• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue

Paleocon said:
Every country in the history of the world until a few hundred years ago had an official religion. Things will return to that state.

It may not be in my lifetime, but it's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

No they won't, but have fun dealing with Blasphemy. Nothing YOU can do about me doing it either. :lamo
 
TheNextEra said:
No they won't, but have fun dealing with Blasphemy. Nothing YOU can do about me doing it either. :lamo
Click to expand...

It's the way things have always been. This exception will not be permanent.
 
Paleocon said:
Every country in the history of the world until a few hundred years ago had an official religion. Things will return to that state.

It may not be in my lifetime, but it's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding?

Religion is dying out. In the West especially, religion has far less influence and devoted 'members to the various 'God clubs'.

People are finally starting to wake up to how silly it is to base their beliefs on nothing more then a 'leap of faith' - since NONE of the major religions can offer any hard, scientific proof of almost any major claims these fictional books make.

Just go to a church - almost any one - and I guarantee you the average age of most of the congregation's will be far higher now then they was 50 years ago.

BBC News - Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says
 
DA60 said:
Are you kidding?

Religion is dying out. In the West especially, religion has far less influence and devoted 'members to the various 'God clubs'.

People are finally starting to wake up to how silly it is to base their beliefs on nothing more then a 'leap of faith' - since NONE of the major religions can offer any hard, scientific proof of almost any major claims these fictional books make.

Just go to a church - almost any one - and I guarantee you the average age of most of the congregation's will be far higher now then they was 50 years ago.

BBC News - Religion may become extinct in nine nations, study says
Click to expand...

I mean on a broader scheme of history.
 
Paleocon said:
I'm concerned with open and public blasphemy.
Click to expand...

And this is why I'm thankful religious extremists of any sort typically can't get substantial power in this country.

Blasphemy, an entirely religious concept, should not be codified into law. Indeed, doing such is inherently against one of the foundational principles this country's government is based on, which is that the government should not restrict individuals speech. Bringing up Sharia is ENTIRELY justified, as suggesting that people should be IMPRISONED for "Public blashpheming" is a similar sort of over the top religious based legal structure.
 
Zyphlin said:
And this is why I'm thankful religious extremists of any sort typically can't get substantial power in this country.

Blasphemy, an entirely religious concept, should not be codified into law. Indeed, doing such is inherently against one of the foundational principles this country's government is based on, which is that the government should not restrict individuals speech. Bringing up Sharia is ENTIRELY justified, as suggesting that people should be IMPRISONED for "Public blashpheming" is a similar sort of over the top religious based legal structure.
Click to expand...

Sharia is irrelevant since it is specific to Islam.
 
Paleocon said:
Sharia is irrelevant since it is specific to Islam.
Click to expand...

It's relevant as a means of comparison. Like saying someone's face is red like a lobster. Or saying that the way a point guard distributes the ball is like he's joe montana. Or saying someone who wants the purging of all christians from the world is like Hitler.

In none of those instances is the thing being referenced meant as a LITERAL reference, but as a comparison. Someone who is trying to purge the world of Christians is not LITERALLY Hitler, but it's an apt comparison to someone who was attempting to purge an area of followers of a particular religion.

Comparisons to Sharia is relevant in this case as an example of a strict religious based legal system....codifying "public blashpemy" into law is similar in mentality to sharia in terms of establishing a strict religious based law.

You're actively calling for the IMPRISONMENT of someone for "public blaspheming", which seems to be pretty specific to christianity (unless I'm mistaken and you're suggesting public blashpeming against Islam or Satanism is included in your call), and that is absolutely reasonable to be compared to the type of mentality and legal methods utilized with Sharia Law.
 
Zyphlin said:
It's relevant as a means of comparison. Like saying someone's face is red like a lobster. Or saying that the way a point guard distributes the ball is like he's joe montana. Or saying someone who wants the purging of all christians from the world is like Hitler.

In none of those instances is the thing being referenced meant as a LITERAL reference, but as a comparison. Someone who is trying to purge the world of Christians is not LITERALLY Hitler, but it's an apt comparison to someone who was attempting to purge an area of followers of a particular religion.

Comparisons to Sharia is relevant in this case as an example of a strict religious based legal system....codifying "public blashpemy" into law is similar in mentality to sharia in terms of establishing a strict religious based law.

You're actively calling for the IMPRISONMENT of someone for "public blaspheming", which seems to be pretty specific to christianity (unless I'm mistaken and you're suggesting public blashpeming against Islam or Satanism is included in your call), and that is absolutely reasonable to be compared to the type of mentality and legal methods utilized with Sharia Law.
Click to expand...

