Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I'm not asking for special rights and privileges for secularists. Secularism is basically just the political stance that the government should not favor any religion over another. It is not a religion in of itself.

Again, you are stitching non-related beliefs onto what you think is secularism. Secularism has no stance on gay marriage or adoption by gay couples. Yes, support for secularism and support for LGBT rights are often correlated but they are still separate issues.

---

Yes it does. It's stance is that they ought to be permitted. Christianity's stance is that it's harmful to society.

---

Secularism holds that Christianity (or any other religion) shouldn't be making those decisions for society. It doesn't say what the final decision will be.

---

Secularism holds that society shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions for themselves provided their decision is in opposition to secular ideals. In 2008 California voted to codify a definition of marriage that would have aligned with the Christian definition. The courts decided to force a completely novel definition of marriage, which aligned with secularist ideals, onto society anyway.

The way you're framing the argument, anthropomorphizing Christianity and turning him into a dictator, is a distortion of the truth.

---

It's always fun to see when people believe in majoritarian rule and when they believe in equal rights for all. Funny how it often aligns with when Christian positions are in the majority or not.

---

It's not about majoritarian rule. You're ignoring my point, which is that Christians have as much of a right to wield power in order to influence the culture according to their beliefs as secularists.

---

But you don't have a right to impose your beliefs on others so that they are excluded from public services unless they meet theologically-defined criteria or agree to be subordinate to your faith.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Rocag said:

---

I'm not asking for special rights and privileges for secularists. Secularism is basically just the political stance that the government should not favor any religion over another. It is not a religion in of itself.

Again, you are stitching non-related beliefs onto what you think is secularism. Secularism has no stance on gay marriage or adoption by gay couples. Yes, support for secularism and support for LGBT rights are often correlated but they are still separate issues.

---

Yes it does. It's stance is that they ought to be permitted. Christianity's stance is that it's harmful to society.

---

Secularism holds that Christianity (or any other religion) shouldn't be making those decisions for society. It doesn't say what the final decision will be.

---

Secularism holds that society shouldn't be allowed to make those decisions for themselves provided their decision is in opposition to secular ideals. In 2008 California voted to codify a definition of marriage that would have aligned with the Christian definition. The courts decided to force a completely novel definition of marriage, which aligned with secularist ideals, onto society anyway.

The way you're framing the argument, anthropomorphizing Christianity and turning him into a dictator, is a distortion of the truth.

---

It's always fun to see when people believe in majoritarian rule and when they believe in equal rights for all. Funny how it often aligns with when Christian positions are in the majority or not.

---

It's not about majoritarian rule. You're ignoring my point, which is that Christians have as much of a right to wield power in order to influence the culture according to their beliefs as secularists.

---

But you don't have a right to impose your beliefs on others so that they are excluded from public services unless they meet theologically-defined criteria or agree to be subordinate to your faith.

---

I'm all ears if you have ideas about how we can have laws that apply equally to all of society, but not equally to all of society at the same time.

Rocag said:

---

Then you're misunderstanding me. Laws aren't just created out of nothing. For an existing law, at some point someone defined it and and whatever relevant authority approved it. Morality only comes into play as it concerns the personal beliefs of those people. I have no expectation that the law will reflect my version of morality, though obviously I'd like it to do so. And, at least in this country, I have ways to try and make that happen such as voting or running for office.

I would say that there is a clear distinction between legal and moral. I'm willing to be there's quite a few things that are legal you probably think are immoral. And some actions that are illegal which you don't view as immoral. Same for me, though the specifics might differ.

---

I definitely don't want to misunderstand you. I'm just having trouble with the part where you seem to acknowledge that laws flow from the beliefs of the people who make them, but then say there's a clear distinction between the law and the beliefs of the people who make them.

Rocag said:

---

You're missing huge chunks of my argument here. I am not describing things as right versus wrong because I don't accept that those terms are objectively meaningful in any way. If it's all subjective then we're just arguing about my definition of right and wrong versus yours. But describing something in terms of legal versus not legal does have clear meaning we are more likely to agree on.

America is an existing country with a defined Constitution and laws. At no point am I implying that the way things are is the way they had to be. The country could have turned out radically different or simply collapsed and been replaced by something else, but that's not the world we currently live in. So yes, discussing things in terms of that existing framework is both valid and useful.

I very clearly explained my preference for stability and order was a personal preference not necessarily shared by everyone else. However, I will say it's a pretty common one. Again and again I've made the point that people (or humans, if you prefer to phrase it that way) all have different wants and needs that often conflict. The formation of any stable society or government requires some way of managing those conflicts. Which isn't to say there is some inherent obligation to form societies or governments, just an observation that humans tend to do so. So again, the argument isn't that things must be some certain way but that "If you want X result, you need Y and Z". Is peace objectively better than chaos and war? Not the term I'd use. Do conflicts have to be resolved? No, but to achieve some goals they need to be.

---

In order to make your argument you must separate institutions from people. It's not possible.

The constitution was created by certain people for a certain reasons and amended as such. All of these reasons are moral reasons, else no one would actually create it. Why did we need to outlaw slavery if it's not morally wrong? Women's suffrage? Who cares!

The existing framework is based on an objective idea of morality, which you want to disregard. It makes no sense.

And you did it again, btw. Now you've introduced 'goals'. Where do these come from? Why are they important? Who wants them? Why should they be achieved if they're not 'wrong' or 'right'?

Edit: a final point. Why do you feel the need for a secular state if none of these things are 'good' or 'bad' and conflict doesn't need resolving? It doesn't reconcile. If there's no rational reason that a goal has to be achieved, no worldview is necessary to assume. You have a clear opinion for its necessity but no good reasons for it, so why are you even arguing or advocating for it? The simple answer is, you have a morality, and you want it reflected in government.

Bob: The point is that if laws are meant to reflect the morality of the public, they do so inconsistently. Which is what you would expect when the public is made up of people with wildly conflicting beliefs and versions of morality. There is no unified system of right and wrong that everyone believes in, it just doesn't exist. That's the point. Laws come from people and their beliefs, not directly from any objectively true standard of right and wrong.

AGC: I'm not trying to separate people from institutions, just the opposite in fact. Institutions are flawed and inconsistent in many of the same ways that the people which created them are. If our laws and constitution were based on an objective standard of morality (which I would never claim), then why allow things like slavery in the first place?

If we all have the same objective moral standard baked in, why do we such have wildly different values and fiercely fought battles over competing moral standards?

I have no clue why you're getting caught up on the word 'goals'. Missing the forest for the trees there. The question was why I phrased things in terms of something needing to happen. The answer is that I used that language in a specific way couched in terms of what is necessary to bring about a certain result. They are necessary in that specific sense. Which doesn't imply the end result is necessary.

And why do I want the things I want? Personal preference, obviously. Why should the fact that my standard of right and wrong is subjective change that? It's all any of us have, after all. Of course I have a personal version of morality, I never implied otherwise. The difference is I don't claim mine is backed by divine authority, nor do I believe anyone else's is either. Perhaps the better questions here are: What results are you trying to achieve? And will the actions you recommend actually produce that result?

That's because ontology precedes epistemology.

Rocag said:

---

Those are some enormous assumptions you're making which I absolutely don't share and see no reason to make. Yes, we're going to have some major disagreements when you start with that but make me have to spell out "In statement 1A, replace 'person' with 'human being' for clarity".

So no, I'm not going to pretend I agree with your assumptions for the sake of argument. I have no interest in trying to debate "Given that Zobel's concept of Christianity is true, show why Zobel's concept of Christianity is untrue."

---

It doesn't matter what the assumptions are - mine are on the table whether you agree with them or not. Yours aren't, and you're pretending they're not assumptions at all. That's the problem.

As it relates to religion (which is what your stated assumptions were limited to), my only assumptions are:

1. The existence of any specific god or gods is unverified.
2. The veracity of any specific religion is unverified.

Now I certainly have beliefs that go beyond those starting assumptions, but am fine qualifying them. So, for example, if we were to wake up tomorrow and find indisputable evidence that Hinduism was the one true faith all along then I'd gladly admit those beliefs were incorrect.

Yeah. This convo is a bridge too far.

Imagine trusting big government so much you give them the power to kill people. Government is far too incompetent to have this power.

Quote:

---

the post above feels a bit like moral relativism - putting the morality of the death penalty as contingent on historical or situational context

---

It's only moral relativism if I say the death penalty used to be moral and now it isn't. The death penalty is just as moral today as it was in the past. The difference in how we apply it today vs the past is a matter of prudential judgement. If we can incarcerate someone for life, with relatively low risk to society, could we better serve their souls, and society in general, if we let them live longer and potentially repent? Would the death penalty be more likely to benefit their souls and society at large? This isn't a question of whether or not the DP is immoral, but what is best for the individual and society. If a solar flare hits tomorrow and we lose all of our prison capabilities, there is no question that the second option is best. We're just lucky enough to live in a time where we can consider both.

