(June 30, 2015 at 11:08 am)Cato Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 9:04 am)Drich Wrote: Do you think the supremecourt decision would have been null and void if they used the term 'civial union' over marriage?

I understand that it's difficult for you, but please try to keep up. Had legislatures influenced by the religious right permitted civil unions that provided the same legal benefits of marriage, there would have been no basis for a 14th amendment equal protection case. The fact is that many did not and the result was last week's decision. Screaming for civil unions now is laughable; kind of like treating decapitation with a bandage.

(June 30, 2015 at 9:04 am)Drich Wrote: Citation?
I couldn't find anything.. matter of fact I found that there is a 600 yearold example of gay civial unions which the church did not cosponsor.

Are you seriously making an attempt to disavow the religious right's influence in the Ohio style legislation prohibiting civil unions?

(June 30, 2015 at 9:04 am)Drich Wrote: What are you talking about? I wasn't till the last 20 years that supposed Christians have not taken marriage seriously.

(June 30, 2015 at 9:04 am)Drich Wrote: Even then we still fair better than most.

Bullshit:

(June 30, 2015 at 9:04 am)Drich Wrote: Actually I did infact research everything I say as well as what you say sport, and can not find anything to support anything you said here off your cuff. Maybe regoup and try again. This time take the time to check the crap you try and sell with google first. Because I will, and force feed it back to you if it does not fly.

Looks like your research skills require an upgrade.

You do understand what it means in the poll header when it says (based on 3792 adults) right? Not even 3792 couples, just 3792 adults out of 2.2 billion Christians/31.5% of the world's population as of july 2013.
Are you so foolish as to think that 3800 people in or around Ventura, Ca. accurately represent the world's population of Christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re...opulations

If you want to know the US Christian divorce rate then just google it.
when you do articals like this come up:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/reli...ians_N.htm

which seem to take it's cues from this:

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us...world.aspx

If you can be bother to read something that out right disagrees with you and the 3800 people in or around ventura Ca poll surveyed then know the North American Christian divorce rate is about 35%

(June 30, 2015 at 11:45 pm)Beccs Wrote: Just think of it this way.  Even if the "persecution" Christians claim is happening to them now actually happens, it can't be any worse than the Christians have done to others for hundreds of years.

Soo.. By your reasoning, it is ok to persecute those who are alive now, for something done by people hundreds of years ago loosly affiliated to them...

If what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander you better hope that no one in your family owned or benfited from a slave or slave labor, otherwise I see 'reperations' in your future.

(June 27, 2015 at 11:08 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't think taxing churches is a church/state issue. Churches are not required in order to practice religion, which is what the separation guarantees. If that were the case, then I'd have to be given a church to practice my new religion I just came up with or else the government is interfering with my right to practice my religion. Churches are an unnecessary luxury, and unless they properly apply for charitable status they should be taxed on any income they make. Similarly, their books should be as open as other businesses. Secular law still applies to the way you practice your religion. People are still arrested for killing people in a church, so people should be taxed for making money in a church. Also, a church would expect the emergency services to help them, wouldn't they?

Also, to get this status from the government, I believe they have to declare you a "valid religion" or some such nonsense. That is prejudice against smaller religions that I just made up, isn't it? How is mine any less valid just because I have less members and history?

They get away with this shit for many reasons I think:

1- The state is concerned about the shitstorm that would follow if they started collecting taxes, including even more meddling in politics than they already do.

2- The very name of "seperation of church and state" is a bait and switch. It should be "separation of the right to practice religion and state". "The church" does not mean "churches". But when has semantic games ever got in the way of religion being dishonest?

3- Since 70% or so of Americans are Christian, as a nation they seem to struggle to appreciate the difference between "religious freedom" and "Christian rights". Since Christianity would be obviously affected the most, this could cause a lot of unrest.

Maybe once religion gets properly under control and becomes much more diverse, the taxes could be put in place.

I don't support taxing churches as a general rule for one main reason - IMO, only organizations and corporations whose primary goal is profit should be income taxed. Obviously the church's primary goal is to spread the Christian faith and convert everyone to Christianity, and profit comes as a nice addition or a basic necessity to fund and keep the church running. From my experience, most Catholic churches live on donations from believers, but it may be different in America since it seems to run like a business.

I think you're misunderstanding separation of Church and State a bit - It means, essentially, that while the State can't interfere with religious matters, religion can't interfere with the State as well - Religions are allowed to exist and practise cult and prayer as they please, and for that purpose they can create institutions to guide believers. I think you can have a church for your religion, but the issue is that in a democracy you need a minimum of people for anything, that's how it work unfortunately - If you could gather, say, 10000 people for the church of some god the government should allow you, but you must fund your own church.

Freedom of religion is a complicated issue in Law - It means 3 essential things (as I learned it) - Freedom to pick a religion, freedom to change your religion, and freedom to not have a religion/not believe. Obviously, any contract or act from any entity that deprives you of your right to have religious freedom is actionable and invalid. The biggest problem with freedom of religion is that it is not only the right to worship and believe but also to live your life your way according to what you believe, and this creates problems like (1) What objections are allowed? (2) Are you allowed to break the law? What about just minor laws? (3) When freedom of religion collides with another right, which prevails?

(July 1, 2015 at 9:18 am)Drich Wrote: You do understand what it means in the poll header when it says (based on 3792 adults) right? Not even 3792 couples, just 3792 adults out of 2.2 billion Christians/31.5% of the world's population as of july 2013.
Are you so foolish as to think that 3800 people in or around Ventura, Ca. accurately represent the world's population of Christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re...opulations

If you want to know the US Christian divorce rate then just google it.
when you do articals like this come up:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/reli...ians_N.htm

which seem to take it's cues from this:

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us...world.aspx

If you can be bother to read something that out right disagrees with you and the 3800 people in or around ventura Ca poll surveyed then know the North American Christian divorce rate is about 35%

It might help if you actually understood what was being argued in the articles you linked. My case still stands. The USA Today's criticism of the Barna study wasn't the sample, but a disagreement on the definition differentiating born again and Evangelical Christians.

The rest amounts to a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Your criticism of the Barna study comes across as suggesting that Ventura Christians aren't true Christians. It doesn't matter though since your assertion that the Barna study only sampled the local Ventura population is simply false. But, please don't let facts get in your way.

Quote:This report is based upon telephone interviews conducted by The Barna Group with a random sample of 5017 adults selected from across the continental United States, age 18 and older, from January 2007 through January 2008.

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/artic...ZPsOxtVhBc

Your claim was that Christians do much better than everyone else when it comes to divorce. I have demonstrated that this isn't true. The rest of your defense (the Focus On The Family article) attempts to differentiate serious/true Christians from the rest of the flock to make the numbers look better.

Quote:Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.

Quote:Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.

Notice that the 38% divorce rate of those regularly attending is still higher than the number reported by the Barna study. Your claim is still factually incorrect.

(July 1, 2015 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: Soo.. By your reasoning, it is ok to persecute those who are alive now, for something done by people hundreds of years ago loosly affiliated to them...

If what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander you better hope that no one in your family owned or benfited from a slave or slave labor, otherwise I see 'reperations' in your future.

This coming from someone who's life is wrapped around adhering to ancient superstitious beliefs and traditions to avoid punishment stemming from continued accountability for original sin is fucking hilarious.

(July 1, 2015 at 9:51 am)Cato Wrote: It might help if you actually understood what was being argued in the articles you linked. My case still stands. The USA Today's criticism of the Barna study wasn't the sample, but a disagreement on the definition differentiating born again and Evangelical Christians.

I've seen you say intelligent things before so I know you are only pretending to be really stupid here. If you are really this stupid then I appologise for not hand feeding you the information. I sometimes forget the depths in which a bias mind will ignore info to save face. Silly me I thought by just providing you the info you would see the truth. But it seems you are bent on looking for excuses to ignore it.

I gave you two links, because I know what the article said. the second link provides the denominational divisions and their subsequent divorce rates. I tied those two links together by saying the USA today article is directly quoting the numbers from the second link which aside from hardcore prodestants the divorce rates are sharply lower across the board in Christian and jewish house holds in the US.

Quote:The rest amounts to a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Your criticism of the Barna study comes across as suggesting that Ventura Christians aren't true Christians. It doesn't matter though since your assertion that the Barna study only sampled the local Ventura population is simply false. But, please don't let facts get in your way.

OMG, Seriously.. your survey polled 3800 people meaning 1400 couples.. which means the numbers/percentages have been over inflated, but lets say the Barna poll represents 3800 couples... Now if their were only 4000 Christians in the US this poll would be very accurate. But their's not only 4000 Christians in the US. depending on which poll you believe 71 to 85% of the US population Identifies themselves as Christian. So the next question in that stone head of your SHOULD be How many people in the US. As of 2014 318.9 BILLION people of which lets say 71% are Christian that would mean (give or take) 2,264,900,000 Christians in the US... Now oh, great thinker how can you say 3800 people are an accurate cross section of almost a two and a quarter billion people???
Your Poll is junk. It plays to mindless douche bags like you who are way too lazy/not able to see through it!

Understand a poll can say anything you want it to say if you ask the right and right number of people. a small number means an intentional slant.

Open your eyes play'Doh! you failed here. Everything you said was wrong, but on the bright side it is what people who want to denigrate marriage and all God would have it stand for, want you to think.. So that means you are a good rank in file 'thinker.'

Quote:

Quote:This report is based upon telephone interviews conducted by The Barna Group with a random sample of 5017 adults selected from across the continental United States, age 18 and older, from January 2007 through January 2008.

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/artic...ZPsOxtVhBc

not according to the chart you posted.. and even so is a 1,000,000 people a good representation of what 2.25 billion people do and think?

Quote:Your claim was that Christians do much better than everyone else when it comes to divorce. I have demonstrated that this isn't true. The rest of your defense (the Focus On The Family article) attempts to differentiate serious/true Christians from the rest of the flock to make the numbers look better.

Quote:Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.

Quote:Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.

Notice that the 38% divorce rate of those regularly attending is still higher than the number reported by the Barna study. Your claim is still factually incorrect.
[/quote]



you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with these quotes..

(July 1, 2015 at 10:26 am)Drich Wrote: you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with these quotes..

Why Drich, because they come directly from your source and buttress my point?

(July 1, 2015 at 9:54 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 1, 2015 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote: Soo.. By your reasoning, it is ok to persecute those who are alive now, for something done by people hundreds of years ago loosly affiliated to them...

If what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander you better hope that no one in your family owned or benfited from a slave or slave labor, otherwise I see 'reperations' in your future.

This coming from someone who's life is wrapped around adhering to ancient superstitious beliefs and traditions to avoid punishment stemming from continued accountability for original sin is fucking hilarious.

Baahahaha Good fucking catch, man. I'd rep you another if I could.

(July 1, 2015 at 9:23 am)Drich Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 11:45 pm)Beccs Wrote: Just think of it this way.  Even if the "persecution" Christians claim is happening to them now actually happens, it can't be any worse than the Christians have done to others for hundreds of years.

Soo.. By your reasoning, it is ok to persecute those who are alive now, for something done by people hundreds of years ago loosly affiliated to them...

If what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander you better hope that no one in your family owned or benfited from a slave or slave labor, otherwise I see 'reperations' in your future.

Now, go back and read what I actually wrote, not what you're interpreting what I wrote to mean.

(June 29, 2015 at 9:17 am)Drich Wrote: then you also have to strip the church of it place in the community, after all you have already blurred the lines between church and state when the state determines who can be apart of one of our most sacred covenants. (marriage)

I didn't bother to check to see if anyone else replied to this, but here is my viewpoint on it:
I think you missed the point entirely when SCOTUS made its ruling last week. For starters, religion does not get to have a monopoly on marriage. Marriage, under the color of law is a Legal Binding Contract Between Two Consenting Adults. It is not in any way shape or form tied solely to any one religion. In fact, it does not have anything to do with religion whatsoever. Religion did not create the concept of marriage. Religion does not own the concept of marriage. To quote a friend of mine, with permission:
"Everyone is talking about the Supreme Courts decision about gay marriage. Gays are not trying to redefine the definition of marriage. We do not need the courts to say we are exactly the same as straight people. What we fought for and what was won yesterday was the ABILITY to stand up everywhere in this country and pledge our love to our partners in a LEGAL ceremony. What was won yesterday was a hospital NOT BEING ABLE to kick me out of an ICU that my wife is in because I am technically not her "FAMILY", what we fought for and won yesterday was the PROTECTION afforded to every straight marriage in this country. What was fought for and won yesterday was the RIGHT to leave our property and possessions to our LEGAL SPOUSE. It is not about redefining the word marriage, it is about EQUALITY for all people. It was not about going against GOD or throwing anything in the face of Christians anywhere. It is not about Gays against Christians, it is about LOVE and being able to profess that love and have that LOVE be RECOGNIZED by the people that make the RULES in this country. It is not a WHIMSICAL idea that we came up with just to piss off Christians in this country...this decision means that Gay men and women no longer have to be scared of what happens if their partners family don't like it that their sister is gay and decide they are going to keep them out of a hospital room, this decision means that the house that a gay couple buys together does not get fought over by a family that has had ZERO contact with their gay relative since they came out. I DO NOT NEED people to agree with my lifestyle, I need people to leave me alone to make my own decisions about MY LIFE and WHO I LOVE. All gay people want are the same rights that everyone has, those rights afforded to us all in the first words of our Constitution..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ——"