OH HELLO, FRIENDS! Itza me! ....Anyways, I'd like to note the existance of a certain country called Israel. Keeping her difficult history in mind, she is the the longest-running government since Adam/Eve or the Big Bang or what have you. ...Israel is also the only Theocracy to have ever existed. And now that I've made that small point, I believe folks take the term "Seperation of Church and State" to a degree more critical than originally intended. That is, no one should be victim of the gallows for any religion (or lack thereof). A person should not be denied a right or political position because of his religion or lack thereof. I don't believe that phrase is to say that a person cannot be a (insert religion) both outside and inside a state or government position. A Christian judge rules more harshly because of his beliefs. That is simply his living out his beliefs. You cannot expect a person to be an "American" from 9:00-5:00 of every weekday, and then to go back to being themselves the rest of the time.
A judge who bases his judgement on his religion really shouldn't be a judge. If a straight man rapes a girl and a gay man rapes a boy they deserve equal punishment, any judge that gives a harsher punishment to the gay man shouldn't be a judge. If a man burns down a church and another burns down shop they deserve equal punishment. Someone shooting a nun vs. someone shooting a bum. Etc, etc. Religion has no place in government.
Keep your religion away from your government. If given the chance, those in power will transform your faith into a method of control, eventually twisting it into something unappealing, oppressive, dishonest, a parody of the values it once represented.
You are well area that the Crusades were based on reestablishing the holy land. Saladin, a Muslim ruler, controlled the land that you call Israel and before that the Romans and before that the Greeks. Israel became a self governing nation again after WW2 and we can see how quickly it has headed down hill. There has not been a moment of peace since we forcefully removed Palestine and inserted an artificial population.
See, actually I noticed more forgiveness for someone attacking a church more then burning a store.... I mean in my local town some drunks broke some windows at my church.... they actually got of more then if you did it to a store. As for judges not treating people fairly.... I actually would say that man not based on Religious of any sort will be more likely to judge bias, its subject to opinion. So unless the data of yours proves other wise STFU.... As for Israel... Is compared to Indian's in native America. They have been kicked out the landed they lived in....the issue is that the years they been missed treated is about double... Holocaust? I would like to see both the Muslims and Jews in that Area co exist one day but ... at the moments they war with being with each other. So besides the fact people in Church actually means something different then the idea of Church and State. See people should leave there opinion at the door and judge the law. Just because the guy is gay or the man is strait is not the only base point for the charges of the crime or the punishment. Just because you only see one half the issue doesn't make you even able to judge. Get off your high horse... I see more people religious be better judges for the reason that they have a center though of Fair. That is how law works.... Fair and Equal....nothing else... this crap of Separation of church and state isn't about God and the state house ...its about your opinion versus someone else, its something that needs to be left at the gateway, god isn't an oppion its a point of view and in that religon forces the person that believes it to be FAIR and Equal to every one. KInda like a living law in his heart. Every one has an opinion .. I think just because your thought are bias towards against a judge because he has Religion is actually setting the same seed of repeat for those without god. DO you see that? Because its just a fair reason why we shouldn't have athiests for goverment because they look down on people with religon, possibly thinking they are stupid or anything of the like. Same bias oppion as the man condeming it doesn't fly well at a statehouse. Draw swords to the ones you die on all to often.
I didn't say that Christian judges are more likely to be bias than atheist, I said that a judge should not let his faith influence his judgement. What makes you think an atheist judge is more likely to be bias than a Christian one? Its possible to have a moral compass without the bible you know... not that the bible gives you a true moral compass anyway, it teaches self righteousness and intolerances along with the good. But hey ho this isnt the place to debate christianity itself.
I used my opinion to show you that your bias because they have a believe. I did not support my fact in saying they would be bias it was something you would read more into then the rest of what I was saying... GO back read what else I said and how The judge himself should be found fair and justice for the appointment not just because they have a certain background. Now .... that you died to the sword can you learn something about listening. For as many teaching of intolerance in the bible It tells you more often to forgive and listen and obey... for a bias points of view ... your kinda off in that statement then. State some reasons better then the normal Anti Religious statements. Since government can't remove Religion it much be right and proper that they still have it effect there personal life. What gets me more is that when judge makes a rule It is left to peoples opinion of if it was Justice or not ....because People know some how the moment they are accused people have the story. I think there is people in the court house ruling fairly but the people on looking are the ones corrupt bias and ungodly in some causes..... SO your move.....
Whaaaat You used your opinion to show me that I am biased? Of course I am bias I am attempting to explain how a judicial system based on the teachings of Christianity would be bias and unjust. Sure an atheist judge can make a bias decision, but that bias would be his own not the teaching of a bias rule book. The law as we know it is fair and just (or at least that what its supposed to be), a Christian controlled law would not be fair and just. The Christianity that is, where homosexuality is wrong and beating slaves is ok as long as they don't die within three days and disobedient children should be stoned and all those "normal Anti Religious statements", not the Christianity where you live by your own morals and pretend that's what the bible teaches. As for the ungodly on-lookers stuff.... idk what youre trying to say.
Read my post again... Please you missed both of them again... I'm showing you how your are just the same as the biased accused.
Translation I think I can speak for Mallet in saying that it is very difficult to pull meaning out of your posts because of the way you use the language. I will now attempt to translate one of your recent posts into English. I'm still confused about meaning in a few areas, but it is much easier to respond to in the translated version below. Translation: Actually I've noticed more forgiveness for someone attacking a church over burning a store. I mean, in my local town some drunks broke some windows at my church and they got off with less of a penalty than they would have if they had vandalized a store. As for judges not treating people fairly.... I actually would say that a man without religious values of any sort will be more likely to judge with bias. Its subject to opinion. So unless you have data that proves otherwise, STFU.... As for Israel, I compare their people to Native Americans. They have been kicked out the land they lived in. The issue is that they've been mistreated twice as many years as the Jews did in the Holocaust. I would like to see both the Muslims and Jews in that area coexist one day, but at the moment war is the only outcome when they are so close to each other. Besides, people going to church means something different than the idea of a separation of church and state. See, people should leave their opinion at the door and judge only based on the law. Just because the guy is gay or the man is strait, that is not the only thing to consider when coming up with a punishment to fit the crime. If you only see one half of the issue, you are not even able to judge. Get off your high horse. I see religious people making better judges because they have a central thought of fairness. That is how the law works, fair and equal....nothing else. This crap about separation of church and state isn't about God and the state house. Its about your opinion versus someone else's opinion. Its something that needs to be checked at the door. God isn't an opinion. Its a point of view. Religion forces the person that believes it to be FAIR and EQUAL to every one. It's kind of like a living law in his heart. Every one has an opinion. I think that your bias thoughts towards a judge with a religious background could be used in the same way for a judge without god in his or her life. Do you see that? Its just as fair to suggest that we shouldn't have atheists in government leadership because they look down on people of faith, possibly thinking they are stupid, or any number of other prejudices. It's the same bias opinion as a man saying there is no room for religion in a courthouse. To often, those who draw the sword will die by the sword.
Wow you guys actually expect to pull results out of an argument like this? No consensus will be met no matter how long you argue. I don't really want to take sides. I might a little, but mostly I'll just poke fun at all of you. I like how people say stuff like that and then go on to say how ignorant republicans are XD. You can't make sweeping generations and then point to another's ignorance. Wasn't the republican's inaguration. Seems like your problem is with republicans, not religion and state. Try another thread? Everyone has a media. The media is influenced by those who present it. And like i'll talk about later, the people who present it are biased by those who present it. So yes, there is an atheist media, but only because it has that sort of spin. and like whisper brought up, there are actual atheist medias. I know I said I wasn't going to take sides, but I have I do have one viewpoint I agree with, which was "You cannot expect a person to be an "American" from 9:00-5:00 of every weekday, and then to go back to being themselves the rest of the time. " People's decisions are strongly influenced by their beliefs. I mean and there are a universal set of beliefs. Of course we may call them postulates, things like "murder is wrong." we all believe that is true, but if we have to remove our beliefs then whose to say it really is wrong. this is starting to stray from my original point but i'll get back to that now. If you believe something, you can't just forget about it when you're supposed to do something unbiased. In fact that may even be UNamerican, as I've always seen the american way being headstrong in your beliefs, and freedom of religion meaning you have the right to chose your religion, making it a lifestyle, not just something you do on sunday. So even though a lot of this is going way off track, the point is, peoples beliefs are going to influence them no matter what. They can't just drop them. It's always there in the back of your mind nagging you. Is that fair? Really, whose to decide? But can we really change it if we wanted to? Not unless we want to criple more of our "beliefs." Anyway my points are scattered abroad, but if all else fails, those last two paragraphs are all I really needed to say.
Do we need a "result"? These debates are discussions. It's not like we're sitting in the Capitol voting on some bill. Of course the debates are just tiny things; it's just to see other people's point of view. Plus, that kind of complacent attitude lends to some of the world's problems. :S Sure people's beliefs will always be with them. Those beliefs are what make each person unique; I don't think there are any two people who have the same beliefs on anything. However, there is a limit to this. Since not everyone believes in the same thing, we must include all beliefs. Sometimes you see people going against something merely because "it's against their religion". Well, it's not against everyone's beliefs, so what we should be deciding is, "Will this new law/rule/etc. be fair according to what this country was based upon? Equality (not religion)?" If we censored life to account for everything going against all religions, life would be incredibly dull. That is why people shouldn't complain like, "Man, it's against my RELIGION yo!"
True. Its just fun to argue sometimes, and yes to keep an open mind. And really too bad. Well what they're really saying is that its not what they believe. YOU shouldn't complain about people complaining about not doing what they believe is wrong. If someone is mindlessly controlled by a religion, theres a problem. But if they adopt a belief, then what's so bad about that? It's like if a religion says... IDK, "candy is wrong." You love candy, but you can see how it is bad (in this hypothetical situation, candy can kill you and all of your loved ones... or something) and you decide to adopt that belief and so when someone says "hey, have some candy" you can say "It's against my religion" but really that's just the easy way out of saying "I don't think that's okay." Keep in mind this is a ridiculous and majorly stripped-down example. People are free to question their religion. That's what makes it THEIR religion. Everyone has their own beliefs, that IS their religion. They are in no way separate (you do have separate beliefs, just the category "belief" and "religion" are not) so that's why its hard to differentiate. Even if you belong to a congregation, you still don't HAVE to believe everything they say. BTW, EonsAgo is an AWESOME NAME.
Oh no, I wasn't saying people shouldn't have their religions or what not. I'm just saying, when religion and only religion is the thing that is holding you back from a decision, you need to let go for a moment. Like, say people decide to pass a bill allowing 16 year olds to play M-rated games (lol). It would be dumb if someone said, "No you guys shouldn't pass this bill because it's against my religion." If no other reason can be given, I don't believe that person should have much sway in the decision-process (not taking away their free-speech, just kinda ignoring them). Oh and um, thanks.
To be honest, I really don't see why the pastor was their also. People obviously wanted him there, though, or he wouldn't have been invited. So what if there really wasn't a great reason, because there was no great reason why not to.
What? How is it a bad sounding thing? Plus, that is an irrevelant comment to the topic at hand. And it comes from the word theist, which is a person who DOES believe in God and religious beliefs. Atheist just means the opposite of that. ? back on topic please lol.
30 Rock That comment is exactly the same as this scene from 30 Rock. Just because you have prejudice associations of your own when you hear the word, doesn't mean the word "sounds" bad. Jack: It's not because you're a... I'm sorry. What... do you call... yourself? Elisa: A Puerto-Rican. Jack: No, I know you can say that but what do I call you? Elisa: Puerto-Rican. Jack: Wow. That does not sound right.