User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 79

  1. #51
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    There is just "liberty". There is no need to have the "religious" qualifier in front of it. What makes religion so special that it deserves special privileges beyond other beliefs? That religious qualifier is just a way for you to say your beliefs are more important than other peoples' beliefs.
    Please don't be silly. I have the widest construction of what amounts to religious belief of anyone on here.

    Under my view of religious belief both irreligious belief and religious belief would be and are treated as equal. However, it seems pretty clear that the move to get rid of religious belief is to elevate irreligious belief above religious belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    And this post eloquently proves the realization I had when I understood what Nico was saying in his OP.

    If you cannot see how this concept would improve freedom, then I suggest letting go of the idea for a moment and holding (lolrony) past the point of fear into the wide open yonder of freedom.

    The concept of true liberty simply removes the special snowflake martyrdom that people naturally cling to in order to, I don't know, perhaps lessen the feeling of impotence in their lives.
    Yes, just look to wonderful world of freedom that Nico promises!
    I'm obviously just fear mongering.

    “As Clover looked down the hillside her eyes filled with tears. If she could have spoken her thoughts, it would have been to say that this was not what they had aimed at when they had set themselves years ago to work for the overthrow of [religious tyranny] These scenes of terror and slaughter were not what they had looked forward to on that night when old Major first stirred them to rebellion. If she herself had had any picture of the future, it had been of a society of animals set free from hunger and the whip, all equal, each working according to his capacity, the strong protecting the weak, as she had protected the lost brood of ducklings with her foreleg on the night of Major's speech. Instead--she did not know why--they had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes. There was no thought of rebellion or disobedience in her mind. She knew that, even as things were, they were far better off than they had been in the days of Jones, and that before all else it was needful to prevent the return of the human beings. Whatever happened she would remain faithful, work hard, carry out the orders that were given to her, and accept the leadership of Napoleon. But still, it was not for this that she and all the other animals had hoped and toiled.”

  2. #52
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Yes, just look to wonderful world of freedom that Nico promises!
    I'm obviously just fear mongering.

    “As Clover looked down the hillside her eyes filled with tears. If she could have spoken her thoughts, it would have been to say that this was not what they had aimed at when they had set themselves years ago to work for the overthrow of [religious tyranny] These scenes of terror and slaughter were not what they had looked forward to on that night when old Major first stirred them to rebellion. If she herself had had any picture of the future, it had been of a society of animals set free from hunger and the whip, all equal, each working according to his capacity, the strong protecting the weak, as she had protected the lost brood of ducklings with her foreleg on the night of Major's speech. Instead--she did not know why--they had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes. There was no thought of rebellion or disobedience in her mind. She knew that, even as things were, they were far better off than they had been in the days of Jones, and that before all else it was needful to prevent the return of the human beings. Whatever happened she would remain faithful, work hard, carry out the orders that were given to her, and accept the leadership of Napoleon. But still, it was not for this that she and all the other animals had hoped and toiled.”
    So now you are quoting "Animal Farm" at me as your proof of what? I don't actually think you are fear mongering but more like twiddling your thumbs while sitting on a porch rocking away on a rocking chair and mumbling to yourself about this new fangled age and these crazy kids with their crazy ideas and don't they know which circle of hell their path is leading them towards.

    From what I understand from Nico's post is that there is simply an intellectual freedom to believe or disbelieve whatsoever they choose... sans cerebral segregation categories such as "religious freedom" or "skanky tattoo freedom" or "the Feast of... Maximum Occupancy" freedom (Please do not offer my God a peanut), etc. The only change/difference is that the freedom is simply just that: freedom. How free to label freedom as such without constraints or strange outfits or those little hats with the propeller on top. How glorious this day would be to take off the shackles of sandals and start foot stomping, heart popping dancing to the beat of one's own drum without having to point it out as such: Look at me being all free and standing on coffee tables! I am SUCH A FREE SPIRIT. And then having people say, Oh Dharma you get down from there.

    - f i n -

  3. #53
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    So now you are quoting "Animal Farm" at me as your proof of what? I don't actually think you are fear mongering but more like twiddling your thumbs while sitting on a porch rocking away on a rocking chair and mumbling to yourself about this new fangled age and these crazy kids with their crazy ideas and don't they know which circle of hell their path is leading them towards.
    These aren't new fangled ideas. They have been considered by greater minds than yours and mine and found considerably lacking.