Well the difference is that Christianity is true.
 
Paleocon said:
Well the difference is that Christianity is true.
Click to expand...

Not in any way you can prove. Your own personal delusions prove nothing.
 
Paleocon said:
Well the difference is that Christianity is true.
Click to expand...

And thus you highlight why you're no different than radical islamists desperately attempting to spread Sharia law. Their argument why their ridiculous, bakcwards, neanderthal like notion of legality is okay is the same as yours, because they believe their religion is "true" and thus it's tennents should be law.

Sorry, that's not a legitimate argument rather you're an extremist muslim or an extremist christian or extremist anything else. A call for incarceration for "public blasphemy" is born from the same mentality that sharia law springs from.

Despite your obvious disdain and disagreement with the process that the Founding Father's started with this country, where the movement away from a state religion was significant for the first time in modern history, the reality is we do not and are unlikely to see an establishment of a state religion in this country. As such, public blaspheming has no place as a means of law...let alone one resulting in the actual imprisonment of a citizen.

Prior to the modern era, a monarchy or some other form of singular titular leadership was pretty much the standard of the day as well Paleo. We are no less likely to return to the age where most states within the world have a state religion than we are to return to an age where most states are ruled over by a singular titular unelected leader.
 
Zyphlin said:
And thus you highlight why you're no different than radical islamists desperately attempting to spread Sharia law. Their argument why their ridiculous, bakcwards, neanderthal like notion of legality is okay is the same as yours, because they believe their religion is "true" and thus it's tennents should be law.

Sorry, that's not a legitimate argument rather you're an extremist muslim or an extremist christian or extremist anything else. A call for incarceration for "public blasphemy" is born from the same mentality that sharia law springs from.

Despite your obvious disdain and disagreement with the process that the Founding Father's started with this country, where the movement away from a state religion was significant for the first time in modern history, the reality is we do not and are unlikely to see an establishment of a state religion in this country. As such, public blaspheming has no place as a means of law...let alone one resulting in the actual imprisonment of a citizen.

Prior to the modern era, a monarchy or some other form of singular titular leadership was pretty much the standard of the day as well Paleo. We are no less likely to return to the age where most states within the world have a state religion than we are to return to an age where most states are ruled over by a singular titular unelected leader.
Click to expand...

You realize that this isn't actually an argument, right. You're just declaring Christianity and Islam to be equivalent.
 
Paleocon said:
Ok. Well in the spirit of invalid analogies.

Some people want murder to be legal, this is ridiculous. Some people want murder to be illegal. Since these are both opinions about murder, they're both ridiculous.
Click to expand...

There is nothing invalid about what I said.Every group finds something offensive regardless if it is religious groups or non-religious groups. You imprison people for doing something that is offensive to select Christians(I and many others could care less what someone does to a graven image because graven images are a sin) then you open the door to imprisoning people for things other groups of people find offensive.
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
You realize that this isn't actually an argument, right. You're just declaring Christianity and Islam to be equivalent.
Click to expand...

No, he's declaring your piss poor attitude as equivalent of extremism of a different stripe... which it is.
 
jamesrage said:
There is nothing invalid about what I said.Every group finds something offensive regardless if it is religious groups or non-religious groups. You imprison people for doing something that is offensive to select Christians(I many others could care less what someone does to a graven image) then you open the door to imprisoning people for things other groups of people find offensive.
Click to expand...

Well if you support murder being illegal, then you open the door to murder being legal.

(liberal illogic)
 
Paleocon said:
It isn't equivalent.
Click to expand...

In the sense that you won't get your way I suppose... you're just an extremist in a sea of relative moderates that will never get his way.

So in that way you're not equivalent, if you had your way you would be.

But regardless of what you think truth means, you are an extremist of the worst and most ugly kind, who luckily isn't able to act on his fantasies.
 
Paleocon said:
You realize that this isn't actually an argument, right. You're just declaring Christianity and Islam to be equivalent.
Click to expand...

And you've done nothing to prove otherwise.
 
Paleocon said:
Well if you support murder being illegal, then you open the door to murder being legal.

(liberal illogic)
Click to expand...

I support something being illegal so that opens the door to that thing being legal? That makes no ****en sense.Wouldn't an actual analogy be if you support something offensive being illegal then you open the door for other offensive things being made illegal?
 
jamesrage said:
I support something being illegal so that opens the door to that thing being legal? That makes no ****en sense.
Click to expand...

Which was exactly the point.
 
Paleocon said:
Which was exactly the point.
Click to expand...

I do not know if you know this but analogies have to related to what the person is stating and have to make sense. Wanting something to be illegal is not in any shape or form equivalent to wanting it legal. No one but you is saying yeah lets make desecrating graven images a crime but lets not make anything else considered offensive a crime.
 
Paleocon said:
You realize that this isn't actually an argument, right. You're just declaring Christianity and Islam to be equivalent.
Click to expand...

In which way?

If you mean in terms of your "argument" for why you're right? Yes. I'm saying your claim that your belief "IS TRUE" is equivilent to a muslim who supports Sharia's claim that their belief "is true".

If you mean in terms of the law, yes....I'm declaring that attempts to codify religious law into the law of a government are equavalent as it relates to using the law to enforce religious rules.

As it relates to enforcing religious law as a matter of governmental law, Imprisoning people for "blaspheming" against the Christian God is equivalent to stoning people for depicting Muhammad is equivalent to fining people for speaking ill of Brahma. They ALL are instances of attempting to punish people for doing something negative towards a particular religion.

I'm not suggesting that the REACTION is equivilent (stoning is not equivilent to imprisonment is not equivilent to fining), but rather the NATURE of the TYPE of law is equivilent.

However, a man arguing from a position that treats a notion that is completely unverifiable and derives simply from fate as "FACT" has little ground to stand on in terms of declaring someone's argument "isn't actually an argument".

Since your argument is simply "I believe this is so, and thus it factually is", then you're in a glass house casting stones at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
In which way?

If you mean in terms of your "argument" for why you're right? Yes. I'm saying your claim that your belief "IS TRUE" is equivilent to a muslim who supports Sharia's claim that their belief "is true".

If you mean in terms of the law, yes....I'm declaring that attempts to codify religious law into the law of a government are equavalent as it relates to using the law to enforce religious rules.

As it relates to enforcing religious law as a matter of governmental law, Imprisoning people for "blaspheming" against the Christian God is equivalent to stoning people for depicting Muhammad is equivalent to fining people for speaking ill of Brahma. They ALL are instances of attempting to punish people for doing something negative towards a particular religion.

I'm not suggesting that the REACTION is equivilent (stoning is not equivilent to imprisonment is not equivilent to fining), but rather the NATURE of the TYPE of law is equivilent.

However, a man arguing from a position that treats a notion that is completely unverifiable and derives simply from fate as "FACT" has little ground to stand on in terms of declaring someone's argument "isn't actually an argument".

Since your argument is simply "I believe this is so, and thus it factually is", then you're in a glass house casting stones at the moment.
Click to expand...

See the third part of this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...8-christian-secularists-5.html#post1063196439
 
Contrary to what you desire, assumptions are not facts. Furthermore, even if we're to assume the ressurection is absolute fact, it still does not inherently prove one is the "son of god" nor that the entirity of the Christian faith is true.

As it relate to Aquinas's five ways. The first way does not in any way prove the existance of the Christian God. The second way does not in any way prove the existance of the Christian God. Same goes for three, and four, and five.

All of them, AT BEST, can be an argument for a divine entity of some sort initially, not necessarily the "God" of the bible. Aquinas's five ways "prove" the beliefs of Hindu's as much as it proves the beliefs of Christians. Even then, his logic arguments are problematic in the sense they're dishonest attempts of logic where a percieved end point was already presented upon the creation of his question, injecting bias into the logical process from the start. This doesn't even go into some of the issues of internal logic with his points, such as the naturally ciruclar reasoning in using the general logic of "everything must come from something". But this isn't a religious thread so not going to go into nit picky notions. The FACT is however that Aquinas's 5 ways do not singularly work with the "Christian" version of "God" only.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I think the progressives here really don't care about this issue NOT because the kid has First Amendment rights but because they hate Christianity, and that is more disturbing to me than the kid in the picture.
Click to expand...

Sigh, I hope you're wrong.
 
Zyphlin said:
And this is why I'm thankful religious extremists of any sort typically can't get substantial power in this country.

Blasphemy, an entirely religious concept, should not be codified into law. Indeed, doing such is inherently against one of the foundational principles this country's government is based on, which is that the government should not restrict individuals speech.
Click to expand...

Exactly: Blasphemy should not be codified into law, and individual free speech, however abhorrent, should not be restricted unless it's seditious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom