Originally posted by chancremechanicThanks for the agreement - I try to be relevant and simply say the things that I believe to be true.
I agree with your post for the most part...by the way, are you amd Nemesio?....oh, never mind....
Oh, and were Nemesio a hot chick living here in NZ then maybe I would be, but since Nemesio is (i'm guessing) a guy living in (not guessing) Pittsburg, then no. I don't bat for the other team; nothing wrong with it, just not for me.
In Britain, I see the main cause of the rising crime amongst the young, and 'kiddie killing' down to lack of strong enough disciplinary measures, plus parents unwillingness to see their children's faults and their constant blaming of other people for their own short-comings. I don't believe this has much to do with the church, look at the charges brought against some clergy members in the last few years.
CM, i believe it was the case when the church and religion had power in the state, that frequently whenever anyone suggested anything that was against the bible, they were swiftly supressed, some in rather nasty ways. The church quite possibly set scientific advancement back a considerable way from where it could be.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm blushing.
Thanks for the agreement - I try to be relevant and simply say the things that I believe to be true.
Oh, and were Nemesio a hot chick living here in NZ then maybe I would be, but since Nemesio is (i'm guessing) a guy living in (not guessing) Pittsburg, then no. I don't bat for the other team; nothing wrong with it, just not for me.
Originally posted by NemesioThen "Digress" back to your "cola" cave in PA... 😉
Must be tough trying to adhere to intellectually indefensible ideas all by yourself.
I suppose ad hominem is all you got left in you. I was actually looking
forward to more unintelligible blather to rip apart. Less entertainment for me.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI can usually hold my own, but when the Klonipin kicks in because of muscle spasms, I tend to blather....but I still hold that what I hads to say was true. You are just the opposite of Ann Coulter, so there is no arguing against you because you are liberally "blind".....I rcommend a conservative Optometrist....
Must be tough trying to adhere to intellectually indefensible ideas all by yourself.
I suppose ad hominem is all you got left in you. I was actually looking
forward to more unintelligible blather to rip apart. Less entertainment for me.
Nemesio
Originally posted by chancremechanicI'm sorry for your discomfort. I hope you are and continue to feel better.
I can usually hold my own, but when the Klonipin kicks in because of muscle spasms, I tend to blather....but I still hold that what I hads to say was true. You are just the opposite of Ann Coulter, so there is no arguing against you because you are liberally "blind".....I rcommend a conservative Optometrist....
Regarding what you said, I do not believe that I am liberally blind, as you
say. I, in fact, hold a fair number of positions and opinions that people
associate with the conservative movement, but I do not insist that people
accept them.
This is the essence of my position: If we are going to hold to the notion
that we have freedom of religion, then there can be no State-sponsored
religion, majority or not.
There are two ways of accomodating this. 1) We give equal treatment to
all religions. This would entail having State-sponsored holidays corresponding
to all major religious festivals. We would have to include educational
materials which support and foster the members of all religious affiliations.
We would have to have all manner of exceptions and exemptions in order to
appease the various limitations which religions often place on their faithful.
In other words, we would have a government which would be laden down
with all sorts of minutae to the point of paralysis. We also run the risk
of corrupt members within government (and, face it, there's a lot of them out
there) who would abuse such a system, giving favor to one religion over
another.
The other option is to have a secular government, and by that I mean that
the members working for a State-sponsored institution should keep religion
utterly out of what they do.
Religion is, I feel, a private matter, not a public one (that is, in the sense that
the State should have no business in it). I believe religion should be taught
in the home and in the 'church' (temple, mosque, &c) amongst totally willing
individuals. A State-sponored program (like a school) where there are unwilling
participants creates the very sorts of tensions our Founding Fathers knew about
through experience and strived to avoid.
My position -- to keep religion out of schools -- is, in fact, a conservative one.
It is precisely what the Constitution calls for and, as such, I am seeking to conserve
a truly American viewpoint.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioCall it semantics, but, ultimately--- indirectly or otherwise--- don't all activities which take place within the boundaries of the government by nature become state-sponsored?
If we are going to hold to the notion
that we have freedom of religion, then there can be no State-sponsored
religion, majority or not.
Religion is, I feel, a private matter, not a public one A State-sponored program (like a school) where there are unwilling
participants creates the very sorts of tensions our Founding Fathers knew about
through experience and strived to avoid.
Nemesio[/b]
What of patriotism: is that a private matter? Why should individuals be forced to view the flag of the country in state-run buildings?
Why is the Star-Spangled Banner allowed to be played? Why didn't the soldiers on Iwo Jima have more regard for the people of the north Pacific, and raise a flag more sensitive to their feelings?
The fact remains, this freakin' country found its beginnings from Christians from a few denominations who were resolute in keeping the state from dictating their worship.
Those same Christians made the country free of denominational coercion, while at the same time created a haven for the Jew.
As a rule, man plants flags, makes billboards, creates websites, paints graffiti, letting the world around him know, this land/area/address/subway is under the dominion of_______. And, as a rule, man will fight those who challenge those postings.
And, the fact remains, it is impossible to have a totally secular, non-partisan, neutral government. Governments derive their power from the people within, and it just so happens that the people within this government did not claim agnosticism as their template. They did not nod their heads in a general direction of some pantheon. They pleaded their case to Nature and Nature's God.
Try teaching that in junior high school today, without four pages of apologetic yeah-but footnotes.
Originally posted by HayVeeGee"The second gift is the opportunity to receive eternal life"
Everyone is born pagan.
Everyone's first gift is life. The second gift is the opportunity to receive eternal life.
None go without the first one.
Oh yeah? Prove that eternal life is scientifically possible, or i reckon trading standards should be called in...
Originally posted by NemesioOK, thanks for your views....I can live with that....peace. Don't forget that optometrist though....😉
I'm sorry for your discomfort. I hope you are and continue to feel better.
Regarding what you said, I do not believe that I am liberally blind, as you
say. I, in fact, hold a fair number of positions and opinions that people
associate with the conservative movement, but I do not insist that people
accept them.
This is the essence of my position: ...[text shortened]... calls for and, as such, I am seeking to [b]conserve
a truly American viewpoint.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioCould you also have various "Holiday packages" people choose from.
I'm sorry for your discomfort. I hope you are and continue to feel better.
Regarding what you said, I do not believe that I am liberally blind, as you
say. I, in fact, hold a fair number of positions and opinions that people
associate with the conservative movement, but I do not insist that people
accept them.
This is the essence of my position: ...[text shortened]... calls for and, as such, I am seeking to [b]conserve
a truly American viewpoint.
Nemesio[/b]
So they'll be roughly the same length (say 24 days holiday per package) and every working man can choose a package.
There will be a Moslim package, a Christian package, etc. etc.
And all packages will have 7 days which coincide with each other, so that there will be moments that everyone is free!
I just thought of this and in my hangoverish mood, it sounds quite good...
Originally posted by HayVeeGeeNo, once again I'm afraid you're mistaken. If you're using the dictionary definition of "pagan", then my dictionary lists it as being:
Pagan's first definition is someone who is not any of the big three, and the second is one who has no religion, aka belief system. Methinks the broader word fits.
pagan 1: Heathen, esp: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) 2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods: an irreligious or hedonistic person.
I'm sure that everyone who describes themselves as a pagan would be offended by that definition. Be that as it may, the only way you could force that to apply to a newborn is by ignoring the entire definition except for the two words "no religion." Well guess what? There's another word which encapsulates the concept of "no religion" without all the other extraneous baggage of that definition. It's called "atheism", as I've already said. All newborns are atheists, not pagans.
We could pursue the definition of paganism beyond the woefully inadequate dictionary definition. According to Wikipedia:
Within a Christian context, paganism (from Latin paganus) and heathenry are catch-all terms which have come to connote a broad set of spiritual/religious beliefs and practices of a natural religion, as opposed to the Abrahamic religions based on scriptures. These beliefs, which are not necessarily compatible with each other, are usually characterized by polytheism and animism. Often, the term has pejorative connotations, comparable to infidel and Kafir in Islam.
There's no mention of "no religion" in that definition, although I'm sure most self-professed pagans would find that description to be inadequate as well. Most people who call themselves "pagan" today would be Wiccans. They have religion and a belief system without being part of the predominant monotheist triad. And their paganism is not something you are born with, it is something which is learned.
So I repeat: All newborns are atheists, not pagans. They are taught to become pagans or monotheists later.