I was just about to say "I prefer to use common sense when casting a vote".
But that would be too close to turning this into another religious argument.
2008 Political debate thread
- Thread starter scanner313
- Start date
- Status
I was just about to say "I prefer to use common sense when casting a vote".
But that would be too close to turning this into another religious argument.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
Absolutely, but a lack of religion doesn't make for poor voting choices.
There's a lot that goes into how people vote. Their religion is a big one, but also their circumstances, the area they live in, etc. It's up to the individual to decide which is the most important area for them. Personally, if someone is not fit to be in a position of power (which I sincerely believe Palin is not in any way shape or form fit to be in a higher government office) but just happens to be religious, I see that as a very poor way to vote. And I'm not talking about you personally Mark, so don't get the wrong idea
I know you take a look at the issues and what the candidates stand for, you're not one of those who goes "What? Jesus? Alright, you get my vote!". You may be on the opposite side of just about every political decision from me, but at least you think based on something other than what God someone believes in. Really, taht's what it comes down to. I just wish people would think intelligently about a topic before voting for it and consider the possible ramifications. If you come to a different conclusion from me, I can't fault you for an opinion. It just infuriates me to see how many people think God is the only important thing in a vote, which is exactly where the post regarding religion is completely relevant.
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
1) You don't need religion to define your moral compass. If one adheres to a particular philosophy, that provides it. Religion is essentially a philosophy, the only difference is that philosophy doesn't rely on an invisible man in the sky to make it so.
2) If an executive branch member passes a law that infringes on people's freedom based solely on matters dealing with religion, then yes, that is a huge breech of the church/state separation. (The most notable examples I can give would be abortion and gay marriage).
Ascension
New Metal Member
I don't know who Jim Walker is...and from what he has to say...l don't want to know him. Especially how he tries to twist information to suit his beliefs.
Here's some of what Thomas Jefferson believes though...
Anybody who doesn't believe he meant the God of Christianity when God is mentioned in the Declaration...is a fool.
Ascension
New Metal Member
Don't pay any attention to this person....he's been indoctrinated by the liberal collegiate system that exists in our midst that putrifies minds to the extreme left. Yes, l spent some time in that system as well...but he drank the koolaid...l passed on it.
Anybody can believe what they want as far as l'm concerned...no sweat of my nuts. But if your going to vomit an opinion about something that may matter to me...expect it back...hardcore.
noble savage
Member
OK... Now go back and research his views during and after his presidency. You do realize he changed his stance to the point of cutting out all of the miracles/impossibilities in the bible while he was president, right?
Here: Read his autobiography. He was far from being a Christian, but he did respect Jesus' teachings/philosophy.
Also, where did you get those quotes?
Honestly though, I don't see why it really matters what the people who founded this country believed. Some where Christian, some where deists (The closest thing there was to atheism until Darwin came along). It was hundreds of years ago, many of the things they dealt with are completely different than today.
Here: Read his autobiography. He was far from being a Christian, but he did respect Jesus' teachings/philosophy.
Also, where did you get those quotes?
Honestly though, I don't see why it really matters what the people who founded this country believed. Some where Christian, some where deists (The closest thing there was to atheism until Darwin came along). It was hundreds of years ago, many of the things they dealt with are completely different than today.
squidfetish
Member
It's not just Jim Walker, mate, I've seen those same points made in quite a few books, Walker was just the closest source to hand at the time. You don't want to know him because his viewpoint differs to yours, but I like the way you use the phrase 'twisting information!' Nice one. As far as political life goes, there's a big difference between having your own religious beliefs and insisting that that your country moves towards theocracy status as a result of those beliefs. I can't help the feeling that as a species we haven't learnt very much since those times with regard to religion and dogma. I think if religion is to be kept as a part of society in any form then it needs to evolve away from dogmatic metaphysics and into the 21st century.
ABQShredHead
©1970
Do refer back to what you quoted me on - "helps define" in particular.
Congress makes the law, and can push it into law regardless of the Executive branch. I'm much more fearful of what our Dem Congress is capable of (well, they pretty much seem incapable of doing anything, really - maybe I shouldn't be so fearful afterall) putting into law than I am of what our President will pass into law.
I'm against both issues you brought up. Neither are tied 100% to my religion. I can argue my philosophy just as much as anybody can point their religion at these topics.
No wrong idea gotten.
That would infer "sense" is actually "common", which I cannot say it is. You're British, for one, and you sensicalities are quite different from, say, mine, as an American. You're also 17, I'm 37 - that woudl imply I have 20 more years of sense development from my life experiences than you would. What may be regarded by you as "common sense" may be regarded by others as "why the hell would you think that?"
I can see how abortion is an issue, as in there is argument of when a couple of cells turn into a life, etc.
I just don't understand how anyone can be against gay marriage. How is that affecting you in any way?
I just don't understand how anyone can be against gay marriage. How is that affecting you in any way?
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
Do refer back to what you quoted me on - "helps define" in particular.
point taken. moving along
This is what I keep telling myself too, haha.
I understand all sides of the issues here and honestly, unless its your religion telling you these things are bad, I can't see how someone could logically want to ban gay marriage or abortion. Keep in mind I really don't care if people are against it, but I'm talking about passing laws that prohibit these things that I think is wrong.
And now to stir the pot in an entirely different direction... I can't believe no one has mentioned the mess that just happened on wall street this week. Granted I'm not 100% up on the latest news either, but from what I gather, they're calling it the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression (!?!) thoughts?
Yngvai X
Dark Emperor
Yaz nailed it with the first one... when does the fetus gain consciousness? Before that, I can't consider it bad to destroy it. Something thats not aware its alive is not going to be aware that it just died, or else we might as well make it illegal to eat vegetables (but hey this might make for a good anti-PETA campaign, maybe thats not a bad idea after all!). PS - at this point is where the Christians chime in with "but humans have souls" and we're back at the whole passing legislature based on religious beliefs again.
I can sorta see where you could take the gay marriage argument thats outside of religion (but they're using MY tax dollars to do something I think is morally disgusting (being gay) because I'm a homophobe) But really, this is a silly argument too, cause I think its morally horrible if two douchebags who aren't fit for reproduction decide to get married, and I don't want my tax dollars going towards fostering the stupidity of the human race. My point is, its no more justifiable to try to ban gay marriage than it is to ban "douchebag ones" The issue of tax money being spent on it is a moot point as far as I'm concerned, and an entirely different subject all together.
RiderOfJustice
New Metal Member
BAHAHAHAH!!!! Christianity and every other fucking religion doesen't do this as well???? *cough*hypocrite*cough*
Wow dude.. Talk about a hypocrite... Just gtfo. In god we trust? God can suck my sweaty sack. Im an american and I know religion is bullshit. Stop giving us a bad name by making us sound like religious psychos. Next time drink the punch.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
As already mentioned, you've got several historical errors here.
1. The first 5 or so books of the Old Testament did exist when Jesus lived. They were not written books, they were orally passed down Jewish tradition, along with the Torah that Yas mentioned. He was a Jew just like the rest of his people.
2. The name of God on bills is an ironic mention. What of the eye above the pyramid? Are you going to suggest that the founding fathers were also Egyptian mystics? Whatever symbolism you're reading deep into here, you've read too far.
3. I believe our founding fathers would demand revolution if they lived in the current age, precisely as they did in their contemporary times. Also as already mentioned, the Pledge was modified to combat atheism and low morale due to WW2 and the spread of Communism. It is not original. You could even say that this was one of the first signs of the crumbling of American psyche - the dependence on religion as a crutch to salve fears.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Of course a politician is going to bring his/her own personal morals into the equation while in office. These morals are essentially a big factor that people keep in mind when voting for them; however, personal philosophies are dangerous tools when dogma is added to them. Dogma is essentially what creates religion, and my belief is that dogma is only created when people want to abuse others' philosophies for the purpose of power and control. Religion is a business, especially in America where anybody can create one for the purpose of pursuing happiness (making money).
A good way to give an example of what I am talking about is to look at eastern religions (philosophies). All eastern beliefs originate from philosophical views of life, reality, nature, and in some cases enlightenment. Hinduism is a religion of many many gods and deities; however, they are no more than artistic personifications of natural orders and cycles. Even so, I call Hinduism a religion because dogmatic tradition was set forth in India with the intent of creating life built around it. India is the perfect example of a country without a seperation of church and state as they created the infamous "caste system".
Gautama Buddha, or "The Buddha", of Buddhism simply based his philosophies off of his experiences brought about by the excercise of anapanasati meditation (awareness of breathing). However; knowing the consequences that religious dogmatic traditions bring to philisophical and spiritual belief, he begged that he not be worshipped after his death. He wanted the importance of Buddhism to come from the teachings and philosophy, not the person who taught it. Even so, Buddhism is not totally seperated from dogmatic tradition as there are things such as temples and shrines all throughout Asia dedicated to Buddha's worship. The reason for this is due to the fact that many did not follow Buddha's wish to not be worshipped, which is part of the reason why there was a split of Buddhism into Theravada and Mahayana.
For anyone who cares enough, look up Taoism, even if just on wikipedia. I don't want to ramble on; however, Taoism is a prime example of how philisophical views can be contained within a school of thought rather than be turned into a religion by dogma.
In the end I am saying that everyone has their own philosophies and beliefs, yet a politician who is a tool of a religion (dogma) will remain a tool while in office. This is the reason why people like Sarah Palin scare me. For example, a president who is part of the catholic church will most likely make decisions based on the teachings of the catholic church; however, when a belief system is left without the addition of dogma and organized religion there is a much lesser possibility of corruption occuring.
A good way to give an example of what I am talking about is to look at eastern religions (philosophies). All eastern beliefs originate from philosophical views of life, reality, nature, and in some cases enlightenment. Hinduism is a religion of many many gods and deities; however, they are no more than artistic personifications of natural orders and cycles. Even so, I call Hinduism a religion because dogmatic tradition was set forth in India with the intent of creating life built around it. India is the perfect example of a country without a seperation of church and state as they created the infamous "caste system".
Gautama Buddha, or "The Buddha", of Buddhism simply based his philosophies off of his experiences brought about by the excercise of anapanasati meditation (awareness of breathing). However; knowing the consequences that religious dogmatic traditions bring to philisophical and spiritual belief, he begged that he not be worshipped after his death. He wanted the importance of Buddhism to come from the teachings and philosophy, not the person who taught it. Even so, Buddhism is not totally seperated from dogmatic tradition as there are things such as temples and shrines all throughout Asia dedicated to Buddha's worship. The reason for this is due to the fact that many did not follow Buddha's wish to not be worshipped, which is part of the reason why there was a split of Buddhism into Theravada and Mahayana.
For anyone who cares enough, look up Taoism, even if just on wikipedia. I don't want to ramble on; however, Taoism is a prime example of how philisophical views can be contained within a school of thought rather than be turned into a religion by dogma.
In the end I am saying that everyone has their own philosophies and beliefs, yet a politician who is a tool of a religion (dogma) will remain a tool while in office. This is the reason why people like Sarah Palin scare me. For example, a president who is part of the catholic church will most likely make decisions based on the teachings of the catholic church; however, when a belief system is left without the addition of dogma and organized religion there is a much lesser possibility of corruption occuring.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Oh, and I forgot to totally agree with those stating that the "God" references do not particularly mean the christian God. It is moreso describing human nature a morals. We trust in the common morals we have between one another, as humans. Back in the time that these things were written, one of the biggest attractions America had going for it was religious freedom; however, at the time practically all of the religions that were being practiced were those that were based on beliefs that promoted the same common sense human morals. Thus, the God references refer to trusting in these same common beliefs.
Kenneth R.
Cináed
Indeed, and anyone who knows more than what you could gleen from National Treasure 2 about the 1700s will tell you that these luminaries were more concerned with a general concept of goodness and godliness than the definition of a particular God.
RiderOfJustice
New Metal Member
No, my best post was the one in which I stated that Ayreon is not bad music just because it is cheesy
All joking aside, thanks! I really think we have more in common than you might think.
- Status
