|
|
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
I am more of a Bertrand Russell guy myself so I tend not to hold Hegel in high regard despite not reading his works other than 40 pages of whatever book they gave out in philosophy. Hegel's importance placed on religion and god in much of what I have heard of him from my friends has lead to me discarding his ideas as rubbish. Religion needs not be killed but science must come before it.
Also, why did Florida take so long to be declared?
|
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
Maybe because homosexuals cannot get 'married' (as defined by Christians).
This might be part of the reason behind the objection to recognizing same-sex marriages. Christians would then have to perform additional mental gymnastics to justify their world-view.
|
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
You're probably right about that. It's easy for a New Englander like myself to forget that some states are big 
|
On November 12 2012 08:38 TotalBalanceSC2 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 I am more of a Bertrand Russell guy myself so I tend not to hold Hegel in high regard despite not reading his works other than 40 pages of whatever book they gave out in philosophy. Hegel's importance placed on religion and god in much of what I have heard of him from my friends has lead to me discarding his ideas as rubbish. Religion needs not be killed but science must come before it.
ladies and gentlemen, here he is, the last logical positivist
On November 12 2012 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote: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 You're probably right about that. It's easy for a New Englander like myself to forget that some states are big
lol, I remember growing up and thinking it was very strange that people could just DRIVE to another state...
|
On November 12 2012 08:39 Wyvernspur wrote:Show nested quote +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
Maybe because homosexuals cannot get 'married' (as defined by Christians). This might be part of the reason behind the objection to recognizing same-sex marriages. Christians would then have to perform additional mental gymnastics to justify their world-view.
Does that mean Christians don't have premarital sex? I find that hard to believe.
|
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. 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...
You should be fine with it in the context of a literature or poetry class, and possibly history as background information out of necessity. Probably a few more examples out there of places in education where you have to teach parts of religion, regardless of belief.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2012 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:38 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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 I am more of a Bertrand Russell guy myself so I tend not to hold Hegel in high regard despite not reading his works other than 40 pages of whatever book they gave out in philosophy. Hegel's importance placed on religion and god in much of what I have heard of him from my friends has lead to me discarding his ideas as rubbish. Religion needs not be killed but science must come before it. ladies and gentlemen, here he is, the last logical positivist Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote: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 You're probably right about that. It's easy for a New Englander like myself to forget that some states are big lol, I remember growing up and thinking it was very strange that people could just DRIVE to another state...
hawaii?
|
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.
Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture.
|
On November 12 2012 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote: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 You're probably right about that. It's easy for a New Englander like myself to forget that some states are big lol, I remember growing up and thinking it was very strange that people could just DRIVE to another state...
When I went to college in rhode island I was shocked that people drive THROUGH RI to get to work everyday. That's just total mindfuck coming from the west coast. I guess if all states were the size of the average New England state we would have a bazillion states, some with like <1000 people or something.
|
On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 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. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture.
but this is just because you don't know anything about it, and you think you are all special and rational now that you live in the Age of Reason
|
On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 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. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture.
As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
All this talk about New England reminds me of a funny derp moment I had way back when.
Me: Hey, where are you from?
Friend: New England.
Me: Oh, I thought you were American.
|
On November 12 2012 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:38 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: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 I am more of a Bertrand Russell guy myself so I tend not to hold Hegel in high regard despite not reading his works other than 40 pages of whatever book they gave out in philosophy. Hegel's importance placed on religion and god in much of what I have heard of him from my friends has lead to me discarding his ideas as rubbish. Religion needs not be killed but science must come before it. ladies and gentlemen, here he is, the last logical positivistShow nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 12 2012 08:24 sam!zdat wrote: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 You're probably right about that. It's easy for a New Englander like myself to forget that some states are big lol, I remember growing up and thinking it was very strange that people could just DRIVE to another state...
Oh damn, you have got me. I will stick with Stephen Hawking and say that philosophy is dead. Or at least its usefulness is, as it is no longer a valid way to explain the happenings of the universe, with the torch being passed to science due to its increased accuracy. I am technically a Catholic by the way but consider myself more of an apatheist.
|
On November 12 2012 08:38 TotalBalanceSC2 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 I am more of a Bertrand Russell guy myself so I tend not to hold Hegel in high regard despite not reading his works other than 40 pages of whatever book they gave out in philosophy. Hegel's importance placed on religion and god in much of what I have heard of him from my friends has lead to me discarding his ideas as rubbish. Religion needs not be killed but science must come before it. Also, why did Florida take so long to be declared?
If anything, Hegel's limitations illustrate the limitations of the faddish scientific genre. If they have any merits, Hegelians are inevitably men far wiser than I could ever aspire to be; they see the ultimate causes of events, whereas I only see the proximate ones.
|
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 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?
I'll PM you, because it is wildly off-topic to the thread
|
In Australia Obama is the popular choice here. mmmmm hmm
|
On November 12 2012 08:57 AcTiVillain wrote:
In Australia Obama is the popular choice here. mmmmm hmm
Obama is the popular choice everywhere except Israel, in many European countries Obama support is over 80%.
|
On November 12 2012 08:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +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
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? I'll PM you, because it is wildly off-topic to the thread
but it's not off-topic, that's the whole point, because you want to legislate based on it
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 12 2012 08:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:17 HunterX11 wrote: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.
i'll say this much. i agree that german philosophy >>>>>>> french fluff. german language is prob the best philosophical language
|
On November 12 2012 08:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:56 sc2superfan101 wrote: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
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? I'll PM you, because it is wildly off-topic to the thread but it's not off-topic, that's the whole point, because you want to legislate based on it
In my opinion, the legislative aspect of it doesn't necessitate a discussion of the actual philosophy, only a discussion over whether it is acceptable, in this country, to support legislative measures dictating or encouraging a certain moral outlook. most people would probably say that it isn't, but most social conservatives say that it sometimes is acceptable. why they believe what they believe is largely irrelevant to whether that belief is deserving of legislative attention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
