PDF said: Avinash_Tyagi said: PDF said: @avinash but you cannot prove it doesnt exist. Also I said the arguement is that your killing somthing that could of lived. If you dint interfere then it would of became a baby. We are so close at settling this. Your opinion is = to anyone opinon that is faith based. Your opinion is based on how you grew up and raised and experiences just like their was, they just had some religion incorporated in their life. When a opinion is proven it becomes fact like gravity. That is not a opinion it is fact. When somthing is proven as a fact and can not be refuted it is correct.  Except that its not alive, so you aren't killing it, since it can't survive independently at that point.   See the problem is you're trying to use faith to override what we know in science and what is legal under the constitution, and that is where the problem arises. It was going to be alive is the point.  If you plant a seed in the ground and let it grow for a couple of days then you dig it up.  It was never really a tree but you killed it all the same because you took its chance from being a tree away.  The problem is your trying to overide any person with faith who are just important as you under constitution because they recieve one vote just like you.  So no matter what you think their opinion is equal under the Law and you fail to see that. Also I do not think it is the right for a the Supreme Court to make law.  They shall only interpret not make.  So Roe v. Wade should have never been made.  Only congress has the right to make laws as it is stated in our constitution.

But people that are pro choice arn't overriding people of faith, everyone agrees their allowed to carry their child full term, it's anti abortionists that are trying to override people who don't share their faith by saying they can't have an abortion. And your logic goes right back to the "every sperm is sacred song". Every sperm could have been a child, so I'm killing a million kids before going to bed every night.

@PDF
I do understand what your saying, but i think its being misinterpreted by people, and maybe not wholly explained well on your part.

I understand everyone is influenced by things, thats fine. Politicians should say "we should do this because i feel it is the correct thing to do" and then people either agree or disagree with him, simple as that.

But when you get politicians saying "we should do this because it follows the teachings of my lord and savior jesus christ" or "because krishna says in the book of..." or "the holy prophet of..." etc, etc, then you start getting into bad areas, because instead of debating the subject, it ends up becoming a debate of faith.

By the way seperation of church and state does mean religion, as thats how they spoke back then. Remember, when the country was founded, everyone was christian of some sort (besides the indians), but with many different sects.

Its also not a reference to the Catholic church, as England at the time was Anglican, and many people were fleeing the Anglican Church.

flukus said: PDF said: Avinash_Tyagi said: PDF said: @avinash but you cannot prove it doesnt exist. Also I said the arguement is that your killing somthing that could of lived. If you dint interfere then it would of became a baby. We are so close at settling this. Your opinion is = to anyone opinon that is faith based. Your opinion is based on how you grew up and raised and experiences just like their was, they just had some religion incorporated in their life. When a opinion is proven it becomes fact like gravity. That is not a opinion it is fact. When somthing is proven as a fact and can not be refuted it is correct. Except that its not alive, so you aren't killing it, since it can't survive independently at that point.   See the problem is you're trying to use faith to override what we know in science and what is legal under the constitution, and that is where the problem arises. It was going to be alive is the point. If you plant a seed in the ground and let it grow for a couple of days then you dig it up. It was never really a tree but you killed it all the same because you took its chance from being a tree away. The problem is your trying to overide any person with faith who are just important as you under constitution because they recieve one vote just like you. So no matter what you think their opinion is equal under the Law and you fail to see that. Also I do not think it is the right for a the Supreme Court to make law. They shall only interpret not make. So Roe v. Wade should have never been made. Only congress has the right to make laws as it is stated in our constitution. But people that are pro choice arn't overriding people of faith, everyone agrees their allowed to carry their child full term, it's anti abortionists that are trying to override people who don't share their faith by saying they can't have an abortion. And your logic goes right back to the "every sperm is sacred song". Every sperm could have been a child, so I'm killing a million kids before going to bed every night.

we should get off the topic of the Supreme court not being able to do this or that.  Roe v Wade is in fact a decision made by "activists" judges, as really, there is no place in the constitution that says this. 

But Brown V Topeka BoE is a similar ideal, technically not actually supported by the constitution (really read the 14th amendment to see why)  and was very much hated by the people of that time.  Yet i dont think you can find to many people this day that will say it was wrong (besides the KKK)

Anywayz, the Supreme court has nothing to do with this discussion really, as you put religion in politics, and the Supreme Court is not a political entity of the government. 

 

I think that politics should be left out of religion.

PDF said: flukus said: PDF said: Avinash_Tyagi said: PDF said: @avinash but you cannot prove it doesnt exist. Also I said the arguement is that your killing somthing that could of lived. If you dint interfere then it would of became a baby. We are so close at settling this. Your opinion is = to anyone opinon that is faith based. Your opinion is based on how you grew up and raised and experiences just like their was, they just had some religion incorporated in their life. When a opinion is proven it becomes fact like gravity. That is not a opinion it is fact. When somthing is proven as a fact and can not be refuted it is correct.  Except that its not alive, so you aren't killing it, since it can't survive independently at that point.   See the problem is you're trying to use faith to override what we know in science and what is legal under the constitution, and that is where the problem arises. It was going to be alive is the point.  If you plant a seed in the ground and let it grow for a couple of days then you dig it up.  It was never really a tree but you killed it all the same because you took its chance from being a tree away.  The problem is your trying to overide any person with faith who are just important as you under constitution because they recieve one vote just like you.  So no matter what you think their opinion is equal under the Law and you fail to see that. Also I do not think it is the right for a the Supreme Court to make law.  They shall only interpret not make.  So Roe v. Wade should have never been made.  Only congress has the right to make laws as it is stated in our constitution. But people that are pro choice arn't overriding people of faith, everyone agrees their allowed to carry their child full term, it's anti abortionists that are trying to override people who don't share their faith by saying they can't have an abortion. And your logic goes right back to the "every sperm is sacred song". Every sperm could have been a child, so I'm killing a million kids before going to bed every night. Umm no,  you cant have a baby without a egg.  sperm will be killed no matter what you do.  it is not a child seeing how it is only half of what is needed to become a baby.  DUH.

It also needs several months of nutrients and saftey from the mother, not that thats the main point I was making anyway. Based on your (presumably) religious beliefs you think the right to an abortion should be taken away from everyone else. Therefor you think you have the right to assert (through law) your faith on everyone else, which you obviously don't. In contrast, pro choice people force no one to do anything, which shows a case where it would be much better not to have religion involved in politics.

PDF said: prlatino86 said: @PDF I do understand what your saying, but i think its being misinterpreted by people, and maybe not wholly explained well on your part. I understand everyone is influenced by things, thats fine. Politicians should say "we should do this because i feel it is the correct thing to do" and then people either agree or disagree with him, simple as that. But when you get politicians saying "we should do this because it follows the teachings of my lord and savior jesus christ" or "because krishna says in the book of..." or "the holy prophet of..." etc, etc, then you start getting into bad areas, because instead of debating the subject, it ends up becoming a debate of faith. By the way seperation of church and state does mean religion, as thats how they spoke back then. Remember, when the country was founded, everyone was christian of some sort (besides the indians), but with many different sects. Its also not a reference to the Catholic church, as England at the time was Anglican, and many people were fleeing the Anglican Church. Every one opinion is equal faith based or not end of story. Saying it isnt is discrimination. Everyone was Christain but did not belong to the Same Church is the point. They did not want another Church like the Anglican Church or Catholic church. They wanted to keep all these donomination from getting to strong and forcing their beliefs on others. There is a difference between church and religion. They mean seperation of Religious institutes. Not a person faith. Religouse Institutes have no place in government any more than lobbyist and special interests groups do. Many middle eastern countires are what people use as examples of what happens when religion takes over. That is false. It is a single donomination of the religion of Islam that has control. Not everyone who is Islamic believs that. I dont know how you want me to explain it any more clearly. Everyone is Equal!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 For some reason, i really dont get what point ur trying to prove here.  Im not sure if you believe in religious states or not.  You seem to be talking more on individual denomination levels, while im more trying to talk about different religion in general.

I understand everyone is equal, i believe that, but the problem with religions is you inherently make certain groups inferior and others superior when you mix them in with politics.   

flukus said: PDF said: flukus said: PDF said: Avinash_Tyagi said: PDF said: @avinash but you cannot prove it doesnt exist. Also I said the arguement is that your killing somthing that could of lived. If you dint interfere then it would of became a baby. We are so close at settling this. Your opinion is = to anyone opinon that is faith based. Your opinion is based on how you grew up and raised and experiences just like their was, they just had some religion incorporated in their life. When a opinion is proven it becomes fact like gravity. That is not a opinion it is fact. When somthing is proven as a fact and can not be refuted it is correct. Except that its not alive, so you aren't killing it, since it can't survive independently at that point.   See the problem is you're trying to use faith to override what we know in science and what is legal under the constitution, and that is where the problem arises. It was going to be alive is the point. If you plant a seed in the ground and let it grow for a couple of days then you dig it up. It was never really a tree but you killed it all the same because you took its chance from being a tree away. The problem is your trying to overide any person with faith who are just important as you under constitution because they recieve one vote just like you. So no matter what you think their opinion is equal under the Law and you fail to see that. Also I do not think it is the right for a the Supreme Court to make law. They shall only interpret not make. So Roe v. Wade should have never been made. Only congress has the right to make laws as it is stated in our constitution. But people that are pro choice arn't overriding people of faith, everyone agrees their allowed to carry their child full term, it's anti abortionists that are trying to override people who don't share their faith by saying they can't have an abortion. And your logic goes right back to the "every sperm is sacred song". Every sperm could have been a child, so I'm killing a million kids before going to bed every night. Umm no, you cant have a baby without a egg. sperm will be killed no matter what you do. it is not a child seeing how it is only half of what is needed to become a baby. DUH.   It also needs several months of nutrients and saftey from the mother, not that thats the main point I was making anyway. Based on your (presumably) religious beliefs you think the right to an abortion should be taken away from everyone else. Therefor you think you have the right to assert (through law) your faith on everyone else, which you obviously don't. In contrast, pro choice people force no one to do anything, which shows a case where it would be much better not to have religion involved in politics.

 See, this is why i think religious beliefs should be left out of politics, because someone is always going to disagree on your point not because of its principles, but because its a religious belief, and this country is one founded on not forcing religious beliefs on other people.  

PDF said: prlatino86 said: See, this is why i think religious beliefs should be left out of politics, because someone is always going to disagree on your point not because of its principles, but because its a religious belief, and this country is one founded on not forcing religious beliefs on other people. This is a country of not forcing religion on you but religious beliefs are fine as long as they are justified. By saying religious beliefs should be left out is telling a whole group of people their opinion does not matter. It is discrimination. They are equal to have their say no matter what it is or where it comes from.

 see, i still dont understand what ur trying to say.  Where did i say religious beliefs are fine as long as they are justified?  I think your trying to say that ALL opinions are faith based, which isnt the case.  Have your opinion, be it faith based or not, i dont care.  if your a politician, say abortion is wrong because you believe it is wrong, thats fine with me. 

But be a politician and say its against your religious beliefs and thats the reason you want to make it illegal, and ill tell you to fuck off, cuz i dont care what your religion beliefs are.  In all honesty, i see someone saying "i belief this because its against my religion" as someone who isnt thinking for themselves and allows a religious institution to decide for them what they believe.  

And dont take this as me hating on religion and what not.  Fuck, im catholic, i actually consider myself more catholic then my parents.  I still dont want religion in the goverment. 

PDF said: prlatino86 said: PDF said: prlatino86 said: @PDF I do understand what your saying, but i think its being misinterpreted by people, and maybe not wholly explained well on your part. I understand everyone is influenced by things, thats fine. Politicians should say "we should do this because i feel it is the correct thing to do" and then people either agree or disagree with him, simple as that. But when you get politicians saying "we should do this because it follows the teachings of my lord and savior jesus christ" or "because krishna says in the book of..." or "the holy prophet of..." etc, etc, then you start getting into bad areas, because instead of debating the subject, it ends up becoming a debate of faith. By the way seperation of church and state does mean religion, as thats how they spoke back then. Remember, when the country was founded, everyone was christian of some sort (besides the indians), but with many different sects. Its also not a reference to the Catholic church, as England at the time was Anglican, and many people were fleeing the Anglican Church. Every one opinion is equal faith based or not end of story. Saying it isnt is discrimination. Everyone was Christain but did not belong to the Same Church is the point. They did not want another Church like the Anglican Church or Catholic church. They wanted to keep all these donomination from getting to strong and forcing their beliefs on others. There is a difference between church and religion. They mean seperation of Religious institutes. Not a person faith. Religouse Institutes have no place in government any more than lobbyist and special interests groups do. Many middle eastern countires are what people use as examples of what happens when religion takes over. That is false. It is a single donomination of the religion of Islam that has control. Not everyone who is Islamic believs that. I dont know how you want me to explain it any more clearly. Everyone is Equal!!!!!!!!!!!!! For some reason, i really dont get what point ur trying to prove here. Im not sure if you believe in religious states or not. You seem to be talking more on individual denomination levels, while im more trying to talk about different religion in general. I understand everyone is equal, i believe that, but the problem with religions is you inherently make certain groups inferior and others superior when you mix them in with politics. I believe religious people have a right in politics and religous people have the right to vote for what ever they want no matter what the reason they want it. I believe in a state where your free to believe what ever you want. By saying religion is not allowed in politics you just made a whole group inferior.

 no i didnt.  i never said people cant vote the way they want because of their religious beliefs, never said that at all. Im not talking about voting.  Im talking about the goverment, not voters.  

prlatino86 said: PDF said: prlatino86 said: PDF said: prlatino86 said: @PDF I do understand what your saying, but i think its being misinterpreted by people, and maybe not wholly explained well on your part. I understand everyone is influenced by things, thats fine. Politicians should say "we should do this because i feel it is the correct thing to do" and then people either agree or disagree with him, simple as that. But when you get politicians saying "we should do this because it follows the teachings of my lord and savior jesus christ" or "because krishna says in the book of..." or "the holy prophet of..." etc, etc, then you start getting into bad areas, because instead of debating the subject, it ends up becoming a debate of faith. By the way seperation of church and state does mean religion, as thats how they spoke back then. Remember, when the country was founded, everyone was christian of some sort (besides the indians), but with many different sects. Its also not a reference to the Catholic church, as England at the time was Anglican, and many people were fleeing the Anglican Church. Every one opinion is equal faith based or not end of story. Saying it isnt is discrimination. Everyone was Christain but did not belong to the Same Church is the point. They did not want another Church like the Anglican Church or Catholic church. They wanted to keep all these donomination from getting to strong and forcing their beliefs on others. There is a difference between church and religion. They mean seperation of Religious institutes. Not a person faith. Religouse Institutes have no place in government any more than lobbyist and special interests groups do. Many middle eastern countires are what people use as examples of what happens when religion takes over. That is false. It is a single donomination of the religion of Islam that has control. Not everyone who is Islamic believs that. I dont know how you want me to explain it any more clearly. Everyone is Equal!!!!!!!!!!!!! For some reason, i really dont get what point ur trying to prove here. Im not sure if you believe in religious states or not. You seem to be talking more on individual denomination levels, while im more trying to talk about different religion in general. I understand everyone is equal, i believe that, but the problem with religions is you inherently make certain groups inferior and others superior when you mix them in with politics. I believe religious people have a right in politics and religous people have the right to vote for what ever they want no matter what the reason they want it. I believe in a state where your free to believe what ever you want. By saying religion is not allowed in politics you just made a whole group inferior. no i didnt. i never said people cant vote the way they want because of their religious beliefs, never said that at all. Im not talking about voting. Im talking about the goverment, not voters.

 let me further elaborate.  The reason religion inherently makes groups inferior or superior is because if you dont believe in that religion, you become inferior.  Like many christians believe if you dont believe in jesus christ, no matter how good of a person you are, your going to hell.  Hell is reserved for "inferior" individuals who werent good enough to get into heaven.  Hence, if you dont believe in christ, your inferior.  Theres other examples besides christianity.  

Another problem i have with religion in goverment is simply this:  Theres no why behind a position.  "Why do you believe murder is wrong?"  "Because its against my religion"  Well, that doesnt explain why its wrong.  You tell me because its the taking away of human life, destroying of families, creating pain and suffering in friends and family members of the victim, well, thats a why.  But just because your religion says so is not an explanation. 

Which is another issue. Religion intails beliefs.  Goverment runs on ideas.  Its practically impossible to have someone change their beliefs, but a lot easier to convince someone to change their mind.  If religion was involved in our type of goverment system, it would screech to a halt, because EVERYONE has different beliefs, and nothing would get done.  Because instead of focusing on the merits of an argument (such as the example of murder), they are only focusing on their beliefs.  Hence, no matter how good an argument is made, you wouldnt be able to change someones mind on it.  And, as many people know, a democractic goverment as our own, runs on arguing and compromise.