America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by frankj1. 68 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Religion and Politics
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Brewha Offline
#51 Posted: Thu, Nov 8 2012, 3:11 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
I don’t think he was joking.
teedubbya Offline
#52 Posted: Thu, Nov 8 2012, 3:14 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Brewha wrote:
I don’t think he was joking.


the best jokes are also true
Brewha Offline
#53 Posted: Thu, Nov 8 2012, 3:22 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
We talkin' bout Bush again?
Smoke_Rings Offline
#54 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 11:01 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2007
Posts: 391
I'm Catholic it's the most important thing to me, way more than my Republican party, trust me. I think everything is a religion, even atheism. Atheist have a whole set of 'Dogmas' and 'beliefs' that are not empirical and to which they even turn superstitious.

Faith and science are not the problem, it's the individual that is the the problem. People make mistakes, all of them. Why should I trust someone who chooses to refrain from expressing faith over someone who does. You may believe that it is politically correct to refrain from such things to me it is says something different. Not necessarily better, just different. I realize that both kinds of candidates have huge errors, in the end that is what is important.

The reference to God is ingrained in the entire history of this nation. If you don't believe me look at the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and least of all your money or any pocket change you may have. I think it is such a shame that prayer has been removed from schools. Education has been on the decline since then. And if we don't have recourse to God then who do we have recourse to, ourselves? Are you really that confident in yourself who are always relying on faith in things and then turning it into religion and superstition in the end?

I said it here a long time ago. When a candidate mentions God in his speech he is not forcing anyone or implementing that everyone in the room is in agreement with him. He or She himself is expressing his faith alone which he should have the right to express. It doesn't automatically turn the room or the nation into a church or church state once God is mentioned. No one is being force to turn into a Catholic, Mormon, Jew or Muslim just because God was referred to.

Should party politics be dropped then? Does Obama being reelected make us all Democrats now? Do we have to follow what he believes? Should we all be skeptical of his abilities to lead the country and therefor seek his impeachment because he is a Democrat? And likewise for Romney and the Republicans. Everybody believes something and we are not all going to agree about what it means. For religion to be singled out doesn't make a lot of sense with this being considered.
z6joker9 Offline
#55 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 11:39 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2011
Posts: 5,902
Are you serious or just trolling? Because trolling is my job.
Brewha Offline
#56 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 11:49 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Smoke_Rings wrote:
. . . .Atheist have a whole set of 'Dogmas' and 'beliefs' that are not empirical and to which they even turn superstitious . . . .


Oh, please - do expand upon this fasciating and wholy unexpected train of thought. Pray (not litteraly), where do atheist dogmas come from? The Dog Star?
victor809 Offline
#57 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 12:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Smoke_Rings wrote:
I'm Catholic it's the most important thing to me, way more than my Republican party, trust me. I think everything is a religion, even atheism. Atheist have a whole set of 'Dogmas' and 'beliefs' that are not empirical and to which they even turn superstitious.


I can't speak for any other atheists, but the only "dogma" you could accuse me of is a belief that something successfully proven in an experimental method, with proper controls, is likely correct. As that does not require actually believing any single fact, and involves the understanding that any "fact" could possibly be disproven with improved experimentation I doubt you could honestly call that dogma.

Quote:

Faith and science are not the problem, it's the individual that is the the problem. People make mistakes, all of them. Why should I trust someone who chooses to refrain from expressing faith over someone who does. You may believe that it is politically correct to refrain from such things to me it is says something different. Not necessarily better, just different. I realize that both kinds of candidates have huge errors, in the end that is what is important.

This isn't an individual candidate issue. This is a twofold question. 1 - why is it that when BOTH candidates are christianish, why is perception that the republican candidate is going to drive us into a dark ages with adherence to obscure biblical passages? Why is the public (myself included) giving the Dem a pass on this? 2 - Why do I even have to hear about the candidate's religion. It should never come up in the performance of their job.

