This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexual Rights
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
Has anyone ever read the book Fahrenheit 451? Pretty much it's a futuristic society that in order to solve problems they simply throw it all out. Religion? Gone. Burial? To the furnace. Books that encourage thinking? Incinerated. They throw out just about everything we know in order to stop the wining of the minorities. I could go more into the book but it'd just make a bigger wall of text. That book is what I think about when I hear about seperation of Church and State.
Uh, I'm not sure I see your point. Are you saying this is a good idea? Who would it be a good idea for? Or are you trying to liken the seperation of church and state to it?
Post by
307945
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
I didn't want to make a big wall of text. What I was trying to say was that in their quest to solve problems (lazily) between the minority and the majority, the government threw out just about all moral ideas and religious things (church, removal of bodies, etc) because some miniscule part of the population didn't agree. When the government realized that what they did pretty much ruined the ethics of their culture, they proceded to destroy any books or people that could influence someone's thoughts and ideas. In other words remove free thought and only had the citizens read what they wanted them to read.
I'm still not sure I really see the comparison =/
Post by
TheMediator
Has anyone ever read the book Fahrenheit 451? Pretty much it's a futuristic society that in order to solve problems they simply throw it all out. Religion? Gone. Burial? To the furnace. Books that encourage thinking? Incinerated. They throw out just about everything we know in order to stop the wining of the minorities. I could go more into the book but it'd just make a bigger wall of text. That book is what I think about when I hear about seperation of Church and State.
I hate to say it, but if you thought of separation of Church and State from reading Fahrenheit 451, you are an idiot. The book is about censorship, which organized religion has done plenty throughout the years. The dark ages were basically the same sort of environment written about in the story - that books containing heresy were burned, and those who sought out that heretical knowledge were murdered.
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
"In God We Trust" isn't naming a specific God, church or anything else that is why it's on money.
Hmm...I'm an Atheist...
Well if you're an Atheist than there can't be an extrinsic ordering principle, so there is no objective right and wrong, and thus it's not "wrong" to have "In God We Trust" on money unless it were against convention. But if it's already on the money it's already convention.
That's the short version; I could write a dissertation on the subject :p But I digress.
On topic, one needs to make the distinction between separation of church and state and religious freedom. Religious freedom is what's protected by the Constitution. That the money mentions God is in no way infringing upon anyone's religious freedom; and further it doesn't specify who the "we" is.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
ACTUALLY Hyperspacerebel, there is in fact an extrinsic ordering principle, are you aware of the golden rule?
Wait, what? Did you not read my post? First of all, I'm Catholic, of course I know there is one. The poster I was quoting stated that he was an Atheist. I was showing that if is really is an Atheist, then he can't truly be against a "religious" phrase being on the money.
Secondly, the Golden Rule deals with something intrinsically human, not extrinsic.
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
@Hyperspacerebel - I can have personal beliefs that aren't based on religion, my "
objective
right and wrong" can be
created in my own mind
to follow myself. Religion isn't the base of everything everyone thinks all the time.
That's a contradiction of terms. Created in your own mind = subjective. Make sure you understand the terms you are using.
Either there is objective truth or there is not.
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
@ Hysperspacerebel - I'm sorry I only have an eighth grade education. I'll try to get older and smarter faster. I was quoting you. I'm sure you get large e-peen boosts from correcting 13 year old eighth grade students on the terms they are using.
Ummm...ok? I haven't said anything personal, could you refrain from doing so? I don't care what you know and what you don't, all I ask is that you make sure you understand the terms you're using before using them in a debate.
And, lostguide, the most beautiful thing I can think of is God, of his own free will, dying to atone for the sins I've committed against him. As Sakarzu said, beauty is something subjective; I don't expect other people to find that as beautiful as I do.
Edited for fail grammar mistake :P
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
108385
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I still have not heard a single reason why gay couples should not be given the same rights as straight couples, not only in this forum, but anywhere.
I'll see your bet and raise you one. I haven't heard a single reason why 3-person unions shouldn't be given the same rights as 2-person unions. How about four? How about a man and his 40 "wives"? From your line of reasoning, it seems like you'd have to accept those too? Am i right?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I find it more beautiful if someone sacrifices themself without gaining eternal life and power...and if your dad isn't the most powerful being in the universe...actually...it kinda seems
redundant
. I would die for anybody on this boards sins if it meant that I got that kind of power. The story would have been better if he was the only being to go to hell and suffer for eternity for
everyone's
sins.
See, you've proven my point lol. What people think as beautiful are subjective. Now I'd love to take you up on this, but this is neither the time nor the place.
Post by
kattib
In my opinion I have seen nothing wrong with homsexual marriages, isnt one of our natural rights the pursuit of happiness and for some that pursuit is romance with the same sex, and I see nothing wrong with it, it isnt like it will effect me.
Btw on 3+ people unions that is probably more of a financial and business reason that doesnt happen, but if more people argued for it I could imagine it being accepted after a while
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.