Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

youbedead wrote:
Political will is religious morality now? Personally I think what Isreal is doing is fething sick and the US shouldn't be supporting them, but that is not a religion imposing its morality upon others thats a state treating a bunch a people like gak.

A state based solely around a religious cause, Zionism. Every bit of it's political will is concerned with that cause, hence it's political will is religious.

sirlynchmob wrote:Criticizing your religion is not being anti religious.

I never said it did. If your going to make such a big post basing the religious, while claiming your not bashing them, at least be on topic. No one is defending the people in the documentary. But of course, like many, you take what they're doing and universally apply it to me... for some reason.

dæl wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Political will is religious morality now? Personally I think what Isreal is doing is fething sick and the US shouldn't be supporting them, but that is not a religion imposing its morality upon others thats a state treating a bunch a people like gak.

A state based solely around a religious cause, Zionism. Every bit of it's political will is concerned with that cause, hence it's political will is religious.

No, Zionism is not religious cause its a political cause, nor is every Jew in support of Zionism. Zionism is a pro Israel movement not a pro judiasm movement there is quite a big difference

I don't think you can separate Jewish political interests from their religious interests because their religion is the defining aspect of their culture. Almost everything that happens for them is influenced in some way by their religion. Zionism is both political and religious.

youbedead wrote:

dæl wrote:

youbedead wrote:
Political will is religious morality now? Personally I think what Isreal is doing is fething sick and the US shouldn't be supporting them, but that is not a religion imposing its morality upon others thats a state treating a bunch a people like gak.

A state based solely around a religious cause, Zionism. Every bit of it's political will is concerned with that cause, hence it's political will is religious.

No, Zionism is not religious cause its a political cause, nor is every Jew in support of Zionism. Zionism is a pro Israel movement not a pro judiasm movement there is quite a big difference

I absolutely agree with you that Zionism is not Judaism, but it is an aspect of it. We aren't talking about religions in their purest form, but (mis)interpretations of them. It's not particularly Christian to have crusades or the Inquisition or a witch hunt against an Afghan vet but they were religious in their motivation.

LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Criticizing your religion is not being anti religious.

I never said it did. If your going to make such a big post basing the religious, while claiming your not bashing them, at least be on topic. No one is defending the people in the documentary. But of course, like many, you take what they're doing and universally apply it to me... for some reason.

You claimed this was a anti religious thread. I addressed that.
I never bashed the religious, I said what I think of creationists that are in a majority in the US. see the difference?

if you are creationist, my opinion of them applies to you. But I never universally applied it to all religious people.

sirlynchmob wrote:You claimed this was a anti religious thread. I addressed that.

No I didn't. Frazz did. Read my immediate response. Calling these people in this documentary idiots is 100% warranted, because they are idiots. I was merely making an offhanded comment about anti-religious threads once the topic came up.

The scariest part of the documentary for me was when people are asked if they were in abraham's shoes would they kill their own child and even scarier was would they slaughter all the cainenites (spelling?) including women and children. Just terrifying to hear what some of them said.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.

I grew up in Oregon, which according to most surveys, is the most unchurched and second least Christian state in the Union..... When I was in school, all Sex Ed. classes were abstinence based. The reason was simple... the school taught that if you do not already have an STD (from a parent who had it and passed during birth), you CANNOT get one from not having sexual contact. You also cannot get pregnant without trying VERY hard, if you do not have sex.

So, the argument that abstinence only is religiously based, is, IMHO quite false, as there really is a lot of "science" behind how abstinence works

youbedead wrote:First off, Christianity is not all religions or philosophies. There are many religion that explicitly state that their rules are only for the followers of the religion. For example Judaism requires that a Jew must follow the laws given in the torah in order to be a good and holy person, but a gentile is held to a much lower standard. It is in fact possible for a gentile to be considered more 'good' then a Jew if the Jew isn't following the laws of the Torah.

So you can say that a christian group (note not all Christians but a group of Christians) is doing something but you can't say because of this that all religions or the religious are doing something.

Yeah, about that: you're wrong... Go take a look at the type of stuff that the Hasidic jews are trying to pull of in Israel then come tell me that Jews don't try to impose their rules on to others...

sirlynchmob wrote:
Now I'd say the idea of creationism is absurd and stupid and has no facts or data to support it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the person is stupid for believing it. That just means that person is just wrong about that topic, and if being wrong about one thing makes someone stupid, then everyone on earth is stupid. does being stupidly wrong about one thing invalidate anything else you may be right about?

It also helps that what you believe regarding the creation of the universe doesn't have much bearing on what you do while living in it. I find creationism annoying, at least the Young Earth variety, when people try to pass it off as equivalent to the theories produced by scientific method and observation, but it is generally harmless otherwise. Compare this to someone who believes homosexuals are evil and there is a stark contrast in terms of immediate effect.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, the argument that abstinence only is religiously based, is, IMHO quite false, as there really is a lot of "science" behind how abstinence works

Kids certainly like doing those experiments.

Ensis, you're repeating the smokescreen arguments of the religious people who promote abstinence-only sex ed. Those are there only to provide the appearance of a non-religious basis; just like Intelligent Design is purely a mask for Creationism.

While it's true that if you don't have sex it's much harder to get an STI or get pregnant, in point of fact abstinence-only sex ed leads to higher rates of pregnancy and disease. Because a substantial percentage of kids do it anyway, and if you don't teach them about safer sex practices, or worse, lie to them (as many of the abstinence-only curriculums and teachers do) about condoms and other methods being unreliable, you set them up for trouble. Check out the CDC statistics. It's one of life's terrible ironies that folks who demonize sex and adopt a zealously-protective attitiude toward kids on this issue actually do more harm to them.

dogma wrote:
Kids certainly like doing those experiments.

Yes thats why my enighbor's kid across the street and the one next door both have kids.

Interesting subliminals on this video.

atheist apologist speaking - cue serene piano music, example 18:30ff

christian apologist speaking - cue creepy music, example 15:50ff

I dont like what was being said, but that is no excuse to load it.

Orlanth wrote:Interesting subliminals on this video.

christian apologist speaking - cue creepy music, example 15:50ff

Christian "apologist" spewing rhetoric that those who don't agree with him should go elsewhere and are effectively not welcome.

Orlanth wrote:
atheist apologist speaking - cue serene piano music, example 18:30ff

Atheist "apologist" talking about how someone in a similar case was subject to violence and threats.

You really should be listening to the content here, rather than claiming bias based on the music used.

So you don't actually deny the bias then...

Frazzled wrote:So you don't actually deny the bias then...

Not at all, there is certainly an attempt at balance, but the film maker has a particular view and the film was made because of his strong feelings on the subject. He often asks leading questions of some of the religious interviewees in an attempt to trip them up and make them look stupid (a good few of them achieve this without any help at all), and the focus of the whole film is very much on the bad side of what Christianity can lead to. But it's a lot more balanced than some news pieces, and does allow right to reply on pretty much every issue.

The film amkers should let the videos speak for themselves, adding a sub-soundtrack is an insideous way of unbalancing the content.

Better if they had critiqued it openly. Subliminals are not conspiracy junk but a well known demonstratable phenomenon, subliminals heavily skew opinions without overtly engaging said opinions.

Someone spewing "you're not welcome here" rhetoric = creepy and unnerving, so play creepy and unnerving music.

Someone who has had their windows shot out for raising a point that the Supreme Court agrees with = sad, so play sad music.

That really wasn't the biased part of this film, him asking whether people would commit genocide and infanticide was far more so.

dæl wrote:Someone spewing "you're not welcome here" rhetoric = creepy and unnerving, so play creepy and unnerving music.

Someone who has had their windows shot out for raising a point that the Supreme Court agrees with = sad, so play sad music.

It still loads the video, it reinforces the intended viewpoint, fortified by using select one sided videos.

Furthermore you don't have to go far to find an militant atheist in the US, where were they, why weren't they filmed, and where was the creepy music.

Also many religious people were side swiped by difficult questions they personally didn't know an answer to, such as slavery. there was creepy music at that point also. There are good answers to the questions posed, but generally only theologists know them, its not a point most Christians think on, as the Bible is not heavily focused on them. Slavery is distant past, so few Christians ever look at the whys and wherefores.

There are difficult questions you can pose to most atheists if you want to, were they posed? No.

The whole slavery question was irrelevant to the topic and just an excuse to make the interviewee appear ignorant. The Bible is a massive book,deep and encyclopaedic, most spiritual topics it holds are of little everyday use and involve deep doctrine. Most people leave much of it alone, it doesn't really concern their daily lives. It wasn't fair to be ambushed with questions like that, one cant be expected to know everything.

One interviewee made unsupported claims that anglicans persecuted baptists and presbyterians while demanding citations and blankly denying reports from another interviewee about religious meetings in the Capitol. It citation is needed for historical accounts, that should go both ways yes.

In fact where were the mild mannered intelligent mainstream Christian apologists in the video. there were some mild liberal Christian speakers, but no mild mainstream. You trying to tell me you cant find either they or atheist fanatics in North Carolina? Even the single Moslem interviewed was a very reasonable one. No jihadists to be found in NC eh? Did I miss one?

Orlanth wrote:
Furthermore you don't have to go far to find an militant atheist in the US, where were they, why weren't they filmed, and where was the creepy music.

Documentaries are constructed to convey a particular message, news at 11.

Orlanth wrote:

dæl wrote:Someone spewing "you're not welcome here" rhetoric = creepy and unnerving, so play creepy and unnerving music.

Someone who has had their windows shot out for raising a point that the Supreme Court agrees with = sad, so play sad music.

It still loads the video, it reinforces the intended viewpoint, fortified by using select one sided videos.

Furthermore you don't have to go far to find an militant atheist in the US, where were they, why weren't they filmed, and where was the creepy music.

Cool, you wont find it hard to provide me with evidence of one of these "militant atheists" then, please do because I don't believe they exist.

Also many religious people were side swiped by difficult questions they personally didn't know an answer to, such as slavery. there was creepy music at that point also. There are good answers to the questions posed, but generally only theologists know them, its not a point most Christians think on, as the Bible is not heavily focused on them. Slavery is distant past, so few Christians ever look at the whys and wherefores.

Creepy music when someone says slavery is more moral than homosexuality? Totally unjustified!
/sarcasm

If good answers exist, then please provide a single "good" answer as to why the Bible condones slavery, while condemning homosexuality.

There are difficult questions you can pose to most atheists if you want to, were they posed? No.

Such as? I'll give it a go answering them for you.

The whole slavery question was irrelevant to the topic and just an excuse to make the interviewee appear ignorant. The Bible is a massive book,deep and encyclopaedic, most spiritual topics it holds are of little everyday use and involve deep doctrine. Most people leave much of it alone, it doesn't really concern their daily lives. It wasn't fair to be ambushed with questions like that, one cant be expected to know everything.

The whole slavery issue is very much part of the debate when it is claimed the Bible is a guide to morality, and it's tenets should be enshrined in law.

One interviewee made unsupported claims that anglicans persecuted baptists and presbyterians while demanding citations and blankly denying reports from another interviewee about religious meetings in the Capitol. It citation is needed for historical accounts, that should go both ways yes.

What!? The guy who is obviously well versed in the history of the Revolution makes a claim which you can look up yourself (or do you want proof for everything said to be provided? I don't have 8 hours to watch a documentary), or the guy who first claimed "in God we trust" was around at the time of the founding fathers until he gets called up on it, then says "I'm not too good with dates". Which of these guys, on balance, is more likely telling the truth?

In fact where were the mild mannered intelligent mainstream Christian apologists in the video. there were some mild liberal Christian speakers, but no mild mainstream. You trying to tell me you cant find either they or atheist fanatics in North Carolina? Even the single Moslem interviewed was a very reasonable one. No jihadists to be found in NC eh? Did I miss one?

You missed the two incredibly level headed baptist ministers. And again atheist fanatics? They don't exist mate. Noone says "I'm going to attack you in the name of reason," it's unreasonable.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

dæl wrote:

KingCracker wrote:I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways

That might have something to do with the fact that religion affects our lives and we would rather it didn't. Apart from the whole teaching evolution thing (which is absolutely right), do the non religious want everyone to act in a specific way, and try to force others to do so? Do they prevent personal choice, and not allow people to live as they wish?

btw, there is a very big difference between non religious and anti religious.

OT, I'm about 10mins in and even I know that the Constitution dictates a separation of Church and State, silly people claiming otherwise.

As far as I know, the only way most religious groups tell people what to do and how to act and such, is if your part of their organization, and even then its not to extremes. Its more along the lines of show respect, follow mass yadda yadda yadda, if you do not, then we will ask you to leave. So other then strict Muslims and a few other religious groups around the world persecuting women, Im not really seeing where your going with this.

So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.
So the fact that homosexual marriages are still not recognized in many states has nothing to do with a religious majority imposing their views and values on others.

So the fact that there are constant attempts at legislating a woman's right to an abortion have nothing to do with the religion of the legislators or those who elected them.

So the fact that some old guy in Rome says that the use of contraceptives and condoms is a sin (unless you happen to be a male prostitute) has nothing to do with... you get the point.

Telling people how to live is basically what every religion does.

And it's not just the Muslims who have a thing for oppressing women’s rights KC.

While I agree with some points, most of your points fall to political garbble, more then religion. Those areas your talking about are HEAVILY Christian areas, and so surprisingly, the politicians do whatever their constituents want them to do. Weird I know. Heres some numbers

According to recent surveys, 83 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination, 40 percent state that they attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent say that they pray at least weekly

The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively, according to one survey by Trinity College

Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca etc.), collectively make up about 5% of the adult population.[5][6][7] Another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation.[5] When asked, about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply

So wow, still finding it surprising that in those areas, they largely vote to ban gay marriage and so on? Because I dont, thats called the democratic process buddy. So blame religion, blame whoever you want, Im going to say, blame democracy for it, because thats how it works mostly. Im a religious person, but I dont believe in banning gay marriage and denying them rights I get as a strait male. I do believe you should have the PROPER sex talk with your children and provide them with birthcontrol and condoms. But I also think that as a PARENT, its their responsibility to teach their children these things, NOT the church, NOT to God. You the parent.

dæl wrote:
Cool, you wont find it hard to provide me with evidence of one of these "militant atheists" then, please do because I don't believe they exist.

Hang around Dakka long enough and you will find plenty of people who wish religion is banned, and not just from forums.

dæl wrote:
If good answers exist, then please provide a single "good" answer as to why the Bible condones slavery, while condemning homosexuality.

Look up Year of Jubilee, cross reference with prophetic type. Add scriptures about how God considers the Egyptian as a Hebrew after three generations, somewhere in Leviticus IIRC.

Slavery was an ancient economic reality. If Hebrews were to practice it here were the caveats they had to jump through, a time of emancipation and naturalisation is part of the deal (Year of Jubilee). God would prefer you didn't take slaves though, this is evident throughout the Bible, and the Koran too.

As for cross referencing that with condemnation of homosexuality, the two subjects don't connect, and are not weighted against each other..

dæl wrote:
Such as? I'll give it a go answering them for you.

No need, you aren't hosting the video.
However in case you think I dont have any.
Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of relgion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.
Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.
There are plenty of others but I dont want to digress the thread.
You need not reply to them as it isnt the point of the theread. these questioons have come up on Dakka before anyway.

dæl wrote:
The whole slavery issue is very much part of the debate when it is claimed the Bible is a guide to morality, and it's tenets should be enshrined in law.

Slavery is not a current biblical tenet, certainly not of Christianity which uses the New Covenant to complete the old. Slavery is technically 'acceptable' in the New Testament. The Epistles teach that a slave should not become a rebel. However freedom should be eagerly sought, so, long as it is done legally. In effect slavery is not acceptable, but it must be removed through legal means, not sedition. the New Testmant argues that human law is corrupt, but that doesn't mean we should use corruption to fix it. aka suffer a bad law rather than do wrong.
Judaism still revers the Pentateuch in an un-upgraded from, so the question of Biblical slavery is best put to them.

One interviewee made unsupported claims that anglicans persecuted baptists and presbyterians while demanding citations and blankly denying reports from another interviewee about religious meetings in the Capitol. It citation is needed for historical accounts, that should go both ways yes.

dæl wrote:
What!? The guy who is obviously well versed in the history of the Revolution makes a claim which you can look up yourself (or do you want proof for everything said to be provided? I don't have 8 hours to watch a documentary), or the guy who first claimed "in God we trust" was around at the time of the founding fathers until he gets called up on it, then says "I'm not too good with dates". Which of these guys, on balance, is more likely telling the truth?

Actually its not a matter of balance its a matter of citation. If the program is a history lesson the lesson should be sourced. Which contemporary sources claimed that baptists werre horswehipped in meets, and for that matter which contemporasry sources claimed relgios meeting occured in the Capitol with as sitting President present.

dæl wrote:
You missed the two incredibly level headed baptist ministers.

Those were liberal preachers, with arguments against flying the flag. That of itself is not a definition of level headed, which is based on presentation rather than content. There cant be no effective conservative christian apologists in North Carolina, I know there are, some of the speakers in the southern states are very effective orators and do not appear the least bit fanatical. You might not agree with what they believe, but they can put it across well. None of those interviewed could, unless chosen to speak for the other side..

dæl wrote:
And again atheist fanatics? They don't exist mate. Noone says "I'm going to attack you in the name of reason," it's unreasonable.

