Moral Values Debate

[No Limit]

Ok, I am really trying to udnerstand the hypocracy in the religious right that is currently running this country. I don't want any of you to get me wrong, I was raised a strong Catholic and I believe in God, the problem is that I don't believe it should be in our government.

Now, I need some of you that are about moral values to help me understand why government and our laws should be based on the bible, not the constitution. And not only that, you take some things from the bible and use while you throw out others. Let me give you an example, the people on the religious right are all for protecting marrige, right? The bible says homosexuals shouldn't get married so that should be the law of the land. Now help me out here because if I understand correctly based on the bible divorce should also be illegal. Why isn't Bush out there campaigning to add an amendement to our constitution that will outlaw divorce? Why isn't Bush saying stoning our children to death if they mouth off is ok? Why isn't Bush out there saying respecting your parents should be law? Why isn't Bush out there saying pre-merital sex should be illegal? And if I understand correctly doing coke is also against the bible yet Bush didn't have a problem doing this back in the day.

Sorry to rant, but I am really getting sick of people (including people on this forum) defending every stupid think Bush does with the Bible. So I invite all the Bush supporters in here to have a debate, who knows, maybe you will change my mind .

 

[burner69]

Because of the lack of religious input in my life, with the exception of assemblies at school, and a few things like sunday school, scouts when I was younger, I grew up as an Atheist.

Because of this, yes, I notice many unusal things when religion and government combine, homosexuals and marriage being one of the more recent.

I'm bias against religion I know (though I do try to limit it) but I must say I totally agree, word for word infact, with what's been said.

This should be a very good thread.

(And I'm a poet and didn't know it)

 

[Revisedsoul]

And if I understand correctly doing coke is also against the bible yet Bush didn't have a problem doing this back in the day.

you cant use that agaisnt bush now, the reason being he found god afterwords.

and i think you would have a better luck becoming a leperchaun then changing some of the views of the "right", same goes for the lefties

 

[AzzMan]

I'm not against religion, but I am against religion being forced on me or others in any way what so ever. And about politics, I think South Park said it best this way: "In any election the only people you get to pick from are a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, because they're the only ones who suck up enough to make it in politics, so get used to it"

 

[Ennui]

I'm not against religion, but I am against religion being forced on me or others in any way what so ever. And about politics, I think South Park said it best this way: "In any election the only people you get to pick from are a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, because they're the only ones who suck up enough to make it in politics, so get used to it"

'nuff said.

 

[jverne]

Bush is fu*king evryone in the ass, with this relligion thing!















"off topic"
they should make a law where it's legal to assasinate presidents if they are stupid!...ahh....forget what i said!

 

[DSDchemE]

As an pro-choice, gay-marraige neutral, agnostic conservative I disagree with most of the things Bush has done regarding religion. And yes, I think he's an idiot. (But so was Kerry) However, I regarded the national security and war in Iraq as a higher priority, and regardless of whether I thought we should have started the "war" (which I do think is justified), I feel that he is the best person (with the stubborness) to get it finished ASAP.

JFYI: Why I support the war: despite the American lives lost in Iraq, we have lowered the chances for another slaughter of Iraqis by Saddam. What I find ironic is liberals who after being shown an article about the recent discovery of 3000 executed iraqis (in a burial ground by Saddam), said "we should stay out of what other countries do". Do we have the right to say that an American life is more valuable then dozens of Iraqi lives (cause many more than 3000 have been killed under Saddam)? I feel that all humans are created equal, and if we must sacrifice to save many more then we should without question.

 

[No Limit]

As an pro-choice, gay-marraige neutral, agnostic conservative I disagree with most of the things Bush has done regarding religion. And yes, I think he's an idiot. (But so was Kerry) However, I regarded the national security and war in Iraq as a higher priority, and regardless of whether I thought we should have started the "war" (which I do think is justified), I feel that he is the best person (with the stubborness) to get it finished ASAP.

JFYI: Why I support the war: despite the American lives lost in Iraq, we have lowered the chances for another slaughter of Iraqis by Saddam. What I find ironic is liberals who after being shown an article about the recent discovery of 3000 executed iraqis (in a burial ground by Saddam), said "we should stay out of what other countries do". Do we have the right to say that an American life is more valuable then dozens of Iraqi lives (cause many more than 3000 have been killed under Saddam)? I feel that all humans are created equal, and if we must sacrifice to save many more then we should without question.

I really don't want to get off topic about the war as this is about moral values. However, the problem with them finding those bodies is the fact that there are countries out there right now with a humanitarian crisis 1000x worse than finding 3,000 bodies (Sudan for example).

However, if you though the war was right and that's why you voted for Bush I still disagree with you but at least I can respect you. The problem I have is with the idiots that voted for Bush based on the bible.

 

[Fenbab]

I was rasied as a catholic, but although my country is very religious luckily it's not something pushed into kids, so everyone grows up to be the religios of his/her choice, I belive in God, and Jesus, and the saints but I do not belive that Jesus is God, but God's son (no disrespect to the people who do intended) and I also belive in spirits, the oriental accepted plane of the mind, and in energy, surrounding us all, but fisical enough to be sometimes manipulated (yes I belive in telepathy, telekinesis, etc..) so my point of view has and always will be let everyone belive whatever they want, that said you cannot force ppl to accept what you belive (that includes the crusades for example, or the persecution of jewish ppl, as well as the inquisition, and so on) so to blend political and religious views is absolutly innacceptable, I am a liberal, but I do belive in rules, anarchi does not work, but dictatorship doesn't either, there is a reason why state and church have been separated, acceptance, so I am pro gay marriage, pro choice, and don't really take any sides politically, we have a say in my country wich goes: Taste is non discussable. meaning you can never completely agree with anyone regarding taste, so , as long as not harming anyone, why do we discuss choice?

Regarding Bush.....ohhh, I cannot belive he has been re-elected after NOT being elected the first time, to me there was no "liberating" reason for invading Iraq, I was at NW in Sep. 11 and i lost friends there too, I would SURELY like to see the one's responsible for that cauth and jailed for the rest of their natural lives, but I will never accept torture, we decided to make the human rights and they apply even to those who do not belive or respect them, Now don't get me wrong, Saddam should have been deposted and arrested YEARS ago, but there was, in my personal oppinnion, no need for an invasion, wich is causing more, and more american casualtyes. There is SO much left unexplained, and ppl are beginning to forget... The crash at the pentagon was left unexplained, so many little things, and quite a few big ones never cleared, there is even a site wich speaks of that (can't remember the name though :| )

The day that bush first took over the presidency he was unable to do the traditional "walk to the whitehouse" because the very angry MOB weas trowing whatever they could find at him.

Anyway, that's just me, i feel like that guy who is asked the time and ends by quoting all of the bible... hope this makes you reflect a bit, about all the facts and some of the shadows and reach some conclusions, as a matter of fact just writing this down has made me reach some.

That's the beauty of human mind it is always ready for change....

Sorry for the misspelled words and funny sentences, English is not my first language...

 

[aeroripper]

No i absoultely do not think our actual laws should be based on the bible. A lot of people that want the religious rights views incorporated into the constitution is because they think that their right and their way is the only way to worship. Well in their group that's fine they can do whatever they want... they have that freedom. But what people don't want to understand is that the seperation of church and state was SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED so we can keep our secular freedom in this country we enjoy. I could be a buddhist, muslim, hundi, christian, atheist, etc... and not have to worry about a predominately christian\anti-gay, pre-marital sex, etc... bearing down on me.

If i wanted that i would go to hte middle east where their societies are based on strict guidlines of moral conduct and people have very little freedom, if any to worship anything else... they might even be killed.

And another thing, don't think for a minute that bush doesn't use his religious "born again" evangelistic weight to get re-elected. It appealed to the religious rite. Some groups are very vocal about gays getting married but i really don't think its a problem and our society won't fall apart from it. If it is considered immoral by the christian religion that's just fine and the people deciding to get married have that burdon to think about.

Also on a side note... keep in mind another reason why we have to keep our government seperate from laws based on religion is because the founding fathers just got done fighting a oppresive government from england pushing the church of england on everybody. This is one of the reason people were leaving in the first place. Also it is another reason why we have such a melting pot of all differnet kind of people because we can worship freely.

Now don't get me wrong i'm not saying that religion is a bad thing but it has its place. You can have morals when making laws but to make a anti-gay getting married law is unconstituional. Its the same example as there was a time when black people were considered property by the law so all blacks didn't have any rights. Its the same thing with gay people, although i don't agree with it i will tolerate it because they have the human rite to live the way they choose as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights.

I really don't understand how some of these issues are a problem... the constitution makes perfect sense to me. Sadly it seems the high-ups don't like the bill of rights either so soon, christianity for all... and then no rights for anybody! Hurray!

(ie... read patriot act I and patriot act II that just passed, bye bye bill of rights... how can this not piss people off)

EDIT:

Regarding Bush.....ohhh, I cannot belive he has been re-elected after NOT being elected the first time, to me there was no "liberating" reason for invading Iraq, I was at NW in Sep. 11 and i lost friends there too, I would SURELY like to see the one's responsible for that cauth and jailed for the rest of their natural lives, but I will never accept torture, we decided to make the human rights and they apply even to those who do not belive or respect them, Now don't get me wrong, Saddam should have been deposted and arrested YEARS ago, but there was, in my personal oppinnion, no need for an invasion, wich is causing more, and more american casualtyes. There is SO much left unexplained, and ppl are beginning to forget... The crash at the pentagon was left unexplained, so many little things, and quite a few big ones never cleared, there is even a site wich speaks of that (can't remember the name though )

Oh there's many more i'll add

1)Don't forget the NORAD standown, and why were they doing jets crashing into buildings "simulations" days before the attacks? Yea this is the stuff michael moore wouldn't touch with a 10-foot poll.

2) why did it take 70 min for jets to scramble to 4 jumbo jets in the same area of the country transponders flipping off close to instantaneously? I think it was back in 1999 some famous golfer (can't remember his name) transponder went off from a malfunction and within 5 MINUTES! 4 f-16s were escorting his plane. Wow

3) Why did president bush sign a presidental order for the FBI NOT to stop al-queda and any fbi agents that tried to would were threanted to be thrown in prison

4) Hmmm... why is it in a poll in NYC over the republican national convention said that 50% of the people there believed the government had for-knowledge of 9\11 and conciously decided not to act on it... wow this is starting to sound like what happened at pearl harbor (we were sinking subs outside port and they told them not to radio a warning into base and look what happened)... conviently that was a great battle cry to get us into WWII

5) President bush received the patriot act. Read it it guts 4 or 5 of our amendments from the bill of rights, and very similar to the "enabling act" hitler received from the chancellory when he was starting to take over germany. Now go read patriot act II that just passed... oh wait you can't! It's classified... the only reason we know why it exists is because somebody in the federal government thought it was bad enough he leaked it out so the public could see. From what the few have said that have read it it probably includes a national ID biometric id card either just for drivers liscense or a whole new "big brother" card... but definitely gonna be implemented for airlines.

the list goes on and on... i really hope america can survive this war this might be our last if even our basic rights arn't respected

 

[The Monkey]

Religion and politics must be separated.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Ok, I am really trying to udnerstand the hypocracy in the religious right that is currently running this country. I don't want any of you to get me wrong, I was raised a strong Catholic and I believe in God, the problem is that I don't believe it should be in our government.

Are you perhaps referencing that the existing hypocracy, is'int in the religions themselves, but the power thats allowed to them?

Do you associate this power, with the denieing of common human rights based upon modern sociality and behavior?

Let me help you to understand this:

The Hypocracy is'int in the state of religion(s) existing, but in the rules that they set. For one, in the Bible it is referenced you should never judge a man. However, practioner's of Christianity are lead to believe that, "you should only judge a man if the context of his soul requires it."

Some propose that the judgement, is imperative to their developement as a constantly growing and understanding believer. This reference, runs along the lines of, "I'am told by God to judge".

If Hypocracy exists, it is not in the present state where a religion is indeed alotted power [the bible teaches us about such things aswell], but where it fails to secure its power.

The Bible, is almost like a religious lawbook. The bible, is also a windfull of contradictions even to the modern day Christian.

If your against the contexts of religion being existent from within our own constitution and countrywide understanding of law, then your fundementally against the rules present today. You can seperate the two issue's, where one is an oppressor, and one is a validator.

Oppressor's, are indeed those of such who wish to impose or force their own ruling unto others. This goes on both sides of the raft, where people will force there own living unto someone else, even if its a violation to their own well-living. I guess the point im digressing too, is that the Bible is heavily founded on Hummarabi's Code -- and Hummarabi's Code, is indeed a system of laws.

The Bible, is a more religious conveyence of those such laws, however existing without the present extreme's of what Hummarabi's Code entailed.

If you dont believe religion has a place in our law, you should call for reform. However, judging that your a catholic, do you just believe religion should'nt have a part in law, or just Christianity because its an opposing belief?

Now, I need some of you that are about moral values to help me understand why government and our laws should be based on the bible, not the constitution.

The Bible is essentially an old law-book, but just your executioner could become God. Our Government and Laws, are based on the constitution, and our constitution runs off fundementally expressed freedoms by our populace as of 1776.

If their was anything religious from within our constitution, it is the right to practise your own religion and with freedom, but without imposing.

Should our laws be based off the bible? They already are, your questions answered. The question should be: Is it effective?

Or should other people be treated differently?

And not only that, you take some things from the bible and use while you throw out others.

How does "you", correspond to anything prior?

Noones made a comment, and your discussing a pass-tense were none existed before yours.

If im interpretating this correctly, you discussed what I discussed.

Let me give you an example,

Alright.

the people on the religious right are all for protecting marrige, right?

No. Not even Christopher Rock, a Comedian, is defending Marriage's sanctity. In addition, its not just people on the supposed right, who are defending it.

People, even aethists, who prefer girls over boys, dont like the idea of Gay Marriage, because it makes them socially uncomfortable with what they've developed for themselves, as a healthy identity.

I know for one, marriage can be sacred, but mostly is not. Im not defending marriage from anything terrible -- its still marriage, even if its the same sex, and to me thats still sacred.

The bible says homosexuals shouldn't get married so that should be the law of the land.

Which parable?

Now help me out here because if I understand correctly based on the bible divorce should also be illegal.

Which parable, and to ask another question, are you finding this in your own belief system?

For Catholicsm, is it allowed for two of the same sex to wed?

Is it also illegal to break that covenant?

Why isn't Bush out there campaigning to add an amendement to our constitution that will outlaw divorce?

Because perhaps Bush either does'nt realize what you accord him to understand, as being a firm leader in the Christian "right"; or he realizes this note, but also realizes in a modern world -- sometimes, men and women just need a break.

Why isn't Bush saying stoning our children to death if they mouth off is ok?

This is'int the exact parable:

"Let he of you here;who is without sin, cast the first stone."

A woman was brought before Jesus, being accused by her captors of cheating on her husband. The men, were all argueing a measurable way for her punishment to exact in the name of her crime.

Once it was decided amungst the men, they had told Jesus that in his honor, they would stone the women to death as punishment for violating a rule of God's command. However, Jesus waved away the men's anger as unimportant, and before the men executed their told punishment unto the woman, Jesus said to the men;

"What have you done, in your own lives, that might deserve itself a stonning?"

The men replied,

"But Jesus! This woman was caught lying to her Husband, and was found in another mans bed!"

Jesus answered,

"If indeed she was caught in a bed besides her Husband's, how many of you can I remember where in bed with other wives?"

The men grew silent. Jesus requested,

"Let he of you who here; who is without sin, cast the first stone."

Its the most known parable in the bible. Why does'nt Bush order this punishment to be legal? Who knows -- and its not the best of questions.

The question should be, why has'nt Bush allowed this yet based upon his in office behavior?

I dont see this, even as that question, relevant to your point that Christianity does'nt belong in the fundementals of our government ruling.

It just happens some people are Christian, and some people are not. Quite clearly, if Christianity was all about people being stoned for their own beliefs, we'd've already called for some kind of reform, years ago.

Christian Beliefs tend to change over the years. I know mine have -- and I feel better being a Christian that adapts.

Why isn't Bush out there saying respecting your parents should be law?

Perhaps there are other people besides Christians involved with this country. Did Bush always obey his parents? Do his children continue, or are adaptive to living in a society that suddenly promotes this rule? Certaintly not, and no.

Dont you think, if that America was "strictly Christian, and all the **** you crap", this might've been imposed earlier on for this country, and without Bush?

Why isn't Bush out there saying pre-merital sex should be illegal?

But in the Bible, you do recall the end to Soddom and Gamorra, correct?

The father, after his wife was turned into a sand statue, had sex with his youngest daughter to build a new Soddom and Gamorra. I forget the name of the town/family place that ended up becoming of them, but they still had sex.

Besides, they're are other religions here in the United States, that allow Pre-Maritial sex and wedding. Here in North Carolina, the age of consent, is 16.

Religion and politics must be separated.

Aethism, should'nt be put into the picture either. That would be a reverse sort of discrimination -- the best way to end stupidity from within religions, is to correct what are those corrupt Christian lives.

 

[Gray Fox]

Its odd isn't it, I mean you think religious people off all whould critisize things like guantanamo bay, school of americas, war in Iraq.
Religion is like communism, it's good in theory but doesn't work in practice.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Practice, is only an error when people take the Bible and its believers out of context. Grey Fox, if you admitted you were gay around me, my response besides "Oh Cool! So am I!", would be, "Congradulations!"

I would'nt reject you like some other hard-lining aethists or professed Christians might. But here again, I have no right to judge. :smoking:

 

[Hiji]

Religion is like communism, it's good in theory but doesn't work in practice.

This is a great example of why an atheist can not make a decision about religion. Atheists will view religion as a tool to a nation. A tool which can add to the prosperity of a country, or plunge it into chaos. For one who is religious though, it is viewed quite differently.

 

[Choscura]

this is really opening a can of worms. but here goes.

first, i'm AGAINST religion in office. if you look at history, you can see how screwed we are if we keep the jesus assholes in power. the crusades, the salem witch trials, the inquisiton, religion and politics combined have killed more people than anything else in history. and i'm not just condemning christianity on this, islam, judeau, and mormons are also to blame (note to mormons, you aren't christians, look at your philosiphies and compare them).

however, being a war-monger, i also support the war in iraq, potentially north korea, and potentially iran. why? i don't know, but i want to go over there and fight, if only because i place very little value on my life and see the military as a somewhat risky way of advancing myself while having a good time. so what does that mean? that i have NO respect for religious authority and would rather go to hell than be stuck in heaven with a god i hate and people i despise.


just my thoughts.

 

[Gray Fox]

OMG, do actually want to kill people to advance your goals, well why don't you then just become an assasin or bankrobber, or in case you never seen a man beeing killed or never fought in a war, just go to oagrish.com and see there how a dead body looks or how the troat of a russian soldier is beeing cut( if you have any respect for life that will make you feel absolutly sick for a week, or like me you'll have to puke and will not sleep for a few days, but atleast it will teach you what war is like.)

 

[X|Rolando]

The problem with most religious folk is that they refuse to look outside the box and accept facts. Ignorance, perhaps? The Bible isnt something that really is able to support christianity since it contradicts itself more than MS is acquiring software patents

One thing I can not stand is people going on about how "book x" says this and how we HAVE to do so because of "book x"... Its a freakin' book, nothing more - get over it.

In my opinion of course (makes me semi-immune from counter-rants )

 

[Gray Fox]

This is a great example of why an atheist can not make a decision about religion. Atheists will view religion as a tool to a nation. A tool which can add to the prosperity of a country, or plunge it into chaos. For one who is religious though, it is viewed quite differently.

Please then tell me how do you view it.

I mean why I view it and why I compared it to communism is this.

"If you don't want a unnecisarly boring and very much incoherent read, typed by someone with the I.Q. of a pigeon then don't read the text below"

Communism is when you read it quit a nice theaory, I don't know what you were tought at school, but marx wasn't a wive beater or an evil man who wanted to take over the world, he just saw how much economic and social injustice tehre was and made a theory how to solve it. From the fact that he beliefed that all the workers in all the countries would unit at the same time and it would happen all at once you can allready see he was more of a dreamer than a practical man. I mean at the start of the first world war you can see that nationalist feelings where stronger than the urge to unite.

religion is great, I've read the bible the koran and shintoism I know a lot about, and a few old roman religions (that was for shool), you may think as an atheist why so many people beliefe in that shit and are willing to give their life to it, but if you read you can see why, I would like to call upon all to read the bible and the koran, and then you can see that they have quit a few logic in them and solutions for problems, (although looking closer to them you can also see that they are not that practical, especiall if you include human nature to your thinking). In any case I have nothing against religions, I think they were usefull for furthering our science and culture back when we weren't evolved as much technologically and culturally, but now ignorant people are using them to do the exact opposit.

In any case the parralels between communism and religion are, the yare both good in theory, but bad in practice, Just look at the communist countries and deeply religious and how it is there, fact is both are misused by evil people to gain power under false pretences, most communist countries have more social&economical injustices than kapitalistic, same with religion and things like morals http://www.activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2678.
And I certainly do believe religion is a political tool, I believe it was invented by people so that they could control other people and for the same reasonings as communims, ( imagine things like guys killing children of a woman so they can mate with here, just like it happens in the animal kingdom, simply because they had no culture no god to fear, just instincts) now imagine saying to them , hey stop that, why should they. Thye would probably kill you. Now if you menage to convince them that there is a god, and that they will go to hell if they do that, they would probably listen to you. Religion was back then, what the constitution is now. So yes I certainly beliefe religion was created mostly for use in politics, maybe it means more to a lot of people now, but as we have seen in the last US election religion is very much still a political tool.

 

[Choscura]

This is a great example of why an atheist can not make a decision about religion. Atheists will view religion as a tool to a nation. A tool which can add to the prosperity of a country, or plunge it into chaos. For one who is religious though, it is viewed quite differently.

when you stop and think about this, it makes quite a bit of sense. we athiests have no reason nor any desire to see religion as anything but a tool. practitioners and believers of religion, however, often bristle at this notion because they tend to idealize everything. at the extremes of these idealized visions we have the taliban, the iranian government, and the muslim fundamentalists: they want to take over the world and make everybody believe in allah, or else. can christianity honestly claim to be much different? they want everybody to have a chance at salvation so that god won't feel guilty when the world ends, or they want everyone to be christian, or anything inbetween. all athiests want is for the ends- which they don't see as existing- to stop justifying some of the most horrible means that have ever come about. is that so much to ask? can we please get you to stop crashing planes into buildings and burning each other at the stake and lynching each other long enough to figure out that when you stop to think about it... none of it is worth this?

 

[No Limit]

K e r b e r o s , thank you for coming in here, I didn't think anybody would actually step up. I am still waiting for the people that defended Bush on the bible to come in here.

Anyway, here it goes.

If you dont believe religion has a place in our law, you should call for reform. However, judging that your a catholic, do you just believe religion should'nt have a part in law, or just Christianity because its an opposing belief?

I don't believe any religion should have a part in our law, be it Christianity, Catholicism, or Islam. I am using Christianity as an example as that is what I believe Bush and the extreme right are trying to force down our throats.

Should our laws be based off the bible? They already are, your questions answered. The question should be: Is it effective?

The laws are not based off the bible, they are based off what humanity considers right or wrong. Rape, theft, and murder are all illegal in countries where the bible isn't part of their religion and this was the belief in civilizations long before the Bible. What I really hate is the argument that we need the bible and religion to know what is right and what is wrong, this is obsolute nonsense.

How does "you", correspond to anything prior?

That was a simple example of being in a rush, obviously I wasn't pointing 'you' at anyone here, just the people in power that are trying to put religion in our lives.

No. Not even Christopher Rock, a Comedian, is defending Marriage's sanctity. In addition, its not just people on the supposed right, who are defending it.

People, even aethists, who prefer girls over boys, dont like the idea of Gay Marriage, because it makes them socially uncomfortable with what they've developed for themselves, as a healthy identity.

I know for one, marriage can be sacred, but mostly is not. Im not defending marriage from anything terrible -- its still marriage, even if its the same sex, and to me thats still sacred.

Bush has talked about defending marriage's sanctity in almost every speech or statement about gay marriage. I agree with you that many people don't feel comfortable with gay marriage, honestly, I don't feel very comfortable with it eighter. However, I have no right to keep someone from getting their basic rights simply because I don't feel comfortable with it. In the 50s white groups used the same argument, that they don't feel comfortable, about interracial marriage. As you hopefully know this argument was wrong and what they did was shameful.

Which parable?

I don't know, hopefully the people that used that defense (including many in congress and I believe even Bush used this) will explain.

For Catholicsm, is it allowed for two of the same sex to wed?

Is it also illegal to break that covenant?

It doesn't matter what Catholicism says, our goverment shouldn't pay attention to that. Since it is against my religion I will not marry a gay person :angel:; however, if someone doesn't have that belief they should be allowed to do this.

Because perhaps Bush either does'nt realize what you accord him to understand, as being a firm leader in the Christian "right"; or he realizes this note, but also realizes in a modern world -- sometimes, men and women just need a break.

See, if the second part is true that is exactly what I am talking about. What gives Bush the right to define what God allows you to take a break from?

This is'int the exact parable:

I was actually getting that from Deuteronomy 21:18 which I realize most don't use a standard today. Here is the quote:

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

21:19
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you

Perhaps there are other people besides Christians involved with this country. Did Bush always obey his parents? Do his children continue, or are adaptive to living in a society that suddenly promotes this rule? Certaintly not, and no.

Dont you think, if that America was "strictly Christian, and all the **** you crap", this might've been imposed earlier on for this country, and without Bush?

Yes, there are other people in this country so why is it that Bush is using Christianity as I said before. I'm not sure what your actual stence on this is but from your post it seems to me you agree with most of what I'm saying.

Aethism, should'nt be put into the picture either. That would be a reverse sort of discrimination -- the best way to end stupidity from within religions, is to correct what are those corrupt Christian lives.

There is a huge difference between an atheist and a person who doesn't talk about their religion in government. Obviously people in power are going to have their religious beliefs and they have every right to celebrate that among themselves; however, they have no right to force anything down our throat. You talked about people being uncomfortable with gays; what about the people with a religion other than Christianity that feel uncomfortable with our government talking about god's will?

 

[magospietato]

Ah... religion and government. In Britain we've managed successfully with a national religion and governmental traditions associated with it. For example, Tony Bliar gets to choose the shortlist for the job of Archbiship of Canterbury. The thing about the Anglican Church in England is that it really doesn't try to enforce its belief structure on anyone. Literally.

If a gay man wants the official line from the Anglican Church then he'll be told that it's ok to be gay, but not to have sex with another man, but mostly it seems to me that if that gay man were to keep his mouth shut then really the Church wouldn't give a sh** about who he sleeps with.

The point though is that in Britain and the US we live in a DEMOCRACY. No one really seems to understand democracy anymore, bar its application to who gets to run the country next. Democracy means that the MAJORITY get to make the rules and sorry, its tough if you're not in that majority. Of course both our nations have a strong streak of individualism in them, so democracy has never really functioned as its supposed to.

What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be about religion, it should be about what the majority think. And it seems that with George Bush the majority tink the same as him. Or they wouldn't have voted for him. Ah well...

 

[Sprafa]

The Bible promotes peace and love.

So, according to the Bible, all war is illegal.

 

[No Limit]

Just an example of the religious right I was talking about. The folling is a post from a mostly republican message board and I have to say the people there are pretty smart:

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/3/t/002926.html?

The problem is they actually do really believe that god played a role in getting Bush elected. If this is not absurd I don't know what is.

 

[Gray Fox]

Just an example of the religious right I was talking about. The folling is a post from a mostly republican message board and I have to say the people there are pretty smart:

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/3/t/002926.html?

The problem is they actually do really believe that god played a role in getting Bush elected. If this is not absurd I don't know what is.

Holy shit, those people really scare me, :O :O :O :O and bare in mind that I have been through a war.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

However, [Long Post]

this is really opening a can of worms. but here goes.

Dont feel bad. This thread is'int a first ^^

first, i'm AGAINST religion in office.

Quiet, and right.

However, are you against a professed Religious man to becoming on an office with control of a nation, or against a Nation's religious denominations, having a point in how power is equaled?

I can see where a possible middle-ground exists; where both Aethist's and Christian's alike are'nt clammoring over each other's heads. Where thought, for a supreme reign in opinion is'int the goal in a mans personal development. However, I dont distinctively agree with silencing one for the other.

Silencing both, is that an option?

if you look at history, you can see how screwed we are if we keep the jesus assholes in power.

Not true. Religious systems [or belief, for those of you who happen to be Aethist] have brought three things into our social infrastructure. Control, Purpose, and Living:

1. Socieities without Control, collaspe under the weight of life corruption and crime against crime.
   
2. Societies without Purpose, shard into smaller societies/groups, for a reform in this nature. When the nature is difficult to specify, these smaller groups choose conflict as purpose.Sometime's, this purpose will develope during a conflict, with the idea, War is Purpose. Which infact, is'int the just of it or to carry as a healthy belief.
   
3. Societies without Life, or Well Living, brought in the minds of those who do and dont care, simply fail because nothing can stand on the shoulder's of brutality and absent minded ****ing.

Question: If we keep this Christian Bubble in office, and pop it while its still there, would be better for our Civil Liberties to be tuned with the oppositions blade?

I call the opposition you call -- Vague and ignored oppression.

Or Another Question: If this bubble magically disseappered, would all of our rights be inherently solved, or where they're be other problems?

the crusades

The Crusades were the product of a testing Christian Belief. I associate Christian with anything, be it has involved a Western view of God and God's law.

The Crusades however, failed. All three times did they fail.

the salem witch trials

In 1693, the village of Salem, Massachusetts was overcome with superstitious hysteria. At the peak of the madness some 150 people, male and female, were accused of being witches. 20 of them were killed.

Wether or not its been realized, the towns water supply had been poisoned by a known Hallucinogen, whose name I cant pronounce nor spell at the moment. [The Hallucinogen, was a basic Fungus and I think a Mushroom.] This Hallucinogen, is what prompted most of the hysteria surrounding the towns people, and there own crimes.

Did you know that most of the religious men in the town, were not responsible for the crimes of accusation? Most of them, were at the mercy of testimonial's provided by the towns children.

There own daughters, made a gang called the Salem-Crips [Yo!]. The goal was, if a sista' was bein' oppressed, the rest of the girls would get together and blame that singlemost person/cracker as being a witch/snitch/bitch/femal'playa'hata'.

[Of course, the trial's where stupid, but as it happened, dumb men can be manipulated by only a certain amount of circumstances.]

While Religion was the shield to what the girl's where actually basing their own accusations for, Religion, had no deep part in the executions altogether.

Did you know? One of the Girl's own fathers was hanged, a religious man, because his own Child, no longer wanted him as a father, and plus, he had also discovered what they were doing? She convinced several people intoxicated by the drug, he was a witch. He was the last person killed.

By about that time, one of Salem's Church Sermon's, had realized the stupidity and randomness of the accusations, and had sent for the Govenor of Massa. to step in and observe the trials. With his intervention, the trial's were put to a stop, and the Girl's as discovered, were guilty of exploiting both an unknown mental condition caused by the sooner found fungus, the belief's of men, and the using of numerical superiority and age based innocence, for the sake of convincing using a religious backdrop.

The History of this incident was not a testament to the Brutality of Religion. But a testament, that stupid people in large groups, always fail ... somewhat.

the inquisiton

The Inquisition, was indeed something very odd. Did you know? The people believed blessed with eternal youth, whom were apparently "buried" during those period's, were "holy" enough that their bodies survived for up to 400 years on display?

However, for a twist ...

They were perserved with the science, Religion professed they denied.

and i'm not just condemning christianity on this, islam, judeau, and mormons are also to blame (note to mormons, you aren't christians, look at your philosiphies and compare them)

In the name of Religion, men have been killed. However, actual Religion has'nt killed anyone.

[extremeovertparanoidchristian] Have'nt you ever figured that those who declare themselves in the name of God, and wage wars accross a broad scope of innocents [whom are later massacred], -- are demons sent by devils, to confuse men and women about God's true purpose to save, and are agents of evil who are expending themselves at a religious end, to cause men to divert from the religions the demons portrayed, to fall into hells great pit because men declare themselves away from a loving God, they've been tricked into believing is a murderor, sayeth the lord![/endextremeovertparanoidchristian]

The problem with most religious folk is that they refuse to look outside the box and accept facts.

One man's facts, is another man's lies. I've accepted Homosexuality and its facts -- and I **** like a white rabbit on speed examines in an Australian Clinic.

The Bible isnt something that really is able to support christianity since it contradicts itself more than MS is acquiring software patents

The Bible is what supports the context of Christianity. However, its the believers who deposit themselves into different names and edit the context of Gods law, that are infact false and contradict their own conduct on which the Bible dictates is true; whereas they act false.

The end joke was so mature, it should've been rated.

One thing I can not stand is people going on about how "book x" says this and how we HAVE to do so because of "book x"... Its a freakin' book, nothing more - get over it.

No. You dont have to. I have'nt come accross people that are also, that beligerant. ^^ Guess its my luck compared to yours ... and im glad I have'nt had your luck.

I would like to call upon all to read the bible and the koran, and then you can see that they have quit a few logic in them and solutions for problems, (although looking closer to them you can also see that they are not that practical, especiall if you include human nature to your thinking).

Actually, the Bible contains a good logic for living in peace, and allowing others to do so. Its just, people need enemies -- and they find you.

Why you? Who knows ...

In any case I have nothing against religions, I think they were usefull for furthering our science and culture back when we weren't evolved as much technologically and culturally, but now ignorant people are using them to do the exact opposit.

Well, you could be Religious and Smart. The criteria is'int that short for believers.

In any case the parralels between communism and religion are, the yare both good in theory, but bad in practice,

However, Communism does'nt classify as a Religion or Religious concept. Its classified as a Politik, which involves the theoritical development of a cultural system.

Religion, is a name that classifies all those with a belief, or devotion to. You could say a man devotes himself religiously to the communist belief, or devotes himself religiously to being gay. However, as it stands, religiously, and religion, are but words that classify all those with a belief, admiration, or following of something much more then others.

And I certainly do believe religion is a political tool, I believe it was invented by people so that they could control other people and for the same reasonings as communims

Perhaps those men who profess in the name of God, but murder people in its name, are those who exploit my beliefs?

However, my goal is'int to control you -- and my bible does'nt lay the groundwork, for that to even start. ^^

( imagine things like guys killing children of a woman so they can mate with here, just like it happens in the animal kingdom, simply because they had no culture no god to fear, just instincts) now imagine saying to them , hey stop that, why should they.

Stop the train -- what does instinct have to do with intellect, or at least, a property of?

Thye would probably kill you.

If the thing is busy screwing, it'd probably wanna' shoot off its load before it did anything. Course, most men get tired after blasting off some protein rockets. I would'nt expect much, thereafter.

Now if you menage to convince them that there is a god,

Wait, I thought they'd probably kill me? Or just get tired after screwing?

How could I manage to convince something without a knowledge for my own language, what or how it conveys, and again, the point you specify were trying to make?

and that they will go to hell if they do that, they would probably listen to you.

If their a primitive being believing on the survival with instinctive drives, again, how would they understand my language enough, to even convey what religion meant?

Clearly, their understanding is killing children and screwing. Thats a little too primitive for my own approaches.

Also, how could I convince them about a hell? What would I point to first, that they might understand as a demonizing or rotting place, where apparently, people are burned or locked in eternal darkness, thus until a judgement day when all souls are revealed for their true intents and reborn into God's new universes?

... that might make him either fart, angrier, or cause for him quirking a brow ... if I was close, he'd probably want to **** me too.

Religion was back then, what the constitution is now.

I dont get it.

So yes I certainly beliefe religion was created mostly for use in politics, maybe it means more to a lot of people now, but as we have seen in the last US election religion is very much still a political tool.

Sooooo ... use that to your advantage next time?

none of it is worth this?

Killing was never worth it. However, without killing, could we claim to have a seperation of intellectuals, and those not capable?

I am using Christianity as an example as that is what I believe Bush and the extreme right are trying to force down our throats.

Perhaps, but I've not become a victim to it. Luckily ... and im gay.

The laws are not based off the bible, they are based off what humanity considers right or wrong. Rape, theft, and murder are all illegal in countries where the bible isn't part of their religion and this was the belief in civilizations long before the Bible.

Sorry, I should've put this more coherently in my last post.

What I really hate is the argument that we need the bible and religion to know what is right and what is wrong, this is obsolute nonsense.

Noones posed this -- however, I did ask you if it was effective or not. Is it effective?

That was a simple example of being in a rush, obviously I wasn't pointing 'you' at anyone here, just the people in power that are trying to put religion in our lives.

Are'nt you a Catholic?

It doesn't matter what Catholicism says, our goverment shouldn't pay attention to that. Since it is against my religion I will not marry a gay person ; however, if someone doesn't have that belief they should be allowed to do this.

Agreed.

What gives Bush the right to define what God allows you to take a break from?

I have no clue -- he's only a man to boot.

Bush is using Christianity as I said before.

Would you preferred he used Catholicsm?

There is a huge difference between an atheist and a person who doesn't talk about their religion in government.

Either there is silence, or noise. Which should we have? Silence would make us all scared to be different -- noise, most men sleep better under.

You talked about people being uncomfortable with gays; what about the people with a religion other than Christianity that feel uncomfortable with our government talking about god's will?

Only a half truth -- what of those who feel uncomfortable with people professing God does'nt exist, or has a will to begin with?

Is'int God a part in your religion? I understand your contexts -- however, what I dont understand, is how you reference for even in yourself ... that god should be allowed to exist, period.

Perhaps I misunderstood?

 

[No Limit]

Noones posed this -- however, I did ask you if it was effective or not. Is it effective?

It's not effective, people already know what is right and what is wrong. Many people have used the bible to teach that you can't do this and you can't do that; but with out the bible these people would learn the exact same thing as I pointed out in the example with countries that don't have the bible in their government.

Are'nt you a Catholic?

Yes, I am. But like I said, I don't need government officials preaching my religion to the masses. I talk about my religion with friends, family, and in church, I don't need to talk about it in politics.

Would you preferred he used Catholicsm?

Like I said, and I think you are misudnerstanding me on this, I do not care about the fact that he is a Christian; if he was Catholic I would feel exactly the same way. The point is that religion should be kept out of government, no matter what that religion is.

Either there is silence, or noise. Which should we have? Silence would make us all scared to be different -- noise, most men sleep better under.

But there won't be silence, people have every right to discuss religion as they do now. The problem is that we do not need our government to be loud about it. Why do we need our government, which has to make important decisions about our well-being, use the bible to justify what they do? Bush has every right to celebrate his religion, just keep it out of his job. When I give a presentation at work I don't say "this is good because god has blessed it", it simply wouldn't be appropriate and might offend someone. Yet, this is exactly what Bush and the religious right in power are doing.

 

[DSDchemE]

I don't think that it's only Bush that's shoving it down people's throats, like most of you seem to believe. If he wasn't backed by the majority of the country (which he was, and had the popular vote this year), he wouldn't be able to get congressional approval to do any of this stuff. The truth is that the country is just getting more conservative. I don't agree with the religious stuff (although I'm a conservative as well), but many people do. You always say stuff like: "Bush and the religious right in power". The religious people probably said the same thing a few years ago, about the d*mned people in power. Quit blaming the religious right (and I'm agnostic, so I'm not even one of them), cause they are the majority and therefore have the right to do what they please, just as Democrats had their right to stuff during the Clinton years.

 

[burner69]

Holy shit, those people really scare me, :O :O :O :O and bare in mind that I have been through a war.

It's amazing how they can let Bush off all the crap he's done/ is doing... all the hatred the strong christian influence in politics is causing by just saying "God is in control so all the bad is for a reason, vote Bush cuz he's got God on his side"

I haven't been in a war, but it scared me... ooo boy do those people scare me,

 

[burner69]

I don't think that it's only Bush that's shoving it down people's throats, like most of you seem to believe. If he wasn't backed by the majority of the country (which he was, and had the popular vote this year), he wouldn't be able to get congressional approval to do any of this stuff. The truth is that the country is just getting more conservative. I don't agree with the religious stuff (although I'm a conservative as well), but many people do. You always say stuff like: "Bush and the religious right in power". The religious people probably said the same thing a few years ago, about the d*mned people in power. Quit blaming the religious right (and I'm agnostic, so I'm not even one of them), cause they are the majority and therefore have the right to do what they please, just as Democrats had their right to stuff during the Clinton years.

It certainly isn't just Bush shovelling, but when he shovels, which he's doing now, bad things happen; Iraq, gay marriage ban, reducing money spent on; education, job training, war veterans etc etc.

The reason I blame the religious right is because I believe what they're doing is severely harming the society both economically and more important morally.

 

[Gray Fox]

Kerberos, I don't think you exactly got my point on the

( imagine things like guys killing children of a woman so they can mate with here, just like it happens in the animal kingdom, simply because they had no culture no god to fear, just instincts) now imagine saying to them , hey stop that, why should they. Thye would probably kill you. Now if you menage to convince them that there is a god, and that they will go to hell if they do that, they would probably listen to you. Religion was back then, what the constitution is now.

It's not your fault, I know my writing is very confusing, but thx for taking the time to read it and to try to understand it

Thing is the reason judges can convict some criminal is because the constitusion or something like that lends them the right, it says in the constitution what rights people have and what they have to obey I think, or it may be some law book, I hope you get what I mean. Anyway same thing in my example.

lets say in the year 1000 there was no religion, all the people could make up themselfes what is right and what is wrong, and could commit atrocities and you would have no right ot convict them cause who teh **** are you to say what is wrong and what is right, why should they listen to you.

Now lets say in another dimension there is religion, now bare in mind in 1000 we werent as culturized( don't know if this word actually exists, but I have no other way to say this) as we are now, so we didn't have relativly independent courts, and so. So now people believe in god, and the morals of that religion, now someone saying that rape is wrong, he has all the right to say it is, cause the religion in which everybody believes says it is, so his a basis from which he can clame he is right.Religion served the purpose of bringing us together, bringing stability, and the same thing as the constitution and the law, saying what is wrong and what is right, and the search to get closer to god did help science as far as I know.

On one of your other comments, I don't believe that someone who believes in a religion is ignorant, but there are ignorant people who use it to do stupid thing, but common your smart, you understood that, why did you choose to mock me, I don't mock religius people, the yjust scare the pance off of me.

And though religion and communism are not the same, I think they do share some striking simmilarities and that is the reason I compare them to further the debate and to make my believes more clear.

 

[No Limit]

( imagine things like guys killing children of a woman so they can mate with here, just like it happens in the animal kingdom, simply because they had no culture no god to fear, just instincts) now imagine saying to them , hey stop that, why should they. Thye would probably kill you. Now if you menage to convince them that there is a god, and that they will go to hell if they do that, they would probably listen to you. Religion was back then, what the constitution is now.

Again, you do not need religion to know what is right and what is wrong! In civilizations long before the bible (1,000s of years before) most places still had a law system in place and people were fully aware of what is right and what is wrong. That argument is simply foolish.

 

[burner69]

The idea that a religion is required to uphold an individual, or society, sounds like crap to me. It had it's benefits, but now it seems as society advances, and we have more and more ways of controlling the masses, religion is not needed.

I'm an atheist, and find it quite offensive when people suggest this means I have no morals. Because, if religion is needed to give a person morals... I shouldn't have any :O

I find it interesting as well, and this is entirely a subjective opinion of myself, that I'm extremely skeptical about the media - the other big moral decider.

So why is it I have a moral code?

Basically, I think it's natural.

The people we meet in our lives are influenced by our decisions, and if we do something immoral, the majority of the time it causes harm to other people, or they will express distain towards it. Humans are one of the few species of animals that actively give a crap about their fellow man. So... being moral is simply the natural thing to do.

Of course some people do immoral things, but as with everything in life there are exceptions, it can be the learning curve, it can be attributed to social disorders, many things.

The bottom line is, naturally, I believe, the majority of people will be 'moral' upstanding citizens. We live in a democracy, and so what the majority think, goes.

Haze descends when we start questioning what is moral.

Euthanasia, drugs, war on terror, abortion, swearing etc.

 

[Gray Fox]

No, no, no, guys you misunderstood, I know that you don't need religion to now what is right and what is wrong, but most of the time that respect for the rules is based upon fear or respect. Now I know that you don't need religion for that, but in those days when science was not hat far as it is now, or pholosophy and we didn't have all the shit we have know. religion made it just that more easier to tell people what is right and what is wrong, cause people need a basis form which the yjudge what yo usay and what the rules are, with religion that basis could be provided. Creating that kind of a order, stability and porsperity was IMO simply impossible casue science and philosophy weren't as advanced. And with science yo uhave to think about, books because of progression in science books can be easly and in large numbers be printed to spread philosophical ideas, and science could explain things that only religion used to be abale to, and science gave us all kinds of cool things like PC's so we gained respect for it and it had authoroty. But that was not possible in those primitive times.
Look Burnder I completely agree with what you say, I am an atheist also. But if you understand my point, and the fact that it does not contradict yours, could you please post it in your way, cause you generally make post that I completely agree with, like you read my mind, But only you make it more clear and easier to understand that I, so could you please make a post so I can quot you for emphesis, cause I don´t think I explained my point very well again.

 

[GiaOmerta]

I'm not against religion, but I am against religion being forced on me or others in any way what so ever. And about politics, I think South Park said it best this way: "In any election the only people you get to pick from are a giant douche and a turd sandwhich, because they're the only ones who suck up enough to make it in politics, so get used to it"

Sounds about right.
I'm not religious myself. I read the Bible, attend church, but I'm not religious. Religion was created by man. Their is no reference to religion in the Bible actually.

Religion can be easily corrupted and manipulated.

I believe the Bible contains important morals. Look at society today. Going down the tubes. I swear if my kid gives me shit, he's getting he's ass kicked.

But it's not the States responsiblity to raise children, and children are the heart of our society.

It's parents responsiblity to raise their child. That's the problem today. Parents arent doing their damn job.

 

[The Mullinator]

My parents brought me up with with the idea that they wanted me as an individual to decide if I believed in God. They were willing to start going to church again (both went as kids) if I wanted to but I decided I didn't believe in God. There is just too much showing me that God either doesn't exist, and if he does then he is certainly not in the form that any of the current major religions.

Why isn't Bush campaigning against all of those other things? Because he is a politician and he knows its a battle he cannot win.

 

[The Monkey]

I have been to church less than 50 times in all my life.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Not talking church here. Talking about parents who dont raise they're kids. That's why society is going down the tubes.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The point though is that in Britain and the US we live in a DEMOCRACY. No one really seems to understand democracy anymore, bar its application to who gets to run the country next. Democracy means that the MAJORITY get to make the rules and sorry, its tough if you're not in that majority. Of course both our nations have a strong streak of individualism in them, so democracy has never really functioned as its supposed to.

The problem with that point is that America and Canada (and I'm pretty sure Britainia too) are not just democracies.
They're constitutional democracies.
Yes, the majority does have influence over law. But that influence has constraints outlined in the constitution.
Specifically, the majority only has influence over the secular affairs of government.

Your personnal beliefs, in a constitutional democracy, are specifically not supposed to be treated better or worse than another persons at the whim of any group, even the majority, unless the practice of those beliefs contradicts with secular law. (Believing in killing non-believers is an example of such a contradiction.)

So it is true that democracy in this case hasn't been functioning properly because people don't understand it. And that's because folks like George Bush have thrown religion into the political mix.

The constitution-less democracy you described in your post would, in America's case, be tantamount to permanent christian theocracy. Christians would vote for the candidate who has the most christian policy, and every other religion would lose by default. Voting would become pointless.

It would be permanent, at least, until some other religion has a population explosion and becomes the new theocracy.
But I think we can all agree that American politics were not supposed to be based on which faction can breed more.
That's why we've got to keep religion in church where it belongs.

 

[burner69]

Look Burner I completely agree with what you say, I am an atheist also. But if you understand my point, and the fact that it does not contradict yours, could you please post it in your way, cause you generally make post that I completely agree with, like you read my mind, But only you make it more clear and easier to understand that I, so could you please make a post so I can quot you for emphesis, cause I don´t think I explained my point very well again.

Lol, practise my friend too many hours between lectures.

I think you did a very good job at explaining your point, and I agree totally with it.