Notices

View Poll Results: Religion and Politics don't mix

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • agree

    6 54.55%
  • don't agree

    5 45.45%
Results 1 to 66 of 66

Thread: Religion and politics just don't mix

  1. #1 Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Just ask henry the 8th!

    I just wrote a short article on this topic here:

    http://searchwarp.com/swa351044.htm

    So have a read and let me know what your response is to my view.


    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    In reality, they certainly do.


    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    In reality, they certainly do.
    Then elaborate and demonstrate your point.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Creative Blogger
    Candidates who are religious would be wise to try not to let their beliefs affect their decision making. For example, should a Catholic Prime Minister/President decide to make abortion illegal the ramifications would be far reaching, despite the fact many of us believe this is immoral whether we be religious or not, we cannot legislate on a 'belief' when there are 'real life' factors which require serious consideration before any decision is made.
    That's impossible. People are going to legislate on their beliefs, whether they think said beliefs originate in a particular religion, evolution, out of thin air, or what. I think the US founding fathers had it right - there should be no established state religion. Beyond that, an attempt to limit people from exercising their belief is really establishment of atheism, which is no better.

    It is quite possible for an atheist to believe that a fetus, let's say in the third trimester, is a person with a right to life. Is it okay for an atheist to support a ban on third trimester abortion, but not okay if that belief derives from or is attributed to, a religion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370

    It is quite possible for an atheist to believe that a fetus, let's say in the third trimester, is a person with a right to life. Is it okay for an atheist to support a ban on third trimester abortion, but not okay if that belief derives from or is attributed to, a religion?
    No it's not Ok

    People should learn the facts then formulate an opinion based on their findings, anything less and they are merely 'sheep'.

    I have a 'gut' feeling that makes me against abortion, but I would not make it illegal as my personal beliefs are not the most important thing, those affected by the decision are.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    People should learn the facts then formulate an opinion based on their findings, anything less and they are merely 'sheep'.

    I have a 'gut' feeling that makes me against abortion, but I would not make it illegal as my personal beliefs are not the most important thing, those affected by the decision are.
    There are no objective facts that will tell you if a baby is a human being 10 minutes before it is born, or 10 minutes after. Would you favor legalization of killing a 10 minute old baby, just because the parents are the ones most affected?

    Let's try another example. There is a bill before the legislature to ban capital punishment. Politician A is a Christian who favors the bill, based on his pro-life views and the commandment Thou Shalt not Kill. Politician B is a Christian who opposes it based on the biblical Eye for and Eye philosophy. Politician C is an atheist who favors it because he feels capital punishment is just barbaric. Politician D is an atheist who opposes the bill because he thinks capital punishment is a good deterrent.

    How should each politician vote? Should A and B abstain, because their views are based on religion? Perhaps D is the only one qualified to vote, because he is not using any moral judgement, just practical consideration?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Perhaps D is the only one qualified to vote, because he is not using any moral judgement, just practical consideration?
    What and leave all the decisions to the most idiotic and self-delusional people because they believe such twaddle about themselves.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    People should learn the facts then formulate an opinion based on their findings, anything less and they are merely 'sheep'.

    I have a 'gut' feeling that makes me against abortion, but I would not make it illegal as my personal beliefs are not the most important thing, those affected by the decision are.
    There are no objective facts that will tell you if a baby is a human being 10 minutes before it is born, or 10 minutes after. Would you favor legalization of killing a 10 minute old baby, just because the parents are the ones most affected?

    Let's try another example. There is a bill before the legislature to ban capital punishment. Politician A is a Christian who favors the bill, based on his pro-life views and the commandment Thou Shalt not Kill. Politician B is a Christian who opposes it based on the biblical Eye for and Eye philosophy. Politician C is an atheist who favors it because he feels capital punishment is just barbaric. Politician D is an atheist who opposes the bill because he thinks capital punishment is a good deterrent.

    How should each politician vote? Should A and B abstain, because their views are based on religion? Perhaps D is the only one qualified to vote, because he is not using any moral judgement, just practical consideration?
    I believe in God, I believe in 'thou shalt not kill' but

    I would like to see evil doers eradicated at the earliest opportunity. Death penalty is too kind. Free them to their victims families and be done with it.

    Re the abortion debate, I was not only referring to the parents when I said 'those affected', I consider many factors and individuals on a global scale.

    Religion should play zero part in these decisions. As you have demonstrated the religion is hypocritical so is NOT a reliable guide.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Religion should play zero part in these decisions. As you have demonstrated the religion is hypocritical so is NOT a reliable guide.
    Ah well that brings up an important distinction, because however inevitable that personal religious beliefs will play a role in an individuals decision it should not play a role on a public or organizational level. In other words, not only should organizations of religion have no government sanctioned authority in such matters but religious reasons really should not be used by public officials to justify their actions. It is inevitable that such beliefs will inspire their actions but when held to account such beliefs will certainly not be valid justification.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Religion should play zero part in these decisions. As you have demonstrated the religion is hypocritical so is NOT a reliable guide.
    Okay, what is your reliable guide?

    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Ah well that brings up an important distinction, because however inevitable that personal religious beliefs will play a role in an individuals decision it should not play a role on a public or organizational level. In other words, not only should organizations of religion have no government sanctioned authority in such matters but religious reasons really should not be used by public officials to justify their actions. It is inevitable that such beliefs will inspire their actions but when held to account such beliefs will certainly not be valid justification.
    Are you saying it is all right for a politician to say "I oppose X because it is morally wrong" but not "I oppose X because it is sinful"?

    What about "I oppose X because it is morally wrong, and oh by the way I am of Y faith which happens to also oppose X because it is sinful"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    GUY
    GUY is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    15
    This message has been approved by politician D:

    Greetings,
    Theoryofrelativity we meet again.
    Mitchellmckain you know how I feel.
    and last but not least
    Harold14370 quiet the mathematician.


    I find myself being a “D” man. Religion should not be basis for political decisions. I do except the fact that the morals of some laws are barrowed from Christianity, but I am grateful that that’s as far as it goes.

    Harold14370 wrote:
    That's impossible. People are going to legislate on their beliefs, whether they think said beliefs originate in a particular religion, evolution, out of thin air, or what.
    As far as legislating on religious beliefs, I think there are those people that can surrender their beliefs and make a “what is good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander” decision.

    Theoryofrelativity wrote:
    People should learn the facts then formulate an opinion based on their findings, anything less and they are merely 'sheep'.

    I have a 'gut' feeling that makes me against abortion, but I would not make it illegal as my personal beliefs are not the most important thing, those affected by the decision are.
    You halfway surprise me and surprisingly I halfway agree. I applaud you for straying from the flock.

    mitchellmckain wrote:
    What and leave all the decisions to the most idiotic and self-delusional people because they believe such twaddle about themselves.
    Dose this mean I can't vote anymore?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Religion and politics are two separate things...

    You can be religious and yet do political work, no problem. But you can't let your religious convictions control your political issues. Politics should be about everyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    theoryofrelativity wrote
    prasit wrote:
    In reality, they certainly do.

    Then elaborate and demonstrate your point.
    Shariah law, for example.
    If you mean Religion and Politics should not mix, then I am inclined to agree.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    But you can't let your religious convictions control your political issues. Politics should be about everyone.
    People keep saying that. I don't know what they mean. If somebody believes in something they would probably believe it is a good thing for everyone, wouldn't they? How should they act on that belief, in the political arena?

    Recognizing that their belief is rooted in their religion, are they supposed to vote against what they believe, abstain from participation in government, or what? Give an example of how one would not let one's religion control one's political issues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    People keep saying that. I don't know what they mean. If somebody believes in something they would probably believe it is a good thing for everyone, wouldn't they? How should they act on that belief, in the political arena?

    Recognizing that their belief is rooted in their religion, are they supposed to vote against what they believe, abstain from participation in government, or what? Give an example of how one would not let one's religion control one's political issues.
    I admit it's quite difficult. The majority ultimately decides, even if that means that abortion will be made illegal, gay marriges banned or the execution of sharia law.

    In my view a goverment should hold itself neutral in all matters and consider not only the majoritys' will, but the minorities as well. With a few laws which goes for everyone (don't kill, don't steal, etc) and the consideration of what everyone wants, to reach a compromise everyone can be happy with.

    I guess that is impossible :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Our greatest complaint about politicians is that they're slippery opportunists scorning fixed beliefs... so we can't trust them. I see a lot less wiggle room for those dedicated to a known doctrine.

    When Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei issues fatwa to the nation that production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden by Islam, we know exactly where he stands. This is transparency of government, which believes itself accountable regardless of whistleblowers or bad ratings.

    Contrast a certain irreligious administration that will only say "all options are on the table" and issue a fog of suggestive sneers and winks in place of commitments. If they're following any doctrine it must be a strange and secret one.

    These behaviours are domestic as well as foreign. I'm sure we're all familiar with one or the other kind even at the municipal level.

    Well some countries made it effectively unconstitutional for politicians to hold fixed beliefs. What can people expect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    The nature of man serves to destroy us all.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Politicians are elected to act on OUR behalf NOT in their own self interests, THUS their personal beliefs are irrelevant UNLESS of course their beliefs are why we the electorate vote for them.

    If the electorate are mainly Christian and WANT a Christian leader who promises to make decisions based on the Bible says 'put your hands in the air' then they who have the majority can vote that way

    BUT fortunately for us here in the Uk at least, that is unlikely to be the case and rather ironically, let me say this: 'THANK GOD FOR THAT!'
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    ToR, we hire them to do a job. Do it well and do it with integrity.

    Suppose you want your crumbling driveway repaired. You get some estimates.

    One contractor says it's gotta be torn up and redone in solid reinforced concrete, properly he says. He's genuinely upset at how your driveway was laid wrong and he believes it deserves better... er, you deserve better, he adds.

    A second contractor dismisses concrete with open contempt. "Don't let anybody lay a concrete slab here, it'll crack as it settles", he says, "Asphalt is the only way to pave a driveway, believe me." He says that asphalt may gradually dip and rut over time but it won't crack, and he believes this infinitely preferable. You think perhaps the concrete guy had good points too, and voice this. Asphalt guy returns: "I don't care what you think."

    A third contractor, who does not appear to have an established business, says, "Whatever you like lady, you tell me" and he smiles. You're at a bit of a loss, so tell him just make the driveway look like new again.

    You hire the third contractor and he paints your driveway black. It looks like new.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    ToR, we hire them to do a job. Do it well and do it with integrity.

    Suppose you want your crumbling driveway repaired. You get some estimates.

    One contractor says it's gotta be torn up and redone in solid reinforced concrete, properly he says. He's genuinely upset at how your driveway was laid wrong and he believes it deserves better... er, you deserve better, he adds.

    A second contractor dismisses concrete with open contempt. "Don't let anybody lay a concrete slab here, it'll crack as it settles", he says, "Asphalt is the only way to pave a driveway, believe me." He says that asphalt may gradually dip and rut over time but it won't crack, and he believes this infinitely preferable. You think perhaps the concrete guy had good points too, and voice this. Asphalt guy returns: "I don't care what you think."

    A third contractor, who does not appear to have an established business, says, "Whatever you like lady, you tell me" and he smiles. You're at a bit of a loss, so tell him just make the driveway look like new again.

    You hire the third contractor and he paints your driveway black. It looks like new.
    Like I said, YOU the electorate hear the facts and make your decision, BUT with regards to government policy WE the electorate don't get a vote, only for the politician who we TRUST to represent our views and fact find for us.

    At no point did I say elect someone who does what WE want without checking facts.

    I personally would have Asphalt. I know a thing or two about these matters and Asphalt is the better way to go
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Just ask henry the 8th!

    I just wrote a short article on this topic here:

    http://searchwarp.com/swa351044.htm

    So have a read and let me know what your response is to my view.
    I did not vote because my answer is what the source of the religion is?

    If the source is the old testament, than yes, they do not mix.

    But if the source of religion is Nature, than they can mix. In Nature there are no Laws to speak of in the biological sector.
    So our Constitutional government has some compatibility like guaranteeing free speech and eliminating 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Both of which do not exist in OT teachings.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    But if the source of religion is Nature, than they can mix. I
    What religion is this you are refferring to that has it's basis in nature?

    In nature the strong devour the weak. Should we therefore begin eating the starving?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    There are only two ways to be unbiased about any topic. One is to know so little about the topic that you do not have a basis to have formed an opinion. The other is to be so apathetic about the topic that you just don't care one way or the other.

    A non-religious biased opinion is no less unbiased that a religious based opinion. It is folly to assume because religious considerations are not infused into the decision making process, you necessarily come up with the "right" answer.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    There are only two ways to be unbiased about any topic. One is to know so little about the topic that you do not have a basis to have formed an opinion. The other is to be so apathetic about the topic that you just don't care one way or the other.

    A non-religious biased opinion is no less unbiased that a religious based opinion. It is folly to assume because religious considerations are not infused into the decision making process, you necessarily come up with the "right" answer.
    This is not about subconcious influences on our decision making, it's about making BLIND decisions cos the Bible told you so, there is a BIG difference.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    GUY
    GUY is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    But you can't let your religious convictions control your political issues. Politics should be about everyone.
    People keep saying that. I don't know what they mean. If somebody believes in something they would probably believe it is a good thing for everyone, wouldn't they? How should they act on that belief, in the political arena?

    Recognizing that their belief is rooted in their religion, are they supposed to vote against what they believe, abstain from participation in government, or what? Give an example of how one would not let one's religion control one's political issues.
    I think the three best examples I could offer are:

    The death penalty. There are many religious people who support this, but in their religion killing is an unthinkable sin.
    Gay marriage. I believe there are those religious individuals who would support equal rights even thought homosexuality is a “sin” in their religion.
    Abortion rights. Again I believe that there are those religious individuals that would rather support this being a “free” country and having a right to choose even though they personally disagree with abortion.

    I have atheistic beliefs, but I would consider myself an agnostic. If I was to establish laws I wouldn’t create them off of my religious views, I would create them so everyone had the chance to enjoy their beliefs freely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    This is not about subconcious influences on our decision making, it's about making BLIND decisions cos the Bible told you so, there is a BIG difference.
    Wait, what? A subconscious decision is better than a blind decision? In what way? You still haven't said what your reliable guide is, which is better than the religious way of arriving at moral decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by GUY
    Gay marriage. I believe there are those religious individuals who would support equal rights even thought homosexuality is a “sin” in their religion.
    Abortion rights. Again I believe that there are those religious individuals that would rather support this being a “free” country and having a right to choose even though they personally disagree with abortion.
    freely.
    It appears to me that your solution is to have religious people vote your way. Perhaps you can write a "GUY's Bible" to help them arrive at their moral decisions in place of the bible they are now using.

    I can tell you that your solution on abortion would be totally unsatisfactory to a person who believes that the developing fetus is a real human being. There is no such a thing as a right to choose to kill a real human being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    theory said:

    This is not about subconcious influences on our decision making, it's about making BLIND decisions cos the Bible told you so, there is a BIG difference.
    Well, then I must insist on a list of political decisions which are currently being made or have been made (in Western Culture) which are political decisions based solely on the idea that the "Bible says so."

    The only places I know where religion is also the politics are in Islamic Republics. Now if you want to go to Iraq or Iran and publicly advocate this line of thinking I will support you all the way -- but from afar, of course.

    Unless you can relate this idea of undue influence on politics by religion to Western Culture, you are doing little other than blowing smoke at a straw argument.

    Now then, if you want to say that people with religious biases have important roles in political decision making in the U.S., then I could agree with that observation, although I would disagree with the idea that this is "bad."

    It appears to me that most of the comments so far in this thread have dealt with religious influence on politics, not on religious dictatorialism in politics.

    I agree with your short article (which is flawed only by its not being short enough) that religion should not dictate in politics. If your reference is actually toward Islamic Republics, might I suggest you substitute the Koran for the Bible. I know of no place, ever, since the Dark Ages, where the Bible has been made "the law" of the land.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    This is not about subconcious influences on our decision making, it's about making BLIND decisions cos the Bible told you so, there is a BIG difference.
    Wait, what? A subconscious decision is better than a blind decision? In what way? You still haven't said what your reliable guide is, which is better than the religious way of arriving at moral decisions.
    In ToR's blog she juxtaposed "doing right because you feel in your heart it is the right thing to do" with "doing right because you fear going to hell."

    I like the heart personally :? . But it lacks formal articulation so has no traction in the world of law makers. Religion may be blind but at least there is method to it, and some greater accountability. I've been burnt in the past by supposedly social democrat politicians who once in power did indeed follow their hearts and what ToR names 'real life' factors i.e. the piles of intriguing excuses our politicians love to wallow under. I wish our secular governments felt compelled to accountability (e.g before God who knows everything) and wish they'd stick to their policy books once elected. I'd like to examine the heart before I vote for it.

    I think Americans have this problem with their heart candidate, Obama. They're more comfortable with a known, explicit doctrine. Even if that doctrine flows from greed or dogma they know what to expect, at least.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I know of no place, ever, since the Dark Ages, where the Bible has been made "the law" of the land.
    You've never been to Ireland then.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Harold

    Not sure why you keep missing the point but for one last time I will try to reiterate

    Decisions should be based on informed decisions, NOT FAITH/BELIEF

    I recognise subconscious influences play a part, but that is very different to outlawing

    a thing just because some religion says it should be outlawed.

    Like making homosexuality illegal for example, or divorce, which were both illegal at different points in time and still are for Catholics.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    This is not about subconcious influences on our decision making, it's about making BLIND decisions cos the Bible told you so, there is a BIG difference.
    Wait, what? A subconscious decision is better than a blind decision? In what way? You still haven't said what your reliable guide is, which is better than the religious way of arriving at moral decisions.
    In ToR's blog she juxtaposed "doing right because you feel in your heart it is the right thing to do" with "doing right because you fear going to hell."

    I like the heart personally :? . But it lacks formal articulation so has no traction in the world of law makers. Religion may be blind but at least there is method to it, and some greater accountability. I've been burnt in the past by supposedly social democrat politicians who once in power did indeed follow their hearts and what ToR names 'real life' factors i.e. the piles of intriguing excuses our politicians love to wallow under. I wish our secular governments felt compelled to accountability (e.g before God who knows everything) and wish they'd stick to their policy books once elected. I'd like to examine the heart before I vote for it.

    I think Americans have this problem with their heart candidate, Obama. They're more comfortable with a known, explicit doctrine. Even if that doctrine flows from greed or dogma they know what to expect, at least.
    What I mean when I say 'heart' is this

    I will help an old lady who has fallen in the street, because my natural good nature tells me to do so. I don't think of walking past then think 'hey, I get browny points if I help this old bag'.

    That quote you mention was not so much about politics but religion and morality in general and was not part of the article but a reply to a comment.

    Yes, I would like a genuinely 'good' person in power, but at the same time, that person needs to support his good intentions with facts and considered consequences.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Harold

    Not sure why you keep missing the point but for one last time I will try to reiterate

    Decisions should be based on informed decisions, NOT FAITH/BELIEF

    I recognise subconscious influences play a part, but that is very different to outlawing

    a thing just because some religion says it should be outlawed.

    Like making homosexuality illegal for example, or divorce, which were both illegal at different points in time and still are for Catholics.
    I happen to think it is you who are missing the point. Not all matters of public policy can be decided in a cold logical fashion. Some things come down to a matter of personal belief. You have one way of resolving such matters, other people may be different and may arrive at a different conclusion. You are not content to merely disagree with their opinions but seem to think they have no right to their opinions.
    What I mean when I say 'heart' is this

    I will help an old lady who has fallen in the street, because my natural good nature tells me to do so. I don't think of walking past then think 'hey, I get browny points if I help this old bag'.
    Wow, you have really gone out on a limb here with your decision to help an old lady on the street. This is one of the weighty moral issues of our time. Really, though, you should not concern yourself with the reason why somobody helps an old lady cross the street. Just be happy that they do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Harold

    You take things too literally

    The old lady on the street was a frivolous example and was intended as such.

    Are you religious Harold?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Theory:

    So what your are advocating is that if 10 percent of the people think something is OK and 90 percent of the people think it is not OK, then the 90 percent should just defer to the 10 percent and agree that it is OK.

    You, as an atheist represent a minority of the overall population of Western Civilization and an even smaller minority if you happen to live in the U.S. I see no reason which the majority should be expected to kow-tow to your whimsical desires to participate in behavior which they may consider unsavory or immoral.