Quote:

The reference to God is ingrained in the entire history of this nation. If you don't believe me look at the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and least of all your money or any pocket change you may have. I think it is such a shame that prayer has been removed from schools. Education has been on the decline since then. And if we don't have recourse to God then who do we have recourse to, ourselves? Are you really that confident in yourself who are always relying on faith in things and then turning it into religion and superstition in the end?

so many problems here. Money didn't have god till I believe the civil war... may have been later. I believe a reference to a creator is in the bill of rights, but not in the constitution at all. And yes, I am that confident in myself,and no I don't rely on "faith" or any other superstition. Your accusation that I do is a bit insulting.

Quote:

I said it here a long time ago. When a candidate mentions God in his speech he is not forcing anyone or implementing that everyone in the room is in agreement with him. He or She himself is expressing his faith alone which he should have the right to express. It doesn't automatically turn the room or the nation into a church or church state once God is mentioned. No one is being force to turn into a Catholic, Mormon, Jew or Muslim just because God was referred to.

agreed. But my statement is that it is unnecessary. There is no need for him to express his faith, UNLESS he is trying to suggest that his faith will play a part in the performance of his job. IF that is the case, then I find it quite disturbing, as I'd rather my country be run by people who believe in actual things, not myth and superstition. A religious adherence is ONLY comforting to an individual who is of the same religion as yourself. Then you know they'll act in similar quirky ways as yourself.

Quote:
For religion to be singled out doesn't make a lot of sense with this being considered.

The candidates (both sides) are the ones that bring it up.
tailgater Offline
#58 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 12:28 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:
I can't speak for any other atheists, but the only "dogma" you could accuse me of is a belief that something successfully proven in an experimental method, with proper controls, is likely correct. As that does not require actually believing any single fact, and involves the understanding that any "fact" could possibly be disproven with improved experimentation I doubt you could honestly call that dogma.


You're becoming a one trick pony. Your narrow minded thought process is just as stifling as a devout religious zealot.
I know numerous well schooled scientists and engineers that don't let "science" interfere with living. Using your logic, you couldn't embrace love or understand guilt. And maybe these emotions are not important to you, but they help define who we are and coupled with our opposable thumbs have helped determined our rank on the food chain.

In other words, stop being pretentious.




victor809 wrote:
agreed. But my statement is that it is unnecessary. There is no need for him to express his faith, UNLESS he is trying to suggest that his faith will play a part in the performance of his job. IF that is the case, then I find it quite disturbing, as I'd rather my country be run by people who believe in actual things, not myth and superstition. A religious adherence is ONLY comforting to an individual who is of the same religion as yourself. Then you know they'll act in similar quirky ways as yourself.



Let's use some of your logic on this one, Vic.
Can you prove to us that a candidate will use his faith in making our laws, simply because they express their faith openly and in a caring manner when addressing their public?
Seems to me that by your logic, this shouldn't even be a discussion. Because the overwhelming proof suggests that faith in God does NOT define our laws over the past 40 years.
In fact, considering your detailed, robotic and sytematic thought process, it is alarming to hear you suggest such observations.
Heck, if you keep this up, we may think you're human.
HockeyDad Offline
#59 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 1:15 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
Brewha wrote:
Oh, please - do expand upon this fasciating and wholy unexpected train of thought. Pray (not litteraly), where do atheist dogmas come from? The Dog Star?



I thought they came from Atheist Conventions or something.
Brewha Offline
#60 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 1:24 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
HockeyDad wrote:
I thought they came from Atheist Conventions or something.


Well SOMEONE has to be making all those pamphlets the atheists keep leaving on my door.
victor809 Offline
#61 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 1:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tailgater wrote:
You're becoming a one trick pony. Your narrow minded thought process is just as stifling as a devout religious zealot.
I know numerous well schooled scientists and engineers that don't let "science" interfere with living. Using your logic, you couldn't embrace love or understand guilt. And maybe these emotions are not important to you, but they help define who we are and coupled with our opposable thumbs have helped determined our rank on the food chain.

In other words, stop being pretentious.

It's what I'm good at, play to your strengths.
How could "science" interfere with living? I'm simply talking about not believing in something that seems patently improbable without sufficient evidence. Ultimately, I'm talking about NOT letting your life be pushed around by unnecessary dogma, theoretically allowing you more freedom to live it. As for emotions, how would I not understand them? They're sophisticated chemical reactions, they're real and they impact everyone who has been conditioned with them. Whats the big deal?


Quote:

Let's use some of your logic on this one, Vic.
Can you prove to us that a candidate will use his faith in making our laws, simply because they express their faith openly and in a caring manner when addressing their public?
Seems to me that by your logic, this shouldn't even be a discussion. Because the overwhelming proof suggests that faith in God does NOT define our laws over the past 40 years.
In fact, considering your detailed, robotic and sytematic thought process, it is alarming to hear you suggest such observations.
Heck, if you keep this up, we may think you're human.


Of course I have no proof they will use faith in making their laws(unless they say they will, then while that isn't proof they'll follow through, it certainly suggests they intend to). However, I can say with absolute certainty that a religious politician is significantly more likely to have their religion influence their policy decisions than a non religious person. Hell, I'll even admit that using a religion to influence a decision does NOT mean that the decision will be a bad one (stopped clock is right twice a day). My concern is always that the decision making process would be based on something patently flawed. Saying "We should make murder against the law because the bible says it's a sin" is just as flawed a decision making process as saying "We should stone all single mothers because the bible says we should".

As for the track record of politicians over the past 40 years... I would suggest (could be wrong) that the amount of posturing around god (on both sides) has gotten much worse recently. And while this may just be empty campaign promises, I don't know that.
Brewha Offline
#62 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 2:35 PM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,202
Hmmm . . . .
It is becoming apparent that victor does not understand the role religion plays in our society.
bloody spaniard Offline
#63 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 2:40 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
^ Haven't read this thread but it appears Victor's either a glutton for punishment or a garrulous sort.Whistle
HockeyDad Offline
#64 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 3:04 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,208
bloody spaniard wrote:
^ Haven't read this thread but it appears Victor's either a glutton for punishment or a garrulous sort.Whistle



Well he hasn't been struck by lightning yet for his behaviour!
bloody spaniard Offline
#65 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 3:12 PM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
No, but I've heard his rash is spreading and his skin tags are falling off.
He doesn't like to talk about it.
victor809 Offline
#66 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 3:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
bloody spaniard wrote:
^ Haven't read this thread but it appears Victor's either a glutton for punishment or a garrulous sort.Whistle


Why does there have to be an "or" there?
tailgater Offline
#67 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 5:07 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
victor809 wrote:

Of course I have no proof they will use faith in making their laws(unless they say they will, then while that isn't proof they'll follow through, it certainly suggests they intend to). However, I can say with absolute certainty that a religious politician is significantly more likely to have their religion influence their policy decisions than a non religious person. Hell, I'll even admit that using a religion to influence a decision does NOT mean that the decision will be a bad one (stopped clock is right twice a day). My concern is always that the decision making process would be based on something patently flawed. Saying "We should make murder against the law because the bible says it's a sin" is just as flawed a decision making process as saying "We should stone all single mothers because the bible says we should".

As for the track record of politicians over the past 40 years... I would suggest (could be wrong) that the amount of posturing around god (on both sides) has gotten much worse recently. And while this may just be empty campaign promises, I don't know that.


But you're not afraid that politicians will "posture" based on their religion. You've stated that they must intend to act upon it.
I suggest that by an overwhelming majority, they have not.


Faith is as much a conviction as any emotion.
I don't understand how two dudes can lust after each other, but I accept it as real.
You hear somebody say "God Bless" and you surmise that they'll enact laws to make the Eucharist a mandatory fifth food group.

Science is important. Science is a tool.
But that doesn't mean that being a tool will make you important.

Now go say 10 Our Fathers and 20 Hail Marys.
God Bless.
frankj1 Offline
#68 Posted: Fri, Nov 9 2012, 7:32 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,274
Brewha wrote:
Well SOMEONE has to be making all those pamphlets the atheists keep leaving on my door.

very funny.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top