The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of Derrek
Derrek @dbollus

I completely agree that religion should be left out of politics and the Republican party are the worst offenders when it comes to this. However, I don’t really see it being much of a problem. It seems to me that the religious influence the Republican party once wielded is disappearing. No longer is religion an important part of a candidate’s platform, but it does irritate me when policy positions are explained via religion. I don’t care about a candidate’s faith, Christian or Atheist. I only care about logical thought process and logical policy.

Profile photo of

You are what you do and what you do is controlled by what you believe. Policy makers would be best served to remember that they aren’t permitted to do things that endorse one organized religion over another (long term they CAN’T even if they try as the courts would strike it down)… but ultimately whatever said policy makers do will be informed by what they believe. I’d prefer them be honest and vocal about what they believe as long as they don’t overly push everyone else to adopt their belief system.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@ladylibertarian
@dbollus

I always find it amusing when atheist try to push Christianity out of everyday life, because usually they will show their disdain for anything Christian and say nothing should be taught to our children in school about it, then turn right around and push the atheist agenda.

Kimberly you said, “The science department shouldn’t be legally mandated to teach creationism in school.” But did you hear what you didn’t say? You didn’t say that the schools shouldn’t be mandated to teach the atheist evolution, but they are. Where is your outcry of rage over that?

Derrick you said, “No longer is religion an important part of a candidate’s platform, but it does irritate me when policy positions are explained via religion. I don’t care about a candidate’s faith, Christian or Atheist.” Those of you in the atheist religion always seem to want things one way, yours. To a person of the Christian faith to kill a baby is wrong because the God he believes in says “Thou shalt not murder”, a person of the atheist faith says, “There is no god, Kill it”.

The reason most thinking Christian politicians want you to know that they are a Christian is so when they don’t vote for abortion you will already know why. Just like a Christian knows that when a politician votes for abortion we know he is of the atheist faith and it isn’t necessary for me to wonder why he voted that way.

To me, the atheistic religion is strange, probably as strange as Christianity is to you.

I do however, have a compromise, if you wish to take all Christianity out of schools make sure that all atheism is taken out also. If it is truly your desire to take the practices of Christian faith out of politics then take practices of atheism out of it, too.

The atheist religion says there is no praying,(whom would you pray to) and in accordance to your religion, you practice that at social functions, sporting events, and other large public gatherings. It’s okay with me if that’s how you practice your religion, or even that you teach it to your children, but why do you deem it necessary to teach it to my children when they go to school. They go to school, to football games, and other functions and there are all these atheists practicing their religion, but our children are unable to practice theirs.

Why is it that atheists feel that it is alright to practice their religion and their beliefs, where and when they want to, but Christians should not have that same right?

Profile photo of kimberly
kimberly @ladylibertarian

The primary reason I said take creationism out of schools is because scientifically there is no evidence that animals one day miraculously appeared, there was some kind of gradual changes throughout millenia. That isn’t to say that there wasn’t some supreme being who had a hand in the creation of everything, but merely that Adam and Eve didn’t literally just appear out of thin air. I was raised in the church and I’m a firm believer in some of the principles of Christianity, but I don’t take the biblical stories literally, seeing how (in my opinion) men 3,000 years ago orally passed down these stories until King James in like..1600 translated it out of latin and made it publicly available. So for scientific purposes, I think that in a biology class, only scientifically proven theories should be taught.

As for the politicans telling people their religious views, I have no problem with that really…I just have a problem with them trying to push their beliefs into law. Nothing wrong with being against abortion because it goes against your religious beliefs, but as part of the Republican values, shouldn’t they simply be against it personally. No need to make it law simply because you don’t agree.

Athiesm isn’t a religion, and I’m not really an athiest…I’m more of a person who isn’t full of faith, for any religion. I was raised in the church so I associate with Christianity the most, am familiar with the Bible, and definitely praise the teachings of Christ, but I feel that it is more important to live a Christ-like life than to strictly follow Bible stories as actual fact.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with praying in public, I’m saying that you can’t go into a public government sponsored school and demand to make it law that all children pray. Is there a law actually forbidding people from praying becuase I don’t think so….

Profile photo of Derrek
Derrek @dbollus

@jlriggs57aol-com
@ladylibertarian

I think we need to distinguish between “science” and “atheism” because the two are not the same. Evolution is not atheistic theory, it’s scientific theory. I think this distinction needs to be made more clear especially when having discussions of this type. I don’t consider myself an atheist because the label to me doesn’t make any sense. I just simply do not believe in deities. To respond to what you said about my comment, no I don’t want things exclusively my way, I want things the way the people want them. If there happens to be a religious connotation with that, what does it matter if it has the backing of the people and impedes on no one’s freedom?

