Tennessee Legislature Passes bill to make the Holy Bible the State Book

[May90]

When you are living in a world where all information and the evidence substantiating it is at your fingertips, to argue against that has to come from sheer determination to remain ignorant. Or from a complete inability to grasp abstract and counter-intuitive ideas. In that context to believe that the world is 6000 years old, almost all life was wiped out by a global flood, and Noah having lived 800 something years as fact requires you to be mentally deranged if not too stupid to grasp anything beyond fairy tales.

People who "hear God" telling them to run for President should be institutionalized and not voted for.

A person can be aware of all those theories and still believe in creationism; has nothing to do with ignorance or stupidity, just bias and belief. Your views, on the other hand, look extremely totalitarian to me; I'm glad that you don't have any political power.

[Orbitus]

Well not only did I describe two statements about freedom and religion but you managed to pull out a third one I didn't even mention, which doesn't even really make any sense. And not only that, the actual text of the Constitution would completely disagree with that statement. Of course, from a practical standpoint, laws regarding religion seem like a complete waste of time anyways.

On that note, businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason anyways. The only reason we get these high profile "gay wedding Vs. christian bakery" cases is because we have principled bakeries that don't just tell people no. Of course they really aren't that principled in another way because if they were they'd be interested in the money anyways.

You said that we have a freedom of religion not a freedom from religion. If my religion is technically none, then I have the right to not be forced to listen to your religious bullshit or have your bullshit pushed onto me. Much like this bullshit thing about making the bible the state book.

When you signed the business license for that business, you agreed to ALL state AND federal laws. That means you cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, etc. And so far the only cake place that got sued wasn't sued because they refused to serve a gay couple, they doxxed them. They released the gay couples' information on their Facebook page. Which then prompted the retarded followers of that bakery to call and harass the gay couple. Which endangered them and their adopted children. If you call that a "principle", then that principle needs to go fucking extinct like the bullshit anti-lgbt religious community. Hell, I want ALL religion to be abolished, but you don't see me lobbying to have it outlawed like religious douches are do you?

- - - Updated - - -

A person can be aware of all those theories and still believe in creationism; has nothing to do with ignorance or stupidity, just bias and belief. Your views, on the other hand, look extremely totalitarian to me; I'm glad that you don't have any political power.

There is literally no way for creationism to have worked. That would require EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE to match the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM. Without using the bible of course.

[Yarathir]

I would much rather read a post "clogged up" by descriptions of why something is wrong than someone that throws out "SJW". I generally ignore any post that uses some buzz word such as SJW, phobias, isms, ect in it the moment it happens. I don't know what they are trying to convey with that term in most cases these days. So it is sort of pointless with how vague their definitions are, and trying to find out usually ends up with them explaining or talking around a term to avoid explaining it.

Are forums about scoring quick internet points with one-two sentence replies or about discussion? Derogatory terms with no true definition hinder discussion in my eyes? These forums became so boring since the "lets call things a SJW" wave started, but thankfully it does seem to finally be dying down.

That's your prerogative, but in a discussion where someone calls stuff left and right sexist, racist, transphobic, etc. a snide, dismissive 'SJW' is at its place, as such people don't deserve any more consideration and dedication than that.

Again, if you want to argue against misuse of such a term, be my guest. But then we can be here all day, complaining about potentially scathing terms being misused.

Thing is, labels are usually used in ad-hominem arguments, which are known to be a logical fallacy. "You are wrong because [addresses the person's argument]..." is a valid argument. "You are wrong because you are a SJW" is a logical fallacy. Calling someone "SJW" does nothing to criticize their argument, it only attacks them as a person. "SJW" as a word just doesn't have a place in a proper discussion.

You can argue this until you're blue in the face, but you know very well that SJW is a term that describes a pretty concrete set of behaviours. Now if you are advocating for people to start posting more constructively any considerably, you're free to. But you only seem to protest the use of the word SJW.

Anyway, most people use SJW in response to "s-sexism!" or "r-racism!" so it's equally valid, nay - even more so, as SJW, at that point, perfectly describes any person that throws such accusations around without a hint of proof. A person calling someone racist for no reason is a SJW, a person being accused of racism by some guy who is trigger-happy isn't necessarily an actual racist.

