We should just kill everyone

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]

good point except that religion in a socety where you have the freedom to pratices religion is always going to get mixed into politics no matter how hard you try to take it out.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

So? That's like worrying that a politician with stock in oil companies is going to drag the country into war! What's worse?

Every politician's personal views and practices are going to be part of their policy making. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to separate it!

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Gonna have to disagree with you here. I personally would never get an abortion. I would carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. However, I think the right to choice is imperative to what our society stands for. Whether or not you acknowledge it, our government is full of men. I don't want some old white dude legislating what I can or can't do with my body. It's not his business, it's an invasion of the right to privacy, and it's downright unconstitutional. I can believe whatever I want about abortion, but fundamentally it's the right to choose that I support.[/QUOTE]

IMO if you choose to have sex, you have to be ready to deal with the consiquesces and one of those can be pregnancy, but it can also be STDs. i think that there should be proper education on things like that and also what the lasting effects that an abortions can have on a woman. both physically and emotoinally

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]i wouldn't mind seeing abortion made illage once again, tho i know that it wont happen. why? i believe that life starts are conception. i don't want to be blunt but the people that get pregnent are mostly (not counting rape in this) at fault for what has happened to them. its there choice to go out and have sex, they should realise that there could be consicquenses to this. if they just carry out the baby yo full term and give it up for adoption, that benifits the child and it benifits a family that might not be able to have children of their own.[/quote]

Here's another huge difference. I don't believe life begins at conception. It's just a bunch of cells. It is not a person, it doesn't have a soul yet. There's nothing to prove or disprove it either. So, that's a huge difference there.

[quote]if you read my previous posts regarding this, you will see that the only problem that i have with it is the name marrage. and if these so called "christians" really believed the bible they would see the same thing.[/quote]

I saw that, and that's great. But there are plenty of other Christians who don't agree with you and I. This is the crux of my point

[quote]good point except that religion in a socety where you have the freedom to pratices religion is always going to get mixed into politics no matter how hard you try to take it out.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

I didn't say take it out, but people should make a conscious effort to NOT include their personal beliefs when they legislate.

[quote=SD]Whoa! That's exactly waht I always tell people! They're always surprised when I say I'm Christian, "But...you aren't a bible thumper! You don't try and shove your morality on us...you're....so....liberal!"

I believe utterly in the separation of church and state.[/quote]

I wish there were more like us. Rep +

[QUOTE=coddingtown]We should just kill everyone[/QUOTE]

With grape Kool-Aid, I hope!

is the bible talk over yet?

[QUOTE=super deluxe]So? That's like worrying that a politician with stock in oil companies is going to drag the country into war! What's worse?

Every politician's personal views and practices are going to be part of their policy making. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still try to separate it![/QUOTE]

why should we try and sepperate it when we know that it wont ever happen? why not put that effort into africa and the major disastors that are happening there? or solving the energy crises

lowsound

[QUOTE=The JoZ]Here's another huge difference. I don't believe life begins at conception. It's just a bunch of cells. It is not a person, it doesn't have a soul yet. There's nothing to prove or disprove it either. So, that's a huge difference there.[/quote] this again comes down to belief, like you said everyones is different[quote]

[quote]if you read my previous posts regarding this, you will see that the only problem that i have with it is the name marrage. and if these so called "christians" really believed the bible they would see the same thing.[/quote]

I saw that, and that's great. But there are plenty of other Christians who don't agree with you and I. This is the crux of my point
[/quote] can't come up with anything for that[quote]


I didn't say take it out, but people should make a conscious effort to NOT include their personal beliefs when they legislate.


[/QUOTE]

why when we know that it is fruitless?

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]why should we try and sepperate it when we know that it wont ever happen? why not put that effort into africa and the major disastors that are happening there? or solving the energy crises

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Oh, my dear!

I shall let you in on a secret: The United States of America does not care about Africa. The United States of America does not care about starving people in Bangladesh. The United States of America cares about one thing: Survival. Of itself. That means maintaining hegemony at all costs. There is no incentive to go help other countries. Name me one instance of "charity", and I'll show you exactly the benefit it brings back.


*sigh*

I feel old and cynical today.

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Oh, my dear!

I shall let you in on a secret: The United States of America does not care about Africa. The United States of America does not care about starving people in Bangladesh. The United States of America cares about one thing: Survival. Of itself. That means maintaining hegemony at all costs. There is no incentive to go help other countries. Name me one instance of "charity", and I'll show you exactly the benefit it brings back.


*sigh*

I feel old and cynical today.[/QUOTE]

i know this, but its what should happen.

lowsound

for those of you not on the mars volta mailing list , the new video!
[url]http://www.mtv.com/music/video/premiere/the_mars_volta/index.jhtml[/url]

[QUOTE=janyeno]I'll read anything thats the slightest bit interesting...

I really liked books like johnny got his gun, brave new world, lord of the flies, and I'm actually trying to read lord of the rings(some of the singing is hard to stomach)...[/QUOTE]

I never once read the songs in LoTR... I hate them.

Anyway, some books.

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684833395/102-6830476-7333706]Catch 22[/URL], Joseph Heller

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440180295/qid=1107312978/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-6830476-7333706]Slaughterhouse Five[/URL], Kurt Vonnegut (Actually just about anything by Vonnegut is good, but this one is famous(er))

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451524934/ref=pd_sim_b_4/102-6830476-7333706?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance]1984[/URL] , George Orwell (Yeah, I know, everyone's heard of it, but it's seriously a good read. So is Animal Farm, another Orwell novel.)

You might also want to check out [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-6830476-7333706?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=CHUCK%20PALAHNIUK]Chuck Palahniuk[/URL] who's the guy who wrote Fight Club. I haven't read anything else by him, but he gets good reviews.

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]i know this, but its what should happen.

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Is/Ought Fallacy.

Just because something SHOULD be a certain way doesn't mean it's a valid reason for justifying it.

[quote]this again comes down to belief, like you said everyones is different[/quote]

And as stated, that's the crux of the argument. Because everyone's beliefs are different, we cannot legislate based on personal spiritual or religious beliefs, because that's not what this country stands for. We have freedom from being forced into them, or having them forced upon us by the government. Legislating abortion as illegal, for example, because the Bible says so or because someone thinks it is morally wrong, would be a violation of those rights.

[quote]why when we know that it is fruitless?[/quote]

Maybe my point here has been misunderstood. Some politicans are always going to be influenced by their beliefs. That's fine, there's nothing I can do to stop that, and it shouldn't be stopped. But when Bush wants to go around talking about God this, and God that...or when people want to make references to the Bible and say "We ought to make a law against ____, because it's in the Bible" or whatever. That's what I don't want, and that's what we shouldn't have.

Guys, I have a real stupid question...

A friend of mine wants me to play this habbo game thing with her online.

I think it eats loads of douche, but she's a good friend and is bored

Should I
a) Laugh really hard, and go play bass
b) play grudgingly and give it up in 5 minutes,
or c) laugh really hard and argue with her?

Most creative answer wins.... hm... nothing.

[QUOTE=Noushi]I never once read the songs in LoTR... I hate them.

Anyway, some books.

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684833395/102-6830476-7333706]Catch 22[/URL], Joseph Heller

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440180295/qid=1107312978/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-6830476-7333706]Slaughterhouse Five[/URL], Kurt Vonnegut (Actually just about anything by Vonnegut is good, but this one is famous(er))

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451524934/ref=pd_sim_b_4/102-6830476-7333706?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance]1984[/URL] , George Orwell (Yeah, I know, everyone's heard of it, but it's seriously a good read. So is Animal Farm, another Orwell novel.)

You might also want to check out [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=pd_sim_b_1/102-6830476-7333706?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=CHUCK%20PALAHNIUK]Chuck Palahniuk[/URL] who's the guy who wrote Fight Club. I haven't read anything else by him, but he gets good reviews.[/QUOTE]
Animal farm kicks as[COLOR=White]s[/COLOR]

1984 also kicks [color=white]as[/color]s

my arm is rashed up, why , i dont know.

kicking as[COLOR=White]s[/COLOR] kicks as[COLOR=White]s[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Crapdragoon]my arm is rashed up, why , i dont know.[/QUOTE]

Chlamydiherpasyphalis?

[QUOTE=RJDBass]kicking as[COLOR=White]s[/COLOR] kicks as[COLOR=White]s[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

True.

I think I jinxed myself with the 'best answer wins nothing' thing. :lol:

[QUOTE=The JoZ]Is/Ought Fallacy.

Just because something SHOULD be a certain way doesn't mean it's a valid reason for justifying it. [/quote] i know this as well, i was just stating what the US could be doing to help fellow man, which is also in the bible[quote]



And as stated, that's the crux of the argument. Because everyone's beliefs are different, we cannot legislate based on personal spiritual or religious beliefs, because that's not what this country stands for. We have freedom from being forced into them, or having them forced upon us by the government. Legislating abortion as illegal, for example, because the Bible says so or because someone thinks it is morally wrong, would be a violation of those rights.[/quote]
isn't it a violation of my rights, that they aren't takeing into consideration everyones rights when deciding legislation on this issue and others?[quote]



Maybe my point here has been misunderstood. Some politicans are always going to be influenced by their beliefs. That's fine, there's nothing I can do to stop that, and it shouldn't be stopped. But when Bush wants to go around talking about God this, and God that...or when people want to make references to the Bible and say "We ought to make a law against ____, because it's in the Bible" or whatever. That's what I don't want, and that's what we shouldn't have.[/QUOTE]

i agree that we shouldn't have that eather, why? because it would cloug up the legal system and nothing that should take pririty over thses issues would be acomplished.

lowsound

[url]http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/[/url]

^^^Read it if you want, y'all. Keep in mind that I posted this because I'm canadian and don't know much about the U.S. constitution. I just googled up the phrase "Arguments for seperation of Church and State".

[QUOTE=The JoZ]


And as stated, that's the crux of the argument. Because everyone's beliefs are different, we cannot legislate based on personal spiritual or religious beliefs, because that's not what this country stands for. We have freedom from being forced into them, or having them forced upon us by the government. Legislating abortion as illegal, for example, because the Bible says so or because someone thinks it is morally wrong, would be a violation of those rights.
[/QUOTE]

also somewhere these choices are determined by beliefs, would you rather have it be a christian that has good morals (to most in the country) or by some lunitic that thinks that we came from mars?

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]iisn't it a violation of my rights, that they aren't takeing into consideration everyones rights when deciding legislation on this issue and others?i[/QUOTE]

It's not logistically possible to please every single person in a democracy. It just isn't going to happen. Your rights are not being violated if someone doesn't take the Bible into account.

By your logic, my rights have been violated because they didn't take into consideration that I want to drink at age 18.

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Chlamydiherpasyphalis?[/QUOTE]



maybe :upset:

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]also somewhere these choices are determined by beliefs, would you rather have it be a christian that has good morals (to most in the country) or by some lunitic that thinks that we came from mars?

lowsound[/QUOTE]

...Once again, right back to the difference of beliefs.

What I consider good morality is not necessarily agreed on by most conservatives, or other people in general.

Morals, for the most part, are subjective. Sure, it can be said they are rooted in religion...but how I interpret/practice my religion versus the way you do yours might be different.

Being Christian and having good morals are not mutually exclusive. Non-Christians can have good morals, and Christians can have no morals.

We cannot legislate based on morality.

[QUOTE=The JoZ]It's not logistically possible to please every single person in a democracy. It just isn't going to happen. Your rights are not being violated if someone doesn't take the Bible into account.

By your logic, my rights have been violated because they didn't take into consideration that I want to drink at age 18.[/QUOTE]

your rights have been violated, how can the government expect us to go die for our country if we can't go out and get drunk legally first. or we can influance who the most powerful man in the world is but we can't drink? that is ludicris.

/not really on topic

lowsound

[QUOTE=The JoZ]...Once again, right back to the difference of beliefs.

What I consider good morality is not necessarily agreed on by most conservatives, or other people in general.

Morals, for the most part, are subjective. Sure, it can be said they are rooted in religion...but how I interpret/practice my religion versus the way you do yours might be different.

Being Christian and having good morals are not mutually exclusive. Non-Christians can have good morals, and Christians can have no morals.

We cannot legislate based on morality.[/QUOTE]

by what you are saying is that we should have no morals in law making??? ok so we take all laws that deal with morals, ok i can now kill people at random rape at random. i know that this violates others rights, but still those laws were made because of morals, not indivigual rights. (in canada this is, i am not sure about the US)

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]also somewhere these choices are determined by beliefs, would you rather have it be a christian that has good morals (to most in the country) or by some lunitic that thinks that we came from mars?

lowsound[/QUOTE]


morals/beliefs are highly subjective

sorry im joining in this rather late it seems.

Fist off, separation of church and state is a separation, not a removal. The bible can still be taken into account. Especially since this country was founded on biblical beliefs. I have a list of statements in the constitution that relate directly to scriptures. I can post them later if anyone wants to see them. While i agree that it IS impossible to please everyone in a democracy, i think the bible still needs to be considered.

[QUOTE=e p]morals/beliefs are highly subjective[/QUOTE]

everything is, taste for example. you might like steak, i for one don't really like it. the bass that i play is subjective as well. what i am saying is take the most comming beliefs of moral and turn that into law. that will make the most people happy. then when it is discovered to violates others rights, change it so it doesn't

lowsound

everyone is welcmoe in this debate

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]by what you are saying is that we should have no morals in law making??? ok so we take all laws that deal with morals, ok i can now kill people at random rape at random. i know that this violates others rights, but still those laws were made because of morals, not indivigual rights. (in canada this is, i am not sure about the US)

lowsound[/QUOTE]

How can you claim this?

There is nothing in any legal code or document that says the laws made were made out of moral reasoning.

The founding fathers, Jefferson especially, were heavily influenced by the Renaissance thinkers, specifically John Locke. The belief that every man had the right to "Life, liberty and property" (Jefferson changed it to "the pursuit of happiness") was espoused by Locke, and the protection of these rights were espoused in several ways regarding government by those such as Montesquieu and Rousseau.

While I cannot say with any certainty exactly what the founding fathers WERE thinking when they wrote the documents that became the basis for all of our laws as the USA, they were highly influenced by those ideals, and that is most likely where they came from. Murder, rape, etc, violate those rights, thus, they are not permissible in this society.

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]everything is, taste for example. you might like steak, i for one don't really like it. the bass that i play is subjective as well. what i am saying is take the most comming beliefs of moral and turn that into law. that will make the most people happy. then when it is discovered to violates others rights, change it so it doesn't

lowsound[/QUOTE]

Here you run into something that had Alexander Hamilton and his buddies all tied up in knots. See, the problem with a democracy is that the majority decides the direction of the country. This leads to what they called "Tyranny of the Majority." They tried to provide for this in the Constitution by separating church and state (for example). This means that they don't use the moral yardstick of the majority to legislate the minority. If ya don't like democracy, there are governments where the minority leads. They're called oligarchys, aristocracies...you get the idea. Minority rule doesn't work so good either.

[QUOTE=The JoZ]How can you claim this?

There is nothing in any legal code or document that says the laws made were made out of moral reasoning.

The founding fathers, Jefferson especially, were heavily influenced by the Renaissance thinkers, specifically John Locke. The belief that every man had the right to "Life, liberty and property" (Jefferson changed it to "the pursuit of happiness") was espoused by Locke, and the protection of these rights were espoused in several ways regarding government by those such as Montesquieu and Rousseau.

While I cannot say with any certainty exactly what the founding fathers WERE thinking when they wrote the documents that became the basis for all of our laws as the USA, they were highly influenced by those ideals, and that is most likely where they came from. Murder, rape, etc, violate those rights, thus, they are not permissible in this society.[/QUOTE]

i was giving a point that these ideals are bassed in morals. you said to take morals out of law making. those morals/ideals are bassed on the old testiment of the bible. therefore brining the bible back into this debate

lowsound

Umm, I've been tooling around the net doing some reading. Seperation of church and state seems to be an extension of americans' first amendment rights. As far as I can tell it's main purpose is to prevent government from having authority over religion, not vice versa.

ie it really has nothing to do with this debate. Just a sidenote.

[QUOTE=super deluxe]Here you run into something that had Alexander Hamilton and his buddies all tied up in knots. See, the problem with a democracy is that the majority decides the direction of the country. This leads to what they called "Tyranny of the Majority." They tried to provide for this in the Constitution by separating church and state (for example). This means that they don't use the moral yardstick of the majority to legislate the minority. If ya don't like democracy, there are governments where the minority leads. They're called oligarchys, aristocracies...you get the idea. Minority rule doesn't work so good either.[/QUOTE]

no government can satisfy everyone, democricy works the best in my books because it saticfys that majority of the people. it is unfarntunate that we can't saticfy everyone, but this is the way that it works. but the beauty of democricy is that you can voice your opinion when you don't likw something and you can try to get it changed, its really hard to but it's possable.

lowsound

[QUOTE=Noushi]Umm, I've been tooling around the net doing some reading. Seperation of church and state seems to be an extension of americans' first amendment rights. As far as I can tell it's main purpose is to prevent government from having authority over religion, not vice versa.

ie it really has nothing to do with this debate. Just a sidenote.[/QUOTE]

no that really changes the debate, very good point.

lowsound

[QUOTE=thelowsoundofbass]i was giving a point that these ideals are bassed in morals. you said to take morals out of law making. those morals/ideals are bassed on the old testiment of the bible. therefore brining the bible back into this debate

lowsound[/QUOTE]

I think (correct me if I'm wrong here and misinterpreting, Joz), that what he meant is that morality isn't always drawn from the Bible. Jefferson et. al. weren't Christians for the most part, they were deists. Their sense of
"morality" comes instead from French philosophers who theorized about the state of nature before there was a government. The idea was that in the state of nature certain overarching ideas prevailed, and that we still follow those. The purpose of government is to for people to give up some of their rights in order that the government protect them from other people taking their rights. This isn't really legislating morality, it's more enforcing a certain value system exchange (I don't think morals and values are the same at all).