    If most of us say a certain behavior is wrong, then society has deemed that conduct as wrong. If a legal system agrees that the conduct and is wrong and passes some restrictions on it, too bad for those who want to practice that behavior. It has become not only socially wrong, but also illegal. That's they way we do things.

    You are correct in that I am not familiar with Irish laws, so perhaps you could enlighten me on which recent laws were passed based solely on what the Bible says. Perhaps you could also show that the only people who voted for those laws were religious lawmakers and that all atheist lawmakers voted against them.

    I think people's willingness to allow others to do what they want usually ends when the neighbor wants to raise a bunch of hogs out in his backyard.

    Here in the West, we mostly live in countries which are NOT ruled by dictators or emporers or monarchs, but by governments which are elected by the majority. Such governments then attempt to legislate in accordance with the wishes of their constituency.

    That's the way it usually works. If we don't like what happens, we can blame the liberals or the conservatives, the religious or the a-religious, the males or the females, the natives or the immigrants. It is always easier to disagree and assign blame to "them" than it is to conform to or change society.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Theory:

    So what your are advocating is that if 10 percent of the people think something is OK and 90 percent of the people think it is not OK, then the 90 percent should just defer to the 10 percent and agree that it is OK.
    eh? I never suggested any such thing

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Theory:


    You, as an atheist
    I am NOT an atheist, I believe in God, always have, never said I did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    If most of us say a certain behavior is wrong, then society has deemed that conduct as wrong.
    Yes ..the majority of Salem agreed that women who looked at another womans husband were witches and should be burned alive didn't they. Yes, you are absolutely correct, majority of people are deffinately the most sensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Theory:
    That's they way we do things.

    .
    Yep, thats' the way Americans do things! Drown a witch to prove her innocence.

    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    Here in the West, we mostly live in countries which are NOT ruled by dictators or emporers or monarchs, but by governments which are elected by the majority. Such governments then attempt to legislate in accordance with the wishes of their constituency.

    .
    It's just a shame that in some places the majority are uneducated idiots isn't it. Didn't you lot once vote for an actor to be president?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Didn't you lot once vote for an actor to be president?
    Come on, he was brilliant at it. His very best role. He should have got a special Oscar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Didn't you lot once vote for an actor to be president?
    Come on, he was brilliant at it. His very best role. He should have got a special Oscar.
    yep, and you couldn't even see the strings!
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Trying to assemble ToR's alternative:

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Yes, I would like a genuinely 'good' person in power, but at the same time, that person needs to support his good intentions with facts and considered consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Decisions should be based on informed decisions
    even
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    subconscious influences
    but
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    NOT FAITH/BELIEF
    We would elect government by the issues at hand, as our hearts incline no less. And we would do away with parties, since those impose stubborn & arbitrary belief systems. Our law makers had better think quick on their feet, for they are free agents we must trust to make the best of any moment.

    ToR, the parties manifest enduring policies - that's their supposed function. What are these policies? They may be Libertarian, Christian, Anarchist, Conservative, whatever. They are systems members pledge to uphold in their decision making i.e. packages of FAITH/BELIEF. Most votes are really endorsements of a particular package - that might be a detailed plan spanning decades or more realistically a handbook of priorities and guiding ideals, e.g. a manifesto or a bible.

    A serious problem we have now in politics is that politicians once elected cast aside those faiths/beliefs (promises) advertised, which we elected them to act on. Their excuse always points to the day-to-day muddle of "facts and considered consequences". Have you not heard this complaint that politicians do not follow through on campaign platforms?

    Your argument undermines the basis for platforms even more than it already is, which is pretty sad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Pong

    Stop twisting what I said, with selective editing.

    I said nothing about 'heart' except as a response to a comment which was about 'goodness' not politics.

    In the Uk

    Politicians promote what they will do for us,

    In terms of taxes, education, inflation, fuel prices and so on, and religion is irrelevant.

    They don't spout about their religious ideals, if they did they'd be laughed out of office. T Blair was Catholic...but he kept his beliefs secret.

    Religion is not a bonus for candidates in the UK.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7157409.stm

    T Blair kept his religious beliefs secret till her was out of office, yet apparently his politics were hugely influenced by them, good thing the voters never knew that and he was clearly aware of it's controversial nature too, hence the secrecy.

    "And earlier this year, he told the BBC that he had avoided talking about his religious views while in office for fear of being labelled "a nutter".

    He was a Judas was he not?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Pong

    Stop twisting what I said, with selective editing.
    Alright, answer please: Should politicians pledge to act on a pre-established set of doctrines, set out in a kind of playbook for example?


    Your problem with Blair seems to be that he failed to do just that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Pong

    Stop twisting what I said, with selective editing.
    Alright, answer please: Should politicians pledge to act on a pre-established set of doctrines, set out in a kind of playbook for example?


    Your problem with Blair seems to be that he failed to do just that.
    No they should not, they should as I have said a billion times now research and review the facts and it should go without saying that they take advice of experts, consult, etc. Check opinion polls if voters opinion is of interest to them.

