Imagining a world where humanity discards organized religion and lives in harmony (Page 2)

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @Shadowline: The US introduced it by popular vote too and there was too many votes against it. So they lost. However this did not float and the community went to the Supreme court and told them that voting no on gay marriage is unconstitutional since they were just poor sports about it. Not that I am against gay marriage but if those morons knew it was unconstitutional they should have never suggested we "Vote" on it. they should have simply made a case with the supreme court and not waste everyone's time.

Also you are right Shadow and I said this in my previous comment. There is many groups against homosexuality not just Christians. In fact two girls at my school were being bullied for it and not in the name of Christianity. It was by 3 girls who said it was unnatural and went against nature. Not that its unholy. In fact one of these 3 girls was one of the biggest harlots I had ever seen. Running around school saying how many men she slept with but the minute she sees two females holding hands she completely loses it. These girls in fact mocked Christianity and the thought that you should wait till marriage to "Do it".

Again people just keep turning religion into an escape goat. Religion and the things its against are not the only reason the world people are against them. Religion is not the only source of conflict in the world. However most people are too blind to understand that and think killing off one group will fix everything. It wont!

Life does not work that way, people do not work that way, society does not work that way. Even if we all agree we hate that one group there will still be other issues we need to face. However I am afraid that some issues are just far too complex for everyone to understand. So we cant expect everyone to see the many aspects there is to a single issue. Some people can understand very complex issues and simply choose to escape goat certain aspects and pretend everything is fixed.

M3lK4t: abolish religion, sects, royalty, govt, currency, military, corporations, then maybe see where we all end up. A better world? or just more confusion? The human condition is such that true peace may not be at all possible but then again maybe I underestimate us all.

davesdatahut: Religion, check. Sects, check Royalty, definitely check (what purpose do the Windsors serve, anyway???). Currency we need. The military we need, unfortunate as that is. Corporations. Need them, too. So let's split the difference and see where we get. We certainly couldn't be any worse off without organized religion and the parasites who occupy royal positions.

davesdatahut: Chron, I agree full-stop with all you said in your last post. Thank you for those words.
There actually are some stuttering signs that the religious in America are starting to mold religion in a somewhat more positive direction, moving toward some of the purer teachings of various faiths that call for every peaceful person to be treated with equal dignity and respect. This could be a result of younger members who have much less interest than their elders in perpetuating bigoted myths of the past. We shall see where this leads.

davesdatahut: What do you do, Shadowline and Adorable Prince, if the populace votes against gay marriage? Or rights of any kind for gays? How would that mesh with the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution?
It would blow a hole in it is what it would do, opening up any other group's status in society to a popular vote. We do not live here by the tyranny of the majority. We live here with laws that protect the minority against that very tyranny.
This is the greatest benefit that we get from the U.S. Constitution. Cherish it. For without it, we lose whatever decency we may still have.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @davedatahut: I already went over this in an earlier comment. If you believe its unconstitutional go to the supreme court. However if you are arrogant enough to believe you are going to win since you are so awesome and people vote against it that is your own stupidity. If you are stupid enough to suggest it be voted on dont complain when people vote against it! That shows what arrogant jerks you are.

I never said anything about being against gay rights or gay marriage. However when they first considered gay marriage they said "Fine how about we vote and whatever the outcome is we are keeping it". Everyone said "Yeah okay sure lets vote". It was voted that gay marriage should not exist. They should have left it alone at that point.

Yes, you can argue its not constitutional but if that is honestly the case it should not have ever been a decision to be put up for public vote and if it is live with the decision the group has made. Its stupid to waste everyone's time with your BS if you are just going to go crying that you didn't win. That shows a lot of immaturity.

I am going to make everyone vote see how right I am since everyone is going to agree with me. Honestly? Whos idea was this?

davesdatahut: In the span of four somewhat incoherent paragraphs, Adorable, you have labeled me or suggested that I am arrogant, stupid, an arrogant jerk and immature! All in four paragraphs!
Having done that, your point remains rather unclear, buried beneath a rant that goes nowhere. Are you just venting and calling names or do you have something coherent to say?
The matter IS before the U.S. Supreme Court, so that a decision can indeed be made on the legality of gay marriage and how it should or should not be carried out. From my view, I can't see any way it can come out other than a ruling that gay marriage is constitutional. Otherwise, the equal protection clause of the Constitution goes out the window.

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @davesdatahut: Are you saying you were the one who set up the voting for gay marriage? Since that is what I was talking about not you. If you paid attention and read my comment you would see the point I made as I asserted this same point twice already. However I doubt you are going to understand it so I guess ill have to spell it out. Sorry that your comprehension skills are so lacking. Sorry if you did not go to the best schools but neither did I. However I am going to be kind and dumb it down. So here are bullet points.

*Its stupid to make us vote on something that could already be considered unconstitutional.

*Its stupid to make people vote on something since you assume you are going to win, and also proves your arrogance.

*If you suggest we all vote on something and you lose the issue should be over. Dont go crying like a two year old who lost in a game to another child when you were the one who suggested we play it in the first place.

To Summarize: This should have never been a public voting decision

davesdatahut: Adorable, you're losing me here. At no point, in this thread, have I suggested that there should be a vote on gay marriage. Nor would I ever advocate that in any way, shape or form. I am completely to opposed to such an idea.
This issue belongs in the courts, which is where it is, for a ruling on whether gay marriage must be allowed under the U.S. Constitution.
Let me be quite clear: I am completely against this issue being voted on.
At what point did I say something that suggested I thought this should be put to a vote?

shadowline: "Hitler was a Christian."

No, he was not.

"He was baptised at an early age."

Everyone in Austria was baptized in Hitler's time. If baptism made a Christian, the idiot who wrote this would probably be one.

"Attended mass regularly according to Goebbels Diaries."

No, he did not. If Goebbels thought he did, you may add that to that man's collection of delusions. He was rather given to them, you know.

"He constantly mentioned God according to Morelle's accounts."

He may have done that. It wouldn't make him a believer in salvation through Christ.

"In 1922, in a speech he said:

'My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter [...] who [...] recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them..' "

It takes a very naïve person to believe that because Hitler said this (if he did) he meant it. Hitler was what is called a politician, you see. He said whatever was necessary to keep constituencies lined up.

"In a 1928 speech he said:

'We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian.' "

Same thing, although this one I quite simply don't believe he said, because...

Hitler despised the Christian religion, for the perfectly obvious reason that he saw it as a degenerate offshoot of Judaism. He considered the evisceration of Christianity, which he believed had alienated the Aryan race from their own folk roots, to be an essential aspect of the Nazi program.

Here are some of Hitler's private comments on the religion he was baptized into. These come from "Hitler's Table Talk," a collection of personal remarks which were not intended for public consumption, and do not have any political purpose behind them.

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together….The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity….Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things."

July, 1941

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural laws, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure….

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death….When understanding of the universe has become widespread….Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity….Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity….And that’s why some day its structure will collapse….The only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little….Christianity the liar….We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer….The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St Paul. He gave himself to this work….for the purposes of personal exploitation….Didn’t the world see, carried right on into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea."

November 1941

"Christianity is an invention of sick, brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery….When all is said, we have no wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let us be the only people immunized against the disease."

1941

"It would always be disagreeable to me to go down in history as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors – but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next two hundred years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity….My regret will have been that I couldn’t behold [it]."

1942

Hitler’s Table Talk 1941 – 1944. Oxford University Press

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @Davesdatahut:
if the populace votes against gay marriage? Or rights of any kind for gays? How would that mesh with the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution?<==What you wrote

This is not a "What if scenario". This happened in the US. The following events I listed happened and it did not go straight to the supreme court like you seem to assume. There was the idea it should be "decided by popular vote". You clearly dont know anything about current Us politics. This was back in 2008 during the election.

davesdatahut: Adorable, why don't you inform me about the specifics of what you are talking about, so I can get up to speed on 'current Us politics?' What exactly are you referring to that happened during the 2008 election?
I'm well aware that this issue did not go 'straight to the supreme court.' But the court is where the issue should be decided.
What is your point here?

Pragmatic Aristocrat: @davedatahut: Read the bullet points. Its very simple. I cant be any more clear.

davesdatahut: Do you mean these bullet points of yours:
*Its stupid to make us vote on something that could already be considered unconstitutional.

*Its stupid to make people vote on something since you assume you are going to win, and also proves your arrogance.

*If you suggest we all vote on something and you lose the issue should be over. Dont go crying like a two year old who lost in a game to another child when you were the one who suggested we play it in the first place.