I despise all religions (though not the religious), but if you're going to allow praying in the Senate then allow it from all faiths.
Those people are *incredibly* rude and presumably were thrown out.
If the government isn't allowed to make law respecting religion why on earth is the senate having prayers at all? I know why we do it cause we've been doing it for 200+ years, but I mean come on. Lets stop saying and start doing government. I'm not allowed to have a Christmas tree at school but you guys are praying?
I want to rent a class, get some like minded friends to make a video where pray is allowed in class.
But there are so many faiths in the class that it takes up the whole class which eventually ends between a bloodbath between a khorne follower and a emporor follower.
Johnny-Crass wrote:That is why religion is disgusting as it creates biggots of its followers
As opposed to atheists who make blanket statements like that?
OP who were the people who were heckling? I assume not actual senators.
As opposed to folks assuming those who make blanket statement about antireligion are atheists? I am in no way a atheist as in my mind they are just playing the same game every other religion plays except they play it with "We are too cool to be in any of your clubs as clubs suck, hey this is something we all agree on maybe we should make a club about it".
My point is this, I have never had a sensible person walk up to me and tell me the way I dress and act will cause me to be tortured for all eternity. But guess how many bible thumpers have told me that.. Enough that it really gets old and my nations sickly hatred of those of non-christian faith is truly appalling. I do not have any doubts that those are indeed senators heckling that man.
LordofHats wrote:If the government isn't allowed to make law respecting religion why on earth is the senate having prayers at all? I know why we do it cause we've been doing it for 200+ years, but I mean come on. Lets stop saying and start doing government. I'm not allowed to have a Christmas tree at school but you guys are praying?
Thel "Logic" was that adults arent as influenced as kids.
donkey-caves. They're so fethed up that they won't even let other people practice their own religions in the same building. I'm an atheist and I've participated in prayers in such out of respect, but these guys are such douches that they can't even listen to him. Its a goddamn shame.
Johnny-Crass wrote:That is why religion is disgusting as it creates biggots of its followers
As opposed to atheists who make blanket statements like that?
OP who were the people who were heckling? I assume not actual senators.
As opposed to folks assuming those who make blanket statement about antireligion are atheists? I am in no way a atheist as in my mind they are just playing the same game every other religion plays except they play it with "We are too cool to be in any of your clubs as clubs suck, hey this is something we all agree on maybe we should make a club about it".
Actually it's more of "I don't see how religion could work for me, but I can see how it works for others so let them be". At least that's how I go about my atheism. For some it gives them hope and that's a good thing.
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Thel "Logic" was that adults arent as influenced as kids.
College kids aren't easy to influence. Hell. Half of Penn state is still convinced that no one was molested! EDIT: Or they just don't care as long as they can win at football.
biccat wrote:I totally agree. The Senate shouldn't kick someone out of the chamber simply for expressing their religious beliefs.
The clergyman didn't get thrown out. The imbeciles interrupting Congress were. The problem isn't that someone expressed their religious beliefs, it's the fact that they interrupted the person with the floor to shout insults.
I'd prefer Congress didn't have a prayer at all, but prayer in Congress doesn't really have much to do with the first amendment.
RustyKnight wrote:The clergyman didn't get thrown out. The imbeciles interrupting Congress were. The problem isn't that someone expressed their religious beliefs, it's the fact that they interrupted the person with the floor to shout insults.
I didn't hear anyone shouting insults, are you sure you're referring to the right video?
The title of this thread clearly states that "Congress shall make no law..." That isn't a limitation on the activities of private citizens, it's a limitation on the government. The private citizens (the "imbeciles") were exercising their right to freely exercise their religion, and were thrown out of the Senate chamber for it.
Sounds like the Senate violated their Free Exercise right.
edit: What the hell? updated 7/12/2007 (embiggened for seriousness)
Johnny-Crass wrote:As opposed to folks assuming those who make blanket statement about antireligion are atheists? I am in no way a atheist as in my mind they are just playing the same game every other religion plays except they play it with "We are too cool to be in any of your clubs as clubs suck, hey this is something we all agree on maybe we should make a club about it".
An atheist is a person who looked at what is around him, and decided it was more likely than not that it was not a deliberate act of creation. There's no clubs, no too for school anything, that's all things you made up in your head.
My point is this, I have never had a sensible person walk up to me and tell me the way I dress and act will cause me to be tortured for all eternity. But guess how many bible thumpers have told me that.. Enough that it really gets old and my nations sickly hatred of those of non-christian faith is truly appalling. I do not have any doubts that those are indeed senators heckling that man.
So your point is that one time this religious person acted towards you in a way you found objectionable, so you decided to assume that behaviour was common among all religious people. You know taking an individual experience and expanding it across the whole of the group is pretty much what bigotry is, right?
biccat wrote: I didn't hear anyone shouting insults, are you sure you're referring to the right video?
