I DO AGREE THAT RALIGION IS INFLUENCING TOO MANY PEOPLE AND THEIR DECISIONS.SIMILAR THING WAS EXPERIENCED WHEN A CHRISTAIN GIRL ABANDONNED HER RELATIONSHIP THAT HAD LASTED FOR 6 YEARS WITH 2 CHILDREN ONLY BECAUSE SHE WAS FORCED BY HER CHURCH TO TAKE SUCH DECISION.
SHE LATER DID NOT HAVE ANY OTHER STABLE RELATIONSHIP TILL SHE DIED OF WORRIED. RELIGION DOES NOT GIVE PEOPLE FREE THINKING. SOME ARE INTERMIDITED, AND SO ON.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aguagon:
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that in order to win in '08, the Democrats need an extremely religious, extremely conservative Independent/third-party candidate to emerge and split the Republican vote.

---

After the events over the last several years, I have to say that I agree. I'm predicting a split between the more extreme left and fundamentalists in '08, but time will tell.

quote:

---

Although it somewhat reaffirms my faith in humanity to hear that the thinking right-wing body (assuming you represent it) wouldn't go for him.

---

It may seem to be a correct assumption, but I like to think of myself as a right-leaning Independant. Many of my beliefs are too--"radical"--to be considered right.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frostedbutterflies:
I find it extremely hard to fathom an extremely religous Dem in office...rather, simply in existence for that matter. All overly-religous leaders are a threat to society as we know it in my opinion, so I wouldn't vote for him/her anyway.

---

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that in order to win in '08, the Democrats need an extremely religious, extremely conservative Independent/third-party candidate to emerge and split the Republican vote. Although it somewhat reaffirms my faith in humanity to hear that the thinking right-wing body (assuming you represent it) wouldn't go for him.

And finally, the prodigal pain-in-the-butt returns (moi, that is)...anyway, back to business.

quote:

---

fundamentalism is an easy thing to jump onto to try and numb your mind from the chaos that is the present world--

---

True enough. Anyone who debates this idea should remember the weeks during the aftermath of September 11th--both conservatives and many on the left wanted nothing more but to blow to oblivion those who attacked us, mostly because of the natural response of 'harm what harms you'. I find serious flaw with pretty much everything else you said, because I hope that I am one the rare few who find respect for mostly all viewpoints, and find it blantantly ignorant to turn a blind eye to important issues by simply calling the majority of the nation's beliefs 'too religous.' Just because a person belongs to a particular religous sect does not necessarily mean that all of that individual's beliefs will be influenced by their faith...I should know.

quote:

---

Dems need to win in '08 in a self-righteous, holier-than-thou, vote-for-me-or-go-to-hell (literally) religious fundie far Right of any sensible Republican. Sort of like an über-religious, über-rightwing Nader.

---

I find it extremely hard to fathom an extremely religous Dem in office...rather, simply in existence for that matter. All overly-religous leaders are a threat to society as we know it in my opinion, so I wouldn't vote for him/her anyway.

quote:

---

The confrontation is one of the reasons religion should be eradicated.

---

*Stares; proceeds to shake self out of slight shock, speaking in slow tone* Oook. Let's first of all get the fact straight that religion and belonging to a faith has in fact as much weight and importance as a person's individual belief has. Would you feel justified walking up to a supporter of a party and informing them that their belief should be, as you so delicately phrased, "eradicated"? Myself and others will definently remember that little tid-bit when reading your so-called "beliefs" from this point onward.

quote:

---

I have two halves of me- the Religious half and the Political/Equal Rights Half. They can usually co-exist peacefully, but sometimes things need to be done in this country that AREN'T necessarily condoned by my church.

---

Couldn't agree more.

quote:

---

even though i know enough that i can make a descision w/o my faith i don't know why i would want to.

---

*ogles* Why the heck not? You have your own brain, correct? Correct? *peers inside your ear to check for the existence of one*

quote:

---

More than half the issues in politics can be traced back to a moral or ethical foundation and beliefs.

---

Precisely.

quote:

---

Some religious leaders even take it a step further, and dare to make comments like "a true Catholic would never vote for John Kerry." That just discourages free thought and mocks democracy.

---

In complete agreeance.

quote:

---

just because people have good morals does not mean that they are influenced by their religion.

---

That seems to be an ignorant statement in my book...are you saying that there is a clear-set guideline of what is 'moral' and what is not, because I'd like to see it.

quote:

---

besides that, because they (voters, Bush voters) have morals that correspond with what the Bible teaches,that makes them religious?

---

Not necessarily.

I am non-religous so I really don't base decisions on religion. I base them on pros and cons and reasonable thinking. I also base it on what I think is right and wrong. Frankly, I think if anyone takes religion (for say, the bible) too seriously, then grave consequences would follow.

quote:

---

Personally, I feel that this is the problem with religion--it doesn't encourage free thinking, but rather narrowmindedness.

---

Most people choose a religion based on their ideas of moral/immoral and right/wrong.

I'm an atheist, so religion does not influence my decisions. However, my beliefs of what is right/wrong and moral/immoral do. I'm assuming that if a person is religious than their religion pretty much states what is right/wrong for them. Therefore, they cannot help being influenced by religion. If they did not follow their religion, then they would be violating their faith and such. Personally, I feel that this is the problem with religion--it doesn't encourage free thinking, but rather narrowmindedness.

Bogey: you're intellegent but you need a little bit more explanation

Maxno: get a brain in that head of yours

wildcat: same as maxno

meagan: the only sane person so far

Bella: wannabee smart

ashodelia: oh lord, can we say biased?

Separation of church and state was put into place to protect the church, not the state. Also, for most everything that seems to be a huge religious issue, there are many non-religous reasons to support/dissupport it. For example, I am working on a debate for speech class about why euthanasia is wrong, and I am not allowed to use any religious arguements; I am having no trouble with it because although I do not believe in euthanasia for religious reasons, there are SO many other arguements against it.

Religion has definitely gone too far, and I think countries like France are ahead of the game in stamping out religion in school.

American girl- Religion starts to effect other people when it starts to prevent them from living their lives. If religion were truly between just a person and their god, there would be no debate over gay marriage, stem cell, abortion, etc.

During the elections, priests were telling church members that to vote for Kerry was a sin. Meaning they would go to hell if they voted for Kerry! O.o Where are we going to draw the line between church and state?!

quote:

---

Even if we side with God on some issues, doesn't mean we should force others to do the same.

---

How does having beliefs based on those of God and feeling that way on certain topics such as abortion, death penalty and animal testing force others to "side with God"?

quote:

---

Well, Bella, if these people truly believed God was against (or for) these issues, then I think it would be wrong of them to not be in agreement with God. I mean, if they truly believed God is all-powerful and all-good, and they also truly believed that God was against something, then it would be wrong of them not to be against that thing, as well

---

But God also gave everyone free will. Just because he is for or agaist something doesn't mean he didn't give us the choice to do it if we wanted. If he believed we should be able to act against him if we pleased, we should agree with him there as well. Even if we side with God on some issues, doesn't mean we should force others to do the same. God doesn't.

quote:

---

okay, i am not 'anti-christ' but is it just me, or are the strong believers only against things because it's against gods word? i mean, gay marriages, abortion, the war...everything! it's getting a little out of hand...

---

Well, Bella, if these people truly believed God was against (or for) these issues, then I think it would be wrong of them to not be in agreement with God. I mean, if they truly believed God is all-powerful and all-good, and they also truly believed that God was against something, then it would be wrong of them not to be against that thing, as well.

hmmm... sorry your feeble mind broke...

YUCK!!! WAY too much philosophy and garbage for me...we talked about all this jazz in 10th grade English...none for me this Christmas break, thank you.

quote:

---

Humanism is the philosophy that man is all there is, while intellectualism is the search for truth. Nowadays all of the so-called "intellectuals" assume without question the idea of atheism and threfore humanism. These idea for the most part is not based on a scientific search for the truth, but are presupositions and biases and assumtions that they view the natural world with.

---

This is some pretty rhetoric, but there's not much substance to it. Frankly you're mis-idntifing humanism. Humanism is not atheism. Atheism may be an offshoot of radical humanism, but humanism is not necessarialy atheist. The origins of Humanism as a intellectual movement lie in the Renaissance, after the redicovery of Greek texts (Plato, Socrates etc). Humanism became a belief in the power of man in this world. Previously, life had been viewed as an ordeal before you went to heaven. Humanism changed this. Men started to view worldly tasks as more worthwhile.

Humanism has to do with a respect for man, no a disbelif in God. Atheism is Atheism, it's not Humanism.

As far as intellectualism and humanism goes, fine the two are often intertwined, but whatever these presuppositions you speak of are, one would asume they are scintific if you view the natural world with them. And if we do not acknowledge established scintific fact, we will be living at the center of the Universe.

Science comes out of the Humanistic belief that man can understand the world; he does not need God's help. Therefore without Humanism- No science.

Humanistic thought leads to the Scintific thought of the 16th and 17th centuries leads to the Enlightenment which leads to Democracy, a system based on the worldly rights of men. Thank Humanism for democracy.

quote:

---

and what exactly are we doing?

---

Preaching anti-humanism, which is harmful, if what I have said above is understood corectly.

My belief is that the majority of religions were made to sway t he common people's decisions especially regarding government. That's why people should never bring up two subjects- God and politics, because they are so interconnected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maxno:
Thats practically he same thing in terms of cultural advancemnt.

---

Humanism is the philosophy that man is all there is, while intellectualism is the search for truth. Nowadays all of the so-called "intellectuals" assume without question the idea of atheism and threfore humanism. These idea for the most part is not based on a scientific search for the truth, but are presupositions and biases and assumtions that they view the natural world with.

quote:

---

Yes, if they are left ot continue what they are doing.

---

and what exactly are we doing?

quote:

---

Evangelicals are not anti-intellectuals, just anti-humanists

---

Thats practically he same thing in terms of cultural advancemnt.

quote:

---

Do you really belive that evangelicals are going to throw this country into a dark age?

---

Yes, if they are left ot continue what they are doing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maxno:
Alright, I'm just going to say this... EVANGELICAL RELIGION IS RUINING OUR COUNTRY!!! Leaders of these groups have decided that everything that happend during the enlightenment is worthless, the great human achievements of the past 300 years are thrown out as sinful. Science, humanistic litterature abhored, and "secular culture" are all under attack.

---

Evangelicals are not anti-intellectuals, just anti-humanists.

quote:

---

God help us lest the Enlightenment be reversed and we fall into a second dark age!

---

Do you really belive that evangelicals are going to throw this country into a dark age?