    My problem with Blair? I never liked Blair and that had nothing to do with his following or not following his faith. I have never met a religious person yet who did follow their faith.......fully. It's always been a pic'n'mix affair.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Should politicians pledge to act on a pre-established set of doctrines, set out in a kind of playbook for example?
    No they should not, they should as I have said a billion times now research and review the facts and it should go without saying that they take advice of experts, consult, etc. Check opinion polls if voters opinion is of interest to them.
    So why have different political parties? You don't want your individual politicians encumbered by some arbitrary & stubborn party dogma.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    theory said:

    the majority of Salem agreed that women who looked at another womans husband were witches and should be burned alive didn't they. Yes, you are absolutely correct, majority of people are deffinately the most sensible.
    At about the same time, doctors treated people by bleeding them which probably contributed to George Washinton's death more than whatever ailment was being treated. The medical profession at that same time treated people with heavy metal concoctions which we now know are far more harmful than helpful.

    Does the medical profession follow those practices today? No. Do we still burn witches? No. Sooooooooooo. . . what is your point here? That the majority is always wrong and will always do the wrong thing or the least appropriate thing.
    Do I condemn modern medicine for the stupidity of the past and refuse medical attention when I need it?

    Dictatorships are no better. Far more Russians died at the hands of Stalin than witches were killed in Salem. Far more Chinese died at the hands of Mao mistakes than witches who were burned at the stake. At it was a lot more recently, too.

    theory also said:

    I am NOT an atheist, I believe in God, always have, never said I did not.
    Sorry, I could not tell. One would hardly suspect that on the basis of your comments. I dunno what God you believe in, but it would not appear to be a Bible based belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor his son Jesus.

    I agree with your orginal statement the Bible should not be adopted as the law of any land. But it seems a shallow statement in view of the fact that no such country exists even though Christianity is far and away the most practiced religion on earth today.

    Actually, we voted twice for Ronald Reagan to be president of our country. Some think he was a very good president and others do not. But then, Harry Truman is now considered one the best presidents we ever had but at one time his approval rating was only 22 percent of Americans, the lowest ever in our history.

    The majority is not always right, but in a true democracy, the majority rules, right or wrong. If it is wrong, the minority works to correct it. If it is right, the minority works to undermine it. But in the long run, it usually works out to our overall betterment.

    That's the beauty of domocracy as practiced in the west. We can complain and try to change things, but we cannot be all that upset when we fail.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Should politicians pledge to act on a pre-established set of doctrines, set out in a kind of playbook for example?
    No they should not, they should as I have said a billion times now research and review the facts and it should go without saying that they take advice of experts, consult, etc. Check opinion polls if voters opinion is of interest to them.
    So why have different political parties? You don't want your individual politicians encumbered by some arbitrary & stubborn party dogma.
    Diff parties have different loyalties and that is what usually decides their electorate.

    Labour loyal to the underclass
    Conservative loyal to the middleclass

    a broad and not totally accurate definition but enough to give you an idea what is meant by 'loyalty'

    Labour don't like farmers for example, cos they tend to vote conservative, hence they are keen to outlaw anything in farming interests.

    Conservatives - who knows, it's been a while now! I lost track.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    So why have different political parties?
    Diff parties have different loyalties and that is what usually decides their electorate.

    Labour loyal to the underclass
    Conservative loyal to the middleclass

    a broad and not totally accurate definition but enough to give you an idea what is meant by 'loyalty'

    Labour don't like farmers for example, cos they tend to vote conservative, hence they are keen to outlaw anything in farming interests.

    Conservatives - who knows, it's been a while now! I lost track.
    What you've described (and is to varying extents a reality of politics) is rather arbitrary & distopian power blocs that have lost their original purpose. All campaign and no policy. All show and no substance. Except to damage the other bloc and its citizen supporters. :?

    We have such crass opportunism in Canada too, but thank goodness the parties (at all levels) also publish manifestos detailing just what their core values, agendas, and plans are. For the most part politicians keep to their party agenda. Parties do have to sell themselves as representing some agenda voters favour. Our Tory AKA Conservative party recently collapsed (I mean totally disintegrated and disbanded ) for want of that, and got owned by bible thumpers. They at least voice an explicit agenda and stand by it.

    I personally could never vote for what is basically Canada's Christian Party, but I sure can respect their supporters, for voting with their conscience, on issues, regardless of old party loyalties.

    If we don't like Christian values parties gaining traction, then maybe we should learn from them and lay out our own equally robust set of values as alternative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Oh we have manifesto's here too, not sure who reads them.

    But we have them, and as I say they cater to a particular group of citizens.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    But if the source of religion is Nature, than they can mix. I
    What religion is this you are refferring to that has it's basis in nature?
    All religions are promoting Nature in one way or another.
    The popes are promoting the 'mother and child' concept as their most important teaching.
    Their Latin educational system is based on the study of Nature.
    I support these two doctrines but oppose the doctrine of portraying Christ as a 'sacrificial lamb'.
    Christ was 'murdered' by the urgings of the chauvinist jews because of 'free speech', not because of a sacrifice.

    So the true Christians would renounce the crucifix and cross as symbols of his/hers religion and accept Christ as a preacher/reformer instead.

    Islam is the most evil religion currently because it has reduced women to nothing but 'farm animals' as breeding stock.
    This is exploiting Nature as its primary function.

    In nature the strong devour the weak. Should we therefore begin eating the starving?
    This is nonsense. We are not 'natural born killers'.
    We have HANDS to eat the fruit from the trees, not 'fangs and claws' as the natural predators have.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Islam is the most evil religion currently because it has reduced women to nothing but 'farm animals' as breeding stock.
    This is exploiting Nature as its primary function.

    o
    You are very ignorant aren't you. Islam gives equal rights to women, MEN take them away.

    Just like men deprived women of equal rights for centuries in the West. Women only got the right vote here in the UK a few decades ago. How conveniently we forget the sins of our fathers!
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    This is nonsense. We are not 'natural born killers'.
    We have HANDS to eat the fruit from the trees, not 'fangs and claws' as the natural predators have.

    Cosmo
    I think you will find humans were hunters before they were gatherers.

    And we are still killing - perhaps you've never been down the meat isle in a supermarket?
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    I think you will find humans were hunters before they were gatherers.
    And how do you come by this little nugget of knowledge when the evolutionists, people who study evolution for a living, continue to update their theories on how human evolution actually occurred?
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Because it is a logical theory. And she is doing what all the scientists do, and that is to theorise. Not every scientist has to agree on the same thing Fluff now do they? That would make science, and especially debate, dull and very boring.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Because it is a logical theory. And she is doing what all the scientists do, and that is to theorise.
    You do not know whether or not it is a logical theory, since we do not know on what evidence she has reached this conclusion. (From her subsequent reference to 'still killing' I wonder if she hasn't picked her ideas up from Robert Ardrey. If so, as BumFluff points out, she is a few decades behind the times.)

    She is not a scientist. She can speculate, but such speculation should be backed up by evidence or reference to scientists who have gathered and analysed the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    My vision of logic does not have to be scientific, one sees one end of a string and joins another. She may not be a scientist, but she has her own ideas, and theories, and that, along with everyone else, I think believe it or not, makes them a scientist, or at least half of one. The important part is what she has. The concept of questioning, and that is the essence of science, the foundation. Its the middle man who tests the theories and ideas, because it is the person with the idea who is the most important.

    But then again you've got your own definitions of things haven't you? Mostly textbook, but still.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Because it is a logical theory. And she is doing what all the scientists do, and that is to theorise.
    You do not know whether or not it is a logical theory, since we do not know on what evidence she has reached this conclusion. (From her subsequent reference to 'still killing' I wonder if she hasn't picked her ideas up from Robert Ardrey. If so, as BumFluff points out, she is a few decades behind the times.)

    She is not a scientist. She can speculate, but such speculation should be backed up by evidence or reference to scientists who have gathered and analysed the evidence.
    Regardless of whether my statement was out of date or not, WE ARE killers

    Death row
    Muderers
    Soldiers
    Hunters
    Wife killers
    Infanticide

    and so on

    The human race is and never has been passive.

    AND WE DO EAT MEAT as a majority THUS this is for us 'NORMAL'
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Regardless of whether my statement was out of date or not, WE ARE killers

    Death row
    Muderers
    Soldiers
    Hunters
    Wife killers
    Infanticide

    and so on

    The human race is and never has been passive.

    AND WE DO EAT MEAT as a majority THUS this is for us 'NORMAL'
    Try to pull that to the topic...

    Normal human beings, today, don't kill. You know normal people are too squeamish and rather not explore their qualms. What we do is, set up greater entities to handle it. Government & industry in other words corporations not people. Special castes perform the grim duties of slaughter, war, execution, etc. Those very few individuals tasked with killing, can reason that they act as agents of the group; the blood is on the "hands" of this entity "the group" e.g. nation, society, etc. Certainly not themselves - that would be wrong.

    That shows how ethics of a group may differ from ethics of all the individuals comprising the group. That is useful I think to our debate about religion in politics. Governments needn't act or "think" as individuals ought. Perhaps they shouldn't!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong

    Normal human beings, today, don't kill. !
    Normal people DO KILL.

    Normal people think nothing of swatting flies, buying pest control items, spraying insects and so on and so forth.

    How many here have never killed a fly/spider/ant in their entire lifetime? If not as an adult I guarantee you did as a child...deliberately too, until society taught you otherwise.

    The only reason we do not kill animals for personal meat now as a whole is that we do not have to, so have lost the skills and as such have developed squeamishness about such matters. But in those parts of the world where raising your own meat and killing it is still the 'norm' the squeamishness DOES NOT EXIST.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong

    That shows how ethics of a group may differ from ethics of all the individuals comprising the group. That is useful I think to our debate about religion in politics. Governments needn't act or "think" as individuals ought. Perhaps they shouldn't!
    Governments dictate who can kill legally and who cannot.

    We the population agree to this as we do not want to be 'killed' ourselves and so wish fewer opportunities to arise where this can happen.

    Killing is still used as THE ultimate method of control, defence and getting what the government wants. We agree to this, because ultimately this is the way it has always been.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Theory wrote:
    Normal people think nothing of swatting flies, buying pest control items, spraying insects and so on and so forth
    This is a silly statement in the context of the discussion here. The killing of a fly heardly equates to the murder of another human being. The eating of a chicken wing hardly compares to human cannabalism.

    Theory here is using a tactic that atheists often use to suggest hypocracy in the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," trying to equate the elimination of a pest to homicide.

    The truth is that most of us do not commit homicides. While it may be normal to kill pests, it is not normal to commit murder. Well some consider abortion to murder, but I am not sure we consider even that "normal" followup to pregnancy.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Islam is the most evil religion currently because it has reduced women to nothing but 'farm animals' as breeding stock.
    This is exploiting Nature as its primary function.

    o
    You are very ignorant aren't you. Islam gives equal rights to women, MEN take them away.

    Just like men deprived women of equal rights for centuries in the West. Women only got the right vote here in the UK a few decades ago. How conveniently we forget the sins of our fathers!
    T he old testament is responsible for this chauvinist mentality.
    Islam is a religion born of this chauvinism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Islam is the most evil religion currently because it has reduced women to nothing but 'farm animals' as breeding stock.
    This is exploiting Nature as its primary function.

    o
    You are very ignorant aren't you. Islam gives equal rights to women, MEN take them away.

    Just like men deprived women of equal rights for centuries in the West. Women only got the right vote here in the UK a few decades ago. How conveniently we forget the sins of our fathers!
    T he old testament is responsible for this chauvinist mentality.
    Islam is a religion born of this chauvinism.
    Like I said, you know nothing about Islam.

    Islam dictates equal rights for women.

    It is men who altered the rules , like they do with all things. But the religion itself accomodates women rather nicely.

    Unlike Jesus who of course was sexist.
    According to gospel of St Thomas he said women would not be allowed entry to heaven unless they became men. Charming.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Theory wrote:
    Normal people think nothing of swatting flies, buying pest control items, spraying insects and so on and so forth
    This is a silly statement in the context of the discussion here. The killing of a fly heardly equates to the murder of another human being. The eating of a chicken wing hardly compares to human cannabalism.

    Theory here is using a tactic that atheists often use to suggest hypocracy in the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," trying to equate the elimination of a pest to homicide.

    The truth is that most of us do not commit homicides. While it may be normal to kill pests, it is not normal to commit murder. Well some consider abortion to murder, but I am not sure we consider even that "normal" followup to pregnancy.

    I made the point that humans are natural killers in response to this comment

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    This is nonsense. We are not 'natural born killers'.
    We have HANDS to eat the fruit from the trees, not 'fangs and claws' as the natural predators have.

    Cosmo
    To which I replied:

    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity


    I think you will find humans were hunters before they were gatherers.

    And we are still killing - perhaps you've never been down the meat isle in a supermarket?
    So you see, we are killers within the context of that discussion.

    Meanwhile most humans would kill given the right provocation (parent of maimed/killed child) or following a simple 'order' to kill (soldiers).
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    Regardless of whether my statement was out of date or not
    Careful, being out of date could be the difference between magic and science.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner

    This is a silly statement in the context of the discussion here. The killing of a fly heardly equates to the murder of another human being. The eating of a chicken wing hardly compares to human cannabalism.
    Perhaps from the viewpoint of the human, but most certainly not from the viewpoint of the fly. As for chickens, would they knowingly eat each other, even in times of starvation? Would the chickens be appalled?

    Theory here is using a tactic that atheists often use to suggest hypocracy in the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," trying to equate the elimination of a pest to homicide.

    The truth is that most of us do not commit homicides.
    Most of us?

    "While political party affiliation in the United States is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the 'red [Republican] states' are primarily red due the overwhelming political influence of conservative Christians. If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health, we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with he lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in 'blue' [Democrat] states, and 38 percent are in 'red' [Republican] states. Of the twenty-five most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, and 24 percent are in blue states. In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities int he US are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rates of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rates of murder, seventeen are red."

    ~Sam Harris - Letter to a Christian Nation
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Try to pull that to the topic...
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    spraying insects and so on and so forth.
    Do you want a serious debate or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65 Re: Religion and politics just don't mix 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Islam is the most evil religion currently because it has reduced women to nothing but 'farm animals' as breeding stock.
    This is exploiting Nature as its primary function.

    o
    You are very ignorant aren't you. Islam gives equal rights to women, MEN take them away.

    Just like men deprived women of equal rights for centuries in the West. Women only got the right vote here in the UK a few decades ago. How conveniently we forget the sins of our fathers!
    T he old testament is responsible for this chauvinist mentality.
    Islam is a religion born of this chauvinism.
    A book I read recently called Three Cups of Tea (I'm sure most people have heard of it) states that in one of his journeys to Pakistan/Afghanistan the author asked one of the wisest in a village if he could build a school in his village. After looking and reading the Koran he came back later and stated that there was nothing in it against teaching women. After all, in a society like that, in order to make a village more intelligent as a whole you have to bring the females knowledge up because they are the ones who stay behind for the children while the adult males go out into the world. It's groups like the Taliban and people like them who make a bad impression of the world of Islam. One that is being shown in the news and in the media much too prominently and keeps the true nature of Islam in question when regarding outsiders that don't understand.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Theoryofrelativity

    Regardless of whether my statement was out of date or not
    Careful, being out of date could be the difference between magic and science.
    Hardly applicable to the statement I made which according to all sites showing via google is still 'in date'
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •