Religious devotion in the United States

[PhantomJedi]

Take anything to an extream point of view and you are almost always not going to like the results.

[Nartwak]

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I tend to agree with the pope ,at least from his point of view. If your going to pick and choose which aspects of faith appeal to you then your just not doing it right.

 

Of course from my own point of view its a very good thing because people who are XXXX in name only for the sake of their own comfort are much easier to deal with.

[Kalfear]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8113152/

 

This article is kinda interesting.

 

Bush and every republican before him play the Christianity card when running for presidency. Heck there was stupid statements like vote for Kerry means a vote for the Devil, by religious nuts. And Kerry was an alter boy when he was younger and still goes to church weekly, but he supposedly has no faith because he

[taks]

I mean take the whole gay equal rights, marriage issue for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

perhaps the government should just get out of arenas that are not within its mandate to regulate?

 

seriously, why does government have to sanction any marriage? why? in the case of the US, exactly where in the consitution is this a power granted the federal government? btw, in case any of you didn't know, up till bush's repeal of the "marriage penalty," it really was NOT a good idea to be legally married if both spouses worked (well, at least if the 2nd wage was a significant portion of the total income). i got crushed on taxes the first couple years. of course, it does not matter anymore as my wife stays home with the manchkin.

 

the same goes for the whole concept of "equal rights." we all have the same rights in the US, as stated by the consistution. nowhere is there an explicit right to a job, which is the primary focus of equal rights legislation. the government is unnecessarily messing in the lives and functions of private citizens and businesses (even publicly traded companies are "private" in the sense that they are not owned or run by the government). given today's more open society (a good thing IMO), any company that blatantly discriminated would be beat up on the marketplace. that would be their punishment, not government sanctions.

 

taks

 

PS: yes, i realize bush didn't actually do the repealing. congress did. bush just proposed it. either way, it was his baby.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Btw, honestly I don

[Cantousent]

The irony, right? The ACLU goes on the rampage against religion but is more than willing to defend a neo-Nazi parade? To me, that seems like the ACLU is more and more willing to attack religion to the exclussion of other factors. The real question is, why? Why is the ACLU willing to defend political organizations who have an anti-democratic stance while attacking religious organizations? If a religious sect created a political party, would the ACLU defend its right to march in parade? If not, why not? After all, neo-Nazis are far more dangerous than religious organizations. ...Or, rather, the driving force behind neo-Nazi thinking is far more dangerous than religious thought. After all, religious persons have been in political power since the foundation of the country and the democracy has not only thrived, but also become more accessible to a larger portion of the population.

 

It always saddens me when folks complain about religion and politics as if someone who is a devout adherent to a religion should be forced to deny his faith upon running or winning office. How silly. This is the United States of America. If the people are willing to vote for religious people, then it is religious people we shall have.

 

What's worse is that folks will present such a hostile view of religion in general that they alienate religious folks who would otherwise support many of their proposals.

[Lucius]

I dare say that Christian religious extremists (such as those in the USA) are far more dangerous than Neo-Nazies.

[Commissar]

The irony, right?  The ACLU goes on the rampage against religion but is more than willing to defend a neo-Nazi parade?  To me, that seems like the ACLU is more and more willing to attack religion to the exclussion of other factors.  The real question is, why?  Why is the ACLU willing to defend political organizations who have an anti-democratic stance while attacking religious organizations?  If a religious sect created a political party, would the ACLU defend its right to march in parade?  If not, why not?  After all, neo-Nazis are far more dangerous than religious organizations.  ...Or, rather, the driving force behind neo-Nazi thinking is far more dangerous than religious thought.  After all, religious persons have been in political power since the foundation of the country and the democracy has not only thrived, but also become more accessible to a larger portion of the population.

 

It always saddens me when folks complain about religion and politics as if someone who is a devout adherent to a religion should be forced to deny his faith upon running or winning office.  How silly.  This is the United States of America.  If the people are willing to vote for religious people, then it is religious people we shall have.

 

What's worse is that folks will present such a hostile view of religion in general that they alienate religious folks who would otherwise support many of their proposals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because the ACLU has the established policy of trying to ensure American civil liberties, nothing more. They believe in the neo-nazis' right to say what they want to say in a public forum. You think they like them? Please.

 

Why do they go after the church? Funny you should ask. You see, churches in this country enjoy tax-exempt status, providing they abide by a few rules. One of those rules is keeping its religious collective nose out of politics. That's why you saw the ACLU going nuts this last presidential election, as well as anyone else who thought those good old-fashioned Southern churches were kind of crossing a line when stating that a vote for Kerry was a vote for the devil.

 

As for your statement that religious people have always been in power in our government, I have to wonder...have they? Take a look at two of our best presidents, Jefferson and Lincoln. Read Jefferson's papers, anyway, just because it'll put all this, "He didn't really want to build a wall between church and government!" nonsense to a stop. And Lincoln? Well, the curious thing about Lincoln is that in his speeches, papers, and all collected remarks before he began his run for the presidency, he doesn't mention God or religion once. Not a single time. You can draw your own conclusions about that, I'm just suggesting that maybe not everybody to come down the pipe has been as evangelical as our current generalissimo.

