Started By
Message

re: Mississippi wins right to enforce religious exemptions law

Posted on 6/23/17 at 2:46 am to
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 2:46 am to
quote:

evolution says we all evolved from common ancestors
just to be clear, you're describing universal common descent, not evolution. two totally different things. the latter is observable and demonstrable. the former is complete speculation and seriously problematic.

quote:

meaning we're all essentially the same. its the opposite of one race being inferior to another
now you're introducing a metaphysical term into a naturalistic framework. honestly, you're all over the place.

quote:

im mostly just judging Islam and Christianity.
obligatory postmodern intolerance

quote:

Buddhism is actually pretty great
not until you actually know much about it. the theology is convoluted and they too can be viciously violent.

quote:

you go ahead and give me some examples of people killing in the name of charity or nature that match the massive numbers of people that i can list who kill for religion.
i gave you three and those numbers are not only astounding but reportedly unsurpassed.

Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 2:49 am to
quote:

communism isn't responsible for the 100 million + murders perpetrated by communist governments
a-theism most certainly is/was and the communist system was implemented in a purely secular attempt to wipe out religion. you can say "communism" isn't responsible but, there is absolutely a correlation
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:05 am to
quote:

some people believe this but they are oversimplifying the issue, such as the dating for hammurabi or akkadian writings.
if you want to ignore Babylon, so be it. same with Asia and ancient Greece, but marriage in ancient Rome, going back to 800 BC, "was a strictly monogamous institution." this was the world jesus and cristianity were born into. it was a part of their daily lives for hundreds of years.

quote:

where do you think the idea comes from? and before you start with some evolutionary nonsense, marriage is counterintuitive in a purely naturalistic paradigm. the concept is confounding to evolutionary biologists.
this is simply not true. it makes perfect sense and isnt confounding to anyone.

"Marriage is universal, and pair bonding is found in other species too with highly dependent young ... The sexes are not identical in their biological contributions to children's survival, so they seek somewhat different attributes in a mate ... the more children, the stabler the marriage."

the urge to reproduce is hardwired in our DNA. and since men and women are good at different things, from evolutionary and biological standpoints, its very easy to understand why men and women would get together and stay together for the purpose of having and raising children.

source = Marriage: An Evolutionary Perspective.

quote:

consequently, marriage must have had a metaphysical origin. i think you know where that is going.
i truly do not. if you're implying it has some divine origin, that's ridiculous. if god wanted people to get married, they would stay married and monogamy would be in our programming. it is not. in any way. reproduction is, but lifetime marriage is absolutely not.




source = Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:08 am to
quote:

and this is precisely what the law is protecting. you're against rape right? what if someone could force you to engage in business with rapists? pretty sure you wouldn't like that.
being gay is not a crime, these people have done nothing wrong, you cant equate them with rapists just because your point is so empty that you need to disparage them to give it any weight.
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
76732 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:30 am to
quote:

stalin, mao, pol pot....





Is this where you try to lay those dudes at the feet of atheism?

quote:

christianity, no.


Unfortunately for you and your mythology, he already gave examples.
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
76732 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 5:32 am to
quote:

a-theism most certainly is/was and the communist system was implemented in a purely secular attempt to wipe out religion.


Nope. This will always be wrong, no matter how often you try to use it.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35381 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 6:16 am to
quote:

i personally know a pastor in the area near me who has seen multiple gay people canvass the churches in the area finding out their "gay wedding" policies. care to guess why? it starts with an "l" and ends in "awsuit."
Yet they didn't sue? So maybe they were canvassing the churches to see if they could actually get married in one of them? Imagine that.
Posted by buckeye_vol
Member since Jul 2014
35381 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 6:19 am to
quote:

just to be clear, you're describing universal common descent, not evolution. two totally different things.
They aren't totally different things. Common descent is just a part of the broader theory of evolution.
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
80913 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 6:25 am to
quote:

a-theism most certainly is/was and the communist system was implemented in a purely secular attempt to wipe out religion. you can say "communism" isn't responsible but, there is absolutely a correlation



I was being sarcastic/pointing out the inconsistency, but you're right.
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 7:14 am to
quote:

you would be erasing christianity, the greatest force for good and humanitarian work in the history of the world.
some quotes from christians on the history of christian violence...

Miroslav Volf, the Professor of Theology at Yale Divinity School and Director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture at Yale University:

"Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation; Christians have perpetrated some of the worst pogroms as they remembered the crucifixion of Christ, for which they blamed the Jews. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross."

Reverend Diarmaid MacCulloch:

"Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all qualified competitors..."

Baptist Minister Charles Kimball:

"A strong case can be made that the history of Christianity contains considerably more violence and destruction than that of most other major religions."

Mennonite theologian J. Denny Weaver:

"The crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men ... In the view of many historians, the Constantinian shift turned Christianity from a persecuted into a persecuting religion."

he's talking about people like Pope Leo XIII, who was pope for 25 years, up until 1903, and was "well known for his intellectualism and his attempts to define the position of the Catholic Church with regard to modern thinking."

a quote from Pope Leo...



it also applies to Pope Urban II, who declared that some wars could be justified as "bellum sacrum" ("holy war"). This began the First Crusade, which led to the death of 1.7 million people, at a time when there were only 300 million on earth.

Among other things its notable for the Rhineland Massacres, where they murdered over 5,000 Jews.

this was in 1095. the Crusades would last for the next 600 years.

the Inquisitions were also happening at this same time.

there was the Spanish Inquisition of course, lasting for 400 years, where not only were thousands killed by the church, but tens of thousands were tortured, 150,000 were accused of crimes, and Jews in Spain and Muslims in Granda were forced to either convert or be expelled from the country.

the Peruvian Inquisition and Mexican Inquisition, both lasting for 300 years, fall under this title as well.

