Atheism and the USA, followup

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
For me, there is no difference between hating someone for thier skin color, or hating them for thier ideas.
 

What if their idea is to hate you for your skin color?

[Urchin]

Originally posted by indy007
75% agreed that, "if enough people were brought to Christ, social ills would take care of themselves."

Now, I don't put all my faith into that study. That would be ridiculous. I could easily pad such a study by simply picking people who had jesus fish emblems on their trunk (or better, the fish eating the darwin fish), on the logic that people who go to lengths to show their beliefs are more likely to have extremist stances. Ever had your car keyed 2 days after putting a darwin sticker on the trunk? Thankfully it was a crappy car, and a bottle of touch up paint later (and a new darwin sticker) and I was good to go.

Oddly enough, I think that if enough people were brought to Christ (for real, not the Sunday Christians that permeate our society) our "social ills" WOULD take care of themselves.  

A lot of what is wrong with our society (on a social ills level, I'm not going to say that "entitlement thinking is destroying our nation, because I think thats horse****) comes from a basic detachment from what is moral, and good.  

Single parent homes, as a result of having kids out of wedlock, and as a result of divorce.  While I'm not psychologist, I don't see how either can be healthy for a kid.  And a fluffied up kid will grow up to be an fluffied up adult.  This is because we (as a society) see nothing wrong with (irresponsible) premarital sex, OR divorce.  I'm not condemning people for either, but there really is no societal judgement for immoral behavior.  

Discipline.  As a society, we are sadly lacking.  I personally lack discipline, but at least I know.. and if I wanted to I could fix it.  Any decent religion will count discipline amoung its most basic virtues.  

Anyway, thats enough diatribe I suppose.  

I don't personally believe... I'm not a religious person.  I don't know if that'll change, but up till now in my life I've always been kind of a "show me" person.  But I do think that the guidelines set forth for moral behavior are a good thing, and they mostly come from organized religion.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
See Rule #4

This is comedy gold.

Exactly who's freedom were we fighting for in the Mexican War? The Civil War, maybe 1/2 of us were fighting for freedom.. WW1.. freedom to ... uh... Take an Ocean Liner?



"Black and white I defined these terms
Quite clear, no doubt somehow,
Ah but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now"

[Skuzzy]

Talk about polar opposites.  I think organized religion is one of the bigger problems our society faces.  The basic idea behind it may be a sound one, but the implementation lacks a lot to be desired.

The Bible is a dang good book of philosophy.  Lots of good stuff there for sure.  But to take it and use it to lead people around like so much cattle?  I see no benefit from that.  

However, there are people who do need 'organized' religion.  Or organized anything.  Nothing wrong with that, per se.  But as a panacea for curing social ills it lacks a lot to be desired for many.

Then there are those who participate in orgranized religion, who are nothing more than hypocrites.  They do one thing with one crowd, then act entirely different with another crowd.  Always rationalizing thier behavior.  I really do not know how people can live like that.  Thankfully, possibly hopefully, they are few, but I think I am being wishful.

When you really get do to it, we are so busy laying off blame we have no idea what the heart of the problems we have really are.  Until you get to the core, everything else is superflous and a waste of time.

[icemaw]

religion is evil plain and simple

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Specifically, the last paragraph I think more than confirms the belief that God is and was a founding principle over the United States and they cite it:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence , we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

There is more to it, but that paragraph alone, the conclusion, sums up the entire Declaration.

Horsepucky.

Every single instance and refrence to the 'divine' is nothing more (or less) than a nod in the general direction of religionists among the colonists.. a fair piece of the original colonists being essentially religious cults of one stripe or another that migrated here to get out from under the 'state church' of England. The refrence is merely Politics.

Taking the next step in the direction of common sense, please point out a war.. any war.. where one side or the other (and usually both) didn't claim 'divine support' for their cause to either motivate or mollify religionists.

Lastly, the very definte ..do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.. without any nod in any other direction than directly towards THE PEOPLE sums up the 'entire declaration'.

This religionst revisionism and pandering to obfuscate and disguise an agenda towards intolerance for people that are exercising the rights guaranteed by the same document you are attemptingt to subvert to your religionist agenda is utterly disgusting, Bodhi. It's just religious hate rehtoric, thinly vieled.. and deserving of the same quick crushing stomp of the boot that islamic intolerance should receive.

If this nation is to survive, it will be under the Banner of Humanism and not under the Banner of a God.. ANY God. The moment we allow our Military to wear the mantle of 'An Army of God', we will have become the very enemy we seek to destroy.

[Gunslinger]

Good Topid Chairboy,

Icemaws ignorance aside, I'm glad you brought up the Adam's quote because I have one of my own from him that I allways liked

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

While I'm not a strong advocate that the constitution is a wholey "christian" I do beleive it was written specifically for a moral and religious people and based on those judeo christian values.  Not so much in as "Thou shall have no other gods besides Me..." but more or less that it's wrong to murder or lie.  In other words an imoral people would abuse said rights granted to them thus negating the reason entirly to have a constitution.  

I think the likes of Sean Hanity can be extreme and colorfull at times but wholey justified in others.  I do beleive that there are people in this country that specifically forget the whole "free exercise there of" part and jump strait to "seperation of church and state" removing all public aspects of religion for some un-explainable "offensivness".  When people find a cross offensive and not a peta billboard showing an animal with it's guts turned inside out I have to wonder where their motivation comes from and how "tolerant" they really are.

Just my thoughts.

[Nash]

Yeah... well said, Hang.

[Hangtime]

The American Civil Liberties Union is no more or less in charge of our destiny as a nation than God is.

What ticks me off real quick is 'holier than thou' rehtoric hooked to Government policy. And,, I don't give a rats behind who shouts that crap; wether it's the pope or a president..  crap is still crap; no matter what it's wrapped in.

This country is supposed to operate under the Rule of Constitional Law... not the Rule of the Church.

There is NO PLACE in American Policy, Foriegn or Domestic for Religion. ANY religion. Neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence is a Religious Decree.. and expousals to the contrary are utterly disingenous.

It is absolutely CORRECT to slap down attempts by religious groups to hijack the  legal system or government policy for their own ends.. and I agree most wholeheartedly that to allow Religion... ANY religion access to the power of Government is WRONG.

WHY, oh WHY cannot churches and religionists practice their beliefs WITHOUT attempting to cram the stuff down the throats of citizens that have no desire for the taste of the stuff?

Vis a Vis.. I wholeheartedly support the notion that any religious group is free to practice it's faith as they see fit.. as long as they don't attempt to legislate their dogma into law.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Nash
Yeah... well said, Hang.

Not really. I'm having a hard time getting across just how close to the dangerous edge we tread as a nation.. and the more I hear the term 'christian nation' tied to 'United States of America' the more convincied I become that we have failed as a people to keep the promise of a Free Nation.

But, thanks for the sentiment.

[Nash]

Granted, it is a very hard thing to articulate... especially theze daze... but I think you pretty much hit it bang on in that post.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Hangtime
This religionst revisionism and pandering to obfuscate and disguise an agenda towards intolerance for people that are exercising the rights guaranteed by the same document you are attemptingt to subvert to your religionist agenda is utterly disgusting, Bodhi. It's just religious hate rehtoric, thinly vieled.. and deserving of the same quick crushing stomp of the boot that islamic intolerance should receive.

If this nation is to survive, it will be under the Banner of Humanism and not under the Banner of a God.. ANY God. The moment we allow our Military to wear the mantle of 'An Army of God', we will have become the very enemy we seek to destroy.

Listen up Hangtime.

I have NEVER advocated any agenda.  It is more likely you pushing the agenda. You, who fails to understand my statement, warp the context and add false meaning, and then label me as "attempting to subvert the declaration of independence to my religous agenda".  Thats pathetic and a flat out wrong assumption.  In your attempts to deny the existence of God you label and disrespect the opinions of any others who state something that disagrees with your view of issues.

All I stated is what I believe, that the declaration is a document that uses Divine Providence and the judgement of God in it's closing paragraph, which shows that they believed in God, and that is was through those principles that the United States were founded.  I preach no religous intolerance.  I do not believe that the military should be under the any banner other than our flag.  As I stated before, I believe that the United States was founded by those that believed in Judeo/Christian ethics and the belief that those principles set forth in the Old and New Testament were decent moral guidelines to create a society on.  Further more, I do not think that organised religion is what should run a country, I think that is up to the people.  If you think that is hate rhetoric, you need to read the dictionary and find out just what it is.

Your retort shows that while you claim others to be intolerant of views, it is you that is the real intolerant one.  That in a nutshell is hypocritical.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

^^^^^ What he said.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Listen up Hangtime.

I have NEVER advocated any agenda.  It is more likely you pushing the agenda. You, who fails to understand my statement, warp the context and add false meaning, and then label me as "attempting to subvert the declaration of independence to my religous agenda".  Thats pathetic and a flat out wrong assumption.  In your attempts to deny the existence of God you label and disrespect the opinions of any others who state something that disagrees with your view of issues.

All I stated is what I believe, that the declaration is a document that uses Divine Providence and the judgement of God in it's closing paragraph, which shows that they believed in God, and that is was through those principles that the United States were founded.  I preach no religous intolerance.  I do not believe that the military should be under the any banner other than our flag.  As I stated before, I believe that the United States was founded by those that believed in Judeo/Christian ethics and the belief that those principles set forth in the Old and New Testament were decent moral guidelines to create a society on.  Further more, I do not think that organised religion is what should run a country, I think that is up to the people.  If you think that is hate rhetoric, you need to read the dictionary and find out just what it is.

Your retort shows that while you claim others to be intolerant of views, it is you that is the real intolerant one.  That in a nutshell is hypocritical.

I stand by my statement.. and I find the commentary that 'they believed in god' to be neither supportable or proveable.. by EITHER side; religionist or atheist. The point of 'judeo-christian' ethics as coughed up by you is even more disingenuous.. Jews were roundly despised by Christians of the era... and your mention of them I view as merely 'inclusionary' just as the much as the Framers and Authors of the document intended their statements relevant to 'divinity' were.

As a point of refrence from where I sit, I reacted to your statement to be nothing more than a 'green light' for continued erosion of the seperation between church and state, an issue that was clearly understood by the framers... AFWIW, it's proveable beyond any reasonable doubt that they considered the possibility of a 'state' religion to be distasteful at the least, and cause for the taking up arms in revolt if proposed.

If I am in error, and you are NOT calling for the further involvement of religionists in the peformance of the policy of government, then please accept my humble apologies.

[Nash]

Bodhi:

============================
"I have NEVER advocated any agenda."

"... the declaration is a document that uses Divine Providence and the judgement of God in it's closing paragraph, which shows that they believed in God, and that is was through those principles that the United States were founded."



Sounds like an agenda to me.

==========================

"I preach no religous intolerance."

Do I have to do a search on "Bodhi" + "towel heads?" Or "gays" or whatever else you also happen to be intolerant of?

Nice try, but please, don't patronize us.

==========================

"Your retort shows that while you claim others to be intolerant of views, it is you that is the real intolerant one.  That in a nutshell is hypocritical. "

I'm bored.... completely bored of that rhetorical twist. Since when did this become the BBS version of the Special Olympics? It's like saying:

"Yeah, I am an intolerant son of a *****, but because you can't tolerate my intolerate arse, then YOU sir, are intolerant.

What do you take us for? We're certainly not stuck in the playground with ya, no matter how much you you continue to speak to us in the language of school kids.

=============================

What's amazing to me, as a casual observer, is that this tortured language, this sandbox revisionism, this pavlovian barking..... has amounted to anything!

Hang's right. You gotta fight this garbage tooth and nail every single time it raises it's ugly head. And be diligent about it.... because they certainly are. They're not ****ing around.