Re: dvnc
shark said:
I don't know whether to argue your post or thank you.The topic that Big Jim and I were discussing was religion and their level of influence in the society.My point was that they were a big influence in our society,but didn't run the place.You have just stated two points that support my argument...separation of church and state and legal abortion.
Heck, I'll take either, shark. It's all good to me. I did understand your original change of discussions wit' BigJim. I just don't agree wit' your perspective. I find that religion affects decision-making, for the religious, but that, country-wide, there's more than one religion, and that picking one influence argues wit' a declared focus.
For example, one can hardly call California a religiously-dominated state, or even one that's got large religious influences. They ARE present, but hardly seem large, by my perspective. Perhaps it's just that - perspective.
shark said:
Concerning your life,I don't know how you live, and it's not my business.However,comparing your own life,which you have said has barely any religious content,with the rest of society, is hardly a valid comparson.
[/B]
Ah, but this assumes I speak solely of myself. That's an inaccurate postulation, sir. I speak of the observation made about states I've known, held in residence, and known through business for the last 15 years. My personal perspective, in so large a context, would be ridiculous to me.
The validity in comparing a large religious influence on California, for instance, would be questionable at best. Consider the gay populace, the huge variety of cultures and religions, the predominance of desire for personal choice therein, etc., and you can quickly come to this, without assumption.
It *does* have a lot of roads and towns named by the Spanish missionaries from whom the US took the state. Not what I would consider large, though.
shark said:
Consider that, if religion,Judeo-Christian predominantly in the US, was not a big influence,the following would not be true of our society:
Abortion,though legal,is a controversial topic.If not for religious influence,it would be just another function.
[/B]
Actually, on this I would also specifically disagree, as that one gets folks hot who are NOT religious, 'cause they see it as the termination of a life.
shark said:
Sunday is considered as a different day than the rest of the week. Various laws,customs,even labor contracts regard Sunday as special.
Gee,I wonder why Sunday..............
[/B]
That, sir, IS likely a Christian influence, though, as BigJim stated, that day was appropriated from previous sabbaths.
shark said:
Good Friday,Easter, and Christmas are widely celebrated,to the point of being holidays.Try denying this. Wonder why those days in particular......
[/B]
No question there. That's a known argument. Easter is already nested into Spring Break in California school systems, though. Public schools already when back on this. Still, it's a good argument.
shark said:
During Lent, a Christian custom, restaurants will offer specials that are not readily available during the rest of the year.All the ones I know of also have fish specials on Fridays throughout the year.I wonder why Fridays,especially during Lent.................
[/B]
I've not seen a single restaurant in California that does such. Your argument here is location-specific. I also don't recall seeing it, while on business or holiday in various states. I've travelled approximately half of the US states, including Hawaii, the entirety of the Western seaboard, half the eastern seaboard, etc.
shark said:
I had also mentioned that much of the influence has been diluted as of late...relatively speaking of more recent history.There was a time when men would remove their hats when passing a church, people were sworn in with a hand on the Bible (this may still occur,I haven't been in court lately),adultery laws were enacted,with many still on the books,divorces were highly discouraged and even limited, creationism taught in schools, and Bilble reading and prayers in the schools as well.Do not elected officials swear"So help me God" in their oaths of office, or has this been removed too?
[/B]
Swear-ins at trials is still common. Another good example for your argument that there WAS influence. I still don't find that excessive. There's an Illuminati symbol on all the money in the country, yet we're not a Freemason society. I'm not saying it's not present, sir. I'm just not of the belief that it's a big presence.
shark said:
If the influence of religion was as light in our society as it is in your own life, why is it that the PC crowd,atheist groups and individuals,and other secular segments of society are so focused on removing it from the aspects of everyday life as they are? If that influence was negligible, why woud they expend the effort?
[/B]
Ah, you substitute neglible for a disbelief in a large religious influence. I don't find the religious influence negligible. Neither do I find it to be "a big influence". I find it less than moderate in general, with areas in the country having a HIGH influence and areas having NO influence. Been through Nevada? California? It's there, but not in a big way, or even a moderate way.
shark said:
As for the separation of church and state,the original intent was to prevent the government from establishing an official state church.It is the current ideology of secular humanism that is attempting to remove religious influence from all aspects of public life.Again,I stated that this was occurring as of late, a relative time frame.
[/B]
Agreed. That line, "separation of church and state", was preventing theocracy. The current obsession with it is quizzical. The 50s amped it up, and now we've folks trying hard to reverse that. Perplexes me, but then again, trying to conceive of a swearing-in as binding to me, when I'm not of a faith that calls it's higher power a god,or names it God, makes the statement non-binding and thus ridiculous. I'd rather have the criminal swear on their life, so I can take it if they lie. I can't legally guarantee their maker will take their soul, after all. It seems vaguely sacriligious to impose the Christian god on Jaywalkers, too. Smacks of taking that name in vain. Could swear that such is a bad deal, by the terms of the faith.
Oh, and that perceived recent separation extremism was also seen at the nations beginnings, during the attempts to shore the country against theocracy. France left a bad taste in our mouths, as I understood it. As we had alignments with them, and they disdained such, we found merit to their arguments. Wish I could better recall the specifics.
shark said:
Maybe this post has cleared up any confusion from the last post, although I fail to see what was confusing in the first place.
[/B]
Such is the way of things stated in short in a public forum. I agree wit' much of what you say, but disagree wit' other aspects, as they don't apply around where I've lived. It's a perspective difference. I've seen where it DOES apply. I just know there are places that are different within the states.
I still dig your post, too.
I'm still wonderin' why we don't start a general politics thread. We're not gettin' all the potential readers, 'cause there are folks lookin' at this, and wonderin' what so many posts have to do wit' Florida's election system. There are good thoughts without full attendance here.
dvnc
