I made one similar to this a few months ago, and some annoying kids who have started to post on this forum have brought up the religious aspects in culture that seem to make themselves into law.
The following is mostly a rant, yet it should be sufficient to start a decent debate.
I will give an example first off that is only mildly cumbersome- banned books do to religion. I will link to a site that shows the top ten most banned-please not that many are banned for Christian religious reasons. So because you believe that all magic is evil, in most libraries I won't be able to read Harry Potter. This is completely foolish, if you have a problem with it just don't read it. You don't have to force your views on people.
Next, I will go to what is more cumbersome to people who wish for abortions- well abortion. The problem here is that many wish to ban it for PURELY religious reasons. Religion is used as a campaign for it. Once again, if you have problems with it just don't get it, you don't have to force your ideals of other people.
Finally I would like to bring up the issue with homosexuals and religion. Why should they not be able to be married because of your ideas? They were born that way, nothing they can do about it. There is no valid reason- all there is is religion.
In general, why do some Christians stick to hundred year old rules that no longer fit logic or current day morals? I know some were OK for back then, such as not eating pork as it gave diseases, but at this current day eating pork is fine and far healthier than back then. You don't need to go around stoning everyone who eats bacon as it says to do in the old testament, just don't eat bacon yourself if it goes against your own morals.
One last thing while I am on my rant- Whats the deal with the religion in the pledge? On the money? In other places of the government? I realize that many were created in the red scare, witch is a foolish foolhardy way to try and stop communism, but why don't we just remove them now that we (should be/) are logical enough to know it will have no effect on communism?
Well there is the starter, and please use at least somewhat proper spelling and grammar.
There is also Texas, and they have gotten worse since then. Actually this stuff mention in this video is nothing compared to some of the stuff Texas has done since. Texas Religious Laws Passed in 2007
One last thing while I am on my rant- Whats the deal with the religion in the pledge? On the money? In other places of the government? I realize that many were created in the red scare, witch is a foolish foolhardy way to try and stop communism, but why don't we just remove them now that we (should be/) are logical enough to know it will have no effect on communism?
Before anyone says it America was founded as a secular nation not a religious one.
I agree. With everything you've said. America is nuttier than well I'm not sure but the laws can be really stupid. I mean California had legalized gay marriage but then a bunch of religious yuppies got "offended" and the took the law back. I think that bs like that should stop because you can't just say "Well the Christians are mad let's take back a law we just passed"
It's an opinion; the factors that lead up to the creation of said opinion aren't important and don't need to be examined.
You don't need to go around stoning everyone who eats bacon as it says to do in the old testament, just don't eat bacon yourself if it goes against your own morals.
The analogy fails; this is the same as saying that we don't need to punish those who murder we just shouldn't murder ourselves. Now in some cases you're correct however the analogy cannot be used as a blanket statement.
They were born that way, nothing they can do about it.
I agree completely; but there isn't definitive proof of your statement and it comes down to your opinion.
Next, I will go to what is more cumbersome to people who wish for abortions- well abortion. The problem here is that many wish to ban it for PURELY religious reasons. Religion is used as a campaign for it. Once again, if you have problems with it just don't get it, you don't have to force your ideals of other people.
I've always viewed abortion as wrong in a purely moralistic way and my recent deconversion hasn't changed my pro-life stance. You don't have to be religious to be against abortion; and you have to realize that neither side of the debate grants rights to both sides. I align myself with the unborn you with the mother. Opinions.
In closing your points aren't the ones you should be concerned about in fact this isn't what you should be concerned about at all; people are granted the right to an opinion no matter where or how the opinion was formed.
It's an opinion; the factors that lead up to the creation of said opinion aren't important and don't need to be examined.
When the factors leading up to the opinion are flawed, then there is. Lets say a preschool thought kids to be racist, are you saying it would not be important to find that out?
And you still don't have to force what even you admit as an OPINION on other people, as it is only that.
The analogy fails; this is the same as saying that we don't need to punish those who murder we just shouldn't murder ourselves. Now in some cases you're correct however the analogy cannot be used as a blanket statement.
