Refi

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Alia
« on: May 06, 2009, 06:42:27 pm »

I doubt you could beat me in the religious hatred department, that's something I'm rather proficient at.

Oh yeah? I think Christianity is a slave religion and the Bible is a book with two volumes, Masters Read Here and Slaves Read Here. The submissive, walk-all-over-me morality is proof. Forgiveness, turn the other cheek, and more forgiveness. I can't describe how despicable and unreasonable that is, and there's no one I have more sympathy for than the rare Christian who truly is following his heart and is thwarted again and again by his own slave morality and his religious superiors who tout the need to be forgiven and the uncleanliness of the Human soul no matter the effort.

The second thing I can't stand is the moral superiority. I nearly rammed someone's car because it sported a bumper sticker that boasted, "Christians, not perfect, just forgiven". The vast majority only join the religion in the first place in order to lord their moral superiority over others and place themselves above "heathens" like me. Yeah, you're Good, I'm Evil, I get it. But I would never complain that someone isn't Evil enough, or that they're not getting into Hell because they don't do this, or that. In short, Religion: An excuse to boss people around.

They think that just because being gay is morally wrong (whether that's true or not is another story) that their Religion gives them the authority to take action against it. Unless someone is actually, directly harming others with their behaviour, I say there is no such authority. If I happen to think something is wrong, that just means I don't do it. I am a Human Being with Human flaws, and though I try very hard to do the correct thing dictated by my philosophy, any doctrine is difficult to follow and I slip, ask Nin. So if I do wrong myself, what right do I have to tell others they have no right to do wrong? None. But apparently these Christians are without sin, because they sure cast a lot of stones. "Oh, we're saving his soul." say they. No, they're not, because if force could so save, what is the point of Free Will and the struggle to make the right choice onesself? Religion is a defunct bully of the highest degree that sucks up money like a Charity, provides little services, and sells the biggest scam of all time: Hope.

And if that's not enough, ask any of my closest friends about the Cake.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 05, 2009, 08:35:41 pm »

So you want philosophical institutions to replace religious and cultural ones? Well that could work. but you would need to pick a philosophy, and devote resources into creating centers where it can be taught, and from where people can be recruited to go out and spread their philosophy the way the ancient Greeks did with their schools of philosophy.

You can't just do nothing, an expect your preferred philosophical inclination to become dominant or even remain dominant if you think it already is, which I would say it is not.

Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 05, 2009, 01:06:42 pm »

So you want a balkanized America?

A strong culture and sense of community is critical to national survival. Without that, anarchy and sectarian violence is highly likely.

Historically, the collapse of communal groups, and the rejection of cultural values have always lead to the decline of nations. Persia, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Brittan, and now America.

I would like to know how you would maintain order an
Quote from: Giuliano Taverna link=topic=48.msg353
[quote author=Giuliano Taverna link=topic=48.msg353#msg353 date=1241542616
So you want a balkanized America? A strong culture and sense of community is critical to national survival. Without that, anarchy and sectarian violence is highly likely. Historically, the collapse of communal groups, and the rejection of cultural values have always lead to the decline of nations. Persia, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Brittan, and now America. I would like to know how you would maintain order and stability with the collapse of family, community, and social bodies. What you are proposing sounds to me like social anarchy.
+ Additional Options...#msg353 date=1241542616] So you want a balkanized America? A strong culture and sense of community is critical to national survival. Without that, anarchy and sectarian violence is highly likely. Historically, the collapse of communal groups, and the rejection of cultural values have always lead to the decline of nations. Persia, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Brittan, and now America. I would like to know how you would maintain order and stability with the collapse of family, community, and social bodies. What you are proposing sounds to me like social anarchy.
+ Additional Options...d stability with the collapse of family, community, and social bodies. What you are proposing sounds to me like social anarchy.
[/quote]

It caused the collapse of those nations because they existed before the modern era where we are bound by more practical things such as national identity, economic interdependence, political protection of rights, ect.

I suppose you could argue these things constitute the new American culture, but I don't really think of them as such personally. I would say they do however, serve as a more practical and useful alternative to a strong national culture (which is often responsible for racist hatred which I know you are against).

I want a society in which the individual does not bow before societal or cultural pressures and "controls" without just logical reason.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 05, 2009, 12:56:56 pm »

So you want a balkanized America?

A strong culture and sense of community is critical to national survival. Without that, anarchy and sectarian violence is highly likely.

Historically, the collapse of communal groups, and the rejection of cultural values have always lead to the decline of nations. Persia, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Brittan, and now America.

I would like to know how you would maintain order and stability with the collapse of family, community, and social bodies. What you are proposing sounds to me like social anarchy.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 05, 2009, 11:40:40 am »

I could have a competition with Sandy about who hates religion more. I might even win. But I still understand that a lot of the waning morality in the world comes from people who have had to be brainwashed into being moral: The Religious.

And I wouldn't allow anyone to have marriages that go against the laws of the country. Again, nothing like "beating your wife is acceptable" or "you may **** her". But allowing for more than one definition of marriage is a logical step, I think.


I doubt you could beat me in the religious hatred department, that's something I'm rather proficient at.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 05, 2009, 11:38:29 am »

This problem stems from the collapse of community networks which resulted from the industrial revolution which allowed common people to travel for the first time since the fall of the roman empire.

Because families no longer create bonds and form communities with commonly accepted traditions and practices, there really is no moral authority outside of religious institutions which were always just a part of the social network, and not a monolithic force that could remain stable by itself.

I think we should encourage community organization and the formation of local clubs, traditions, parties, and councils that mix secular, religious, and cultural practices. I even think local governments should embrace and support such efforts. But I draw the line at imposing laws made by them. If people want to brake such laws, we should empower the groups that make them to eject these people from their groups, but beyond that they should be free to live however they want.

This is necessary to maintain a stable society, if such measures are not taken. Eventually the country will collapse.

I want a weaker culture not a stronger one. Most aspects of culture are illogical and unneeded, not to mention problematic.

That said, I don't think it's the government's job to be promoting any kind of community organization let alone religious institutions which is strictly prohibited in the Constitution.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 05, 2009, 12:18:42 am »

I'd agree with that, if religious groups want their own exclusive brand of marriage than why would gay people want to participate in such a bigoted "club?" As far as I am concerned, gay marriage is necessary, but religious groups can have their own marriage separate from the legal secular one.

You can have catholic marriage, Islamic marriage, Protestant marriage, Jewish marriage, pagan marriage, hell you can have satanic marriage. Let religions set up their own rules, and have them use their religious authority to enforce them.

I don't see the problem here, and I personally view religion as essential, not because I am religious, but because the religion acts as a moral glue, until a secular power whether private or public fills the role of determining morality and culture, you need religion.

I personally think we should encourage secular alternatives to religion, philosophical and political parties would be idea, as well as cultural, and regional clubs and neighborhood associations, councils, ect.
Posted by: Alia
« on: May 04, 2009, 11:06:00 pm »

I could have a competition with Sandy about who hates religion more. I might even win. But I still understand that a lot of the waning morality in the world comes from people who have had to be brainwashed into being moral: The Religious.

And I wouldn't allow anyone to have marriages that go against the laws of the country. Again, nothing like "beating your wife is acceptable" or "you may **** her". But allowing for more than one definition of marriage is a logical step, I think.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 04, 2009, 06:40:45 pm »

This problem stems from the collapse of community networks which resulted from the industrial revolution which allowed common people to travel for the first time since the fall of the roman empire.

Because families no longer create bonds and form communities with commonly accepted traditions and practices, there really is no moral authority outside of religious institutions which were always just a part of the social network, and not a monolithic force that could remain stable by itself.

I think we should encourage community organization and the formation of local clubs, traditions, parties, and councils that mix secular, religious, and cultural practices. I even think local governments should embrace and support such efforts. But I draw the line at imposing laws made by them. If people want to brake such laws, we should empower the groups that make them to eject these people from their groups, but beyond that they should be free to live however they want.

This is necessary to maintain a stable society, if such measures are not taken. Eventually the country will collapse.

Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 04, 2009, 06:00:10 pm »

The way I see it, religious communities already have the power to enforce their rules, its called excommunication. If Catholics want to stand up to divorce they should start damming damning people to hell Hell over it.

I Can concede that... Largely. Excommunication seems flaccid and impotent in a world where next door, the people living there don't even accept those rules. I have no problem creating a legal institution specifically for people who accept from the outset that marriage isn't something you can just get out of.

There's still the problem of religious fundamentalists not wanting to be a part of the same unions gays can now partake in. As much as I hate these people and their moral superiority and denunciations, I can truthfully see where they're coming from, and there's no reason they shouldn't be accommodated. After all, while marriage has been a legal union in this country, it existed long before as a way to keep the community civilised. Without it, men would either **** or cohabit briefly then leave, and women who could not compete - and were not allowed to compete - for labour, would not be able to support the offspring.

This has existed since time immemorial, and was put in religious context because people pretty much universally obeyed religious law, at least on the surface.

So I can see where they're coming from. I'd give any religion that wanted it their own type of marriage defined as they wish (within the limits of the law and decency, obviously nothing that says beating your wife is permissible or anything of that nature) and I'd back them up with the full extent of the law. They'd be happier that way, and wouldn't need to force their definitions of marriage on anyone else.


Nope, I'm against legal authority for religions for the same reason I'm against Mormon courts and Sharia law. We are a secular nation. If they don't like that they can leave and go live in the vatican where divorce is handled under vatican law.

Religious rights stop where they interfere with the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual as far as I'm concerned.

Which is why I am against a whole host or "religious rights", including child indoctrination and circumcision.

Ultimately I'd like nothing better then to see religion fade from the conscience of humanity all together.
Posted by: Alia
« on: May 04, 2009, 03:59:23 pm »

The way I see it, religious communities already have the power to enforce their rules, its called excommunication. If Catholics want to stand up to divorce they should start damming damning people to hell Hell over it.

I Can concede that... Largely. Excommunication seems flaccid and impotent in a world where next door, the people living there don't even accept those rules. I have no problem creating a legal institution specifically for people who accept from the outset that marriage isn't something you can just get out of.

There's still the problem of religious fundamentalists not wanting to be a part of the same unions gays can now partake in. As much as I hate these people and their moral superiority and denunciations, I can truthfully see where they're coming from, and there's no reason they shouldn't be accommodated. After all, while marriage has been a legal union in this country, it existed long before as a way to keep the community civilised. Without it, men would either **** or cohabit briefly then leave, and women who could not compete - and were not allowed to compete - for labour, would not be able to support the offspring.

This has existed since time immemorial, and was put in religious context because people pretty much universally obeyed religious law, at least on the surface.

So I can see where they're coming from. I'd give any religion that wanted it their own type of marriage defined as they wish (within the limits of the law and decency, obviously nothing that says beating your wife is permissible or anything of that nature) and I'd back them up with the full extent of the law. They'd be happier that way, and wouldn't need to force their definitions of marriage on anyone else.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: May 04, 2009, 09:28:44 am »

The way I see it, religious communities already have the power to enforce their rules, its called excommunication. If Catholics want to stand up to divorce they should start damming people to hell over it.
Posted by: Alia
« on: May 04, 2009, 12:23:44 am »

I wish you could see where the Catholics were coming from, though. A lot of people in America are Catholics, and in their faith marriage has always been religious. They have certain laws and customs regarding marriage that they can't keep because the law doesn't support them, the most notable and disturbing being the ban on divorce; people can just get a legal divorce anyway.

What I would do for Catholics, were I in power, is allow them to draw up a legal Catholic marriage. And the law would support them, obviously even as a dictator I can't handcuff two people together, but if they separate, no more marriage licenses, and they're still legally married.

You wouldn't have a problem with that, would you? Allowing Catholics to create terms for their own marriages? Obviously even a Catholic isn't forced to enter into a Catholic Marriage. Gays could still get legally married, I'd just allow individual religions and their individual definitions to exclude whoever they like or add or take away whatever they like from their definitions of marriage, if it's in keeping with their own customs.

I don't think fundamentalist Christians should be able to tell you no about this - but neither do I think that their religious authority should be undermined; let them have their own form of marriage, if that makes them feel better.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 03, 2009, 11:07:16 pm »

My views on marriage are that it has always been a very poor blend of religious and legal. Either take the religion out of it all together, or make it totally religious and let the Church deal with divorces, and who can marry in the first place and why or why not. I still think that's fair; if you don't like the stringency of qualifying for a Catholic Marriage, get a Unitarian Marriage.

I find the idea of making marriage completely religious in nature to be not only unwarranted (historically speaking) but also highly impractical to implement given all the current legal entanglements regarding the process. Marriage in this country at least is a civil state institution it never has been a religious one (in this country), though religions of all types have marriage rights they do not dictate official recognition of who is married and who is not the state does.

Most fundamentalist Christians don't understand this and that is where a large amount of conflict arises regarding this topic.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: May 03, 2009, 11:03:57 pm »

I'm really not against gay marriage.

But I do think a lot of the people for it are hypocrites, because they don't support the rights of other nontraditional unions such as polygamy.


Meh, that's besides the point though I do agree. I support polygamy and even incestual couples as long as they are between consenting adults.

I draw the line at consent (for obvious logical reasons that are easy to arrive at), so bestiality and child marriage are out of the question.

I do think age of consent laws are very flawed though in some instances and should probably be lower which would allow for some minors to "consent" to marriage, however that's a completely separate argument.