Comic Genesis Forums

[AlmightyPyro] wrote:

Jim North wrote:

[AlmightyPyro] wrote:I would just like to say that not all christianity is like the media says.

I would also like to add for those who might think this is all a big anti-Christian thing behind not wanting this law . . . it's not. Christianity may get caught in the crossfire most often because it's headed by some particularly pushy folks, but the fact is that ideally no religion should be included in state affairs. It doesn't really matter if W came out chanting a Hindu mantra or if this law placed Thugee or Judaism or Nordic belief as the official state religion . . . it violates some of the most basic principles of this government and what it purportedly stands for.

Yup!

<genericmessage = "agreement">

A sidenote: Sweden was converted to christianity during the 1000's.

We were made lutherans by the work of the king Gustav Vasa, and two out of three of his sons (though one son and his son in turn worked against this) and we participated in various religious wars down in germany in regards to this (plus a minor war against Poland) and some other shit (including a minor civil war/dispute regarding the throne). The turn to Protestantism was made mostly for economical reasons (as the change would mean that the church would no longer be able to claim 1/10th of all production as a tithe, and this tithe could go straight to the state as tax).

We have since been mostly stable in terms of religion, and the separation between church and state has not been in question for at least a few centuries.

All in all, it's been a heckuvawhile since we saw real religious conflict on our fields and in our woods and cities, and frankly, we're terrified.
The radical moslems scare the shit out of us, the traditionalist immigrants that kill their own daughters for defiling the families honour by dating Swedish boys make us confused, scared and angry... And the tenous and weakening separation of church and state we see and hear about in america is making us nervous.

Of course, one doesn't say one is afraid, one talks about the situations that makes one scared and try to figure out why this is so, and what potential solutions can be found... And one thinks and wonders at what the future might hold if one doesn't do something to fix the problems that are causing these... events.

Black Sparrow wrote:

Ian Moulding wrote:

Jim North wrote:I would also like to add for those who might think this is all a big anti-Christian thing behind not wanting this law . . . it's not.

Just to make things clear - While I think this bill is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons, an anti-Christian agenda is not one of them. I am a Christian.

He's just saying that a Christian could very easily take offense to this thread, when it's not about the particular religion in question at all. It's about breaking the constitution and building tiers of power over religious minorities.

Yeh, I'm trying to back ya up, not subvert ya.

to speak correctly, it would be to say not all christians are psychopaths, just the loudest ones are... to bad one of the loudest ones is sitting in the biggest chair in our country. But yeah I'm use to people thinking "there are two religions Christiananity and the Heathens" I love it when people ask me about my religion and I explain I follow "The old ways" and they look at me confused and ask me if that means I only believe in the old testament.

Cake Or Death?

Czar wrote:All in all, it's been a heckuvawhile since we saw real religious conflict on our fields and in our woods and cities, and frankly, we're terrified.
The radical moslems scare the shit out of us, the traditionalist immigrants that kill their own daughters for defiling the families honour by dating Swedish boys make us confused, scared and angry... And the tenous and weakening separation of church and state we see and hear about in america is making us nervous.

Of course, one doesn't say one is afraid, one talks about the situations that makes one scared and try to figure out why this is so, and what potential solutions can be found... And one thinks and wonders at what the future might hold if one doesn't do something to fix the problems that are causing these... events.

At this point, Europeans tend to view fundamentalist Islam in Europe as a growing power that threatens internal security. There are three major flaws with this view:

1) The Muslim population within Europe isn't large enough to launch any sort of succesful takeover. Particularly when you consider that less than ten percent of European Muslims are radicals, and less than a third of Europe's Muslim population offer these radicals the kind of soft support they need for operations. It's popular to talk about minority uprisings taking over societies, but these minorities can only set themselves up as aristocracies if the society as a whole is in a state of severe unrest and doesn't support its native aristocracy.

2) Religions as organizations succeed or fail based on the socioeconomic rewards they bring to believers. Islam in Europe is a failure; It has no real inroads into business, the military, or politics. Radical Islam appears successful because it's supported by outside resources, but would collapse if it had to stand on it's own. As things are now, the Orthodox Catholic Church is building a strong base with Muslims in Eastern Europe for conversion, while Cardinal Ratzenberger/Pope Benedict wrote on the possibilites of winning converts for Roman Catholicism. And the Saudis have been very helpful in the east; When the international community sent aid to the Muslims in the Balkans, the Saudis sent bulldozers - And demolished the 'heretical' mosques.

3) Societies respond to attacks, perceived or otherwise. Europe is still in the early stage of its response, but life as Europe's Muslims have known it is now over. Which has the possibility of getting really ugly.

RemusShepherd wrote:Let's not blame Christianity for this, folks. It's the nature of all religions to drive away opposing points of view. Christianity just happens to have been the one on top in the Western world for the last, um, millenia or two.

That's not true. Many if not most religions that exist nowadays are based on tolerance. Christianity in particular is a religion centering on love of the fellow man, tolerance of different and forgiveness. It was only when it became a prevailing religion, that people on top started to abuse it, to crop it's messages and insert messages that they found needing, to interpret it in a whole different way. I know it because though I'm not a devoted Christian, I was raised in Christian tradition.
But it is in human nature that honest and smart people always step back, avoiding conflict and abusive, selfcentered minority elbows their way to the top and starts abusing every power they can get a hold of. Therefore, the problem is not in the nature of religion, the problem is in the nature of people. That, and statistics.

This isn't a bill, and therefore can not become a law. It is a resolution and not the first of its kind to appear in the state. Instead its intended to be symbollic.

However, I still think its crap and completely violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. It's a clear violation of Church and State.

By the way, phrases such as "under God", the act of swearing on a Bible, and other similar religiously affiliated acts, are slowly being phased out or secular alternatives being offered. I was signing some legal paperwork for ROTC and noticed that I either swear (as in to God) or affirm (as in legally) to what I'm signing. The person is given the option of using their faith or a secular equivalent. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was added during the 1950s as a response to Commuism.

All it takes is a lawsuit and a court ruling to overturn these small reminders of religion having a part in politics. And it should probably be noted that while the founding fathers of the United States were indeed all Christian, they didn't build a government based on Christian ideals. They built it based upon the republican ideals found in decidedly non-Christian Greek and Roman societies.

mcDuffies wrote:That's not true. Many if not most religions that exist nowadays are based on tolerance. Christianity in particular is a religion centering on love of the fellow man, tolerance of different and forgiveness. It was only when it became a prevailing religion, that people on top started to abuse it, to crop it's messages and insert messages that they found needing, to interpret it in a whole different way. I know it because though I'm not a devoted Christian, I was raised in Christian tradition.
(...)
Therefore, the problem is not in the nature of religion, the problem is in the nature of people. That, and statistics.

Yeah, I was raised Roman Catholic, myself.

The basis of all religions is the assumption that This Religion Is Right. That drives out any consideration of other religions. Yes, some religions teach tolerance, and Christianity has a record (although a spotty one) of that. But I'm firmly of the opinion that intolerance is religion's base nature.

You can say that it's the nature of power to quash dissent, and I'll agree with you there. But I think it's particularly concentrated in religion, which more than any other human invention is designed to teach people what they can and cannot think.

There isn't a seperation (legal or otherwise) between church and state. I don't think there really ever was. Governments are made of people and people have beliefs, and they make decisions. Even a government of Athesists would have an agenda of some kind. The problem as I see it is not that the government is agreeing with or supporting a certain religion or another (The US is supposedly a 78% Christian country) it's the government getting itself involved with any religion, telling them what to do, supporting them through favorable laws, discrimating against certain religions.

It's none of their fucking business what we believe.

This of course is just a symptom of a greater problem. The Government thinks that it has the right to interfere anywhere it likes. I think we have the right to offer freedom to people, but we don't have to make them take it and we sure as hell don't have the right to take it away.

Honestly, unless someone is doing something to harm others there shouldn't be a law against it.

I don't like the fact that the government keeps coming up with new ways to thwart the people of the United States of America.

Laemkral wrote:This isn't a bill, and therefore can not become a law. It is a resolution and not the first of its kind to appear in the state. Instead its intended to be symbollic.

However, I still think its crap and completely violates the 1st Amendment of the Constitution as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. It's a clear violation of Church and State.

By the way, phrases such as "under God", the act of swearing on a Bible, and other similar religiously affiliated acts, are slowly being phased out or secular alternatives being offered. I was signing some legal paperwork for ROTC and noticed that I either swear (as in to God) or affirm (as in legally) to what I'm signing. The person is given the option of using their faith or a secular equivalent. "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was added during the 1950s as a response to Commuism.

