RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress

RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

breatheasone -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 7:56:34 PM)
quote: original:Cagey18 I fail to see why you think that just because someone grew up in a society with lots of Christians, doesn't mean that same person can't look at a legal issue independent of that background. Especially when the Constitution specifically leaves out Christianity. Well said, i agree completely.

Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:25:53 PM)
quote: Because in the 1970s we decided that divorce should be allowed the way it is today. You are aware that our divorce laws are in direct conflict with the teachings of many, if not most, of the major Christian churches? Such as, for instance, the Catholic Church? And you are aware that in truly Christian nations - that is, countries that allow direct influence from the Church on politics - divorce (and your earlier example, abortion) is still illegal? Ireland, for instance. You are making my point. In the early 1800's was it as easy to divorce as it is today. No it was not? Why?

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:31:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b I fail to see why people are having a difficult time with the distinction I am drawing. "intentionally obtuse" describes the difficulty quite well. When someone cant even admit that "Christian nations" and "Muslim nations" and "Flying Spaghetti Nations " are subsets of his self-proclaimed "Human Nation" that or total stupidity are the only possible explanations.

Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:36:44 PM)
quote: Not at all. It's more akin to discussing planetary motion without discussing where the chalk came from that you're drawing orbits with, or the manufacturer of the chalkboard. In other words, not necessary to the discussion. Absurd. You are looking at this from a strictly legal point of view. I am looking at this from more of an anthropological point of view. quote: I fail to see why you think that just because someone grew up in a society with lots of Christians, doesn't mean that same person can't look at a legal issue independent of that background. Especially when the Constitution specifically leaves out Christianity. Because I am not talking about somebody growing up in a society with lots of Christians. I am talking about somebody growing up in a Christian influenced society. They are not one and the same. I’m all for independent thinking. I wish people would practice dispassionate analysis more often. But there are limits to everything. You are talking about somebody growing up in a complete cultural vacuum. No such person exists (unless they grew up all alone, never having contact with anybody). I am not talking about Supreme Court Justices running off to consult their Bible every time a case comes before them (although it wouldn’t surprise me if there have been some who have). I am talking about paradigms. Things so basic to a persons world view and out look that they don’t question them – that it doesn’t even occur to them to question them. What forms those paradigms? I know plenty of people who had no religious upbringing whatsoever. Yet some of these people would consider public nudity wrong. Why? Could it be because they grew up in a society influenced by Christian values about public nudity? Some of those people – again, not religious in the slightest – would gladly stop and help a stranger in trouble. Why? Could the concept of “do unto to others as you would have others do unto to you” have anything to do with it? The fact that the Framers left any mention of Christianity out of the Constitution is irrelevant. The people forming the new government, and a great many who held positions of power in it since then have had many of their notions – such as what is right and what is wrong – influenced by Christianity. Even if they themselves are not Christian.

KitCoyote -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:40:06 PM)
Typical that the sort of people who would vote on this would really be the sort who only read a book per year.

Cagey18 -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:42:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Not at all. It's more akin to discussing planetary motion without discussing where the chalk came from that you're drawing orbits with, or the manufacturer of the chalkboard. In other words, not necessary to the discussion. Absurd. You are looking at this from a strictly legal point of view. I am looking at this from more of an anthropological point of view. Good for you. But the topic is separation of church and state, and how it relates to the Constitution. In fact, you yourself first asked: quote: How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues Oops. Your bad.

Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 8:55:23 PM)
The topic may have started out about the separation of church and state (something I am completely in favor of by the way) but conversations (and what are the message boards but a slow motion conversation?) tend to meander as I’m sure you are aware of. If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. Pulling apart my quotes and presenting only half of them – out of context! – is deceptive. What I actually said was: "How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the *cultural heritage* [emphasis mine] such things arise from?"

breatheasone -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:07:30 PM)
~~FR~~ There were PLENTY of civilizations and societies, before Christ that did not condone public nudity. i'm not saying they were opposed to nudity over all but as you stated public. And please tell me you are not suggesting that no cultures were kind to each other, or even strangers before Christ? So then...wouldn't it be interesting to find out where they got their sense of right and wrong? Seeing how they wouldn't have had Christ's influence. nor the influence of His followers.

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:47:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: breatheasone ~~FR~~ There were PLENTY of civilizations and societies, before Christ that did not condone public nudity. i'm not saying they were opposed to nudity over all but as you stated public. And please tell me you are not suggesting that no cultures were kind to each other, or even strangers before Christ? So then...wouldn't it be interesting to find out where they got their sense of right and wrong? Seeing how they wouldn't have had Christ's influence. nor the influence of His followers. Despite the name, "Christian principles" pre-date Christ. thats why they are more properly called the Judaeo-Christian ethic. "In the American context, historians use the term Judeo–Christian to refer to the influence of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament on Protestant thought and values, most especially the Puritan, Presbyterian and Evangelical heritage. These founding generations of Americans saw themselves as heirs to the Hebrew Bible, and its teachings on liberty, responsibility, hard work, ethics, justice, equality, a sense of choseness and an ethical mission to the world, which have become key components of the American character, what is called the “American Creed.” [7]These ideas from the Hebrew Bible, brought into American history by Protestants, are seen as underpinning the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. "

Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 9:55:01 PM)
quote: ~~FR~~ There were PLENTY of civilizations and societies, before Christ that did not condone public nudity. i'm not saying they were opposed to nudity over all but as you stated public. Yes there were. quote: And please tell me you are not suggesting that no cultures were kind to each other, or even strangers before Christ? So then...wouldn't it be interesting to find out where they got their sense of right and wrong? Seeing how they wouldn't have had Christ's influence. nor the influence of His followers. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. I am simply stating that the cultures people grow up in influence how they see the world whether or not they consciously suscribe to particular notions of said culture. For the United States, Christianity is a major influence on the culture.

Cagey18 -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:00:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b The topic may have started out about the separation of church and state (something I am completely in favor of by the way) but conversations (and what are the message boards but a slow motion conversation?) tend to meander as I’m sure you are aware of. Not in this case, however. These legal issues have been the topic for the entirety of our exchanges, as proven by your own words. Trying to pretend otherwise is called "backpedaling". quote: If you are going to quote me, please do so accurately. Pulling apart my quotes and presenting only half of them – out of context! – is deceptive. What I actually said was: "How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the *cultural heritage* [emphasis mine] such things arise from?" Uh, no, not "out of context" when your words are the entire context. I only quoted the first half, since the second half is irrelevant. By quoting the first half, I'm showing how we were in fact discussing legal/Constitutional issues [emphasis mine], and not anthropological ones as you are trying to pretend.

Vendaval -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:18:25 PM)
Panda scores again! [8D]

Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:22:46 PM)
quote: Not in this case, however. These legal issues have been the topic for the entirety of our exchanges, as proven by your own words. Trying to pretend otherwise is called "backpedaling". Yes in this case. Perhaps they have been the topic for the entirety of our exchanges for you but not for me. My whole point is that the legal issues do not exist in a vacuum all by themselves - that there is a whole cultural/religious heritage influencing them. A point you seem entirely unable to grasp. quote: Uh, no, not "out of context" when your words are the entire context. I only quoted the first half, since the second half is irrelevant. By quoting the first half, I'm showing how we were in fact discussing legal/Constitutional issues [emphasis mine], and not anthropological ones as you are trying to pretend. The second half of my statement may be irrelevant to you but not to me. It is – once again! – the whole point I am trying to make. Anthropology concerns the study of cultures so I am not pretending anything. If you want to limit your mind, by all means do so. I prefer a more expansive view of things.

Cagey18 -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 10:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Not in this case, however. These legal issues have been the topic for the entirety of our exchanges, as proven by your own words. Trying to pretend otherwise is called "backpedaling". Yes in this case. Perhaps they have been the topic for the entirety of our exchanges for you but not for me. My whole point is that the legal issues do not exist in a vacuum all by themselves - that there is a whole cultural/religious heritage influencing them. A point you seem entirely unable to grasp. You're funny! Actually it's a point that you keep valiantly trying to hammer home, and yet no one here is buying it. That's not failure to grasp, it's deliberate ignoring (or refutation) of nonsense. quote: quote: Uh, no, not "out of context" when your words are the entire context. I only quoted the first half, since the second half is irrelevant. By quoting the first half, I'm showing how we were in fact discussing legal/Constitutional issues [emphasis mine], and not anthropological ones as you are trying to pretend. The second half of my statement may be irrelevant to you but not to me. It is – once again! – the whole point I am trying to make. Anthropology concerns the study of cultures so I am not pretending anything. If you want to limit your mind, by all means do so. I prefer a more expansive view of things. Like I said, "expanding" discussion of planetary orbits to included the context of the chalk and the manufacturer of the chalkboard is irrelevant. "Expanding" legal discussions of the Constitution (which is explicitly non-Christian) to include Christian influences is likewise irrelevant. A point you seem entirely unable to grasp.

Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 11:30:48 PM)
quote: You're funny! Actually it's a point that you keep valiantly trying to hammer home, and yet no one here is buying it. Doesn’t make them right. quote: That's not failure to grasp, it's deliberate ignoring (or refutation) of nonsense. The influence of the culture in which a legal system arises is nonsense? How obtuse can you be? quote: Like I said, "expanding" discussion of planetary orbits to included the context of the chalk and the manufacturer of the chalkboard is irrelevant. But, as I said before, considering the influence of gravity on planetary orbits is not. quote: "Expanding" legal discussions of the Constitution (which is explicitly non-Christian) to include Christian influences is likewise irrelevant. A point you seem entirely unable to grasp. Because it is not irrelevant. If you believe otherwise then you are, quite simply, wrong. The Constitution didn’t spring out of nothingness. It arose out of a culture that had been forming for thousands of years and whether you like it or not Christianity has been a part of that culture – helping to mold and shape it (for better or worse). You sound as if the Constitution could have been just as easily written by Eskimos. It could not have because they come from an entirely different cultural outlook. The fact that the Constitution doesn’t mention Christianity is what’s irrelevant. It was written by people from a society in which Christianity had an influence. That’s a fact. How can you seriously deny that? I am beginning to suspect that you have an anti-Christian bias and that it is clouding your judgment. You don’t want to acknowledge the obvious facts because you don’t like the obvious facts. Well guess what? Reality doesn’t give a shit. So? What do you want to discuss next? The rise of the Nazi party in Germany without considering the influence of German culture and its anti-Semitism? Perhaps we could discuss Shakespeare without mentioning the influence of English culture on the Bard’s plays? Or perhaps we should simply accept the fact that neither of us is going to budge the other on this issue and simply call it a night?

Cagey18 -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/22/2009 11:44:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: You're funny! Actually it's a point that you keep valiantly trying to hammer home, and yet no one here is buying it. Doesn’t make them right. Nor you, for that matter. But it certainly puts the odds of "rightness" in our favor. Strange that not one person agrees with you, isn't it? quote: quote: That's not failure to grasp, it's deliberate ignoring (or refutation) of nonsense. The influence of the culture in which a legal system arises is nonsense? How obtuse can you be? We're not talking about how legal systems arise. How obtuse can you be? quote: quote: Like I said, "expanding" discussion of planetary orbits to included the context of the chalk and the manufacturer of the chalkboard is irrelevant. But, as I said before, considering the influence of gravity on planetary orbits is not. And as I said before, your argument is more akin to chalk origins than gravity. quote: quote: "Expanding" legal discussions of the Constitution (which is explicitly non-Christian) to include Christian influences is likewise irrelevant. A point you seem entirely unable to grasp. Because it is not irrelevant. If you believe otherwise then you are, quite simply, wrong. The Constitution didn’t spring out of nothingness. It arose out of a culture that had been forming for thousands of years and whether you like it or not Christianity has been a part of that culture – helping to mold and shape it (for better or worse). You sound as if the Constitution could have been just as easily written by Eskimos. Again, we're not talking about the origin of the Constitution. That's not the topic at all. If you want to keep attempting to move the goalposts away, feel free, but then you'll really be alone, preaching to yourself and agreeing with yourself.

Marc2b -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/23/2009 12:46:29 AM)
Nor you, for that matter. But it certainly puts the odds of "rightness" in our favor. Strange that not one person agrees with you, isn't it? Since when are numbers an indication of rightness? For thousands of years millions of people believed that the sun orbited the earth. Were they right? quote: We're not talking about how legal systems arise. How obtuse can you be? This is bullshit. Every time I make a point you simply say “we’re not talking about that.” Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. I will not allow you dictate the terms of the discussion. That it an old rhetorical dodge (one that demonstrates that you are unable to refute me) and I will not fall for it. quote: And as I said before, your argument is more akin to chalk origins than gravity. Just another example of what I just said. You didn’t like my argument so you declared it to be out of bounds. quote: Again, we're not talking about the origin of the Constitution. That's not the topic at all. And yet again. You don’t like what I am saying so you declare it out of bounds. quote: If you want to keep attempting to move the goalposts away, feel free, but then you'll really be alone, preaching to yourself and agreeing with yourself. Yeah, well, sometimes that’s the only way I can have a serious intellectual discussion. You know, I could use your technique against you just as easily. Your first response to me on this thread was in response to a statement I had made (to Musicmystery) in which I asked the question: “How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the cultural heritage such things arise from?” You responded with: “Pretty easily, actually. The Supreme Court does it all the time.” But we’re not talking about the Supreme Court are we? See how easy that is? With one fell swoop I simply declare your argument out of bounds and give it no regard whatsoever. Do you see what bullshit that is? I doubt it. You know, I never really discussed anything with you before because I had pegged you early on as a closed minded ideologue and believed that discussion with you would be pointless – like trying to discuss something with a lobotomized gerbil with its head stuck up it ass. Tonight has confirmed that for me. Nothing personal. I bear you no ill will. It’s late and I’m going to bed. Good night.

Cagey18 -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/23/2009 1:10:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Nor you, for that matter. But it certainly puts the odds of "rightness" in our favor. Strange that not one person agrees with you, isn't it? Since when are numbers an indication of rightness? For thousands of years millions of people believed that the sun orbited the earth. Were they right? We are no longer in medieval times. I correctly pointed out the odds, and the fact that no one is agreeing with you. quote: We're not talking about how legal systems arise. How obtuse can you be? This is bullshit. Every time I make a point you simply say “we’re not talking about that.” Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. I will not allow you dictate the terms of the discussion. Not "dictating the terms", but rather pointing out reality. If you bring up ancient Egyptian customs, and I point out that's not the topic, is that "dictating the terms" in your world? That it an old rhetorical dodge (one that demonstrates that you are unable to refute me Actually I've already done so several times) and I will not fall for it. quote: And as I said before, your argument is more akin to chalk origins than gravity. Just another example of what I just said. You didn’t like my argument so you declared it to be out of bounds. Has nothing to do with "liking", but rather making a more accurate analogy than the one you were making. quote: Again, we're not talking about the origin of the Constitution. That's not the topic at all. And yet again. You don’t like what I am saying so you declare it out of bounds. See above re "liking", and further above re reality. quote: If you want to keep attempting to move the goalposts away, feel free, but then you'll really be alone, preaching to yourself and agreeing with yourself. Yeah, well, sometimes that’s the only way I can have a serious intellectual discussion. What an incredibly amusing image. You know, I could use your technique against you just as easily. Your first response to me on this thread was in response to a statement I had made (to Musicmystery) in which I asked the question: “How can you possibly discuss legal/Constitutional issues without discussing the cultural heritage such things arise from?” You responded with: “Pretty easily, actually. The Supreme Court does it all the time.” But we’re not talking about the Supreme Court are we? Actually we were--where were you? Do I really have you so "exasperated"?

CruelNUnsual -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/23/2009 1:30:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cagey18 Strange that not one person agrees with you, isn't it? Wrong. I agree with him, and he is totally correct about your dishonest debating "techniques". If anyone with the reading comprehension of a 7th grader bothers with this thread tomorrow there will be plenty more that agree with him.

Cagey18 -> RE: Bible bill in U.S. Congress (5/23/2009 1:43:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual quote: ORIGINAL: Cagey18 Strange that not one person agrees with you, isn't it? Wrong. I agree with him, and he is totally correct about your dishonest debating "techniques". If anyone with the reading comprehension of a 7th grader bothers with this thread tomorrow there will be plenty more that agree with him. Oh really CnU? Which points of his do you "agree" with, exactly? And since you're in such agreement, why didn't you yourself agree about my "dishonest debating techniques", and point them out, or at least show your support earlier? Maybe you were too busy seeing your "Christian nation" and "SCOTUS rulings" arguments getting squashed, perhaps?

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875