[Hottage]

I mean, there are better ways to argue that it's a holy book, like the fact that christians believe it records the major events regarding the will of god, but no, it's because it's the Holy Bible.

It's labelled the "Holy Bible" by Christians. That's why it's a holy book.

[PosPosPos]

It's labelled the "Holy Bible" by Christians. That's why it's a holy book.

Uh no, we believe it's a holy text because it's the word of God, not because we named it "holy bible".

You are coming to the right conclusion with the wrong thought process. Whether something is holy is absolutely not how it is named, but whether believers of a religion think it came from the deities they worship.

Like I said, if it's all about names, then a book titled "Holy Shit" is a holy text by the same definition.

- - - Updated - - -

A person can be aware of all those theories and still believe in creationism; has nothing to do with ignorance or stupidity, just bias and belief. Your views, on the other hand, look extremely totalitarian to me; I'm glad that you don't have any political power.

No you can't, because then you are just in serious denial.

[May90]

That's your prerogative, but in a discussion where someone calls stuff left and right sexist, racist, transphobic, etc. a snide, dismissive 'SJW' is at its place, as such people don't deserve any more consideration and dedication than that.

Some people not carrying out discussion properly is not a justification for your not carrying out discussion properly.

But you only seem to protest the use of the word SJW.

No, I was talking about labels in general, using SJW just as an example. Words "racist", "sexist", "jerk", "liberal", etc. when used in a discussion to refer to one of the participants are not proper either.

No you can't, because then you are just in serious denial.

What if I tell you that there is a lot of physicists working on Big Bang Theory - pretty much the theory of the Universe evolution - that are religious and believe in God? Are they also "in denial"? A free thinking person can have more than one perspective on one matter.

[Aeula]

Oh boy that's not good.

I thought the US constitution had something in it about this sort of thing called the 'separation of church and state'? Does it somehow not apply here?

[Yarathir]

Some people not carrying out discussion properly is not a justification for your not carrying out discussion properly.

Actually, yes. If all someone has to bring to the table is "UR A SEXIST", then why do they deserve to be graced with anything more than a dismissal? They don't. Now, some people ignore those people, some call them what they are. That's at their discration.

No, I was talking about labels in general, using SJW just as an example. Words "racist", "sexist", "jerk", "liberal", etc. when used in a discussion to refer to one of the participants are not proper either.

Well, I'll just take your word for it that you protest the use of all such labels.

[PosPosPos]

What if I tell you that there is a lot of physicists working on Big Bang Theory - pretty much the theory of the Universe evolution - that are religious and believe in God? Are they also "in denial"? A free thinking person can have more than one perspective on one matter.

I shouldn't need to tell you something as elementary as the difference between *believing* and simply *setting out to try and prove something*.

But here I am.

[May90]

Actually, yes. If all someone has to bring to the table is "UR A SEXIST", then why do they deserve to be graced with anything more than a dismissal? They don't. Now, some people ignore those people, some call them what they are. That's at their discration.

By using petty labels to call them out, you are lowering yourself to their level. Which makes you calling them those labels in the first place hypocritical.

[Yarathir]

By using petty labels to call them out, you are lowering yourself to their level. Which makes you calling them those labels in the first place hypocritical.

That's your opinion. To me, it's just calling a spade a spade. You're free to ignore those kinds of people.

[Hiricine]

You said that we have a freedom of religion not a freedom from religion. If my religion is technically none, then I have the right to not be forced to listen to your religious bullshit or have your bullshit pushed onto me. Much like this bullshit thing about making the bible the state book.

When you signed the business license for that business, you agreed to ALL state AND federal laws. That means you cannot discriminate based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, etc. And so far the only cake place that got sued wasn't sued because they refused to serve a gay couple, they doxxed them. They released the gay couples' information on their Facebook page. Which then prompted the retarded followers of that bakery to call and harass the gay couple. Which endangered them and their adopted children. If you call that a "principle", then that principle needs to go fucking extinct like the bullshit anti-lgbt religious community. Hell, I want ALL religion to be abolished, but you don't see me lobbying to have it outlawed like religious douches are do you?

- - - Updated - - -



There is literally no way for creationism to have worked. That would require EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE to match the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM. Without using the bible of course.

Having freedom not to have to listen to religious speech would be a violation of someone else's freedom of speech (or expression), so I don't even need to defend freedom of religion to refute that point. Freedom of expression precedes any law or Constitution and exists independent of them, so even if it isn't codified in law it still exists as an ethical and moral principle.

Of course, the idea that a legislature exists that is wasting time and money on such a retarded law is a moral dilemma in itself.

[Daymanmb]

Your questions are of the leading type. Obviously this isn't going to go anywhere.

Trying to inflate your post count? Seems like good grounds for discussing the importance of maintaining the separation of church and state,

- - - Updated - - -

Having freedom not to have to listen to religious speech would be a violation of someone else's freedom of speech (or expression)

We have that freedom now.. Say w.e you want but I dont have to listen to you for your right to freedom of speech to be appeased. What are you trying to say here?

[Eviscero]

Oh boy that's not good.

I thought the US constitution had something in it about this sort of thing called the 'separation of church and state'? Does it somehow not apply here?

That language was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist association in reference to the first amendment, so ya that's the intent.

More specifically there is the constitutional mandate guaranteeing freedom of religion and barring the congress from establishing laws which limit those freedoms, quoted earlier in this thread. These attempt to protect people from State imposed restrictions on their religious freedoms.

What these idiots in Tenn. need to realize, which I know many won't, is that a refusal to allow the Bible to be the state book is not an attack on religious freedom or Christianity, rather it is maintaining the charge of their beloved Constitution.

This really is a bitch move by a bunch of crybabies that are lashing out against the shift in power -- to those who traditionally haven't had any -- that is happening in this generation.

[Deleted]

Im not a Christian.

But i do believe Christianity has been historically important for the western civilization's stability.
Humans are theistic creatures, our ancestors used their logic to understand the universe and we use ours.

For me Atheism is as much a religion as any other, a new religion based on our current logic which might be right, or might be wrong.

[Rukh]

Trying to inflate your post count? Seems like good grounds for discussing the importance of maintaining the separation of church and state,

What reason would I possibly have to care about my post count?

- - - Updated - - -

Im not a Christian.

But i do believe Christianity has been historically important for the western civilization's stability.
Humans are theistic creatures, our ancestors used their logic to understand the universe and we use ours.

For me Atheism is as much a religion as any other, a new religion based on our current logic which might be right, or might be wrong.

Atheism is not a religion. Not all beliefs are religions.

[tehealadin]

For me Atheism is as much a religion as any other, a new religion based on our current logic which might be right, or might be wrong.

There is nothing religious about finding this absurd and rejecting it. There are no dogmas in atheism. When you say "for me, atheism is...", this just shows you don't know what a religion is. Logic isn't a dogma, it is a tool for thinking, that gets measurable results. Applying logic to thinking generally improves the thinking. There is nothing you need to believe on insufficient evidence to see logic for what it is. Logic in itself isn't right or wrong, it is simply a way of thinking. It can be applied wrongly, sure, but in itself it isn't wrong. No one worships it. No one kills others for not accepting the existence of logic (even though logic is everywhere), or denies rights to people because the logic returned false.

For you, none of that might matter. It simply proves however that you don't know what religion is. For me, cats are dogs. I am objectively wrong, just as you are.

[Deleted]

No, because a holy book isn't actually a thing. There's no empirical measure of holiness. Ergo a physical object such as a book can't actually have any property of holiness to it.

There is no empirical measure of consciousness, ergo a physical object, such as a human can't actually have any property of consciousness to it.

[apples]

There is no empirical measure of consciousness, ergo a physical object, such as a human can't actually have any property of consciousness to it.

consciousness is easily measured in ones own self

otherwise terms like fading consciousness wouldnt exist

[Kelthos]

So proud of my backwater hell-hole state! Sounds like our state legislature needs to reread the Constitution.