 |
|
|
|
|
May 5th, 2014
04:23 PM ET
After Supreme Court ruling, do religious minorities have a prayer?By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-editor [twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN'] (CNN) - If you don't like it, leave the room. That's Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's advice for atheists and others who object to sectarian prayers before government meetings. In a 5-4 decision written by Kennedy, the Supreme Court allowed Greece, New York, to continue hosting prayers before its monthly town board meetings - even though an atheist and a Jewish citizen complained that the benedictions are almost always explicitly Christian. Many members of the country's majority faith - that is, Christians - hailed the ruling. Many members of minority faiths, as well as atheists, responded with palpable anger, saying the Supreme Court has set them apart as second-class citizens. Groups from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism to the Hindu American Foundation decried Monday's decision. "The court’s decision to bless ‘majority-rules’ prayer is out of step with the changing face of America, which is more secular and less dogmatic,” said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which litigated the case. At least one justice, Elena Kagan, seemed to agree. And while Kennedy's decision reads like a lesson in American history, Kagan's dissent offers a picture of the country's increasingly pluralistic present. American politicians have prayed before public gatherings since the Founding Fathers crowded into a stuffy Philadelphia room to crank out the Constitution, Kennedy writes. The inaugural and "emphatically Christian" prayer at the First Continental Congress was delivered by an Anglican minister, who overcame objections from the assembled Quakers, Anabaptists and Presbyterians. The prayer united the mostly Christian Founding Fathers, and the rest is history, Kennedy writes. So, the justice suggests, as long prayers at public meetings don't fall into a pattern of proselytizing, denigrating nonbelievers or threatening damnation, what's the problem? According to a recent poll, the vast majority of Americans share Kennedy's view. Less than 23% of Americans told pollsters at Fairleigh Dickinson University that they dislike prayers at public government meetings. “This has always been a praying nation, despite its very secular Constitution,” said Peter J. Woolley, professor of comparative politics at Fairleigh Dickinson in Hackensack, New Jersey. “People generally see generic prayer as harmless, if not uplifting, not as something that is oppressive.” But what about people who like their local government meetings to be religion-free? "Should nonbelievers choose to exit the room during a prayer they find distasteful, their absence will not stand out as disrespectful or even noteworthy," Kennedy writes. Kagan, writing for the dissenting minority, sharply disagreed. She suggested that the five justices who formed the majority - all of whom are Catholic - don't understand what it's like to belong to a minority faith in America. The Supreme Court's Catholic majority seems to think that, because many prayers before government meetings take on a ceremonial aspect, the actual content of the prayers doesn't matter, Kagan continues. In essence, she said, the majority is making light of religious differences while conferring a special role on Christianity. "Contrary to the majority's apparent view, such sectarian prayers are not 'part of our expressive idiom' or 'part of our heritage and tradition,' assuming that 'our' refers to all Americans. They express beliefs that are fundamental to some, foreign to others - and because of that they carry the ever-present potential to divide and exclude." To illustrate her point, Kagan, who is Jewish, raises a hypothetical scenario. Let's say there's a Muslim resident of Greece, New York, who appears before the town board to share her policy views or request a permit. Just before the Muslim woman makes her argument, a minister "deputized by the town" asks the room to pray in the name of "God's only son Jesus Christ." With less than a dozen people the room, every action is noticed. So, the Muslim woman has two choices, Kagan argues: 1) Go along with the majority and pray, despite her religious objections, or 2) Risk causing some kind of disturbance or public disagreement with the very people she is trying to persuade. "And thus she stands at a remove, based solely on religion, from her fellow citizens and her elected representatives," Kagan writes. Kagan did not suggest that the Supreme Court's majority (Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) voted to uphold sectarian prayer because they are members of the country's largest church, Roman Catholicism. But Ronald Lindsay of the Center for Inquiry, a Humanist group, called it "striking and sad" that "five of the six Christian justices on the Supreme Court formed the majority." (Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is Catholic, voted with Kagan.) "With a Supreme Court that appears hostile to the rights of religious minorities, those of us who believe in a secular government must redouble our legal and advocacy efforts,” Lindsay said. Of course, there's a great gap between being Catholic and using the gavel to promote Christianity. But a new study conducted by scholars at the University of Southern California offers intriguing insights into how the justices have voted on First Amendment issues. The upshot: The conservative justices tend to side with conservative causes; the liberals with liberal ones. "Supreme Court Justices are opportunistic supporters of the First Amendment," write the scholars.
« Previous entryWhy Christians should support the death penalty
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Reblogged this on The Darkness in the Light.
Dear Lord:
I would like to thank you for sending your son to save us from hell.
You know, the hell that you yourself allow to continue to exist, even though you are all powerful and could destroy it and its cache of demons in the blink of your omnipotent eyes.
The hell that you have sent millions to burn in for all eternity in a cosmic case of the punishment outweighing the crime.
I do have a question, though.
Why were we blamed for the original sin of somebody who did something bad before we were even born?
That is contrary to all notions of justice, love and forgiveness that I have ever heard of.
And why did you insist that your son (who is actually you) be horribly tortured and murdered as a sacrifice to you in order to forgive us? That makes about as much sense as masturba.ting to reward yourself for something good you did for yourself.
And, what are we to make of the fact that we have learned that the “original sin” that you required the torture and murder of your own son/self was a mere myth about a couple who never existed?
And if your son is really you, why did you just visit the Greco-Roman Jews? What of the countless millions of humans who were alive at the time spread throughout North and South America, Australia, China, Russian and the rest of Asia as well as Africa and Europe?
And what’s with that book you left us? Why is it riddled with inconsistencies and outdated and barbaric morality, and why did it not contain anything useful to us at the time, like explaining what germs were and how to avoid infections? Do you know how many millions died painful deaths due to your neglect? It’s almost as if the Bible is a purely Greco-Roman Jewish product with no divine inspiration at all, isn’t it?
And when you answer prayers, why is it that the prayers answered are only ever those requests that could have been satisfied, even if you didn’t exist? Why not cure an AIDS patient or an amputee by having his arm or leg grow back? Do you hate amputees?
But, most, most of all, thank you for giving about 10% of the USA the brains to realize you do not exist. Please give us the patience and understanding to elevate our brethren out of the old fashioned and childish myth we call Christianity.
Amen
I hope that you never need to seek tolerance, because you appear to have none for those of faith. I understand that you don't believe, as is your right, but you are wrong to treat others in such an inconsiderate manner.
nclaw
You must be new to this blog. The fundies believers on this blog have no tolerance for anyone that disagrees with their belief system. If you don't believe me start at the beginning, read all the posts and get back to me. As far as inconsiderate behaviour check out Salero21 or thefinisher01 comments. As a non-believer in any personal god I am not compelled to turn the other cheek, but give back as much or more dissing as I get and often do it first, why wait? Colin is the epitome of decorum compared to some of the nutters posting here, get over it.
OMG Sam, I nearly died when I heard you call me "the epitome of decorum." Fortunately you qualified it. -:)
I thought you didn't believe in God? And yet your phraseology reveals an appeal to God in order that you might use His name in place of a four-letter filth word to express exasperation.
I don't believe in god either....but I always say " thank god I'm an atheist!".
