Why you should care that Americans still believe in God:

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

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.