The Portuguese Inquisition, from 1536 to 1821, saw the church force 40,000 Jews to either convert or be expelled from Portugal.

and then theres the Roman Inquisition. this is the one where they decided to burn all the "witches".

no one actually knows how many "witches" they tortured and killed, but the LOWEST estimate is between 45,000 and 60,000.

this is also the one where the church was imprisoning scientists like Copernicus and Galileo for saying the sun was the center of the universe. Galileo was found guilty of heresy and held under house arrest from 1633 until his death in 1642.

The Roman Inquisition went on until 1858.

their history of Forced Conversions didnt start or end there, however.

they began in the year 392, and have covered the Saxons in Germany to the Jews in Spain to the Muslims in Portugal to the Hindus in Goa to the Native Americans in the US. in Australia it was still going on with the Aborigines up until the 1970's, and known as "The Stolen Children". because they were literally kidnapping children.

basically they didnt care who you were; if you weren't christian, frick you.

and yes, there are modern christian terrorists, like Eric Rudolph, who did the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. though he's suspected of more, he's also confessed to bombing 2 abortion clinics and a lesbian bar. his specialty was bombs with nails inside to act as shrapnel.

he was a part of the christian terrorist group called Army of God. theyre responsible for at least 10 bombings and guilty of murder, attempted murder, and kidnapping, among other things.

even the catholic saints are violent psychopaths.

heres St. Augustine, who said "sinners" should be put to death, because...

"...increased sinning might continue if their life went on."

Saint Thomas Aquinas felt pretty much the same way, and said that "sinners" should be killed and shouldn't have the chance to repent because if they were gonna do that it would have happened already...

"The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind."

back to St. Augustine, who said murder didnt violate gods very clear commandment about that sort of thing if you were doing it for god...

"Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice."

he also said that its not up to god to forgive and punish sin, but christians. he's talking about the death penalty here...

"Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven. Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly."
"Wherefore when that which has been taken cannot be restored in equivalent, compensation should be made as far as possible"


quote:

you would be erasing christianity, the greatest force for good and humanitarian work in the history of the world.
oh yeah, believe me, i know what Id be doing.
This post was edited on 6/23/17 at 7:46 am
Posted by RCDfan1950
United States
Member since Feb 2007
39709 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 7:24 am to
quote:

If the government can take away someone's religious rights, then no rights are safe from the government


The whole argument in a nutshell.

That the Government is given power to determine which side of a belief is the *bigot*, would be a turn on to the road to perdition. And it would not unite people, but further divide. And we surely don't need that.
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 7:41 am to
quote:

And it would not unite people, but further divide. And we surely don't need that.
look over the past few pages and count all the people in favor of this law because they want to go back to the days of this. what could be more unifying!











Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
53468 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 7:47 am to
quote:

because marriage predates Christianity by several thousand years. you don't own it, you're not in charge of it, its not up to you to decide who qualifies.



Dude.

You are missing the point of the law.

It isn't to "own" marriage. Gay marriage is still legal civilly.

It's to prevent a gay couple from suing a church to act against THEIR beliefs crying discrimination.
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 8:04 am to
quote:

It's to prevent a gay couple from suing a church to act against THEIR beliefs crying discrimination.
no. it isnt.

"...the Mississippi bill ... prevents government intervention when churches or businesses act "based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction."

this allows any business to freely discriminate against anyone they like for any reason they want. all men are not created equal under this. some men can be turned away from buying a house or getting a loan because theyre gay or black.
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
86210 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 8:07 am to
quote:

some men can be turned away from buying a house or getting a loan because theyre gay or black.


or white

or straight

or male





Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
53468 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 8:12 am to
quote:

this allows any business to freely discriminate against anyone they like for any reason they want.


Nope.

Just for pretty much any reason except for race, religion, or gender, or sexual orientation.

You know, like what the actual federal state laws says? Pretty sure there's no federal law protecting your feelings.


Refusing service to a gay individual? Illegal, and you would be torn apart civilly and criminally.

Refusing service because you disagree with the message being asked of you to perform? Literally no different from ANY objective comparison to cake bakeries refusing to make a cake of the confederate flag.

But I wouldn't expect you to catch the nuance.
This post was edited on 6/23/17 at 8:14 am
Posted by Sapere
Member since Feb 2015
58 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 8:43 am to
quote:

when hundreds of thousands of people are all killed in the name of X, then yes, at that point its safe to say X is a problem.


Say you decide to share your infinite wisdom with the world. You teach love and compassion. A group decides to follow you and performs multiple heinous acts that go against your teaching. Who is responsible you or the group?
Posted by Sapere
Member since Feb 2015
58 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 8:55 am to
quote:

"Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice."


Is it murder when a soldier kills another soldier or when any government performs the death penalty on a heinous criminal?
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 9:06 am to
quote:

Is it murder when a soldier kills another soldier...
not the topic

...it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding...

he's talking about holy wars, which are basically anything religious people want them to be. Eric Rudolph was killing people with bombs because he thought thats what god wanted. even now the Army of God publishes the things he writes condoning violence and militant action against gay people and abortion clinics.
Posted by MastrShake
SoCal
Member since Nov 2008
7281 posts
Posted on 6/23/17 at 9:10 am to
quote:

Just for pretty much any reason except for race, religion, or gender, or sexual orientation.
these are the exact reasons the bill was written, to allow discrimination based on these reasons.
Jump to page
Page First 9 10 11 12 13 ... 18
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 11 of 18Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram