Thu'um Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 So to sum up, Religion is bad, mkay. and the fact that our presidents arent Athiests mean they are idiots. > ....what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Green Fox Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 What I really think: Religion doesn't have to be bad, however many holy books have a few dumb considerably odd things in them, which is something u can find in common with all the religions. Why else would so many people feel they have to reinterpret sacred texts? For example, there is a part of the bible where it says to throw stones at women who have hair (The Old Testament). That is obviously very stupid. Spirituality is the way to go, if ur gonna believe in God. Meditate, ask your higher self for guidance, and listen to crazy trance techno music. There. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I believe in freedom of speech. Everyone's ree to believe what they want. The issue is when someone tries to dictate one of those believes in a poli-religious country. You'll opress the people. But also, I'm not the one who believes that Christmas is offensive. Official religious holidays should be the ones of the bigger fraction of the population, with the other minor parts free of celebrating theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I'm not religious by any means and don't think Christmas is offensive...or particularily religious anymore, being that I and many other non-religious folk celebrate it. Lots of people celebrate it as just a family get-together thing and so many Christmas traditions are yoinked from other festivals and religions that a lot of it is Christian in name only. When I lived in South Florida we even had Jewish friends and family who put up Christmas trees because they thought they were pretty. Honestly, if someone is wishing you a Merry Christmas, they're basically wishing you wellness for the season, and most of the time aren't being condescending or saying "haha, other religions suck!" Getting offended over holiday greetings is dumb, no matter what the greeting is. Harlow: COME AT ME BRO :B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 So to sum up, Religion is bad, mkay. and the fact that our presidents arent Athiests mean they are idiots. Not that, just keep yer trap shut about yours and don't shove it down others' throats. Harlow: COME AT ME BRO :B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 "Especially: separate your religious views from your political ones." - DZ hm, then why not seperate my views from my social class, or my income as these influnce my views as well. So why is it bad to have religous views in politcs? honostly i still don't see a problem of a man made with chrsitian morals going into office. He wouldn't be able to force others into his belifes because the of the constition. Hell, we could have to pope(a very exteme example i know) be president and regardless of the fact the man has spent his entire life as a devoted catholic. He couldn't force any one to pick up his morals if they violated rights. Prehaps, lets say, he attempts to make not going to church punishable, or requires us all to pray every day. Well guess what? that gets shot down by congress or the supreme court hella fast. But if he thinks ,as a christian, we should fined heavly for litering or somthing and raises fines for litering, then he succesfuly installed his own religous opinion and with out violating other's belifs or rights. And yet this was a christian moral. Point is the constition enables religous oppions in office yet refrains thoase that violate others rights. So if i went into office with the morals of the most extreme islmaic type. I could not generate any law that would violate rights, so why does it matter if i have such Radical islamic beliefs. Religion however does not deserve certian places in goverment, such as steve said earlyer its shouldn't determine who recieves an office. It should not be a determiner in what is just or not. nor a serve as a constition for any goverment. This can be seen in some middle eastern countries. they're goverments are based of islamic law which all things are directly influnced and desided by one "code". In the US religons such as christianty may influnce several things they cannot dictate anything that would violate some ones rights. just bouncing the ball of the wall here dz . your good for me to refelct some things on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 He wouldn't be able to force others into his belifes because the of the constition. Except that's exactly what they want to do. In fact, gay marriage? It should already be legal, being that marriage is a right and yet they are continually denied it. So, the opponents come from, you guessed it: the religious. Just as it's the religious that are responsible for abysmal sex education and opposition to birth control, just as it is the religious who say such horrid things as women are lucky to be impregnated through rape, just as it is the religious who use their power to instill fear against Muslims, against LGBTQ, against the non-religious, against women, and against anyone else who does not suit their worldview. You say religious leaders wouldn't be able to force others into their beliefs? AJC...that's what they've been doing for years. But if he thinks ,as a christian, we should fined heavly for litering or somthing and raises fines for litering, then he succesfuly installed his own religous opinion and with out violating other's belifs or rights. And yet this was a christian moral. Point is the constition enables religous oppions in office yet refrains thoase that violate others rights. what am I even reading here "Don't litter" is not a Christian opinion, "you can't marry who you want to marry because my magic book told me that you can't" is a "Christian" opinion. That doesn't even make sense. Am I automatically a Christian because I support environmentalism, just because the Pope is president and he says so? WHAT ARE THESE WORDS YOU ARE TYPING AND WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT SPELLCHECK APP 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 the constitution hardly keeps people in government from imposing their religious views on others through force of law. it certainly didn't stop DOMA from passing, for instance, when the main reason for opposition to same-sex marriage is religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ala1n-J Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) Church and state separated... the intention is good, but religion is a way of thinking the world's mecanisms, and so some religious nuts think about society from their reigion's sayings, out of any social and/or economical point. This leads to people making/blocking laws that satisfy/offense religions. This is why homosexuals are denied gay marriage (where it should be legal), abortion is a sensitive matter because christian fanatics say it's killing life (abortion is no easy matter, but the simple idea of a raped woman dealing with the child of her agressor should be enough to allow abortion) and it goes on for other things (for example, in France, there have been many cases of Islamophobia/Islam-regulation discussions recently EDIT : Mostly to avoid talking about real problems). Edited March 17, 2012 by Ala1n-J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 why not seperate my views from my social class, or my income as these influnce my views as well. So why is it bad to have religous views in politcs? honostly i still don't see a problem of a man made with chrsitian morals going into office. Socioeconomics and religion are not equivalent influences. Religious issues do not deal with what people need to live. Because many religious ideas can harm other groups, it is not an appropriate ground for policy. Socioeconomic conditions, on the other hand, have a large impact on the health and livelihood of people. A person born into poverty has to work a LOT harder to get to the same level as a member of the lucky sperm club (Born to upper-middle class or rich parents), and there are significant barriers to prevent social mobility, some of which are impossible to overcome without outside assistance. Thus, not only is this an appropriate ground for policy, there is a NEED for policy here. This is why I like to call the sentence "Work hard, and you'll succeed in America" The Great American Lie. That does not mean, however, that you can't be a religious person in office. One of the differences between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum is that Romney does not let his religion be the primary driver of his policies. Santorum, on the other hand, is running on a religious zealot platform. He wouldn't be able to force others into his belifes because the of the constition. Hell, we could have to pope(a very exteme example i know) be president and regardless of the fact the man has spent his entire life as a devoted catholic. He couldn't force any one to pick up his morals if they violated rights. Prehaps, lets say, he attempts to make not going to church punishable, or requires us all to pray every day. Well guess what? that gets shot down by congress or the supreme court hella fast. But if he thinks ,as a christian, we should fined heavly for litering or somthing and raises fines for litering, then he succesfuly installed his own religous opinion and with out violating other's belifs or rights. And yet this was a christian moral. Point is the constition enables religous oppions in office yet refrains thoase that violate others rights. I'm sure the Pope is ineligible for the presidency, seeing as how the Vatican is an independent country. As far as the rest of this paragraph, that is the way it is supposed to be, but look at the anti-contraception laws being passed in the Southern states. These laws violate people's rights, but they don't give a shit. So if i went into office with the morals of the most extreme islmaic type. I could not generate any law that would violate rights, so why does it matter if i have such Radical islamic beliefs. Religion however does not deserve certian places in goverment, such as steve said earlyer its shouldn't determine who recieves an office. It should not be a determiner in what is just or not. nor a serve as a constition for any goverment. This can be seen in some middle eastern countries. they're goverments are based of islamic law which all things are directly influnced and desided by one "code". In the US religons such as christianty may influnce several things they cannot dictate anything that would violate some ones rights. Religion should have minimal influence, if any, on policy. Some of the radical Christian groups out there have ideas just a crazy as the redical Muslims. Also, Christian governments have done it too. Look upo the history of the colony of Massachusetts. BAT. SHIT. CRAZY. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 it's funny, really. Ron Paul is a lunaticlibertarian. Mitt Romney is a chamber of commerce conservative who honestly probably doesn't really give a shit about these social issues. Newt Gingrich is a being of pure evil who is fortunately blended with a healthy dose of hilarious incompetence and so poses little threat to the nation, but either way, trying to find out what Newt Gingrich believes is like thermonuclear war or trying to figure out time cube, so i have not attempted it. but Santorum? he's a fascist. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I think we can all agree that politicians suck and organized religion, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, or anything spiritual in nature, is a very open and very accessible avenue for getting a shitfuck of followers to help said politicians who suck. You know, like money is. Or property. Or having more cows. Or pointing out the other guys have more cows than you. POLITICS IS WHY PEOPLE ARBITRARILY HATE NICE THINGS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Ron Paul is a lunaticlibertarian. Ron Paul isn't even a real libertarian. His stances on, for example, some Women's Health issues (Abortion and Contraception) are clearly not libertarian. What is more laughable is that the guy's a fucking gynecologist. He's also a racist. Even if he didn't write those articles, if you believe he didn't know what was being published for years in his name, I can get you a great deal on some oceanfront property in Nebraska. BTW, his district is one of the large "white-hood" areas of Texas with active KKK chapters and neo-nazi groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 i'm hesitant to call Ron Paul a racist on the grounds that racist things were published under his name simply because of the monomania he exhibits. i think it's just as likely, really, that he allowed those articles because they meshed with his Anti-Big-Gubbmint schtick and that was the only thing he was focused on, to the exclusion of everything else, like, say, racism. this doesn't really leave Ron Paul looking any better than if he really were a racist. it's the mentality of someone who would nuke Beijing because he thinks the Chinese are putting mind-controlling drugs in his coffeemaker. although i suppose one may question whether he's really aware of the rest of the world in the first place, since what little he offers on foreign policy is so hopelessly 18th century that i almost imagine, if he were President, his head would just explode on day one in the Oval Office when he gets that daily brief about what's going on in the rest of the world. which...also leaves Ron Paul looking pretty bad, actually. he may actually be a racist. i'm just not sure that articles being published in his name that are full of racism make him a racist when it is also well-documented that he is crazy and you can be crazy without being racist. then again, honestly, the common currency of the GOP this cycle isn't ideology or ideas or anything anyways. it's hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesseboyd7 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 He's also a racist. I'm not sure if Ron Paul is really racist, heres a testimony from a guy named James Williams that received help from Dr. Paul I wonder where that statement came from RP being racist. Mainstream media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Monroe Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I wonder where that statement came from RP being racist. Mainstream media? I've long given up on Ron Paul (but mostly because I rage quit politics as a whole), but dat fuckin' video made my day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 wow, Ron Paul avoids bullets almost as well as he avoids winning primaries 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I'm not sure if Ron Paul is really racist, heres a testimony from a guy named James Williams that received help from Dr. Paul I wonder where that statement came from RP being racist. So, a woman was in the hospital. Ron Paul is a physician. He treated her when the nurses wouldn't do anything (which isn't too uncommon, I worked in a hospital for a while). That's called being professional and doing his job. I am not saying he is the "Imma kill me a nigger" racist. He's more of the "Blacks are more prone to commit crimes and be social degenerates,and thus must be watched carefully and not trusted with important things" racist. Also, why is it the media's fault when it was Paul who wrote and/or published the racist writings with rebuttals or attempts to distance himself (until it became a campaign issue)? I firmly believe it is the media's job to report when a presidential candidate has written or published racist things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 at any rate, he's retiring from Congress this year, so hopefully he'll just fade away into well-deserved obscurity and i'll never have to hear about Ron fucking Paul ever again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Ron fucking Paul Sorry. Anyway.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Ron Weasley X Paul McCartney OTP edit: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think that religion should be a large part of the people we elect, because this nation was founded way back in 1776 on Christian principles. So, if we elect a Muslim or an atheist president, we pay the consequences, because it was our choice. I mean, I hate to be inflammatory, but look at how much President Obama has distanced us from our Christian base as a nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticQuery Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think that religion should be a large part of the people we elect, because this nation was founded way back in 1776 on Christian principles. So, if we elect a Muslim or an atheist president, we pay the consequences, because it was our choice. I mean, I hate to be inflammatory, but look at how much President Obama has distanced us from our Christian base as a nation. But that Christian base is largely outdated. I guarantee that in 1776 the United States didn't have nearly as many immigrants as it has today. With immigration comes widespread beliefs, religions, morals, etc. Going on a single religion's morals is counterintuitive, especially since the bill of rights gives people the freedom to practice their own religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion LOL Yeah, no. Was the United States founded by a Christian majority? Yes. Well, kind of. I'm sure Native Americans are totally on-board with that, considering they were here long before the Christians came and got all up in their business. Furthermore, you claim any sense of hard work and community put into the establishment of a country is something to be monopolized by Christianity, which it is most certainly not in the slightest. Mostly anything claimed as "Christian morals" outside of the usual bigotry, such as compassion, charity and focus (something that sure as hell isn't practiced by those whining about how America isn't "Christian enough"), is not in the least Christian-exclusive and can be found in some form or another in most every other dominant religion and absence thereof. Even LaVeyan Satanism has numerous rules, including ones against thievery, rape/sexual harassment and harming children and animals. Claiming that any positive traits in one's person is due to a Christian theology is incredibly narrow-minded, and equating goodness to homogenous religion is not only something that does not work but will only lead to conflict. Religion is a personal choice, and even those who claim to be Christian tend to only be "Christian" in the way that is convenient for them. And being that it is a personal choice, it is not something that you should, or even truly can, force onto people. Even the Christian majority--the by-the-book Bible-thumping zealots who cry about the land their forefathers stole not being "Christian" enough--is, dare I say, not in it for any inherent moral value. They are openly spiteful people who spend more time hating on the gays than spreading compassion because of a dangerous pack mentality bred out of a fear of not being "Christian enough" themselves. It's the same mindset shared by playground bullies: you pick on those who are different based on their difference alone, not by the way they've treated you or others, and then use every excuse to justify your actions. People use God as the ultimate excuse, but if you ask me, that's a pretty shitty way to treat the guy who's supposed to be all about love and respecting your neighbor and all those other boring nice things. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xortberg Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 You know, I was going to have a blast saying exactly what Dras said, but then she said it for me. Christianity is not in any way more inherently good or moral than any other religion, or atheism. Implying that it is is a mindblowingly huge superiority complex. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts