This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is the rhetoric of some right wing commentators dangerous?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
erm.....atheism can't,under no means, be considered a religion. Atheism is the LACK of religion, the lack of belief in a god.
Well, I was using the term religion rather loosely. What I meant by my comment was that Religious people (I'll just use Christians for simplicity) believe in a God who created the world. Atheists believe that there are no gods.
When I use the term religion I meant it as a society that encompasses people with similar beliefs. So no, Atheism isn't a religion per se, but it acts rather like one.
Edit: @IronGolem: Indeed, however those who consider the sacrament (the flesh eating part), among other things, literal are a small minority.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
problem is irongolem that, as you said, there are some
sects
which suggest that. Funden is, from what i understand, an catholic (correct me if i am mistaken) which they officially say that they perceive the bibble as symbolic, thus can't accuse him of that :)
plus there are idiots everywhere, as some really wise guy said: make something idiot-proof and the world will make an even bigger idiot
I am actually LDS.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
lds=? :/
anyways, what i said still applies to you?
LDS is short hand for Latter Day Saint (Or Mormon) which is short for the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
.
And kinda, not really. We believe the bible has been corrupted, and that the
Book of Mormon
is another testament of Jesus Christ (and is uncorrupted.) Although we also believe that Joseph Smith re translated much of the Bible.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Anyway, to discuss the idea of introducing religion into political discussion: Wouldn't that just end up causing more divisions because religions tend not to even go Christian vs Islam vs etc. They tend to be even more fractured. To me allowing religion in any political discussion beyond allowing freedom to practice religion in private just causes problems.
True, but religion also has to be taken into consideration. For example, taking God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and etc. That would just cause more problems.
And this is kinda where my Atheist argument goes.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
150529
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Half the time you've had the pledge you haven't had "under God" in it. While I don't disagree with you, I could just as simply say: Didn't the religious influence on your state cause the problem in the first place?
What problem? There are a lot of them, not all caused by religion.
AAAAAnyways
so you believe it's factual but not complete?
Pretty much. We believe a LOT was taken out
or changed
however.
Post by
Skreeran
Here's the problem with relgion mixed with government:
Republican party holds approximately 50 percent of the vote. Republicans say "No same sex marriage, that's not christian." Christians go "Oh, yeah, I can get behind that. Gays are bad. It says so in the bible." All of a sudden, homosexuals are being descriminated against.
Now replace "gays" with "athiest/muslim" or any other minority that Chistianity opposes, and then you have people descriminating against other people because their religion says so.
Which is
exactly
why the Puritans and Quakers came here in the first place.
George H.W. Bush said that he did not believe athiests to be patriotic, or even deserving of citizenship. As an athiest, that !@#$es me off a little.
Running our government should be done without religion. Then everyone gets the same benefits.
Incidentally, I don't "believe there are no gods." I don't believe in gods. There is a difference. The first implies that I have a belief regarding gods (I
believe
that there are no gods). The second states that you have simply not given me enough evidence of your god hypothesis to convince me.
I beleive in no gods the same way I believe in no dragons or I believe in no fairies.
Post by
Monday
"No same sex marriage, that's not christian." Christians go "Oh, yeah, I can get behind that. Gays are bad. It says so in the bible." All of a sudden, homosexuals are being descriminated against.
Most Christians were already against homosexual marriage however, especially the LDS church.
Two things (These aren't aimed at you Skree, just everybody)
A. Yes the church has every right to influence the vote. That's what freedom of speech and religion etc. are for.
B. The separation of church and state does not mean that there can be no church in the state. What it means is that the government can't favor one religion (as seen during the Salem Witch Trials where the government officials were all church officials as well, which stopped nay mercy for the so called witches.)
Post by
Skreeran
A. Well, you're right, legally. That's why there are religious lobbyists, PACs, and parties. It's also why I am not a member of the Republican party, despite being right wing on most economic issues.
B. I really disagree. The state should be secular in nature, as that's what benefits the most people, as far as I see. Again, by this I do not mean "You have to share my beliefs to engage in governance," in fact I mean the opposite: "Don't drag your beliefs into politics in a way that forces your beliefs on people who don't share them."
Same sex marriage, for example. If one does not beleive that homosexuality is wrong, you shouldn't be allowed to tell them that they are not allowed to get married because of what
you
believe.
Post by
Monday
Same sex marriage, for example. If one does not beleive that homosexuality is wrong, you shouldn't be allowed to tell them that they are not allowed to get married because of what you believe.
This I won't argue with you... not because I agree but because I foresee it will get nowhere.
I really disagree. The state should be secular in nature, as that's what benefits the most people, as far as I see. Again, by this I do not mean "You have to share my beliefs to engage in governance," in fact I mean the opposite: "Don't drag your beliefs into politics in a way that forces your beliefs on people who don't share them."
This I do agree on, but I think that people should at least get some right to use their religious beliefs in politics, as they are the basis for many people's secular beliefs as well.
However, a completely religious government isn't the best idea, I mean, look at the Taliban.
(Although I believe that in the future they may be a good idea.)
Post by
Skreeran
(Although I believe that in the future they may be a good idea.)A completely religious government?
Nah, I'll really,
really
disagree with you on this one, if just for the sole fact that it would be hell on earth (pardon the pun) for people like me.
Post by
MyTie
I don't think many people take them seriously.
And if they do, I don't think they'll act on it.
The media sucks. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. are all guilty of some sort of partisan bias, if just because of who pays the bills. They're biased at best and narrowcasting at worst.
Conservatives call Liberals Communists, Liberals call Conservatives Terrorists... Fact is, we all need an "us" to get behind and a "them" to hate. In World War 2 "us," the Allies, hated "them" the Axis powers, and our media reflected that (just look at comics/cartoons from the war. Bugs Bunny, Donald Duck, and Captain America outsmarting those whacky nazis). In the Cold War it was "us," the capitalists, versus "them," those dirty commies. Now, with no one outside our own country to hate, we've gone back to hating eachother.
I'm just a high school student, so I may be wrong, but it seems like it's just natural human behavior to group up with individuals like ourselves, and to hate any groups that aren't like ourselves. The definition of similarity can be broad (Capitalists versus Communists) or narrow (Whites versus Blacks), but us vs. them seems to be one of the foundations fo human behavior.
But I digress. No, I don't think it's dangerous.
Much wisdom, I sense in you.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.