church and state

church and state

  • Leave a comment ?

    47 Responses to church and state

    1. christians and the white male are the new minorities

      Reply

    2. Not until around 2040. And not even christians. The largest growing demographic are hispanics which are typically devout Roman Catholics.

      White males will live, life will go on.

      Reply

    3. i meant that not in a population sense, but in the sense that christians and white guys are currently the most discriminated against segment of our society

      Reply

    4. Yeah, I feel really bad for white christian men. Life really sux for you now. I’m glad I’m not discriminated against like that.

      Reply

    5. @nyokki: No. Its more a point that EVERYONE is discriminated against and EVERYONE discriminates. And white people used to have the market cornered, but we dont anymore. White people have valid claims just as much as any other minority, the only difference is whenever a white person brings light to it, all we get back is “boo hoo, the white person is being discriminated against”… well maybe we should put you all back in chains, because they (those who came after the predominant white power mindset. Those who live on today. Those who proved that most of us just want to be equal.) didnt let you out just so you could be asshats about it.

      not my belief, but one of the major thoughts circulating among the white sociology. My great great grandpa may have been a racist bigot and may have treated you like crap. The only reason a modern person has to discriminate is if they are responding to the discrimination they have received. I have had MANY embittering experiences and OMG, im white, we arnt immune!

      I say why dont we ALL just stop with this bull and be AMERICANS.

      beyond that… hell ya, separation of church and state!

      Reply

    6. @camusapprentice:

      I say why dont we ALL just stop with this bull and be AMERICANS

      That was my point…sheesh (‘cept replace Americans w/ people).

      Reply

    7. @nyokki: Sweet. Honestly, that is a conversation that I had a least a million times from a million angles during the election.

      And I agree with your amendment. Im a little ashamed of myself, I sound like a Merrican

      Reply

    8. To get to a level playing field, someone has to step down a notch. Welcome to the middle of the ladder, White Christian Males. If you’re not going to be rude about having to be taken down off your pedestal, we might all just be able to get along.

      Make a big deal about it and, well, you’ll make it worse for yourselves.

      Reply

    9. @natedog: You’re right. That’s why all the politician have to pretend to be atheists to get elected. Or how churches are forced to teach evolution. Or how whites are always get harassed by the police or “randomly” selected from screening at airports.

      Reply

    10. @camusapprentice:
      “Im a little ashamed of myself, I sound like a Merrican.”

      So, it’s still ok to hate rednecks, right?

      Reply

    11. Fuck the Church
      Fuck the State
      And Fuck the Police!

      Reply

    12. This is the only problem with religion and people that can be solved easily.
      Separate church from state and BAM life will be more beautiful for everybody. And also, if you’re against this, then you have no business talking about respecting other people’s beliefs because you’re obviously not doing it.

      @reboot: Truth.

      @the3g_ipwn: Oh so when they say Merrican that means redneck?

      I don’t understand what’s with you Americans. You always either are rednecks or you hate them.
      If my understanding is correct, there are a lot of different rednecks. They’re not all the same. I know one on youtube who is even an atheist. And if they didn’t have the accent, and would dress differently you wouldn’t even recognise them.
      As long as there is only one so called redneck who is open-minded and leads a respectable life, you can’t just put them all together in one box, instead of using your brain and making your own judgement every time you meet one.

      Reply

    13. If you are at all religious, you should very much want the seperation of church and state. State, as defined as the political entity in charge of legislation, executive enforcement, and justice, has this uncanny habit to tarnish just about anything and everything it gets its hands on.

      This includes religion. This is particularly apparent in the creationist argument to teach creationism in school. BESIDES the fact that creationism is not a science, I’d like to remind everyone in America that your primary and secondary school utterly failed to represent evolution to you, unless you went to a private school. If you respect your religion, don’t let the government give it a bad name, as it inevitably will.

      Reply

    14. I have no problem with religion. But if a religion pushes their beliefs on me when I am not interested, naturally I am going to push back.

      America comes off as an Evangelical nation, but we aren’t one. Christians simply put themselves in the limelight because they are seeking political power to force America into thinking one way. America is made up of people that have many beliefs, religions and individual ideals. Hell, most of the forefathers left England because of Church & State and the prosecution that went with it. As well as many US Citizens themselves.

      Reply

    15. @dieAntagonista: America in the redneck accent is pronounced: MUR-ri-ca. Hence the term.

      “All men are created equal” is the biggest line of bullshit ever swallowed by the American public. It lends to the falacy that one individual can’t be bad because that would make the equation un-true. I mean, if we’re all equal, and one of us is bad, then we are all bad.

      Know I know that this isn’t what Lincoln ment, but none the less, the PC movement and decline of personal responsibility has roots in that statement. Lincoln merely suggested that we should all be treated fairly. That an individual can be bad without that entire culture being bad. The interpretation is completely opposite of the intent.

      The problem is that we strive to obtain this elusive false sence of equality ass backwards. Instead of one group making itself better, they choose to drag down the competition down to their level.

      The truth, however, is far less complicated. We are not all equal. We all have different strengths and weaknesses. More often than not, the stereotypes we feverishly detest, are the ones we have chosen to be our definition.

      Reply

    16. @the3g_ipwn: I think the point of the Civil Rights movement, is that when a person is unequal due to heredity, or something they have absolutely no means to have ever affected or controlled, they deserve special treatment to compensate for that. Why? I mean, it’s really a lot of people’s sense of justice. Someone with one leg who never had it from birth deserves special treatment just to be able to compete with us two-leggers.

      Reply

    17. @ieattime20: No, “equal” is equal all the time. “Fair” is fair all the time. Not just when it suits a particular person or group. That just wouldn’t be fair, or equal, for that matter. Which is pretty much where we are right now.

      Reply

    18. @the3g_ipwn: Ah thanks for the clarification.

      Nice analysis and I totally agree with you.

      Reply

    19. @the3g_ipwn:
      Equal = Politically Equal.

      No, “equal” is equal all the time. “Fair” is fair all the time

      No it’s not. Equal can mean different things in different situations. Are we all born equally intelligent? No, of course not. Are we all born w/ the same physical abilities? No, of course not. All men are created equal means that one can not discriminate for/against an individual based on race, color, creed, ethnicity, religion (or lack of), etc…We are not born equal. but we are made politically equal by our gov’t. It’s not such a radical idea. Part of the problem is that the definition of equal keeps changing and there are those that keep trying to make it mean something that we can’t do politically. It can not make a person w/ a 70 IQ equal in intelligence to someone w/ an IQ of 140 and we have to stop trying to do that.

      Reply

    20. @nyokki: How can you disagree with me by simply rephrasing everything I just wrote? Try reading more than the last comment in a thread.

      Reply

    21. @nyokki: NO! Equal=Equal! Gosh didn’t you watch Sesame Street! If it is only equal when it suits your ideas, then it kind of defeats the purpose.

      Reply

    22. @the3g_ipwn: Yeah right…because words have only 1 meaning, and circumstances never change and 1 word w/ 1 meaning covers it all. There’s no subtlety or nuance to the English language and politics is black and white and everything would work out if everyone would just listen to you.
      You can’t make your point if your gonna point out that I shouldn’t read only one comment, rather than all of them (btw I did read the whole thread, always do) and then accuse me of rephrasing everything you said.

      If 1+3=0, then equal can depend on circumstances, which means that what determines equality does, in fact, change.

      Reply

    23. @nyokki: wait… 1+3=0…?!? Sonofa…! You mean they lied to me in math class all those years?

      Reply

    24. @nyokki: 1+3=4. Always has. Always will. No matter the circumstances. It’s what we call a mathematical certainty. I guess that answers the Sesame Street question.

      Your actually making my whole point. If equal is only equal under a certian persons rules, then it is invariably un equal. You see, BECAUSE we are NOT all equal, one cannot decide what is equal, or fair, if you will, for another. So try as we may:

      YOU+ME
      —— = no solution
      SOCIETY

      If we were all equal, meaning all variables the same, life WOULD be as simple as 1+3=4.(it does equal 4, I googled it)

      Reply

    25. I know I’m a bit late on this, but isn’t the phrase “created equal”, meaning that fundamentally and legally, we’re all equal to begin with, then circumstances can change based on our actions?

      For example me and some random dude in, say, Vermont, are the same as we just go about living our lives as we were created (we began as) equals. Then ol’ dude robs a bank & kills a person and he is no longer considered an equal (he loses his right to freedom, etc etc). That’s the point of the whole rights thing is that if we participate in our society along with the rules that have been set forth, then we should all maintain the same rights we were all born with.

      Reply

    26. Oh, and as far as all the comments about racism and who has it better than others, etc…I don’t agree or disagree fully with most of the contributors here.

      I agree that the white male is the most discriminated against in our (the American, that is) legal system as almost every facet of the American society. Perceived differences amongst different races and cultures (which have unarguably diminished TREMENDOUSLY since the 20th century when the trend of these laws was begun) have caused advantages for every race other than Caucasian and also for the female sex. Special benefits and organizations fill everyday life for Mexicans, Asians, Blacks, females of all races, Alaskan Indians, Indian Indians, and the list goes on – but camusapprentice is right…100% of society is now geared to bend over backwards to help the minorities (whether they are actually minorities or not) and women, while white males live every day being discriminated against by our legal system (to make things “fair”) and our own society (because a great minority of our great^4 grandparents enslaved some people).

      WTF people…I get my receipt checked at wal-mart just like the rest of you, I lost out on thousands of dollars of scholarships in college b/c I’m white, can’t get thousands of free dollars and a rock-bottom interest rate on a new house b/c I’m white and male, and I’ve definitely missed out on a job opportunity due to “Equal Opportunity” laws.

      hurumph

      Reply

    27. www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081209/NEWS01/312099150

      Tuesday, December 9, 2008
      Mom gets prison for sex with teen
      Judge admits double standard in issuing 2- to 4-year sentence
      By ALBERT McKEON, Staff Writer

      NASHUA – Acknowledging that a societal double standard exists, a judge on Monday sentenced a 38-year-old woman to a two- to four-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting a teenage boy.

      “Like it or not, an underage boy having sex with an older-aged girl is viewed differently than the other way around,” Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Robert Lynn said before handing down the sentence on Nashua resident Robin Mowery.

      Reply

    28. @the3g_ipwn: 1+3=0 is true under the right conditions. It’s your inability to see why/how this is so that leads to you to not even see other options. There’s a lot of color between black and white and few things (related to people) fall in to one or the other exclusively.

      Reply

    29. @nyokki: Please explain under which circumstances 1+3=0 becomes a true equation.

      Don’t you get it? The diversity you speak of is exactly why I say everyone is not equal. All we, as deceint people, can do is try to treat everyone equally. Regardless of the circumstances. These “circumstances” are what defines the class system, what we use to stereotype different races, culture, and religions. You have to view people through blinders. If you look at the circumstance, you become an instrument of division. Basically dividing people into groups based on their circumstances. Then you end up with what we have today. People seperated socially by classes, sex, races, cultures, religions, political views, ect.
      The above scenario will only ever play out one way. GroupA on top, GroupB in the middle, and GroupC on bottom. You want to take from GroupA and give to GroupC to endulge your fantasy world where everyone is equal and 1+3=0. What you end up with, however, is a system of entitlement and dependancy. Artificial division of an already too divided populace. Not to mention GroupB, feeling completely left out, pretending to be part of GroupC, because that’s where all the benifits are. Now some may think you compassionate, but the truth is, by recognizing the circumstances of others and handing out to those you deem less than equal, you have not only created the groups, but firmly solidified your position in GroupA. Which is good, because that was your goal. To be viewed socially as GroupA, knowing you’re actually GroupB.

      Reply

    30. Man, you must really like 1984.

      When you’re talking about discrimination in the legal system, or the electoral system, that’s the only kind of equality we can deal with. Don’t tell me there’s only one kind of equal. There’s politically equal, equal in height, in gender, skin color, amount of money made, etc. It’s the equality in respective fields we must deal with.

      We agree as a society that people are not physically equal, and thus make special concessions and considerations for those in your physical “group C”. This works well because it’s not a zero-sum game, like economics is.

      In the same way, people are not economically equal, which as I said above, is a far trickier problem to solve. The reason that African-Americans (heretofore referred to as ‘blacks’, as complicated names create precisely the divisiveness you discuss) are born into poverty frequently, because poverty is by-and-large heredity. Thus, even long after the actual prejudice and hatred leaves us, you have a lasting legacy of poverty. To say that solving the former is all that needs to be done is ridiculous and naive, as well as cold-blooded and mean. We must pay for the sins of our father, and the legacies therein.

      Now, as to what’s an effective way to do that, this is a matter of great dispute. But the fact is, in the same way that handicap people deserve special privledges, until the playing field is equal from birth, low-income minorities also need those things. Equality in ignorance of reality is dangerous and stupid.

      Reply

    31. I’ve never seen 1984. I might like it though.

      Everything you just said is bullshit.

      “In the same way, people are not economically equal, which as I said above, is a far trickier problem to solve.”

      First of all, I have been saying this whole muthaflippin time that we are not equal. Jesusgoddamnmotherfuckingchrist where did you two learn to read?

      Secondly, it’s not only tricky to create a world where everyone is equal. It is absolutely impossible. That is the core principal of communism, and, ironicly, the core reason why communism doesn’t work. When everyone is equal, there is no incentive. When everyone has the same ammount of everything, what is there to value?

      Reply

    32. The core idea of communism is power reserved for the means of production, i.e. the laborers, instead of residing in the people who don’t actually produce, i.e. the boardsmen. Equal distribution and production is just one facet of that. As much as you’d hate to, read up on your Karl Marx. He’s definitely not right (this is provable) but his ideas are worth consideration and at the very least drastically inform the opposite position.

      I know you said people are not equal. But you’re also saying nothing should be done to remedy this, because your conception of equal is too wide and beyond the scope of this discussion. No one wants everyone to be born the same, with the same money, and the same parental structure. That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about inequalities that exist in certain aspects of our culture.

      Economic equality is not about everyone making the same amount of money or getting the same things. Economic equality is about everyone having an equal opportunity to partake in ‘economy’, i.e. labor and the buying and selling of goods. People born poor do not have this opportunity, or it is diminished in standard to the opportunities of the rich due to education, inheritance, etc. This is mitigated by two things: A high potential for upward mobility (which, though we have this in the United States, and better than many countries, it still fails due to education), and an essentially random distribution of rich and poor people.

      The latter is what we’re talking about. Due to the past of prejudice and civil inequalities and racism, statistically black people are born poor. This means that poorness is inherited in their skin color with far more prevalence, which is not the way we want this economy to work. Presumably. Because it doesn’t work. Group C is trapped in Group C, with a greatly diminished opportunity to rise to A or B by virtue of something that should have nothing to do with their economic opportunity, their skin color.

      Reply

    33. “statistically black people are born poor.”

      That makes them a victim of numbers and nothing else. Black people, statistically, are poor in EVERY society. Not just here in America. Now, before you call me a racist, be sure to try to dispute that fact. I wish rompSku were here to back me up. As an African, born and raised in Africa, he would tell you that black people, for the majority, are inheritently lazy, not poor. When you blame our system, our laws and our society for something it is not responsible for, it’s no wonder you can’t reach a solution. Only when you recognize the real culprit, can you do that. An American, black woman has more opportunity for success than anyone on the face of the planet. THAT is true racism and sexism, but because they happen to be a minority, it’s ok for them to be superior.

      Reply

    34. Sure, the fact that they have a genetic predisposition to laziness does explain them remaining poor. But how does that explain the numbers of black men and women (statistically small compared to the rest of the group as they are) who are avidly hard workers, or the statistic disparity of black men and women who work menial labor jobs I would die before I finished, being a ‘hardy and hard working’ white man? Isolating a gene is hard work dude. Good luck with that.

      A far more likely explanation is that the Apartheid and several other horrors visited upon the people of Africa (some of them on themselves, but the external provocations mainly) have deflated them to the hated subgroup out of just about any group of mixed race, be it city, country, or nation. Why is that far more likely? Because we can point to these horrors, we have documented them, and we know, due to the progression of heredity of economy, that the reverberations of these persecutions last a lot longer than the persecutions themselves.

      I’m relying on documented facts and accepted psychology. You’re conjecturing evolutionary biology. I won’t go so far as saying you’re racist, but an anecdote from one person, black or white, does not suffice to prove anything. You’re generalizing based on your extraordinarily limited worldview, using that to rationalize cause. I’m looking at the facts that we do know and conjecturing something far more ascertainable than the individual motives of an entire race of humans.

      Reply

    35. @ieattime20: You’re plagerising what some asshole who thinks he knows something has written in some some book. So you dabbled in history and psycology your first year in college while deciding on a major. Good for you. That doesn’t mean you know anything. I’ll let you in on a little secret. You learn FACT in highschool. In college you study the OPPINIONS of other people in hopes that you will learn to make up your own damn mind. I see it hasn’t worked. You must have a Masters. Either way, the mere fact that you can recite a chapter here and there, doesn’t mean you KNOW shit. In fact, it speaks quite to the contrary. Personally, I would rather just drink my beer and wing it. It’s easy enough making you look like an ass. You’re doing most of the work for me.

      Now you say blacks are lazier because they have been enslaved, but I say they were enslaved because they were lazy and more docile. TomAto, TOMaTO.

      Reply

    36. Your pretention is amazing. The fact that you think ignorance of history can provide you anything, any kind of information, is startling. Since when has knowing anything about a subject made someone less qualified to talk about it? If you’re happy parading ignorance as a virtue, then there’s nothing more to say to you. As a matter of course, you don’t learn facts in high school, not in the sense of college, you learn about isolated incidents flavored with opinions, like the fact that Christopher Columbus discovered the world was round (wrong) or that he was anything but a nasty man who did horrible things to indigenous people because he very likely had syphilis eating his brain. I’d tell you it makes you sound stupid, but honestly I have the feeling you’d take that as a complement, not ‘soundin’ like them damn college folk’.

      I never said blacks were lazy. The idea that their culture in America is pathogenic, overall, to their success is indeed well documented, however. And that culture is a result of their cultural treatment in the context of greater American society and history. The fact that they are statistically more poor is a result of the following:

      Let’s say, optimistically, that everyone has an equal percent chance, upon birth, of climbing from Group C to Group B. Like, 10-20% (it’s less than half). However, your chance of falling back down the ladder is slimmer, say, 5%. (It’s easier to climb middle class than it is, realistically, with how humans behave, to lose everything and start over from scratch. Middle class families by and large remain middle class.) If a group starts off the ‘race’ all in Group B, at every point except the limiting point (at infinity), they will have a larger proportion of Group C members, due to their disadvantageous start, than another ethnicity that had a more uniform distribution between Group B and C. It’s basic math, and I can type it all out for you, if you’d like.

      Reply

    37. There is no scientific evidence that black people are by nature more lazy than any other race. To prove that you would have to show me at least one peer-reviewed source. (Do i really have to mention the athletic black stereotype who runs faster than any white person?)
      I’ll tell you what it is though, when people grow up in the same neighbourhoods, talking to the same people, living the same lifestyle, chances are they will turn out exactly like the people before them.
      This has nothing to do with race, and little with genetics.

      The majority of black people are poor? Statistics like that are almost completely irrelevant. It doesn’t say anything about those people’s race, but only points out facts about a certain group of people in a certain area. Those people could be black, white or purple it doesn’t matter.

      Reply

    38. @dieAntagonista: No, to an extent, you’re absolutely right. But statistics, especially statistics over a long period of time (knocking out the chance of high-variance randomness), do imply the existence of cause. Unless you find some sort of link between race and economic performance (as a factor of that race inherently, sort of like the ‘laziness’ example) you have to conclude that there is an ‘unnatural’ economic bias and, presumably, figure out what the cause of that bias is.

      My posit is that it’s because poor propagates poor, for the reasons you state and many others. Black people started out behind in the race, after emancipation, and, treating them completely equally (as we almost certainly do a good job of now, but definitely not in the past), they’re STILL going to be punished for starting out behind, even today. Unless your reaction is “well, dog eat dog world”, like a Libertarian (which is, in a sense, valid), the desire to remedy this somehow and ‘catch them up’ to the race should appeal to your sense of fairness, at the expense of your sense of ‘equality’ (they have to be treated different, at least for a time, to make progress).

      But you’re right, it’s not inherent to their race. ANY group of humans who experience racism experience the same pattern of the widespread proliferation of poverty, crime, and pathological pop culture.

      Reply

    39. @ieattime20:
      Yes I agree. But I’m still not sure about this part ‘Black people started out behind in the race’. I’m not so sure about the significance of this.
      You have also to consider the fact that there are only very few 100% black people in America. They’re for the most part all mixed. White, Mexican, Indian and so on.
      If you really want to get into genetics and all that.
      But yeah either way, we’re definitely on the same page.

      Reply

    40. @the3g_ipwn: 1+3=0 if your using mod4 (or base4) instead of mod10. There are certainly uses for working in other than mod10. In computer programming, we use mod2 (binary) and mod16 (hexadecimal).
      So, depending on what you want to do, different circumstances lead to different ways of working w/ the same numbers.
      The simple way is almost always the brutal way and I really do think that we can find ways to accomplish political equality w/out leaving people in the dirt. Nuances are very real and should be payed attention to.

      Reply

    41. @nyokki: Did you mean modulo 4, or base4? In a quarternary numeral system I believe 1+3=10. But I’m being anal retentive…

      I agree with your premise. Even with something as universal/ ubiquitous as mathematics, not everyone works in the same base.

      People tend to forget that equality means different things to different people. The devil is indeed in the details…

      Reply

    42. @Phyreblade: Yeah I know. I thought I was making it easier by stating it that way, like 1+1=0, figuring people would catch on.

      Reply

    43. This is why we have to make people politically equal, because if we do not, there will be people who live in filth and poverty. This can and does happen in America too. Staten Island, NY was home to Willowbrook State School, a psychiatric hospital/institution for the mentally unstable and retarded, basically they were dumped there and never seen by the public. It was finally closed down after Geraldo Rivera did an expose on it (It’s what catapulted him to stardom).

      Reply

    44. AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA AFRICA

      Reply

    45. @natedog: Why didn’t I think of that?

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas