100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Justification...
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Wed 10/05/11 04:29 AM
|
|
justification is in the minds of each of us individually. for instance, i may see the big bang theory as justified as a logical explanation for the beginning of the universe based on the credibility i place on those who've researched the theory. another might say that my justification is in error based on his reading of the bible. justification has nothing to do with the public unless those who decide justice has the authority. but even in that instance justification is an individual thing. many supreme court decisions are split 5/4. five justices found the oral arguments justified, four found them unjustified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
I believe my chair will be able to continue to withstand my weight. This belief is based on faith, I do not come in each morning and test the chair to make sure it can continue to bear my weight. I know that it is possible for it to fail, and yet I continue to trust that it will. I have absolutely no data to back up my belief, and just becuase it has stood up previously does not mean it will continue to withstand it, which makes this belief a faith based belief. Even if I never considered this, the act of sitting confirms my belief. I would never sit on something I did not believe would hold my weight . .. bad back and all its contra to my survival. Why do I believe this, why do I place my trust in this, why is it faith? Because it is practical to do so and that is why most of the things we believe are held to be true and many times on nothing than faith. Each morning my faith in my chair is reinforced as I sit down and do not fall to the ground under a chair that has failed to carry my weight. Is it reasonable, yes, is it rational, yes, is it faith, yes. Faith does not have to be irrational, it can be reasonable. If someone was to tell me that this model of chair has been known to fail after a certain time, or under certain weight conditions which I exceed, and has documentation to show me this, and then this data removes my faith in the chair that would be rational as well. THAT is where I feel the distinction with religion comes in, that when tested against reality and shown to lack substance, or to even be against the laws of physics, or for rules to be contradictory ect, the religious step over the rational/reasonable threshold into an area of unreasonable faith, irrational faith. So like I said, I feel like myself and creative are just breaking down these concepts into smaller pieces, and I know we both feel that we gain a clearer picture because of this reduction, becuase of this granular approach. This is not about being right or wrong, its about seeing more clearly, being able to make sense of the components of a moving system. A black and white static approach can never capture the details of a moving system with so many parts. It makes me think of the project I am helping test right now, we are working on cardiology software . . . a single picture does no good neither does a thousand still pictures, you need to see the heart beating and interacting with the rest of the chest cavity to get a clear picture of function. exactly. but you need not BELIEVE that your chair will hold your weight you can instead reach a logical CONCLUSION that it's safe to sit on the chair based on your previous experience sitting on the chair or your understanding of chair construction. nobody need BELIEVE in anything. nobody need have faith in anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
I believe that my cup is on the table. Where's the faith? you KNOW your cup is on the table because you EXPERIENCE seeing your cup on the table. but were you to tell me your cup is on the table i'd need faith in what you say to BELIEVE that what you say is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thank you, I know we disagree on many things, but I often wonder why people just completely disregard the make no 'law' part,,,,to support all types of restrictions on religious expression,,, show me one LAW that supports restrictions on religious expression. keep in mind, the constitution is not a law but a declaration by 'we the people' of how laws shall be enacted and which laws are forbidden to be enacted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what the 'why' was for. "They need more laws to protect the laws from being influenced by religion in general." such laws would be in violation of the Constitution. "Congress shall make NO law..." Our legislative branch may NOT make laws restricting religion from ANYTHING... Let me give you an example of an unconstitutional action that has been accepted by the citizens of the United States without out much ado... Prayer is not allowed in school. CONGRESS MAY MAKE NO LAW... How then can such a RESTRICTION have been allowed to stand. As this is a part of the CONSTITITUTION, how can any STATE within the Republic remove such a right to practice religion without restriction... for that right is a right as a US citizen and therefore carries the weight of the Constitution. For which some of us have IN THIS DAY also pledged our sacred honor. but that's not all of what it says. 'congress shall make no law RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION' and goes on to say 'or restricting the practice thereof.' no laws have been passed by congress restricting prayer in school nor has any law been passed restricting an individual's private practice of religion. the first amendment applies not only to congress but to all fedral, state and local governments. it is court precident with vast amounts of case history interpreting the establishment clause, not law, that restricts prayer in PUBLIC schools as these schools are government entities supported by tax dollars. no law says 'no prayer in PUBLIC school'. the constition says this in the first amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is what the 'why' was for. "They need more laws to protect the laws from being influenced by religion in general." such laws would be in violation of the Constitution. "Congress shall make NO law..." Our legislative branch may NOT make laws restricting religion from ANYTHING... Let me give you an example of an unconstitutional action that has been accepted by the citizens of the United States without out much ado... Prayer is not allowed in school. CONGRESS MAY MAKE NO LAW... How then can such a RESTRICTION have been allowed to stand. As this is a part of the CONSTITITUTION, how can any STATE within the Republic remove such a right to practice religion without restriction... for that right is a right as a US citizen and therefore carries the weight of the Constitution. For which some of us have IN THIS DAY also pledged our sacred honor. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why? NOt one mention that I could see about the inffluence of religion in the laws put foward. Only a statement that the FEDERAL Government (through Congress) can not tell you which religion to be a part of, nor can it regulate the practice of religion. It says not a thing about a law maker submitting laws based upon that persons free intrepretation of his/her personl walk with god. It simply says government has no business in religion. yes, meaning congress, interpreted by several court decisions to mean all governments, cannot pass laws respecting an establishment of religion. the first amendment, in fact all of the constitution, applies to all federal, state and local governments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok for example, the "in God we trust" on the dollar. Someone some where at some time decided to use that as an expression of his or her beliefs. If someone else decides to remove it then fine, but if there is a law stating that it can't be shown then that is a law restricting that persons expression of religion. I mean someone created the art for which the money was designed from. They should be allowed to express their religious views if they chose to. That is just one example. in the elk grove school district v newdow case the supreme court ruled that the word "god" on our money has been "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content" and therefore is not in violation of the establishment clause. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i'll take that as no response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
On belief...
|
|
Long story short JR equates belief with faith, and knowledge with true belief. not so. i equate knowledge with what we experience. we can know only what we experience ourselves. true belief only exists in the believer's mind and does not 'EQUAL' faith. belief REQUIRES faith. JR would be nice if you met us half way and understood that we just break it down into smaller bits and thus use words a little differently.
sure we use words differently. many say they BELIEVE that god exists based on what they've read in scripture or have been taught. this is their TRUTH. i've read those same scriptures and was taught to BELIEVE the same dogma yet it is not my truth. with hindsight i can now say that it never was my belief. it was my missplaced faith in what i read and was taught to be true. had i been told the facts, instead of this BELIEVED TRUTH, i would have been told that everything written or taught about god has been done so by ordinary men no different than me and that there is much evidence to suggest alternative explanations for such things as the beginnings of the universe and the ascension of humans and other species. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
NFL compares obama to hitler
|
|
nor does he speak for espn on monday nights anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said before the founders of this country did not know how to keep religion out of the government well at all. Although they had the idea and knew it was not a good mixture. Considering they were racial discriminatory (white racists)and gender biased, which was normal for that time, in this country, they had some good ideas. The reason separation came into the wordage used is because in order to "not respect" and not make laws that restrict there has to be separation and removing. The removing part is happening now since they failed on that in earlier times. how is removing not restricting,,? the laws cannot respect OR restrict,, in other words, people have the right to their own individual beliefs, without being mandated to believe anything OR being restricted from believing and without being MANDATED to express those beliefs or RESTRICTED from expressing those beliefs the clause refers to LAWS , not peoples individual beliefs or expressions of removing laws that violate the establishment clause does not restrict you from practicing your religion. there are two different clauses in effect. your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with the topic of the thread which is the separation of church and state. Removing laws do violate expression. It may not be my individual expression but it is someones. removing laws that recognize a religion by government violate nothing in the constitution according to numerous court rulings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Tue 10/04/11 05:50 AM
|
|
having visited fifty two countries on six continents i haven't found that the world hates the american regiem. some of you folks need to turn of those tvs and computers and get out and experience the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is how it is in the constitution==== ------------------------------------------------------ Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble ---------------------------------------------- notice the phase """or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""" thus all the laws stopping public persons from practicing their religious beliefs are technically illegal i'm not familiar with the term, 'public person' nor have i seen a law stopping a 'public person' from practicing their religious beliefs. the establishment clause does, however, restrict the practice of religion at government sponsored 'public events'. just as all speech is not free, laws prevent one from false fire alarms in theaters, etc., all practice of religion is not unrestricted. it is restricted in public schools for instance unless done privately. no required morning prayer for instance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Tue 10/04/11 05:33 AM
|
|
no where in the constitution doe it say separation of church and state not literally. but the establishment clause in the first amendment has been ruled by countless courts in such that 'separation of church and state' has become court precident. that's like saying that nowhere does the constitution give a woman the right to choose abortion. litterally it doesn't but roe v wade was decided on the basis of the fifth and fourteenth amendments which guarantees women equal due process of law as regards their bodies just as men. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where is your proof of your statement
What is it you are asking me to prove? proof of the statute of separation of church and state i dont think there is one yes there is. the establishment clause in the first amendment has been ruled by numerous court decisions to keep religion and government separate and by court precident is commonly referred to as 'separation of church and state.' and the second amendment is as close as it gets but everyone forgets the prohibition of law against practicing ones religion
i've not a clue how you see that the second amendment has anything whatsoever to do with religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said before the founders of this country did not know how to keep religion out of the government well at all. Although they had the idea and knew it was not a good mixture. Considering they were racial discriminatory (white racists)and gender biased, which was normal for that time, in this country, they had some good ideas. The reason separation came into the wordage used is because in order to "not respect" and not make laws that restrict there has to be separation and removing. The removing part is happening now since they failed on that in earlier times. how is removing not restricting,,? the laws cannot respect OR restrict,, in other words, people have the right to their own individual beliefs, without being mandated to believe anything OR being restricted from believing and without being MANDATED to express those beliefs or RESTRICTED from expressing those beliefs the clause refers to LAWS , not peoples individual beliefs or expressions of removing laws that violate the establishment clause does not restrict you from practicing your religion. there are two different clauses in effect. your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with the topic of the thread which is the separation of church and state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Main Entry: law Pronunciation: primarystresslodot Function: noun 1 a : a rule of conduct or action laid down and enforced by the supreme governing authority (as the legislature) of a community or established by custom b : the whole collection of such rules <the law of the land> c : the control brought about by enforcing rules <forces of law and order> d : trial in a court to decide what is just and right according to the laws <go to law> e : an agent or agency for enforcing laws 2 capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures -- compare HAGIOGRAPHA, PROPHETS 3 : a basic rule or principle <the laws of poetry> 4 a : the profession of a lawyer b : the branch of knowledge that deals with laws and their interpretation and application <study law> 5 : a rule or principle stating something that always works in the same way under the same conditions <the law of gravity> http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=law ------------------------------------------------------------- so according to 1 a congress has been opening sessions with a prayer since its inception thus it is customary to open meetings with prayer making it permisable per merriam-webster dictionary and the custom of congress even tho i disagree -- but someone wanted a law permitting religion in govt buildings this is done by proclation and is not a law permitting religion in government buildings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seperation of church and state is a paraphrase of whats in the constitution and not ACTUALLY in the constitution it would more accurately be called seperation of RELIGION and state(although congress is federal and not state) no the congress is not state but numerous court rulings have decided that the separation clause applies to any government entity. to date, I know of no 'laws' on the books requiring or denying anyone their beliefs or non beliefs...
ah, but many have tried. a recent case heard in a federal disctict court in pennsylvania struck down a local school board that had required that 'intelligent design' be taught as a science subject alongside evolution. the court's decision was based on intelligent design being a concept in the bible which is paramount to the christian religion. in the court's opinion the term 'intelligent design' was simply 'creation' in disquise. although there are plenty of policies which restrict EXPRESSION of such beliefs,,, individual religious or non religious beliefs are fairly well protected in this country,, in my opinion,,, besides the restrictions on speech and expression which exist to keep beliefs 'in the closet'
but belief is not in the closet. you are free to espouse your beliefs anywhere that does not require government sponsorship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
where is now?
|
|
Just because our response to stimuli is slow does not mean we live in the past. 
sure it does. even with the best response time when you see brake lights on the car in front of you and respond by hitting your brakes you responded to something that happened milliseconds ago in the past. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