The difference is that eating bacon is not harming another human. All of my other examples were not harming human. Murder should be outlawed, of course, but not for religious reasons as stoning for bacon is.
I agree completely; but there isn't definitive proof of your statement and it comes down to your opinion.
What about homosexual beasts, chemical imbalances, and other forms of study?
I've always viewed abortion as wrong in a purely moralistic way and my recent deconversion hasn't changed my pro-life stance. You don't have to be religious to be against abortion; and you have to realize that neither side of the debate grants rights to both sides. I align myself with the unborn you with the mother. Opinions.
Witch is why I yelled "PURELY!" religious reasons. There are plenty of people like you who are fine in there reasoning, but many people just dislike it because there priest guy told them to.
In closing your points aren't the ones you should be concerned about in fact this isn't what you should be concerned about at all; people are granted the right to an opinion no matter where or how the opinion was formed.
You have a right to your opinion. Just not to force it on other people, witch is the main point of this thread and why I said a variation if it almost after every paragraph. If I have an opinion that says peperoni pizza is disgusting, I keep it to myself. These laws would be like me forcing everyone to not eat pepperoni pizza because of my opinion.
When the factors leading up to the opinion are flawed, then there is. Lets say a preschool thought kids to be racist, are you saying it would not be important to find that out?
It would be but the racism would be the choice of the attendees (no mater the age) and would it would be up to others to dissuade them but it's still their right to hold racist tendencies.
And you still don't have to force what even you admit as an OPINION on other people, as it is only that.
I think that murder is bad but I can't prove it so it shouldn't be illegal? It's only my opinion.
The difference is that eating bacon is not harming another human. All of my other examples were not harming human.
So your saying that as long as you aren't harming anyone it shouldn't be illegal? I agree but only to an extent; what if your actions may harm another human? Think DUI.
Murder should be outlawed, of course, but not for religious reasons as stoning for bacon is.
Then what philosophical reasons? What if mine differ from yours? Which one is neccisarily right? Aren't both still just opinions?
What about homosexual beasts, chemical imbalances, and other forms of study?
Isn't proven; remember that a huge percentage of the educated world doesn't believe in evolution. Absolute proof is needed in a situation like this.
Witch is why I yelled "PURELY!" religious reasons. There are plenty of people like you who are fine in there reasoning, but many people just dislike it because there priest guy told them to.
Witch? Where? It's which.
I agree but I can't say they don't have the right to think that way. That would be taking away their right to vote and their right to free-thinking; although they wouldn't be exercising it if they just listened to what someone else said.
If I have an opinion that says peperoni pizza is disgusting, I keep it to myself. These laws would be like me forcing everyone to not eat pepperoni pizza because of my opinion.
It's your opinion abortion is right though and although I see your point it's my opinion that in some cases I need to force my opinion on others to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness although this "right" of mine must be exercised with extreme caution.
In general, why do some Christians stick to hundred year old rules that no longer fit logic or current day morals?
I shall refuse to answer this question because this is a completely different debate.
I will give an example first off that is only mildly cumbersome- banned books do to religion.
I am against the banning of books from local libraries. We should be allowed to read whatever we want. In fact, I'm against the banning of books in general.
Finally I would like to bring up the issue with homosexuals and religion.
I believe homosexuals should be allowed to get married in a courthouse. I also believe they should believe with the church if the church wants to wed them. I don't believe churches should be forced to wed homosexuals, but they should be able to have an option.
I mean California had legalized gay marriage but then a bunch of religious yuppies got "offended" and the took the law back.
A portion of religious people were against the law. Can you prove that all religious people support these laws?
I apologize if I'm wrong, but is the intention behind this thread to fight against religion in general or religious influence on laws? Many theists don't support these crazy laws.
I will give an example first off that is only mildly cumbersome- banned books do to religion.
Sorry missed this point originally; it's wrong to ban books for ANY reason as free thought is always legal. Age limits now that's a different matter I suppose.
It would be but the racism would be the choice of the attendees (no mater the age) and would it would be up to others to dissuade them but it's still their right to hold racist tendencies.
If you are thought at a young age it is virtually brainwashing- few people are able to see what they are doing as wrong. And lets say it is a whole generation that gets this brainwashing and the racist tendencies get into law, bringing back the old racist ones. Then you can see its a problem...
I think that murder is bad but I can't prove it so it shouldn't be illegal? It's only my opinion.
It harms others physically, thus it should remain illegal. Your opinion should not be able to effect things about others lives that do not harm other people, things like eating bacon and ready Harry Potter.
So your saying that as long as you aren't harming anyone it shouldn't be illegal? I agree but only to an extent; what if your actions may harm another human? Think DUI.
Yep. DUI would be fine, if you do not harm another person. Though since they chance of them harming another person are great enough to be a serious threat, it is banned. And I still don't think that eating bacon or reading Harry Potter could potentially harm anyone.
Then what philosophical reasons? What if mine differ from yours? Which one is neccisarily right? Aren't both still just opinions?
Right is relative, true, but harming another person goes against the rights promised to you while reading Harry Potter does not. I am saying as long as it does no physical harm to another human being or there possessions it should be legal.
I agree but I can't say they don't have the right to think that way. That would be taking away their right to vote and their right to free-thinking; although they wouldn't be exercising it if they just listened to what someone else said.
Though it takes away others rights. America is a republic for a reason, to defend everyone's freedom to the greatest extent possible and prevent mob rule. As a republic, logically the non-harmful actions should be fine.
It's your opinion abortion is right though and although I see your point it's my opinion that in some cases I need to force my opinion on others to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness although this "right" of mine must be exercised with extreme caution.
It only becomes trouble when it DOES effect life, liberty, and happiness. The abortion one could still be argued, though banning gay marriage and books goes against the second two.
I believe homosexuals should be allowed to get married in a courthouse. I also believe they should believe with the church if the church wants to wed them. I don't believe churches should be forced to wed homosexuals, but they should be able to have an option.
Point taken, but mainly religious laws are keeping gays from marrying in general.
A portion of religious people were against the law. Can you prove that all religious people support these laws?
I apologize if I'm wrong, but is the intention behind this thread to fight against religion in general or religious influence on laws? Many theists don't support these crazy laws.
Its when religion is used as the rallying cry and main, if not only, moving force that creates the law that bugs me. I do realize that many are against it, but the fact is many more are for it, or the laws would not have gotten passed.
All you guys debate about is religion. It gets annoying.
It also get's pretty old seeing you complain on every topic that mentions religion. If you don't like them stay out of them. There are plenty of other topics to discuss here, and if you don't like any of them then create one you do or stay out of the WERP.
You don't have to be religious to be against abortion;
That is true but most people who regard them self as "ro life" are so because of religious influences.
(Anti-abortion I think is a better term, since without abortion you risk putting the mother or possibly both mother and child's life at risk which is far from what could be regarded as pro life. And there are questions as to when you can really regard the fetus as being "alive" thus aborting potential rather then life, but that's for another topic)
A portion of religious people were against the law. Can you prove that all religious people support these laws?
It doesn't take all of them, just the majority. Or in some cases just a few with pull.
I'm not saying homosexuals should or shouldn't get married. I have looked for scientific articles on the issue of being born gay or not. I have only every found 3, and none of them had any kind of a certain answer. They all had results that had somewhere in them that there was no certain outcome. I'm not trying to start an argument over homosexuality being genetic or not. What I am wondering about is why so many people speak of homosexuality as certainly genetic when there is no actual definitive proof of that?
why so many people speak of homosexuality as certainly genetic when there is no actual definitive proof of that?
Without getting into to much detail. There is a strong indication of hormonal effects in the womb effecting genetics. Unfortunately much of this research is hard to find online. Also current scientific research points away from it being a choice or the result of nurture to the point of practically being eliminated as a possibilities.
