 Author
|
Topic: Should children get the freedom of religion? (Read 17606 times)
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
And by the way BOE, the Catholic Schools still teach the Ten Commandments. What the Pope is talking about isn't what your suggesting.
the Pope needs to add the 11th Commandment... no diddling little boys. There's just as many atheist and/or agnostic child molesters as there are Catholic or Christian ones - it's just all the more shocking when it happens within places of moral structure, by people professing to be of very moral foundations. While IS a shame that the leadership of churches did not address this issue decades ago, when it was brought to their attention as an issue, which they could have done, in a moral and logical manner, but instead selected to ignore it. But, that is not due to the Catholic or Christian faith or philosophy itself being 'flawed' or 'wrong'- but the lack of real faith in it whom are in leadership roles, and taking actions through it and by it, in order to peacefully resolve the issue. They failed because they didn't go about addressing the issue by the very tenets of their own religious philosophy. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
B.D. Ross
|
Ross, get use to it.
The absurdity? Oh, I am. Doesn't mean I won't call bullshit. BOE keeps proposing that a Commonwealth is very different than a State... and that State was created in America, it wasn't
Because of the provisions of the original Massachussets' Constitution... it didn't require NH Constitution Part First Article Three.
The power granted to the Massachussets' Legislature circumventing self-governance came into being, as Adams would put it, under the 'Because I Said So' paradigm. It promoted taxation for religious teachings under its Article Three.
And by the way BOE, the Catholic Schools still teach the Ten Commandments. What the Pope is talking about isn't what your suggesting.
Eh? There is effectively no difference between a general commonwealth and a general "state". Both are examples of States. Functionally, there is absolutely no difference by the name alone. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
They teach the Ten Commandments in NH. We even had morning prayer.
The Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch. The Executive Branch. Which part of self-governance requires any of these?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 02:49:20 pm by John Edward Mercier »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
And by the way BOE, the Catholic Schools still teach the Ten Commandments. What the Pope is talking about isn't what your suggesting.
the Pope needs to add the 11th Commandment... no diddling little boys. I get the jest. But we would never even joke as to adding to God's commandments. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
And by the way BOE, the Catholic Schools still teach the Ten Commandments. What the Pope is talking about isn't what your suggesting.
the Pope needs to add the 11th Commandment... no diddling little boys. I get the jest. But we would never even joke as to adding to God's commandments. Who is the 'we'. I think God has a sense of humor... He did make the Duck Billed Platypus didn't He? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Walt
|
And by the way BOE, the Catholic Schools still teach the Ten Commandments. What the Pope is talking about isn't what your suggesting.
the Pope needs to add the 11th Commandment... no diddling little boys. I get the jest. But we would never even joke as to adding to God's commandments. Who is the 'we'. I think God has a sense of humor... He did make the Duck Billed Platypus didn't He? I think that was His Son ... messing with left over parts, like kids do. And, of course, like any "good parent" ... His Father put it on the 'fridge for everyone to see. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
And it begins there even in non-religious doctrines that proclaim the way to liberty and freedom - respect of individual rights to life and property means that you will not harm another person in their life or property, by committing the acts of fraud, theft, breaking contracts, and/or killing. Those acts are an infringement on individual rights Distributism is a philosophy based on subsidiarity such that the productive means to wealth creation should not be highly concentrated in private or collective hands. Therefore the use of coercive means - if necessary - to achieve this end is just. No - it is not just. Business size is based on the firm's customers voluntarily buying from them or refraining from doing so. The business cannot force someone to buy from them. Telling a business it cannot grow beyond a certain size so someone else can do the same business is not just. I am just telling you what distributism is based on... Businesses are subsidized in a multitude of ways by the state. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Ross, get use to it.
The absurdity? Oh, I am. Doesn't mean I won't call bullshit. Did you just cuss?
Eh? There is effectively no difference between a general commonwealth and a general "state". Both are examples of States. Functionally, there is absolutely no difference by the name alone.
I call bullshit. And, if you'd select either the Fight Club thread or the thread on the outskirts of Ruckusville, the John Adams Constitution thread, we can move forward with this discussion/disagreeance. Pick one, whydontcha. Wasn't it I, after all, who taught you that the role of government, as it was constructed originally, was actually to protect the rights, which you DID NOT THINK WAS TRUE, and wasn't it I who introduced you to the preamble that stated it as such? I am going to find that little discussion we had over a year ago, on this forum, to remind you that before you go spouting off and attempting to say that I don't know what I'm talking about, calling it 'bullshit', you better always remember that there have been times where I have unequivocally proven YOU wrong and gotten the facts and truth through to your thick, stubborn, "I know it all", hard head. Freakin' lawyers. Or is it attorneys? No difference between those two terms, either, you claim - yeah... right. Bottom line is, Mr. Ross, you don't know; and neither did I, for most of my life, but I have taken the time over here to truly investigate all of it - if you want to go on a little journey of fact finding and clarifying and getting things 'proven' for your analytical and logic-based mind, then let us DO THAT. I've been waiting for YOU to say WHEN. And WHERE. So... CHOOSE. I can deliver it all soft and sweet, or in a text-based duel - your choice. I'm sure Mr. Mercier will team up with you for the brawl. And I'll take both of you on simultaneously and still win - because neither of you has studied the issues at hand like I have - you're both freakin' parrots for stuff you heard and read, or interpretations you are confident must be the case (due in part to John Adam's unprincipled presidency, I'm sure.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
They teach the Ten Commandments in NH. We even had morning prayer.
The Legislative Branch. The Judicial Branch. The Executive Branch. Which part of self-governance requires any of these?
At an accredited Catholic school? (great to hear if that's the case; I stipulated that it was in Massachusetts that the requests for accredidation for Catholic schools were bound to a set of rules that I wasn't sure applied to all other state/commonwealth accreditations.) Regarding all branches of government; the branches of government John Adams set up, towards self governing, were only put into place towards the protection of the rights (including the right to self govern) and for the maintainance and administration of securing such a philosophy; the oath sworn to the constitution prior to being a part of the political body was supposed to hold the elected to the outline of both the principles and the philosophy of self-governing (as well as freedom of religion)... but the residents of Massachusetts never clarified by what manner an oath-breaker would be removed from office, so the elected, most of whom did not understand a word of what John Adams wrote, let alone spoke, quickly began to try to impose a one-size-fits-all format upon something that was meant to peacefully allow for great diversity and a vast array of communities to choose from, in one's quest towards liberty, freedom and peace with their creator (or lack of one.) The law system itself was meant as an alternative - it was not 'the law of the land' - the constitution was the law of the land. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
And by the way BOE, the Catholic Schools still teach the Ten Commandments. What the Pope is talking about isn't what your suggesting.
the Pope needs to add the 11th Commandment... no diddling little boys. I get the jest. But we would never even joke as to adding to God's commandments. Why not? Moses sure did. :p So I'm arguing with a Cathoilc? How beautifully ironic!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dreepa
|
And by the way BOE, the Catholic Schools still teach the Ten Commandments. What the Pope is talking about isn't what your suggesting.
the Pope needs to add the 11th Commandment... no diddling little boys. I get the jest. But we would never even joke as to adding to God's commandments. Who is the 'we'. I think God has a sense of humor... He did make the Duck Billed Platypus didn't He? I think that was His Son ... messing with left over parts, like kids do. And, of course, like any "good parent" ... His Father put it on the 'fridge for everyone to see. Uncle... you are probably right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
The Massachussets's Constitution empowers the Legislature... not self-regulation.
The rest is babble.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
The Massachussets's Constitution empowers the Legislature... not self-regulation.
The rest is babble.
Wrong.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John Edward Mercier
|
Then why the need for a Legislature?
Self-governance does not require the three branches empowered within the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BagOfEyebrows
|
Eh? "Why?" I highly doubt there was a biblical Christ. I think the question is silly.
But I think if you ask most people you're going to get some variant of "to die for our sins" or "to die on the cross." The amount of the Bible spent on the Jesus' treatment of the commandmants is quite small.
Do you think the story of Jesus Christ, and the philosophy/words and/or actions said to be his, are simply a fictional story? (you wouldn't be alone; I know plenty of people who think that.) If it is 'just a made-up story', do you at least agree that there is a basic philosophy within the story that lends towards governing oneself under a pretty concise set of laws (re: 10 Commandments), as well as a peaceful agenda (re: love one another/goodwill towards mankind.) As far as Jesus addressing the 10 Commandments goes... there's not any part of the Bible where Jesus breaks a single commandment. Not one of them. He lived the laws; he demonstrated them, in action (another case of actions speaking louder than words, I suppose.) I think the entire bible is a testament to and treatment of the 10 Commandments. He never once suggested people steal to feed the poor. He never once stipulated using force towards goodwill was the way to go about it. He never once is quoted as saying mankind should judge others, and he stressed focussing on a relationship with the laws, with God, within oneself - and lead by example with what came of it. No matter if you believe the guy named Jesus Christ lived, died, rose from the dead, was the son of "God", etc. - the story itself is a pretty solid outline towards liberty. [/quote]
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. To not allow oneself to do certain things, by choice, and to form a community with others who agree to the same, is not freedom? Isn't liberty-oriented? Would a vegetarian community, composed of individuals that all agreed not to eat meat, nor allow animals to be killed/raised for slaughter on their lawfully acquired land, be a community that you also viewed as 'not very free' and 'not liberty oriented' ? This is not to say they would force any other individual or any other community to live the same way; nor would they not allow someone to leave if they suddenly wanted to eat meat or go hunting, but if they, as a community, wanted to live in a community that reflected their own personal and peaceful code of conduct with each other and with animals, and they achieved it, you would view them as not being free? Not living in liberty?
I never claimed the Amish people were free or liberty-oriented--no one should. But how or why would you outlaw an entire class of people? That doesn't sound very free or liberty oriented either.
Not outlawing it for everyone outside of the community, only making it clear that the ethical code is such within the community; just a personal ethical code that a group of people share, that doesn't infringe on your rights to live in a community that has an ethical code that better reflects your own views on it - If a group of people wanted to have a drug-free community, would they be allowed to have that, in a liberty oriented government? Can liberty and freedom only exist in a one-size-fits-all ethical code?
I don't know what you mean. And I don't think you do either. I can't answer nicely to this one - so I'll just grit my teeth, glare at my screen, and mutter a cuss word or two under my breath. And then I'll move onto the next question. (why don't you try reading the question again; it's not my fault you graduated from an awful education system that can't even teach a brainiac like you some basic reading comprehension skills, you flaming sack of sh... oh, dammit... EPIC FAIL ON NICE WITH THIS ONE. SORRY!) Do you seriously, I mean seriously, think that liberty and freedom are only possible when every individual sees abortion, gay marriage, drug use and cussing as "ethical" ?!
What is the relevance of every individual's opinion on those issues? I don't care if you think buttons are unethical. Can a community exist in liberty with only zippers and velcro? Nope. Not until they start forcing people to do things. Including people within their community who don't want to belong any more.
Nobody would be forcing anyone to do anything - people sometimes do agree on things that you (and I) might not agree with - does that mean 'they' should not be allowed to live by their ethical code (as long as it doesn't lead to 'force' of any kind, or an 'infringement' on any individual right.) , and you, your ethical code (as long as it doesn't lead to 'force' of any kind, or an 'infringement' on any individual right.) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 08:07:15 pm by BagOfEyebrows »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
