Switching Religions, like switching toothpastes

Fondren, granted that there are have been evangelicals who have run for office on a platform dominated by their religious point of view (Robertson, Huckabee, and remember that Jesse Jackson is a minister). However, the nice thing about living here is that anyone who meets the qualifications set out in the Constitution has every right to run for POTUS or any other office. And one needs only to look at how these candidates fare in elections (Huckabee in the tank presently, Robertson and Jackson never having been viable candidates in their time) to see that the threat of the US becoming a theocracy is negligible at best. As for your examples, I can't recall any credible politician advocating the return of prayer in public schools. As for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, those who have advocated it have done so not for religious reasons, but rather for the sake of preserving their idea of what a family should be (a vehicle in which children are given the best possible environment for growing into well adjusted adults). Definitely not trying to start a gay marriage duscussion here; just making the case that your example is not a great one in the context you used it. What were we talking about anyway? Switching religions, right?
 
netslave - i'm not discounting the good churches do. i'm saying they use that good in order to get beneficial treatment for the large majority of their business which is not charitable, but religious.

i admit that it's a thin line to walk. the more a church is allowed to sprawl, the more money it will probably bring in, and the more good it can do.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, those who have advocated it have done so not for religious reasons, but rather for the sake of preserving their idea of what a family should be (a vehicle in which children are given the best possible environment for growing into well adjusted adults). Definitely not trying to start a gay marriage duscussion here; just making the case that your example is not a great one in the context you used it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

then propose a ban on divorces. which is the greater ill to society? homosexuals trying to validate their union or over 50% of marriages ending in divorces. what about the children of those divorced parents. but you're right, it's all about protecting the santicty of marriage and family.
rolleyes.gif
 
Religious morals should have no place in our government. So there's where the problem lies.
__________________________________________________

All i can say is the fact remains that non-religious societies or societies where religion was banned have always been more violent, less productive and provided a lower standard of living than religious based societies.
 
Dark Arts,

I used national pols as an example because everyone's heard of them, but its local pols and courts that actually whittle away at the separation between church and state. The current Supreme Court has the potential to erode that separation greatly as well as they did in Van Orden v. Perry.

For local erosion, look at Kansas' removal of evolution from textbooks. Look at the gay marriage bans in numerous states. Those bans are the result of Christian activism, not family preservation. The "family preservation" buzzword comes out of the Christian church, just like "intelligent design". A gay couple isn't likely to have kids anyways. Gay marriage bans are there simply to deny the equal right to marriage to gay people. It doesn't hurt you as a Christian or anyone else, not one bit, to allow gays to marry. Gay marriage bans are clearly forcing the morals of one party onto others, and the morals being forced are certainly Christian.

As far as prayer over the school PA, thankfully our courts have continued to deny this practice much to the chagrin of school boards everywhere. However, courts have been divided, so this may not always be the case.

Like I said, I don't expect you to feel it, or even care. The majority rarely notices it when they are forcing their ways on others. Atheists feel we have to be vocal or else one day we'll be forced into your church. Unlike Ryan, I don't care what you believe as long as you leave me out of it. The problem is Christians, as a whole, don't leave me out of it.
 
netslave,

You misunderstand. Some things are reflected in the Bible, but the Bible did not create them. Murder and stealing being outlawed for instance. The Bible actually supports slavery, so I don't know where you're going with that. Some things should certainly be illegal. Those things are reflected in nearly every society and nearly every religious text. They are fundamental. Its the Golden Rule, you know it. The Bible has it, but it certainly didn't invent it. Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Cavemen figured that out.

You can not, however, make an argument that a gay marriage ban is good for society using anything other than religious rhetoric. You can not make a non-Christian argument that Christian prayer should be conducted over a PA for Christians and non-Christians alike. You also can not use anything but religious rhetoric to try to keep solid research-based science out of our schools. The only argument against evolution is that it seemingly flies in the face of the Creation story.

I am not offended by Christianity. I am offended by those who try to force that Christianity upon me. It's simple, really. I don't care what you do in your family and you shouldn't care what I do in mine.
 
morals != religious morals

also, we don't legislate on morals. not even those examples you state. we legislate on where your rights and actions begin to infringe on others rights.

sexual harassment infringes on the rights on the harassed
child porn infringes on the rights of the chid, etc

please tell me how two gay men getting married infringes on any of your rights?

there's the difference.
 
you ignored the part of my post where i saw laws are not, in fact, based in morality. they are based on the idea that your rights and actions should not infringe on others.

have you ever heard the saying "your right to punch me in the face ends where my nose begins"?
 
ok, i get what you're saying, but it's a bit off the point.

we make laws based on rights, not morals. the fact that "rights" are encompassed in our "morals" is of no consequence.

ALL LAWS are based on RIGHTS (and, in extension, how my actions affect others' rights).

ALL RIGHTS have a foundation in MORALS.

some MORALS do not pertain to any RIGHTS.

thus, not all MORALS should be made LAWS.

does that make sense?

No one is saying to take the morals out of law. Legislate all the morals you want, as long as they pass the RIGHTS test.
 
Yes. A caveman knew fire burned and didn't want to get burned with it, so he didn't burn others, so that they wouldn't burn him.
__________________________________________________

there was probably also a leader of the cave pack that told them what to do otherwise the sun and moon gods would "get them." damn religion has been corrupting humanity for its entire existence.
 
I am offended by those who try to force that Christianity upon me.
__________________________________________________

I am offended by those in the democratic party that want to raise my taxes and take money i earned so they can waste it on their quest for power, incompetent government and an impossible search for equality in world populated by sheep....i actually have something taken away from me by force that is rightfully mine, you have to listen to a few religious people every once in a while, i think i win.
 
you're off the reservation

and actually, if i have to live in a country governed by a single religion, i have a LOT more taken away from me than you do with a tax rate that is a couple percentage points higher than before.

not to mention the fact that the religious zealots are also from the same party who has seen the largest increases in our federal debt in the last 30 years during their presidencies. so they have hurt you financially more than a small tax increase would.
 
I think what this research shows is that fewer people take their cues for morality strictly from their religion. People are searching for a church/religion/parish that affirms what they believe, beliefs that obviously are not 100% in line with their existing church else they wouldn't leave it.

This raises a huge question: if people are not getting their moral cues from religion, where are they getting them? Believers like to denigrate atheists and agnostics as having no morals because religion is the only source of morality, yet this research shows religious people are switching sects/religions based on something other than the religion they were brought up in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top