Stalin killed millions of Christians in the name of reason. Removing religion was 'progress' and 'reason'. There have been calls by atheist fanatics to ban religion, or head towards phasing out religion. Which is ominous as there will always be people who want to believe so how would it be phased out.
If you disagree with an atheist fanatics agenda, or find it personally illogical, I will freely accept a claim that you have no common moral ground with them. Do a google search on something like 'ban religion' see what you find.
However they do exist. I myself have seen persecution and been abused for holding to my religion, once by Moslems and at least three times by atheists. You can count that as one occurance as it was the same atheists each time. More seriously In knew a woman street preacher who was stabbed to death in my hometown because she would not renounce her faith. The perpetrator was anti-religious, not an Islamic or some such. I met her an hour before she died, I was one of the last people to speak to her.
I will admit this experience is unusual, martyrdoms are very rare in the modern west.

KingCracker wrote:
So wow, still finding it surprising that in those areas, they largely vote to ban gay marriage and so on? Because I dont, thats called the democratic process buddy. So blame religion, blame whoever you want, Im going to say, blame democracy for it, because thats how it works mostly. Im a religious person, but I dont believe in banning gay marriage and denying them rights I get as a strait male. I do believe you should have the PROPER sex talk with your children and provide them with birthcontrol and condoms. But I also think that as a PARENT, its their responsibility to teach their children these things, NOT the church, NOT to God. You the parent.

Actually, that is called "tyranny of the majority" and supposedly developed and democratic countries should protect their minorities from stuff like that, especially when otherwise you would have people that say that "homosexuality is worse than slavery" and that non-christians should be "beaten up" and "ran out of town" ruling the joint!

@KC So you admit that in heavily religious areas people wish to impose their will onto others. But then claim this is not because of Religion. I'm sorry chap, but you're wrong, every point that Ma55terFett made has behind it a religious motivation. It's awesome you fall into the tolerant crowd, but a vast majority of intolerance comes from religion, or at the very least, hides behind it.

Again, I personally dont agree with those actions. But its still how our world works. You put it to a vote. There shouldnt be some magical law that states if your in the minority then your vote counts as 3, thats now how it works. If MOST people dont want X thing, or if MOST people want Z person as Y whatever, then thats it, the voters have spoken. Now go ahead and look at states that arnt hardcore religious types and look at their voting records, youll see a HUGE difference in how things are gone about. The democratic process does work. Its the only "fair" way to do things these days. Because it was either at the tip of a sword or a gun barrel


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was meant for Phantom up there but kindda works. But to answer you Dael. Your talking about hardcore conservatives here. They really dont count for MOST religious people. The majority of religious types I know are in deed tolerable. But it just so happens that the majority of hardcore types live in that area of the country. So yes there, I will agree to a point with what your saying. But most other places, away from there, arnt like that at all. And its really an unfair argument on my part because your using these hardcore types as the basis for your argument. Thats like arguing with Muslims that they are all crazy Western killers because of 9/11. All of them? REALLY? Thats one serious stretch of the truth

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.

I grew up in Oregon, which according to most surveys, is the most unchurched and second least Christian state in the Union..... When I was in school, all Sex Ed. classes were abstinence based. The reason was simple... the school taught that if you do not already have an STD (from a parent who had it and passed during birth), you CANNOT get one from not having sexual contact. You also cannot get pregnant without trying VERY hard, if you do not have sex.

So, the argument that abstinence only is religiously based, is, IMHO quite false, as there really is a lot of "science" behind how abstinence works

I never said that religion was the only reason for “abstinence only” sex education.

I said that in many southern states religion (and morals based on religious code) holds a lot of sway when it comes to determining the curriculum of the sex education.

Also your argument that (I believe this is what you were saying) “Oregon isn’t very Christian so if they teach abstinence only sex ed it proves that abstinence only sex ed isn’t due to Christian influence” is false. Why? Because up until recently states that had abstinence only education programs got extra funding from the federal government? If schools want that cha-ching! they have to go abstinence only. I wonder who proposed, backed, and voted for those programs? I'm guessing it's the same people who keep trying to get inteligent design taught in schools.

Regardless of why they choose to teach it they should really stop. Science may say that abstinence prevents pregnancy, but science also says that abstinence only education does not.

sirlynchmob wrote:I never bashed the religious, I said what I think of creationists that are in a majority in the US. see the difference?

Creationists are not a majority in the US. Would you care to back that up with a citation?

The question should be looked at ethically on behalf of the fallen veterans and their living relatives Just as a cemetery may have tombstones based on the soldiers faith, so if one of the fallen was a known Christian the flag would not be inappropriate. likewise if one is found to be Jewish or Moslem or anything else then the memorial can reflect the beliefs of that person and their family.
I don't really know what a confirmed atheist memorial might be but a sensible serious addition should be looked at separately.

Removing symbols of faith relevant to fallen veterans, even at the behest of a living veteran is wrong. Even if the flag was there initially for other reasons.