Should Religious Beliefs Be Immune From Criticism?

[bushidomartialarts]

Note it says "religious bodies" i.e. "The Church" it doesnt mean that each and every one of us as a free citizen cant vote for someone who shares our beliefs.

The Bill of Rights does function to protect the minority from a situation where free citizens vote their beliefs to the restriction of others. The Supreme Court has, does and will strike down state and local laws that seem too religiously derived, or limit freedoms because of a religious belief.

The First Amendment was written by a society founded by people in the religious minority. Our society has careful safeguards built in to protect folks from 'the tyrrany of the majority'.

It's only recently that enough citizens of this country don't buy wholesale into the majority christian ethos that some of our long-standing First Amendment violations are being questioned.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The Bill of Rights does function to protect the minority from a situation where free citizens vote their beliefs to the restriction of others. The Supreme Court has, does and will strike down state and local laws that seem too religiously derived, or limit freedoms because of a religious belief.

In what way? How can anybody be prevented from voting for a candidate who is Christian, "pro-life" and "anti gay marriage"? Or voting out one that is not? Ultimately any of thoes points, even though they are part of many religious doctrines, can also be argued in a secular manner as well.

 

[Makalakumu]

I ask you that same question.

I'm pretty much skeptical of everything. I "believe" in nothing. Thus it is easy to change my opinions on matters. If someone presents a convincing argument and the evidence is clear that I'm wrong, my ego isn't so large that it prevents me from accepting this.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I was actually referring to laws passed by those candidates, or through referral and referendum-type movements. We all have the right to vote for whomever we like, but once elected they don't get to pass just any old law.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I was actually referring to laws passed by those candidates, or through referral and referendum-type movements. We all have the right to vote for whomever we like, but once elected they don't get to pass just any old law.

Of course not, but in general they will support the the causes I believe in.

That seems to be the biggest beef with some folks. They cant pass a gay marriage bill, for example, because those "dumb red neck evangelicals" keep on voting in people who wont pass one. Well boo hoo, thats just how the system was meant to work. Our "representatives" represent our beliefs, opinions and causes. That was the basic idea in Athens that has survived to this day.

 

[Marginal]

No it really isnt. There is nothing at all preventing a candidate from saying "vote for me Im Christian".

That was Katherine Harris' sole platform come to think of it...

 

[Makalakumu]

Of course not, but in general they will support the the causes I believe in.

That seems to be the biggest beef with some folks. They cant pass a gay marriage bill, for example, because those "dumb red neck evangelicals" keep on voting in people who wont pass one. Well boo hoo, thats just how the system was meant to work. Our "representatives" represent our beliefs, opinions and causes. That was the basic idea in Athens that has survived to this day.

Beliefs regarding homosexuality are another religious belief that cannot withstand rational criticism and often Christians find themselves hiding with the "persecution" defense when they discover this.

Also, our constitution was designed to protect minority groups...which includes people who believe in unpopular things.

This was designed because the founding fathers realized that overiding the will of the masses was sometimes neccesary.

upnorthkyosa

ps - next time sign it...:whip:

 

[Cryozombie]

Beliefs regarding homosexuality are another religious belief that cannot withstand rational criticism

Dude... if all it took for it to be ok for someone to believe somthing was that it were RATIONAL, 90% of your conspiracy theory ******** about gasoline, and water burning cars, and all that illuminati nonsense would be laughable.

People believe things because its how they feel, and feelings and emotions are RARLEY rational. I'd bet 90% of people who are against homosexuality and same sex marriage are against it because to them its just... ooky... and they cant put a "rationale" to that so they hide behind religion as an excuse.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

There are plenty of people who are non religious that are "pro-life", anti gay marriage etc. Its just a lib tactic to lump it all as religious belief.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 1st amendment and more at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt1.html

The concept of neutrality itself is ``a coat of many colors,''\19\ and
three standards that could be stated in objective fashion emerged as
tests of Establishment Clause validity. The first two standards were
part of the same formulation. ``The test may be stated as follows: what
are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is
the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the
scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is
to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause
there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that
neither advances nor inhibits religion.''\20\ The third test is whether
the governmental program results in ``an excessive government
entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . .
[T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it
is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance
leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.''\21\ In 1971 these
three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion
for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman,\22\ and are frequently referred to
by reference to that case name.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971), Chief
Justice Burger remarked that ``the line of separation, far from being a
`wall,' is a blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on all
the circumstances of a particular relationship.'' Similar observations
were repeated by the Chief Justice in his opinion for the Court in Lynch
v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) (the metaphor is not ``wholly
accurate''; the Constitution does not ``require complete separation of
church and state [but] affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely
tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any'').

``The course of constitutional
neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity
could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to
insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and
none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment
and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not
tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental
interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed
governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a
benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist
without sponsorship and without interference.

The first amendment does not mean that religious beliefs cannot enter into our political decision making, only that said laws dont establish one religion over another.

 

[Makalakumu]

Dude... if all it took for it to be ok for someone to believe somthing was that it were RATIONAL, 90% of your conspiracy theory ******** about gasoline, and water burning cars, and all that illuminati nonsense would be laughable.

Um, I've never ever ever said that I believed in any illuminati nonsense. That kind of shading is very dishonest disreputable. And everything that I've argued has stood up to the laws of science in which I am aware. If someone can show me how burning kerosene can weaken or even melt steel in 45 to 90 minutes without the heat being wicked away by conduction and without the temperature even rising to a point where it can melt or even weaken steel, then I'm all ears.

My first assumption is that anything I believe could be wrong.

People believe things because its how they feel, and feelings and emotions are RARLEY rational. I'd bet 90% of people who are against homosexuality and same sex marriage are against it because to them its just... ooky... and they cant put a "rationale" to that so they hide behind religion as an excuse.

And I bet 90% of the people who are against homosexuality feel "ooky" because they were taught to do so. Someone, who should have known better and thought about the matter, didn't.

Do you feel "ooky" regarding homosexuals? Why or why not?

 

[Makalakumu]

There are plenty of people who are non religious that are "pro-life", anti gay marriage etc. Its just a lib tactic to lump it all as religious belief.

I don't doubt that there are a few, but have you bothered to ask them why?

The majority of people who hold those beliefs are religious, thus it is no stretch to label those beliefs as religious.

It isn't some liberal conspiracy, man...

 

[Ray]

Also, our constitution was designed to protect minority groups...which includes people who believe in unpopular things.

Yes, it was instrumental in protecting Native Americans and Blacks who lived in the US during our early years as a nation.

 

[Jade Tigress]

I'm pretty much skeptical of everything. I "believe" in nothing. Thus it is easy to change my opinions on matters. If someone presents a convincing argument and the evidence is clear that I'm wrong, my ego isn't so large that it prevents me from accepting this.

Well we're very similar then. Though I wouldn't say I'm skeptical of everything or that I believe in nothing. But I do have a very open mind and I easily change my opinion on matters. I also don't have a large ego and have no problem admitting my faults or when I'm wrong. I don't claim to have all the answers or get lofty over others I believe are *less educated*, or who hold opinions I consider *stupid*, as many egotistical people tend to do.

 

[Ray]

The majority of people who hold those beliefs are religious, thus it is no stretch to label those beliefs as religious.

When I was young, before I had children, I had liberal ideas on the items you mention (abortion, homosexuality) as well as recreational drug use and death penalty, etc.

After I got a older, having children and grandchildren my views on those items changed to a more conservative position...not because I was religious - I wasn't at that time, I was an atheist;

Only a few years ago I got religion.

However, I did notice that no one really desires to have an abortion and docs don't run specials/sales on them; No one really desires that their children/grandchildren become homosexual; and so on. We do love our children and grandchildren regardless of the choices they make. And some of us even let others make up their own minds with regard to what they do and how they live their lives.

 

[Cryozombie]

Do you feel "ooky" regarding homosexuals? Why or why not?

Nah, I support gay marriage, but only if both chicks are hot.

 

[jetboatdeath]

Um, I've never ever ever said that I believed in any illuminati nonsense. That kind of shading is very dishonest disreputable. And everything that I've argued has stood up to the laws of science in which I am aware. If someone can show me how burning kerosene can weaken or even melt steel in 45 to 90 minutes without the heat being wicked away by conduction and without the temperature even rising to a point where it can melt or even weaken steel, then I'm all ears.

My first assumption is that anything I believe could be wrong.



And I bet 90% of the people who are against homosexuality feel "ooky" because they were taught to do so. Someone, who should have known better and thought about the matter, didn't.

Do you feel "ooky" regarding homosexuals? Why or why not?

Well i assume you are speaking of 9/11. Jet planes don't burn kerosean they burn jet a-1 fuel. Burning temp is 980c or 1796 degrees. Steel melts at about 2800 degrees MELTS as in being able to pour it. You know what it is pointless to even try to explain things to you 9/11 Bush did it type. You claim science is the rule but when science disproves one of you theroys you come up with some other excuse. Please........

 

[Marginal]

Off topic (unless Bush rigging the towers is taken on faith I suppose) but Popular Science took the time to debunk each conspiracy theory one by one.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/

Ideally that effort would be worth recognizing and this argument can cease being an undercurrent in every Study thread.

 

[Tez3]

Off topic (unless Bush rigging the towers is taken on faith I suppose) but Popular Science took the time to debunk each conspiracy theory one by one.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/

Ideally that effort would be worth recognizing and this argument can cease being an undercurrent in every Study thread.

Off topic I know but just about every forum I've seen, martial arts included seems to carry this kerosene argument along with the Americans causing 9/11. I wonder is it a very widespread belief or just a few fervent supporters posting it everywhere? It seems to cause as many arguments as the conventional religion v science subject. Some of it gets very heated.

 

[Makalakumu]

The temperature of the fires has been delt with extensively in other threads. Look them up. The bottom line is that FEMA tested the actual steel that was present at the fire site. They showed that the fire was oxygen deprived and that it was no higher then 500 degrees. The NIST reports corroborate this...However, they go on to burn jet fuel (which is similar to Kerosene btw) in an air injected furnace in order to show that you can get higher temperatures. In the end, the 1200 degree mark was used in their report despite the contradiction in the actual test results.

Even this intellectual dishonesty wasn't enough to actually weaken the steel however. NIST performed tests which showed that after six hours they could only acheive a sag of 1-2 inches in the steel beams. Thus they modeled the collapse on the computer and artificially inserted a 47 inch sag into the model. This finally caused the brackets that held the beams in place to give way.

The next line in the NIST report is interesting. "Global collapse ensued."

Really? Why? How? One would think that there would be quite a bit of resistance if all of the floors were pancaking ontop of one another? In fact, one would think that it would be impossible for the fall the buildings to fall down in 10 seconds?

It is impossible. The NIST report does nothing to explain how the buildings went down.

Does this mean that Bush rigged them to blow in order to finally acheive his illuminati dream of world domination? Of course not. It only means that we really don't know what happened yet. And it is really important that we understand this. How would you like to be the firefighter that goes into the next steel building that starts burning and not have some assurance that this thing is somehow going to give away?

Hopefully, fire engineers would be able to look at a well done report so that they could look for signs of this happening again?

All of this leads me to draw a parellel with the topic in this thread. The NIST reports asks people to believe in impossible things. Other government reports do similar things. For instance, the Warren Commission would have you believe that a bullet can make a 90 and 158 degree turn in midair and proceed to cause seven wounds on two different people. Again, equally impossible.

If you look at what the apologists are saying in regards to both of these events, you'll note they use the word "unprecedented" alot. In their lexicon, what they really mean to say is miracle. Violating the laws of physics isn't just unprecedented, it is miraculous. People, in this country in particular, are taught to believe in miracles from a young age. Thus, I would say it is easy to understand why so many people would insist on believing in these impossible things.

Thus we come to point of this thread. What happens when science shows your miracles to be impossible? What happens when science gives the real explanation for the phenomenon? What happens when this explanation contradicts what the majority of people believe? And finally, do you think it is good for a society to have a majority of people so willing to believe in impossible things?

upnorthkyosa

ps - if anyone wishes to debate the facts of 9/11, dig up a thread and read it, then post your stuff if you have anything to add, and if I have time we can discuss it there. We've already had one warning to stay on topic in this one...