Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:

I think the meaning today has been hijacked and warped beyond what your original forefathers intended.

The forefathers founded a country on the basis of religious freedom, where a government would not impose one religious belief on the entire population, and in turn would not impede the free practice of any religion a person so desired (so long as such a religion did not inflict harm upon others). How has this been hijacked? That seems to pretty much sum up how separation of church and state is applied today.

Today there is much confusion about what the U.S. Constitution actually says about the separation of church and state. In many circles it is generally accepted as fact that "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution. Therefore, it is claimed that society must be cleansed from all public displays of religious values, characteristics, activities and icons.

Is that correct? Is "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, or was it our Founding Fathers intent to separate the two? This is a crucial foundational issue because the President, members of Congress and the Supreme Court all take oaths of office swearing to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, by definition, any action taken outside the intent of the Constitution is unconstitutional. To find the answer, it is necessary to examine two issues: 1) what is actually written in the Constitution; and 2) what our Founding Fathers' intent was in writing it.

First, the Constitution itself. The First Amendment to the Constitution is supposedly where it says there is separation of church and state. It states: "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 of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's it…no mention of any separation. So it is clear the Constitution itself neither endorses nor supports a separation of church and state.
...
> READ MORE <

Ivellious wrote:

Again you're assume a secular position is somehow defaulted as better.

I think if you wanted a free society, where people are allowed to make their own choice of religion, secular government is the only way to achieve that. It's certainly not perfect but unless you prefer outlawing all but one religion...you don't have many other options.

Ivel wrote:

As has often happened throughout history, persecution of believers (and non-believers) is much worse historically under secular rule.

I disagree. You are probably referring mainly to recent communist regimes, which demanded that religion be cut out of society to provide the rulers with better control of the population (or so they thought, anyway). This is not a secular society in the least. Secularism respects the religious inclinations of all people, allowing them to practice their religions freely and not requiring the entire society to adhere to one religion's beliefs over another. Massive difference between promoting secularism (all religions are equal, including atheism) and communist atheism (all religions except atheism or other state religion must be purged from society).

Dawkins wrote:The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

RickD wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote: FL, you seem to know a lot about men molesting boys in afghanistan. Do you visit there often?

Nope! Afghan men do not molest these boys. Bacha bazi boys are part of Afghan culture. Men ''love'' them because it is not permitted for Afghan men to see women dance or sing, so Bacha Bazi boys fill these roles, and serve as a sexual outlet as well.

You guys really have to get out more.

FL

FL, I did a quick search on "Bacha Bazi". That's some sick $h!t. Pardon my French, but that infuriates me! It's not ok to have sex with women, but young boys are fine. The depravity of humanity knows no bounds.

rodyshusband wrote:Jac,

Thank you so much for your thoughtful post. I always appreciate and benefit from your input.

A secular culture would argue from 2 points:
1.) Who are you to say what "love" is and what "love" is not? It's up to the individual to determine what love is for them (post modern worldview)
2.) If a child needs to be loved, what is wrong with an adult "loving" them? Isn't it "better" for a child to be "loved" by an adult who wants to "love" them then by a parent who has rejected the child?

In a culture where pragmatic emotion rules, consent become less of an issue... If I "feel" I am doing "good", what else matters?

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/ca-wt-04-19-02/
ink.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01091326

Kurieuo wrote:Marriage is a religious concept, so what do governments have to do with God? They can try to forbid, corrupt or redefine what is holy, but it'll still remain what it is - divine in nature.

ClassicalTeacher wrote:Agreed, however, "marriage" is a civil contract between a man and a woman.

RickD wrote:FL, you're in a tough situation. I always understood someone's presence at a wedding as an act of approval of the union. All I can say is to follow your conscience.

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

RickD wrote:FL, you're in a tough situation. I always understood someone's presence at a wedding as an act of approval of the union. All I can say is to follow your conscience.

My conscience tells me to take trip overseas while the ''wedding'' is on. Since I don't have a real job, I can do this.

However, I do recognize this to be a cop out.

FL

Philip wrote:I would think that, as long-time friends, they should also know of your Christian values and how important they are to you. Attending a ceremony that purports to unite two same-sex individuals sexually and in a supposed "marriage," shows approval for such a terrible ceremony, one that makes a mockery of God's very building block of society. IF these two ladies know you are a committed Christian and are truly your friends, why would they be shocked or offended if you begged off on an occasion/event that they surely must know goes against YOUR beliefs? Or are you only able to be friends wit them if you remain quiet about your own values? And as for your wife, who is she more worried about offending - two lesbians or GOD?

IMHO, if these two are incensed at you staying true to your values, then it's not much of a friendship.

Philip wrote:Richard, you are looking a little sickly lately? Bad grapes?