18 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrIn the context of the coversation:
All I can see in my efforts to follow the debate is your effort to alter terminology from abortions prior to the third trimester to murder. I am well aware that many Christians prefer to use such terminology; I'm asking you to support your claim from evidence.
You are offering rhetoric where your arguments have failed.
If I missed something, please point it out.
frogstomp
"...and the issue is the state not having the lawful power to pass laws purely for religious reasons. "
KellyJay
"Purely religious reasons, that sounds a bit vague to me, is it okay
if the law has some religious reasons to it? "
In the context, I was questioning frogstomp's view of what made
a view wrong, because of that views connection to religion. It is
either because any view that has any religious connection is wrong,
or it isn’t applied all the time. Unless it is a hard fact that religion
should have not have any connection to any law, that would reject
all laws that have any connection to religion, because they would
will always be wrong now because of their religious connection.
If some views that have connections to religion are okay, and
others or not, than the judge of what is acceptable and not is who?
We can now say that simply because there are religious
connotations that does not make any law bad simply because of
religion.
Kelly
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThere was no other reason behind the anti-abortion laws than the religious ones, and that's why they were declared un-constitional,,
In the context of the coversation:
frogstomp
"...and the issue is the state not having the lawful power to pass laws purely for religious reasons. "
KellyJay
"Purely religious reasons, that sounds a bit vague to me, is it okay
if the law has some religious reasons to it? "
In the context, I was questioning frogstomp's view of what made
a ...[text shortened]... are religious
connotations that does not make any law bad simply because of
religion.
Kelly
religion IS still a matter of choice.
You mis-state the standard the court used. Since there was no other reason except religion they had to be struck down.
18 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayMurder laws are not solely religious based and any legal historian could tell you.
Purely religious reasons, that sounds a bit vague to me, is it okay
if the law has some religious reasons to it? Murder is forbidden as
a religious reason, should we allow that because of the religous
connection? Where is the line you r ...[text shortened]... ly want to draw, is it that you
simply want what you want?
Kelly
Even the Atheist Commie Pinko Governments outlaw murder. so did pagan governments. Families, Clans, Tribes and any other social order have non-religious reasons to outlaw murder, theft, and intra group violence of any kind.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI fail to see where frogstomp used the term murder.
In the context of the coversation:
frogstomp
"...and the issue is the state not having the lawful power to pass laws purely for religious reasons. "
KellyJay
"Purely religious reasons, that sounds a bit vague to me, is it okay
if the law has some religious reasons to it? "
In the context, I was questioning frogstomp's view of what made
a ...[text shortened]... are religious
connotations that does not make any law bad simply because of
religion.
Kelly
Your misuse of this word is the "stuff" I to which I object. This was an argument about abortion. Of course murder is wrong, but not because Christians object. Frogstomp has documented Christian opposition to abortion better than any of the Christian apologists in this thread, and has raised the question whether the state has a legitimate purpose in passing laws for "purely religious purposes."
Secular societies destroy themselves when they pass such laws. Secular governments certainly have no worse a record than theocratic governments in the prevention of murder, and perhaps they have a better record.
A government founded upon notions of Christian morality would prevent abortion, but it may well legitimize many additional killings that our current secular system still recognizes as murder.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompLook at my very first post in this thread!
There was no other reason behind the anti-abortion laws than the religious ones, and that's why they were declared un-constitional,,
religion IS still a matter of choice.
You mis-state the standard the court used. Since there was no other reason except religion they had to be struck down.
"Do you like chocolate or vanilla better? That is this entire question
simply put, it is a personal taste question on what is more important
nothing more, a woman’s right to choose, or the life within the
woman. Depending on the flavor you like, what is inside a woman
gets killed with every successful abortion or not.
Kelly "
I already said that, without God it is personal taste nothing more.
Kelly
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompI'm sorry, "... not soley religious based..."
Murder laws are not solely religious based and any legal historian could tell you.
Even the Atheist Commie Pinko Governments outlaw murder. so did pagan governments. Families, Clans, Tribes and any other social order have non-religious reasons to outlaw murder, theft, and intra group violence of any kind.
I took that up already, so religion is just an excuse to forbid the
laws you dislike, and not one to forbid the ones you do like.
Kelly
18 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrLaws in general, it can be about dress codes for all I care.
I fail to see where frogstomp used the term murder.
Your misuse of this word is the "stuff" I to which I object. This was an argument about abortion. Of course murder is wrong, but not because Christians object. Frogstomp has do ...[text shortened]... llings that our current secular system still recognizes as murder.
Murder was just an example of a religious law everyone accepts.
Kelly
18 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayMurder is not a religious law. Religion adopted the prohibition from secular society, or from universal human values. But religions ahve been slow to recognize as murder certain kinds of killing, principally killing of unbelievers, but also many believers whose crimes are heinous.
Laws in general, it can be about dress codes for all I care.
Murder was just an example of a religious law everyone accepts.
Kelly
Consider, for example, the case of Thomas Granger. In 1642, in theocratic Massachusetts Bay Colony, he was indicted for having sex with "a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey" (William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647). He confessed to these crimes and was executed, as were all the animals with which he had enjoyed carnal relations.
Now, were these killings justified, or do they belong on the long list of religiously sanctioned murders? You know what I think.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayFirst you concedethe laws are only religion based.
I'm sorry, "... not soley religious based..."
I took that up already, so religion is just an excuse to forbid the
laws you dislike, and not one to forbid the ones you do like.
Kelly
and then you say it's used as an excuse to to forbid laws I don't like.
I don't like any laws that violate separation of church and state, maybe that's because I believe I have no business having the state force you to act according to my religious views. The only thing I do want the state to do about religion is non- interference unless a particular religion is being used to circumvent a law that the state has found absolutely neccessary for the function of society, other than that to let people decide what religious values they themselves are going to follow.