American Atheists Inc.

[Astonished]

I'm not sure in what section to put this so I will put it here.

I was looking at the site for the American Atheists Inc., particularily their youth site. I came across their mission statement which I think you guys should have a look at. Here's the site:

http://www.atheists.org/family/html/mission.html

Ok, my question is, they are trying to get rid of persecution against themselves and we as Christians are trying to minimize persecution against ourselves, so who is doing all the persecuting?


Also, you guys should check out the main site for American Atheists and look at some of their arguments, you will find that all can be logically put down. A lot of them to have to do with the Bible being contradictory and they pull stuff from the Law and contrast it with the New Testament. ie. Tooth for tooth (OT) and turn the other cheek (NT).

The site is quite funny. I laughed at least

[Lyle]

So do they want children to pray in schools? Yeah I'm not sure who's doing the persecuting. They think we are, and we think they are. It's pretty crazy.... They have a section called Bad Guys :kroll: give me a break, how lame is that?

[Wally]

"Creationism cannot be supported with any evidence at all. I mean NONE. Conversely, there is a mountain of evidence against Creationism, and even more supporting darwinistic evolution."

i wish someone would go about getting someone from the site here to debate this issue. i suspect they are relatively uneducated about the whole situation and I would love to see them try to argue their side.

[MisterAgreeable]

This is more of a lobbying/advocacy organization than anything else. They seem specifically disinterested in debate. They probably wouldn't fare well in a debate, but the overwhelming majority of Christians I know actively avoid apologetical debates because they have next to no intellectual justification for their faith.

I don't see a lot of convincing pro-Christianity arguments on, say, cbn.org either. That doesn't make that site a failure in its intended goals.

If you want arguments, try talk.origins or infidels.org, for instance.

[JerryLove]

Ok, my question is, they are trying to get rid of persecution against themselves and we as Christians are trying to minimize persecution against ourselves, so who is doing all the persecuting? More or less, everyone.

Also, you guys should check out the main site for American Atheists and look at some of their arguments, you will find that all can be logically put down. A lot of them to have to do with the Bible being contradictory and they pull stuff from the Law and contrast it with the New Testament. ie. Tooth for tooth (OT) and turn the other cheek (NT). There is not a logical fault with that argument...the defense is an apologetic. Essentially you claim that "God changed his rules" and therefore both laws don't simultaniously apply.

So do they want children to pray in schools? Yeah I'm not sure who's doing the persecuting. No one has ever opposed children praying in school. Many have opposed school prayer. As an Athiest at my sisters graduation (not to mention my own 10 years earlier), I got to sit through an audience-participation praryer led by the local pastor... as a Christian, would you feel opressed if your graduation started with an affirmation of no-God, or a prayer to Vishnu?

They think we are, and we think they are. It's pretty crazy Fundamentalist Christianity is most certainly persecuting and attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.

i wish someone would go about getting someone from the site here to debate this issue. i suspect they are relatively uneducated about the whole situation and I would love to see them try to argue their side. I've made that argument here and defended it.

This is more of a lobbying/advocacy organization than anything else. They seem specifically disinterested in debate. They probably wouldn't fare well in a debate, but the overwhelming majority of Christians I know actively avoid apologetical debates because they have next to no intellectual justification for their faith. Agreed, and there are a good number of lobbying / advocacy Christian sites and groups.

[joelsdad]

Fundamentalist Christianity is most certainly persecuting and attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.

Then I would hasve to say we have not been successful in restoring the Judeo-Christian ethic this nation enjoyed for nearly 2 centuries.

As far as persecution goes I would like to see evidence that Fundamentalist Christians are actually persecuting people here in America. Show me a TV show where an atheist or gay is mocked and ridiculed and I can show you ten that portray a bible beleiving minister as a buffoon. No Christians have not been too great at being persecutors but the religious crowd and the athiests do have a long string of persecution victories under their belt.



Agreed, and there are a good number of lobbying / advocacy Christian sites and groups.

Thankfully yes there is lest America turn in to a country like the USSR was and people were sent to prison for being a bible believing Christian.

[JerryLove]

Then I would hasve to say we have not been successful in restoring the Judeo-Christian ethic this nation enjoyed for nearly 2 centuries. Ahh yes, back when slavery was legal; brothels were in motor homse so they could move around, 13-year-old kids killing people in armed robberies were folk-heros, prhibition and the mob, gunfighters, the raping and genocide of the Indians, etc... very Christ-like.

As far as persecution goes I would like to see evidence that Fundamentalist Christians are actually persecuting people here in America. Show me a TV show where an atheist or gay is mocked and ridiculed and I can show you ten that portray a bible beleiving minister as a buffoon. While I doubt your ability to show an order of magnatude increase... espically in regards to non-tounge-in-cheek media; you've just agreed with me. Since I never claimed that Christians were not persecuted, only that some Christians were persecuting others... You just admitted that happens.

Thankfully yes there is lest America turn in to a country like the USSR was and people were sent to prison for being a bible believing Christian. No, here we only throw you in jail of your Muslim. I suppose the Christin Roman empire executing non-christians, or Christian europe denying them any rights (and often torturing them to death as satanists), not to mention colonial America...

But hey, why look at that log in your own eye?

[Lyle]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Ahh yes, back when slavery was legal; brothels were in motor homse so they could move around, 13-year-old kids killing people in armed robberies were folk-heros, prhibition and the mob, gunfighters, the raping and genocide of the Indians, etc... very Christ-like.

I'll back you on this one, we have had a crooked past. If you look at it in general, maybe look at what was happening where the lights didn't flash, missionaries were reaching into far away lands, many giving their own lives. The Bible was openingly and boldly preached everywhere.... But I think as the history of our nation goes, it would be more from the beginning to the mid-1800's



Originally posted by JerryLove
While I doubt your ability to show an order of magnatude increase... espically in regards to non-tounge-in-cheek media; you've just agreed with me. Since I never claimed that Christians were not persecuted, only that some Christians were persecuting others... You just admitted that happens.

Well the blockbuster Titanic did a pretty good job. Towards the end when the ship was sinking. Or the game Adventure out of time, they make the rev. lok like a complete idiot. You can see it everywhere, movies like to show most Christians as morons. Though I'm not quite sure it's a 1:10 ratio, but I don't know all the media that well....


Originally posted by JerryLove
No, here we only throw you in jail of your Muslim. I suppose the Christin Roman empire executing non-christians, or Christian europe denying them any rights (and often torturing them to death as satanists), not to mention colonial America...

But hey, why look at that log in your own eye?

Then maybe you should ask yourself if they really were Christians, or just said they were. Most were not Christians andthat is clearly seen through the reading of events during that time, and the way the athorities reacted to things such as printing the Bible.
But to look at America today, we have fallen so far from where we were when we started as a nation. There are alot of things that I would not support... There's a song that says

We so proudly profian the sacred
As we glorify one and everything
We mock and we curse
With our meter and verse
That which we used to believe

[JerryLove]

I'll back you on this one, we have had a crooked past. If you look at it in general, maybe look at what was happening where the lights didn't flash, missionaries were reaching into far away lands, many giving their own lives. The Bible was openingly and boldly preached everywhere.... But I think as the history of our nation goes, it would be more from the beginning to the mid-1800's So it was a nation of Bible-thumping Christians that started the civil war? That founded the KKK? That committed genocide? That made heros out of mass-murderer (Jessie James, Billy the Kid, etc)?

BTW, the bible is still quoted openly. In the 1950s, God was added to the money and to teh pledge of allegience, and there he remains; congress opens and closes with a mass, school graduations open with a benediction; there are Christian television stations.. ever seen an American station for any other religion?

Well the blockbuster Titanic did a pretty good job. Towards the end when the ship was sinking. Or the game Adventure out of time, they make the rev. lok like a complete idiot. You can see it everywhere, movies like to show most Christians as morons. Though I'm not quite sure it's a 1:10 ratio, but I don't know all the media that well.... 1. Signs, 2. The Prophecy (1-3), 3. The Omen, 4. The end of Days, 5. Every Segal movie, 6. The devil's advocate... there's a half-dozen that took it seriously.

More importantly, some entire networks are devoted to calling all non-Christians wrong (CBN). Not to entertainment with Christian underpinnings (and BTW, how do you know there aas not an idiot reverend on the Titanic?), but to "news and teaching" that criticizes (rarely with argument, usually with rhetoric) non-christians.

I can show you one politition after another calling homosexuals evil and twisted, or spouting exactly what you are ("get our country back to God") but I'm having trouble finding elected officials who call Christians names.

When religious fervor caused the death of 5,000 Americans in the trade center, what song was congress out on the steps singing again? Oh yes, one of relgious fervor, "God bless America".

Then maybe you should ask yourself if they really were Christians, or just said they were. Most were not Christians andthat is clearly seen through the reading of events during that time, and the way the athorities reacted to things such as printing the Bible. There has not been a single century since gutenberg invented the press, where the Bible has not been the worlds most printed book. So to what are you referring?

But to look at America today, we have fallen so far from where we were when we started as a nation. There are alot of things that I would not support... There's a song that says No more slaves, no more legal gunfights, no more Japaneese internment camps, no more shanty towns of workers with no rights who owe tehir employers, not more indentured servitude, no more legal persecution of blacks, or the Chinese, or the Irish... how far we have fallen. :(

[Lyle]

Originally posted by JerryLove
So it was a nation of Bible-thumping Christians that started the civil war? That founded the KKK? That committed genocide? That made heros out of mass-murderer (Jessie James, Billy the Kid, etc)?

The civil war was started over more then slavery, it was over rights. Weh Confederates didn't want to be under a central goverment. The issue was much bigger then slavery.... It was about rights of all. War is not bad, for the Bible says there is a time for war and a time for peace. The God fearing men of that time thought it time from war, to stand up for freedom....... And as I rememeber from study (this was a while ago), Billy the Kid was for the most part enticed and framed by a shariff who wanted to bring glory to himself..

Originally posted by JerryLove
BTW, the bible is still quoted openly. In the 1950s, God was added to the money and to teh pledge of allegience, and there he remains; congress opens and closes with a mass, school graduations open with a benediction; there are Christian television stations.. ever seen an American station for any other religion?

