Post Election "high"

[Jeff G]

We're starting to mudsling. This thread is on the verge of becoming a flame war, so I think it's best if I stop debating.

I'm glad you said that yourself, because I was just going to post to bring your attention there. I was following this "debate" with some interest, but it was getting to the point of namecalling ("locked, diseased mind", etc.) instead of exchanging ideas. Not that much was actually being exchanged.

Have you ever heard of vouchers? You don't need to pay twice nowadays to send your kid to a religious school, since the government more and more is trying to violate the 1st ammendment by funding religion.

Just a thought concerning school vouchers. It's only since the 20th century that there was such a thing as an extensive public school system. It is not listed in the Constitution as an essential government function, and this function assumed by Congress has turned out to be a disaster. The schools are graduating a significant percentage of functionally illiterate "students", and often any learning occurs in spite of the curriculum. Not to mention that many schools are no longer allowed to provide any sort of moral structure (under the Establishment clause) or even to enforce simple discipline (because of students' so-called First Amendment "rights"). Public schools have proved to be wholly unsuitable for moral teaching (by law!), among other things. There are many reasons why a public "education" is increasingly an oxymoron.

If parents, under a sort of "conscientious objector" status re: public schools, were allowed to opt out of their school tax and send their kids wherever they wanted, including religious schools, how is this public support of religion? They are simply getting their own money back to put to the use that they choose. It's no different than spending that money on a private military academy or high school of the arts. Religion in and of itself is not the issue. The right of parents to choose how their own tax money is used is. Congress has abused their taxation power in an area they have no business being. The important concept is to take back the power of indoctrination (which is what school is) from Congress and put it back where it naturally belongs, the parents. This is true even if parents themselves don't want the responsibility.

 

[TXCAP4228]

This is a tough subject and I have to say I am impressed with how people from both sides have handled themselves. burping boy, I agree with your philosphical position, but your tone is bordering on insulting - and you're getting down to ad hominum statements.... Timebuilder hasn't said insulting things to you but from my perspective (and keep in mind that I agree with your point of view philosophically) you're really going after him. The tone of your rhetoric may be a little over the top. Believe me, I know how easy it is to get worked up by this, but you're blood pressure's gonna go through the roof and you're gonna wind up with a problem for your next medical!. Take a deep breath.

That said, unless you have a reasonable explanation of how a teacher makes official US policy outside of Congress, we also have a stalemate on the estaqblishment clause argument.

This thread may be pretty close to worn out. But I wanted to address Timebuilder's position above. A government employee acting in an official capacity to a captive audience is one of two things: 1) already an establishment or 2) <at a minimum> respecting an establishment. And the establishment clause is not limited to congress - since all of the Bill of Rights (eg, the limitations on government) apply to state and local governments too.

 

[cjh]

Just a thought concerning school vouchers. It's only since the 20th century that there was such a thing as an extensive public school system. It is not listed in the Constitution as an essential government function, and this function assumed by Congress has turned out to be a disaster. The schools are graduating a significant percentage of functionally illiterate "students", and often any learning occurs in spite of the curriculum. Not to mention that many schools are no longer allowed to provide any sort of moral structure (under the Establishment clause) or even to enforce simple discipline (because of students' so-called First Amendment "rights"). Public schools have proved to be wholly unsuitable for moral teaching (by law!), among other things. There are many reasons why a public "education" is increasingly an oxymoron.

If parents, under a sort of "conscientious objector" status re: public schools, were allowed to opt out of their school tax and send their kids wherever they wanted, including religious schools, how is this public support of religion? They are simply getting their own money back to put to the use that they choose. It's no different than spending that money on a private military academy or high school of the arts. Religion in and of itself is not the issue. The right of parents to choose how their own tax money is used is. Congress has abused their taxation power in an area they have no business being. The important concept is to take back the power of indoctrination (which is what school is) from Congress and put it back where it naturally belongs, the parents. This is true even if parents themselves don't want the responsibility.

I totally agree. It's so sad to see the shape of our "educational" system. I have friends with kids in public schools and other friends whose children are in private schools (secular, btw). The difference in the level of learning is amazing and sad. I would support the elimination of all school tax, replacing it instead with privatized education.

Now, if only I could do the same where social security is concerned.

 

[Snakum]

Enigma ... you need to provide references. I respect you, and I will try not to make this personal, but ...

The most prolific historical writers of the time Jesus supposedly walked on the earth never mention him. The old and new testament is so full of contradictions as to be laughable when read with a critical mind. It's just silly. What you believe visavis blind faith is not provable at all. It is illogical in the extreme. Your belief in an old white-haired puppet-master in the sky is no more rational than the Roman belief in the gods of Olympus. There are so many things that are ignorant (and distasteful) about Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that I don't know where to begin.

One day human beings will be able to leave this dangerous and nonsensical need for a 'devine creator' behind and move forward to a new era of logic, reason, and love for our fellow man without regard to color or creed. No more killing abortionists, no more murder, rape and pillage in the middle east, no more airplanes into buildings, etc.

Imagine that

Rev. Thich Minh Thong
"Secular Humanist posing as a Buddhist Monk"

 

[prodigal]

Snakum

"no more killing abortionists . . ."
Just killing babies?
(I almost hate to continue this thread but the above quote cries for challenge).

 

[Snakum]

"Just killing babies?"

You're probably not gonna like this .....

I agree with you on that one. ALL life is precious beyond measure and should be respected. Both the killer on death row and the unborn child. And yes, I believe it is a child. On PBS I saw a two month old fetus sucking it's thumb in the womb. If you take that child ... you've taken human life ... period. I don't care what the feminists say. Their arguments for abortion are as illogical as your arguments for an old white-haired puppet-master in the sky.

All that said however ... I wasn't debating politics ... I was debating religion.

Minh

BTW ... when I was a kid, I always thought God looked like Rev. Billy Graham . My father, a Southern Baptist preacher (this was before I knew what a 'minister' was) used to work the Billy Graham crusades when they swung thru Raleigh. When I finally saw him in person I could just imagine God literally taking possession of Rev. Graham and speaking thru him. But then of course ... I grew up and started THINKING for myself.

 

[enigma]

Enigma ... you need to provide references. I respect you, and I will try not to make this personal, but ...

The most prolific historical writers of the time Jesus supposedly walked on the earth never mention him. The old and new testament is so full of contradictions as to be laughable when read with a critical mind. It's just silly. What you believe visavis blind faith is not provable at all. It is illogical in the extreme. Your belief in an old white-haired puppet-master in the sky is no more rational than the Roman belief in the gods of Olympus. There are so many things that are ignorant (and distasteful) about Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that I don't know where to begin.

One day human beings will be able to leave this dangerous and nonsensical need for a 'devine creator' behind and move forward to a new era of logic, reason, and love for our fellow man without regard to color or creed. No more killing abortionists, no more murder, rape and pillage in the middle east, no more airplanes into buildings, etc.

Imagine that

Rev. Thich Minh Thong
"Secular Humanist posing as a Buddhist Monk"

Snakum,

Sorry to differ, and I appologize for using your post as a springboard; but my intention is not really to prove you wrong. I only want to give believers something other than blind faith to rely on.

But since you mention it, here are a few of the ancient writers who mention Jesus.
*Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian and Governor, born approximatelyAD52. He wrote of "Christus, the founder of the name" in a history of Nero.
*Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian born AD37. Josephus made numerous mentions of Jesus in his histories.
*Suetonius, Roman Historian and court official under Hadrian born AD120. Suetonius wrote of Christus in Life of Claudius.

Also, *The 1974 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica states:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

The best argument I can make is that the writers of the Gospels repeatedly claimed to be eyewitnesses. It has been proven that he gospels were written by persons who would have been alive during the time of Christ, and those persons made public statements claiming to have seen things with their own eyes. This was happpening during a time when the Romans and Jews were both making draconian attempts to erradicate the Christians. I submit that the Romans would have wasted no time in refuting written eyewitness accounts. They didn't because they knew that they couldn't. Eventually the Roman Emperor Constantine realized that he couldn't stop the Christians and decided that since he couldn't beat them he would join them. (That's another subject, but it happened) Additionally, not only did those authors say that they were eyewitnesses, they repeatedly stated that their intended readers were also eyewitnesses. All that the Romans and Jews had to in order to stop the movement in its tracks was to disprove those eyewitnesses, yet they never did.

To anyone who cares, I am conversant, but this is not one of my areas of expertice. I can't quote every name, If you wish to do further research I will be glad to point you in the direction of some good authors on the subject.

regards,
8N

 

[DarnNearaJet]

Personally, I believe Jesus Christ existed and is the son of God. However, I do have a lot of problems with the morality in the Old Testament:

1) God sending angels to massacre thousands of men, women and children simply because they were Israel's enemies.

2) In the laws of Deuteronomy, women who were menstruating were considered "unclean" and were not to be touched (hello? didn't God make them that way?) Children who cursed their father were to be put to death.
Leviticus 19:20: "And whoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid (ie slave)) betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; SHE shall be scourged; they shall not be oput to death, because she was not free."
I just cannot fathom how anyone can justify death and whipping for such trivial offenses. The only answer I can find is that morality changes with the times.

3) Genesis claims that God was "disappointed" when Adam and Eve ate from the fruit. But if He were all-knowing, wouldn't he have know this before the fact?

And as far as the bible being used as a scientific document is concerned, I seincerely hope that anyone who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old and was created in six days is not allowed to pilot an airplane.

 

[cjh]

Snakum,

>>"The most prolific historical writers of the time Jesus supposedly walked on the earth never mention him. The old and new testament is so full of contradictions as to be laughable when read with a critical mind. It's just silly. What you believe visavis blind faith is not provable at all. It is illogical in the extreme. Your belief in an old white-haired puppet-master in the sky is no more rational than the Roman belief in the gods of Olympus. There are so many things that are ignorant (and distasteful) about Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that I don't know where to begin.

One day human beings will be able to leave this dangerous and nonsensical need for a 'devine creator' behind and move forward to a new era of logic, reason, and love for our fellow man without regard to color or creed. No more killing abortionists, no more murder, rape and pillage in the middle east, no more airplanes into buildings, etc. "<<


Outstanding post.


DarnNearaJet,

Kudos to you as well.

And this:

"And as far as the bible being used as a scientific document is concerned, I seincerely hope that anyone who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old and was created in six days is not allowed to pilot an airplane."

gets my vote for best comment of the day! LMAO!!

Pleasant evening to all.

 

[310]

cjh and snakum need to get together, hold hands and sing "imagine" by j lennon