Thread: North Carolina Intollerant and Unconstitutional Action

Originally Posted by 59caddy

you are quite right if you assume that there was not a god of any kind and that christ did not exist. then without the "story" of christ and thus the commandments being reinforced, we would have total chaos with no moral guidance and complete decadence worldwide..

But morals was present long before Jesus and the commandments were they not?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

that is a good answer. but in the same realm of things, would not NAMBLA be disgusting to most as is beastuality(spelling?) ? some of these people think they have a moral right to do what they think..

It's certainly disgusting to me and everyone else I know, regardless of religion or lack thereof. However, I don't know what NAMBLA has to do with religion/atheism to begin with. We do not know if they all subsribe to atheist beliefs, nor does it matter. For all we know some of their members could be full fledged Catholics, or Baptists, or Mormons or.........

Originally Posted by treydampier

Wow, this is a really heated topic.:
First, this is a small election and is not going anywhere. I doub the guy will get elected seeing as an NAACP former chapter president agrees with the NC requirement. Plus North Carolina is going to buckle like Alabama did on the Ten Commandments. I do not think the sate has the Brass of Mississippi that said they would continue prayer in their school despite what the Supreme Court says. I think NC should do what it wants despite the court and if they want to change their requirements, then let them do so. No other state or Federal government has any right to contest that in my mind and the founding fathers certainly would not have intervened. Plus someone said some of the founders were Atheists? Who were they I would like to know?
Second, Lets suppose NC did defy the court, what then? The Supreme Court has no military command, nor do they have the authority to enforce their ruling. Suppose then, the president gets involved, what is he going to do? Impose sanctions? Cut funding? The people of NC might decide not to send their tax money collected to Washington.
Finally, if the federal government looses with threats, what then? Do you think the American people will allow another president to order the slaughter of Americans and burn their homes like Lincoln did? Plus do you think the US military will invade NC or that a US soldier will fire on his own people? I think not.
Let's not kid ourselves, nothing is going to happen other than NC will change their law because the don't have the guts to stand up for it. I am from Georgia and it would be the same way there. The Christians of this country are a dying breed. They won't stick together and are so hypocritical sometimes that they can't stick to their guns. Besides, I would vote for a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jew or anyone who I believed qualified so long as I know they have something for which they believe in as a moral guide. A true Aethiest has no beliefs in anything, and are much are like mercenaries were described by Machiavelli, they will not be steadfast in anything. Without morals, there is no law, so no, you can not believe the law will rule and you can't maintain morals without the belief, otherwise your morals will change to what suits you at the time.

Let's eat, drink,and be merry because we are no longer the United States, we are really the United Federal Government of America. It's what is best for all that matters.

Its going to be fine people. Breath, Breath!

Well...I don't think I have the energy to respond to all the nonsense contained in the above post,and the others like it by those who think it's ok to make the holding of public office contingent upon passing a religious test. I think those of us have at least a modicum of education about constitutional law understand there is no chance the NC law would pass judicial scrutiny if it was challenged in court. And it's quite obvious those who continue to argue the "states right" mantra are not familiar with Marbury v Madisonor its progeny.

Originally Posted by gregs656

You can't possibly know that, because you have not lived in a time with out the story of christ.

Indeed, there are enough places around the world that did not hear that story, and invented their own mythical ideas in order to control their people. They did not descend into chaos.

The point is, where ever you look, people have some moral compass. It might not always be directly inline with yours, but they have one.

Christianity did not bring morals. It brought a way for those in charge to punish people who broke the rules, fear is easily the best deterrent.

once again, if you had read the entire post i said NO gods, then used christ as an example...
society around the world have their gods and their rules or commandments. that is the point here, they had some kind of moral guidance.
another post says something about what is accepted by society as being moral. then i ask about the society that believes in marriage of children and mutilation of children, is that also moral? they think so.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

that is the point here, they had some kind of moral guidance.

My appologies, it is 2am.

Either way, the point of my post was that morals are not a product of religion, but that religion is produced in order partly to try and explain the world, but also as a method of control.

In their society, if they think so, then it is. There is no normal, and that extends to ones moral compass as well. Incidentally, the marriage and mutilation of children will most certainly have happened in the states and been common place.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

once again, if you had read the entire post i said NO gods, then used christ as an example...
society around the world have their gods and their rules or commandments. that is the point here, they had some kind of moral guidance.
another post says something about what is accepted by society as being moral. then i ask about the society that believes in marriage of children and mutilation of children, is that also moral? they think so.

Then by what you are saying here human sacrifice in aztec religion is also moral, not to mention all the "uncomfortable" things in the Koran and the Bible?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

then i ask about the society that believes in marriage of children and mutilation of children, is that also moral? they think so.

As stated in my first post, this was a common practice in biblical times and was not frowned upon. The idea that it is morally wrong obviously came later, and was not voiced in the bible to begin with. If you want proof that morals are man-made and not derived from a divine source, look no further.

Therefore, does religion exclusively dictate morals? Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

this may be off topic. i would like to know where an atheist gets his or her moral compass from, since they do not believe in god or gods, therefore should not believe in anything about morality in the kuran, torah, bible or any other religious documents.
also, how would an atheist enforce and uphold any laws of the state or federal gov't if it was based on above mentioned books of religion? because he could not believe in the basis of the law, since it was for or by a god or his prophets..

Let me try to answer your question with a question: To you, is something wrong for no other reason than God says it's wrong? Something cannot be in and of itself right or wrong without God pronouncing it so to you? To give you a rather broad example. When I get punched in the nose, it's majorly painful. That in and of itself is reason enough for me to come to an understanding that it is "wrong" for people to go around punching other people in the nose. It causes pain and no one I know enjoys the infliction of severe pain. I also know it's wrong for athletes to use performance enhancing drugs. It makes those who get outperformed due to the drugs feel cheated. And I understand this is "wrong" independent of what the Bible may or may not say about the subject. On the other hand, the Old Testament told us that wearing clothing made of certain material or eating certain type of animal protein constitutes a moral sin. Aside from God saying its a sin to eat poached eel and later changing the rules about this, I don't otherwise see any real right or wrong about clothing material or poached eel, and I certainly would object if a strict fundamentalist wanted to pass a law making it illegal, and punishable by incarceration, if you didn't honor your parents.
Finally, if your logic was correct, then tell me why, when the USSR was still in existence, it had laws against murder, stealing, violation of copywrite laws, and pornography? After all, it was an atheist nation, was it not?

I'm not sure why this is a discussion?

This is wholly unconstitutional, immoral and WILL NOT (or hopefully will not) stand up in court.

Doesn't "freedom of religion" also refer to those that choose not to follow a religion? I should think so.

Depends if you follow a Religious Institution or not.