Why does religion poison a democracy ?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Don't flatter yourself. I am saying no such thing. I am saying that when I see posts as long as yours, without even looking at their content, my inclination is to go on to someone else whose posts are of a more reasonable length. I suspect that most people will balk at reading extraordinarily long posts.

Yes, you already pointed out how hard it is for you read. I understood that the first time you pointed it out. and people do read my posts, long and short because they learn things from them.

Brandon9000 wrote:

All off topic. I had said that the original poster was an anti-religious bigot. You attempted to disprove it by giving an example of pro-religious bigotry. The existence of pro-religious bigots does not in any way challenge my assertion that the original poster is an anti-religious bigot. Your argument was illogical.

no, you are lying and you know it. this was my pertainent and initial passage in response to your original post that challenged your assertion that the original poster is an anti-religious bigot

kuvasz wrote:

No one here or in the US for that matter is burning down churches, except for right wing racists who burn down black churches. no one nailing anyone to a cross for their religious beliefs, no one is being fed to lions, and no one is denied a job because of their religion. (actually the last is not true, since under the Bushevik administration "faith-based," taxpayer dollar funded initiatives to help the poor allow the religious organizations to discriminate in hiring practices based upon religious faith.) So in fact, there is discrimination AGAINST those who are not of a particular faith, but the bigots are religious people themselves, not the secularists.

note that I illustrated with several examples that your claim was a lie, that there was no evidence to support your claim, THEN added that in fact, the opposite was true.

typical right wing bull$hit from you. trying to sneak your way out by claiming something was the centerpiece of my comments when it was completely anciliary. we both know that my remarks focused almost entirely on debunking your claim of bigotry/discrimination by listing what was not being done to christians.

and you still have not presented any evidence to support your claim of bigotry from the originator of this thread.

three posts in and you still have not been able to present any evidence that he is an anti-religious bigot.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I never said that people who advocate laws compatible with religious beliefs should not have their beliefs challenged. I said that everyone who tries to pass a law is basically trying to ram his beliefs down the throats of people who disagree and don't want the law, and that someone has as much right to do that based on a religious outlook as someone does based on a liberal outlook. For the record, I'm an atheist.

no, that is not what you said. you attempted to cast those who are critical of religiously inspired advocacy in the formation of laws in a secular society as bigots. it was quite plain so don't try a revisionist rewrite when you are called on it.

the issue is that when religious people advocate laws based upon their their beliefs, they cast their opponents exactly as you just did here, as anti-religious bigots.

and for the record, you are purposely but mistakenly relating liberal with secular. a religious outlook is not mutually exclusive of a liberal one. it would hard to find anyone in history who was more liberal than jesus, unless you think his admonitions to give what one has to the poor and turning the other cheek is somehow the new conservative meme.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

It doesn't. You are simply an anti-religious bigot. While the Constitution states in crystal clear terms that the government is to be kept totally free of religion, and I personally agree with that completely, nonetheless, your postulate is easily disproven by the fact that most of the Founders of the US were extremely religious men. (empahsis added)

Fifty bucks says your talkin' out your ass, and can't substantiate that dubious claim.

As so many have pointed out in this thread, the religious trade in revealed truth, which is not subject to revision. While the majority of the religious are basically easy-going and tolerant (i'd warrant--this is speculation on my part), religious dogma followed to its logical conclusion holds that the adherents of a particular sect being investigated are the possessors of a unique access to absolute truth. Those who consider themselves to be members of a uniquely superior group are by definition bigots. Bigots inevitably practice prejudicial discrimination, in that, by extension, those who consider themselves uniquely superior, consider all others inferior.

Ipso fatso, sozyeroldman, the religious fanatic is not to be trusted in polite society without a well-armed minder at hand at all times.

0 Replies

kuvasz

and for the record, you are purposely but mistakenly relating liberal with secular. a religious outlook is not mutually exclusive of a liberal one. it would hard to find anyone in history who was more liberal than jesus.

Quote:

Perhaps Jesus was a liberal. I don't know, and don't care, because as
Nietzsche said: There was only a christian, and he died in a cross.

