Why you should care that Americans still believe in God:

[ZeeJustin]

The Republicans are still the majority party.

There is often talk about if the world would be a better place if everyone was aware that there is no God, and I am a firm believer that this country would be much better off without the false belief in God, and one of the primary reasons for that is that the Republican party would no longer hold the majority.

[purnell]

Well, I don't think either of the two main parties is beyond reproach. We tend to look at it as if it were a football game or something. Us vs Them. What worries me is the debt, and trying to blame that on one party or the other is silly.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
the Republican party would no longer hold the majority.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing basic to xtrianity that supports a Republican platform. There are Jerry Falwells and there are others very tolerant left of middle idealogies, both xtian. A person chooses their religious strain, as most religious people on here attest to - they studied others and chose one. There core approach to life doesn't follow from their religion, their religion follows from their core approach to life.

IOW, what attracts one to a specific strain? Something about it fits into their worldview so they 'adopt' it. You don't find that people say, "I disagree with everything about sect ZZ but I'm joining anyway because it is the true faith."

Other faiths have the range of conservative and tolerant adherants, usually divided into sects but there is often a full range of views within a sect. Conservatism is a worldview/mindset, xtianity is just the current way a lot of it is expressed in america, it may still be the dominant political force even stripped of religion, although religion does make a great delivery method.

It's not hard to conceive of a charismatic tolerant left leaning xtian coming forth and rallying populace with rhetoric about love and sharing and equality, rather than the the current 'my morals or else' tone now in vogue.

Although you're right about the situation, I think the link between the right and xtianity is arbitrary and not inherent.

luckyme

Political leanings are generally something people choose (using free will). Their religion is generally inherited from their parents.

[RJT]

Maybe we should have a separation of Church and State article in our Constitution.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we should have a separation of Church and State article in our Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it's the republican party that keeps having issues w/ the separation of church+state.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we should have a separation of Church and State article in our Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it's the republican party that keeps having issues w/ the separation of church+state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Left minded folks, especially the ACLU, who even oppose the Gov't even acknowledging the existence of religion are the ones guilty of needlessly stressing on this issue. You will see in full force as Christmas approaches and heaven forbid some city puts up a Nativity scene.

[RJT]

Sorry to hijack for a quick moment Zee.

Daddyio,

Is your new location: "Between the Sacred & Profane" a subtle way to bust on Navy?

RJT

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to hijack for a quick moment Zee.

Daddyio,

Is your new location: "Between the Sacred & Profane" a subtle way to bust on Navy?

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all...just an old joke w/my best friend from USMA who's also a serious Catholic about our struggles adhering to certain Catholic teachings that would result in frequent trips to the Confessional /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bearly]

i file no briefs for the republican party, but where did you come up w/ this stuff? i've been to your site and you look pretty young. why not take a month off from piling up money and read about the history of american politics since, say, 1914. and, by the way, you are old enough to remember that bill clinton clasped that same bible (carried on the side the cameras were showing) and had is lip slightly quivering when ever he had a photo-op leaving church...................b

[ QUOTE ]

I think Left minded folks, especially the ACLU, who even oppose the Gov't even acknowledging the existence of religion are the ones guilty of needlessly stressing on this issue. You will see in full force as Christmas approaches and heaven forbid some city puts up a Nativity scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is so much wrong with this statement I dont even know where to start. The government creating holidays for religious reasons and other similar things shows that the government can easily acknowledge religion without a peep from the ACLU. Putting up a nativity display is not acknowledging religion, it is using the tax dollars of Jews, Muslims, Athiests, etc to promote a specific religious position of Christians.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think Left minded folks, especially the ACLU, who even oppose the Gov't even acknowledging the existence of religion are the ones guilty of needlessly stressing on this issue. You will see in full force as Christmas approaches and heaven forbid some city puts up a Nativity scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is so much wrong with this statement I dont even know where to start. The government creating holidays for religious reasons and other similar things shows that the government can easily acknowledge religion without a peep from the ACLU. Putting up a nativity display is not acknowledging religion, it is using the tax dollars of Jews, Muslims, Athiests, etc to promote a specific religious position of Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. As long as minority religious and non-religious practice is protected, there is nothing in the constitution that requires absolutely no recognition of majority religious beliefs such as holidays. Non-religion isn't the baseline whether you would like it to be or not. Even the primarily Deist founding fathers didn't believe that.