NATO won't allow the name of Jesus to be even mentioned from the stand, it was the only thing they could agree upon when they first met together. And not all who use the name of God are good, it's more of an empty religion. You can stick the name of God anywhere but that doesn't make it good, or the one who did it righteous. This nation bears no fruit in a whole, I can only imagine how it must greive the heart of God, it is become a mission field itself..
Teachers have been removed for teaching about God. This fuzzy everyone's equal banner has been raised over our children. In 1952 praying in school was banned, though many still do. People complain it's violating the first Amendment. But religion on state are to be institutionaly seperate, there wasn't intended to be this hugh gap between God and the state..... This nation is morally darkned....
And alot of the TV stations that broadcast the Bible, I almost wish weren't there. Such as TBN, I've watched this for over a year and onl;y heard one good thrity minute message, most are not based on the Bible and are totally out there from what the Bible really is.

Originally posted by JerryLove
and BTW, how do you know there as not an idiot reverend on the Titanic?), but to "news and teaching" that criticizes (rarely with argument, usually with rhetoric) non-christians.

When the ship is sinking, in one of the last scenes. He's on the Poop Deck reading from the book of revelation.

Originally posted by JerryLove
I can show you one politition after another calling homosexuals evil and twisted, or spouting exactly what you are ("get our country back to God") but I'm having trouble finding elected officials who call Christians names.

God help this nation to revive. Many say and do not. Most are as paper on the wind and don't do a thing about anything.

Originally posted by JerryLove
When religious fervor caused the death of 5,000 Americans in the trade center, what song was congress out on the steps singing again? Oh yes, one of relgious fervor, "God bless America".

Oh yes, that was good, but it was as a shawdow. In times of trouble we have this thing of running to God and crying as though He owes us His attention after what we have done. People turn to God in their hard times, but when times are good they are back to themselves. Where did "God Bless America," go?
The last time I heard it was a while ago. Just because you sing that it doesn't mean anything.......

Originally posted by JerryLove
There has not been a single century since gutenberg invented the press, where the Bible has not been the worlds most printed book. So to what are you referring?

Becayse God has sustained the Bible throughout time. It's a testimony of His grace in the world. King James for example burned thousands of copies of the Bible. Killing many that would dare to print. When the Bible was first being printed it was strongly opposed


Originally posted by JerryLove
No more slaves, no more legal gunfights, no more Japaneese internment camps, no more shanty towns of workers with no rights who owe tehir employers, not more indentured servitude, no more legal persecution of blacks, or the Chinese, or the Irish... how far we have fallen. :(

You missed my point. Turn back in your history book farther then the 1900s. I mean the 1700s, the Mayflower Compact, The Declaration of Independance, The Constitution, The Articles of Confederation. A time when Shay's rebellion was noted as a "critical period", because people were turning form the Bible.

[JerryLove]

The civil war was started over more then slavery, it was over rights. Again you presume something I never said. I did not say that the reason for teh civil war was slavery, I just said that the civil war was started by a nation you ID'd as Christian.

War is not bad, for the Bible says there is a time for war and a time for peace. It also says that all authority comes from God and rebelling against authority is rebelling against God. Either way, you claimed the country was Christian... I presume you feel one side or the other was in the wrong... which Christians would you like to blame?

And as I rememeber from study (this was a while ago), Billy the Kid was for the most part enticed and framed by a shariff who wanted to bring glory to himself.. He was a repeat-offender armed bank robber with a long list of kills on his record... and he was idolized for it.

NATO won't allow the name of Jesus to be even mentioned from the stand, it was the only thing they could agree upon when they first met together. With a Muslim country mentioned, I wonder why.. That said, I doubt highly your statement that NATO made only one agreement on their first meeting and it was "now saying 'Jesus' from teh stand". Please support... and then show some relevence to the topic at hand.

And not all who use the name of God are good, it's more of an empty religion. You can stick the name of God anywhere but that doesn't make it good, or the one who did it righteous. This nation bears no fruit in a whole, I can only imagine how it must greive the heart of God, it is become a mission field itself.. Because you are the arbiter of Chrisindom and Gods will; you are right and all "so-called" Christians who disagree with you make God sad. [/sarcasm]

That said, you still need to back up your many claims regarding the nation being anti-Christian and persecuting Christians... but then, what you really need to do, is show that no person who has ever persecuted an Atheist was Christian, because that's what you railed against.

Teachers have been removed for teaching about God. This fuzzy everyone's equal banner has been raised over our children. In 1952 praying in school was banned, though many still do. People complain it's violating the first Amendment. Give me one example, anywhere in the US, where any standing ruling exists which disallows a student to pray in school. (and no, one that excludes (for example) speaking at all will not count, you need a disallowance of prayer or something Christian in regards to a student).

You won't find it, despite your claim none exist.

And alot of the TV stations that broadcast the Bible, I almost wish weren't there. Such as TBN, I've watched this for over a year and onl;y heard one good thrity minute message, most are not based on the Bible and are totally out there from what the Bible really is. So we are back to "not real Christians"... this is not a discussion of Christians persecuting one-another. This is about my claim that Atheists are persecuted by Christians, and your claim that persecution of Christians represents the vast majority of persecution.

When the ship is sinking, in one of the last scenes. He's on the Poop Deck reading from the book of revelation. You misunderstand... on what grounds do you claim that the protrayl does not accurately represent a real person and his behavior?

God help this nation to revive. Many say and do not. Most are as paper on the wind and don't do a thing about anything. Really? I live in a country where homosexuals cannot get married, and have great trouble adopting. In my state, it's also illegal for them to have sex... wonder what the foundation for anti-homosexuality laws is? Seems like more than wind to me.

Oh yes, that was good, but it was as a shawdow. In times of trouble we have this thing of running to God and crying as though He owes us His attention after what we have done. People turn to God in their hard times, but when times are good they are back to themselves. Where did "God Bless America," go?
The last time I heard it was a while ago. Just because you sing that it doesn't mean anything....... It establishes an underlying tone of Christianity in the US... they could have sung to Allah or Vishnu... they could have even not responded to religious fundamentalisim by heading down the same rad that the Islamic fundamentalists did.

And what of the non-Christian members of congress? Sing praise to a diety differnt then their own or ignore the call to solidarity? If it had been an Islamic song, what would you have then done? What effect would that have had on your career in a primarily Islamic country?

Becayse God has sustained the Bible throughout time. It's a testimony of His grace in the world. King James for example burned thousands of copies of the Bible. Killing many that would dare to print. When the Bible was first being printed it was strongly opposed And yet it's the best selling book of every century since it came out. Stop changing the subject... tell me how the best selling book in the world is being impugned successfully.

Shall I start mentioning all the books Christians have burned? Take a look at the 50s some-time.. the book bunrings, the black-listings, etc... this is Christian Conservative America.

You missed my point. Turn back in your history book farther then the 1900s. I mean the 1700s, the Mayflower Compact, The Declaration of Independance, The Constitution, The Articles of Confederation. A time when Shay's rebellion was noted as a "critical period", because people were turning form the Bible. And you didn't read... I was discussing the 1800s, not the 1900s. In the 1700s we still had slavery, and the genocide of the Indians, and such wonderful Christian activities as the bunring of witches (and the overlooking of such)... the admission of spectral evidence in trials, and a rebellion against the authority of England (violating Romans 13 again).

Then we got a constitution that prohibited federal support of religion, and with no mention of God or religion (other than that restriction against condoning it).

So, prove every Christian persecuting an Atheist isn't really a Christian or admit the primary point that Atheists are persecuted by Christians.

[+Donny]

Fundamentalist Christianity is most certainly persecuting and attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.

Despite the loaded words... so what?

[JerryLove]

So, Ilive2serv's question is answered.

[Chrysostom]

(JerryLove) Fundamentalist Christianity is most certainly persecuting and attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.

(Me) There are certainly degrees of "persecuting" that could be debated, but it is no complaint at all to say that a worldview is "attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country." All worldviews do that, no matter the case.



(MisterAgreeable) If you want arguments, try talk.origins or infidels.org, for instance.

(Me) You might examine the debates between infidels.org's Dr. Gordon Stein and Mr. Edward Tabash vs. the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's Dr. Greg Bahnsen :)

[JerryLove]

There are certainly degrees of "persecuting" that could be debated, but it is no complaint at all to say that a worldview is "attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country." All worldviews do that, no matter the case. Not all moralities demand that you conduct yourself by their standards of morality. There's a difference between may saying that everyone should help one another and me attempting to impose a law reqiring it.

[joelsdad]

While I doubt your ability to show an order of magnatude increase... espically in regards to non-tounge-in-cheek media; you've just agreed with me. Since I never claimed that Christians were not persecuted, only that some Christians were persecuting others... You just admitted that happens.


I could not say that it never happened for their has been more evil done in the name of Christ than should even be imagined.



Ahh yes, back when slavery was legal; brothels were in motor homse so they could move around, 13-year-old kids killing people in armed robberies were folk-heros, prhibition and the mob, gunfighters, the raping and genocide of the Indians, etc... very Christ-like.


Ah but those were crimes not committed by the godly average citizen. The vast majority of the country never made the newspapers. We didn't need the governent socialist welfare system because of the teachings of Jesus, people helped people. When there was a fire, people hel;ped rebuild--that is the ethic I am referring to and not the secularist mindset that glamorized jesse james and the KKK(which is not a Christian org.) and all the rest.


can show you one politition after another calling homosexuals evil and twisted, or spouting exactly what you are ("get our country back to God") but I'm having trouble finding elected officials who call Christians names.


Just go on Cspan and wait till Dascchle or Clinton or any one of the other hard core liberals speak--we are the right wing religious whackos, fundamentalists, bigots, narrow minded folks to them.


When religious fervor caused the death of 5,000 Americans in the trade center, what song was congress out on the steps singing again? Oh yes, one of relgious fervor, "God bless America".


Well I guess that is better than singing " Mindless Random Chaotic evolution bless America" At least that song is sung ot the one true God.


Give me one example, anywhere in the US, where any standing ruling exists which disallows a student to pray in school. (and no, one that excludes (for example) speaking at all will not count, you need a disallowance of prayer or something Christian in regards to a student).


Would you like the website for the Christian legal foundation which defneds 1st amendmantr rights in this o****ry for Christians and see the hundreds of cases where kids were suspended or threatened with suspensions for praying in school or meeting on their own voluntarily with other Christians for a short [rayer before or after school?


Really? I live in a country where homosexuals cannot get married, and have great trouble adopting. In my state, it's also illegal for them to have sex... wonder what the foundation for anti-homosexuality laws is? Seems like more than wind to me.

Yep and despite all the fighting that religious folk have bben doing homosexuals will get their full "rights" sooner rather than later and when that happens it will really hit the fan then. Galatians 6:7 still stands and refers to nations as well as indiviuals.


Not all moralities demand that you conduct yourself by their standards of morality. There's a difference between may saying that everyone should help one another and me attempting to impose a law reqiring it.

