Religion in public policy

BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Religion in public policy

I'm just curious.   Because quite honestly, there is really nothing else for atheists to bitch about besides religious views being made into laws.  Things like terrorist attacks are isolated incidents and the crimes of religion like the Salem Witch Trials happened many years ago and there's no real chance of that happening again today.  Moreover, many of the wars that have supposedly been in the name of religion actually had less to do with religion and more to do with property.  So you really can't indict religion today for these reasons.

My question is:  Exactly which laws in effect today are directly based on religious views?  The only ones that I can think of are laws against homosexual marriages and these are only state laws, not federal laws.

By the way, if you are going to respond, you need to give me a citation of the specific statute.   Otherwise, I am going to assume that you are just making it up. 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

The constitution being the highest law, this is often referred to in any case involving religion.

 

This is used to prevent prosecution of homicide and child neglect in cases of "faith healing". The first amendment is being used as a loophole for a lot of things right now, as all they have to do many times is claim their religion to escape being tried properly for the crimes they frequently openly admit to committing. It is an easy out.

 

In addition, in six states (AR, DE, IA, WV, OH, and OR) additional laws are in place that specificly prevent charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being pressed against parents and guardians that neglect their children and decide to just make get-better thoughts at them if they get ill.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:"Congress

ClockCat wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

The constitution being the highest law, this is often referred to in any case involving religion.

 

This is used to prevent prosecution of homicide and child neglect in cases of "faith healing". The first amendment is being used as a loophole for a lot of things right now, as all they have to do many times is claim their religion to escape being tried properly for the crimes they frequently openly admit to committing. It is an easy out.

 

In addition, in six states (AR, DE, IA, WV, OH, and OR) additional laws are in place that specificly prevent charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being pressed against parents and guardians that neglect their children and decide to just make get-better thoughts at them if they get ill.

 

You obviously didn't read the post all the way through.

I need a citation of a specific law which is directly influenced by religion.

EDIT:  Also, care to tell me how many children have died because their parents decided not to get appropriate medical care due to their faith in a deity?  Give me a specific number and a source.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:ClockCat

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

The constitution being the highest law, this is often referred to in any case involving religion.

 

This is used to prevent prosecution of homicide and child neglect in cases of "faith healing". The first amendment is being used as a loophole for a lot of things right now, as all they have to do many times is claim their religion to escape being tried properly for the crimes they frequently openly admit to committing. It is an easy out.

 

In addition, in six states (AR, DE, IA, WV, OH, and OR) additional laws are in place that specificly prevent charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being pressed against parents and guardians that neglect their children and decide to just make get-better thoughts at them if they get ill.

 

You obviously didn't read the post all the way through.

I need a citation of a specific law which is directly influenced by religion.

 

You obviously didn't read the post all the way through.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3


Do you want me to cite cases where the first amendment was used in faith healing? There are a lot of them.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Most of the problems that come from the first amendment, were made through stare decisis.

 

 

That is why I ask.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:BostonRedSox

ClockCat wrote:

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

The constitution being the highest law, this is often referred to in any case involving religion.

 

This is used to prevent prosecution of homicide and child neglect in cases of "faith healing". The first amendment is being used as a loophole for a lot of things right now, as all they have to do many times is claim their religion to escape being tried properly for the crimes they frequently openly admit to committing. It is an easy out.

 

In addition, in six states (AR, DE, IA, WV, OH, and OR) additional laws are in place that specificly prevent charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being pressed against parents and guardians that neglect their children and decide to just make get-better thoughts at them if they get ill.

 

You obviously didn't read the post all the way through.

I need a citation of a specific law which is directly influenced by religion.

 

You obviously didn't read the post all the way through.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So the first amendment was influenced by religion?  The first amendment demonstrates that Catholics or Protestants forced their religious views into public policy?  That's quite a leap.  Want to expound on that further?

Are you saying that you believe that we should not have freedom of speech or freedom of the press?  Weren't atheists accusing Christians of suppression?  LOL.  Your logic is non-existent.

You are just playing connect-the-dots.  You have nothing that is unambiguously influenced by religion.


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Do you want

ClockCat wrote:

Do you want me to cite cases where the first amendment was used in faith healing? There are a lot of them.

 

Sure, but you need to cite an actual source.  

I'm guessing you are going to bring up the Virginia Tech shootings.  LOL

Seriously, do any of you think for yourself or do you always just parrot what Sam Harris says?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
The Defense of marriage act

The Defense of marriage act and the religious land use and institutionalized persons act are both federal laws. The religious freedom restoration act basally said that you can challenge any state or federal law on religious grounds.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:The Defense of

Gauche wrote:

The Defense of marriage act and the religious land use and institutionalized persons act are both federal laws. The religious freedom restoration act basally said that you can challenge any state or federal law on religious grounds.

Source? Link?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:ClockCat

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

The constitution being the highest law, this is often referred to in any case involving religion.

 

This is used to prevent prosecution of homicide and child neglect in cases of "faith healing". The first amendment is being used as a loophole for a lot of things right now, as all they have to do many times is claim their religion to escape being tried properly for the crimes they frequently openly admit to committing. It is an easy out.

 

In addition, in six states (AR, DE, IA, WV, OH, and OR) additional laws are in place that specificly prevent charges of criminal homicide or manslaughter being pressed against parents and guardians that neglect their children and decide to just make get-better thoughts at them if they get ill.

 

You obviously didn't read the post all the way through.

I need a citation of a specific law which is directly influenced by religion.

 

You obviously didn't read the post all the way through.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So the first amendment was influenced by religion?  The first amendment demonstrates that Catholics or Protestants forced their religious views into public policy?  That's quite a leap.  Want to expound on that further?

Are you saying that you believe that we should not have freedom of speech or freedom of the press?  Weren't atheists accusing Christians of suppression?  LOL.  Your logic is non-existent.

You are just playing connect-the-dots.  You have nothing that is unambiguously influenced by religion.

...

 

You don't know how our legal system works do you?

 

 

The decisions made in the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th circuit courts developed a precedent. They were argued through use of the first amendment. While that is not the entirety of the country, those courts dictate use of laws over a large part of the county.

 

This is of course assuming you are talking about the United States.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
?

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Do you want me to cite cases where the first amendment was used in faith healing? There are a lot of them.

 

Sure, but you need to cite an actual source.  

I'm guessing you are going to bring up the Virginia Tech shootings.  LOL

Seriously, do any of you think for yourself or do you always just parrot what Sam Harris says?

 

Who is sam harris and why would I bring up virginia tech?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:Gauche

BostonRedSox wrote:

Gauche wrote:

The Defense of marriage act and the religious land use and institutionalized persons act are both federal laws. The religious freedom restoration act basally said that you can challenge any state or federal law on religious grounds.

Source? Link?

you have google.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:You don't

ClockCat wrote:

You don't know how our legal system works do you?

 

 

The decisions made in the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th circuit courts developed a precedent. They were argued through use of the first amendment. While that is not the entirety of the country, those courts dictate over a large part of the county.

 

This is of course assuming you are talking about the United States.

Okay, so you're telling me that you don't have any specific law that was directly influenced by religion, but that the problem is that some religious people, whom you still have yet to cite with any reliable source, have used the secular laws that we have in place in order to push their religious agenda on other people.

Is that all you have?  It's quite a leap and a fun game of connect the dots, but you've really scored no points over religion.

Furthermore, the practice of faith healing over medical care is actually not supported by Christianity (or any mainstream religion that I could think of.)  So how can religion be blamed for people not following its tenets?

"Although medical experts believe that many times the above-mentioned ailments originate within a person's psyche, there are times when a chemical imbalance is the cause. If this is the case, medication is often prescribed to help counter the imbalance, which in turn treats the symptoms of the psychological ailment. Is this a sin? No. God has allowed man to grow in his knowledge of medicine, which God often uses in the healing process. Does God need man-made medicine in order to heal? Of course not! But God has chosen to allow the practice of medicine to progress, and there is no biblical reason not to avail ourselves of it."

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-anti-depressants.html

Read up.

 

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
witch trials

Witch trials have occurred and still occur in other countries in the world, mainly so far in african countries but still, social isolation still occurs in today's society, they may not be legally put you in jail, but a christians can still ignore a person who does not follow their faith, this does occur. Science has been held back recently due to religious beliefs in the states, such as the stem cell research, all because of the presidents christian beliefs, and those in power. Atheists and those of different beliefs should always be on the look out for any type of oppression by any group be it atheistic/humanists/religious views.


Awelton85
Superfan
Awelton85's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
I can't buy alcohol or a car

I can't buy alcohol or a car on Sunday. I have no interest in looking up the laws for you, but religion is the only reason Sunday is any different than Tuesday.

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell

Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:BostonRedSox

Gauche wrote:

The Defense of marriage act and the religious land use and institutionalized persons act are both federal laws. The religious freedom restoration act basally said that you can challenge any state or federal law on religious grounds.

you have google.

Sure.  The Defense of Marriage Act, according to Wikipedia, states that the federal government and all states have the right to not acknowledge the union between homosexuals as actual marriage, even if it was acknowledged in another state.

It does not ban gay marriage throughout the country. 

I'm too lazy to look up the other things.  Are you saying that religious people shouldn't have the right to make their voices heard?  Moreover, they have the right to do it.  But my question is, are they doing it?  Nobody in this thread given me any shred of evidence that this is the case.


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Witch

latincanuck wrote:

Witch trials have occurred and still occur in other countries in the world, mainly so far in african countries but still, social isolation still occurs in today's society, they may not be legally put you in jail, but a christians can still ignore a person who does not follow their faith, this does occur. Science has been held back recently due to religious beliefs in the states, such as the stem cell research, all because of the presidents christian beliefs, and those in power. Atheists and those of different beliefs should always be on the look out for any type of oppression by any group be it atheistic/humanists/religious views.

Obama just signed a bill allowing stem cell research.  

And you have no proof that laws against the research were directly influenced by religion. You will find many secular people on the pro-life side.

Christians ignore people who do not follow their beliefs?  So?  Atheists ignore people who do not follow their beliefs.  Do you have a point?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

You don't know how our legal system works do you?

 

 

The decisions made in the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th circuit courts developed a precedent. They were argued through use of the first amendment. While that is not the entirety of the country, those courts dictate over a large part of the county.

 

This is of course assuming you are talking about the United States.

Okay, so you're telling me that you don't have any specific law that was directly influenced by religion, but that the problem is that some religious people, whom you still have yet to cite with any reliable source, have used the secular laws that we have in place in order to push their religious agenda on other people.

Is that all you have?  It's quite a leap and a fun game of connect the dots, but you've really scored no points over religion.

Furthermore, the practice of faith healing over medical care is actually not supported by Christianity (or any mainstream religion that I could think of.)  So how can religion be blamed for people not following its tenets?

"Although medical experts believe that many times the above-mentioned ailments originate within a person's psyche, there are times when a chemical imbalance is the cause. If this is the case, medication is often prescribed to help counter the imbalance, which in turn treats the symptoms of the psychological ailment. Is this a sin? No. God has allowed man to grow in his knowledge of medicine, which God often uses in the healing process. Does God need man-made medicine in order to heal? Of course not! But God has chosen to allow the practice of medicine to progress, and there is no biblical reason not to avail ourselves of it."

http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-anti-depressants.html

Read up.

 

You obviously have NO grasp of the legal system in this county. Precedent IS A LAW. Stare Decisis is the founding basis of common law in this country.

 

Your question was "Exactly which laws in effect today are directly based on religious views?" Are you saying that faith healing is not religious now? What is it then?

 

Furthermore, faith healing IS supported by christianity. You are supposed to be immune to even poisons through prayer. Read your bible more. You obviously are not true(tm) enough, cafeteria christian.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Awelton85 wrote:
I can't buy alcohol or a car on Sunday. I have no interest in looking up the laws for you, but religion is the only reason Sunday is any different than Tuesday.

 

Yes, the blue laws are famous. They exist here too.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:Gauche

BostonRedSox wrote:

Gauche wrote:

The Defense of marriage act and the religious land use and institutionalized persons act are both federal laws. The religious freedom restoration act basally said that you can challenge any state or federal law on religious grounds.

you have google.

Sure.  The Defense of Marriage Act, according to Wikipedia, states that the federal government and all states have the right to not acknowledge the union between homosexuals as actual marriage, even if it was acknowledged in another state.

It does not ban gay marriage throughout the country. 

I'm too lazy to look up the other things.  Are you saying that religious people shouldn't have the right to make their voices heard?  Moreover, they have the right to do it.  But my question is, are they doing it?  Nobody in this thread given me any shred of evidence that this is the case.

You said there are no federal laws based on religion. I just gave you three examples. Now you want me to prove that religious people have no rights. That's called moving the goalpost.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:You said there

Gauche wrote:

You said there are no federal laws based on religion. I just gave you three examples. Now you want me to prove that religious people have no rights. That's called moving the goalpost.

I actually never said that.

What I am saying is that your examples are lame.  So remind me again what atheists have to bitch about?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:Gauche

BostonRedSox wrote:

Gauche wrote:

You said there are no federal laws based on religion. I just gave you three examples. Now you want me to prove that religious people have no rights. That's called moving the goalpost.

I actually never said that.

What I am saying is that your examples are lame.  So remind me again what atheists have to bitch about?

How would you know if they're lame? You said you were too lazy to even look them up and find out what they are.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:You obviously

ClockCat wrote:

You obviously have NO grasp of the legal system in this county. Precedent IS A LAW. Stare Decisis is the founding basis of common law in this country.

Your question was "Exactly which laws in effect today are directly based on religious views?" Are you saying that faith healing is not religious now? What is it then?

Furthermore, faith healing IS supported by christianity. You are supposed to be immune to even poisons through prayer. Read your bible more. You obviously are not true(tm) enough, cafeteria christian.

I just gave you a CHRISTIAN WEBSITE which explicitly states that religion does not forbid the advancement of medicine and ENCOURAGES people to seek secular medical assistance if needed.  

Where in the bible does it say that one ought to choose faith healing over the hospital? Give me the exact passage.

Faith healing is religious.  Are you saying that it is somewhere in public policy that it is against the law for people to take their children to hospitals?

I think I'm done with you.  You have no proof.  You are just making inferences based on your little game of connect the dots.  


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

BostonRedSox wrote:

Gauche wrote:

You said there are no federal laws based on religion. I just gave you three examples. Now you want me to prove that religious people have no rights. That's called moving the goalpost.

I actually never said that.

What I am saying is that your examples are lame.  So remind me again what atheists have to bitch about?

 

Hai gais, look at me, I'm a christian that likes to maek myself feelz betterer by bragging about special rightz no one else haz! Teehee, now I canz say if I can't do it (the babble tells me I can't!) then you can't either! Otherwize it no fair! But if I canz do it, and you can't, thats ok!

 

 

Laughing out loud

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:ClockCat

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

You obviously have NO grasp of the legal system in this county. Precedent IS A LAW. Stare Decisis is the founding basis of common law in this country.

Your question was "Exactly which laws in effect today are directly based on religious views?" Are you saying that faith healing is not religious now? What is it then?

Furthermore, faith healing IS supported by christianity. You are supposed to be immune to even poisons through prayer. Read your bible more. You obviously are not true(tm) enough, cafeteria christian.


Faith healing is religious. 

 

Oh look. There we go. That wasn't so hard now was it?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
  Well if you are only

  Well if you are only interested in America I really wouldn't know, I don't live there and I have no interest in the subject or looking it up. But there are various anti blasphemy laws around the world. I think even the UN made some sort of resolution about it. Plenty to bitch about outside America tbh. And a question to you, why does it matter that they are only state laws, they are still laws based on religous views.

 

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=3898&l=en

Btw I know they are not statutes or whatebver but it should be enough to convince you they exist

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Awelton85
Superfan
Awelton85's picture
Posts: 143
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
So just to get this

So just to get this straight... You ask this question, say that state laws don't count (I'm not sure why it matters if it is a state or federal law), and when confronted with answers that follow your little rules you just write them off as lame? Changing things to better fit your arguement is still changing things.

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell

Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:  Well if you

Tapey wrote:

  Well if you are only interested in America I really wouldn't know, I don't live there and I have no interest in the subject or looking it up. But there are various anti blasphemy laws around the world. I think even the UN made some sort of resolution about it. Plenty to bitch about outside America tbh. And a question to you, why does it matter that they are only state laws, they are still laws based on religous views.

 

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=3898&l=en

Btw I know they are not statutes or whatebver but it should be enough to convince you they exist

So then can we all concede that religious suppression is not an issue in America?

 

 


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Awelton85 wrote:So just to

Awelton85 wrote:
So just to get this straight... You ask this question, say that state laws don't count (I'm not sure why it matters if it is a state or federal law), and when confronted with answers that follow your little rules you just write them off as lame? Changing things to better fit your arguement is still changing things.

I did not say that they didn't count.

I'm just saying that gay marriages was the only thing that I could think of that was directly influenced by religion.  And some states allow it, so it is not really a good example of religious suppression.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:D

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

You obviously have NO grasp of the legal system in this county. Precedent IS A LAW. Stare Decisis is the founding basis of common law in this country.

Your question was "Exactly which laws in effect today are directly based on religious views?" Are you saying that faith healing is not religious now? What is it then?

Furthermore, faith healing IS supported by christianity. You are supposed to be immune to even poisons through prayer. Read your bible more. You obviously are not true(tm) enough, cafeteria christian.

I just gave you a CHRISTIAN WEBSITE which explicitly states that religion does not forbid the advancement of medicine and ENCOURAGES people to seek secular medical assistance if needed.  

Where in the bible does it say that one ought to choose faith healing over the hospital? Give me the exact passage.

 

What, you want me to pull up bible verses the christians that disagree with you use now? Kay. Your disagreement doesn't make them any less christian though. Smiling After all, they have more faith(tm) than you!

James 5:14-15 (King James Version)

 

 14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

 15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Mark 16:18 (King James Version)

 

 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Matthew 21:22 (King James Version)

 

 22And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

John 15:7 (King James Version)

 

 7If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:Tapey

BostonRedSox wrote:

Tapey wrote:

  Well if you are only interested in America I really wouldn't know, I don't live there and I have no interest in the subject or looking it up. But there are various anti blasphemy laws around the world. I think even the UN made some sort of resolution about it. Plenty to bitch about outside America tbh. And a question to you, why does it matter that they are only state laws, they are still laws based on religous views.

 

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=3898&l=en

Btw I know they are not statutes or whatebver but it should be enough to convince you they exist

So then can we all concede that religious suppression is not an issue in America?

No as I stated that I have no interest in the subject. so therefore limited knowledge in it. Besides youu your self brough up gay marrige laws, please answer why it matters that they are state laws and not federal laws, They still are laws bassed on religous views forced on to the non religous. Unless you can show why that doesn't matter there is still religous suppression.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:BostonRedSox

Tapey wrote:

BostonRedSox wrote:

Tapey wrote:

  Well if you are only interested in America I really wouldn't know, I don't live there and I have no interest in the subject or looking it up. But there are various anti blasphemy laws around the world. I think even the UN made some sort of resolution about it. Plenty to bitch about outside America tbh. And a question to you, why does it matter that they are only state laws, they are still laws based on religous views.

 

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=3898&l=en

Btw I know they are not statutes or whatebver but it should be enough to convince you they exist

So then can we all concede that religious suppression is not an issue in America?

No as I stated that I have no interest in the subject. so therefore limited knowledge in it. Besides youu your self brough up gay marrige laws, please answer why it matters that they are state laws and not federal laws, They still are laws bassed on religous views forced on to the non religous. Unless you can show why that doesn't matter there is still religous suppression.

Gays are still allowed to be gay, which is considered a sin in Christianity.  Gays are also allowed to have civil unions and have entitlement to most of the benefits enjoyed by married couples.

Christians just do not want to call it "marriage."

Why is that such a big deal?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Goodbye, you lose. Nice try, come again.

 

Oh, as for the blue laws mentioned above by the other person, here is a list of them for you.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

 

Because everyone has to cater to one religion by law!

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:Tapey

BostonRedSox wrote:

Tapey wrote:

BostonRedSox wrote:

Tapey wrote:

  Well if you are only interested in America I really wouldn't know, I don't live there and I have no interest in the subject or looking it up. But there are various anti blasphemy laws around the world. I think even the UN made some sort of resolution about it. Plenty to bitch about outside America tbh. And a question to you, why does it matter that they are only state laws, they are still laws based on religous views.

 

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=3898&l=en

Btw I know they are not statutes or whatebver but it should be enough to convince you they exist

So then can we all concede that religious suppression is not an issue in America?

No as I stated that I have no interest in the subject. so therefore limited knowledge in it. Besides youu your self brough up gay marrige laws, please answer why it matters that they are state laws and not federal laws, They still are laws bassed on religous views forced on to the non religous. Unless you can show why that doesn't matter there is still religous suppression.

Gays are still allowed to be gay, which is considered a sin in Christianity.  Gays are also allowed to have civil unions and have entitlement to most of the benefits enjoyed by married couples.

Christians just do not want to call it "marriage."

Why is that such a big deal?

 

Why is it a big deal about being a bigoted prick? Oh. I don't know. Maybe we should give them seperate but close-to-equal lines at the water fountains and busses too.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Why is it a

ClockCat wrote:

Why is it a big deal about being a bigoted prick? Oh. I don't know. Maybe we should give them seperate but close-to-equal lines at the water fountains and busses too.

LOL

Nice little slippery slope fallacy.

Are you a queer?


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:Tapey

BostonRedSox wrote:

Tapey wrote:

BostonRedSox wrote:

Tapey wrote:

  Well if you are only interested in America I really wouldn't know, I don't live there and I have no interest in the subject or looking it up. But there are various anti blasphemy laws around the world. I think even the UN made some sort of resolution about it. Plenty to bitch about outside America tbh. And a question to you, why does it matter that they are only state laws, they are still laws based on religous views.

 

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?art=3898&l=en

Btw I know they are not statutes or whatebver but it should be enough to convince you they exist

So then can we all concede that religious suppression is not an issue in America?

No as I stated that I have no interest in the subject. so therefore limited knowledge in it. Besides youu your self brough up gay marrige laws, please answer why it matters that they are state laws and not federal laws, They still are laws bassed on religous views forced on to the non religous. Unless you can show why that doesn't matter there is still religous suppression.

Gays are still allowed to be gay, which is considered a sin in Christianity.  Gays are also allowed to have civil unions and have entitlement to most of the benefits enjoyed by married couples.

Christians just do not want to call it "marriage."

Why is that such a big deal?

Its called equality. I notice you say they are entitled to most, not all. I don't know what they are not allowed to do as really no interest but I can't help but notice what you say.  They are not allowed to call it marrage because of religous views, no matter how small you may find it, it still exists. btrw way gay people allowed to adopt children? That would be a direct link from anti gay marrage laws.....correct me if im wrong

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Why is it a big deal about being a bigoted prick? Oh. I don't know. Maybe we should give them seperate but close-to-equal lines at the water fountains and busses too.

LOL

Nice little slippery slope fallacy.

Are you a queer?

 

Yes, but I don't date christians.

 

Sorry. Sad Keep trying. I'm sure you'll find your man some day.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:Gays are

BostonRedSox wrote:

Gays are still allowed to be gay

Oh boy! They must be thrilled!

BostonRedSox wrote:

which is considered a sin in Christianity. 

Who gives a shit?

BostonRedSox wrote:

 Gays are also allowed to have civil unions and have entitlement to most of the benefits enjoyed by married couples.

(Bold my me) You really don't see a problem there?

BostonRedSox wrote:

Christians just do not want to call it "marriage."

No, they also don't want them to have the same rights. Do you read what you write? If it was just semantics there wouldn't be an issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Its called

Tapey wrote:

Its called equality. I notice you say they are entitled to most, not all. I don't know what they are not allowed to do as really no interest but I can't help but notice what you say.  They are not allowed to call it marrage because of religous views, no matter how small you may find it, it still exists.

Should beastialists also be given the right to marry their pets?  Should Mormons be allowed to keep multiple wives?

Should any sort of line be drawn?

Where do you think that line is?


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Yes, but I

ClockCat wrote:

 

Yes, but I don't date christians.

 

LOL.  The smiley face was a giveaway.