Quote:

---

Except you don't have a Christian consensus on "here is how the human was made to live". The bolded part of my previous post was less about application of law and more to do with this;

---

I would say Christians do have a consensus on how we were made to live and can be summarized as: Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. There are other qualifiers we can put on there, but we would spend all day parsing terms, so I think this is a fair starting point.

The question of "why do Christians arrive at different conclusions on what is right and wrong?" can only be answered by appealing to a problem of application. We agree on the bolded, but when it comes to what that looks like, we diverge. This might sound like I'm punting by appealing to something overly generic. If so, that would be because you're viewing my argument through your formerly protestant lens. The historic faith believed and still believes that God left a governing body on this earth to handle the moral constants we all must follow. Any Christians who diverge are off the mark. It's a bold claim that many people take issue with, but it logically allows the idea that the moral constants have never changed, with a ton of history to back it up, and any deviations are errors. I get that this is a type of appeal to authority, but if the authority was divinely instituted, why wouldn't you appeal to it? I also get that this isn't going to sway you, but it's at least it provides consistency in doctrine and explanations for the deviations.

Side note: The fact that there is so much disagreement among Christians, and you see this as a mark against Christianity, shows that the reformation and any other schisms harmed Christ's Church and it's mission in the world. I think I've said this to you before, but in case I haven't, I'd strongly recommend you grapple with the Catholic Church's teachings if you want a more scholastic/intellectual discussion. I mean no offense to our protestant brothers and sisters, but they are much more likely to give you a "just believe it" type of answer on most of this stuff. There is always an element of that in every system, including Catholicism, atheism and agnosticism. It's just significantly reduced in our circles.

Quote:

---

So, I don't think it's fair to criticize secularism as a philosophy lacking principle and driven solely by individual whim, when Christianity itself has been shaped over time by historical, cultural, and contextual influences that reflect similar subjectivities.

---

To this part, I still think my criticism is fair. Example(not something I'm advocating for): Let's say the Christians pass a law to let people stand in front of abortion clinics and refuse people entry. Like actively barricade the entrance. They would be depriving people of a service they seek because they believe the service is evil/wrong/immoral. They would be trying to stop what they perceive as objective evil.

On the flip side, if non-Christians pass a law that says people cannot block entry to abortion clinics because it impinges upon the rights of the person seeking the service, you cannot appeal to right vs wrong. The foundation of your law can never go deeper than the preferences of the majority. The person who breaks this law hasn't done something evil/wrong/immoral. They've just gone against the preferences of other people. Essentially all we're doing is arresting someone simply because they think and act differently than others…

ETA: We have a foundational Christian writing dating back to around 70AD that "outlaws" abortion for Christians. So in this particular example, we can't say the Christian view has changed over time.

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, my kids started school this morning by walking through a metal detectors with secret technology, not being allowed to wear their watches or use their phones, unable to access the internet on the school-provided devices, sitting under the Law of Moses telling them not to run on Saturday, and a state-controlled sham voucher system. Bring on the STAAR tests. If it walks like a duck...

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, my kids started school this morning by walking through a metal detectors with secret technology, not being allowed to wear their watches or use their phones, unable to access the internet on the school-provided devices, sitting under the Law of Moses telling them not to run on Saturday, and a state-controlled sham voucher system. Bring on the STAAR tests. If it walks like a duck...

---

You are upset that the government is using it's power to put the 10 commandments back in schools. You are not upset the government used their power to remove them in the first place. That's perfectly fine, but when you act like the governmental remove of them was just some sort of neutral move, you ignore the fact that you are supporting governmental force, as long as you agree with the conclusion. If you're going to charge "statism" in one instance, you need to be fair and charge it in the other.

In reality, I doubt your kids will have even the slightest difference in school experience whether those posters go up or not. The law is going to be fruitless in either direction.

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, my kids started school this morning by walking through a metal detectors with secret technology, not being allowed to wear their watches or use their phones, unable to access the internet on the school-provided devices, sitting under the Law of Moses telling them not to run on Saturday, and a state-controlled sham voucher system. Bring on the STAAR tests. If it walks like a duck...

---

Like the other poster I can't keep up. Was integration good statism? Is taking phones and the internet out of schools bad statism? The Ten Commandments are somehow both (if we don't limit history to yesterday)? Are free lunches that exempt parents from their obligations good or bad statism? Is keeping kids in schools with low standards good statism while letting them leave to try to do better is bad?

Your politics is driving this, not your theology.

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, my kids started school this morning by walking through a metal detectors with secret technology, not being allowed to wear their watches or use their phones, unable to access the internet on the school-provided devices, sitting under the Law of Moses telling them not to run on Saturday, and a state-controlled sham voucher system. Bring on the STAAR tests. If it walks like a duck...

---

Like the other poster I can't keep up. Was integration good statism? Is taking phones and the internet out of schools bad statism? The Ten Commandments are somehow both (if we don't limit history to yesterday)? Are free lunches that exempt parents from their obligations good or bad statism? Is keeping kids in schools with low standards good statism while letting them leave to try to do better is bad?

Your politics is driving this, not your theology.

---

You tell me if you can figure out why posting the 10 commandments is different from integration. Most George Wallace voters pretended they didn't know the difference. I suppose you can keep the delusion going if you want. But the Republican party got some new "theology" in the late 70's when they realized that "states' rights" wouldn't win many elections. Especially since they didn't care much about states' rights anyway.

94chem said:

---

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, my kids started school this morning by walking through a metal detectors with secret technology, not being allowed to wear their watches or use their phones, unable to access the internet on the school-provided devices, sitting under the Law of Moses telling them not to run on Saturday, and a state-controlled sham voucher system. Bring on the STAAR tests. If it walks like a duck...

---

Like the other poster I can't keep up. Was integration good statism? Is taking phones and the internet out of schools bad statism? The Ten Commandments are somehow both (if we don't limit history to yesterday)? Are free lunches that exempt parents from their obligations good or bad statism? Is keeping kids in schools with low standards good statism while letting them leave to try to do better is bad?

Your politics is driving this, not your theology.

---

You tell me if you can figure out why posting the 10 commandments is different from integration. Most George Wallace voters pretended they didn't know the difference. I suppose you can keep the delusion going if you want. But the Republican party got some new "theology" in the late 70's when they realized that "states' rights" wouldn't win many elections. Especially since they didn't care much about states' rights anyway.

---

Thanks for proving my point, I guess? Everyone loves the state when they agree with it.

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, my kids started school this morning by walking through a metal detectors with secret technology, not being allowed to wear their watches or use their phones, unable to access the internet on the school-provided devices, sitting under the Law of Moses telling them not to run on Saturday, and a state-controlled sham voucher system. Bring on the STAAR tests. If it walks like a duck...

---

Like the other poster I can't keep up. Was integration good statism? Is taking phones and the internet out of schools bad statism? The Ten Commandments are somehow both (if we don't limit history to yesterday)? Are free lunches that exempt parents from their obligations good or bad statism? Is keeping kids in schools with low standards good statism while letting them leave to try to do better is bad?

Your politics is driving this, not your theology.

---

You tell me if you can figure out why posting the 10 commandments is different from integration. Most George Wallace voters pretended they didn't know the difference. I suppose you can keep the delusion going if you want. But the Republican party got some new "theology" in the late 70's when they realized that "states' rights" wouldn't win many elections. Especially since they didn't care much about states' rights anyway.

---

Thanks for proving my point, I guess? Everyone loves the state when they agree with it.

---

So, you really don't know? Here's a hint - one was decided by the Supreme Court. What constitutional issue is being addressed by hanging the 10 Commandments in every school?

I do think it will be interesting to see what happens when the anti-Jewish, post-millennial, pro-theocracy, neo-Calvinist, Christian Nationalists...and the pre-millennial, Dispensationalist, Zionists...realize that they are on the same side despite the fact that they hate each other. Of course, the former group is an extreme sect of those who adhere to replacement theology, while the latter is an extreme sect of those who believe that God still has work to do through national Israel. In the past, these two groups could have easily found common ground in their mutual support of the only democracy in the middle east. But these radical sects, these offshoots, who both identify with MAGA, find common ground in their belief that God really needs help. The former will help God by taking over the government so Jesus can return; the latter wish to take over the government so they can help God fulfill His promises to Israel. That's gonna be a fun showdown.

94chem said:

---

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, my kids started school this morning by walking through a metal detectors with secret technology, not being allowed to wear their watches or use their phones, unable to access the internet on the school-provided devices, sitting under the Law of Moses telling them not to run on Saturday, and a state-controlled sham voucher system. Bring on the STAAR tests. If it walks like a duck...

---

Like the other poster I can't keep up. Was integration good statism? Is taking phones and the internet out of schools bad statism? The Ten Commandments are somehow both (if we don't limit history to yesterday)? Are free lunches that exempt parents from their obligations good or bad statism? Is keeping kids in schools with low standards good statism while letting them leave to try to do better is bad?

Your politics is driving this, not your theology.

---

You tell me if you can figure out why posting the 10 commandments is different from integration. Most George Wallace voters pretended they didn't know the difference. I suppose you can keep the delusion going if you want. But the Republican party got some new "theology" in the late 70's when they realized that "states' rights" wouldn't win many elections. Especially since they didn't care much about states' rights anyway.

---

Thanks for proving my point, I guess? Everyone loves the state when they agree with it.

---

So, you really don't know? Here's a hint - one was decided by the Supreme Court. What constitutional issue is being addressed by hanging the 10 Commandments in every school?

---

Saying the SC decided something, so your statist ideas are ok, is exactly the point. If the SC upheld this I assume this would be your new take on the 10 commandments, yes? You'd support them in classrooms because the SC allowed it?

No. 3/4 - Keep the sabbath day holy i.e. no work (either physical or mental).

No more homework on whatever day you consider the sabbath.

No cutting the yard.

No cleaning your room.

No other chores.

Etc.

It's a rule in the class. Sorry mom and dad.

powerbelly said:

---

The last people I want teaching my kids about Christianity are their teachers. Moreover, I can't believe politicians are wasting this much time and money on a virtue signal.

---

Yeah. That is getting in the way of posters here being able to complain about Yell Leaders. We need time for those type important topics.

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

AGC said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

The Banned said:

---

94chem said:

---

"If a law like this persuades anyone, it will more likely persuade them that Christianity is just another tool of political power, rather than the radical hope that it actually is."

You made a great post, but you need to understand that this is what they WANT people to believe. They don't want converts. They don't want to experience the power of the Holy Spirit. It would terrify them if some fruit that happened outside the boundaries of their own control were evident. God is their bludgeon, not their source. Their power comes from themselves, wielded by human intellect, human force, human talent, human resolve. These 10 Commandment plaques are there not to point anyone toward the God of the Bible or the life of faith, but to remind us who is running things. It is merely statism repackaged to appease the dull.

---

Wasn't it statism that yanked the 10 commandments and the bible out of schools to begin with? They used to be everywhere, by the choice of the people, and those people were forced to remove them. I'm not really taking a side on whether or not this is a good law or bad one, but the government wielding power isn't a one way street. Maybe if the anti-Christians had just let schools decide for themselves all those years ago, we wouldn't be dealing with this today.

---

Who cares? If I had a dollar for every time a slump-shouldered, grammar-challenged, 45-year-old-who-looks-70, east Texan told me that it "all went to hell when they took prayer outta schools," I'd have enough money to buy Super Bowl tickets. Meanwhile, my kids have been meeting at the flagpole weekly for years to pray before school, blissfully unaware of the tyrannical "they."

My own mother has told me how much better the schools were before integration, as if that's some kind of argument against integration, and not a shameful consequence of owning human beings for 200 years and shafting them for another 100.

---

Apparently you? If you're so concerned about statism, you should be concerned in both directions. I specifically did not weigh in on whether this law will make a good change, bad change or no change. I merely calling out the double standard you seem to be espousing.

---

I don't understand what you mean. Meanwhile, my kids started school this morning by walking through a metal detectors with secret technology, not being allowed to wear their watches or use their phones, unable to access the internet on the school-provided devices, sitting under the Law of Moses telling them not to run on Saturday, and a state-controlled sham voucher system. Bring on the STAAR tests. If it walks like a duck...

---

Like the other poster I can't keep up. Was integration good statism? Is taking phones and the internet out of schools bad statism? The Ten Commandments are somehow both (if we don't limit history to yesterday)? Are free lunches that exempt parents from their obligations good or bad statism? Is keeping kids in schools with low standards good statism while letting them leave to try to do better is bad?