On the topic of abortion, I don’t believe it’s as black and white as you described. There are many who are religious and believe that the federal government has no right to dictate whether or not you can legally seek an abortion. As for myself, I am morally opposed to abortion, not because I am absent of faith, but because I believe in fetus rights. I don’t intend on beginning a discussion about abortion, I just wanted to address the point you made.

There are no atheistic practices in schools as far as I know. Again, evolution is scientific theory, not atheistic. I do not want atheistic teachings in public schools, not do I want teachings of other faiths. That is not the purpose of education. There’s college courses for that.

Your last comment is a little off tangent. I do not wish to inhibit anyone’s religious practices. Again, a distinction needs to be made between religion and science, including atheism. When you say evolution is atheism that’s like saying peace and love is Christianity. It is, however, not exclusively.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@ladylibertarian
@dbollus
@chris-gidney

First off I would like to apologize to Chris who I inadvertently left out of my last post.

Secondly, this should be an interesting discussion, we have one person who says they associate themselves with Christianity the most, so there is a belief in a god, but has said that even though there is a god who can create an entire universe, yet he is so inept that he can’t even make sure man doesn’t fill his word with fairy tales. Then we have another person who is an atheist who doesn’t believe in a god nor in evolution.

This should be interesting indeed.

Let’s start with the easy one. Kimberly it is in fact illegal to pray in school and it has been that way since 1963. Here is an excerpt from the article that tells about it and the link to the entire article is below the excerpt.

{Madalyn Murray O’Hair was an outspoken advocate of atheism and the founder of the organization American Atheists.

In 1960 O’Hair gained notoriety when she sued Baltimore public schools for requiring students to read from the Bible and to recite the Lord’s Prayer at school exercises. Bible reading and prayer recitation were common in schools across the nation, and children were excused from the practice if they supplied a note from their parents. But O’Hair argued that the practice violated the First Amendment rights of her and her son as professed atheists “in that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to the rule of the majority; it pronounces belief in God as the source of all moral and spiritual values, equating these values with religious values, and thereby renders sinister, alien and suspect the beliefs and ideals of your Petitioners, promoting doubt and question of their morality, good citizenship and good faith.”

The case reached the Supreme Court where it was joined to another similar case and tried as Abington School District v. Schempp. In 1963, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of the plaintiffs. The decision effectively ended Bible reading and prayer recitation in public schools.}

http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/people/madalyn-murray-ohair.html

You said, “There’s absolutely nothing wrong with praying in public, I’m saying that you can’t go into a public government sponsored school and demand to make it law that all children pray.”

There never was a law that said children had to pray in school. How do you feel about the fact that there IS a law that says they can’t?

Kimberly you say that you are familiar with the Bible, and definitely praise the teachings of Christ. This is a teaching of Christ, His words, Matt. 12:30 – “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” Simply put Jesus said you are either for me or you are against me, there is no middle ground. If you are a politician who truly believes in Christ and his teachings and knowing that one of his teachings is to not kill. If you vote to kill, are you for Jesus or against him?

Now, having said all that, this is still America, for now, and you have the right to believe anything you want. But don’t be deceived that Atheism isn’t a religion.

Every atheist I have ever talked to, except Derrick, has a greater faith than I will probably ever have in my entire life and FAITH is all it takes to make a religion. Atheists believe in the big bang theory, which says that somewhere in the vastness of the universe there were these gases and this solid matter, that no one can explain where they came from, and these gases and solids got sucked into this vacuum and compressed until there was this huge explosion. After the big explosion solid matter and gases were scattered and cooled, then miraculously, the primordial ooze formed, to this point there was no life, then these ingredients were added, where they came from no one knows, but they were there and from these ingredients that contained NO LIFE, life was made. Then after life was made, out of no life, these lifeforms crawled out of the ooze and began to evolve and even though they were all made from the same single cell, some evolved into birds and some evolved into fish, and some into mammals, etc.

If it doesn’t take a huge amount of faith to believe all that I don’t know what does and faith is all it takes to make a religion.

Derrick you said in your first comment, “I completely agree that religion should be left out of politics and the Republican party are the worst offenders when it comes to this.” and “No longer is religion an important part of a candidate’s platform, but it does irritate me when policy positions are explained via religion.”

Then you said in your second comment, “If there happens to be a religious connotation with that, what does it matter if it has the backing of the people and impedes on no one’s freedom?”

In your first comment you said religion should be left out of politics. A persons religion is with them no matter where they are and no matter what they are doing. So if you want a politician, who happens to be religious, to leave his/her religion out, you are hindering their religion.

Then you contradict yourself in your second statement and say “what does it matter”.

Derrick please note that I exempted you from my statement on Atheists and evolution. I find you to be an anomaly when it comes to this.

Profile photo of Alex Butler
Alex Butler @thatdudeyoulike

Here’s something to keep in mind next to you want to legislate your religion:

Law is backed by violence. This is an irrefutable fact. So by legislating a law, you are giving a moral justification to inflict violence upon those that break the law. Thus, when you legislate morality…you are justifying the use of force and violence upon a person that goes against “biblical morals.” An important part of understand government and law is understanding that the State(government) runs on violence, and that law is backed by violence. You suggest that certain acts you find offense or weird or immoral based on your religion should be legislated. Fair enough. But what many don’t realize is that they are justifying engaging violence on that person.

I am not suggesting that we allow people to do whatever they want. As far as non-violent “immoral” acts go, we can treat them with compassion to help them see the light. If it is your belief they are doing something wrong, but they are not infringing on the rights of others, then perhaps you should try voluntary and compassionate tactics. Educate them about your religion, and help show them why they are wrong. More often than not, those who sin come from bad homes or are in a bad relationship. This is a hasty generalization, but it’s what I gathered from my experience and the experience of others. A little love can go a long way. Throwing them in a cell for engaging in something you view as “immoral” is not, in my opinion, a very good and just thing to do. It’s a very strange thing when human beings put other non-violent human beings in cages.

I would like to know why many people think it would be a tragedy and that anarchy would insue if government minded it’s own business and remained only to protect rights(yes, i have gotten that argument several times). If anarchy is supposedly bad because innocent people would be harmed or killed, then what justifies statism or theocracy? What justifies the initiation of violence on people acting peacefully? Or a more frightening answer, what stops government from doing more? If theocracy and statism is justified, what makes you think government would stop at using violence on those violating Christian morals? What if government started using violence on those violating Muslim morals?

Here’s something to keep in mind next time you want to legislate your morals. If we do not afford others the freedom to live their lives as they choose, how can we expect to receive the same freedom to do as we choose? If you wish to legislate against homosexuality, what stops a Muslim president from legislating against Christianity? What stops them from legislating against things you like to do in your free time? Things you feel you have the right to pursue regardless of what other religions feel is moral. There’s no “I” in freedom. The thing about America is it’s not about YOU having the freedom to pursue what YOU wish to pursue…it’s about affording everyone else that same freedom. When you justify the use of violence on peaceful people based on your morals and your view of the world, you are justfiying the use of violence on yourself by someone who disagrees with you and your morals. What happens if, in a purely hypothetical situation, the government were to be filled with Muslims rather than Christians? What happens when they start legislating morality and forcing women to wear burquas, or any of the other things written in the Muslim religion? What happens when “In Allah We Trust” is written onto the currency, and on our buildings? You have to put yourself in the shoes of others. You don’t think legislating your morals is a big deal because they are your morals. What happens when others initiate violence upon you because you break Sharia law? By justifying the use of violence onto peaceful people based on morality alone, you are laying out a justification for everyone to do the same. What happens when Christians are not the majority in government anymore? Will you be on the opposite side of these cases? Where’s the honor and integrity in that?

Just food for thought :)

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@ladylibertarian
@dbollus
@chris-gidney
@thatdudeyoulike

Well, jeez o’golly there Alex, I had no idea so much horse hockey could be said so eloquently. If you’re not a politician you should be.

So what you’re saying is that if a person has a moral standard and he uses that to make decisions, whether he is a politician or not, he is in fact using morality to cause pain and brutality on others, even though he is not telling others they have to live, think, eat, or breathe the way he does. He isn’t making the decision because he thinks it would be for the good of all, he is merely doing it because he is a cruel and sadistic person who wants to install something into the laws so he can have the warped pleasure of seeing people punished for not following that law.

Well Alex, you have convinced me, I’m with you 100%. Lets throw the law books out and just do whatever makes US feel good. I’m sure that the rapists, pedophiles, murderers, and those beastiality folks will be thrilled.

I must have lost my mind to have ever thought these things were wrong, how crazy of me. There is nothing that is wrong because if something is deemed wrong that means there is a moral stance and being moral is wrong. Wait……what?

Anyway Alex, you believe what you want and I will do the same. Right now I believe that I am truly blessed that I do not live in your world.

Profile photo of Alex Butler
Alex Butler @thatdudeyoulike

@jlriggs57aol-com

Whoa there James, I’ve never heard so many fallacies come out of the same mouth.

First off all thank you for the nice ad hominem attack. It’s always nice to have slander thrown at me rather than be engaged in a polite and respectful conversation. Who needs basic common courtesy when you can simply attack the person without making a single logical claim? The only “politician” here is you. You’d do well on the campaign trail. Ignore the issues, shoot for slander. Construct straw man fallacies to make the opponent easier to attack. If that doesn’t describe politics I don’t know what does.

You’ve apparently been living under a rock your whole life because they are telling us what we can or cannot eat, what we can or cannot smoke, who we have sex with, HOW we have sex, who we can or cannot marry. We have made it illegal to engage in sodomy. In what world is engaging in basic sexual acts between two consenting adults a “crime”? Who’s the victim?? The Christian that’s offended because somebody is gay and he thinks that is icky? We have made it illegal to smoke pot. Not the healthiest plant in the world, but if he is acting peacefully and not harming anyone else…who the fuck cares what he puts in his body? If you don’t think that politicians from both sides are trying to force their standards on us and tell us how what we can or cannot do, regardless if it infringes on the rights of others or not, then you need to open your eyes and pay attention.

As for the smart ass reply of “Let’s throw the law books out. I’m sure that the rapists, pedophiles, murderers, and those beastiality folks will be thrilled.” comment. Those infringe on someone’s rights and once again if you actually took the time to read my goddamned post you’d know the difference between forcing moral standards on someone and protecting the rights of others. Again, I applaud your impressive application of the strawman fallacy.

“Right now I believe that I am truly blessed that I do not live in your world.” Mhm, well you enjoy your authoritarianism. Have the government hand-hold you and tell you what you should or should not do. What’s “healthy” and what’s not. Have the government dictate ever personal decision you make, after all government is infallible and would never take advantage of power right? I mean we don’t live in a country that murders thousands of innocent civillians overseas to fund the military industrial complex and get oil. That doesn’t happen. Our government are the “good guys”…or something. Big government and unlimited social powers have proved to be very successful for countries in the past, right?

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@ladylibertarian
@dbollus
@chris-gidney
@thatdudeyoulike

I did not attack unless you consider being called a politician an attack.

Quite the contrary you gave a clear and concise opinion. I saw nothing more. If there had been any fact to what you had said I would have merely said that you had brought something to my attention that I did not know, processed it, and then decided whether the point was a valid one or not. But since this was all opinion and a sad one at that. I felt the need to exaggerate what you said to maybe have you see what you said through different eyes.

I have never heard a more sad opinion of humanity in general as what you stated. I would never attack anyone with this type of opinion. All I can give is sympathy, if that is how you truly feel that people really are.

Sorry for your misunderstanding. Still glad I don’t have to live in your world.

Profile photo of Alex Butler
Alex Butler @thatdudeyoulike

@jlriggs57aol-com

I’m kind of curious as to why you think believing we should treat people who engage in peaceful acts with compassion rather than throwing them into cages when we disagree with them is a “sad view of the world.”

Profile photo of Steve Ja
Steve Ja @sdj54321

I am a firm backer of separation of church and state. I do not care what your religious beliefs are, if I feel you are the best fit to fight for the issues most important to me, I’m going to vote for you. Preaching religion and bashing those that do not believe as you do, only turns me off to a candidate. I agree Republicans are the biggest offenders of mixing church and state. they use it in arguments against things like abortion and gay marriage. Shouldn’t they really be arguing that Abortion is in fact murder and that is why it is wrong? And it affects more than just the woman and child involved. I am a supporter of same-sex marriage however. It affects nobody negatively when a man/man or woman/woman get married. If they ban same-sex marriage, why not ban marriage all together. I have been getting more and more turned off by the republican party(which I am a registered republican) and a lot of it has to do with the religious holier then thou preaching that goes on within the party. Keep religion private and politics public. stick to the issues and get the job done.

Profile photo of Jack Curran
Jack Curran @jackcurran

Religion should not be included in politics, but it shouldn’t be banned. I am a agnostic myself, but I believe in a politicians right to say that they are Christian. However, it should not be brought into their policies. During the Fox News debate, the final question was how God took a part in their campaign. This angered me because it was a direct violation of the first amendment to bring a specific religion into the policies of these politicians. Republicans are absolutely crazy with the amount of times that they mention God in their speeches.

Profile photo of Bethany Bordner
Bethany Bordner @9081bethanyb

I have been looking for someone to confer with about this. I personally, am perturbed by the word God being used in our National Anthem. The fabled line “one nation under god”, indicated all of America being led by the notion and belief of Christianity or the holy spirit. This is an inadequate statement to describe our nation. This line is used more than any other line in the national anthem from what I have observed. To me, the most explicative line in our national anthem is “with liberty and justice for all.” Many people would have you believe true patriotism stems from the religion of Christianity. I have heard many times the line “god bless America” used as a sort of motto for patriotic characters in movies, TV shows and books. Christianity has become an American stereotype and I have the reverie that in this modern age our stereotyping should be moving in a different direction. For me, America is the symbol of freedom. An example for the rest of the world to accept differences in religion and allow civilized disagreements within a nation. Disagreements have often led to war and the collapsing of empires throw-out history. We are not an empire. We are a republic that has moved past the alienation of other religions. We are not “one nation under god”. We are united individuals striving for freedom and acceptance. We are an example of civilized disagreement, thus, God has no place in our national anthem.

September 25, 2016

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS