Post Election "high"

[burping_boy]

TXCAP4228 and cjh,

To be honest, this is the first time I've debated in years! When you see the overwhelming urge of people on this forum to throw their religion into every thread, you just gotta say something eventually!

Anyway, I'm not gonna continue the debate much longer. I respect everyone involved, both sides of the argument (aside from the willful closed-mind of some people). But it's been so long since I've done this that I felt some practice was in order...

Think of it as me.... getting current!

 

[Timebuilder]

What prophecies? Name some prophecies that have been fulfilled, please! In fact, name ONE prophecy that has been fulfilled that can be verified outside the boundaries of the bible.

Burping Boy:

You continue to want "independent" and "verifiable" proof to support Christian belief. I will leave you to desire that, but realize this, as a logical example: we have a system of laws in this country, and they are not fairly interpreted by a council consisting of those who agree and those who disagree with those laws. Instead, we have judges, who by the very laws they are bound to interpret, are both arbiters and defendeders of the law. So is it in this situation. Enigma may give you several references to what he sees as "evidence". You, on the other hand, will see it only as "opinion". Truthfully, if I could show you a meter or screen that met all of the "scientific" tests for "proof", I think it is likely that you would say that a believer "rigged" the information. As time moves ahead, we are slowly approaching a level of proof that you may find satisfactory. If Enigma names a fulfilled prophecy for you and provides a reference, you will dismiss him out of hand, since the proof is provided from a standpoint of a believer!

This what I meant about owning this position. You see, almost every belief received airtime over my seven year New Age radio stint. The show was an examination of beliefs, a "buffet" for spiritual seekers. Conspicuously absent were Christians. I didn't want any of them on the show. I said very much the same things as you have said here, so I am very familiar with what you want. In my opinion, you will not be satisfied.

 

[Timebuilder]

One more thing: if you consider yourself to be a debater, then discontinue using references like "closed minded". Think about it, since the same descriptor can be applied to your own beliefs.

It is truly a matter of perspective.

 

[burping_boy]

Therefore, when a teacher leads a prayer, they are not acting on behalf of the government to "establish a religion".

YES, Timebuilder, they ARE acting on behalf of the government. Teachers in public schools are government employees. Therefore, anything they do is on behalf of the government! When they try to lead a class in prayer, they are INDEED "establishing a religion" in their government-sanctioned classroom. What does the word "establish" mean? Let's take a look....

Main Entry: es·tab·lish
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English establissen, from Middle French establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire, from stabilis stable
Date: 14th century
1 : to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
2 obsolete : SETTLE 7
3 a : to make firm or stable b : to introduce and cause to grow and multiply <establish grass on pasturelands>
4 a : to bring into existence : FOUND <established a republic> b : BRING ABOUT, EFFECT <established friendly relations>
5 a : to put on a firm basis : SET UP <establish his son in business> b : to put into a favorable position c : to gain full recognition or acceptance of <the role established her as a star>
6 : to make (a church) a national or state institution
7 : to put beyond doubt : PROVE <established my innocence>

So as you can see, Timebuilder, the word "establish" contains a few meanings that coincide with mere prayer in the classroom. Therefore, establishing religion. Inciting prayer INDEED falls under "establishing religion". Or do you only choose 1 or 2 parts of the FULL definition of establish?

If I, as a teacher, tell my class that everyone in the US should drive on the left side of the road, that does not establish driving on the left side of the road as the official policy.

Acutally, driving on the left side of the road IS the official law and policy, and a teacher would be doing a good thing by telling some of the kids these days to do so!

In four years of public school, I never heard a student being sanctioned by the teacher for not praying, and contrary to what has been posted previously in this thread, no fights or divisions occured among students because of praying or not praying.

Again, you are taking ONLY YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE and making it an absolute truth. Just because you didn't experience it or hear about it DOES NOT mean it didn't happen. I personally have witnessed times when (even in this day of no school prayer) non-christian classmates have been harassed by christian classmates. Are you to disregard anyone else's experience but your own, just as you disregard reason, logic, and reality?


Timebuilder, will you EVER answer my question? Will you ever tell my why you can't just send your kids to one of the GAZILLIONS of religious schools in the country if you want them to pray in class?

Here's why --> You aren't concerned about free excercise. You are really just trying to force your mental disease on as many people as possible. That's why you can't just leave public school alone. Doesn't matter that outside of school ALL kids have parents or mentors to give them a belief structure. By gawd, you want only ONE prayer in school and that's a CHRISTIAN prayer.

You are a very selfish and inconsiderate individual. I don't care WHAT your bible tells you to do.

 

[Timebuilder]

You are a young man of opinions, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, Burping Boy. I think you need to refine your tecnique a little. All right, a LOT.

The fact is that a teacher doeas not make law, no matter how strident you become. That, and that alone, is what the establishment clause was written to convey.

Why not send kids to a Christian school? Many do. If and when I have some, you can rest assured that I will do so if I can. Tell you what: you return my tax money, every cent, and I will be able to afford it. I should not be forced to "pay twice" to keep someone from being offeded by a prayer. But that's not what this debate, or I should say, streetcorner argument, is about. We won't settle the truth of the Bible here, guaranteed. 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.

 

[burping_boy]

Timebuilder,

You continue to want "independent" and "verifiable" proof to support Christian belief. I will leave you to desire that, but realize this, as a logical example: we have a system of laws in this country, and they are not fairly interpreted by a council consisting of those who agree and those who disagree with those laws. Instead, we have judges, who by the very laws they are bound to interpret, are both arbiters and defendeders of the law. So is it in this situation. Enigma may give you several references to what he sees as "evidence". You, on the other hand, will see it only as "opinion". Truthfully, if I could show you a meter or screen that met all of the "scientific" tests for "proof", I think it is likely that you would say that a believer "rigged" the information. As time moves ahead, we are slowly approaching a level of proof that you may find satisfactory. If Enigma names a fulfilled prophecy for you and provides a reference, you will dismiss him out of hand, since the proof is provided from a standpoint of a believer!

All I want is something outside of the bible to verify anything you have to say. Unfortunately for you, that literary piece of trash is the be-all and end-all of any "proof" or "evidence" you might have. There IS nothing outside the bible to verify your claims. I don't care what you believe, you CANNOT use an item to verify itself! "Proof" is something that is an independant verifier. You can't use the bible to prove itself. Obviously you don't know what proof and evidence even mean.

Please, ANYTHING you have to show me outside the bible itself, give me a link, or some info. I am interested! Oh, but you'll only direct me to a book by someone who uses the bible to verify the bible!

Again, no proof. Just BS.

In my opinion, you will not be satisfied.

I will never be satisfied until you can show me literal, defined, proof. Too bad there IS nothing outside the bible, eh?

One more thing: if you consider yourself to be a debater, then discontinue using references like "closed minded". Think about it, since the same descriptor can be applied to your own beliefs.

It is truly a matter of perspective.

No. You admitted yourself that you are closed-minded. You REFUSE to consider anything outside or contrary to your established beliefs and therefore you are the textbook definition of closed-minded. It is NOT a matter of perspective.

I, on the other hand, always have and always will allow for a possibility that I could be wrong, and will seriously consider any REAL DEFINED empirical evidence presented to me. I am, by definition, open-minded.

Looks like the dictionary is absolutely meaningless to you.

 

[Timebuilder]

Again, no proof. Just BS.

If you mean Bible Scripture, I agree.

You aren't going to get what you want. I don't know why you keep at it.

Several times I've tried to explain to you that the truth of the Bible is outside of the ways of man. This angers you, since the ways of man is the "basket" where you have all of your "eggs". I was in that spot, as I said.

I think you need to switch to decaf.

 

[burping_boy]

You are a young man of opinions, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, Burping Boy. I think you need to refine your tecnique a little. All right, a LOT.

I don't care what you think. My technique is just fine, I just happen to be on the other side of the fence. I think you need to open your locked, diseased mind.

The fact is that a teacher doeas not make law, no matter how strident you become. That, and that alone, is what the establishment clause was written to convey.

I never said a teacher makes law. The fact is, a teacher is an employee of the United States government. A teacher REPRESENTS our government. No laws have to be made here, Timebuilder! If a school sanctions one type of prayer only, it gives the appearance that the US government sanctions that specific religion!

Why not send kids to a Christian school? Many do. If and when I have some, you can rest assured that I will do so if I can. Tell you what: you return my tax money, every cent, and I will be able to afford it. I should not be forced to "pay twice" to keep someone from being offeded by a prayer. But that's not what this debate, or I should say, streetcorner argument, is about. We won't settle the truth of the Bible here, guaranteed. 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.

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. Nice try though.

Again, I never said that a teacher makes law. But an official sanctioned prayer of one religion only in public school gives the IMPRESSION of a government-sanctioned religion. And YES, if it became REQUIRED for public schools to have prayer, then a law WOULD have been passed and then it WOULD directly violate the establishment clause! BY DEFINITION.

But we all know how you feel about literal definitions.

 

[burping_boy]

If you mean Bible Scripture, I agree.

Bada-bing! We got a comedian here, folks! Ah cha cha cha cha chah!

You aren't going to get what you want. I don't know why you keep at it.

Several times I've tried to explain to you that the truth of the Bible is outside of the ways of man. This angers you, sine the ways of man is the "basket" where you have all of your "eggs". I was in that spot, as I said.

I keep at it because you keep at it. I KNOW I'm not going to get anything real from you. You keep making claims that there are "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies", but all they are are prophecies that start in the bible and end in the bible. "My bible tells me so and it's all the proof I need". And also, "the Bible is above man" or "outside of the ways of man", meaning you disregard REALITY.

You could be so much more intelligent, Timebuilder. But you totally disregard reason, logic, and even definition! You are a very mentally and emotionally challenged individual.

[EDIT] You said:

I think you need to switch to decaf.

Actually, I don't drink coffee. The ignorance of your belief system leaves a bad enough taste in my mouth, why would I want to make the taste worse?

 

[burping_boy]

Okay,

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. As much as I disagree with some of you, I don't want to degenerate the whole thing to that level.

Good debate all. If you all want to post some closing arguments, go ahead. I will read them, but I promise not to reply.

Take care, and safe flying to EVERYONE.

 

[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).