At least we all know why you rejected Christianity.   Smiling


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

BostonRedSox wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Its called equality. I notice you say they are entitled to most, not all. I don't know what they are not allowed to do as really no interest but I can't help but notice what you say.  They are not allowed to call it marrage because of religous views, no matter how small you may find it, it still exists.

Should beastialists also be given the right to marry their pets? 

If they can understand the contract and sign it, then yes.

 

BostonRedSox wrote:
Should Mormons be allowed to keep multiple wives?

If they can understand the contract and sign it, then yes.

 

BostonRedSox wrote:
Should any sort of line be drawn?

Yes.

 

BostonRedSox wrote:
Where do you think that line is?

Comprehension and consent to the contract.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 

Yes, but I don't date christians.

 

LOL.  The smiley face was a giveaway.

At least we all know why you rejected Christianity.   Smiling

 

Really? You think you know why I don't follow that religion?

 

That's funny, because I didn't give my reasons for it.

 

I was already an atheist for several years before I started accepting myself as gay, so you may want to rethink any baseless conclusions you may have. Smiling

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Comprehension

ClockCat wrote:

Comprehension and consent to the contract.

And why would that make it okay?

Would it be okay if an 11 year old understood and consented to be married to a 51 year old?  

 


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
"Theism is why we can't have

"Theism is why we can't have nice things."

Like a penis in your anal cavity?

Like AIDS?

Like talking with a lisp?

Like wearing rainbow colored speedos?

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Comprehension and consent to the contract.

And why would that make it okay?

Would it be okay if an 11 year old understood and consented to be married to a 51 year old?  

 

 

If it is within the age of consent, yes.

 

It is legal in many places.

 

It may be up to their guardian to approve of however.

 

 

 

Marriage is simply a contract. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
BostonRedSox wrote:Tapey

BostonRedSox wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Its called equality. I notice you say they are entitled to most, not all. I don't know what they are not allowed to do as really no interest but I can't help but notice what you say.  They are not allowed to call it marrage because of religous views, no matter how small you may find it, it still exists.

Should beastialists also be given the right to marry their pets?  Should Mormons be allowed to keep multiple wives?

Should any sort of line be drawn?

Where do you think that line is?

there are moral reasons why they are not allowed to marry pets. Its called animal abuse as marrage has a sexual componant. Also an animal cannot agree to get married.

And about multiple wives... im fine with that, btw my president has three of them. But by the same token multipile husbands would also have to be allowed. Aslong as everything is above board e.g. no child abuse. although i would put the stipulation that everyone has to be fine with it including current wives. I see nothing wrong with it.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:BostonRedSox

ClockCat wrote:

BostonRedSox wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Why is it a big deal about being a bigoted prick? Oh. I don't know. Maybe we should give them seperate but close-to-equal lines at the water fountains and busses too.

LOL

Nice little slippery slope fallacy.

Are you a queer?

 

Yes, but I don't date christians.

 

Sorry. Sad Keep trying. I'm sure you'll find your man some day.

Don't be so hard on him. He might be going through a dry spell.

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:BostonRedSox

Tapey wrote:

there are moral reasons why they are not allowed to marry pets. Its called animal abuse as marrage has a sexual componant. Also an animal cannot agree to get married.

Let's remove the sex and add rationality into animals.  You think it is okay for a man to marry a dog?

Quote:
And about multiple wives... im fine with that, btw my president has three of them. But by the same token multipile husbands would also have to be allowed. Aslong as everything is above board e.g. no child abuse. although i would put the stipulation that everyone has to be fine with it including current wives. I see nothing wrong with it.

You are positing some moral absolutes (no abuse, consent, etc.)  I'm curious to know what your basis is for these universal moral rules.


BostonRedSox
Troll
Posts: 84
Joined: 2009-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Anyway, all these points

Anyway, all these points are moot.  We are not going to change the meanings of words just because a few fudge-packers whine and complain.

 

This is the #1 definition of "marriage":

"The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

dictionary.com

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

BostonRedSox wrote:

Anyway, all these points are moot.  We are not going to change the meanings of words just because a few fudge-packers whine and complain.

 

Too bad you can't stop the world from progressing. It will just drag backwards thinkers like yourself along kicking and screaming.

 

 

Enjoy the ride, bigot. Smiling

Theism is why we can't have nice things.