Page 3 of 7 [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Should civil authorities enforce religious doctrine on morality?
Yes, definitely. 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
Yes, mostly. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Maybe yes, maybe no. 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
No, mostly. 12%  12%  [ 4 ]
No, definitely. 74%  74%  [ 25 ]
Total votes : 34

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,988
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 2:16 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
At last, I can agree to something you wrote. And that's exactly why I cannot understand why you disagree with me when I say that people who are in favor of exactly these kinds of religious morality laws, should be persecuted.
Persecuting others for their beliefs is what religious extremists do -- not rational, civilized human beings.
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Religious nuts trying to impose their foolish laws deserve to be persecuted by the very same means they want enforced on others.
Don't anti-religious "nuts" who try to impose their beliefs on others deserve to be persecuted too?
thinkinginpictures wrote:
You claim they "are people too". I say no, they are not people-people. They are scum.
I hate to see this thread Godwin'ed so soon, but that's exactly the kind of thinking that put the Nationalsozialismus party into power in Germany during the 1930s and sent millions of victims to the gas chambers.
thinkinginpictures wrote:
The very least one should expect from your neighbor, and of oneself -- is to fight by any means available and neccessary, one's enemies.
Are you implying that anyone who disagrees with you or who has different beliefs than you is your enemy?
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Jesus said "turn the other cheek".  I say forget that foolish s**t.  Revenge is a necessity and it makes you feel good.
"Vigilante Justice" is a contradiction in terms.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 814

26 Aug 2020, 2:26 pm

Fnord wrote:
Persecuting others for their beliefs is what religious extremists do -- not rational, civilized human beings.


I disagree. It is perfectly normal and healthy behavior to persecute your enemies.

Fnord wrote:
Don't anti-religious "nuts" who try to impose their beliefs on others deserve to be persecuted too?


Just for the record, I'm not trying to impose my beliefs on others.
I'm also not anti-religious. I'm perfectly fine with religions, and many religious people are good people too.

It's just those who want to impose sharia laws or likewise, I want persecuted.

Fnord wrote:
Are you implying that anyone who disagrees with you or who has different beliefs than you is your enemy?


No, certainly not.

I do accept disagreement - to a limit though.
Cross that limit, and one may become my enemy.

Fnord wrote:
"Vigilante Justice" is a contradiction in terms.


Tell me more. Maybe you can convince me. It's not impossible, and I really do want to know why "turning the other cheek", so to speak, or at least not be vengeful, is a bad idea. I just have a hard time figuring it out for myself.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,988
Location: Stendec

26 Aug 2020, 2:29 pm

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Persecuting others for their beliefs is what religious extremists do -- not rational, civilized human beings.
I disagree. It is perfectly normal and healthy behavior to persecute your enemies.
In that case, you won't mind if I put you on my "Do Not Reply" list.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 814

26 Aug 2020, 2:35 pm

Fnord wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Persecuting others for their beliefs is what religious extremists do -- not rational, civilized human beings.
I disagree. It is perfectly normal and healthy behavior to persecute your enemies.
In that case, you won't mind if I put you on my "Do Not Reply" list.


I would hate for you and me to become enemies.
I don't want you as my enemy. I just want to know other perspectives and tell my point of view.



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,269

26 Aug 2020, 3:10 pm

I'm entirely OK with civil authorities enforcing religious doctrines on morality...

.... as long as I get to choose the doctrines.

I think the core tenets would be: "I tell you what to do. You give me your stuff".

I can probably reuse some existing content...

And who are you to say that I am not the returned Christ, the Mahdi, Padmanabha or Maitreya?

(unless any of these guys owe you money, of course, in which case I have never heard of them)


_________________
Omit needless words.


envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,914
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

27 Aug 2020, 4:09 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Persecuting others for their beliefs is what religious extremists do -- not rational, civilized human beings.
I disagree. It is perfectly normal and healthy behavior to persecute your enemies.
In that case, you won't mind if I put you on my "Do Not Reply" list.


I would hate for you and me to become enemies.
I don't want you as my enemy. I just want to know other perspectives and tell my point of view.




Your perspective is somewhat disturbing. What's the use of doing the same to them that they would? These "enemies" of yours of whom you speak? Is rounding up and persecuting them what you're suggesting?


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 814

27 Aug 2020, 5:20 am

envirozentinel wrote:
Your perspective is somewhat disturbing. What's the use of doing the same to them that they would?


Punishment. Vengeance. Justice.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,644
Location: Poland

27 Aug 2020, 5:32 am

thinkinginpictures wrote:
envirozentinel wrote:
Your perspective is somewhat disturbing. What's the use of doing the same to them that they would?

Punishment. Vengeance. Justice.

And what's the difference between this and Shariah laws? From their point of view, they are doing exactly this.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.


Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

27 Aug 2020, 6:30 am

No. Definitely.

People not of that faith should not have those rules imposed upon them.



Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

27 Aug 2020, 6:34 am

GGPViper wrote:
I'm entirely OK with civil authorities enforcing religious doctrines on morality...

