Started By
Message
re: The “Freedom From Religion Foundation” warns Auburn University
Posted on 9/22/23 at 1:38 pm to DawgsLife
Posted on 9/22/23 at 1:38 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Nobody on this board would have had any idea this happened if the Freedom From Religion group had not made it an issue
Just to clarify I couldn’t be more against such a group.
1
Posted on 9/22/23 at 1:44 pm to ucbearcats
quote:Separation of Church and State is not a law, it is found in a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson IIRC.
Coaches and teachers are employees of the schools and should not be taking part in religious events because of the separation of state and church.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 1:58 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
How do we decide what is moral and what isn't moral? Is it simple majority rule? What is our benchmark for how we determine which moral standard has validity and which does not? At some point, we come to the conclusion that it is inexcapable that humans beings will enforce morality on other people that in some cases do not agree
How about we adhere to the common laws of our society and you keep your morality policing to yourself? Your religion is not the law of the land.
Your entire post—while well written—is just a justification to push your morality on those that do not want it.
We’ll agree to disagree, but know that I find your pushing of views problematic
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:17 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
We’ll agree to disagree, but know that I find your pushing of views problematic
quote:
How about we adhere to the common laws of our society
Which ones? Which ones are valid and which aren't? Are you speaking of socially accepted laws in a vague sense or actually referring to the usage of common law in a formal sense? Of course if you're referring to the more formal terminology of common law, those common laws that originated in England centuries ago actually had quite a bit of religious influence in their founding.
quote:
keep your morality policing to yourself?
Be specific with how i've policed your morality.
quote:
Your religion is not the law of the land.
Again, who said it was? Certainly, I did not.
quote:
Your entire post—while well written—is just a justification to push your morality on those that do not want it.
We clearly define the term pushing very differently. An offer is not a push. Coercing someone with threats of violence, loss of livelihood or otherwise negative consequences is what I consider to be pushing.
quote:
We’ll agree to disagree, but know that I find your pushing of views problematic
Again, what have I pushed upon you? What have I forced upon you against your will? Specifically.
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:23 pm to PurpleandGeauld
The first amendment of the constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...""
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:26 pm to JiminyCricket
“At some point, we come to the conclusion that it is inexcapable that humans beings will enforce morality on other people that in some cases do not agree.”
The LAWS. As in the legal system. You don’t get to “enforce morality” outside of law.
That’s your guidepost.
quote:
Which ones? Which ones are valid and which aren't?
The LAWS. As in the legal system. You don’t get to “enforce morality” outside of law.
That’s your guidepost.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:29 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
The LAWS. As in the legal system. You don’t get to “enforce morality” outside of law.
The basis of the moral validity of a law that we must follow is rooted in the fact that it is indeed a law? That's the justification?
So what about laws that allowed slavery? What about laws in countries in parts world that make murder and rape legal or at the very least incredibly cumbersome to prosecute and prove? Because those are on-the-books laws, that makes them soveriegn and above reporach?
quote:
That’s your guidepost.
But how do we determine if a law is just? How can we consider something a guidepost if we cannot establish if it's morally qualified to be a law at all?
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:33 pm to JiminyCricket
If the majority of a society believes a law to be unjust, there is a process to change the law. It is inappropriate to enforce morality based upon your individual opinion or that of your religion.
Law and religion are separate in this country by design, because we allow citizens to worship as they please. Our laws are based upon our Constitution, not your denomination’s interpretation of the Bible.
Laws are weighed based upon their Constitutionality, not their morality.
Law and religion are separate in this country by design, because we allow citizens to worship as they please. Our laws are based upon our Constitution, not your denomination’s interpretation of the Bible.
Laws are weighed based upon their Constitutionality, not their morality.
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:36 pm to Clark14
Cheers …I’m fully stating that the rational person Does believe in God. It’s fantastic long odd fantasy to think that universe caused itself and is yet fine tuned for all necessary elements of life
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:39 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
If the majority of a society believes a law to be unjust, there is a process to change the law.
We return to majority rule. But what qualifies man, albeit a majority of man, to enact their views upon the minority? What about a majority lends any creedance or credibility to an idea? This is a fundamental example of arguementum ad populum. If the majority of people support something that is inherently wrong, they should get to enforce their ideas on others simply because there are more of them than there are of the dissenters? If tomorrow, the majority of the country felt it their right as adults to have sex with children, it would make it the morally correct thing to do to allow it?
quote:
It is inappropriate to enforce morality based upon your individual opinion or that of your religion.
You keep going to this point but I haven't contended it. I don't think man is qualified to make all sweeping moral claims on the rest of the world and I have never advocated for a state sponsored religion to be enforced on people.
quote:
Our laws are based upon our Constitution, not your denomination’s interpretation of the Bible.
I didn't say that it should be entirely based on the bible, but it is intriguing that the Constitution however is written from a group that enacted a Declaration of Independence that clearly stated where they believed the rights of men originate. Almost as if the laws and our constitution were set up with a certain morality that even the authors felt was inherent and did not come from themselves.
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:43 pm to Craig86
Imagine critiquing a particular worldview from materialism which is the most ironic name ever because it’s anchored in nothing, possesses license to no objective reality and must borrow a morality from a nearby theism to have a civil society.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:48 pm to Pulpwood Patterson
It is intriguing, certainly, how many tenants of morality are plagiarized from theistically based ideology and subsequently repackaged later as humanism.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:50 pm to Pulpwood Patterson
It looks like this has turned into the usual shite show.
I just want to make sure we don't lose focus of the point. And that is that freeze is a scumbag.
I just want to make sure we don't lose focus of the point. And that is that freeze is a scumbag.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:50 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
quote: It is inappropriate to enforce morality based upon your individual opinion or that of your religion.
You keep going to this point but I haven't contended it. I don't think man is qualified to make all sweeping moral claims on the rest of the world and I have never advocated for a state sponsored religion to be enforced on people.
Your quote…at the tail end of you earlier justification: “it is inexcapable that humans beings will enforce morality on other people that in some cases do not agree.”
quote:
But what qualifies man, albeit a majority of man, to enact their views upon the minority?
Our Constitution lays out the basis for representation in our Republic.
quote:
Almost as if the laws and our constitution were set up with a certain morality that even the authors felt was inherent and did not come from themselves.
Yet the U.S. Constitution never explicitly mentions God or the divine. Almost like they felt it important to keep separate.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:58 pm to ChexMix
quote:
Those that do not are lost souls
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:59 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
The reason Law and Order as terms are grouped together is by the hope that the first will produce the second. Law apart from a first cause lawgiver doesn’t ensure morality.
It shows a complete lack of deep thinking to not see that you need a first cause law giver for an objective morality. No sophisticated atheist would push back on that. An atheist can be a non-nihilist, but it’s not for philosophical reasons, it’s merely conscious existentialism.
And yes plenty of atheists choose to be moral, but in ultimate form, there’s not a transcendent reason for them to do so. Cold Raw Hedonism is the only end of game aim.
And it’s why many….Neitche, Sarte, Russell, Hitchens, Flew, all died crazy, singing hymns of their youth, or adopting late life Diesm.
It shows a complete lack of deep thinking to not see that you need a first cause law giver for an objective morality. No sophisticated atheist would push back on that. An atheist can be a non-nihilist, but it’s not for philosophical reasons, it’s merely conscious existentialism.
And yes plenty of atheists choose to be moral, but in ultimate form, there’s not a transcendent reason for them to do so. Cold Raw Hedonism is the only end of game aim.
And it’s why many….Neitche, Sarte, Russell, Hitchens, Flew, all died crazy, singing hymns of their youth, or adopting late life Diesm.
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:01 pm to Numberwang
quote:
Imagine getting baptised by Hugh Freeze.
He use to have escorts brought in for his players right? This the same guy?
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:03 pm to BornAndRaised_LA
quote:
Your quote…at the tail end of you earlier justification: “it is inexcapable that humans beings will enforce morality on other people that in some cases do not agree.
Pedophiles see nothing morally wrong with “loving” a child yet we enforce our morality upon them that they cannot have sex with children. And this is just one example.
quote:
Yet the U.S. Constitution never explicitly mentions God or the divine. Almost like they felt it important to keep separate.
The constitution restricts the powers of the government to overstep into our lives so that our rights as humans, which we inherently posses, are not violated. If the government is the giver of rights, how could they overstep? It’s their prerogative to enforce things as they please. Unless of course those rights we already posses supersede the governments ability to legislate because they are endowed upon us…….well…….not by the government to say the least. Just because the constitution doesn’t outright say god or Jesus doesn’t mean that theistic fingerprints aren’t all over the thing. The entire concept is rooted in the idea that we have rights as free men from a creator and the government is not greater than said creator, therefore government is not the highest authority and has no right to overstep those boundaries.
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:07 pm to DyeHardDylan
As a LSU fan I applaud Auburn. Don’t give into the woke crowd. Too many schools would be scared as F to do that.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:08 pm to Tiger_Claw
quote:
He use to have escorts brought in for his players right? This the same guy?
The escorts were only for him. I think the records showed north of 20 calls
Page 11 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News