 Author
|
Topic: Should children get the freedom of religion? (Read 17596 times)
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
You would have the slight problem that many, if not most, of the philosophies predate Moses and Jesus. Some of them also predate monotheism.
cite the sources so we can compare the concepts and variables to see if they match up and if they are in harmony with liberty and freedom - |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
The statement "Faith is a gift from God" is kōan, not a premise.
Hardly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
Science has its own share of stories, theories pushed by fear of the 'unknown', scientific zealots and false conclusions, I've found.
I completely agree with this statement. To some, science is their religion and scientists their priests. Because most are incapable of understanding higher lever physics or mathematics, they blindly believe those that claim to, with unreflected assumption that it is 'true' - forgetting that the edges of any scientific field are rife with conflicting authority. Such fanaticism was evident in the 'global warming' crisis where liberals heard some scientists proposing a theory that resonated with their on selection-bias: business = bad, we're destroying the world. As for Christianity being the philosophy of peace or harmony, and conducive with liberty. . . ONLY if you remove the old testament in its entirety and preserve the teachings of Christ. I would even say that you'd have to ditch Romans. If what is left is what you describe as 'Christianity', then absolutely, it's conducive with liberty. However, most Christian sects include the entire book as authority, none over-ruling any other portion. They use it to justify infringing on the individual liberty and autonomy of homosexuals. To ban consensual transactions regarding sex - and so proscribe the freedom of contract. To incorporate religious icons into our secular court rooms. I recognize, as you pointed out, that there are different sects of Christianity, the former has a place in a free society. The latter, does not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Science has its own share of stories, theories pushed by fear of the 'unknown', scientific zealots and false conclusions, I've found.
I completely agree with this statement. To some, science is their religion and scientists their priests. Because most are incapable of understanding higher lever physics or mathematics, they blindly believe those that claim to, with unreflected assumption that it is 'true' - forgetting that the edges of any scientific field are rife with conflicting authority. Such fanaticism was evident in the 'global warming' crisis where liberals heard some scientists proposing a theory that resonated with their on selection-bias: business = bad, we're destroying the world. As for Christianity being the philosophy of peace or harmony, and conducive with liberty. . . ONLY if you remove the old testament in its entirety and preserve the teachings of Christ. I would even say that you'd have to ditch Romans. If what is left is what you describe as 'Christianity', then absolutely, it's conducive with liberty. However, most Christian sects include the entire book as authority, none over-ruling any other portion. They use it to justify infringing on the individual liberty and autonomy of homosexuals. To ban consensual transactions regarding sex - and so proscribe the freedom of contract. To incorporate religious icons into our secular court rooms. I recognize, as you pointed out, that there are different sects of Christianity, the former has a place in a free society. The latter, does not. I'll agree that the old testament isn't a good guide to liberty, peace and freedom - but - the whole reason Jesus Christ came down to Earth was to clarify the 10 Commandments a little better (the point of them seemed to have gone askew...), and to help explain things a bit more, it seems (if you read it as a religious doctrine or just an historical account of some political/social event, or even if you just read it as a piece of fiction with some very real concepts, ideas and an entire philosophy within its pages.) Question for you: if a group of individuals wanted to have a little (or big) community where, IN THEIR COMMUNITY, homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, drugs weren't allowed, and having sex in exchange for money wasn't allowed, and all agreed to those ideals - would that be 'allowed' in a freedom and liberty oriented self-governing structure or form of governance/government ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
I think most religious families are just following a philosophy - one they have been taught to be one of peace . . .
I've had one on one converations with young adults who were raised in religious homes - they talk a lot about the concepts, more than 'the stories' . . .
There's also the sense of community/family the church brings. . .
Much as a theocracy would be anti-liberty - so would a government built upon the philosophy of atheism be anti-liberty (heck, I even suspect that IS what has happened... and not the kind of atheism that actually has a respect for freedom, liberty and individual rights, either - there's different 'sects' of atheism just as there's different sects of Christianity...)
