EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1311
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On September 25 2014 03:45 Danglars wrote: I think churches have been giving their views on social and political topics for quite a while now. We saw the catholic church quite vocal on the zero-cost contraception mandate. Churches were also quite vocal on the issue of wedding cake makers sued over refusing service to gay weddings. The debate over conscience and discrimination directly impacts their members, after all. I'm a little surprised it polled so low. Sure. And churches have been saying the same things about immigration, poverty, and capital punishment forever, but somehow this never makes the news. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11856 Posts
So if they stay out of some things, that is ok i guess, but not really newsworthy. The problem is if they don't. Thus it is interesting if they don't, and makes the news. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
The people who think religion hasn't gone anywhere since the days of Osiris are just ignorant. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On September 25 2014 04:54 mordek wrote: Bronze age. Keep it classy Simberto. Yeah that was definitely a little out of line. It's better described as a middle iron age belief system because they threw out the bronze age parts (yay technicalities) and added some new ones to make it a far more successful religion. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On September 25 2014 04:54 mordek wrote: Bronze age. Keep it classy Simberto. His tone was definitely inflammatory but there's nothing factually wrong about that. Religion interprets very old texts to apply them to a society that plodded along for another 2,000+ years since they were written. There's bound to be some obsolete passages here and there. As far as his point about Church and State, I think he's got it backwards. Religion has always tried to influence government and politics, but the separation is in place to attempt to keep that from working. I see no harm in churches or religions having political stances or endorsing political candidates, if that is something they want to do. It's a free country after all. As long as we don't start crossing over the line of state-mandated, or even state-encouraged religions, or discrimination against different beliefs or non-believers, politicians can also have prominent religious beliefs, for all I care. Unfortunately for them, their religious beliefs usually make me not want to vote for them, but I'm sure the opposite is also true for some people out there. As far as 70+% of people thinking religion has lost influence, I am also surprised that number isn't higher and I think the other 20+% are in willful denial. I am surprised at how many people think this is a bad thing, though. A small group of Christians have really made Christianity look bad in this country over the last decade or so, and the less hateful, willfully ignorant rednecks, the better. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11856 Posts
Just don't think because you believe something, everyone else has to obey it's rules or that some rules society has agreed upon don't apply to you. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23984 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:02 mordek wrote: I get it, broad generalizations to depict people are fun. I felt compelled to point out that remark was inflammatory and unnecessary. It's an incredibly fair generalization 'bronze age people' are in fact 'bronze age people'. I actually don't mind the various churches involving themselves with social issues, it's just when they try to trump science with 'God' (some guys loose interpretation of God at best really) that I get upset. If the church wants to berate the government for how they treat the poor, than good! If they want to do stuff like reinforce the ignorant bums messages who push BS anti-science propaganda on the science committee... that's where I have a problem. I see no harm in churches or religions having political stances or endorsing political candidates, if that is something they want to do. So long as they give up their tax exempt status too... Otherwise we'd have a bunch of political 'churches' avoiding taxes to funnel money to candidates. Of course that would really only be making the tax free funneling of money to candidates a more streamlined process (without a bunch of hoops to jump through to give one the ability to deny any wrong doing). | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 Posts
Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you  | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11856 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:23 mordek wrote: That's fine. I'm glad you're position is more nuanced and I've read enough of your posts to know it was just there to be hyperbolic. I'm not sure what is stone age about people trying to influence other people. I also think there are many Christians and other religious people that don't hold the view that everyone must follow the rules they abide by. They may truly believe that you should and they wish you would but they recognize you have a choice and they can't mandate it. Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you Well, the point of that is that ~ half of the bible is literally from the bronze age. No hyperbole at all. The Old testament is was written in the bronze age. The new testament was written in the iron age. I might have written that a bit inflammatory, but the fact still remains that i don't think we should apply rules originating from that background without careful consideration in a modern society. The same way we don't just apply take all of the ancient greek science as absolute truth (Atomos means indivisible, for example). There are a lot of ideas in the bible that are generally good ideas. Don't kill people. Don't be an asshole to people. Try to be a good person. And there are ideas (or specific interpretations) that are very, very dated. "Being gay is horribly bad", "People who don't believe in the same god as you are horribly bad people and deserve to die, in fact the rules of not killing people don't apply to them", "sex is bad, and only barely allowed for procreation" | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 24 2014 12:14 oneofthem wrote: sure thing jonny. there's the replacement level value for a manager over and above a fellow manager. then there's the positional value of the manager generated by the nature of the hierarchy and decision system. gotta distinguish between the two Why? What are you even talking about anymore? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:23 mordek wrote: That's the pretty general perspective. I brought up zero-cost contraceptives and wedding cake makers to show that there's some topics very important to religious citizens that expect their freedom of conscience, and not some demagogues touting the discrimination line like its Bronze Age (or was that Stone Age) all over again. I'll admit to getting a little frustrated with the mental laziness present from the secular debaters in this thread. This isn't an issue easily dismissed by believing religious practitioners just have to stop imposing their beliefs on others or update their religion for modern politics and culture.That's fine. I'm glad you're position is more nuanced and I've read enough of your posts to know it was just there to be hyperbolic. I'm not sure what is stone age about people trying to influence other people. I also think there are many Christians and other religious people that don't hold the view that everyone must follow the rules they abide by. They may truly believe that you should and they wish you would but they recognize you have a choice and they can't mandate it. Anyways, all that to say be more respectful if you want to win the hearts and minds of people that don't agree with you The Federalist brought up the arguments in a very readable way in The New Sins of Nonjudgmental Millenials and specifically the Hobby Lobby/Religious Freedom issues. If you take it on faith that your views on limited government and what you call individual rights aren't even religious, they're worth a read. I've debated so many people whose argument reduced to: You can have all the religious rights you want, provided you never start a business. Or the related: You should expect to pay a tax (as in refusing to provide health insurance to comply with mandated free contraceptives) in order to preserve your freedom for religious exercise. Please realize that what you're asking goes beyond individuals able to have two completely different spheres for religious and political life, and goes into smilingly condescension to the devout to be second-class citizens in ways that gays and minorities would never tolerate. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On September 25 2014 06:03 Danglars wrote: That's the pretty general perspective. I brought up zero-cost contraceptives and wedding cake makers to show that there's some topics very important to religious citizens that expect their freedom of conscience, and not some demagogues touting the discrimination line like its Bronze Age (or was that Stone Age) all over again. I'll admit to getting a little frustrated with the mental laziness present from the secular debaters in this thread. This isn't an issue easily dismissed by believing religious practitioners just have to stop imposing their beliefs on others or update their religion for modern politics and culture. The Federalist brought up the arguments in a very readable way in The New Sins of Nonjudgmental Millenials and specifically the Hobby Lobby/Religious Freedom issues. If you take it on faith that your views on limited government and what you call individual rights aren't even religious, they're worth a read. I've debated so many people whose argument reduced to: You can have all the religious rights you want, provided you never start a business. Or the related: You should expect to pay a tax (as in refusing to provide health insurance to comply with mandated free contraceptives) in order to preserve your freedom for religious exercise. Please realize that what you're asking goes beyond individuals able to have two completely different spheres for religious and political life, and goes into smilingly condescension to the devout to be second-class citizens in ways that gays and minorities would never tolerate. Cherstiuns r bean pesrsecuted But seriously, christians are getting mad about losing a right that never existed in law and never should have existed in practice - their right to exercise religious authority on people with different beliefs. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11856 Posts
Why does the employer have anything to do with what kind of treatments their employees get or don't get? Have everyone be insured, the costs of healthcare splits 50/50 between employer and employee and scales with income, while everyone gets the same treatments no matter what. If you want competition you can then even have different insurance firms offering different conditions based on that same money, so consumer can choose which is best for them. And the employer has no ethical problem having to pay for something they don't like, or whatever. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4955 Posts
On September 25 2014 05:39 Simberto wrote: There are a lot of ideas in the bible that are generally good ideas. Don't kill people. Don't be an asshole to people. Try to be a good person. And there are ideas (or specific interpretations) that are very, very dated. "Being gay is horribly bad", "People who don't believe in the same god as you are horribly bad people and deserve to die, in fact the rules of not killing people don't apply to them", "sex is bad, and only barely allowed for procreation" You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On September 25 2014 06:22 Introvert wrote: You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. Introvert, once more reminding us that christians only want to kill those who practice homosexuality. An important distinction! | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On September 25 2014 06:22 Introvert wrote: You call it Bronze Age and yet don't even characterize it correctly. Example one: biblical prohibition is on homosexual activity, extra-marital sex, etc., regardless of practitioner. The punishment was for the act, not the orientation. I don't say this in support of stoning those who partake in homosexual activity, obviously. But I merely point out that, as is so common with the modern anti-religious, they don't even know what they are opposing. This catches my attention because the same is often true about liberals and what they say about conservatives. After seeing so much ignorance I try to be sure that I know what I am opposing or supporting before I actually do so. It's simply ignorance. I am hoping that once the excitement of being an internet atheist crusader dies down (like being an open-minded, bleeding heart liberal), reasonable discussion can resume. This is a distinction that can only be made in the 21st century, perhaps the 20th to some degree. It's not a religious distinction, the Bible makes no distinction between homosexuals and homosexual activity. It's a societal or scientific distinction, and Christianity has been forced to capitulate to it for the sake of appearing less Bronze Age than it really is. And it's a meaningless distinction. Semantic apologism. Like telling someone it's okay to be a carnivore as long as you don't eat meat. How enlightened. | ||
| ||