As soon as the video starts, you can clearly hear a man call the clergyman a "wicked" and an "abomination". They may be quotes, but they're also insults. Similar to how quoting something published by the Klan at a black person would be an insult. This initial outburst is followed at least one other male and a female.
biccat wrote:The title of this thread clearly states that "Congress shall make no law..." That isn't a limitation on the activities of private citizens, it's a limitation on the government. The private citizens (the "imbeciles") were exercising their right to freely exercise their religion, and were thrown out of the Senate chamber for it.
I agree that the thread's title is off, but individual's don't have the right to interrupt Congress. Kinda like how they wouldn't be allowed to protest inside the chamber.
RustyKnight wrote:I'd prefer Congress didn't have a prayer at all, but prayer in Congress doesn't really have much to do with the first amendment.
I don't know, I think it's reasonable for people to begin their working day with a prayer, particularly when the job they're undertaking has some level of public trust involved. As long as that prayer is voluntary, I don't see a problem.
I'd prefer it was done in private, but that's just for personal reasons - if people really feel the need to do these things in public then let them.
Oh, I don't have a problem with individual congressmen praying prior to the opening of Congress, I just don't like the idea of the Congress selecting a single prayer for the whole chamber. It's (probably) a Christian prayer the overwhelming majority of the time, and I think it presents a bad image about how our government operates (just look at what happened when they tried to have a Hindu prayer).
RustyKnight wrote:I'd prefer Congress didn't have a prayer at all, but prayer in Congress doesn't really have much to do with the first amendment.
I don't know, I think it's reasonable for people to begin their working day with a prayer, particularly when the job they're undertaking has some level of public trust involved. As long as that prayer is voluntary, I don't see a problem.
I'd prefer it was done in private, but that's just for personal reasons - if people really feel the need to do these things in public then let them.
I can understand tolerating those who do public prayer. What i cant is that the ones who do are typically those who wouldnt let someone of another religion do it themselves.
RustyKnight wrote:Oh, I don't have a problem with individual congressmen praying prior to the opening of Congress, I just don't like the idea of the Congress selecting a single prayer for the whole chamber. It's (probably) a Christian prayer the overwhelming majority of the time, and I think it presents a bad image about how our government operates (just look at what happened when they tried to have a Hindu prayer).
Fair point, I agree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jollydevil wrote:I can understand tolerating those who do public prayer. What i cant is that the ones who do are typically those who wouldnt let someone of another religion do it themselves.
Yeah. Even worse are the people who attempt to make that prayer a requirement, and who then pretend their inability to force that prayer on others is oppression.
sebster wrote: Yeah. Even worse are the people who attempt to make that prayer a requirement, and who then pretend their inability to force that prayer on others is oppression.
RustyKnight wrote:The clergyman didn't get thrown out. The imbeciles interrupting Congress were. The problem isn't that someone expressed their religious beliefs, it's the fact that they interrupted the person with the floor to shout insults.
I didn't hear anyone shouting insults, are you sure you're referring to the right video?
hotsauceman1 wrote:I want to rent a class, get some like minded friends to make a video where pray is allowed in class.
Prayer is allowed in class; organized or institutional prayer in a public school is where things become problematic. If you as an individual want to pray in school you are not barred from doing so.
As the bible said "Make a public spectacle of thyself when praying, lest people not think ye pious enough or lacking in faith, and on the day of a test or big game, double thy proclamations". It is the passage that inspired Tebow.
Frazzled wrote:Maybe you should quit watching Fox.
"Doc it hurts when I do this."
"Well don't do that."
This is the Frazzled approach to politics and political thought. If you see a thing you don't like, just ignore it. Some might argue this is a bit like a kid closing his eyes because if he can't see you, you can't see him, but I'd never be that cruel.
Ahtman wrote:
As the bible said "Make a public spectacle of thyself when praying, lest people not think ye pious enough or lacking in faith, and on the day of a test or big game, double thy proclamations". It is the passage that inspired Tebow.
biccat wrote:The title of this thread clearly states that "Congress shall make no law..." That isn't a limitation on the activities of private citizens, it's a limitation on the government. The private citizens (the "imbeciles") were exercising their right to freely exercise their religion, and were thrown out of the Senate chamber for it.
Sounds like the Senate violated their Free Exercise right.
Yeah, I agree, it is too late, the cat is out of the bag and it seems a not insignificant number of non-religious folk now feel they can act just as objectionably towards religious folk as they presume religious folk might act towards them.
But more than that... I mean, he spelt bigot wrong. I mean, for Christ's sake, if you're going to make us look like bigots, at least give the impression we're educated bigots.
alarmingrick wrote:I don't. MSNBC/CNN just loops Fox's talking heads and their "analysts" bitching about it. Not to mention the same "analysts" rotate the talk circuit.