I appreciate that much of what constitutes religion in general and Christianity specifically constitutes philosophy. However, the line between a religion and philosophy are 'the stories,' as it were. Without them, Christianity and Buddhism are nearly identical in teaching, if not in practice. I would disagree with the idea that we are in, or are moving towards, an atheist state. Atheist is not synonymous with secular, and we may well be moving towards a secular state (one can hope). Faith is a gift from God. If a parent has faith, then it is reasonable that they introduce their children to God. After that, it is in God's hands. I don't see any liberty problems here.
This quote is a great illustration of what we're talking about. It's a blind statement of belief masquerading as fact that precludes intelligent conversation. The premise: "Faith is a gift from God" belies any other opinion that might disagree, so if one is unwilling to even contemplate the possibility that the premise of the position is a incorrect, then what we have is dogma and not reasoned argument. One children will carry attached to their politics to the prejudice of everyone else. The statement "Faith is a gift from God" is kōan, not a premise. That hurt me a little on the inside. I'll agree that the old testament isn't a good guide to liberty, peace and freedom - but - the whole reason Jesus Christ came down to Earth was to clarify the 10 Commandments a little better (the point of them seemed to have gone askew...)
Does the Bible say that somewhere? I mean, I remember being young and having people tell me repeatedly "the whole reason" why Jesus was allegedly put on the Earth. It does not involve clarifying the interpretation of a few rules. Question for you: if a group of individuals wanted to have a little (or big) community where, IN THEIR COMMUNITY, homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, drugs weren't allowed, and having sex in exchange for money wasn't allowed, and all agreed to those ideals - would that be 'allowed' in a freedom and liberty oriented self-governing structure or form of governance/government ?
That wouldn't be a very free or liberty-oriented community. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 07:56:36 pm by B.D. Ross »
|
Logged
|
freestatelaw.com - Get plugged in with what you need to know about New Hampshire law and legislative efforts.
|
|
|
|
Jeff LaGrange
|
Wonder if the sex wasn't that good, would we still have to exchange money for it? Does it fall under caveat emptor.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"No nation however powerful, any more than an individual, can be unjust with impunity. Sooner or later, public opinion, an instrument merely moral in the beginning, will find occasion physically to inflict its sentences on the unjust... The lesson is useful to the weak as well as the strong." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1804.
"It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour." - Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
Question for you: if a group of individuals wanted to have a little (or big) community where, IN THEIR COMMUNITY, homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, drugs weren't allowed, and having sex in exchange for money wasn't allowed, and all agreed to those ideals - would that be 'allowed' in a freedom and liberty oriented self-governing structure or form of governance/government ?
Depends on how they enforce such an agreement. Freedom of contract should include contracting away your own freedoms, but not the freedoms of third parties. Are children in your contractual theocracy compelled to become signators? At birth? At 18? Are vistors prohibited? If not, how do you control their behavior? What if someone in this community comes out as homosexual or a polytheist - banishment? Imprisonment? Breach of contract claims? Any society or micro-society that attempts to force conformity on the individual is not a free society. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
Polemic
|
Wonder if the sex wasn't that good, would we still have to exchange money for it? Does it fall under caveat emptor.
Well clearly, voluntary watchdog agencies are the way to go. Yelp: "The services of Smith were. . ." |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Optimists proclaim that we live in the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear that this is true."
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
I'll agree that the old testament isn't a good guide to liberty, peace and freedom - but - the whole reason Jesus Christ came down to Earth was to clarify the 10 Commandments a little better (the point of them seemed to have gone askew...)
Does the Bible say that somewhere? I mean, I remember being young and having people tell me repeatedly "the whole reason" why Jesus was allegedly put on the Earth. It does not involve clarifying the interpretation of a few rules. 1,500 years with the 10 Commandments didn't seem to work - chaos ensued. Man's interpretations and impositions upon each other, even Moses himself going completely nuts from being contacted by "God" and making up 'other laws' repugnant to the 10C's, I mean, what would you do to get a simple set of concepts through to a batch of suffering and insufferable human beings besides talking to them in their heads or hearts, or carving into stone a few words of advice? You'd be diplomatic about it, wouldn't ya? Come to them on their terms, in a form they would listen to, speak their language, no? Demonstrate it, hands on experience so to speak - knowing full well there was a good chance you'd be tortured to death, but taking the peaceful and loving chance anyway - cuz you had more faith in liberty, freedom, peace and THEM than they had in you. Think about it... if the 10Cs had been better understood as a personal relationship with them as laws (not something you 'forced' your fellow man to do or not do, nor expected even yourself to be able to follow flawlessly), and if people just did their best to demonstrate their positive capacity to themselves and each other, because they reflect and hold within them the very actions that are infringements on individual rights to life, liberty and property (re: lying, cheating, stealing, breaking promises, covet/conspiring)- the outcome of people generally doing their best to follow those laws would have been a general peaceful coexistence - as well as far more liberty, freedom and peace than we have now, here or internationally- and there'd have been no reason for Christ to have to be born upon this Earth - but Moses went off the deep end, theocracies based on his deep end suggestions arose, anti-theocracies arose as well, and the whole philosophy, which was pretty short and concise, got mangled by mankind's interpretations - Why do you think Christ came? What interpretation were you taught? For the record: I wasn't taught this particular "interpretation" growing up, either -
Question for you: if a group of individuals wanted to have a little (or big) community where, IN THEIR COMMUNITY, homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, drugs weren't allowed, and having sex in exchange for money wasn't allowed, and all agreed to those ideals - would that be 'allowed' in a freedom and liberty oriented self-governing structure or form of governance/government ?
That wouldn't be a very free or liberty-oriented community. Shall we begin with outlawing each and every Amish community? And I guess that means that certain sects of Christianity or Catholicism won't be allowed to live under their God's laws, too... Ah, well... so much for freedom of religion. There it goes... up in the sky... there it goes... beyond the clouds... (Williams Brothers, Can't Cry Hard Enough) Wanna just admit it, here and now... what many atheists and agnostics truly want isn't freedom of religion... it's freedom from religion - ban and outlaw religion! Right? I bet you could imprison those Amish without much of a fight, on their part. They are such tryants! I heard they are so forgiving, compliant and passive, heck, Ross, I bet if I constructed a fenced in area in my backyard and you just told them to just " stay put, cuz you are under arrest for having unfree and anti-liberty "laws", you fairy-tale believing whackos!", we could keep them incarcerated for decades without much cost, cuz they'd probably build a prison farm right on my land and it would end up being a pretty sustainable setup. I'll buy some tents! (yeah... it was bait. Didn't figure you'd bite, meant it for the other person I was talking with. Thanks for playing, though! Always a pleasure. Always.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Question for you: if a group of individuals wanted to have a little (or big) community where, IN THEIR COMMUNITY, homosexual marriage wasn't allowed, drugs weren't allowed, and having sex in exchange for money wasn't allowed, and all agreed to those ideals - would that be 'allowed' in a freedom and liberty oriented self-governing structure or form of governance/government ?
Depends on how they enforce such an agreement. Freedom of contract should include contracting away your own freedoms, but not the freedoms of third parties. Are children in your contractual theocracy compelled to become signators? At birth? At 18? Are vistors prohibited? If not, how do you control their behavior? What if someone in this community comes out as homosexual or a polytheist - banishment? Imprisonment? Breach of contract claims? Any society or micro-society that attempts to force conformity on the individual is not a free society. It's that simple. Far as I know, the Amish let the teenagers go out and see the world, and then make up their own minds (and hearts) about the agreement - and, far as I know, they allow people to 'visit' - the inhabitants of the community are the only ones expected to live by 'the rules' of that particular community - they seem to handle rule-breakers pretty well; mainly via forgiveness, and I'd suppose a bit of praying for their souls. I'd well imagine the same things happen in religious families outside of Amish philosophy - where one of the children grows up to be an atheist - I bet visiting is still 'allowed', and I bet a lot of praying for the soul of the child goes on - I imagine communities built upon the various religions out there would be relatively similar in structure in regards to 'how to handle the heathens' - |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Wonder if the sex wasn't that good, would we still have to exchange money for it? Does it fall under caveat emptor.
I would imagine you might want to put that stipulation in writing, for 'good sex', as most participants in that form of transaction only cite the trade as being for 'sex' of some particular kind, mainly agreeing to it verbally and not in writing, and rarely stipulate it be 'good'; leaving out the word 'good' leaves you open to 'bad sex' - Also, 'good' being sorta a very individual and personal kinda thing... you probably should type out a few pages of explanation as to what constitutes 'good sex' to and for you (I'd laminate it, too.) That way, there's no wiggle room for a lacking transaction. At least that's what I would do, if I was a guy, and partaking of such services. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
You would have the slight problem that many, if not most, of the philosophies predate Moses and Jesus. Some of them also predate monotheism.
cite the sources so we can compare the concepts and variables to see if they match up and if they are in harmony with liberty and freedom - The Golden Rule. Its been sourced to so many throughout history that its origin in abscure. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
By the way, there isn't a 'global warming' crisis... any more than there is a federal budget crisis. A crisis doesn't take several decades to sneak up on you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
You would have the slight problem that many, if not most, of the philosophies predate Moses and Jesus. Some of them also predate monotheism.
cite the sources so we can compare the concepts and variables to see if they match up and if they are in harmony with liberty and freedom - The Golden Rule. Its been sourced to so many throughout history that its origin in abscure. The Golden Rule doesn't work, if liberty and freedom are your goal - we've talked about that before. In fact, right here in good ol' New Hampshire, in the year 2010, we're actually spending time dealing with the outcomes at public hearings and town hall meetings of 'The Golden Rule' in action... people 'doing' unto each other what they wouldn't mind being done unto themselves... it's amazing how many people would want to be 'forced' to do (or not do) a certain thing, based on the advice of 'experts', or due to a concerns or worries, or in an effort towards the general aims of good will, be it in terms of education or the environment or even private property ... ... which we're also dealing with on the federal level with the healthcare debate... there's a perfect case of 'doing unto others' (re: forcing people to help out the less fortunate, with no regard for the alternative and peaceful ways people have come up with to address the issues that do not infringe upon individual rights) that 'they would have done unto them' - ask any Democrat or Progressive (and even a few Republicans) if they wouldn't mind 'paying more taxes' to government so it can 'take care' of those in need, and ask any Democrat or Progressive (and even a few Republicans) if they see no issue with it being done across the board, to every 'member' of 'society', through force of law and government, no matter if the individual disagrees with the format by which the less fortunate will be helped out because it conflicts with their own philosophy about how to help those in need. The Golden Rule doesn't stipulate what you may not do (re: infringe upon an individual's rights), even if it's something you wouldn't mind being done unto you, which is a gigantic flaw. It leads to a lot of things being done for "the good of all" or even "the good of the individual" based upon the views and conclusions of someone who is NOT that individual being done unto ... it doesn't stipulate that you shouldn't force people to go by your own conclusions and interpretations. It basically says "if you think it's good, then do it, by force if you have to, to your fellow man." That's why we end up with things like seatbelt laws, private businesses getting told they can't allow smoking in their establishments, and 'jobs' being 'created' by government, state and federal (that everyone who disagrees that job creation is a role a government, and will only put a state or nation into further debt, is none-the-less forced to pay for via taxation.) The first instance of a theory/philosophy being presented towards self-governing is in the bible (old testament, 10 Commandments only) - and was attributed to some guy/entity/source named "God" - it was then cited and clarified further in a 'new' bible, and the entire philosophy was then cited to some guy named Jesus Christ... I'm not religious, but those are the facts, in regards to the source/person the philosophy is cited to - and every philosophy towards liberty and freedom has held the same 'do not do THIS unto each other' concepts/parts that are found in the 10C's - the non-religious might not prefer a religous source for the philosophy, but it was first documented there - we can't change that fact. It is what it is. Rewriting it in atheist or agnostic terms and then citing it to a deist or a fellow athiest/agnostic, and mixing around and deleting parts considered to be 'religious' doesn't change the fact that the original was what has been deemed a 'religious theory' (but it's NOT just religious) - |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
By the way, there isn't a 'global warming' crisis... any more than there is a federal budget crisis. A crisis doesn't take several decades to sneak up on you.
I sure hope this random statement wasn't being directed at me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
