SarahC07 0 #26 March 15, 2004 QuoteTimes change. That's it, right there! "Times change" Time's have changed and the people have moved and evolved with them... Sarah Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #27 March 15, 2004 QuoteIs there a difference between fredom "OF" religion and freedom "FROM" religion? Taking the literal meaning yes there is a difference. In the real world no not really. You have to be free from the rule of religion to be able to choose a religion. If any spiritual institution had control over the running of a country then its a safe bet that it would quickly become more and more restrictive until the only option is to follow their doctrine. as it is now religion is a business. you have to be a nice and appealing religion to make people buy their souls from you rather than the other temple down the road.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #28 March 15, 2004 That's not what i meant - It is more along the lines of you must belong to A chuch - we just won't tell you which one. BTW - Don't worship either.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #29 March 15, 2004 QuoteTime's have changed and the people have moved and evolved with them... YES! it always gets me when people seem to think that the constitution(s) were written with some kind of sacred foresight and that they will always be right no matter how different things are.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 March 15, 2004 QuoteIf any spiritual institution had control over the running of a country then its a safe bet that it would quickly become more and more restrictive until the only option is to follow their doctrine. Are you talking about political correctness here? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,148 #31 March 15, 2004 QuoteIt is more along the lines of you must belong to A chuch - we just won't tell you which one. BTW - Don't worship either. I hope you're being facetious. If you're not, then you're making it abundantly clear why you have to be able to be free of religion to have freedom of religion. A government should be able to regulate antisocial behavior when necessary, and not thoughts and beliefs. If I choose to devil-worship, and otherwise live a law-abiding life, that should be my own business. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #32 March 15, 2004 QuoteA government should be able to regulate antisocial behavior when necessary, ... Scarier words have never been written. If I choose to go to work, go home and do nothing else with my life, that too is antisocial. How, pre tell, would/should the government regulate that?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,148 #33 March 15, 2004 No, that's asocial. Maybe I used the word antisocial carelessly -- I'm thinking of destructive actions which impede the ability of people at large to live together and "pursue happiness", such as theft, assault, and legalized bigotry. I'm probably at least as much of a loner as you are. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #34 March 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt is more along the lines of you must belong to A chuch - we just won't tell you which one. BTW - Don't worship either. I hope you're being facetious. If you're not, then you're making it abundantly clear why you have to be able to be free of religion to have freedom of religion. A government should be able to regulate antisocial behavior when necessary, and not thoughts and beliefs. If I choose to devil-worship, and otherwise live a law-abiding life, that should be my own business. Wendy W. Yes wendy, as usual i am being fac . . . fas . . .smartass. I was actually thinking directly along the lines of the Salem incidents, where hallucinagenics(sp) were misunderstood (and Unapreciated). [Since this was thread dating back a while] in reply to your last : What is "Legalised" bigotry? and what diffence does that make to murderers and criminals?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #35 March 15, 2004 QuoteNo, that's asocial. Maybe I used the word antisocial carelessly -- I'm thinking of destructive actions which impede the ability of people at large to live together and "pursue happiness", such as theft, assault, and legalized bigotry. I'm probably at least as much of a loner as you are. Wendy W. Those rights are already written into our founding framework: "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Now, I do not lead the life I described (thank God!) before. Besides, I'm currently unemployed and I get to PW all day if I want. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,148 #36 March 15, 2004 QuoteYes wendy, as usual i am being fac . . . fas . . .smartass. D'oh -- Wendy smacks self on head and remembers -- this is Turtle! Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #37 March 15, 2004 QuoteAre you talking about political correctness here? No i'm not talking about political correctness. I'm saying that if any spiritual institution had control of a country, no matter how permissive the institution started sooner or later it would be a crime to worship anything other than what they tell you or do anything other than what they tell you. Wars have been fought and people oppressed in the name of every religion in history, even buddhism.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #38 March 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteOK, but which god were they talking about, you wanna get the pope and the archbishop of canterbury to fight it out for total control of your lives? Having a government that answers to any church is just moronic. Even if that is what America's founders wanted, who cares? They were wrong. Our government doesn't answer to a particular "church" or religion. However, having a government without respect to God is arrogant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #39 March 15, 2004 Quote Our government doesn't answer to a particular "church" or religion. However, having a government without respect to God is arrogant. Hmm, Arrogant - in who's eyes? Perhaps phrased like this would be more apropriate: . . . having a government that does not have respect to the fact that people prescribe to the idealism of God is arrogant.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerry81 10 #40 March 15, 2004 QuoteHowever, having a government without respect to God is arrogant. Care to elaborate on that statement? I wouldn't even jump in this discussion, but I'm really curious how exactly you meant that and what are your arguments for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #41 March 15, 2004 Quote Since this is a Federal Republic, the State Constitutions have much more relevance here. I don't know if Canada's Provinces have constitutions (I don't think so), but under their system of governemt, a Confederation with Parliment, such constitutions would be of little worth. Not in my opinion. Here's how I see it. Each state is free to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't conflict with the United States. By "joining" the United States, they agree to follow its Constitution. The very limited wording of the Constitution of the United States supercedes all other individual state constitutions. So, while individual states may wish to recognise God and that is clearly their right, it is not a part of the Constitution of the United States to do so.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #42 March 15, 2004 It's pretty big grey area IMO. By the same standard, the US Constitution does not forbid the recognition of God by the states either.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,259 #43 March 15, 2004 So would you vote for a politician that shared all your political views and was willing to stand and fight for them but didn't believe in God? Do you think I'm arrogant for not believing in god or is it just a gov't thing? Do you think its impossible for some one to have good morals and a sense of what is and is not right but not believe in god? Edit: How do you think belief in or respect for god would reflect itself in gov't policy?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #44 March 15, 2004 Exactly. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the individual States can do whatever they want as long as it's not specifically forbidden in the rest of the Constitution of the United States.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #45 March 15, 2004 Quote Do you think its impossible for some one to have good morals and a sense of what is and is not right but not believe in god? I agree with you. I also think that there have been numerous people that have claimed to believe in God that have very poor morals and a very poor sense of what is right and wrong. Further . . . Who would you really want to follow: a person that thought he was doing the right thing so that he could win favor with God and get into heaven or a person that was simply doing the right thing because it was the right thing?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites karenmeal 0 #46 March 15, 2004 from Ron: QuoteThis land was founded on religion. Maybe you've not heard of the treaty of tripoli? It contains this jewel: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Considering that this treaty was written and signed by the same guys behind the constitution, I think their thoughts and intentions were pretty clear. Just had to add... I think that moral codes are natural among humans. I think that tit for tat (which is basically the golden rule) is natural as it is the best way to succeed in life. (By passing on your DNA) Humans are simply more sucessful when they build up social insurance by real or fictive kin-ties. I think that moral codes just happen, perhaps for selfish reasons, but for reasons that benefit humanity nonetheless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #47 March 15, 2004 QuoteWhat would you call a modern-day religious zealot who really believed that people must be forcibly converted to your religion or killed, and that your religious leaders commanded you to do so? Al-Qaeda"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #48 March 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, that's asocial. Maybe I used the word antisocial carelessly -- I'm thinking of destructive actions which impede the ability of people at large to live together and "pursue happiness", such as theft, assault, and legalized bigotry. I'm probably at least as much of a loner as you are. Wendy W. Those rights are already written into our founding framework: "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Now, I do not lead the life I described (thank God!) before. Besides, I'm currently unemployed and I get to PW all day if I want. I don't think they are "rights", they are said to be self-evident truths. I think you'd have a hard time enforcing them too, since the D of I is more a mission statement than a legal document.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,648 #49 March 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteOK, but which god were they talking about, you wanna get the pope and the archbishop of canterbury to fight it out for total control of your lives? Having a government that answers to any church is just moronic. Even if that is what America's founders wanted, who cares? They were wrong. Our government doesn't answer to a particular "church" or religion. However, having a government without respect to God is arrogant. I think it's arrogant for some people to impose their beliefs and morality on others.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #50 March 15, 2004 QuoteAmendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. It also says that anything not specifically granted to the federal governement under the Constitution is up to the states... or said another way, the federal government cannot do anything not specifically called for in the Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
turtlespeed 212 #39 March 15, 2004 Quote Our government doesn't answer to a particular "church" or religion. However, having a government without respect to God is arrogant. Hmm, Arrogant - in who's eyes? Perhaps phrased like this would be more apropriate: . . . having a government that does not have respect to the fact that people prescribe to the idealism of God is arrogant.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerry81 10 #40 March 15, 2004 QuoteHowever, having a government without respect to God is arrogant. Care to elaborate on that statement? I wouldn't even jump in this discussion, but I'm really curious how exactly you meant that and what are your arguments for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #41 March 15, 2004 Quote Since this is a Federal Republic, the State Constitutions have much more relevance here. I don't know if Canada's Provinces have constitutions (I don't think so), but under their system of governemt, a Confederation with Parliment, such constitutions would be of little worth. Not in my opinion. Here's how I see it. Each state is free to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't conflict with the United States. By "joining" the United States, they agree to follow its Constitution. The very limited wording of the Constitution of the United States supercedes all other individual state constitutions. So, while individual states may wish to recognise God and that is clearly their right, it is not a part of the Constitution of the United States to do so.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #42 March 15, 2004 It's pretty big grey area IMO. By the same standard, the US Constitution does not forbid the recognition of God by the states either.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,259 #43 March 15, 2004 So would you vote for a politician that shared all your political views and was willing to stand and fight for them but didn't believe in God? Do you think I'm arrogant for not believing in god or is it just a gov't thing? Do you think its impossible for some one to have good morals and a sense of what is and is not right but not believe in god? Edit: How do you think belief in or respect for god would reflect itself in gov't policy?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #44 March 15, 2004 Exactly. The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the individual States can do whatever they want as long as it's not specifically forbidden in the rest of the Constitution of the United States.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #45 March 15, 2004 Quote Do you think its impossible for some one to have good morals and a sense of what is and is not right but not believe in god? I agree with you. I also think that there have been numerous people that have claimed to believe in God that have very poor morals and a very poor sense of what is right and wrong. Further . . . Who would you really want to follow: a person that thought he was doing the right thing so that he could win favor with God and get into heaven or a person that was simply doing the right thing because it was the right thing?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
karenmeal 0 #46 March 15, 2004 from Ron: QuoteThis land was founded on religion. Maybe you've not heard of the treaty of tripoli? It contains this jewel: "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Considering that this treaty was written and signed by the same guys behind the constitution, I think their thoughts and intentions were pretty clear. Just had to add... I think that moral codes are natural among humans. I think that tit for tat (which is basically the golden rule) is natural as it is the best way to succeed in life. (By passing on your DNA) Humans are simply more sucessful when they build up social insurance by real or fictive kin-ties. I think that moral codes just happen, perhaps for selfish reasons, but for reasons that benefit humanity nonetheless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #47 March 15, 2004 QuoteWhat would you call a modern-day religious zealot who really believed that people must be forcibly converted to your religion or killed, and that your religious leaders commanded you to do so? Al-Qaeda"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #48 March 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, that's asocial. Maybe I used the word antisocial carelessly -- I'm thinking of destructive actions which impede the ability of people at large to live together and "pursue happiness", such as theft, assault, and legalized bigotry. I'm probably at least as much of a loner as you are. Wendy W. Those rights are already written into our founding framework: "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." Now, I do not lead the life I described (thank God!) before. Besides, I'm currently unemployed and I get to PW all day if I want. I don't think they are "rights", they are said to be self-evident truths. I think you'd have a hard time enforcing them too, since the D of I is more a mission statement than a legal document.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #49 March 15, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteOK, but which god were they talking about, you wanna get the pope and the archbishop of canterbury to fight it out for total control of your lives? Having a government that answers to any church is just moronic. Even if that is what America's founders wanted, who cares? They were wrong. Our government doesn't answer to a particular "church" or religion. However, having a government without respect to God is arrogant. I think it's arrogant for some people to impose their beliefs and morality on others.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #50 March 15, 2004 QuoteAmendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. It also says that anything not specifically granted to the federal governement under the Constitution is up to the states... or said another way, the federal government cannot do anything not specifically called for in the Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jdhill 0 #50 March 15, 2004 QuoteAmendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. It also says that anything not specifically granted to the federal governement under the Constitution is up to the states... or said another way, the federal government cannot do anything not specifically called for in the Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
