When is it OK to ask a RW to change her religion for you

[Misha]

Back on topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well, after 3 weeks of "small talk" my client is getting into serious discussions about family, marriage and children with this one particular girl. He is going to lay it all on the line in the next letter so stay tuned! Will update you very soon if anyone still interested?!?!?!?!

I am interested. What happened?

[oldernotwiser]

Ronnie

Why do you feel the need to prove your point???  I think both sides are entrenched and nobody is going to change the other persons mind by any type of argument.   While I agree with you on many things, I think your continued argument just supports some peoples feelings how sometimes those of religious faith only accept their version of what is truth. 

I don't think anyone in this forum is going to prove through argument that there is, or is not a God or "Intelligent Creator".

I guess if I had a curiosity it would be more as to what forms a persons moral compass so to speak if they do not believe???

What is right and wrong to anyone, and what makes it right or wrong.  What brings the greatest pleasure to the greatest amount of people??

Cultural Relativism??

Wow, am I rambling away this evening.


Back on topic
I guess I am curious too as to the result of all this. 

[Blues Fairy]

Ronnie, I'm getting tired of your drivel.  

You will now say that any fragment of the Nazist ideological basis is discredited by the association?  How about animal rights, environmental protection, public health?  

As for teaching Intelligent design in schools -  Judge John E. Jones III, appointed to the Federal courts by George W. Bush, concluded in his ruling of the Dover trial, "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory".  Therefore, it has no place in the school program; end of story.

Get a life already, and please stop mentioning me in your posts in third person.

[Andrew]

I never thought about this one much.
Never entertained the thought about asking mine to convert.
Guess I just knew that when the time comes, I will be the one doing the converting, no question.
Maybe you should not ask her to convert unless you yourself are willing to convert.
Afterall, religion can be a VERY prickly subject

[Eduard]

I am interested. What happened?

they are still talking about other things, he haven't directly asked yet. One thing worth mentioning she is no longer the favorite girl that he is chatting with. I think she is #3 on the "favorites" scale. I'll let you know as soon as something happens with that.
Back to Ronnie VS Blues fairy

[Ronnie]

Hi Oldernotwiser!  You're correct about not changing minds.  My intent is not to change anyone's mind.  The debate itself is of interest to me and I find it stimulating as a form of mental exercise akin to sport.

Hi Blues Fairy!  I'll address you in second person since you prefer I not refer to you in the third.  Oh look, I have more drivel for you today which, by the way, is Thomas Jefferson's birthday:

It's interesting you mentioned the Kitzmiller case decided by Judge Jones.  The district court decided that the Dover School District's action of requiring that students be taught that the theory of evolution has gaps and problems and that other theories exist, including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design (ID) was a violation of the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Judge Jones' reasoning interested me.  He concluded that since the primary proponents of ID were fundamentalist religious groups that it could be concluded that ID fails the endorsement test set up by the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly.  In other words, he reasoned that if a viewpoint is promoted by an person and that person is religious, if must therefore be true that the viewpoint is a religious viewpoint.  I'm not making this up, that was the judge's reasoning.

Now madam, when I wrote a few posts ago that "Religion does not, by definition, necessitate a belief in God.  Therefore, atheism is as much a religion as any other," you kindly responded with...

Another brilliant piece of logic from our evenhanded preacher. 

Now since you feel that courts resolve all such questions with great wisdom and authority, let me refer you to the United States Supreme Court which has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Further to the point of Atheism as a religion, a federal court of appeals (7th Circuit) ruled in 2005 that Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.  "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."  (Interesting that Atheists claim not be be a religion, but when it suits them to be a religion they make all the arguments that they are indeed one).   So, per the courts, Atheism is a religion...end of story.   

Now let's go back to Judge Jones' reasoning.  If Atheists hold a viewpoint that Evolution is correct (which they do)  and if Atheism is a religion (as the courts have so ruled), it must therefore follow that teaching evolution fails the endorsement test and therefore such teaching is in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

I don't agree with Judge Jones' logic.  But if his is the logic of the courts and so far it is, then no school should teach either Evolution or ID because each tends to endorse a "religion" in violation of the 1st amendment. 

[Ronnie]

Out of nothing, there was a big bang.  Out of nothing.  Right, I'm susposed to believe that nothing evolved to the point where it had the necessary chemical properties to create an explosion.  And that explosion led to the beginning of intelligent life!   

Where is that bottle of Vodka?!

Good point mendeleyev...gotta have something to wash that one down!  Won't hurt to have the senses numbed either.

[Eduard]

do re me do re do

[Blues Fairy]

In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

He-he, I specifically looked this up. From Wiki:
A footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins refers to Secular Humanism (capitalized) as a religion. This has been widely referred to in debates around the separation of church and state as an indicator that the Supreme Court regards all secularism as a kind of religion. The court has consistently rejected this idea.

The Dover trial, Ronnie, specifically set out to examine the issue of ID and whether it should be taught in schools; they listened to testimonies from both sides.  The ruling was based on a mass of evidence.  If you continue to see only what you wish to see, bonne route; enjoy your theories and leave us atheists to peacefully burn in hell.

[55North]

Ronnie.  As an atheist, I'll decide if my atheism's a religion.  It's not.

Why?  There's no mumbo-jumbo, no institutional structure and no concerted collectivism or proclamation.  It is MY atheism.  Not someone else's atheism.  Not Blue Fairy's atheism.  I have no idea exactly how she views matters.   Forced religion never works, does it?

Thank heavens (whoops) that the Supreme Court has upheld this (as far as I care, as in Europe, I just affirm.  My word is good enough.)

[2tallbill]

Back to the original post

When is it OK to ask a RW to change her religion for you

Never is my answer,

[Shadow]

One of the points that atheist fanatics here avoid addressing is the question about what fruits has atheism born?  We hear about wars in the name of religion and the point if well taken, but why avoid discussing the great evils brought into the lives of innocent people by godless leaders?  The greatest example of atheists at the helm of government is the USSR...how'd that work out?

I got an email today I thought I share here concerning a new film that opens next week..

Stand up for Academic Freedom and see EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed in theaters nationwide on FREEDOM FRIDAY - April 18th.

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, starring Ben Stein, follows his journey around the globe where he discovers that scientists, educators and philosophers are being persecuted in a modern day witch hunt because they dare to go against the theory of evolution. These pillars of education are being fired, ridiculed and ostracized for merely challenging Darwin's theory; proposing that life on this planet could be a part of some intelligent design and not random chance.

This thought-provoking film not only forces us to question what we have been taught but challenges us to ask, “What else is being kept from us?”

Expelled accused of plagiarism
Taking something and changing it to match ideas. Typical.

Regarding the teaching of ID/Creationism in school, that would fit very well if ALL theories and myths of creation were taught in a religion course. You, as agnostic creationist, would not be against ID being taught alongside the creation stories of the Egyptians, Greek/Roman, Mayan, Norsk, buddhist and many other religions I presume.

[Shadow]

Now let's go back to Judge Jones' reasoning.  If Atheists hold a viewpoint that Evolution is correct (which they do)  and if Atheism is a religion (as the courts have so ruled), it must therefore follow that teaching evolution fails the endorsement test and therefore such teaching is in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

I don't agree with Judge Jones' logic.  But if his is the logic of the courts and so far it is, then no school should teach either Evolution or ID because each tends to endorse a "religion" in violation of the 1st amendment. 

If people kill and killing is unnatural (as some think), it follows that people are unnatural. There for people should be separated from nature.
Great logic.

[Eduard]

Back to the original post

When is it OK to ask a RW to change her religion for you

Never is my answer,

Looks like it won't happen anyway...new info came out in the course of the conversation that is a big turn off to my client...so I'll keep you posted, but he is concentrating more on other women for now who he considers better prospects.

[Misha]

Looks like it won't happen anyway...new info came out in the course of the conversation that is a big turn off to my client...so I'll keep you posted, but he is concentrating more on other women for now who he considers better prospects.

Out of curiousity, what kind of information would be a real turnoff?

[Eduard]

Out of curiousity, what kind of information would be a real turnoff?

I don't want to go into too much detail since it's personal, but basically my client doesn't care for the reasons she gave for leaving her boyfriend after living with him for several years.

[Ronnie]

Ben Stein's movie isn't even out yet and the attack dogs are howling trying to prevent it's release.  Now isn't that nice and open-minded of them?

I submit that the fervor with which some defend their secular beliefs is akin to ardent evangelism.  In fact, on the question of whether atheism is or is not a religion, it does seem that they (the atheists) want to be considered a religion when it comes to getting tax exemptions, consciencious objector status or other rights reserved for religion, but reject the label at all other times. 

It seems from what the courts have said, if you assemble or form a group and discuss you common beliefs, then you are probably participating in an activity that is a least parallel to religion.   If you do not join any groups, but just hold private views about creation or non-creation, they you are probably not in any danger of being called religious.  It's parting hairs but that seems to be what the courts have done on this question.

As to the courts.  A decision in a district court is not binding on anyone but the parties.  An circuit court decision is the law for that part of the country.  A supreme court decision is binding on all lower courts and is the law of the land.

The supreme court has ruled that an organization need not have a belief in God in order to be counted as a religion but has not specifically ruled that Atheism is a religion.  Each case is different and depends on what the parties are trying to win (tax exemption, military deferment, etc.)

It seems to me that humans are hard-wired to believe the way they do.  Few people change their beliefs or political parties over their lifetimes, though some small percentage do, I suppose.  I believe that one of the designs of nature is that the tension between opposing views synthesizes new though...an evolution if you will, of knowledge.  I don't for a minute believe that such observations are the result of chance.

One of the most interesting arguments I have heard made by antitheists is, "if their is a creator, who created the creator?"  My answer is simply, "I don't know or care."  I can't answer that question any more than I can answer what was before the beginning of time.  Infinity and eternity are incomprehensible to my mind and probably all human minds.

One of my first recollections in this life was as a 4 year old lying on my back in a mountain meadow behind our home at 6,000 feet elevation, looking at the stars and envisioning the large canopy over the earth from which the stars were suspended or attached.  Then one night it occurred to me that there must be something beyond that canopy and again beyond that, ad infinitum. 

Anytime we think we, as humans who can't figure out how to create or extend life, begin to think we have all the answers, then let's just think about our woefully incapacity to comprehend the basic facts of infinity and eternity - if that doesn't humble us, nothing ever will. 

[Shadow]

It seems from what the courts have said, if you assemble or form a group and discuss you common beliefs, then you are probably participating in an activity that is a least parallel to religion.   If you do not join any groups, but just hold private views about creation or non-creation, they you are probably not in any danger of being called religious.  It's parting hairs but that seems to be what the courts have done on this question.

I have seen the light....I am a believer.

Welcome to Russian Women Religion. 

[Eduard]

Amen!

[Ronnie]

   There are certainly parallels, aren't there? 
We WM who believe FSUW make the best wives/lovers seem devout in our beliefs and face persecution from and even ostracization by friends, family and coworkers...you'd think we converted to some cult! 

If Dan would fill out the paperwork, maybe we could make tax deductible donations...

PS...Think of the IMBRA...unconstitutional!

[Eduard]

Very sorry Ronnie to bring this back on Topic:
Seems like our couple did finally break up. My client wrote a long letter explaining how he felt about the new information that came up and the girl hasn't answered in a couple of days. In short they discovered that they have a difference in their' value systems and decided to end this, which saves him a trip to a certain town in Ukraine...next!

[Ronnie]

Proving that with all the people in the world, if religion is important to you or her and you don't share each other's views...move on with dispatch.

[Eduard]

oops, just after I posted the last note, I went back to check his messages and there was finally a message from her!!! The saga continues...who knows where this ends, I'll keep you posted

[BC]

oops, just after I posted the last note, I went back to check his messages and there was finally a message from her!!! The saga continues...who knows where this ends, I'll keep you posted

Teaser post? LOL!

[Eduard]

Proving that with all the people in the world, if religion is important to you or her and you don't share each other's views...move on with dispatch.

Ronnie, actually their problem has nothing to do with religion, they haven't really even gotten into the subject of religion very deeply...what makes you assume that religion was the problem? I already posted earlier that it wasn't, it was certain values.