Religion can be defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
This belief is irrational as it isn't backed up by evidence.
All religions debunked in one single step.
This is your argument?
Religion is the belief in a personal God.
There is no evidence for this belief.
Religion is false.
Okay.
This is an empirical, not rational, argument. This means, ultimately, it doesn't give you a guarantee. It can only give you an uncertain level of certainty. The certainty you have is not based in reason, and so, it's based on faith or belief. The more certain you are, the more faith or belief you have, and so, the more dogmatic you are.
You've admitted this already.
I am intolerant! I have one goal before me, to fanatically and ruthlessly shove all this religious **** into the grave, whatever are the means that will be used.
Here is the difference between our methods and goals:
- You argue against theism because you see theism as false.
- I argue against dogmatism because I see dogmatism as harmful.
So, to me, you're the same as a Seventh Day Adventist complaining about Catholics going to church on Sunday. Okay, sure, the Sabbath is technically on Saturday. You win, SDA! *yawn*
1
So how does this law give the church less legal power?
And how is this a good thing outside of your opinion?
You have to actually be able to support both of these claims, otherwise your argument is not actually valid.
.... What?......
...I honestly can't really reply to this. It is neither a valid point, nor does it really make any sense.
You're just stating something to state something, despite whether it is true or not, and there is no reasoning there at all...
That's because it's pretty clear that this law provides no advantages to anyone. It's not really an opinion, it's a fact.
Do they?
Again, I don't know much about Norway's legal system, but typically laws are not created simply to be impractical.
So they are spending more money to pass the law, which makes the law even less practical and is actually detrimental.
A law made in favor of the Church..... which would weaken the power of the Church? You're speaking nonsense.
Eh.... No one has provided any argument how this law could be beneficial in any conceivable way... and it seems rather clear to me that there can't be any argument... So I'd regard it pretty much as a fact. And you can't really change your mind about observable facts... They are what they are.
For the sake of argument, perhaps.... But that is actually the only thing that really matters. If the law is inefficient and impractical (and as you help point out, even detrimental) then there is no use for the law. It is a bad law. It causes more problems than it solves, which is specifically the opposite intention in which all laws are passed.
So what is the "main point" then?...
This doesn't even make any sense...
If the State had laws about how rituals had to be performed then they could simply abolish that law.
The law we were talking about really has nothing to do with how rituals are performed. If that is the goal then it is quite easier simply to abolish the old laws which prevented that choice in the first place.... but I honestly doubt such restrictions ever existed, so I'm not sure how you arrived at this argument...
Have you even read the posts in this topic? This is completely and totally unrelated to the law. These couples could always go and get a legal marriage and have any ceremony they want, in either case. This law doesn't change this aspect of it at all.
Could they not have done this in the first place??? If not, then again, that is merely another law they could have abolished or altered, rather than creating a new one which doesn't even make any sense.
So it's not just detrimental, it's very detrimental? This only supports my argument even further.
So you think religious officials are simply sending documents for marriage in, without the couple's consent? Are you serious?....
And once again, this is yet another different law which could have been passed to prosecute religious officials who abused their power... if there was not already a law to do so in place, which I would think already existed along with the law that gave them rights to do marriages in the first place.
Why would the State care about this information, though? That's the point....
They really should not. Marriage is ultimately a religious concept, even if the couple are atheists. It has absolutely no roots within objective contexts. It is a completely arbitrary decision made by two individuals no matter how they do it.
In fact, if you pair up two random people who simply just wanted to get a tax deduction... who do you think would be more likely to catch them trying to get away with this?
A religious official whom typically meets with the couple about their relationship and gives some pre-marriage counseling, and uses their best judgments to decide if they will do a ceremony or not...
Or the State, which basically deal only in bureaucracy, and can not make arbitrary decisions?
Think about that for a moment....
Actually yes, I have a huge problem with this..... Why would arranged marriages be a bad thing? If the two individuals to be united are willing to be arranged, what the crap does it matter? And if they were not willing to be arranged, then don't you think they could refuse to sign the documents they already had to sign anyway? (You still have to sign your marriage certificate, no matter who does it)
Are you seriously going to tell me that arranged marriages can not be beneficial if the two individuals are okay with it?
Again, this law would not change anything in a good way, and possibly depending on the actual text in the law, prevent legitimate arranged marriages... Which means the State is then getting involved with religion, and denying rights to people... Making the law, once again, even more detrimental.
...So then what was the problem?
And to summarize, I believe your argument now stands that the "main point" of this law is to:
1. Give people more freedom with what type of "ritual" they want. (Even though they were never restricted by this)
2. Give homosexuals the right to have a ritual. (Even though they also were not restricted)
3. Remove the right to have arranged marriages. (Even if the couple wants to)
^^^^ And yet you don't agree with me that this law is pointless and impractical?
1
You can say it all you want... But obviously that doesn't mean anyone will believe you.
Yeah, okay and so unicorns are very likely to be real because horses and horns are real, eh?
Your reasoning doesn't really make any sense...
1
Uh.... Tell that to me again once you've found a full time job and have worked for a living.
And that's really the only argument they actually have... but honestly I don't find this argument convincing enough to warrant a change?
It's not laziness. The law adds an extra unnecessary step to a set of already arbitrary rules governing their system.
If you call 'removing steps' as "laziness" then I have no idea what you would personally call an efficient system... and I honestly would not care at all.
Most people prefer efficiency over.... non-efficiency.
Only Bureaucrats think in non-efficiency. Which is why this law is nothing but bureaucratic nonsense.
Then like I said.... The government needs to get rid of tax breaks and the other benefits of marriage entirely.
That is the only way to truly separate from religion. Otherwise they continue to allow the church to maintain power over them.
I disagree. I think that is pure nonsense.
If you want to remove the power of the church then the state should have an easier time dealing with things. That would be the only reason to remove the power from the church in the first place... to make things easier on themselves.
Otherwise the State is simply just being stupid and causing more problems for themselves, which benefits no one.
And like I said.... That is the only argument they have to pass this law.... but an entirely unconvincing one.
I will also note that I doubt the work is 'forced' on them.... Again I'm not familiar with the laws of Norway, but I assume the following is true... (and if it isn't true, then this is what they could fix, instead).
The church officials could easily have just told the couples to sign their official documents with the state, and refused to do them.... or charged a fee for doing them.
It is only "forced" on the church if it is not a choice.
1
Of course they are. The law ONLY benefits the priests, and therefore the churches. It's the only people it does benefit, as I have already pointed out.
It inconveniences everyone else in order to benefit only the Church, in the end......
....How is that a practical law? How is passing the law "better" for anyone? The way I see it, it looks like it will be more work overall.
1
I'm not upset. I just get swept up in the argument. I didn't mean to offend anyone, just open people's minds a bit... Sometimes that takes a bit of force.
I think it's a pretty clear case that this law would improve absolutely nothing... I just find it so easy to argue that I was getting distracted by all the nonsense supporting it.
As you can see within my first post, I was making light of the topic with some puns.
...Always take me seriously... but never TOO seriously.
1
So?........
....Did you even read Homem Pigman's post at all, or did you only read the one line you replied to?
Obviously these people could still get married through legal documentation, or a religious ceremony which would accept them (Not all religious people are close minded... There are even priests within Catholicism who will marry gay couples. It is not a rule among all churches.).
What does this law do to change that fact? The church would still deny these people the right to a ceremony. The law does not change any of this. You don't have an argument.
Not all of them, but it's irrelevant either way... I only brought it up to point out the fact that there is typically more to marriage than just signing a single document. At the very least you also have to wait in line to get the document...
And you probably also need someone to verify that the document was signed by the two parties, and not just forged. A role typically played by the priest or minister, now necessarily forced upon a judge, notoriety, or etc.
I doubt you can just grab a document and put two people's names on it and turn it in... otherwise they are once again just creating more work for themselves.
The law improves NOTHING. It is absolutely nothing but inconvenience.
Is there even a single argument for how this law does something positive? Or am I arguing with brick walls?
1
Religion doesn't have a chance to affect the state. The state already agrees on who is "married" and who is not. All that was happening was that the priests, ministers, or whomever were doing the paperwork and sending it in to the government. Now the government is forcing the individuals themselves to come to the government and fill out their own paperwork.
It's just shifting who has the workload on to people who are supposed to be celebrating, at the same time as their celebration.
Allowing religious officials to do the paperwork was a convenience for those who are celebrating. Norway has then taken away this convenience.
In either case, the religion itself still maintains control.... because guess what? People having religious ceremonies are still going to sign those papers! Some might forget to do it, but guess who gets to clean up that mess if they do? THE STATE. So they have only inconvenienced themselves as well as those getting married.
Congrats, Norway. You just passed a law which is nothing more than an inconvenience caused by bias.
More work on both ends.... They are actually taking the pressure OFF of religion here. Not taking away power.
If their intention was to take power away from the Church, they screwed up and they were stupid to even think that they could.
It has nothing, and I do mean nothing, to do with "seperation of church and state". You know why? Because "marriage" is still a religious concept. If they wanted to remove the power from religion, they would stop giving tax breaks and legal rights to married people.
That is the ONLY way to do it, and they have failed otherwise.
Is it the religion who's making the change, or the people choosing to get married?
No seriously, that was a rhetorical question.... I will tell you the answer. It is the people getting married.
You are a bit naive if you think a religion has any power to tell the government who is and who isn't married.... They were never in control of that. All the priests ever did was fill out the paperwork for people who actually did get married.
In this case, it never did. That's the problem here.
Again, no religious body has the "power to change a persons legal status". That all still lies with the people getting marriage (their choice) and the government (who processes the document).
The same thing is happening in either case. The law hasn't changed anything. They've only made a superficial change that doesn't really change anything.
You support it because you don't really understand what is really going on.
It's just a superficial change for a government to save face from "being in control of religion'. Which is a nonsense allegation in the first place.
It is nothing but a purely reactionary measure. The only change made here is one that benefits absolutely no one.
2
The only reason 'marriage' as a state-right exists is because of religion and the State's choice to honor it.
In divorcing (pun intended) religious-marriage from state-marriage they are essentially contradicting themselves and basically just creating an extra step for themselves to deal with.
The only reason religious places have any right to "marry" people is because the States themselves chose to honor religious marriage.... by going back on this all they are doing is forcing people seeking religious ceremony to go through with two separate processes for the 'completion' of their marriage.
I will point out that most modern countries have always allowed non-religious marriages to be documented and accepted.
All this is doing is forcing an extra step for people choosing to go through with a religious ceremony.
It's all good if they want to relieve the bureaucratic burden from the shoulders of priests, ministers, and etc.... but what exactly are their intentions in doing so? And why do they believe their process will be any better?
It simply just does not make any sense, except on paper (hehe, another pun).
It's merely splitting hairs.
2
It's okay to not call China a Communism, because it truly isn't. China is led by a Communist party, but it is not yet even a Socialism.
What needs to be understood (by the majority of the world) is that Socialism does not take place overnight. Even if there were a revolution and it was won overnight, Socialism would still take a while to implement simply to get all of the right elements in place.
As well, Communism itself truly can not exist until Socialism has fully and completely developed.
China is still within a somewhat revolutionary transition between Capitalism and Socialism. It may not be having revolutionary wars every day, but they are still fighting within the revolution in many ways.... You can even see this clearly demonstrated when Mao died, and the 'Gang of Four' was overthrown by the same groups which had led them all to power.
Many people seek power, and they gain it through revolution. For Socialism to win out, these people must be constantly overthrown or otherwise removed... But this takes time.
How would a waiter be equal to a doctor? Can you not observably see these two kinds of people are different?
Do people who become doctors, and are not in it for the money, not simply just want to help people? Is that not why they became doctors in the first place?
That is part of it, too. Again, the changes are not made overnight.
It would be silly to assume Communism can just magically spring up and everyone suddenly agree on everything. Many people depict Communism as some 'fairytale ideal', yet they don't realize just how reasonable, practical, and realistic Communists tend to be.
The Occupy movement wasn't a Communist revolution. It really was rather shallow and empty.... It had no leadership at all.
What it needed were leaders and a central goal. Without these things there will not be a true revolution. It is impossible, the governments which these groups might oppose are too focused to allow a disorganized, unfocused group to go anywhere.
People are legitimately rather naive and ignorant, overall... because that is how society has developed.
Generally society has developed a mentality that ensures humans want instant-gratification, and refuse change.
These things ensure that Capitalist societies continue existence and it was the Capitalists themselves who built this system and this mentality to ensure themselves power.
In a true Communism, the government are the people themselves. They aren't a machine but a fluid body. They are not cold and calculating, but made of flesh and emotions. They provide for themselves what is ultimately better for themselves.... And always will.
...While a machine simply just performs its assigned task until it either depletes all of it's resources or it breaks down. Sometimes both being the case. It is completely mindless.
It does not even work for itself, and provides only to those who work with it and know the tasks that it performs.
Capitalism is the machine. It mindlessly continues it's designated task, slaughtering millions and depleting every possible resource possible until eventually the entire world is exhausted and consumed by it.
But some of us know better than to allow this machine to continue it's massacre. Some people hold wrenches and screwdrivers to take it all apart, simply waiting for the day to get a crack at that machine.
1
No offense, but you really don't have an argument if you check your facts.
http://en.wikipedia..../Nelson_Mandela
This was in his speech when he was released from prison.
He did not "mature". He did not "change". He was the same political prisoner who went in.
It was the world around him which had changed while he was gone. It was the only reason that he had even been released in the first place. The only reason the violence did not continue. The only reason he did not continue the violence himself.
Your definition of "terrorist" relies entirely on perspectives. So if we use it differently than it is valid and fair, even if our perspectives contradict each other... Which is perhaps why the term should be dropped or redefined.
Needless to say it is from my perspective that Mandela was never a terrorist. He was fighting for freedom against a violent regime.
Gaddafi was also not a terrorist. He fought for independence of all people. He fought against violent oppressors everywhere.
The use of violence does not make you a terrorist. The use of violence with oppression does.... That is why the US, the United Nations, and NATO are all terrorists.
That is why the libyan people are now terrorists as well. That is why Gaddafi died. That is why the ambassador and others died. The libyan people are now wrecklessly using violence and oppression, and it only begins with the fundamentalists.
Edit: And no, De Klerk should not have gotten more credit than Mandela, that is ridiculous.
HE was the one who changed... and that was likely because he saw his regime failing due to the violence that Mandela instigated and he had to save face by changing his position, or face losing everything.