This of course will never fly because no matter how inclusive Christian ecumenicism is, it is still a Christians only club
Oh, you are worried about exclusivity now? How many Christians are allowed into the old atheist club? Zero. Its whether the arguement is strong or not that matters.
Actually Neutral, he is in error. Most orthodox Christian churches speak against the Ecumenical Council of Churches (ECC)... they don't want this type of structure representing the "Church". If anything, that ECC is a type of organization that is in tune with that New World Order that there has been so much controversy about. It is NOT exclusive to the Christian faith.
Shouldn't persons of alleged morals be expected to volunteer for a religious inquisition into their alleged morals before they can be elected to "rule over us"; or do some people believe we can get better governance that can solve poverty in our time, with a simple drug test?
As most any sociologist will tell you, morals are a product of the mind of man. Anyway, people such as those that you describe above, are in fact put before an inquisition prior to being elected to hold office. That inquisition process is called the election campaign. Those that are not deemed suitable by the majority of the people are not elected to hold that office. Thus complying with the rule or process initiated by the society. Of course that process of inquisition or electoral process is only applicable to such countries and cultures that have chosen to use such a process. Thus the reason I don't vote: I don't believe that any man or woman should "rule over us"; such a process of intentionally selecting someone to 'rule over' me would imply that I am not worthy or capable of ruling my own being thus denying my own sovereignty.
I think we are discussing two different things. In the first place, currently, there is no religious morals test for any public office under the United States. Even if morals are a form of Nurture from the mind of Man, we must acknowledge that there are morals of Religion and secular and temporal morals ordained and established for us by our Founding Fathers in a document that purports to be the supreme law of the land. Only one set of morals is observed by an oath of public office that includes the civic obligation and virtue of supporting our own federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Many people of alleged morals may not understand that our supreme law of the land is more supreme that ten religious Commandments due to our First Amendment. It is this "confusion" to which I am referring. I have no qualms about persons running for public office claiming they subscribe to the morals and legal ethics ordained and established for us by our Founding Fathers in a document that is the fundamental and supreme law of the land. But, shouldn't anyone claiming to subscribe to religious morals be required to be "vetted" by a religious inquisition into those religious morals? Or, why claim to have religious morals if they lack the faith to undergo such a religious inquisition into their religious moral rectitude. In my opinion, secular persons who are not of the same faith should not be burdened by having to take a person of alleged religious morals campaign "word" for it; but should have some sort of warranty by the authorities of the religion involved; because, secular persons are not qualified, in my opinion, to accurately asses religious morals if they are not of the same religion. As for delegating some of our individual sovereignty for the benefit of a more perfect Union of States bound together for their common defense and mutual welfare, are we worse off or better off by having States and Statism than we were before States and Statism became a concept. How many third world AnCaps would be better off without a poverty of Statism that would require delegating some powers of individual sovereignty to a Government?
I do enjoy me some Leo and Satan. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgDZ9LhZ2_g"]‪Leo and Satan - Algebra Aversion‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]
At the highlighted text. What you are suggesting is a form of reverse discrimination. The ban on a 'religious test' was placed so that anyone could enter into public office without having to submit to a religious test and potentially be rejected for having failed such a test. So now, you are wanting to undo a couple hundred years of practice in this american voting system, by suggesting that some people be placed under a religious test prior to entering into office. You must be a 'religious' racist (considering religious people as a 'race of people' --- BTW that concept of 'race of people' based on culture is formulated in International law with which the US is a signatory)
This whole "new world order" thing is just conspiratiorial bunk. When I worked in the church, the only thing I ever "preached" was ecumenicism. Christians as Christians should all be able to get along. Factionalism not only weakens Christianity but casts doubt on it, for what is Christianity if there are 20,000 versions of it? Of course my purpose as a secularist in pushing ecumenicism is because I believe that we humans as humans should be able to get along whether Christian or not. Our humanity should override our Christianness, or our Hinduness, or whatever. In this sense, I actually conisder ecumenicism an extension of factionalism rather than a cure because it applies only to the Christian in-group. But I still used the idea in Christian settings because it at least communicates an idea of getting together, even though my greater purpose would be to get everyone together and not just Christians.
That's not what he's saying. He said nothing about submission to an inquisition to hold office. He was talking about submitting to an inquisition in order to be a confirmed member of a claimed religion. I was studying pipe organ in a Southern Baptist church in the early 90's and was a first-hand witness to a certain faction of Southern Baptist churches instituting the signaturre of a list of beliefs as a requirement of membership. That is, in those churches, if you did not sign then you could not be a member. This is the foundation of an inquisition. An actual inqusition would be the attemp assure that signers are not lying when they sign or attempting to determine if they have violated what they signed at some future point. Fortunately, leveler heads in the Southern Baptist convention squelched this mavement rather quickly. Which made it all the more surprising to me that when the new pastor at the methodist church I was working at years later told me that as an employee of the church I would eventually be required to sign a statement assuring that I would adhere to a list of "Christian principles." Of course having absolutely no intention of signing such a ridiclous document, I outlined my strategy. I wnted to see the list of the supposed Christian principles first and have a chance to review them in full. After review, I intended to ask questions (i.e. argue) about anything that I found unclear or dubious. I then intended to refuse to sign unless changes were made and I agreed to them. The interesting part is that no such document ever appeared. As far as I know this is not a normal practice of any Methodist church today, and rightly so. I do still wonder how far they got in drafting these "principles." Did they form a committee? Did they create and discuss a draft? Were there internal disagreements? Today I find the whole idea of "Christian principles" laughable. I doubt you could find any two Christians who would agree on them.
My question to you and to him then would be: Why are you even concerned about such an inquisition when you don't believe in the existence of God anyway and that/those Christian religions are based on a belief in God? What difference would it make to you? None? Any? What specifically would such an inquisition manifest?
Then why don't you practice what you preach? You have that fundamental doctrine (getting along with one another regardless of belief system), then try practicing that belief. As for the conspiracy theory that you spoke about.... read and learn thing outside of religion and science.... you find yourself surprised at what you learn.
This is an easy one since all an alleged atheist would need to do is simply bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land above any other law or religious Commandment.
Some people of religion seem to claim that forms of discrimination are a necessary part of Faith. All I am saying is, if they are going to claim they have purely religious morals that may be repugnant to our own supreme law of the land, shouldn't we have some sort of "understanding" that our own Supreme law of the land is more supreme than ten religious Commandments, as a form of bearing true witness to our own republic? Is Saint Pete a religious "racist"?
The only problem is that you are not advocating greater acceptance and tolerance of differening opinions, you are advocated that all other opinion about spiritualism, that are right for peope, are actually intolerance and need to be rejected. You claim the mantel of tolerance, but you advocate the opposite.
Maybe you should read the Bible. Because in the Bible, its pretty clear that we are supposed to follow the law of the land.
I would be happy to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land, if only persons alleged of morals would let me.
If you were shown where all ten of the Ten Commandments are contained within "our own Supreme law of the land", would you then change your opinion regarding the morals of this nation and the people holding office in this nation?
Yep, you are clearly bound in a basement being beaten into silence by monks Are false allegations considered moral? Did you drop your super victim cape?
Religious bigots don't get to impose their intolerance on those whose views differ from them, simply because their God supposedly said it was alright.
Is this a trick question? Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution. Our Ten Amendments are much more comprehensive than ten religious Commandments.
Some people claim to be Prohibited from engaging in Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States. We are spending exorbitant amounts of money on a War on Drugs that has no basis in our federal Constitution since the repeal of the only delegated power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States. Which false allegations are you referring to? Have you ever heard of that denial and disparagement to Intelligent Design called Reefer Madness?
"Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It helps to give consideration to all that is written in a document. Subsequent laws provided for by an act of Congress do in fact become the supreme Law of the Land. Even such laws as pertaining to a 'war on drugs'.
So, what is your point? We also have a Ninth and Tenth Amendment. You may want to refer to the Dred Scott decision regarding the natural right to acquire and posses controversial forms of private property under a republican form of Government.
The allegation that you are being precluded from expressing opinions, no matter how silly, by a bunch of religious people. Take a good look at what you are writing. Not only is it all opinion, backed by nothing mind you, there is no one telling you that you cannot have those opinions. What any of what you are expressing has to do with religion is well beyond my comprehension. It looks instead like the rambling of someone intent on finding fault at any expense in religion. An obsession with religion, rather than intellectual conclusion. Take the war on drugs. You don't need to be religious to figure out that illicit drugs are bad for people pretty much the entire length of process. There is simply nothing in the Constitution that states a particular methodology must be used or cannot be used to confront the problem of illicit drug use. There are things we can do on both the supply side and the demand side, and there are competing freedoms that have to be protected as well. There is a limit on any action taken but there is balance required. However, I will also state that, in my experience, those who argue that drug policy is unconstitutional often do so with no real basis for making such a claim (which is why no court agrees with them) and, to be honest, they are usually at least recreational drug users to boot. It isn't constitutionality, or even the elimination of harmful effects of illicit drugs they are interested it, its rationalization for self indulgence they are interested in. What that has to do with religion? Having people remind you that drug use is a bad thing is not a bad thing. If people insist on learning the hard way ... more power to em - they will pay the consequences of avoiding wisdom.
