Home› A Moving Train
Options

Inspired from the religon thread

AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
edited July 2006 in A Moving Train
I've noticed many conservatives here that stand behind their countries every decision. These same conservatives are also sometimes very religous. What happens when your faith/religous beliefs contradicts your support of the government? If you are against killing then how can you support a government who participates in killing needlessly.

Don't Kill - Hamell on Trial

God called down from the mountain, God called down from the sky
He said, "I told you, I told you, I told you.
don't kill, don't kill, don't kill
don't kill for lovin', please don't kill for hate.
Don't kill in my name, don't kill for heaven's sake.
Don't kill, don't kill, don't kill.
Once again you didn't understand me.
or you disobeyed from all I can detect.
From what I remember I did more than ask you,
I commanded it, from what I recollect.
Was it the the 'Thou' part that threw you? Thou means you.
Was it the 'Shalt not' part that confused you?
Shalt not means DON'T.
Don't kill, don't kill, don't kill.
There are no divinely sanctioned murders.
Who'd know better than me?
I'm God, why don't you hear me?
I've been saying the same shit for centuries.
You say it's me that you worship.
All you Christians, all you Muslims, all you Jews.
I'm going to it one more time, DON'T KILL YOUR NEIGHBOR.
Jesus Christ this shouldn't be news.
Don't kill, don't kill, don't kill.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Options
    messymarvmessymarv Posts: 26
    Not to really get an argument going but King David was A man of GOD and God allowed and empowered David to destroy and kill many on the battle field. God also allowed and empowered him to Kill Goliath. Most religions believe in not killing but they are still plenty in a realigon who do I.E. 9/11. LOL heres one for all those who hate and want religon such as ten comandments removed form governemt buildings why do you in turn ask why someone breaks one of the comandments.
  • Options
    AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    messymarv wrote:
    Not to really get an argument going but King David was A man of GOD and God allowed and empowered David to destroy and kill many on the battle field. God also allowed and empowered him to Kill Goliath. Most religions believe in not killing but they are still plenty in a realigon who do I.E. 9/11. LOL heres one for all those who hate and want religon such as ten comandments removed form governemt buildings why do you in turn ask why someone breaks one of the comandments.


    Huh? How is asking about the consistancy in anothers religous beliefs any justification for forcing that religion on all of us?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    messymarvmessymarv Posts: 26
    What religon is forced apon you and my thread attacked both christian and muslim belief systems? the comandment comment was that people critize it and want it remove but yet want reason why it wasn't followed? How can you have both?
  • Options
    AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    messymarv wrote:
    What religon is forced apon you and my thread attacked both christian and muslim belief systems? the comandment comment was that people critize it and want it remove but yet want reason why it wasn't followed? How can you have both?

    If we have it on our money, in our courtrooms, etc...then yes, it is forced. Not my point though, how is asking a question about a contradiction having anything both ways?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    JaneNYJaneNY Posts: 4,438
    messymarv wrote:
    LOL heres one for all those who hate and want religon such as ten comandments removed form governemt buildings why do you in turn ask why someone breaks one of the comandments.

    LOL? Killing is being discussed and you are LOL? Okay. In any case to answer your question, my feeling is people who believe in those commandments should follow them. I'm not a Christian, but I sure do believe in Thou Shalt Not Kill. If EVERYONE EVERYWHERE, in (or out of) all faiths, would stop killing others, many problems would be solved.
    R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
    R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
    R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    i honestly do not know a better way to word it b/c i am long outside of any religious teachings, etc. however, i do believe, at least within the christian faith that while yes God has said 'thou shalt not kill'...that somewhere there is a 'loophole' for lack of a better term, that to kill for the righteous, or to kill for the greater good? is allowable? again, hopefully someone who is a believer and thus knows better...and can also word it far better.....can explain this obvious contradiction. not saying i agree with it....just trying to address the question. so sure, one again...faliible humanity messing with the supposed laws of God.


    btw - one does not need to be religious, thus does not need the 10 commandments...to actually believe that 'thou shalt not kill' is a good idea. also, once again....the 10 commandments are religious, our government is not supposed to be. thus, stands to reason that the display of something of a religious nature has no business in a government building. seems pretty clear to me. want to view the 10 commandments on prominent display? go visit your church...just like a muslim can go see the qur'an at their mosque, etc. why does one of the principles of this country - seperation of church and state - seem to so vex some? no one is stopping you from practicing your faith...it just has no place in the government.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    If you are against killing then how can you support a government who participates in killing needlessly.
    .

    You can't. That's why I don't.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I've noticed many conservatives here that stand behind their countries every decision. These same conservatives are also sometimes very religous. What happens when your faith/religous beliefs contradicts your support of the government? If you are against killing then how can you support a government who participates in killing needlessly.
    How is not believing in killing tied in any unique way to religion, unless you are saying that a non-religious person connot believe in not killing. How is a religious person being a hypocrite any more of a big deal than a non-religious person being a hypocrite?
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Options
    cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    If we have it on our money, in our courtrooms, etc...then yes, it is forced. Not my point though, how is asking a question about a contradiction having anything both ways?
    C'mon Abook, let's be reasonable. How in the hell does it saying "God" on our currency equate to forcing religion? A buck is worth a buck to whoever has it. You don't have to believe in God to spend it. C'mon now.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    cornnifer wrote:
    C'mon Abook, let's be reasonable. How in the hell does it saying "God" on our currency equate to forcing religion? A buck is worth a buck to whoever has it. You don't have to believe in God to spend it. C'mon now.


    in the broadest sense, it is. if you look at it as the 'collective WE'...as in we the people, it is meant as a representation of ALL of us, our collective beliefs, that we ALL as americans believe. obviously, all don't. now while i honestly couldn't care less, not a big deal to me, far bigger issues looming, etc...it is point of fact 'forcing' religion in that sense...it does NOT in fact represent ALL then. again, it is odd in a country supposedly based on religious freedoms and seperation of church and state...that such phrasing IS on our national currency. no, you don't have to believe in God to spend it, but as a national symbol of our country and it's citizens, it excludes instead of includes....and it shouldn't, that's all.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    surferdude wrote:
    How is not believing in killing tied in any unique way to religion, unless you are saying that a non-religious person connot believe in not killing. How is a religious person being a hypocrite any more of a big deal than a non-religious person being a hypocrite?

    Read the other religon thread where they were discussing how much killing is done in the name of religion. Many people were saying that religion is all about not killing. So I was just wondering how they could support a government that goes against their religion....it seems to me you can't stand firmly behind both. I was hoping for more insight into how they could.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    cornnifer wrote:
    You can't. That's why I don't.

    :) I know you don't.

    I was hoping for some replies for those that do.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    cornnifer wrote:
    C'mon Abook, let's be reasonable. How in the hell does it saying "God" on our currency equate to forcing religion? A buck is worth a buck to whoever has it. You don't have to believe in God to spend it. C'mon now.

    In the famous words of church lady from SNL....What if the money said in SATAN we trust?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    decides2dream wrote:
    in the broadest sense, it is. if you look at it as the 'collective WE'...as in we the people, it is meant as a representation of ALL of us, our collective beliefs, that we ALL as americans believe. obviously, all don't. now while i honestly couldn't care less, not a big deal to me, far bigger issues looming, etc...it is point of fact 'forcing' religion in that sense...it does NOT in fact represent ALL then. again, it is odd in a country supposedly based on religious freedoms and seperation of church and state...that such phrasing IS on our national currency. no, you don't have to believe in God to spend it, but as a national symbol of our country and it's citizens, it excludes instead of includes....and it shouldn't, that's all.

    I'm sorry. I respect your opinion. I really do. But really, let's be reasonable. It sounds to me like you are a reasonable individual. "In God we trust" on the currency does not, even in the broadest sense force religion, or even faith on anyone. It is also in no way in violation of separation of church and state as it does not attempt to establish a state sponsored religion. I agree its a stupid issue.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Options
    cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    In the famous words of church lady from SNL....What if the money said in SATAN we trust?
    LOL! So much for reasonable :):)
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Options
    messymarvmessymarv Posts: 26
    Well here in lies the real problem almost all codes of ethics and behaviour come from religon. Our forefathers were all religious. Not to kill, steal etc.. come from not going against the higher being they believed in. So if someone refuses to believe in a God whose moral code was basis of our laws then they should be free to kill, steal, etc.. cause those are codes of religious belief and there is not suspose to be religon in government, right. So that argument means everyone on death row is indeed innocent cause the law is based on belief of our forefathers God. So remove religon from government you'd have to excuse all violations of the ten copmandments Murder, theft, etc..
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    cornnifer wrote:
    I'm sorry. I respect your opinion. I really do. But really, let's be reasonable. It sounds to me like you are a reasonable individual. "In God we trust" on the currency does not, even in the broadest sense force religion, or even faith on anyone. It is also in no way in violation of separation of church and state as it does not attempt to establish a state sponsored religion. I agree its a stupid issue.


    well how about this: do you at least concede, forgetting it's relative importance or non-importance, that at the VERY least, it as a national symbol does not accurately depict ALL citizens, thus is exclusionary instead of inclusionary? while i do not know EVERY currency on the face of the earth, i find it rather ironic that of ALL the foreign countries i have visited, none of them have ANY language that at ALL is linked to God/religion...and then we, as americans, a country based on freedom/demomcracy....begun to escape religious perseucution, etc....have such on our currency.

    it does, imho at the very least...force the IDEA of God, that we as a collective citizenship believe in such. however, it most definitely IS a violation of the seperation of church and state...b/c while it does not force/promote any one religion, it does in fact push the agenda of belief, of God, of religion, and that has no business in our government.

    however, as i said initially....i do not consider it an 'important' issue, especially in the scheme of things...but to not at least admit it is wrong seems wrong to me. and that much i consdier reasonable. i am not asking for change, just to admit it. i agree, our founding fathers probably didn't even imagine a world w/o belief...but to say a country is for the seperation of church and state...for religious freedom...well then, one must also support the rights to not believe...and our government symbols should represent all citizens. merely my 2 cents.


    btw - just b/c many of our laws stems from religious beliefs, doesn't actually negate the idea that they are all good ideas and a non-religious person can fully support such...and laws and changes to law are meant to represent the ideals of the people.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Read the other religon thread where they were discussing how much killing is done in the name of religion. Many people were saying that religion is all about not killing. So I was just wondering how they could support a government that goes against their religion....it seems to me you can't stand firmly behind both. I was hoping for more insight into how they could.
    It would be easy to back a government that doesn't subscribe to all your beliefs. Given the choices sometimes you have to but pick the least poisonous option.
    What I find funny about this thread is that it is really about bashing religious people for acting the exact same way non-religious people act. I could only imagine your outrage if a minister or church leader ran on a platform of following the bible and got elected. You'd be screaming.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Options
    cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    messymarv wrote:
    Well here in lies the real problem almost all codes of ethics and behaviour come from religon. Our forefathers were all religious. Not to kill, steal etc.. come from not going against the higher being they believed in. So if someone refuses to believe in a God whose moral code was basis of our laws then they should be free to kill, steal, etc.. cause those are codes of religious belief and there is not suspose to be religon in government, right. So that argument means everyone on death row is indeed innocent cause the law is based on belief of our forefathers God. So remove religon from government you'd have to excuse all violations of the ten copmandments Murder, theft, etc..

    Well, see, here I have to be fair. As most people here know, I am a person of faith so can appreciate your rhethoric, but, it is, in fact wrong to imply that those without faith would condone killing or be completely without moral code. This is why I don't understand the whole "ten commandments in the courtroom controversy". I can't really see the staunchest of atheists disagreeing with any one of the ten. They're common sense. I believe very strongly in God, but you don't really have to to know that killing and stealing, for example, are wrong.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    cornnifer wrote:
    Well, see, here I have to be fair. As most people here know, I am a person of faith so can appreciate your rhethoric, but, it is, in fact wrong to imply that those without faith would condone killing or be completely without moral code. This is why I don't understand the whole "ten commandments in the courtroom controversy". I can't really see the staunchest of atheists disagreeing with any one of the ten. They're common sense. I believe very strongly in God, but you don't really have to to know that killing and stealing, for example, are wrong.


    simply b/c they are of a religious nature and while we probably all can agree that 'thou shalt not kill' is a no brainer...although would seem highly ironic to have THAT on display in a government building....the more fuzzy commandments of say 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife'...some might disagree with. ;) seriously though, we do not need 'commandments' on display to remind us of our morals and codes of behavior as a nation...we have laws, the constitution, the declaration oif independence, the bill of rights, etc.

    bottomline, the 10 commandments are representative of a judeo-christian faith, and all our citizens do not follow that faith, if any...so again.....while the ideals of the commandments many/most may agree...we simply do not need/should not have something from one faith in a building that represents us ALL....we have our laws for that.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    decides2dream wrote:
    well how about this: do you at least concede, forgetting it's relative importance or non-importance, that at the VERY least, it as a national symbol does not accurately depict ALL citizens, thus is exclusionary instead of inclusionary? .

    Perhaps. I think even this is a stretch. I'll concede a little here. But I absolutely draw the line at perhaps, mildly, exclusionary. :)
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    cornnifer wrote:
    Perhaps. I think even this is a stretch. I'll concede a little here. But I absolutely draw the line at perhaps, mildly, exclusionary. :)


    perhaps if you were a staunch atheist, you might feel a bit more strongly about being excluded. ;) but hey, i'll settle for your perhaps. it's a start. :)

    kinda seems like the flip side of the whole ed/vh1/fuckem debate. b/c it seems some felt rather excluded by ed and his comments, jest or not...and that's only our fave rock band...not our government who is supposed to represent us. but i digress.

    i appreciate at least the perhaps.....even if it's stretched. :D
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    cornnifer wrote:
    LOL! So much for reasonable :):)

    How is not reasonable? To a satanic perosn maybe 'god' seems unreasonable.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    surferdude wrote:
    It would be easy to back a government that doesn't subscribe to all your beliefs. Given the choices sometimes you have to but pick the least poisonous option.
    What I find funny about this thread is that it is really about bashing religious people for acting the exact same way non-religious people act. I could only imagine your outrage if a minister or church leader ran on a platform of following the bible and got elected. You'd be screaming.


    This is not about bashing religous people at all. I am curious as to why they support the administration when they are needlessly killing. If 'Thou shall not kill' is one of their ten commandments I would think they would be denouncing these policies, speaking out. I fully aware many do but my question is to those who are voicing support for this killing. I'm just wondering how you can devote your life to following god and then ignore this.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    This is not about bashing religous people at all. I am curious as to why they support the administration when they are needlessly killing. If 'Thou shall not kill' is one of their ten commandments I would think they would be denouncing these policies, speaking out. I fully aware many do but my question is to those who are voicing support for this killing. I'm just wondering how you can devote your life to following god and then ignore this.


    well in this sense, one should be fair; not all religious people support our government, this war, etc...any more than non-religious. i do in fact know some pretty devout, religious people, who whole-heartedly are against the war, against our current administration...and even are in support of choice, etc...b/c they rightly assert what they believe/practice is theirs, and it is right for others to be afforded the rights to make their own choices too. amazing, but true. ;) one of these people is in fact an eastern orthodox catholic....so it thoroughly impresses me that she truly recognizes/appreciates the seperation of church and state...her rights and the rights of others....that laws should be less constrictive to allow more personal choice.


    oops...damn, i am guilty of not reading fully. :o i did not see the end of your post. so yea...disregard, you already covered it. :p
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    angelicaangelica Posts: 6,053
    I'd like to hear more about the "loophole" that decides2dream mentioned. I've heard such explanations before, where "Christians" explain how killing is actually in fact justified. To me this is flagrant disregard for spiritual truth, and the classic example of man distorting spirituality to serve the petty small-minded, agenda oriented ego.

