Then you have a weak grasp on history
Do belief systems deserve respect?
- Thread starter baftan
- Start date
No I has a pretty god grasp on history I believe it to be you the onw with the weak grip and that is likely on reality..
... yet for some reason its difficult to find an established historian who agrees with your nonsense.
:shrug:
That is likely do to the Church not agreeing with it anything that goes against the church gets squashed. HHHMMMM wonder why that is might it be the State and the Church are in Bed together hhhhmmmm
Um dude .... what century are you in?
:m:
Twenty-first century rot
Let's try the twenty-first for an example.
Imagine you are the President of the United States. In facing a public policy issue, you appoint to HHS a twelve-member team to implement a policy that, while known to be a failure, at least reflects your Christian morals:
Notes:
Goldberg, Michelle. "The Rise of Christian Nationalism". Speakers' Forum. KUOW, Seattle. October 18, 2007. KUOW.org. November 19, 2009. http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=13646
LightGigantic said:
Let's try the twenty-first for an example.
Imagine you are the President of the United States. In facing a public policy issue, you appoint to HHS a twelve-member team to implement a policy that, while known to be a failure, at least reflects your Christian morals:
So at the 2003 conference, when the abstinence educator Pam Stenzel spoke, she knew she didn't have to justify her objection to sex education with prosaic arguments about health and public policy. She could be frank about the real reasons society must not condone premarital sex. "Because it is," as she shouted during one particularly impassioned moment, "Stinking filthy dirty rotten sin!" A pretty, zaftig brunette from Minnesota with a degree in psychology from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Stenzel makes a living telling kids not to have sex. Rather, she makes a living trying to scare kids out of having sex. As she says in her video, No Screwing Around, "If you have sex outside of marriage, to a partner who has only been with you, then you will pay." A big part of her mission is puncturing students' beliefs that condoms can protect them. She says she addresses half a million kids each year, and millions more have received her message via video. Thanks to George W. Bush, abstinence education has become a thriving industry, and Stenzel has been at its forefront. Bush appointed her to a twelve-person task force at the Department of Health and Human Services to help implement abstinence education guidelines. She's been a guest at the White House and a speaker at the United Nations. Her non-profit company, Enlightenment Communications, which puts on abstinence talks and seminars in public schools, typically grossed several hundred thousand dollars a year during the first Bush term.
At Reclaiming America for Christ, Stenzel told her audience about a conversation she'd had with a skeptical businessman on an airplane. The man had asked about abstinence education's success rate, a question she regarded as risible.
"What he's asking," she said, "is 'does it work?' You know what? Doesn't matter. 'Cause guess what? My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex. The public school's job should not be to keep teens from having sex."
Then her voice rose and turned angry as she shouted, "Our job should be to tell kids the truth!" And I should say that up 'til then, I agreed with her. But here's what she means by the truth:
"People of God," she cried, "can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth! I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God.
"Let me tell you something, People of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said. "AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy! I will not teach my child that they can sin safely!"
The crowd applauded. Of course, Stenzel isn't just teaching her child.
(Goldberg)
____________________At Reclaiming America for Christ, Stenzel told her audience about a conversation she'd had with a skeptical businessman on an airplane. The man had asked about abstinence education's success rate, a question she regarded as risible.
"What he's asking," she said, "is 'does it work?' You know what? Doesn't matter. 'Cause guess what? My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex. The public school's job should not be to keep teens from having sex."
Then her voice rose and turned angry as she shouted, "Our job should be to tell kids the truth!" And I should say that up 'til then, I agreed with her. But here's what she means by the truth:
"People of God," she cried, "can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth! I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God.
"Let me tell you something, People of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said. "AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy! I will not teach my child that they can sin safely!"
The crowd applauded. Of course, Stenzel isn't just teaching her child.
(Goldberg)
Notes:
Goldberg, Michelle. "The Rise of Christian Nationalism". Speakers' Forum. KUOW, Seattle. October 18, 2007. KUOW.org. November 19, 2009. http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=13646
errr ... so what church is the president representing?
well, if you're going to be that nit-picky...
--i suppose i may very well be a member of many cults: the cult of parmalee, of dogs, of the avengers, secret agent man (danger man), and the prisoner, of folding-bike aficionados, ...but let's return to this:
so clearly you don't intend for "cult" to be that inclusive--lest you really feel those Rocky Horror Picture Show fans such a threat (personally, i just think the film kinda sucks; i gravitate more towards jess franco, jean rollin, lucio fulci, et al--the masters of trash cinema). and thus you are referring to religious cults, and you are a member of the cult of atheism (as per def. no. 5).
isn't wishing--as a member of the cult of atheism--for the religious cults of the world to disappear (consequently, EVERYBODY would be an atheist) essentially the same as wishing to "Take over the World"?
but suppose this isn't what you meant--do you acknowledge that there may very well be members of the cult of atheism who do in fact wish to "Take over the World"?
responding to SAM, you wrote:
i'm being generous here, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, by allowing that you are not of the opinion that your cult should "Take over the World"--but still, other members of the cult do wish to "Take over the World." so ought you be held accountable for their intolerance by virtue of being a member of said cult? if not, then why should SAM be accountable for the intolerant ones amongst her cult?
Believers, were requested, not theological positions. Believers right here on this forum, preferably, since the debates here are at issue, and the claims involved werre made about the debaters here.parmalee said:
Well, my assertion is that there are essentially none. No atheist on this forum argues that position. It's a strawman position from several theists on this forum, and nothing else.parmalee said:
Doesn't favoritism of an institution require something a bit more specific?
I've just found and registered on this forum today; and I find many of the discussions stimulating and informative. Thanks, to the members.
For this particular discussion - "Do belief systems deserve respect? - aside from the occasional emotional outbreaks of ad hominen remarks, members' comments have been nourishing.
Respect is a major question in my own life, and this discussion has materialized the question in my mind "must Respect be a 2-way street?".
So... Can you respect an individual that doesn't reciprocate?
Can you respect a belief system that doesn't respect you?
For this particular discussion - "Do belief systems deserve respect? - aside from the occasional emotional outbreaks of ad hominen remarks, members' comments have been nourishing.
Respect is a major question in my own life, and this discussion has materialized the question in my mind "must Respect be a 2-way street?".
So... Can you respect an individual that doesn't reciprocate?
Can you respect a belief system that doesn't respect you?
ok, fair enough. so we shall consider theists, who agree that there is no evidence or reason supporting a belief in "god" (whether or not they consider evidence and reason pertinent or essential is not relevant here) and atheists, who argue that there is no evidence/reason supporting disbelief, on this forum only.
to be clear, i'll reprint your original phrasing:
iceaura:
by "but others should believe (or disbelieve) anyways," do you mean to suggest that the respective theist or atheist, by virtue of their argument, is trying to persuade or convince others to believe or disbelieve?
if so, then i suppose there have been theists who've tried to "convert," so to speak--i cannot think of any off the top of my head--but i will acknowledge that there are/have been some.
as to atheists: would you not consider the assertions, made by the atheist, that the theist (whom they are addressing) is insane, idiotic, or deluded a form of persuasion? if so, i can name many individuals.
as to the matter of "no reason or evidence supporting doubt of the existence of God": again, this is problematic--for the atheist may very well be defining "god" on his own terms ("the creator"); whereas the theist may hold to a significantly different (or no) definition, thereby rendering the matter moot.
To put it simply: No
Nope.
First Amendment deals with religion, not churches.
The McCollum decision on religious instruction in public schools was 1948; Burstyn, (1952), said the government couldn't censor a film based on offense to religious beliefs; Torasco, (1961) established that states could not require public office holders to swear that they believed in God; Engel (1962) threw out school prayer; Abington (1963) struck Bible readings over public school intercoms; Epperson (1968) rejected state religious rejection of teaching evolution in public schools; Lemon (1971) set the famous three-phase "Lemon Test" for determining the propriety of a religious assertion in public policy; Stone (1980) kicked the Ten Commandments out of public schools; Wallace (1985) took on the "moment of silence" as encouraging people to pray; Edwards (1987) threw out mandatory teaching of creationism (this is why creationists use the phrase "intelligent design"); Allegheny Council (1989) struck nativity scenes from government offices; Lee (1992) prohibited clergy from offering nondenominational prayer at high school graduations.
I admit your question puzzled me insofar as my first thought was, "You're kidding, right?" It was, after all, a curious application of the word "church" insofar as "church and state" is concerned. Neither the Constitution nor its subsequent judicial history suggests the question remotely appropriate. To the other, I did find a decision that pertains to a specific church or sect: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye., Inc. v. Hialeah, a 1993 decision, ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban religious animal sacrifices while allowing sport hunting; such laws discriminated against Santeria.
LightGigantic said:
Nope.
First Amendment deals with religion, not churches.
The McCollum decision on religious instruction in public schools was 1948; Burstyn, (1952), said the government couldn't censor a film based on offense to religious beliefs; Torasco, (1961) established that states could not require public office holders to swear that they believed in God; Engel (1962) threw out school prayer; Abington (1963) struck Bible readings over public school intercoms; Epperson (1968) rejected state religious rejection of teaching evolution in public schools; Lemon (1971) set the famous three-phase "Lemon Test" for determining the propriety of a religious assertion in public policy; Stone (1980) kicked the Ten Commandments out of public schools; Wallace (1985) took on the "moment of silence" as encouraging people to pray; Edwards (1987) threw out mandatory teaching of creationism (this is why creationists use the phrase "intelligent design"); Allegheny Council (1989) struck nativity scenes from government offices; Lee (1992) prohibited clergy from offering nondenominational prayer at high school graduations.
I admit your question puzzled me insofar as my first thought was, "You're kidding, right?" It was, after all, a curious application of the word "church" insofar as "church and state" is concerned. Neither the Constitution nor its subsequent judicial history suggests the question remotely appropriate. To the other, I did find a decision that pertains to a specific church or sect: Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye., Inc. v. Hialeah, a 1993 decision, ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban religious animal sacrifices while allowing sport hunting; such laws discriminated against Santeria.
If you think this meets the requirements for "religious doctrine supported by law" (which arguably half your post is against the case for, but anyway ....) you have to indicate which communities, in light of neglecting the said state propped doctrine, face radical discrimination in terms of education, health access to community assistance, etc etc.
(Sure, a person may be prohibited from dismembering bunnies for the great horned one, but then even abattoirs face similar restrictions)
You can find people of not only all faiths in various positions of influence and power but even atheists. Perhaps there is the argument that you don't find them so much in democratically elected positions, but then its the nature of being democratically elected that the prominent interests of the voters are represented. However even after being elected in such positions, its not like the social fabric gets a work over. At the very least, JFK's term isn't commonly cited as the catholic era of american politics as a consequence of his reformations.
Last edited:
issues of church and state.
How about you?