U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2011, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,281,343 times
Reputation: 4279

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Agree, there's no such thing as a perfect analogy. The difference here is that all those noted in my post are apparently rejecting these candidates based solely upon a dislike for said candidates particular chosen personal world view - which, in this case, happens to be theistic. There is a difference between those who reject candidates because they disagree with the candidates positions on particular issues and those who reject candidates based upon a dislike of the particular candidates stated world view - whether it be theistic or atheistic.
That's because religious candidates who flaunt their religion like a pair of designer shoes often come with the excess baggage of having to appeal to the most conservative nutjobs in the country in order to get re-elected.

Religious conservatism is responsible for nothing less than an attempt of absolute tyranny over ideas, personal beliefs, lifestyle, and sexual habits. Personally, the very fact that we have arguments over what religion a candidate is drives home the fact that Americans have way too much ignorance of the reasons behind a separation of church and state.

 
Old 08-28-2011, 03:17 PM
 
16,300 posts, read 24,978,161 times
Reputation: 8282
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaniMae1 View Post
I can't stand either party. I have a hard time relating to some Atheists because they are die hard Democrats. That bothers me.
No, but the revulsion to the knuckle dragging ignorance demonstrated by republicans and fundie religious just make it appear that way.

I think you will also find that most atheists will have more compassion (less hatred) toward their fellow man than either republicans or fundie buy bull beaters.
 
Old 08-28-2011, 03:20 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,434,299 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
That's because religious candidates who flaunt their religion like a pair of designer shoes often come with the excess baggage of having to appeal to the most conservative nutjobs in the country in order to get re-elected.

Religious conservatism is responsible for nothing less than an attempt of absolute tyranny over ideas, personal beliefs, lifestyle, and sexual habits. Personally, the very fact that we have arguments over what religion a candidate is drives home the fact that Americans have way too much ignorance of the reasons behind a separation of church and state.
Well, here's your opportunity to educate a conservative "nutjob."

Please provide the proper definition of "separation of church and state."

You know, if all I had as an argument, say, against so called 'abortion rights,' was to cite some obscure letter from one of the dead slave owning white guy founders...just how much play do you think that would get?
 
Old 08-28-2011, 03:38 PM
 
3,413 posts, read 6,455,840 times
Reputation: 1425
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Well, here's your opportunity to educate a conservative "nutjob."

Please provide the proper definition of "separation of church and state."

You know, if all I had as an argument, say, against so called 'abortion rights,' was to cite some obscure letter from one of the dead slave owning white guy founders...just how much play do you think that would get?
IOU rep.
 
Old 08-28-2011, 06:10 PM
 
4,380 posts, read 2,934,652 times
Reputation: 1431
I'm sure not voting for Obama. I'll probably write in Paul, like I did last time.

Last edited by nightflight; 08-28-2011 at 06:18 PM.. Reason: clarification.
 
Old 08-28-2011, 06:11 PM
 
4,380 posts, read 2,934,652 times
Reputation: 1431
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
That's because religious candidates who flaunt their religion like a pair of designer shoes often come with the excess baggage of having to appeal to the most conservative nutjobs in the country in order to get re-elected.

Religious conservatism is responsible for nothing less than an attempt of absolute tyranny over ideas, personal beliefs, lifestyle, and sexual habits. Personally, the very fact that we have arguments over what religion a candidate is drives home the fact that Americans have way too much ignorance of the reasons behind a separation of church and state.*


*Exempted are Democrats who speak in black churches; then its not a church-state issue, but rather "prophetic".
 
Old 08-28-2011, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Rivendell
1,387 posts, read 2,167,439 times
Reputation: 1650
So... post number 57 and nobody is committing to a republican.
Interesting.
 
Old 08-28-2011, 08:15 PM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 13,052,517 times
Reputation: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by laysayfair View Post
I think it is the willingness to see this as something limited to only "Christians" is what makes it christophobic.
Thus far, in the U.S. anyway, christians are the major offenders. It took a long time to get rid of our "Blue Laws" I would prefer they stay gone.
 
Old 08-29-2011, 10:29 AM
 
3,413 posts, read 6,455,840 times
Reputation: 1425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle View Post
So... post number 57 and nobody is committing to a republican.
Interesting.
You missed at least one post- #27.
 
Old 08-29-2011, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,281,343 times
Reputation: 4279
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Well, here's your opportunity to educate a conservative "nutjob."

Please provide the proper definition of "separation of church and state."

You know, if all I had as an argument, say, against so called 'abortion rights,' was to cite some obscure letter from one of the dead slave owning white guy founders...just how much play do you think that would get?
Well, first of all, the argument against abortion is actually more vague than a dead, slave-owning white guy founder. The abortion argument is often rooted in the re-hashed words of a 2000 year old zombie who never actually addressed the issue, may have never even existed, and to whom millions of people expect is forcing natural disasters our way because of his dislike of our "morality." Compared with that, the writings of a dead, white-guy, slave owner actually seem quite ostensible.

Second of all, a separation of church and state, or if you prefer, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and Article VI of the Constitution (my personal favorite): "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" are the two most commonly referred to Articles in our Constitution when speaking of the separation of church and state.

But, the actual phrase, "separation of church and state," comes from Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association which reads as such:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State".

So, that's enough of the dead white guy quotes, but I felt it necessary to just give enough of a background into it so that I could then go into the reasons WHY this is important. Most people forget what was going on in Europe at the time the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written, as well as the religiously motivated political atmosphere that brought some of America's early founders here as well. It's also important to recognize that whether you're tired of hearing about the Founding Fathers or not, they did know their history and they did take into account many facets of history while writing the Constitution.

At that time in Europe, and for most of European history, the prosecutorial lens of religion had been alive and well. Whether it was the Papacy being thrown out of England (and those believers in the papacy beheaded) or the Inquisition in Spain, the dark shadow of the Dark Ages still lingering over parts of Europe, or to speak more locally, the indemnities of events like the Salem Witch Trials hanging over young America's head, it was not uncommon to find a good number of atrocities hanging over the head of religion when it was mixed with public policy. Hell, even while the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were being written, Christian missionaries were leading the charge to Native American holdings, slaughtering those who didn't become Christians and brainwashing those who did. In short, when religion becomes a centralized focal point of policy-making, it doesn't often take long for it to become dangerous.

Today's candidates, specifically those of the Bachmann and Perry type, are so heavily involved with touting their religion that they could nearly be in violation of Article VI of the Constitution. The mere fact that Bachmann signed "The Marriage Vow," should tell us one thing: She is running on a platform that comes dangerously close to appealing to Conservative Christians and not Conservatively minded people. Her faith is what she's built her platform on and everything else that follows (economics, policies, etc...) become mutually agreed upon by her followers because of her religious similarities to them.

So, back to a Separation of Church and State.... Let's assume that Michelle Bachmann suddenly excels in the primaries, becomes the leading candidate against Obama, and then somehow wins the Presidency. Now it becomes her turn to lead and she is reminded of her "Marriage Vow" pledge, she pushes Congress to write a law that does the following:

1. Bans Sharia-Law

2. Outlaws Pornography

3. Outlaws Infidelity

4. Outlaws Abortion

And also takes into consideration the following quote:

"Over the long run, Sharia polygamy, multi-partner childbearing, demographic jihad and the persecution of Jews, Christians, blacks, artists, feminists, gays, freethinkers and other non-conformists poses a threat to Western human rights in general, and to American liberty in particular."

In essence, the very pledge Bachmann signs acknowledges that American LIBERTY is being threatened by "NON-CONFORMISTS" and that it should be dealt with as such.

In other words, the very purpose behind it is either "Conform or go to jail." Sound familiar through the hallowed halls of history?

In practical reality, such a bill would probably never make it through Congress, and especially not the Supreme Court, but the push for such policy-making would be backed by nothing other than religious ideology. Remember, her voting base is largely comprised of religious nuts who do feel that taking people's basic freedoms of non-conformity as a threat to American liberty is of utmost importance to this country. So, what next? What if a wartime decision comes about?

I succinctly remember being in the military shortly before the invasion of Iraq and hearing George W. Bush tell me over the TV (in a message to all members of the military) that he had prayed about this, considered our involvement in this as part of God's work, and that we were doing what was "right." Less than 24 hours later, we were bombarding Iraq in a show of "Shock and Awe." I had one question in my mind, though...

He prayed about this, received an answer from God, and that's why we're now invading this country? I mean, yeah, we were told about WMD's and all this other stuff but the decision maker was a prayer and a whisper in the ear from the man upstairs himself that this was all good? No... I call B-S on that. An entire war that has now dragged on for almost a decade was initiated because of something "God Wanted." Well, I'm glad that's the first and only time in history one country has invaded another because of something God wanted... I mean, could you imagine what history would look like if people went to war over religious beliefs???? Oh wait.....

So, a separation of church and state, should be as follows, in my opinion:

No policy, decision, or law should be made with a particular religious agenda in mind. If a candidate wishes to pray about something before turning himself or herself to the public's mercy about the decision, they mustn't advertise their prayer, the faith, or their religion as the reason behind such a decision. To do so pulls people away from a mindset critical of a policy and into a mindset that concurs with the religious concept.

No religion should be seen as preferential over one another by the public. This means that no government entities, to include schools, courthouses, etc... should have the inscriptions of a specific religion's beliefs emblazoned on them.

In my opinion, the mere talk of religious belief by candidates should be considered a campaign violation. A leader should not be making decisions on a religious basis but rather on a basis consistent with the facts, ideas, and merits of the situation itself. Nor should that candidate be trying to sway a part of the general populace by professing their belief in the nutty, zany, and delusional world of religion.




Quote:
Originally Posted by nightflight View Post
*Exempted are Democrats who speak in black churches; then its not a church-state issue, but rather "prophetic".

Says who? Just because it's a black church makes it no more or less ridiculous and stupid than any white church. One of the main differences, though, is that I don't hear Obama talking about injecting his religion into his policy-making. Maybe he does so in private (I really wouldn't know) but that is precisely how it should be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top