Separation of Church and State. New house bill that caught my eye...

**w4jchosen** · 07-02-09, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by HuntnJade

I think not. "What would Jesus Do?" He would he boil people, rape, murder, burn them at the stake.

Wow how sad.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 07-02-09, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Originally Posted by hawgballs

I'm thinkin you are on to something Worst.............

High, can you agree that if there was never a thing called religion invented, that 'forward a kind of code of conduct for early civilizations in verbal tradition' could have been brought forward by another means? Or is/was it a action that only religion can perform?

Thank you for the question as I believe you might see what I am trying to say....

Yes, I do agree that another vehicle could have been used to convey such moral regard...but as history appears to show that in this case, on this planet, religion was the more opted vehicle. Jade and PE are arguing that Religion is only a conspiracy bent on control...Where the point I am making that religion serves as a vehicle for satisfying human psychological needs. (a la Maslow). If I were to carry Jades and PE's points forward any suitable cause misused to extort action could be considered a "religion" prime example "global warming".

Fine. But you cannot dismiss that religion has been used as a tool to consolidate power and impose control quite often. Yes, religion might have been a catalyst for order, but it indeed was used to establish control too.

Believeing that we are ruining our planet and environment, is not a "religion", and it is not extortion. You seem to think that global warming is still being debated. It is only being debated in the ever smaller circle of right wingers and corporations. A vast majority of qualified and respected scientist are not debating what they see as fact anymore. So your trying to compare "religion" and the beleif that we are destroying our environment as conspiracies to extort, falls flat on it's face.

**SapiensErus** · 07-02-09, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by HuntnJade

I think not. "What would Jesus Do?" He would he boil people, rape, murder, burn them at the stake.

Obviously I am not religious. But the history relating to Jesus, from my standpoint suggests Jesus was much more of a hippy and would never do these sorts of things. That is not to say that future generations did not do things like this in his name and bearing the tokens of that religion. But the Jesus I have read about (or Jesuses as is more likely...the stories are probably about several people) would never engage is such things. They might rely on one of the earliest forms of passive protest...martyrdom at the hands of their oppressors, but not actively torturing anyone.

As far as morality and religion as background... Our Orbital Pre-Frontal Cortex (PFC) in conjunction with the cingulate cortex appears to create a sense of what socially acceptable behavior is and our aptitude for attaining it. Yes it is likely the frontal lobe was in development long before religion, so were societal morals. As these morals are a construct. Is the animal that eats its weakest young amoral? Or is it contributing to a healthy future for its species? Our advanced brain lets us abstract such ideas as morality; thus morality varies widely across cultures.

Thou shalt not kill (and that is one of the oldest interpretations, some have changed it to murder instead of kill) is not consistent with the death penalty which it seems many people support. So which is the moral path? And as an athiestic agnostic (I do not know whether there is a deity, but I find it very unlikely) who does not supprt the death penalty, how does religion influence my moral code? Is my belief then amoral as I have no religion even though it is in keeping with what has been presented as a "moral" code by religion?

There were many other religions at work in the founding of our country and throughout human history. I am all for recognizing the role religion has played in humanities past (and will continue to) because it is objective to note such things. And history serves us best when it is kept objective. But I believe it is essential to keep government and religion separate. So does the first amendment. And that is really what this resolution is about. The last four numbered points are the actual effect of this resolution, and they are not in keeping with the concept of prohibiting the government from "respecting an establishment of religion"."

**Highstakes72** · 07-02-09, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by Highstakes72

Originally Posted by hawgballs

I'm thinkin you are on to something Worst.............

High, can you agree that if there was never a thing called religion invented, that 'forward a kind of code of conduct for early civilizations in verbal tradition' could have been brought forward by another means? Or is/was it a action that only religion can perform?

Thank you for the question as I believe you might see what I am trying to say....

Yes, I do agree that another vehicle could have been used to convey such moral regard...but as history appears to show that in this case, on this planet, religion was the more opted vehicle. Jade and PE are arguing that Religion is only a conspiracy bent on control...Where the point I am making that religion serves as a vehicle for satisfying human psychological needs. (a la Maslow). If I were to carry Jades and PE's points forward any suitable cause misused to extort action could be considered a "religion" prime example "global warming".

Fine. But you cannot dismiss that religion has been used as a tool to consolidate power and impose control quite often. Yes, religion might have been a catalyst for order, but it indeed was used to establish control too. I wasn't trying to..merely pointing out that there is more to religion that some tend to consider. That was it...took two days but I think I got my narrow point across.

