End of the world

[RevTodd]

Re: End of the world

Your missing Klash's point. Our country was founded on the basis of Freedom from religous persecution AND seperation of church and state. THIS MEANS RELIGON HAS NO PLACE IN GOVERNMENT! Why do you think it is right for your religon to be sponsored by government but not anyone else's religon? Is it the fact that your religon is a majority that makes you think your religon deserves precedense over the rest? Where do other people's rights step in?

Which takes me to my next gripe where tmann was complaining about freedom of speach. Claiming all people of the party that oppose you are hypocritical (or azzbackwards) is hardly true. Democrats believe in protecting our rights and freedoms whereas your party always tries to create new laws to follow your religous guidelines.

We are not saying that you don't have a right to have your religon or speak of it. What you don't have the right to do is teach everyone's children YOUR religon without taking into consideration that their beliefs may be different from yours. If you want your kids to learn about Christianity, then send them to a catholic church. You nor your party have a right to delegate which religon my kid learns! That's my business and my decision! PERIOD! That's what's called FREEDOM!! If you delegate what religon is to be learned that is no longer freedom because you are not giving people a choice.

Now I know your going to say if they don't like it they don't have to go there. WELL.......That's why it's called a PUBLIC school. It's for the public. Not for a majority, not for a minority, but for everyone. Religon belongs in an institution not government funded delegated to it's own beliefs so not to infringe on the rights of others.

As for taking things of off the dollar bill like "In god we trust" is garbage. Every relgion has A god so that isn't catering to anyone's specific religon. So that one is ridiculous.

We today are giving up way to many freedoms and liberties with trust that our government knows what it's doing. If that's what our ancestors meant for us to do, then they would not have written the Constitution and wouldn't have fought for our freedom. So why we american's so easily let our freedoms get taken away is beyond me!!

I am not missing the point. Rather, I think you've missed mine. In fact, my somewhat long and detailed argument above directly addresses 'the point.' Whether non-Christians like it or not, the historical record unequivocally demonstrates that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and yes, those principles were openly espoused and encouraged, even in the public sector, for over 150 years. "Religious freedom" as put forth by modern secularists is not the religious freedom found delineated in our constitution and in our founding historical record. The founders protected freedom OF religion, while what the secularists are clamboring for is freedom FROM religion, ESPECIALLY anything resembling the Christian religion.

It is a recent innovation, and a gross misrepresentation, to claim that the founders ever intended to protect the public sector from Christianity. Their intent, as I demonstrated above, with historical documentation and examples , was to protect the American people from being forced to submit to or directly support a state-run church. Things such as Nativity displays on courthouse lawns, non-sectarian Christian prayers in schools, or saying Happy Easter to someone at work do not constitute violations of the 1st amendment.

The "separation of church and state" so often referred to is not even a constitutional concept, as I'm sure you know. The phrase appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, but in an obscure personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1801. This letter only serves to prove my point. In it he assures them that the government will not infringe on their freedom to express their Christianity according to their own conscience (You see, in England the Baptists had been severely persecuted by the Anglican Church).

Jefferson even states in this letter that he is referring to a NATIONAL CHURCH. "Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church..." AGAIN, the issue is to prohibit creation of a NATIONAL CHURCH like the Church of England. Interestingly, Jefferson ended his letter with a prayer, and an acknowledgment of God as Creator. "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

While the purpose and intent of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is evident to anyone who actually reads it, this does not stop those with anti-god agendas from plucking the words "wall of separation between church and state" out of their overall context and using them to their own advantage. Most uninformed Americans actually think those words appear in the US Constitution, and the Secularists are more than content to let them wallow in their ignorance, since it greases the slide for their propaganda.

