Religion the great divider.

real life you do not seem to be a very good listener.

I have made no call as to which I think is more correct (although it's quite obvious which I choose).

The point is THERE IS A DIVISION and everything you are typing PROVES MY POINT.

If you stop taking offense to everything for just a minute and agree with my point!......

When you do, if you like, we'll debate THE MERITS of the two which I've tried hard to avoid so far.

(oh and when you use quotes on something I did not say, that is just rude...poor form, real life)

My point again in case you forgot:

The USA may be divided into two groups: those who put their trust in reason-based thinking vs those who use faith-based thinking.

0 Replies

Brandon
Have you ever heard of the religious wars in Europe. The Burning and massacres in the name of religion. The pogroms of Russia, The Killing of millions of Armenians. The Spanish and Italian inquisitions, the crusades. I would also add would 6 million Jews have been murdered by the Germans were it not for their religion. One last but not least item. anti-Semitism and it's ills promulgated by the Catholic Church.

Where religion reigns so too does division and persecution.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

0 Replies

Quote:

Where religion reigns so too does division and persecution.

but only for the unbelievers.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
Where religion reigns so too does division and persecution.
but only for the unbelievers.

Indeed the religious believe "It's my way or the highway".

0 Replies

And the reason we are mourning the lack of compromise in American politics is? At least, the non-religious of us are mourning, the true believers celebrate their righteous obtuseness, thinking that their's is the only way of proceeding.

Joe(and they are winning solely on that basis)Nation

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

My point again in case you forgot:

The USA may be divided into two groups: those who put their trust in reason-based thinking vs those who use faith-based thinking.

You are saying, in effect, that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. I totally disagree. Belief without reason is credulity.

Many rely on unexamined beliefs. In turn, clergymen and politicians rely on their support. Sad, isn't it?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life you do not seem to be a very good listener.

I have made no call as to which I think is more correct (although it's quite obvious which I choose).

The point is THERE IS A DIVISION and everything you are typing PROVES MY POINT.

If you stop taking offense to everything for just a minute and agree with my point!......

When you do, if you like, we'll debate THE MERITS of the two which I've tried hard to avoid so far.

(oh and when you use quotes on something I did not say, that is just rude...poor form, real life)

My point again in case you forgot:

The USA may be divided into two groups: those who put their trust in reason-based thinking vs those who use faith-based thinking.

Yes I think I understood your point the first time. There are thinkers and there are believers , and ne'er the twain shall meet. So as long as I would agree to this , then you will kindly condescend to enlighten me.

How very nice of you.

The fact is that folks who believe in God do think, despite your slanders to the contrary.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Earl wrote

Quote:

The USA may be divided into two groups: those who put their trust in reason-based thinking Vs those who use faith-based thinking.

The difference however is that the faith based thinkers are intent on imposing their beliefs on all.
A prime example is fetal stem cell research. The vast majority of Americans are in favor of the research. However, based strictly on his religious beliefs the @#%$ in the White house has imposed them on the nation. That is democracy the religious way.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Earl wrote

Quote:
The USA may be divided into two groups: those who put their trust in reason-based thinking Vs those who use faith-based thinking.

The difference however is that the faith based thinkers are intent on imposing their beliefs on all.
A prime example is fetal stem cell research. The vast majority of Americans are in favor of the research. However, based strictly on his religious beliefs the @#%$ in the White house has imposed them on the nation. That is democracy the religious way.

It is interesting to note that Jesus would not get involved in the political issues of his day. Remember the head tax controversy? : "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God." (Matthew 22:31) He even resisted efforts to make him king. What lesson may we learn from that?

There are many fine works being accomplished by the religious and political leaders of our day. There are also, as you point out, many outright crimes. Perhaps these leaders are not in harmony with the true God. After all, Jesus referred to Satan as "the ruler of this world". (Matthew 14:30)

BTW, his name is Eorl.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Earl wrote

Quote:
The USA may be divided into two groups: those who put their trust in reason-based thinking Vs those who use faith-based thinking.

The difference however is that the faith based thinkers are intent on imposing their beliefs on all.
A prime example is fetal stem cell research. The vast majority of Americans are in favor of the research. However, based strictly on his religious beliefs the @#%$ in the White house has imposed them on the nation. That is democracy the religious way.

So, the minority has to vote for it, because the majority is for it??? If you have ever been for or against any law, and I see that you have, then you want to ram laws down the throats of people who don't want them. Why shouldn't people whose ethics are draw partially from religion have the same rights that you take for yourself?

0 Replies

Religion is fine for the religious. If one wants to live up to what he believes is the "True religion" that is A OK with me. However, when his beliefs are imposed upon others I draw the line both against him and his religion.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Religion is fine for the religious. If one wants to live up to what he believes is the "True religion" that is A OK with me. However, when his beliefs are imposed upon others I draw the line both against him and his religion.

I agree with you there. I never have any quarrel with those who will die for their religion. It's the ones who will kill for their religion that scare me.

A visitor to the Jay Leno show had this comment: "The best kind of suicide bomber is the one whose bomb goes off before he reaches the target."

0 Replies

Brandon
Because religion is or should be a personal matter and has no has no place in the governing of a religiously diverse nation such as the US. Bush and his fellow religious bigots are doing their best to negate the premise of separation of church and state.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
Because religion is or should be a personal matter and has no has no place in the governing of a religiously diverse nation such as the US. Bush and his fellow religious bigots are doing their best to negate the premise of separation of church and state.

What you are saying is fundamentally contradictory. Everyone who favors or opposes any law, inherently wants to ram his beliefs down the throats of people who want the opposite. You do want to ram your beliefs down other peoples' throats, unless you have never favored or opposed any law. You base your ideas of right and wrong on something or other, but assert that people who partially base their ethics on religion do not have the same right that you do. Your argument makes no sense at all unless you are talking about a law that forces you to become a Baptist or Hindu or something.

0 Replies

Quote:

Your argument makes no sense at all unless you are talking about a law that forces you to become a Baptist or Hindu or something.

How about a law that doesn't allow me to sell certain things on Sundays? (Blue Laws) Or which applies a morality which is convergent with Christian philosophy but to which there is no social equivalent? (Anti-homosexual laws.) Or which decrees that a person's right to govern their own body can be superseded by the State's interest. (right to privacy)

There's more. Just because you are presently comfortable with these beliefs turned into laws do not mean they do not infringe on my rights as an American.

You might just as well send someone over to baptise me.

Joe(try for once to see another perspective)Nation

0 Replies

Brandon
I guess you missed it, deliberately. Bush's opposition to fetal stem cell research is based strictly upon his religious beliefs. I should note, again, in opposition to a vast majority of the electorate. What gives the SOB the right, constitutionally to force his religious beliefs upon the people of the US.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Brandon
I guess you missed it, deliberately. Bush's opposition to fetal stem cell research is based strictly upon his religious beliefs. I should note, again, in opposition to a vast majority of the electorate. What gives the SOB the right, constitutionally to force his religious beliefs upon the people of the US.

The same thing that gives you the right to force your beliefs down the throats of the unwilling when you get laws passed, stopped, or repealed according to your system of ethics and underlying assumptions that others do not share. I agree that no one has the right to pass laws that force you to adopt or prevent you from adopting a religion. But you are saying much more than that. You reserve to yourself the right to make or repeal law against the screaming objections of those who disagree with you, and ram obedience to them down their throats, but deny the same right to those whose schemes of ethics are based partially on religion. You are clever enough to know that you can't say these people have no right to state their opinions, so what you say is that they have the right to state their opinions, but only unofficially - that thay have no right for their opinions to be counted. This, even though you claim the right to change laws based on sets of assumptions that I may be in violent disagreement with. What you are is undemocratic.

0 Replies

What is being done with stem cell research funding is to declare that a religious principle will guide political, not to mention scientific, policy. The President may hold the religious principle as is his right, but when he votes his conscience instead of voting the Constitution, he errs and mis-leads the people.

Joe(It's the right thing for his soul, but not for the future of medicine.)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

What is being done with stem cell research funding is to declare that a religious principle will guide political, not to mention scientific, policy. The President may hold the religious principle as is his right, but when he votes his conscience instead of voting the Constitution, he errs and mis-leads the people.

Joe(It's the right thing for his soul, but not for the future of medicine.)Nation

I never saw the part of the Constution that says that stem cell research is a right. The Constution was left deliberately vague concerning certain things so that the people could decide through their elected representatives like Bush. You ask for the right to vote your conscience, but religious people do not, according to you, have the right to elect candidates who will then vote their consciences.

Let their be no uncertainty - when you vote for laws I hate, and the police and courts force me against my objection to comply with them, you are ramming them down my unwilling throat as much as a religious person who votes his conscience is ramming some law down yours. What you are really trying to do is disenfranchise a portion of the electorate to leave you free to ram your desired laws through the system without dissenting ideas. You are a bigot.

0 Replies

Religion the great divider.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know