Senate debates Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage

[PerpetualBurn]

The government does not "endorse" agnosticism. It does not base its legislature on the idea that there might or might not be a God.

The system by which the government legislates simply has no mention of God's existence or God's non-existence.

[coheneran]

Agnosticism is a belief, not a religion.

I don't necessarily think agnosticism is lazy, seeing as you're uncertain.

It's certainly not nihilism, probably the laziest belief ever devised.

Actually, nihilism has a pretty well constructed argument, but you need to be in the right state of mind to understand it. It's the state of mind when you think "Really, what's the point to all this? In the end who gives a crap and why does it matter?" Usually when I think this, I think it when I'm in bed, but I comfort myself that I will feel better in the morning. I always do. Being a permanent nihilist must suck.

[Hababi]

It does not base its legislature on the idea that there might or might not be a God.


With their educational policies, they do.

[Atomic Rain]

With their educational policies, they do.

evolution and god are not mutually exclusive.

America is so afraid of it's own shadow that it can't even interpret the bible as a metaphor and accept that the earth has existed for more than 6000 or whatever years

[A Spoonful Supreme]

evolution and god are not mutually exclusive.

America is so afraid of it's own shadow that it can't even interpret the bible as a metaphor and accept that the earth has existed for more than 6000 or whatever years

lol

God doesn't write metaphors.

what a good quote that would make

[PerpetualBurn]

With their educational policies, they do.

No they don't.

[PerpetualBurn]

lol

God doesn't write metaphors.


lol

Jesus spoke in parables.

[coheneran]

lol

Jesus spoke in parables.

So did Dr. Seuss. Clam-I-Am is in fact about the destruction of natural habitats for the sake of profits, including the meat industry.

[RockAndRoll]

Agnosticism is the pansy way of saying "I can't decide".
Is that a really bad joke or are you serious?

[coheneran]

Is that a really bad joke or are you serious?

Semi-serious. Agnosticism is based on the logic that there's no way to tell if God exists or not, so we'll ackowledge that He might exist, but that he might not. But I don't think agnostics have followed through, so to speak, with their line of thought. God is severely illogical, especially the conventional "fire and lightning Bible-bashing God," and the rhetoric that atheism takes just as much faith as religion is just that, empty rhetoric.

/2cents

[SubtleDagger]

As an agnostic I don't acept atheism as a means of denying any supreme being. I pretty much decry the Christian fundamentalist concept of God in most cases though.

[Sexy'n'Mean14]

i like gay ppl and if they want to get married then they shuld be allowed to.

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

Stop posting please.

[RockAndRoll]

Semi-serious. Agnosticism is based on the logic that there's no way to tell if God exists or not, so we'll ackowledge that He might exist, but that he might not. But I don't think agnostics have followed through, so to speak, with their line of thought. God is severely illogical, especially the conventional "fire and lightning Bible-bashing God," and the rhetoric that atheism takes just as much faith as religion is just that, empty rhetoric.

/2cents
Certain conceptions of god are illogical, others are not. Unless you have an argument which can prove that all conceptions of god are illogical you're the one with empty rhetoric. But let's not derail this thread.

[Pint of stella]

Gays should be allowed to marry. Not letting them is pure ignorance. A person's sexual orientation is there business not the ****ing governments. Those conservative bastards need a lesson on equality. (I only read the first page so the debates probably developed into some other area. Oh well, so much for being late.)

[BassVirtuoso]

They didn't make the bill with any hope of it passing, they just want people to focus on the issue more than anything else...like Iraq.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Conservative people just want to hold on to their values, allowing gays to marry would signify a false consensus and to them, be a give away. It's a matter of political territory. Things change in time.

[Pint of stella]

Still, everyone is of equal moral wealth. Everyone should be treated as equals. Holding on to values is no excuse for ignorance. I'm sure you agree to some extent.

[Jude]

The point that you're trying to make is that if the government takes a position with a religious creed, then it's wrong. That's what an agnostic government would do. It's like trying to say that zero is not a number. It's still a numeric value. Agnosticism is still a religious creed. If the government adopts it, it is still taking a position on religion and favoring one religious creed--yours.

Yeah but it's all semantics from here. If you want to argue that a government can't not have a religious stance, fine, but the point is the constitution says laws shall not respect religion and that's what it comes down to.



Whiping away the country's religious heritage isn't the same thing as eviscerating a religion, altogether, although that's their aim.
....how is renaming Christmas break worse than not even HAVING a break for Hanukkah? our government is trying to eviscerate Judaism!


Well you should know it but that says why it's only rude, disruptive and arrogant to try to take Under God out of the pledge.


Huh?



No, by telling lies. Saying poverty increased under Reagan when it went down. Saying crime rose under Clinton when it dropped. The man is a liar, a polemicist, and a fraud. He's the left wing Ann Coulter.

cite cite cite


Any history of the United States that neglects the role of Christianity in it is remiss in its scholarship.

Any history of the US that neglects the role of enslavement/murder/oppression of Indians is remiss in its scholarship too but we seem not to have any problem teaching every schoolchild that.


Call it what is is: historical fiction. That's what revisionist history is.

If "revisionist" history is any history that doesn't include every single fact ever, I guess I can't argue with you. He prefaces his works with reminders that he's considering a particular perspective and it's one that most people aren't used to. Since it is a perspective that goes strongly against what people are used to hearing and puts people/institutions commonly considered heroic and good in a more negative light, of course people are going to resist listening to it.

He's acclaimed by left wing sheep. He's the biggest con man in the history of American academia.

:lol: This was pretty much what I expected. I had sort of hoped you might actually provide some reasonable ground for anyone to seriously consider what you're saying, but you're still zero after all.


Sure.
http://hnn.us/articles/4370.html

Excerpts:
"But Zinn's big book is quite unworthy of such fame and influence. A People's History is bad history, albeit gilded with virtuous intentions. Zinn reduces the past to a Manichean fable and makes no serious attempt to address the biggest question a leftist can ask about U.S. history: why have most Americans accepted the legitimacy of the capitalist republic in which they live?

His failure is grounded in a premise better suited to a conspiracy-monger's Web site than to a work of scholarship. According to Zinn, "99 percent" of Americans share a "commonality" that is profoundly at odds with the interests of their rulers. And knowledge of that awesome fact is "exactly what the governments of the United States, and the wealthy elite allied to them--from the Founding Fathers to now--have tried their best to prevent.""
...
"The fact that his text barely mentions either conservatism or Christianity is telling. The former is nothing but an excuse to grind the poor ("conservatism" itself doesn't even appear in the index), while religion gets a brief mention during Anne Hutchinson's rebellion against the Puritan fathers and then vanishes from the next 370 years of history."


This is basically saying the same thing you're saying which is that because he didn't include every single fact ever in his book, it's invalid. Gimme a break.

There was another really good one that had direct textual excerpts that were bold faced lies. I posted it here before and I'm looking for it again. The man is a radical liar.

Yeah I'm waiting.


Your version of trying is establishing a government that holds your religious views. That's not trying, that's failing.

I don't even know what you're talking about.


They weren't social liberals as the term is understood today.

Duh. In the political scale of their time, they were. It doesn't make any sense to measure people from 200 years ago against the politics of today. That's like saying the Magna Carta was a totally impotent and useless document because it kept power in the hands of nobles.


But none were as racist, sexist and predatory as your secularist hero, TJ.
Uh he isn't my hero.

God is severely illogical
Um plz take Logic 101 kthnx

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Um plz take Logic 101 kthnxum wtf

[Jude]

um wtf
Yeah