OMG = Oh My Genitalia
So you deny that words have meanings then...
likklehero...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/OMG?s=t
This is absolutely silly, but OMG is not a word, it is an acronym and it can represent anything you wish.
NASCAR = Non Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks
Lighten up a bit, you kook.
likklehero,
Actually, no it can't. At least according to Webster.
OMG...OMG...Why all this talk about Oscar Madison's Girlfriend?
Theo
If your post was directed at me may I suggest you stop thinking your conclusions just makes you look ridiculous. I may believe in any of a myriad of different gods, it is only yours that gets pi$$ed if you use its name in vain. Petty suck of a god you have there.
Holy Cow (professing my Hindu beliefs)... you have no sense of humor!
@Theo
Lighten up.
Have you renamed all the days of the week so as to avoid appealing to gods other than your own?
Today is Odin's day, after all...
Theo....when I say things like "Jesus, Theo is a pill", I'm neither invoking a real Jesus nor contending you are an actual pill. I could just as easily say "Barney, Theo is a bit crazy". Same result
There are believers on here (see Theo) who use their religion to justify slavery and the Holocaust. Sorry, but people like that don't deserve tolerance.
Old Man Gravitz would be upset
No offense to people (as opposed to ideas) intended.
It's not intolerance of people of faith; it's intolerance of faith as an idea. Surely people have the right to disagree with ideas they find ridiculous and/or abhorrent?
All he did is ask questions. If they make you uncomfortable then you might want to rethink what you believe.
Some of your questions a 5 year old could answer, your ignorance on the things you are saying stick out like a sore thumb.
Hoody.....don't you recognize sarcasm? You need to get out more.....
Great! Well, please answer them.
Go find a 5 year old, I don't waste my time on someone that wouldn't listen and has their mind already made up.
Ben...every answer to these questions must begin with 'I don't know' or you would just be making it up.
Lol benhoody, like anybody will fall for that. you haven't got any answers have you?
You are the one who doesn't have any answers, they are there and millions have found them and rejoice because they have. Why is it that you hate that? If you already hate the truth then you wouldn't know it if itbit you on the backside.
Sorry....but the only answers to any of those questions better be 'I don't know'. Or you could start the answer with 'in my opinion'. There are no real answers to those questions....no factual ones anyway.
benhoody, I know I don't have any answers. That's my point – there aren't any. Christianity is deeply logically flawed to its very taproot. Secondly, I don't "hate the truth," I simply do not accept the teachings of Christianity.
hoody, And yet here you are wasting your time. Your sidestepping is interpreted as ignorance not indignation – if you had answers you'd provide them.
Wrong again. I do have answers, read what I said instead of running off. To try and explain something to someone who has their mind made up already is a waste of time. The answers are there for you to find if you really wanted to know, millions of others have searched and they found, you hate the truth and mock it so why would anyone even try to tell you anything when you already know it all, waste of time.
Ben....if you have evidential proof of the existence of your god, by all means, present it. I am looking for proof....otherwise, it's just a fairy tale, like the thousand of other gods
Any answers you do have will be just as made up as the stories in the bible
♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰
God Bless The USA
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-religious-minorities-dont-have-a-prayer/comment-page-10/#comment-3005980
The "everyday people" should start to actually practice the Golden Rule they usually just preach.
jesus christ is mythology
Vic
Dear god please send the USA into another war, the ammo business is suffering. Thank You, the military industrial coalition.
PS: we sell drones to anyone that can afford one.
I don't get why Conservative Christians are happy about this. Wouldn't it indicate that the world isn't going down the toilet, as they see it, and that there is less reason for Jesus to return?
Consider these quotes, and how you might feel if you lived in a country where these sentiments were mainstream:
“Our leader was not elected…he was appointed by Allah.”
“Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of Allah…must be denied citizenship."
“I, your Provincial Governor, do hereby proclaim… a day of prayer and fasting for our country.”
“Allah called me to this government position…my family fasted for three days to make sure it was true.”
“"I would not put a Christian among my advisors, or in my government."
“(our founding doc.uments) are quite clear that we would create law based on Allah of the Qur’an and Sharia Law, it’s pretty simple.”
“I hope I will live to see the day when…we won't have any public schools. The Mosques will have taken over them over again and Imams will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"
“There will never be world peace until Allah's house and Allah's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world."
These statements should rightfully alarm you. Now consider this, YOU DO live in that country, and these are not Taliban quotes. In the above quotes the religious references have been changed. They are quotes from prominent, politically powerful Americans who would establish religious control over America’s government. Here are the actual quotes:
“George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God.” –Lt. General William Boykin, US Army
“Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant–baptism and holy communion–must be denied citizenship." –Gary North, Inst.itute for Christian Economics
“I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim August 6, 2011, to be A Day of Prayer and Fasting for Our Nation.” –Rick Perry, Texas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate
“God called me to run for this office, and my husband fasted for 3 days to make sure it was true.” –Michelle Bachman, US Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate
“"I would not put a Muslim in my cabinet, or in my administration." –Herman Cain, Republican Presidential Candidate
“(Our founding doc.uments) are quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 commandments, it’s pretty simple.” –Sarah Palin
I hope I will live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken over them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" – Jerry Falwell
There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." –Pat Robertson
These statements should be no more frightening in an Islamic or a Christian context – this kind of rhetoric is a serious threat no matter who it comes from. Theocracy is dangerous no matter whose God is invoked. We hear these things from pious politicians every day and are likely desensitized to them, but even momentary consideration reveals them to be un-American to the core. Religious fundamentalists make no secret of their goal of controlling our government and establishing their narrow beliefs as law. We must not let that happen – not here, not in our country.
It happens in small steps – the Ten Commandments in courthouses, prayer and creationism (“Intelligent Design”) in schools, revising science, history, and civics textbooks in Texas, State-endorsed prayer rallies, faith-based initiatives, and on and on – and because these steps may individually seem harmless, many people underestimate their consequences. That is why we must stay alert and fight to keep church and state separate. We should shudder whenever a politician or policymaker alludes to his or her religious beliefs as a justification for public policy. We should be deeply suspi.cious of anyone who claims to be chosen by God to lead us. We should aggressively defend our free society against any religious group who would hope to gain control over it.
Do not underestimate the importance of defending the separation of church and state. Stand up for it at every opportunity with your voice and your vote.
♰♰♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰♰♰
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/05/supreme-court-religious-minorities-dont-have-a-prayer/comment-page-10/#comment-3005980
Amen brother
Praise the lard!
Jesus Christ is Lord?
Says who? Some fictional and semi-fictional writers who lived 2000 – 6000 years ago? So your whole life revolves around these tellers of tall tales?
SAYS US! SAYS ME..SAYS VIC
now that's some mighty powerful thinkin' there, shinebox
Oh kermi, that's cute...maybe the 3 of you can compare notes and argue over who has the right interpretation. The three of you saying it doesn't make it true, all of you are biased towards this god and had your parents brainwashed you to believe in Thor that would be the god you were biased towards....see how that works-not one believer can prove their god exists outside of their own stories and so there is simply no justification for accepting any of it (outside of living in fear of the unknown and being a gullible fool)?
(Now try not replying in your typical form of having a temper tantrum...it's what you do best when shown how you could be wrong).
Anytime the anti- Christian hate mongrels at the ffrf are upset, you know it’s been a good day.
I believe you meant to say "hate MONGERS", as in "someone involved in a petty or contemptable pratice".
As for hate – to me, hatred is a no-win situation. That being said, it can be frustrating when you deal with people who espouse certainty in a position and ignore all evidence contrary to their position.
Prayer should be allowed by allowing God to bless them to make the right decisions is great. Glad that prayer won.. We need Christianity back in religion to get this nation back on the right track. So much hate and so much bad judgement ever sense this stupid seperation of church and state... Just glad the government does not go all Islam on us or our freedom will be taken out from our feet...
Justpro, you don't need more god, you need more education. Your writing is horrendous and your logic non-existent.
My education is fine... Nothing is wrong with my writing sense you were able to simply reply... Look how far this country has fallen without God... We took God out of schools and now school shootings are a common thing... I mean your insults are flattering because all it tells me is that deep down you know I am right but don't want to admit it..
justpro86,
It's mostly the "religious" rightwing that wants more and more guns out there. Ooops.
Who wants more guns? I do support the NRA... We the people have rights too bear arms.... I like huntiing. nothing wrong with that. Taking everyones guns won't stop people getting them...
justpro86,
There's nothing wrong with hunting, but you don't need an AK-47 to do it in spite of what the NRA claims. They also oppose background checks. Bright.
none of the gun shops around me sells AK-47s maybe M-4s or M-16s thats it..
justp
"We took God out of schools and now school shootings are a common thing"
First, that is a lie. If god exists, how could one remove him from schools? It is the religious teaching that has no place in schools. Also, school violence has been going on long before teaching from the bible was found unconst!tutional.
You can thank the gun culture for the escalation of killing power available.
Additionally JustP, correlating removal of god and school violence is ridiculous. That's like me saying that when I wear a blue shirt, I never have had a car accident. But, when I wore a black shirt last week, somebody hit my car.
" I like huntiing. nothing wrong with that"
Killing for fun.... that figures.
Is it your contention that prayer in school would avert shootings?
Williamsport Penn. – 8th grade girl shoots classmate at Bishop Neumann Catholic school.
Rockford, Illinois – 15 yr old boy at Botlan Central Catholic High School shoots his German teacher.
Virgiania Beach, Virginia – 16 yr old comes to Atlantic Shores Christian School and shoots 2 teachers, one fatally.
London, England – 15 yr old stabs his headmaster outside St. George's Roman Catholic Secondary School
Patterson, Missouri – 3 students slay a 16 year old at Mountain Park Baptist Academy
Mississauga, Ontario – 4 students and 1 teacher stabbed at St. Joseph Catholic Secondary School
Oshawa, Ontario – Student at Monsignor Paul Dwyer Catholic High School stabbed at a bus stop outside the school by a fellow student.
When was god in schools? What evidence is there that school shootings have any causal link to the curriculum? You'll also find that school shootings have increased while the NRA has pushed guns into society with the "stand your ground" and other initiatives.
"My education is fine... Nothing is wrong with my writing sense you were able to simply reply..."
justpro86, your writing makes it clear that you are seriously lacking in education. (It's not "sense", it's "since" and I would be able to reply whether you're writing made sense or not.) This is consistent with your beliefs in fairy tales. If you work on your education, perhaps you will stop believing in fantasies.
Seavik
Justpro only "writes" properly when he steals other peoples work. Otherwise it is obvious from his writing and opinion he has little education. Don't expect anything intelligent from him. He would not comprehend it.
justpro86
"Just glad the government does not go all Islam on us or our freedom will be taken out from our feet..."
Yep. The most radical ones are following MANY of the commands issued by God when he set up the rules originally.
Whom are you talking about? the made up God of Islam or the true creator of this world from the Bible? I hope you are talking about the former arabic Moon God turned number one God by a mere man... Islam takes over we will fall under the laws of islam which means you speak against Allah you die
justpro86,
“Whoever does any work on a holy day - put to death”
“anyone who blasphemes - stone him.”
“worship other gods - stone the guilty ones to death”
“stubborn and rebellious son - stone him to death.”
“man is found lying with a married woman - both of them shall die”
“virgin engaged to another man and he lies with her - stone them to death”
“Whoever strikes his father or his mother - put to death”
"Anyone who says cruel things to his father or mother - put to death.”
“anyone who curses his father or his mother - put to death”
“man who commits adultery with another man's wife - they shall be put to death.”
"man or woman who is a medium or a fortune-teller - stone them to death"
From the Quran? Nope. From the Bible
Wrong... Did you not hear what Jesus taught? None of that applies to us... That once again I have to teach you people who do not understand the biblical teachings, The old Mosaic Laws are no more...The Bible teaches to love thy neighbor, all men are equal, love your enemies and love yourself and your lord thy God... No violence no hate
justpro86,
Those were the laws set up by GOD when he created ALL the RULES. Supposedly they lasted for THOUSANDS of years until Jesus convinced the "perfect and unchanging" God to CHANGE the rules.
"the made up God of Islam or the true creator of this world from the Bible?"
Sorry justpro86, my irony meter exploded. I think I've got it recalibrated now, can you repeat that?
Won't do any good to ask JP to repeat or clarify, he does not know what irony means. He's here for entertainment purposes only.
GT....I think he meant 'the made up god of Islam or the true made up creator of this world'. If you notice from his posts, he drops words quite often.
"the made up God of Islam or the true creator of this world from the Bible?"
So you totally dismiss a God believed in by 1.5 billion people and make the claim your God is real while having exactly zero evidence to support your position. Thank you for once again proving you are a haughty hypocrite who has pudding for brains.
Neverbeen....I believe you owe pudding an apology.
justpro86,
Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
If you want to live in a theocracy I suggest you move to Iran.
Still no answer from those who support prayers in public government meetings as to why they care if it's not an important attempt to promote religion in politics...
It is crystal clear to me why prayer should not be allowed in a public government meeting in the United States. It is unconst.itutional and highly inappropriate. Now even though some religious people may not see how inappropriate and offensive it is to others who don't share their religious views, what I don't understand is why they care. If it's not an important issue to religious people, why do they insist on praying in a public government meeting that is supposed to be open to all?
It seems to me that the fact that religious people are actually fighting to pray in these situations suggests that they do indeed want to inject their religion into the public forum, which is precisely why it should not be allowed.
well said.
it's a thinly veiled attempt at putting their religion first, at pushing their religion on others.
pray to whatever gods or goddesses you wish, just do it at home, a church/temple or a park.
don't pray at a gov't building during a gov't meeting.
magic and supersti.tion have no place there.
why can't you pray before you get to the meeting?
I think it is also an attempt to ligitimize the supersti.tion.
Separation of church and state. It's pretty straightforward.
Agreed. But I thought you were on the religion side Devin?
Any religious person who truly understands the issue supports the separation. The protection goes both ways.
I don't know about that. There are a lot of people who have been convinced that we are a "Christian country, founded by Christians on Christian principles". Many of them pretend to support the const.itution, but in reality, think everyone should follow their religious views. Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and their insane supporters come to mind...
We are or was a christian nation... We took Christianity out of politics and majority of everything and now look how corrupt and violent this country has gotten.. How far we have fallen... We need God back in this country with out God this country will fall apart which I clearly see it happening all around us this day...
justpro86,
Yep. It was mostly Christians who came here uninvited and then cheated the natives out of their land.
They were the main ones responsible for FORCING 13,000 Cherokee Indians to have to walk 1,200 miles to a "new" home.
Great example of Christian love and empathy.
Yes, you are correct, I am on the winning team. Wink.
Separation of church and state is just as much a safeguard for myself as a Christian, as it is for anyone else. As I mentioned recently, my ability to pray and have communion with my Creator is not contingent upon anything that does or does not transpire in the public arena. For me, prayer is an act that takes place in my mind, and for the most part, in a quite and private place.
Although meant in somewhat of a different philosophical context, I find myself in agreement with Tertullian's question " What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"
Devin, that's probably the most logical thing I've ever seen you write and perhaps the first time I've agreed with you. It is nice to see that even some deep believers see the importance of separation of church and state.
"Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and their insane supporters come to mind..."
My point is they don't understand the issue. I think devin explained it well....and devin and I hate to agree on ANYTHING!!!
j/k devin....well put.
Sea
" deep believer"
I like that. Gives a little clandestine and esoteric flavor to my faith.
" the most logical thing you have written and the first time I have agreed..."
Gad we finally had consensus.
As for " the most logical thing you have written", it is only logical from your perspective because you are in agreement. I would submit that in all those other areas in which we disagree, it is not necessarily that my logic is faulty, but rather that it differs from that of your own.
"Glad"
Cheese
Don't lose any sleep over our "agreement", I'm sure it will be short lived. Wink ( Hate these emoticon filters).
We Don't need religion but we do need God Jesus and our tradition back in the court systems....
Justpro, you should find a country where religion belongs in the courts. Luckily for Americans, the US const.itution makes it clear that religion does not belong in the courts here.
Its first amendment was based on God of the bibles law that every man and woman were created equal... It gives us free will and freedom of speech... Without this nation being founded by the Christian principles this country would look like Syria in shambles and we would be in fear...
justpro86
"Its first amendment was based on God of the bibles law that every man and woman were created equal..."
Gays, too? lol.
The Bible is loaded with DISCRIMINATIONS against women.
Its first amendment was based on God of the bibles law
-----
Wrong. Comedic and entertaining, but wrong.
Actually Madtown, thinking like that is not comedic, but downright scary!
Well, true enough Gull. For me, if I don't let it turn to humor, it may just drive me a little nutty! Humor is my way of coping, I guess.
Madtown...gotta agree there. These religious nuts are beyond crazy on this site....and totally lacking any sense of humor at all!
@Just.... time for you to move to a theocracy like Iran. Fortunately the U.S. is not a theocracy.... but feel free to keep pi$$ing and moaning about your imaginary god and the mythology of the babble.
I dunno – jesus was in the court system once and look at how that ended for him.
the judges are not supposed to get caught up in fallacies of tradition - they are there, in a large part, to protect the minority from the majority. there should be no religion at all at gov't buildings. if you want to pray, do it at home, at a church or at a park - you just shouldn't do it at work. pray before work, at lunch or after work - but why at the start of official meetings unless it is to push your religion on everyone else? why is religion being mentioned at all in a gov't meeting?
For those who have a problem with me giving tracts to children ...
"The Wall Street Journal recently reported the results of a new study, which suggested that schools shouldn’t wait until students are teenagers to teach evolutionary ideas. Rather, they should start in kindergarten. Now, this article’s main point is that younger children are more impressionable than teenagers—so evolutionists need to start convincing children while they’re very young!"
noahsdadtopher,
And Christians start indoctrinating their NON-BELIEVING children immediately. That's how they learn about Santa Claus and the Easter bunny, too.
I would be more than happy to wait until high school to teach both evolution (school) and young earth creationism (church) and let the chips fall where they may.
How bout you Topher?
I personally don't think evolution OR creationism belongs in a classroom.
Yeah, why would you teach science in a science class....
Both are religion.
No it's not....but I understand why you would need to convince yourself otherwise.
@topher
Are you just trying to sound stupid now?
Believe in it if you want to, but you're believing in it on faith. NO science backs it up.
NO science backs it up.
---
LOL! Who needs sitcoms? You mean, no science that YOU accept, no science that meets your tremendously unscientific standard.
My standard has nothing to do with it. I mean the scientific standard of testable, repeatable and demonstrable.
I attended Christian schools that had no problem teaching evolution. Scientists of all religious backgrounds can be found that accept evolution because of the facts. Your willfull ignorace is not proof otherwise.
@topher
You wouldn't know good science if it came up and kicked you in the crotch, and you just don't want to. Science has been disproving the religious assertions for a long time. You can't call evolution science because you are currently typing on something only because science backs it up. Tell you what topher, don't take any antibiotics anymore. Never go to a doctor's office. If you don't trust science, at least be consistent about it instead of lying to yourself about what is and isn't scientifically backed you coward.
I love science. But if you're telling me the only reason I have a computer is because evolution is true, you're being very dishonest.
@topher
Congratulations on once again avoiding actually addressing the content of a post. You're just as dishonest as ever. Not to mention you've also run away from the slavery discussion on this page. I'm wondering why it is that you seem completely incapable of ever being an honest defender of your myths.
noahsdadtopher
"the scientific standard of testable, repeatable and demonstrable" destroys the Bible. What's left?
hawaiiguest
This make you happy?
"You wouldn't know good science if it came up and kicked you in the crotch, and you just don't want to."
Name calling.
"Science has been disproving the religious assertions for a long time."
Science hasn't disproved a single thing from the Bible.
"You can't call evolution science because you are currently typing on something only because science backs it up."
Evolution has NOTHING to do with observational science. It is not required for computers, air planes or any other piece of Apple technology.
"Tell you what topher, don't take any antibiotics anymore. "Never go to a doctor's office."
Doesn't require evolution to be true.
"If you don't trust science, at least be consistent about it instead of lying to yourself about what is and isn't scientifically backed you coward."
Name-calling (a logical fallacy). AND I never said I don't trust science. That's just your own imputation of what I said. Please stop lying.
observer
"the scientific standard of testable, repeatable and demonstrable" destroys the Bible. What's left?"
Ridiculous.
Oh, and I'm going to get off here very soon ... in case any of you want to claim I'm going to run away. smiley
noahsdadtopher,
The Bible doesn't present ONE NEW SCIENTIFIC fact. It could have made the lives of BILLIONS of people better by just telling them to wash their hands. Too much to ask for.
The Bible basically claims that ALL the laws of science are optional. What nonsense.
"the scientific standard of testable, repeatable and demonstrable" destroys the Bible. What's left?"
Ridiculous.
----
Ridiculous? He's exactly right.
observer
noahsdadtopher,
"The Bible doesn't present ONE NEW SCIENTIFIC fact. It could have made the lives of BILLIONS of people better by just telling them to wash their hands. Too much to ask for."
Umm ... it DOES tell you to wash your hands. And I'M the one that supposed to need to read it? lol
"The Bible basically claims that ALL the laws of science are optional. What nonsense."
What verse is that?
@topher
actually, antibiotics and vaccines are all predicated on evolution. What I was talking about in terms of computers is the scientific method. Evolution is proven. Whether you ever want to admit it or not. MRSA is living proof of evolution. Bacteria that have changed to be resistant to penicillin. AIDS being so virulent and difficult to treat is another example of evolution. We cannot develop a vaccine for AIDS because its structure changes so rapidly, oftentimes from host to host the strain is different. We have demonstrated evolution to such a degree that only ignorant, willfully blind people like you are the only ones who don't accept it.
Also, we know for a fact that a global flood has never happened. We know the earth is a spherical shape, we know that the earth does not stay static in space. All of which is against what your bible says no matter how much you want to change what it says.
hawaiiguest
Last comments for the night ...
"actually, antibiotics and vaccines are all predicated on evolution."
No.
"What I was talking about in terms of computers is the scientific method."
I have no problem with the scientific method or observational science (computers, etc.) But there's nothing scientific about something that supposedly happened billions of years ago, which we can't see happen and for which there is zero evidence.
"Evolution is proven."
No, it's not.
"MRSA is living proof of evolution."
I honestly don't know what this is. Sorry.
"Bacteria that have changed to be resistant to penicillin."
So the bacteria became ... bacteria? That's NOT evolution. Yes, the bacteria changes, but it's natural selection. For it to be evolution it must no longer be bacteria.
"We have demonstrated evolution to such a degree that only ignorant, willfully blind people like you are the only ones who don't accept it."
Logical fallacy. And again, the only thing you've demonstrated is that bacteria becomes bacteria. Fruit flies become fruit flies. It's natural selection. And that's amazing. But it's not evolution.
"Also, we know for a fact that a global flood has never happened."
Rabbit trail. And anyway, how could you possibly know that? It's historical science.
"We know the earth is a spherical shape, we know that the earth does not stay static in space."
The Bible agrees with that.
"All of which is against what your bible says no matter how much you want to change what it says."
No. Again, you're making it say what you WANT it to say. The Bible NEVER says the earth is flat. It's nothing more than the "bats aren't birds" argument. If you studied it at all you'd know it isn't true.
Alright ... I'm out. Have a good one.
noahsdadtopher,
Every law of science can supposedly be changed on or off according to God's actions in the Bible.
Take your time off here to read a Bible.
Evolution doesn't belong in a classroom?! What an idiotic statement. If we're not going to teach science, what's the point of education?
So topher is now redefining evolution and science itself. His refutation to evolution being a proven thing is "No". That's it. Topher are you Ken Ham?
For one thing Evolution is not proven... It is still considered a theory... It should be removed because it is not science but only a theory... Evolution is the stupidest thing taught today and should be removed...
justpro86
"Evolution is the stupidest thing taught today and should be removed.."
Obviously, you haven't read the science fiction story of Noah's ark.
@justpro
Go educate yourself on what the word theory means in science you moron. That ridiculous argument has been refuted over and over, and you ignorant anti-science boobs continue to use it as if it makes any kind of coherent sense.
Topherism. The condition that allows a person to reject all knowledge that does not agree with that persons a priori beliefs. (also known as Phileoidiotism)
Topher always the liar and coward, you are psychotic.
"For one thing Evolution is not proven... It is still considered a theory"
Wow, ignorance at best!
A theory in every day terms and a theory in the scientific sense are two different things. Evolution is very much proven.
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."
So sorry to burst the wee bubble but by definition, The Theory of Evolution is proven.
A simplistic explanation can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl7ldMr_m5k
"For one thing Evolution is not proven... It is still considered a theory"
Says the ignorant pea brain.
LOL.
correction..evolutionary facts.. creationism is ideas..based on a book..with no facts.....
Evolution is far from facts and already proven to go against science
Ignorance must truly be bliss, the perfect cure is an education-please register for a basic sicence class, it will help you immensly. While you're registering for that, look in to seeking out help for the delusions you suffer from the bad parenting you received (brainwashing children is a bad thing).
justp
Evolution is fact, and there is no science that refutes it. Creationsist do not have science, they have anti science. There is no science to creationism.
You claim science refutes it, How would you know? You have proven countless times you do not comprehend the sciences, so who's words are you basing that on?
If this person registered for a science class it would be a waste of money as they would just continue to ignore the overwhelming amounts of evidence and proof of evolution.
There are no proof for evolution
This will fall on deaf ears, but there is overwhelming scientific proof for evolution. The fossil records and DNA evidence is beyond reproach. The fact that we can see trace elements of evolution in our own time makes it even more compelling. However, because evolution goes against the religious dogma of most Christians, it will never be accepted by some of you. However, because the evidence for evolution is so great, many Christians, including the pope, agree that evolution did occur. In order to incorporate it into their religious philosophy, they simply state that god started the evolutionary chain. Absurd, but better than those that ignore scientific evidence entirely.
Evolution has no proof and is still considered simply a THEORY... Evolution has been proven to go against the Laws of Thermodynamics which hurts the theory tremendously.
From the National Academy of Sciences : Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."
Once again, I fully expect this to fall on deaf ears, especially from those that think that all the animals on the planet 4000 years ago made a one year journey on a boat built by a 600 year old man, but I'm sorry....you are wrong. It is a fact...a provable, scientific fact.
No once again its your opinion and with out Evolution the National Academy of Sciences would be out of jobs... So claiming a stupid theory that we were all created out of nothing or a single cell is really stupid of course a couple dumb scientists would push for a theory that most don't even believe is true just to keep their high paying jobs... Sorry your wrong
Evolution is fact. It is scientific fact whether you believe it or not. There are very few of you people left that don't believe that evolution is a fact. But then again, I just can't take anything seriously that comes from the mouth of somebody that believes that a 600 year old man built a wooden boat that carried all the animals on the planet for a year with only 8 zookeepers. So....if my choices are Adam and Eve and a talking snake, and Noah, and all the other extremely unscientifically silly fairy tales against science, my intellect compels me to believe the scientific community. So...sorry, you're wrong.
You start off by saying evolution is a fact whether we believe it or not. Evolution is not a fact, it is a theory, whether you believe it or not, if it was a then fact there would be no arguement would there? Don't try to say something and make it sound as if it was 100% fact. You also say there are only a few of us left who don't believe in evolution, since when does millions equal only a few of us? One thing for sure, we are all going to find out in the end, I wonder what you will believe then.
Evolution is scientific fact, pure and simple. The fossil records along with DNA testing proves it. It is a fact, and it is happening right now. The average height of men 200 years ago was 5'7"....it's not over 5'10". Evolution is happening in our lifetimes. The pope several years ago came out stating that evolution was factual, but that somehow god got the evolutionary ball rolling. However, as I stated before, I refuse to get involved in any conversation with someone that truly believes that the earth is only 6000 years old and that a 600 year old man built a wooden boat that housed 2 of every creature on the planet for a year with only 8 zookeepers. To believe something so inherently foolish is a monumental waste of time, and it is more a waste of my time to converse with somebody of that mindset.
Science was created by God to observe and gain knowledge about Gods creation... Evolution like I said is still only a theory still unproven and still looks silly in the eyes of science
JustP.....now you are just being stupid, and I will waste no more time on your foolishness. Evolution is totally accepted by every true scientist in the world and is a proven fact. And your banishing it only further pushes my belief system. If you can't argue intelligently and make things up to prove your point, you must realize that intelligent people are going to call you out on it.
Once again you are wrong and have shown your ignorance while accessing others that it is them who is ignorant. It is not true when you say every scientist believes such and such, there are many scientists who have become a Christian and there are more who actually believe in a God. Do some more research and don't be such an arrogant self righteous know it all, who actually knows very little.
Ben....if you notice, I made sure I said 'every true scientist' in my statement. Sorry, but any idiot that believes the earth is only 6000 years old despite the overwhelming evidence is not a true scientist. Nothing you have to say holds any value to me at all, so feel free to keep trying to admonish me....I just don't care.
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
Justin is either utterly ignorant or he is a troll. Either ways, he's not worth wasting time upon.
How em I a troll on a blog for Christians... Your either stupid a Troll and utterly ignorant because what you said makes no sense...
This is not a blog for Christians....what the heck gave you that idea? This is called the Belief Blog, not the Christian Belief Blog.
If your an atheist you don't believe in any religion so once again why are you hear trashing someone elses beliefs like you know it all? It is a blog about Religion... Majority of the posts are for Christians so why i came to a conclution that its a Christian blog... Well actually this post is a Christian post...
JustP....I don't know why the other atheists come here, but I am on this site to reaffirm my belief that people who believe in such nonsense as the bible are still the least intelligent life forms on the planet. I have yet to see a Christian poster on this site that A) acts in a Christian manner towards other people or B) is intelligent enough to put together a clear and concise reason to believe as they do. So far, I have been vindicated in my beliefs...none of you are very cohesive.
Why is it that you can mock, hate, make fun of, call names etc about others, but when anyone says anything back to you, you whine about them not acting Christian like? Everyone else is wrong but somehow you think you are right. You are totally ignorant when it comes to God, Jesus, the bible and have no idea what your talking about. You are one self righteous clod who rejects the only place you can find real truth and therefore are totally deceived, and a deceived person doesn't even know they are deceived. Calling Christians the lowest form of life only proves it is you who are beneath them, you must live a very miserable life when it bothers you so much that others believe in God. If they do, so what, what's that to you, that's their business but all of a sudden you have made yourself the know it all and only those who think like you are right and everyone else is, like you say low life's, you really have problems. Believe what you want, who cares, thats entirely up to you, but keep it to yourself and let others believe what they want, why does that bother you so much? Your going to end up sick if you keep letting it eat away at you so much, and quit being a hypocrite by accusing others for not acting Christian and then turn around and talk against them the way you do. By the way, your not God, so quit acting as if you are the one who is all wise, all knowing, etc., you've certainly proven that your far from that.
Ben....sorry to disappoint you, but I just can't take seriously anything that a person who believes the earth is only 6000 years old because they read it in a book says. I stopped reading your diatribe less than halfway in, because I just don't care if you feel you need to admonish me. It's like taking advice from a child. By the way, I've never indicated I was better than Christians, just not as stupid.
justpro86,
Why are you talking about laws of science when the Bible says, in effect, that all of them are optional?
God created Science... God created everything... The Laws of Nature are Gods laws...
justpro86
"God created everything..."
Yep. Heaven. Hell. Evil. Hurricanes. Earthquakes. Weapons of mass destruction. Disease.
Evil is not something to be created.....evil is like darkness...as darkness is absence of light..so is evil absence of righteousness.....you can have flashing light, low light, red light etc etc...but you cannot have eany of those in regards to darkness...you don't have flashing darkness, red darkness...it is absence of light...
"Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned)."
Nice ICR cut and paste, but it is demonstrably false. Lenski's E. coli experiments, among many other examples, clearly show that mutation and natural selection can and do add complex specified functional information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
Lanski's mutations: Lenski’s experiments supposedly showing evolution being observed are an embellishment of the facts. Mutations do not add new information but “corrupt” existing DNA coding. And all the verbal semantics engaged in by Da...rwinians do not change this fact. The E coli bacteria remains an E coli bacteria, and everything that happened in the Lenski’s lab worked to preserve the bacteria E coli as such – end of story.
Of course I don't expect you to remotely comprehend the relevant science, but what Lenski's E. coli show is that mutation via duplication and reinsertion (i.e. adding genetic material) followed by further refining mutations (i.e. changes in the original code) produced a biochemical pathway hitherto unknown in E. coli, i.e. the ability to utilize Citrate under aerobic conditions. Notably, this characteristic is a distinguishing factor used by labs to differentiate between E. coli and other bugs. In other words, relative to the taxonomy and diversity of bacteria, this series of mutations shifted Lenski's E. coli outside of the standard identifiable E. coli phenotype and is analogous to a change in "kind."
You can claim over and over again that mutations don't add "information" and that mutations are invariably a "degradation"; but Lenski's E. coli directly contradict your scientifically ignorant mantra.
Are we copy/pasting from answersingenisis again?
Did you read the Wall Street article or just Ken Ham's review of it? Because it was a study done by Deborah Kelemen at BU that said we should start teaching it earlier, not the the journal. They also state that reason they think we should start ealier is because of the specific cognitive bias we have to try to explain things intiutively. "Kids aged 6 to 10 have developed their own coherent "folk biological" theories. "
Please, PLEASE stop listening to Ham. The man has long ago lost all credibiilty in my eyes.
noahsdadtopher
"It's pretty clear that "slavery" was a good thing for the "slave."
Sure thing. Tell that to the frightened 7-year-old girl who is sold to a complete stranger for his USE.
Tell that to the elderly female slave who has an arm broken with a rod and her owner gets NO PUNISHMENT.
Do you have reading comprehension problems or just avoid any LOGIC?
"It's pretty clear that "slavery" was a good thing for the "slave."
It's pretty crear rationalization is a good thing for believers...
Once again Slavery in Israel benefited both slave and the master... You clearly don't have a grasp of what slavery in the old testament clearly was about... You should stop making yourself out as a poor fool...
Wow, slavery regardless of what pathetic, immoral twist you put on it doesn't benefit a slave. Given how you support it though, please tell us how many slaves you own and what the benefit to them is?
It is crystal clear to me why prayer should not be allowed in a public government meeting in the United States. It is unconst.itutional and highly inappropriate. Now even though some religious people may not see how inappropriate and offensive it is to others who don't share their religious views, what I don't understand is why they care. If it's not an important issue to religious people, why do they insist on praying in a public government meeting that is supposed to be open to all?
It seems to me that the fact that religious people are actually fighting to pray in these situations suggests that they do indeed want to inject their religion into the public forum, which is precisely why it should not be allowed.
You should stop being ridiculous if people want to pray before meetings or whatever they should be allowed that right...
Sure they should but they should do so silently!
justp
They do have the right to pray. They DON"T have the right to delay the peoples business with a religious display. It is simply inappropriate. Pray, then attend the meeting. If 60 people attend the meeting, and your religious display delays business by one minute, you have wasted a combined hour of the peoples time.
How about I show up at your church and discuss zoning matters before your service? Appropriate or not?
kermit4jc,
Why should they be FORCED to "control their minds and turn people out"?
OOOPS.
you do it all day...hello...you tune into things..and tune things out day in and day out....you ignore signs....acknowledge signs....people, etc etc...think about it...otherwise youd have too much info coming in....
