Religious Fundamentalists

Wanna talk about politics, your favorite hockey team... vegetarian recipes?
cappster
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Religious Fundamentalists

Postby Cappster » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:36 am

Okay. Since that other thread about the existence of God really bored me as it is all hypothetical jargon, lets switch gears and discuss whether or not society should be secular or non-secular. My vote is for a secular society. Religious fundamentalists are against any religion that is not their own being involved in government policy. Example: In the US, it seems the Christian Fundamentalists declare us to be a "Christian nation" although they tend to forget all of the other religions and such that people practice here as well. I have an excerpt, that I believe, sums up the battle between secular and religious fundamentalists pretty well.

"It can be concluded that religious fundamentalism emerged in the modern era throughout the twentieth century. It came about as a reaction to the challenges of secularism to religion; as a reaction to ‘privatizing religion’ and ‘secularizing society’. Furthermore, religious fundamentalism is a political ideology in a sense that it interprets the sacred texts as a political program; hence, it is a reaction to modern ideologies. In other words, religious fundamentalism ‘reconstitutes religion within the limits of modernity, even as it copes with modernity within the limits of religion’ (Parakh, 1994: 121). Yet it should be bared in mind that religious fundamentalism is not hostile to all products of modernity except combating against modernity’s ideological products. Further, both Christian and Islamic fundamentalisms are reactionary movements; for they want to recall something which existed before. That is, Islamic fundamentalists struggle to reintroduce the Shria’ law and Christian fundamentalists attempt to return to religious values. Thus, they both reject the idea of separation of religion and politics (church and state), and further they are hostile to the notion of public/private divide. Accordingly, Kepel has rightly asserted that ‘Christian fundamentalists seek not to modernize Christianity but to Christianize modernity; just as Islamic fundamentalists seek to Islamize modernity’ (Kepel, 1994: 66). In a word, if in modernity a reaction exists so there should be an action, in such a case, secularism can be the action and religious fundamentalism is its reaction."
Sapphire AMD Radeon 6870, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:47 am

What do you mean by "society?"
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

cappster
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:51 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:What do you mean by "society?"


Religion as it relates to government. I view it like this: Religion can be the guiding light over our personal lives, but it shouldn't be the hand that guides government.
Sapphire AMD Radeon 6870, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15879
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Re: Religious Fundamentalists

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:05 am

Cappster wrote:Okay. Since that other thread about the existence of God really bored me as it is all hypothetical jargon, lets switch gears and discuss whether or not society should be secular or non-secular.

I don't agree that the other thread is "all hypothetical jargon," but to answer your question, there should definitely be a separation of church and state.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:19 am

Cappster wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:What do you mean by "society?"


Religion as it relates to government. I view it like this: Religion can be the guiding light over our personal lives, but it shouldn't be the hand that guides government.


I gag on the society = government, but that's another subject. It is neither government's job to force religion on anyone nor their role to protect people from it.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

cappster
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:34 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Cappster wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:What do you mean by "society?"


Religion as it relates to government. I view it like this: Religion can be the guiding light over our personal lives, but it shouldn't be the hand that guides government.


I gag on the society = government, but that's another subject. It is neither government's job to force religion on anyone nor their role to protect people from it.


Society, as in our personal lives, and government, are both involved in a venn diagram. Certain parts overlap while other parts stay separate. Some individuals believe that religion should be in both circles and not just contained to one. For example I don't think gay marriage would be an issue if we were just looking at the constitutionality of it rather than the religious context that people place it in.
Sapphire AMD Radeon 6870, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

cappster
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Re: Religious Fundamentalists

Postby Cappster » Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:40 am

Deadskins wrote:
Cappster wrote:Okay. Since that other thread about the existence of God really bored me as it is all hypothetical jargon, lets switch gears and discuss whether or not society should be secular or non-secular.

I don't agree that the other thread is "all hypothetical jargon," but to answer your question, there should definitely be a separation of church and state.


I say it is hypothetical, because God cannot be conclusively proven or declared nonexistent. We can, however, look at the causes and effects of religion as it relates to its interjection into government.
Sapphire AMD Radeon 6870, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:09 pm

Cappster wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Cappster wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:What do you mean by "society?"


Religion as it relates to government. I view it like this: Religion can be the guiding light over our personal lives, but it shouldn't be the hand that guides government.


I gag on the society = government, but that's another subject. It is neither government's job to force religion on anyone nor their role to protect people from it.


Society, as in our personal lives, and government, are both involved in a venn diagram. Certain parts overlap while other parts stay separate. Some individuals believe that religion should be in both circles and not just contained to one. For example I don't think gay marriage would be an issue if we were just looking at the constitutionality of it rather than the religious context that people place it in.


The Constitution doesn't address gay marriage, so by the 10th Amendment it has no power to regulate what States do regarding gay marriage.

By the full faith and credit clause they have the power to state whether and how other States have to recognize it performed in other States or not. DOMA is clearly Constitutional to a critical mind, there is no question. Whether it's "right" or not can be debated, but it's a matter for the congress and not the courts to decide.

Religion may be a motivator as to opposing gay marriage. I oppose it, but it has nothing to do with religion. I don't think marriage should be a government function and gay marriage just deepens it. But you won't catch me at a rally. But people have the right to be motivated by religion in their views. But only if you believe in having a free country and all. You can't regulate why people can believe what they can believe.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

the 'mudge
Posts: 14324
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine

Postby Countertrey » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:11 pm

A "separation of Church and State" is not possible, as long as any individual carries their own values and value systems into their efforts to legislate.

Beyond that, there is no edict in the Constitution or any of its many amendments dictating the "separation of Church and State".

The only reference is found in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An argument can be made (though considerable twisting of intent is required) that "Congress shall make no law respecting an extablishment of religion" would prevent any government acknowledgment of any religious construct. I would, and do, dispute that, but, it is what it is. On the other hand, the following statement: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" VERY CLEARLY INDICATES the the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to prevent any private expression of religious belief in ANY venue, including Government... so... the government has no authority to forbid students to pray before a game... even on the public High School playing field, or to prevent a student from evoking the name of a deity during his/her salutitorian address at High School graduation. Government doesn't have to like it... and any efforts to intrude are very clear violations of the civil rights of the individual.

I don't pray... not sure that there's anyone to listen... but I will never prevent others from attempting to do so. I am not inconvenienced... and do not believe that any antitheist is ever inconvenienced, either. Unfortunately, the feigning of injury is common. The feigning of injury, just to try to stick it to someone, seems to be the primary motivation of whining antitheists. Are they bullies or babies? I can't tell... don't even care.

Suck up and deal.
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15879
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:52 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote: don't think marriage should be a government function and gay marriage just deepens it.

So can a justice of the peace not marry people, in your opinion? Or do you believe in civil unions, and categorize marriage as solely a religious ceremony?
Last edited by Deadskins on Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

JSPB22
User avatar
Posts: 15879
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:03 am
Location: Location, LOCATION!

Postby Deadskins » Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:57 pm

Countertrey wrote:A "separation of Church and State" is not possible, as long as any individual carries their own values and value systems into their efforts to legislate.

Beyond that, there is no edict in the Constitution or any of its many amendments dictating the "separation of Church and State".

The only reference is found in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An argument can be made (though considerable twisting of intent is required) that "Congress shall make no law respecting an extablishment of religion" would prevent any government acknowledgment of any religious construct. I would, and do, dispute that, but, it is what it is. On the other hand, the following statement: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" VERY CLEARLY INDICATES the the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to prevent any private expression of religious belief in ANY venue, including Government... so... the government has no authority to forbid students to pray before a game... even on the public High School playing field, or to prevent a student from evoking the name of a deity during his/her salutitorian address at High School graduation. Government doesn't have to like it... and any efforts to intrude are very clear violations of the civil rights of the individual.

I don't pray... not sure that there's anyone to listen... but I will never prevent others from attempting to do so. I am not inconvenienced... and do not believe that any antitheist is ever inconvenienced, either. Unfortunately, the feigning of injury is common. The feigning of injury, just to try to stick it to someone, seems to be the primary motivation of whining antitheists. Are they bullies or babies? I can't tell... don't even care.

Suck up and deal.

So where do you stand on Jefferson's letter, used by the courts to define the intent of the 1st Amendment, with regards to the "wall of separation between church and state?"
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.


Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)

Hail to the Redskins!

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:02 pm

Deadskins wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote: don't think marriage should be a government function and gay marriage just deepens it.

So can a justice of the peace not marry people, in your opinion? Or do you believe in civil unions, and categorize marriage as a religious ceremony?


I see no reason that the personal relationship between any two people needs to be a government function. It's got nothing to do with what you call it, marriage or civil union.

As I said that's government, I support marriage as a private affair. It could be religious, contractual, or whatever private citizens want to set up. But I don't stay with my wife because we have a piece of paper from the government saying we're married.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

cappster
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:25 am
Location: Humanist, at your service.

Postby Cappster » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:02 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Cappster wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
Cappster wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:What do you mean by "society?"


Religion as it relates to government. I view it like this: Religion can be the guiding light over our personal lives, but it shouldn't be the hand that guides government.


I gag on the society = government, but that's another subject. It is neither government's job to force religion on anyone nor their role to protect people from it.


Society, as in our personal lives, and government, are both involved in a venn diagram. Certain parts overlap while other parts stay separate. Some individuals believe that religion should be in both circles and not just contained to one. For example I don't think gay marriage would be an issue if we were just looking at the constitutionality of it rather than the religious context that people place it in.


The Constitution doesn't address gay marriage, so by the 10th Amendment it has no power to regulate what States do regarding gay marriage.

By the full faith and credit clause they have the power to state whether and how other States have to recognize it performed in other States or not. DOMA is clearly Constitutional to a critical mind, there is no question. Whether it's "right" or not can be debated, but it's a matter for the congress and not the courts to decide.

Religion may be a motivator as to opposing gay marriage. I oppose it, but it has nothing to do with religion. I don't think marriage should be a government function and gay marriage just deepens it. But you won't catch me at a rally. But people have the right to be motivated by religion in their views. But only if you believe in having a free country and all. You can't regulate why people can believe what they can believe.


Don't you think equal protection under the 14th amendment applies to the issue of gay marriage? To me, it seems like it does as of right now, federal law prevents two consenting adults from the act of marriage. An act that heterosexuals may take part in, but those who are homosexual cannot. Seems discriminatory to me.
Last edited by Cappster on Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sapphire AMD Radeon 6870, FTW!

Hog Bowl II Champion (2010)

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:03 pm

Deadskins wrote:
Countertrey wrote:A "separation of Church and State" is not possible, as long as any individual carries their own values and value systems into their efforts to legislate.

Beyond that, there is no edict in the Constitution or any of its many amendments dictating the "separation of Church and State".

The only reference is found in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An argument can be made (though considerable twisting of intent is required) that "Congress shall make no law respecting an extablishment of religion" would prevent any government acknowledgment of any religious construct. I would, and do, dispute that, but, it is what it is. On the other hand, the following statement: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" VERY CLEARLY INDICATES the the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to prevent any private expression of religious belief in ANY venue, including Government... so... the government has no authority to forbid students to pray before a game... even on the public High School playing field, or to prevent a student from evoking the name of a deity during his/her salutitorian address at High School graduation. Government doesn't have to like it... and any efforts to intrude are very clear violations of the civil rights of the individual.

I don't pray... not sure that there's anyone to listen... but I will never prevent others from attempting to do so. I am not inconvenienced... and do not believe that any antitheist is ever inconvenienced, either. Unfortunately, the feigning of injury is common. The feigning of injury, just to try to stick it to someone, seems to be the primary motivation of whining antitheists. Are they bullies or babies? I can't tell... don't even care.

Suck up and deal.

So where do you stand on Jefferson's letter, used by the courts to define the intent of the 1st Amendment, with regards to the "wall of separation between church and state?"


You realize Jefferson wasn't assuring government they were free from religious interference, he was assuring ministers their church was free from government?
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

kazoo
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Kazmania

Postby KazooSkinsFan » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:07 pm

Cappster wrote:Don't you think equal protection under the 14th amendment applies to the issue of gay marriage? To me, it seems like it does as it prevents two consenting adults from the act of marriage. An act that heterosexuals may take part in, but those who are homosexual cannot. Seems discriminatory to me.


That's a twisting of the 14th amendment to allow judges to decree what gay marriage supporters are too lazy to do on their own, convince people. The 14th amendment said that you cannot apply the same law differently to one person then another. As long as marriage is applied to all that it's between a man and a woman, there is no rational debate, it passes 14th amendment muster. Gays are subject to the same law in exactly the same way as everyone else. They can marry as long as it's between a man and a woman. That is what the 14th amendment says. The 14th amendment does not say if you think something is not fair, you can reinterpret the words to justify your view.

If people want to change the 14th amendment, there is a constitutional process to do that. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him

Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again

Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way

Return to The Lounge