Democrats Start Positioning Themselves For Prohibition End

[93143]

it is possible to say god is shrinking because scientific knowledge is growing.

Not without implicitly endorsing a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophical role of God.

It seems (cf. Kurt Gödel) to be a mathematical fact that science can never be 'complete' in the sense of a fully self-explanatory model of reality. Basically, science cannot ever answer the question of why reality is the way it is, and the more fundamental our knowledge becomes, the more fundamental the question gets.

The Christian answer is that things are because God (ie: YHWH, the self-existent) wants them to be, and they act the way they do because God wants them to. One could say that as human knowledge expands, God (or at least our concept of God) gets bigger, not smaller.

...

[*checks board heading*] General, okay. Even so, I'm probably setting myself up for an argument that I'm not prepared to devote time to. Stubby, please consider rather than reacting. I'm not trying to get you to agree with me publicly; I'm just trying to provide food for thought.

[TDPerk]

" The architecture produced was by no measure sustainable."

A drastic misuse of resources for all but propaganda purposes.

[TDPerk]

One could say that as human knowledge expands, God (or at least our concept of God) gets bigger, not smaller.

I believe small minds who think life and thought are all ungrowable pies to be divided, they disagree.

[TDPerk]

As for your de minimis argument. Do you want to set a precedent for a group of people to be discriminated against based on their choice of religious practice? And to try to use numbers of adherents as a reason to discriminate... really. What would be your magical number of adherents to prevent discrimination?

You're really quite self centered, Stubby. Having it your way, you violate the rights of conscience of every other person who disagrees with you, on basis of no harm done to you but that you see how many people disagree with you and it makes you offended. It's not a question of a magical number, but of proportion.

"In order to protect everyone's religious freedom, the government must not promote any religious idea or doctrine more than any other. There are 2 ways to do this:
Promote them all equally or promote none."

And right now it promotes none.

"It is impossible to promote them all equally especially since many are mutually exclusive. That leaves promoting none. It is amazing how many people fail to grasp this. "

It's amazing to me how many people--which would be more than none--who think, "In God We Trust". the chambers of Congress opening with prayer, or a moment of silence at the beginning of a school day are any diminution of their rights.

"Nothing is being said about what beliefs you should hold or anything like that.
I have mine and you have yours."

Oh no, it does say something about what views a should be held. I have no truck with social conservatives, I don't think they are any sort of conservative at all.

But "In God We Trust" pisses off all the right people, so I'm "fer it".

"PS
Having looked into the source of the inclusion of the words in the pledge.

The Knight of Columbus started a campaign to have the words included.
Your government went with it because of fear of the godless communists."

Like I said, it pisses off all the right people.

"From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

Umm yeah, so? He's free to have had his opinion.

You got a problem with that?

[Diogenes]

the words 'under god' are not pro-theist but pro-christian. They exclude hindus, shinto, muslims, atheists among other and not to mention all your first nations.

Of course you'll have no problem backing up that ridiculous assertion.

Now why did you go and argue with it?

[Diogenes]

And the republicans are usually all good and completely unselfish? Oh please!!!
They all serve some lobbies, just slightly different ones.

There is some truth in this, but the problem is far worse on the other side of the aisle. Term Limits will tend to improve this problem on both sides of the aisle. If people cannot long remain in a position of power, they won't be able to build these lobbyist support structures and therefore won't feel any need to cater to lobbyists.

Both side have good ideas at times, dismissing an idea, because it came from the other side is counterproductive and not in the best interest of the people.

I disagree. I've kept up with politics for a very long time, and I likewise study history quite a bit. I cannot lay my hand on any idea which ever came from Democrats that turned out to be a good idea. Most of them were unmitigated disasters. Can you name an idea which came from Democrats that turned out to be actually a good idea?

Commercial Crew for the ISS. Funding for stem cell research. Apollo programme, just to name three.

The commerical crew for the ISS is trivial and not even worthy of inclusion as an accomplishment, Adult stem cell research is beating the dog snot out of Democrat pushed fetal stem cell research, and the benefits of the Apollo program (Like that was a Democrat accomplishment) are hardly as much of a success as to make up for the other MASSIVE DISASTERS over which Kennedy presided. (Communist Cuba, Very nearly nuclear death for Millions of Americans, Vietnam, De-institutionalizing the Mentally ill, and Picking Lyndon Johnson as VP. )


You are not having an appropriate appreciation of scale. The costs to humanity of the Kennedy administration can in no way be balanced by any trivial accomplishments for which he and his supporters pretend to claim success. He very nearly (through his own stupidity) got Millions of people killed. He did back stab and betray thousands of people to whom we had promised assistance in overthrowing the communist country of Cuba, and he did initiate America's involvement in Vietnam.

By an objective assessment, Kennedy was a horrible President. Eisenhower said upon the election of Kennedy:

''All I've been trying to do for eight years has gone down the drain,'' he told his son. ''I might just as well have been having fun.''

[Diogenes]

In what way is it ridiculous? Anybody with a rational brain can figure out that any mention of god(s) is divisive.

As for proof, the easiest ones are hindus and shintos since they are polytheistic. Need more?

Of course. You still haven't provided the first. God is a pronoun in the common usage, meaning the divine. It does not impugn polytheism. The Christian name for God is YWH or Jehovah, or Yahwey, depending in the tradition involved.

even if what you say is relevant or true it still excludes non-believers.

I can't wait to see atheists arguing with the coming Islamic Majorities in Europe. Their response will be "الله أكبر!" as they slice through your neck.


Atheists are about as smart as the Explorer, who having saved himself from cannibals by using his lighter, then proceeds to explain that it isn't magic.

[Stubby]

93143:

Yeah that would a whole other big kettle of fish.
But watch the the Tyson interview to get the entire story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

Would love to talk about it another time though.


TDPerk:

God is a pronoun in the common usage, meaning the divine.

I have heard this before... from other religion about their deities. So why not print other pronouns meaning the same thing? A minimum 47% of americans would have apoplexy and possibly stroke out if you replaced your pronoun 'god' with another pronoun. Your argument doesn't hold. At the very least it is disingenuous.

Why do you want to piss off people not in 'your' theological group? Do you piss off people from other races, gender or sexuality? Why are you being divisive? I would have thought that 'your' group would be all Americans and not just christian Americans.

E pluribus unum. Great motto. Inclusive, concise and cast aside for a motto based religion's beliefs. Watkinson's and Chase's letters makes it very clear that 'In God we trust' is a christian reference.

[TDPerk]

I have heard this before... from other religion about their deities. So why not print other pronouns meaning the same thing?

There isn't another pronoun that means the same thing.

A minimum 47% of americans would have apoplexy and possibly stroke out if you replaced your pronoun 'god' with another pronoun.

A) So?
B) If so, you prove my point. The alternate proportion is drastically smaller, and has no more right to their faith being represented in law than does any other.

Your argument doesn't hold. At the very least it is disingenuous.

It really escapes your notice that you've reinforced my argument?

Why do you want to piss off people not in 'your' theological group?

What, pray tell, theological group do you imagine I'm in?

Do you piss off people from other races, gender or sexuality?

For a good reason, yes. There is no right not to be offended.

Why are you being divisive?

You're the one pushing a wedge issue, and a minority equally in the wrong if not more so, at that.

I would have thought that 'your' group would be all Americans and not just christian Americans.

I'd say my group is all Americans. If you are of the left, you are a homegrown foreigner.

Not American culturally, like the President is not American.

E pluribus unum. Great motto.

Also not actually possible, and not meaning what you seem to think it means in the first place. There is no General Will, Rousseau was drastically wrong. With him, the Enlightenment became the Endarkenment that bedevils these last few centuries.

Inclusive, concise and cast aside for a motto based religion's beliefs. Watkinson's and Chase's letters makes it very clear that 'In God we trust' is a christian reference.

That's what it means to them. What it means to me is pissing of the left, an excellent goal in and of itself.[/quote]

[Stubby]

And how does keeping references to religion out of government somehow promote non religious groups?

If I said 'In god we trust' should be replaced with 'There are no gods'.
I would be guilty of what you say i.e. promoting non religion over religion.
Government must not have an official opinion or be a proponent of a particular religion. By including 'In god we trust', an acknowledged religious reference dating from the Civil War era, you subvert the 1st amendment. By adding 'under god' in your pledge, you subvert your Constitution.

If building a christian theocracy is your goal, then keep niggling away at your Constitution. Turn your country in to a majority rule society. Add intelligent design (christian version) to schools. Make belief in a christian god a requirement to hold public office.

[TDPerk]

And how does keeping references to religion out of government somehow promote non religious groups?

Because it is the avowed goal, the stated end and means, of many militant atheists to remove it. They feel it promotes their ends, and they aren't wrong.

If I said 'In god we trust' should be replaced with 'There are no gods'.
I would be guilty of what you say i.e. promoting non religion over religion.

No, by having the phrase removed by other then democratic action--and the chosen means of the militant atheists I spoke of are the courts--you are attempting to use the force of the state explicitly to drive the concept of religion down, and also persons who are religious.

Government must not have an official opinion or be a proponent of a particular religion.

Good thing it doesn't, then.

By including 'In god we trust', an acknowledged religious reference dating from the Civil War era, you subvert the 1st amendment.

Not even slightly, which is to say, no more the motto "E Pluribus Unum" does.

By adding 'under god' in your pledge, you subvert your Constitution.

No, not even a little bit does it do that. How do I know? It doesn't put one brick in any church wall, not the "church" of any religion.

If building a christian theocracy is your goal,

Wow. That's quite a strawman. I abjectly oppose any such theocracy--the thing is, "In God We Trust", has nothing to do with such.

then keep niggling away at your Constitution.

Actually, atheists getting the courts to remove, "In God We Trust", that would be setting the constitution on fire.

Turn your country in to a majority rule society.

About such things as the constitution gives the national government to rule on by mere majority, it is a majoritarian state. The thing is, it is an invention from whole cloth to claim "In God We Trust" is not such a thing within the national government's power.

Add intelligent design (christian version) to schools.

Fighting your own strawman again.

Make belief in a christian god a requirement to hold public office.

You're still swinging at him, and looking mighty silly.

[Stubby]

You are absolutely wrong.
and thank you for agreeing there are religious references in government.

Because it is the avowed goal, the stated end and means, of many militant atheists to remove it. They feel it promotes their ends, and they aren't wrong.

Nice circular argument.
And what are their ends?

Wow. The idea that the 1st amendment is some sort of atheist conspiracy to remove religion is intriguing. Separation of church and state is an atheist ideal. How did such a heinous idea get inserted into the Bill of Rights? All those pious men and nobody figured it out? Atheists are sneaky I guess. Or maybe your reasoning is faulty.

[hanelyp]

it is possible to say god is shrinking because scientific knowledge is growing.

This reminds me of a thought:
Postulating that god is consistent in his routine actions, (which follows from the Judea-Christian principle that God is unchanging and faithful) how would scientific observation distinguish such routine acts of god from the natural laws of the universe? At most, science could deduce from the existence of deducible natural laws that if god exists he does not act arbitrarily when watched.

On the flip side, by Occam's Razor such a god, undetectable by experiment, is not a useful element of scientific theory.

[93143]

But watch the the Tyson interview to get the entire story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

I agree 100% with basically everything Tyson said in that video. Unfortunately your quote cuts out the very important first half of his sentence:

"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

This is a criticism of the philosophically naïve "God of the gaps" approach.

Postulating that god is consistent in his routine actions, (which follows from the Judea-Christian principle that God is unchanging and faithful) how would scientific observation distinguish such routine acts of god from the natural laws of the universe? At most, science could deduce from the existence of deducible natural laws that if god exists he does not act arbitrarily when watched.

On the flip side, by Occam's Razor such a god, undetectable by experiment, is not a useful element of scientific theory.

Exactly.

[Diogenes]

It's a shame that Abraham Lincoln was so much more ignorant than stubby.







http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=51