This is where you are wrong . Every morality be it religiouos or secular has its adherents seeking to impose its brand of moralitry on society. That is why the anything goes brando f morality is pushing for laws legalizing most activities that do not directly harm others.


(JerryLove) Fundamentalist Christianity is most certainly persecuting and attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.


Jerry please define what you mean by persecuting and then cite examples.

[brandontmilan]

"People being Jewish in the 1940s caused WWII." Thats why religion is bad.

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) There are certainly degrees of "persecuting" that could be debated, but it is no complaint at all to say that a worldview is "attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country." All worldviews do that, no matter the case.

(JerryLove) Not all moralities demand that you conduct yourself by their standards of morality. There's a difference between may saying that everyone should help one another and me attempting to impose a law reqiring it.

(Me) Yes, you can give specific instances of this kind of abstinence. However, no matter what happens, you will act from the foundation of your moral view of the world. Therefore, when you interact with other people, your moral view of the world will rub off.

If you try to have others act morally according to your view, it will obviously show itself.

If you do not try to do so because you don't think that "forcing" your view upon others is wrong, then there are two options. Either you try to force that view on others (that you shouldn't "force" your view upon others) or you do not.

If you do, it is obviously that you are forcing your moral view of the world on others.

If you do not, you're not really going to meaningfully interact with society at all. For, if you do not express your likes and dislikes, whether moral or aesthetic, whether verbally or non-verbally, whether explicitly or implicitly, then you are not communicating with anyone. And if you are not communicating with anyone, then you are not meaningfully interacting with anyone.

Therefore, when you're interacting in a society, you're always going to be "forcing" your own moral view on others.

The case of law-makers is especially explicit. Every law they make is a moral one, because every law they make carries with it information about what they think about how government should be run, what kind of control it should have, what its functions should be, how society should be, and so on.

If you are a film-maker, a writer, a journalist, or something of that nature, it ought to be blindingly clear how you cannot escape the promulgation of your worldview. The topics and content of your work directly reflects your thoughts about the world, which are ultimately rooted in your ethical view of the world.

Etc.

The question is not whether or not we'll try to "force" our beliefs on others. The question is only the way we'll choose to do it.

[JerryLove]

Ah but those were crimes not committed by the godly average citizen. The vast majority of the country never made the newspapers. It was lauded by the average citizen.. it was the average citizen the hid Bonnie and Clyde, that kept Jessie James from the law, and that gave the Mod their money during prohibition.

Just go on Cspan and wait till Dascchle or Clinton or any one of the other hard core liberals speak--we are the right wing religious whackos, fundamentalists, bigots, narrow minded folks to them. Cite an example.

Well I guess that is better than singing " Mindless Random Chaotic evolution bless America" At least that song is sung ot the one true God. Thanks for adding to the rhetoric... you just, however, illustrated the weakness of your position.

Would you like the website for the Christian legal foundation which defneds 1st amendmantr rights in this o****ry for Christians and see the hundreds of cases where kids were suspended or threatened with suspensions for praying in school or meeting on their own voluntarily with other Christians for a short [rayer before or after school? <shrug> I asked for what I want. Give me one example, anywhere in the US, where any standing ruling exists which disallows a student to pray in school. (and no, one that excludes (for example) speaking at all will not count, you need a disallowance of prayer or something Christian in regards to a student).

Yep and despite all the fighting that religious folk have bben doing homosexuals will get their full "rights" sooner rather than later and when that happens it will really hit the fan then. Galatians 6:7 still stands and refers to nations as well as indiviuals. Then when it happens we can have this discussion again.. until then my point is proven, Christian politians enforce Chrsitian laws which opress non-christians; not just "pay lipservice".

This is where you are wrong . Every morality be it religiouos or secular has its adherents seeking to impose its brand of moralitry on society. That is why the anything goes brando f morality is pushing for laws legalizing most activities that do not directly harm others. Allowing something is not enforcing the activity. I allow people to gamble, but I don't make them; nor do I do it myself.

When it becomes foribdden or compulsory, then it's enforced. Atheist "morality" demands we take an honest look and reject religion as supersition... where do I enforce that morality?

Jerry please define what you mean by persecuting and then cite examples. Forcing non-Christians to participate in Christian rituals as part of high-school graduation... attacking mosks... attacking synogauges... attacking clinics which perform abortion... making oral sex illegal... discriminitory practices against non-Christians (I can point you at a half-dozen non-Christians with personal expereince here)... the list goes on.

[Lyle]

Originally posted by JerryLove
Forcing non-Christians to participate in Christian rituals as part of high-school graduation... attacking mosks... attacking synogauges... attacking clinics which perform abortion... making oral sex illegal... discriminitory practices against non-Christians (I can point you at a half-dozen non-Christians with personal expereince here)... the list goes on.

What? Forcing people to, I've never heard of people being "forced" to do those things.

What I was saying earlier is, sure bad things have been done in our nation. But just because it was Godly, doesn't make everyone Godly. People have done bad things in the name of God.. To take an example from the great outdoors. In my back yard there are a lot of White poplars. But they are not poplars at all. They breat the name, it doesn't make them one though. People have boren the name of God everywhere, it doesn't make them Christians. In fact I doubt they were since Jesus was against such things

[JerryLove]

Yes, you can give specific instances of this kind of abstinence. However, no matter what happens, you will act from the foundation of your moral view of the world. Therefore, when you interact with other people, your moral view of the world will rub off. How can you equivocate what "rubs off" with a demand for moral conduct?

If you do not, you're not really going to meaningfully interact with society at all. For, if you do not express your likes and dislikes, whether moral or aesthetic, whether verbally or non-verbally, whether explicitly or implicitly, then you are not communicating with anyone. And if you are not communicating with anyone, then you are not meaningfully interacting with anyone. Again, you equivocate personal interaction (behaving in an internally moral fashion) with enforcement of morals as law or in practice.

The case of law-makers is especially explicit. Every law they make is a moral one, because every law they make carries with it information about what they think about how government should be run, what kind of control it should have, what its functions should be, how society should be, and so on. But the root of these decisions need not be moral:

Law should serve one end, to protect me. Laws are not to create or envorce morals, but to ensure my protection.

See, no moral. I don't talk about "good and evil" simply the purpose with which I would choose to enter into government, just like one has a purpose for joining the boy-scouts.

The question is not whether or not we'll try to "force" our beliefs on others. The question is only the way we'll choose to do it. Your opinions leaking out, and a decision to compel others to conform to your morality are not the same thing. Stop equivocating.

[joelsdad]

When it becomes foribdden or compulsory, then it's enforced. Atheist "morality" demands we take an honest look and reject religion as supersition... where do I enforce that morality?

By passing laws disallowing prayer in public places. By the ACLU demanding the removal of the ten commandments from public places, by laws passed prohibiting the display of nativity scenes unless they are deluged with secular decorations as well.


making oral sex illegal...

Othe rthan it b eing performed by homoswxuals show me one state that has banned oral sex and the Christian reference to it ( No bible I know outlaws it between consenting husbands and wives)


discriminitory practices against non-Christians (I can point you at a half-dozen non-Christians with personal expereince here)...

And I can point you to thousands of Christians who have been suspended and expelled from schools and beleivers fired from jobs and conmpany owners forced to have to defend themselves in court for the crime of being Christian.


It was lauded by the average citizen.. it was the average citizen the hid Bonnie and Clyde, that kept Jessie James from the law, and that gave the Mod their money during prohibition.

Jerry it was the newspapers that heroized the criminals. Are you so naive as to think that everyone in America who wasn't a declared non Christian religion is somehow a Christian?


Cite an example.

Well unfortunately I did not save their little diatribea against people of faith but the next tiem they dso I will see about downloading and passing it along.


www.aclj.org/

Here is a website that will show you how groups like the ACLU and PAW are taking away Americans 1st amendment right to freedom of religion and the couret cases that have had to happen. It will also lead to other legal orgs firghting the erosion of religious freedoms by secular grouops.

[JerryLove]

By passing laws disallowing prayer in public places. By the ACLU demanding the removal of the ten commandments from public places, by laws passed prohibiting the display of nativity scenes unless they are deluged with secular decorations as well. Please cite a cingle law which prohibits a private person, business, or group from any of the activities you list... there are none, they do not exist. The government making decisions as to what it's representatives can do, in their function as agenst of the government, is hardly relevent; and the only thing you have to make these baseless claims on.

So put up or shut up.. where is the law in question?

Othe rthan it b eing performed by homoswxuals show me one state that has banned oral sex and the Christian reference to it ( No bible I know outlaws it between consenting husbands and wives) The Christian references are never express, simply obvious.. Like why the laws for serving alcholol are different on Sunday in most locations (the so called "blue laws" which seek to maintin different behavior on the Christian Sabbath).

And I can point you to thousands of Christians who have been suspended and expelled from schools and beleivers fired from jobs and conmpany owners forced to have to defend themselves in court for the crime of being Christian. But what you cannot do is show that it would have any bearing on the issue at hand... that Atheists do indeed suffer persecution by Christians.

Jerry it was the newspapers that heroized the criminals. Are you so naive as to think that everyone in America who wasn't a declared non Christian religion is somehow a Christian? The old "not real Christians" excuse... but you, again straw-man the issue. I did not declare that 1920's America was Christian.. You are the one who said that:

"Then I would hasve to say we have not been successful in restoring the Judeo-Christian ethic this nation enjoyed for nearly 2 centuries." - joelsdad 06-08-2003 04:51 PM

If we did live by the "Judeo-Christian ethic" when we gave the Indians small-pox covered blankets, or shoved them on the desert, or when we declared war on ourselves, or while we enslaved blacks as "less than human" or while we opressed the Chinese under the same guise (or the Irish, or the Koreans, or most everyone else); while we were burning witches at the stake or while we were cheering and hiding bonnie and clyde, al capone, jessie james, billy the kid, and their peers. If we were living by the judeo-christian ethic when we formed the KKK, enacted jim-crowe laws, and shoved people of Japanese decent into concentration campes... if we were acting under that ethis then, then these are indeed the acts of a Christin... and if we were not, your entire premise that we were at one point is wrong... you choose.

Well unfortunately I did not save their little diatribea against people of faith but the next tiem they dso I will see about downloading and passing it along. OK, well when you do, you *might* have a leg to stand on.. come back then.

Here is a website that will show you how groups like the ACLU and PAW are taking away Americans 1st amendment right to freedom of religion and the couret cases that have had to happen. It will also lead to other legal orgs firghting the erosion of religious freedoms by secular grouops. 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.

I see a prohibition against congress passing laws regarding religion. What law has congress passed?

Your entire post is, as is unfortunately typical for your posts, rhetoric. It's lies upon lies and not on-point.

[joelsdad]

The Christian references are never express, simply obvious.. Like why the laws for serving alcholol are different on Sunday in most locations (the so called "blue laws" which seek to maintin different behavior on the Christian Sabbath).

But Jerry I asked you to show me one state that has laws making oral sex illegal between heterosexual couples. This is just smoke screen garbage.


So put up or shut up.. where is the law in question?

Look upi the archives of Supreme court decisions. There are many cases where the "seperation of Church and state" opinion (which by the way does not appear in our constitution bt the former USSR's constittution), was used to prohibit groups from holding vokuntary prayer meetings on school grounds.

People living on a town common were ordered by pain of arrest with removal of a nativity scene.


Plus besides citing an anti oral sex law, please cite some specific cases of persecution by Christians of non-Christians. Remember the rul is that it had to be done in the name of the Christian religion and not by some guy who in his own dementia acted on his own accord.



But what you cannot do is show that it would have any bearing on the issue at hand... that Atheists do indeed suffer persecution by Christians

And you have yet to show any specific examples or cases, where physical or emotional damage was done to someone in the name of Chrisatianity.



Like why the laws for serving alcholol are different on Sunday in most locations (the so called "blue laws" which seek to maintin different behavior on the Christian Sabbath).


Again what has this to do with illegal oral sex.
But in reference to your cite here. In this alcoholic workaholic society what is so inherently evil about trying to have one day off for relaxation and trying to curb the voracious consumption of alcohol. i thought you secularists wanted to see alcoholism curbed.


he old "not real Christians" excuse... but you, again straw-man the issue. I did not declare that 1920's America was Christian.. You are the one who said that:

But you cite some examples of crime predominsant in asll societies. Give me the sense of community and caring and help that was prevalent with society prior to the humanist manifesto 1 became the unspoken driving force of this land and the greatest influence on the mionds of people in America anyday. Once again governemtn didn't need a welfare state--people took care of people. Even today oin this secular self centers society we call America it sai the "Christian " churches and their people who give the most and accomplish the most help in lifting people out of the morass that secularism help bring about.

Couple of good books to read are none dare call it conspiracy, the NEA trojan horse of American education and Like lambs to the Slaughter. Heavily referenced, cross referenced books showing the decline of /america because of the decline of the respect of the bilble in society and the rise of secualr thought.

[JerryLove]

Look upi the archives of Supreme court decisions. There are many cases where the "seperation of Church and state" opinion (which by the way does not appear in our constitution bt the former USSR's constittution), was used to prohibit groups from holding vokuntary prayer meetings on school grounds. You told me to put up, I did... cite your case.

People living on a town common were ordered by pain of arrest with removal of a nativity scene. Again cite, though I can already see the problem with your example shoult it even have happened (they violted an allowed useage of public land).

Plus besides citing an anti oral sex law, please cite some specific cases of persecution by Christians of non-Christians. Remember the rul is that it had to be done in the name of the Christian religion and not by some guy who in his own dementia acted on his own accord. Pretty much every bombing of an abotrion center... would you like me to cite one or do you accept their existance?

And you have yet to show any specific examples or cases, where physical or emotional damage was done to someone in the name of Chrisatianity. In the US? Go to Workdbeliefs and ask the neurologist who lost his practice when it was revealed he was Atheist.

But I did not claim emotional or physical damage did I? I claimed persecution... such as being forced to participate in recitation of religious liturge (such as the modified pledge of alliegence).

Again what has this to do with illegal oral sex. Gads man, CAN'T YOU FOLLOW YOUR OWN POSTS?!?

You've argued that this is not a Christian country.. that Christians are not passing laws which attempt to persecute others by imposing their will. You accused polititions of not passing laws around Christian beliefs... Blue laws are one example that disproves your repeated assertions.

But in reference to your cite here. In this alcoholic workaholic society what is so inherently evil about trying to have one day off for relaxation and trying to curb the voracious consumption of alcohol. i thought you secularists wanted to see alcoholism curbed. I want it eliminated, but that won't happen. I suppose you are going to argue it's a coincidence that there are is other single day in the week which routinely has a different set of ordinance than every other.

But you cite some examples of crime predominsant in asll societies. So do you... but you are the one that argued:

"Then I would hasve to say we have not been successful in restoring the Judeo-Christian ethic this nation enjoyed for nearly 2 centuries." - joelsdad 06-08-2003 04:51 PM

So where is *your* support? You have none.


So again:

Please cite a cingle law which prohibits a private person, business, or group from any of the activities you list... there are none, they do not exist. The government making decisions as to what it's representatives can do, in their function as agenst of the government, is hardly relevent; and the only thing you have to make these baseless claims on.

So put up or shut up.. where is the law in question?


Show that any of your "Christians get persecuted" rhetoric has any bearing on the question of weather they pesecute Atheists.


Prove your claim that we used to live by the "Judeo-christian" ethic and stopped... and don't use anticdotal fallacies.


Show any law anywhere in the US which deprives anyone of the freeedom to be a Christian / worship.

You've been taseked to all of these in response to claims you made.. you've done none. Put up your proof.

[joelsdad]

Pretty much every bombing of an abotrion center... would you like me to cite one or do you accept their existance?

Show me the Christian organization that promoteds or approved these things. Show me a Christian leader that approved of these acts. You take something that is the extreme fringe and try to paint it as mainstream.. Shall I say then that because the American Phsyciatric Association seeks to decriminalize pedophilia that all secularists are in suipport of pedophilia????[


QUOTE](1) "Deviate sexual intercourse" means:[/QUOTE]

Well Ojk then there are some states that have passed such laws, but which church is responsible for it.


You told me to put up, I did... cite your case.

http://naacd.com/opposition.htm

heres a web site that lists the websites of organizations that have openly stated opposition to Christianity.


http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/06/alabama.prayer/index.html


Another web site from CNN with oither links of court cases against Christians or Christian activity.


http://www.users.voicenet.com/~sakossor/ken4_9.html

On this website is a reprint of an article by John Dunphy in the humanist magazine about the need to rid American Society of Christian influence (it won an award by the magazine)


By the way, I don't think we will find a specific law prohibiting prayer, but will you settle for numerous court decisions discriminating against Christians or Christian activity?

[Lyle]

JerryLove - I edited you post because I felt that its contents were exceeding the limit of info allowed to be on this board. I know you posted laws, but it is my duty to address this, and I felt that it exceeded the guidelines for matieral allowed to be posted.


But to the both of you, a warning, please shy away from speaking on such topics to that level...

[JerryLove]

Show me the Christian organization that promoteds or approved these things. Show me a Christian leader that approved of these acts. It's not within the scope of my claim ("persecution by Christians of non-Christians"); though there are certinal pro-life organizations which have encouraged or condoned such behavior.

You take something that is the extreme fringe and try to paint it as mainstream.. No, I said that Atheists are persecuted Christians. This is the issue at hand.

Shall I say then that because the American Phsyciatric Association seeks to decriminalize pedophilia that all secularists are in suipport of pedophilia???? Notice how you added "all", I have not. This is the nature of your straw-manning of my position. That and your tendancy to red-herring the argument really make this a poor discussion :(.

Well Ojk then there are some states that have passed such laws, but which church is responsible for it. Almost half... did I claim that this was the result of the activities of the governing body of a Church? I would not doubt it, but it's hardly relevent to my case.

heres a web site that lists the websites of organizations that have openly stated opposition to Christianity. Sorry, organizations opposing Christianity have nothing to do with weather there are laws opressing it... that is your task, not establishing tat Christianity has opponents.

Another web site from CNN with oither links of court cases against Christians or Christian activity. http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/13/briefs.pm/school.prayer/index.html

It's was student-lead, but school sanctioned.. In other-words, it was "let's start the day with a prayer", but with a student austensably leading it rather than a faculty member. Since this neccesairily involved all students, it was deemed a violation of church and state.

It does not prohibit prayer, nor the practice of Christianity. It does prohibt the school from starting school functions with a prayer.

Of course, this state (AL) is pushing through legislation that would *require* teachers to start th day with a prayer. From your cite:

Albertville school superintendent Jim Pratt, who walked with the protesting students, says he told them the ruling does not take away an individual's right to pray.

On this website is a reprint of an article by John Dunphy in the humanist magazine about the need to rid American Society of Christian influence (it won an award by the magazine) also neither support of your claim that Atheists are not persecuted, nor a defense of your claim that the law persecutes Christians.

By the way, I don't think we will find a specific law prohibiting prayer, but will you settle for numerous court decisions discriminating against Christians or Christian activity? Against Christians for being Christian? Yes; against Christian activity? Depends on context. So far, your references have been problems with church-state seperation and rulings related to that... I see no instance of, for example, going to church being outlawed; or crosses on your door being illegal.

Where is your non-anticdotal support that we lived with a Judeo-Christian ethic that we no longer live with?

[joelsdad]

http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html

Website postin g verbatim , the humanist manifestos 1 and 2 and showing some of the very influential signatories.

[joelsdad]

http://www.faklen.dk/en/the_torch/index.shtml

Another nice web site against Christianity and religion.

[joelsdad]

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=persecution+of+Christians+in+America&xargs=&b=1

Another central site with hundreds of web sites documenting persecution of Christians around th eworld and in America (some sites good, some just op ed pieces)

[Ridley's Own]

I particularly enjoyed the first one...

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) Yes, you can give specific instances of this kind of abstinence. However, no matter what happens, you will act from the foundation of your moral view of the world. Therefore, when you interact with other people, your moral view of the world will rub off.

(JerryLove) How can you equivocate what "rubs off" with a demand for moral conduct?

(Me) The word would be 'relate' or 'equate', not equivocate. I was about to argue for/explain my statement here.



(Previous) If you do not, you're not really going to meaningfully interact with society at all. For, if you do not express your likes and dislikes, whether moral or aesthetic, whether verbally or non-verbally, whether explicitly or implicitly, then you are not communicating with anyone. And if you are not communicating with anyone, then you are not meaningfully interacting with anyone.

(JerryLove) Again, you equivocate personal interaction (behaving in an internally moral fashion) with enforcement of morals as law or in practice.

(Me) Preliminary question: are we talking about only the civil government here, or are we going to include personal interaction at all?




(Previous) The case of law-makers is especially explicit. Every law they make is a moral one, because every law they make carries with it information about what they think about how government should be run, what kind of control it should have, what its functions should be, how society should be, and so on.

(JerryLove) But the root of these decisions need not be moral:

Law should serve one end, to protect me. Laws are not to create or envorce morals, but to ensure my protection.

See, no moral. I don't talk about "good and evil" simply the purpose with which I would choose to enter into government, just like one has a purpose for joining the boy-scouts.

(Me) The root of those decisions is necessarily moral/ethical. For one example, see your justification: "Law are... to ensure my protection." This is based on a fundamentally moral/ethical view: specifically, that you think that you should protect yourself. Additionally, what you do not do with laws is also completely based on your moral view about the world (except when "abnormal" circumstances prevent it). For one example of that, the fact that you think it is wrong to make laws that are based in your view of morality is a completely moral view, and is reflected in the laws you would choose to make.




(Previous) The question is not whether or not we'll try to "force" our beliefs on others. The question is only the way we'll choose to do it.

(JerryLove) Your opinions leaking out, and a decision to compel others to conform to your morality are not the same thing. Stop equivocating.

(Me) Trying to communicate with others without pushing your own moral viewpoint is like doing math for someone in binary and not expecting them to learn how to deal with non-10 bases (in this case, base 2). Everything you say to them is grounded in your philosophy of life, so everything you say to them includes all the information about your philosophy of life. Therefore, the question is not whether or not you will influence others with your philosophy of life, try to push your philosophy of life, and so on; rather, the question is how actively you will do it. Some may, indeed, do so in a passive way. But, of course, passive influence (or, more appropriately, subtle influence), is generally the most effective.

[joelsdad]

Pretty much every bombing of an abotrion center... would you like me to cite one or do you accept their existance?

Name one mainstream Christian Church or even mainstream Christian organization that approves of bombing abortion clinics and murdering baby killers.


certinal pro-life organizations which have encouraged or condoned such behavior

Which ones--are they mainstream or considered way out on the fringes. Careful how you answer lest you accept things that the extreme left fringes do as considered mainstream thought for secularists and atheists.

[JerryLove]

Website postin g verbatim , the humanist manifestos 1 and 2 and showing some of the very influential signatories.

Another nice web site against Christianity and religion.

Another central site with hundreds of web sites documenting persecution of Christians around th eworld and in America (some sites good, some just op ed pieces) Connect the dots for me, because I see no relevence at all to the current discussions going on.

1. Weather there is persecution of Atheists by Christians.
2. Weather there are US laws in place which persecute Christians/Theists

These are the two issues at hand, please deal with-them before starting a pity party over how badly someone in Germany talks about Christians.

Which ones--are they mainstream or considered way out on the fringes. Careful how you answer lest you accept things that the extreme left fringes do as considered mainstream thought for secularists and atheists. So you take another step back and draw a new line in the sand.

You start with "No Christians persecute Atheists" and move back to something like "No mainstreem organizations that I accept as Christian have put on record something you can point to as persecution" (assuming you even manage to win that point) and then declare victory on your original topic.

I don't need to establish anything about statements made by main-stream pro-life groups.. I just need to establish that a Christian persecuted an Atheist for being Atheist or Atheist behavior (OK, 2).

[JerryLove]

The word would be 'relate' or 'equate', not equivocate. I was about to argue for/explain my statement here. So you avoid the question by arguing the semantics...

You said:
but it is no complaint at all to say that a worldview is "attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country." All worldviews do that, no matter the case.

Then when I argued it, you defended it but rephrased as:
Yes, you can give specific instances of this kind of abstinence. However, no matter what happens, you will act from the foundation of your moral view of the world. Therefore, when you interact with other people, your moral view of the world will rub off.

There is a distinct difference between my beliefs rubbing off in my actions, and me imposing my beliefs on others... use what ever piece of syntax you like, your second argument is different from your first without admitting the concession. You are acting as though proving "rubbing off" will prove "imposing" (what was the name of that fallacy again?)

Preliminary question: are we talking about only the civil government here, or are we going to include personal interaction at all? We are talking about actions which impose one persons standard of behavior on another person for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral.

The root of those decisions is necessarily moral/ethical. For one example, see your justification: "Law are... to ensure my protection." This is based on a fundamentally moral/ethical view: specifically, that you think that you should protect yourself. That's a personal decision, not a moral I'm imposing on others.. They may protect themselves or not as they see fit.

Additionally, what you do not do with laws is also completely based on your moral view about the world (except when "abnormal" circumstances prevent it). For one example of that, the fact that you think it is wrong to make laws that are based in your view of morality is a completely moral view, and is reflected in the laws you would choose to make. And yet not imposing my moral views cannot be imposing my moral views (reflexive, if NOT x then NOT x) regardless of my motivation.

Trying to communicate with others without pushing your own moral viewpoint is like doing math for someone in binary and not expecting them to learn how to deal with non-10 bases (in this case, base 2). Everything you say to them is grounded in your philosophy of life, so everything you say to them includes all the information about your philosophy of life. But I am using no compulsion to make them follow my morals... that was the issue, not weather I might infuence.

Therefore, the question is not whether or not you will influence others with your philosophy of life, try to push your philosophy of life, and so on; rather, the question is how actively you will do it. Some may, indeed, do so in a passive way. But, of course, passive influence (or, more appropriately, subtle influence), is generally the most effective. No, the question is weather "
"All worldviews do that [attempt to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.]"

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) The word would be 'relate' or 'equate', not equivocate. I was about to argue for/explain my statement here.

(JerryLove) So you avoid the question by arguing the semantics...

(Me) It's not semantics. Using the word 'equivocate' assumes that I have made an error. The reason that I answered nothing else you had said there is that, as I noted, my justification for the statement immediately followed.



(Previous) Preliminary question: are we talking about only the civil government here, or are we going to include personal interaction at all?

(JerryLove) We are talking about actions which impose one persons standard of behavior on another person for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral.

(Me) If it is "for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral," then I doubt that anyone has ever been guilty of this, Christian or non-Christian. There are always other reasons involved. For instance, someone might want to outlaw prostitution because it's immoral, and they want to protect girls from that, and they're mad at prostitutes, and so on. So, "sole" is a poor choice of words.

However, if you're going to allow any behavior, personal or otherwise, you impose these kinds of ethics all the time. You honk at people when they drive poorly. You defend yourself when attacked. You respond in disgust when insulted. I could continue this. No matter what you do, you are going to "impose" your ethics on others.



(Previous) The root of those decisions is necessarily moral/ethical. For one example, see your justification: "Law are... to ensure my protection." This is based on a fundamentally moral/ethical view: specifically, that you think that you should protect yourself.

(JerryLove) That's a personal decision, not a moral I'm imposing on others.. They may protect themselves or not as they see fit.

(Me) But you're using your view of ethics in order to make decisions about what you think other people should be required to do. You're saying that you wish other people wouldn't hurt you because of your view of ethics, and you're going to do what you can to impose upon them the requirement that they follow that rule (by not hurting you).



(Previous) Additionally, what you do not do with laws is also completely based on your moral view about the world (except when "abnormal" circumstances prevent it). For one example of that, the fact that you think it is wrong to make laws that are based in your view of morality is a completely moral view, and is reflected in the laws you would choose to make.

(JerryLove) And yet not imposing my moral views cannot be imposing my moral views (reflexive, if NOT x then NOT x) regardless of my motivation.

(Me) Indeed! But this does not deal with my argument, for I showed that you cannot escape making laws on the basis of your view of morality.



(Previous) Trying to communicate with others without pushing your own moral viewpoint is like doing math for someone in binary and not expecting them to learn how to deal with non-10 bases (in this case, base 2). Everything you say to them is grounded in your philosophy of life, so everything you say to them includes all the information about your philosophy of life.

(JerryLove) But I am using no compulsion to make them follow my morals... that was the issue, not weather I might infuence.

(Me) It depends on the kind of compulsion it is about which you are speaking. If that kind of compulsion is physical, then I certainly agree. However, social pressure is much more effective than physical force.




(Previous) Therefore, the question is not whether or not you will influence others with your philosophy of life, try to push your philosophy of life, and so on; rather, the question is how actively you will do it. Some may, indeed, do so in a passive way. But, of course, passive influence (or, more appropriately, subtle influence), is generally the most effective.

(JerryLove) No, the question is weather "
"All worldviews do that [attempt to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.]"

(Me) Take the humanistic worldviews. Read the Humanist Manifestos. They clearly outline a view which will try to push itself.

See the obsession with telling people "who are you to tell me what I should believe?" In other words, they require their interlocutor to not tell them what they should believe -- in other words, they are telling their interlocutors what to believe!

See art, and so on, as I already mentioned. Literature, film, etc. are obviously attempts to communicate from one's worldview to other particular individuals.

[JerryLove]

If it is "for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral," then I doubt that anyone has ever been guilty of this, Christian or non-Christian. There are always other reasons involved. For instance, someone might want to outlaw prostitution because it's immoral, and they want to protect girls from that, and they're mad at prostitutes, and so on. So, "sole" is a poor choice of words. What justification for prohibiting oral sex exists other than a moral one?

However, if you're going to allow any behavior, personal or otherwise, you impose these kinds of ethics all the time. No, I cannot impose by not acting.. it's oxymoronic.

You honk at people when they drive poorly. You defend yourself when attacked. You respond in disgust when insulted. I could continue this. No matter what you do, you are going to "impose" your ethics on others. That's personally acting within my ethics. If I take away someone's ability to drive because I think they were driving in an immoral manner; I've imposed my morals.

But you're using your view of ethics in order to make decisions about what you think other people should be required to do. You're saying that you wish other people wouldn't hurt you because of your view of ethics, and you're going to do what you can to impose upon them the requirement that they follow that rule (by not hurting you). But it's not a moral. I'm protecting myself from others; this is not forcing them to a moral law.

Indeed! But this does not deal with my argument, for I showed that you cannot escape making laws on the basis of your view of morality. "I want to be ssafe" is not a moral view, therefore I am not.

It depends on the kind of compulsion it is about which you are speaking. If that kind of compulsion is physical, then I certainly agree. However, social pressure is much more effective than physical force. Social pressure to leave is more effective than two big guys picking you up and throwing you out? Support that.

Take the humanistic worldviews. Read the Humanist Manifestos. They clearly outline a view which will try to push itself.
Anticdotal.. I'm not talking about the authors of that.

See art, and so on, as I already mentioned. Literature, film, etc. are obviously attempts to communicate from one's worldview to other particular individuals. You still ignore the distinction between influence and force. When I start protesting Christians acting morally as opressive, or having shows with Christian morals in them, they you will have a valid response.

Since I have no problem distingushing the difference between the Christians around me placing social inference, and a law being in-place prohibiting activity based on a moral premise, you should not either.

It really is both simple and clear... there really are good bright-line tests... I don't know why you either refuse to see them, or pretend you dont... I know your smarter than this.

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) If it is "for the sole purpose of enforcing a percieved moral," then I doubt that anyone has ever been guilty of this, Christian or non-Christian. There are always other reasons involved. For instance, someone might want to outlaw prostitution because it's immoral, and they want to protect girls from that, and they're mad at prostitutes, and so on. So, "sole" is a poor choice of words.

(JerryLove) What justification for prohibiting oral sex exists other than a moral one?

(Me) This is an unfitting question, because all actions are fundamentally rooted in ethics. To the question you're really asking: someone might choose to outlaw oral sex because they think it's immoral, because they think it's gross, because they are mad that other people get it and they don't, and so on.



(Previous) However, if you're going to allow any behavior, personal or otherwise, you impose these kinds of ethics all the time.

(JerryLove) No, I cannot impose by not acting.. it's oxymoronic.

(Me) None of the examples that followed were related to not acting. However, I've argued at other places that many cases of "not acting" are actually acting, because the absence itself is experienced by others. For instance, if there is a train on its way off a cliff, and I can pull the lever to save it, but I don't, my "not acting" is, effectively, an "action." More importantly, when a father often tells his son what that son has done wrong, but never tells his son what the son does right, the "not acting" is, in effect, an action.



(Previous) You honk at people when they drive poorly. You defend yourself when attacked. You respond in disgust when insulted. I could continue this. No matter what you do, you are going to "impose" your ethics on others.

(JerryLove) That's personally acting within my ethics. If I take away someone's ability to drive because I think they were driving in an immoral manner; I've imposed my morals.

(Me) By honking, you've communicated to them that they should have acted otherwise. By defending yourself, you communicate to them that they should have ated otherwise.


The crucial distinction between the actual claim I made ("All worldviews do that") and the claim it's becoming in your arguments ("all human actions do that") needs to be heeded.



(Previous) But you're using your view of ethics in order to make decisions about what you think other people should be required to do. You're saying that you wish other people wouldn't hurt you because of your view of ethics, and you're going to do what you can to impose upon them the requirement that they follow that rule (by not hurting you).

(JerryLove) But it's not a moral. I'm protecting myself from others; this is not forcing them to a moral law.

(Me) This is forcing to act them in accordance with your view of ethics.




(Previous) Indeed! But this does not deal with my argument, for I showed that you cannot escape making laws on the basis of your view of morality.

(JerryLove) "I want to be ssafe" is not a moral view, therefore I am not.

(Me) But you're trying to impose your desires (your own safety) on others. And, fundamentally, the desire to be safe comes out morally because the standard for your actions -- e.g., "I will try to achieve what I want" -- is.



(Previous) It depends on the kind of compulsion it is about which you are speaking. If that kind of compulsion is physical, then I certainly agree. However, social pressure is much more effective than physical force.

(JerryLove) Social pressure to leave is more effective than two big guys picking you up and throwing you out? Support that.

(Me) Social pressure is more effective because you can make the person not want to be there at all, so they will leave of their own accord and never return. If two guys throw you out, you may easily try to sneak in again. However, if you strike at the root -- the person's desire to be there -- you have changed the person.

Additionally, kicking someone out can have all sorts of adverse effects -- e.g., that they will dislike you. This may breed hatred, and thus retribution. A supposed friend who is actually your enemy is much more devastating that a known enemy.



(Previous) Take the humanistic worldviews. Read the Humanist Manifestos. They clearly outline a view which will try to push itself.

(JerryLove) Anticdotal.. I'm not talking about the authors of that.

(Me) These examples are present in any system of thought. It's a case example.

I mentioned the Humanist Manifestos specifically because humanists are supposed to be the ones promoting tolerance and keeping we "evil Christians" from "imposing" our thoughts about morality on others.



(Previous) See art, and so on, as I already mentioned. Literature, film, etc. are obviously attempts to communicate from one's worldview to other particular individuals.

(JerryLove) You still ignore the distinction between influence and force. When I start protesting Christians acting morally as opressive, or having shows with Christian morals in them, they you will have a valid response.

Since I have no problem distingushing the difference between the Christians around me placing social inference, and a law being in-place prohibiting activity based on a moral premise, you should not either.

(Me) You're changing the issue (as I already pointed out). I've talking about all worldviews pushing their philosophy.

And again, if you just want to talk about civil laws, I've already presented an argument. To re-hash: the way we think government and society ought to be is ultimately based in our ethical view of reality, so the way we try to get government to be (esp. through laws) will be ultimately based in our view of morality.




(JerryLove) It really is both simple and clear... there really are good bright-line tests... I don't know why you either refuse to see them, or pretend you dont... I know your smarter than this.

(Me) And I should hope that you are more intelligent than you have appeared in our recent discussions.

[joelsdad]

1. Weather there is persecution of Atheists by Christians.
2. Weather there are US laws in place which persecute Christians/Theists


Okay Jerry to answer your 2 questions, yes there is persecution of Atheists by Christians in this country unfortunately. This is wrong on the part of Christians.

as to question 2 there are no specific laws that have been passed by legislatures that I know of that persecute Christians/theists/taoists/buddhists/hindus/muslims etc. Their have been court opinions and interpretations of law that have narrowed the scope of the practice of Chritianity in this land however. Whereas Mcguffies eclectic readers were wiely used in this land up until the early 60's they since have been removed from the public schools , not because of their inadequacy but because of their religious content. I guess I phrased my point very poorly, for this is the kind of deterioration of Christianity thatr is contuing to take place even now.

Despite you r listing of crimes in this country (which every country has religious or secular) where Biblical based Christianity was predominant in a local culture-crimme was down, caring and giving was up.

[joelsdad]

http://www.rutherford.org/resources/litigation_report.asp#students

Here is an actual website with cases that are in courts or have gone beofre courts concerning Christians in schools, work and public life.

[JerryLove]

This is an unfitting question, because all actions are fundamentally rooted in ethics. To the question you're really asking: someone might choose to outlaw oral sex because they think it's immoral, because they think it's gross, because they are mad that other people get it and they don't, and so on. Indistinct variations of the same thing. A law exists primarily to protect or impose. There is no protection in outlawing oral sex, ergo it imposes. Why does it impose? External moral? Internal moral? Sense of "grossness"? A feeling of being "left out"? Doesn't really matter in damning it as a bad law.

That said, I cannot believe you would make a good-faith argument that this law exists from some other pretext than a Christian moral one.

None of the examples that followed were related to not acting. However, I've argued at other places that many cases of "not acting" are actually acting, because the absence itself is experienced by others. For instance, if there is a train on its way off a cliff, and I can pull the lever to save it, but I don't, my "not acting" is, effectively, an "action." More importantly, when a father often tells his son what that son has done wrong, but never tells his son what the son does right, the "not acting" is, in effect, an action. I did not claim that non-action did not carry consequences.. I said it could not be defined as "imposing".

By honking, you've communicated to them that they should have acted otherwise. By defending yourself, you communicate to them that they should have ated otherwise.

The crucial distinction between the actual claim I made ("All worldviews do that") and the claim it's becoming in your arguments ("all human actions do that") needs to be heeded. The distinction you ignore is the one of "imposing vs illustrating". I do not impose good driving by being angry at bad driving... more to the point, my personal actions do not a law make.

Feel free to tell your children to not have sex till they get married... for that matter, feel free to buy TV time to send the same message. You'll notice I never complain about that. Ever wonder why? Because it's not imposing.

This is forcing to act them in accordance with your view of ethics. No, it's forcing them not to damage my safety... It's not a moral imposition.

But you're trying to impose your desires (your own safety) on others. And, fundamentally, the desire to be safe comes out morally because the standard for your actions -- e.g., "I will try to achieve what I want" -- is. It's not a moral, it's a desire.. there is a reason these words are not synonyms.

Social pressure is more effective because you can make the person not want to be there at all, so they will leave of their own accord and never return. If two guys throw you out, you may easily try to sneak in again. However, if you strike at the root -- the person's desire to be there -- you have changed the person. Fine, I will shoot and kill you as my form of physical compulsion. Find me a more effective social pressure.

Additionally, kicking someone out can have all sorts of adverse effects -- e.g., that they will dislike you. This may breed hatred, and thus retribution. A supposed friend who is actually your enemy is much more devastating that a known enemy. Hypothetical... social pressure to conform can cause them to rebell and bring some guns into school and start shooting... happens with annoying frequency. Please try to avoide speculation on potentials unless you have hard data for comparison.

I mentioned the Humanist Manifestos specifically because humanists are supposed to be the ones promoting tolerance and keeping we "evil Christians" from "imposing" our thoughts about morality on others. I'm talking about me, and have no desire to see which of the two of us know more quotes from someone I don't give a rat's *** about.

You're changing the issue (as I already pointed out). I've talking about all worldviews pushing their philosophy. I objected to imposing morals I don't care weather all worldviews push their philosophy through behavior of their adherents (though I don't agree with that claim either, it's irrellevent)... I care about using moral grounds in order to impose behaviors... in other-words (and as I have said from the beginning) passing laws which seek to impose the morals of one worldview on everyone.

And again, if you just want to talk about civil laws, I've already presented an argument. To re-hash: the way we think government and society ought to be is ultimately based in our ethical view of reality, so the way we try to get government to be (esp. through laws) will be ultimately based in our view of morality. And my view is not to impose my view... merely to enter into a compact which insures my protection.

And I should hope that you are more intelligent than you have appeared in our recent discussions. Careful John.

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) This is an unfitting question, because all actions are fundamentally rooted in ethics. To the question you're really asking: someone might choose to outlaw oral sex because they think it's immoral, because they think it's gross, because they are mad that other people get it and they don't, and so on.

(JerryLove) Indistinct variations of the same thing. A law exists primarily to protect or impose. There is no protection in outlawing oral sex, ergo it imposes. Why does it impose? External moral? Internal moral? Sense of "grossness"? A feeling of being "left out"? Doesn't really matter in damning it as a bad law.

That said, I cannot believe you would make a good-faith argument that this law exists from some other pretext than a Christian moral one.

(Me) My original claim was that 'sole' was an improper/inexact choice. Nothing you've said here engages my argument relating to that. I never made any claims about all reasons being justified. I just made claims about actual reasons for law-making.



(Previous) None of the examples that followed were related to not acting. However, I've argued at other places that many cases of "not acting" are actually acting, because the absence itself is experienced by others. For instance, if there is a train on its way off a cliff, and I can pull the lever to save it, but I don't, my "not acting" is, effectively, an "action." More importantly, when a father often tells his son what that son has done wrong, but never tells his son what the son does right, the "not acting" is, in effect, an action.

(JerryLove) I did not claim that non-action did not carry consequences.. I said it could not be defined as "imposing".

(Me) Trying to keep "moral" laws off the books is certainly "imposing" (as you're imposing your desire to keep "moral" laws off the books).



(JerryLove) By honking, you've communicated to them that they should have acted otherwise. By defending yourself, you communicate to them that they should have ated otherwise.

The crucial distinction between the actual claim I made ("All worldviews do that") and the claim it's becoming in your arguments ("all human actions do that") needs to be heeded.

(JerryLove) The distinction you ignore is the one of "imposing vs illustrating". I do not impose good driving by being angry at bad driving... more to the point, my personal actions do not a law make.

(Me) Your honking is "imposing" because it provides negative consequences to an action you wish would not occur.



(JerryLove) Feel free to tell your children to not have sex till they get married... for that matter, feel free to buy TV time to send the same message. You'll notice I never complain about that. Ever wonder why? Because it's not imposing.

(Me) I'm starting to get very confused. How is fining people for speeding any less "imposing" than forcefully telling people not to speed? Either way, it's an attempt to cause others to follow the rules you want them to follow.

Look, if all you're saying is that not all people send others to jail for doing things that they don't like, then sure that's true. I just don't see how that's nearly as important a claim as I'm making (specifically, that all worldviews attempt to bring others to accept them).




(Previous) This is forcing to act them in accordance with your view of ethics.

(JerryLove) No, it's forcing them not to damage my safety... It's not a moral imposition.

(Me) See below:



(Previous) But you're trying to impose your desires (your own safety) on others. And, fundamentally, the desire to be safe comes out morally because the standard for your actions -- e.g., "I will try to achieve what I want" -- is.

(JerryLove) It's not a moral, it's a desire.. there is a reason these words are not synonyms.

(Me) How you think people should act is ethical.



(Previous) Social pressure is more effective because you can make the person not want to be there at all, so they will leave of their own accord and never return. If two guys throw you out, you may easily try to sneak in again. However, if you strike at the root -- the person's desire to be there -- you have changed the person.

(JerryLove) Fine, I will shoot and kill you as my form of physical compulsion. Find me a more effective social pressure.

(Me) See below:



(Previous) Additionally, kicking someone out can have all sorts of adverse effects -- e.g., that they will dislike you. This may breed hatred, and thus retribution. A supposed friend who is actually your enemy is much more devastating that a known enemy.

(JerryLove) Hypothetical... social pressure to conform can cause them to rebell and bring some guns into school and start shooting... happens with annoying frequency. Please try to avoide speculation on potentials unless you have hard data for comparison.

(Me) You're equating social pressure with social force. Telling someone that you're going to mock them (a social consequence) is similar to telling someone that you're going to kick them. However, building within them your presuppositions will change them fundamentally. Take, for instance, a person I met last year. He was a legalistic racist. Now he is fairly tolerant. Why? Because I didn't attack him physically or emotional -- I lived a lifestyle around him that demonstrated for him presuppositions that rubbed off on him.



(Previous) I mentioned the Humanist Manifestos specifically because humanists are supposed to be the ones promoting tolerance and keeping we "evil Christians" from "imposing" our thoughts about morality on others.

(JerryLove) I'm talking about me, and have no desire to see which of the two of us know more quotes from someone I don't give a rat's *** about.

(Me) If the groups that are supposed to be most tolerant (humanists) are overtly pushing their philosophy, it is no small jump to say that less "tolerant" groups are going to push their philosophies!

You're also being inconsistent in the position you want to defend. At times, you seem unconcerned with your personal actions (like above with the discussion of laws); here, however, you're talking about you. Let's put them together.



(Previous) You're changing the issue (as I already pointed out). I've talking about all worldviews pushing their philosophy.

(JerryLove) I objected to imposing morals I don't care weather all worldviews push their philosophy through behavior of their adherents (though I don't agree with that claim either, it's irrellevent)... I care about using moral grounds in order to impose behaviors... in other-words (and as I have said from the beginning) passing laws which seek to impose the morals of one worldview on everyone.

(Me) Define "impose." Is it imposing for a student to tell another that he will kill him if that student does not act as the student desires? Is it imposing to tell someone that they can't come to the party on Friday night if they don't act like you want them to act? Is it imposing for a professor to teach a student that his beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a kindergarten teacher to teach her students that her beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a father to teach his son that his beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a celebrity to tell his/her fans that his/her beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a TV writer to place the characters in a situation and provide a certain outcome according to what he/she thinks about the starting scenario?



(Previous) And again, if you just want to talk about civil laws, I've already presented an argument. To re-hash: the way we think government and society ought to be is ultimately based in our ethical view of reality, so the way we try to get government to be (esp. through laws) will be ultimately based in our view of morality.

(JerryLove) And my view is not to impose my view... merely to enter into a compact which insures my protection.

(Me) This kind of reasoning can be rephrased into your above example: "I'm just trying to prohibit oral sex in order to insure my protection."



(Previous) And I should hope that you are more intelligent than you have appeared in our recent discussions.

(JerryLove) Careful John.

(Me) If you're going to insult me (for the second time), I can return the favor of frankness.

[xSuspensionx]

Fundamentalist Christianity is most certainly persecuting and attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country.

That is why I am not fundamentalist. That is why many members here are not fundamentalist in the way that you are describing.

<HR>
I am having a hard time figuring out what this argument is about.
To me, it seems that Jerry knows what everyone else means, but intentionally finds something that he wants to dissagree just for the sake of arguing. It seems to me that everyone else is more concerned with proving Jerry wrong then actually talking about the topic that the thread was created in order to address.
<HR>

Peace,
Walker

[JerryLove]

My original claim was that 'sole' was an improper/inexact choice. Nothing you've said here engages my argument relating to that. I never made any claims about all reasons being justified. I just made claims about actual reasons for law-making. Yes, I complained about laws being created for the purposes of requiring a behavior in others for the reason that it is "moral"... you responded that all worldviews do this.

I pointed out the difference between a moral motivation (it's abd for you to do this), and an non-moral motivation (I won't allow the results)... There are a reasonable number of clear distinctions between the two that are quite obvious.

Trying to keep "moral" laws off the books is certainly "imposing" (as you're imposing your desire to keep "moral" laws off the books). I'm imposing a non-imposition? The question then becomes weather it is a moral motive for not putting moral laws on the books. I don't consider putting morality laws on the books immoral; ergo it's not an imposing of morals.

You are also, again, putting the cart and horse in the wrong place. I've not discussed imposing morals on the law-making process, I've discussed imposing morals on others [private lives] through law. Show me how not allowing laws which impose morals on others is making a law which imposes morals on others.

Your honking is "imposing" because it provides negative consequences to an action you wish would not occur. When you eat too much candy your stomach hurts... does candy impose? It's a silly statement.

I'm starting to get very confused. How is fining people for speeding any less "imposing" than forcefully telling people not to speed? Either way, it's an attempt to cause others to follow the rules you want them to follow. Because the rule isn't imposed on a moral ground.

Look, if all you're saying is that not all people send others to jail for doing things that they don't like, then sure that's true. I just don't see how that's nearly as important a claim as I'm making (specifically, that all worldviews attempt to bring others to accept them). I've said... over and over and over... that I'm discussing the IMPOSING of MORALS. I'm not discussing the tendancy of actions to influence; I'm not discussing the basis for personal action; I'm not discussing the influence of peer pressure; I'm not even discussing things as direct as knocking on my door and evangelizing... I'm talking about IMPOSING (forcing, requiring by force of law or might, making, requiring, setting as neccessairy) a MORAL (from the sole standpoint of "right and wrong" or "good and evil", determined not by it's consequence, but by its sinfulness) on others.

My worldview does not attempt to impose its morals on others. I see the only purpose of law as to protect rights, therefore nothing is illegal nor required on the grounds that it is moral / immoral... only on the grounds that it serves or fails to serve the goal of protection.

How you think people should act is ethical. No, standards of behavior are ethics... We are back to "I want to be safe, os I punish things that lead to me being unsafe". This is not a moral stance... merely a pragmatic approach to achieving a chosen goal.

I don't consider me being safe either moral nor immoral, just desired.

You're equating social pressure with social force. Telling someone that you're going to mock them (a social consequence) is similar to telling someone that you're going to kick them. However, building within them your presuppositions will change them fundamentally. Take, for instance, a person I met last year. He was a legalistic racist. Now he is fairly tolerant. Why? Because I didn't attack him physically or emotional -- I lived a lifestyle around him that demonstrated for him presuppositions that rubbed off on him. Then you persuaded, you did not impose.

If the groups that are supposed to be most tolerant (humanists) are overtly pushing their philosophy, it is no small jump to say that less "tolerant" groups are going to push their philosophies! What you, or others, suppose these people to be is entirely irrellevent.

Define "impose." Done above.

Is it imposing for a student to tell another that he will kill him if that student does not act as the student desires? Yes.

Is it imposing to tell someone that they can't come to the party on Friday night if they don't act like you want them to act? No

Is it imposing for a professor to teach a student that his beliefs are true? Is it imposing for a kindergarten teacher to teach her students that her beliefs are true? Within the context of a class, it could be argued, but I would say "no".

Is it imposing for a father to teach his son that his beliefs are true? No.

Is it imposing for a celebrity to tell his/her fans that his/her beliefs are true? No.

Is it imposing for a TV writer to place the characters in a situation and provide a certain outcome according to what he/she thinks about the starting scenario? No

This kind of reasoning can be rephrased into your above example: "I'm just trying to prohibit oral sex in order to insure my protection." Show how it protects you and you would have an argument... but we both know this was not the logic.

If you're going to insult me (for the second time), I can return the favor of frankness. It was not an insult to you (unless you are inferring that I called you a liar)... and while it might be interpreted as an insult to your post, that's fair ground... nor do I know what you are referring to as the first insult, nor does it matter.

I'm sorry that you took the statement as an attack on your person, it was not. You know full well the road that bringing me to a trading of insults is; you also should have a good idea that I don't use such subtleties in insulting.

[xSuspensionx]

It was not an insult to you (unless you are inferring that I called you a liar)... and while it might be interpreted as an insult to your post, that's fair ground... nor do I know what you are referring to as the first insult, nor does it matter.

I'm sorry that you took the statement as an attack on your person, it was not. You know full well the road that bringing me to a trading of insults is; you also should have a good idea that I don't use such subtleties in insulting.

I'm not quite sure, as I cannot read minds, but I think that mustbenothing intended to say that you were about to insult him, as your statement "Careful, John" seemed to indicate that if he were to continue you would insult him.

It seems that mustbenothing was reading into your post. You have probably said something with similar logic behind it before, just my idea of what mustbenothing meant by "insult".

[Travis]

Jerry, if you already answered this just copy and paste: Isn't wanting murder to be outlawed an imposition of morality? You asked what reason there could be for prohibiting certain kinds of sex other than moral reasons; well I ask what reason there could be to prohibit murder other than moral reasons.

[joelsdad]

[QUOTE=JerryLove]Indistinct variations of the same thing. A law exists primarily to protect or impose. There is no protection in outlawing oral sex, ergo it imposes. Why does it impose? External moral? Internal moral? Sense of "grossness"? A feeling of being "left out"? Doesn't really matter in damning it as a bad law.

That said, I cannot believe you would make a good-faith argument that this law exists from some other pretext than a Christian moral one.


In this it is from a moral or religious reason, but definitely not from a Christian reason. there is no prohibition in the bible for married couples to engage in any sexual act as long as it is mutually acceptable..



I'm imposing a non-imposition? The question then becomes weather it is a moral motive for not putting moral laws on the books. I don't consider putting morality laws on the books immoral; ergo it's not an imposing of morals.

Even amorality is a set of morals. Proposing any law at all, even one that beneficial for all in society is imposing a morality on someone. Sorry Jerry but amorality is a morality, Just as the Supreme Court in 1962 ruled that Atheistic humanismis a bonafide religion.
.



.

[JerryLove]

Jerry, if you already answered this just copy and paste: Isn't wanting murder to be outlawed an imposition of morality? It's an issue of justification. If I outlaw murder solely on the grounds "it's wrong", then I am imposing a moral... if I outlaw it "to protect myself from being murdered", then it is not.

I suppose there is an entirely different, but far more slippery, view that one could take... That we have a minimalist set of communal morals (for example, that people have rights that should be protected), and I'm objecting to the addition of morals that I don't feel are basic and communal... and I generally agree with the Declaration of Independance on establishing what those basic rights are.

That said, I do see a distinct difference between protecting a right and imposing a moral... and while I can see the argument above (that protecting a right is a moral), I don't agree with it on a practical level.

You asked what reason there could be for prohibiting certain kinds of sex other than moral reasons; well I ask what reason there could be to prohibit murder other than moral reasons. Protecting rights. Prohibition of sexual acts does not protect a right.

In this it is from a moral or religious reason, but definitely not from a Christian reason. there is no prohibition in the bible for married couples to engage in any sexual act as long as it is mutually acceptable.. Well, that really takes the wind out of the "cause it's unnatural" argument against homosexuality... unnatural sex is OK?

That said, and granting your premise (that the Bible does not prohibit sexual acts between concenting spouses), that just means that the Christian view is not Biblically justified... not that it's not held by many Christians as a Chrsitian view.

I'm imposing a non-imposition? The question then becomes weather it is a moral motive for not putting moral laws on the books. I don't consider putting morality laws on the books immoral; ergo it's not an imposing of morals. No, I have not argued that morality laws are immoral.. I've argued that they are bad laws... and I've argued that not all worldviews would impose their morality on others by making them.

Even amorality is a set of morals. Proposing any law at all, even one that beneficial for all in society is imposing a morality on someone. Sorry Jerry but amorality is a morality, Just as the Supreme Court in 1962 ruled that Atheistic humanismis a bonafide religion. I see a distinction between a law founded on moral groudns, and a law founded on (say) practical grounds.

And 1962 is hardly a good year in the American judicial archives.

[Travis]

It's an issue of justification. If I outlaw murder solely on the grounds "it's wrong", then I am imposing a moral... if I outlaw it "to protect myself from being murdered", then it is not.So why do you have the right to protect yourself from being murdered?

[Chrysostom]

(JerryLove) I've said... over and over and over... that I'm discussing the IMPOSING of MORALS

(Me) Here is what I said originally:

"There are certainly degrees of "persecuting" that could be debated, but it is no complaint at all to say that a worldview is "attempting to impose its religious and moral beliefs on the country." All worldviews do that, no matter the case."

By the definition you use for the word 'impose,' my statement is false.

By the definition I was using for the word 'impose' (i.e., cause to accept), my statement is true.

[JerryLove]

So why do you have the right to protect yourself from being murdered? All rights have a single source... the power to take them.

In this case, my society has granted life as a right... I also personally protect that as a right.

[joelsdad]

Protecting rights. Prohibition of sexual acts does not protect a right.

But who in your society decides what is right and what is not. What standard of morality or right and wrong is used by atheists to determine what restrictive legislation to put on society. Is it might makes right? 50%+1? Some philosophical retort? Why is murder wrong in your atheistic society?" What is the standardf that makes it wrong?

[JerryLove]

But who in your society decides what is right and what is not. Society et al (from where power is derived).

What standard of morality or right and wrong is used by atheists to determine what restrictive legislation to put on society. It's intuitively obvious that "right" covers the ability to do something (weather it be work, or own a gun, or simply live). Trying to come up with a syntax that needs to begin "I have the right to have you not do X" is not "rights" in a painful obvious way.

Is it might makes right? Yes.

Why is murder wrong in your atheistic society? It depends on your use of the word "wrong". It is disallowed because it is deemed desierable (indeed, the point of forming communities) to protect the collective "me".

[Travis]

Personally I don't even think "might makes right" is needing of a refutation. Virtually anyone, atheist and Christian alike, knows that such a notion is utterly absurd and renders all laws arbitrary and leaves everything permissable as long as you have the power to do it.

Question: Is it right for a middle aged man to viciously rape a prepubescent girl? Remember, might makes right--what is she going to do to stop him? And if you appeal to society in this, then I ask what about a situation in which a society thought it fine for this to occur. Let's say the vast majority of people thought that grown men raping little girls is great. Is it right? What about Nazi Germany? Might makes right. Their actions were permissable.

And this leads us back to our discussion, Jerry. If we Christians can have Christian laws enacted, what claim do you have against it? If we can muster the power to do it, it's right according to how you define right.

[JerryLove]

Personally I don't even think "might makes right" is needing of a refutation. Virtually anyone, atheist and Christian alike, knows that such a notion is utterly absurd and renders all laws arbitrary and leaves everything permissable as long as you have the power to do it. So, is it your claim that it is mere coincidence that right and wrong are decided by the mightest being in your beliefs (God?). Seems to me that you determine right from wrong by the dictates of the one with the most power.

Question: Is it right for a middle aged man to viciously rape a prepubescent girl? Remember, might makes right--what is she going to do to stop him? And if you appeal to society in this, then I ask what about a situation in which a society thought it fine for this to occur. Let's say the vast majority of people thought that grown men raping little girls is great. Is it right? What about Nazi Germany? Might makes right. Their actions were permissable. The rape is wrong because a more mighty entity (the government) says so, the Axis was wrong because a more powerful group (the Allies) says so. You draw your mral compas from what a more powerfulg entity (God) has dictated.

On what moral justification did God kill the babies of the hittites? Or the Egyptians? or the world in the flood? On his own authority. And from wence did that authority come? From himself. Why can't I give myself the same authority? Because I lack the might to do so.

And this leads us back to our discussion, Jerry. If we Christians can have Christian laws enacted, what claim do you have against it? If we can muster the power to do it, it's right according to how you define right. I claimed it was a bad law. but more importantly, it simply makes my case about imposing your morals on others (you do remember the topic right?)

[Travis]

The rape is wrong because a more mighty entity (the government) says so, the Axis was wrong because a more powerful group (the Allies) says so. Now answer my question: What if the Axis had been more powerful? Would it have been right. Yes or no. I claimed it was a bad law.How do you justify calling anything bad if the majority is in favor of it?

[JerryLove]

Now answer my question: What if the Axis had been more powerful? Would it have been right. Yes or no. It would have been their right, yes.

How do you justify calling anything bad if the majority is in favor of it? Because it directly fits my definition. I did not say "a good law is on which is supported", I said "a good law is one which protects me".

There's "bad" and "good",
There's "moral" and "immoral"
There's "right" and "wrong"
There's "right" and "not right"

At minimum, there are four *different* comparisons there... in reality, there are more than that.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am typically using the follwing:

"good and bad" is a definitional matter. Food which nourishes is "good", food which makes you sick is "bad".

"moral and immoral" is subjective. To a Christian, they are whatever they feel God has arbitrated... to a non-Christian, they come from other sources.

"right and wrong" I have not used too much here. Probibly most important as "acceptable by convention or law" and "unacceptable by convention or law". Therefore following te speed limit is right, not following it is wrong.

"right and not right" differentiates the "rights of [people]" from things which are not rights. There is an intuitive understanding betweeen a right "the right to wear plad" and a non-right "the non-right to make you recite poetry"... though in the end, all rights are held and handed out soley by the entities with the power to enforce their will to do so.

[Travis]

It would have been their right, yes.

Because it directly fits my definition. I did not say "a good law is on which is supported", I said "a good law is one which protects me".
Well it protects me, therefore it is a good law.

[JerryLove]

Well it protects me, therefore it is a good law. What does it protect you from?

[Travis]

What does it protect you from?
It would protect myself and my family from non-Christian influence.

And why do I even have to have a reason for wanting it? I want it, and if I can find a way to have it enacted it is, by you definition, right and just.

[JerryLove]

I fail to understand how that can be intuitivly viewed as protection...

"Just" has not been mentioned or used.

"It's your right" if you can take it as your right, or are given it by someone who can... of course, that assumes it passes the basic definition of potential rights (again, I refer you to the intuitive definition of what might potentally be a right)

Similarly, you would claim anything God told you to do was right and just. You use the same standard.

[joelsdad]

I see a distinction between a law founded on moral groudns, and a law founded on (say) practical grounds.

But once again it is an imnposition based on moral grounds. Who in your society decides what is moral and what is not? What standard is used.


And 1962 is hardly a good year in the American judicial archives.

To some, and to others it was a fine year so that is a relative opinion.



That said, and granting your premise (that the Bible does not prohibit sexual acts between concenting spouses), that just means that the Christian view is not Biblically justified... not that it's not held by many Christians as a Chrsitian view.


No Jerry the Christian view is biblicaloly justified, but some brands of Christians have replaced the bible with their own opinion on what connotes good and bad sex between husband and wife.


Well, that really takes the wind out of the "cause it's unnatural" argument against homosexuality... unnatural sex is OK?

Jerry you and I would define unnatural sex from differentr world views so we would of neccessity have differing definitions. I do not apologize for letting Gods Word determione what is considered unnatural sex .


It depends on your use of the word "wrong". It is disallowed because it is de