    From what I understand from Nico's post is that there is simply an intellectual freedom to believe or disbelieve whatsoever they choose... sans cerebral segregation categories such as "religious freedom" or "skanky tattoo freedom" or "the Feast of... Maximum Occupancy" freedom (Please do not offer my God a peanut), etc. The only change/difference is that the freedom is simply just that: freedom. How free to label freedom as such without constraints or strange outfits or those little hats with the propeller on top. How glorious this day would be to take off the shackles of sandals and start foot stomping, heart popping dancing to the beat of one's own drum without having to point it out as such: Look at me being all free and standing on coffee tables! I am SUCH A FREE SPIRIT. And then having people say, Oh Dharma you get down from there.

    - f i n -
    No. Religious freedom is distinct from other freedoms. The reason is that it forces the government to recognize that there are other institutions that can determine how we ought to live. Without such recognition there are only two agents that determine how people should live and those are the state and the individual. In such a situation it's MUCH easier for the state to marginalize and discriminate against minority views.

  4. #54
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    These aren't new fangled ideas. They have been considered by greater minds than yours and mine and found considerably lacking.
    And neither are yours and have they actually worked? The current state of the world would suggest not. Religious freedom should not be a blanket of invulnerability to protect those with insane ideas behind the iron curtain of God.

    At any point the concept of a categorized freedom will infringe upon the freedom of others. And the counter argument seems to be that those for whom a categorized freedom will benefit are worried about themselves being infringed upon.

    No. Religious freedom is distinct from other freedoms. The reason is that it forces the government to recognize that there are other institutions that can determine how we ought to live. Without such recognition there are only two agents that determine how people should live and those are the state and the individual. In such a situation it's MUCH easier for the state to marginalize and discriminate against minority views.
    @bold, the problem is that government is a living entity which tolerates other Gods than it so long as these other Gods do not infringe upon its own desires. No matter where one looks there is always an ocean of ideology that laps at the feet of all who roam the beach.


    oh and P.S.

    I'm obviously just fear mongering.
    I think bringing up a GULAG is a pretty blatant example of fear mongering and jumping to some giant conclusion. Ehl Oh the Ehl.

  5. #55
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    And neither are yours and have they actually worked?
    Is this a serious question?

    Yes, of course they've worked. Religious freedom has allowed us to work out how we should live our lives with less interference from government. As religion has eroded we have needed more and more interference from government.

    As Tocqueville said, "I am inclined to think that if faith be wanting in him, he must be subject; and if he be free, he must believe."


    The current state of the world would suggest not. Religious freedom should not be a blanket of invulnerability to protect those with insane ideas behind the iron curtain of God.
    What are you talking about? Where is your parade of horribles?

    We do have limits on religious liberty. Obviously in the recent case posted here religious liberty won't be a defense to murder. Religious liberty is not a defense for animal sacrifice or even smoking peyote.

    However, religious liberty is integral to the ability of people to resist state intervention in the cultivation of their own values like burdensome compulsory education laws. Without freedom of religion the Amish would have likely been wiped out by such laws. Yay, multiculturalism in America.


    At any point the concept of a categorized freedom will infringe upon the freedom of others. And the counter argument seems to be that those for whom a categorized freedom will benefit are worried about themselves being infringed upon.
    Sure, i think I've given a pretty damn good reason why religion should maintain it's own category especially since it's inclusive of irreligious belief. So yes it potentially can be potentially elevated above other freedoms, but that is true whether you hold religious beliefs or not.



    @bold, the problem is that government is a living entity which tolerates other Gods than it so long as these other Gods do not infringe upon its own desires.
    Agreed. This is why it's so important to have freedom of religion and recognize that their are jurisdictional limits to those state desires.

    I think bringing up a GULAG is a pretty blatant example of fear mongering and jumping to some giant conclusion. Ehl Oh the Ehl.
    I said "just."

  6. #56
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Do I choose or am I chosen?

    In the spectrum, between absolute choice and "can't help who I am, I am born this way" lies the formidable beast called religion. Not quite a choice (if you speak to those on the inside), yet, not quite innately born that way. "Compelled to follow."



    Thus, you need to give me the special right to contradict certain man-made laws of yours (shaped by the ones in power, the majority, whatever), for other "higher laws", which I don't necessarily choose, but am compelled to follow.

    So, I must be given the freedom to choose things that are not really my choice.

    Amen.

  7. #57
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
    I'll take Madison over Nico, thank you.

  8. #58
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Is this a serious question?

    Yes, of course they've worked. Religious freedom has allowed us to work out how we should live our lives with less interference from government. As religion has eroded we have needed more and more interference from government.

    As Tocqueville said, "I am inclined to think that if faith be wanting in him, he must be subject; and if he be free, he must believe."




    What are you talking about? Where is your parade of horribles?

    We do have limits on religious liberty. Obviously in the recent case posted here religious liberty won't be a defense to murder. Religious liberty is not a defense for animal sacrifice or even smoking peyote.

    However, religious liberty is integral to the ability of people to resist state intervention in the cultivation of their own values like burdensome compulsory education laws. Without freedom of religion the Amish would have likely been wiped out by such laws. Yay, multiculturalism in America.




    Sure, i think I've given a pretty damn good reason why religion should maintain it's own category especially since it's inclusive of irreligious belief. So yes it potentially can be potentially elevated above other freedoms, but that is true whether you hold religious beliefs or not.





    Agreed. This is why it's so important to have freedom of religion and recognize that their are jurisdictional limits to those state desires.



    I said "just."
    It is a serious question because I think it's clear that it's a system that needs to evolve. People like to throw up their arms and wail at this concept of Christianity being attacked but that's sort of the thing. What's actually being "attacked" or "ignored" or pointed out as obsolete is not really anything that is fundamental to being a Chrisitan if you get down to the actual nuts and bolts of the system. I see Jesus saying love one another a lot. I don't see him saying. Go bat shit crazy because two dudes want to get married. Are there laws saying we can't love one another? That we can't wear crosses should we choose?

    And in regards to government even Jesus was like give to Caesar what is caesars when they wanted him to state that paying taxes is against god.

    I think it's shows how humanity craves drama and giving their life importance by doing something "big" when if you listen to the distiller down view of Christianity the opposite is true.

  9. #59
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    It is a serious question because I think it's clear that it's a system that needs to evolve.
    This isn't evolving. This is going backwards. Madison wrote the First amendment of the Bill of Rights and the remonstrance above because he grew up watching baptist preachers getting thrown in jail for their beliefs. If you don't think that will happen once again if we removed it then you're just naive or maybe you just don't care.


    People like to throw up their arms and wail at this concept of Christianity being attacked but that's sort of the thing. What's actually being "attacked" or "ignored" or pointed out as obsolete is not really anything that is fundamental to being a Chrisitan if you get down to the actual nuts and bolts of the system. I see Jesus saying love one another a lot. I don't see him saying. Go bat shit crazy because two dudes want to get married.
    Well now we really get to it. You just want to impose your view of Christianity on other Christians.

    That we can't wear crosses should we choose?
    Do you even pay attention to countries that don't have the same religious guarantees?
    Yes, without religious liberties that could and similar things have happened. And if not to Christians it could happen to Muslims as it has in Europe.

    And in regards to government even Jesus was like give to Caesar what is caesars when they wanted him to state that paying taxes is against god.

    I think it's shows how humanity craves drama and giving their life importance by doing something "big" when if you listen to the distiller down view of Christianity the opposite is true.
    I have no idea how either of these have anything to do with anything.

  10. #60
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    How are religious beliefs and acts different from other human beliefs and acts?
    That is the million dollar question.

    What can I claim to be a religious act and what protections can I get for it as a result?

    At this point, I feel like religion and religious are words that mean nothing in particular but are tagged onto anything that someone wants to receive reverence without justification.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. Another blow to religious freedom
    By Lateralus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 222
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 12:38 PM
  2. Problem of Religious bigotry
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 03:57 PM
  3. Religious Testimonies & Authenticity
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 12:37 PM
  4. Yet another Islamist atrocity against religious freedom and free speech...
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:01 PM
  5. religious nutbars
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 06:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO