Religion, Politics, and Control.

[baxter]

You have now resorted to quoting scriptures to back up an argument that has fallen flat on its face.

I did not say that the scriptures we easily to misinterpret as they are not, from what I have seen and read they are very precise. So it now appears that religion is based entirely on the scriptures, the bible. The bible was actually published 400 years after Christ’s death by the way and by man not God himself.

The point I have repeatedly put across and one you have continually ignored is that religion by its very nature can be used to justify and even appear to encourage extreme acts.

Yea, we are jus going to have to stop, this isn't going anywhere. Believe what you will.

Something to agree on.

 

[Zorrander001]

You have now resorted to quoting scriptures to back up an argument that has fallen flat on its face.

Firstly, I see nothing wrong with quoting religious scripture in a debate revolving around the values of that religion. How else arewe to get to the bottom of that issue!

What argument has fallen on it's face? it is obvious the values of the church sometimes contradict the values of the religion. Christianity declares love, forgiveness of enemies and transgressions in order to attain forgiveness, refrain from violence. So when the church commits murder they are obviously acting on policy contradictory to christianity. There is no getting around it.

It doesn't matter if they contorted Christianity in order to justify their actions, they are still attrocities that contradict christian teachings. Christianity cannot be at fault when it is manipulated by corrupt people, it is obviously the corrupt who went against christianity and actually committed the crime that are at fault.

You have yet to put single argument to counter mine, you just keep saying over and over that the church used christianity therefore the religion is at fault. How about actually discussing this instead of dacing around it. If you don't produce any argument for your beliefs in the next post, then I will not reply again.

 

[baxter]

[/QUOTE]'Then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them and show them no mercy' (Torah, Book of Deuteronomy 7:1-2)
'Thou shall not kill' (Torah, Book of Exodus 20:13)
'All who take the sword will perish by the sword' (New Testament, Matthew 5:43-44)
'Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but aggress not' (Koran 2:190)
'Whoever fights in the cause of God, then gets killed or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense' (Koran 4:74)
'When all efforts to restore peace prove useless and no words avail, lawful is the flash of steel' (10th Sikh guru, Guru Gobind Singh)
'May your weapons be strong to drive away the attackers, may your arms be powerful enough to check the foes, let your army be glorious, not the evil-doer' (Hind)

I see nothing wrong with quoting religious scripture in a debate revolving around the values of that religion. How else arewe to get to the bottom of that issue!

As you have taken the time to quote from the scriptures I thought I would return the favour.
You have stuck to the single line that religion itself is not responsible for extreme acts, but the currupt individuals within that religion.... fine I respect your view.
I apologies if you feel I have be been dancing around the but I thought I had made my points perfectly clearly.
I don't feel the need to justify my believes or convictions to anybody, it is what makes us individuals.
I have stated my postion and stand by it, as clearly do you....fine.
Is now tine to end this line and I trust we can both depart with dignity and show a degree of respect for each other opinions.
Baxter

 

[Zorrander001]

'Then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them and show them no mercy' (Torah, Book of Deuteronomy 7:1-2)

I told you earlier if you were going to quote the old testament in this way you should first research how the old laws relate to the new covenant. This is not an aspect of the new covenant(modern Christianity), it was policy deictated to the Hebrew people that were without salvation. Jesus is the fullfillment of the law. Where once Salvation through Jesus was not a reality, there was the law to preserve the people. Once salvation through Jesus was a reality, Jesus himself became the law. hence the new covenant.

'All who take the sword will perish by the sword' (New Testament, Matthew 5:43-44)

This isn't even applicable to the topic, I don't think you understand it's meaning. This isn't a command to kill.

The rest of your quotes don't apply either, and I don't know what you thought you would accomplish with them. They aren't even Christian doctrine.

Again you fail to present any tangible argument. Since we are the only ones who have shown any interest in this thread for a while, and we are going nowhere fast, I don't think there is any reason to continue.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Isn't that the point of Democracy?
I'm not going to say anything else, but isn't the system of government where The Majority Rules, supposed to be the one we all live by?

the majority does indeed rule, but there are also a series of checks and balances that are put in place to prevent the sorts of things we've seen in Nazi Germany and the like.

The inalienable rights are an example of such a check, as are the separation of church and state, and the right to freedom of speech.
Basically, they are designed so that the majority has the advantage, but they cannot use that sway to harm the minorities.
So it's somewhat of a misconception that the majority can have just about anything it wants.

