Total Motorcycle Community Forums

ronboskz650sr wrote:Serious personal study of the first ammendment of the constitution will reveal that the "separation of church and state" is not in there.

That's very interesting. I had always thought it was.

I'd always thought of the US and UK as direct opposites in that regard. In the UK church and state are constitutionally linked in the person of the monarch who is head of both, and the Church of England bishops sit in the unelected house of the British Parliament.

Despite this, the British are almost certainly the most atheistical population in the world. I read the other day that in a recent survey 47% of English people asked didn't know what was celebrated at Easter. And if a British Prime Minister started quoting scripture or claimed divine guidance the general feeling would be that he had gone barking mad. US religiosity is completely incomprehensible to the average Brit.

As a happy atheist, I reserve the right to offend anyone at all - if anyone is offended when I express my views. In this crazy world of exploitation and political correctness I can't think of a principle that I would regard as more important than tolerance.

And in any case, I like Christmas. Not only did it graft itself onto a pre-Christian festival, but, in my view, it has grown way beyond its Christian origins and no longer belongs to any particular religious group. Over the centuries, Yule/Christmas has amassed all kinds of meanings, and I see no reason why people should not take from it what they want and reject the rest. Me? I love carol services. the traditional family meal, and settling down in front of a fire with friends in the very heart of midwinter. I don't go for God, the commercial hysteria or the Queen's speech.

But on the whole, it's great. Three cheers for Christmas.

ronboskz650sr wrote:Merry Christmas...the holiday you shouldn't take off from work if you don't believe in Jesus Christ...messiah. If anyone is offended...I guess I had your permission to offend you. If not, you won't care.

Merry Christmas, Ron. Happy Solstice, Loonette, Have a great holiday everyone.

ronboskz650sr wrote:The verbage "separation of church and state" simply isn't there.

Your argument amounts to playing word games.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is a verbal shorthand for the part of the First Amendment that talks about religion and the government.

Saying "separation of church and state" is merely a convenient way of focusing in on one of the five rights in the First Amendment.

But, using your logic, I guess one could say that because the word "abortion" appears nowhere in the Bible, there is no basis to say that God is against abortion.

Someone who made that argument would just be playing silly word games.

You can do better than that.

In 1802, President Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he declared that it was the purpose of the First Amendment to build ''a wall of separation between Church and State.'' In Reynolds v. United States, Chief Justice Waite for the Court characterized the phrase as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.'' In its first encounters with religion-based challenges to state programs, the Court looked to Jefferson's metaphor for substantial guidance. But a metaphor may obscure as well as illuminate, and the Court soon began to emphasize neutrality and voluntarism as the standard of restraint on governmental action. The concept of neutrality itself is ''a coat of many colors,'' 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.'' 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.'' In 1971 these three tests were combined and restated in Chief Justice Burger's opinion for the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, and are frequently referred to by reference to that case name.

Regards, Wizzard

Spiff wrote:

ronboskz650sr wrote:The verbage "separation of church and state" simply isn't there.

Your argument amounts to playing word games.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is a verbal shorthand for the part of the First Amendment that talks about religion and the government.

Saying "separation of church and state" is merely a convenient way of focusing in on one of the five rights in the First Amendment.

But, using your logic, I guess one could say that because the word "abortion" appears nowhere in the Bible, there is no basis to say that God is against abortion.

Someone who made that argument would just be playing silly word games.

You can do better than that.

You didn't read it did you? It's no game, and it isn't in there, period. The words that are in there are designed specifically to prevent government meddling in freedom of worship, nothing else.

Incidently, the constitution doesn't give you rights, it simply is a written document intended to remind everyone in the new country of their God-given rights, so we won't take advantage of each other without consequences (as in the old country). It is actually government acknowledgement of Almighty God, and the rights and rules He gave us...read it. While you are reading, read all of the constitutions af the 13 original colonies, and see exactly what the intent of the founding fathers really was, and who they wanted to glorify with this new country...If you will actually read them, you will stop accusing me of word games I don't play.

My logic doesn't turn aside from the original written words. Newer written words shouldn't either, but they have. As for your abortion statement...not a good example of where my logic goes on that issue, either. If you actually read the bible, you don't need another name for what we call abortion, as God's position on life is clear. People who don't believe in God, probably don't care one way or the other, actually (If this is over generalized, my apologies to those who don't fit this statement).

I don't intend to come across as an all-knowing, my way or the highway guy, but I am well aware of what these written documents contain, and prefer to let them stand on their own, without jumping on the first available excuse to twist their intent...ala the Jeferson letter and how it was subsequently mutated into an actual ammendment in the eyes of those looking for a loophole. I've been called silly before (not a problem), but never as an excuse for faulty logic. Oh, And the ACLU can bite me too. They have lifted the art of twisting the constitution (word games) to a very high level, indeed. So high it is almost unrecognizeable, thanks to their ability to modify education so many will never read the constitution, in its original form, at all. Nevertheless, it won't amount to a hill of beans in eternity (a very long time). Merry Christmas (still not offended, although logically I suppose I could be) .

People who don't believe in God, probably don't care one way or the other, actually (If this is over generalized, my apologies to those who don't fit this statement).

I dont believe in God, and I don't believe in abortion. Morality isn't exclusive to your god.

I skip everything in the parentheses as optional information

The separation of church and state was intended only to prevent the governing bodies from establishing a national religion or denomination. Further reading will reveal that it also states the government will do nothing to prevent the free exercise of worship, either.

As for abortion, it all boils down to just one thing...casual sex without consequence. That's it. Nothing more. Anyone who attempts to present it to me as some noble movement for women's rights is only fooling themselves, the ACLU, and every other liberal nut-job with an inability to think for themselves. The only time abortion is okay, in my belief, is in the event the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. With modern medicine, however, this scenario is so rare it's barely worth mentioning, and even then it's up to the couple to decide.

This leads right in to the separation of church and state debate, and subsequently the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in public schools as an alternative to the blind, unfounded belief that we came to be by dumb luck, mutations, and chance. If a non-believer can convince themselves (and hopefully others) that God does not exist then to whom are we ultimately accountable? At most society, government, or another human-established ruling body, which is to say essentially him or her self. So once again a "noble movement" such as the separation of church and state (as it is presently "interpreted") is nothing more than the sheep's clothing hiding the underlying agenda....a life free from consequence and guilt.

Here's the kicker though, folks.......if we (the believers) are wrong, then we will just die and cease to be - rotting in the ground for a few hundred years and forgotten in the same. BUT, if you atheists and agnostics are wrong...well...there'll be hell to pay. No pun intended.

In that case I'll worship all the gods just to cover all my bases

ZooTech wrote:This leads right in to the separation of church and state debate, and subsequently the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in public schools as an alternative to the blind, unfounded belief that we came to be by dumb luck, mutations, and chance. If a non-believer can convince themselves (and hopefully others) that God does not exist then to whom are we ultimately accountable? At most society, government, or another human-established ruling body, which is to say essentially him or her self. So once again a "noble movement" such as the separation of church and state (as it is presently "interpreted") is nothing more than the sheep's clothing hiding the underlying agenda....a life free from consequence and guilt.

Here's the kicker though, folks.......if we (the believers) are wrong, then we will just die and cease to be - rotting in the ground for a few hundred years and forgotten in the same. BUT, if you atheists and agnostics are wrong...well...there'll be hell to pay. No pun intended.

I quite enjoy this debate mostly because of the heavy handedness that most "Believers" bring to the table. The, "it is this way because the bible says so," argument is pervasive to the point of being nausiating.

Like everything else in my life, I prefer to look at this logically. So lets start there, and with the 10 commandments. Now, I have no real training, any time I spent in church was the direct result of my ex's parents expecting me to be there. So I'll be doing a fair bit of paraphrasing and skipping over here. But the basic idea is, don't do "poo poo" to someone else that you wouldn't want done to you. Don't kill, don't steal, don't touch another mans wife etc etc etc (if I'm wrong here it is not intentional, but I believe I have the gist of the idea). Obviously this is the abbreviated version.

Should you follow the 10 commandments you get the following, a place in heaven at God's side for all eternity... assuming you believe, truely believe in his existance. So, we live "a good life" according to the precepts of god. Keep in mind here that I'm completely ignoring the possibility of redemption and forgiveness of sins, as they are extraneous to the argument.

We have "the good life" following gods rules, and believing in him, gets you into heaven. Now there are the 4 sum total options:
beleive in god and do what he wants = heaven
beleive in god and do not do what he wants = hell
do not believe in god do what he wants = hell
do not believe in god do not do what he wants = hell

What does this tell us? Well, once again excluding the possibility of redemtion through prayer (which would only strengthen my argument) thereby allowing you back into heaven. The only thing god really wants is your belief. If you believe in him and do what he wants that's the only way into heaven. If you believe in him and sin, but ask for forgiveness, well... he'll probably let you in to. But if you don't believe, no matter HOW you live your life BAM HELL!

That's what it comes down to for me, if you believe you get into heaven regardless of your behaviour, afterall, he is all forgiving, and confession wipes clean the sins of the flesh... correct?

Anyways, I'm sure to have someone crawl down my throat about what I've misinterpretted, so feel free to correct me, and I'll carry on.




Now, lets say that there is a god. For sure, and it's the christian god. The one god, thou shalt worship no false idols etc etc etc. What we're going to do here is take two people, Jim and Tim. And have them live exactly the same lives. They never lie, cheat, steal, or even have bad thoughts, they lead a perfectly pure existance, and the thought of sin never once enters their heads (impossible I know). The one difference is that Jim does not believe in god.

Both of our young candidates essentially follow the 10 commandments for their whole life, never once straying or even considering. And lets even have them die on the same day. They both ran into a burning building to save a baby. The roof collapsed and they both died. Jim goes to hell and Tim goes to heaven. Bothers me more then a little, but that's what the rule say.

Even better lets look at their motives for doing so. Tim knows that if he believes in god and lives a good life he'll be eternally rewarded. Tim is scrambling for the reward at the end of the game. There is no guarantee that he isn't being good just to ge into heaven.

Jim on the other hand believes there is no divine reward for his actions. He chooses to help his fellow man out of the goodness of his own heart, not the possibility of divine reward or punishment based on the actions he takes in this world. His reward comes from within, as he truely believes what he is doing is right, not just that he was told to do it for the reward.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who does something good without the possibility of an external reward is a better person then someone who does. I will continue to live my life in the manner I have set forth, trying to make the world a better place then I left it. I'll be nice to those around me, and do everything I can to spare them from hurt. I'll help those in need and everything else. But I'm not going to start believing in some diety just because his followers are threatening me with eternal damnation. If he truely were a kind and benevolent god, he would not require my faith, he would require my actions. If being a good person doesn't get me into heaven because I was wrong and didn't believe, then I don't want to believe.

I would far rather be accountable to myself and the internal precepts I have set for myself then some imaginary person up in the sky. Which is to say, I think goodness comes from within, not a desire to please some made up figure.



As a side-note, I'd like everyone who has participated in this debate to read "To Reign in Hell" by Steven Brust. It was an amuzing take on the subject, and quite enjoyable.