|
|
|
|
dingus
May 18, 2005, 11:24 PM
Post #26 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In my experience, this is an example of people placing very equicoval religious (not spiritual) values on chastity, believing that a virgin is somehow holier or more spiritually pure than someone who has sex once or a million times.
I think the issue is also rooted in a past where a female child was considered a liability and every step toward adulthood of that child was directed at selling her off (or buying a husband). The concept of a virgin bride had VALUE in the physical world as well as the religious, just like a dowry.
Being a teenaged unwed mother would suck and I would not wish that on my daughters. That being said, saddling them with this old school mentality that they are somehow less worthy, LESS VALUABLE, because they have used their vigina for its intended purpose, is baggage they do not need.
I am at times offended my what the ACLU decides to defend or attack. Not in this case, not at all. George Bush has purposely pushed at the lines seperating government and religion and if continued, tryanny will ultimately follow.
Yet another example of how by staying in the middle, I float ever left in the stream. The Jihad movement in the republican party is a scary thing.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
May 19, 2005, 12:46 AM
Post #27 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: In reply to: At what point will the US Mint be sued by the ACLU, for printing "In God We Trust" on all of our money? Not soon enough for me. I don't trust in god, and I don't need or want it on my money.
It is somewhat appropriate that "In God We Trust" is printed on our money. The value of the dollar is about as real as the fictitious diety in which you are trusting.
Bring back the gold standard.
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
May 19, 2005, 12:49 AM
Post #28 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Why is sex such a big deal for christians? They're obviously allowed to break the "thou shalt not kill" commandmant without worrying about it too much. A little woopie with the neighbor, and you're damned for life. What's up with that? :?: In my experience, this is an example of people placing very equicoval religious (not spiritual) values on chastity, JL Being a teenaged unwed mother would suck
ok, first, control of sexual impulse and energy is not just a Christian thing, but is spoken of as a proven practice in many systems of "philosophy" or "Religion".
as JL said, the true value is manifested in the subtle psychologial refinments, not in some heavenly after-life merrit badge.
and also, Dingus pointed out another value of living a controlled, discriminative life. it's just a lot less trouble. "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath"
If you analyze your life, you might find that your first real troubles manifested around the time of your first sex experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
May 19, 2005, 1:26 AM
Post #30 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
In reply to: In reply to: There's always a perilous side when refraning from exercising instinctive energies (sexuality). Since everyone has sexual energy, if it is not exercised, it will often exercise you, coming out sideways in dreams, in all kinds of fussy behaviors, mosty notably in projecting your own salacious tendencies onto others. So maybe that's why Bush acts so insanely... He's not getting any, and it's driving him nuts!?
Actually there have been several demographicaly significant studies of sexuality where the highest scoreing group, (pun intended) both in frequency and reported satisfaction were self described evangelical Christians.
That pent up energy does get expressed. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
May 19, 2005, 1:43 AM
Post #31 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
In reply to: So maybe that's why Bush acts so insanely... He's not getting any, and it's driving him nuts!?
As for the ACLU, given that the matriarch of my extended family is a well-respected attorney and advocate for the organization, this particular lawsuit (of course) has my respect. This is the same organization that will fight tooth and nail for your rights of expression, against censorship (there's some very important case law regarding library censorship), and for your religious freedoms. The latter includes your freedom from any religion sponsored in any way by the state.
The entire "faith-based initiative" frightens me to the core. Here's a good little nugget from whitehouse.gov
In reply to: The President has called on Congress to pass his proposals for tax incentives for charitable giving. President Bush has also called for action from Congress to extend the charitable choice provisions that prevent discrimination against faith-based organizations, protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights. |
|
|
|
|
coloredchalker
May 19, 2005, 2:22 AM
Post #32 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550
|
In reply to: but i do believe sexual abstinence is a dumb idea. :P
Just the logic behind that statement is stupid. You don't want to get an std or preagnant so what do you do. Use some sort of protection that is less than 100% effective or abstain which is 100% effective?
Hello, a 1st grader could tell you the best choice there. Abstinence-"impossible" well maybe, but a dumb idea??? I think the dumb idea would be to go with the less than 100% effective method, if you really care about yourself and others.
|
|
|
|
|
slobmonster
May 19, 2005, 3:11 AM
Post #33 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 1586
|
In reply to: In reply to: but i do believe sexual abstinence is a dumb idea. :P Hello, a 1st grader could tell you the best choice there.
