Religion and Politics

[Gan]

Editor's Note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The separation of church and state in this country is narrowing. And it is the church, not the state that is encroaching. Our Constitution protects religion from the intrusion or coercion of the state. But we have precious little protection against the political adventurism of all manner of churches and religious organizations.

The leadership of the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches, as well as Jewish and even Muslim religious organizations, are driving that political adventurism as those leaders conflate religion and politics. And while there is a narrowing of the separation between church and state, there is a widening schism between the leadership of churches and religious organizations and their followers and members.

Conservative evangelical leader James Dobson recently said actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson wasn't Christian enough to be president. He instead chose to commend Newt Gingrich, who has been married three times and recently admitted to an extramarital affair. Five evangelical Christian leaders signed the "Land Letter" to President Bush in 2002 affirming a Christian theological basis to invade Iraq.

This week the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, basically threatened his faithful with denial of heaven if they don't support amnesty for illegal aliens. The good Cardinal said: "Anything that tears down one group of people or one person, anything that is a negative in our community, disqualifies us from being part of the eternal city."

The nation's religious leaders seem hell-bent on ignoring the separation of church and state when it comes to the politically charged issue of illegal immigration. A new coalition called Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Wednesday will begin lobbying lawmakers with a new advertising and direct mail campaign on behalf of amnesty for illegal aliens.

The Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine put it this way: "If given the choice on this issue between Jesus and Lou Dobbs, I choose my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ."

But before the faithful acquiesce in the false choice offered by the good Reverend, perhaps he and his followers should consult Romans 13, where it is written: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

There is a more obvious and immediate judgment offered by the followers and members of both the Protestant and Catholic Churches. A Zogby poll last year asked churchgoers if they supported the House bill that would make illegal aliens return home and reduce future illegal immigration by securing the border and performing checks on illegal employers. Seventy-five percent of Protestants responded that was a good or very good idea, 77 percent of born-again Christians also agreed, and 66 percent of Catholics also backed tougher enforcement measures.

This schism between our church leaders and church members is just as broad and deep as that between our elected officials and their constituents across the country. Neither the state nor the church is exhibiting wisdom or fidelity to our national values in permitting the widening of that divide.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/Dobbs.May9/index.html

__________________________________________

A very interesting article, discuss if you wish.

[DeV]

The separation of church and state is a conspicuous oxymoron.

My two cents... for now.

[Khariz]

It's hard to discuss.

I have to say that I'm somewhat confused though. Has religion not always had an influence on politics? Is its influence much stronger now than in days past?

Let's just use Catholics as an example. Catholicism used to be even MORE strict about nearly every topic under the sun, yet for whatever reason did not exercise as much of its influence as it could have in the past?

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is: Why is it all of a sudden a news flash that religions meddle in the affairs of government? I'm honestly curious if the "problem" is proportionately worse than it used to be. Are more religions, and more denominations of them, all seeking the attention of politicians.

How can politicians be expected to cater to the demands of multiple religious groups, when certain fundamentals may require them to vote different ways, even within their own area of influence? Hell, I don't think politicians should be catering to religious groups at all, but I admit that if they don't, they aren't likely to have a job for very long. I live in Alabama. If a politician in Alabama were to insinuate that he wasn't a Christian...he'd be done. It's that simple.

I also see political definition conflicts. Republicans are trying to position themselves as "tough on border security". But wait...I thought they were the "religious right"? If a Catholic archbishop is trying to escort as many illegal aliens through the border as humanly possible, doesn't that kind of...I dunno...mess things up?

Religion pisses me off. That is all.

[Hulkein]

I'm honestly curious if the "problem" is proportionately worse than it used to be.

I'd wager to say it's definitely not. People complain about this shit nowadays because everyone likes to think they're an expert in politics/religion/the Constitution etc because of the internet.



I also see political definition conflicts. Republicans are trying to position themselves as "tough on border security". But wait...I thought they were the "religious right"? If a Catholic archbishop is trying to escort as many illegal aliens through the border as humanly possible, doesn't that kind of...I dunno...mess things up?

I wouldn't categorize Catholic's as being the 'religious right' or even necessarily generalize them as mainly Republican's. Catholic's range from liberal to conservative much more than, say, Born Again's.

[Some Rogue]

To me it's really no different than any other group of like minded people vying for the attention of the politicians.

It's perfectly fine for the AARP to be lobbying congressmen but there's some outcry when a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/whatever group does it? I don't see any difference.

[CrystalTears]

It's perfectly fine for the AARP to be lobbying congressmen...
You really need to stop poking fun at PB's hobbies. For shame.

[Some Rogue]

You really need to stop poking fun at PB's hobbies. For shame.

It's more than a hobby for him, it's a way of life. :yes:

[Khariz]

I'd wager to say it's definitely not. People complain about this shit nowadays because everyone likes to think they're an expert in politics/religion/the Constitution etc because of the internet.


Very good point. I never thought of WHY people were so opinionated. That's definately a factor.


Oh, and Some Rogue, I don't have a problem with Religions having the "right", per se, to jockey for the politicians' attention, but it does seem that more religious organizations are now simultaneously doing so.

I mean over the years, I'm sure politicians have had to deal with Catholics, and perhaps other Christian denominations when they organize in such size and force with a specific goal in mind. But how long have they had to deal with political pressure from Muslims? I'd wager that's pretty new.

Actually, and I hate to bring this up, but even though Athiesm isn't a religion, most of the time that politicians (and the judicial system) have to spend on requests from Athiests is likely religiously oriented. You know, getting the Ten Commandments removed from courthouses, etc [I'm not saying Athiests were responsible for or accomplished this specific feat, I'm rather making an example of something that politicians and the judicial system has to take into account, and that Christians would have presumably not initiated].

So my point is that just the *idea* of religion, and its influence on society, politics, and government, seems to be expanding, which may or may not be the case. It may be, as stated above, that merely more of the populace is opinionated about things, and feels the authority to state their opinion becuase of educational mediums such as the internet.

[CrystalTears]

I disagree. I consider Athiesm a religion, mainly because it's still a belief that there isn't a God, just like other religions are based on beliefs that there is.

[Latrinsorm]

It's always a bad idea to demand that religious people stay out of all political issues. A cursory examination of the history of Iran, Turkey, or Egypt demonstrates this.

In regards to the specific points the article brings up:

- Yes, church leaders are not exactly representative of all their followers. They never have been, and they never will.
- Yes, it's a lot of fun to pick out Bible passages (especially from Paul) to justify any sort of bias or bigotry.
- Yes, Jesus does beat the pants off Lou Dobbs.
- No, the separation between church and state is not narrowing. If anything it's widening. A religious person in a governmental position is not the same as a church conflated with a state, and it's really asinine to suggest such.

I'd be interested to see the historical rates of ordained religious in the government, especially in Congress.

[Khariz]

I disagree. I consider Athiesm a religion, mainly because it's still a belief that there isn't a God, just like other religions are based on beliefs that there is.

I'll dispute this later this afternoon when I get in. This is a common logical fallacy that presumes there is an equal 50/50 chance that god does or does not exist.

[Latrinsorm]

As to CT's claim, religion is a notoriously vague definition. Sociologically, atheism is very much a religion, and generally atheists are far more religious than the stereotypical Sunday Christian.

[Parkbandit]

As to CT's claim, religion is a notoriously vague definition. Sociologically, atheism is very much a religion, and generally atheists are far more religious than the stereotypical Sunday Christian.

Atheism is the absence of religion. It's the direct opposite of religion.

So by very much a religion, you mean so very not much a religion.

[CrystalTears]

I think you're confusing athiesm for agnostics. Athiests believe that there is no God. So yes, like Latrin said, from a philophical point of view, it has been considered a religion.

[Trouble]

Essay on the definition(s) of atheism: http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

That site is a great resource for people researching religions and belief systems btw. I've had it bookmarked since 1997ish.

[Latrinsorm]

Atheism is the absence of religion. It's the direct opposite of religion.

So by very much a religion, you mean so very not much a religion.Again, this is a problem of definition. You're defining religion as some sort of theistic belief, and atheism is certainly the absence of that (by definition). As I noted in my post, this is not an especially useful or accurate definition, sociologically speaking. In terms of sacralizing and dogmatizing, you and StrayRogue are by far the most religious people on this board. Clearly neither of you (explicitly) associate yourselves with a common religion, but that doesn't really have anything to do with it.

In general, it's really hard for humans to be non-religious, as has been demonstrated over and over and over in history.

[Parkbandit]

By using that logic, you are practicing a form of forum religion as you've posted 12,036 times.

[Hulkein]

I'm having trouble seeing your logic there, PB.

[JDAX]

I disagree. I consider Athiesm a religion, mainly because it's still a belief that there isn't a God, just like other religions are based on beliefs that there is.I'll dispute this later this afternoon when I get in. This is a common logical fallacy that presumes there is an equal 50/50 chance that god does or does not exist.

I'll be interested to see this, but I don't presently believe that there's a logical fallacy here. CrystalTears has asserted that she considers atheism a religion because it involves the belief that there isn't a God, just as (other) religions involve the belief that there is. This is a claim about what she considers to be the case, not a claim about what logically follows from what. Still, I suppose it could be presented as such. Perhaps the idea behind her suggestion is that any belief system which contains a belief the subject matter of which is God is a religion (I can't tell, but that seems to be what she's suggesting; I expect to be corrected if I'm wrong). Well then, here is the argument:

1. For any belief system B, if B contains a belief the subject matter of which is God, then B is a religion (or is a religious belief system).
2. Atheism is a belief system which contains a belief the subject matter of which is God (namely, the belief that God does not exist).
3. Therefore, atheism is a religion.

This is a logically valid argument; no fallacy is committed. It involves no claim about the chances of God's existence being 50/50 or any other value.

Perhaps the idea that you're really getting at is that you think (1) is false, because you (perhaps) think that a belief system B is a religion (or religious belief system) only if some of the beliefs in B are held by faith, where "faith" is (according to you, at least on the way that I'm interpreting you) an attitude involving belief in a proposition which is at most 50% probable (i.e., which has a 50/50 chance of being true). You will then presumably think that atheism is not a religious belief system because it (allegedly) does not (necessarily) contain beliefs held by faith. You will also presumably think that at least all traditional religions do contain such beliefs.

Though there's some initial plausibility here, I myself think that there are a lot of problems with such a suggestion, if it is your suggestion (I think the definition of "faith" is probably incorrect; I think it's not true that religious belief systems necessarily contain beliefs in propositions which are at most 50% probable (Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne, for example, thinks that the truth of Christian theism is extremely probable, much more than 50/50 (see his The Existence of God), and I think that there are at least many possible belief systems which are clearly religious and which would not cease to be religious if it turned out that the probability of their beliefs' being true is actually higher than 50%, etc.)), but all of this is something I won't get into. (Incidentally, I tend to agree that atheism is not--at least not necessarily, though perhaps it can be--a religion, but just for different reasons.)

[Sean]

Is disbelief a belief?

[Hulkein]

Yes. Disbelief in man-caused global warming is a belief.

[JDAX]

Is disbelief a belief?

No, it isn't, unless you have a strong notion of "disbelief" in mind. Refraining from believing is a form of disbelieving, as I understand it, and yet refraining from believing does not involve having a belief.

[CrystalTears]

I believe I have a headache.

But yeah, JDAX explained what I meant rather well.

[Khariz]

Is disbelief a belief?

Yes. But that's not what being a real Atheist is all about. The reason I'm an Atheist is because I'm convinced that the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of God *not* existing. I'm not concluding this based on a "belief", I'm concluding this based on the scientific method.

Wonderful post, by the way, JDAX.


Is disbelief a belief?

Perhaps the idea that you're really getting at is that you think (1) is false, because you (perhaps) think that a belief system B is a religion (or religious belief system) only if some of the beliefs in B are held by faith, where "faith" is (according to you, at least on the way that I'm interpreting you) an attitude involving belief in a proposition which is at most 50% probable (i.e., which has a 50/50 chance of being true). You will then presumably think that atheism is not a religious belief system because it (allegedly) does not (necessarily) contain beliefs held by faith. You will also presumably think that at least all traditional religions do contain such beliefs


Excellent presumption, but no.

My presumptions are based on evidence. They aren't beliefs based on faith. Hmm wait, by saying that, I might have just agreed with you. I'll make my case, and then you tell me if I'm agreeing with you or not, because I honestly can't tell.

Belief in God takes faith because there is no actual evidence that it exists. I define a "belief" as a conclusion reached with a lack of evidence, or as one formed with an existence of contrary evidence, which is willfully (with faith) ignored.

This is going to be really hard to argue without borrowing my library at my home, but I'll do my best:

The only viable alternative for the existence of God that man has ever come up with is Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, Natural Selection does not assert that anything happens by "chance".

Natural Selection is a very technically complex, but also rather literally simple mechanism by which the genes of biological organisms tend to keep and copy the portions of themselves which "work" for the organism, and reject those that do not. This has allowed organisms to evolve and change every aspect of themselves, from tiny membranes in a single cell, to appendages shapes as hooks or hands.

I don't have the time, or the space, or the literal comprehensive knowledge to come to this board and explain the complexities of Darwin's theory of evolution to the people here, but let me make my point, and then I'll let you research the Theory on your own if you care to.

Natural Selection is more than just a plausible theory. The theory was asserted so long ago, and has been challenged and tested so rigorously, without failure, that in the minds of most scientists, has reached nearly the level of a "Law" akin to gravity. Just as nobody has ever proven that what goes up doesn't come down, nobody has EVER been able to find any aspect of any cell or any organism that could not have come about by Natural Selection.

There are entire organizations of religious apologists who try to find organisms and cellular mechanisms that could have come about as a "whole", with no evidence of evolutionary precursors from which DNA could have naturally perfected itself to make better by forming its current state. No such example, ever found, has ever stumped science's ability to show the precursor, and thus the evolution from one form to the next.

Another popular theory of people trying to establish God's existence is "Irreducible Complexity", which one of my favorite authors, Richard Dawkins, talks about ad naseum. The argument basically goes "but XYZ is so complex that it could not have come about by chance". This again presupposes that the only choices are "Intelligent Design" or "Chance", when in actuality, there's a third choice, the scientifically probable choice, Natural Selection, which is NOT based on the premise of chance, contrary to popular belief.

Because there is a viable scientific Theory (which is arguably closer to a Law of nature) that is on point with regard to the existence of all living and non living things, and because this theory can be used, juxtaposed with the scientific method to systematically explain the existence of any organism and the parts that equal its sum, and because no person has ever been able to show, in any way, that there exists any organism for which this Theory does not work, the preponderance of the scientific evidence available to date suggests that there is no reason for a God to be in existence.

To completely understand the argument I am making, there are at least two books that one must read. One is Darwin's Origin of the Species, and the other is Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.

The point I want people on this board to understand is that to hold an understanding based on best scientific evidence, is not a "belief" held on "faith" To hold such an understanding is quite the opposite. When the conclusion you have arrived at is based on facts and scientific evidence for which there is no rebuttal, you are not holding a "belief" in your mind.

Oh and as to the 50/50 thing. Because there exists scientific evidence that there is no need for a god to exist, and because life and evolution and adaptability of life will go own in the absence of a god, and because science has shown that everything ascribed to god has alternate scientifically plausible (and irrefutable) reasons for existing, the preponderance of the evidence swings the probability way off the 50/50 mark.

I don't know if science has show that god is 80/20 likely to not exist, or 70/30, or what the hell ever. The point is that because there is an actual scientific reason to believe that god does not exist, one can hold such an opinion, and it not be based on a "belief" or on "faith", and thus a true Atheist, like myself, is not "religious" in any way.

So did I agree with you JDAX?

Edit: Disclaimer: I wrote this very quickly and without any material to reference. I can form a more coherant and fleshed out argument if anyone desires, but it will take time and effort, which I'm not sure I care to make. If anyone is *genuinely* interested in understanding this point of view, I will be glad to accomodate.

[JDAX]

I believe I have a headache.

But yeah, JDAX explained what I meant rather well.

I hope my attempt wasn't the cause of your headache. As I look back on what I wrote, I realize that I wrote it in "overblown academic mode;" I chalk it up to the semester's having just ended.

[CrystalTears]

There is no evidence of no God or of a God existing. Please don't make me quote the movie "Contact", it will hurt my soul.

No JDAX, it wasn't you. :lol:

[Sean of the Thread]

FAITH

[Khariz]

There is no evidence of no God or of a God existing. Please don't make me quote the movie "Contact", it will hurt my soul.

No JDAX, it wasn't you. :lol:

There's evidence that there's no reason for a God to be in existance. If he exists he has no purpose. Why would he need to exist if there is no purpose for his existance?

Science has already shown that god need not to have ever existed for any of the reasons that religion has proscribed to him to have existed (creation, etc).

The only remaining reasons for god to exists are those created exclusively by religions themselves (ie Man is born in a state of sin, and needs the redemption of Jesus/God to go to heaven when he dies). These reasons have no bearing on the physical world, and cannot be addressed by science in it's current state, and are disregarded as irrelevent, especially considering there's no evidence of a "soul", and thus no need to worry about heaven, hell, or sin existing.

Take a real look at my long post to see why there is no need for a God, which is as good as there being evidence that he doesn't exist.

[CrystalTears]

If purpose is the only reason someone may or may not exist, the world suddenly got really small.

And see, believing that there's "evidence" to prove "need" for a God is just mystifying and so much more religious to me right now.

[Khariz]

If purpose is the only reason someone may or may not exist, the world suddenly got really small.

And see, believing that there's "evidence" to prove "need" for a God is just mystifying and so much more religious to me right now.


We are talking about God, not people. We are also talking about Religion. All religions have laundry lists for god's existance. They all talk about what god did and what god continuesto do, and will do in the furture.

Your one-liners are amusing...yet hollow.

:thanx:

[Warriorbird]

"Yes. Disbelief in man-caused global warming is a belief."

Belief is not immediately religion.

I believe that Adobe Acrobat is a really annoying program. That isn't a religion.

[Sean of the Thread]

I think my Florida day of prayer resolution thread summed it up.


It's a crock of shit.

[CrystalTears]

Christ, you really are a lawyer. I plea the fifth because no matter what I say at this point, you'll refute my beliefs to compensate for yours. So yeah, Hollow Crystal. Someone change my user ID!

[Warriorbird]

People like to believe though.

[Khariz]

Christ, you really are a lawyer. I plea the fifth because no matter what I say at this point, you'll refute my beliefs to compensate for yours. So yeah, Hollow Crystal. Someone change my user ID!


This is true. I'm definately a rabid pitbull.

Honestly though, I think over the last few posts our eyes got off the ball, for both of us.

All I intended to prove with my long ass post was that one can say that god does not exist without it being so much a "belief" as a scientific conclusion.

It's fine for you to think that I still hold a disbelief in god through faith, but I obviously disagree, and state that I disbelieve in god due to evidence.

In case anyone misses it, this is my "I'm okay with agreeing to disagree" post.

[Sean of the Thread]

Nice pitbull generalization. Might as well start slinging around racial epithets while your at it.

[Khariz]

Nice pitbull generalization. Might as well start slinging around racial epithets while your at it.

:wtf: I actually found this quite humorous. Sounds like something most of the people I know would say to me.

Edit: Oh, and I did say *rabid* pitbull. Wasn't that fair enough?

[Gan]

The reason why I posted the op/ed was because I thought it offered an interesting light on how religion seems to be influencing politics, especially from the perspective of a government who's constitution provides for freedom of religion and a seperation of church and state. This influence can been seen from aspects of the selection of USSC judges to other policy that does not encompass the other religions existing here in the US (meaning laws are being passed/considered that are not religion neutral) to social policies that predominately cater to one form in the absence of all others.

There is NOT an official religion of the USA, nor should there be. Our very charter in coming to America was to escape the religous persecution of the crown and its official religion. And ironically we seem to be trending that way with the very leaders we select to make laws steeped in those religious beliefs.

I guess the counter to this thought would be:
Well, if the majority of the people believe this way then it should be so...
Only, I dont think its very constitutional. :(

[Sean of the Thread]

Okay the rabid makes it fair enough. However the pitbull generalization is still ignorant.

[CrystalTears]

Ganalon just wants us to vote for the mormon guy. I'm onto you, man.

[Khariz]

Okay the rabid makes it fair enough. However the pitbull generalization is still ignorant.

Pitbulls probably came to mind because my friend Holly has this pitbull that is the nicest dog I've ever seen before in my life. I'm talking lapdog, probably would cry if it stepped on a fly type of dog.

I always tease her and act like it's attacking me though. She gets so pissed :) I'm assuming she gets pissed at me because of my insistence on acting like all pitbulls are ravenous beasts, thus highlighting the ignorance that you speak of :)

[Warriorbird]

The Mormon gentleman makes John Kerry look stable. It must be the Northeast as a region.

:chuckles:

[Gan]

Ganalon just wants us to vote for the mormon guy. I'm onto you, man.

That cult?!?


(if you cant see the irony in that, I cant help you)




GO RUDY!!!

PS. I ordered, received, and put up my Rudy2008 yard sign yesterday. I did it just to piss off my staunch Catholic neighbor. :lol:

[Latrinsorm]

I believe I have a headache.And I thought I liked parentheses.
The theory was asserted so long ago, and has been challenged and tested so rigorously, without failure, that in the minds of most scientists, has reached nearly the level of a "Law" akin to gravity.The fun thing about gravity is it turns out Newton had no idea what he was talking about, but that's not relevant here. What's relevant is you seem to be making the modernist fallacy of supposing religion is in essence proto-scientific: that is to say, its fundamental purpose is explanatory, that God's fundamental purpose is to fill in our explanatory gaps. I call this the modernist fallacy because around the turn of the 20th century (and earlier) that's what lots of smart people thought, and from this they naturally assumed that religion would rapidly evaporate. It turns out: not so much.

I've only read a little from Professor (Doctor?) Dawkins, but I don't think I know anyone who's hurting more for sociology than him.

Like Ganalon, I'm also interested to hear what the new wordy folks think about the church/state religion/politics issue. I think it's patently retarculous to conflate the two separations, as I mentioned earlier.

[Khariz]

I don't personally think that god's purpose is to fill our explanatory gaps, and I highly doubt that most actal religious persons think that either.

I personally think that god has *no* purpose, which juxtaposed with science, is why I see no need to "believe" in him.

The problem is, religions and particularly apologists within those religions (and I'm mostly talking about christianity here) go about arguing for the existance of god by pointing out the explanatory gaps.

Dawkins loves to point out the apologists who try to use explanatory gaps to rationalize god.

It's not ME that's arguing *against* god with such a theory, it's *them* arguing *for* him using.

I find it all a bunch of hogwash myself.

[Hulkein]

"Yes. Disbelief in man-caused global warming is a belief."

Belief is not immediately religion.

I believe that Adobe Acrobat is a really annoying program. That isn't a religion.

Obviously belief is not immediately religion.

When dealing with religion in the context of politics, however, people who are anti-religion do the same lobbying for what they believe in (which comes from their disbelief in religion) as people who are religious.

That's what it comes down.

[Hulkein]

I'm definately a rabid pitbull. post.

You got into law school without being able to spell 'definitely' correctly? :tumble:

[Khariz]

You got into law school without being able to spell 'definitely' correctly? :tumble:

I've addressed ad naseum that I don't spell check or proofread my posts.

Find something else to pick on, please :)

[Hulkein]

That's not about spell-checking for a typo... That's about not knowing how to spell a word you undoubtedly type several times a day.

If you had spelled it 'definitly', I would assume you missed a key by mistake and wouldn't have said anything.

[Khariz]

That's not about spell-checking for a typo... That's about not knowing how to spell a word you undoubtedly type several times a day.

If you had spelled it 'definitly', I would assume you missed a key by mistake and wouldn't have said anything.

Thus why I included proof read in my response. Proof reading is where you find *mistakes* that are a result of idiocy as well as mis-spelling.

I'll freely admit that I *always* spell definately "definitely", and rely on my spell check to catch it. In fact, I have Word programmed to autocorrect it when I do it, that's how often I mis-spell it.

[Hulkein]

Ah well at least you realize it when it matters I guess.

The only reason I notice enough to comment is because I used to spell it the same way (up until like sophomore year of college) and was embarrassed that I had been fucking it up for the past how-ever many years.

[Sean]

How long before we get into the usual "you have faith in science therefore you are inherently religious" portion of this conversation.

[Gan]

How long before we get into the usual "you have faith in science therefore you are inherently religious" portion of this conversation.

That would be about post #52.

[Khariz]

Like I said. It all depends on how you define faith. I think faith is a belief in the absense of factual proof.

Science is factual proof.

If you need faith to be religions (which I'm presupposing), trusting science is not religious.

I can certainly see though, with different definitions in place, how someone believing in science could be religious.

[Hulkein]

Son, in 35 years of religious study, I have only come up with two hard incontrovertible facts: there is a God, and I'm not Him.

Name the movie.

[Gan]

Rudy!

[Hulkein]

Correct.

What I like about the PC is that the more outspoken conservatives (Ganalon, PB, Sean2) are all pretty much secular. While I consider myself a conservative with faith in God, it's nice to see people agreeing with the other aspects (more important aspects, imo) of the ideology. The religious right fundamentalists make me cringe when they argue for the same side of some positions.

I imagine it's a lot like what Backlash or Ilvane do for the more moderate liberals here.

[JDAX]

Wonderful post, by the way, JDAX.
Thanks, and thank you for the thoughtful reply here. Sorry about the length of this response.


My presumptions are based on evidence. They aren't beliefs based on faith. Hmm wait, by saying that, I might have just agreed with you.
Yes, I think that you're agreeing with my description of your position here.


Belief in God takes faith because there is no actual evidence that it exists. I define a "belief" as a conclusion reached with a lack of evidence, or as one formed with an existence of contrary evidence, which is willfully (with faith) ignored.
Here again, I think you're mostly agreeing with my characterization of your view (although you're now speaking of "belief" where I spoke of "faith"; I think "faith" is the better word just because belief is so ordinary--I believe that there is a can of Dr. Pepper on my desk, but I believe that with fantastic evidence for it.)


The only viable alternative for the existence of God that man has ever come up with is Darwin's theory of Natural Selection.
I don't know that this has to be an "alternative" to the existence of God; there are theists who believe in evolution and natural selection, for example. Still, you're right to suggest that it is an explanation as to how current complex forms of life arose that could be used by atheists/agnostics as an alleged alternative to or replacement for theism.


I don't have the time, or the space, or the literal comprehensive knowledge to come to this board and explain the complexities of Darwin's theory of evolution to the people here, but let me make my point, and then I'll let you research the Theory on your own if you care to.
This is fine. If anyone were to expect more of you here, I think their expectations would be absurd.


Because there is a viable scientific Theory (which is arguably closer to a Law of nature) that is on point with regard to the existence of all living and non living things, and because this theory can be used, juxtaposed with the scientific method to systematically explain the existence of any organism and the parts that equal its sum, and because no person has ever been able to show, in any way, that there exists any organism for which this Theory does not work, the preponderance of the scientific evidence available to date suggests that there is no reason for a God to be in existence.
This again agrees with my characterization of your view; you think that there is no evidence for God's existence, so that theists believe (i.e., have faith) despite having no evidence. You think (I take it) that this is what makes their position religious. On the other hand, you think that atheists do not have beliefs that are not based on evidence, and so their position is therefore not religious. I think there's some reason to disagree with this characterization (which I briefly mentioned), but I don't want to dwell on them since I've stated them.

There is perhaps an invalid inference in your suggestion here that I do want to point out, though. You suggest the following line of reasoning:

1. There is a viable scientific theory that is "on point" with regard to the existence of all living and non-living things, and which can be used to systematically explain the existence of any organism, and which has not been falsified.
2. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that God exists.

(I take it that this is what you are saying when you say that the preponderance of the scientific evidence (i.e., the stuff cited in (1)) suggests that there is no reason for a God to be in existence.)

The inference is invalid because (1) can be true and yet (2) can be false. That is, there might be other, non-scientific reasons for believing that God exists. I'm not here to offer those reasons, but just to say that many people suggest that there are such reasons provided via philosophical arguments not having to do with science (i.e., arguments from morality, from contingency, from the possibility of abstract thought, from the impossibility of the alternative, from the existence of prophecy, etc.) or provided via religious experience, and so on. You might think these aren't good reasons; that's fine, but my point is just that the fact that there are no scientific reasons (which I'm granting for the sake of argument, even if I don't really think that it's true) doesn't entail that there are no reasons, period.


To completely understand the argument I am making, there are at least two books that one must read. One is Darwin's Origin of the Species, and the other is Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion.
I enjoy Darwin, but have a hard time recommending Dawkins, particularly his The God Delusion. Therein, Dawkins makes a foray into philosophy where it is not clear that he is qualified, and he seems to misunderstand the claims of arguments from design for the existence of God and to fail to defend his own position adequately. Some professional philosophers have reviewed his book and said precisely this. Here is Professor Thomas Nagel (an atheist and a world-renowned philosopher currently at New York University) giving his review of that work (emphasis added):

"In a previous chapter, Dawkins dismisses, with contemptuous flippancy, the traditional a priori arguments for the existence of God offered by Aquinas and Anselm. I found these attempts at philosophy, along with those in a later chapter on religion and ethics, particularly weak . . .

"Let me first say something about [Dawkins'] negative argument [against the argument from design for God's existence]. It depends, I believe, on a misunderstanding/i] of the conclusion of the argument from design, in its traditional sense as an argument for the existence of God. If the argument is supposed to show that a supremely adept and intelligent natural being, with a super-body and a super-brain, is responsible for the design and the creation of life on earth, then of course this 'explanation' is no advance on the phenomenon to be explained: if the existence of plants, animals, and people requires explanation, then the existence of such a super-being would require explanation for exactly the same reason. But if we consider what that reason is, we will see that it does not apply to the God hypothesis . . . God, whatever he may be, is not a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world. The explanation of his existence as a chance concatenation of atoms is not a possibility for which we must find an alternative, because that is not what anybody means by God . . .

"[There is a problem for Dawkins' own positive alternative argument and it is this:] The entire apparatus of evolutionary explanation therefore depends on the prior existence of genetic material with these remarkable properties. Since 1953 we have known what that material is, and scientists are continually learning more about how DNA does what it does. But since the existence of this material or something like it is a precondition of the possibility of evolution, evolutionary theory cannot explain its existence. We are therefore faced with a problem analogous to that which Dawkins thinks faces the argument from design: we have explained the complexity of organic life in terms of something that is itself just as functionally complex as what we originally set out to explain. So the problem is just pushed back one step: how did such a thing come into existence? . . . Dawkins recognizes the problem, but [i]his response to it is pure hand-waving." (This review can be found in The New Republic, but it requires a subscription.)

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga (John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and himself (unlike Nagel) a Christian) writes in his review of the book (available at Christianity Today):

"Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer. (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book, The Blind Watchmaker, is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science; it is mainly philosophy and theology (perhaps 'atheology' would be a better term) and evolutionary psychology . . . Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class."

Here is atheist philosopher Michael Ruse (Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science at Florida State University):

"The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist . . . " (This is in an endorsement of Oxford theologian Alister McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion.)


The point I want people on this board to understand is that to hold an understanding based on best scientific evidence, is not a "belief" held on "faith" The hold such an understanding is quite the opposite.
I agree with this.


Oh and as to the 50/50 thing. Because there exists scientific evidence that there is no need for a god to exist, and because life and evolution and adaptability of life will go own in the absence of a god, and because science has shown that everything ascribed to god has alternate scientifically plausible (and irrefutable) reasons for existing, the preponderance of the evidence swings the probability way off the 50/50 mark.
I think this is false, for various reasons I've mentioned above (but I'd really prefer not to debate the existence of God on these forums). The scientific evidence you've cited does not show that God does not exist, as I mentioned--the truth of evolution is compatible with the existence of God. (The general point is that every scientific fact which currently obtains can be true while it is also true at the very same time that God exists; those scientific facts do not entail that God does not exist.) Further, they do not seem even to suggest that God does not exist. What they may do is provide alternative explanations, and so weaken someone's justification for the belief that God does exists, but they do not provide positive reason for thinking that God does not exist. And again, there may be non-scientific reasons for believing that God exists, which perhaps are still of enough force to justify that belief. (Since I'm not going to engage the debate here, I'll merely mention again Swinburne's The Existence of God, where he gives sustained philosophical and probabilistic arguments that the probability that God exists is well above 50%; Swinburne's no slouch, and he hasn't just missed the obvious evidence (the guy is an emeritus philosopher from Oxford University), but of course people are entitled to--and do--disagree with him.)


thus [i.e., because there is some reason to believe that God does not exist] a true Atheist, like myself, is not "religious" in any way.

So did I agree with you JDAX?
You do seem to agree with my characterization of your position, yes. I've mentioned some reasons that I disagree with that position, although, again, I tend not to think that atheists are religious, and so at least agree with you there.

Thanks again! (Incidentally, I simply cannot keep up the volume of these posts right now; I have too many other responsibilities at the moment. Hope that's not an inconvenience.)

[Khariz]

Thanks, and thank you for the thoughtful reply here. Sorry about the length of this response.


Wow! It was certainly lengthy, though well worth the read.

I'm not going to refute, line by line, anything you said, because I don't think there's any need to. I genuinly appreciate the thought and effort you put into your post.

You have convinced me that there are valid alternative viewpoints to Dawkins', and that all atheists do not confer with Dawkins. The biggest reason I recommended The God Delusion was not for its literally accuracy or scholastic value, but rather particularly because of the cursory way it deals with everything.

I know that sounds odd, but what the book does do a good job of doing is introducing a plethora of topics that are worthy of each being researched and undersood in their own rights. These topics include many of the things you mentioned in you post, including Aquinas' a priori theories, further understanding of Darwin's actual theory and not what mainstream opinion wants to pretend it represents, other viable theories and reasons for god's existance (morals), etc. Dawkins addresses every single one of these things in the book, and although he doesn't address any of them particularly well or in depth, this is a good book for opening one's eyes to the variety of topics that exist to be explored on this issue. One can then research on one's own other authorities and authors of each respective topic. I did not mean to suggest that Dawkins was the best authority on the matter. He most definately is not.

Now, I'd like to throw this whole topic into a whirl. I was born and raised Protestent, of various denominations (Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist), and when I got married, I converted to Catholicism because my wife has a huge hispanic-catholic family, and it was just easier, seeing as how I never cared for any of the particulars of any one denomination. I became a Catholic approximately 3 years ago. Since becoming a Catholic my percentage of "belief in God" has actually increased as I have read the scholarly works of people just like Aquinas for the first time. I actually attend Mass, and go about things as if I was any other Catholic, but inside hold a deep disbelief in god, mostly due to science.

For the sake of argument on this forum, I position myself as an atheist, but being true to myself, I'm probably much more of an agnostic. I have no problem with God having set in motion evolution (Natural Selection) if you will. I guess if I *was* religious, I'd be more like a Deist. I don't have a problem with God having "set the wheels in motion", but I certainly can't buy there being a "personal god" with whom we can all constantly commune, and who watches over us like little children.

Anyone who wishes to smack me now that I've shown my true colors may feel free to do so.

[Latrinsorm]

Dawkins loves to point out the apologists who try to use explanatory gaps to rationalize god.

It's not ME that's arguing *against* god with such a theory, it's *them* arguing *for* him using.Ah, ok. It's odd, because I rarely hear arguments from design for God. No matter, glad it was cleared up.
Like I said. It all depends on how you define faith. I think faith is a belief in the absense of factual proof.

Science is factual proof.Again, man, sociology really blows that kind of thing out of the water. I wish you were around here instead of all Dawkinsed up, I know a guy I could direct you towards. I use the phrase "Dawkinsed up" loosely, as I obviously haven't chatted with you much, but you seem to be very in tune with his addiction to science.

[Khariz]

Ah, ok. It's odd, because I rarely hear arguments from design for God. No matter, glad it was cleared up.Again, man, sociology really blows that kind of thing out of the water. I wish you were around here instead of all Dawkinsed up, I know a guy I could direct you towards. I use the phrase "Dawkinsed up" loosely, as I obviously haven't chatted with you much, but you seem to be very in tune with his addiction to science.

Yeah..read my last post. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[JDAX]

Anyone who wishes to smack me now that I've shown my true colors may feel free to do so.

I commend you for it. And thanks for the charitable, reasonable, and patient discussion; I have to admit that it's not what I expected when I finally decided to go ahead and post something on these forums, but maybe I'd been reading the wrong threads prior to doing so. ;)

As for my comments on Dawkins, I do want to mention that I'm no expert on biology (or any science for that matter), so anything I say regarding his work should be taken with a grain of salt. Most of my familiarity with Dawkins is from excerpts of his more philosophically-oriented pages, and from those philosophers' reviews of his work (I'm a philosopher by trade, so that's what I'm interested in). Also, I want to agree with you that anyone should look into this stuff for himself and give it (including Dawkins' work) ample consideration; I don't mean to suggest that he can be dismissed off-hand or that he has nothing worthwhile to say. In fact, I was somewhat apprehensive about posting Alvin Plantinga's review of his work, since I think Plantinga's probably a bit uncharitable with him... and Ruse (even if he is one of Dawkins' fellow atheists) might be uncharitable as well. This is why I quoted from Nagel's review at length, since Nagel seems to be the one who most seriously engages him. And that's what we should all do: seriously (and calmly and reasonably) engage each other.

I'll throw my cards on the table (briefly) as well and say that I am a former atheist, now Catholic (so beware of my religious bias! ;) ). And now that I've revealed my religious colors, I may as well also say God bless!

[Khariz]

I'll throw my cards on the table (briefly) as well and say that I am a former atheist, now Catholic (so beware of my religious bias! ;) ). And now that I've revealed my religious colors, I may as well also say God bless!

My God, what is wrong with us? Haha!

[Warriorbird]

"When dealing with religion in the context of politics, however, people who are anti-religion do the same lobbying for what they believe in (which comes from their disbelief in religion) as people who are religious."

No. They actually don't. The people who lobby for religion are far more organized.

[Kriztian]

Atheism is the absence of religion. It's the direct opposite of religion.

So by very much a religion, you mean so very not much a religion.

Look at the root...'rely'. Atheists 'rely' on their initial constructs as much as evangelical Christians. Thus, I agree with those who promote it as a religion. They are, after all, relying on a starting construct (as to whether that construct is bunk, I'll leave you to decide).

[Kriztian]

"Yes. Disbelief in man-caused global warming is a belief."

Belief is not immediately religion.

I believe that Adobe Acrobat is a really annoying program. That isn't a religion.


Actually, it is. RELYing on any set premise is the start of a religion. Communism (anti-God and anti-religion) is still a religion.

[Latrinsorm]

I knew religion came from the Latin religare (to bind), but it looks like rely does as well. OED says religion came first, but it's really interesting nonetheless.

In any event, I don't think having a belief is sufficient to make a well-defined religion definition, but like I said before it's sticky.

I'm still a little curious what PB meant with his posts remark.

[Warriorbird]

I'm glad. The Adobe Acrobat hating religion would've been lame.

[Kranar]

For the sake of argument on this forum, I position myself as an atheist, but being true to myself, I'm probably much more of an agnostic.


I can relate to this position somewhat. In many cases when I find myself talking to someone who is deeply religious and tries to argue for the existence of God I position myself as an atheist simply because I can not stand for the many explanations people give to rationalize their belief in a religion.

However, me personally, I do believe in a God, although I am indifferent, for the most part, to religion. In the same way that people advance new scientific or philosophical theories about physics or biology or the many other bodies of knowledge, I like to look at various religions as theories on the existence of God. Did Jesus or Moses or Mohammed REALLY have contact with God or an angel? To me it is just as relevent as to whether an apple really fell on Isaac Newton's head in formulating his law of universal gravity.

What counts at the end of the day is what is to be gained from the understanding of the various religions and what they contribute to our understanding of life and our universe. Make no mistake, there are plenty of rational and even rigorous grounds to believe in the existence of God. The problem is that people attack such an existence on the ground of religion as though God's existence ever depended on someone named Jesus Christ to exist in the first place.

God would exist even if no human ever stepped foot on this planet and as such in order to argue against his existence one must do so independent of religion, of politics and of psychology. Aristotle, for example, advanced a theory of gravity based on his own personal attitude and people accepted his theory for centuries. Aristotle turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. Similarly, the complete teachings of Christianity or any other world religion can also turn out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean God is wrong either.

[Jazuela]

Someone on page 1 of this thread argued that no one has problems with the AARP lobbying, but they have problems with religious sects lobbying, and that this seems wrong.

Here's why I think it's fine:

Barring car accidents, murder, cancer, and other abnormal events, EVERYONE in this country will eventually become a senior citizen. The AARP lobbies for the future of anyone who ages.

You can't say the same thing and replace "senior citizen" with any particular religion. Not everyone will eventually be a Christian. Not everyone will some day become Jewish, or Muslim, or Zoroastran, or whatever else.

I'm an agnostic with pagan leanings, and have been all my life. I feel there must be "something" more than what we observe on the surface, but I don't feel it's appropriate to apply any particular set of dogma to it, or give it the God label. Though I had Judaism hammered into my head since I was in Nursery School (private hebrew school from pre-K through Kindergarten), the rules and regs just didn't click for me. I couldn't embrace the Old Testament, though I enjoyed reading it just for the sake of an interesting read. I love the traditions of my Jewish upbringing, the Passover Seder, the chuppah we would make for the spring festival, lighting the Channukah candles, Havdalah services on Saturdays.. Loved all of that. But I never truly believed there was much truth to the details behind it all.

As far as the whole keeping governments and religion seperate, well it just ain't gonna happen. "In God We Trust" is printed on our currency because a Baptist minister petitioned to have it added, back in the 1800's.

"...under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegience because the Knights of Columbus, which is a Catholic brotherhood with VERY close ties to the Vatican (think, the Pope's favorite and biggest fan club), lobbied for it to be added.

There are so many aspects of our lives that involve religion - and in particular, Christianity, that it would be impossible to remove it from politics. Try telling the government that schools and government offices, municipal employees, garbage men, etc. - not only still have to work on Christmas, but they won't get overtime for it, because the government has decreed that religious holidays have no place in the business of running the government.

We don't have to like it (that's what makes America so great), but the fact of the matter is, the USA IS a Christian-based entity, even if it isn't an "official" christian nation. We can only hope that the Christians who run the country, do so in a matter that will benefit the whole, rather than their own specific sect of Christianity.

[Hulkein]

"When dealing with religion in the context of politics, however, people who are anti-religion do the same lobbying for what they believe in (which comes from their disbelief in religion) as people who are religious."

No. They actually don't. The people who lobby for religion are far more organized.

They may be better at it, but I never said that wasn't the case. Both groups have lobbyists pushing their own agenda. That means both groups are doing essentially the same thing. That means their 'unbelief' might as well be a belief.

[CrystalTears]

For every religious person who lobbys for "God" to remain in a prayer or monetary note, there is a "non-religious" person advocating for the immediate removal of it.

[Some Rogue]

Someone on page 1 of this thread argued that no one has problems with the AARP lobbying, but they have problems with religious sects lobbying, and that this seems wrong.

Here's why I think it's fine:

Barring car accidents, murder, cancer, and other abnormal events, EVERYONE in this country will eventually become a senior citizen. The AARP lobbies for the future of anyone who ages.


Obviously my point flew right over your head. AARP was just one group that came to mind. It can apply to any group. I'm sure there are homosexual lobby groups too and they sure don't and never will represent my interests.

[Hulkein]

For every religious person who lobbys for "God" to remain in a prayer or monetary note, there is a "non-religious" person advocating for the immediate removal of it.

Exactly.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Editor's Note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.

The leadership of the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches, as well as Jewish and even Muslim religious organizations,

I can understand this coming from the Catholics, Protestants, or Jews....BUT EVEN THE MUSLIMS!?! I thought they were above this kind of behaviour.

I think it's funny how he worded that sentence. Walk on eggshells much?

[Gan]

Considering how active muslims have been historically, as compared to the other religions, here in the US. I can understand why he worded it the way he did.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Considering how active muslims have been historically, as compared to the other religions, here in the US. I can understand why he worded it the way he did.

It could be, but I think that like most of the media, he's just scared shitless of Muslims. They (the media) are always very careful when talking about Islam, but you can find plenty of folks ready to unload with both barrels on any other religion.

[Gan]

Thats because most other religions, in today's world, wont cut off your head when speak out against it.

[CrystalTears]

Thats because most other religions, in today's world, wont cut off your head when speak out against it.
Maybe we should start. :D

[Gan]

I'm more in favor of cutting off the heads of most religions. ;)

[CrystalTears]

Hey now. Do not hurt what you don't understand.

[Gan]

I'll start with the ones I do understand first then...

And while I"m learning up on the others, it will give them a chance to clean up their act, or run for the hills. ;)

[Khariz]

However, me personally, I do believe in a God, although I am indifferent, for the most part, to religion. In the same way that people advance new scientific or philosophical theories about physics or biology or the many other bodies of knowledge, I like to look at various religions as theories on the existence of God. Did Jesus or Moses or Mohammed REALLY have contact with God or an angel? To me it is just as relevent as to whether an apple really fell on Isaac Newton's head in formulating his law of universal gravity.

God would exist even if no human ever stepped foot on this planet and as such in order to argue against his existence one must do so independent of religion, of politics and of psychology. Aristotle, for example, advanced a theory of gravity based on his own personal attitude and people accepted his theory for centuries. Aristotle turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. Similarly, the complete teachings of Christianity or any other world religion can also turn out to be wrong, but that doesn't mean God is wrong either.

Good post. I think that's pretty much the way I see it.

I have viewed the world's varying religions with a scholarly eye for about 10 years now. In those ten years I have dedicated time to learning about and attempting to genuinly understand the precepts of each religion (that I've ever heard of). Some are stranger (perhaps more alien) than others to me, some turn out to be little more than philisophical systems (theres nothing wrong with that), but all seem to have this common nucleas wherein we learn to treat each other well, and attempt to get along on this crazy sphere.

All of this learning and research has compounded my problem though, and has not aided it at all. The more all religions end up looking alike (except Scientology, lol), the more I lean toward the atheist totem pole. Many of them think that *they* characterize God correctly and that nobody else has, or that *they* know what God wants you to do in order to properly take part in the afterlife (if there is one), and that others have it wrong.

And most interesting of all to me: In the end, if a God exists, and he's really onmipotent, omniscient, or any combination of supernatural awesomeness, he's (just picked a pronoun) not going to give a rat's ass if we "worshiped" him or not. Does a being with unlimited power and an all seeing eye really need us to bow down before him. No, obviously such a being doesn't NEED anything. So why does he Want us to?

Oh and don't even get me started on Yaweh. Why in the hell would an omniscient God created people that would instantaneously sin, piss him off for ages to the point that he would have to wipe everyone out and start over again, and then continue to punish for ages until he decided to send his Son to earth to forgive us of our original sin, which he created (constructively, by creating us with the propensity to sin, and the knowledge that sin was the first thing we would do), and has punished us for ever since.

Ohh ohh, and another fun topic! Do we have free will if God already knows everything we will ever do? If God's Will exists, and we do God's Will, are we acting upon our own free will? Or are we forsaking our free will to do what He wants? Why does he want us to do things for him? Why can't he do them Himself?

Sorry, I'm feeling...quippy this morning. I'll stop.

[Warriorbird]

For every religious person who lobbys for "God" to remain in a prayer or monetary note, there is a "non-religious" person advocating for the immediate removal of it.

Do you honestly believe this? Well, I guess I better get back to my "War on Christmas" then.

Other than the afore-mentioned Richard Dawkins (who's an academic and author more than a lobbyist) there is no real organized "atheist lobby." There are a vast number of religious lobbyists and people who devote their time trying to inject our governing process with as much religion as possible.

There's other folks, folks who believe in the Constitution's notion of the seperation of church and state. Just because they believe in that notion doesn't mean there's actual lobbying groups with real influence based around that, however.

EDIT:

Believing in the seperation of church and state doesn't mean you are anti-religion either. It's like the tired Republican meme of "people who don't support the Iraq war hate America!"

[Khariz]

Do you honestly believe this? Well, I guess I better get back to my "War on Christmas" then.

Other than the afore-mentioned Richard Dawkins (who's an academic and author more than a lobbyist) there is no real organized "atheist lobby." There are a vast number of religious lobbyists and people who devote their time trying to inject our governing process with as much religion as possible.

There's other folks, folks who believe in the Constitution's notion of the seperation of church and state. Just because they believe in that notion doesn't mean there's actual lobbying groups with real influence based around that, however.

And Dawkins loves talking about the lack of an organized Atheist lobby in his books! He's trying to drum up support so bad, but I don't think too many atheists actually care. I mean, I'm not sure if there is any truly secular country in the world. One that lets everyone have their own beliefs is better than most.

[CrystalTears]

Uh.. yeah.. I do believe that. I think there is enough debate on these boards that I don't need to be devil's advocate for anything.

Let me ask you something. Does having the word "God" on money or seeing it on the coffee cup you got from a coffee shop really affect your life that much?

Unlike like many, it doesn't affect me either way. I'll still use the dollar, I'll still order the coffee. What is it about the word "God" that insults people's feelings so much that the mere sight of it causes so much panic in society that it must be stricken from anything and everything? Because you don't believe in God, I understand that. But do you have to believe in everything you see around you? Does everything have to affect you personally? Can't something just be there and it not have an affect on you? (I don't think this is coming out the way I'd like, I'm not good at forming this kind of argument, obviously, so bare with me.)

Church and state is STILL separate since no religion has been denied of being able to practice, and nothing is stopping people from living in this country because of their religion.

In my opinion, removing all mention of any religion does not make it completely separate, just blinded.

[Gan]

The symbolism does not offend me. Symbolism is merely subject to the interpretation of the person beholding it.

Where I have a problem is in the content or language of public policies and laws where a specific religion or the values of a specific religion are fundamentally influencing said policies and laws.

I think America as a society is advanced enough to recognize that its population is made up of many different cultural values, and therefore can respect those cultures by adopting policies and laws neutral and fair to all.

[Izalude]

I went to a pub in Ireland once, that had a sign saying "No Religion, No Politics".

Just thought I'd add...

[CrystalTears]

Where I have a problem is in the content or language of public policies and laws where a specific religion or the values of a specific religion are fundamentally influencing said policies and laws.
Do you feel that people in general will be influenced by what they believe in, be it morally, religiously, or spiritually? Do you not do things by what you personally feel is moral and/or right, regardless of whether you are religious or not?

Would you prefer someone anti-relgion running this country? Or do you want someone to represent the American people and at least have a religion?

By what standards should rules and policies go by?

As long as the policies aren't stating a specific religion, that you must practice this religion, or deny your present religion, then I really don't understand the problem.

[Khariz]

Do you feel that people in general will be influenced by what they believe in, be it morally, religiously, or spiritually? Do you not do things by what you personally feel is moral and/or right, regardless of whether you are religious or not?

Would you prefer someone anti-relgion running this country? Or do you want someone to represent the American people and at least have a religion?

By what standards should rules and policies go by?

As long as the policies aren't stating a specific religion, that you must practice this religion, or deny your present religion, then I really don't understand the problem.

Honeslty, I would much rather the president of the united states be a Christian than some nutbag with nothing keeping him in check.

At least a person deeply rooted in their faith will take a moment to think about his actions and presumably apply his religious philosphy. Will he always? Heck no. But the looming of it on his conscience will tend to help him make decisions that at least fit the parameters of said philosophy.

Note: I'm not saying that an Atheist or non-religious president wouldn't make sound, reasoned decisions. He just has less dogma, if you will, pressing on his conscience to take into consideration when making his decisions (which can be good in some situations, and bad in others).

[Warriorbird]

Last I noticed...God is still on money. God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 by the Knights of Columbus.

How's that for Christian lobbying?

I don't want assholes (and yes, this happened) telling my sister (or anybody) that she's "insane" for believing in evolution or suggesting that everybody have a little prayer that Bush wins the election.

I could care less about "In God We Trust." on my cash.

I don't want "abstinence education" because of people's religious beliefs only, rather than it actually being effective.

I don't want some dude swearing on a Koran to be a huge issue. Why do I care?

I don't care if you go to church and millions of people do (myself included upon occassion).

I find it sacriligious when people force their church into politics.

A President who "thinks about God" before he makes every foreign policy decision makes me far more uncomfortable than someone who keeps his faith to himself.


Church and state is STILL separate since no religion has been denied of being able to practice, and nothing is stopping people from living in this country because of their religion.
-CT

That has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state. That'd just be forbidding specific religions.


At least a person deeply rooted in their faith will take a moment to think about his actions and presumably apply his religious philosphy. Will he always? Heck no. But the looming of it on his conscience will tend to help him make decisions that at least fit the parameters of said philosophy.
-Khariz

I don't think most Christian politicians really formulate decisions based on Christian ideals. I don't even think most of the religious right functions ON Christian ideals. There's a lot more of The Prince than The Bible.

[CrystalTears]

A President who "thinks about God" before he makes every foreign policy decision makes me far more uncomfortable than someone who keeps his faith to himself.
Actually this is more of blaming the media for telling us everything that we don't need to know about. I'm betting that several presidents said a little prayer in their head to God about what they are about to do, we just didn't have to hear about it.


That has nothing to do with the seperation of church and state. That'd just be forbidding specific religions.
That is part of what separation of church and state is about. You get to have your religion, I can have mine, I don't have to be Christian to pay my taxes, and you don't have to be Mormon to work for the government. A specific religion is not running this country and limiting other religions from participating in this country.

[Gan]

Do you feel that people in general will be influenced by what they believe in, be it morally, religiously, or spiritually? Of course I believe that man will act based on his own convictions, be it morally based, religiously based, or spiritually based, or be it in absence of all of the above (bad case scenario).


Do you not do things by what you personally feel is moral and/or right, regardless of whether you are religious or not?
I would equate all things moral as all things right, but thats still subjective to who's morals we're going by. I definately dont equate all things religous as all things right though ;). I do things that I think are morally correct based on my societal and familial values. My day to day actions are not religiously based. Spiritual perhaps to some extent, but definately not religiously.



Would you prefer someone anti-relgion running this country? Or do you want someone to represent the American people and at least have a religion?
Personally, I dont think religion should be part of any leader's criteria to run this country and represent me. Firstly because I'm clearly not the majority, especially in a religious sense. Secondly, I want a leader who represents sound American societal values as well as has a strong ability to be a societal leader - not a religious leader. My religious leader, should I choose one, would be the leader of my church, not the leader of my country. I want an American, who puts America first as America was intended to be by its founders - a country where there is freedom of religion, where there are fair and balanced societal laws, and where there is other freedoms readily available, such as life, liberty, persuit of happiness, expression, etc.


By what standards should rules and policies go by?
Constitutional standards would be a good place to start. Then standards that were equitable in the treatment of its citizens without any religiosity. (I know this is getting to be "idealistic" and that I'm starting to sound like TheE... but thats what my goal would be (not to sound like TheE...))


As long as the policies aren't stating a specific religion, that you must practice this religion, or deny your present religion, then I really don't understand the problem.
Its when policies infringe upon the freedoms and rights of the citizens based on religious values. Thats where I have the problem. The most glaring would be the Abortion issue. Mandatory school prayer is another. I have a list somewhere....

[Gan]

Honeslty, I would much rather the president of the united states be a Christian than some nutbag with nothing keeping him in check.
Funny, since thats how GWB and the GOP Congress were described by a majority of the liberal left. ;)


At least a person deeply rooted in their faith will take a moment to think about his actions and presumably apply his religious philosphy. Will he always? Heck no. But the looming of it on his conscience will tend to help him make decisions that at least fit the parameters of said philosophy.
So the deterrence factor is if they make bad decisions they're going to Hell? What about get out of jail free card (repentance, confession, etc.)? I think leaders deeply rooted in their faith, who use that faith to create and influence policy and decisions are doing so against the will of everyone who does not perscribe to that faith. To me, thats religion overstepping its bounds.


Note: I'm not saying that an Atheist or non-religious president wouldn't make sound, reasoned decisions. He just has less dogma, if you will, pressing on his conscience to take into consideration when making his decisions (which can be good in some situations, and bad in others).
/Agreed

[Warriorbird]

Actually this is more of blaming the media for telling us everything that we don't need to know about. I'm betting that several presidents said a little prayer in their head to God about what they are about to do, we just didn't have to hear about it.
-CT

Bush said it in a speech. I don't blame the media for quoting things that he says in speeches.

Yes...not banning religions or establishing a religion is a part of the seperation of church and state. It's just a part though. You're trying to make the issue a lot smaller than it is.

[JDAX]

And most interesting of all to me: In the end, if a God exists, and he's really onmipotent, omniscient, or any combination of supernatural awesomeness, he's (just picked a pronoun) not going to give a rat's ass if we "worshiped" him or not. Does a being with unlimited power and an all seeing eye really need us to bow down before him. No, obviously such a being doesn't NEED anything. So why does he Want us to?

Before I say anything, Khariz, let me say that I can't respond to the entirety of your recent post (the one that I'm quoting above) without taking up a massive amount of space and sounding as if I'm attempting to evangelize the forum. Particularly as someone who only recently started posting here, I don't think that that would be appropriate (and I don't think that it would really be appropriate even if I wasn't new to posting here). So, if you want to talk in PMs, we can do that, but I think I'll leave it up to you.

Since you said the above questions "interest you the most," though, I figure saying something about them couldn't hurt. So, here it is.

You're right that God doesn't need us to worship Him, if by this you mean that He would otherwise lack some good-making property. But it doesn't follow from this and the fact that He's omnipotent, omniscient, etc., that He's "not going to give a rat's ass" about whether we do or do not do so. I can't really give an all-out defense here (particularly at this time of year--end of the semester) but I can say that I think part of the problem is construing worship as simply "bowing down" before Him. That's not what it is (although it may involve that, too). At least in the tradition that I belong to, worship is also a way of speaking with God, communing with Him, rendering back to Him what is His (this is part of why we bless food, for instance), expressing one's love for Him, and so on. Why would it matter to God whether or not we do this? Well, if not for Himself, then perhaps for us. Suppose that God is maximally loving, and so loves His creatures and wants them (us) to enter into a communion of love and harmony with Himself because, for one thing, He knows that this communion will be of the most benefit to the creatures He loves, and will ultimately provide them with their only secure happiness. Why would worship be involved in this? Because failing to worship God is failing to communicate with Him, is failing to express one's love for/to Him, is failing to recognize who He is, is failing to render the proper respect to Him and to render back to Him what is His, etc. If we don't even recognize God, communicate with Him, love Him, etc., then entering into a communion of love with Him is going to be impossible for us. Doing this often is presumably necessary in that it will establish us in the habit of properly relating to Him, so that ultimately it becomes "second nature" to relate to Him and commune with Him in proper and loving communion (with the result that, in some sense, we are prepared for our ultimate and final communion with Him). The only way that worship wouldn't be necessary for all of this would be if He instead just forced us into communion with Him. But such force seems to me to be incompatible with love, which seems to me to be essentially something that is freely given, and so this is ultimately impossible; God wants us to commune with Him in love, not because we're forced to (only the former will, we are supposing, establish us in perfect happiness; the latter might upset us). So this is (at least part of) why God expects us to worship without actually coercing us into doing so; it's because we need to do it in order for ourselves to enter into loving communion with Him, and God wants us to do that for our happiness' sake. (I simply don't think it would be possible to have a rightly ordered relationship with God without at least occasionally thinking of Him, expressing gratitude and love toward Him, remembering Him as the Creator, etc., and that's just what we do in worship.)

(Essentially, it's the same reason we treat our fathers as we treat them--or at least as I hope we treat them. There are certain things I would never say to my father, there are certain ways I communicate with him, there is a certain respect I give to him, etc., and I would give him these things even if he didn't need it, simply because of who he is and because of my loving relationship with (and gratitude toward) him. If I didn't do these things, then I couldn't have a wholly proper relationship with him as my father (because I wouldn't be recognizing him as such). He might be able to be my friend in such a case, "like a brother to me," or something like that, but I don't think that I would be properly relating to him as my father, or at least I wouldn't be doing so to the highest possible degree. And if I didn't even so much as occasionally talk to him, well... I would be rightly censured for immoral coldness and neglect of family relationships. Finally, lacking such a relationship with my father would likely reduce my happiness, and my father's happiness. It is necessary for my own highest happiness, then, that I relate to my father in a certain way. Just capitalize the 'f' in "father" and I think you've got the essence of what I'm saying.)

[DeV]

You can't run a country successfully on faith alone, and if you beg to differ please state your reasons.

Faith-based political policies and legislation are most effective for those who will blindly follow them, without opposition, and who happen to believe in the same principals and agenda as those instituting those laws. You see how this could cause discontent among those who have completely opposing or even somewhat similiar in some aspects, but different in many others, religious beliefs.

Having all the faith in the world does very little for ones analytical skills, especially when it comes to politics, namely national as well as global diplomacy and policy making decisions.

[CrystalTears]

You can't run a country successfully on faith alone
Agreed.

I'd like my president to have some faith guiding him, and I honestly am not picky about what kind of faith he has. As long as the constitution guides his decision-making way more than his faith, I'm fine with it.

By the way I didn't like that Bush used his religion as his business tool. To use as a mental guide sure, but not sole practice.

[Latrinsorm]

Thats because most other religions, in today's world, wont cut off your head when speak out against it.I really wish Malcolm X was still around. :(
Where I have a problem is in the content or language of public policies and laws where a specific religion or the values of a specific religion are fundamentally influencing said policies and laws.Again, this doesn't make any sense. If we elect an actual Muslim, we can't expect him to have a schizoid break every time he's making legislation. Being a believer in no way precludes one from recognizing that there are quite a few religious choices here.
Secondly, I want a leader who represents sound American societal valuesFor a guy who's so eager to point out how not everyone agrees on morality, you're peculiarly quick to endorse "societal values".
In the end, if a God exists, and he's really onmipotent, omniscient, or any combination of supernatural awesomeness, he's (just picked a pronoun) not going to give a rat's ass if we "worshiped" him or not. Does a being with unlimited power and an all seeing eye really need us to bow down before him. No, obviously such a being doesn't NEED anything. So why does he Want us to?Because we'd be better off. Both Islam and Christianity have a fundamental basis in surrendering our (misguided, limited) will to the will of God (who's been around the block a few times, one might say). I assume the Islam part is obvious to casual observation, for Christianity reference the passion at Gethsemane.
Why in the hell would an omniscient God created people that would instantaneously sin, piss him off for ages to the point that he would have to wipe everyone out and start over again, and then continue to punish for ages until he decided to send his Son to earth to forgive us of our original sin, which he created (constructively, by creating us with the propensity to sin, and the knowledge that sin was the first thing we would do), and has punished us for ever since.The parable of the workers in the vineyard (which I'm assuming you were prompting for).
Do we have free will if God already knows everything we will ever do? If God's Will exists, and we do God's Will, are we acting upon our own free will? Or are we forsaking our free will to do what He wants? Why does he want us to do things for him? Why can't he do them Himself?In order: yes, yes, no with an asterisk, addressed in the first point I made to you, and he can. Asterisk: we aren't giving up our free will, but in all likelihood we are using it to a different end.

[Gan]

:(Again, this doesn't make any sense. If we elect an actual Muslim, we can't expect him to have a schizoid break every time he's making legislation.

What does that have to do with what you quoted, and why again?

I never said a leader shouldnt be elected because he's religious, I said religion should not be the criteria by which we elect leaders. There's a difference.

[Gan]

For a guy who's so eager to point out how not everyone agrees on morality, you're peculiarly quick to endorse "societal values".

To which I addressed by the byline:


Constitutional standards would be a good place to start. Then standards that were equitable in the treatment of its citizens without any religiosity. (I know this is getting to be "idealistic" and that I'm starting to sound like TheE... but thats what my goal would be (not to sound like TheE...))

[Latrinsorm]

What does that have to do with what you quoted, and why again?

I never said a leader shouldnt be elected because he's religious, I said religion should not be the criteria by which we elect leaders. There's a difference.It sounded more like you were saying religion or religious leanings should not be an important criteria by which our elected leaders make laws. If that's not an accurate reading, then I retract my previous statement.

[Bartlett]

Most people see the seperation of church and state from the state side of the aisle. You want to make sure that nothing "religious" gets into the state. You will go the other way and say that the state has no right to tell me what religion I can believe in. This is all well and good. The government cannot favor one religion over another. The part that is largely ignored is that the government is also prohibited from choosing religion over non-religion, and more importantly to me, the other way around.

Everyone who has any influence in how this country is run has a set of moral values. Every person who casts a vote on any issue with moral implications is voting their conscience on the particular subject. Blasting a religious group for expressing their collective opinion is equivalent to telling me, a Christian, that my opinion about any moral question is invalid because I believe in God and the Bible. Somehow the opinion that the "athiest" pulls out of wherever it comes from, is better than mine because he doesn't believe in God.

Separation of church and state has recenlty become a shield for athiests and other anti-religious groups to try and silence the voices of anyone religious who has an opinion that is different from theirs. I am allowed to have any opinion I want, and expressing that opinion via lobbying, reporting, and voting is my constitutional, government given right. You have the right to disagree with me, and neither of us have the right to tell the other that they are not allowed to have their opinion be heard and considered.

[Warriorbird]

Separation of church and state has recenlty become a shield for athiests and other anti-religious groups to try and silence the voices of anyone religious who has an opinion that is different from theirs.

Not really. Other than Dawkins you can't really show much evidence of this. It's just handy conservative spin...much as even though I'm socially liberal I think Dawkins is more than a bit wacky.

[Gan]

It sounded more like you were saying religion or religious leanings should not be an important criteria by which our elected leaders make laws. If that's not an accurate reading, then I retract my previous statement.

Laws should not be based off of religious doctrine, especially since not everyone prescribes to the same doctrine.

[Latrinsorm]

We're not talking about doctrine though. We're talking about religious people. If you want to say that a legislator's moral position should be entirely divorced from any so-called "religious doctrine", you're demanding that religious people become schizoid or stay out.

[Gan]

We're not talking about doctrine though. We're talking about religious people. If you want to say that a legislator's moral position should be entirely divorced from any so-called "religious doctrine", you're demanding that religious people become schizoid or stay out.

No, I'm saying that:

1. Religious doctrine should not influence laws.

2. Leaders should not be elected on the basis of their religious beliefs.

[Bartlett]

No, I'm saying that:

1. Religious doctrine should not influence laws.

2. Leaders should not be elected on the basis of their religious beliefs.


1. "Religious doctrine" influences the morality of individuals - like any other moral value set - which influences laws.

2. Leaders will be elected on the basis of how well their belief system jives with that of the voters. It is likely that a Muslim candidate will have similar beliefs to a Muslim voter. If Muslims are the majority, the candidate will likely be elected for having a likeminded way of thinking.

In a democratic government where laws pass or fail based on majority vote, that is the reality of how it is. Your point #1 is exactly the idea warriorbird said doesn't exist (outside of Dawkins), that because someone bases their opinions from their moral compass, which happens to be religious in nature, that opinion has no legal standing.

After re-reading the article, it seems like the writer is more concerned with the religious leaders speaking for the people they lead, but are speaking in opposition to those people. If I went to a "Christian" church and they were not preaching Christian beliefs, I would stop going. If someone said they were a Christian and had opposite beliefs from myself, and an athiest was running the other side in favor of my beliefs, I would likely vote for the athiest.

[Gan]

1. "Religious doctrine" influences the morality of individuals - like any other moral value set - which influences laws.
And thats an absolute? So its impossible to seperate religious values from moral values? What if I dont perscribe to your religious values, does that mean I should be subjected to them involuntarily through the laws you make based on your religiously based morals?


2. Leaders will be elected on the basis of how well their belief system jives with that of the voters. It is likely that a Muslim candidate will have similar beliefs to a Muslim voter. If Muslims are the majority, the candidate will likely be elected for having a likeminded way of thinking.
However, it should not matter what religious beliefs a candidate has unless the candidate was running for a religious office. When we're discussing a governmental office, then we should make the selections based on their governmental beliefs and qualifications, not based on religious idealolgies, in my opinion.


In a democratic government where laws pass or fail based on majority vote, that is the reality of how it is. Your point #1 is exactly the idea warriorbird said doesn't exist (outside of Dawkins), that because someone bases their opinions from their moral compass, which happens to be religious in nature, that opinion has no legal standing. Reality or not, it doesnt make it right, nor fair. Slavery was a reality, was that right? I think morality can be seperated from religiousity and that man is intelligent enough to seperate it within himself. Especially if man considers that not everyone prescribes to his religious beliefs, and that laws effect more people than just him. Moral right and wrong can exist without God, Allah, Buddah, et. al.

[Latrinsorm]

So its impossible to seperate religious values from moral values?This is what I was talking about with my schizoid comments, btw. Yes, we can splinter our psyches, but it's really a terrible idea (insofar as mental health goes).
What if I dont perscribe to your religious values, does that mean I should be subjected to them involuntarily through the laws you make based on your religiously based morals?What if I don't subscribe to your nonreligious values? Does that mean I should be subjected to them involuntarily through the laws you make based on your nonreligiously based morals? :O

[Gan]

This is what I was talking about with my schizoid comments, btw. Yes, we can splinter our psyches, but it's really a terrible idea (insofar as mental health goes).
Believe it or not, there are some people who do not simply fall apart or go nutzo in the absence of religion. There's really nothing to splinter if you ask me.



What if I don't subscribe to your nonreligious values? Does that mean I should be subjected to them involuntarily through the laws you make based on your nonreligiously based morals? :O
As a free individual you dont have to be subjected to my non-religious values, and I have no legal right to try to enforce them upon you. Now if you mean being subjected to the presence of non-religious influenced laws, thats another story. Hence, then its up to the majority to speak as to how this country should make its laws, and elect its representatives/leaders... etc. Guess that means you know which side I'm voting for. ;)

[Latrinsorm]

Believe it or not, there are some people who do not simply fall apart or go nutzo in the absence of religion. There's really nothing to splinter if you ask me.I meant schizoid very literally (and for that matter, crudely): you're asking people to rigidly segment off their consciousness, i.e. now I'm religious, now I'm a legislator, and the two shall never meet. Hence my usage of the word "splinter".
As a free individual you dont have to be subjected to my non-religious values, and I have no legal right to try to enforce them upon you. Now if you mean being subjected to the presence of non-religious influenced laws, thats another story. Hence, then its up to the majority to speak as to how this country should make its laws, and elect its representatives/leaders... etc. Guess that means you know which side I'm voting for. ;)I won't subject you to reading the same thing with "religious" replacing "non-religious", but I'm sure you see my point. If it's acceptable to have non-religious legislators who don't represent every constituent with their values, it must be acceptable for the same with religious replacing non-religious. To say otherwise would be illogical, Captain. You may have some other problem with religious legislators, but I've yet to see it explicitly stated.

[Back]

A very interesting article, discuss if you wish.

Lou Dobbs is part of the reason I am actively boycotting CNN. Along with the assface idiot Glen Beck and the shrew Nancy Grace. Sorry, Wolf, Cooper. CNN is just in it for the money, not the truth.

Good to see Cooper on CBS 60 Minutes though. Thats real journalism.

[Asha]

Soon where I live, religeon will succumb to right wing hate.
I think we have about 7 weeks to rectify this.

[Back]

Sorry I can't help but laugh at the fact we might right wing ourselves to sleep lol.
We missed our chance like France to be totally Nazi

Honestly Ash, I am afraid Americans want a dictator. Its not American.

[Hulkein]

What the fuck are you two potheads talking about?

[Bartlett]

I think we may have a common ground in the middle and are arguing the extreme ends of the discussion. Everything that is a sin, doesn't need to be against the law. From my perspective as a Christian, the moral values set forth have practical application whereby you can make an argument for adhering to that standard not only from a religious point of view, but also from a worldly point of view. To keep it simple, the Bible says not to murder - it is a law because we can also justify that with the current world view. The Bible also says to go nito the world and preach the gospel, pay tithe to the church and so on. Obviously, those things couldn't become a law because they are soley applicable to the religion. If I couldn't see a world application for a "commandment," I wouldn't expect that to be considered for becoming the law.

When it comes down to controversial issues such as abortion, the majority of the supporters of life happen to be religious, which is used as evidence for it to not be a law and wordly arguments/evidence against abortion is dismissed because it is a religious person who brings it up. Arguments against evolution are the same way. The courts are convinced that any evidence against evolution is just religious babble and in some places of the country, it is illegal to talk about the faults in darwin's theory in school. My beef is simply that some subjects are ignored based on the fact that a religious person brought it up.

[Sean of the Thread]

Honestly Ash, I am afraid Americans want a dictator. Its not American.

And that's why everyone laughs at you.

[Back]

And that's why everyone laughs at you.

While our constitution is raped in the name of unitary executive power, which is sad.

[Gan]

While our constitution is raped in the name of unitary executive power, which is sad.

Overstate things much?

[Back]

Overstate things much?

Ignorant mu... oh, wait. Never mind.

[TheEschaton]

Bartlett, I wouldn't raise evolution as a topic of debate if you want to somehow prove "scientific evidence" is being "dismissed" because it's being spouted by religious people. There is no science in Creationism..

-TheE-

[Gan]

While our constitution is raped in the name of unitary executive power, which is sad.

Now that you've probably come down off your pot induced paranoia symptomatic high, please give us some detail as to why you make such a claim.

[Back]

Unitary Executive Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory)

From defying the UN and Geneva Convention to legalizing torture and detention without trial to warrantless wire tapping to firing attorneys for partisan reasons to signing statements just to name a few.

[Gan]

And the very first thing you need when you go to your link is...



This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one or improve this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unitary_executive_theory&action=edit) yourself. See the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unitary_executive_theory) for details.
Please consider using {{Expert-subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Expert-subject)}} to associate this request with a WikiProject

:lol:

PS. If Bush is raping the constitution then I'm sure there'll be no trouble in his impeachment hearings.... oh wait...

PSS. Not to mention that you curse the UET now; however, if a President is elected whom you back, you'll laud it [UET] as appropriate.

[Back]

PSS. Not to mention that you curse the UET now; however, if a President is elected whom you back, you'll laud it [UET] as appropriate.

Bullshit.

[Gan]

Bullshit.

:rofl:

[xtc]

Dobbs jumped on this issue because of some religious leaders opinions on illegal immigration. I like Dobbs but he has a two track mind, illegal immigration and outsourcing of jobs overseas. I agree with him (for the most part) on both issues. However at times he strikes me as xenophobic.

I saw Dobbs discuss this on CNN and he suggested that church's charitable status be revoked if they continue to lobby on political issues.