Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[TheJackel]

Most people would disagree with you. A man sitting on a public bench wearing nothing but a smile and an erection can't be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society, but most people, myself included, are happy that we've legislated morality to prohibit such behavior. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with someone defecating in public so long as they do so in a plastic bag and dispose of it properly (no harm being caused there), but the rest of us don't want to see it, so we've legislated morality to prevent it.

Funny, there are nude beaches all over the place that don't cause harm to society. You are specifically talking about legislating the taboo. However, this actually has zero relevance to the subject of Gay marriage. Gay marriage has nothing to do with running around naked and smiling at people, nor is adult sexual preferences any concern to the Government, or laws except to protect from rape and pedophilia. And you have nothing to base "causes society harm" in regards to your supposed argument. At best, your argument is sheer bigotry, and discriminatory. You simply want the government to force people to abide by your religion specifically! As in that you actually have the never to think you have the right to dictate marriage as being owned by Christianity, and governed by Christianity.

The one thing that needs to be disposed of properly is the Push for Theocracy by the Christian right. That little number would save a lot of harm, if not another potential 300 years of Burning everything they consider Blasphemous to their ideological constructs. There is a reason for separation of Church and State!

in fact you remind me of this argument:

http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum ... &start=110

[Voter]

No one should be forced to conform to any moral constructs. If you think gays shouldn't have rights, then that's your problem -- but don't try to make it law. Laws should only exist to allow us more freedom, not take it away.

Again, this position isn't going to go very far. Most people are fine with laws that keep people from walking down the street naked. It's not a matter of whether laws should be able to restrict freedom on moral grounds. That question has been settled. The question is where is the line drawn on a specific issue.

[Voter]

So you are using Democracy to vote in Theocracy correct?

No, that's not correct. You don't seem to understand the term correctly.

[Asmodean]

but the rest of us don't want to see it, so we've legislated morality to prevent it.

Speak for yourself. I know at least two people who would pay to see it. And I wouldn't mind being added to "Don't give a damn"-cathegory. Hey, as far as naked people go, if the guy with erection in your example was even remotely hot, I'd probably even take time to ogle him.

[LegendarySandwich]

Government shouldn't legislate morality; laws should only exist to restrict behavior that can be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society.

Most people would disagree with you. A man sitting on a public bench wearing nothing but a smile and an erection can't be objectively shown to have a high chance of causing harm to society, but most people, myself included, are happy that we've legislated morality to prohibit such behavior. Maybe you wouldn't have a problem with someone defecating in public so long as they do so in a plastic bag and dispose of it properly (no harm being caused there), but the rest of us don't want to see it, so we've legislated morality to prevent it.

Most people would disagree with our position, but I stand by it firm. A man should have the right to have an erection in public. If somebody is defecating in public and cleans it up, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to; if you don't like it, don't look.

This sounds like the argumentum ad populem fallacy.

[Voter]

Most people would disagree with our position, but I stand by it firm. A man should have the right to have an erection in public. If somebody is defecating in public and cleans it up, then I don't see why they shouldn't be able to; if you don't like it, don't look.

OK, I see no need to proceed further.

This sounds like the argumentum ad populem fallacy.

In a democratic society, it's not a fallacy, at least not for practical purposes.

[Sophus]

This sounds like the argumentum ad populem fallacy.

In a democratic society, it's not a fallacy, at least not for practical purposes.

Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

[TheJackel]

So you are using Democracy to vote in Theocracy correct?

No, that's not correct. You don't seem to understand the term correctly.

No I do understand the Term correctly.. It doesn't matter how it gets installed, it matters only that of the outcome of government becoming a Theocracy.. We don't need that kind of crap injected into government. That's why we don't vote for people like Sarah Palin. And I suggest you actually read the constitution because it's purpose was to protect the people from Theocratic religious oppression like this.  And again, you really think Christianity owns marriage don't you . You think since that you can't force people to become Christians, you think you can legislate them to be forced to be Christians by law. I know exactly what's going on in that political arena kiddo, I've been deeply involved with it myself. You clearly either have no clue, or you like to play along with it.

And as of yet, you have still to put up even a sane non bigotry argument to even support your position with.. So I guess I should start the political group that should dictate and restrict your life in and out of the bedroom.. We should then by your logic remove the right for Christians to marry because they are a danger to Democracy and freedom from religion.

[Voter]

Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Second, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

[LegendarySandwich]

Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Second, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

So, since us atheists don't believe in God, the Declaration of Independence shouldn't apply to us. Right?

[Voter]

No I do understand the Term correctly.. It doesn't matter how it gets installed, it matters only that of the outcome of government becoming a Theocracy.. We don't need that kind of crap injected into government. That's why we don't vote for people like Sarah Palin.

No, you don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Fourth paragraph: "Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God"."

And I suggest you actually read the constitution because it's purpose was to protect the people from Theocratic religious oppression like this.  And again, you really think Christianity owns marriage don't you . You think since that you can't force people to become Christians, you think you can legislate them to be forced to be Christians by law. I know exactly what's going on in that political arena kiddo, I've been deeply involved with it myself. You clearly either have no clue, or you like to play along with it.

I've read the COnstitution and books on the debates which created it. Theocracy wasn't a significant topic in those debates. Separation of church and state didn't even make it into the original Constitution.

And as of yet, you have still to put up even a sane non bigotry argument to even support your position with.

Sure I have - Rights are granted by society by whatever processes it has in place. I'll live peacably with the results of those processes.

[Voter]

Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Second, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

So, since us atheists don't believe in God, the Declaration of Independence shouldn't apply to us. Right?

The point is that if you want to make an argument based on unalienable rights, you have to justify that those exist. The DofI does so by appealing to a Creator, which atheists obviously can't do.

[Sophus]

Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Second, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

Goodness gracious, are you just being trivial to avoid the crux of the matter? Yes, it's from the Declaration, but it demonstrates the thinking behind the Bill of Rights. The point is your rights are not suppose to be up for a vote. The minority tends to get totally screwed that way, which is one downfall to an unbridled democracy with no constitution.

[LegendarySandwich]

The point is that if you want to make an argument based on unalienable rights, you have to justify that those exist. The DofI does so by appealing to a Creator, which atheists obviously can't do.

You're right of course, in the fact that we don't have any inalienable rights besides from those our government gives us. When I'm talking about taking away rights, I mean rights we naturally have in nature, which is basically the right to do whatever the fuck we want.

[TheJackel]

Rights aren't suppose to be up for a vote. That's why we have a Constitution.... "certain inalienable rights".

First, that's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Second, it says that those rights are endowed to us by the Creator. Without God, there are no unalienable rights, only those rights that we grant to each other.

Actually it wasn't.. Someone already debunked that nonsense. It seems you are not trying to argue that the constitution and bill of rights were a product of Christianity when it wasn't. Another falsity you clearly have displayed here. At worse this is another mind masturbation attempt to inject GOD, and Religion into Government where it clearly states it does not belong. You really don't understand what a theocracy is do you?

You can have fun reading this here:

http://www.thinkingaloudforum.com/forum ... 14&t=16894

Here is a quick example/blurb under that link:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.
(letter to the Virginia Baptists, 1808)

Quote:§ 1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.1 The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head;2 and even NewEngland, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals.3 Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the .most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.4

The amount of dishonest discourse coming from you Voter is amazing to say the least. And you really are avoiding the issue btw. You have zero valid reason to even make your argument worth anything. And you clearly think your religion ought to be that of Governmental function. That is so dangerous to where I wouldn't even want to imagine where that could go! Especially if you get extremists into a system of Theocracy. You would simply turn this country into another place like Afghanistan where people kill each other because they have a difference of opinion, or shown to be unfaithful to the religious ideology. Keep that crap as Thomas Jefferson has said, OUT OF GOVERNMENT!.