The problem is, these anti-gay groups that are showing such increasing popularity are in violation of many of these checks. Gay marriage being banned in every state that voted on it, is an alienation of two of the three inalienable rights, while simultaneously merging church and state.

The end effect is that where the limits of the majority rule were once determined by a secular body that represents all peoples, the majority is now setting its own limitations. Basically, they've given themselves a blank cheque on what they can and cannot do. The ability to oppress gays, to christianize the teachings in secular schools and all manner of similar things like stem cells.

In the US and Canada (and I assume most western countries), what these groups are doing is patently unethical and is contrary to the basic principles of a multicultural society.

Now that church and state are being allowed to become merged, there is almost literally nothing stopping these groups from making the US a theocracy, except for the fact that if they push things too far they will lose thier majority status.
But by that point, the damage will already be done.

Now that many schools have been wrongly forced to drop evolution from their curriculums, any attempt to correct this mistake will be branded anti-christian.
An example of this would be the practice of pledging allegiance to god. It's an artifact of a time when christians controlled the country, and it never really belonged in this form of secular government. But it's kept because any attempt to remove mention of god from the pledge, or from any other element of government, is always decried as anti-christian.

Luckilly, these contemporaneous intrusions of church into state do not have the advantage of being minor and historical, but you can bet they will be defended the same way.

So we're going to see it go up gradually, and it's already keeping up a steady pace. 'Buster Bunny' is censored, and then who knows what.

 

[Calanen]

I dont believe that saying a relationshionship between two men or two women is not a marriage is particularlly significant. If Fred and Larry live in an apartment together, thats ok by me. But don't compare it to a family with children. They are just not the same thing.

And children being adopted by gay couples is not in the best interests of the child.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The ability to oppress gays, to christianize the teachings in secular schools and all manner of similar things like stem cells.

Okay, so what are we going to do about it?

Have something in one school, that, one side does'nt agree with? (creationism)
Or, have another something in one-other school that the other side does not agree with?
(Evolution)

Scientific facts aside or religious elements on the shelf, what we need to do now is create courses in schools that will be able to cater for specific belief systems. I truely hate that we have churches teaching one thing, then a school teaching the next -- why not merge they're educational systems and values, and simply teach differently for different students, but in public classrooms?

Or what we could do, is just let it as its always been. None have been that bothered by evolution or creationism being taught for one waid of kids; so perhaps it wont do harm now.

-OR- teach dual subjects to children -- for example; Tommy gets a quiz on evolution, while Bobby gets a quiz on creationism.

I mean to me, that sounds like the fairest route to take ...

And children being adopted by gay couples is not in the best interests of the child.

Am I conservative? Yes.

Do I believe this statement? No.

I dont believe it would be any different if a man couple raised a kid they adopted, then if a man-women couple adopted and raised a kid.

Sometimes, whats good, is'int always whats popular -- whats good, is that kids have willing people to raise them.

Whats unpopular, is that these people planning on raising them are gay.

Now, I understand the concern that Gay Couples break up a lot, and before we start babbeling on about stereotypes its also a true fact.

I'm gay, so I should know what goes on generally -- however, like all couples, the same risk factor echoes for everybody. Gay couple, straight couple, breaking up is still a universal thing; and it is encouraged couples have a strong bond before adopting or having children.

I dont agree that gays should not wed or adopt children -- they can be just as effective families, so long as they operate dilligently.

 

[Calanen]

I can tell you that growing up is way hard enough. Imagine going to school, as the son of two gay fathers.....your feet would not touch the floor before you were wedgied, flushed, binned, bashed....is this in the interests of the child?

You are forcing an innocent child to be a party to the 'Gay Industry' which says - if heterosexuals can have children, and biologically we cant, then we should have our child fashion accessory as well so we are just as good as any of you 'breeders' (might surprise you I know that term as a non-gay, but I worked with heaps of gays in the hotel industry). So the parentless child is co-opted into the 'Im here im queer cause' as some sort of symbol of 'Im just as good as anyone else because I have my child the state gave me'. If I were a judge, I would take into account the significant anger of some segments of society towards gays, and I would not put an innocent child into that environment to suffer from it, unless I had no other option but to do so. I would even consider orphanages before it.

When I was in a law school lecture, the idea of 'Gay Adoption' came up. And there were some guys there I knew who went to a military school called Kings in Australia. And I said, guys, what would happen if I rocked up to parent teacher night with my two gay fathers. One of em just said 'It would be all over.'

Not that I am I saying such a child should be bashed. Of course not. But, living in the real world and not the loony left press - we have to recognise that this is not only a possibility but a probability. And the interests of the child become paramount. Even more important than the Gay Industry and the 'Im Here Im Queer Chant.' If you want to be an outspoken gay activist or out of the closet with all that comes with it. Fine. But don't rope innocent children into the membership of this club to advance your cause.

In addition, as for marriage, it is not a marriage. On so many levels, gay people living with each other - is not a marriage.

If gay people want to live with each other or do whatever - i do not care about this. But I will not pay for it. I will not extend the state's assistance to married couples and families to include Barry and Larry the midnight disco divas who live in a flat in Darlinghurst together and go to all night dance parties, but are really 'married' and need an adopted child as part of this 'marriage'.

 

[Calanen]

I know the US constitution well. I studied it to pass the bar exam. Its a fantastic document.

One nation under God, is fine. It reflects the fact that the bulk of Americans believe in God and American society was founded on judeo christian principles. Nothing wrong with that. Its a fact. And im agnostic.

I agree with God not being part of being endorsed as a particular religion by the Federal government. It is a private matter. And the constitution guarantees that the Federal government will not endorse a religion. Note, the fact that the President is a christian, does not mean that the Federal Govt is, or endorses christianity.

But the anti-Christmas thing is going too far. People were bashing Gov Schwarzeneggar for wishing every1 in California a Merry Christmas. Saints preserve us.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh jeez, let's list everything wrong with this post.

I can tell you that growing up is way hard enough. Imagine going to school, as the son of two gay fathers.....your feet would not touch the floor before you were wedgied, flushed, binned, bashed....is this in the interests of the child?

Wrong. Anyone who harms any kid would be guilty of harassment, and they would be the one in the wrong. And, thus they are the ones who should be dealt with.
Name one other situation where a crime is validly prevented by eliminating the victim in advance. "Let's prevent discrimination by not allowing this type of person to exist."
Using that logic, we could stop all murders just by bombing the world to ashes.
Also, to imply that somehow the normal kid with gay parents has worse parents than the kid who became a violent homophobe is ridiculous.

You are forcing an innocent child to be a party to the 'Gay Industry' which says - if heterosexuals can have children, and biologically we cant, then we should have our child fashion accessory as well so we are just as good as any of you 'breeders' (might surprise you I know that term as a non-gay, but I worked with heaps of gays in the hotel industry).

Wrong, first of all, is your assertion that gay parents are 'not innocent' compared to a presumably straight child.

Also wrong is the assertion that by having parents, the child is 'forced.' Sure puts an evil spin on something that every child experiences. That's right, you were 'forced' to have your parents too. Yeah, they're so evil.
The only difference here is that such a relationship would most likely be the result of adoption, which would mean the child actually has more options than you did in choosing your parents.
'Forced,' my ass.

Third, your assertion that gays would, as a whole, only have children for 'fasion accessories.' Obviously, it is impossible for a gay to actually care for a child in the same way a straight person can, right? After all, you heard it from a hotel where you work, so it must be true!

Come on, you obviously have no actual precedent on which to base this assumption. As comforting as it must be to believe that gays actually hate children and will use them as weapons against you, do you honestly think that what amounts to a race of people as a whole would pay the lifetime of funds and commitment on raising a child just to make a political statement?

Also, why are you implying it is bad for gays to believe that they can be good parents?

This is tantamount to saying that kids with black parents are forced to be part of the 'black agenda' or something of that nature.
Obviously, by having children, black people are just futilely trying to prove that they are human too! Boo, hiss!

So the parentless child is co-opted into the 'Im here im queer cause' as some sort of symbol of 'Im just as good as anyone else because I have my child the state gave me'.

Again, why you are asserting that the entire process of adoption is somehow immoral? Why are you asserting that gays cannot care for children, or for that matter, that anyone who adopts a child is trying to make a statement that they are equal humans?
Even if this is patently untrue, why do you consider it wrong for these people to believe they are equal humans?

Surely you have a reason for why orphans do not deserve guardians?
And, I hope, you have seen at least one gay parent in real life, right?
Of course you have charts that show that children of gay parents all die within two months or something? Anything?

If I were a judge, I would take into account the significant anger of some segments of society towards gays, and I would not put an innocent child into that environment to suffer from it, unless I had no other option but to do so. I would even consider orphanages before it.

This, my wacky friend, is exactly why you are not a judge.
Your point is based purely on assumptions.

-The assumption that so much animosity exists towards gays that their children are better off not existing.
-The assumption that having gay parents causes 'suffering' in a child.
-The assumption that gays do not care about children.
-The assumption that gays would be such bad parents that the child would be better off with none.

All of them based on nothing. No fact, no logic. Nothing.

When I was in a law school lecture, the idea of 'Gay Adoption' came up. And there were some guys there I knew who went to a military school called Kings in Australia. And I said, guys, what would happen if I rocked up to parent teacher night with my two gay fathers. One of em just said 'It would be all over.'

Not that I am I saying such a child should be bashed. Of course not. But, living in the real world and not the loony left press - we have to recognise that this is not only a possibility but a probability. And the interests of the child become paramount.

Again, here is your point that gays are better off not existing because the entire world hates them.
There's nothing wrong with a school that discriminates a student just because the parents are gay, of course. It's those damn gay's fault for having the gall to raise a child in the first place!

That great line of reasoning is exactly why, for fear of black people's mental well-being in pre-1970's america, we shipped all the african american people out of the country so that they would ever have to face the harsh torment of being disliked by a few white folks.

It's racial segregation, but it's the good kind!

Honestly, look back at what you said, and tell me it isn't insane.
Maybe you should listen to the 'loony left press' because pre-emptive discrimination as a moral solution is insane.

Even more important than the Gay Industry and the 'Im Here Im Queer Chant.' If you want to be an outspoken gay activist or out of the closet with all that comes with it. Fine. But don't rope innocent children into the membership of this club to advance your cause.

So then, gays that pretend to be straight can be good parents, yet no gay who is 'out' can ever be a good parent?

Guess what, you can't have a child because you're just using it as a a symbol for the straight alliance! You are an evil person, forcing your child to live with straight parents just so you can walk around and say "I'm straight and I have a kid!"
Because obviously you have no capactity to genuinely care for a child.
Next thing you know, you'll be asking to vote.

Where does this reasoning come from? Well, I was in a 7-11 once, and I saw TONS of straight people, so I am now an expert on their entire group.

In addition, as for marriage, it is not a marriage. On so many levels, gay people living with each other - is not a marriage.

Again, another assertion that is backed up by no logical precedent.
Tell me, exactly, what a straight marriage is, other than two people living together? Besides a few financial aspects and some occasional religious signifigance, that's all it is.

So, is it that you object to gays getting equal money, or is it that you object to gays practicing religious beliefs?

If gay people want to live with each other or do whatever - i do not care about this. But I will not pay for it. I will not extend the state's assistance to married couples and families to include Barry and Larry the midnight disco divas who live in a flat in Darlinghurst together and go to all night dance parties, but are really 'married' and need an adopted child as part of this 'marriage'.

Yeah, your hundredth of a cent would be ill-spent on equal rights.
Forget the fact that the gay people's tax dollars are contributing to the quality of your life every day.

Apparently your entire belief here, and I emphasize the word 'belief', is based purely on a series of stereotypes that you have amalagmated into an strange gay conspiracy in your mind, where all gays are irresponsible people who spend their days petitioning for rights they don't deserve, and their nights hanging out in gay bars.

Your entire view, frankly, is inherently based on an imagined inferiority of gays. Or, more specifically, your superiority over them.
You're saving kids from them. You're not going to pay your money on them. Gays are insecure inferior people who wrongly try to use 'symbols' and 'chants' to create a fake equality they don't deserve.

You're full of it, frankly. Base your assumptions on more than stereotypes and manufactured superiority.
Because you have absolutely no facts and no logic behind you ideals. Just a thinly veiled contempt.

And to force baseless ideals on innocent people is apparently something you consider wrong.

 

[CptStern]

I know the US constitution well. I studied it to pass the bar exam. Its a fantastic document.

One nation under God, is fine. It reflects the fact that the bulk of Americans believe in God and American society was founded on judeo christian principles. Nothing wrong with that. Its a fact. And im agnostic.

I agree with God not being part of being endorsed as a particular religion by the Federal government. It is a private matter. And the constitution guarantees that the Federal government will not endorse a religion. Note, the fact that the President is a christian, does not mean that the Federal Govt is, or endorses christianity.

But the anti-Christmas thing is going too far. People were bashing Gov Schwarzeneggar for wishing every1 in California a Merry Christmas. Saints preserve us.

you sound awefully familiar, hmmm wonder if that's a coincidence

 

[Raziaar]

you sound awefully familiar, hmmm wonder if that's a coincidence

Who does he sound like stern? Why don't you just come out and say it. I know you have a name floating around in your head you want to lay down.

 

[CptStern]

who cares what I may be speculating?

 

[Edcrab]

Not to imply anything Stern but if we didn't care what you were speculating it would mean that your penultimate post was needless conjecture :hmph: Oh, to be taunted with speculation. It's awful.

If only we could recognise religion for what it is- a nice excuse to wrap up a collection of moral guidelines to stop people killing and raping each other. You'd think that after a few millenia of social and technological advances they'd be ripe for a review. Pope's meant to be God's representative, isn't he? When did he last get an e-mail from the Big Guy?

 

[CptStern]

Not to imply anything Stern but if we didn't care what you were speculating it would mean that your penultimate post was needless conjecture Oh, to be taunted with speculation. It's awful.

just think of it as thinking out loud

 

[Edcrab]

Fair enough. But in future we should maybe all recall that we're not telepathic for a reason

 

[burner69]

Not to imply anything Stern but if we didn't care what you were speculating it would mean that your penultimate post was needless conjecture :hmph: Oh, to be taunted with speculation. It's awful.

If only we could recognise religion for what it is- a nice excuse to wrap up a collection of moral guidelines to stop people killing and raping each other. You'd think that after a few millenia of social and technological advances they'd be ripe for a review. Pope's meant to be God's representative, isn't he? When did he last get an e-mail from the Big Guy?

I think we're advanced enough as a species not to need a fear of a nasty afterlife to stop us commiting crimes.

And I hate the Pope, he's a ***** *** ****er!!
I mean, he's said some sketchy stuff:
"Condoms cause AIDS."
Yeah, nice one pope, cookie for you my friend.

 

[Edcrab]

RE: Sex

Dear John,
Just your old pal here. I know I said that contraception was a bad idea to your predecessors, but I'm a modern deity and I can accept changing my stance- we're all adults! Especially me, I'm 16 billion years old.

Anyway, what with humanity realising that sex is enjoyable and all these STDs everywhere, I've decided that you should stop the whole anti-condom thing. It just makes us sound like arseholes.

Your friendly boss,

-God

 

[Calanen]

There was a Jesus of Nazareth who was cruxified by Pontius Pilate. Roman records prove this. Whether or not he was the son of God, well that really depends on what you believe.

 

[Calanen]

you sound awefully familiar, hmmm wonder if that's a coincidence

Stern - i am only, and have only ever been Calanen on this board. So I don't know who you believe me to be, but, I am not he....

Ask the mods to check my IP address if u dont believe me.

Kind regards

Calanen

Ps, under the same name Calanen, on Eve online I have repeatedly griefed a dude called Captain Stern. So if thats you, hi! Thats where u know me from....

 

[Calanen]

This, my wacky friend, is exactly why you are not a judge.

I know this thread is dead as door nail - but I just thought I should respond to this one factor. I was approached informally by a labor union which wanted me to serve as a Commissioner on an industrial tribunal, not by the right but by the left (yeah I said Me?), and they said they would lobby the AG for me to be appointed - the AG was a barrister that particular union used a lot and they had his ear. No elections in Aus for judicial and quasi-judicial appointments, just who you know. I said I did not want to but could they make me a judge. They said, Commissioner they could do, but judge, meh, I was too young. I've only been a lawyer for 5 years, and at that stage I was 28. Now 31, Im still too young.

Who knows whether or not I will sit on the bench. Depends which govt is in power when I am in my 40s, and im only 31 now. But opposing gay couples adopting children, is not going to preclude me from doing so. And in any event it does not matter what the public thinks. There are heaps of Catholic judges and it does not preclude them from serving either.

Just what the AG does. This also reflects current Federal government policy to my knowledge.

So you may see me on the bench one day. Even though I do not agree with your point of view - because - you don't get a say in whether I will or will not be.