Maybe you should stop watching MSNBC and CNN.
RustyKnight wrote:
biccat wrote: I didn't hear anyone shouting insults, are you sure you're referring to the right video?
As soon as the video starts, you can clearly hear a man call the clergyman a "wicked" and an "abomination". They may be quotes, but they're also insults. Similar to how quoting something published by the Klan at a black person would be an insult. This initial outburst is followed at least one other male and a female.
Ah, I see the problem. You think people expressing their religious views is insulting.
The prayer opened with a reference to the "diety supreme." Isn't this insulting to people who express a different religious view?
dogma wrote:No law was made.
Congress can't ignore Constitutional restrictions simply by not passing a law. Any action by the government is subject to Constitutional scrutiny, even enforcement by the Executive.
But really, this happened in 2007. Does Dakka OT really need to reach back that far to get its 2-minute hate on Christians?
The problem isn't religion, but people using it in an ignorant fashion.
I know a few conservative Christians, and none of them have ever made any kind of deal (big or small) about my lack of belief in any kind of deity. This is because they are good people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Ah, I see the problem. You think people expressing their religious views is insulting.
The prayer opened with a reference to the "diety supreme." Isn't this insulting to people who express a different religious view?
An insult is an insult, whether it's someone's religious views or not. Referring to a "Deity supreme" is not an insult, incidentally, but calling people who do not believe in that deity "wicked" or whatever clearly is.
Johnny-Crass wrote:That is why religion is disgusting as it creates biggots of its followers
As opposed to atheists who make blanket statements like that?
OP who were the people who were heckling? I assume not actual senators.
As opposed to folks assuming those who make blanket statement about antireligion are atheists? I am in no way a atheist as in my mind they are just playing the same game every other religion plays except they play it with "We are too cool to be in any of your clubs as clubs suck, hey this is something we all agree on maybe we should make a club about it".
My point is this, I have never had a sensible person walk up to me and tell me the way I dress and act will cause me to be tortured for all eternity. But guess how many bible thumpers have told me that.. Enough that it really gets old and my nations sickly hatred of those of non-christian faith is truly appalling. I do not have any doubts that those are indeed senators heckling that man.
Also do you know what a bear looks like?
So all atheists are judgemental? Lol.
Either you beleive in God or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
Joey wrote:
Johnny-Crass wrote:That is why religion is disgusting as it creates biggots of its followers
As opposed to atheists who make blanket statements like that?
OP who were the people who were heckling? I assume not actual senators.
Why does your signature for "codex bears" have a link to a picture of a badger?
Johnny-Crass wrote:My point is this, I have never had a sensible person walk up to me and tell me the way I dress and act will cause me to be tortured for all eternity.
*looks at Israel*
Yeaaah, extremists are never pleasant for normal people to be around.
The prayer opened with a reference to the "diety supreme." Isn't this insulting to people who express a different religious view?
As insulting as 'Thy Will Be Done, Thy Kingdom Come', which is clearly insulting everyone else's Gods and their Wills and Kingdoms... I am currently unaware of any of the religions of the world who recognize that their guy isn't the Anumber1primo deity and start their prayers off with 'dear god, we know you're not as hardcore as the other guys, but we're still big fans of your work'...
If Hindus had heckled a Christian lead congressional prayer, would you be taking the same stance?
MeanGreenStompa wrote:If Hindus had heckled a Christian lead congressional prayer, would you be taking the same stance?
Are the Hindus heckling the Christian prayer or praying to advance their religious view over the Christian? If they're praying, then they have just as much of a right to practice their religion as the Christians. So the answer to your question would be a qualified yes.
In neither case would it be anything close to a violation of the Christian's 1st amendment right to free exercise. Although if the Senate chose to throw the Hindus out for praying in the Chamber it would be a closer call.
Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.
That is insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.
Please don't try to force people into your definitions.
Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.
That is incredibly insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.
Please don't try to force people into your definitions.
Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.
biccat wrote:Ah, I see the problem. You think people expressing their religious views is insulting.
I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse here to propagate your stance (which frankly is sort of what the O-tizzle is all about, so I get that), but the issue was more about how they chose to express their religious views, not that they expressed them at all. Or do you truly believe that there is utterly no restriction on sharing your religious beliefs with others? That unlike fire-in-a-crowded-theater free speech, religious expression is unhampered? You'd see no problem, with, say, a Muslim running into midnight mass and screaming that everyone present was infidels and henceforth being ejected from the property?
It's not about what they were shouting, so much as they were shouting at all, and the venue chosen for the shouting.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:If Hindus had heckled a Christian lead congressional prayer, would you be taking the same stance?
