Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The problem with religion informing government is that you run into the problem of "which religion gets control?"
I'm Catholic, but I'd never want our government to follow Catholic rules. Those rules are for me and people of my faith to follow, not muslims, or atheists, or Christians of other denominations.
Precisely. Religion shouldn't be taught in public schools; save that for private institutions. However I don't think there should be a fear of mentioning religion in some context in public schools or such, so long as kids are allowed to develop their own beliefs or lack thereof without having an agenda pushed on them. I've seen some crazy lengths schools have gone to in order to prevent even the mention of something religious.
Never accused anyone in this thread of that. Don't put words in my mouth.
edited 29th Jul '16 3:21:32 PM by randomdude4
"Can't make an omelette without breaking some children." -BurDoes a religion include values I disagree with, and attempt to impose them through legislation? If yes, then the religion should be quashed or prevented from preaching those values.
Exhibit A: any legal attempt to allow a company to not offer certain healthcare benefits, or to discriminate against homosexuals, based on "religious liberty."
I disagree. People come up with secularisms all the time to defend religious principles ("intelligent design" as pseudoscience, instead of creationism, or fallacious arguments from nature for homophobia, "legitimate rape" in abortion arguments). In this thread, we call these things "dog whistles;" they're arguments made to appeal to religious individuals without placing religious belief out in the open to be challenged.
I don't believe anyone in this thread has argued that religion should "never be mentioned" in schools. Please do not put up strawmen.
(Also, I do disagree that religion should be taught in private schools. I disagree with a parent's right to enforce their religion on their children.)
edited 29th Jul '16 3:20:10 PM by Ramidel
Yeah, if it's something like having students give presentations on a religion of their choice or something, that's fine. We did that when Inwas in highschool, and I learned a lot about Buddhism through it.
The problem arises when a religion is taught as though we've proven it to be true. We can't prove or disprove any of them, so we shouldn't tell kids that we know the Earth is 3,000 years old or something.
The vast majority of rabid Bible thumpers have probably never even read the Bible in its entirety. While they may be able to quote chapter and verse of their favorite passages, they're just cherry-picking the stuff that agrees with their pre-conceived notions. I'm reminded of a quote, but who actually said it escapes me at the moment...
Methinks not so many people would be thumping the Bible if they had actually read the thing, or at the very least the Old Testament. Instead, it's basically 'MAH JESUS!' and that's it. You don't hear anyone going 'MAH CAIN AN' ABEL!', or 'MAH SODOM AN' GOMORRAH!', do you?
edited 29th Jul '16 3:35:37 PM by kkhohoho
There's also the interpretation (which was important to determining the identity of the early church as Christians rather than Jews) that Jesus' sacrifice released people from the obligations of Mosiac law other than the 10 (+1) commandments. It's why we don't keep kosher or celebrate those holidays, for example.
edited 29th Jul '16 4:12:04 PM by Elle
Personally, I could never keep kosher. I love bacon cheeseburgers, and lobster, and all kinds of other stuff that those stupid, bronze-age dietary laws forbid. It's the f***ing 21st century — we have refrigeration, Pasteurization, the USDA, the FDA, and things like that nowadays, y'know.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.![]()
For what it's worth, Paul pretty much did away with the idea that mosaic law should necessarily be followed by "gentiles" such as white people.
As for the old-testament new-testament thing, I'm going to guess more Christians are familiar with the new testament. To put it this way: Churches will occasionally distribute "New Testament only" bibles, but never "Old Testament only".
edited 29th Jul '16 4:22:13 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Guys, I'd love to have this debate, but we banned it precisely for the reasons we're seeing here.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The problem I have with the idea that "religion and politics should never mix" is that I think a major role religion can and should serve is changing society for the better, which it can't due if people aren't allowed to consider it when designing legislation.
Leviticus 19:34