All it takes is a lawsuit and a court ruling to overturn these small reminders of religion having a part in politics. And it should probably be noted that while the founding fathers of the United States were indeed all Christian, they didn't build a government based on Christian ideals. They built it based upon the republican ideals found in decidedly non-Christian Greek and Roman societies.

Excellently stated. I misunderstood and thought it was a bill.

There isn't a seperation (legal or otherwise) between church and state. I don't think there really ever was.

there is a separation. laws that favor one religion or another are repeatedly struck down, almost daily in fact. if you don't think this true, read up on recent court rulings. if it violates the separation of church and state, a judge will give it the boot

Kilre wrote:

There isn't a seperation (legal or otherwise) between church and state. I don't think there really ever was.

there is a separation. laws that favor one religion or another are repeatedly struck down, almost daily in fact. if you don't think this true, read up on recent court rulings. if it violates the separation of church and state, a judge will give it the boot

That's true. But there is a difference between being truly seperated and not being allowed to interfere. The if a politician has a personal religion and they go about expressing that, more power to them. But the moment they start trying to pass laws that violate the first amendment, they need to leave office.

realityendshere wrote: That's true. But there is a difference between being truly seperated and not being allowed to interfere. The if a politician has a personal religion and they go about expressing that, more power to them. But the moment they start trying to pass laws that violate the first amendment, they need to leave office.

that's done all the time. all the states in the union do this kind of thing, albeit on a smaller scale, at least once a year. mostly, it's to get intelligent design, a christian ideal, taught in the science classrooms. those measures, like this new thing in missouri, never last long

Ian Moulding wrote:good points

It is not Radical moslems coming to power that scares us. It is not radicals coming to power that scares us. Radicals cannot take and hold power unless the situation is somewhat aking to extreme, which it isn't.

It is the fact that there are people willing to die, and more importantly, kill for their cause. People who might not care if what they are doing is unreasonably destructive, and that their so called cause is unreasonable and/or impossible.

I should also note, that we're a bit nervous as to what's going on in the former soviet union, though that's more or less a conditioned reflex.
We're always nervous about what's happening in the former soviet union.

Czar wrote:I should also note, that we're a bit nervous as to what's going on in the former soviet union, though that's more or less a conditioned reflex.
We're always nervous about what's happening in the former soviet union.

Old Cold War joke from Finland
Q: Why do Finns use double-sided toilet paper?
A: Because the Russians demand a copy of every piece of paperwork.

Russia is soon going to be too concerned with China to be much of a worry for most of Europe (Although Russia's border-states are right to worry). China is starting yet another of its disatrous attempts to colonize its north. They try this every few hundred years and fail every time. Along with megaprojects to control the Yellow River, it's one of the traditional signs that a Chinese regime is losing control. But at the same time, Russia is expanding into its east, and historically the Russians have been far more productive in these expansions than the Chinese. Expect a collision soon, with lots of low-intensity conflict (The polite phrase for mob violence, terrorism, and 'unauthorized' border incursions).

As for people willing to die for their cause - Make a list of everyone you know. Friends, family, coworkers, shopkeepers... Divide that list by five, and that's how many people you know who could be set up as suicide bombers within three months. The rest would need closer to nine months or a year. It takes time and effort to turn someone into a walking guidance/detonation system, but anyone can be made to do it. Including nice middle class Europeans with university educations.

On a related note: I played Risk for the first time the other day and came in 3rd!

Kilre wrote:

realityendshere wrote: That's true. But there is a difference between being truly seperated and not being allowed to interfere. The if a politician has a personal religion and they go about expressing that, more power to them. But the moment they start trying to pass laws that violate the first amendment, they need to leave office.

that's done all the time. all the states in the union do this kind of thing, albeit on a smaller scale, at least once a year. mostly, it's to get intelligent design, a christian ideal, taught in the science classrooms. those measures, like this new thing in missouri, never last long

Basically when it comes to schools, they should be allowed to teach what they want. The government shouldn't be imposing anything more than basic guidelines (math, reading, writing, etc.) If the schools want to teach ID, fine, let them, if the want to teach macro-evolution, also fine, if they want to teach both of them, great. If the parents don't want their kids to learn that, send them to another school. Why does letting people decide for themselves become such a complicated issue?

it's not that about teaching ID, its about teaching ID as a science

ahaugen wrote:it's not that about teaching ID, its about teaching ID as a science

Ah I see. Yeah that makes sense. If that was the case I'd want Macroevolution to be taught as something other than science... 'Cause to be fair, neither ID nor Macroevolution have enough solid evidence to be science.