right, so we agree then, this judge should stop. some taxpayers dont want to pay judges to advertise that you are not supposed to worship false idols and keep the sabbath holy. judges are supposed to make decisions in cases, not advance mysticism. unless your approach to christianity and faith is that you acknowledge that it is nonsense, then i dont see how you claim to be rational.
The judge should stop, or the judge should be stopped? The courts have every right to stop him, but if they don't do so and allow him to continue then he should carry on if he so desires. You nor I make decisions for him. As for what I think he should do, well he should do whatever he makes him happy. Rest assured, the feeling is mutual. Although I think you are very rational when it comes to most other subjects, and I'm sure you would extend the same sentiments to me.
well, i dont think it is a good idea for important agents of the government like judges to be endorsing mysticism and religion during their duties as an agent of the people. so yes, i think he should be stopped. i guess you can say it is a nice protest or statement or whatever, and that is fine, but if it continues after warning the guy should be fired immediately, just like any opther employee that is incorrectly doing his job. so i guess from his perspective, it is a smart idea, if his beliefs are more important than his job as a public servant. semi off topic: i think a lot of religious arguments could be solved if the religious people would just say something like "i am irrational, i have faith, i believe my faith be rewarded. i will not argue that what i believes makes any sense whatsoever." instead of making claims about how what they believe makes sense. if it made sense you wouldnt need faith to believe it.
Exactly right. The reason I challenged Rex's original post was not to argue whether or not the Ten Commandments should/shouldn't be displayed in courts. I was challenging Rex's criticism of the man's protest. Liberals generally are more inclined to protest various things, so as a liberal I thought Rex should be upholding the man's right to protest something he thought was an injustice. But as an atheist, I can see why Rex would not condone this particular protest. Rex made a choice between his faith (if you consider atheism faith), and his political views. Rex chose faith, so he really isn't all that different from the judge after all. To summarize, I was arguing for the sake of arguing. Surely you of all people can appreciate that.
atheism is a "faith" in the same sense that not collecting stamps is a hobby. you do not need faith to not believe. since i have no irrational faith, i would be happy to believe in god if there was a reason to. i feel the same way about god that i do about aliens on saturn. they might be there, and if somebody finds out they are there that would be awesome and i would love it. so far though, there is not reason to believe. so atheism is not a "faith". i believe exactly what the world has presented to me. no god. that could change, but it hasnt yet.
also i dunno if i agree with your analysis of rex. the same argument can be made that it is fine for a murderer to kill if the guy doesnt give a damn about his own life. i mean, it is rational for him, if it genuinely pleases him to kill and he doesnt mind the electric chair. so if rex agrees with the protests kerry made but disagrees with the judge violating the rules, it is internally consistent for him to claim that, since he only defends protests he thinks are justified. also it is a shaky comparison to make, kerry's statements and this judge's actions if you believe that what kerry did was not illegal in any sense. ( i am not sure either way). however we can agree that this judge is a violator. also, this judge thing is truly insignificant. i think removing god from the pledge of allegiance is a far more worthy cause, since they make kids say that in schools and i would prefer my kids didnt have to deal with it.
damnit there is not one single person on this thread i am permitted to give reputation points to. i enjoyed reading every post.
I was using faith in a general sense, as reference to his personal thoughts on religion, not the literal definition. And yes I believe in science and all the facts science has confirmed to this point. But if you will check your "facts" you will find that science and history have confirmed a good portion of what is in the Bible, and I haven't seen anything in the Bible specifically disproven by science or history. There are many open-ended parts of the Bible and it does not give a step by step, fact by fact account of the history of the world. In it we are told we will never comprehend or know all. Anyone who claims to do so, no matter how much they have studied the Bible, is misguided, which leads us back to the necessity of faith. You have claimed you don't totally discount the possibility of the existence of God, so obviously the world hasn't given you concrete evidence God does not exist. You may not need faith not to believe, but if what you have said previously is true of your belief, then you do indeed have faith there is no God.
All I wanted to do was get the thread off on the subject of the "right" to protest, because I know the 10 Commandments angle wasn't debatable, and I had some time to kill. As for the murder comparison, that's entirely different in most people's eyes. Now if I asked you based on your feelings toward legalizing drugs, if you were arrested with a small amount of marijuana, should you be punished because the law forbids it, then that would be more comparable I'd think.
