Religious devotion in the United States

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I have studied various religions and their social dynamics on society and I have come to one conclusion.

 

I hate religious nutjobs.

[Archmonarch]

@ cewekeds : You, sir or lady, have completely twisted every reasonable argument leveled against you. For more information, please contact 1-800-Got-Brain

[metadigital]

I have studied various religions and their social dynamics on society and I have come to one conclusion.

 

I hate religious nutjobs. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are being very intolerant to their intolerance. "

[cewekeds]

@ cewekeds : You, sir or lady, have completely twisted every reasonable argument leveled against you. For more information, please contact 1-800-Got-Brain

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really don't see that but thanks for your input. Its better to prove your point by insults? How did I twisted ever argument?

 

Reveilled I understand your points and some I even agree with. However I do believe for legal reason you must do things the goverment way to protect your love ones. That includes the paperwork.

 

When people marry it has been taken for granted that they share responsibilities over each other.

[Archmonarch]

You're right. I went too far and I apologize. However, I blame it upon my rage at seeing your utter disregard for reality and reason.

 

The main thing I object to is how you pull the idea of "secret wives" completely out of your ass. Nothing of the sort was mentioned or implied in any fashion. You have simply twisted the comments of others to fit your (IMO) deluded views.

[cewekeds]

True by couple in then context is two people that have choose to marry or comment themselves to each other for life(plans are fliting things. Not just boyfriend and girlfriend who have not decide to live their futurn together.

Being married to someone doesn't necessarily mean you will spend the rest of your life with someone. By the same token, you could spend the rest of your life with someone even if you didn't have a bit of paper that made you legally married. Why does the bit of paper matter? If I whisper my vows to a girl when we are alone on a mountainside, should that have less meaning than if I say them in a church or a registry office?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Reveilled want a reason why registry office needed to know who your wife was. You need the paperwork to prove your married under the court of law. The family and friends might know but without the paper other people probably won't risk letter the wife see her husband. Thats were the secert wife came from. The vow doesn't have less meaning though.

 

If you think its a deluded view then why does the goverment give tax break to marry people? Why do marry people have more rights to each other then long time friendship?

[Archmonarch]

Yet again you twist and squirm.

[cewekeds]

trying to see your point..

 

But didn't you just twist what I said? so good job.

 

[Archmonarch]

Perhaps you should check the definition again.

 

twist

v. twist

[cewekeds]

so I twisted a argument by calling wife that somebody made vow to alone by calling her secert wife. At less secert to the goverment. "

 

but you post.

 

Yet again you twist and squirm. 

because I asked you your thoughts or anwser your question?

[Archmonarch]

By taking comments out of context, one can prove almost anything.

 

You twist arguments by blathering on about "the secret wives" when all Reveilled said is: I could give my spouse power of attorney and it shouldnt matter to anyone else if I and a partner get married. Im paraphrasing, of course.

 

Your "logical" response to this is that if no one knew about the wife, it would cause problems between her and the family. Do you have any idea how outlandish that is?

 

 

And I posted:

 

Yet again you twist and squirm.

 

due to your utter failure to address the issue at hand. Only by completely ignoring the commentary of the other person where it does not suit you can your position have any validity.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

You are being very intolerant to their intolerance.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pfff. What does she know?

 

But then, there is a lot of wisdom in her words...

[metadigital]

And I like her weatherpixie ...

[cewekeds]

By taking comments out of context, one can prove almost anything.

 

You twist arguments by blathering on about "the secret wives" when all Reveilled said is: I could give my spouse power of attorney and it shouldnt matter to anyone else if I and a partner get married. Im paraphrasing, of course.

 

Your "logical" response to this is that if no one knew about the wife, it would cause problems between her and the family.  Do you have any idea how outlandish that is?

 

Do you understand how outlandish humans are?  Even if the family knew about the wife the goverment does not.  If money envolved and they feel the wife is not living up to her part or wasting money they might sue her. This alone will cause years of time in the courts. The family might not like your wife and just waiting to screw her over. What happens if the power of attorney run out of time?

 

And I posted:

 

Yet again you twist and squirm.

 

due to your utter failure to address the issue at hand. Only by completely ignoring the commentary of the other person where it does not suit you can your position have any validity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't ignore I told where I got secert wife from. now I understand what gots you upset and I'm sorry.

[Archmonarch]

I'm sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your proposition is acceptable and reciprocated.

[Commissar]

Got this off the news on the long, long drive home tonight. They mentioned the judge's name, but I've forgotten it. I'm sure someone could dig it up if they doubt me.

 

Anyway, there's a federal judge in Kentucky who's been pursuing alternative sentencing; namely, instead of jailtime, he requires those convicted of certain crimes (mostly drug possession) to attend "worship services." The ACLU is preparing a lawsuit, of course, but the judge claims it doesn't violate the Constitution, as it's optional (the other option being going to jail), and he doesn't specify which flavor of worship services need be attended.

 

The judge admits to being a devout Protestant.

[Reveilled]

No. However this very arguement is reason Texas has stop gay people from adapting adn also trying to remove the kids of gay couples. There is studies that support both groups.

So why are you then arguing in favour of doing to polygamists what homophobes are doing to gay couples?

 

But it is because you go into coma you wife you told nobody about has very little rights. You assign Springing power of attorney however power of attorney has limits and your family could possible take your unknown wife to court. equals years of suffering for her and the family. 

 

I never said I wasn't going to tell anyone. I just said it was none of their business. As in, they should not be interfering. If they don't want me to marry the woman, they can't do anything about it, because it's none of their business. That doesn't men I'll keep it a secret. And if the family should be able to challenge my wish to assign my spouse springing power of attorney, why shouldn't they be able to challenge my marriage?

 

No there are more then one reason for encourage marriage. which you are unable to think of.

 

Yes, but I've clearly invalidated this particular reason for marriage, as your justifications for this reason apply to people who are not married. Therefore, if you wish to use this as a reason, you have to give said benefits to everyone it applies to, or quit using it as an argument.

 

True but we only give that tax break after the kid is born. Since most people judge there furture by their present take home income. Plus the tax break you get for a kid does not eqaul the money you would spend on a kid.

Well, in that case, shouldn't we give the tax break to folks who're not married? After all, since "most people judge their future by their present take home income", if they can't afford a child before they get married, maybe they won't get married at all. As to the second point, why the hell would it? At most, a tax break is intended to help you along, not give you a free ride. Besides, there's no reason why you couldn't just increase the tax break, if you had a problem with that.

 

There was probably a form of tax in those tribe. I'm bigger and stronger and leader I get first choice of the food and women.  You will guard the tribe at night if you want to stay. taxation is just the supplies put in to make organised government work. we use money but other things have worth also.

 

You still haven't explained why legislation of marriage is necessary for people to form lifelong couples, nor why if the legislation is removed, people will all of a sudden stop doing it.

 

Its still true. Are you saying its easier for married people to move then single

people?  I've been single and I only worried about myself however when you get involved with person you care about you think of them also when I make choices.

 

It's irrelevant! How can you justify a policy of discrimination on a measly 3%?

 

What happens if you two don't agree. Your secert wife sol while you give your house life savings over to other secert wife. What if the house is in your wife's name and she dies your kids hate you and kick you out of the house you help pay for. what if it happens before you two sit down and make a will?

 

If I have a problem with any of the above, I can go to court. If I or my wife wish to prevent such occurences, we can sign contracts to deal with ownership, just like any two other people in the entire country.

 

 

Your not being discriminated against for being single. You have not made a commentment to anybody yet.

 

Well, gays aren't discriminated for being gay. They have not made a commitment to someone of the opposite sex yet.

 

If your the doctor how can they decide what status of relateship your in with a person. Its easy to presume your parents love you and your family have strong bonds with you. They could be wrong but its a safe call. Instead you want bob to hang out with you and they can only go with bob word. Bob could be lying and really just showed up for other reason or you don't want bob there how is the doctor to know?. If you have a know wife and there is a paper stating the fact the doctor can presume that there is a good bond between you two. the doctor could be wrong but its a safe call.

 

So allow people to designate on, say, their health insurance one non-blood relative who will have equal visitation rights as the rest of their family. Then the doctor can just look at the health insurance certificate.

[Reveilled]

I have to split this into two posts because the quote thing seems to mess up with long posts.

 

 

How come there two restrooms?

You know, perhaps there shouldn't be, at least not in government buildings.

 

Really what does it mean to be married to you? For me it means the joining of two life who will work as team and build their future together.

Marriage can mean to me whatever the hell I want it to mean, because it should be up to me and my partner to define the relationship between us, not the government.

 

For right or wrong the goverment think tanks believe married people are needed and willing to help couples.

"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice

to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is

everywhere the parent of despotism." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

ME 17:388

 

Pretty well sums up my feelings of government think tanks. I don't give a crap what a government think tank thinks is best for me. I don't want the government involved in marriage because a) it's none of their business, and b) I don't trust them.

 

I tend to agree that marry people are good thing to have and don't mind giving them a small break.

Discriminating against a group just because you think it is a good thing is very dangerous. After all, you're not happy with people who think that heterosexual marriages are a good thing, and want to give them a "small break" without also giving them to gay couples.

 

I also think its important to protect your love one from heart aches and make thing easier for people in love who choose to share their life together. I disagree with the goverment saying only man and woman are allowed to choose to build a life together. I really don't have problem with people having many husband or wiives. However it doesn't look good when most of the spokepeople is one man with 10 wives and 30 kids all on welfare. I don't mind goverment helping people down on their luck but I don't like blanten taking advantage of. 

I don't like one man with one wife and four kids all on welfare. I don't like one man with one wife getting a tax break. I consider tax breaks for married couples to be those couples and the government blatantly taking advantage of me.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Got this off the news on the long, long drive home tonight.  They mentioned the judge's name, but I've forgotten it.  I'm sure someone could dig it up if they doubt me.

 

Anyway, there's a federal judge in Kentucky who's been pursuing alternative sentencing; namely, instead of jailtime, he requires those convicted of certain crimes (mostly drug possession) to attend "worship services."  The ACLU is preparing a lawsuit, of course, but the judge claims it doesn't violate the Constitution, as it's optional (the other option being going to jail), and he doesn't specify which flavor of worship services need be attended.

 

The judge admits to being a devout Protestant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course it violates the Constitution! What about atheists or agnostics? Talk about being screwed by religion. Jail, or go against your beliefs. Niiiice.

Besides being a horrendous violation of church and state, it's just plain stupid. I'm an atheist, but give me the choice of "worship services" or jail and I'll be at temple every Saturday, or a liberal church every Sunday. I'll fake it, no problem (you don't hear much of atheist martyrs, because without gods to appease, we'll gladly fake faith to save our lives). And you can bet a lot of defendants will also fake it to get out of jail, no matter what their beliefs (not that drug possession should warrant jail time anyway, but that's for another thread).

[Commissar]

Yup. Very, very unconstitutional. I think even our staunch defenders of religious interaction with politics (and they all seem to have disappeared from the thread) would agree.

 

Though I'm almost tempted to drive down to Kentucky with a gram or so of a coke. When I come before this judge, I'm going to claim that my worship to Bacchus, god of revelry, involves me snorting several lines and having sex with as many strippers as possible every Saturday night. He couldn't argue that that's not my faith, could he?

[Reveilled]

Yup.  Very, very unconstitutional.  I think even our staunch defenders of religious interaction with politics (and they all seem to have disappeared from the thread) would agree.

 

Though I'm almost tempted to drive down to Kentucky with a gram or so of a coke.  When I come before this judge, I'm going to claim that my worship to Bacchus, god of revelry, involves me snorting several lines and having sex with as many strippers as possible every Saturday night.  He couldn't argue that that's not my faith, could he?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Go on. It would be lots of fun. I triple dog dare ya.

[Commissar]

Yup.  Very, very unconstitutional.  I think even our staunch defenders of religious interaction with politics (and they all seem to have disappeared from the thread) would agree.

 

Though I'm almost tempted to drive down to Kentucky with a gram or so of a coke.  When I come before this judge, I'm going to claim that my worship to Bacchus, god of revelry, involves me snorting several lines and having sex with as many strippers as possible every Saturday night.  He couldn't argue that that's not my faith, could he?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Go on. It would be lots of fun. I triple dog dare ya.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, this time I'm actually going to try and get stopped. Usually I just blow through Kentucky as fast as possible.

 

 

 

 

The coke helps.

[the khanster]

We wouldnt have to spend money on all of this if people stuck to the biblical principle of no extra-marital intercourse.

 

Your point was very eloquently put though.

 

On the point of gay marriage (to continue the debate), notice that Marriage is never mentioned in the constitution at any point.

 

Whether or not you believe homosexuality is right or wrong is your deal, but we're all going to stand before god someday and give an account of outr lives, whether we like or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In other words, all must follow the exact law of the Bible or be damned to the pit of eternal hellfire!

 

You seem to forget religion is optional, and not everyone is Christian.

 

Besides, the bible is pretty f'ed up at times. I remember being told of one particularly insane passage by a former rabbi of mine. Basically, it told the story of a traveler who stopped at a certain village to rest for the night. A kind man took him in. The other men of the village wanted to "get to know" the guest. But his host sent out his virgin daughter instead because "sodomy was wrong." The young girl proceeded to be gang-raped by every man in the village.

 

Tell me this is not a clear indication that some crazy folk contributed to your holy writings. Obviously, a perfect being like God would not condone such an act. Yet it was done in his name. Makes you think, hmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not forcing Christianity on anyone, just stating what I believe.

 

Close to the end of your post, you mention that passage making me think.

 

Only thing that makes me think about is how often the Scriptures can be misinterpreted. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether or not it is respected.

 

 

It seems to make sense to me.

[WITHTEETH]

the khanster

Can anyone really intrepret the bible correctly? its been revised about 7 times now. metaphors lost in different languages. the writers even misintreprted the birth of jesus, because there are 2 very different versions. also the whole book is pretty vague. The intrepretations change over time also. wasnt rapture suppose to happen on the millienium, 1000 AD?

God save us from your followers.

[11XHooah]

Alright, time for me to get in here :D

 

Now I sort of blew through all the previous posts, because who really wants to go through 10 pages But from what I can ascertain, most of you believe that religion should not be intertwined with government. I think that religion should stay. You can find traces of religion all over America's history. In the Pledge of Allegiance, you have "one nation, under God". When I signed up for the military, I had to speak the Oath of Enlistment, and God was in there. Did we have to say it? No. Do we have to say God in the Pledge of Allegiance, much less even be required to say it? No. Which is why I think that religion does not go too far. But this is just simple crap that I'm talking about. All I'm saying is that the U.S. government is based strongly on religion.

 

But I think religion plays an important role in government. If a leader is a religious person, that's a real plus to most people. It shows that the leader is faithful, and some would even think of him/her as having more morals than a leader who is not religious. Now, was I on the mark with my arguments, or should I go back and read the 10 pages of posts because I missed the whole point of this thread? :D