    I agree with Abook, it's a fair question. I've always been mesmerised with the "rationalisations" for doing abhorrant destructive things.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • Options
    JaneNYJaneNY Posts: 4,438
    messymarv wrote:
    Well here in lies the real problem almost all codes of ethics and behaviour come from religon. Our forefathers were all religious. Not to kill, steal etc.. come from not going against the higher being they believed in. So if someone refuses to believe in a God whose moral code was basis of our laws then they should be free to kill, steal, etc.. cause those are codes of religious belief and there is not suspose to be religon in government, right. So that argument means everyone on death row is indeed innocent cause the law is based on belief of our forefathers God. So remove religon from government you'd have to excuse all violations of the ten copmandments Murder, theft, etc..


    No way. Whether people are religious or not, most societies in general have agreed that not killing others, and not stealing other peoples' stuff improves the quality of life for everyone. I don't have to be religious to think this. I can agree with some concepts that religious people think without being religious myself. Its not mutually exclusive.
    R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
    R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
    R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    decides2dream wrote:
    well in this sense, one should be fair; not all religious people support our government, this war, etc...any more than non-religious. i do in fact know some pretty devout, religious people, who whole-heartedly are against the war, against our current administration...and even are in support of choice, etc...b/c they rightly assert what they believe/practice is theirs, and it is right for others to be afforded the rights to make their own choices too.
    This is why it's a religion bashing thread. Here you are expounding the virtues of a religious person who believes in choice even though it goes against their beliefs. Then why don't you afford this person the same respect and let them back a government in war, knowing that war is not the choice for them "and it is right for others to be afforded the rights to make their own choices too". No one is in the army who didn't knowingly sign up without knowing that there was a chance they could be put in a position to kill..
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • Options
    decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,976
    angelica wrote:
    I'd like to hear more about the "loophole" that decides2dream mentioned. I've heard such explanations before, where "Christians" explain how killing is actually in fact justified. To me this is flagrant disregard for spiritual truth, and the classic example of man distorting spirituality to serve the petty small-minded, agenda oriented ego.

    I agree with Abook, it's a fair question. I've always been mesmerised with the "rationalisations" for doing abhorrant destructive things.

    thank you! seriously, i know i've read/heard of it...at least within catholicism, the only religion i am even remotely schooled in. there is some sort of 'loophole' in it...but again i stress i really don't know more about it. i actually used to teach in a catholic school - i was an art teacher, so no worries on me being a negative influence on any religious youth :p - and i remember when 09/11 happened, and our government was amping up for war....our principal 'explained' all this one day in a general announcement b/c i am sure some of the students asked this very same question. however, i cannot correctly explain what the rationale was, or what it was based on per se...so i'd love someone far more in the 'know' to explain it.

    surferdude wrote:
    This is why it's a religion bashing thread. Here you are expounding the virtues of a religious person who believes in choice even though it goes against their beliefs. Then why don't you afford this person the same respect and let them back a government in war, knowing that war is not the choice for them "and it is right for others to be afforded the rights to make their own choices too". No one is in the army who didn't knowingly sign up without knowing that there was a chance they could be put in a position to kill..


    do please read my posts, not once in any way, shape, or form have i EVER 'bashed' a religious person. i am all for CHOICE, and that includes the right to believe whatever you choose. so yes, i do actually afford them those very same 'rights'...as i do anyone.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • Options
    surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    decides2dream wrote:
    do please read my posts, not once in any way, shape, or form have i EVER 'bashed' a religious person. i am all for CHOICE, and that includes the right to believe whatever you choose. so yes, i do actually afford them those very same 'rights'...as i do anyone.
    I realize you treat religious and non-religious people equally with respect. I didn't say you were bashing religion but that this whole post is about bashing religious people. How can you commend a person for not voting based on their religious belief when it comes to abortion but then think it's okay for a post to be crerated that slams religious people for doing the same thing when it comes to backing a government in war.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
Sign In or Register to comment.