The Religion Thread

[O Really]

The key phrase here was "ranting and foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog"
Pretty well describes ACLU, FFR, radical "Christians", people who support perverse morality, radical Muslims.......

I don't think that was key. In fact, I doubt you even saw the person complaining. But you know why people "rant and foam", right? It's because they get ignored when they say "excuse me, sir, would you mind moving that (whatever) off public property?" As to the ACLU, every case I've ever personally known about or read started with a business-like letter or similar contact.

[Mr.B]

In other words, it's Mr.B that's "ranting and foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog".

That only took 20 minutes! I knew that was coming...so predictable!

[bannination]

Mr. B left out radical atheists.

[bannination]

The key phrase here was "ranting and foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog"
Pretty well describes ACLU, FFR, radical "Christians", people who support perverse morality, radical Muslims.......

That does pretty much describe you. You do support a perverse morality in which others are judged and treated (lawfully) differently than yourself just because you don't like them.

[billy.pilgrim]

I always wondered about how a Jehovah's Witness or biking Mormon type person would react to somebody coming to their door and trying to give them literature disputing their beliefs or trying to "enlighten" them or "witness" to them about the Church of Body Modification. But to be fair, all of the relatively few of that sort that have come to our door in recent years have responded well to "sorry, we're Jewish" by immediately backing off with a "have a nice day" or something.

the jumping jeohavahs used to constantly knock and push their b.s., often at the most inconvenient times, but 14 years ago, after one of their interruptions, I opened the day, looked into the eyes of a 10 year old and said, "as soon as you are able, get a real education and leave these liars behind."

It's like I have horns on my house. I still see the idiots on my street, but they knock no more

I must be beyond redemption

[Mr.B]

"That does pretty much describe you. You do support a perverse morality in which others are judged and treated (lawfully) differently than yourself just because you don't like them."

<sigh>..."them" who? How many times do I have to say...oh, never mind...that "in one ear and out the other" thingy done kicked in....except in your case, it went in one ear then fell into that deep, dark, empty chasm. sheesh.

[Mr.B]

"the jumping jeohavahs used to constantly knock and push their b.s., often at the most inconvenient times, but 14 years ago, after one of their interruptions, I opened the day, looked into the eyes of a 10 year old and said, "as soon as you are able, get a real education and leave these liars behind."
I'll bet he's still laughing at that clown he encountered that day!

"It's like I have horns on my house."
On your head, more'n likely!

"I still see the idiots on my street, but they knock no more ; I must be beyond redemption
They wonder if they still let you out on weekdays....

[JTA]

... In all serious now, even if they were mostly atheists, .... so what?

It would mean that atheists love the Constitution and our liberties more than believers do. Mr.B is nastier towards believers than I am.

Mr.B would probably be shocked to find out that Baptists were once among the strongest supporters of "separation of Church and State." True - look it up. They believed it to be in their own best interest to keep the state away from the door. Now they're more likely to ask the state to help them push their own beliefs on to others.

Alexis de Tocequeville talked about this, and said this was something he admired about religion in early America. Separation of state and religion means that when the inevitable political revolution occurs, religion isn't swept away along with the ruling political party/government. Religion is weaker when it's chained to the prevailing politic of the day. It commands less respect, trust, and authority and becomes just means of government to exercise its will. A strict separation of church and state is therefore also as necessary for the vitality of religion as it is the state.

[Mr.B]

Mr.B, why do you want a state religion and why can't you see that government involvement in religion is certain to harm religion? Is your religion so weak that it needs taxpayer-financed government support?

You atheists are the ones screaming about churches' tax-exempt status. We're doing fine on our own.

Mr.B would probably be shocked to find out that Baptists were once among the strongest supporters of "separation of Church and State." True - look it up. They believed it to be in their own best interest to keep the state away from the door.
I knew that. I'm not one of those Baptists, but we do support that.

Now they're more likely to ask the state to help them push their own beliefs on to others.
That's pure and you know it.

That's a hat trick of us making the same point, soon to be a hat trick of inconvenient posts for Mr.B to run away from.
I've not run anywhere...I'm having fun watching you shriek, rant, and whine.

[O Really]

Mr.B disagreed with my saying "Now they're more likely to ask the state to help them push their own beliefs on to others." and responded with,
"That's pure and you know it."

No, it's not bullshit.
Government officials going to court to get the state to let them start business meetings with a Christian prayer without offering others is asking the state to help them push their beliefs (on those who are expected to wait quietly during the prayer)

Government in Indiana passing the law allowing discrimination against citizens for religious reasons is asking the state to help (the religious) push their beliefs on to others who would be customers in a business open to the public.

Letter writers to "the editor" claiming the US is "a Christian nation" (and there are many of these) are asking that the government help them protect their "majority" by considering their religion over any others.

People who want the government to pass a law prohibiting "use of Sharia Law" are asking the government to favor their religion over another.

I could go on, buy Mr.B won't see it anyway.

[JTA]

Mr.B disagreed with my saying "Now they're more likely to ask the state to help them push their own beliefs on to others." and responded with,
"That's pure and you know it."

No, it's not bullshit.
Government officials going to court to get the state to let them start business meetings with a Christian prayer without offering others is asking the state to help them push their beliefs (on those who are expected to wait quietly during the prayer)

Government in Indiana passing the law allowing discrimination against citizens for religious reasons is asking the state to help (the religious) push their beliefs on to others who would be customers in a business open to the public.

Letter writers to "the editor" claiming the US is "a Christian nation" (and there are many of these) are asking that the government help them protect their "majority" by considering their religion over any others.

People who want the government to pass a law prohibiting "use of Sharia Law" are asking the government to favor their religion over another.

I could go on, buy Mr.B won't see it anyway.

I wonder if Indiana just paved the way for sharia law with their "Religious Freedom" bill? Maybe not, but wouldn't that be hilarious?

[O Really]

Well, the Sharia Law thing was stupid to start with. At issue was a private contract, in which the parties wanted some disputes to be settled in keeping with Sharia Law. Exactly the same as if the parties to the contract said disputes would be settled by a coin toss, grabbing bat handles, or Law of Voldemort. Bears no relationship to actual US law, and there has not been any proposal that any US government unit adopt (pass) Sharia Law. But back to the point, it's the same as if they had proposed that "Jewish Law could not be used to determine dietary restrictions. Or for that matter the "Ten Commandments." Somehow that seems OK to certain religious sects, even though that document actually is used directly in some government places. I wonder who we could get to defend a judge posting excerpts from Sharia Law in his courtroom.

[Mr.B]

I could go on, buy Mr.B won't see it anyway.

I'm not for sale....at any price.

[O Really]

I could go on, buy Mr.B won't see it anyway.

I'm not for sale....at any price.

Ha! Damn auto-correct. ... BUT Mr.B...

[JTA]

http://www.sharperfx.com/kkmime/index13.htm

[O Really]

I'm not for sale....at any price.

Your oath to God, country and the Constitution was.

I dunno, man, I'm happy to good-naturedly pummel Mr.B over a lot of stuff, but I don't think something you're required to say when you join (or are drafted) into the military is pummel-worthy. It's just a ceremonial technicality, although there is some similarity to a court oath, whose sole purpose is to establish a basis for perjury if you are subsequently found to have lied. Way too much ambiguity to be enforceable in most instances, other than providing a basis for giving you a court martial if you don't "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." (and yes, "Military Justice" is still an oxymoron). Further, it's employment-specific. If a person swears to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" as part of an enlistment ritual, and then years later is found to support "Amendment One" for example, or business discriminatory practices, there is no legal cause of action based on that oath.

It never made any sense to me that you could say "because my hand's on the Bible, I'll tell the truth. Otherwise, I'd probably lie."

[bannination]

He's returned. Or she, I'm not sexist with my gods.

[Mr.B]

He's returned. Or she, I'm not sexist with my gods.

You just found out that Satan too can be a sheep in wolf's clothing? And I gave you credit for being intelligent....

[Mr.B]

Fair enough, if "Christian" Mr.B, definer of "morality" and "sin" for us, wishes to admit that his paycheck-dependent oath to God is as meaningless as you say, I'm fine with that.
When are you going to admit that people's lives are meaningless because you're dependent on your paycheck?

He does cherry pick everything else related to God.
The words are right there....ripe for the picking; just gotta find the right words for the right occasion....
how can you argue with that? Never mind... ignore the question. That fencepost thingy comes to mind.

[bannination]

He's returned. Or she, I'm not sexist with my gods.

You just found out that Satan too can be a sheep in wolf's clothing? And I gave you credit for being intelligent....

I wonder how one would tell the difference. If anything "satan" of the bible was less evil than the "god" of the bible.

Things that make you go hm....