic and athiestic in nature? The dictators themselves made laws unders such moral governance.


The Islamic middle eastern nations, not even muslims want to live there...

I think we can make a historical argument that the greatness of this nation is clearly due to the Christian moral value system.
Of course if you like any of the other moral value systems you can relocate to those countries and test the veracity of your viewpoint first hand.

"If you don't like it then you can geeeet out."

Not at all. I would welcome you back after you realize that indeed a Judeo Christian moral system is preferred. If you disagree with me even after and prefer Taliban rule, you have clearly found a home!
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 9:34:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:23:39 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:54:24 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:38:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:27:08 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:13:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 11:13:48 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Forgetting the contention over the founders' intentions, why would we, as a modern society, want to make laws against non-christian religions? I'm going to go ahead and wait for this to devolve into an argument over moral value systems.

I believe a discussion about morals is an evolution in any conversation.
When we are discussing laws and government morals are always the backbone of the discussion. It rarely stands with a simple preference.

"I prefer not to pay 98% of my income in taxes" is fundamentally different than "it is my God given unalienable right to have liberty from tyranical taxes."

The problem with the discussion becoming about morality is that not everyone agrees with your moral system and it's really an utter waste of time to argue in favor of a particular religious moral system because there really isn't a way to prove that yours is superior/correct, thereby nullifying any reason to legislate in favor of such a moral system.

Interesting viewpoint. The fact that I have landed on a particular moral system I believe should show that it is possible to convince a person of a superior moral system.

I said prove, not convince.
I offer myself as proof of the ability to convince. I offered the proof historically below that Christianity is a superior system.

You offered no such proof. You asserted that America was greater when it was "governed by Christian moral values".


Additionally, "a" moral system will indeed be chosen as laws to govern society will be made. The question will always be which is superior.

Athiests argue for a moral system that is utilitarian and naturalistic as opposed to a religious one etc...

You lump atheists into one single ideological category with no good reason. Not all atheists are moral nihlists or utilitarian. I personally know several atheists that hold moral ideas based entirely on emotion.

Morals from Emotion is still naturalistic. Unless you are suggesting that naturalists believe emotion is a supernatural force? I stated utilitarian or naturalistic. I do not know any other system that can come from an athiestic viewpoint. Naturalistic moral system would encompass anything you would come up with that was not a supernatural religious view.

True, however my point is that atheists hold a very wide range of moral values. Generalizing the sources of those values makes it sound like you were connecting atheists to a certain set of morals.



Someones moral view will inevitably be restricted. I argue that the fact that this nation has been great in the past when it was governed by Christian moral values places it as historically superior.

I'll leave that part to the others.

Athiestic/Naturalistic values caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.

Lolwut? Brutal dictator a$$holes caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.

Perhaps a review of history would be in order? Were you aware that all of these moral systems were naturalistic and athiestic in nature? The dictators themselves made laws unders such moral governance.

Showing an extreme end of a generalized moral system is a bit of a misrepresentation. I would also go so far as to say it was a lot more the inner psycopath in each of them than the source of their morality that caused them to be bat-sh!t crazy.



The Islamic middle eastern nations, not even muslims want to live there...

I think we can make a historical argument that the greatness of this nation is clearly due to the Christian moral value system.
Of course if you like any of the other moral value systems you can relocate to those countries and test the veracity of your viewpoint first hand.

"If you don't like it then you can geeeet out."

Not at all. I would welcome you back after you realize that indeed a Judeo Christian moral system is preferred. If you disagree with me even after and prefer Taliban rule, you have clearly found a home!

I don't have to go that extreme. I imagine a simple trip to western Europe would suffice.
"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
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 9:47:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 10:53:43 AM, Gileandos wrote:
I want to post a topic and have an educated discussion.

Please post educated statements supported by fact. This should preclude several notorious people from posting. You know who you are.
Please avoid blathering.

As to the Topic.
I am a firm believer in this and agree with the intention of the founding fathers.

I believe that the Government should make no law against Christianity based on denominational preferences. (This was the intent of the laws and the founding fathers wishes)
I believe the Government can make laws that bar other religions that are not Christianity when they go against the Christian moral value systems. However, they cannot bar any orthodox Christian viewpoint.

It is affirmed that the founding fathers were all Christians. If there is any belief they were deists or atheists it can be easily resolved by reading (in context) their letters which show they are indeed Christian. I in fact believed they were atheists until I read their work and understood the Anglican vs. Presbyterian arguments of the day. It was Platonian beliefs vs. orthodoxy.

Separation of Church and state intended by the Founder is as follows:
- No single Christian denomination would have government preference.
- The Church was to be very involved in Government
- Nothing about the government eliminating the church from its daily function.
- I do believe that the Government can and should restrict all other religions that disagree with Christian moral values. This is currently what we do.


Please let me know what your opinion is that is supported by data. For example if you believe Jefferson was an atheist please post not just a random quote but the primary source document as well.

Apparently you haven't read the Treaty of Tripoli..

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 9:53:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 9:34:16 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 8:23:39 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:54:24 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:38:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 7:27:08 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 10/14/2011 6:13:12 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/14/2011 11:13:48 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
Forgetting the contention over the founders' intentions, why would we, as a modern society, want to make laws against non-christian religions? I'm going to go ahead and wait for this to devolve into an argument over moral value systems.

I believe a discussion about morals is an evolution in any conversation.
When we are discussing laws and government morals are always the backbone of the discussion. It rarely stands with a simple preference.

"I prefer not to pay 98% of my income in taxes" is fundamentally different than "it is my God given unalienable right to have liberty from tyranical taxes."

The problem with the discussion becoming about morality is that not everyone agrees with your moral system and it's really an utter waste of time to argue in favor of a particular religious moral system because there really isn't a way to prove that yours is superior/correct, thereby nullifying any reason to legislate in favor of such a moral system.

Interesting viewpoint. The fact that I have landed on a particular moral system I believe should show that it is possible to convince a person of a superior moral system.

I said prove, not convince.
I offer myself as proof of the ability to convince. I offered the proof historically below that Christianity is a superior system.

You offered no such proof. You asserted that America was greater when it was "governed by Christian moral values".

That is evidenced and proven by a mere knowledge of History.


Additionally, "a" moral system will indeed be chosen as laws to govern society will be made. The question will always be which is superior.

Athiests argue for a moral system that is utilitarian and naturalistic as opposed to a religious one etc...

You lump atheists into one single ideological category with no good reason. Not all atheists are moral nihlists or utilitarian. I personally know several atheists that hold moral ideas based entirely on emotion.

Morals from Emotion is still naturalistic. Unless you are suggesting that naturalists believe emotion is a supernatural force? I stated utilitarian or naturalistic. I do not know any other system that can come from an athiestic viewpoint. Naturalistic moral system would encompass anything you would come up with that was not a supernatural religious view.

True, however my point is that atheists hold a very wide range of moral values. Generalizing the sources of those values makes it sound like you were connecting atheists to a certain set of morals.

As long as those three mentioned states that held Athiestic moral views and asserted them it would be the current representation of an athiestic moral "state" government. These were the results of the naturalistic moral value systems. Religious moral systems act as a clear moderator to naturalistic moral values.



Someones moral view will inevitably be restricted. I argue that the fact that this nation has been great in the past when it was governed by Christian moral values places it as historically superior.

I'll leave that part to the others.

Athiestic/Naturalistic values caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.

Lolwut? Brutal dictator a$$holes caused Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany and Mao's China.

Perhaps a review of history would be in order? Were you aware that all of these moral systems were naturalistic and athiestic in nature? The dictators themselves made laws unders such moral governance.

Showing an extreme end of a generalized moral system is a bit of a misrepresentation. I would also go so far as to say it was a lot more the inner psycopath in each of them than the source of their morality that caused them to be bat-sh!t crazy.

Again a transcendent Judge is a moderator towards any naturalistic moral system that would be unguided.



The Islamic middle eastern nations, not even muslims want to live there...

I think we can make a historical argument that the greatness of this nation is clearly due to the Christian moral value system.
Of course if you like any of the other moral value systems you can relocate to those countries and test the veracity of your viewpoint first hand.

"If you don't like it then you can geeeet out."

