I completely disagree. This isn't an atheist v. believer issue. This a church v. state issue. This is not only offensive to atheist, agnostics, humanists and non-Christians, but also to any Christian that values the separation between chuch and state.
My council meetings always start with a Invocation but they don't call out to Jesus or Mohammad so I don't really get offended.
I completely disagree. This isn't an atheist v. believer issue. This a church v. state issue. This is not only offensive to atheist, agnostics, humanists and non-Christians, but also to any Christian that values the separation between chuch and state.
My council meetings always start with a Invocation but they don't call out to Jesus or anything so I don't really get offended.
Yeah, the council meetings already start with a moment of silence which was a compromise when the identical proposal for a prayer was put the to council years ago. This isn't about being offended, this is about keeping religion out of our government. It is disappointing that a purported liberal democrat would propose this, but from everything I have found out about Councilman Konev, he is just an attention whoring, plagiarizing, fuckwit-asshole.
For believers, it's an obligatory issue independent of the separation issue.
If someone truly, honestly believes in the sky wizard, then disbelief is a direct affront to their entire worldview at its most fundamental level. To take it as anything less is to accept extreme cognitive dissonance. The very idea of separation is ludicrous if the sky wizard is real (which it is, to them), as is the idea of compromise. To truly, honestly believe that there is a sky wizard watching you means that this must be the most important aspect of your life. Why would you agree to leave the "reality" of his wizardly existence out of any aspect of life, governmental or otherwise?
It shouldn't be allowed, not for the separation aspect, but for the fact that nonsense like this should not be abided in any capacity regardless of its origin or intent.
For believers, it's an obligatory issue independent of the separation issue.
If someone truly, honestly believes in the sky wizard, then disbelief is a direct affront to their entire worldview at its most fundamental level. To take it as anything less is to accept extreme cognitive dissonance. The very idea of separation is ludicrous if the sky wizard is real (which it is, to them), as is the idea of compromise. To truly, honestly believe that there is a sky wizard watching you means that this must be the most important aspect of your life. Why would you agree to leave the "reality" of his wizardly existence out of any aspect of life, governmental or otherwise?
It shouldn't be allowed, not for the separation aspect, but for the fact that nonsense like this should not be abided in any capacity regardless of its origin or intent.
Except when purported Sky Wizard writes in his magic book that religion should not be involved with the government, just like you don't want it to...
Except when purported Sky Wizard writes in his magic book that religion should not be involved with the government, just like you don't want it to...
I believe that was the founding fathers of the US of A, not Sky Wizard. If he had written that in his book, medieval Europe would have been very different.
Except when purported Sky Wizard writes in his magic book that religion should not be involved with the government, just like you don't want it to...
I believe that was the founding fathers of the US of A, not Sky Wizard. If he had written that in his book, medieval Europe would have been very different.
If it is in the Bible or Tohrah, does anyone know what passage this is said in? I'd like to file it away for future use; It's crazy christian season on our campus soon.
For believers, it's an obligatory issue independent of the separation issue.
If someone truly, honestly believes in the sky wizard, then disbelief is a direct affront to their entire worldview at its most fundamental level. To take it as anything less is to accept extreme cognitive dissonance. The very idea of separation is ludicrous if the sky wizard is real (which it is, to them), as is the idea of compromise. To truly, honestly believe that there is a sky wizard watching you means that this must be the most important aspect of your life. Why would you agree to leave the "reality" of his wizardly existence out of any aspect of life, governmental or otherwise?
It shouldn't be allowed, not for the separation aspect, but for the fact that nonsense like this should not be abided in any capacity regardless of its origin or intent.
Thankfully, not all believers see differing beliefs as affronts to their entire world view.
Except when purported Sky Wizard writes in his magic book that religion should not be involved with the government, just like you don't want it to...
I believe that was the founding fathers of the US of A, not Sky Wizard. If he had written that in his book, medieval Europe would have been very different.
If it is in the Bible or Tohrah, does anyone know what passage this is said in? I'd like to file it away for future use; It's crazy christian season on our campus soon.
Here's a few good verses.
"My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36) "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23) "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me." (Luke 22:25–26, 29) "Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. (Matthew 22:19–22)
He never directly says not to involve church and the government, but he made a huge deal of the fact that he wasn't a part of government of humans, and he always rejected political power. Why would he do that, and then want us to involve him in our government? I think the last verse I have shown is the most telling.
Thankfully, not all believers see differing beliefs as affronts to their entire world view.
Honestly, they're demonstrating a profound cognitive dissonance that they refuse to acknowledge if they don't. It belies their ability to maintain a consistent and logical worldview.
There is a fundamental, irreconcilable logical gap between actual belief in omnipresent supernatural woowoo and everyday life. Anyone who professes to actually believe in the former, but does not take it into account in all of their decisions related to the latter, is acting in a profoundly irrational way, moreso than someone who believes in the former and connects it 100% with the latter. An ultra religious person who applies it to every aspect of his life is acting more rationally than someone who claims to believe in wizards, but acts as though they don't exist in certain parts of his life. It's a difference between an incorrect assumption and an incorrect action based on a correct assumption: the former can be attributed to ignorance or disagreement, but the latter can only be attributed to stupidity.
Why would he do that, and then want us to involve him in our government?
What's the difference between government and a corporation or a club? What's the exact line whereupon the wizard wants you to leave him out of it? Or is it just a guessing game? What about ecclesiastical or theological governments? Are those OK?
What about the fact that, if you leave religious views at the door when entering government to make a decision, that many of the decisions you must make (in absence of the religiously-derived arguments) are directly counter to religion? There is zero argument against abortion rights except from a religious standpoint, so by this logic, you must vote to allow abortion rights no matter your personal religious beliefs on the matter. Is this OK?
There is zero argument against abortion rights except from a religious standpoint, so by this logic, you must vote to allow abortion rights no matter your personal religious beliefs on the matter. Is this OK?
You misunderstand the use of the second person there.
What should a religious person who's against abortion do in government? How about one who's against gay marriage? How about one who's faced with a decision over whether or not to remove the word "god" from our currency? None of these have any real arguments against them except theological ones. Remove those arguments, and there's nothing left to argue.
What about the fact that, if you leave religious views at the door when entering government to make a decision, that many of the decisions you must make (in absence of the religiously-derived arguments) are directly counter to religion? There is zero argument against abortion rights except from a religious standpoint, so by this logic, you must vote to allow abortion rights no matter your personal religious beliefs on the matter. Is this OK?
Oh, what a wonderful society that would be to live in.
Why would he do that, and then want us to involve him in our government?
What's the difference between government and a corporation or a club? What's the exact line whereupon the wizard wants you to leave him out of it? Or is it just a guessing game? What about ecclesiastical or theological governments? Are those OK?
What about the fact that, if you leave religious views at the door when entering government to make a decision, that many of the decisions you must make (in absence of the religiously-derived arguments) are directly counter to religion? There is zero argument against abortion rights except from a religious standpoint, so by this logic, you must vote to allow abortion rights no matter your personal religious beliefs on the matter. Is this OK?
To acknowledge that one's faith is faith and not fact allows for someone to believe without assuming 1) that they are absolutely correct and 2) that other people may have differing view points that are equally valid. There are reasons beyond merely religious for people to oppose abortion. I will not make the argument here because I am neither religious nor opposed to abortion, but there are ethical arguments regarding abortion that have nothing to do with religious faith.
The SC patient had a pet turtle. Water from the turtle tank was tested and Salmonella Muenchen was isolated. PFGE was run and the pattern matched that of the little girl
I went to the office restroom and a co-worker went at the same time. I, on my own, decided to race her. She won. She may not be aware of it, but she is now my rival. On the honor of my forebearers, I swear I will beat her! ^_~
I went to the office restroom and a co-worker went at the same time. I, on my own, decided to race her. She won. She may not be aware of it, but she is now my rival. On the honor of my forebearers, I swear I will beat her! ^_~
This is why we have 3 stalls in our bathroom. I once ran down the hallway to win the pee race.
The key is to pee on the floor while simultaneously saying something weird. Unnerve your male opponent, and he may clam up. Once the flow clamps down, you're golden.
The key is to pee on the floor while simultaneously saying something weird. Unnerve your male opponent, and he may clam up. Once the flow clamps down, you're golden.
I've weirded people out by making it last way longer than is natural. There is something very surreal about peeing for several minutes...
I went to the office restroom and a co-worker went at the same time. I, on my own, decided to race her. She won. She may not be aware of it, but she is now my rival. On the honor of my forebearers, I swear I will beat her! ^_~
This is why we have 3 stalls in our bathroom. I once ran down the hallway to win the pee race.
What do you measure in your race? Is it just a who empties their bladder first or who gets out of the stall first? I went with the bladder only challenge.
What do you measure in your race? Is it just a who empties their bladder first or who gets out of the stall first? I went with the bladder only challenge.
Oh, I was talking about racing to the bathrooms.
As in your pee race, I'm still champion of my floor.
See, the race I like is who can pee the longest, because that's a direct indication of your ability to hold it, which is a direct indication of your fortitude.
Comments
If someone truly, honestly believes in the sky wizard, then disbelief is a direct affront to their entire worldview at its most fundamental level. To take it as anything less is to accept extreme cognitive dissonance. The very idea of separation is ludicrous if the sky wizard is real (which it is, to them), as is the idea of compromise. To truly, honestly believe that there is a sky wizard watching you means that this must be the most important aspect of your life. Why would you agree to leave the "reality" of his wizardly existence out of any aspect of life, governmental or otherwise?
It shouldn't be allowed, not for the separation aspect, but for the fact that nonsense like this should not be abided in any capacity regardless of its origin or intent.
"My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)
"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)
"The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me." (Luke 22:25–26, 29)
"Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. (Matthew 22:19–22)
He never directly says not to involve church and the government, but he made a huge deal of the fact that he wasn't a part of government of humans, and he always rejected political power. Why would he do that, and then want us to involve him in our government? I think the last verse I have shown is the most telling.
There is a fundamental, irreconcilable logical gap between actual belief in omnipresent supernatural woowoo and everyday life. Anyone who professes to actually believe in the former, but does not take it into account in all of their decisions related to the latter, is acting in a profoundly irrational way, moreso than someone who believes in the former and connects it 100% with the latter. An ultra religious person who applies it to every aspect of his life is acting more rationally than someone who claims to believe in wizards, but acts as though they don't exist in certain parts of his life. It's a difference between an incorrect assumption and an incorrect action based on a correct assumption: the former can be attributed to ignorance or disagreement, but the latter can only be attributed to stupidity.
What about the fact that, if you leave religious views at the door when entering government to make a decision, that many of the decisions you must make (in absence of the religiously-derived arguments) are directly counter to religion? There is zero argument against abortion rights except from a religious standpoint, so by this logic, you must vote to allow abortion rights no matter your personal religious beliefs on the matter. Is this OK?
What should a religious person who's against abortion do in government? How about one who's against gay marriage? How about one who's faced with a decision over whether or not to remove the word "god" from our currency? None of these have any real arguments against them except theological ones. Remove those arguments, and there's nothing left to argue.
There are reasons beyond merely religious for people to oppose abortion. I will not make the argument here because I am neither religious nor opposed to abortion, but there are ethical arguments regarding abortion that have nothing to do with religious faith.
My main issue here is that it's going to be impossible to keep any prayer truly non-denominational. Just take your moment of silence and move on.
As in your pee race, I'm still champion of my floor.