Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (11504)	4/16/2001 12:11:05 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 82486

I also object to two characterists of certain (not by any means all) athiests. First is denial of history; basic denial that we were founded as a Christian nation, and basic denial that that has had a lot to do with shaping the nature of our society, both for good and for bad. (Though usually they're happy to acknowledge the bad.) Second is to try to force religion out of public life, and make public life atheist. The whole origin, intent, purpose, etc. of the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment are too complex to get into here, but it's clear that they were never meant to be used in the way they are used today. Funny, the "Christian Nation" thing is one of my main objections to the righteous right. A contrary opinion, based on reading a couple of the original intenders: How did Madison acquire this understanding of rights? In large part, through his powerful commitment to freedom of conscience. For Madison, as for Thomas Jefferson, the horrific religious persecutions of the 16th and 17th centuries were the equivalent of what the history of racial slavery and discrimination has been for us: the most compelling example of the systematic denial of fundamental rights to unpopular minorities. Their radical solution to the religion problem was to recognize that every individual retains a sovereign right to accept or reject the claims of religion, entirely free of the coercive authority of the state or community. Today, efforts are repeatedly made to suggest that Madison and Jefferson were not quite the ardent advocates of separating church and state that their strongest statements on the subject suggest. In fact, the more Madison thought about the subject, the more militant his thinking grew.http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/opinion/11RAKO.html Your repeated efforts are acknowledged. What's clear to you isn't exactly obvious to others.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (11504)	4/16/2001 12:45:17 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

. I also object to people (such as SR) denigrating believers because he hasn't yet had the same personal experience of a relationship with God that others have had. Religious belief is a ticklish subject. No matter what one believes or doesn't believe, it's really hard to convey that to others without appearing to denigrate their beliefs. After all, we wouldn't believe what we believe if we didn't think we were right. I, for one, think it's really important for society that people of different beliefs be able to discuss them even though that can be uncomfortable. If you and I and SR can't do that, who can? I think SR does a good job of getting his point across on this subject as he does on others. You say you respect his posts on other subjects, that he is insightful and considerate. I find him consistently insightful and considerate, making his points clearly and in a straight-forward way without skewering or piling on, but then his posts on religious belief don't hit me close to home as they do you so I'm probably less sensitive to the sting. There are too many posters around here just taking pot shots. SR doesn't do that so you might want to try looking at his posts as a glass half full. Karen

To: The Philosopher who wrote (11504)	4/16/2001 2:36:03 PM
From: Chris land	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<<<<I am happy to let atheists and agnostics (and the non-religious or whatever other term you wish to use) believe and practice what they want, as long as they let me believe and practice what I want.>>>> Now there lies a conflict of interests. Your religion or rather your belief system basically says keep your thoughts to yourself unless they are specifically asked for. Now on the other hand Christians feel it is their duty to fulfill the great commission that Jesus set forth. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Now since there is a conflict in opinion it only stands that one belief must be violated if the other is to be accomplished. Now I doubt that Christians come knocking on your door more than once every two or three years inviting you to attend church with them. Of course I can't say the same for JW's and Mormons, a lot of that depends on where you live. Personally I don't mind anyone coming to my door trying to share their beliefs with me because it gives me a good opportunity to witness the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them. Chris