Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, I've been as clear as I know how to be on this topic. In my opinion, the "atheist world view" cannot be forced on you (or any other believer) unless the laws passed somehow prevent you from holding to your beliefs.
Would it be too much to ask if you would actually go to the specific post and make your reply directly in relation to my question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
There is no call for the PEOPLE to be secular, only the laws.
The government is made up of people - would you agree?
These people IN GOVERNMENT have ideological, world view party affiliations. As far as I know, no one checks these at the door when they assume office...hence such things as R and D are regularly attached to their titles.
Are you aware of any document specifically phrased to call the government to be secular?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Not really, no.
Really? World views and ideology DO NOT impact secular neutrality?
How do you square this with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
For a certainty. However, it would appear that Dems/Repubs often try to stack the deck in the favor of their own party - at least to me.
Would you like another redo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Not at all. Until someone can prove God exists, I will remain a skeptic/agnostic. I don't rule out the possibility of his/its/their existence. I see nothing impractical about allowing for the possibility.
You've already affirmed that God is not included in your decision making process. Logically, this places you in the atheist category with respect to how you live your life (practice your world view). But you apparently disagree. Can I get you to elaborate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No. See above.
Maybe. See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I disagree.
Yes, I see that you disagree. Can I get you to elaborate on why you disagree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
What authority is higher than the SCOTUS when it comes to evaluating and deciding Constitutional matters?
Presumably you have a job? Do the people who hired you have authority over you?
See, again, this is what the Founders intended. The people are to hold the government accountable on constitutional matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Of course it did! The 14th was ratified AFTER the Dred Scott ruling. The SCOTUS *evaluates* the constitutionality of laws, they don't supersede the Constitution itself.
They did try to supersede, would you agree? Then they were held accountable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
One doesn't have to research very far to see that the Justice who used those words in the decision had this to say later:
Perhaps realizing how his phrasing could create mischief and misinterpretation, Justice Brewer published a book in 1905 titled The United States: A Christian Nation. In it he wrote:
But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. [...] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.
So, I'm not sure I see your point...
My point is with respect to so called stare decisis i.e., court precedent. It's viewed by SOME as setting a precedent for future decisions.
Anyway, I acknowledged that Trinity was controversial. We need not debate that here, need we?
Though the discussion of messianic judaism is off the thread topic... Lapide wasn't a rabbi; he's a self-proclaimed theologian, scholar. He did believe the resurrection happened, but never accepted jesus as fulfilling old testament prophecy for the messiah. For what his opinion is worth.
Its rather ironic that he admits Jesus rose from the dead which in itself fulfills many OT prophecies...yet he doesnt believe Jesus fulfilled prophecy for the Messiah when Jesus claimed he was the Messiah foretold , lived a miraculous sinless life, performed real miracles, then performed a feat that no one has ever done before to prove his identity. If Jesus wasnt the promised Messiah, then he deserves an Academy Award .
Do you believe the ressurection of Christ happened ? If so, would you think that something so unprecedented, incredible, and identity-confirming....would only be for the Gentiles and not for everybody including Jews ?
It didn't happen for Gentiles or Jews.
If you haven't already done so, you might want to read The Passover Plot.
Would it be too much to ask if you would actually go to the specific post and make your reply directly in relation to my question?
Honestly? Yes. I'm going to say the exact same thing, so I see no need to reiterate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
The government is made up of people - would you agree?
Obviously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
These people IN GOVERNMENT have ideological, world view party affiliations. As far as I know, no one checks these at the door when they assume office...hence such things as R and D are regularly attached to their titles.
Yes, and.....?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Are you aware of any document specifically phrased to call the government to be secular?
Other than the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." portion of the 1st Amendment? Not that I'm aware of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Really? World views and ideology DO NOT impact secular neutrality?
How do you square this with:
Would you like another redo?
No need for a redo. Thanks for the kind offer, though. How does political affiliation and trying to get as many of "your team" put in place impact the secularity of our government?
secular - of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests. (dictionary.com)
I see nothing in that definition that is made impossible by the scenario we're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You've already affirmed that God is not included in your decision making process. Logically, this places you in the atheist category with respect to how you live your life (practice your world view). But you apparently disagree. Can I get you to elaborate?
atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
I would consider myself much closer to agnostic than atheist. Other than the "unknowable" bit of the agnostic definition it fits me nearly perfectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Maybe. See above.
IMO, there are 3 distinct positions - theist, atheist and agnostic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Yes, I see that you disagree. Can I get you to elaborate on why you disagree?
Because I see nothing impractical about living life as an agnostic. Can you tell me why you think it IS impractical?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Presumably you have a job? Do the people who hired you have authority over you?
Did we "hire" the SCOTUS Justices? Can we "fire" them? Not in any direct sense of the words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
See, again, this is what the Founders intended. The people are to hold the government accountable on constitutional matters.
Certainly. However, popular vote (the only mechanism available to a normal citizen) has no impact on whether or not a law is concluded to be unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
They did try to supersede, would you agree? Then they were held accountable.
No, not at all. Where did they try to supersede the Constitution? Because they ruled in a way that prompted a future amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
My point is with respect to so called stare decisis i.e., court precedent. It's viewed by SOME as setting a precedent for future decisions.
Has that decision been used successfully as precedent in any cases since the decision was handed down in 1892?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Anyway, I acknowledged that Trinity was controversial. We need not debate that here, need we?
If you didn't want to discuss it, why did you bring it up?
Other than the Gospels, which may be purely propaganda, there are no historical facts external to ones opinion.
Have you read anything unbiased on this subject matter ? How come the historical evidence is enough to immediatly convert THE worlds most foremost expert on Court Evidence Techniques, from agnostic to Christian , when he was challenged by his Law Class to put the New Testament to a stringent evidential test ? His name is Professor Simon Greenleaf and they even named a Law University in honor of him. He is so revered still, that his techniques are still used in virtually every Law University across America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
