Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Should Presiding Judges be allowed to preach their Religion in the Courtroom?

  1. Top | #31
    Veteran Member blastula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The greatesst state
    Posts
    4,962
    Archived
    6,070
    Total Posts
    11,032
    Rep Power
    56
    What imposition?

  2. Top | #32
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,279
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,304
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    The very first CSS lawsuit was started by Catholics. Their kids were praying in school and they wanted it stopped.
    It was a Baptist prayer.

    The court upheld that the free practice of their religion meant that they had to be protected from a different religion. No person has a right to make anyone else live by their religion. It's infringing on a fairly important freedom. Top ten, even.

    I wouldn't even want a Christain judge telling Hovind that the tax-dodging, science-illiterate, scammer is a poor excuse for a Christain. He is, but that's not the reason we put judges on the benches.
    This.
    State-sponsored mandatory secular atheism is an imposition of someone else's religion on me.
    You're not 'separating' The State from religion.
    You're just excluding every other religion except atheism.
    The typical atheist adheres to a conceptual notion of atheism that is substantively broader in scope than historically viewed—it is so different that a new nonclamature has evolved—with both renditions simultaneously surviving, contributing to people talking past one another.

    Think of belief as having weight. Imagine that holding a belief as akin to carrying a backback full of stones. An old school rendition could be illustrated as a theist climbing a mountain carrying the weight of belief on his shoulders. The theist believes there is a God. In old school terminology, the atheist too carries weight, he too has a belief—it’s just that his weight-bearing beliefs is that there is NOT a God.

    Then comes the spin of expansion. Imagine a person climbing the hill with neither stones nor even a backback to carry one. He is without belief (that there is a God). In fact, before what it meant to be an agnostic that gotten chewed up through the evolutionary change of meaning machine of life, it was the agnostic position, where the word “knowledge” was loosely used without relevance to strict interpretation; hence, “i don’t Know if there is a God or not, as I have no evidence one way or another. Interestingly enough, it’s a similar train of thought that I think serves as the foundation for the ultimate change in meanings.

    The new atheist approved catching on perspective is that an atheist is an agent that lacks belief that there is a God(s).

    Theist: B(G)

    Atheist (old school): B(~G)
    Atheist (new school): ~B(G)

    Your view is consistent with the old school version where both theists and atheists alike are carrying a heavy load upon their backs—with both having positions founded on actual beliefs held.

    The new age atheist version is like the weight-free person with no belief based on the notion that nothing passes the empirical test to serve as evidence that God exists.

    The new age version also has an impact on new comers perspective toward agnosticism. An agnostic NOW has more to do with knowledge than belief such that an atheist and agnostic would look like this:

    Atheists: ~B(G)
    Agnostic: ~K(G)

    The new school version also distinguishes between weak atheism and strong atheism:

    Weak atheist: ~B(G) AND ~B(~G)
    Lacks belief that there is a God AND lacks belief that there is not a God.

    Strong atheist: ~B(G) AND B(~G)
    Lacks belief that there is a God AND has a belief that there is not a God.

    Your views are consistent with older versions, but they haven’t adopted such a perspective.

  3. Top | #33
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,241
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    40,741
    Rep Power
    74
    But is the drive to make the government atheist or secular?

    Secular just means to be neutral on the topic. To let Caesar's stuff be Caesar's, over here, and do your god-thing, or your gods-thing, or your godsless-thing over there.
    Pity that aa drive for, say, evolution over Creationism, which us secular, science instead of religion, us seen as atheist by morons who don't care to understand the science.

  4. Top | #34
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,442
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,194
    Rep Power
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    The very first CSS lawsuit was started by Catholics. Their kids were praying in school and they wanted it stopped.
    It was a Baptist prayer.

    The court upheld that the free practice of their religion meant that they had to be protected from a different religion. No person has a right to make anyone else live by their religion. It's infringing on a fairly important freedom. Top ten, even.

    I wouldn't even want a Christain judge telling Hovind that the tax-dodging, science-illiterate, scammer is a poor excuse for a Christain. He is, but that's not the reason we put judges on the benches.
    This.
    State-sponsored mandatory secular atheism is an imposition of someone else's religion on me.
    You're not 'separating' The State from religion.
    You're just excluding every other religion except atheism.
    We aren't trying to stop you from practicing your religion. We are trying to stop you from imposing it on us.

  5. Top | #35
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,495
    Rep Power
    17
    Democracy. What a bummer.

  6. Top | #36
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,279
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,304
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post

    State-sponsored mandatory secular atheism is an imposition of someone else's religion on me.
    You're not 'separating' The State from religion.
    You're just excluding every other religion except atheism.
    We aren't trying to stop you from practicing your religion. We are trying to stop you from imposing it on us.
    I hear what you’re saying to him (in this post), and I agree with what you’re saying, yet oughtn’t we be mindful on the exact imposition being disucssed?

    We (the US) may not use government to establish Christianity, or any other religion, as our nation’s officially recognized religion. To do so would be an imposition that violates the constitution.

    There’s another imposition that we may not do, and that is to make others adhere to or abstain from engaging in religious practices. We are free to choose what we do or don’t do.

    Full stop.

    Now, one might find the preachings of another imposing, but whether done by an ordinary citizen with no governmental duties or not, any such imposition is not a violation of the constitution. A judge speaking his mind while carrying out governmental duties doesn’t make for a separation of church and state issue merely because there’s religious overtones in his berating of the newly convicted during sentencing. There might very well be another angle to approach the issue, but I don’t see any constitutional relevance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •