Advertising one's religion

[MikoKikyo]

No. McCarthyism was during the Cold War and the whole communism-scare ordeal, that was the 50s.

Originally Posted by Tzurial

when people say.. "Youre aetheist, why should you care?" It makes me a little more than upset. Aethiest means you believe in nothing, not that you have no beliefs.

I don't think that's what you meant. "Believing in nothing", logically, can't count as a belief. It is the lack of belief. It means the same as having no beliefs. What you meant to say was that atheists believe in the nonexistence of a God, so it is not true that they "believe in nothing". That's their belief, in the nonexistence of a GOd, and it's just as valid as the belief in the existence of God (technically, since we can neither proove nor disprove God). So if that's what you meant, than I agree with what you said: people who say "why should they care? They don't believe in anything anyway", are being mindless because they do believe, it's just an inverse sort of belief.
Then when they say the pledge, they're not only swearing by something they fail to believe in, but they're swearing by something that is contradictory to their actual belief.

I hope I'm not being too confusing...

[dkellis]

I've always believed that all religions have the same fundamental values, of being nice to everyone else and keeping out of trouble. It's mostly the details that cause all these conflicts.

Religious debates, save for extreme cases, tend to be the realm of those who have the time and energy to engage in them. Whatever the state of my spiritual side, or if I even have one, it's not going to make much of a difference where my next meal is coming from. At least I have a next meal.

Human beings find it easier to rely on something when things get rough. Faith is no worse a crutch than any other object (I use these words without prejudice; I'm in a hurry, so any unfortunate choice of words is just that), and may sometimes be the best choice. If someone believes in Discordianism strongly enough (or maybe Kibology), who's to say they aren't wrong?

Evangelism does not only restrict itself to religions, of course. Any Windows users get really, really irritated by Mac users who endlessly promote Apple and all its works? Yeah, something like that. Forcing your beliefs on others only annoys them, no matter your intentions or beliefs. I'm currently trying to be polite to someone on another forum who thinks that my anime tastes are detestable, and my dropping of FMA after episode 12 from my viewing repertoire is nothing less than blasphemous.

[Lst2touchdasky]

Hmm well im buddhist and this is what my dad told me-

"People are buddhist become buddhist because they want too be buddhist- our religion is based on free will so whats the point of trying to convert someone"

[Mr. Bushido]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

No. McCarthyism was during the Cold War and the whole communism-scare ordeal, that was the 50s.

just checked. The Red Scare was during the 20's. 1918~1921. It was after the Russian Revolution. i win



about this whole pledge thing... you can say watever u want. It's not like the state made it illegal for u to say something else. so why complain?

[dkellis]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bushido

just checked. The Red Scare was during the 20's. 1918~1921. It was after the Russian Revolution. i win



about this whole pledge thing... you can say watever u want. It's not like the state made it illegal for u to say something else. so why complain?

I'm not sure when the Red Scare was, but Senator Joseph McCarthy waged his anti-communist crusade beginning in 1950. We had to research that background for Arthur Miller's The Crucible. >_<

Maybe America had more than one communism scare. I dunno.

In any case, yeah, you people are pretty lucky, all things considered. There are a few pledges in my country that are essentially mandatory, and refusing to say them is quite illegal.

[Tzurial]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bushido

just checked. The Red Scare was during the 20's. 1918~1921. It was after the Russian Revolution. i win

The red scare was in the 1920's but the Communist Party Dissolution Bill was in the 1950's

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

I don't think that's what you meant. "Believing in nothing", logically, can't count as a belief. It is the lack of belief. It means the same as having no beliefs. What you meant to say was that atheists believe in the nonexistence of a God, so it is not true that they "believe in nothing". That's their belief, in the nonexistence of a GOd, and it's just as valid as the belief in the existence of God (technically, since we can neither proove nor disprove God). So if that's what you meant, than I agree with what you said: people who say "why should they care? They don't believe in anything anyway", are being mindless because they do believe, it's just an inverse sort of belief.
Then when they say the pledge, they're not only swearing by something they fail to believe in, but they're swearing by something that is contradictory to their actual belief.

I hope I'm not being too confusing...

yeah, thats my damage, I didnt mean nothing as in 'the absence of something' but nothing as in 'the worst part of dying is waking up'. I should have said it better but I didnt. The belief in nothing sounds contradictory -_- Forgive me

(and sorry to bring this up from a page ago)

Originally Posted by dragonz20

And your way of thinking is childishly simplistic and unrealistic. I never said we should keep the minority down but changing something that the majority doesn't agree doesn't make things better unless it is worth doing it... and this doesn't seem to be worth it to me.

So you think we should change laws to appease all minority groups huh? What if two minority want something that are clashing with each other? So I am guessing you are for homosexual marriages then? What about polygamy marriages? Polyandry? Trust me, these type of families exist in the US. Should we legalize these types of marriages as well? It's not that simple. You're open a can of trouble by legalizing homosexual marriages.

I won't deny my way of thinking is childish simplistic and unrealistic. Just like you shouldnt deny that saying things like 'its too troublesome to change what the majority thinks' makes you a dick. So what -is- worth it? And what makes your standard of worth so much different from someone else's..because youre in the majority that could care less about "two words"? I never said we should try to appease any one specific group. We should make laws that parallel our constitution no matter who the hell the majority is. Just sit at the back of the bus Rosa Parks! Dont try to change anything! because statistics show that 80% of the people are going to be upset! Who cares about that 80%? If just one person is upset by 'under god' then that should be enough to make it an issue

And ofcourse I'm for homosexual marriages and ofcourse polygamy and ofcourse polyandry. I know they exist and I already accept them. Things are that simple so dont act like your guiltless morals apply to me

[LoveOfAnime]

Originally Posted by Tzurial

I won't deny my way of thinking is childish simplistic and unrealistic. Just like you shouldnt deny that saying things like 'its too troublesome to change what the majority thinks' makes you a dick. So what -is- worth it? And what makes your standard of worth so much different from someone else's..because youre in the majority that could care less about "two words"? I never said we should try to appease any one specific group. We should make laws that parallel our constitution no matter who the hell the majority is. Just sit at the back of the bus Rosa Parks! Dont try to change anything! because statistics show that 80% of the people are going to be upset! Who cares about that 80%? If just one person is upset by 'under god' then that should be enough to make it an issue

And ofcourse I'm for homosexual marriages and ofcourse polygamy and ofcourse polyandry. I know they exist and I already accept them. Things are that simple so dont act like your guiltless morals apply to me

Here is my question I am one person who is upset that everyone wants it removed does that make keeping it in the pledge an issue also? Or is that a one-sided argument.

[Tzurial]

Originally Posted by LoveOfAnime

Here is my question I am one person who is upset that everyone wants it removed does that make keeping it in the pledge an issue also? Or is that a one-sided argument.

Since it's already in the pledge doesnt that make youre argument for the status quo? And the status quo isnt really an issue but..the status quo. Or is your agument against the people against the status quo?...what?

[LoveOfAnime]

Originally Posted by Tzurial

Since it's already in the pledge doesnt that make youre argument for the status quo? And the status quo isnt really an issue but..the status quo. Or is your agument against the people against the status quo?...what?

You said if one person was upset by "Under God" it became an issue, is it also an issue if I am upset because others want it removed. I guess my question is, Does that theory work both ways. My argument isn't for the status quo of not changing it. I really think we need something for those of us that do worship any form of a god, whether it be christianity wiccan druidism shou lin??(spelling) um any others I don't want to forget. So like someone said earlier I am for "With God"

[wnkryo]

Originally Posted by Roots

>>>NOTE<<<

PLEASE take heed to the sensitive nature of this thread and do not start any flame wars. If you have a disagreement with someone calmly address the fault in their argument(s) and state your reasons for believing the person to be mistaken.



Having said that, I would like to start a discussion about what it means to advertise one's religion. Unlike some tyrant American president I fully support the practice of free speach. I've been a student at Purdue for 4 years now, and over the time I've seen multiple 'religous enthusiasts' claim some part of territory on campus and then start proclaiming their 'truth' to everyone. There is a middle-aged gentleman who has spent the better part of yesterday and today on campus debating with people about the existance of god, etc. After thinking about it, I realized that every religous enthusiast that has spoken his mind here over the past 4 years was in fact, Christian.

(1st set of questions)
Now I ask why are only Christians the ones who feel the need to do such an act? Is there some sort of rule or teaching that you must convert people over to your faith? Why don't I ever see any Buddist, or Muslim, or Jewish, or anyone other than Christians doing this?


(2nd set of questions)
Personally, I dislike hearing people like that man from today speak about their religion because they usually go trampling over other people's beliefs. Today I heard him proclaim in a bold voice "God isn't the fairytale. Evolution is the fairytale!" What if someone is sound in their belief that god doesn't exist? Or multiple gods existing? Obviously the man has a right to disagree and is entitled to his own opinion, but does anyone else agree that it is rude/arrogant to openly dismiss what other people believe? I don't go around proclaiming: "There is no god! If you believe in god then you are wrong! These are the facts!" If I said that I'd imagine that several Christian people would give me the beat-down (In fact on an episode of MTV's Jackass, a guy dressed in a devil costume did a similar public display, and some Christian guy passing by aggressively broke the guy's sign, pushed him aggressively, and punched him in the face).


So please discuss your opinions with us. Remember to keep the peace
(FYI: If you haven't figured it out I'm atheist)

Your a student for Purdue... the chicken farm company??!!!

[Asura]

well, let's see... i'm born a christian, but i choose not to go to church, mainly because most curches are sickening IMO. if god said that you can talk to him whenever, wherever, about whatever... then what's the need of a church other than for fellowship purposes?...

instead, what i'm seeing these days are churches built so glamorously, that it looks as if it got more gold than the national treasury... and then 1 after another were built, as if they're competing for "believers"...

I'm pretty much open minded, easy going.. ignorant. and i'm for homosexual marriages, polygamy, etc... as long as it doesn't affect me, it's cool... eheh... how selfish of me... your problem not mine.

[Chiaki Nozomi]

Hmm.. Christianity pisses me off.

Let's say there's a woman who spent her ENTIRE life caring for the poor... and when she was about 80 or so and on her deathbed, some American missionary comes and tells her about God. Being born and raised as a Buhddist, she naturally shunned that belief. Guess what? She's going to HELL.

Meanwhile, a man rapes and kills a child. During his prison stay, he discovers God. Where's he going? HEAVEN.

That's my main qualm, other than the whole force feeding you religion scaring you by saying you're going to suffer after you die must control the nation by our beliefs... Biggest reason - my mother. She's one of those extremests you see on TV. She constantly reminds me I'm going to Hell because I think that gays should be allowed to get married. Also, when things go wrong, she sits there on her ass and prays for things to get better instead of DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I personally don't want a religion where I could go somewhere and suffer my entire afterlife.

My natural beliefs coincide with the pagan Wicca (Celtic-Norse myshmash) side of things, so I participate in that religion.

But truly, religion only gives us comfort and hope, and forms our beliefs.

[Drunken_Boxer]

religion is a very complicating matter.

We all believe in the same god, but whe're looking different directions.

i for one believe in god, but do not go to church or pray or do any of those things. my faith is enough. i would explain why but i have a 1200 word essay to hand in tommorow, no time.

[Slade xTekno]

Originally Posted by Asura

well, let's see... i'm born a christian, but i choose not to go to church, mainly because most curches are sickening IMO. if god said that you can talk to him whenever, wherever, about whatever... then what's the need of a church other than for fellowship purposes?...

instead, what i'm seeing these days are churches built so glamorously, that it looks as if it got more gold than the national treasury... and then 1 after another were built, as if they're competing for "believers"...

I'm pretty much open minded, easy going.. ignorant. and i'm for homosexual marriages, polygamy, etc... as long as it doesn't affect me, it's cool... eheh... how selfish of me... your problem not mine.

I agree, and live similarly.
I don't know why Christians have to be THE authority on everything. Even though it doesn't hurt them at all, they feel the need to tell everyone what to do.
I go to church now only to listen to the sermons. I don't know anyone at the church except for a good portion of the youth group. But the youth group is full of hypocrites I see at school every day, so I no longer go to Sunday school.
You're right. You supposed to be able to speak with God anytime, anywhere, and about anything. I hate it when people say you have to go to church to be Christian. Those are normally the ones who go because their parents make them.
Please refer to my first post [page 3 I believe]. It's nice to find another open Christian.

[Mr. Bushido]

Originally Posted by Chiaki Nozomi

Hmm.. Christianity pisses me off.

Let's say there's a woman who spent her ENTIRE life caring for the poor... and when she was about 80 or so and on her deathbed, some American missionary comes and tells her about God. Being born and raised as a Buhddist, she naturally shunned that belief. Guess what? She's going to HELL.

Meanwhile, a man rapes and kills a child. During his prison stay, he discovers God. Where's he going? HEAVEN.

That's my main qualm, other than the whole force feeding you religion scaring you by saying you're going to suffer after you die must control the nation by our beliefs... Biggest reason - my mother. She's one of those extremests you see on TV. She constantly reminds me I'm going to Hell because I think that gays should be allowed to get married. Also, when things go wrong, she sits there on her ass and prays for things to get better instead of DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I personally don't want a religion where I could go somewhere and suffer my entire afterlife.

My natural beliefs coincide with the pagan Wicca (Celtic-Norse myshmash) side of things, so I participate in that religion.

But truly, religion only gives us comfort and hope, and forms our beliefs.

you can feed the poor all u want, but can u say ure perfect? Let say
100 = perfection. i doubt anyone is even near 25.
so let say this women is a level of 24 and the raper is -1. In the end neither is perfect, and both has sinnned. (or done something bad)
small rock and BIG ROCK both sink in water.
So our religion is: no one's perfect, but thru Christ we are forgiven.

As for ur mother praying. Dont pin us all christians for doing nothing and sitting on our ass praying 24/7 with no action. We're not all the same as ur mom. Here's a famous verse in the Bible "Faith without ACTION is dead"

Im really sorry Christians piss u off.
But hey, ppl like you, piss me off... so wat can we do?

Originally Posted by Asura

well, let's see... i'm born a christian, but i choose not to go to church, mainly because most curches are sickening IMO. if god said that you can talk to him whenever, wherever, about whatever... then what's the need of a church other than for fellowship purposes?...

"where two or more gather in my name, there i am with you"

Originally Posted by Tzurial

The red scare was in the 1920's but the Communist Party Dissolution Bill was in the 1950's

of course... lol. I thought they went together. I googled Red Scare and got 1920's then i googled McCarthy and got 1950's MY BAD! i lose

[dragonz20]

Boneyjellyfish,

No the pledge of allegiance is not uncontistutional and you are using the law of separate church and state the wrong way. That law was placed to prevent the church from abusively controlling the government and I don't see how "under God" placed in the pledge of allegiance fits into this category. What you are doing is using the law "literally" to prove your point and you're using it out of context. Why don't you try again?

Originally Posted by Tzurial

I won't deny my way of thinking is childish simplistic and unrealistic. Just like you shouldnt deny that saying things like 'its too troublesome to change what the majority thinks' makes you a dick. So what -is- worth it? And what makes your standard of worth so much different from someone else's..because youre in the majority that could care less about "two words"? I never said we should try to appease any one specific group. We should make laws that parallel our constitution no matter who the hell the majority is. Just sit at the back of the bus Rosa Parks! Dont try to change anything! because statistics show that 80% of the people are going to be upset! Who cares about that 80%? If just one person is upset by 'under god' then that should be enough to make it an issue

And ofcourse I'm for homosexual marriages and ofcourse polygamy and ofcourse polyandry. I know they exist and I already accept them. Things are that simple so dont act like your guiltless morals apply to me

Sorry but I don't see your point. Rosa Parks was about segregation and the unfair treatment of black Americans in the US. I don't see any unfair treatment in the pledge of allegiance when we don't force any students in reciting the pledge of allegiance. Teachers have been instructed not to enforce it because it may violate their religion. You don't have to believe me, ask any teacher in school and they will tell you. They don't even have to stand up and can sit and ignore the entire procession. So if they aren't forced, why should they be upset?

And yes you accept polygamy and polyandry just as much as you accept homosexual marriages. how about incestual marriages (father daughter, brother sister)? you didn't mention that? i didn't notice you accepting that. But even if you do, I can assure you that there are tons of people who aren't willing to accept polygamy, polyandry, incestual relationships even though they think homosexual marriages is okay. There other more weirder and exotic types of marriages out there too... Should we consider all of them up for legalization as well?

Thus my points are:
1. No one has to recite the pledge of allegiance. It is actually NOT enforced in schools (any more at least) and there are students who actually don't recite the pledge
2. You can recite the old version instead so students don't feel left out
3. Separate state and church is a bullshit excuse because you're using it out of context to prove your point. The separate state and church law was to avoid heavy religious control within the government. If you are influenced by the any religion because you recite "under God" you're an idiot...
4. It is a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer's money to change something harmless that does not need to be changed when students can either not say it or say the older "non-God" version to solve this problem.

There are thousands of other problems which are more serious and more deserving of attention from our judicial system but we gotta worry about this one because a few atheist feel slighted and left out.

i am all for improving our government through changes in our law. But I don't see any improvements at all from this one. Just a lot of noise for no freakin reason.

[choowee]

Originally Posted by kujoe

In fact I think there are more Muslims in the world, and as for them, their desire to spread their religion seems to go hand in hand with upholding one's civilization or way of life.

Just curious as why you believe Muslims have any more desire to spread their religion then say, Catholics?

Its common to confuse a few fanatics for an entire body of believers. Not only in Islam, but I believe in Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism, Atheism.... etc.......

[Asura]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bushido

"where two or more gather in my name, there i am with you"

nice quote, but even the first fellowship of the diciples was held secretly, in the house of (maria?) after jesus (said to be) disapeared from his tomb.. a house... not a church, and then jesus showed up and blessed her house.

the use of church as a place for fellowship was later adopted by the romans AFAIK. and from there identity crisis began... you have to have an actual church to go to to be accepted a christian.

most of the catholic ppl i've approached told me they just go to church for aesthetic purposes. All along in the sermon the only thing on their mind is when can they get out.

and as Slade xTekno said it, even the youth fellowship is full of hypocrites.
all those, plus several power assuming priests, who think they know everything just because they've graduated from theological institutions, are sickening IMO.
they may know more than I do, but they know not everything.

plus corruptions.. like no one ever heard it before.. it's everywhere, be it conspicous or inconspicuous, even in what's called a church.
and hence I stayed away from church.

observation -> hypothesis -> conclusion -> label.

christianity may be a way of life, but so does science.

now I'm forwarding 2 questions,
1. what is moral?
2. does a person have to go to church to have moral?

[Mr. Bushido]

Originally Posted by Asura

nice quote, but even the first fellowship of the diciples was held secretly, in the house of (maria?) after jesus (said to be) disapeared from his tomb.. a house... not a church, and then jesus showed up and blessed her house.

the use of church as a place for fellowship was later adopted by the romans AFAIK. and from there identity crisis began... you have to have an actual church to go to to be accepted a christian.

most of the catholic ppl i've approached told me they just go to church for aesthetic purposes. All along in the sermon the only thing on their mind is when can they get out.

and as Slade xTekno said it, even the youth fellowship is full of hypocrites.
all those, plus several power assuming priests, who think they know everything just because they've graduated from theological institutions, are sickening IMO.
they may know more than I do, but they know not everything.

plus corruptions.. like no one ever heard it before.. it's everywhere, be it conspicous or inconspicuous, even in what's called a church.
and hence I stayed away from church.

observation -> hypothesis -> conclusion -> label.

christianity may be a way of life, but so does science.

now I'm forwarding 2 questions,
1. what is moral?
2. does a person have to go to church to have moral?

actually that quote wasnt to tell u to "go to church" i was telling u the purpose of a church, which u thought was "just to fellowship" A church isnt the building my friend, it's the ppl. if you're family just got together in ur bedroom and read the bible or sing a few hymns, thats a church.

[raikage]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bushido

you can feed the poor all u want, but can u say ure perfect? Let say
100 = perfection. i doubt anyone is even near 25.
so let say this women is a level of 24 and the raper is -1. In the end neither is perfect, and both has sinnned. (or done something bad)
small rock and BIG ROCK both sink in water.
So our religion is: no one's perfect, but thru Christ we are forgiven.

of course... lol. I thought they went together. I googled Red Scare and got 1920's then i googled McCarthy and got 1950's MY BAD! i lose

Sorry, Zoro, but you really didn't disprove Chiaki Nozomi's thinking that the murderer will go to Heaven and the good atheist to Hell.

Asura, I believe that morals are community values - and you don't have to go to church to get them. Some communities all agree on the same things - that stealing and murder and rape are wrong.
Some are different - if you're driving home at 1:00 in the morning and you see that a stranger's car has broken down, do you
• Stop and offer to drive them to the nearest gas station/phone booth
• Stop and see what's wrong with their car
• Wait until you get home and call someone to go help them
• Do nothing - you don't know them anyway

That's probably a pretty bad example, but that's the best I can think of right now.