"the reformation and enlightenment."

I think that is very true - and one reason why fundamentalism is so prevalent in Islam now. They never went thru a reformation.

Anyway, I expect Bush to bomb & nothing said here will affect that.

That is right, I have been very concerned with the religious right calling for the rounding up and execution of everyone who is not heterosexual. When Jerry Falwell called for the extermination of all the non-Christians on the planet it really made me worried too. The final straw was when they took over the media and executed everyone but the guys they liked from Fox and made it illegal to be anything but Christian if you wanted to live here.

Yeah, it is just the same:rolleyes:

Just remember, more people have died under the Xian banner than any other in history.

Religion 100%, completely out of government. Nothing less. I will view our system as flawed until that goal is met.

Then your own agnostic or atheist religion would be in gov't. Pick your poison.

No.
Those are the absence of religion.

Dan

They may be the absence of religion, but they are a belief system.

Definitions are real stinkers.

The point is (since obviously Rick missed it) is that mixing religion and politics is a slippery slope that ends EXACTLY where Iran is today. Cut the cancer out. That's the only way to be sure.

Yes. Let's keep religion out of politics.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1190821551.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1190821564.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1190821582.jpg

I didn't miss it. But your atheism is no less dogmatic than the Christian wing-nuts you always rail against. Though I don't think you can point to any change in your life or those of others brought about by Bush's personal religion seeping into law or gov't. policy. Keeping religious people from having gov't. jobs is just as impossible as keeping atheists out of them. I'd say we've done pretty well in keeping religion out of our laws so far.

I respectfully disagree.
Certainly not a system, but more properly an absence of belief. That of course in no way diminishes it's 'argueability', which of course as we know on OT is the basis of all existence!
SmileWavy

I disagree right back.

"I believe there is no Creator". Isn't that in essence what an athiest says?

Perhaps not important in the overall scheme of things, but nonetheless everyone seems to have a belief, either positve or negative.

I think you are confusing "keeping religion out of politics" with "keeping religion out altogether".

Is there a difference?

More accurately, one may find that the evidence of a creator is so minute that the probably of its existence is nill. That is not a belief, just an acknowledgement of the facts available at the time. Many who count themselves as atheists are more accurately described as agnostic atheists:

Yes. :)

Man, I have been saying that all along. Finally, someone else states the obvious.

What is a belief if it is not acknowledgement of the facts at the time or the "facts" as one sees them? And, where are the facts either for or against the existence of a Creator? Answer: These facts do not exist. Therefore, whichever side one takes, it is a belief; something based on feelings rather than cold, hard data. An unanswerable problem that another thread has been exploring for nearly 300 pages.

I wonder if there is, in addition to agnostic-athiests, there are also agnostic-believers? Sounds logical if one simply replaces a few of Flint's words in your quote and changes from the negative to the positve!!

Bob, you have entirely too much time on your hands. :)

I could care less what someone believes. Spirituality can be a wonderful and uplifting thing.

I just don't want it in my politics.

Tax religious institutions in this country, then you'd see a whole lot less lobbyist money derived from religion crying for political service. Then you'd see a whole lot less of religion in, at least, our politics.

I agree with you, although it would also have the unintended side effect of penalizing "unpopular" religions and thereby forcing secularism into the religious teaching. I'll use an example I'm familiar with - Catholicism. There is currently a problem with church attendance and numbers of people going into the priesthood, largely because the church staunchly clings to traditional teachings and refuses to budge on certain positions. On the one hand, this is the butt of jokes ("every sperm is sacred", etc.) but on the other, it adds theological credibility to the religion because it's not "flip flopping" to suit the popular secular position du jour.

A religion that says what people want to hear (i.e. a "fly-by-night" sort of religion like televangelism, etc.) will be able to pull in more members, raise more $$$ and consequently be more likely to survive if taxed. A more "traditional" religion with few members would not. Religion would be treated like a business and would have to make itself "popular" to its customers in order to raise money. Probably not the place we want to go.

So good idea on one hand, but ultimately it would do the exact opposite of what you intended - it would encourage the mixing of religious and secular policy.