Paintball Guns and Gear forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Supporter
Joined
·
3,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I don't know how other states deal with this issue, but in SC we have the blue laws, which state you can't buy certain things until 1:30 on sunday, and in some counties are not allowed to buy alcohol of any form.(my home county included) so as I sit here sober instead of mindlessly throwing out drunken texts and messages on facebook, I ask pbf the question, do you think this is fair? There is a clear statement about the separation of church and state in the constitution, along with the fact that Jefferson was a strong advocate of the separation, which I think holds bearing for us since he drafted the DOI.
The only possible law-based argument is that it is under state jurisdiction to an extent, but I want a debate/discussion on the fairness of it, not on a legal stance, although they can coincide of course. Is it fair to restrict others because of the beliefs of the majority?


/discuss.

ps. this forum seems a lot deader than when I used to post. what has happened?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
23,645 Posts
oh this is bull****. I have nothing more to say. I see no ways that the church has pressured the government into this and there's no way they'd push hard against it if they were lifted either.

amazingly enough, back about 50 years ago people have much stiffer morals and actually went to church and cared about religion.


Separation of church and state is another statement that is not actually in the Constitution either. Plus, the whole concept has been blow out of proportion anyhow. Anytime that a low or idea is passed that hints at all towards being a moral, or religous choice it's INSTANTLy pointed otu and chased down like a witch hunt.

You dont' see the government controlling where and hwo we attend church, or do anything religiously. I'm not sure what more you could ask for of this idea..seeing hwo that is the the entire concept was based on.
 

·
Certified Caffeine Addict
Joined
·
3,072 Posts
You dont' see the government controlling where and hwo we attend church, or do anything religiously.
Yet those of us who exercise our freedom to [not] go to church are restricted from performing certain actions on a day which holds religious significance to a majority.

Until several years ago, my county was a dry county in which liquor sales were completely restricted on Sunday. That managed to change once the state of Mississippi legalized gambling over saltwater, and my county's main source of tax revenue shifted to gaming taxes, a significant portion of which are connected to liquor sales. Unfortunately, the county in which I attend college is still heavily associated with southern baptists and Walmart is not even allowed to sell beer on sunday.

With that being said, I completely disagree with blue laws and it's a wonder that these relics of a bygone era continue to be seriously enforced. Around here, it's apparent that the only reason they continue to survive is because of local political action from [Baptist] church organizations, and the connections of the counties' often corrupt elected officials to these churches. Period. They fight to keep laws like this enforced.
 

·
Supporter
Joined
·
3,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
oh this is bull****. I have nothing more to say. I see no ways that the church has pressured the government into this and there's no way they'd push hard against it if they were lifted either.

amazingly enough, back about 50 years ago people have much stiffer morals and actually went to church and cared about religion.


Separation of church and state is another statement that is not actually in the Constitution either. Plus, the whole concept has been blow out of proportion anyhow. Anytime that a low or idea is passed that hints at all towards being a moral, or religous choice it's INSTANTLy pointed otu and chased down like a witch hunt.

You dont' see the government controlling where and hwo we attend church, or do anything religiously. I'm not sure what more you could ask for of this idea..seeing hwo that is the the entire concept was based on.
I'm unimpressed.
I'm not saying the church has necessarily pressured the government into this. And stiffer morals? Do tell me of these morals that were had 50 years ago that aren't had now. And furthermore are you saying that you have to have religion to have morals?
As for the constitution, read the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
You are quite right that we are not forced to go to an establishment, but why then should non-christians be oppressed of their daily rights during a period of another person's worship?

Lets pretend ______________ religion generally held "sacrament" if you will on friday nights from 7-12. And that this religion was followed by the majority of the country. Yet you were still a Christian. Would you not feel it was unfair to you?

edit: I also find it amusing that you start off by cursing before getting on your Christian high horse.:confused:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
23,645 Posts
Where do you see separation of church and state in what you showed me? All I'm seeing is that the government can't make laws to help out a religion; that's not seperation of church and state.

I'm not on a high horse, I'm just calling it how i see it and interpret it. I'm very touchy about this subjest because the way i feel about it is not how the leaders and law makers seme to fele about it anymore. I've even heard peopel suggest that hte constution is outdated and needs re-written.
 

·
Supporter
Joined
·
3,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
full first amendment just for reference:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

but by not respecting a certain religion, they are saying they will not show respect to a specific religion. Things such as the blue laws and prayer in school clearly show respect towards Christianity. and you failed to answer my question at the end of my last post.
 

·
Anne Coulter's #1 Fan
Joined
·
4,291 Posts
oh this is bull****. I have nothing more to say. I see no ways that the church has pressured the government into this and there's no way they'd push hard against it if they were lifted either.
lmao. Please tell me you're joking.

Man, if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck....
 

·
That's Hot
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Things such as the blue laws and prayer in school clearly show respect towards Christianity. and you failed to answer my question at the end of my last post.
No. Sure, the majority might be Christian, but the concept of prayer (defined as a way of communicating with Deity) is nearly universal to all religions. If an area was strongly Muslim, they could use that clause to do their prayers during certain times of the day. The way the laws are written are a blanket rule...just because Christians have used them as a basis for their arguments does not mean it's exclusive to just them. They simply haven't been applied to other cases.

And yes, religion is required for morality. From George Washington's farewell address:

"...Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened."


Keep in mind that George Washington was religious, but not overtly so. He, being our first president, as well as being a person who witnessed firsthand the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution as they wrote it, would probably know better what was meant in that document than any of us. For that reason, I defer to his judgment.
 

·
Its never lupus
Joined
·
9,169 Posts
oh this is bull****. I have nothing more to say. I see no ways that the church has pressured the government into this and there's no way they'd push hard against it if they were lifted either.

amazingly enough, back about 50 years ago people have much stiffer morals and actually went to church and cared about religion.


Separation of church and state is another statement that is not actually in the Constitution either. Plus, the whole concept has been blow out of proportion anyhow. Anytime that a low or idea is passed that hints at all towards being a moral, or religous choice it's INSTANTLy pointed otu and chased down like a witch hunt.

You dont' see the government controlling where and hwo we attend church, or do anything religiously. I'm not sure what more you could ask for of this idea..seeing hwo that is the the entire concept was based on.
I definitely agree. But I don't like the fact that things can't be sold before 1:30. Thats infringing on the free market. If a store wants to be open early, let them, or at least keep the legislation on a local level. It seems like something communities should decide, not a whole state.

Things that do infringe on the separation of church and state are issues like having the 10 commandments in a courthouse.

Separation is a great thing, it keeps them from ****ing eachother up.
 

·
Anne Coulter's #1 Fan
Joined
·
4,291 Posts
Where do Christians/Mormons get off by trying to think they're on such a high horse....

... someone should introduce them to some lions to deflate their egos....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
the seperation of church and state goes way beyond not being able to sell certain items at certain time or days. Think back to the days of the crusades and the witch trials. the ruling parties worked hand in hand to tell you what you should believe and how to practice those beliefs. What they wanted out of the first ammendment was for people to be free from fear of jail time or something like that becuase they weren't a mainstream religion. alot of the local laws are put into place by the community. if you don't like em, go through the proper channels to find out why they were put there in the first place. For where i live, the alcohol sales laws were put into place due to an major spike in alcohol related accidents during certain times.
 

·
That's Hot
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
I have studied ethics the last few years, beginning in 8th grade and all up to now (even during my mission), both in school and on my own so yes I am aware of the points of view expressed therein, even if I don't agree with them. I'm not saying that people with no religion can't have morals- I'm saying that morals precede from the presence of religion and the principle of ACCOUNTABILITY that derives from it. Unless people think they will be responsible for their actions along the line somewhere (whether out of fear, rewards, or some other motivation), there is no reason to consistently make "right" choices.

Somewhere along the line made the decision to distance themselves from religion, but they were still influenced by the standards of the people who believed in religion before them. Hence why people who do not practice religion still have morals- it's a trickle-down effect.

Where do Christians/Mormons get off by trying to think they're on such a high horse....

... someone should introduce them to some lions to deflate their egos....
LOL that's funny. I've studied plenty of history, and the Diocletian and Neronian persecutions of Christians were done for the same reasons. They justified themselves because they thought the Christians were "too good" to bow down to their thousands of Roman gods since they only had a desire to worship the Deity they believed in. The tolerance all of you want people to give to your lifestyle is a two-way street- you can't rag on religion or religious people if you yourself want to be treated with dignity and credibility in your views. You yourselves are guilty of the same intolerance you are accusing the religious side of. Keep that in mind the next time you present your views.

And Comrade, because you're obviously even more ignorant on these matters than your post appears, let me make clear to you that LDS people are Christians. We're not in a separate category, so if you're going to try to offend us, at least articulate yourself correctly.

I, or the quote that I posted, do NOT go against the first amendment, so how about all of you quit trying to use the Constitution as a safety blanket. Washington does not endorse the combining of religion and government through giving a church control of the government, and neither do I. The quote speaks for itself- if you missed that point and got offended, perhaps you should read it again and try to understand it, even if you don't agree with it.

I love how in today's society everyone thinks that the Constitution allows them to do whatever they want. Let me make this clear: behavior is not a right. It never has been, hence why we have laws against certain things- otherwise there would be no rule of law and people could do whatever they please. Then we can all just go back to Hobbes' state of nature and live in total anarchy since everyone does whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of what people think about it.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

All of these debates- whether they be blue laws, abortion, gay marriage, etc- come down to one thing when you peel away all that's been artificially built up around it: whether or not people believe in a Deity or not. Because if there IS a Deity (or Deities), then it/they have every reason to dictate to humanity what is right and what is wrong, since they see the bigger picture, and we should follow them if that's the case for the sake of being rational. If there is NO higher power(s), then it's all just nonsense and people should "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" since nothing we do matters after we die and rot.
 

·
Supporter
Joined
·
3,646 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I have studied ethics the last few years, beginning in 8th grade and all up to now (even during my mission), both in school and on my own so yes I am aware of the points of view expressed therein, even if I don't agree with them. I'm not saying that people with no religion can't have morals- I'm saying that morals precede from the presence of religion and the principle of ACCOUNTABILITY that derives from it. Unless people think they will be responsible for their actions along the line somewhere (whether out of fear, rewards, or some other motivation), there is no reason to consistently make "right" choices.

Somewhere along the line made the decision to distance themselves from religion, but they were still influenced by the standards of the people who believed in religion before them. Hence why people who do not practice religion still have morals- it's a trickle-down effect.



LOL that's funny. I've studied plenty of history, and the Diocletian and Neronian persecutions of Christians were done for the same reasons. They justified themselves because they thought the Christians were "too good" to bow down to their thousands of Roman gods since they only had a desire to worship the Deity they believed in. The tolerance all of you want people to give to your lifestyle is a two-way street- you can't rag on religion or religious people if you yourself want to be treated with dignity and credibility in your views. You yourselves are guilty of the same intolerance you are accusing the religious side of. Keep that in mind the next time you present your views.

And Comrade, because you're obviously even more ignorant on these matters than your post appears, let me make clear to you that LDS people are Christians. We're not in a separate category, so if you're going to try to offend us, at least articulate yourself correctly.

I, or the quote that I posted, do NOT go against the first amendment, so how about all of you quit trying to use the Constitution as a safety blanket. Washington does not endorse the combining of religion and government through giving a church control of the government, and neither do I. The quote speaks for itself- if you missed that point and got offended, perhaps you should read it again and try to understand it, even if you don't agree with it.

I love how in today's society everyone thinks that the Constitution allows them to do whatever they want. Let me make this clear: behavior is not a right. It never has been, hence why we have laws against certain things- otherwise there would be no rule of law and people could do whatever they please. Then we can all just go back to Hobbes' state of nature and live in total anarchy since everyone does whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of what people think about it.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

All of these debates- whether they be blue laws, abortion, gay marriage, etc- come down to one thing when you peel away all that's been artificially built up around it: whether or not people believe in a Deity or not. Because if there IS a Deity (or Deities), then it/they have every reason to dictate to humanity what is right and what is wrong, since they see the bigger picture, and we should follow them if that's the case for the sake of being rational. If there is NO higher power(s), then it's all just nonsense and people should "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" since nothing we do matters after we die and rot.
as for your first paragraph, you seem to be of the same mind that my grandmother was, who was also LDS. I disagree with the idea that consequence keeps us in check, whether it be a god or a prison. Pretty much anyone whose spent over 5 minutes on this forum could probably throw some magic together and scam someone out of a 600 dollar gun, and be 600 dollars richer. I myself could easily do it without getting caught. But would I? No, thats messed up. Empathy is just as powerful as our judicial system for many people, religious or not.

as for "someday people just decided to lose religion", its not exactly just a fad that started one day. Logic has always been around, some people just prefer not to use it.

I wouldn't say forcing religious customs on people is exactly behavior.

I don't really see your point for quoting Washington. I could quote Jefferson and then have the support of a founding father too?

And maybe I'm reading it wrong, but your last paragraph makes no sense to me. Religion can dictate your stance on those things, but people of the same religion, even denomination can be of opposing views on such things. Also, I know plenty of atheists who have completely different views than mine. Your opinion on those things has to do with your life and experience, not just how you believe we got here.
 

·
That's Hot
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
And where does empathy come from? The concept of what is good and decent between what is evil and crude? It has to have originated from somewhere...if it just shows up out of nowhere, you hit the wall of evolutionary psychology where you can't explain why humans are the only creatures throughout this entire planet's existence who have developed this sense of right and wrong and can make those moral choices.

Point is, everything has a beginning, including moral judgment.

And I'm not saying that not following religion was a fad...sometime, someone just decided not to care for religion, so they acted accordingly. Evidence of religious belief precedes the concept of logic as a method of reasoning by all accounts. Any introductory course on philosophy demonstrates that, even if they try to discount religion.

I already stated twice the reasons why I quoted George Washington, and if you couldn't follow those arguments then that's your loss.

And the last paragraph makes complete sense. Everyone I've talked to and stated that to has understood me perfectly fine, and even if they don't agree with it. Of course people aren't robots, following the head of a religious body just because they are all of the same faith. Look at Islam, Christianity, Catholics- they have different beliefs on the issues. But it always comes down to whether or not you believe in God's supreme authority in moral matters.

Example: in the whole Proposition 8 matter in California, plenty of members of the LDS church voted no for the change. Those are the people that, for their own reasons, have decided that when God says that homosexuality has no place in His plan for His children, He's wrong and doesn't know what He's talking about. That God is "behind the times". That's contradictory to the rest of the things he/she claims to believe if God really is God. They become a god unto themselves- they answer to themselves and to no one else.

It's black and white. It's either you do believe, or you don't. It's either that you're living in accordance with that belief, or you're not. If actions are really the standard by which we judge others, then the person who knows better yet doesn't act in line with that higher knowledge is worse off than the person who is ignorant of such standards.

And stop acting like a victim just because you can't get plastered as early on Sundays like the other six days of the week. You're not being forced to go to Church, sit and participate in religious ceremonies you don't agree with, or read the Bible. In all the time you spent attempting to form an argument- in which you presented no new evidence to bolster your position, only telling me that you didn't understand what I said- you could've come up with plenty of things to do on Sunday to keep yourself busy while you wait for the time when you can buy alcohol to arrive.

No misfortune is so bad that whining about it won’t make it worse

Anyway, I've said what I said. There's no more I can do here to explain myself clearly, so I'm done. Call me a coward, whatever, I have wiser ways to use my time and it's certainly not here on an internet forum to argue philosophy and religion. If you don't understand my points, best of luck to you and hopefully you'll at least comprehend where this side of the argument is coming from, even if you don't agree. I don't wish you ill will. Merry Christmas.
 

·
Anne Coulter's #1 Fan
Joined
·
4,291 Posts
Duo,

Your bolding and underlining is nice and all, but in the end, since we're all looking for a conclusion on this matter, I hope you realize that really, you're just as big a piece of **** as I am, and we'll never be anything more than that.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top