Not at all. I would welcome you back after you realize that indeed a Judeo Christian moral system is preferred. If you disagree with me even after and prefer Taliban rule, you have clearly found a home!

I don't have to go that extreme. I imagine a simple trip to western Europe would suffice.

I in fact encourage a visit to the declining european areas. As they have left the Judeo-Christian value system that has caused their greatness in History, their decline has become obvious.
The mulsim fanatics ruling entire neighborhoods due to their PC weakness is amazing. Cops and military will not even go into those neighborhoods in France.
It is truly crazy.
The headlines do not even cover a fraction of the reality of what is occuring in Europe. You are right truly a great example.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 10:02:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 9:47:55 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 10/14/2011 10:53:43 AM, Gileandos wrote:
I want to post a topic and have an educated discussion.

Please post educated statements supported by fact. This should preclude several notorious people from posting. You know who you are.
Please avoid blathering.

As to the Topic.
I am a firm believer in this and agree with the intention of the founding fathers.

I believe that the Government should make no law against Christianity based on denominational preferences. (This was the intent of the laws and the founding fathers wishes)
I believe the Government can make laws that bar other religions that are not Christianity when they go against the Christian moral value systems. However, they cannot bar any orthodox Christian viewpoint.

It is affirmed that the founding fathers were all Christians. If there is any belief they were deists or atheists it can be easily resolved by reading (in context) their letters which show they are indeed Christian. I in fact believed they were atheists until I read their work and understood the Anglican vs. Presbyterian arguments of the day. It was Platonian beliefs vs. orthodoxy.

Separation of Church and state intended by the Founder is as follows:
- No single Christian denomination would have government preference.
- The Church was to be very involved in Government
- Nothing about the government eliminating the church from its daily function.
- I do believe that the Government can and should restrict all other religions that disagree with Christian moral values. This is currently what we do.


Please let me know what your opinion is that is supported by data. For example if you believe Jefferson was an atheist please post not just a random quote but the primary source document as well.

Apparently you haven't read the Treaty of Tripoli..

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for the input but do you know how badly this is disputed as extent much less the politics behind it?
Why was the phrase not in the Muslim treaty or any treaty that followed with the Muslims?

I as a historian doubt the veracity of the copy on file from "1800". You would think there would be a discussion on such a phrase recorded in heated debate when so many (even if you do not agree with all) of the Congress were recorded to claim that the nation was a Christian nation.

Yet no recorded debate on this point from any of the records at the time? And not in the Arabic version? and in no other treaty with muslims after?
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 10:02:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
-If you are going to argue that America was greater when it was supposedly more heavily influenced by christianity, then you should probably present some evidence. Telling me to do the research for you is insulting and a waste of time.

-Talking about how crappy some neighborhoods are in France in no way supports the assertion that christian moral systems are better than less religiously influenced ones. Go to any major city in America and I guarantee you'll be able to find areas just as crappy as the ones you mentioned.
"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
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2011 10:04:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/14/2011 8:21:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/14/2011 10:53:43 AM, Gileandos wrote:
I want to post a topic and have an educated discussion.

Please post educated statements supported by fact. This should preclude several notorious people from posting. You know who you are.
Please avoid blathering.

As to the Topic.
I am a firm believer in this and agree with the intention of the founding fathers.

I believe that the Government should make no law against Christianity based on denominational preferences. (This was the intent of the laws and the founding fathers wishes)
I believe the Government can make laws that bar other religions that are not Christianity when they go against the Christian moral value systems. However, they cannot bar any orthodox Christian viewpoint.


Slavery was very christian, denying women pain relief in child birth was very christian. Who shall tell us what is christian and what is not, men of course, men speaking for God, men like Gil, men like Gils teachers and what could possibly go wrong there ? God wants this, do it or go to hell, end of argument.

There is nothing more christian than the bible, and that means christian "morals" will be based on the bible. We have been down this road following the "morals" of the bible have we not ?



I agree with slavery as stated in the Bible. I also agree with anyone that chooses to forego any medicine.
Good news is God is alive and powerful. He can act and guide people along with the Bible. In fact, you can speak with him also if you desire to find out what Christian moral values are.