Are the Hindus heckling the Christian prayer or praying to advance their religious view over the Christian? If they're praying, then they have just as much of a right to practice their religion as the Christians. So the answer to your question would be a qualified yes.
In neither case would it be anything close to a violation of the Christian's 1st amendment right to free exercise. Although if the Senate chose to throw the Hindus out for praying in the Chamber it would be a closer call.
Let's be clear here, do you condone the heckling, by protesting Christians, of the Hindu prayer? Because prayer can be done in silence and they had every right to pray silently to their God and no right to shout and jeer from the popcorn gallery whilst a member of another faith spoke a holy prayer. Last time I checked, Christ taught us the lessons of respect, patience, tolerance and openness.
As to your question, we are considering matters of balance, the congress in the OP usually held Christian prayer before startup and instead, chose on that particular occasion, to lead in with a Hindu prayer, the anger from myself and others stems from the lack of equality afforded that prayer by Christians living in a multi-theocratic democracy. In the case of the school, it is, as I understand it, a state school and therefore should, in all likelihood, aim to balance it's religious education to include all major faith's teachings explained and be lead by none. If it's a private school, paid for by the Islamic faith, then it can teach as it pleases unless those teachings are found to be in direct conflict with the laws of the nation. If it is a state school, then it has no right to be hindu, muslim, christian or jedi, it should teach about faiths from a neutral stance and afford no direct favor to any.
Ouze wrote:I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse
"Son, you're forgetting yourself."*
Ouze wrote:Or do you truly believe that there is utterly no restriction on sharing your religious beliefs with others? That unlike fire-in-a-crowded-theater free speech, religious expression is unhampered?
Do you know why there is a fire-in-a-crowded-theater 'exception' to free speech? It's not because people don't want to hear that message, or because we're afraid of people drowning out the movie's speech.
Ouze wrote:You'd see no problem, with, say, a Muslim running into midnight mass and screaming that everyone present was infidels and henceforth being ejected from the property?
There's a substantial difference here: in your example the Muslim is running into private property. I would have no problem with Muslims standing on the sidewalk outside and trying to drown out the message themselves.
Ouze wrote:It's not about what they were shouting, so much as they were shouting at all, and the venue chosen for the shouting.
I think you're closing in on the issue: in a public venue everyone should have an equal opportunity to express their message without fear of government reprisal.
* I can't help but think of the Shawshank Redemption every time I hear the word "obtuse." No offense intended
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Let's be clear here, do you condone the heckling, by protesting Christians, of the Hindu prayer?
Condone it (and by "it" I mean publicly praying, I do not consider their actions 'heckling')? No, I think it was disrespectful. But that doesn't mean I think they should have been forcibly removed from the building.
When I don't like something, I speak out against it, I don't advocate for banning it. But this happened 4+ years ago. I find it hard to get excited about it.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Last time I checked, Christ taught us the lessons of respect, patience, tolerance and openness.
The Bible also teaches Christians to bring the Word to the uninformed and preach against false prophets.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:As to your question, we are considering matters of balance, the congress in the OP usually held Christian prayer before startup and instead, chose on that particular occasion, to lead in with a Hindu prayer, the anger from myself and others stems from the lack of equality afforded that prayer by Christians living in a multi-theocratic democracy.
While I agree that the Christians in the gallery should have deferred out of respect, I don't see their actions as unlawful or deseriving of their removal from the chamber.
The law and the Constitution don't require civility or respect.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:In the case of the school, it is, as I understand it, a state school and therefore should, in all likelihood, aim to balance it's religious education to include all major faith's teachings explained and be lead by none. If it's a private school, paid for by the Islamic faith, then it can teach as it pleases unless those teachings are found to be in direct conflict with the laws of the nation. If it is a state school, then it has no right to be hindu, muslim, christian or jedi, it should teach about faiths from a neutral stance and afford no direct favor to any.
So do you, or do you not, think that the Hindu protestors in this case were being "douches" (using your word) for trying to interrupt a public prayer?
Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.
That is incredibly insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.
Please don't try to force people into your definitions.
Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.
I may not believe in the Christian god, however that doesn't mean that there isn't a deity figure in existence. Nor, does there have to be a deity in existence. Furthermore, there is no proof (or disproof) that there isn't a pantheon of gods.
An atheist is someone who actively believes in the lack of a deity
A theist actively believes in a deity
An agnostic has no proof one way or another so is open to the possibility of either.
Joey wrote:I despise all religions (though not the religious), but if you're going to allow praying in the Senate then allow it from all faiths.
Those people are *incredibly* rude and presumably were thrown out.
Joey wrote:Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.
THe concept of god is in itself beyond the realm of science. It can neither be proved or disproved because the concept is inherently mystical and unknowable. It cannot be quantified because there is no observable phenom that can lend weight either way.
It's hardly an absurd idea that one can hold the position:
Frazzled wrote:Maybe you should quit watching Fox.
"Doc it hurts when I do this."
"Well don't do that."
This is the Frazzled approach to politics and political thought. If you see a thing you don't like, just ignore it. Some might argue this is a bit like a kid closing his eyes because if he can't see you, you can't see him, but I'd never be that cruel.
others call it freedom of speech and accepting the fact not everyone agrees with the Great Wienie. But I am sure you spend all your day browbeating people, or have no friends,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Johnny-Crass wrote:My point is this, I have never had a sensible person walk up to me and tell me the way I dress and act will cause me to be tortured for all eternity.
*looks at Israel*
Yeaaah, extremists are never pleasant for normal people to be around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Good thing you don't see it.
No, but high school students do.
Who cares? They are high school students. They are too busy oogly the other gender to notice anything else.
Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.
That is incredibly insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.
Please don't try to force people into your definitions.
Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.
I may not believe in the Christian god, however that doesn't mean that there isn't a deity figure in existence. Nor, does there have to be a deity in existence. Furthermore, there is no proof (or disproof) that there isn't a pantheon of gods.
An atheist is someone who actively believes in the lack of a deity
A theist actively believes in a deity
An agnostic has no proof one way or another so is open to the possibility of either.
I assume your education system doesn't teach rational thinking so allow me to enlighten you.
Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.
LordofHats wrote:
Joey wrote:Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.
THe concept of god is in itself beyond the realm of science. It can neither be proved or disproved because the concept is inherently mystical and unknowable. It cannot be quantified because there is no observable phenom that can lend weight either way.
It's hardly an absurd idea that one can hold the position:
If you're going to say that something is beyond the realms of science then you may as well say that everything simultaniously exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or you will have no way of telling whether it exists so may as well not think about it. Countless things may exist "beyond the realm of science", but by their nature we don't know about them, therefore we can safely disregard their existance.
Joey wrote:
If you're going to say that something is beyond the realms of science then you may as well say that everything simultaniously exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or you will have no way of telling whether it exists so may as well not think about it. Countless things may exist "beyond the realm of science", but by their nature we don't know about them, therefore we can safely disregard their existance.
I forget what its called. Someone's gambit? It's the idea that if god exists and you choose to disregard him you're screwed and if he doesn't exist it won't matter anyway. Its logically fallicious but it does explain I think an aspect of the human mindset. Just because you can't verify something's existence or even describe it doesn't mean you can (or in some cases should) disregard it. Likewise, while you could probably call Agnostics fence sitters in a way, they're position isn't illogical or absurd from a social stand point (all religion is absurd from a position of hard logic).
Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.
People thought that disease was caused by evil spirits until the germ theory was (ineffectively mind you) proven. Germs exist whether we could prove their existence or not. Having no evidence of something is not evidence it doesn't exist and something can exist while there is no evidence of it.
Joey wrote:I assume your education system doesn't teach rational thinking so allow me to enlighten you. Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist. God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it. Therefore god does not exist.
Interesting...
Caution: possible religious material and specious reasoning ahead:
Spoiler:
Joey wrote:If you're going to say that something is beyond the realms of science then you may as well say that everything simultaniously exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or you will have no way of telling whether it exists so may as well not think about it. Countless things may exist "beyond the realm of science", but by their nature we don't know about them, therefore we can safely disregard their existance.
So your answer to Schrödinger's cat is to disregard its existence?
LordofHats wrote:I forget what its called. Someone's gambit?
Joey wrote:I assume your education system doesn't teach rational thinking so allow me to enlighten you.
Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.
Interesting...
Caution: possible religious material and specious reasoning ahead:
Spoiler:
Joey wrote:If you're going to say that something is beyond the realms of science then you may as well say that everything simultaniously exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or you will have no way of telling whether it exists so may as well not think about it. Countless things may exist "beyond the realm of science", but by their nature we don't know about them, therefore we can safely disregard their existance.
So your answer to Schrödinger's cat is to disregard its existence?
Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.
That is incredibly insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.
Please don't try to force people into your definitions.
Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.
I may not believe in the Christian god, however that doesn't mean that there isn't a deity figure in existence. Nor, does there have to be a deity in existence. Furthermore, there is no proof (or disproof) that there isn't a pantheon of gods.
An atheist is someone who actively believes in the lack of a deity
A theist actively believes in a deity
An agnostic has no proof one way or another so is open to the possibility of either.
I assume your education system doesn't teach rational thinking so allow me to enlighten you.
Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist. That's getting way to philosophical. For example, I have no proof that you exist, for all I know you are a computer generating responses, or my own imagination, as such you are not proven to exist, so following your "rational" thinking, you don't exist.