 

Oh, and I'll also give you time to retract that earlier statement that all members of the armed forces are religious, perhaps even moreso than the normal populace. That's the trouble with the internet, isn't it? You just never know who's on the other side of the screen, and what they might do for a living.

[~Di]

Nobody is asking politicians to deny their faith. What many of us do expect, however... and what we believe the constitution requires, whether some of you agree or not... is that politicians do not codify their faith into law and shove it down the throat of the populace.

 

I don't think that's too damned much to ask, frankly.

[Cantousent]

You can draw your own conclusions about that, I'm just suggesting that maybe not everybody to come down the pipe has been as evangelical as our current generalissimo.

 

" After all, religious persons have been in political power since the foundation of the country and the democracy has not only thrived, but also become more accessible to a larger portion of the population."

 

Nowhere do I say that every president has been religious. Furthermore, I never claimed that every president was "evangelical." In fact, I never mentioned the word evangelical. You seem to have a talent for attacking arguments I didn't make. Is there any doubt that we've had religious people in government since the founding of the country? I didn't use "all" or "every" in my post. Some of our elected officials over the course of history have publicly stated they were atheists. That fact does not change my statement in the least, unless of course you wanted to confuse the issue by intentionally misunderstanding what I said.

 

Oh, by the way: I don't know how to take your comments about Lincoln. After all, Lincoln referenced God is speeches during his run for and during the course of his Presidency. So, are you saying it was all an act? Are you saying that he converted right before he ran? Are you telling me that he believed that all reference to God and belief should be eradicated from public life, but changed his mind late in life? Because, as it stands, he refers to God during his presidential speeches.

 

I'm willing to take for granted you've done your research on both Lincoln and Jefferson. As for Jefferson, I wonder if he would support the efforts of the ACLU. I don't know, but you have a talent for reading things that are not there in my posts. Perhaps you have a knack for not reading things that are there as well.

 

Oh, and I'll also give you time to retract that earlier statement that all members of the armed forces are religious, perhaps even moreso than the normal populace.  That's the trouble with the internet, isn't it?  You just never know who's on the other side of the screen, and what they might do for a living.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"For good or for ill, the people are religious. Even more problematic for atheists, the members of the military are just as religious or moreso."

 

Here it is again, the "all" that didn

[Lucius]

Well you did try to make it sound like "you atheists might as well give up, cuz the military is on my side", or wasn't this your intention?

[Commissar]

"For good or for ill, the people are religious.  Even more problematic for atheists, the members of the military are just as religious or moreso."

 

Here it is again, the "all" that didn

[Atomic Space Vixen]

The irony, right?  The ACLU goes on the rampage against religion but is more than willing to defend a neo-Nazi parade?  To me, that seems like the ACLU is more and more willing to attack religion to the exclussion of other factors.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any irony here, just a load of crap. If neo-Nazis got into power somehow, you can bet the ACLU would be right there if they tried to force everyone into wearing swastika armbands and joining the party. The ACLU defends the free speech of Christians, and if someone tried to legislate against a Christian march, they'd be up in arms about that too.

What's happened though is that Christians have taken attempts to post the 10 Commandments in public buildings, state-sponsored school prayer (as opposed to non-disruptive private prayer or prayer gatherings), state-sponsored religious displays, etc. as attacks on Christianity as a whole, and this is crap. And yes, I know you used the words "religion" and "religious" and not once "Christianity" or "Christian" in your post, but frankly of all the religions that tend to whine about the ACLU, it's the more conservative Christians. When other faiths whine, they tend to be doing so about other conservative issues. As conservative Christians work harder to force their religious viewpoints on everyone else, of course you're going to see the ACLU go up against them.

 

But hey, instead of listening to me or to right-wing rhetoric, why not let them speak for themselves?

 

ACLU main religion page

 

One of their cases

 

Another

 

Here they clearly defend the rights of Christians.

 

Here they defend the right of a church to exist

 

I could go on, there is sooo much more, but hey... "The ACLU goes on the rampage against religion but is more than willing to defend a neo-Nazi parade? To me, that seems like the ACLU is more and more willing to attack religion to the exclussion [sic] of other factors..." and all of this must just be a smokescreen to cover their anti-religious activities, right?

[Cantousent]

I did not state that the government was good because the preponderance of offices have been held by religious persons. My meaning, just to be clear, is that religious folks were in power and yet democracy flourished. My premise was not that successful governance required religion, but you obviously feel as if your argument would be helped considerably by trying to change mine.

 

I did not insist on any Judeo-Christian ties, you're the one who brought up the argument, not me.

 

 

Since my position has been, throughout the thread, that religion and state should be separate, I don't see what your problem is in that regard. On the other hand, I see quite a few folks engaging in outright hostility to religion in the first place. If you want to entirely separate religion from politics, then you must deny religious folks the right to hold office. Good luck.

 

Let me take a break from responding to Commisar to respond to Lucius. "Well you did try to make it sound like 'you atheists might as well give up, cuz the military is on my side', or wasn't this your intention?" Yes, if the atheist want to forcibly deny religious folks the right to hold office (which is the only way to entirely prevent religion from influencing politics) then they will lose because the population and the military will be against them.

 

Which brings me back to Commissar, our self proclaimed liberal intellectual elite.

 

"'The Africans are black.'"

 

I would take this statement as more or less accurate. I would not waste my time or yours in correcting you by pointing out that not all Africans are black. South Africans can be white. Throughout the continent, you will find the exceptions that prove the rule. Still, the majority of Africans are black, which is what I take this statement to mean.

 

In the same way, I would hope you wouldn't waste my time by putting words into my mouth. Look at Lucius. He paraphrased me in a snide way, but *shrug* he was more or less accurate in regards to the heart of my post.

 

Now, you assumed that I meant that every single person in the United States is religious? Really? Because I stated that the population is religious. If you took that general statement to be a blanket statement about the population that ALL Americans are religious, then it would be impossible for the military to be moreso, woudn't it? Now, we're both reasonably intelligent folks, right? You can make more snide comments or just accept that there it was quite a jump to think that I meant every single member of the military is religious.

 

As it is, the post in question is undoubtedly extreme, but it is also a good assessment of the situation. The United States, at this point in time, is not moving towards a Soviet style ban on religions.

 

Finally, we get to the part where you play psychologist with Lincoln. So, you pull out Lincoln and Jeffeson. Fine, but it seems to me that you would look for outright atheists, not a president who left enough confilcting views that he can't be pinned down at all and another president whom you claim adopted the manners of speech for the sole purpose of winning an election.

 

What I'd like is to continue this discussion with intellectual honesty, and I find yours lacking.

[~Di]

Hmm. The scent of arrogant pomposity grows a bit thick in ye olde forum. Perhaps we could ratchet it down a bit before the green dragon seals off the area for fumigation!

[Lucius]

Sorry, I didn't know you guys were talking about denying religious people religion thorugh force, but isn't that in itself a bit of an extreme? I mean, that would be outright civil war, surely noone here desires that.

 

As you can tell by my sig I'm not very fond of Christianity (or any other religion really) and in my country I'm fortunate enough to have a political system where religion is never brought up and doesn't have any say in our every day lives. I would be very pissed off if I had dominating party like that of the Republicans here, and I understand why people on this thread are. ^_^

[Commissar]

Contra negante veritatem nulla est disputatio.

[Commissar]

Sorry, I didn't know you guys were talking about denying religious people religion thorugh force, but isn't that in itself a bit of an extreme? I mean, that would be outright civil war, surely noone here desires that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We weren't. I was arguing semantics and that the ACLU aren't anti-Christianity.

 

Oh, and apparently at some point I proclaimed myself an intellectual liberal elite. Which I didn't, but I will now. On the other hand, I've never seen that as anything negative. It's only the conservative right that manages to make 'intellectual' an insult.

[BicycleOfDeath]

*wishes he could post his opinion...*

 

Hmm.  The scent of arrogant pomposity grows a bit thick in ye olde forum.  Perhaps we could ratchet it down a bit before the green dragon seals off the area for fumigation!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

[Cantousent]

kai gar ekeinoi hotan peri tou amphisbetosin, hopei men echei peri hon an ho logos ei ou phrontizousin, hopos de ha autoi ethento tauta doxei tois parousin, touto prothumountai.

[Commissar]

kai gar ekeinoi hotan peri tou amphisbetosin, hopei men echei peri hon an ho logos ei ou phrontizousin, hopos de ha autoi ethento tauta doxei tois parousin, touto prothumountai.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, but mine was a real language.

[Cantousent]

Oh, and apparently at some point I proclaimed myself an intellectual liberal elite.  Which I didn't, but I will now.  On the other hand, I've never seen that as anything negative.  It's only the conservative right that manages to make 'intellectual' an insult.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know, I used to try and argue the point whenever someone referred to me as one of those liberal intellectual elites.  Now I just admit that I can indeed read and move on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Perhaps I'm mischaracterizing what you said. What I understand from your post is that you are a liberal intellectual elite because you can read. However, if that weren't your meaning, I'll take it back. At any rate, I'm happy to let folks read our posts and decide.

 

At any rate, we have more in common than you know. After all, I'm a liberal intellectual elite inasmuchas I can read.

[Cantousent]

kai gar ekeinoi hotan peri tou amphisbetosin, hopei men echei peri hon an ho logos ei ou phrontizousin, hopos de ha autoi ethento tauta doxei tois parousin, touto prothumountai.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, but mine was a real language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mine is transliterated Greek.

[Reveilled]

Anata wa Amerikajin desu ka? Watashi wa terebijion desu.