.... as long as I get to choose the doctrines.

I think the core tenets would be: "I tell you what to do. You give me your stuff".

I can probably reuse some existing content...

And who are you to say that I am not the returned Christ, the Mahdi, Padmanabha or Maitreya?

(unless any of these guys owe you money, of course, in which case I have never heard of them)

Now you're Thulsa Doom. He even has a snake symbol. Snake imagery everywhere.

Image



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,269

27 Aug 2020, 6:49 am

/\ You've got a deal... Thulsa Doom is also Darth Vader, BTW, and Jediism is a recognized religion in some places… It all fits...

And if people think Old Testament morality laws are tough, then they clearly haven't met the Sith Code… :twisted:


_________________
Omit needless words.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,020
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

27 Aug 2020, 4:54 pm

Fnord wrote:
^I think you really do understand and share most of my perspective.  And while we can agree that many religious laws (not just of the Christian religions) are the basis for many secular laws (and good ones, too), the disagreement is on the issue of civil authorities -- municipal police, county sheriffs, and state troopers enforcing religious laws is something with which I simply cannot agree.

I've seen the results first-hand in the Middle East -- police harassing young women because their burkas were a little too snug around their hips and breasts, hotel rooms and foreigners' luggage being searched for Bibles and liquor, and the threats of arrest for not recognizing the muezzin's Call to Prayer.  These are the images I see when considering the topic of this thread -- police intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens under the authority of religious leaders.

I can only imagine what the Spanish Inquisition was like, but there are eye-witness accounts of their atrocities, too.

But what if Christian laws are already being enforced? Maybe not all, but many. Do not murder. Punishment fits the crime. Mercy above law. In other words, the American justice system is an effective realization of Judeo-Christian justice. Rather than blind revenge, the victim of negligence can sue an employer for a monetary sum for an equivalent valuation of the injury plus punitive damages. Insurance exists for the precise purpose of settling liability claims outside of court (New Testament teaching to settle with your enemy before a lawsuit). The demand for witnesses before making criminal claims and holding fair trials before elders (jury trials). Prohibition against perjury in the 10 commandments and stiff penalties for trying to frame someone. Old Testament law indicated what COULD happen to lawbreakers, not always necessarily what MUST be done, and exceptions always exist. Well, for certain misdemeanors and crimes there are minimum and maximum penalties.

The opposite view is literally cutting the hand off of a thief, or gouging out someone’s eye who was involved in an accident, and so forth. Also, while skirting law and order is never an option, the demand to FREELY CHOOSE following in faith is always temporally contingent on the desire of a human being to do so. Freedom to worship (or not) is always a feature of a Christian society, and I question the validity of any theocratic society that makes claims to Christianity when the choice to identify as Christian or otherwise is not present in any real sense.

As such, the Christian religion as codified by Jesus, explained in the epistles, and as is relevant to us in the Old Testament is already the law of the land. Where it is actually practiced AS INTENDED things are going quite well. Where people insist on living with their heads up their butts, not so much.

Other religions you mentioned lack objectivity and reason. It’s no wonder life under Islamist regimes is misery. Of course you wouldn’t want Shariah law. It’s a senseless way to structure any government.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,988
Location: Stendec

27 Aug 2020, 9:32 pm

You still miss the point.  This is not about enforcing secular laws that originated in some religions and philosophies; it is about civilian police arresting people for drinking beer on Sundays (Christian Sabbath), eating pork (Jewish trefe and Muslim haram) or beef (Hindu prohibition) or any kind of meat at all (against Buddhism and Veganism), and many other such laws that would not apply to a rational secular society.

What would be the penalty for not attending the local House of Worship?  How much would you fine a person for displaying the "wrong" holy symbol?  How many lashes across the back are sufficient for claiming to be an Atheist?  Should a person's tongue be cut out for uttering blasphemy?  These are the kinds of religious laws I'm talking about -- laws particular to religion, but not to a purely secular society.

I assert, for the record, that morality should be defined by human reason, and not some scribblings on a piece of moldy parchment or some random utterances by a bunch of old men in robes who have never done anything except read those scribblings and interpret them according to their own guilt.


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.


envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,914
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

27 Aug 2020, 11:34 pm

Thinkinginpictures was in touch with me and would like to apologize for the violent tone of his posts here. He's seeking assistance for his intrusive thoughts and has posted about it in the Haven thread.


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 71,162
Location: Queens, NYC

28 Aug 2020, 10:47 am

I hope we can provide him with some assistance.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 43,988
Location: Stendec

28 Aug 2020, 11:06 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
envirozentinel wrote:
Thinkinginpictures was in touch with me and would like to apologize for the violent tone of his posts here. He's seeking assistance for his intrusive thoughts and has posted about it in the Haven thread.
I hope we can provide him with some assistance.
Here is the link.

Now, can we get back on-topic, please?


_________________
 
Since there is no singular, absolute definition of human nature,
nor any ultimate evaluation of human nature beyond that which we project onto others,
individuals should be judged or defined only by their actions and choices,
and not by what we only imagine their intentions and motivations to be.