State-Church Separation

[Dervish]

Brovo said
No, is anyone still taking this debate seriously? I'm doing this to kill time while I wait for the grocery store to open. Wait, , the person you're going to single out more than anyone else... Is ? Not the Not Boerd guy or ActRaiser's deranged rambling about how Obama is this evil baby eating monster or even me, taking potshots at them for the last like what, week? Two weeks? You're going to pick out... Vortex?... Okay. That's real strange, but okay.

I figure everyone else is pretty set in their ways, doesn't matter what I say one way or another. I just don't see the point of ripping each other's throats out over something so subjective that can basically be resolved with "Cool. That's your opinion, I don't agree but that's fine."

The Vortex Mormon thing was something I picked up on a few threads. Figured somebody should address it at some point. I'm not targeting him to be malicious, I legitimately think it's something he should at least consider. Nobody ever got hurt broadening their understanding of the world and the people in it. I'm just not a fan of singling out a group of people for discrimination just because they don't share beliefs with me. Once you get past the obvious religious and cultural differences, people are pretty much relatable just about everwhere. Hell, most the people in this thread fighting probably have more in common than you realize, you're literally stuck on one aspect of each other and apparently that's worth spending hundreds of posts arguing about nothing and going nowhere. You'll probably find an easier time talking about this shit if you have some kind of common ground.

It's preferable to the thread getting locked and somebody banned. That's just me, though.

[Brovo]

I mean I guess to wrap this thread up in a neat bow tie since it looks like it's finally going to kick the bucket is I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread that I don't... Honestly... Give a rat's ass what a person believes. If a person wants to believe that a pedophile rode a unicorn into heaven, they can believe that, I don't really care so long as the person themselves is a decent person. Everything I've argued here has been pretty much for the fuck of it, for fun, devil's advocacy and all that.

I mean jeez, I've been posting Star Wars clips for god's sake, I should hope that at least would give away my complete lack of giving a fuck for making a really monumental argument. I mean if I really wanted to argue anything, I'd stay specific: I'd pick one thing and I would stick to it like a fly sticks to shit.

At the end of the day the same rights and freedoms that guarantee someone's right to believe whatever fantastical thing they want to believe, protects my right to not believe a damned thing. That is what matters most to me and it's the real reason why I advocate for a secular government: In this way, the government is unable to go for or against religion. That means it cannot make laws that support Christianity, or atheism, or Islam, or any other religion on the planet. That should remain purely a personal domain, whatever makes you feel comfortable, whatever makes the most sense, go with it, and be a good person.

Beyond that, nothing else matters to me concerning religion and government, or religion and law, or religion in general usually, unless you want to debate the philosophical side of it, which I find intriguing and usually take a grey world mentality on.

That's all really. I hope that clarifies it for anyone who thought this thread was actually a serious exchange from me at least. Alright Dervish?

[Dervish]

Vortex said
Hey hold on there mate! I did not mean any disrespect towards Mormons or their faith. All I meant by it was that a Mormon or a fundamentalist Christian would most likely disagree with So Boerd that the Old Testament does not apply to modern day Christians. And yes I realise there are a surprising amount of Mormons in this site and I have come to enjoy the company of a few of them. Also in that one thread about that certain members faith, I really did mean no disrespect by whatever I happened to say, all I was intending to ask was about that members faith because I know next to nothing when it comes to Mormonism.No, it's a fair call. I understand there was a lot of room for misinterpatation.

If that's the case, sincere apologies. Most of your tone came across as confrontrational and in some cases baiting. I don't always participate in discussions, but I'm usually reading. Just be aware of how stuff can look from a casual observer's point of view!

Either way, thank you for clarifying. Cookies and gold stars for being upstanding in your response. I'm glad I was just misinterpreting it!

Once again, I do apologize for reading that wrong.

[Vortex]

Wait your not serious Brovo? Oh how you break my heart!

And dervish, like I said all I was attempting to do was trying to learn something new, not cause anyone offence. I am tolerant of all people no matter their creed, race, ethnic background, ideology, etc etc

Are we clear that I am not hateful towards Mormons? (And before you say something, yes it know you didn't say that)

[Dervish]

Brovo said
I mean I guess to wrap this thread up in a neat bow tie since it looks like it's finally going to kick the bucket is I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread that I don't... Honestly... Give a rat's ass what a person believes. If a person wants to believe that a pedophile rode a unicorn into heaven, they can believe that, I don't really care so long as the person themselves is a decent person. Everything I've argued here has been pretty much for the fuck of it, for fun, devil's advocacy and all that.I mean jeez, I've been posting Star Wars clips for god's sake, I should hope that at least would give away my complete lack of giving a fuck for making a really monumental argument. I mean if I really wanted to argue anything, I'd stay specific: I'd pick one thing and I would stick to it like a fly sticks to shit.At the end of the day the same rights and freedoms that guarantee someone's right to believe whatever fantastical thing they want to believe, protects my right to not believe a damned thing. That is what matters most to me and it's the real reason why I advocate for a secular government: In this way, the government is unable to go for or against religion. That means it cannot make laws that support Christianity, atheism, or Islam, or any other religion on the planet. That should remain purely a personal domain, whatever makes you feel comfortable, whatever makes the most sense, go with it, and be a good person.Beyond that, nothing else matters to me concerning religion and government, or religion and law, or religion in general usually, unless you want to debate the philosophical side of it, which I find intriguing and usually take a grey world mentality on.That's all really. I hope that clarifies it for anyone who thought this thread was actually a serious exchange from me at least. Alright Dervish?

I am satisfied. Just keep in mind that you might think you're joking, but everyone else might think you're throwing fuel in the fire.

Hell, that's why I thought I should say something. When something has been going on for 12 pages and getting increasingly snippy, it's probably not a bad idea to take a step back and let things cool down.

C'mon guys, group hug and beer. Let's go hate on something productive, like Donald Trump. Fuck that guy.

[Dervish]

Vortex said
Wait your not serious Brovo? Oh how you break my heart!And dervish, like I said all I was attempting to do was trying to learn something new, not cause anyone offence. I am tolerant of all people no matter their creed, race, ethnic background, ideology, etc etcAre we clear that I am not hateful towards Mormons? (And before you say something, yes it know you didn't say that)

We coo'.

[Vortex]

Good I'm glad we got that sorted.

[Vortex]

Dervish said
When something has been going on for 12 pages and getting increasingly snippy, it's probably not a bad idea to take a step back and let things cool down.

Yeah... I planned on having a healthy debate on Church State relations not about a particular god or a endless loop of arguments.

Well out goes the window my hopes for Off topic!

[Brovo]

Vortex said Wait your not serious Brovo? Oh how you break my heart!

No. I rarely am very serious. I come here to relax, not get wound up.

Dervish said
I am satisfied. Just keep in mind that you might think you're joking, but everyone else might think you're throwing fuel in the fire.Hell, that's why I thought I should say something. When something has been going on for 12 pages and getting increasingly snippy, it's probably not a bad idea to take a step back and let things cool down.C'mon guys, group hug and beer. Let's go hate on something productive, like Donald Trump. Fuck that guy.

Yep. I can see that, not everyone gets that style of humour, so might as well address it in as blunt a fashion as I can, no?

And ha. Hate on something productive. Hate is a wasted emotion. Think I'd rather write a book.

[Brovo]

Vortex said
Yeah... I planned on having a healthy debate on Church State relations not about a particular god or a endless loop of arguments.Well out goes the window my hopes for Off topic!

"Abandon hope all ye who enter here" is the unofficial motto of OT.

[gamer5]

So Bored here a few links to prove things said in favor of religion commonly leading to mass loss of human life for no reason except the thinking "they are Pagans/heretics".
A few Wikipedia articles lol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution
A article from "The Guardian"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/02/religion-wars-conflict
Ask.com's answer to how much people are believed to have died due to religion
http://www.ask.com/question/how-many-people-have-died-in-religious-conflicts

If you also search Wikipedia you can easily find that the highest & lowest estimate for both all the mass murders done by "Communist" leaders and a single religious conflict the previously mentioned Taiping Rebellion are roughly the same with 100 million deaths as high estimate and 20 million deaths as low estimate, but the Taiping Rebellion is a single religious conflict which killed, arguably the same number as all "Communist" leaders in almost a whole century and in a period of time when this amounted to a percentage of the world's population that is larger than the percentage of world population which was killed in the Second World War.

[William Draconius]

Gamer, hate to break it to you, but plenty of groups, pagans, Christians, atheists and even muslims all have killed in the name of said following. People like to point fingers, forgetting that ya, there's other fingers pointing back, but at the same time, it's easier to point out other flaws. For a unpicked on race, lets look at the Native American tribes in North America, pre-Columbus. Peaceful? Everyone in tune with nature? Not even remotely. These people went to war against each other, practiced human sacrifice, even practiced genocide, in the name of specific lands. For these "peaceful" tribes were, they still had blood on their hands....or doesn't it matter, because they weren't killing others...just themselves off to appease a God that brought drought?

[Turtlicious]

This thread explained in 15 seconds

[So Boerd]

Also, just looked up the Taiping rebellion. While they were misguided and wrong most often, they were a marked improvement over the Qing dynasty. They had some weird policies, but they abolished slavery, abolished foot binding, and declared the sexes equal. And they abolished private ownership, and created a classless society. Sounds like a weird blend of communism and christianity.

Found the 20 million, which wiki said was the best estimate. Best estimate for Mao was circa 74 million.

[Kho]

This is ridiculous. I'm not getting back into this just need to set at least one standard before this continues.

I think if there is anything that we all have to agree on, whether we believe in God or not, it is that humans can kill each other with or without religion, they can be cruel with or without religion, they can pillage, loot, destroy, murder, rape and...destroy with or without religion. Being atheist does not immediately mean that when you murder you do so because you do not believe in God, and neither does being theist mean that when you kill it is because you believe in God. You do so because you are a messed up, rather vile human and that is what messed up rather, vile humans do.

If we are going to learn anything from this thus-far-useless-debate, let us learn that. I hope we can all come to terms with this very heavy, rather baffling concept.

So Boerd said At any rate, certainly in the modern era, having a leader whose morality was formed by a non-Islamic religion (No aspersions on Islam, just looking at the numbers and statistics) seems to be the best way to prevent ridiculous loss of life.

I would like to point out that 'morality formed by a non-Islamic religion' is, for the most part, no different than that formed by Islam. In fact, you will find that most interpretations of religions specifically insist on peace and tolerance and a general moral code accepted wherever you go in the world, and Islam is no different. The fact that the legacy of imperialism - mostly noted in the heavily damaging European-made borders which cut up many Muslim countries in the early 20th century - remains is no fault of the countries in question, but of those who chose to play god over people and territories with a history which the imperialists understood very little about. I would also like to point out that today we have many Islamist leaders and parties which are legitimate contenders in the democratic process, such as the AKP in Turkey and their President Abdullah Gul (as well as the notorious Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan) who not only won in fair elections but have benefited Turkey and moved it away from the ardent secularism and restrictions on freedom of religion. You also have Indonesia's ruling Democratic Party with their concept of Pancasila, which insists on the 'Oneness of God' a defining Islamic principle. There is also Malaysia, another healthy democracy with a ruling Islamist party. All these countries have leaders whose 'morality' was formed by Islam, I don't see theocracies rising there any time soon.

I think we need to differentiate between untypical occurrences like the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which was an extreme government using religion to justify its extreme position, and what one would define as a proper Islamic government, which I can assure you does not call for the conversion of all heretics and murder of all Jews and heathens and whatever else. It is a religion like all other, it has its extremists, like other religions, but in the end it is just as compatible with democracy as Christianity and Judaism and many other ancient religions from which people can draw inspiration and moderate beliefs. Thus let us not judge all leaders of a particular fath and assume that so long as leader should spring from that religion they are bound to be dictators and murderers.

That's my fifty cents, I'll go back to working and watching this foolishness develop

[Dervish]

Kho said
This is ridiculous. I'm not getting back into this just need to set at least one standard before this continues.

If we are going to learn anything from this thus-far-useless-debate, let us learn that. I hope we can all come to terms with this very heavy, rather baffling concept.

That's my fifty cents, I'll go back to working and watching this foolishness develop

-Says he's not getting back into it, does so anyways.

-Thinks debate is foolish, types several paragraphs akin to what everyone else did while commanding a condescending tone.

-Fires and forgets, hoping people will address points already addressed in one form for another while remaining insufferably smug for no discernible reason.

Alright, then.

[Turtlicious]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvdcBNNBkrc

[Gwazi Magnum]

This seems to be ending so I'm not going to bother keeping the debate going.
Unlike Brovo who did it out of boredom, I was sticking around cause I cannot just leave something alone when someone is ignoring so much evidence and being so... gah!!!
If you guys noticed me vanishing for a day or so at a time that was me taking a break from being Mario banging my head against a brick wall.

Lesson learned: If there is not an outside person reading the information can help, learn to drop it if someone shows no intent to listen to reason or evidence.

So Boerd said Now we're going in circles.

[Vortex]

Well it was "fun" while it lasted.

[Kho]

Dervish said
-Says he's not getting back into it, does so anyways.-Thinks debate is foolish, types several paragraphs akin to what everyone else did while commanding a condescending tone.-Fires and forgets, hoping people will address points already addressed in one form for another while remaining insufferably smug for no discernible reason.Alright, then.

I do enjoy being smug, I must admit it is an art to maintain such an insufferably smug and condescending tone, don't you think?