Incidentally after Jefferson wrote that letter, he went right back to the duties of his presidency... a presidency that he embarked upon by praying aloud to God during his inaugural address. He also attended Sunday worship service in the US Capitol building, as did the vast majority of the statesmen in Washington. He attended sessions of Congress opened in Christian prayer by congressional Chaplains. He walked in public buildings and amid public monuments covered in biblical citations. He instituted Christian worship services in his own Executive Branch in both the Treasury and War offices. He actually proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto. [BTW, I can provide documentation for these claims, if you desire.]

Had Jefferson understood his own words the way some today would have us understand them, he certainly would have used his presidential power to combat and eradicate these gross public and governmental endorsements of religion.

And if those things are not enough, read these words from his own hand:

"No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I, as Chief Magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example." [Hutson (see n. 8) at p. 96, quoting from a handwritten history in possession of the Library of Congress, “Washington Parish, Washington City,” by Rev. Ethan Allen.]

I could quote at least a dozen more examples where Jefferson wrote or said similar things or conducted presidential acts that demonstrate his very public deference to the Christian religion. Sadly, there are many who are not interested in the facts, merely in advancing their agenda even if it means a Soviet-style re-casting of our nation's history.

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)

Now, all this being said, we ARE a free nation. This means we are free to change our constitution to reflect the evolution of our moral, political and cultural sensibilities if we as a nation so choose. There is a very well-defined process for doing this called constitutional amendment. We have done this now 27 times in our nation's history. If the forces of secular-humanism want to change our constitution so that it DOES prohibit public or governmental acknowledgment of religion (a thing it currently DOES NOT do), then they should take their case to the people of the US and have the constitution changed by legal means.

Instead, they have chosen to accomplish their goals subversively and surreptitiously through incremental usurpation of our legal and educational institutions. The tragedy is that most of us - idiotized as we are by our televisions, computers and Sony Playstations - are too distracted and indifferent to effectively do anything about it.

So for people such as Klash and yourself the good new is, you are winning... even if you are wrong, historically and constitutionally.

As for taking things of off the dollar bill like "In god we trust" is garbage. Every relgion has A god so that isn't catering to anyone's specific religon. So that one is ridiculous.

Incidentally, not every religion has a ‘god.’ Some have many gods, such as the Hindus who have over 330 million gods. Some religions have no god at all, such as Buddhism. In fact, according to a US Supreme Court decision (Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961) secular humanism is also a religion, and just last year the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism is a religion. Go figure…

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: End of the world

Now, all this being said, we ARE a free nation. This means we are free to change our constitution to reflect the evolution of our moral, political and cultural sensibilities if we as a nation so choose. There is a very well-defined process for doing this called constitutional amendment. We have done this now 27 times in our nation's history. If the forces of secular-humanism want to change our constitution so that it DOES prohibit public or governmental acknowledgment of religion (a thing it currently DOES NOT do), then they should take their case to the people of the US and have the constitution changed by legal means.

Instead, they have chosen to accomplish their goals subversively and surreptitiously through incremental usurpation of our legal and educational institutions. The tragedy is that most of us - idiotized as we are by our televisions, computers and Sony Playstations - are too distracted and indifferent to effectively do anything about it.…

Now this I definitely agree with. I feel that anything in the constitution to be changed needs to be voted on by the entire country. I'm tired of government stepping over us like our opinions as citizens don't matter. It's actually a very scary time, because it's getting to the point where we no longer have a say in what is happening. Furthermore they are basically ignoring most of our constitutional rights as if they don't exist.

Why our country isn't up in arms over these atrocities is beyond me~!

[RevTodd]

Re: End of the world

Now this I definitely agree with. I feel that anything in the constitution to be changed needs to be voted on by the entire country. I'm tired of government stepping over us like our opinions as citizens don't matter. It's actually a very scary time, because it's getting to the point where we no longer have a say in what is happening. Furthermore they are basically ignoring most of our constitutional rights as if they don't exist.

Why our country isn't up in arms over these atrocities is beyond me~!

Well I'm happy to see we can agree on something, DJ!

[Klash]

Re: End of the world

I believe that America was built on Christian concepts. Again, I don’t think this is arguable, though I am sure you will continue to argue with it, lol.

Our nation was not founded on the principles of any religion outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, be it Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, or Baal-worship. So no, I don’t believe the government should endorse those faiths. If you want to live in a society whose roots are Islamic, move to Arabia. Neither was America founded on atheism or secular-humanism.

You are right America was not founded on atheism, it was found on individual freedom, which secular-humanism contradicts, just as a government that takes production from individuals and endorses or encourages a particular religion - even Christianity.

Like most modern Christians you see what you want. A predominant Christian population does not equate to America being a Christian government. I think Christians in the days of our countries conception realized the danger of integrating state and religion, whether the state headed the church or the church headed the state.

As for the red herrings of slavery and women’s suffrage, I assume you know as well as I do that our county was not perfect at its beginning and that certain compromises were made in order to establish our very shaky union. Those chickens came home to roost for the slavery issue in a little scrap we call the Civil War. Those who used the Bible to justify slavery used a deceptive and highly selective hermeneutic to arrive at that conclusion. These things in no way detract from my core assertion that America’s founding principles were Christian, a fact which remained virtually unchallenged for over 150 years.

I can see how it would be perceived as a red herring from your view but I'm simply pointing out a contradiction in using "tradition" and "heritage" to support your position on the display of Christian symbols on government property, which is supported by all tax payers, not just christians. When defending an immoral position, tradition and heritage only exposes how long an immoral position has been held.

The purpose of the First Amendment (religion clauses) is very clearly to protect the people of the United States from a national church monopoly like the Church of England. No more, no less. It was never meant to sanitize any public forum from expressions of our Judeo-Christian heritage. A very simple and straight-forward reading of the text in its historical, cultural and political context leads to no other rational conclusion, IMO.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

This amendment does two simple things, and only those two things…

1) Restricts CONGRESS (the FEDERAL, legislative body) from setting up an official national church, or other religious institution.

2) Likewise restricts CONGRESS from taking any legislative action that would PROHIBIT someone from practicing their own religion (within reason, of course; you can’t practice human sacrifice, lol). This does NOT mean that if I’m offended by it, you have to stop saying a prayer in school. If I don't like it, I don't have to listen. Practices such as these DO NOT PROHIBIT ANYONE from freely exercising their own religious beliefs. Neither are they mandated by congressional legislation.

The First Amendment says Congress can’t establish a national religion. However, it doesn’t say, never said, and was never meant to say, that Judeo-Christian principles could not be acknowledged and even encouraged in the public square. In fact, the historical record reveals just the opposite.

The US government ‘endorsed’ Christianity from the beginning… Christian congressional chaplains, Christian prayers at nearly every government function (including presidential inaugurations), the Ten Commandments posted at nearly every courthouse (including the US Supreme Court), Bibles used for public oaths and as public school textbooks, Christian symbols and citations on numerous public buildings and monuments, “In God We Trust” on our very currency… etc, etc. None of this was seen as violating the 1st Amendment. Anyone who tries to honestly argue against this point will find himself buried in a mountain of historical documentation to the contrary.

Your last sentence could be interpreted as: "Anyone who tries to honestly argue against this point will find himself buried in a mountain of evidence that the rights of the nonbeliever have been ignored for quite awhile."

The secularist are forcing the hand - make it law or get rid of it.

I don’t even understand how people can make statements like this. Have you read or been exposed to the founding fathers’ documents? Declaration of Independence? Anything from the Federalist Papers? The Virginia Declaration of Rights? The Mayflower Compact? Williams Bradford’s History of Plymouth Plantation? The Massachusetts Body of Liberties? The Virginia Charter? The Massachusetts Bay Charter? … … …

An examination of these documents reveals that there were mainly two explicitly stated purposes for the exploration and settling of America by European peoples…

1) Taking the Christian faith to the New World
2) Exercising that faith according to conscience, without opposition from the ‘state church’

You can quibble about whether you think these were good reasons, or about whether they lied and it was really all about gold. You can dispute a lot of things, but what you can’t reasonably assert is that these were not stated purpose of the early colonists and colonizers. If you do the facts simply crush you. You further can’t reasonably argue that their faith did not undergird the eventual genesis of this nation and its laws and institutions. References and allusions to that faith permeate the historical record.

I'll note here just one example (there are myriad) of the common knowledge we have always held about our Christian underpinnings. It was occasioned by an 1852 petition before the US Congress to ban congressional chaplains, ostensibly due to the church/state separation you attempt to invoke. Each house of congress took up the issue, and each issued their report.

In the House Report on March 27, 1854, it is noted:

There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. [Reports of Committees of the House of Representatives Made During the First Session of the Thirty-Third Congress (Washington: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854).]

The House Judiciary Committee therefore concluded:

Whereas, the people of these United States, from their earliest history to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty. [Id.]

On January 19, 1853, the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered its report:

The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioner to be unfounded. . . . They had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. [The Reports of the Committees of the Senate of the United States for the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Congress, 1852-53 (Washington: Robert Armstrong, 1853)]

Interestingly, a century later, the U. S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion, declaring:

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. . . . When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. [Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306, 312-314 (1952)]

We could go back and forth all day on historical support for and against religious symbols and prayer in government. The Treaty of Tripoli and the fact Thomas Jefferson and Madison both opposed the government prayer because it implied a national religion. Our forefathers undermined any argument based on tradition when they failed to support individual rights for all citizens. IMO, this is what has helped lead America to its state of tribal warfare between certain groups defined by race, sex, religion, etc all lobbying to infringe other groups freedoms and if they can do that based on tradition - they will.

The concept of individual human liberty, at least as expressed by our founders, is based on the fact that man, being made in God’s image and ultimately subject to his authority, possesses “unalienable rights” that cannot be superseded by kings, parliaments, dukes, earls, barons, etc. The Declaration very clearly and unambiguously states that these rights -- and hence the justification for the colonies’ independence from British tyranny -- are bestowed, not by legislative authority, royal fiat, or even a vote of the majority, but by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

If man is not invested with these basic human rights by divine authority, then why should he have them? Who is to say that one people can't by force of arms conquer and enslave another as has been done all down through the centuries? The very concept of 'human rights' as we know it is inherently Christian. Without God, who says men have any rights at all, save the right of MIGHT?

Who says men have any rights at all?

Men that value and claim they own their own lives. The words "give me liberty or give me death" articulate and represent the man who has recognized he has natural rights and he will not submit them to anyone. Once men who recognize this join together to defend that concept (individual freedom) - you have the ingredients the created America and that is the concept that is responsible for its success.

You know, I don't really care who people give credit to for my individual rights as long as they acknowledge them.
Don't take my money and feed your concept of god in state institutions and buildings and then tell me its supported by tradition.

I do not deny that enlightenment ideas played a role in the philosophical evolution of thought leading to the revolution. But you seem to want to deny that Christianity also played a major (I would assert, dominant) role. This is just flatly false.

No, I do not want to deny Christianity played a role. Christianity is a rudimentary philosophy. Peoples philosophies are responsible for how they view reality and react to it. In that way, it does play a role but fortunately for the future atheists, the Christians of that time recognized the concept of freedom and realized they couldn't have it without giving to everyone else.

BTW... NOBODY (at least no rational person) is currently advocating the USA is, was, or should be a theocracy. If you seriously believe that to be the case, I respectfully submit that you probably don't fully understand the term. IRAN is a theocracy. OT Israel was a theocracy. Use of this term, IMO, is just an example of fear-mongering.

I understand the term. I also understand the consequences of intertwining religion and state, even when those who advocate it, proclaim they just want to inject the traditional religion and heritage of those who founded the country. It doesn't matter the excuse, worship your god and pray for your nation wherever you want, just don't use my money to endorse it.

Use of the term fear-mongering by a Christian is the pot calling the kettle black!

What people like me are saying is that we as a nation should acknowledge and embrace the Christian precepts that formed and maintained our cultural identity for nearly two centuries, and that we should celebrate Christianity's contributions and extol its virtues, while also allowing ("tolerating") those of other faiths to freely exercise their beliefs without fear of persecution, marginalization, or ostracism. I think it's clear that this is what our founders intended from the beginning. We have no business trying to systematically expunge every vestage of Christian expression from all public venues.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "public venues". If you mean public as in property of the state, expunging religion is exactly what we should do. If you mean public as people, in general - I agree. Christians should be able to pray, read the Bible, etc. in any state building.

Of course I think denial of God is evil. I think what you may be missing from my earlier comments is that Christians think EVERYONE is evil, not just atheists. I am just as evil as you. In fact, I used to be an atheist, much like you. So you see, I was a God-denier too. The only difference is I came to recognize my evil for what it was, realized I could not escape that evil or its consequences on my own, and I then embraced the one whose provision makes it possible for me to effect that escape.

Man through his sin has separated himself from God, and the only possible means of reconciliation is what Christ accomplished by his incarnation, death, burial and resurrection. This is the Christian message. So yes, according to Christian doctrine, anyone who rejects this free offer of salvation chooses eternal separation from God and opts to pay their infinite sin debt personally, rather than accepting that Christ paid it for them.

I find it interesting that you claim it is a infinite sin debt, when life is finite. How is this not contradicting.

You and I are drowning in the same ocean… I just choose to grasp the life preserver, while you have yet to do so. This doesn’t make me any better than you on my own merits. Christ is infinitely better than us all, and I am clothed with his righteousness because of his mercy, not because I am good. You could wear the same garment if you so chose.

You are in the ocean with a life preserver, while I'm on land telling you to open your eyes, the ocean doesn't exist and neither does the life preserver.

[Klash]

Re: End of the world

A few points...

--I do not believe atheists are evil..they are lost, blinded by the world--their perception is impaired.

--The fact that you feel left out by the majority opinion (judeo-christian ideologies) indicates that you perhaps feel as though you are missing something, not doing what you should...you are.

--what one individual who claims to be a Christian says about others should not taint your own belief. God wants YOU. people say stupid things every day. the Bible and God's word is never-changing. See, atheists listen to people..true Christians listen to God and read His never-changing word. Base your opinion on Christianity on God and His word..not people's statements.

--Christian belief guides us in the choosing of our opinions. These opinions are based on a solid moral framework..that is the love of God and His son Jesus Christ and the tenets they taught. A life based on anything but these guidelines plus the faith will be flawed. The world is so pervasive, that if you choose to live for yourself and by your own thoughts, desires, and beliefs, you will undoubtedly be swayed by the world in your opinions and beliefs. Humans are not strong enough to resist. When I was saved and began to study the Bible in earnest, my life became black and white. Issues that confused me or ones that I was not sure of a position on suddenly became clear. Atheists believe that the individual can solve their problems and handle situations..this is a false belief.

I feel the same way about reason. The difference is those who submit to reason will be directed to atheism. Christians are attracted to a delusion (afterlife, eternal justice, omnipotent companionship, etc.) in which they submit their reason in favor of faith in an attempt to support their desired delusion.

--Christ proved His divinity by fulfilling over 500 prophecies made hundreds of years before His birth. He also appeared to many people after His death. God chose to do this to prove to even the hardest of hearts in His son's identity. You deny this?

Yes, I do deny that Christ met these prophecies.

[RevTodd]

Re: End of the world

I admire your ability to articulate your position reasonably and without rancor or insult. Of course I still see huge holes and glaring errors in what you've asserted, but I don't think I'm going to change your mind since you apparently see what you want to see, even as you asserted of me.

I will make just one or two observations though.

First, I'm curious how you personally reslove this issue... You say that individual rights are something people choose not to relinquish by nature. But what if the rights I assert include enslaving you, and I have the might to do it? What higher judge says you have rights that I should acknowldedge despite what I see as my own interests? In your atheistic view, there is no higher authority. So I will impose my will on you so long as I am able to do so, and no one can gain say me unless they can overcome me by force. The founders clearly and unequivocally asserted that these rights you cherish come from the Creator of ALL men. This is why those with more might than us should recognize our rights and act according to the Creator's dictates rather than their own perceived self-interest.

Second... Just for the purpose of clarification, the infinite magnitude of man's sin is not related to the finite nature of his life at all (actually, man is not finite; his spirit is eternal, but this still is not the most salient issue). Rather sin is infinite in magnitude because it is an affront against an infinitely holy God. I don't expect an atheist to really understand this, but this is the theology of the question.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the exchange, Klash... Take care.

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: End of the world

[QUOTE=RevTodd;760887]First, I'm curious how you personally reslove this issue... You say that individual rights are something people choose not to relinquish by nature. But what if the rights I assert include enslaving you, and I have the might to do it? What higher judge says you have rights that I should acknowldedge despite what I see as my own interests? In your atheistic view, there is no higher authority. So I will impose my will on you so long as I am able to do so, and no one can gain say me unless they can overcome me by force. The founders clearly and unequivocally asserted that these rights you cherish come from the Creator of ALL men. This is why those with more might than us should recognize our rights and act according to the Creator's dictates rather than their own perceived self-interest.
QUOTE]

Okay if I misinterpreted this please correct me on this. Your saying that the courts need to see 'the creators dictates' aka the laws of your religon to be recognized as laws and rights and not that of their own perceived self interest?

If that's what your saying you couldn't be farther from the truth. It is not the creator that dictates our laws, it is the people of this country. I don't think god has a voting card (although if he came down in human form I guarantee he wouldn't have a problem getting one). With that said we the people, are what dictate what we want our laws to be. Not your religon, not your creator, not titan or zeus or whomever else is a god of sorts. WE AS AMERICAN CITIZENS DO! That's where our country has a grave problem.

Half of us want this country to be run with equality in mind. We want everyone to have the ability to be free and do as they please, so long as not to infringe upon the rights of others.

You and your group want this country to be free aslong as they follow within the guidlines of your religious beliefs.

If you exclude all feelings, and look at this from a logical point of view, one of these would seem like a democracy and the other like a dictatorship. Can you tell which is which?

[RevTodd]

Re: End of the world

[QUOTE=DJDIGGLER;760903]

First, I'm curious how you personally reslove this issue... You say that individual rights are something people choose not to relinquish by nature. But what if the rights I assert include enslaving you, and I have the might to do it? What higher judge says you have rights that I should acknowldedge despite what I see as my own interests? In your atheistic view, there is no higher authority. So I will impose my will on you so long as I am able to do so, and no one can gain say me unless they can overcome me by force. The founders clearly and unequivocally asserted that these rights you cherish come from the Creator of ALL men. This is why those with more might than us should recognize our rights and act according to the Creator's dictates rather than their own perceived self-interest.
QUOTE]

Okay if I misinterpreted this please correct me on this. Your saying that the courts need to see 'the creators dictates' aka the laws of your religon to be recognized as laws and rights and not that of their own perceived self interest?

If that's what your saying you couldn't be farther from the truth. It is not the creator that dictates our laws, it is the people of this country. I don't think god has a voting card (although if he came down in human form I guarantee he wouldn't have a problem getting one). With that said we the people, are what dictate what we want our laws to be. Not your religon, not your creator, not titan or zeus or whomever else is a god of sorts. WE AS AMERICAN CITIZENS DO! That's where our country has a grave problem.

Half of us want this country to be run with equality in mind. We want everyone to have the ability to be free and do as they please, so long as not to infringe upon the rights of others.

You and your group want this country to be free aslong as they follow within the guidlines of your religious beliefs.

If you exclude all feelings, and look at this from a logical point of view, one of these would seem like a democracy and the other like a dictatorship. Can you tell which is which?

No, what I'm saying is that there needs to be a basic acknowledgment that human rights are granted by a transcendent power, because if they are not they are essentially meaningless, insofar as those rights are transient and ephemeral.

Rights that are defined and granted by merely human authority can be re-defined and rescinded by human authority as well. The founders said the very justification for the assertion of their rights-claims was that those rights were, "unalienable," that is they transcended any human legal system. They specifically said that men were entitled to those rights by virtue of, "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

To put it bluntly, the very reason that a bunch of Christians should not get together to silence all dissenting views is because their own religion says they don't have that right. Dispite admitted glaring historical examples to the contrary, the TRUE teachings of Christianity respect individual rights because the individual has inherent value given to him via his creation in God's image. What a person believes and what he says is for God to ultimately judge.

So while we may not like it, we have to respect the atheist's right to say there is no God. However, what we do not have to do is give over our nation, founded on Christian principles, to be ruled by the atheist's preference and remove all evidence of our national Christian heritage.

By the way, it is not a secret that the basic tenets of our western legal system evolved substantially from the biblical record. So our legal tradition already has, for 100's of years, recognized the "dictates" of 'my' religion in making and enforcing its laws.

[DJDIGGLER]

Re: End of the world

Okay I can see what your saying on some of that. However the 'dicatates of your religon' are very general in nature on many things like the ten commandments so of course it will seem as though they are aligned with you religion when in fact it is just a coincidence. Things like though shall not steal, or kill are very basic moral understandings.

But when you try to add things that clearly were not meant to be introduced into our laws, this is where we have a problem. That's why so many are standing up against this biblical aggression towards how we run this country. They are not about to give up their rights that were put in place for this exact reason.

[Klash]

Re: End of the world

I admire your ability to articulate your position reasonably and without rancor or insult. Of course I still see huge holes and glaring errors in what you've asserted, but I don't think I'm going to change your mind since you apparently see what you want to see, even as you asserted of me.

My mind is easily persuaded with a rational argument.

First, I'm curious how you personally reslove this issue... You say that individual rights are something people choose not to relinquish by nature. But what if the rights I assert include enslaving you, and I have the might to do it? What higher judge says you have rights that I should acknowldedge despite what I see as my own interests? In your atheistic view, there is no higher authority. So I will impose my will on you so long as I am able to do so, and no one can gain say me unless they can overcome me by force. The founders clearly and unequivocally asserted that these rights you cherish come from the Creator of ALL men. This is why those with more might than us should recognize our rights and act according to the Creator's dictates rather than their own perceived self-interest.

To deny equal rights to other human beings, is to deny any natural rights to yourself. To base rights on power or the ability to enslave or suppress others is implying you only have rights as long as you can maintain power, which would be very short-sighted. A more rational approach to ensure your rights for as long as you live, would be to support and defend the idea of equal rights for all human beings.

Second... Just for the purpose of clarification, the infinite magnitude of man's sin is not related to the finite nature of his life at all (actually, man is not finite; his spirit is eternal, but this still is not the most salient issue). Rather sin is infinite in magnitude because it is an affront against an infinitely holy God. I don't expect an atheist to really understand this, but this is the theology of the question.

I understand this perfectly. From an intellectually honest and objective point of view, this very creative play on words helps defend against the concept of an irrational, torture happy god punishing people for finite sins with an eternity of punishment in hell. If you can spin a human's finite action as a infinite action because it was committed against an infinite and holy being, you just dodged an irrational concept.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the exchange, Klash... Take care.

Yeah, same here.