View previous topic | View next topic

Organised religions and their Inconsistancies

Page 7 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


organised religon: good or bad?
good
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
bad
74%
 74%  [ 23 ]
indifferent
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
nun
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 31

Woodsman
63044.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:14 am Reply with quote

Quote:
From what little I understand, schools and colleges forfeit their government subsidies if they attempt to keep military recruiters off their premises:


The quoted USSC ruling clearly relates to colleges and universities.

I spoke about high schools, which are locally and state controlled and funded, although the federales are trying to force their way into those schools as well. The 'attempt' that I mentioned about recruiters was defeated locally on the premise that the schools should be evenhanded on who they let in, including business recruiters. So the military is viewed as just another 'employer', but they were limited in the number of times per school year that they would be let into the schools - I think it was 7 or so.

So my take is that if the military wants to view itself as just another employer, then the US has a hired military. They are now trying to bribe the young with large 'bonuses' just to sign up.

 
Davini994
63045.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:14 am Reply with quote

So Woodsman, in the US, how separated would you say that Christianity and the state are?
And how separated do you think that they should be?

I think the impression that a lot of us outside the US get is that they are pretty closely linked. Dubya is always citing God... and there is stuff like the controversy over abortion at the moment.

Sorry if it feels like I'm attacking you... but you've come out with some interesting stuff to date.

 
Gray
63052.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:42 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Believe me ..... I'm not defending it, but it doesn't say 'So help me Christian God'. I think the original assertion was that all Congresspersons avow to be Christians, not that they 'believe' in a generic God.

Agreed - it doesn't specifically mention a Christian god, but my original point, if not made particularly well, was that belief in belief, rather than actual belief in god, is what is commonly shown to be the case, and US senators are a particular case in point because they wield enormous power, not least through appearing to be god-fearing. Everyone 'knows' that god-fearing people are decent and upright...

 
Rory Gilmore
63064.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:07 am Reply with quote

You shouldn't fear God unless you fear you're doing something wrong.


Jenny wrote:
"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind."

-- Mahatma Gandhi




Surely that's only the result if one half of the world blinds the other?

"Blind men gouge no eyes".

 
Woodsman
63194.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:52 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Dubya is always citing God... and there is stuff like the controversy over abortion at the moment.


As I said, The Shrub doesn't clearly understand how religion should relate to government by not being mixed up with it. And since he is inherently insecure, his Base pushes him to inject religious principles into government; so-called 'right-to-life' being a case in point.

This injecting of religion into government, IMHO, is of a different order than the sentiments enunciated at official gatherings and oath takings.

 
Woodsman
63197.  Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:10 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
in the US, how separated would you say that Christianity and the state are? And how separated do you think that they should be?


No offense taken. This is a discussion, and I will never defend a lot of the stuff that the US government does. But I noted some of what I thought were misapprehensions about the US, and thought it would be appropriate to offer what I know about this system and what I experience first hand.

As to the questions about religion, specifically Christianity, it is specific in the federal Constitution that government must not mess with religion. State constitutions - each state has one - have some basic rights enumerated, but deal more with the nuts and bolts of government.

The unanswered question is the reverse; should religion mess in government. The answer must be no, if just from the simple fact that if religion does it, it must be somebodies religion and not somebody elses. If the answer were yes, the result would be the reborn Afghanistan. England fought with itself over this question with bloody results.

Think about what would (will) happen if a muslim majority were to develop in a formerly - or nominal - Christian majority country that does not have the principle of separation of church and state, or even one that does. Think about what happened in this country when The Shrub injected too much of his religion into the works. We got the invasion of Iraq.

 
Woodsman
63577.  Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:57 pm Reply with quote

Think about this:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/701583.html

 
suze
63624.  Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:21 am Reply with quote

First of all, the question of what would happen if a Muslim majority were to develop in a traditionally non-Muslim country. This has happened in Africa, but not as yet in a country with a democratic system. France will likely be the first, but it won't be in any of our lifetimes.

Since the vast majority of Muslims have no time for Islamic fundamentalism, I'm not sure that it would cause any major issues within a democratic nation. Where it might cause issues would be if another nation used it as a pretext for economic or military sanctions against France. I can't imagine which country would do such a thing, but note that the USA will have a Catholic majority by then. This is liable to lead to the establishment of the "religious left" as a groundswell of opinion, with - I would imagine - more enlightened results.

And so to the issue of the day. A court in Virginia has held that a French national of Muslim religion may be subject to the death penalty, and I expect that sentence to be duly issued.

If the USA imagines that France and Germany (who had also been given assurances that the death penalty would not be sought) will take this lying down, they are sadly delusioned. US / France relations are fraught as it is, but the US can't afford a serious falling out with Germany. As for Britain, Blair will say something like "while we would not ourselves have issued this sentence, we cannot object to the legal code democratically chosen by the American people". This one could be big ...

Just remember, Woodsman - my native land would take in Maine tomorrow. And Vermont. And New Hampshire, once they abolish the death penalty they never use.

 
dr.bob
63627.  Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:26 am Reply with quote

Davini994 wrote:
So, moving it to religion, if a religion required that all males carry an AK47, then that can't happen. But if a sikh wants to wear a turban on his bike and put himself at risk, then fine.


But doesn't the state have a duty to try to improve the life and health of its citizens? If not, then we wouldn't be treating people suffering from depression with psychotherapy and mood altering drugs. We'd just leave them alone to commit suicide and save the NHS the bill for their treatment.

Also, if someone refuses to wear a crash helmet, it's not just themselves they're putting at risk. It's very distressing for the driver who hits a motorcyclist with their car (especially if it isn't their fault). Imagine how much more distressing it would be if the motorcyclist was killed by their car. You're talking serious counselling there.

Davini994 wrote:
We can't dictate to everyone in the society that they have to live their life a certain way, and have the same opinions. It's wrong philosphically and practically.


I certainly agree with that. However, we can and do dictate to everyone in society that they shouldn't do certain things which are harmful primarily to themselves. The question is where to draw the line, and this is a very grey area.

It seems to me that, throughout history, religions (or, at least, large, well-funded religions) have been given special dispensation to force their followers to do certain things that ordinary people would be banned from doing. If I decided to form my own religion and insisted on preparing food in similar ways to the techniques used for kosher or halal food, I'd be prosecuted under animal cruelty laws.

Davini994 wrote:
Banning religious beliefs would have a parallel in the Taliban, who insisted that everyone did follow the taliban's interpretation of islam. And how much would you and I enjoy that?


Not at all. However, the flip side of this might well be examples such as the binding of feet of women in China. This was a terrible practise that left women with horrible deformities. However, after Mao's revolution when it was not required for women to do this anymore, they still carried on. It was only when the communist party actually banned the practise and made it illegal that it was finally stopped. So I can see that some undesirable practises may have to be illegal to encourage people to stop them.

Davini994 wrote:
It's also important for people to discuss these things on a quality forum like this without feeling insulted! Which I'm sure nobody wants. I've seen religious discussions go up in flames before...


I agree. As I've said before, I'm not anti any particular religion, I'm just anti-religion-in-general.

 
dr.bob
63628.  Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:30 am Reply with quote

Woodsman wrote:
Believe me ..... I'm not defending it, but it doesn't say 'So help me Christian God'. I think the original assertion was that all Congresspersons avow to be Christians, not that they 'believe' in a generic God.


The founding fathers were "deists", not necessarily christians.

However, to modern eyes this now seems a little anti-atheist. In the UK all politicians have to be sworn in and generally swear an oath mentioning god. These days, though, there is an alternative oath which doens't mention god at all, specifically created for atheists. Does the US have anything similar?

 
Woodsman
63668.  Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:09 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Does the US have anything similar?


We can stand for the Pledge of Allegiance without having to say it. =;-}

Who doesn't have to say entire oaths, including 'So Help Me God. etc', ironically, are certain religious sects - possibly Seventh Day Adventists.

If I omitted 'under God' from an oath, I probably would be sworn in anyway, especially if I had been elected.

 
Quaintly Ignorant
63851.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:45 am Reply with quote

But I suspect it would be a public relations nightmare

 
Woodsman
63901.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:35 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
But I suspect it would be a public relations nightmare


But there are no recall provisions, just term limits.

 
suze
63905.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:15 pm Reply with quote

Now that's interesting - a member of Congress cannot be recalled. It seems that it was discussed when the Constitution was first drafted, but never written in. The States Rights brigade have argued for it a couple of times, but never gotten anywhere - it seems to have gone to the Supremes a couple of times during the 20th century.

A Governor of course can be recalled in some states, because the position of Governor is a state appointment not a federal appointment. And as we all know, the guy from Graz got California after his predecessor had been recalled.

But a member of Congress can be expelled, if two thirds of the appropriate part of Congress votes for this. I think it's only actually happened when a Congressman has been sent to jail, but consider this scenario.

It's not impossible to imagine a liberal Northern state - most likely Maine or Vermont - electing a figure from from the "hard left" to Senate. (That's hard left by American standards e.g. the Canadian NDP.)

And if such a Senator were to repeatedly speak about things like secession, labor unions, and his opposition to the Iraq war, I reckon a Republican Senate might just decide that he was "disloyal to the United States" and try and expel him. I'm absolutely not thinking of Bernie Sanders, who seems likely to move up to Senate next year ...

[Explanation for those who aren't North American. Sanders is a socialist from Vermont who currently sits in the House of Representatives as an Independent - the only one in the House. Vermont also has an Independent Senator, who retires next year. It is expected that Sanders will run for his seat, and the Democrats are unlikely to field a candidate in opposition.]

 
samivel
63915.  Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:31 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Now that's interesting - a member of Congress cannot be recalled. It seems that it was discussed when the Constitution was first drafted, but never written in. The States Rights brigade have argued for it a couple of times, but never gotten anywhere - it seems to have gone to the Supremes a couple of times during the 20th century.



What would a Motown girl group be able to do about it?


;)

 

Page 7 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group