Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    That's not an attack on religion.
    This is. And, it's exactly what I was saying. An existing religion based monument outside Oklahoma's state capitol, and the courts are saying it has to go.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/okl...4C?ocid=SMSDHP

    A secular government wouldn't care. In fact, if some other similar religion based monument primarily giving a set of reasonable values to live by were erected nearby why should government care?
    The values posed by this monument are (and don't get picky with the one or two that have direct religious content as, again, a secularist could ignore those easily while thinking the rest aren't bad things to live by) not unreasonable or entirely religious.

    The argument the court gave is, in fact, a fallacy of division. That is, because this monument has some religious content, however small, it is entirely a religious monument.
    It is like arguing that US money has "In God We Trust" on it and therefore US money is religious in content.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      This is. And, it's exactly what I was saying. An existing religion based monument outside Oklahoma's state capitol, and the courts are saying it has to go.

      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/okl...4C?ocid=SMSDHP

      A secular government wouldn't care. In fact, if some other similar religion based monument primarily giving a set of reasonable values to live by were erected nearby why should government care?
      The values posed by this monument are (and don't get picky with the one or two that have direct religious content as, again, a secularist could ignore those easily while thinking the rest aren't bad things to live by) not unreasonable or entirely religious.

      The argument the court gave is, in fact, a fallacy of division. That is, because this monument has some religious content, however small, it is entirely a religious monument.
      It is like arguing that US money has "In God We Trust" on it and therefore US money is religious in content.
      The OK State Supreme Court ruled it violated the state constitution. Simple question did you read the OK State constitution yet or just firing from the hip?
      “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
      “To talk of many things:
      Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
      Of cabbages—and kings—
      And why the sea is boiling hot—
      And whether pigs have wings.”
      ― Lewis Carroll

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        This is. And, it's exactly what I was saying. An existing religion based monument outside Oklahoma's state capitol, and the courts are saying it has to go.

        http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/okl...4C?ocid=SMSDHP

        A secular government wouldn't care. In fact, if some other similar religion based monument primarily giving a set of reasonable values to live by were erected nearby why should government care?
        The values posed by this monument are (and don't get picky with the one or two that have direct religious content as, again, a secularist could ignore those easily while thinking the rest aren't bad things to live by) not unreasonable or entirely religious.

        The argument the court gave is, in fact, a fallacy of division. That is, because this monument has some religious content, however small, it is entirely a religious monument.
        It is like arguing that US money has "In God We Trust" on it and therefore US money is religious in content.
        This is all an application of secularism, not an attack on religion. If the state cannot promote a state religion, it cannot promote a state religion - period.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          This is all an application of secularism, not an attack on religion. If the state cannot promote a state religion, it cannot promote a state religion - period.
          As I have already stated, and you agreed more or less, a removal of all religion from state grounds and from the state and public square amounts to Atheism.
          Secularists wouldn't care about small amounts of religion in these situations as they'd see it as meaningless to them but having some significance to others and as having no bearing on the position of the state in general.

          The only reason to remove all religion from government is to promote Atheism as an alternate religion.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            The OK State Supreme Court ruled it violated the state constitution. Simple question did you read the OK State constitution yet or just firing from the hip?
            The courts interpreted this out of the State and Federal Constitution. Nowhere in either does it say the state cannot have religious symbols on public property or in government buildings. So long as the government isn't promoting one religion over another small displays from one or another religion is irrelevant.
            What this decision does is promote Atheism over other religions.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              As I have already stated, and you agreed more or less, a removal of all religion from state grounds and from the state and public square amounts to Atheism.
              No, because removing religious symbols from public (ie supposedly secular) grounds is not the same as promoting atheism.

              Promoting atheism would be establishing monuments to the idea that there is no god - putting up statues of Nietzsche saying "God is Dead".

              Taking away non-secular monuments is not the same thing.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                No, because removing religious symbols from public (ie supposedly secular) grounds is not the same as promoting atheism.

                Promoting atheism would be establishing monuments to the idea that there is no god - putting up statues of Nietzsche saying "God is Dead".

                Taking away non-secular monuments is not the same thing.
                Wrong. It is sufficient to remove all religion from government and then state that government doesn't believe in or promote any religion. That amounts to Atheism.

                Secular government doesn't involve itself in religion and would be fine with some public display of it since religion doesn't matter to a secular government.

                Comment


                • Why is it so hard to understand. Supporting one religion over all others means the government isn't acting like a secular government.
                  First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    The courts interpreted this out of the State and Federal Constitution. Nowhere in either does it say the state cannot have religious symbols on public property or in government buildings. So long as the government isn't promoting one religion over another small displays from one or another religion is irrelevant.
                    What this decision does is promote Atheism over other religions.
                    Oklahoma Constitution II-5: No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
                    applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use,
                    benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system
                    of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest,
                    preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or
                    sectarian institution as such.

                    http://oklegal.onenet.net/okcon/II-5.html

                    Sorry TA. The Oklahoma Constitution does cover such.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BigDog View Post
                      Oklahoma Constitution II-5: No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
                      applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use,
                      benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system
                      of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest,
                      preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or
                      sectarian institution as such.

                      http://oklegal.onenet.net/okcon/II-5.html

                      Sorry TA. The Oklahoma Constitution does cover such.
                      Except the monument was donated...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Wrong. It is sufficient to remove all religion from government and then state that government doesn't believe in or promote any religion. That amounts to Atheism.

                        Secular government doesn't involve itself in religion and would be fine with some public display of it since religion doesn't matter to a secular government.
                        No, because public in this sense means government. Hence the original erecting of said monuments was a promotion of religion by the government, or the allowance of said monuments was the same, even if funded privately but then erected upon public grounds.

                        Now, if the government were going after privately owned monuments, then you would absolutely be right.

                        But the original erection of said religious monuments by the government was a promotion of a religion. Removing them is applying the rules of secularization and removing what was a promotion of religious views.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                          I suggest you reread my post again. The third time is really a charm.
                          You really don't know what you posted?


                          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                          Here are a few examples.

                          1. A racist has sincere views that whites and blacks shouldn't intermarry, but he works for the government and is forced to violate his strongly held religious beliefs. The state forces him to marry these interracial couples.
                          I reply with:

                          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                          Point of order; racism is not a religion.
                          You come back with:

                          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                          Yes it is. You don't know the people who preach Jesus was white and how he said whites were better than any other race? Racism itself isn't a religion but many incorporate racist views into their religion.
                          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                          Comment


                          • Racism itself isn't a religion but many incorporate racist views into their religion.
                            I guess you really can't read.
                            First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              Except the monument was donated...
                              The ground it sets on is public properly. Unless they are willing to give such spacemto any other religions, which I am thinking not, it needs to come down.
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                                The courts interpreted this out of the State and Federal Constitution. Nowhere in either does it say the state cannot have religious symbols on public property or in government buildings. So long as the government isn't promoting one religion over another small displays from one or another religion is irrelevant.
                                What this decision does is promote Atheism over other religions.
                                No they ruled on it from the State Constitution directly. Not a federal issue.
                                “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                                “To talk of many things:
                                Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                                Of cabbages—and kings—
                                And why the sea is boiling hot—
                                And whether pigs have wings.”
                                ― Lewis Carroll

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X