Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Thursday April 13 2017, @01:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the it-is-not-the-law...-yet dept.

Alabama lawmakers have voted 24-4 to allow Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham to establish a police department. The church has over 4,000 members and is also home to a K-12 school and a theological seminary with 2,000 students and teachers:

"After the shooting at Sandy Hook and in the wake of similar assaults at churches and schools, Briarwood recognized the need to provide qualified first responders to coordinate with local law enforcement," church administrator Matt Moore said in a statement, referring to the mass murder of 20 first graders and six teachers at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut by a deranged man with an AR-15 style rifle just before Christmas 2012. "The sole purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide a safe environment for the church, its members, students and guests." The church would pay the bill for its officers.

[...] "It's our view this would plainly be unconstitutional," Randall Marshall, the ACLU's Acting Executive Director, told NBC News. In a memo to the legislature, Marshall said they believe the bills "violate the First Amendment or the U.S. Constitution and, if enacted, would not survive a legal challenge." "Vesting state police powers in a church police force violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment," his memo states. "These bills unnecessarily carve out special programs for religious organizations and inextricably intertwine state authority and power with church operations."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:33PM (31 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:33PM (#494982) Journal

    From the sound of it, you trust it. And yet you admit you have no logical reason to. This means you're either 1) a fideist or some similar animal such as a van Tillian presuppositionalist, or 2) naively taking Pascal's Wager. Neither of these reflect well on you.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:35PM (30 children)

    by marcello_dl (2685) on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:35PM (#495925)

    > ..admit you have no logical reason to.

    it is like admitting that not working with uninitialized variable is a good way to program, so, yes.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 18 2017, @08:09PM (29 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 18 2017, @08:09PM (#495992) Journal

      Quit dodging. Are you a fidest, presupper, or something along those lines or what? Because let me tell you something: kissing up to the biggest bully on the playground is a shit insurance policy. If you really think someone with Yahweh's character won't turn on you at some point in eternity, or however you want to think of time or not-time after you're dead, you're not only evil, you're dumb as (heh) hell.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:13PM (#496860)

        You don't see the point yet, I reject as flawed any logical assertion in the domain of a hypothetical transcendent god. Logic system is not defined, concepts are not defined. There are two categories of believers. The first one "God told somebody that..." are perfectly logical. The second one "god exists/does not exist because..." are perfectly illogical. Any pastafarian is more correct than any atheist that doesn't simply choose to not believe.

        You want to know my faith? Christian-but-all-went-downhill-after-313-AD. Given that belief implies not knowing, and given that a god that does not behave as promised is not my god, I think most problems are not inherent in the act of belief as you seem to imply.

      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:14PM (27 children)

        by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday April 20 2017, @02:14PM (#496861)

        see other AC comment, it's mine

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 20 2017, @05:52PM (26 children)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 20 2017, @05:52PM (#496963) Journal

          Good, so you at least know how massively wrong things went at Nicaea, though you're a little early---IIRC the Council was in 325AD.

          Now, do you at least know what the early beliefs were? They look very little like what you probably believe; that Council was basically the death of the religion, though arguably Paul strangled it in the cradle more than 250 years prior to that.

          Here's a hint: most of the early thinkers like Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Gregory of Nyssa, etc, were Universalists or Annihilationists. Latin does not gloss the Koine "aion[ion/s]" properly, and doesn't make a proper distinction between "kolasis/n" and "timoria."

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday April 21 2017, @02:45PM (25 children)

            by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday April 21 2017, @02:45PM (#497422)

            You see the theological perspective, but I was about the practical aspect of mixing religion with state which Constantin did in 313 IIRC. But no antipope or recycled pagan priest succeeded in subverting the message IMHO. As for universalism, annihilationism, I don't basically care, in fact even with no afterlife at all I would behave in the same way, you do what you think is right because it is right, not because of carrots and sticks. I just interpret the words True Life in a general sense, the kingdom of God and the True Life are already here for those who mind its message. Given that my choices are made on myself, I don't also have the problem of inducing other people to err if I were in error.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 21 2017, @03:44PM (24 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @03:44PM (#497458) Journal

              Congratulations, you're a Christian-flavored Deist :) Sounds like me about 10 years ago.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Monday April 24 2017, @03:11PM (23 children)

                by marcello_dl (2685) on Monday April 24 2017, @03:11PM (#498879)

                You are making unnecessary implications. The transcendence of God does not prevent God from interacting with the creation, in fact it does not even imply the separation between god and creation. Stating the opposite is like saying a chess player cannot move, only because he transcends the abstraction called game of chess.

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday April 24 2017, @05:27PM (22 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 24 2017, @05:27PM (#498951) Journal

                  You're going off the fucking rails again, Marcello. This is not about transcendence; this is the simple fact that if this God were truly perfect and self-sufficient, *nothing else would exist,* period. There is no reason for a truly perfect, self-sufficient, non-contingent God to create, and what's more, if perfection creates imperfection, it is not perfect. Any being that demands worship is by definition not worthy of it.

                  Face it: your God is either a myth or an evil spirit, and in either case deserves exorcism.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:28PM (21 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:28PM (#500092)

                    I am merely pointing out problems. For example, your latest assertion unnecessarily implies creation as being able to stand up by itself separate from God, which is a meaningless assertion, neither right nor wrong. It is questionable in light of John 1:3 and 1:11 too. A dreamer dreaming is a still meaningless but better approximation for a transcendent and immanent god, and your latest assertion in that context would pose a limit to the omnipotence of the dreamer/god.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:53PM (20 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:53PM (#500112) Journal

                      Uh, no, no it doesn't. Sit the fuck down and pay attention to what's being said to you. Read for comprehension.

                      If. A. Being. Is. Absolutely. Perfect. Then. There. Is. Literally. No. REASON. For. It. To. Create. ANYTHING.

                      Got that? And if you're going to say "but he's just dreaming!!!11111one But that's totally just a metaphor!!111" then you're accusing this thing of having some sort of power incontinence. Face it, you fucked up. You want to be a Deist, that's fine, that's what I am, but Christianity (and Judaism, and Islam) are inconsistent internally and externally.

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:51AM (19 children)

                        by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:51AM (#500564)

                        Apply what I have been saying since joining the green site:

                        >There. Is. Literally. No. REASON

                        "reason" requires cause and effect requires time. Your theological implication NEEDS something, time, in which god operates, an arrow of time superior to god itself. ABSURD.

                        > And if you're going to say "but he's just dreaming!!!11111one But that's totally just a metaphor!!111"

                        nope, I say that if something does not compute when discussing dreams, or programmers vs simulation, it cannot be thought as a strong argument for the god vs world situation. An additional problem for an already faulty assertion.

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:13PM (18 children)

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:13PM (#500883) Journal

                          You've retreated into absurdity. Even if one grants you do not need time per se, you do still need some sort of ordered causality. And, again, you are discussing a Deist God, not the bronze-age devil at the heart of the Abrahamic religions.

                          And you're dodging the second part here, again: the Christian God is not said to be purposeless or simply leaking power, but rather made a conscious decision to create. Again, if you wish to be a Deist, be my guest, but what you believe is not Christianity of any sort.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 1, Redundant) by marcello_dl on Friday April 28 2017, @01:29AM (17 children)

                            by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday April 28 2017, @01:29AM (#500986)

                            > you do still need some sort of ordered causality

                            I don't. Most vocal atheists do, and many theologians do. I think that, outside time, effect is like cause is like correlation, but since we are also outside space we don't have objects correlated or independent. But this is only my model, yours is IMHO naive but equally arbitrary, both are assertions in the domain where assertions can't be made for sure.

                            > the Christian God is not said to be purposeless or simply leaking power, but rather made a conscious decision to create
                            And the nature of creation vs. the nature of God is not knowable from the inside of creation with absolute certainty.
                            And Conscious Decision implies a time before time itself, where options are evaluated and discarded. Now, God itself might proclaim in some scripture: I decided to do this. Does it implies a particular model of his dimension or is it a way to communicate with to us using concepts we can relate to? "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" is a good example, conveys an idea without even attempting to explain the mechanics behind the incarnation.
                            So, discussing the purpose or the choices of an omni-potent guy is interesting, but deriving religious dogma from that is arbitrary.

                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 28 2017, @07:43PM (16 children)

                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 28 2017, @07:43PM (#501287) Journal

                              Are you stupid or just evil? Your God either doesn't exist or is some kind of horrifying demon if it does, regardless of all this masturbation over what causality would mean for a being like it. Do you really think the Hebrews had any idea of all this space-time twisting? No! They thought the fucking rain came out of literal holes in a solid firmament! You can trace the evolution of your God off the walls of Ugarit if you know where to look!

                              You're pretty twisted, Marcello. I don't know what you think you stand to gain by kissing up to this Yahweh thing, but I can guarantee you it won't last. If he's real he's crazier than a shithouse rat, and if you think kissing his ineffable ass is going to keep you safe around someone like that for all eternity you're even more delusional than I thought.

                              --
                              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                              • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday April 29 2017, @07:51PM (15 children)

                                by marcello_dl (2685) on Saturday April 29 2017, @07:51PM (#501648)

                                Hole in the firmament? so what? for ages we believed wrong things as scientific truth and we likely still do. So what?
                                A star fell from the sky in the apocalypse, yet it can be a symbol for a nuclear reactor. The mark of the beast could be an implant, yet it can be a symbol for a new religion (parallel for the tefillin), the reference to the waters above might be idiomatic (oral tradition needs symbols and metric), or not.

                                As for the rest, I don't see the problems you see, the OT god is the same of the NT Jesus, or everything is fluff. Problem, whatever proof of a difference between OT and NT god is based on theorems on fluff. So you can go as deep as you want in theology if you need answers to existential questions, personally I don't need them.

                                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 29 2017, @08:42PM (14 children)

                                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 29 2017, @08:42PM (#501663) Journal

                                  So you're one of those people who not only doesn't know, but doesn't care to know, as long as you can say "fuck you i got mine." That's not a coherent religion, and if your God is anything like what you're obligated to believe, you've earned yourself an eternity on fire. Good grief, you're one of the intellectually laziest people I've ever run across.

                                  --
                                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                  • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday May 05 2017, @12:12PM (13 children)

                                    by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday May 05 2017, @12:12PM (#504795)

                                    The rat who realizes he is in a labyrinth is likely the laziest one too, so what.
                                    The eternity on fire is luckily to be decided by the hypothetical perfectly just judge, which I don't fear. Not because I guess I am saved or not, but because either nothing happens or whatever happens is, guess what, just.

                                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 06 2017, @04:32AM (12 children)

                                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 06 2017, @04:32AM (#505318) Journal

                                      That's not even wrong, holy shit. I think I've pinpointed your problem though: define "just."

                                      --
                                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:28PM (11 children)

                                        by marcello_dl (2685) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @05:28PM (#506992)

                                        Just judge in this world is giving each one according to what s/he deserves. Obviously Undefinable outside this world by us. If you wanted a theological definition IIRC matthew 21 gives some pointers.

                                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:49PM (10 children)

                                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:49PM (#507142) Journal

                                          Way to circular logic there, bro.

                                          Define what "deserves" is. And while you're at it, explain to me how the hell a finite being's limited, temporally-circumscribed, spatially-circumscribed, vastly ignorant sins can possibly merit infinite punishment.

                                          For bonus funsies, tell me if you know what the early Church fathers believed about that.

                                          --
                                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @02:31PM (9 children)

                                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 10 2017, @02:31PM (#507553)

                                            Logical answer: your question is, how does a defined action earn you (undefined) because (somebody outside) (undefined)? I dunno. What I do know is that this is not basis for any kind of judgement, not because i like to censor, but because I like people not to make fools of themselves.

                                            Theological answer:The MEANING of what you do resides in the domain of meaning, like true and false values are not bound by time or space. Eternity is not necessarily defined as an infinitely long time (the universe could be infinitely extending in both past and future yet have a creator and a judgement and a heaven and a hell). It can simple be beyond time. In fact a god bound by time is not creator of time itself so easily. So it is perfectly doable to have punishment of prize in the domain of god. Let's say you run a successful sim resulting in aware beings (which I argue should happen given the right parameters) So there are beings that you deem worthy to share your reality so you give them an array of sensor, a motor and you tell them what they see now is your own dimension. They still live in their so they still have to trust, aka believe you on that. There are other clearly defective beings which you cannot trust to behave in your reality. You leave them in the sim, you don't destroy them because Matthew 13:29. Or you do destroy them when the sim is over. Have you done anything morally reprehensible?

                                            Practical answer: How can winning a 90 minutes final match earn you the first place in the competition forever? clearly sports do not exist or if they do, they do not award championships.

                                            • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Wednesday May 10 2017, @02:33PM

                                              by marcello_dl (2685) on Wednesday May 10 2017, @02:33PM (#507556)

                                              comment above is mine.

                                            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:12PM (7 children)

                                              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 10 2017, @04:12PM (#507611) Journal

                                              Comment above is all kinds of false equivalence because you're implying this God does not, as it is stated, "know the end from the beginning." Why is it that you True Believers (TM) are the ones most likely to blaspheme your God, to knock out inseparable fundamental attributes he has and needs in order to *be* God?

                                              An omniscient being. Does. Not. Run. A simulation. What would be the point? It already knows the outcome of any and all possible sets of starting conditions, and furthermore, being atemporal, from its PoV these outcomes have already happened.

                                              Furthermore: you're making the same category error that whatever asshole who wrote "Who is the pot to say to the potter 'what has thou wrought?'" made; that being, sims and pots are not sentient, ensouled, free-willed beings. This is the root of your evil: even if by proxy (for what else is a God-concept than a human's best guess at the universal order?) you reduce people to objects and elevate whims and guesses over reality. You have thereby made your God in your own image.

                                              And as to your "practical answer" ("How can winning a 90 minutes final match earn you the first place in the competition forever? clearly sports do not exist or if they do, they do not award championships."): it earns you *recognition* forever as the first-place winner *in that specific finals match.* And so what? What, in the end, does it mean?

                                              Marcello, you aren't anywhere near as intelligent--or moral--as you think you are.

                                              --
                                              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                              • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:15AM (6 children)

                                                by marcello_dl (2685) on Thursday May 11 2017, @02:15AM (#507878)

                                                > because you're implying this God does not, as it is stated, "know the end from the beginning."
                                                Nope. In fact a god outside time sees/creates end and beginning and can have freely evolving things in the middle, all "in one go" (can't say at the same time, can we). But this is theology.

                                                > to knock out inseparable fundamental attributes he has and needs in order to *be* God?
                                                Still theology. There is no fundamental attribute of god other than transcendence, and that only because it is part of the modefinition. Immanence already is a theological matter.

                                                > An omniscient being. Does. Not. Run. A simulation.
                                                Read again what I wrote. "Let's say you run a successful sim". YOU, not an omniscient being. I do NOT NEED to imply that this world is a simulation by an omniscient god for my argument. All I need is to bring to the table ONE example that says it is perfectly doable to have consequences in the domain of the creator for the acts done in the domain of the created.

                                                My impression is that you reply on autopilot, lumping together my ideas with those of others. For example, a self aware thing is like I am, qualitatively speaking. Yet the right of the guy who runs the sim to MAKE THOSE THINGS ENTER HIS OWN WORLD trumps whatever right they have.

                                                But You were probably discussing the right of the sim things to keep existing. It is not there, if resources are limited, for obvious reasons. If resources are unlimited? Still there is no right. It is a privilege. If you think those things should be saved, since resources are unlimited, you can take a backup. Still it's a privilege conceded by your magnanimity, right? or a cruelty inflicted on all the other aware things, that will be affected by your decision, depending on the kind of simulation. Tricky, huh.

                                                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:09AM (5 children)

                                                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 11 2017, @03:09AM (#507904) Journal

                                                  Just curious, is English your first language? There's something weird I can't quite place about your sentence structure that makes my brain squeak a bit trying to look at it.

                                                  Your bigger problem, though, is that you don't actually seem to be paying attention to anything that's being said to you. I am saying this for the fourth or fifth time now; try and get it through your head: any being that actually had the qualities or attributes necessary to be God would be the *only thing that exists.*

                                                  You seem to have trouble with this concept, as the last couple of times I brought it up you deflected with some irrelevant bullshit and went right on righting on. What are you not understanding about it?

                                                  --
                                                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:56PM (4 children)

                                                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 12 2017, @05:56PM (#508759)

                                                    #500092 already replied. Yours is a theorem. If god is X then does Y (or does not do it) because Z. I have already pointed out that the theorem is inapplicable from the POV because absence of time => absence of the same concept of causality we have. It is like the sim creature asking us how what kind of RAM is our world using.
                                                    Valid for theology. Cannot be formulated outside it. Also incompatible with Christianity but who cares. I am not a native English speaker too.

                                                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 12 2017, @06:35PM (3 children)

                                                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 12 2017, @06:35PM (#508785) Journal

                                                      Er, no, it is not a question of time or causality. This is a simple definition of what it means to BE GOD. Perfection, complete aseity, and utter self-sufficiency entail that nothing else would ever be created. It has nothing to do with the flow of time or causality and everything to do with plain logic.

                                                      --
                                                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                                      • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday May 13 2017, @09:41PM (2 children)

                                                        by marcello_dl (2685) on Saturday May 13 2017, @09:41PM (#509261)

                                                        > BE God
                                                        note "What it means to be god" is in the domain of meaning of the domain of god.
                                                        > entail
                                                        Entail is causality. But let's pretend it is not, you are likely not making your own theology but telling me the Christian one is inconsistent because perfection is (according to some ad hoc mental model which I could challenge if I had not already won) logically at odds with omnipotence. Now, remember the principle of no contradiction is invalid in one domain, like U={}, so our logic system is not universe-independent (which is banal if you think how it came to be). You call it a matter of definition, but you cannot "define" where the principle of no contradiction is not necessarily valid. Definition means separating A from not A. Such a separation needs the principle of no contradiction to be valid in that domain, which is not proved now nor likely provable ever. The end.

                                                        You are making theology dressed up as logic, and no matter how you keep calling it logic you don't make it so.

                                                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:14AM (1 child)

                                                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 14 2017, @04:14AM (#509341) Journal

                                                          Hey, dipshit, I didn't say perfection is at odds with omnipotence. I said if a being is perfect AND self-sufficient AND possesses complete aseity AND transcends space/time/causality, nothing else but that being would exist. You have not "already won," you lost before you even started.

                                                          Thanks, by the way, for fatally undermining your entire argument; you are working from the assumption of the law of noncontradiction being invalid, which means instant game over for you as you can no longer say anything with any meaning, as anything you say may mean itself and not-itself at the same time. Jeez, you *suck* at this. This is *not* how you do apophatic theology.

                                                          --
                                                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                                                          • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Sunday May 14 2017, @08:02AM

                                                            by marcello_dl (2685) on Sunday May 14 2017, @08:02AM (#509388)

                                                            > I didn't say perfection is at odds with omnipotence.
                                                            So could he create a reality external to him and consubstantial WRT him or not? your theorem, or application of definiton as you put it, says no.

                                                            > nothing else but that being would exist
                                                            you simply reformulated the theological "god is one". You do not deny creation, you deny a particular creation standing external and at the same level of god which is not part of christian theology.
                                                            Define existence. I did, experience is what you are doing right now, real is what can be directly or indirectly experienced, existing is what belongs to the set of real things. How does that apply to god? theologically only. What is real at one level is abstract in another.

                                                            > you can no longer say anything with any meaning.
                                                            I can, I do in fact, but: whatever I end up with has no meaning necessarily, this is my entire point. I am not putting forward ideas, I am defining the limits of others'. You want to sick with coding using maybe uninitialized vars? your choice. In the case of your theorem there are other problems in the code. Such as implying an imperfect world precludes a perfect and immanent god, but matthew 5 already offers a working model for it.