lol I like the jazz one :lol:
Printable View
lol I like the jazz one :lol:
Clocker
Thanks
I am not really sure I understand.
Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.
Curious one though.
You are not the only one who is confused, Biggles.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 17:56
Clocker
Thanks
I am not really sure I understand.
Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.
Curious one though.
It was a judge who wanted to keep the stone there. In fact he's the one who commissioned/paid for it to begin with.
In the deep South this is a good way to get votes.
Now he gets to campaign on his platform of "keeping God in America" or some such bushwa.
We ARE an odd country...
Usually when I post something pertaining to a topic I also provide the link or address where I got it. This time, this article was sent to me by a friend that usually sends a lot of jokes. I should have mentioned this was not written byQuote:
Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 23:40
Iamnotanaddict
Don't you think you are reading rather too much into the ruling of the judge?
What was the provenance of the stone and where was it situated?
If the primary feature of the stone was Christian text, was it placed in a Christian place of worship or was it in a public place designed to serve the needs of all creeds and colours?
If it was the latter has the judge not upheld your constitution by maintaining a separation of state and church - a primary feature of your political system?
I think rather than an article of faith in atheism it was possibly an attempt to prevent sectarianism - the scourge of many a state.
Perhaps if the stone is for a public place, it could be recarved with edicts of all faiths - from the Native Americans through the faiths of the Torah and on to Bhuddist, Hindu, New Age faiths and Humanism - thus showing that all faiths are equal under the constitution and the law.
However, if the stone was meant for a church then I concede perhaps you have a point.
me. Because this is a topic that has had some attention I posted it because its
semi-related. I don't mean to imply that I beleive in or even agree sometimes
with everything I post but think its good to have diversified views and opinions.
Or just something else to think about. I have many faults but plagiarism is not
one of them. oops.
Biggles,Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@14 September 2003 - 01:56
Clocker
Thanks
I am not really sure I understand.
Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.
Curious one though.
You have the name of a circus clown, but your posts are anything but silly. You have a very concise way of jumping through the hoops to the actual issue and explaining your view point without resorting to distortion, emotive language or personal insults.
As for your 2 posts on this thread, I would add:
"Yeah, what he said".
Clocker, I do not believe that judges are elected, but rather appointed. Judges are selected as favors to people who have supported a candidate. You don't even need a highschool diploma to be a judge, you simply need to go to "judge school" after your appointment.
Judges are not retained for quality of work, but rather if you buddy is re-elected . New party, new judges. There is no quality control in place and only the most aggregious are removed to save further embarassment.
Think about the next time you call that judge "your honor".
I also wonder why we put our hand on the Bible when taking oath in a courtroom. If I do not abide by the Bible, am I obliged to tell the truth?
I personally think that we should all swear on our mothers' grave and if she is not dead, we should kill her, then swear on it, to show the court how seriously we take this honesty thing.
Hobbes,
I am amazed.
Of course judges are elected. At least in some states.
Bullsh*t link to prove point...
I agree with you on Mr. Biggles.
I guess my extrapolation was wrong. My information came to me from a friend who is an appointed Judge in the city of St. Louis.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@14 September 2003 - 05:03
Hobbes,
I am amazed.
Of course judges are elected. At least in some states.
Bullsh*t link to prove point...
I agree with you on Mr. Biggles.
I was a little stunned at her decription of the system. I am at least reassured that at higher levels of Judicial authority or in different states it is not such a back scratching experience.
But doesn't the President get to appoint people to the Supreme Court if a vacancy arises?
How can ppl believe in a religion when the bibles being changed all the time ? Like not long ago this gay preist decided that he will write his own version of the bible to suit him.
Imagine how much times this has happened to the bibles in different religions like WTF!!
The best religion to believe in is science because its all based on facts and thats the real truth.
If you asked me if i believe in a God i will have to say no but thats my opinion im not going to bash ppls beliefs.
If there is any hard core evidance then i might believe in god.
If there really is a god i am pissed of at him because of all the shit that is going on in the world. Like look at all this shit going on with the terrorists.
Why doesnt he come down and tell everyone whats the propper way to worship him and stop all this shit whats going on.
Of course.Quote:
But doesn't the President get to appoint people to the Supreme Court if a vacancy arises?
Not all judges are elected, in fact I think that this is more common at the lower levels.
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
*I'm off to see the wizard, the wonderfull wizard of oz........................ :ph34r:
The only thing I cannot brush aside is that "we are here". That is some shit.Quote:
Originally posted by fallenknight308@16 September 2003 - 04:48
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
*I'm off to see the wizard, the wonderfull wizard of oz........................ :ph34r:
What?Quote:
Originally posted by fallenknight308@15 September 2003 - 20:48
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
You don't believe in serendipity?
BTW, I cannot see the unbrushasideable (huh?) fact in your post...
Here is addenda to the debate on the Alabama/Roy Moore issue.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 19:56
Clocker
Thanks
I am not really sure I understand.
Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.
Curious one though.
1-The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Alabama does not have a congress; the historical fact is that the Bill of Rights was a set of restrictions on the federal government.
If the states wished to have a state religion, they are free to do so.
It was not Judge Moore's intent to do so.
2-No rational person could conclude this representation of the Ten Commandments constitutes the establishment of a religion, no matter that they are displayed in the same quarters as the Alabama Supreme Court.
3-One of the "secular" onlooker/protesters was heard to say, "Well, what if someone wanted to put a monument to the Torah in the courthouse?"
The poor boob wasn't aware the Ten Commandments are from the Torah.
They have nothing to do with Christianity per se; they are merely basic rules of good behavior which prohibit murder, perjury, adultery, and theft, and are the moral basis of our laws, and the laws of most other countries as well.
It seems the whole debate is just a wee bit canted, at least as it pertains to the role of government in such affairs.
The government cannot bestow rights; anything the government gives, it can likewise take away.
A right is defined as something which cannot justly be taken away.
The Founding Fathers recognized that rights are God-given, and so structured the government to protect those rights-as granted by God.
It is not correct to refer to "constitutional rights", as the Constitution does not give anyone any rights; it exists solely to forfend government from the abridgement of the rights granted by "You-Know-Who" ;)
What?Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+15 September 2003 - 20:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 15 September 2003 - 20:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-fallenknight308@15 September 2003 - 20:48
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
You don't believe in serendipity?
BTW, I cannot see the unbrushasideable (huh?) fact in your post... [/b][/quote]
Touch'e
Wow, every one here still has a thing about increasing their post count <_<
(And don't bother pointing out the "irony" of my rebuttal, or the fact I have
trouble spelling, I am aware of the hypocrisy of this board ;) )
Or perhaps the fact that posts here don't count, as it is, alas, a sub-section of the Lounge?
:ninja:
Whether this post was a joke or not, I'm not sure, but, in my opinion, anyone who believes in gods or higher intelligences, must have a screw loose.Quote:
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
Religion is for people who can't comprehend reallity.
:)
Where I come from one can take an oath, on the holy book of your own choice, be it bible, koran or whatever.Quote:
Originally posted by hobbes@14 September 2003 - 04:19
I also wonder why we put our hand on the Bible when taking oath in a courtroom. If I do not abide by the Bible, am I obliged to tell the truth?
Conversely, someone who has no religious religious beliefs can chose to affirm.
A friend of mine was seen to affirm on one occasion. Not because he was not religious. He just didn't like the particular version of the bible that was available. He decided to point this out may be offensive to others.
No religion is for people who need to believe that there is something better than the reality before us. Life for most people sucks. Even those who appear to have it all, are often miserable.Quote:
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@16 September 2003 - 09:06
Whether this post was a joke or not, I'm not sure, but, in my opinion, anyone who believes in gods or higher intelligences, must have a screw loose.Quote:
Regardless of the existence of a "deity" or "god",
ONE fact CANNOT be brushed aside:
This planet, and everything on it was engineered by a Higher intelligence.
Religion is for people who can't comprehend reallity.
:)
The problem with religion is that you have faith in them to receive the desired effect of alleviating pain. I, personally, sit here in my agnostic world trying to assemble my own answer.
Again, Billy your humility and general ebullient style makes this another other post to treasure. :D
any to another
BD
HobbesQuote:
Religion is for people who can't comprehend reallity.
So you agree with me then?Quote:
No religion is for people who need to believe that there is something better than the reality before us. Life for most people sucks. Even those who appear to have it all, are often miserable.
Hobbes
Why do I need humility when talking about religions that tell people like you and I that we are going to burn in hell?Quote:
Again, Billy your humility and general ebullient style makes this any other post to treasure
B)
IMO Religion may give some people a false sense of strength and promise of eternal life but I'm one who believes that it has more to answer for than it may give.
It perpetuates itself in fear and is the cause of a great proportion of the world's discontent.
As far as I'm concerned you can shove it.
BD
So you agree with me then?Quote:
Religion is for people who can't comprehend reallity.
I don't know, maybe. I'm not sure what believing in reality is exactly. I believe I am sitting in a chair, but how does this belief explain initial creation? Reality is a perception which is limited by our crude senses. We have learned from animals, radioactive materials and electronics that huge amounts of "reality" are imperceptable to us. We have captured some of this information with technology, but how much more is out there of which we have no clue. So it is apparent that alot more is going on than we can perceive, there is a existence which is beyond our perceptions (what we call "reality"). The basic question everyone wants answered is why is there mass, space and time. How can we explain it? How did we get here?
Hobbes
Why do I need humility when talking about religions that tell people like you and I that we are going to burn in hell?Quote:
Again, Billy your humility and general ebullient style makes this any other post to treasure
Just a little inside barb. You have so many nice comments about American arrogance, I figured you would be the poster child of Australian modesty. Just letting you get a little insight into how you come across.
What if they are right? Is it possible. A humble man might consider the possibility. Well, I don't think they are right either, but no need to be nasty about it, eh? Just ruffle their hair and send them off for icecream.
I just noticed the signature by CWG's- you fellows ARE a modest lot. ;)
J2K4
I profess no great knowledge on US Constitutional affairs. Indeed I think I am right in saying that it is area of rich pickings for lawyers as they weave their own peculiar brand of magic in trying to develop new and interesting interpretations.
I also don't know much about the lump of rock - other than it sounded quite large and heavy (clearly not designed to hang in a tastefully discrete frame :) )
I think ultimately in any such situation, it is the intent of the individual rather than the act itself. The judge in question is unknown in these parts and consequently I can pass no comment with regards his intent. Those local are much better placed to examine the dynamics of the situation.
Much more interesting is the concept of "The Rights of Man". Although I am sure the founding fathers had only the highest motives I doubt whether any social edifice can truly defy the ill-intended. But then again, some safeguards are better than none.
I would be interested in what people think their rights are, and are they safeguarded or not? Without being too boring perhaps we could limit it to essential rights (is the right to party essential? ... perhaps. :rolleyes: )
I fear that although almost all religions do have a set of moral codes and, by and large, the basic tenets of these codes are the same, a theocracy is not a happy place to be. Perhaps I am being constricted by my own cultural boundaries, but I think I prefer a liberal democracy to any other form government. Of course, liberal democracies are messy and largely ill-disciplined and dis-organised. :) but what better way to keep at bay those who "know" what is best for us? Not the most visionary political standpoint I know. I think rather it is one borne out of seeing government in action over the years.
Sorry this has strayed off topic a little. The Rights of Man and God is there a link? :blink:
PS Thank you for your kind words Hobbes and Clocker - I never thought of Biggles as a clown before but it has a certain fit even if you are familiar with the books.
I never thought of Biggles as a clown, wot, wot?
Chocks away, old Bean.
Well.... when you put it like that :D
It all seemed like daring do when I was 12
Now here's a question posed by a French philosopher; unfortunately, I cannot remember his name.
A man slept. And while he slept, he dreamt. In his dream, he went to Paradise. While in Paradise, he picked a flower. When he awoke, the flower was on his pillow.
Note: If you want, substitute Paradise for Heaven, Valhalla, the Elysian Fields, and so on. He chose Paradise so that every religion was covered. ;)
:ninja:
I am intrigued.
What was the question?
OK.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@16 September 2003 - 17:07
Now here's a question posed by a French philosopher; unfortunately, I cannot remember his name.
A man slept. And while he slept, he dreamt. In his dream, he went to Paradise. While in Paradise, he picked a flower. When he awoke, the flower was on his pillow.
Note: If you want, substitute Paradise for Heaven, Valhalla, the Elysian Fields, and so on. He chose Paradise so that every religion was covered. ;)
:ninja:
I follow the set-up, but what is the question?
Is this some sort of Zen thing?
Sleepwalker, obviously. I do it myself. Flowers are everywhere. I won't tell you what I woke up with the night I dreamt of Hell.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@17 September 2003 - 01:07
Now here's a question posed by a French philosopher; unfortunately, I cannot remember his name.
A man slept. And while he slept, he dreamt. In his dream, he went to Paradise. While in Paradise, he picked a flower. When he awoke, the flower was on his pillow.
Note: If you want, substitute Paradise for Heaven, Valhalla, the Elysian Fields, and so on. He chose Paradise so that every religion was covered. ;)
:ninja:
Since he was asleep, he probably should have awoken with the flower clutched in his hand. Maybe a friend placed the flower next to him. He could smell the aroma and his mind incorporated it into the dream.
Don't most questions come with a "?", somewhere?
Okay, I goofed. I forgot the question. ;) It's being paraphrased, though, since I don't remember it exactly.
How would you live, knowing that Paradise does exist, and that it is possible to attain?
Of course, you don't know what'll let you in, or keep you out...
It's not really a Zen thing - someone I know called this one "a mindfuck." ;)
However, there is a Zen one that was before this one in the conversation - Enlightenment is looking at the sun and realising that it is round.
:ninja:
Wasn't it Pascalle who deliniated four scenarios for faith?
1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God then you have lost nothing.
2. If you don't believe in God but there is a God you have lost much.
3. If you believe in God and there is a God then you will gain.
4. If you believe in God but there is no God then you have lost nothing.
According to that, the smart money is on belief.
So if you look at the Sun and realize that you've gone blind, then you've somehow missed the point?
Only if you buy into #4, Chalice.Quote:
Originally posted by chalice@16 September 2003 - 18:07
Wasn't it Pascalle who deliniated four scenarios for faith?
1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God then you have lost nothing.
2. If you don't believe in God but there is a God you have lost much.
3. If you believe in God and there is a God then you will gain.
4. If you believe in God but there is no God then you have lost nothing.
According to that, the smart money is on belief.
Missing out on a lifetime of hot, monkey sex should count as something...
Only if you buy into #4, Chalice.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+17 September 2003 - 01:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 September 2003 - 01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@16 September 2003 - 18:07
Wasn't it Pascalle who deliniated four scenarios for faith?
1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God then you have lost nothing.
2. If you don't believe in God but there is a God you have lost much.
3. If you believe in God and there is a God then you will gain.
4. If you believe in God but there is no God then you have lost nothing.
According to that, the smart money is on belief.
Missing out on a lifetime of hot, monkey sex should count as something... [/b][/quote]
lol, Clocker, I've never backed a winner in my life.
*edit* And you're right, ofcourse. A lifetime of hot monkey sex is better than an eternity remembering it.
http://www.beast-sex.net/pics/ud-chimp007b.jpgQuote:
Originally posted by chalice@16 September 2003 - 18:14
lol, Clocker, I've never backed a winner in my life.
*edit* And you're right, ofcourse. A lifetime of hot monkey sex is better than an eternity remembering it.
Hop on the bandwagon, Chalice!
It may not be too late.
Which God, Pascalle? There are thousands of religions to chose from and many require specific acts and beliefs which are contrary to anothers'.Quote:
Originally posted by chalice@17 September 2003 - 02:07
Wasn't it Pascalle who deliniated four scenarios for faith?
1. If you don't believe in God and there is no God then you have lost nothing.
2. If you don't believe in God but there is a God you have lost much.
3. If you believe in God and there is a God then you will gain.
4. If you believe in God but there is no God then you have lost nothing.
According to that, the smart money is on belief.
And are you asking me to actually believe in God or just follow the teachings of the "right" religion.
My mind does not have the ability to have "faith". I think "faith", like nationalism, like loyalty, is one of those things which are placed in the hardwiring of little children and becomes permanent when the mold has set. Nobody gave me this seed of "faith". I will always have doubts.
So Pascalle is really asking people to pretend they believe, which is a farce. To me religion is not percentages. You either have full faith or you don't. Any God who requires belief can spot a phony.
I just use my own sense of right and wrong to guide me and assume that if there is a God, he will appreciate my efforts and reward me.
No loving God would banish me to hell for eternity for a life that is just a nanosecond. If he isn't loving, then fuck him, you're doomed no matter what you do.
Edit: Here I am trying to save our immortal souls and Clocker is off f8cking monkeys.
Well, I asked that too. ;) Then I was told that it'd work for the moon, if I was so inclined.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@17 September 2003 - 02:09
So if you look at the Sun and realize that you've gone blind, then you've somehow missed the point?
However, you can look at the sun for a short period of time. I've done it, and I'm not blind. :)
:ninja:
I agree with you totally, Hobbes.
My mind cannot or will not accept anything beyond my own sphere.
Pascalle was obviously referring to the Christian set of beliefs but it is, in the main, applicable to all organised religions. To play the percentage, for a lot of people, is acceptable because it fills the void.
Religion, like politics, is learned. Sometimes it is disregarded for less defined "truths" and the whole scenario starts up all over again.
It is a wise man who knows he knows nothing.
MN,
I'm running right out to the library and getting Zen for Dummies...
I'd like to see if it's possible to wake up with Renee Zellweger next to me.
And just to qualify, I subscribe to neither nationalism nor loyalism.
I am not a catholic (big or small "c") nor a protestant.
Hardwiring can be re-wired.