Ireland bans free speech and free religion.

Of course not. Wonder why?

Because its only in the last 10-20ish years you wouldn't get the **** beat out of you for not being christian?

Even Today, From what I've heard if your openly atheist in Israel you mise well just kiss your ass goodbye.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Because its only in the last 10-20ish years you wouldn't get the **** beat out of you for not being christian?

Where has such an instance been routine in the last 200 years? Where? If in the USA, I'll need case studies from you. We do know that in 20th century statist societies, (read communist, secular, humanist, anti-God), those practicing the Christian faith were often oppressed and killed. And other faiths as well. I don't buy your post at all. It's utter nonsense. I don't believe what you described existed as the rule in any Western nation in the 20th century. Nor have I ever seen any evidence of it.

Even Today, From what I've heard if your openly atheist in Israel you mise well just kiss your ass goodbye.

Oh, so you've "heard". "Heard" from who? I dont buy it. Sounds like BS to me.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Oh, so you've "heard". "Heard" from who? I dont buy it. Sounds like BS to me.

You mean an atheist living in Israel? He plays dwarf fortress, trustworthy enough for me.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Yes, Kenya and the USA are comparable nations.

Well since both have a large Christian populace and similar government structure, yep. As far as this entire issue is concerned, they're comparable.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Also, this is an example of the exception to the rule. Wouldn't you agree? Seeing in how Africa is the basket case that it is.

Nope, considering that plenty of US Christians would be doing the same thing if it wasn't for the law; the Kenyans do try and stop these things but they often can't respond quickly enough. Not hard to believe, though, when you look at people like the Jesus Camp kids:



No- of course these people are perfectly sane and natural and won't cause trouble with the law because of their beliefs. I mean, adults calling kids "phonies and hypocrites" is great for their minds!

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Actually you loudly accuse Christians in America of being "iron fisted" when there is no such evidence that most American Christians are fanatics.

Well lets see- according to World Evangelical Alliance, there are roughly 420 million members of their church the world over. If you know anything about their lot, they're hardshells as I sometimes like to call them (fundamentalists and what would essentially constitute Bible fanatics, saying things like Earth is 6,000-years-old and the flood actually happened).

In the United States alone according to John C. Green's report (link: http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/docs/Rel...scape_2004.pdf), 26.3% of the United States' Christian population is in fact Evangelical, compared to Mainline Protestants at 16% and Catholics at 17.5%. So yes, demographically, Evangelical Christians (fundamentalists/fanatics) do make up the Christian majority. As such, the majority of American Christians can rightfully be considered fanatical in nature.

And I know the report is from 2004. Even so, there's no way the Christian demographics changed so much in 5 years that Evangelicals would no longer be the biggest group of them all. If you think that, I challenge you to find statistics to the contrary to counter the ones I provided.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Of course I never see you criticize the nutjob Mullahs from Iran who truly are butchers and iron fisted tyrranical rulers.

Of course I have. Didn't you see this post:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sear...7&pp=25&page=4

06-13-2009, 09:48 AM
Iran Election Result
Views: 2,308
Posted By Stealth Hunter
Don't forget the "beloved"...

Don't forget the "beloved" Ayatollah.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I've looked into your posting history and don't see a thing. Not even recently during their "iron fisted" crackdown of your "former fellow countrymen".

Must've "accidentally" missed my post in that thread, right?

And I do have a life, you know. I'm not going to suddenly run on here every single time something is wrong in the real world and talk about it... unlike some people.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Since when do you think that most Christians think like this?

Since I saw the majority statistics on the number fundamentalist Evangelicals in the United States.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Every single Christian I know think these people are crazy.

Every single Christian I know thinks they are perfectly sane.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Of course you live in an bubble.

That's ironic.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Haggard does not speak for Christians.

Speaks for 30 million of them... or spoke. Whatever manner you want to put it in. He certainly doesn't work as the head representative for the National Association of Evangelicals anymore, haha.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Even the people who were a part of his congregation find his acts repulsive.

Oh you mean his homosexual acts? Did you ever stop and think that was because he preached against homosexuals for years and years and then was revealed to be one (making him a massive hypocrite and phony)? No, you didn't. They loved him beforehand, and then they turned on him after they found out the truth. Haggard's people loved and still love nothing about gays. The Westboro Baptist Church is part of his old Association, actually, and you saw how they behaved if you watched the "GOD HATES F**S" YouTube video.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

A total cop out. There are plenty of places for you to go to with similar laws to our own.

Please, I would love to hear of a few. Name them for me why don't you. I looked already but just can't seem to find the one.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Poor you. The funny thing is I see through your tripe here.

Of course you do... lol.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

It certainly was founded upon the Christian ideals.

Was ". . .the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. . ." not clear enough? It states, quite specifically that it "IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION". IN ANY SENSE... that means ideals, principles, etc. Is it that hard?

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

It does not promote any specific faith.

Yep. I've acknowledged that for quite a while now. Plenty of people certainly do try to make it promote a specific faith however...

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

It also doesn't prohibit the free exercise of religion Something you still need to learn.

I'm quite aware it doesn't thank you. When did I say that it did?

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

George Washington was an Episcopalian.

MARTHA Washington was an Episcopalian, and he would sometimes go out into town to church with her; he was . I suggest you read this article for further enlightenment on the matter:

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...chapter_3.html

Point being he certainly was not a Christian. A Dr. Moncure D. Conway wrote in the New York Times that:

"Augustine Washington, like most scholarly Virginians of his time, was a Deist. ... Contemporary evidence shows that in mature life Washington was a Deist, and did not commune, which is quite consistent with his being a vestryman. In England, where vestries have secular functions, it is not unusual for Unitarians to be vestrymen, there being no doctrinal subscription required for that office. Washington's letters during the Revolution occasionally indicate his recognition of the hand of Providence in notable public events, but in the thousands of his letters I have never been able to find the name of Christ or any reference to him."

Additionally, Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie (who knew Washington) wrote to Rev. Bird Wilson (an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York who wanted to know about Washington's beliefs) that:

"Sir, Washington was a Deist."

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

As was James Monroe.

Officially, he never did move out of the Episcopalian Church. HOWEVER, from the writings that survive of him, he was a Deist (he apparently was not one to talk much of the supernatural in his speeches or private notes, either).

Originally Posted by Sea demon

Same with James Madison.

From a letter to Mr. William Bradford:

"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of Religion or against temporal Enjoyments even the most rational and manly than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent Advocates in the cause of Christ, and I wish you may give in your Evidence in this way. . . Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize.."

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

John Adams was a biblical unitarian. etc.

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

I did some Googling and found this article on EarlyAmerica.com:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/s...7/secular.html

Apparently, the document Adams signed made the United States' government officially secular in nature.

Ethan Allen from Reason - The Only Oracle of Man (written by him in 1784):

"In the circle of my acquaintance, (which has not been small,) I have generally been denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian, except mere infant baptism make me one; and as to being a Deist, I know not, strictly speaking, whether I am one or not, for I have never read their writings; mine will therefore determine the matter; for I have not in the least disguised my sentiments, but have written freely without any conscious knowledge of prejudice for, or against any man, sectary or party whatever; but wish that good sense, truth and virtue may be promoted and flourish in the world, to the detection of delusion, superstition, and false religion; and therefore my errors in the succeeding treatise, which may be rationally pointed out, will be readily rescinded.

By the public's most obedient and humble servant, Ethan Allen"

I believe the man was a Deist (he certainly had no objections to being called one), and furthermore, he pointed out quite clearly that he was not a Christian.

Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography:

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist."

Thomas Paine in a letter to Andrew Dean:

"As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men."


Thomas Jefferson:

"The Christian God is a being of terrific character -- cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust."

John Quincy Adams on Thomas Jefferson:

"If not an absolute atheist, he had no belief in a future existence. All his ideas of obligation or retribution were bounded by the present life."

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

These men were steeped in the Christian faith.

Suuurree, lol.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Most had faith in God.

Just not the Christian god. So they weren't Christians.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

And our founding documents and other historical government documents are riddled with statements referring to God.

Too bad not one ever specifically states the Christian god.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

I can run for President LEGALLY...you cannot.

I wouldn't vote for you.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Then what's stopping you. Their laws are similar to ours as well.

You can't just decide to move to their nations willy-nilly and then get accepted right off the bat. You have to go fill out piles of paperwork, pay a s***load of money, pass naturalization tests, and THEN hope the government itself finds you appealing and accepts you.

I find it sad that you, a born citizen of the United States, knows so little of this.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Except they actually have the nanny state stuff you seem to vote for. We haven't been sold that bill of goods yet...thank goodness.

"Nanny State"? HA. Did you forget about Bush's Patriot Act which allowed the government to listen in on your private phone calls, browse through your Internet history, and arrest/detain you without formal charges as a suspected terrorist if you appeared suspicious to them?

And as far as "Nanny State" regulations on corporations are concerned, you have to regulate them. If you don't, they'll abuse the system to whatever ends they can. Ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? The US would be just like that again... minus the large amount of industrial scandal since most of the people making what we use live in nations like China, Vietnam, Taiwan, India, and Mexico (corporations and their desires for extremely cheap, plentiful labor that consists in many cases of child workers).

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Yeah. They do have their societal problems. But isn't it all relative?

Problems themselves are; the rates themselves are not.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Your nemesis Christians have no influence there and the laws are pretty much similar to ours in many ways.

Yeah! Because we ALSO have an emperor.

*Obama joke is certainly inbound*

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Face it. You live among a heavily populated Christian nation.

I have "faced it", as you put it. Didn't you read the first part of the post in which I said: "The large Christian populace is something that just comes with it, and since I want to live here because of the laws, I'm going to have to put up with it for the moment..."

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

And government is influenced by the values of the people here.

But governed by similar desires and needs of those same people.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Nothing you can do about it.

Oh not me; I leave that to my senator and representatives in addition to my fellow political organizations that have more leverage than I do.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Like it or not, you live by many laws influenced by Christian ideals.

Despite the evidence I presented above to the contrary...

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You like the laws? Great! Which ones?

Well the Separation of Church and State clause for one.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

In regards to the Treaty, there are people who take that Treaty in different ways. Your interpretation is currently being argued in many circles.

As is yours.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

So don't get too far ahead of yourself as to the actual meaning contained in Art.11.

The meaning is quite clear; ". . .the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". It's right there CLEAR AS CRYSTAL- WE ARE NOT NOR WERE WE EVER FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION OR ITS PRINCIPLES THEREOF. Furthermore, CONGRESS ratified it and made it an official document.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

It certainly eliminates specific religious intent in the formation of the nation, however it does not eliminate a religious ideal.

I never said it eliminated religious ideals; my point quite simply was that it proves you wrong when you said that the formation of the nation revolved around/was influenced by Christianity.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The language in this treaty is very much consistent with the notion of Congress making no laws promoting religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it.

The treaty itself is worded in an equally eloquent manner, but the statement was quite clear: the nation was not "in any sense" founded on the Christian religion.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Of course not. Wonder why?

Because people would rather believe in magic and the supernatural than the idea that such things do not exist, making Atheists a minority and never giving them enough leverage or even a chance to make something equally as great or greater than a democracy like the United States as an example for a change.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The suppression of religion all happened in the "paradise" nations of Mao's China,

Yep.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

the Soviet Union,

Yes, but it was repealed permanently by Stalin shortly thereafter.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

and several Southeast Asian countries.

Yep.

'Course there was also plenty of oppression of nonreligious as well by religious folks, and if that wasn't enough they decided to often times go after other different religions.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

The commonality was that they were all communist, humanist, secular, and anti-God. Tens of millions perished in those societies.

Communist: exactly why I'm against it.

Humanist: you mean hypocritical.

Secular: though Hitler's Germany certainly wasn't secular, and in addition to killing 21 million innocents (Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, "Darwinists", Atheists, and Balkans Residents; some figures put it as high as 30 million) , he also started the Second World War which ended up in killing 72 million others. Compare that to Stalin's 30-50 million killed, Pol Pot's 2 million, and Mao's 17 million; who killed more again? This is only talking 20th century history, too.

Anti-God: Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in disbelief. So if they were anti-god as you put it, they weren't actually Atheists. To be against something is to acknowledge that very something's existence.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Letum

I don't suppose it is in the interest of any religion for other religions/non-
religions to have freedom.
Whilst I agree that religious freedoms are often created by humanists,
secularists and fringe spiritualists/deists, I don't think it is fair to say that
no Christians have been instrumental in the formulation of modern
religious freedom.

There have been progressive Christians since Thomas Aquinas opened up
dogma to the scrutiny of the intellect.

Very true, in that people from all walks of life are involved in all types of endeavours, including campaigning for freedom. I merely meant to say it is wrong for Christian apologists to attempt to bolster their position by claiming that it was the Christian Church which is most responsible for religious freedom in society.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

If you knew a damn thing about government, you would know that control is the left, and anarchy is the right. But you obviously don't. But I can't fault your ignorance other than to say, read a book and learn something. Just because you don't like one government on the left, doesn't mean you aren't left too! Friggen ridiculous!!! You made me laugh though!

Actually the term right-wing has traditionally included monarchists and nationalists, and has little or nothing to do with anarchy. And modern conservatives are hardly anarchists.

So, when you have educated yourself, come back and we can have a logical conversation. You are full of fire today though. It shows spirit!

You have shown yourself to be fond of deriding others' education, yet you yourself rarely point to any sources or bother to construct any kind of true argument other than to proclaim yourself the winner. You often say things like "if you only read xxxx book on the subject...", when anyone with a real education knows that reading only one book is most often worse than having read none at all. When you can show that you've carefully studied every available source on a given subject, pro and con, then you'll be ready for a real discussion.

As to having "a logical conversation", what do you know of logic? I've never seen you use it in any debate here.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

If you knew a damn thing about government, you would know that control is the left, and anarchy is the right.

Lol, no. You got it backwards; Anarchists are almost always on the left since they do not follow nationalism, which almost always aligns itself on the right. You can Google the subject sometime if you want to. I'd recommend it for your sake.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

But you obviously don't.

Oh- there's irony in here again.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

But I can't fault your ignorance other than to say, read a book and learn something.

My ignorance? Anarchists are most often Liberal, not Conservative (putting it broadly where Liberals = Left and Conservatives = Right). The whole principle of anarchy in its own right is a Liberal one at that. Anybody who studied politics in college knows that. You apparently didn't though.

Again, I would advise you use a political compass for future endeavours in this sort of topic because it's obvious you know little if anything of the substances that make up these sides; they're just words to you with no further meaning, and you do like to abuse them, don't you?

Hear the word "Liberal" and your rash judgement automatically draws a negative, close-minded conclusion about the matter and no further investigation is conducted (which I would assume stems from the manner in which you were brought up; no doubt a strongly Conservative household that was not open to any conflicting ideas with the Republican agenda; this is why I'm glad my parents didn't try to push their views on me). Hear the word "Conservative" and you'll fight for it no matter what (even if you have no idea what the issue is even about).

Typical Subman.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Just because you don't like one government on the left, doesn't mean you aren't left too!

Uh- I've said a bunch of times already before that I generally align myself with the left. Where have you been?

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Friggen ridiculous!!!

Yes your attention span is indeed quite ridiculous.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You made me laugh though!

I chuckled a bit at this part, but then I stopped myself because there's nothing funny about ignorant people... unless they do/say something incredibly stupid out of said ignorance.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

So, when you have educated yourself, come back and we can have a logical conversation.

Clearly I'm not the one who needs to be "educated"; the elements of this post by you alone (not to mention previous others) have demonstrated quite clearly that you almost all the time have little understanding of what you argue for or against. Steve explained quite clearly (I thank you, Steve BTW) what's your problem is (if one could cut corners and reduce it to only ONE problem, lol).

Additionally, this conversation has little to do with "logic"; it's about facts (like what is most often part of the Liberal/Conservative agenda, the number of deaths caused by Atheists/Christians in history, etc.). You just whip out words like that when you want to sound like the "winner" from being "correct" and "intelligent".

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You are full of fire today though. It shows spirit!

Come back when you've actually gained enlightenment so you'll be more of a challenge and won't embarrass yourself on this issue again.

I suggest you start with the political compass; just trying to help.

[Letum]

Why the death by quotes here?

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Letum

Why the death by quotes here?