Religion and Politics

[GenSeneca]

That raises the question now of why you are intent on misleading people by posting a claim that religion has always been tied to politics and then asking if Obama supporters would subscribe to the idea.

Take it up with OBAMA, thats a quote FROM HIM, not McCain.

 

[Libsmasher]

The idea that religion and law are distinct is just as phony as it has always been. Many laws are the prohibition of behaviors that people think are morally wrong. And where do most people get their moral ideas - from a learned study of the great philosophers, or from their religion? Some of the Ten Commandments have been codified into criminal or civil law: you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not give false witness. To see that religious ideas are in the very warp and woof of US law, one could look at the east pediment and interior friezes of the USSC building, which portray as law givers such as Jesus, Moses, Solomon, and none other than Muhammed.

As for religious involvement in day to day politics - libs only complain when conservative religious persons and institutions become involved - lib religious entities have been involved in US politics practically from its founding and up to the present day.

 

[PLC1]

BTW, the quote I used was from Obama, not McCain.

Good one!

Actually, I think the quote represents one way in which the two candidates would agree.

And, even though the supporters of one like to paint the supporters of the other as being less than moral and civilized, the two candidates aren't portraying each other that way at all.

 

[UShadItComing]

You are denouncing religion based on a very small group on fundamentalists. Most normal people do not think the world flooded or that Joshua blew his trumpets and the walls of Jericho collapsed.

Most people accept that these are stories that are meant to have a different meaning. Much like fables.

Trumpets, walls, big boats, floods, or earth at the center of the solar system Rob, if you want to throw it all out you are going to be left with not much else. Then throw out all the murdering of your own child and stoning women and what's left.

You can choose to not believe the bible is literal but you would place yourself in a small minority of believers. Don't try to be dishonest on it Rob.

I hope you aren't one of those ID wackos but if you are we can do a dance on that too. Nothing I would like better!

 

[BigRob]

Trumpets, walls, big boats, floods, or earth at the center of the solar system Rob, if you want to throw it all out you are going to be left with not much else. Then throw out all the murdering of your own child and stoning women and what's left.

The Bible does not say that Earth is at the middle of the solar system. The stories in the Bible are not meant to be taken literally, what they are meant to be is an example for a good way to live your life.

You can choose to not believe the bible is literal but you would place yourself in a small minority of believers. Don't try to be dishonest on it Rob.

Being from the South, you would think I would have run into many "Bible Thumpers" as you would call them. I went a Jesuit school for high school, and they even taught us in our religion classes that these stories are not meant to be taken literally.

You can claim everyone takes the Bible literally, but in reality, in the most religious area of the country (the South) that has not been my experience.

I hope you aren't one of those ID wackos but if you are we can do a dance on that too. Nothing I would like better!

As for being an intelligent design "wacko."

I just think when people make the claim that the Big Bang is what created the universe they still lack the ability to explain where the "initial condition" came from.

It makes just as much sense to say God created the Earth and God has always been there, as it does to say the Big Bang created the Universe and the "initial condition" was always there.

 

[UShadItComing]

I didn't say 'everybody' took the bible literally. There you go again with your dishonest exaggerations of what I say. A good part of the people in the land of the gun take the bible literally and if that embarrasses you then too bad.

Whoooooaaa there, God created the earth? How long ago would that have been? There are a lot of people in the land of the gun who believe the young earth theory too. How about you?

 

[BigRob]

I didn't say 'everybody' took the bible literally. There you go again with your dishonest exaggerations of what I say. A good part of the people in the land of the gun take the bible literally and if that embarrasses you then too bad.

Whoooooaaa there, God created the earth? How long ago would that have been? There are a lot of people in the land of the gun who believe the young earth theory too. How about you?

No, you just said the "majority" which I do not think is accurate. Based on actually living in the area and talking to the people I think most of them in fact do not take the Bible literally, but see it exactly as I have said.

People who think that the Earth is 5,000 years old are in a huge minority. You can hold them up as your examples, but its not a credible example because its not the majority.

You did not answer my question either. What caused the Big Bang, and where did the things that caused it come from? It makes just as much sense to say they came from "God" as it does to say they were just there, which is the assumption in the Big Bang theory.

No one can prove to you that God exists, much like you cannot prove that he does not, or that "God" did not cause the Big Bang.

But if you must continue pointing to minority examples to try to back up your claims that "the majority" think the Bible is a literal history or that Earth is 5,000 years old, you are already standing on shaky ground.

 

[GraceAustin]

Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.>>>>

I've heard that many times, & can't possibly agree or disagree when the statement goes no further than that. Objectively, what does that mean? And does it mean different things to different people? Is the statement implying that Judeo-Christian "tradition" holds moral tenants that belong to them alone, & not held by those of different religions or no religion?

 

[GenSeneca]

This would have people up in arms if he were a Republican:

My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lords work. - Obama

POLITICS AND RELIGION

Obama Brings Back 'Cross' Flier To Try to Reach Kentucky Voters

Barack Obama has recycled his startling "Cross" flier to appeal to Kentucky voters.

The pamphlet has circulated in other primary states and is striking for its overt appeal on religion. The words across the top read "Faith. Hope. Change." Obama is pictured at a church pulpit, with a large illuminated cross in the background. A quote at the bottom reads: "My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work."

On the flip side is a photo of Obama in front of a stained-glass window. A few paragraphs describe his work as a community organizer in Chicago and tell of how some people he met encouraged him to attend church one Sunday: "That day Obama felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life." The words along the side proclaim "Committed Christian."

Religious Zealot.. Thats the label every Republican gets slapped with for having a belief in God. The Religious Left doesn't seem to be a threat to the Left... Only the Religious Right. Perhaps some Lefty out there can explain this double standard so that I may understand how the Collective views God's role in politics.

Lets hear your explanation for this stuff....

 

[PLC1]

This would have people up in arms if he were a Republican:

My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lords work. - Obama



Religious Zealot.. Thats the label every Republican gets slapped with for having a belief in God. The Religious Left doesn't seem to be a threat to the Left... Only the Religious Right. Perhaps some Lefty out there can explain this double standard so that I may understand how the Collective views God's role in politics.

Lets hear your explanation for this stuff....

Can you believe that picture of Obama?

Now, all his opponents need to do is photoshop a picture of Jeremiah Wright standing next to him, with an appropriate quote at the bottom.

Yes, a Republican would be considered a religious zealot for using such an image. I suppose Obama is getting away with it because his party isn't associated with the religious right.

Of course, it's too much to ask that either side simply debate the issues of the day:

How are we going to balance the budget?
How are we going to put an end to Iraq?
How are we going to put a stop to illegal immigration?

Ho hum, just boring old issues. Who wants to discuss that?

 

[GenSeneca]

Of course, it's too much to ask that either side simply debate the issues of the day:

How are we going to balance the budget?
How are we going to put an end to Iraq?
How are we going to put a stop to illegal immigration?

Ho hum, just boring old issues. Who wants to discuss that?

I gave up banging my head against that wall... Nobody has ever been up to the challenge.

Also, I think my question was fair and valid:

Why the Double Standard on Religion?

 

[PLC1]

I gave up banging my head against that wall... Nobody has ever been up to the challenge.

Also, I think my question was fair and valid:

Why the Double Standard on Religion?

I think your question was valid also, but can't answer it, other than to say that the Democrats are not associated with the religious right. Why Obama hasn't been lambasted about that poster is a mystery to me.

Here is how it should look, of course:

 

[UShadItComing]

PLC- You sound like you want to get serious. I suggest you try to catch the AC360 program, 'Extreme Challenges for the next 4 years. I was very impressed with the group because it at least left the politics out of it long enough to pose the real questions. I'm wondering if any forum such as this could keep it on a civil level long enought to thoroughly discuss what that program talked about. If not this forum then perhaps I will go off looking for one which has a more serious level of debate and exchange of ideas. If Rob and Andy read this maybe they will comment if they have seen it.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think your question was valid also, but can't answer it, other than to say that the Democrats are not associated with the religious right. Why Obama hasn't been lambasted about that poster is a mystery to me.

Here is how it should look, of course:

LOL, nice work... I hope someone can explain why religion is only acceptable if the people talking about it are politically Left. Same Trinity: same God, same Jesus, same Holy Ghost, but one side's painted as Theocratic Extremeism, invoking calls for the further separation of Church and State, while the other is just accepted as benign and morally cohesive with the party goals.

How about Popeye or Top-Gun? Either of you two want to take a stab at it... I know, takes away time from bashing McCain for being Old but you two could use a break from that anyway... its getting old.

 

[UShadItComing]

No, you just said the "majority" which I do not think is accurate. Based on actually living in the area and talking to the people I think most of them in fact do not take the Bible literally, but see it exactly as I have said.

Could be Rob. If that is the case then they may be unable to come to terms with declaring that the bible is not to be taken literallly. This could be due to the confrontational venue in which the issue is discussed. I have no axe to grind either way really so maybe we can explore this further when we have time.

People who think that the Earth is 5,000 years old are in a huge minority. You can hold them up as your examples, but its not a credible example because its not the majority.

Nobody goes to 5000 but many go to 6000-10,000. I didn't make this up Rob and if we get a chance maybe we can find out for sure.

You did not answer my question either. What caused the Big Bang, and where did the things that caused it come from? It makes just as much sense to say they came from "God" as it does to say they were just there, which is the assumption in the Big Bang theory.

One thing we should be able to agree upon is that our human brains have not evolved enogh to be able to understand the question. Simply stated, what created god? God just 'is'? Then the big band just 'is'. No, our brains are just incapable of understanding but we may be getting close to exploring around the edges of higher thinking with string theory and so on.

No one can prove to you that God exists, much like you cannot prove that he does not, or that "God" did not cause the Big Bang.

That's correct but some can offer explanations for why mankind needs a god fugure at all and those explanations seem at least plausible to me.

But if you must continue pointing to minority examples to try to back up your claims that "the majority" think the Bible is a literal history or that Earth is 5,000 years old, you are already standing on shaky ground.

I"m not sure I'm wrong when I say that in the US the majority believe that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old but I will explore the idea further when I have time. I'm not exactly sure why we should bother but I think we maybe should. The fact that the idea of a young earth is complete nonsense to you and me should let us just move on but this thread begs the question I think.