| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Should the 10 Commandments be there? |
| YES |
|
31% |
[ 6 ] |
| NO |
|
68% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
| Ten Commandments Monument in a US Courthouse? |
|
If you are from some other country than the US, then this message is about the the legitimacy of a stone monument depicting one of the Christian versions of the ten commendments, surreptitiously placed by a superior court judge in an Alabama state courthouse.
Really, there is no legitimacy to this because there is a separation between church and state is clearly spelled out in the US Constitiution. But, beacuse there is a majority of Christians in the US, there is a majority of Americans that think it is okay to have said monument in a courthouse. Fortunately, our Supreme court is likely smarter than the majority of American and will probably reject this self serving/righteous bid to promote one religion over others by the state. One day, those Christians may realize the wizdom of our founding fathers when someone in power want to force the Koran(or whatever) in front of them.
I guess it is ironic that the same ignorant people who are trying to tear down the US Constitution are protected by it.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:54 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
I won't dignify your 'comments' with a thoughtful reply. You don't even understand the intent of your own constitution; study its history, I have.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:17 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
I won't dignify your 'comments' with a thoughtful reply. You don't even understand the intent of your own constitution; study its history, I have.
That is a cop-out. If you have something to backup your viewpoint, then bring it. If not, then you are just exhibiting the same holier-than-thou viewpoint I described. I am sure the Constitution's intent is not to promote Christianity over other religions. It is to guarantee everyone's religious freedom.
There is no legitimate reason to have a religious monument in a goverment building.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers."
Last edited by Jung on Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:24 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:41 am |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
While I don't think much of the hub-bub over this issue, it's going to be extremely difficult to toss it. I'm all for seperation of church and state, but unfortunately, there's so many accepted holes in that wall that it would be hard to knock down yet another. Check out the money in your wallet. Check out the Pledge of Allegiance. Check out how one is sworn in to give court testimony. Check out the Oath of the Office of President.
Throwing out the monument would be like sticking your finger in the dam while flood waters are already pouring thru.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:51 am |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
While I don't think much of the hub-bub over this issue, it's going to be extremely difficult to toss it. I'm all for seperation of church and state, but unfortunately, there's so many accepted holes in that wall that it would be hard to knock down yet another. Check out the money in your wallet. Check out the Pledge of Allegiance. Check out how one is sworn in to give court testimony. Check out the Oath of the Office of President.
Throwing out the monument would be like sticking your finger in the dam while flood waters are already pouring thru.
You are right, but I would like to see all those hole plugged, though. Those holes are what make people like judge Moore think they have the right to do what they are doing.
...of course, it doesn't say specifically what religion's "God" they are talking about. But, not everyone believes in a god, and they shouldn't be looked down on because of it.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:57 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
To be technical, the 10 C's are NOT Christian, they are Jewish. Have a look at the backbone of your entire legal system and upon what it is based. Oh, I am holier than thou!!
Just found this on my HD which you might or might not enjoy.
Not Funny - Not At All
>> _____
>>
>> Where Did It All Begin?
>>
>> We know...
>>
>> Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained
>> she didn't want any prayer in our schools,
>>
>>
>> And we said, OK. . .
>>
>> Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible
>> that says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your
>> neighbor
>> as yourself.
>>
>> And we said, OK. . .
>>
>> Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they
>> misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we
>> might damage their self-esteem.
>>
>> And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we
>> won't spank them anymore. . .
>>
>> Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our
>> children when they misbehave.
>> And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school
>> better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want
>> any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.
>>
>> And we accepted their reasoning. . .
>>
>> Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want,
>> and they won't even have to tell their parents.
>>
>> And we said, that's a grand idea. . .
>>
>> Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys
>> and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms
>> they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to
>> tell their parents they got them at school.
>>
>> And we said, that's another great idea. . .
>>
>> Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do
>> in private as long as we do our jobs.
>>
>> And agreeing with them, we said it doesn't matter to me what anyone,
>> including the President, does in private as long as I have a job and the
>> economy is good. . .
>>
>> And then someone said let's print magazines with pictures of nude
>> women and call it wholesome down-to-earth appreciation for the
>> beauty of the female body.
>>
>> And we said we have no problem with that. . .
>>
>> And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published
>> pictures of nude children and then stepped further still by making them
>> available on the Internet.
>>
>> And we said, they're entitled to their free speech. . .
>>
>> And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies
>> that promote profanity, violence, and illicit sex. And let's record music
>> that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes.
>>
>> And we said it's just entertainment, it has no adverse effect, and nobody
>> takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead. . .
>>
>> Therefore, now we're asking ourselves why our children have no
>> conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't
>> bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. . .
>>
>> Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it
out.
>> I think it has a great deal to do with... "we reap what we sow."
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
|
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:38 am |
|
|
Jaz
Late Night Spook
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 9708
Location: RPGDot |
IMO religion (of any sort) and state don't belong together. Where they are connected, the bonds should be severed.
I remember the local debate about christian crosses in public school rooms - certainly not, thank you. There are members of other religions present, not just christians, and I for my part would have been offended by a christian cross hanging in my school room. Religion is a private issue, government/state a public issue. They shouldn't be mixed.
_________________
Jaz |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 12:25 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Consider this I found then:
Our Country Today--The Truth Hurts
Who is to blame??
Please take a few minutes to read!!!!!!!!!!!
On Thursday, May 27, 1999, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim
of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton,Colorado, was invited to
address the House Judiciary committee's sub-committee.
What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was
painfully truthful. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every
politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert!
These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and
deeply personal.
There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.
The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of Creation there has been good and evil in the heart of men and
women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The
death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic
teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their
blood cries out for answers. The first recorded act of violence was when Cain
slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.
Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was
Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. In the
days that followed the Columbine tragedy,
I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the
NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun.
I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they
are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they
need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder
I would be their strongest opponent. I am here today to declare that Columbine
was not just a tragedy - it was spiritual even that should be forcing us to
look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room.
Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves.
I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. This was
written way before I knew I would be speaking here today.
"Your laws ignore our deepest needs
Your words are empty air
You've stripped away our heritage
You've outlawed simple prayer
Now gunshots fill our classrooms
And precious children die
You seek for answers everywhere
And ask the question "Why"
You regulate restrictive laws
Through legislative creed
And yet you fail to understand
That God is what we Need!
"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, soul, and spirit,
When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that
allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and
wreck havoc. Spiritual influences were present within our systems for most of
our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological
seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation?
We have refused to honor God, and in doing so, we open the doors to hatred and
violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -
politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately
seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal
and private liberties.
We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been
stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends
months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies> within our hearts.
Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers. The young
people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening-taking place
that will not be squelched! We do not need more religion. We do not need more
gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not
need more million dollar church buildings built while people with basic needs
are being ignored. We do need a change of heat and an humble acknowledgement
that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God.
As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two
friends murdered before his very eyes - He did not hesitate to pray in school.
I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young
person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at
Columbine High School - prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the
many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new
millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God given
right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at
the NRA - I give to you a sincere challenge.
Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughters
death will not be in vain. The Young people of this country will not allow that
to happen!"
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
|
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:08 pm |
|
|
Jung
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 411
Location: Texas |
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
To be technical, the 10 C's are NOT Christian, they are Jewish. Have a look at the backbone of your entire legal system and upon what it is based. Oh, I am holier than thou!!...
You might be holier, but not more correct. Anyway, a recent aricle I read said that there are many versions of the 10 Cs, how should we choose?
There is nothing wrong with teaching our kids morality, but it need not be tied to a religion. I would bet that most every culture and goverment in the world has laws on the books or taboos against stealing, lying, adultery and killing. Did they all come from the bible? The rest of the 10 are religious laws that have nothing to do with people who are not Christians.
_________________
"You two are a regular ol' Three Musketeers." |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 1:29 pm |
|
|
Toaster
Bread Alert
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 5475
Location: Sweden |
I think that under no circumstances should religion and government/state be mixed up, even though it's the major religion and have a good message.
_________________
Tabbrowser Extensions
DictionarySearch |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 2:27 pm |
|
|
elkston
High Emperor
Joined: 21 Sep 2002
Posts: 691
Location: North Carolina, USA |
quote:
There is nothing wrong with teaching our kids morality, but it need not be tied to a religion.
In my opinion, morality and God's law are almost inseperable. Where did you learn right from wrong? From your parents. Where did *they* learn it? From *their* parents, etc,etc.
If you trace the line all the way back, you're going to find somebody that belevied in God and belevied that there is an absolute sense of right and wrong originating from a higher source.
This fact, whether we acknowledge it directly or not, permeates the laws of many nations, including our own.
I even beleive that someone who is NOT told specifically that killing is wrong, don't steal, etc. inheretly KNOWS these laws because of an internal "moral compass" that is tied to our spiritual selves.
_________________
All shall hear the words of Karras...the words of Karras |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:31 pm |
|
|
Jaz
Late Night Spook
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 9708
Location: RPGDot |
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
To be technical, the 10 C's are NOT Christian, they are Jewish.
So they're from another (monotheist) religion which spawned a sect later known as christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Jung
There is nothing wrong with teaching our kids morality, but it need not be tied to a religion.
Exactly my opinion.
_________________
Jaz |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 4:02 pm |
|
|
Hyrrix
Fourty-two
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 282
|
Corwin and Elkston: do you seriously believe that 77% of the world population are barbaric people with no morality at all... because they are no christians or even had christian ancestors? Christianity exists a mere 2.000 years and only in a rather limited part of the world... a tiny little piece in the millions of years since mankind came into existence. Where's the evidence to show that Christianity is right while the hundreds of other religions that have existed throughout world history are all wrong? There have always been forms of keeping morality in society... in a lot of cases just different morality from what you know now (what's wrong with nude? What's wrong with a society in which people walk around naked? What's wrong with homosexuals? Etc.). There have been the myths, the legends with a moral tone, there have been the polytheistic religions. But those were often very local religions and at a given point, where technics had evolved enough to make it possible to organize larger empires, there was not only a need for unified civil laws, but also for moral laws. Simply because they do the same as civil laws, but instead of being imposed from above, they work from within, if properly accepted. Thus came the time of general moral rules such as the one Kant later rephrased, which is pretty elemental for every society of certain proportions. Why does morality exist? To keep a society together, keep it from imploding. Because living together with other living human beings is a difficult process, which is made easier if there are fixed rules for it. So morality originally often served a practical purpose: to keep the population quiet, to keep everything under control, to prevent conflicts, to strengthen the power of the political rulers, etc. Basically I believe in morality based on reasoning. Not reasoning deducted from a 2000 year old text, but reasoning adapted to modern times and modern knowledge of the (scientific) world.
Of course state and religion don't go together; but I indeed think one should be consequent and ban all the examples of how Christianity is built in to the American system that dteowner mentioned.
_________________
Vault Network Editor |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:38 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
Ahh. Crap. Darn you PDF files... crashing my computer... destroying my narrative that was nothing short of brilliant... oh well, I've been itching to pedantly stomp something for ... close to a week now, so here goes.
Firstly, one must remember documents such as the Hippocratic Oath that, in the classical form, were used everywhere until quite recently (1964 was when a new version of the Hippocratic Oath was written).
"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant."
If you didn't swear upon four specific Greek gods, and all the rest mentioned in uncanny subterfuge style, no medical degree for you; no "fame among all men for all time to come."
One must also remember that utter separation of Church and State is impossible at this juncture, H.R. 2459, "To Establish a Department of Peace," a new piece of American Legislation, proposed by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), made legal tender July 1, 2001, has a direct reference to the Good Book, (Mt. 5: 14), in it: section i, paragraph x says, "in order to create a 'shining city on a hill', the light of which is the light of nations."
Further to it, where in any American legal document does it specifically say that religion and state are to be separated? The founding fathers were religious men, many of the first public addresses or the wills of the fathers had references to an Almighty. As such, by the principle of firsts, the Founders put religion before freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If the concept of separation of Church and State did exist back then, it was to keep Government from controlling Religion. From whom did the Fathers break themselves from servitude? The Brits. England controlled the Church, and the Church controlled the Bible. Early Protestants worked to bring about the end which would allow for a more personalized form of religion, and they would not have it corrupted by politics. Again.
"Regarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit."
The States, plural, the little pieces of America should have, and do have, by the First Amendment, ability to deal with religious issues, 'unimpeded,' for a national Church would be the exact last thing the Founders would have wanted. Separation of Church and State does not come from any specific law, but rather from a series of Federal and Lower Court rulings which interpreted the Bill of Rights in a much different way than was done in 'constitutional principal.' The first of these rulings was Gitlow v. New York in 1925, where the Bill of Rights was applied to the States upon a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, when in fact the opening line of the First makes clear reference to 'Congress,' which is interpreted as the 'House and Senate of the Federal Government.' But, the framers put power over religious matters into the hands of the States (again, plural) to limit the power of the Federal Government. Cantwell v. Connecticut, in 1940, again a decision from a court, was where the First Amendment was reinterpreted for the first time, and since, the historical mandates and precedents have been tossed out the window.
I know little of the finer points of the matter, for I am one to abide by the principles of "Peace, Order and Good Government" rather than "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." But it seems rather clear to me that the two aforementioned rulings were ...at best... treading upon the most cloudy of grounds without regard for the future implications of tampering with such an important document. However, that is beside the point... the Constitution is interpreted as how the people want it, "well regulated Militia" seems to have gone out the door long ago. In this respect I must side with corwin, the spirit of the Constitution is historically quite differently a-mean-ed than most people who blindly 'quote without quoting' it realize.
And arguments that such actions or thoughts, that is to say, the paragraphs previous, infringe greatly upon right of the minority are silly. By the very nature of representative democracy, where power is given to the person and people who is and are found to have the most support, it is a system wherein minorities of political view are suppressed. If you're not in the majority, you will never be truly represented in a democracy. Get over it. There is no sound arguing with that statement. Fool proof. Without lacunae. Next.
quote:
Those holes are what make people like judge Moore think they have the right to do what they are doing.
I believe the original text was meant to be read as, "freedom of religion," not, "freedom from religion." By the nature of the creation of America, States hold power over their borders, and their actions cannot be cancelled by the Federal Government. That is why the North fought the South, simply, the States wanted more power because they had a taste of it already. This has much to do with the, I repeat, spirit of the Document, not the ignorant common law interpretations that have sprung up of late.
Oh, I love story time.
Let's say that there is an American Courthouse, and inside it there reside chairs. Wonderful, beautiful, soft, shiny, exquisite chairs, so comfortable to sit upon, they are the envy of all other Courthouses, and they make Jury Duty much more pleasant than otherwise possible. Let's say that some lawyers get together and read about this case involving the 10 Commandments, and through their own interpretations of the laws of the land, they conclude that it has been found that religious monuments have no place whatsoever in a Courthouse. If they found a religious movement to worship these chairs, for they say they are from God Himself, is the State obligated to remove those chairs? In my hypothetical situation, these chairs are being venerated just as that stone monument was being venerated, so clearly, in accordance with the concept of "Equality Before and Under the Law" the chairs have got to go too, and be replaced with common chairs. If there is then a ruling that the chairs can stay because the lawyers are doing it to be pests, there is a much more grievous problem. Now it has been found that Christians are members of a 'real' religion, and their monuments are legitimate and cannot be housed in Courthouses, while the sect of the lawyers is not a 'real' religion, and as such, their claims that the chairs are monuments are unfounded and without merit. The lawyers then have a heyday, as the courts just refused them freedom of religion, for they were indirectly not recognized when the chairs were not removed, OR, they were favoured above the Christians when the chairs were allowed to stay, despite the fact they were religious monuments.
Fin. Now that it's been established that every religious monument will now have to be taken from Courthouses for the sake of equality, I simply wait until someone else figures out that through veneration of water pipes or electrical wire, activities in such any government building could be ground to a halt.
@corwin re: "And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children"
"Kiddie porn" is banned, but there is the whole issue of enforcement... so we really didn't all say, "They're entitled to their free speech."
quote:
Anyway, a recent aricle I read said that there are many versions of the 10 Cs, how should we choose?
Lex loci, the law of the place. Most of them are the same throughout all denominations. The important ones anyways. The differences stem from A) Translational discrepancies and B) Differences in the numerating and short handing of them. [url=http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/10commandments.html#1 ]Here is a link[/url] to alleviate any desires for further information.
quote:
I would bet that most every culture and goverment in the world has laws on the books or taboos against stealing, lying, adultery and killing. Did they all come from the bible?
Well, since you want to know about laws of other countries, I had best beforehand discount every European Nation and all nations descended from a European Nation. Which leaves us with... Islamic Nations... and um... well, this 'll be easier than I thought!  Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia, being at least four of them.
Actually, you're right. Islamic law does focus on five main points
1. religion
2. life
3. intellect
4. offspring
5. property
Although, as in this example, Islam does have laws against lying, stealing, adultery, and killing, the punishments and the practices concerning the laws are infinitely different than America's methodologies for such matters.
It is reputed that "the most difficult part of Islamic Law for most westerners to grasp is that there is no separation of church and state. The religion of Islam and the government are one. Islamic Law is controlled, ruled, and regulated by the Islamic religion. The theocracy controls all public and private matters. Government, law, and religion are one. There are varying degrees of this concept in many nations, but all law, government and civil authority rests upon it and it is a part of Islamic religion. There are civil laws in Muslim nations for Muslim and non-Muslim people. Sharia is only applicable to Muslims."
If you want to read more, I offer this link.
Although many other peoples and nations have instituted rules for morality similar in some aspects to the 10 Commandments, it cannot be denied that they themselves form the basis of much of the American Legal System. Firstly because of the similarities in many of the segments concerning morality, and secondly because the Fathers of America were themselves God Fearing men, who, in addition to many other reasons, sought freedom from England because of differences of opinion concerning religion. Thirdly, there is no religious system with which the American Legal System can be closer compared to. Some aspects of the System may resemble other religious codifications, but when it comes to areas such as punishment, the similarities fade and distance themselves far more drastically than the Bible distances itself from the System.
quote:
I think that under no circumstances should religion and government/state be mixed up, even though it's the major religion and have a good message.
Ahh. You've just profaned about a fifth of the world's population. 
quote:
There is nothing wrong with teaching our kids morality, but it need not be tied to a religion.
Ah yes, teach good behaviour as but a mere suggestion. Let's just be good because we should be good. Yes, that really works. *This is where I stop typing and laugh for a solid minute* Without some belief in some greater power watching you, it doesn't work. No, not everyone will take up a pitchfork and plunder stuff, but otherwise moral people will become immoral. In high places, it is exceptionally easy to make yourself wealthy & powerful if you aren't honest. Laws of the land only go so far, for the enforcers of secular laws lack omniscience and people that get caught for such corruption are only caught because they became too greedy. I could give a concrete example, but it would involve lawyers and there is no need. Quite simply, to suggest that people do or not do something only because it's a good idea doesn't work. To quote the West Wing, "Ten years ago we spent five billion dollars fighting drugs and we did such a good job that last year we spent 16 billion. Sixty percent of federal prisoners are in jail on drug charges as opposed to two and a half percent that are there for violent crime. We imprison a higher percentage of our citizens than Russia did under Communism and South Africa did under apartheid. Somewhere between 50 and 85% of the prison population has a drug or alcohol abuse problem. We've tried 'Just Say No', and I don't think it's going to work."
If it please you, feel free to believe that every human will be responsible for himself when there is no greater power calling for it.
@Hyrrix "Nice hat."
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:33 pm |
|
|
Toaster
Bread Alert
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 5475
Location: Sweden |
This is horrific! If you've written all this yourself, then, whoohoo...!!! Are you sure it's needed to post this kind of essays? 
_________________
Tabbrowser Extensions
DictionarySearch |
|
Thu Aug 28, 2003 7:44 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