[BluffTHIS!]

You are a philosophical and logical donk for talking about how religious belief is bad because it might make someone a republican when there are so many other issues that influence that. 10 years of democratic control of congress and subsequent higher taxes impinging on your young livin large poker lifestyle and you'll be voting straight ticket republican and won't care why others do as well. When I was your age I was in the military although I didn't have the honor of serving in combat, and there are young men your age fighting and dying for their country right now (maybe we shouldn't be in Iraq but we surely should in Afghanistan). You need to stop being so self-absorbed and quit trying to impress people with these types of posts and try to learn what the world is really about and what is important.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

and one of the primary reasons for that is that the Republican party would no longer hold the majority.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're in the wrong forum.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to stop being so self-absorbed and quit trying to impress people with these types of posts and try to learn what the world is really about and what is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a thirst for knowledge and I feel that I have learned a lot from this forum. What exactly is the problem?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
10 years of democratic control of congress and subsequent higher taxes impinging on your young livin large poker lifestyle and you'll be voting straight ticket republican and won't care why others do as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Decipher this one if you can. My dad's side of my family is wealthy. They would all be economically better off if they voted republican, but they vote democrat. Some of them are fairly religious (Jewish), and some of them are not. They are all philanthropists, and give back a lot.

My mom's side of my family is working class. They all share the same strong Christian faith and vote republican. Economically they would all be better off if they voted democrat.

My only point is that you don't know where I'm coming from. If you think my personal finances will be the sole factor in determining my political affiliation, you are wrong.

My OP was not intended to start a political battle. I simply wanted to start a discussion on how huge an effect the believers have on society. This effect IMO is often extremely negative.

[ QUOTE ]
My OP was not intended to start a political battle. I simply wanted to start a discussion on how huge an effect the believers have on society. This effect IMO is often extremely negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I will say that some may think it is out of place for me to comment on a USA polital matter since I am not a citizen of that country, but others will say it is fair since the USA have definitely got an influence on, if it is not directly meddling in, the politics of my country.

My question is direected at bigdaddydvo, since he has taken on the mantle of defending catholicism, it seems.

I seem to remember that only a few years ago, there was an issue at least debated (if not settled, in the catholic church, as to whether the catholic church should deny communion, if not excommunicate, catholic politicians that did not toe the line of, or were supporting legislation contravening, catholic doctrine - in any case it raises the possibility of interference).

Assuming that if a politician/judge etc. (any secular elected position for that matter) claims to be catholic, like bigdaddydvo, he propably does not do so to gain votes, but really is committed to the church, it seems to me that there is a chance of the USA abrogating it sovereingty to another country (namely the Vatican). How does that sit with a USA citizen catholic, a non-catholic, and the rules about foreign lobbying in the USA?

Any comments?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a thirst for knowledge and I feel that I have learned a lot from this forum. What exactly is the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is great to want to learn more. But from what I understand of you, you have opted not to go to college and play poker instead. No problem, and I probably would have done the same at your age if poker existed online then. But these forums although a great way to learn about poker and also some other things, do not necessarily contain a represnentative sampling of american society and the beliefs and interests that motivate lots of americans.

You don't need to go to college to learn, because a library card and some cash can get you all the books you need to learn the same stuff in a lot of fields. You need to read some philosophy and history, both american and foreign, to understand our political system. And read multiple newspapers/magazines. Then you would understand that religious affiliation is not a simple predictor of party voting. Read some good biographies of the founding fathers and history of the early republic. There were as many differing political views then as now and motivated by the same wide range of beliefs and self-interests then as now. But this requires regular reading of current news and opinions (easily available free online) and a committment to read books regularly. This helps one have a good background knowledge of things so that one can articulate better thought out views, even if they are ones others wouldn't agree with.

Just as with poker where fish chase low percentage draws on the hopes of winning big, and others play so tight they never gamble at all when they should, so everday citizens have belief systems, some logical and some not. There are lots of people who either give greater weight to logic and values on the one hand, or to to vague altruistic notions that are held no matter what the price may be if implemented if it is even possible to do so. There are people who place more importance on personal responsibiliity and law and order, and others who place more on individual liberty no matter what the consequences.

And while religious views certainly influence all those things each way, there are people in both parties who have the same religious beliefs but arrive at different political choices because of those other things. And becoming more widely read and getting a longer experience in life will help one understand that better.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me that there is a chance of the USA abrogating it sovereingty to another country (namely the Vatican). How does that sit with a USA citizen catholic, a non-catholic, and the rules about foreign lobbying in the USA?

[/ QUOTE ]

The catholic church, headquartered in the Vatican, doesn't give out voting lists to catholics in the pews, but only teaches them values. So why should people of religious faith be singled out for where their values come from, and not atheists or anyone else? And if a catholic officeholder did have a conflict with something that was expected from him in a certain capacity and personal belief wasn't an appropriate way to determine how to act , then he should either recuse himself or get another job. So a catholic shouldn't take a government job where he doles out government money to abortion clinics, or as a hospital obsterician if he is execpected to perform abortions. And this isn't just for americans either. The late King Badouin of Belgium temporarily declared himself unfit to govern rather than sign legislation allowing abortion, with the result it passed through without his signature.

And these types of things don't just come up with catholics whose church happens to technically be headquartered in a sovereign country it runs.

Hiya Bluff

First of all, let me say that I think your previous post, answering Zeejustin, is an excellent, balanced, well formulated, unbiased post. I am serious.

If you don't mind, I would like to add that without denying the value of reading books, as cash my be an issue, having access to the internet is a way to get a lot of information. Personally, coming from an era where newspapers were the way to keep informed. I must say that in the last few years I have only rarely bought a newspaper. However, I do acccess on the net and read most of the following every day:

1. Washington Post (USA)
2. Guardian (UK)
3. Le Monde (in french which I am fluent in).
4. The Christaian Science Monitor (and I am strongly antireligious.. to use bigdaddydvo's words I tolerate them as long as they stay in their lanes
5. Pravda (Russia) unfortunately the latter is only a shadow of what it used to be, and is more akin to The Star or USA Today /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The first four I read because their excellence in journalism, the latter because I don't want to miss on a different perspective, and sometimes it is like that - the last one I remember dsitinctly was the coverage of Condolea-Rice trip to Eastern Europe (couple of months ago)and the early coverage of the New Orleans catastrophe.

I also subscribe to a few news alerts (national to my country and CNN, in particular.. so that I can start monitoring news in near real-time). All of those are free.

bluffTHIS, I hope you didn't mind the above additional comment.

Now to address to answer your answer to my post. My concern is that a catholic is "bound" to, at least, some dictates of the Pope. The problem I see, is that those doctrinal statements can be promulgated at any time. If not this century (a bit short yet), at least in the last one, there were even additional dogma proclaimed. Should those statement have a political impact, the catholic elected official would be bound by it. Therefore, unless he reneged his catholicism, there is in my opinion definetely extraneous interference in the system. And it happens after the election, which mean that neither the voters, nor the politicians, could be aware of it at the time the vote took place. This is quite wrong, in respect to what the USA system of govenment purports to be, in my opinion!

What do you think?

PS whilst writing this I just got the following alert from CNN (Tornado kills at least 7 people in an Evansville, Indiana, mobile home park, officials say.) ... See how up-to-date it is.

[BluffTHIS!]

You missed the point of my earlier reply to you. If a catholic politician has a conflict between his beliefs (whether based on old or a newer definition), and what is his legal obligation to do as an official (i.e. it is not a judgement call which might take into account his personal beliefs of whatever source), then he should recuse himself or find another job. But if it is legally allowed to make a "judgement call", then his values whether religious based or not, can be fairly used in making such a decision. Voters know this and if they don't like a politician's values then they can always elect a different one. This is also no different from other religious denominations and sects, or for those who profess to be non-religious. Values are values wherever they come from.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

It seems that this latter agenda is often argued disguised as the former.

[ QUOTE ]
The catholic church, headquartered in the Vatican, doesn't give out voting lists to Catholics in the pews, but only teaches them values.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff is correct. Indeed, if we attempted to do so, the Church would lose it tax exempt status. Hope this information alleviates any skepticism regarding if this occurs.

[bearly]

i was going to reply and/or expand upon our give-and-take of yesterday. i thought it would be fair to first read some more of your thrusts and parrys to get an idea of what you are about. i think 'bluff' nailed it down pretty well--firm but fair. i gave you some good replies and what happened--(what is your problem?). now here "what exactly is the problem" you are proving bluffs (and implicitly, my)remarks w/ your reactions. just from what i know about you--assuming it is true---i would love to have a one-on-one w/ you about hold'em. and , believe me, i would be doing most of the listening , because i would want to savor every word you said. to be in the company of someone who has actually 'done it' would be better for my poker future (somewhat bleak) than any book. on this forum you are dealing w/many people (and i will include myself) who have actually 'done it'. i have been in the position where i had to get in there w/ some of the finest minds in these fields (logic, philosophy, linguistics) and get my nose busted again and again. that's just the way it is. just like when you make the quantum leap in poker--as you are doing. so bluff's remark: less over-confident posturing, more well thought-out (and simply worded) questions, more listening, and less defensiveness (what is your problem?) would get you going , and you could take advantage of the tremendous resources on this sub-forum. starting w/ sir david and going from there---a lot of brain power here.......................good luck, and find the energy to keep trying.........b

BluffTHIS,

You are missing my point. Say a politician believes statement A and has to vote on a law supporting A. If the pope makes a ruling stating A is not allowable. or a a sin, or worthy of excommunication, then by abstaining from the vote (the equivalent from a politician recusing himself) the legislation may not be passed (it may be one vote short). Hence the legislative process of the USA is at the mercy of the dictates of a pope, if there are true catholics in the process. Unfortunately If your loyalty to the pope comes before the loyalty to your country or your constituents, it has to be possible that it is so.

[BluffTHIS!]

You keep singling out catholics for this regarding some new statement being made. How about members of other religions who have beliefs that would be in conflict with various issues. Like a Baptist voting on whether to legalize alcohol or prostitution in a jurisdiction. Or an atheist on whether to allow a creche in a public space during Christmas season. Same thing. And like I said, if the voters don't like the way a politician votes they can always vote him out.

[RJT]

As Bluff infers, you are not suggesting we only allow atheists to represent us are you? Perhaps this would be a preference for some folk, but that is not my question.

All politicians hopefully bring their wisdom along with themselves to their jobs - the source of this wisdom should be irrelevant. Their wisdom (or lack of) is what we should look at when we vote them in and out of office.

How blinding is faith...?!

Lets try once more very simply, as simply as possible /images/graemlins/smile.gif

1. A catholic Politician supports the idea of legislation that is very close to my heart. He will get my vote altough I am an atheist. I am without prejudice when it comes to religion. It is a personal matter.

2. Between the time that he is elected and the time that the concerned legislation has been presented to vote on, the pope makes a doctrinal statement against it.

3. The vote is close, the one vote is required for passing the legislation. What does the politician do/choose? Excommunication or represdenting his constituents? Note that abstention means that the legislation won't pass!

It seems that when I voted for the politician I really voted for the pope who was not even campaigning and whose position was not known at the time.

That's my point. It seems it is impossible for someone prejudiced to see it! Try it.

This goes for any religion that has an absolute moral authority vested in an individual (pope like) whim and whose doctrine or interpretation is still evolving - ie doctrinal statements are still being added.

[ZeeJustin]

Bearly,

I've learned a lot from these discussions, and I don't know why people assume the opposite is true. But just about every comment regarding me personally has been derogatory and wrong. There's no need for personal comments in discussions like these.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Bearly,

I've learned a lot from these discussions, and I don't know why people assume the opposite is true. But just about every comment regarding me personally has been derogatory and wrong. There's no need for personal comments in discussions like these.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the personal attacks are unnecessary, but I think folks got riled up because you couched a religious question in very political terms. However, I think the topic you brought up is very important and worthy of discussion. The simple fact is, America has an ostensibly secular government, yet an overwhelming majority of Americans profess to believe in some sort of supreme being. I hate to be a pessimist, but I feel like the two sides' respective positions are essentially irreconcilable.

[RustedCorpse]

I don't want to live in a country that doesn't believe in god. Personally I'm 95% or so there is no god, but frankly I like the idea that the majority of people think there is a god. I mean honestly if the majority didn't think there was some sort of omnipotent being that could hold them accountable I think the social contract would collapse. Crime, murder and the like would be much much more widespread don't you think? If tomorrow everyone woke up and knew 100% there wasn't a god, I think you'd see a lot more underling’s murder bosses, random street arguments break out into full scale murders. I think that a belief system is what keeps a lot of things ticking, I can't imagine everyone stays civil just because of "police" consequences.

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to live in a country that doesn't believe in god. Personally I'm 95% or so there is no god, but frankly I like the idea that the majority of people think there is a god. I mean honestly if the majority didn't think there was some sort of omnipotent being that could hold them accountable I think the social contract would collapse. Crime, murder and the like would be much much more widespread don't you think? If tomorrow everyone woke up and knew 100% there wasn't a god, I think you'd see a lot more underling’s murder bosses, random street arguments break out into full scale murders. I think that a belief system is what keeps a lot of things ticking, I can't imagine everyone stays civil just because of "police" consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't think that most people who claim to believe in God actually alter their day-to-day behavior because of their belief. Admittedly, there's no way to proove that this is this case.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean honestly if the majority didn't think there was some sort of omnipotent being that could hold them accountable I think the social contract would collapse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you need to have a look over the data in the post "Correlations of Societal Health with Religiosity & Secularism " and that'll set your mind at ease.

luckyme

what are so great about the Dems? (assuming they are in power). Welfare programs dont work. Yeah some of their other stances on social issues are better than repubs. but big government does not help the people it is supposed to help.

[RJT]

You might think yours is a good example - and as a hypothetical it could very well be a good example - but it doesn’t work that way. Our Church does not operate that way.

So, you need to either find another example or accept the fact that your fears are unfounded.

Let’s take an extreme example and assume for the sake of discussion (or to ease fears) that the Pope did make such a pronouncement.

Let say a war started in Zoolooland. The Pope says this war is unjust and any Catholic who fights in it or supports it in anyway will be excommunicated. Well, I would have to guess that the Pope probably is right that the war is unjust. Usually these guys (Popes) aren’t idiots. So the reasoning the Pope came to conclude the war is unjust I am sure would be based on sound logic. Thus, the politician should have already realized this on his own anyway. He would (should) be voting against the war to begin with and not because the Pope said it.

The Pope does not get involved in these things. I can’t remember exactly what the last Pope said about Iraq, but he wasn’t real pleased with the war, per se. Because he isn’t pleased with any war. If he were to make a direct statement about say a brutal dictator - it would simply be that - a statement. It would not be any formal doctrine that us Catholics would be obligated to follow simply by decree.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
what are so great about the Dems? (assuming they are in power). Welfare programs dont work. Yeah some of their other stances on social issues are better than repubs. but big government does not help the people it is supposed to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't pretend the Republicans are the party of small government. It may have been true in the past, but it certainly is not true currently.

[spaminator101]

I dont come to this forum often anymore, but your wrong here. Comments such as the ones you have received come from what you say. if there wasn't something unsound in your reasoning, then no one would have a problem with what u say. I remember when i first came here i was just like u. Then sexdrugsmoney taught me that you have to consider the beleifs and oppions of others before you say something. For example: I'm a Christian and i beleive that when you remove the very basis our country is founded on, then our nation would fall apart. but heres where your argument comes in. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. With a decreasing number of Christians and moral people all together combined with an increase in crime and sex and immorality our nation could fall apart. Government is all ready divided and our races are divided and families are divided. Heck, even churches are divided. at somepoint we have to change something.


You see, there is the proper place for each argument. a proper place for yours and a proper place for mine. What you have to do is evaluate and explain both arguments and the reasoning behind them and then explain why you beleive yours is better.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont come to this forum often anymore, but your wrong here. Comments such as the ones you have received come from what you say. if there wasn't something unsound in your reasoning, then no one would have a problem with what u say. I remember when i first came here i was just like u. Then sexdrugsmoney taught me that you have to consider the beleifs and oppions of others before you say something. For example: I'm a Christian and i beleive that when you remove the very basis our country is founded on, then our nation would fall apart. but heres where your argument comes in. A nation divided against itself cannot stand. With a decreasing number of Christians and moral people all together combined with an increase in crime and sex and immorality our nation could fall apart. Government is all ready divided and our races are divided and families are divided. Heck, even churches are divided. at somepoint we have to change something.


You see, there is the proper place for each argument. a proper place for yours and a proper place for mine. What you have to do is evaluate and explain both arguments and the reasoning behind them and then explain why you beleive yours is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on the section in bold?

RJT,

We don't have to be so hypothetical. I remember very clearly that following the introduction of the oral contracptive (the pill), there were many priests that were advocating its use by catholics. In fact we had to wait quite a number of years before the pope made his, the church, God, politician, position clear on this matter in an encyclical (can't remember which one). Therefore from that point on it became a sin, which it wasn't before?

Wake up dude, church and politics should be kept well separate. The above surely is a moral issue and the entire population should not be denied access to contraceptives (I know they have, but it shows that the scenario I suggested in my previous post as not as far fetched as you may think) because the pope has it in his head that it is wrong.

Personally, I reckon the pope position in this case IS immoral and bad news for a humanity plagued with an overpopulation problem.

My opinion is "be wary of voting for a politician that is catholic, for you are really voting for the pope", unless he is a bad catholic that is. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
For example: I'm a Christian and i beleive that when you remove the very basis our country is founded on, then our nation would fall apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok lets say that there is no God, atleast to Americans. Now remember if there is no God there is no hell or satan. what will happpen. Well, there is no longer any reason for morals. Heck, nothing would happen when we die why dont we enjoy life.

OUr founding fathers always kept God in mind when forming our government. Sure not all of them were Christians but most were, or they were at least deists. IMO This government helped form the greatest nation in the world. What happens when you take out the reason for our system of government. Everything starts to fall appart

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example: I'm a Christian and i beleive that when you remove the very basis our country is founded on, then our nation would fall apart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok lets say that there is no God, atleast to Americans. Now remember if there is no God there is no hell or satan. what will happpen. Well, there is no longer any reason for morals. Heck, nothing would happen when we die why dont we enjoy life.

OUr founding fathers always kept God in mind when forming our government. Sure not all of them were Christians but most were, or they were at least deists. IMO This government helped form the greatest nation in the world. What happens when you take out the reason for our system of government. Everything starts to fall appart

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you explain the much higher crime rate as well as the much higher percentage of religious people in the US compared to other advanced countries?

If what you believe is true, countries who are largely secular, such as those in Europe or in Japan, should be awash in crime. Instead it is the religious US that is crime ridden.

[ QUOTE ]
...why dont we enjoy life...

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed enjoying life doesn't mean neccesarily make it miserable for others.. LOL

This is a very typical and warped view held by many theists.

[spaminator101]

Who said the US is religious. just because you go to church on Sunday doesnt mean your religious. most peope in America, IMO that claim to be Christians, aren't really. Just because you beleive that there is a God doesn't mean your a Christian. Thomas Jefferson beleived there was a God, but he was a deist. Therefore, thomas Jefferson wasn't a Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok lets say that there is no God, atleast to Americans. Now remember if there is no God there is no hell or satan. what will happpen. Well, there is no longer any reason for morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, upon reflection, I am not sure if it is agood idea to argue with the christians. I mean, think about it, they could be convinced and the world would be full of pathological killers, rapists, peadophiles, thiefs etc... all, now, without restraints to what are their natural inclinations!

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said the US is religious. just because you go to church on Sunday doesnt mean your religious. most peope in America, IMO that claim to be Christians, aren't really. Just because you beleive that there is a God doesn't mean your a Christian. Thomas Jefferson beleived there was a God, but he was a deist. Therefore, thomas Jefferson wasn't a Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming the US is not a religious country because it is your opinion that many of the people who go to church are not "real" christians? The data shows that the US is easily more religious than other modern countries and it should be blatantly obvious that this country is much more religious than that of many other advanced nations, even without looking at the various figures that back up this fact. There is even another current thread directly about what we are talking about here.

I honestly don't see the relevance of the last three sentences of your post.

[RJT]

MG,

My argument was not that great. I’ll admit to that especially now that you suggested an example of the conflict that can arise. I don’t see it ever becoming an issue though. Stem cell and abortion and things of that nature - the politician usually makes his stance known when campaigning - either with his or against his own Religion.

Either way it really gets into a matter of whether a representative should make decisions on how he thinks his constituents should vote an issue or if he should represent how they want him to vote. This is more of a political issue than Religious. And is a debate in itself.

Of course, if the politician votes by rote of the Church’s position then he needs to be upfront with that to begin with. We take that risk with even an atheist - that he doesn’t vote the way a billionaire banker wants him to versus what others think is right.

My main point was that the Pope does not rule by decree. Your example of contraceptives is really a theological issue relating to God’s relationship to man and the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, things of that nature. The Pope doesn’t simply issue a decree. There are processes, over periods of time. The voters are going to know where the politician stands on the issue.

So long as a politician’s belief does not conflict with the Constitution then his opinion, whether he arrived at it on his own or from teachings of the Church, is the same as anyone’s else.

Yours here for example:

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I reckon the pope position in this case IS immoral and bad news for a humanity plagued with an overpopulation problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can argue against your position without using the Church if I wanted to. Something like this is subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion is "be wary of voting for a politician that is catholic, for you are really voting for the pope", unless he is a bad catholic that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly have that right. In fact as you know that was a big fear when JFK was running for President.

The other reason it shouldn’t be much of a concern is that being a devout believer and an elected politician are for all practical purposes mutually exclusive - at least now adays. The closest thing to that, that I can recall is Jimmy Carter (not specifically Catholic, but very Christian). With him, where his polices failed it was not because of his Religion, but for whatever other reasons. None elected officials are another story. Here I can see not having to “sell one’s soul” to hold the position. Or probably more often the case, not being a snake in the grass to begin with.

RJT

[The Don]

Zeejustin,

I think that in your quest for knowledge you should examine other political philosophies. There are more than two ideologies, you know. Go to www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org) and see where you stand. I am personally an athiest myself, but I believe that there are far greater problems with the Republicans (or Democrats) being in power than tendencies toward religious dogma.

[RJT]

Arty,

Surely, you are not suggesting Religion is the culprit. How about things like guns, capitalism itself and the competitive nature of it - for good or bad, poverty, racism to name a few reasons that could be the cause.

RJT

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Arty,

Surely, you are not suggesting Religion is the culprit. How about things like guns, capitalism itself and the competitive nature of it - for good or bad, poverty, racism to name a few reasons that could be the cause.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you got the impression that I am saying the cause of the various problems is religion. I was simply providing a counterpoint to Spam's belief that without widespread belief in god, a nation is reduced to immorality.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arty,

Surely, you are not suggesting Religion is the culprit. How about things like guns, capitalism itself and the competitive nature of it - for good or bad, poverty, racism to name a few reasons that could be the cause.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you got the impression that I am saying the cause of the various problems is religion. I was simply providing a counterpoint to Spam's belief that without widespread belief in god, a nation is reduced to immorality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you said this:

[ QUOTE ]
How do you explain the much higher crime rate as well as the much higher percentage of religious people in the US compared to other advanced countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

And obviously I took it out of context. You have me confused with your cross-posting. LOL. Sorry, not blaming you. Totally my error. Disregard.

RJT

[Aytumious]

No prob.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't see the relevance of the last three sentences of your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was just an example.

[Token]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think Left minded folks, especially the ACLU, who even oppose the Gov't even acknowledging the existence of religion are the ones guilty of needlessly stressing on this issue. You will see in full force as Christmas approaches and heaven forbid some city puts up a Nativity scene.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is so much wrong with this statement I dont even know where to start. The government creating holidays for religious reasons and other similar things shows that the government can easily acknowledge religion without a peep from the ACLU. Putting up a nativity display is not acknowledging religion, it is using the tax dollars of Jews, Muslims, Athiests, etc to promote a specific religious position of Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. As long as minority religious and non-religious practice is protected, there is nothing in the constitution that requires absolutely no recognition of majority religious beliefs such as holidays. Non-religion isn't the baseline whether you would like it to be or not. Even the primarily Deist founding fathers didn't believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading this, I have new hope for this forum. Finally someone who understands the issue.

Hi Token,

First of all, let me say that I do not understand your position vis-a-vis the posts you are quoting. We may be on the same team or the opposite one. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Having said that, lets look at the difference between freedom from and freedom of, religion.

I think that the most fundamental of the two, because it doesn't impinge on the other, is freedom "FROM" religion. I don't seee at all, why anybody should need to comply with moral restrictions based solely on the beliefs of a "so-called" revealed doctrine.

Let me also explain the way I think we can differentiate between the two. One makes a behaviour a victim-less crime, the other is a crime with victim(s). Lets look at a few instances, and observe firstly, that if you bring religion into the motive for a piece of legislation you will run into the problem of which denomination beliefs should be, not accomodated by, but imposed on, others.

A good first example is alcohol consumption and sale. Some, even Christian denominations, find it unacceptable, or at the very least, morally wrong. Others do not. Which one should be the standard and should legislation reflect? None, in my mind as there are no victims! Families suffering from a close one being an alcoholic could be a different issue and may have to do with dereliction of civic duty etc... like not paying maintemance etc..

Another example would be prostitution. Why the hell would it be illegal? There are no victims. In the case where there is a pimp coercing or exploiting the prostitute, there there is a crime of coercion by force, which is a different issue, already legislated for.

A third example would be, drugs use. Against, no victims! The user is not complaining about unfair commercial practices of the dealer. The dealer does not complain about the user demanding drugs. If drug use drives you to crime, you have the usual legislation as a recourse against theft etc... No reason to prevent anyone doing something in the privacy of their home, by consenting adults, not hassling anyone else.

Anyway, there are more examples, but those are sufficient to see where the the problem/difference is between victimless crimes, and "legitimate", legislation, dogmatic and sectarian imposition of moral guidelines, and the famous "freedom" for which I understand most USA citizens stand.


As was very well put by Bigdaddydvo, as they say in the army: "stay in your lane". If you want to believe and subject yourself to restrictions, by all means do, but don't make me do it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Token]

I would answer, but I've decided to commit myself to not go off topic in relation to the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
I would answer, but I've decided to commit myself to not go off topic in relation to the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I should care that Americans still believe in God because, as has been demonstrated over and over again in history, the tendency for believers is to go beyond living the puritan and pious life themselves, impose their beliefs on others, and restrict the harmless, and often enjoyable behaviour of others, from their arrogant position.

The justification for this can be found in my previous post, the one just above Token's.