Do u beleave in God

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

It wasn't that long ago people in our country didn't think negroes were whole persons either.

That is why I am not talking about "our country", but "our society".
Is there any country, which treats fetus as a person?

If you would like to argue abortion that is fine, but I was trying to stick to the issue of people in the USA have the right to lobby for what they believe in.

steveOrino

[billvon 2,425]

>As you know, our society does not treat an unborn child as a person.

Right, but that's something of an arbitrary dividing line. A 39 week fetus has a lot more in common with a newborn than with a 1 week fetus, so it would be reasonable to assume that laws that apply to newborns would be somewhat applicable to 39 week fetuses.

>So thinking this way we have much broader question - are we going to
>give the fetus all the rights any person has?

No! We don't even give _children_ the same rights a person has!

>For example, a right to enjoy healthy living (and therefore putting his
>mother in a jail when she smokes)?

In most states children do not have that right.

>A right to own property?

In most states, again, they don't have that right.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

It wasn't that long ago people in our country didn't think negroes were whole persons either.

That is why I am not talking about "our country", but "our society".
Is there any country, which treats fetus as a person?

(Caution: Generality Alert!)
Not a responsive answer to your question, but I think many people who generally support abortion rights would probably not have a huge problem with a fetus being deemed a legal "person" in a very late stage of gestation when the fetus is viable (say, the ninth month...)

[bigtexan 0]

Quote

What issue doesn't transcend religion?

my response here is a bit tougher to verbalize. However, I would argue that you are aware of topics that tend to align with religious vs. non-religous viewpoints. One of these would be gay-marriage and I would argue that you would agree that the religous vote carries much weight on this topic.

yes?

[billvon 2,425]

>And Gould was demonsratably wrong.

?? The fact that some people are in error does not make someone else wrong. Some people think that airplanes are held in the air by their engines; their belief does not make the work done by Kutta, Bernoulli, Joukowski et al any less valuable.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

What issue doesn't transcend religion?

my response here is a bit tougher to verbalize. However, I would argue that you are aware of topics that tend to align with religious vs. non-religous viewpoints. One of these would be gay-marriage and I would argue that you would agree that the religous vote carries much weight on this topic.

yes?

I think many christians and non christians have strong feelings about gay marriage. You only want to shut up those who speak because of religous convictions. That is a pity IMHO.

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

If you would like to argue abortion that is fine, but I was trying to stick to the issue of people in the USA have the right to lobby for what they believe in.

Technically yes - it is the same issue that the people, who think the Christian religion is fake, and therefore should be banned out of country, have the right to lobby for what they believe.

But fortunately the Founding Fathers were smart, and US constitution still provides us the ability to struck any law which is based on religion. Unfortunately it takes time and efforts. So as someone already pointed out, it is time for non-religious people to become more politically active.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Right, but that's something of an arbitrary dividing line. A 39 week fetus has a lot more in common with a newborn than with a 1 week fetus, so it would be reasonable to assume that laws that apply to newborns would be somewhat applicable to 39 week fetuses.

Yes, but to have a law you should set strict guidelines. Every age-related restriction could be challenged this way, and I am sure no one can say why the restriction for buying alcohol is 21 - so it is "unsafe" for the person who is 20 years and 11 months old, but in a month it somehow becomes safer?

Quote

No! We don't even give _children_ the same rights a person has!

So it seems reasonable not to give fetus even the rights the children have.

Quote

In most states, again, they don't have that right.

This one sounds strange for me. So a 1yo boy cannot have property on his name (i.e. he owns)? Sure he cannot for example sell it, but doesn't he have a right to own it? Sounds strange.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I think many christians and non christians have strong feelings about gay marriage. You only want to shut up those who speak because of religous convictions.

How many non religious people you know who're against gay marriage?
You mentioned they have "feelings" - are they gay, or they just have feelings for gay people?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I think many christians and non christians have strong feelings about gay marriage. You only want to shut up those who speak because of religous convictions.

How many non religious people you know who're against gay marriage?

nearly every biker I meet.

steveOrino

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

nearly every biker I meet.

In your church? :)
I've met several gay bikers though.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[steveorino 7]

yep, there are lots of bikers in the church I pastor. Are they gay? Why do you want to know?

steveOrino

[philh 0]

"It "jives" with typical Jewish beliefs at the time and is consistent with other teachings of JC "
So you are saying you have no evidence whatsoever that god or Jesus condenms peadophilia even though they command the death penalty for homo sexuality. This" it jives" argument is pure speculation and irrelevant even if true; we r not talking about what the poeple at the time believed we are talking about what god commanded. Infact lets not forget that Lot offered his virgin daughters to be gang raped and he was the righteous chap saved in Sodom and Glomorah! and you call this moral?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

"It "jives" with typical Jewish beliefs at the time and is consistent with other teachings of JC "
So you are saying you have no evidence whatsoever that god or Jesus condenms peadophilia even though they command the death penalty for homo sexuality. This" it jives" argument is pure speculation and irrelevant even if true; we r not talking about what the poeple at the time believed we are talking about what god commanded. Infact lets not forget that Lot offered his virgin daughters to be gang raped and he was the righteous chap saved in Sodom and Glomorah! and you call this moral?

You might call me a "red-letter" Christian. I'll defend what JC taught but I will not defend the immoral acts of people in the OT. But since you brought it up, please show me where the Bible or God calls Lot moral or righteous?

JC taught about protecting children in general and not doing harm. It is my opinion that would include pedophylia. Perhaps you think pedophylia doesn't harm children, I do.

steveOrino

[bigtexan 0]

Quote

You only want to shut up those who speak because of religous convictions.

I never said I want to shut up anyone. I said I want to counter what they say; challenge their ideas; and twart their growth as a group.

your putting words in my mouth. I'd thank you not to.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

You only want to shut up those who speak because of religous convictions.

I never said I want to shut up anyone. I said I want to counter what they say; challenge their ideas; and twart their growth as a group.

your putting words in my mouth. I'd thank you not to.

Pardon me, I misunderstood when you said, "I beleive they should not be allowed to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others."

Not allowing them to "peddle their views" doesn't equal shutting them up? I guess I misunderstood what that means.

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

>And Gould was demonsratably wrong.

?? The fact that some people are in error does not make someone else wrong. Some people think that airplanes are held in the air by their engines; their belief does not make the work done by Kutta, Bernoulli, Joukowski et al any less valuable.

But the fact remains that Gould was wrong on just about every level when he came up with the non-overlapping magisteria concept. Religion regularly overlaps with science. For example:
Cosmology, astronomy and geology overlaps with creation stories and ID, modern medicine and faith healing, mental illness and demonic possession, Gallileo, the dark ages, the list goes on.

Maybe it shouldn't overlap, but religions almost always make attempts to explain the origin of the universe and human life, which are very definately the sort of questions that science seeks to explain.

The only way around that is to say that religions attempts are parables or allegories or some equally esoteric blabbering. Of course you then have to justify why x story is parable but y story is the legitimate word of god. If a religion gets consumed by parable, it turns into mythology. Greek, Roman, Norse, all religions that have died because they ceased to be "the truth" and were recognised to be just a parable.

[bigtexan 0]

you know, I was about to say...


let me rephrase.

"I beleive we should twart their attempts to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others."


but no, I do beleive they should not be allowed to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others.

I think that stands on it's own. I didn't say they did not have the right to peddle their views on others, I said, they should not be allowed to 'with force'

that is quite a big difference.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

you know, I was about to say...


let me rephrase.

"I beleive we should twart their attempts to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others."


but no, I do beleive they should not be allowed to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others.

I think that stands on it's own. I didn't not say they did not have the right to peddle their views on others, I said, they should not be allowed to 'with force'

that is quite a big difference.

What exactly is the difference?

steveOrino

[bigtexan 0]

pretty simple.

Force: I make you do something/not do something I think you should/should not and provide concenquences if you do not/do.

exmaple - forceful policy - no gays should be allowed marriage. This has tangible negative consequences on those denied marriage benefits.

Gay marriage as no 'tangible' negative concenquences. To say otherwise is biggotry.

[billvon 2,425]

>But the fact remains that Gould was wrong on just about every level
>when he came up with the non-overlapping magisteria concept . . .

. . . in your opinion. And opinions are generally not fact.

Not to pull the old "appeal to authority" here, but Gould was both a renowned paleontologist/biologist and a deeply religious man; I think he may have a better view of the interconnection of the two than most people do (me included.)

>Maybe it shouldn't overlap, but religions almost always make attempts
>to explain the origin of the universe and human life, which are very
>definately the sort of questions that science seeks to explain.

Right. But you could make the same argument that here in the US, religion is found in government, so there is no separation between religion and government here in the US - which is also untrue. Although some people attempt to misuse government to support religion (and vice versa) they really are two independent entities. People who believe that there is a separation of church and state within the US are not "wrong on just about every level" - even when the First Amendment is sometimes abused by extremists.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Not to pull the old "appeal to authority" here,

Then why did you?

Gould's NOMA may work for Gould's type of religion (and maybe how Gould wanted all religion to be) but it doesn't work for lots of other types of religion.

The fact is (and this is fact) that there are many religious bodies, books and people who use religion to explain how physical things work. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do. Their religious belief does materially overlap with the realm of science.

Going even further, I'm of the opinion that a lot of the impetus for forming religions early in the history of civilisation was to explain physical phenomena - hence all the thunder gods and solar charioteers. If that is at all close to the truth then NOMA fails again, as religion is supposed to attempt to explain the universe with divine intervention.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,425]

>Gould's NOMA may work for Gould's type of religion (and maybe how
>Gould wanted all religion to be) but it doesn't work for lots of other types
>of religion.

That's close to correct, I think. Gould was christian. NOMA doesn't work for some sorts of PEOPLE, not some sorts of religion. Some people want desperately to believe that the world came about as described in the bible, because that reinforces their faith. Some people are as fervent in the belief that there absolutely positively is no god, and feel they can use science to 'prove' this. These people are making a mistake IMO.

Similarly, there are people who think that the US is a semi-theocracy, and that the founding fathers wanted us all to go to church, put massive crosses on the tops of mountains, say christian prayers in our schools and deny rights to sinners. These people are also making a mistake IMO. The fact that these people exist does not mean the First Amendment is invalid, though.

>I'm of the opinion that a lot of the impetus for forming religions early
>in the history of civilisation was to explain physical phenomena - hence all
>the thunder gods and solar charioteers.

Yes, and early scientists were just as spectacularly wrong. Both science and religion have grown up a bit since then.

[steveorino 7]

I guess we're done. While I don't agree that people should not be able to lobby and vote their conscience, I guess you have the right to dissent and and attempt to supress our rights. I'm glad most Americans desire we have voting freedom even if the outcome of any one particular vote is not what we ultimately desire for our nation.

steveOrino

[hairyjuan 0]

Quote

Quote

you know, I was about to say...


let me rephrase.

"I beleive we should twart their attempts to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others."


but no, I do beleive they should not be allowed to try and peddle their views in a forceful way on others.

I think that stands on it's own. I didn't not say they did not have the right to peddle their views on others, I said, they should not be allowed to 'with force'

that is quite a big difference.

What exactly is the difference?

Thomas Jefferson-"The christian religion is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man."




www.truthbeknown.com
Micael Ledwith, P.H.D. in Theology[/url]

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish