a reply to: dawnstar
My sig is an observation, it demands nothing of you.
Oh, so let me get this right... your
signature is fine because you
don't intend to demand anything of anyone... but should anyone
have a signature that you don't like, it then becomes a demand of others?
I answered to the best of my ability.. not good enough for you, sorry!
Yes, I think you did answer to the best of your ability. That's the problem!
You do not have the ability to even know when the words come from
a religious text, or even what religious text those words come from! Are you aware that the Catholic faith has several books in their Bible that are
not in the Protestant Bible? A verse could mean something to a Catholic and be totally unfamiliar to a Protestant. There are verses in the Quran that
I, as a Protestant, could likely look at and marvel at their truth without even knowing where they came from. There are verses in the Torah (which is
a part of the Old Testament and thus familiar to Protestants) that I might look at and think "That's out of context here," despite appearing
completely contextual to a Jew.
And yet you, by your support of policies such as we are discussing, have held yourself up to be some sort of higher power able to discern the true
meaning behind these verses. That was the point of my question, and you actually did answer it. Your ability to determine the meanings of those verses
is impotent. That is the exact reason I made this thread; by their previous actions, Pelosi and Romney have demonstrated their ability to judge the
religions they claim to follow is impotent, yet they hold themselves up to be pious.
My ability may be as impotent where others are concerned, but the difference is I do not claim any ability. I claim to try... that is a huge
difference from claiming superior position as they and you do. I actually do practice a "live and let live" philosophy... another poster in this
thread who I know personally has already stated that our beliefs differ considerably, yet I would never try to demand any religious concessions from
him. It's not my place; I have enough trouble trying to keep my own house in order, although that appears to be much less trouble than the average
Jesus Himself spoke harshly of those who do so. They were called Pharisees and Scribes in those days, elders of the religion, those who tried to
project an air of superiority in spiritual guidance. He recognized them by their deeds and words, just as I recognize Pelosi and Romney by their deeds
and words today.
Faith and religious tenets are something you have to voluntarily accept and follow. You cant voluntarily accept something if there is a legal
system set up to force you to. Sure there are laws that correspond with religious tenets, but for the most part, they are laws that all would agree is
needed for a safe and peaceful society. Like those proverbs scriptures, they have been accepted and adopted by the people regardless of
And yet, you seem all bent out of shape because a teacher placed a signature you don't like in an email.
Have you ever looked at history? This country was founded by the Puritans and Protestants, two groups who were religiously prosecuted to the point
they risked almost certain death to escape. Many had already been driven out of England before they made the journey here. They didn't just board a
steamliner cruise and power across the Atlantic... the trip was based wholly on reports, rumors if you will, of an undiscovered world that lay beyond
the horizon. No one knew exactly how long it would take to get here, if here really existed, or if the boats would be devoured by sea monsters en
route. When they did get here, they had no social support... no highways, no doctors, no stores, no maps, just their own selves and their faith to
sustain them. Most died. But their religious beliefs were strong enough that they would risk all that to not be forced
to observe conflicting
Remember reading about the the Spanish Inquisition? Yeah, that wasn't the governments of man trying to enforce spiritual law... except it was. People
who did not accept the doctrine of the official church were accused of heresy. Heretics had two choices: confess to heresy and be executed quickly, or
be tortured until they confessed and then be executed. Sort of like we saw just recently in the political news... already guilty, and dammit, if they
won't confess that just means something else they are guilty of!
So while the laws of man cannot and do not address spirituality, they can, do, and have for most of human history tried to do so with disastrous
effects for some. That is why our Founding Fathers demanded that government stay away from religion... do not establish a religion, do not forbid a
religion, do not control a religion, do not have anything to do with a religion! There's no similar restriction on religion, because without
government control supporting it, religion cannot be used as a rule of law. The teacher who puts a Bible verse in her signature has no religious
authority over a student... neither does the teacher who suspended a student for saying "bless you." In the former case, there was no overt action
taken against a student; in the latter, there was. The former is not a problem; the latter is.
You cannot see this, of course, because you allow others of your religion to see for you, but you just used the exact same argument that was used by
those adamantly opposed to gay marriage... and if it was a weak argument then, it is still one today. What does it hurt to see words on a page? How
are those words, abstract symbols that are arranged in a predetermined order, going to harm someone? They're not... they can only become harmful if
backed up by force of law. The teacher with the emails used no force of law against others, but your god organization certainly used force of law
against the teacher. In the "bless you" incident I linked to, the student used no force of law against anyone, but force of law was certainly used
That's what this Freedom From Religion group and the ACLU do: they use force of law. Christians as a general rule are not doing that. Get back to me
when the USA passes a law that one must "Love the Lord with all thine heart." I'll wait.