Why you should care that Americans still believe in God:

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.