Christian religion has nothing to do with Jesus, but with Paul, that man full of hate and resentment.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
All off topic. I had said that the original poster was an anti-religious bigot. You attempted to disprove it by giving an example of pro-religious bigotry. The existence of pro-religious bigots does not in any way challenge my assertion that the original poster is an anti-religious bigot. Your argument was illogical.

no, you are lying and you know it. this was my pertainent and initial passage in response to your original post that challenged your assertion that the original poster is an anti-religious bigot

kuvasz wrote:
No one here or in the US for that matter is burning down churches, except for right wing racists who burn down black churches. no one nailing anyone to a cross for their religious beliefs, no one is being fed to lions, and no one is denied a job because of their religion. (actually the last is not true, since under the Bushevik administration "faith-based," taxpayer dollar funded initiatives to help the poor allow the religious organizations to discriminate in hiring practices based upon religious faith.) So in fact, there is discrimination AGAINST those who are not of a particular faith, but the bigots are religious people themselves, not the secularists.

note that I illustrated with several examples that your claim was a lie, that there was no evidence to support your claim, THEN added that in fact, the opposite was true.

typical right wing bull$hit from you. trying to sneak your way out by claiming something was the centerpiece of my comments when it was completely anciliary. we both know that my remarks focused almost entirely on debunking your claim of bigotry/discrimination by listing what was not being done to christians.

You're almost losing your amusement value to me. Your arguments continue to be wrong, and I continue to be able to show it, but I'm not sure it's worth it. However, a couple of things are so trivial to respond to that I'll take the second or two required before moving on. The fact that you show that there is not a lot of institutionalized anti-religious bigotry in America does not in any way indicate that the orginal poster on this thread is not an anti-religious bigot. The only way to have proven that would have been to give facts about him, which you have not done.

kuvasz wrote:

and you still have not presented any evidence to support your claim of bigotry from the originator of this thread.

The fact that he said that religion was poisoning democracy in America, the tone with which he said it, and my overall experience with the people who have said similar things in the past year or so. I never claimed to have a proof. It's my impression, and I strongly suspect it is true both of him and of you.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It doesn't. You are simply an anti-religious bigot. While the Constitution states in crystal clear terms that the government is to be kept totally free of religion, and I personally agree with that completely, nonetheless, your postulate is easily disproven by the fact that most of the Founders of the US were extremely religious men. (empahsis added)

Fifty bucks says your talkin' out your ass, and can't substantiate that dubious claim....Ipso fatso, sozyeroldman, the religious fanatic is not to be trusted in polite society without a well-armed minder at hand at all times.

First of all, perhaps you may recall from reading some of my previous posts that I, personally, am a lifelong atheist. So my statement about the Founders was an opinion, and nothing more sinister than that.

I believe that if I had the motivation to do the research I could show that there is some truth in what I said. Instead, since this is not really one of my issues, let me just discuss it with you briefly. Perhaps, you might be willing to simply discuss it with me without the acrimony, since I know you are a person who is interested in arriving at the truth.

I have read between two and maybe seven biographies of each of the Founders. Not just the most popular ones, but others too such as John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, John Hancock, etc. Therefore, I have an overall impression of what I have read without necessarily remembering every fact. It is my recollection that most of them had upbringings which contained amounts of religion huge by our standards, often orchestrated by their schools. I don't recall too much rebellion by any of them against it, except possibly for Benjamin Franklin, who declined his father's original intention that he enter the clergy, and also thought about the matter of religion and settled upon a less fundamentalist idea of God. I recall most of them making religious statements during their lives, although some may have made anti-religious statements too. Wasn't Charles Carrol Catholic? Although Jefferson made a number of anti-religious statements during his life, and was apparently a Deist, there are a number of things in the Declaration that must be deemed generally supportive of religion, such as "a firm reliance on the protection divine providence." What do you think?

0 Replies

I think that the most of them were "deist," and know that quite of few of them were Freemasons (interesting thread on that started by someone who wanted to know about the eye above the pyramid on the back of a dollar bill).

I might not have taken issue so quickly if you had not used the qualifier "extremely." I would have said that they were for the most part deists, and were not extreme in any part of their adherence to a set of theological beliefs. It would take pages to describe the progression of religious ideas and values in America before the revolution, but it is a subject to which i have devoted a good deal of reading.

My sincere apologies if you found my rejoinder acrimonious. I was simply indulging my penchant for wry humor at the expense of the notion that the United States of (Bomb the S.o.B.'s into the Stone Age) America is a nation founded upon religious principles.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I think that the most of them were "deist," and know that quite of few of them were Freemasons (interesting thread on that started by someone who wanted to know about the eye above the pyramid on the back of a dollar bill).

I might not have taken issue so quickly if you had not used the qualifier "extremely." I would have said that they were for the most part deists, and were not extreme in any part of their adherence to a set of theological beliefs. It would take pages to describe the progression of religious ideas and values in America before the revolution, but it is a subject to which i have devoted a good deal of reading.

My sincere apologies if you found my rejoinder acrimonious. I was simply indulging my penchant for wry humor at the expense of the notion that the United States of (Bomb the S.o.B.'s into the Stone Age) America is a nation founded upon religious principles.

Another factor, I guess, is that in their time, it was a common practice to invoke the deity in speeches and writings, and so some of their apparent piety may just be adherence to contemporary style.

0 Replies

You really do need an editor to prevent you from casting such arguments.

Brandon9000 wrote:

You're almost losing your amusement value to me. Your arguments continue to be wrong, and I continue to be able to show it, but I'm not sure it's worth it. However, a couple of things are so trivial to respond to that I'll take the second or two required before moving on. The fact that you show that there is not a lot of institutionalized anti-religious bigotry in America does not in any way indicate that the orginal poster on this thread is not an anti-religious bigot. The only way to have proven that would have been to give facts about him, which you have not done.

The only way to prove he was a anti-religionist bigot was to present facts about him, which you have not done.

My illustration showing that there is no institutionalized anti-religious bigotry is more than an adequate rejoinder to your belief that the original poster is a religious bigot, simply because you arrived at your claim by the deductive logic that you stated later in your remark:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The fact that he said that religion was poisoning democracy in America, the tone with which he said it, and my overall experience with the people who have said similar things in the past year or so. I never claimed to have a proof. It's my impression, and I strongly suspect it is true both of him and of you.

While you finally admit no claim of proof for the particular, you interpolated his remarks from those you generally believe are held at large.

It was obvious from the start to many on this thread that you were using deductive reasoning in your attack even if you yourself were unaware of it, simply because there was no basis to your claim upon an examination of the particulars. And you have finally admitted that you have no proof of it.

Don't feel bad about it, but I was one step ahead of you and knew that you were calling him a anti-religious bigot not for what he said, but for things other people had allegedly said. It was for this reason that I contested your hidden (until now)"first cause" reasoning that such views are generally held at large, while also demanding proof of such bigotry in the particular case.

As to my anti-religionist beliefs, please note that I attend Catholic Mass at St Joseph's Church in Athens, Georgia on Sundays. But don't tell Frank Apisa. It would disappoint him.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

You really do need an editor to prevent you from casting such arguments.

Brandon9000 wrote:
You're almost losing your amusement value to me. Your arguments continue to be wrong, and I continue to be able to show it, but I'm not sure it's worth it. However, a couple of things are so trivial to respond to that I'll take the second or two required before moving on. The fact that you show that there is not a lot of institutionalized anti-religious bigotry in America does not in any way indicate that the orginal poster on this thread is not an anti-religious bigot. The only way to have proven that would have been to give facts about him, which you have not done.

The only way to prove he was a anti-religionist bigot was to present facts about him, which you have not done.

I stated that the original poster was an anti-religious bigot. You said that it was a false statement. To support your contention that it was untrue, you expressed an opinion that certain people are pro-religion bigots. Arguing that certain people are pro-religion bigots, is not a valid demonstration that the first poster is not an anti-religious bigot. Whether or not I made my point, you did not make yours.

kuvasz wrote:

My illustration showing that there is no institutionalized anti-religious bigotry is more than an adequate rejoinder to your belief that the original poster is a religious bigot, simply because you arrived at your claim by the deductive logic that you stated later in your remark:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The fact that he said that religion was poisoning democracy in America, the tone with which he said it, and my overall experience with the people who have said similar things in the past year or so. I never claimed to have a proof. It's my impression, and I strongly suspect it is true both of him and of you.

While you finally admit...you have finally admitted that you have no proof of it.

I didn't "finally admit" anything. No one had previously asked me why I regarded him as an anti-religious bigot. You are talking as though I had been asked several times how I arrived at the conclusion and dissembled. The truth is that when finally asked for the basis of my opinion, I answered. I never claimed to have a deductive proof of it, just enough reason to give me that opinion, and it is still my opinion.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I stated that the original poster was an anti-religious bigot. You said that it was a false statement. To support your contention that it was untrue, you expressed an opinion that certain people are pro-religion bigots. Arguing that certain people are pro-religion bigots, is not a valid demonstration that the first poster is not an anti-religious bigot. Whether or not I made my point, you did not make yours.

No, that is only part of what I said. Additionally, I noted that you had presented no evidence of the truthfulness of your remark, and you would have to demonstrate how it was true.

Also, I did not express an opinion. I stated a fact, and showed evidence that there was religious bigotry from the religious community and provided examples.

However, you are accusing me of something that I did not do, viz., proclaim that showing examples of religious bigotry from the religious community itself somehow disproved your remarks that Alikimr was an anti-religious bigot.

The two are not the same thing, even if you wish to make them so.

Showing that some religious people are bigots, in relief with debunking macro and thereby deductive (societal writ small) accusations of Alikimr's anti-religious bigotry illustrated how absurd your remarks were.

I was attacking your comments on two levels: first, for its lack of veracity, second, because without context or supporting evidence, the remark was absurd.

Throughout this thread you have employed a fairly standard logical fallacy employed by right wingers in arguments around here, viz., make assertions, yet before they can be questioned on the basis for their assertions, call for their opponents to prove them wrong.

You are attempting to place the burden of proof for your assumptions on your opponent.

A primary premise of our justice system is that the burden of proof lies with the accuser. You accuse, then you have to prove.

All I have done is call on you to prove it.

Imagine a world where the accused are responsible for presenting proof of their innocence regardless of the accusation and despite of the lack of proof against them.

Your neighbor is murdered? Prove you didn't do it. Someone is raped in an adjoining town? Do you have proof you didn't rape her?

The logical fallacy in such a requirement is obvious. There are innumerable events in this world having nothing to do with you, and yet, not in your wildest dreams could you present evidence that you were so detached from those events. That's why the accuser must bare the burden of proof. The accused need only bare the defense to that proof.

The reason for using such a tactic is obvious: the accuser (in this case, you) simply cannot prove that the accused (Alikimr) is guilty of anti-religious bigotry. Thus, the responsibility for proof is reversed and the claim is made that the accused's lack of proof-of-innocence is proof of guilt.

The sad part is that most people don't recognize the warped lack of logic involved and thus jump on the accuser's bandwagon. It's a tactic often used by the audacious who stand in a weak position.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I didn't "finally admit" anything. No one had previously asked me why I regarded him as an anti-religious bigot. You are talking as though I had been asked several times how I arrived at the conclusion and dissembled. The truth is that when finally asked for the basis of my opinion, I answered. I never claimed to have a deductive proof of it, just enough reason to give me that opinion, and it is still my opinion.

There you go again. From my second post on in this thread I said you had to demonstrate evidence for you to make such accusations, that you needed to supply proof. Now you say you have no direct evidence, and have backtracked from your simple declarative statement that

Brandon9000 wrote:

You (Alikimr) are simply an anti-religious bigot.

One making such incendiary comments has the obligation to demonstrate the truthfulness of the remark with direct evidence. But, you stated that the basis of your opinion was not derived from direct evidence.

All this leaves just one question: why should your opinion matter if you can not back it up with any evidence?

And this leads directly back to the reason why secularists fear a negative impact on secular society from injecting the incomprehensible religious "mysterious of faith" into it. They can not be backed up by evidence,

And like the logical fallacy I mentioned earlier, the religionists are demanding that secularist prove why it is necessary to keep religion out of secular society when it is really the case that the religionist have to show why it is necessary for it to be included.

And you know what happens next? When secularists demand to know from the religionists why the latter's incomprehensible religious "mysterious of faith" are necessary for secular society, the latter call the former "anti-religionist bigots."

0 Replies

watchmakers guidedog wrote:

Religious people frequently value their religious dogma over the ethical responsibilities of their position.

This is true also of parties - which is the reason that Washington thought that the first party was the end to true democracy.

So, Religion, Party Affiliation, and other Dogma creating creations are bad for democracy. These are only negative, however, when they discourage any real questioning. Religion, party affiliation, and even sometime certain parts of science can do this. Thus, any dogma is bad for democracy.

TTF

0 Replies

It isn't religion that poisons democracy.It is stupidity.

0 Replies

Religion is about how to live your life. Politics is about how life is to be lived in a given society. You can choose to adhere nor not to a religion. You get no choice with politics. Therefore religion should have nothing at all to do with politics.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

It isn't religion that poisons democracy.It is stupidity.

WELL SAID! Much better than what I was trying to say above.

Well done!

TTF

0 Replies

May 7, 9:51 AM EDT
Democrats Voted Out of Baptist Church

WAYNESVILLE, N.C. (AP) -- Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP. Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn't support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte.

"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out," said Selma Morris, the former church treasurer. "He's real negative all the time."

Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS-TV in Asheville that the actions were not politically motivated.

The station also reported that 40 others in the 400-member congregation resigned in protest after Monday's vote.
During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton.

Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said.

George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church's bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership.

"Membership is a local church issue," he said. "It is not something the state convention would enter into."
He added that the nine members were not legally terminated because Monday's meeting was supposed to be a deacons meeting, not a business meeting. They have a lawyer looking into the situation, he said.

The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.

"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law," Chairman Jerry Meek said.

Doris Wilson, one of Chandler's neighbors and a member of First Baptist Church in Waynesville, said God doesn't play partisan politics.

"I hate to see the church suffer like that," she said. "God doesn't care whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. It just hurts to see that going on."

0 Replies

Why does religion poison a democracy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know