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.