Believeing that we are ruining our planet and environment, is not a "religion", and it is not extortion. Why not? You seem to think that global warming is still being debated.It is It is only being debated in the ever smaller circle of right wingers and corporations. How did corporations get in on this? A vast majorityunquantifiable of qualified Subjective and respected scientist are not debating what they see as fact anymore. So your trying to compare "religion" and the beleif that we are destroying our environment as conspiracies to extort, falls flat on it's face.

This really is a different thread...
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers...IN%20CYCLE.pdf

You and I are too young to remember the 1970s Ice Age scare...but to argue that debate is over on any scientific topic would be wrong. Whether it be large or small we have a limited understanding of our world. I am reserved about the idea that only in recent time did human activity cause a "dire" environmental catastrophe...But I vehemently contest the "right" for anyone to suppress another person's rights on the basis that MAYBE the Earth will be 1c warmer. The better option is to quit suppressing available existing low/no emission technology and start being more of a boy scout. I commend anyone that uses less than they produce...Subaru comes to mind....California...A state that imports more energy than anyone..Does not. Suppressing all development is not the answer encourage developement in the direction you desire through positive means not by authoritarian mandate.

However if there is such a group so clearly superior in mental capacity perhaps they could chip off some time and answer a question that has been bugging me.... String theory? or Quantum Mechanics? I asked some physicists here at work but they just laughed at me...Maybe Al Gore knows :5

**HuntnJade** · 07-02-09, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by HuntnJade

I think not. "What would Jesus Do?" He would he boil people, rape, murder, burn them at the stake.

Obviously I am not religious. But the history relating to Jesus, from my standpoint suggests Jesus was much more of a hippy and would never do these sorts of things. That is not to say that future generations did not do things like this in his name and bearing the tokens of that religion. But the Jesus I have read about (or Jesuses as is more likely...the stories are probably about several people) would never engage is such things. They might rely on one of the earliest forms of passive protest...martyrdom at the hands of their oppressors, but not actively torturing anyone.

As far as morality and religion as background... Our Orbital Pre-Frontal Cortex (PFC) in conjunction with the cingulate cortex appears to create a sense of what socially acceptable behavior is and our aptitude for attaining it. Yes it is likely the frontal lobe was in development long before religion, so were societal morals. As these morals are a construct. Is the animal that eats its weakest young amoral? Or is it contributing to a healthy future for its species? Our advanced brain lets us abstract such ideas as morality; thus morality varies widely across cultures.

Thou shalt not kill (and that is one of the oldest interpretations, some have changed it to murder instead of kill) is not consistent with the death penalty which it seems many people support. So which is the moral path? And as an athiestic agnostic (I do not know whether there is a deity, but I find it very unlikely) who does not supprt the death penalty, how does religion influence my moral code? Is my belief then amoral as I have no religion even though it is in keeping with what has been presented as a "moral" code by religion?

There were many other religions at work in the founding of our country and throughout human history. I am all for recognizing the role religion has played in humanities past (and will continue to) because it is objective to note such things. And history serves us best when it is kept objective. But I believe it is essential to keep government and religion separate. So does the first amendment. And that is really what this resolution is about. The last four numbered points are the actual effect of this resolution, and they are not in keeping with the concept of prohibiting the government from "respecting an establishment of religion"."

He is so right... it really wasn't Jesus... it was God who was the violent feller. Oops. Silly me. Oh, but then with the whole Trinity thing and all that confusion- they are one with the Holy Spirit or something anyway. Um, maybe I should finish this sometime when I am not on my third glass of wine

My point was that religion (The Bible and it's God) is full of fire, torture, and death and other rather violent and harmful things. I fear those who follow it vehemently. Religions whole premise is quite simply brainwashing as far as I can tell and I lose people to it more often then I would like. Suddenly my good ole friends are telling me they found Christ and how wonderful their tattered and desolate lives are... "

Dude. You're freaking me out. Where is my friend

Jesus... GIVE THEM BACK!!!". I am just trying to keep myself on the straight and narrow and Jesus has not popped onto my chosen trail... yet I do not murder or rape. It is NOT because of my religious beliefs.
Soy you make excellent points here and I love the path your thoughts have taken... excellent. I do agree and Hawg are you like living in my head or something

We seem to agree on most every point we both argue debate around here.