True rational thinking would go something like this:
Something can only be known to exist if proven to exist
No proof of existence is not proof of non-existence
Therefore god cannot be shown to either exist or not-exist.
That's the point of agnosticism (can you -ism agnostic?). We have no proof, one way or another, for the existence of a deity, so either possibility is a reasonable solution. Or, do you argue that the universe ends 13.5 billion light years away from Earth? Or that black holes, the higgs-boson, and dark matter have the possibility of existing? Or that nuclear fission didn't exist before the 1930's?
Shrike325 wrote:
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist.
Shrike325 wrote:
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist.
Yes it does.
By that argument the gorilla did not exist before it was discovered, and as a result for something to exist it must therefore be discovered.
I'd consider that wrong, but for all I know you don't exist either. After all, I have no proof of your existance.
Shrike325 wrote:
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist.
Yes it does.
By that argument the gorilla did not exist before it was discovered, and as a result for something to exist it must therefore be discovered.
I'd consider that wrong, but for all I know you don't exist either. After all, I have no proof of your existance.
You do, because we're having this conversation.
And yes, before the gorilla was discovered, the statement "the gorilla does not exist" would have been true.
biccat wrote:
Condone it (and by "it" I mean publicly praying, I do not consider their actions 'heckling')? No, I think it was disrespectful.
While I agree that the Christians in the gallery should have deferred out of respect.
I'm glad we agree on that. I don't see their actions as unlawful either, I do see them as Un-Christian.
biccat wrote:
The law and the Constitution don't require civility or respect.
No, but Christ asked us to be civil and respect each other...
biccat wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:In the case of the school, it is, as I understand it, a state school and therefore should, in all likelihood, aim to balance it's religious education to include all major faith's teachings explained and be lead by none. If it's a private school, paid for by the Islamic faith, then it can teach as it pleases unless those teachings are found to be in direct conflict with the laws of the nation. If it is a state school, then it has no right to be hindu, muslim, christian or jedi, it should teach about faiths from a neutral stance and afford no direct favor to any.
So do you, or do you not, think that the Hindu protestors in this case were being "douches" (using your word) for trying to interrupt a public prayer?
Christian prayer had been removed some time ago from the schools, the Muslims were benefiting from 'positive discrimination'. The Hindus intended to demonstrate outside the building, not scream and shout through the prayer service. It is not the same as the incident in the OP, where one faith's prayers replaced another for a day out of many. In the school example you provided, Muslim religious practice was being afforded preferential treatment ahead of other faiths, not a similar case and no, I do not think local Hindus, Christians, Jews, Wiccans or anyone else protesting that are douches. If they stormed into the school and shouted through the service, then yes, they would be disrespectful douches. But, again, it is not a like for like scenario.
As an aside, mentioning that the bible tells us so would allow me to unleash a string of things the bible literally tells us to do (Leviticus is full of it...) that Christians don't do, so I left it out to diminish the trolling. Let's leave off that line of reasoning. Christ's basic message was the same as Bill and Ted's, Be Excellent to One Another. Shouting through someone else's prayers isn't being very excellent.
Shrike325 wrote:
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist.
Yes it does.
By that argument the gorilla did not exist before it was discovered, and as a result for something to exist it must therefore be discovered.
I'd consider that wrong, but for all I know you don't exist either. After all, I have no proof of your existance.
You do, because we're having this conversation.
And yes, before the gorilla was discovered, the statement "the gorilla does not exist" would have been true.
Except that logic tells us that it could not have "not existed," as creatures do not spontaneously appear when they are observed.
And no, as for all I know the conversation I'm having is with a sophisticated simulation or figment of my imagination.
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Except that logic tells us that it could not have "not existed," as creatures do not spontaneously appear when they are observed.
And no, as for all I know the conversation I'm having is with a sophisticated simulation or figment of my imagination.
Then nothing is real to you.
Either you accept that nothing is real, which is really cool and will make you fit in with all the other philosophy undergraduates, or you can accept that some things do exist and rely on your senses to be correct.
We know gorillas existed before we discovered them because of archiological evidence. After initial discovery, we'd have had no idea how long they were around for, now we have a rough approximation.
From your stand point science and discovery can be disregarded as wastes of time.
Your position is that truth is only what can be observed and that if something cannot be observed it isn't real (which we all know is false).
Something can exist even if you haven't observed it. DIscovery is essentially the observation of previously unobserved phenomenon. Phenomenon that do not spring into existence the moment they are observed and existed even though we didn't know they existed.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'm glad we agree on that. I don't see their actions as unlawful either, I do see them as Un-Christian.
Well then the title of this thread is, at best, misleading.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
biccat wrote:
The law and the Constitution don't require civility or respect.
