|
|
On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment...
How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"?
|
On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"?
Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
blind obedience to principles like "separation of church & state" is dumb. these principles outlive their usefulness and the designers are not prescient enough to foresee empirical situations. but, america is a religious country in more ways than one.
|
On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture.
I understand Religion is a big part if human history and culture, but teaching Religion it's beyond me for several reasons. And we all know kids these days don't respect it...
|
On November 12 2012 07:54 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think you can just "move on" when religion plays such a huge role in american politics. It's this thing that matters and has real consequences that you aren't allowed to talk about because it's taboo....
edit: but then again I'm a Hegelian and I don't even really believe that there's any such thing as separation of church and state in the first place, I think it's total nonsense
Oh, one of my friends taking philosophy showed me one of Hegel's books, I only read about 40 pages but it sounded like utter rubbish. Thank goodness I did not take that course, although I do have world religions next semester...
|
On November 12 2012 08:09 duoform wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. And we all know kids these days don't respect it...
yes, that's the problem we need to fix....
On November 12 2012 08:10 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 07:54 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think you can just "move on" when religion plays such a huge role in american politics. It's this thing that matters and has real consequences that you aren't allowed to talk about because it's taboo....
edit: but then again I'm a Hegelian and I don't even really believe that there's any such thing as separation of church and state in the first place, I think it's total nonsense Oh, one of my friends taking philosophy showed me one of Hegel's books, I only read about 40 pages but it sounded like utter rubbish. Thank goodness I did not take that course, although I do have world religions next semester...
Hegel is probably the worst writer who has ever lived. All 19th C. philosophy sounds like rubbish until you start to understand what they're talking about
|
DAMMIT, i was prepared for the zombie apocalypse.... what am i going to do with all these canned goods? -.-; Thanks ALOT Obama x)
|
On November 12 2012 07:55 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? I think a better question is how you justify trying to force your beliefs on other people.
Fair point, though I think that cuts both ways. I'd like this country to remain culturally diverse - even if that means letting some groups that I personally disagree with remain. In other words, I'd hate to see bible belters dictating life in the liberal northeast just as much as the other way around.
|
On November 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:09 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. And we all know kids these days don't respect it... yes, that's the problem we need to fix.... Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:10 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On November 12 2012 07:54 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think you can just "move on" when religion plays such a huge role in american politics. It's this thing that matters and has real consequences that you aren't allowed to talk about because it's taboo....
edit: but then again I'm a Hegelian and I don't even really believe that there's any such thing as separation of church and state in the first place, I think it's total nonsense Oh, one of my friends taking philosophy showed me one of Hegel's books, I only read about 40 pages but it sounded like utter rubbish. Thank goodness I did not take that course, although I do have world religions next semester... Hegel is probably the worst writer who has ever lived. All 19th C. philosophy sounds like rubbish until you start to understand what they're talking about
Please, he has nothing on 20th century French philosophers!
|
On November 12 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 07:55 Feartheguru wrote:On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? I think a better question is how you justify trying to force your beliefs on other people. Fair point, though I think that cuts both ways. I'd like this country to remain culturally diverse - even if that means letting some groups that I personally disagree with remain. In other words, I'd hate to see bible belters dictating life in the liberal northeast just as much as the other way around.
You didn't answer the question at all, just said some generalization of letting certain religions into our country. Which had nothing at all to do with the question at hand.
|
On November 12 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 07:55 Feartheguru wrote:On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? I think a better question is how you justify trying to force your beliefs on other people. Fair point, though I think that cuts both ways. I'd like this country to remain culturally diverse - even if that means letting some groups that I personally disagree with remain. In other words, I'd hate to see bible belters dictating life in the liberal northeast just as much as the other way around.
What about liberals living in the south? Do we have to get our lives dictated by our christian neighbors?
|
On November 12 2012 08:22 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2012 07:55 Feartheguru wrote:On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? I think a better question is how you justify trying to force your beliefs on other people. Fair point, though I think that cuts both ways. I'd like this country to remain culturally diverse - even if that means letting some groups that I personally disagree with remain. In other words, I'd hate to see bible belters dictating life in the liberal northeast just as much as the other way around. What about liberals living in the south? Do we have to get our lives dictated by our christian neighbors?
No, that's why state-level is still too big to determine things like this
|
On November 12 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:22 ZeaL. wrote:On November 12 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2012 07:55 Feartheguru wrote:On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? I think a better question is how you justify trying to force your beliefs on other people. Fair point, though I think that cuts both ways. I'd like this country to remain culturally diverse - even if that means letting some groups that I personally disagree with remain. In other words, I'd hate to see bible belters dictating life in the liberal northeast just as much as the other way around. What about liberals living in the south? Do we have to get our lives dictated by our christian neighbors? No, that's why state-level is still too big to determine things like this
I'm not really sure bringing back sundown towns is going to achieve desirable results...(unless maybe you think minorities will win the race war).
|
Wait a second. Why is the argument against homosexuals insinuating that they're just people having premarital sex? o_O
it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex.
but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not.
I honestly am confused by this argument. So you're saying that Christ says lust and premarital sex is a sin, okay I get that, but why is there a jump that specifically targets homosexuals as sinful without a justification that all homosexuals are just lustful individuals having premarital sex all day?
Can someone explain this to me, or am I right to be 100% confused?
|
On November 12 2012 08:28 Zergneedsfood wrote:Wait a second. Why is the argument against homosexuals insinuating that they're just people having premarital sex? o_O Show nested quote +
it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex.
but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not.
I honestly am confused by this argument. So you're saying that Christ says lust and premarital sex is a sin, okay I get that, but why is there a jump that specifically targets homosexuals as sinful? Can someone explain this to me, or am I right to be 100% confused?
Why even bother? They don't actually believe their arguements. It is just a way to feel superior to others, which all humans get a kick out of.
|
On November 12 2012 08:28 Zergneedsfood wrote:Can someone explain this to me, or am I right to be 100% confused?
No, it's perfectly fine to be confused. You can't argue logically with religious reasoning because it all comes down to if you believe in the Bible or not.
|
Americans enjoy (or are at least taught to) having certain topics "protected" from the open air of healthy dialogue; though not explicitly enumerated, the right to be offended might very well be the most cherished American value. Religion and sexuality are the two biggies, with political speech in general following close behind. The phenomena of all three suffering from an afflicted register of communication can be traced to institutions that historically derive a great deal of power from having a monopoly on the spread of information on said topics, but this "gatekeeper" effect is not exclusive to overarching structures of influence. Even on a familial level, controls on access to religious, sexual, and political information are historically essential components of the traditional, Western standard of raising a nuclear family, complete with the according rebellious behavior of pre-teens suddenly discovering that their parents might have been pretty much wrong about everything. I mean, one could go on forever describing the manner in which old-fashioned connotations of propriety play roles in power structures that are arguably worth deconstructing. The point is that one way or another, we as a society are going to have to come to terms with the fundamentally more accessible nature of information in the digital age, or else the cognitive dissonance in communication given light by things like election cycles is only going to get worse.
|
On November 12 2012 08:21 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2012 07:55 Feartheguru wrote:On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:
gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go? I think a better question is how you justify trying to force your beliefs on other people. Fair point, though I think that cuts both ways. I'd like this country to remain culturally diverse - even if that means letting some groups that I personally disagree with remain. In other words, I'd hate to see bible belters dictating life in the liberal northeast just as much as the other way around. You didn't answer the question at all, just said some generalization of letting certain religions into our country. Which had nothing at all to do with the question at hand.
Sorry, I'm jumping into the conversation. The question wasn't directed at me so I can't answer it.
|
|
|
On November 12 2012 08:17 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 08:09 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. And we all know kids these days don't respect it... yes, that's the problem we need to fix.... On November 12 2012 08:10 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On November 12 2012 07:54 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think you can just "move on" when religion plays such a huge role in american politics. It's this thing that matters and has real consequences that you aren't allowed to talk about because it's taboo....
edit: but then again I'm a Hegelian and I don't even really believe that there's any such thing as separation of church and state in the first place, I think it's total nonsense Oh, one of my friends taking philosophy showed me one of Hegel's books, I only read about 40 pages but it sounded like utter rubbish. Thank goodness I did not take that course, although I do have world religions next semester... Hegel is probably the worst writer who has ever lived. All 19th C. philosophy sounds like rubbish until you start to understand what they're talking about Please, he has nothing on 20th century French philosophers!
At the end of Frederick the Great's life, he said that there were no prospects for German literature, as all its writers were too pedantic, and had to tell everything. A generation later Goethe wrote the first international bestseller in German literature, and the happy times began. Still, such writers exploited the particular feature of the German language which had formerly been a disadvantage: the anarchic freedom of the portmanteau. In German it's sufficient to think of a concept, no matter how nebulous, paradoxical, or wistful, and an equivalent word expressing precisely that will instantly appear in the mind. This is the secret of the vitality of German philosophy. This pushed the German mind, driven out of direct contact with political realities, into the conquest of the speculative.
Mme. de Stael's statement in De Allemagne that the French ruled the Empire of Land, the English of the Sea, and the Germans of the Air was a clever quip in expressing that freedom of linguistic projection. Even two centuries later, foreigners remain perplexed by the contradictory tendencies of German writing: its awful pedantry on one hand and its lofty mysticism on the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
149
EPT