An honest viewpoint from a fundamentalist:
"I did not know from a scientific perspective why I did not believe in evolution – but I knew from a Biblical perspective it had to be wrong or my faith was in trouble."
— Ken Ham
It's not just atheists who think the bible condones slavery, it's prominent Christians:
"…the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example… Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed that the inspired Apostles … would have tolerated it for a moment in the Christian Church. In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority [Luke 12:47], its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions."
— Richard Furman, Baptist State Convention, letter to South Carolina Governor, 1822
"Slavery itself ... is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law... The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave."
— Vatican statement, 1866
Kinda reaching WAY back for those, aren't you?
Why does that matter? Did the bible change it's meaning since then?
No. But I would say Furman was wrong.
Topher,
You are enti.tled to your opinion as is everyone.
First, Furman is wrong in that the Bible's slavery is not the same as what he is trying to justify here. Second, read the verse he uses ... it's a parable about God's judgment.
noahsdadtopher,
What does God say is the PUNISHMENT if a slave owner takes a rod and beats his elderly female slave, but she doesn't die "in a day or so"?
Topher,
Your self confidence is impressive. I find many religious people that have huge self confidence in their understanding of their beliefs. They often conflict with other people of the same religion who are equally confident. Isn't that interesting?
bostontola
Depends on the issue. If it's a major issue (whether you're orthodox or not) is essential to agree upon. If it's a minor issue, we can disagree and still be brothers. Nothing wrong with that.
noahsdadtopher,
Of course the Bible supports slavery.
Please READ one.
Give me the verse that says slavery is good and make sure it's in context that says it's racial slavery.
noahsdadtopher,
Give me ONE VERSE that says that OWNING another person as PROPERTY is wrong or an abomination or a sin.
Good luck,
I didn't say the bible says slavery is good or racial. The bible condones slavery. Christians agreed with me until societal norms changed in the last century.
It's never condoned. You can argue it doesn't speak out against it if you want. Though I'd disagree. But it never condones it.
@topher
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
noahsdadtopher,
The Bible even tells what the rules are when you SELL your 7-year-old girl to a stranger for their USE.
Please read one.
Correct. It tells us that it existed in that culture.
@topher
Now do 1 of your 3 standard replies.
1. Say you have to go
2. Ignore me completely
3. Claim it's out of context without actually saying what the proper context is or could be for owning another person as property.
noahsdadtopher,
Yep. God said you could SELL your 7-year-old daughter to strangers who could use her as they want and NEVER ONCE said it was wrong.
Pathetic. Barbaric. IMMORAL.
observer
Does God exist?
Ooo he chose ignore me completely. I thought he might have had a new one and just left the thread without saying anything.
noahsdadtopher
"Does God exist?"
Just like apparently EVERY other human being, I don't know. Same answer for Zeus.
Now how about answering some of the questions you've been asked or are you just going to RUN away?
I'll be happy to answer any question ... IF I can. I don't claim to know everything. But if all you want to do is bark, complain and argue with me, what's the use?
Who's running away? You guys always accuse me that I'm going to run away and I never have.
noahsdadtopher,
Can you give me ONE VERSE that says that OWNING another person as PROPERTY is wrong or an abomination or a sin?
observer
"Can you give me ONE VERSE that says that OWNING another person as PROPERTY is wrong or an abomination or a sin?"
Nothing comes to mind, so no, I can't. Of course again, you seem to (and correct me if I'm wrong) not understand what slavery in the Bible means. In most cases this was an exceptionally good deal for someone. It has nothing to do with the race-based slavery we know in this country. And if you're under that impression, you're wrong ... and thus are setting up a false dichotomy.
I can however give you some verses that aren't so blunt about it that seem to stand against it if you're interested.
noahsdadtopher,
What does God say is the PUNISHMENT if a slave owner takes a rod and beats his elderly female slave, but she doesn't die "in a day or so"?
Now tell me that "biblical slavery" is NOTHING like other slavery.
observer
"What does God say is the PUNISHMENT if a slave owner takes a rod and beats his elderly female slave, but she doesn't die "in a day or so"?"
Tell me. And make sure you don't just quote a single verse. Use it in context.
"Now tell me that "biblical slavery" is NOTHING like other slavery."
Not sure that's a fair analogy. Race-based slavery was against the person's will. Slavery in the Bible is often (though not in all cases) was voluntary ... a way to pay off debt. In fact, it was very common for a slave, once their debt was paid, would make a lifetime commitment to the master.
noahsdadtopher,
God's answer to slave owners taking a rod and beating their elderly female slaves (even breaking their bones as long as they didn't die "in a day or so") was there was to be NO VENGEANCE taken on them.
Horrible. Barbaric. Brainless. Totally lacking any MORALS.
Now tell me that any 7-year-old (or ANY AGE) girl volunteered to be SOLD to strangers for whatever use they wanted them for. Get real.
Tell me what verses those are ....
@topher
I gave those verses above, you just chose to ignore them like you always do.
noahsdadtopher,
hawaiiguest and I are discussing the same topic.
You apparently CHOOSE to stay blind and IGNORE the verses already supplied by him.
Another example of how the Biblical slavery is not like the race-based variety from the U.S. ...
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."
noahsdadtopher,
Yep. NOT ONE WORD from God saying that OWNING another person as PROPERTY is wrong or an abomination or a SIN.
But at least God did tell us how "wrong" it is to be gay. lol.
Yep. Read all of Exodus 21 as I just did. It's pretty clear that "slavery" was a good thing for the "slave." And that there's plenty of laws for the master to protect the slave.
@topher
Are you just assuming that no one is going to check what you're going to say? After exodus 11 it gives rules on personal injury and the only one that pertains specifically to slaves is 20-21, which I also gave above. I see you're just as dishonest as ever.
How about the entire book of Exodus? Admittedly, Jews could be slaves, and could sell their own children into slavery under Jewish law, however...
A Jewish male that was enslaved had to be released on a certain day that occurred every 7 years. It was really an indentured servitude of sorts. Females and non-Jews were kept as slaves in the normal sense, however.
Does that fit your "racial" slavery requirement? Also note that early settlers in the Americas also kept Irish slaves initially... it wasn't just blacks.
@topher,
A good thing? seriously?
"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly [unlike the non-Israelites which you can treat ruthlessly]"
Leviticus
Topher, that is one of the many reason the god of the Bible is immoral. God had plenty of chances to tell his people not to own other humans, but god never did so one can only assume that god was o.k. with slavery. He had time to say things like don't covet, but he couldn't say don't own other humans? Use your brain for once in your life.
@madtown Correct christian context = “whatever agrees with my opinion and interpretation.”-Stop with the stupiod accusations and back it up....prove it wrong...the FACT is Jesus was speaking of the HYPOCRITES who cared NOTHING more than to be seen....they didnt really care about prayer....it hasd notning to do with ALL public prayers..but the hypocrites
kermit4jc,
"the FACT is Jesus was speaking of the HYPOCRITES who cared NOTHING more than to be seen....they didnt really care about prayer"
So the FACT is that Jesus could have been addressing people attending government meetings and insisting on prayers.
WHo are You to judge if they choose to do so...how do YOU know their intentions? or are you so judgmnental you see the negative in all?
Gee the hypocrisy...who are you to say what your imaginary friend jesus said or meant or intended? Were you present at the time he apparently was around to know what was said or meant or intended? Or perhaps like the poor gullible fool you are, you just accept things on faith knowing that nothing was written about this character until 30-40 years after death and knowing that stories told like that so many years after could very well hold little accuracy.
WHo are You to judge if they choose to do so
----
I am paying their salary with my tax dollars. Elected officials conducting government business are working on behalf of EVERYONE they represent. They are free to pray.....before they get to the meeting. Why the need to focus on the exercise of their personal rights, when they're only there to work on behalf of everyone they represent? Keep it personal, your own time, not the taxpayer's time.
kermit4jc
"are you so judgmnental you see the negative in all?"
GREAT LINE from the Christian side that says EVERYONE is just loaded with sin.
Good one.
THAT is nOT me judging.....great assumption..PLUS....Its not neccesarily negative..its so that we can CHANGE..when one recognizes the errors...then they can change.....you however are coming from other direction with this judging about INTENTIONS of the people who want to pray...you assume they all do it only to be seen and such.....man..bad argument..try again
kermit4jc
"you however are coming from other direction with this judging about INTENTIONS of the people who want to pray...you assume they all do it only to be seen and such....."
I never said that at all. If English is a problem for you, then don't try to make any ASSUMPTIONS when you can't handle it.
They should get a pentecostal, southern baptist, and catholic all to do prayers one after the other. "Christian" is a damn near useless term considering that there's thousands of different denominations. Oh I know get JW and Mormon invocations on a consistent basis and watch them back pedal like the tools they are.
Thu-mping bible babble anywhere is part of our right to free speech guaranteed by the Const-itution. As more come to realize the time wasted on said babble, there will be less and less of it said anywhere.
What ex-Christians should do in the meantime, is to sue their ex-churches for running a con game with a demand to return all donations and ti-thes. This would require the courts to come to grips with the significant stupidity of bodily resurrections, changing bread and water/wine into bodies and blood, atonement of sin et al.
"emphatically Christian" prayer at the First Continental Congress was delivered by an Anglican minister, who overcame objections from the assembled Quakers, Anabaptists and Presbyterians.................
It should NEVER have happened....BECAUSE THEY WERE WRONG THEN DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT NOW.
As the vote tally indicates, a hard decision to make. If prayers are allowed, it may alienate other beliefs or non- beliefs. If not allowed, it may contribute to society's moral decay.
I will also vote to allow prayers but it should not be imposed and should be done by each individual in the meeting on their own way or not at all.
Ideally, prayer of an individual should be between the individual and God.
"If not allowed, it may contribute to society's moral decay."
What is your evidence of this?
Doris, if you post that video and long list of people again you'll be blocked from commenting.
thanks,
Daniel
Really?
it took you 20 hours to warn her?
and if she doesn't go back and find this she could get banned?
Doris,
You would understand if you believe in the God i believe in, that God is morallity.
"If not allowed, it may contribute to moral decay". What utter nonsense. If anything, religious belief impairs one's ability to act morally.
Incre,
You would understand if you believe in the God i believe in, that god is morallity.
THE IDEA OF PRAYING TO SOMETHING THAT'S NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST IS INSANITY......the idea that this is done by supposed grown human beings is degrading to the concept of INTELLIGENCE.
Idiot,
Need i say more?
For your indulgence, jesus said to judas:
Think with your heart and not of your mind.
There are some who are very intelligent but very immoral. Useless i would say for the development of our moral applications. Our evolution.
Peace...thinking with your heart and not your mind is what got you into this mess. I suggest you try using your mind a bit more....
Gulli,
It is not a mess by a moral religion, its humans fear of the unknown. Human nature. Think ...you say.
Peace...human nature that your god apparently instilled in us? What a fvck up!
Gulli,
What is instilled in you are guidance based on past experiences. Religious guidance if moral could be permanent law.
Peace....sorry...religious morals are not on my radar. You people are nuts. I see nothing wrong with gays, enjoy a good p-orn movie with my wife, drink on the weekends, and abhor slavery, sacrificing animals, and many of the other I oral morals in your bible
If not allowed, it may contribute to society's moral decay.
If not allowed, it may contribute to society's moral advancement.
Boston,
You may be right if the prayer to a God is not moral but if you beleive in the God i believe in you would understand that God is morallity.
I know I've posted this recently, but how is killing people For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge and hiring a slave to dig the grave a higher moral standard?
Are we really better off as a society if we burn witches at the stake?
Alias,
Again you pointed out sins of humans, not Gods teachings.
As i said before, due to too much love to a belief, a God, humans have a tendancy to unknowingly do immoral acts.
"If not allowed, it may contribute to society's moral decay."
--------------------
Thanks for today's belly laugh.
In what way does not saying a prayer before a town hall meeting contribute to "society's moral decay"? What a silly thing to say.
^^^^ like
Nogop,
Ridicule, what humans did when noah was building the ark, or roman emperor did with early christianity.
You would understand if you believe in a moral God.
"what humans did when noah was building the ark"...The myth of noah never happened, so it does not make your point.
Stop it, Jesus troll. Only God can judge him. You don't get to decide what morals are adequate.
It was James Madison's view that religion and virtue flourish more when they are not propped up by the government. The right to exercise religion, without governmental assistance that otherwise tramples on the rights of minority sects is paramount in his thinking.
I happen to agree with him.
There are any number of quotes of his to support this notion. Here's one:
"And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. ... The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virga. where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronised by Public authority. "
James Madison to Edward Livingston (1822)
Nogop,
Nothing wrong with what he said. In fact i agree.
I am saying i agree to allow prayer to a moral God. However, what is moral? For us humans to determine.
You missed my post saying it should not be imposed and if allowed let each individual pray on their own god. That prayer is between the individual and the individuals god.
Then you expressed conflicting viewpoints:
"If not allowed, it may contribute to society's moral decay. I will also vote to allow prayers
but it should not be imposed and should be done by each individual in the meeting on their own way or not at all.
-----------------–
The notion that not praying at a town hall meeting leads to moral decay is absurd. You did say that not praying leads to moral decay.
If your position really is that prayer should not be imposed, then I agree with you. In that case you are in opposition to the SCOTUS ruling. While they have not mandated prayer, they permit the majority to impose unwelcome prayer over a minority.
This tramples on the free exercise of religion rights of the minority. I may not have the legal credentials of a Supreme Court Justice, but to me, this is not consistent with our Const.itution.
How would not allowing a prayer in a government building contribute to society's moral decay?
Sam,
If guidance from a moral God or parent ( i presume you have parents) is absent, who would guide us? Media?
I think you miss my post regarding prayer on their own or not and that prayer should be between the individual and God.
@advocate
I don't suppose you even realized that you are only referencing a specific god in your talk about prayer. That right there is a huge part of the problem.
Hawii,
Yes. A specific God, a moral God period.
I also said you can pray on your own and not imposed that a prayer is between the individual and The individuals God.
Peace...is it Vishnu? He's pretty moral. He never destroyed every living thing on the planet before either.
Are all vishus teachings the same as my gods? Is vishus a god? If yes to both then vishus may be the same god i believe in.