Plus, the "www.srcfc.com" in your signature is a dead giveaway as to your motivation.
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
May 19, 2005, 4:20 AM
Post #34 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
In reply to: All sense of proportion and scale are lost in such an extreme stance, but we should all understand that whoever takes such a position is simply doing what they think is best for their lives, rendering them some kind of advantage--not over others, per se, but over options (premartial sex) that they are conviced are in some way detrimental to their well being.
Read Nietzsche's _The Genealogy of Morals_ with care and an open mind. It's a convincing argument that we're animals, part of the web of nature, that our moral valuations are part of that web.
And, by gosh, that's okay. The monkey says so.
|
|
|
|
|
12volt_man
May 19, 2005, 5:27 AM
Post #35 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2005
Posts: 406
|
Seems to me that an element of Liberty could be defined as the choice to believe or not to believe in a religion. Conversely, being forced to believe or not believe would constitute an absence of Liberty.
As for for me, I think we have free will in order that we may choose to do good.
|
|
|
|
|
sync
May 19, 2005, 8:32 AM
Post #36 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2003
Posts: 125
|
In reply to: Right after they sue to get the US Constitution banned for that whole part about how "They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...",
Well, they wouldn't have standing to sue on that since those words don't actually appear in the US Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
littlejames
May 19, 2005, 10:26 AM
Post #37 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2005
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: If you analyze your life, you might find that your first real troubles manifested around the time of your first sex experiences.
Oh please.
Alternately, you might realise that the first time you started having "real troubles" coincided with your body maturing physically (and by that I mean *gasp* getting hair where there was none before), i.e. around about the beginning of your teenage years.
Why is that? Don't fall into the evangelical Christian trap of assuming that sexuality is something evil and dirty inflicted on humanity by a sadistic God aiming to "test" us. The reality is that in our (and really, in every) society, the concept of "childhood" means that you are only really allowed to start running into serious issues (your so-called "real troubles") with your life when you become biologically mature.
Briefly: on a (very) general level, maturity implies sex, maturity implies issues, but sex does not imply issues.
I'm sure there's a much better way of putting that, but I'm not a developmental psychologist. :)
|
|
|
|
|
coloredchalker
May 19, 2005, 1:44 PM
Post #38 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 550
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: but i do believe sexual abstinence is a dumb idea. :P Hello, a 1st grader could tell you the best choice there. Your analogy is "dumb." Plus, the "www.srcfc.com" in your signature is a dead giveaway as to your motivation.
My motivation for what??? I'm just pointing out something obvious. And you're quoting me out of context so yeah it will sound dumb, thanks alot. You don't work for the press do you? :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
May 19, 2005, 1:45 PM
Post #39 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: Planned parenthood is not a religious organization. It is a medical one. Is there a prohibition (eiterh explicit or in the common law) against the government funding medical organizations?
And why should there be a prohibition against the government funding religious organizations?
(And yes, all you who jump on the weak "seperation of church and state" bandwagon, should re-read the first amendment.)
In reply to: Why is sex such a big deal for christians? They're obviously allowed to break the "thou shalt not kill" commandmant without worrying about it too much. A little woopie with the neighbor, and you're damned for life. What's up with that? :?:
It's about the sanctity of your relationship with your (future) wife (or husband, for you girls).
How do you feel, being guaranteed that you will forever and always, be getting "sloppy seconds" from your S.O? How do they feel, knowing they'll forever be geting "sloppy seconds" from you?
I would imagine most people, at least below the surface, would respect someone who's willing to save the most intimate of moments for the person they'll (presumably/hopefully) spend the rest of their life with...
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
May 19, 2005, 2:08 PM
Post #40 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
In reply to: In reply to: Planned parenthood is not a religious organization. It is a medical one. Is there a prohibition (eiterh explicit or in the common law) against the government funding medical organizations? And why should there be a prohibition against the government funding religious organizations? (And yes, all you who jump on the weak "seperation of church and state" bandwagon, should re-read the first amendment.)
No reason. When government equals religion, everybody is happy. Just look ask any Afghan who lived with the Taliban. The fact that your religion is the "right" one doesn't make it OK. Think deeper. It'll come to you.
Reading the constitution doesn't do it, sorry. Unless you are such a strict textualist that NOTHING but the written word is to be given ANY credence. If that is the case, well, it explains a lot.
In reply to: It's about the sanctity of your relationship with your (future) wife (or husband, for you girls). How do you feel, being guaranteed that you will forever and always, be getting "sloppy seconds" from your S.O? How do they feel, knowing they'll forever be geting "sloppy seconds" from you? I would imagine most people, at least below the surface, would respect someone who's willing to save the most intimate of moments for the person they'll (presumably/hopefully) spend the rest of their life with... - d.
No, personally, I would think that said person has unnaturally and unhealthily restrained a natural part of their humanity due to an unreasonable adherence toa dogmatic institution that I do not believe is correct. Hence the fact that I am not marrying someone who believes that. I am marrying a woman who has had a healthy sex life, as have I. We are both comforatable in the fact that we are in love, and show it in a way that is natural for us to, even though we might have shown it to others.
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
May 19, 2005, 2:33 PM
Post #41 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
In reply to: No, personally, I would think that said person has unnaturally and unhealthily restrained a natural part of their humanity due to an unreasonable adherence toa dogmatic institution that I do not believe is correct.
And what about people like erica44:
In reply to: I actually wear a silver ring, pronouncing my abstinence til marriage. It doesn't have a bible verse, but it says "true love waits." I made this decision after a long reflection of what I wanted in life. I will say it had a lot to do with my religion, but also there were other reasons that influenced my decision just as much.
I know several other people who have unnaturally and unhealthily restrained a natural part of their humanity for non-religious reasons...
In reply to: No reason. When government equals religion, everybody is happy. Just look ask any Afghan who lived with the Taliban. The fact that your religion is the "right" one doesn't make it OK. Think deeper. It'll come to you.
I think you are reading a bit too much into what I wrote - and there's a distinct difference between the government supporting a belief, and the government mandating (or mandating the lack thereof) a belief.
In reply to: Reading the constitution doesn't do it, sorry. Unless you are such a strict textualist that NOTHING but the written word is to be given ANY credence. If that is the case, well, it explains a lot.
Btw, ad hominem attacks rarely get you anywhere...
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
littlejames
May 19, 2005, 2:36 PM
Post #42 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 19, 2005
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: And why should there be a prohibition against the government funding religious organizations? (And yes, all you who jump on the weak "seperation of church and state" bandwagon, should re-read the first amendment.)
In reply to: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I'm not an American, I didn't have to do this at school or anything, but it seems pretty clear to me that the amendment in question says: "no laws about religious groups." Now, as I understand it, the word "law" in context means "legislature" - such as things like supply bills, or the American equivalent. Hence, Congress shall not pass supply bills funding religious groups - which the organisation in question is, by admission.
In short: a religion may establish themselves and keep to themselves without fear of government intervention, but the flip side of the coin is that the government may not (in a literalist interpretation) legislatively assist that religion. If you'll look, no-one has said that the government should OUTLAW abstinence.
In reply to: How do you feel, being guaranteed that you will forever and always, be getting "sloppy seconds" from your S.O? How do they feel, knowing they'll forever be geting "sloppy seconds" from you? I would imagine most people, at least below the surface, would respect someone who's willing to save the most intimate of moments for the person they'll (presumably/hopefully) spend the rest of their life with... - d.
And that would be you assuming moral congruity with the rest of the human race.
I personally, and a vast majority of people I know (both young and old) feel that having a healthy sex life (with emphasis on the word healthy) does not constitute "sloppy seconds." In fact, I personally feel that a marriage with prior sexual experience on both sides is going to be a far better one - as both of us will be more experienced in dealing with the emotional side of sex, as well as the physical, we will also be better equipped to meet challenges that the marriage may bring. (The fairytale marriage exists nowhere outside a fairytale, as I understand it.)
You may disagree, but it's my opinion that since pair-bonding (in this case, marriage) is based upon a fundamental biological imperative to reproduce, there's no point being coy about sexuality. Try before you buy - a marriage with an unhappy sexual component is, according to marriage counsellors and apparently a vast body of human experience, not going to work.
If I didn't express that well, sorry, I'm tired.
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
May 19, 2005, 2:42 PM
Post #43 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
In reply to: In reply to: No, personally, I would think that said person has unnaturally and unhealthily restrained a natural part of their humanity due to an unreasonable adherence toa dogmatic institution that I do not believe is correct. And what about people like erica44: In reply to: I actually wear a silver ring, pronouncing my abstinence til marriage. It doesn't have a bible verse, but it says "true love waits." I made this decision after a long reflection of what I wanted in life. I will say it had a lot to do with my religion, but also there were other reasons that influenced my decision just as much.I know several other people who have unnaturally and unhealthily restrained a natural part of their humanity for non-religious reasons... In reply to: No reason. When government equals religion, everybody is happy. Just look ask any Afghan who lived with the Taliban. The fact that your religion is the "right" one doesn't make it OK. Think deeper. It'll come to you. I think you are reading a bit too much into what I wrote - and there's a distinct difference between the government supporting a belief, and the government mandating (or mandating the lack thereof) a belief. In reply to: Reading the constitution doesn't do it, sorry. Unless you are such a strict textualist that NOTHING but the written word is to be given ANY credence. If that is the case, well, it explains a lot. Btw, ad hominem attacks rarely get you anywhere... - d.
First: That is not an ad hominem attack. If I said, well, you are a blonde, and hence I will not listen, that would ad hominem. If you are addressing a matter on a premise that does not lead to logicalllly helpful information, that is not an attack upon the man, but the arguments that man uses.
Erica44, and anyone else, has every right in the world to act as she sees fit. All I said is that I happen to think differently. I believe it is unnatural. I'm not going to force them to have sex. I also will not teach my children that sex before marriage is wrong. WHen they are of the age when it ia appropriate, I will teach them to the best of my abilities, the way my parents taught me. I could never see yee to eye on this issue with those who act in such a way, and we would not be able to have a relationship mutually satisfying to us both.
And while there is a difference between supportiung and mandating a belief, I (and a rather large portion of other americans) feel that either is not the place for a government. A government should not be able to ban religion (most communist states) any more than mandate it. If the government funds one specific religions programs, it is promoting religion, which doesn, indeed, come quite close to the literal word of the founders of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," if, through the powers of congress and the federal government, one religion and that relgion's programs are funded, the spirit, if not the word of the first amendment is violated.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
May 19, 2005, 2:57 PM
Post #44 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
The First Amendment pertains to Congress. Not any state or local governments.
Okay class.... who can tell me what the Tenth Amendment says?
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
May 19, 2005, 3:00 PM
Post #45 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
That shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife?
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
May 19, 2005, 3:01 PM
Post #46 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Bill Clinton said that's not in the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
May 19, 2005, 3:42 PM
Post #47 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
In reply to: In reply to: If you analyze your life, you might find that your first real troubles manifested around the time of your first sex experiences. Don't fall into the evangelical Christian trap of assuming that sexuality is something evil and dirty inflicted on humanity by a sadistic God aiming to "test" us. .
first of all, I'm not selling any system of "belief". I'm talking about impartial anaylisis, not dogmatic belief in anything. obsevering and experiencing the fruits of a controlled life, and comparing them to the lesser "pleasures" of sence addiction, the discrimitave seeker cheerfully and willlfully chooses the greater joys of a God-centered life. this is the difference between "positive" renunciation, with the mind focused on the superior joys of the Soul, and "negative" renuciation, where the mind still dwells on matter, even though outwardly observing chastity.
those who think abstinance, or what i'll term "life force control" is some form of self-denial are those who haven't touched on the greater joys found within the soul and experienced through interiorization of consciousness and energy, supported by controlled living. thus they have nothing with which to compare their sensory experiences. wholly engrossed in the worship of matter, they assume that sence pleasures are the "be all" and "end all" of human existance. and it seems fanatical that anyone would expouse any different doctrine.
In reply to: but sex does not imply issues.
I can't agree with this statement at all. you can rationalize anything you want, but my experience is that sex brings up the biggest issues, wether one consciously acknowledges them or not.
|
|
|
|
|
taualum23
May 19, 2005, 3:48 PM
Post #48 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 2370
|
Edit. Arguing about religion on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win...............
|
|
|
|
|
unabonger
May 19, 2005, 3:49 PM
Post #49 of 81
(1866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2003
Posts: 2689
|
In reply to: The First Amendment pertains to Congress. Not any state or local governments.
The Supreme Court has interpreted it to apply all federal government, not just Congress.
State or local governments laws violating the Constitution don't survive long.
UB
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
May 19, 2005, 4:01 PM
Post #50 of 81
(1864 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: The First Amendment pertains to Congress. Not any state or local governments. The Supreme Court has interpreted it to apply all federal government, not just Congress. State or local governments laws violating the Constitution don't survive long. UB
How deftly you skirted the point. :roll: Now go read the 10th Amendment.
Here's a hint. It's not in the Old Testament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
