NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the type of conversation you can't get out of most Christians. They are more concerned about the social aspect of their beliefs than the theological aspect.
Yes, why is Christianity so politicised in America? Seriously, they're starting to make the Northern Ireland Protestants (by that I mean the Orange Order types) look moderate at this stage.

Don't they know any history? Don't they know that theocracy does not work?

Here look at this for an example of right-wing American religious extremism:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/

They are also hypocrites
We support free enterprise, limited government, low taxes, and personal responsibility. We believe in self government, not self indulgence. We do not believe that the federal government should extend its power over every aspect of our lives. The best government is the one that governs the least.
Sorry, but you can't claim to be for self-government (that phrase is owned by the people who actually believe in it - libertarians), and small government when you want your government to intervene whenever anyone tries to break a Biblical law.

------

It seems to me that Christians in America are becoming ever more extreme in their politics. They are beginning to resemble the Islamists that they are supposed to be against.

Yes, why is Christianity so politicised in America? Seriously, they're starting to make the Northern Ireland Protestants (by that I mean the Orange Order types) look moderate at this stage.

Don't they know any history? Don't they know that theocracy does not work?

Here look at this for an example of right-wing American religious extremism:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/

They are also hypocrites

Sorry, but you can't claim to be for self-government (that phrase is owned by the people who actually believe in it - libertarians), and small government when you want your government to intervene whenever anyone tries to break a Biblical law.

------

It seems to me that Christians in America are becoming ever more extreme in their politics. They are beginning to resemble the Islamists that they are supposed to be against.
If what TV said was true then we'd be in a libertarian paradise by now. People seem to think they're way of life is the only "proper" way to live.Christianity just offers simple answers for complex questions and people in power who are zealots don't want that taken away, also because you can control the populace.

Many americans are not reasonable, they are religious maniacs, and they elect officials who reflect this religious mania.

Many americans are not reasonable, they are religious maniacs, and they elect officials who reflect this religious mania.
When did they turn into religious maniacs?

Oh they've been here, they're just now getting a louder voice.

I can't really explain it. It is something in our culture, the same thing that makes us think we need to spend $500 on a single wardrobe. I guess we hate to think that we might be left out. I just realized that this doesn't make much sense, so I will just blame it on paranoia like I have been doing all day.

When did they turn into religious maniacs?
When it became convenient to argue that, of course. :p

When did they turn into religious maniacs?
When the Puritans landed.

Many americans are not reasonable, they are religious maniacs, and they elect officials who reflect this religious mania.

I disagree completely with you. The problem is that they are not religious maniacs. American christianity has been turned into a social movement and not a religious movement. Religious maniacs would completely turn on government, much like David Koresh.

Yes, why is Christianity so politicised in America? Seriously, they're starting to make the Northern Ireland Protestants (by that I mean the Orange Order types) look moderate at this stage.

Don't they know any history? Don't they know that theocracy does not work?

Here look at this for an example of right-wing American religious extremism:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/

They are also hypocrites

Sorry, but you can't claim to be for self-government (that phrase is owned by the people who actually believe in it - libertarians), and small government when you want your government to intervene whenever anyone tries to break a Biblical law.

------

It seems to me that Christians in America are becoming ever more extreme in their politics. They are beginning to resemble the Islamists that they are supposed to be against.

First of all, we're not "against" Islamists. it's just that a lot of ignorant people think every person from the middle east is a terrorist, and Islam happens to be the main religion there. As to your remark about why Christianity is so publicised, it's because most people in the United States are Christians, and we apparently want to....celebrate our religion? That sounds reasonable to me. And to this you may say that we are intolerant of other religions, but at least we aren't intolerant to the extent that we're killing off/deporting people of different faiths.

Christianity pops up so often because we're right and want to let you know about it. :D

First of all, we're not "against" Islamists. it's just that a lot of ignorant people think every person from the middle east is a terrorist, and Islam happens to be the main religion there. As to your remark about why Christianity is so publicised, it's because most people in the United States are Christians, and we apparently want to....celebrate our religion? That sounds reasonable to me. And to this you may say that we are intolerant of other religions, but at least we aren't intolerant to the extent that we're killing off/deporting people of different faiths.

He said "politicised" not "publicised". I have no problem with publicity, but I will stop you from politicising it in any way I can.

I disagree completely with you. The problem is that they are not religious maniacs. American christianity has been turned into a social movement and not a religious movement. Religious maniacs would completely turn on government, much like David Koresh.

Koresh didn't TURN on the government, McVeigh did. Koresh wanted to get away from the government and, well . . . I'm not saying what Koresh did was right or wrong, but he didn't want to destroy America. He thought it would fall and thus was a (crazy) gun collector.

Koresh didn't TURN on the government, McVeigh did. Koresh wanted to get away from the government and, well . . . I'm not saying what Koresh did was right or wrong, but he didn't want to destroy America. He thought it would fall and thus was a (crazy) gun collector.

But my point still stands that religious fanatics distance themselves from government, not emmerse themselves as the current puritan movement is.

First of all, we're not "against" Islamists. it's just that a lot of ignorant people think every person from the middle east is a terrorist, and Islam happens to be the main religion there. As to your remark about why Christianity is so publicised, it's because most people in the United States are Christians, and we apparently want to....celebrate our religion? That sounds reasonable to me.
Are you dyslexic? You have got two important words in my original post wrong.

Yes, you are aganst Islamists. You act as if I said you were against Muslims. I know you're not. Islamism is a term for the fundamentalist Islamic political movement that is sadly widespread in the ME.

Second, I didn't say "publicised". I said politicised. Nothing wrong with it being publicised, but in a country with separation of church and state, they shouldn't be pushing for legislation based on the Bible.

Don't they know any history? Don't they know that theocracy does not work?
-snip-
It seems to me that Christians in America are becoming ever more extreme in their politics. They are beginning to resemble the Islamists that they are supposed to be against.

Most Christians don't want a theocracy, both because they see the inherent dangers and because religion is supposed to be a personal choice.

Instead, most Christians recognize that every law is made from a certain world-view, and they would prefer that the world-view used to be Christian. To show what I mean, people who believe in large government operate from a different world-view from those who believe in small government. And we can't just say that we will use a secular or atheist world-view (due to church/state issues) becuase then we are favoring atheists over theists.

they don't have communism to hate anymore, so that now leaves Islamic fundamentalism as something to battle. How do you do that, battle it with your own culture and religion, its not an ideological battle now, its a religious one.

Hey christians, did lots of you know, that JC is almost as big as Mohammad in the Islamic faith, you have more in common than you think.

Most Christians don't want a theocracy, both because they see the inherent dangers and because religion is supposed to be a personal choice.

Instead, most Christians recognize that every law is made from a certain world-view, and they would prefer that the world-view used to be Christian. To show what I mean, people who believe in large government operate from a different world-view from those who believe in small government. And we can't just say that we will use a secular or atheist world-view (due to church/state issues) becuase then we are favoring atheists over theists.

Church/state issues are what necessitate a secular world-view in government.

The constitution bans laws based in religion, and policies without religious basis are called "secular."

Church/state issues are what necessitate a secular world-view in government.

The constitution bans laws based in religion, and policies without religious basis are called "secular."

So we can make laws for speed limits. No issue there. But the issue comes when you try to make serious policy, things that take values. A secular society can't give you values. Or you can just take a lack of values and do whatever you feel like, which could include another Holocaust. The issue is not IF we are going to use a world-view or value system, but WHICH one we will use.

So we can make laws for speed limits. No issue there. But the issue comes when you try to make serious policy, things that take values. A secular society can't give you values. Or you can just take a lack of values and do whatever you feel like, which could include another Holocaust. The issue is not IF we are going to use a world-view or value system, but WHICH one we will use.


a secular system can give you fine values, thats what parents are for. You shouldn't have to rely on some book to tell you what to do.

So we can make laws for speed limits. No issue there. But the issue comes when you try to make serious policy, things that take values. A secular society can't give you values. Or you can just take a lack of values and do whatever you feel like, which could include another Holocaust. The issue is not IF we are going to use a world-view or value system, but WHICH one we will use.
I certainly disagree that religion is required to have values. I am an atheist and I certainly have values, the most important of which is individual liberty.

A secular society can't give you values.
Only if you ignore every philosophy that doesn't base itself on divine command theory or the existence of God. Oh my.. then you have quite a few secular philosophies that can provide values which society can be based on! Gee!

As to why Christianity is so politicised... might as well ask why the Catholic Church was so politicised back during the Dark and Middle Ages, and beyond... The answer: Because it's there. People who desire power over others will always find a way to get it. The Catholic Church offered an opportunity to acquire power, and they took advantage of it. And the people followed, because they believed in God and didn't want to be burned as a pagan or an atheist.

The same thing can be seen today in America. Falwell, Robertson and a number of the modern-day leaders of the Evangelical movement use Christianity - and their "flocks" [how fitting!] as political tools, ways to get power. If the roles of Islam and Christianity were reveresed in this situation, Falwell and Robertson would be giving their sermons in Arabic. It's all about controlling other people and having material power and wealth. The Republicans either picked up on this or else created it, and are using the same tactics as Falwell and his sort - invoking God and Christianity as a "cure all" for the rest of their politics.

Don't blame the flocks being told how and why to vote too much. They're lied to on a daily basis.

Many americans are not reasonable, they are religious maniacs, and they elect officials who reflect this religious mania.

What about the 49% of the US voters that DIDN'T vote for Bush?

So we can make laws for speed limits. No issue there. But the issue comes when you try to make serious policy, things that take values. A secular society can't give you values. Or you can just take a lack of values and do whatever you feel like, which could include another Holocaust. The issue is not IF we are going to use a world-view or value system, but WHICH one we will use.

And here I thought reasonable people could make wise decisions without the help of religion. No wonder I'm not president.

Most Christians don't want a theocracy, both because they see the inherent dangers and because religion is supposed to be a personal choice.

Instead, most Christians recognize that every law is made from a certain world-view, and they would prefer that the world-view used to be Christian. To show what I mean, people who believe in large government operate from a different world-view from those who believe in small government. And we can't just say that we will use a secular or atheist world-view (due to church/state issues) becuase then we are favoring atheists over theists.

Yes, using an atheist world view is favouritism towards atheists, which is why I don't support it. But a secular world-view does not favour any religion or lack of one in particular. The Christian worldview does favour a particular faith, and that's the problem.

It was a direct unconcious response to Bill Clinton.

I certainly disagree that religion is required to have values. I am an atheist and I certainly have values, the most important of which is individual liberty.

But then you have values. Based on a system. But not everyone buys into that system. So how do we make everyone happy? We can't. That's the point. And Christians think that their system is the one that will benefit everyone the most. That's nothing new. It's a pretty common assumption, from people who believe in many different systems.

Yes, using an atheist world view is favouritism towards atheists, which is why I don't support it. But a secular world-view does not favour any religion or lack of one in particular. The Christian worldview does favour a particular faith, and that's the problem.

A secular world-view does favor someone: those with a secular world-view. See above post.

And here I thought reasonable people could make wise decisions without the help of religion. No wonder I'm not president.

The religion is not the point. The world-view is. Everyone has one. Not everyone agrees. So which do we use? Every world-view would benefit some to the expense of others. So we pick the one that will do everyone the most good. And that's what Christians believe about their own world-view.

Yes, using an atheist world view is favouritism towards atheists, which is why I don't support it. But a secular world-view does not favour any religion or lack of one in particular. The Christian worldview does favour a particular faith, and that's the problem.

Interesting point. To rephrase your point; many American Christans seem to have confused the concept of "Secular" and "Atheist". "Promoting" Christianity in government becomes synonymous with "Celebrating" or "Perserving" their faith.

These are clearly seperate things. Secular government is not Atheist; its all-theist, to borrow a term. It neither promotes nor demotes religions.

Atheist government, as Christian activist groups describe them, demote religions; placing Atheism as the state's dogma. In many ways such Atheist governments could represent Theocracies with Atheism as the state religion.

The promotion of Christian beliefs in government can take two forms. Allowing Christianity to be practiced within the state without recrimination or fear of repression would be one form.

Promoting Christian principles OVER secular government, adopting Christian religious laws as government laws, replacing neutrality with pro-Christian stances on issues is the other form.

Do you see now a clear demarkation of borders? One is defending your faith from persecution by other religious or atheist groups. The other is promoting your faith OVER other religious or atheist groups. By confusing the two you become the very evil you seek to gaurd against.

Be wary of misusing your power.

The religion is not the point. The world-view is. Everyone has one. Not everyone agrees. So which do we use? Every world-view would benefit some to the expense of others. So we pick the one that will do everyone the most good. And that's what Christians believe about their own world-view.

There is a different world-view for every christian. Quit saying world view and say what you really mean, moral set.

Only if you ignore every philosophy that doesn't base itself on divine command theory or the existence of God. Oh my.. then you have quite a few secular philosophies that can provide values which society can be based on! Gee!

Yeah, I heard of them. I'm a philosophy major. And quite frankly, the objective morality view-points boil down to relative morality, which boils down to nihilism. So we're left with either an absolute morality or nihilism. Can public policy be made on nihilism? I suppose so, but I wouldn't want to see it.

As for the rest of your post, sorry, but I'm not that cynical.

A secular world-view does favor someone: those with a secular world-view. See above post.
Hmmm, I'm not sure. The secular philosophy is about the government not bothering religion at all and vice versa. I don't see how it affects people who don't share that world-view.

There is a different world-view for every christian. Quit saying world view and say what you really mean, moral set.

Works for me. Most people just like the other term better. But in the end, we're going to be promoting someone's moral set over another's. Religious or secular, it doesn't matter.

the GOP politicized religion in america pandering to christian fundie wackjobs who think every cartoon character in existence is promoting the "gay lifestyle"

Hmmm, I'm not sure. The secular philosophy is about the government not bothering religion at all and vice versa. I don't see how it affects people who don't share that world-view.

It affects people this way, and I will take it to an extreme to illustrate the point: suppose someone comes along and says that the laws against murder is just somebody imposing their morality on them. Now what? We can either say, "You're right," and abolish the murder laws, or we can say that we value human life, and we won't do it. Either way, I get affected by someone else's world-view.

Works for me. Most people just like the other term better. But in the end, we're going to be promoting someone's moral set over another's. Religious or secular, it doesn't matter.

See, we don't need to consider anyone's moral set. We are a reasonable people and can weigh out the beneficial characteristics and the detremental characteristics of a policy and decide whether it should be undertaken.

Take a business for example, there is no consideration for moral sets in a business, and they can be run quite efficiently.

See, we don't need to consider anyone's moral set. We are a reasonable people and can weigh out the beneficial characteristics and the detremental characteristics of a policy and decide whether it should be undertaken.

Take a business for example, there is no consideration for moral sets in a business, and they can be run quite efficiently.

Yeah, morality fell by the wayside in business. Hence, Enron.

How we weigh those consequences would then be part of a value/moral set. There's no getting way from it.

It affects people this way, and I will take it to an extreme to illustrate the point: suppose someone comes along and says that the laws against murder is just somebody imposing their morality on them. Now what? We can either say, "You're right," and abolish the murder laws, or we can say that we value human life, and we won't do it. Either way, I get affected by someone else's world-view.
Laws against murder, assault, etc. are different from laws about gay rights. Why? Because killing or attacking someone violates their human rights to life and security. Two women (or men) marrying each other doesn't affect anyone but the couple.

Yeah, morality fell by the wayside in business. Hence, Enron.

How we weigh those consequences would then be part of a value/moral set. There's no getting way from it.

So you need to be religious to understand that the executives of Enron committed a crime?

Why don't we judge what punishment we think will detour CEO's from undertaking such a route.

Laws against murder, assault, etc. are different from laws about gay rights. Why? Because killing or attacking someone violates their human rights to life and security. Two women (or men) marrying each other doesn't affect anyone but the couple.

But who says that there is such a thing as human rights? It's a moral value.

As for homosexuality, I'm not going to make a law about what goes on in somebody's bedroom. That would be pointless. But I am against gay marriage as it is a public act. Honestly, I would like to see a restriction in the divorce laws, too.

So you need to be religious to understand that the executives of Enron committed a crime?

Why don't we judge what punishment we think will detour CEO's from undertaking such a route.

That would be a completely unreligious topic. I will grant you that. But who is to say that it should even be illegal? Granted, I'm exagerating, but it's exageration to prove a point.

"christian" is a very misused and misleading term these days. It seems to mean many different things.

1. someone who follows the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Love god, love your nieghbor, turn the other cheek, etc. emphasis on loving people and forgiving and embracing those that wrong you and disagree with you. :)

2. intolerant bigots who use "the Bible" to justify their own hate and inadaquecy issues. :headbang:

3. the opposite of muslim, which isn't true. at most, it is a different interpretation of events, based in the same area and teachings. Personally, I see no diffeence between the islamic terrorists of today and the crusaders of a thousand years ago. both are using religion as an excuse to perform heinous acts that are totally against the teachings of their faith, but are "ok" because they are done to "infedels" or "heretics". :mad:

I belong to the first group. my faith is a personal matter, and I don't want to force anyone to join me. I hope that they will, but it's their decision, not mine. I still love them, either way. I want to take back my religion from the bigots. they are hurting people every day, and are the biggest threat to the christian church today. because all people hear from them is hate. and it's supposed to be about love. it shouldn't be a tool to power, or a means of socialetal control. bear that in mind. for every fallwell, there is one like me.

this is a topic of much frustration for me, sorry if I ranted. :D

But who says that there is such a thing as human rights? It's a moral value.

As for homosexuality, I'm not going to make a law about what goes on in somebody's bedroom. That would be pointless. But I am against gay marriage as it is a public act. Honestly, I would like to see a restriction in the divorce laws, too.

All of civilization is built on human rights. If there were no human rights there would be no society.

How could a person not have rights?

That would be a completely unreligious topic. I will grant you that. But who is to say that it should even be illegal? Granted, I'm exagerating, but it's exageration to prove a point.

Things should be illegal if they infringe on the rights of others. That is the only necessity of laws, to guarantee the rights of the people who make up the society.

The people set down a set of rights that they believe they should have. If someone takes away said rights they have shown that they are not willing to abide by the laws of society and are put at the mercy of society.

Laws have been around longer than religion. Religion was just brought in so people could make laws that didn't really benefit society.

All of civilization is built on human rights. If there were no human rights there would be no society.

How could a person not have rights?

The theory of rights came out of Lex Rex, written by Samuel Rutherford. It was later used by John Locke in his philosophy. Rutherford was talking about how people have certain rights, which the king cannot infinge upon, because they are given to us from God. I don't understand how a secular/atheistic mindset could come up with rights.

The religiosity of many american ensures that christianity is politicized.

The alliance between right-wing elitist economic policy and conservative religious social policy is party based on the simple fact that the republicans co-opted religious maniac social policies before the democrats.

To the democrats' credit though, their enlightenment social ideas conflict to a large degree with religious maniac social policies.

All the same, marrying left-wing economics to christian fundementalism is in no fundemental way different than marrying right wing elitism.

Some would argue that christianity actually contains a left-wing economic message as well.

The theory of rights came out of Lex Rex, written by Samuel Rutherford. It was later used by John Locke in his philosophy. Rutherford was talking about how people have certain rights, which the king cannot infinge upon, because they are given to us from God. I don't understand how a secular/atheistic mindset could come up with rights.

I think I explained it pretty well in my last post.

If atheists can actively participate in politics, why can't Christians participate as well?

And if a country is mostly made up of Christians, why can't the laws of that country reflect the Christian moral set?

Things should be illegal if they infringe on the rights of others. That is the only necessity of laws, to guarantee the rights of the people who make up the society.

The people set down a set of rights that they believe they should have. If someone takes away said rights they have shown that they are not willing to abide by the laws of society and are put at the mercy of society.

Laws have been around longer than religion. Religion was just brought in so people could make laws that didn't really benefit society.

The first written law code that we have found is that of Hammurabi, from about 1800 BC. There was civilization before that. Religion has been around a lot longer.

So you are saying that these rights are arbitrary? There is nothing backing them up other than society agreeing with them? And if society changes, we change our rights? That's not morality, that's taste codified. There is nothing inherrently right or wrong about it.

Originally Posted by Trammwerk
The promotion of Christian beliefs in government can take two forms. Allowing Christianity to be practiced within the state without recrimination or fear of repression would be one form.

Promoting Christian principles OVER secular government, adopting Christian religious laws as government laws, replacing neutrality with pro-Christian stances on issues is the other form.

I don't think it's this black and white. I am a Christian and I find myself often questioning the motives of government initiatives which seem to be the legislation of faith. But what about things like keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the ten commandments in courthouses. Here you're not only looking at issues of religion and state mixing, you're also seeing the effects of a large number of Christians involved in our nation's evolution.

It's not always Christianity replacing neutrality; often an outspoken movement arises to replace any governmental support of Christianity with neutrality. We don't have to promote Christianity as the only way (shoot, the way I see it, even Jesus wanted church and state separate), but I don't think we can ignore its role in the history of the country, along with other non-Christian religions.

I see both extremes in America, the religious zealots who think everyone should be a Bible-toting, gay-bashing fundamentalist, and also the anti-Christians who believe Christianity should be kept as secret as what goes on in your bedroom. Both extremes are problematic, it's not just people of faith who "cross the line."

Originally Posted by Niccolo Medici
Falwell, Robertson and a number of the modern-day leaders of the Evangelical movement use Christianity - and their "flocks" [how fitting!] as political tools, ways to get power.

Now I don't know how familiar you are with Christianity, but the idea of "flocks" was not created by televangelists who use publicized worship to promote their politics. The term goes back to the time of Jesus, when he often portrayed himself as a shepherd, and his followers as the flocks he cared for. Hence the verse "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." Christians are not all as ignorant and easily duped as you seem to indicate.

As much as I dislike most of what people like Falwell do and say, I don't think it's fair to group the whole Evangelical movement with them. Even from a non-Christian perspective, many great things have been done by followers of Christ (like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.), and I don't think it's fair to group us all together as "religious maniacs" who are becoming as extreme in our faith and politics as the Islamists we are purported to hate with a passion.

But who says that there is such a thing as human rights? It's a moral value.
Alright, let's say it very simply:

If someone shoots you in the head, does that affect you?

If two guys you don't know, on the other side of the country, get married, does that affect you?

Which question did you answer "no" too?

The first written law code that we have found is that of Hammurabi, from about 1800 BC. There was civilization before that. Religion has been around a lot longer.

So you are saying that these rights are arbitrary? There is nothing backing them up other than society agreeing with them? And if society changes, we change our rights? That's not morality, that's taste codified. There is nothing inherrently right or wrong about it.

Just because that was the first instance of laws being codified does not mean that those were the first laws inacted.

Rights are arbitrary, to a certain extent. And yes there is nothing backing them up other than society agreeing with them. However, most of the rights represent rights that one would have if left out of human contact. Those are the rights that are inherent.

And you are very correct that it is not morality. Morality has nothing to do with the rights of the people. Many people define their morals in many different ways, but each has the same rights.

Alright, let's say it very simply:

If someone shoots you in the head, does that affect you?

If two guys you don't know, on the other side of the country, get married, does that affect you?

Which question did you answer "no" too?

I answer "yes' to both. One just takes longer for the effect to reach me.

Just because that was the first instance of laws being codified does not mean that those were the first laws inacted.

Rights are arbitrary, to a certain extent. And yes there is nothing backing them up other than society agreeing with them. However, most of the rights represent rights that one would have if left out of human contact. Those are the rights that are inherent.

And you are very correct that it is not morality. Morality has nothing to do with the rights of the people. Many people define their morals in many different ways, but each has the same rights.

But if there is no morality, then why is it wrong for me to violate your rights? Just because you don't like it doesn't make any difference.

I answer "yes' to both. One just takes longer for the effect to reach me.

I answered "no" to the first one, if it was a liberal shooting - he would probably miss ;) .

But if there is no morality, then why is it wrong for me to violate your rights? Just because you don't like it doesn't make any difference.

Are you serious? Can you not feasibly understand the problems of mutually assured rights? A lawless society is just fine by you?

I answer "yes' to both. One just takes longer for the effect to reach me.

How are you affected by the sins of someone else. I guarantee that I will go out to a bar and get tanked tonight, and hopefully have some premarital sex.

How does that affect you?

Are you serious? Can you not feasibly understand the problems of mutually assured rights? A lawless society is just fine by you?

I can understand how it would be in my own best interest to follow society's laws, as I would thrown in prison, or somesuch. But I don't see how it would be wrong to do what you term wrong.

How are you affected by the sins of someone else. I guarantee that I will go out to a bar and get tanked tonight, and hopefully have some premarital sex.

How does that affect you?

One person doing such would probably have such a miniscule effect on me that I can easily discount, but lots of people doing so will have plently of effect on me. Like the numerous "accidental" babies born, the spread of STDs, and such. And that's only counting the material effect, not the spiritual.

I can understand how it would be in my own best interest to follow society's laws, as I would thrown in prison, or somesuch. But I don't see how it would be wrong to do what you term wrong.

That is because laws are not based on morality. They are based on the efficient running of society. Laws must be made to ensure a free society, otherwise society will become stagnant and desolve.

I don't think it's this black and white. I am a Christian and I find myself often questioning the motives of government initiatives which seem to be the legislation of faith. But what about things like keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the ten commandments in courthouses. Here you're not only looking at issues of religion and state mixing, you're also seeing the effects of a large number of Christians involved in our nation's evolution.

It's not always Christianity replacing neutrality; often an outspoken movement arises to replace any governmental support of Christianity with neutrality. We don't have to promote Christianity as the only way (shoot, the way I see it, even Jesus wanted church and state separate), but I don't think we can ignore its role in the history of the country, along with other non-Christian religions.

I see both extremes in America, the religious zealots who think everyone should be a Bible-toting, gay-bashing fundamentalist, and also the anti-Christians who believe Christianity should be kept as secret as what goes on in your bedroom. Both extremes are problematic, it's not just people of faith who "cross the line."


You quoted me saying something I didn't and quoted Trammwerk as saying something I did. Once I figured that out; the rest was easy ;)

Initial confusion aside, you'll notice I specifically mentioned extremist Atheism in the post! I presented the material as anything but black and white; for indeed, its one of the most confusing subjects one can get into.

I didn't single out Christians as the only ones capable of going over the line, I try to be very cautious and mention that it goes both ways. Find a balance between respecting the contributions and institutions that Christianity helped the US with over the years and understanding that other religons and athiests made their own contributions.

The pledge of allegiance is a great example; the words Under God were included in the 1950's. Why keep it, why remove it? Is it that important to get rid of it? Is it so important to keep it? How is it an attack on Christianity to cease placing the Christian god over the state? How is it an attack on other faiths to mention a "god" in the pledge? Its such a minor issue that has such far-reaching implications on out state of mind that it becomes major.

Simply put, both "sides" have a right to exist, both sides have a right to be proud of their achievements and their contributions. Both sides also have the right to shut the hell up and leave well enough alone. You don't need to put the the ten commandments ON your Court robes anymore than you need to REMOVE the cross that's been on the California state seal for a hundred years. This kind of symbology only seeks to antagonize the other side, its not promoting your religion; its putting down someone else's.

One person doing such would probably have such a miniscule effect on me that I can easily discount, but lots of people doing so will have plently of effect on me. Like the numerous "accidental" babies born, the spread of STDs, and such. And that's only counting the material effect, not the spiritual.

First off, what if I am responsible?

Secondly, what would be the spiritual effect?

That is because laws are not based on morality. They are based on the efficient running of society. Laws must be made to ensure a free society, otherwise society will become stagnant and desolve.

So we're doing things because it helps society to survive? What if a person is hindering society? Can we kill him? What about a group of people? Hitler thought that it was in the best interest of society to kill off the Jews.

First off, what if I am responsible?

Secondly, what would be the spiritual effect?

Responsible meaning using birth control? That's all well and good, but not everyone does, and it's not 100% effective. It only limits the effect, rather than eliminating it.

I believe that sex outside of wedlock changes people. Their personalities change. That affects me. The funny thing is that I have also heard non-Christian people tell me the same thing.

So we're doing things because it helps society to survive? What if a person is hindering society? Can we kill him? What about a group of people? Hitler thought that it was in the best interest of society to kill off the Jews.

As far as I know, every law has been backed up by punishment, or at least was intended to be.

It has been shown firmly that Jewish people can be and are very large contributers to society. So he was certainly in the wrong. He took away their rights without justification.

It is also likely that if Hitler had not ignored international law and invaded Poland, Russia, and France then WW2 wouldn't have happened and the German Jews may have been ignored by the international community.

Responsible meaning using birth control? That's all well and good, but not everyone does, and it's not 100% effective. It only limits the effect, rather than eliminating it.

I believe that sex outside of wedlock changes people. Their personalities change. That affects me. The funny thing is that I have also heard non-Christian people tell me the same thing.

You make a good argument and I can tell this is going to just turn into an argument that we will not agree on.

Luckily society is on my side right now.

As far as I know, every law has been backed up by punishment, or at least was intended to be.

It has been shown firmly that Jewish people can be and are very large contributers to society. So he was certainly in the wrong. He took away their rights without justification.

It is also likely that if Hitler had not ignored international law and invaded Poland, Russia, and France then WW2 wouldn't have happened and the German Jews may have been ignored by the international community.

The point is not that teh Jews are harmful to society. I'm not advicating that. The point is, what if we think that there is a group that is? These days, that would probably fall on Muslims. If we passed a law which said that all Muslims in the US would be killed, and it was based on the idea that they are hurting us, then how would that be wrong? Or substitute in any ethnic or religious group. Maybe even atheists. If it was for the good of society, and it could be proven to be so, then would it be wrong?

they don't have communism to hate anymore, so that now leaves Islamic fundamentalism as something to battle. How do you do that, battle it with your own culture and religion, its not an ideological battle now, its a religious one.

Hey christians, did lots of you know, that JC is almost as big as Mohammad in the Islamic faith, you have more in common than you think.


Im sorry, but you have no idea what your talking about. The basis of Christian faith is based on the fact that Jesus is Lord, no that he was a prophet. Muslims dont believe in Him being saviour. you said he was almost as big as mohammad, but the whole point of our faith is that he is the only way.

1) What you're describing are the effects of having sex in a stupid manner. The pre-marital aspect is unrelated. Getting drunk, and sleeping with someone you don't know is clean, and not using the proper protection and abortion options, are the problem.

2) Prove your spiritual issue.

You make a good argument and I can tell this is going to just turn into an argument that we will not agree on.

Luckily society is on my side right now.

You're right that we probably won't agree. And if Christians turn out to the polls in increasing numbers, society won't be on your side for long.

1) What you're describing are the effects of having sex in a stupid manner. The pre-marital aspect is unrelated. Getting drunk, and sleeping with someone you don't know is clean, and not using the proper protection and abortion options, are the problem.

2) Prove your spiritual issue.

At this point in time, I cannot give any serious evidence better than anecdotal. But I do think that it is interesting that I heard about how sex changes people from non-Christians before I heard about it from Christians.

The point is not that teh Jews are harmful to society. I'm not advicating that. The point is, what if we think that there is a group that is? These days, that would probably fall on Muslims. If we passed a law which said that all Muslims in the US would be killed, and it was based on the idea that they are hurting us, then how would that be wrong? Or substitute in any ethnic or religious group. Maybe even atheists. If it was for the good of society, and it could be proven to be so, then would it be wrong?

I never meant to impy that you are saying that about Jews. I was merely pointing out why what Hitler did was wrong. I do find it interesting that the singled out groups, one that did get persecuted, and others that plausibly could get persecuted, are distinguished based on religion. That should help my side of the argument out.

It would be impossible to prove that every member of a race or religion is detrimental to society. Any attempt at lumping the group together would be guaranteed to take away someone's right without any justification.

I never meant to impy that you are saying that about Jews. I was merely pointing out why what Hitler did was wrong. I do find it interesting that the singled out groups, one that did get persecuted, and others that plausibly could get persecuted, are distinguished based on religion. That should help my side of the argument out.

It would be impossible to prove that every member of a race or religion is detrimental to society. Any attempt at lumping the group together would be guaranteed to take away someone's right without any justification.

Well, from a utilitarian standpoint, killing off 1000 people who are harmful along with 100 that aren't is still a good thing. If the point is the betterment of society, then almost anything is possible. The Christian viewpoint of rights is focused on the individual, so the above example wouldn't be allowed.

As for the persecution based on religion, it doesn't work. What about the American system of slavery based on race?

Well, from a utilitarian standpoint, killing off 1000 people who are harmful along with 100 that aren't is still a good thing. If the point is the betterment of society, then almost anything is possible. The Christian viewpoint of rights is focused on the individual, so the above example wouldn't be allowed.

As for the persecution based on religion, it doesn't work. What about the American system of slavery based on race?

Those 100 that were killed had their rights taken away without justification.

I was not arguing from a utilitarian standpoint, I was talking about society's need to maintain the rights of its members. I am talking about laws being made to protect the individuals rights, not to be utilitarian.

Slavery is a poor subject because it is such an emotional topic, but according to my argument the slaves had their rights taken away without justification. Now at the time, blacks were considered unable to contribute to society and were thus excluded from it. It did take a certain morality for society to begin to accept blacks and consider them equal members of society.

Once they were accepted into the society, they were supposed to have received all the equal rights protections as everyone else. Unfortunately, laws that were passed on morals prevented them from receiving the same protections, and it lead to violence and a great strain on American society.

Anyone?

Yes, why is Christianity so politicised in America? Seriously, they're starting to make the Northern Ireland Protestants (by that I mean the Orange Order types) look moderate at this stage.

It seems to me that Christians in America are becoming ever more extreme in their politics. They are beginning to resemble the Islamists that they are supposed to be against.


The Muslims at least stick to their guns. The ideal American government would be a Christian (Calvinist) theocracy, there can be no doubt about that.

The Muslims at least stick to their guns. The ideal American government would be a Christian (Calvinist) theocracy, there can be no doubt about that.
No doubt about that? You can't really say that when it's merely your opinion. Most people disagree.

Originally Posted by Swimmingpool
Yes, why is Christianity so politicised in America? Seriously, they're starting to make the Northern Ireland Protestants (by that I mean the Orange Order types) look moderate at this stage.

It seems to me that Christians in America are becoming ever more extreme in their politics. They are beginning to resemble the Islamists that they are supposed to be against.

Actually, Christianity has little in terms of power in the United States. And this is coming from a Christian :eek:

Well, as it stands now. What I see personally, and I'm not expert on this or know the whole truth. Christianity is being dismantled by many organizations, but the frontier to this dismantling is the ACLU. Kinda a weird organization that would (if given the choice) outlaw the word God.

I'm not sure how one could view us as extreme or radicals. Christianity in America may look that way from European aspect I suppose, since in Europe Christanity (from what I understand) is more of a tradition than a way of life.

Christianity isn't "against" Islam. We (and this is highly debatable) worship the same God, we just don't agree on the status of Mohammad and Jesus. Why we aren't working together and still angry with one another is still a mystery to me.

Those 100 that were killed had their rights taken away without justification.

I was not arguing from a utilitarian standpoint, I was talking about society's need to maintain the rights of its members. I am talking about laws being made to protect the individuals rights, not to be utilitarian.

I erased the second part of the post because we were getting off on a tangent. My fault.

True, their rights were taken away without justification. But the point still stands. By the numbers, society is better off.

So why does society need to maintain the rights of the individual? If it for the benefit of society, then those rights can be taken away when society no longer needs them.

I'll use an illustration. In the play 1776, Jefferson is arguing with John Dickenson, a tory. Jefferson says that we are justified in breaking away from England because the king has violated our rights. Dickenson retorts that those rights came from him in the first place. Jefferson stated that the right to be free comes from nature, as you argued earlier. But to quote Thomas Hobbes, life in the state of nature is "nasty, brutish, and short." The reason that you don't get oppressed in the state of nature is that there are plenty of other things trying to kill you instead. The argument from natural rights doesn't work very well.

What I am getting at is this: when we are arguing from a standpoint of evolution and nature, it seems that might would make right, and that an individual person means nothing. Government can do whatever it feels like because there is no absolute standard to appeal to. Objective morality, whether Kantian or utilitarian, fails unless it has some absolute values to ground it. And where do we get those absolute values? Those moral sets that we were arguing about earlier. We're going to use one. The question is, which one?

I erased the second part of the post because we were getting off on a tangent. My fault.

True, their rights were taken away without justification. But the point still stands. By the numbers, society is better off.

So why does society need to maintain the rights of the individual? If it for the benefit of society, then those rights can be taken away when society no longer needs them.

Society is only maintained to preserve the individual. As soon as we begin to consider society over the individual we will have problems. If it is a case of individual rights versus societies betterment, individual rights must always come first. I have never seen a situation where society was bettered by removing the rights of its people.

I'll use an illustration. In the play 1776, Jefferson is arguing with John Dickenson, a tory. Jefferson says that we are justified in breaking away from England because the king has violated our rights. Dickenson retorts that those rights came from him in the first place. Jefferson stated that the right to be free comes from nature, as you argued earlier. But to quote Thomas Hobbes, life in the state of nature is "nasty, brutish, and short." The reason that you don't get oppressed in the state of nature is that there are plenty of other things trying to kill you instead. The argument from natural rights doesn't work very well.

The central rights of a person are there in nature to. Just because it is a harsh environment, there isn't a lack of rights. A man broken away from society has infinite right to thought and property. But society is used to ensure that those rights are maintained. Rights can only be taken away by government, not given.

What I am getting at is this: when we are arguing from a standpoint of evolution and nature, it seems that might would make right, and that an individual person means nothing. Government can do whatever it feels like because there is no absolute standard to appeal to. Objective morality, whether Kantian or utilitarian, fails unless it has some absolute values to ground it. And where do we get those absolute values? Those moral sets that we were arguing about earlier. We're going to use one. The question is, which one?

We are not talking about nature, we are talking about society and the ways it governs the interactions of people. The only need for society is to make sure that there is an orderly interaction. Any laws that are passed that do something other than maintain an orderly society are unnecessary.

Christianity is being dismantled by many organizations, but the frontier to this dismantling is the ACLU. Kinda a weird organization that would (if given the choice) outlaw the word God.
Got evidence of their anti-Christian crusade?

I'm not sure how one could view us as extreme or radicals. Christianity in America may look that way from European aspect I suppose, since in Europe Christanity (from what I understand) is more of a tradition than a way of life.
No, European Christians are faithful, very much so. They're just not (mostly) a bunch of theocratic, hypocritical, war-supporting, death penalty-loving, abortionist-killing Bible thumpers. (BTW, that list basically sums up the popular view of US Christians.)

Yes, using an atheist world view is favouritism towards atheists, which is why I don't support it. But a secular world-view does not favour any religion or lack of one in particular. The Christian worldview does favour a particular faith, and that's the problem.


The same can be said for worshipers or Islam around The world. They want a world where everyone is a believer of Islam, where women have no rights; gays are shot on the spot along with the other infidels. Seems reasonable to me to dislike all religions, not just Christianity

No, European Christians are faithful, very much so. They're just not (mostly) a bunch of theocratic, hypocritical, war-supporting, death penalty-loving, abortionist-killing Bible thumpers. (BTW, that list basically sums up the popular view of US Christians.)

American Christians believe in the sanctimony of life, so committing murder is a very bad thing. They only support war when they are attacked and killed in large numbers. Liberals are more hypocritical than any Christian I have ever met. At least Christians do not change their position based on polling data for a given day. I do not know of any Christian that wants a theocratic state, but they do believe that they can use God to influence their choices. Just like I am sure everyone else does in their life. Some just hear different things than others. But then no one other than liberals has claimed Europeans to be enlightened, it is a matter of opinion as it seems everything you say is. Maybe you should stop hating Christianity and start loving everyone whether they agree with you or not. As a good Christian is supposed to do, although that would mean you wouldn’t be one of those hypocrites you so despise eh?

Oh and I wish liberals and conservatives alike would stop making abortion a religious issue. It is not decided by the church it is decided by the government which you reside under jurisdiction of. Therefore it is a legal issue and legally Life ends when the brain is dead, so it should start when the brain starts functioning. After that time it should be considered murder and the perpetrators put into prison for the remainder of their life.

The same can be said for worshipers or Islam around The world. They want a world where everyone is a believer of Islam, where women have no rights; gays are shot on the spot along with the other infidels. Seems reasonable to me to dislike all religions, not just Christianity

I do not hate Christianity, I just dispise this current evangelical/puritan movement that is taking place in America.

American Christians believe in the sanctimony of life, so committing murder is a very bad thing.

But government sanctions killing is ok? Sorry if you are against capital punishment.

They only support war when they are attacked and killed in large numbers.

Iraq has never once attacked the US. Afghanistan never attacked the US. While you can say that Afghanistan was harboring the people did attack us, you can say no such thing for Iraq.

Liberals are more hypocritical than any Christian I have ever met. At least Christians do not change their position based on polling data for a given day.

What are you even talking about. What liberals do you know who polls people and forms their opinion from the result? Is it the supporters of gay marriage? Or how about the opponents of capital punishment? How about the Kerry supporters, because the polls really support the liberals on those issues. :rolleyes:

I do not know of any Christian that wants a theocratic state, but they do believe that they can use God to influence their choices. Just like I am sure everyone else does in their life. Some just hear different things than others. But then no one other than liberals has claimed Europeans to be enlightened, it is a matter of opinion as it seems everything you say is. Maybe you should stop hating Christianity and start loving everyone whether they agree with you or not. As a good Christian is supposed to do, although that would mean you wouldn’t be one of those hypocrites you so despise eh?

First off, a great many people voted for Bush because they expect him to load the Supreme Court with Christian judges. That is a pretty good example of theocracy.

You have also assumed that you are right and that God definitely has an effect on everyone's life. He has never had an effect on me, other than taking my teeth and leaving me a dollar, or was that the tooth fairy?

I have no love for Christianity, but I do love many Christians. My entire family is composed of Christians. I have a few atheistic friends but the majority is Christian. I wouldn't say that I love everyone, but I have respect for everyone. Unfortunately, I am constantly at odds with Christians who do not respect everybody, and they use a perfectly good religion to justify it.

Oh and I wish liberals and conservatives alike would stop making abortion a religious issue. It is not decided by the church it is decided by the government which you reside under jurisdiction of. Therefore it is a legal issue and legally Life ends when the brain is dead, so it should start when the brain starts functioning. After that time it should be considered murder and the perpetrators put into prison for the remainder of their life.

You are right it is not a religious issue. I just hope we don't base our policy on your half-assed grasp of science and logic.

Should we put dogs to sleep? I am no biologist or veterinarian, but I do know that they have functioning brains.

Yes, why is Christianity so politicised in America? Seriously, they're starting to make the Northern Ireland Protestants (by that I mean the Orange Order types) look moderate at this stage.

Don't they know any history? Don't they know that theocracy does not work?

Here look at this for an example of right-wing American religious extremism:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/

They are also hypocrites

Sorry, but you can't claim to be for self-government (that phrase is owned by the people who actually believe in it - libertarians), and small government when you want your government to intervene whenever anyone tries to break a Biblical law.

------

It seems to me that Christians in America are becoming ever more extreme in their politics. They are beginning to resemble the Islamists that they are supposed to be against.
The Holy Wars of the 21st Century have already begun!! :eek:

Also I believe that many Americans believe this (http://www.moviewavs.com/0056218974/MP3S/Movies/Blues_Brothers/missngod.mp3)!!

The same can be said for worshipers or Islam around The world. They want a world where everyone is a believer of Islam, where women have no rights; gays are shot on the spot along with the other infidels. Seems reasonable to me to dislike all religions, not just Christianity

I find the implication that I hate any religion highly offensive. If you read other threads I post in (such as the Mecca thread) you will see me going after fundamentalist Muslims for being bigots. I'm not against religion, I'm for freedom of religion. I am against bigotry and intolerance.

I do not hate Christianity, I just dispise this current evangelical/puritan movement that is taking place in America.

Then you hate Christianity, the so called movement has been here since the founding of this country. I do not agree with them but I understand them and can combat their rhetoric. Much like I can combat yours and those that think like you. Honestly I was hoping for a much more inspired post from those on this board.



[qoute]But government sanctions killing is ok? Sorry if you are against capital punishment.[/quote]

Governments kill people all the time, it is not a new trend and definitely not one exclusively to the US.



Iraq has never once attacked the US. Afghanistan never attacked the US. While you can say that Afghanistan was harboring the people did attack us, you can say no such thing for Iraq.

I never stated anything resembling Iraq or Afghanistan. Just that people only support war when they are attacked and killed. We didn't enter WWII till Pearl Harbor was bombed. Didn't enter WWI till we were threatened in a letter from Germany to Mexico, It asked them to attack us if we entered the war on the allies’ behalf. Why you want to bring up not being attacked is beyond me.

What are you even talking about. What liberals do you know who polls people and forms their opinion from the result? Is it the supporters of gay marriage? Or how about the opponents of capital punishment? How about the Kerry supporters, because the polls really support the liberals on those issues. :rolleyes:

Of course you would believe the polling data that is based on Liberals only. I realize this is hard for you to understand, But the majority of the US does not support liberal ideology. Clinton used such polling all the time; He used to decide where to vacation, what clothes to wear. What school his daughter should attend. Everything in his regime revolved around what the public thought. You should read Dick Morris's book sometime, incase you didn't know he was the Clintons chief pollster.



First off, a great many people voted for Bush because they expect him to load the Supreme Court with Christian judges. That is a pretty good example of theocracy.

This is so far from a theocracy it is not funny. The supreme court does not have the power to enact laws. Only interpret them, the congress makes the laws and the president signs them into law. I would hope you would have learnt more from Government in high school.

You have also assumed that you are right and that God definitely has an effect on everyone's life. He has never had an effect on me, other than taking my teeth and leaving me a dollar, or was that the tooth fairy?

Again you are making assumptions to my religion. That is ok I am beginning to see a trend here with you.

I have no love for Christianity, but I do love many Christians. My entire family is composed of Christians. I have a few atheistic friends but the majority is Christian. I wouldn't say that I love everyone, but I have respect for everyone. Unfortunately, I am constantly at odds with Christians who do not respect everybody, and they use a perfectly good religion to justify it.

If you have no love for Christianity how can you say it is a perfectly good religion? Apparently you do not think it is perfectly good or otherwise you would at least like it enough to not bash those that do love it.



You are right it is not a religious issue. I just hope we don't base our policy on your half-assed grasp of science and logic.

Should we put dogs to sleep? I am no biologist or veterinarian, but I do know that they have functioning brains.

How is taking the law for determining the end of a life, in this case brain dead, half assed? Comparing putting dogs to sleep to murder is probably the worst analogy I have ever seen. maybe you will tell me that life ends in a different way? [Sarcasm on] I will wait with bated breath for your response. [/sarcasm off]

It seems you are the one with half-assed grasp of science and logic and wish to only attempt to be a decent troll which you have failed miserably at. I do however give you a B for the effort.

Sorry SwimmingPool I am going off your responses here only. I have yet to find said threads you have mentioned as I just do not have that much time to search all the threads here.

I find the implication that I hate any religion highly offensive. If you read other threads I post in (such as the Mecca thread) you will see me going after fundamentalist Muslims for being bigots. I'm not against religion, I'm for freedom of religion. I am against bigotry and intolerance.

Don't bother. It is much easier for most people on here to dismiss us and our arguments as being anti-religion, rather than examining them as legitimate examples of the misapplication of religion.

No where in the US Constitution does is say sep from church & state

Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof

Well here is (another) Christian side of your opinion. So I do not think America is becoming more Christianized. That doesn't...make sense. I do not think the only liberal is the "liberal media". The liberal media is just the tip of the iceberg of Americans who do not care much for christianity and are for a complete "separation of church and state" (which is never in the constitution). I think our public schools and colleges are getting worse. I think the Christian community is surviving, and thriving in some places, but for the most part Christianity is getting the boot out of America. New Age, Hinduism, Buddhism(sp), Taoism, and many Eastern religions are taking the reins now. That is my opinion, I did not get this opinion indoctrinated into me. I got it from looking at what is going on, reading the news, and watching society.

Then you hate Christianity, the so called movement has been here since the founding of this country. I do not agree with them but I understand them and can combat their rhetoric. Much like I can combat yours and those that think like you. Honestly I was hoping for a much more inspired post from those on this board.

No, I'm sorry to say this, but there was a time when people believed that religion was too important to mix with government. That religion was something higher and something more personal than what government should be allowed to touch. If you are not strong enough in your religion to leave government out of it, maybe you should get in better touch with your God.

Governments kill people all the time, it is not a new trend and definitely not one exclusively to the US.

This has nothing to do with war or the US. You said Christians believe in the sanctity of life. How does mix with capital punishment?

I never stated anything resembling Iraq or Afghanistan. Just that people only support war when they are attacked and killed. We didn't enter WWII till Pearl Harbor was bombed. Didn't enter WWI till we were threatened in a letter from Germany to Mexico, It asked them to attack us if we entered the war on the allies’ behalf. Why you want to bring up not being attacked is beyond me.

You said Christians only supported war when they were attacked. Many Christians, especially the ones in this current movement supported the war in Iraq. Since we were never attacked by Iraq, your statement is logically invalid.

Of course you would believe the polling data that is based on Liberals only. I realize this is hard for you to understand, But the majority of the US does not support liberal ideology. Clinton used such polling all the time; He used to decide where to vacation, what clothes to wear. What school his daughter should attend. Everything in his regime revolved around what the public thought. You should read Dick Morris's book sometime, incase you didn't know he was the Clintons chief pollster.

Did you notice the rolly eyes? My statements were sarcastic. The polls do not support liberal views, but you said liberals are hypocritical and "change their position based on polling data for a given day." Since the polling numbers do not support liberal views, your statements are once again logically invalid.

I know who Dick Morris is, and I believe what you say about Clinton and polls. I just want to when Clinton's vacation spots became part of the liberal ideology. Bill Clinton was a democrat, not a liberal. Liberal is just a catch-phrase Rush Limbaugh used to describe democrats in the late 90s. It caught on quite well.

This is so far from a theocracy it is not funny. The supreme court does not have the power to enact laws. Only interpret them, the congress makes the laws and the president signs them into law. I would hope you would have learnt more from Government in high school.

I would wish you would quit engaging in these little barbs about my knowledge and intelligence that have nothing to do with the topic.

This isn't a theocracy, I never said it was. However, if a branch of the government is dominated by people who act based on their beliefs, this nation could begin to shift towards a theocracy.

Theocracy Definition: [n] the belief in government by divine guidance
[n] a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) [Courtesy of hyperdictionary]

I would say that having the highest court in the nation make decisions based on what they think God would want would qualify very well into either of these definitions. I also think that these definitions describe the precise goals of the religion right in the US.

Again you are making assumptions to my religion. That is ok I am beginning to see a trend here with you.

Once again, veiled ad hominems do not make points.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted your statements. I understood you as saying that God influences everyones actions and speaks to everyone, but some people just hear it differently.

If you have no love for Christianity how can you say it is a perfectly good religion? Apparently you do not think it is perfectly good or otherwise you would at least like it enough to not bash those that do love it.

My mother is a Christian, all of my grandparents are Christian, my siblings are Christian, my roommate is Christian, my cousin whom I lived with for several months is a devout Christian. I love all of them, no matter their religion. I think Jesus Christ was a great teacher.

I would like for you to point out where I have bashed anyone merely for being Christian.

How is taking the law for determining the end of a life, in this case brain dead, half assed? Comparing putting dogs to sleep to murder is probably the worst analogy I have ever seen. maybe you will tell me that life ends in a different way? [Sarcasm on] I will wait with bated breath for your response. [/sarcasm off]

Life end when the brain ceases to work, I will give you that. But to say that life begins when the brain begins to function is not a good argument against abortion.

My analogy did not compare putting a dog to sleep to murder. I compared putting a dog to sleep to abortion. To say that brain functioning is valid qualification for killing to be immoral would imply that the killing of a dog in a pound would be immoral.

You say "Fetuses have functioning brains so they shouldn't be killed."

I say "Dogs have functioning brains, should they not be killed?"

Well here is (another) Christian side of your opinion. So I do not think America is becoming more Christianized. That doesn't...make sense. I do not think the only liberal is the "liberal media". The liberal media is just the tip of the iceberg of Americans who do not care much for christianity and are for a complete "separation of church and state" (which is never in the constitution). I think our public schools and colleges are getting worse. I think the Christian community is surviving, and thriving in some places, but for the most part Christianity is getting the boot out of America. New Age, Hinduism, Buddhism(sp), Taoism, and many Eastern religions are taking the reins now. That is my opinion, I did not get this opinion indoctrinated into me. I got it from looking at what is going on, reading the news, and watching society.

2000 US Census:

Christians: 217,872,000/76.5%
"Born Again" or "Evangelical: 125,312,000/44%
Nonreligious: 37,593,600/13.2%
Buddhist: 2,400,000/0.87%
Muslim: 1,424,000/0.5%
Agnostic: 1,424,000/0.5%
Atheistic: 1,139,200/0.4%
Hindu: 1,000,000/0.36%

So much for that argument.

Sorry, my opinion is that a lot of those "born again" are lying. Where you find that census? Also, I still believe Americans are growing sick of Christianity.

Sorry, my opinion is that a lot of those "born again" are lying. Where you find that census? Also, I still believe Americans are growing sick of Christianity.

It is easy to find that census data, I got it from some site called Adherent.com or something. If you can't find it I will pull it up again and post it.

As for growing sick of Christianity, I disagree, I do think that people are getting sick of authoritarian Christians who won't to enforce their own lifestyle on others.

Christianity is just as strong as ever, and most Christians are good people who want nothing more than to live their own life with their own religion and their own beliefs. I would just hope the more militant christians would allow others to live their own lives. It would be good for both Christians and non-christians.

Bizzump.

I too hope these "militant christians' read their Bible again and realize their stupidity.

I just had to throw this in.
I saw these folks on C-span last year when they first started up. I just now looked up their site and thought other non-beleivers might be interested. I know a lot of other Americans might not know there is a political party representing non-beleivers. It's a new party, but hopefully it will grow enough in the future to have at least some small effect on our political process.

http://www.godlessamericans.org/
__________________

You are aware that

"GAMPAC endorses candidates for public office who support the First Amendment separation of church and state"

is not correct? The First Amendment says nothing about "separation of church and state".

According to

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


In fact (as I understand it) the First Amendment just makes sure people are allowed to practice their religion freely. This means no enforcement of a certain religion, and no persecution of a religion.

Then again, a murderer could say his religion is killing people?

I am aware of it and fully support it. The first amendment has been interpreted as advocating the separation of church and state for quite some time. Our founders have written in support of the wall between church and state, so it's hardly far-fetched.

other than one founder I can think of, who else wrote this? And if they were in support of your understanding of the First Amendment, why wasn't it plainly written so in the First Amendment?

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


Why ignore that first part? Government can make no law that respects religion. By making any law based on religious moral, the government endorses the religion, and therefore acts unconstitutionally.

The idea is hardly without precedent. The constitution was intened to spell out the absolute minimum of our rights, not their maximum reach. Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III

" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Then, indirectly the entire document (unamended constitution) as a whole.

Not only did Thomas Jefferson write in support of the separation, but so did James Madison, John Leland, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Paine and Edmund Rudolph.

.

A few comments I feel compelled to make in regards to some of the issues presented above.

America was founded on a specific set of principles. One of those was that no religion shall be held higher than any other. Evidence to that effect is within these quotes:

". . . I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- George Washington

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
- George Washington

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."
- James Madison

These indicate to me that the founders of this country were in fact terrified of a repeat of history. Forming a country which promoted the ideologies of one religion over others creates an atmosphere of hatred, contempt and violence. Eventually blood would be spilled due to promotion of one religion over others, as eventually those being stepped on will fight back. Alternately, those in the dominant position will feel such contempt for those "beneath" them that they feel the right to hurt them (e.g. Hitler vs the Jews).

In America, we currently have many religions. Probably most of the world religions are practiced in some manner here. By creating laws that are specific to the moral code of Christianity, we are in effect creating an atmosphere where Christianity is viewed higher than other religions. This is against the ideals of the founding fathers.

When laws were passed that banned gay marriage, several religions were promoted as a result. Several other religions were outright ignored. The problem we have here is any law passed promoting moral codes will defeat religions that do not practice that specific moral. The only answer is to let the people do what they want to do, as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else's rights. Christianity does not allow gay marriage (or at least most branches of it don't), as well as Judaism and Islam (as far as I understand). However, many branches of paganism do (and other religions as well). Athiesm will find a bit of both, depending on the Athiest.

A solution to this would be to not let those who's moral code is christian marry (unless of a specific branch). But a pagan should, by all rights, be allowed to marry (unless of specific branches that prohibit). Atheists would have to choose for themselves. No one's rights have been infringed upon. Marriage according to christians is still protected, since they don't recognize marriage without consent of God (consent of god can only be given through priests of a christian church). Meanwhile, the Pagans still are married by their own terms...etc.

The current government, instead, decided that specific Christian morals were more important than others. As a result, Paganism, Athiesm, Buddhism, and any other religion that really has little problem with gay marriage has been diminished. We are now forced to follow a Christian doctrine, by law. This violates the ideals promoted by the founders. This is also a repeat of everything that has occured in so many other countries, most of which resulted in horrible loss of life on both sides.

In violating the ideals of the founders, are we really truly, still America? We are losing the separation of Church and State. Moral values specific to one, or a few religions have been imposed, where as this country wasn't designed to do that. I say that we are not truly America any more. Not till equal rights are returned.

"We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."
- James Madison

To be honest, I believe that the government should never have gotten involved in marriage. There is reasonable cause for them to establish laws in regards to marriage, i.e. rights of survivorship, power of attourney, etc. However, defining what is and isn't marriage is not within the power of the government. Not if we are to strictly follow the rules set forth by the constitution, and the words of the founders.

On gay marriage and the state...

Marriage is something between the two people getting married. It affects no one else. I am still yet to see evidence to support the claims of those who say otherwise.

If a man marries a woman, does it affect someone elsewhere in the country who isn't married? Or someone who is married? If you think so, tell me why you believe it. Give me facts that show how it affects anyone.

Similarly, if a man marries a man, does it affect someone elsewhere in the country who isn't married? Or someone who is married? I want facts to show how it affects anyone other than the two being married.

I can see how gay marriage in say a Catholic church would diminish the meaning of marriage to Catholics, since it would be allowing Sin within the church itself (as defined by the Papacy at least). However, seeing as the Catholic church does not officially recognize marriages not performed by it's ordained priests, why should a pagan woman marrying another pagan woman by way of a pagan priestess have any affect on a Catholic's definition of marriage? It's already not recognized as a marriage to the catholics anyway...right? If I'm not mistaken, most of the Christian churches follow this same doctrine. "You aren't married in our eyes if you weren't married by us." So the Pagans aren't married by the Christians (as it should be)... What's the problem then? The problem is the separation of church and state. It's not wide enough to leave marriage out of the state's hands. Where we went wrong....

Back to America at large...

Clearly, somewhere America forgot who it is. It forgot that religion wasn't supposed to be part of it's government. Perhaps because the founders thought their words were strong enough and didn't write it in. Perhaps because we are misinterpreting the words they wrote. We shall never know who is at fault. However, the only way we can return to who we are supposed to be is to act upon it.

I will leave with a few more quotes of pertenance from James Madison...

"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. "

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. "

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

And from John Adams:
"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

And from George Washington:
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

I hope my words come across as intended. A harsh warning of things to come.