(02-24-2010 10:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 11:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

I think you need to review history.

Which part? The Inquisition? Burning at the stake those whose scientific pursuits led them to heresy? Intolerance to those with a different religion? Is that better than Iran?

The advancement of civilization was held up by crap like that.

Like I said, you need to review some history. And in case I wasn't clear, I'm referring to factual history, not pretend.

(02-25-2010 11:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

Say what?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologetics

The secular analogy is

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalization

Are you suggesting that this has a place in the scientific method?

(02-25-2010 11:28 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 11:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

Say what?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologetics

The secular analogy is

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalization

Are you suggesting that this has a place in the scientific method?

I think you have extrapolated well beyond what I suggested in that one post. What I simply said is that Christianity most certainly looks for evidence to support its tenets.

And the field of apologetics has gone thru logical rigors akin to those seen in what you refer to as "science." (The fact is, there is a strong connection between those two, and Rodney Stark proposes it's a causal relationship. However, that's the stuff of books and dissertations.)

My main point is NIU007's comments are baseless in history, and therefore are pointless to a factual discussion. I do understand that some amateur apologists promote some very silly conclusions...but citing them as "proof" of something more than people can be stupid, is no more valid than referencing Mel Brooks or Monty Python on history.

There is no point in discussing NIU007's conclusions, because his though process starts with fictional accounts, and can scarcely lead anywhere but to fictional conclusions.

(02-25-2010 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 11:28 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 11:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

Say what?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologetics

The secular analogy is

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalization

Are you suggesting that this has a place in the scientific method?

I think you have extrapolated well beyond what I suggested in that one post. What I simply said is that Christianity most certainly looks for evidence to support its tenets.

And the field of apologetics has gone thru logical rigors akin to those seen in what you refer to as "science." (The fact is, there is a strong connection between those two, and Rodney Stark proposes it's a causal relationship. However, that's the stuff of books and dissertations.)

My main point is NIU007's comments are baseless in history, and therefore are pointless to a factual discussion. I do understand that some amateur apologists promote some very silly conclusions...but citing them as "proof" of something more than people can be stupid, is no more valid than referencing Mel Brooks or Monty Python on history.

There is no point in discussing NIU007's conclusions, because his though process starts with fictional accounts, and can scarcely lead anywhere but to fictional conclusions.

Giordano Bruno is not a fictional account. Galileo being threatened by religious authorities is not a fictional account. These are just the ones we've heard about. The ones that decided not to publish (or not to continue research) because they knew what would happen I'm sure far outnumber these few.

(02-25-2010 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 11:28 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 11:11 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 05:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  People have a poor understanding of the crusades, inquisition and early church/state. Kings were proclaimed "divine" by themselves. They didn't want people worshiping God, but couldn't stop them... so they appointed themselves god on earth. To be against the king was to be against God. This wasn't a REAL form of worship/religion... but one borne out of a desire not to be killed for disagreeing with the king.

Our founders understood this and made it so that our leaders could not claim a divine right to lead... though many obviously don't get that.

Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

No, it's treated as a theory. And not a well-founded one until someone either duplicates the experiment confirming the results, or finds other evidence in line with it. It's pretty much never a "fact". Even Einstein's general relatively may need to be revised. Yes, some in the media or in the general populace overhype the evidence for things. But now you're talking about the general population and not science or scientists.

Science is based on evidence, religion is not. How is that the same?

Say what?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologetics

The secular analogy is

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rationalization

Are you suggesting that this has a place in the scientific method?

I think you have extrapolated well beyond what I suggested in that one post. What I simply said is that Christianity most certainly looks for evidence to support its tenets.

Of course. After all, this entire thread is an exercise in

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/characterization

And, I think you knew that when you wrote the thread title.

(02-25-2010 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  And the field of apologetics has gone thru logical rigors akin to those seen in what you refer to as "science." (The fact is, there is a strong connection between those two, and Rodney Stark proposes it's a causal relationship. However, that's the stuff of books and dissertations.)

Remember,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation

does not equal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/causation

(02-24-2010 08:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 04:29 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-23-2010 11:04 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-22-2010 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I don't know about the progressive part, but if you don't have a secular society you end up with Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.

I think you need to review history.

Just a wild guess here: Something between your Christian utopia and a totally secular society is probably best. I am not exactly sure how many countries could fall into this gap between the 2 so it would probably be difficult to determine how successful it is. The US is probably the closest(probably a good sign that both sides disagree on this which likely means that we ARE in that center point). When one side starts getting too much power, the other side protests and starts going back the other way-keeping us in the middle.

Robert, you now have two intelligent posts to your credit.

Wow....for once I agree with Robert, and I am what he hates the most (Evangelical Fundamentalist Right Wing Conservative Christian Whacko).

(02-25-2010 10:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 06:24 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

Which religions permit the possibility that they may be "proven wrong"? That in itself is a significant distinction between science and religion.

Which is another reason why you need a secular society. Religions won't (perhaps can't) compromise on their beliefs.

Crock...

How's Al Gore coming on compromising HIS beliefs? We can't predict temperatures in 50 days, much less 50 years... yet it doesn't stop people from telling us "the end is near"... climatologists, not the religious. Vegans, Tree-Huggers, PETA... PLENTY of people try and force their belief system upon us every day. The problem is NOT where those beliefs come from... it is whether or not they are generally accepted/proven as fact. Abortion is a perfect example of how religion may not compromise, but plenty of PEOPLE do.

Bottom line... the Constitution protects freedom of religion... of expression... so long as my beliefs don't infringe upon your right to believe something different, I am free to do as I please. If we were to decide that as a country, Jesus was "king"... this would stop Jews and Muslims from expressing themselves... but if I believe that the teachings of Jesus say that every life is precious and am thus against the death penalty (I'm not)... I am not infringing upon the rights of those who disagree. I can't prove it, but believing it doesn't harm you. Your (generically) inability to pass your preferred legislation because I don't believe in what you do doesn't constitute "harm". If global warming is "a settled fact", then like abortion, it will pass. Thus far, the science isn't conclusive.

Freedom OF... not freedom FROM... I fail to understand why so many otherwise intelligent people have such an issue with this. When you can prove that God DOESN'T exist (due process), then you can take away my right to believe it. Until then, I can't stop Al Gore from believing that its okay to pollute the earth as long as you pay some arbitrary fine for it.

(02-25-2010 02:55 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Remember,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation

does not equal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/causation

Read the book before you start lecturing me on the obvious.

(02-25-2010 02:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Giordano Bruno is not a fictional account. Galileo being threatened by religious authorities is not a fictional account.

The way you describe it is fictional.

Galileo was threated by the scientific authorities of his day. Yes, they also happened to be clergy.

*GASP* there goes myth number one, the church actually undertook much of the scientific progress that occurred in the Middle ages.

Secondly, the opposition to Copernicus/Galileo was based on the insistence that Aristotle was right. Yes, scientists clinging to a flawed secular philosopher who didn't have data to back his his theories, got them into trouble. Sound familiar?

Then they made things worse by trying to defend their position based on religion.

Furthermore, most of Galileo's trouble came because he was rivals w/ a powerful Cardinal who disliked him personally. Astronomy was just a convenient excuse.

In the end, ironically enough, the RC Church allowed Galileo to promote heliocentrism theory if he just referred to it as a mathematical tool. Which is exactly what it is.

Now, we can look at your purely secular governments, which is just a repeat of a thread we've already had recently. We have the Marxist Governments of the 20th C, we've had the Robespierre and the French Terror. Maybe you could even throw in Alexander and Ghengis Khan. Do any of those seem like benevolent governments and free societies?

(02-25-2010 04:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 10:35 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 06:24 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-24-2010 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM it. To some, Science is a religion as well. Someone makes a logical assumption and it is treated as fact by many until someone proves it wrong. It's really no different.

Which religions permit the possibility that they may be "proven wrong"? That in itself is a significant distinction between science and religion.

Which is another reason why you need a secular society. Religions won't (perhaps can't) compromise on their beliefs.

Crock...

How's Al Gore coming on compromising HIS beliefs? We can't predict temperatures in 50 days, much less 50 years... yet it doesn't stop people from telling us "the end is near"... climatologists, not the religious. Vegans, Tree-Huggers, PETA... PLENTY of people try and force their belief system upon us every day. The problem is NOT where those beliefs come from... it is whether or not they are generally accepted/proven as fact. Abortion is a perfect example of how religion may not compromise, but plenty of PEOPLE do.

Bottom line... the Constitution protects freedom of religion... of expression... so long as my beliefs don't infringe upon your right to believe something different, I am free to do as I please. If we were to decide that as a country, Jesus was "king"... this would stop Jews and Muslims from expressing themselves... but if I believe that the teachings of Jesus say that every life is precious and am thus against the death penalty (I'm not)... I am not infringing upon the rights of those who disagree. I can't prove it, but believing it doesn't harm you. Your (generically) inability to pass your preferred legislation because I don't believe in what you do doesn't constitute "harm". If global warming is "a settled fact", then like abortion, it will pass. Thus far, the science isn't conclusive.

Freedom OF... not freedom FROM... I fail to understand why so many otherwise intelligent people have such an issue with this. When you can prove that God DOESN'T exist (due process), then you can take away my right to believe it. Until then, I can't stop Al Gore from believing that its okay to pollute the earth as long as you pay some arbitrary fine for it.

My point is not that we should be strictly secular (I don't know anybody that wants that but perhaps you do), perhaps I wasn't clear on my point of view there. Turkey is considered secular since a religious group doesn't run the government, but most of the citizens are religious. I'm fine with things the way they are right now. Just saying that separation of church and state are critical, because I don't think you can have democracy when the church is connected with the government.

Individual scientists, and people like Gore, have a tough time letting go of theories they have propounded and/or spent a good deal of time researching, even if the evidence starts to turn away from their theories. That's natural. The rest of the scientific world though, which doesn't have so much invested in it, can look at the evidence with a clearer eye, and faulty theories eventually get overturned.

(02-25-2010 05:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  My point is not that we should be strictly secular (I don't know anybody that wants that but perhaps you do), perhaps I wasn't clear on my point of view there. Turkey is considered secular since a religious group doesn't run the government, but most of the citizens are religious. I'm fine with things the way they are right now. Just saying that separation of church and state are critical, because I don't think you can have democracy when the church is connected with the government.

The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted. (I can't comment on Turkey).

You don't get to the point where you consider individuals as having "rights", you don't get to the place where there are universal ethics, a well understood "right" and "wrong" (such as lying, stealing or murder) in a truly secular society.

Logic proves that point.

History hammers it home.

I get that people don't like Christianity (assuming that's what you mean by 'church' in your last sentence. Even so, that's just a guess). What I don't get is that people come to that conclusion not by looking at Christianity, but by avoiding looking at Christianity.

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted.

Wrong. One of the biggest flaws that gets promoted is that the US was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation.

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  My point is not that we should be strictly secular (I don't know anybody that wants that but perhaps you do), perhaps I wasn't clear on my point of view there. Turkey is considered secular since a religious group doesn't run the government, but most of the citizens are religious. I'm fine with things the way they are right now. Just saying that separation of church and state are critical, because I don't think you can have democracy when the church is connected with the government.

The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted. (I can't comment on Turkey).

You don't get to the point where you consider individuals as having "rights", you don't get to the place where there are universal ethics, a well understood "right" and "wrong" (such as lying, stealing or murder) in a truly secular society.

Logic proves that point.

History hammers it home.

I get that people don't like Christianity (assuming that's what you mean by 'church' in your last sentence. Even so, that's just a guess). What I don't get is that people come to that conclusion not by looking at Christianity, but by avoiding looking at Christianity.

It is a secular society in that religious groups don't run the government. I think most people refer to that as secular, regardless of the fact that religions are allowed. That's why I referred to Turkey, which most consider secular, even though it's a mostly Muslim country. There are degrees of secularism.

When I said 'church' I really meant organized religion. Of any kind. However, I don't have a problem with Christianity or religion, per se. I group up Christian. Just that they shouldn't run the government.

(02-25-2010 04:46 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 02:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Giordano Bruno is not a fictional account. Galileo being threatened by religious authorities is not a fictional account.

The way you describe it is fictional.

Galileo was threated by the scientific authorities of his day. Yes, they also happened to be clergy.

*GASP* there goes myth number one, the church actually undertook much of the scientific progress that occurred in the Middle ages.

Secondly, the opposition to Copernicus/Galileo was based on the insistence that Aristotle was right. Yes, scientists clinging to a flawed secular philosopher who didn't have data to back his his theories, got them into trouble. Sound familiar?

Then they made things worse by trying to defend their position based on religion.

Furthermore, most of Galileo's trouble came because he was rivals w/ a powerful Cardinal who disliked him personally. Astronomy was just a convenient excuse.

In the end, ironically enough, the RC Church allowed Galileo to promote heliocentrism theory if he just referred to it as a mathematical tool. Which is exactly what it is.

Now, we can look at your purely secular governments, which is just a repeat of a thread we've already had recently. We have the Marxist Governments of the 20th C, we've had the Robespierre and the French Terror. Maybe you could even throw in Alexander and Ghengis Khan. Do any of those seem like benevolent governments and free societies?

They didn't just disagree with Galileo though. They threatened his life unless he recanted. As it is he was placed under house arrest. That they were powerful enough to have him executed because they disagreed with him is the issue. Based on what happened to Bruno, probably not an idle threat.

Nowadays churches can't have you executed.

(02-25-2010 05:44 PM)Yahweh Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted.

Wrong. One of the biggest flaws that gets promoted is that the US was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation.

No one thinks the country was intended to be a Christian nation. Do you misread everything?

(02-25-2010 06:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It is a secular society in that religious groups don't run the government.

There's no point arguing about semantics, but I think that expression means something very different than you do.

(02-25-2010 06:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  My point is not that we should be strictly secular (I don't know anybody that wants that but perhaps you do), perhaps I wasn't clear on my point of view there. Turkey is considered secular since a religious group doesn't run the government, but most of the citizens are religious. I'm fine with things the way they are right now. Just saying that separation of church and state are critical, because I don't think you can have democracy when the church is connected with the government.

The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted. (I can't comment on Turkey).

You don't get to the point where you consider individuals as having "rights", you don't get to the place where there are universal ethics, a well understood "right" and "wrong" (such as lying, stealing or murder) in a truly secular society.

Logic proves that point.

History hammers it home.

I get that people don't like Christianity (assuming that's what you mean by 'church' in your last sentence. Even so, that's just a guess). What I don't get is that people come to that conclusion not by looking at Christianity, but by avoiding looking at Christianity.

It is a secular society in that religious groups don't run the government. I think most people refer to that as secular, regardless of the fact that religions are allowed. That's why I referred to Turkey, which most consider secular, even though it's a mostly Muslim country. There are degrees of secularism.

When I said 'church' I really meant organized religion. Of any kind. However, I don't have a problem with Christianity or religion, per se. I group up Christian. Just that they shouldn't run the government.

Who is "they"? People who consider themselves Christians?? Are you saying a preacher shouldn't run for office?

The PROBLEM comes NOT when someone claims to be personally lead by faith to do good things, but when somene says that if you don't follow them, you are going to be cast out/burn/you name it. Claiming to be a messenger of God/appointed by God, not simply being a follower of his principles. I'm sorry. I know the agnostics and athiests think this is wrong... but it's not.

If I say I'm a Christian... and Christians believe in the sanctity of life, so I am voting against the death penalty because of my personal conviction... I am fine. If I say God spoke to me and said to vote against this... and that if you oppose me, He will burn you... that is wrong. You can't legislate against a person's upbringings and the opinions that bring about their core beliefs... you can only legislate against their trying to legislate under the guise of divine authority to do so.

Freedom OF, not FROM.

(02-25-2010 07:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:44 PM)Yahweh Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted.

Wrong. One of the biggest flaws that gets promoted is that the US was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation.

No one thinks the country was intended to be a Christian nation. Do you misread everything?

If it were, the name Jesus would be in there rather than words like "Creator". The fathers CLEARLY believed in a higher power and that people should be free to practice their faith and be lead by it... even in deciding how to vote... IF they choose to.

(02-25-2010 08:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 06:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It is a secular society in that religious groups don't run the government.

There's no point arguing about semantics, but I think that expression means something very different than you do.

I wouldn't have said that if I didn't know what it meant.

Oxford American College Dictionary: Secular: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

Like the US government.

Besides that, I've heard many times in general usage that secular countries refer to those not controlled by religion. True, communist countries are secular, but not all secular countries disapprove of religion. If you're talking about countries where religion is not allowed, that's a different story.

(02-25-2010 09:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 06:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  My point is not that we should be strictly secular (I don't know anybody that wants that but perhaps you do), perhaps I wasn't clear on my point of view there. Turkey is considered secular since a religious group doesn't run the government, but most of the citizens are religious. I'm fine with things the way they are right now. Just saying that separation of church and state are critical, because I don't think you can have democracy when the church is connected with the government.

The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted. (I can't comment on Turkey).

You don't get to the point where you consider individuals as having "rights", you don't get to the place where there are universal ethics, a well understood "right" and "wrong" (such as lying, stealing or murder) in a truly secular society.

Logic proves that point.

History hammers it home.

I get that people don't like Christianity (assuming that's what you mean by 'church' in your last sentence. Even so, that's just a guess). What I don't get is that people come to that conclusion not by looking at Christianity, but by avoiding looking at Christianity.

It is a secular society in that religious groups don't run the government. I think most people refer to that as secular, regardless of the fact that religions are allowed. That's why I referred to Turkey, which most consider secular, even though it's a mostly Muslim country. There are degrees of secularism.

When I said 'church' I really meant organized religion. Of any kind. However, I don't have a problem with Christianity or religion, per se. I group up Christian. Just that they shouldn't run the government.

Who is "they"? People who consider themselves Christians?? Are you saying a preacher shouldn't run for office?

The PROBLEM comes NOT when someone claims to be personally lead by faith to do good things, but when somene says that if you don't follow them, you are going to be cast out/burn/you name it. Claiming to be a messenger of God/appointed by God, not simply being a follower of his principles. I'm sorry. I know the agnostics and athiests think this is wrong... but it's not.

If I say I'm a Christian... and Christians believe in the sanctity of life, so I am voting against the death penalty because of my personal conviction... I am fine. If I say God spoke to me and said to vote against this... and that if you oppose me, He will burn you... that is wrong. You can't legislate against a person's upbringings and the opinions that bring about their core beliefs... you can only legislate against their trying to legislate under the guise of divine authority to do so.

Freedom OF, not FROM.

(02-25-2010 07:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:44 PM)Yahweh Wrote:  

(02-25-2010 05:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  The US is not a secular society. That is one of the biggest flaws that gets promoted.

Wrong. One of the biggest flaws that gets promoted is that the US was intended by the founding fathers to be a Christian nation.

No one thinks the country was intended to be a Christian nation. Do you misread everything?

If it were, the name Jesus would be in there rather than words like "Creator". The fathers CLEARLY believed in a higher power and that people should be free to practice their faith and be lead by it... even in deciding how to vote... IF they choose to.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm not against religious people running for office. I'm saying that organized religion shouldn't determine how everyone has to act. Which seems pretty much the same as what you're saying.

(02-26-2010 01:42 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. I'm not against religious people running for office. I'm saying that organized religion shouldn't determine how everyone has to act. Which seems pretty much the same as what you're saying.

And here's a better description of why your position can't work

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...r-reasons/