No, but Christ asked us to be civil and respect each other...
I was only discussing the legal issue - whether there was any legal/constitutional violation. There may have been, but it wasn't against the Hindu priest.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:As an aside, mentioning that the bible tells us so would allow me to unleash a string of things the bible literally tells us to do (Leviticus is full of it...) that Christians don't do, so I left it out to diminish the trolling. Let's leave off that line of reasoning. Christ's basic message was the same as Bill and Ted's, Be Excellent to One Another. Shouting through someone else's prayers isn't being very excellent.
The problem with interpretation of anything is that you are relying on someone else accepting that interpretation. The teaching of Christ, according to the New Testament, could be interpreted differently. A lot of Christians take their religion very seriously, and really see non-Christian worship as harmful to the worshipper.
If a person were about to walk off the side of a building, the best thing for an observer to do would be to stop them from walking off the side of the building. Not to allow them to keep walking and ignorantly suffer the consequences of their decision.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:As an aside, mentioning that the bible tells us so would allow me to unleash a string of things the bible literally tells us to do (Leviticus is full of it...) that Christians don't do, so I left it out to diminish the trolling. Let's leave off that line of reasoning. Christ's basic message was the same as Bill and Ted's, Be Excellent to One Another. Shouting through someone else's prayers isn't being very excellent.
The problem with interpretation of anything is that you are relying on someone else accepting that interpretation. The teaching of Christ, according to the New Testament, could be interpreted differently. A lot of Christians take their religion very seriously, and really see non-Christian worship as harmful to the worshipper.
If a person were about to walk off the side of a building, the best thing for an observer to do would be to stop them from walking off the side of the building. Not to allow them to keep walking and ignorantly suffer the consequences of their decision.
And so is sniffing glue or murdering people, however those same protesters aren't going wading into the slums of inner cities to help people avoid those dangerous things, they are shouting in a public area, not because they are concerned for his soul, but because they are outraged that it's not their brand of religion that's being used, for once. Masquerading it as concern for his spiritual well-being is un-Christian.
How about they lay off these vulgar protests and show with deeds what Christians are really about, lets see them working with the hungry and the poor and needy, not pillorying and grandstanding. It puts them with the scum from Westboro Baptist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:No, but Christ asked us to be civil .
He did? Where?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. - JC.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:And so is sniffing glue or murdering people, however those same protesters aren't going wading into the slums of inner cities to help people avoid those dangerous things, they are shouting in a public area, not because they are concerned for his soul, but because they are outraged that it's not their brand of religion that's being used, for once. Masquerading it as concern for his spiritual well-being is un-Christian.
I'm glad you could discern their intentions and mindset. I was unable to do so from the context of the video.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:How about they lay off these vulgar protests and show with deeds what Christians are really about, lets see them working with the hungry and the poor and needy
They probably do. Christian charities are the largest private group that provides welfare for the hungry, poor, and needy. Christian charities do a lot in this country, and Christians as a whole are exceedingly generous.
Of course, if you're trying to convert someone, you can hardly do it simply by silently and unobtrusively doing good deeds. Religions don't spread that way.
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Of course, if you're trying to convert someone, you can hardly do it simply by silently and unobtrusively doing good deeds. Religions don't spread that way.
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Shouting at someone whilst they are in prayer is not a good way to sway people's beliefs, just saying...
MeanGreenStompa wrote:No, but Christ asked us to be civil .
He did? Where?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. - JC.
Thats not saying be civil. I'm not aware of any notation of Jesus being civil. He was quite the rabble rouser. I heard it ended badly for him.
It's not? What does it mean then? I always thought it meant to treat others with dignity and respect and be mindful of how you would like them to treat you, if for example, you were speaking a holy prayer...
Of course, if you're trying to convert someone, you can hardly do it simply by silently and unobtrusively doing good deeds. Religions don't spread that way.
"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
Shouting at someone whilst they are in prayer is not a good way to sway people's beliefs, just saying...
You can't exactly threaten to burn people's fields, rape their wives, kill their children and sell them into slavery.
Say what you want about the old ways, but they worked.
biccat wrote:
Congress can't ignore Constitutional restrictions simply by not passing a law. Any action by the government is subject to Constitutional scrutiny, even enforcement by the Executive.
Not procedural rules, per Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2.
I'll say it again, he was likely removed for being disruptive, not for being explicitly religious so the issue isn't really even an issue.
dogma wrote:I'll say it again, he was likely removed for being disruptive, not for being explicitly religious so the issue isn't really even an issue.
It doesn't 'matter if he was removed "for being disruptive," if the effect of the action is to suppress religious beliefs then it's an unconstitutional action.
Article 1, section 5 doesn't apply because there was no member acting.
biccat wrote:
It doesn't 'matter if he was removed "for being disruptive," if the effect of the action is to suppress religious beliefs then it's an unconstitutional action.
So if I hold a religious belief that requires me to slap anyone speaking in a Congressional chamber, I cannot be prevented from doing so?
biccat wrote:
Article 1, section 5 doesn't apply because there was no member acting.
Section 5 does not specify that procedural rules govern only members of the house in question.
Ouze wrote:You'd see no problem, with, say, a Muslim running into midnight mass and screaming that everyone present was infidels and henceforth being ejected from the property?
There's a substantial difference here: in your example the Muslim is running into private property. I would have no problem with Muslims standing on the sidewalk outside and trying to drown out the message themselves.
OK, so that wasn't the best analogy. Let me try that again. How about a courtroom? There is a murder case going on, irrelevant to religion. Suddenly a spectator in the gallery starts screaming about (religious speech if any type) and disrupting the proceedings. It's a public venue, right, open court? Do they have an absolute right to be there?
biccat wrote:I can't help but think of the Shawshank Redemption every time I hear the word "obtuse." No offense intended[/size]
Speaking of no offense intended, I'll have you know I actually went to thesaurus.com to try to find a synonym for "obtuse" that meant "intentionally not getting something", but didn't imply "ignorant", and came up empty.
And, now I may watch Shawshank, a movie with infinite rewatchability.
Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
Ah, but to what theme music. I really feel the music could make or break something as awesome as that....
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
Ah, but to what theme music. I really feel the music could make or break something as awesome as that....
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
Ah, but to what theme music. I really feel the music could make or break something as awesome as that....
Frazzled wrote:others call it freedom of speech and accepting the fact not everyone agrees with the Great Wienie. But I am sure you spend all your day browbeating people, or have no friends,
Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to never have your speech commented on by others, in fact a major argument for free speech is to facilitate the market place of ideas, which requires people to debate the arguments put forward.
Sorry if it feels like I'm browbeating your arguments. Perhaps if you had more sensible starting positions it would feel less one sided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
To be fair, I suspect that's only biccat's position as long as he thinks it'll annoy liberals.
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
If (and I doubt this is true), this is a sincerely held religious belief, then you're correct insofar as it would be a violation of your right to religious expression to prevent you from doing this.
That doesn't mean it's an impermissible restriction on your right to religious expression.
The violation of the protestors' constitutional rights in this case may or may not have been permissible. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a violation of those rights.
Ouze wrote:OK, so that wasn't the best analogy. Let me try that again. How about a courtroom? There is a murder case going on, irrelevant to religion. Suddenly a spectator in the gallery starts screaming about (religious speech if any type) and disrupting the proceedings. It's a public venue, right, open court? Do they have an absolute right to be there?
Yes, they have the right to be present in the courtroom. And they have a right to express their religious beliefs. But it may be legally permissible to remove them from the courthouse.
As above: that doesn't mean their right to free speech or free exercise wasn't violated, simply that it's a justified violation.
What's the distinction between " a justified violation" and someone not actually having the right to engage in that speech at that time? Doesn't the fact it's justified (i.e correct) to remove them explicitly equate to them not actually having that right in those circumstances?
Ouze wrote:What's the distinction between " a justified violation" and someone not actually having the right to engage in that speech at that time? Doesn't the fact it's justified (i.e correct) to remove them explicitly equate to them not actually having that right in those circumstances?
No.
There are two ways for speech/expression to be prevented or regulated: either the act is a protected right and the government is allowed to prevent you from doing it in this circumstance; or the act is not protected and the government can prevent you from doing it completely.
So, for example, praying in public protected speech, but the government can stop you from doing so in a courtroom (and disrupting proceedings). If praying in public weren't protected speech, then the government could prevent you from doing so anywhere for any reason.
It may sound like semantics, but it's an important distinction.
biccat wrote:
If (and I doubt this is true), this is a sincerely held religious belief, then you're correct insofar as it would be a violation of your right to religious expression to prevent you from doing this.
So you're taking the position that Constitutional rights denote things independent of the protection of those rights?
I'll also say, for clarity, that I don't consider rights to be things in themselves.
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Symbolism, shmimbolism. Counsellers actually saying prayers during council time is completely different.
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Symbolism, shmimbolism. Counsellers actually saying prayers during council time is completely different.
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Symbolism, shmimbolism. Counsellers actually saying prayers during council time is completely different.
The Speaker of the House of Commons is a Jewish atheist, by the looks of it that's a small voluntary thing. I'd be surprised if anyone but a few deranged right-wing tories (there's some female tory MP who's trying to get abortion criminalised, can't remember her name though) in attendance.
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Indeed, very true.
So the curious situation is that a country without religious freedom, and with an official state religion, does not allow official state religion prayers during government meetings.