Your politics is driving this, not your theology.

---

You tell me if you can figure out why posting the 10 commandments is different from integration. Most George Wallace voters pretended they didn't know the difference. I suppose you can keep the delusion going if you want. But the Republican party got some new "theology" in the late 70's when they realized that "states' rights" wouldn't win many elections. Especially since they didn't care much about states' rights anyway.

---

Thanks for proving my point, I guess? Everyone loves the state when they agree with it.

---

So, you really don't know? Here's a hint - one was decided by the Supreme Court. What constitutional issue is being addressed by hanging the 10 Commandments in every school?

---

Saying the SC decided something, so your statist ideas are ok, is exactly the point. If the SC upheld this I assume this would be your new take on the 10 commandments, yes? You'd support them in classrooms because the SC allowed it?

---

Allow and force don't mean the same thing.

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

So, I don't think it's fair to criticize secularism as a philosophy lacking principle and driven solely by individual whim, when Christianity itself has been shaped over time by historical, cultural, and contextual influences that reflect similar subjectivities.

---

To this part, I still think my criticism is fair. Example(not something I'm advocating for): Let's say the Christians pass a law to let people stand in front of abortion clinics and refuse people entry. Like actively barricade the entrance. They would be depriving people of a service they seek because they believe the service is evil/wrong/immoral. They would be trying to stop what they perceive as objective evil.

On the flip side, if non-Christians pass a law that says people cannot block entry to abortion clinics because it impinges upon the rights of the person seeking the service, you cannot appeal to right vs wrong. The foundation of your law can never go deeper than the preferences of the majority. The person who breaks this law hasn't done something evil/wrong/immoral. They've just gone against the preferences of other people. Essentially all we're doing is arresting someone simply because they think and act differently than others…

ETA: We have a foundational Christian writing dating back to around 70AD that "outlaws" abortion for Christians. So in this particular example, we can't say the Christian view has changed over time.

---

Perceiving something as objectively good or bad does not make it so.

You are trying to draw a distinction between someone who supports laws based on personal preferences and someone who supports laws based on their own perspective of an objective moral as though they are different. And they are not. Unless you can demonstrate and prove that your perception of objective morality is true and consistent with, in this case, the infinite and all powerful Creator of the universe, source of all good, and objective standard of all morality. . . . . then the above is two sides of the same coin.

The foundation of secular law can never go deeper than preferences of the majority. Okay. And the foundation of religious law can never go deeper than the perceptions, interpretations, and whims of its followers. It makes zero difference that you claim that it derives from objective truth. You can't demonstrate that objective truth.

Hypothetically, lets say that I belonged to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And lets say that I derived my morals and ethics from this objective source. Would that provide gravity or any credence to my beliefs? Are my moral positions to be taken more seriously because I've tied them on to an objective source that cannot be proven or demonstrated?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Quote:

---

So, I don't think it's fair to criticize secularism as a philosophy lacking principle and driven solely by individual whim, when Christianity itself has been shaped over time by historical, cultural, and contextual influences that reflect similar subjectivities.

---

To this part, I still think my criticism is fair. Example(not something I'm advocating for): Let's say the Christians pass a law to let people stand in front of abortion clinics and refuse people entry. Like actively barricade the entrance. They would be depriving people of a service they seek because they believe the service is evil/wrong/immoral. They would be trying to stop what they perceive as objective evil.

On the flip side, if non-Christians pass a law that says people cannot block entry to abortion clinics because it impinges upon the rights of the person seeking the service, you cannot appeal to right vs wrong. The foundation of your law can never go deeper than the preferences of the majority. The person who breaks this law hasn't done something evil/wrong/immoral. They've just gone against the preferences of other people. Essentially all we're doing is arresting someone simply because they think and act differently than others…

ETA: We have a foundational Christian writing dating back to around 70AD that "outlaws" abortion for Christians. So in this particular example, we can't say the Christian view has changed over time.

---

Perceiving something as objectively good or bad does not make it so.

You are trying to draw a distinction between someone who supports laws based on personal preferences and someone who supports laws based on their own perspective of an objective moral as though they are different. And they are not. Unless you can demonstrate and prove that your perception of objective morality is true and consistent with, in this case, the infinite and all powerful Creator of the universe, source of all good, and objective standard of all morality. . . . . then the above is two sides of the same coin.

The foundation of secular law can never go deeper than preferences of the majority. Okay. And the foundation of religious law can never go deeper than the perceptions, interpretations, and whims of its followers. It makes zero difference that you claim that it derives from objective truth. You can't demonstrate that objective truth.

Hypothetically, lets say that I belonged to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And lets say that I derived my morals and ethics from this objective source. Would that provide gravity or any credence to my beliefs? Are my moral positions to be taken more seriously because I've tied them on to an objective source that cannot be proven or demonstrated?

---

And let me guess what sort of proof you would need to demonstrate objective morality: God Himself has to come down here and tell you personally that this is His objective standard. Anything short of that, and you'll just stick with "we can't prove anything", right?

Meanwhile we also can't prove that there is no objective morality. So I guess the thing to do is stick to might makes right, and neither side should complain about the results since they can neither be labeled good nor bad. If one of us gets royally screwed over by the system, we have no basis to ground our moral objections.

If we're being brutally honest here, this whole conversation is pointless if we're just material beings that are simply acting upon electrical stimulants in our brain. None of this matters. You can't possibly think differently and neither can I. My failure to convert to your view is not my fault in any way form or fashion. None of us are at fault for anything we do here.

Me:

Quote:

---

I also get that this isn't going to sway you, but it's at least it provides consistency in doctrine and explanations for the deviations.

---

Kurt:

Quote:

---

Do you honestly expect me to just roll over and submit to your views because YOU say that God agrees with you?

Don't get indignant over the fact that I'm not willing to accept that you, the Church, or anyone else speaks for God.

---

I'm not indignant, just blunt. If I'm going to go through the trouble of nuancing the situation only to have it completely ignored, I'm simply going to shorten my responses and use less effort. Not upset that you don't agree with me. In fact I predicted you wouldn't. I'm ok with that.

Quote:

---

Some variation of might makes right is how democracy works, is it not?

---

No. This is the exact point I'm trying to make. In a democracy that seeks to follow an objective truth, might is used to enact what is right. I wrote two whole paragraphs that you seem to have skipped over, or weren't clear enough. If you'd like to comment on that, I'll happily respond.

Quote:

---

Ironically, the bolded statement exactly applies to the type of pseudo-theocracy you want and is exactly the thing that a secular government has the potential to avoid

---

I don't think this is true at all. There is always an appeal to right and wrong, as if it is a knowable thing. If we want to take on a stance that there is no right and wrong, and that we're just trying to do our best, an appeal against a perceived unjust law is an appeal to personal opinion. Not right or wrong. Which is exactly why it doesn't work.

Gay marriage is a perfect example because the majority was clearly against it. Every time it came up for a vote it failed. Obama, Biden, Clinton, et al were against it. But once the SC made it legal, the majority lost and the minority cheered because it was the "right" thing to do. Might didn't make right. Personal appeals and feelings did

Quote:

---

Yes . . . I don't believe in the same objective moral standards you do. . . . . therefore nihilism. . . (rolling my eyes)

---

2nd definition of nihilism from merriam webster: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

You have said multiple times you don't believe in objective moral truths. By definition, you hold to a foundational tenet of nihilism. You don't have to be a manic depressive to be a nihilist. You are on the happier/seek meaning anyway side of the spectrum, but you can't just wave it away.

I'm well aware of how secular philosophy has tried to answer this existential crisis maker by appealing to meaning as being something the person creates for themselves. The issue here is what I was trying to pithily respond to, but I'll go further into here: If thought/consciousness is nothing other than an emergent property from the natural electrical and chemical processes of our brains, then your "meaning" is nothing more than a product of the process. The meaning "you" assign to life is not something "you" actually assign. It's just a byproduct of some brain function or another that holds no objective value. So if the byproducts of my brain functions, through no fault of my own, are in direct opposition to your brain functions, through no fault of your own, we are biologically doomed to disagree.

If this is our reality, I would be stupid to be upset with someone disagreeing with me…. But at the same time, my upsetness is a product of my random brain functions that I have no real control over… That is unless there is some immaterial aspect of us that allows us to interact with these material processes and have some measure of control over them.

Again, I don't mean to come across as indignant or anything like that. There just becomes a point where, if we remove objective truth from the equation, the whole thing loses meaning. It's opinion v opinion and our opinions aren't even really under our control.

You still have no way to demonstrate an objective moral reality. You just assert it.