Secular Americans: Take Heed!

DGW1091
I accidentally wrote:
Your doubt is not misdirected.

I meant to write:
Your doubt IS misdirected.

DGW1091

Your initial post seemed to be making the assumption that most atheists act the way you mentioned.

Your exact words were :
"Maybe if secularists, atheists, and other anti-theistic persons resisted the urge to call the religious "stupid," "foolish," "evil," "misled," as part of what they consider to be acceptable discourse, they may actually get people to listen.

But I doubt that will happen."

Your doubt is not misdirected. Look beyond these boards and you will see that most of us do have civil and respectful discourse, even when told by the extremists that we will "burn in hell".

I promise that if you do not judge us by Richard Dawkins and Michael Newdow that we will not judge the believers by Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps.

In my experience in the real world, the overwhelming majority of atheists do not treat those who believe in deities poorly, and have always been willing to engage in civil and respectful dialog. Even when I was a beliver in a god I found that the atheists and secularists were the more civil ones and the bile and hatred tended to come from thoe who believed in a deity 99 times out of 100. That is not to say that there were not a lot of belivers in deity who also were civil and respectful.

A major problem is that both the press and the internet tend to attract the extremes of both sides to the discussion and fail to see the real world.

I'm actually quite impressed. Most of you who have attributed my quote and commented seem to believe I'm somehow religious. Haven't been to a church (except for weddings) in decades.

The point, and it is no less valid from the atheists' perspective, is that when we drop the verbal abuse and assaults and treat each other as human beings with dignity and civility that discourse will be more likely.

You don't "lose an argument" by being civil. You demonstrate that you are a rational human being with a valid view point who is willing to engage. There have been athiests and religious having documented discussions without violence or hatred as far back as there have been the concept of religions. They just "don't make the news."

The point of this author's post was that there was a group of people, politically left leaning, that were succeeding in getting points across where others of the same political leaning seem to fail. My point to this is effectively if you refuse to establish communiation you will never convince anyone of anything.

However, the highly vocal secularists, atheists, and anti-theists have been interjecting bile into discussions in the forms of belittling commments, condemnation, and overall snark. As a result the whole group of the anti-religious are marginalized.

As secularists and atheists, you tend to pride yourselves on using logic and moral superiority to govern. How do you obtain those things by insulting the people you would have governed? The same tactics have alienated you from this strain of government. Why not break the cycle?

BPAI_99

"You cannot disprove the existence of God, you just have to take it on faith. So there."

"So there" ... Very immature.

Actually since scientific process places the burden of proof on the AFFIRMATIVE statement. Any competent scientist will acknowledge that the affirmative statement is that deities (any deity, not just the Abrahamic one) exist. Therefore the burden of proof lies solely with those who claim that God exists (outside of the human imagination.)

Not believing in God has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with the completely lack of irrefutable evidence that said entity exists outside of the human imagination. That is not faith, it is simple scientific process.

Mind you, the fact that deities exist inside the human imagination does grant some form of existence but not the omnipresent, omniscient existence that some believers attribute to it.

But as I have said, if you have faith that a deity exists and if that faith both provides you with comfort, joy and peace as well as inspires you to treat you fellow and the plant well then you should not change that faith for it serves as beneficial purpose.

compchiro

You wrote, "We just do not accept the concept that without said belief that one is not capable of hope, morality or decency."

I have said this many times myself with the statement: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations of lack thereof.

I have also said that "belief" in God does not necessarily add up to a bucket of snot.

Another thing that I have said many times is: It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

You also wrote, "Nor do we accept the view that it is valid (or consitutional) to impose said beliefs on the law"

I also agree with this and have said that I believe that the "founding fathers" were Divinely inspired in putting into print, Freedom of Religion.

Whether or not anyone believes that Jesus is Who He Is, He did not come to earth to set up a theocracy and neither should we.

People thru the ages have tried to set up "theocracies" in Jesus's Name but even Jesus said, "Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

You cannot disprove the existence of God, you just have to take it on faith. So there.

As I pointed out before,

dgw1091,

"Maybe if secularists, atheists, and other anti-theistic persons resisted the urge to call the religious "stupid," "foolish," "evil," "misled," as part of what they consider to be acceptable discourse, they may actually get people to listen. But I doubt that will happen."

Then you lose your arguement. Because most of the atheists and secularists (most of whom are not "anti-theist", we just have seen no proof of any deity[s]) that I have met (and that is several hundred if not over a thousand) do not believe that those who believe in deities are stupid, evil or misled.

Almost all that I know (including myself) understand that those who believe in deities are simply exihibiting their faith that there is a deity or deities. (Note that I am NOT saying that such belief is simple or simplistic). And we also recognise that said belief can and has led some believers to engage in wonderous acts or humanity and good.

We just do not accept the concept that without said belief that one is not capable of hope, morality or decency. Nor do we accept the view that it is valid (or consitutional) to impose said beliefs on the law (even if there was one cohesive viewpoint held by all religous adherebnts, which there is not.)

dgw1091 wrote:
Maybe if secularists, atheists, and other anti-theistic persons resisted the urge to call the religious "stupid," "foolish," "evil," "misled," as part of what they consider to be acceptable discourse, they may actually get people to listen.
But I doubt that will happen.

You mean, the way those of faith call secularists, atheists and rationalists "stupid," "foolish," "evil" and "misled"? Hi, Pot, I'm Kettle.

...Politics, morality and religion inevitably intesect. This notion that they are neatly compartmentalized is at best nonsense and at worst a deliberate attempt at disenfranchising believers.
Posted by: maxtel1910

From my perspective, maxtel11910, they don't have to intersect. My two rules of thumb are simple. #1-You live according to your beliefs, but you can only try to control the actions of others based on what you can prove in fact (and faith isn't proof). #2 You only have the right to try to constrain the behavior of others when the action in question would cause direct harm to others. That's it. Otherwise, let freedom ring. Seems pretty American, to me.

Rule one might come into play with with abortion for example. Someone might personally BELIEVE abortion to be murder, because they believe God grants a soul to the fetus at conception. However unless they have concrete proof of both the existance of the soul, and when it comes into being they can't PROVE this, so they must allow others to make up their own minds.

Gay marriage, to my mind, invokes rule two. Any discomfort, moral or otherwise someone has regarding gay couples does not rise to the "harm" standard. Allowing gay people to dignify their relationships in marriage gives them security and respect, and does no one else any harm (except the afore-mentioned discomfort) so no law should be invoked to prevent it.

I find these two rules serve as good guides, when I'm unsure of my actions. If what I believe is unproven in fact, (and we all have beliefs unproven in fact) I follow my beliefs for myself, but regarding someone else's actions, I should shut up. If what someone else wants to do causes no harm to anyone, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me, I should get out of their way. For me, it's really that simple.

It just goes to show you that the left doesn't have any real problem with God-talk in politics... as long as it serves their ends.
Posted by: seraphina |

And the right is different how?

JUSTACOMMENT TO THOMAS PAUL MOSES BAUM: “…please give me a real proof of his existence."

THOMAS PAUL MOSES BAUM's answer: “This I cannot do, only God can.”

Thomas, something new happened after my last post. The King of The Universe reveled to me directly. I saw a bright light coming form the sky and heard a potent voice that told me: “YOU ARE ONE OF THE CHOOSEN”.

Now we got a big problem. Is your God of the bible that revealed to you the real one or it’s my King of the Universe the true god? Who other people should believe, your word or my word?

More likely they are going to demand some kind of proof from us.

So, be ready.

Nothing to be pleased about when secular government is being taken over by those espousing a mythology-based belief system. What did the djinns and the fairies tell them to tax today? And, of course, they are not religionists in any strict sense-they pick and choose what supports their secular political views and discard the rest. Why not just creat a Democratic Religion, sponsored by the Democratic Party: pro-tax, pro-abortion, anti-whatever, etc. This avoids any dissonance between the mythological and the political; all the inconvenient stuff goes away.

JUSTACOMMENT

You wrote, "There are a lot of non religious people like me that never say “God does not exist”. Instead we say I would like to believe that there is a God. So here you have a soul that can be saved, mine."

I know that there are a lot of "non religious people" that are not anti-theist and/or against anyone having a "belief" in something bigger than themself.

I have spoken with some on here and I have also said that some of them are more "Christian" where it counts than some of the "believers".

As I have said, God's Plan is for the salvation of ALL OF HUMANITY.

I have also mentioned that hell and spiritual death are both real and are different, Jesus won the keys to both and will use them in due time, God's Time.

I have also said that if one were to die physically and wake up in hell, so to speak, they will come to the realization that they built it themself and have no one to blame but themself.

You then wrote, "I’m ready to believe. Since you claim that God exists (not only that but you have said in other posts that you have meet him) please give me a real proof of his existence."

This I cannot do, only God can do this.

The "kinds of proof" that you refer to or anything even remotely resembling these did not have any part in the way that God revealed Himself to me.

You then wrote, " I cannot have faith in The King until knowing that HE exists and the stranger is a real the only person that represent HIM in this world."

Then it would not be "faith" but "knowledge". If you are refering to me in the above sentence as "the stranger", for one thing, I have never said that I am the only one to represent Him in this world but I have said that He chose me to speak. I have also said, that some that say they are speaking for Him, have not be chosen by God to speak but chose themself to speak.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It's great such a young group thought to make religious questions part of the political debate. They ARE really important, and government does affect our right to live our beliefs. Still, whenever I hear some attractive, young spokesperson talking about the role of faith in American life, I think of the roles and power of true Christian leaders to effect safety for Christendom, and wish these "Americans" could wean themselves to become grown-up saints. Their world--including politics, chasing money, marrying and giving in marriage, buying and selling houses and stuff--is, after all, the enemy not the guarantor of the Kingdom of Heaven, as described in several NT parables.

HUMANSIMPLENTON,

The net result of the law I suggested will less people subjugated by religions. I built the idea on your numbers, with which I totally agree.

It’s simple: if more that 80% of the population in this country is religious, most of the mother having abortions are religious, mainly Christians.

Obviously my proposal is to highlight the fact that Christians anti-abortionists concentrate their protests and criminal actions against doctors, but the mothers are mostly Christian that cannot use effective birth control methods.

I believe that somehow we are going in the same direction.

Hey JustAComment,

Any reason you left out liberal fundamentalists or religious liberals and irreligious people from the council?

I cannot say that I favor reducing abortion since it is not something I can experience or relate to directly. However, I can say that abortion is not a simple option for women who weigh the pros and cons. No woman I know has an easy decision when it comes to aborting a fetus.

Accordingly I'd be in favor of us discussing how to reduce the *need* for an abortion. In other words, the less the need for a woman to have an abortion, everyone benefits.

I am however strongly opposed to allowing religious arguments (but not people of religion) contributing to this debate.

Taking a cue from HUMANSIMPLETON: liberals secularists and religious fundamentalist should work together to enact a law to help religion with the abortion problem. This law will punish all mothers having abortions by prohibiting them to belong to any organized religion.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum wrote>

“Would those that "don't believe in God" similarly have to accept the possibility, that God indeed Is Real, enable them to carry on a "honest conversation"

There are a lot of non religious people like me that never say “God does not exist”. Instead we say I would like to believe that there is a God. So here you have a soul that can be saved, mine.

I’m ready to believe. Since you claim that God exists (not only that but you have said in other posts that you have meet him) please give me a real proof of his existence.

The kind of proof I expect from you is similar to the one you will demand of an stranger that tells you that he had a long conversation with a semi transparent gosh called The King of the Universe, who talks while levitating and was surrounded by small flying figures with wings and talking snakes. The King said that all existing religions were false, and from now on every human has to give all possessions to this stranger as the only representative of The King in this world. The stranger also tells you that The King described how horrendous was the new Hell 2.0, an improved version that no religion before could imagine. And the stranger said that H-2.0 was already open for business, so watch out humanity, renounce to all your possessions.

Hey, any sane person will demand concrete evidence that all that is true before giving away all his/her assets to this stranger. In other words, I cannot have faith in The King until knowing that HE exists and the stranger is a real the only person that represent HIM in this world.

I’m sure that you got the idea about the kind proof that I would like to receive from you as a sincere believer. Books supposedly written by God that prove that God exists are no proof. This is circular thinking. Logical proof will not make it. It’s a good thinking exercise but not enough a proof that something is real, specially for something that can be a life changer.

My salvation may be on your keyboard Thomas. Thanks in advance for your comments, I’ll be grateful for the eternity.

Take care, I’m ready…

I find it ridiculous that in the comments to the article which obviously was penned to illustrate the religion is not a Republican-only club, the comments centering on abortion focus on believers and non-believers, with the implicit claim that abortion is a non-believer thing.

I would assert that if Christians were to stop having sex, the number of abortions in the country would drop to less than 30% of their current levels.

How do I justify this claim? Simply numbers

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Note that 70% of the abortions are had by Christians.

If you are bemused at this logic, think about it when people preach abstinence as the way to avoid pregnancy.

ROHITCUNY says

"I agree that religion should stay outside politics.

At the same time, I deny that abortion is a religious issues"
==
I agree with this, but would phrase it differently.

Abortion should be discussed, but religion should have no part of it, regardless of which side you fall on the issue.

When the god-mongering politicians embrace this, we can see progress made on it. Otherwise, it simply becomes a case of watching the Bible thumpers win. Slowly

ktsmom9

You wrote, "The reason abortion is a matter of Faith is because removing "body tissue" is not illegal or immoral. No one pickets hospitals conducting tonsillectomies or appendectomies. No one of any Faith thinks those tissues are "alive"."

Actually, for the most part those tissues are alive, they just don't grow into another human being.

As far as removing "body tissue" if someone were to remove someone's heart, "body tissue", without replacing it with a transplant, they would probably get into some kind of trouble, don't you think"

Also, the "body tissue", as you put it, is not part of a woman's body but is something or someone, if you will, growing inside of her.

Also, we all were once "body tissue" were we not?

Whether one believes in a "soul" or not, that "body tissue" has the potentiality of becoming a human being, does it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Riograd

You wrote, "Only by accepting the possibility of having false beliefs can they carry on honest conversations with those who do not hold their beliefs."

Would those that "don't believe in God" similiarly have to accept the possibility, that God indeed Is Real, enable them to carry on a "honest conversation"?

It is no one's right to force their belief on another whether their belief is that God Is Real or their belief is that God does not exist.

I used to believe that God is Real and God rewarded that belief by revealing Himself to me, in His Way, in His Time.

As you said, believing something does not mean it is true and that holds for believing that there is no God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Rohit: You say:

Abortion, just like war, is also killing, and usually, killing for convenience - abortions out of absolute necessity are extremely rare. The abortion rate in the US is in excess of a million a year, and from surveys of women sseeking abortion, it is clear that there are not anywhere like a million emergencies.

I'd like to see your statistics to back this up; their pretty broad. I'd also like to know if you lump in all abortions as the same. Those in the first month or two, those at the last trimester? The vast majority of abortions are in the first trimester and different religions have different points of view on this. Abortions in the last trimester are vastly more difficult to justify and are vastly more difficult to get approval for. Legal abortions at this stage have gone through legal and medical review.

Also, do you distinguish between abortion and miscarriage? If not, why not? What if something a woman does to cause the miscarriage?

Your post left questions, and few facts.

Pr Chris

This country was founded on freedom of religion. We are not to impose our religion on others, but by the same token, if religious freedom exists, we cannot be barred from politics, public office or public service because we have religious beliefs that others do not like. That is what freedom of religion guarantees. Secularism and a dogmatic insistence that nothing can exist outside of our realm of understanding are, in effect, religions, based on strong beliefs which cannot be proven or disproven.

Yesterday someone sent me an email in which was the statement "Since almost every religious group says that if you don't believe as they do, you will go straight to Hell. Guess Hell will be overrun while Heaven will be very sparsely populated."

My sentiments exactly! Many of us have stopped going to any church since it seems most of them are now nothing but big businesses. Yes, there are good people in many of them who truly believe - but too many of those people think they are the ONLY ones going to Heaven. Too bad - we could all use more faith, love and charity in our lives but many now practice those things outside of any organized religion since they are not welcome in many churches if you have any independent thoughts.

Castiger1: Thanks for your comment. I too was raised in the United Methodist Church. My great grandparents were missionaries for the Congregational Church in the South Pacific and gave their lives in that pursuit.

I, for one, am not interested in castigating believers in religion. I am, however, concerned that so many people persist with beliefs that run directly contrary to the now known laws of the universe. People do not rise from the dead or walk on water. Snakes do not talk, and the earth was not created in an Abra Cadabra moment by an invisible magical being in outer space. This seems clear.

Your wife feels love for you because there are glands in her brain that produce a set of chemicals which interact with her brain cells to cause her to feel that way. This has survival value and was therefore selected for by evolution. It is not evidence of the supernatural.

I think we continue to believe these things primarily because we fear death and want someone to tell us that the thing we think is ourselves does not die when our body does.

Funny thing about telling people what they want to hear: They want to hear it. The converse is also true.

I beleive this is the central issue of our time and hope we continue the dialogue.

Can we please discard the litmus test for what is deemed to be a virtuous application of religion to government vs a "bad" (fundamentalist)application of one's religion? You lose the moral high ground the minute you start trash-talking ANY person's faith that doesn't measure up to your standards.

What happened to good old-fashioned tolerance?

Goodness gracious. Christians who care about more than just keeping women barefoot and gays in the back of the bus!

What would Jesus say? Methinks he would be mighty pleased that some folks are finally getting his message.

Well, you see we, the "unchurched" have had several thousand years of the chosen few threatening us with hellfire and damnation (not to mention thumbscrews, racks and an odd bonfire or two)

Formal debate is based on a premise and then arguments are given either for or against the given premise (i.e. "chocolate is good") you can then argue for or against. No one questions the premise that chocolate does in fact exist. Since the two parties cannot agree on the basic premise, it is logically impossible to have a cogent debate, thus all the schoolyard name calling BS. One man's "eternal and loving God; Creator of the universe" is another man's "Bearded Invisible Sky Wizard" and it rapidly goes downhill from there.

Perhaps the 11th Commandment should have been "Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion To Thyself" although Matthew had a go in Chapter 6, verses 1-8.

(I know.... A heathen who has actually READ the Bible. Try not to faint!)

--MAB

VERY WELL STATED SIR!
LOL - "Bearded Invisible Sky Wizard"

There is a place for religion, and a place for governance. There is no place where they should be mixed. Jefferson's wall of separation is very clear on that.

I want to see this Republic go back to its secular roots, and the religious crazies stay in their churches or homes. They darned sure shouldn't be feted with tea at the White house. And they ought have no role in public policy!

And if I am ever down on my luck, and need assistance - I want it provided by the government. I don't want to have to go on bended knee to some fruitcake religious substitute- run by notes that will make me read biblical verses or pray. That's not why I pay taxes.

onestring,

don't you know that the neocons have a direct line to God, and His plan regarding their platform has been revealed to them in a manner similar to how He revealed His extra-Biblical plan solely to Joseph Smith? ;-)

KTSMOM9 said: "Most people's faiths teach them that the moment of conception is when God has assigned a soul to that collection of "tissue", so from a Faith perspective, even a zygote is a human being to be protected."
* * * * * * *
No. most faiths do not define life as beginning at conception (in fact Christianity does not at any point define it as such) but rather at birth. The idea that a zygote is life is a fringe religious belief.

Insane lunatics, aka religious people, should not be allowed to serve in our government, whether they support the left or the right. They're the only adults that don't get put into mental institutions for hearing voices and having imaginary friends.

mwcob,
"but try to lift the ban on polygamy and see what happens. Lots of people who claim to be secular and non-religious will come out against it. Why? What business would it be of the governments? "

Actually there is a very strong and purely secualr reason for polygamous marraiges to be opposed b government. Since the only reasons that government has any interest in marraige in the first palce are:
1. Estate issues
2. Pension issues
3. Taxes
4. Medical and end-of-life issues

All four are seriously compounded by polygamous marraiges (jsut as they are easily solved by same-sex civil marriages).

On estate issues a spouse is guaranteed some part of the estateuless a will directs otherwise. But unless a will exists and there is discord among the raemainning spouses there would serious problem in polygamous marraiges. The same issues exist with pensions and taxes. And with end-of-life and medical issues there problems can be even greater.

To say that a the spouses in a polygmaous marriige would all agree with each other on these issues is absurd. It might happen, but mights are not enough for such relationships to have governmental support.

dgw1091,

"Maybe if secularists, atheists, and other anti-theistic persons resisted the urge to call the religious "stupid," "foolish," "evil," "misled," as part of what they consider to be acceptable discourse, they may actually get people to listen. But I doubt that will happen."

Then you lose your arguement. Because most of the atheists and secularisits (most of whom are not "anti-theist" the we just have seeen no proof of any deity[s]) that I have met (and that is several hundred if not over a thousand) do not believe that those who believe in deities are stupid, evil or misled. Almost all that I know (including myself) understand that they are exihibitting faith that there is a deity or deities. And we also recognise that said belief can and has led some believers to engage in wonderous acts or humanity and good. We just do not accept the concept that without said belief that one is not capable of hope, morality or decency.

Left or Right, religion does NOT belong in government. I am alarmed that supposedly smart people like Obama and Clinton are catering to what used to be Bush's "base". Appointing a born-again as head of National Institutes of Health is horrifying!
Please urge Obama to find a face-saving way to de-nominate Collins!

It is impossible to reconcile Christianity or Judaism with votes for Republicans - even for a rare honest candidate in that party - because the Republican/NEOCON platform is UN-christian, and flouts the message of Jesus' life and sacrifice.

Jakesfriend1:

Leviticus 19:18

Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

jakesfriend:

I don't believe you will find a passage attributing that to Moses. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that was part 2 of Jesus's answer regarding which of the OT commandments was paramount. Paraphrasing, He said to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.

I have not "fact checked" this answer but there is a searchable Bible resource online that is quite good for locating specific passages from the Bible.

hope this helps.

Exodus 20 does not say the words to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus said those words. But when you read Exodus 20 it tells us we should not bear false witness against our neighbor, we should not covet, we should not commit adultery, we should not kill, we should not steal and we should honor our parents. That sounds very much like loving our neighbor as ourselves.

Thomas Jefferson Quotes:

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man (Letter to J. Moor, 1800).

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own (Letter to H. Spafford, 1814).

Said dgw1091:

Maybe if secularists, atheists, and other anti-theistic persons resisted the urge to call the religious "stupid," "foolish," "evil," "misled,"
as part of what they consider to be acceptable discourse, they may actually get people to listen.

But I doubt that will happen.
========================================

Well, you see we, the "unchurched" have had several thousand years of the chosen few threatening us with hellfire and damnation (not to mention thumbscrews, racks and an odd bonfire or two)

Formal debate is based on a premise and then arguments are given either for or against the given premise (i.e. "chocolate is good") you can then argue for or against. No one questions the premise that chocolate does in fact exist. Since the two parties cannot agree on the basic premise, it is logically impossible to have a cogent debate, thus all the schoolyard name calling BS. One man's "eternal and loving God; Creator of the universe" is another man's "Bearded Invisible Sky Wizard" and it rapidly goes downhill from there.

Perhaps the 11th Commandment should have been "Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion To Thyself" although Matthew had a go in Chapter 6, verses 1-8.

(I know.... A heathen who has actually READ the Bible. Try not to faint!)

--MAB

As long as it's the *left* espousing religion - well that's just dandy.

If it wasn't for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.

Dear castiger1,
You posted a thoughtful comment -- but you can obtain evidence that your wife loves you. Ask her. Or look how she treats you -- I would take that as evidence and conclude that she loves you.

But you can't ask Jesus if he really rose from the dead. You can't ask Muhammed if the Angel Gabrielle really dictated the Koran to him. You can't find out if angels are real. You can't ask Moses if God dictated the 10 Commandments. People of faith can choose to belief these things, no matter how improbable they may seem, but their wishful thinking does not make these things true. They are either true or false.

So, you can obtain evidence that your wife loves you (or has an emotion that we humans call love), but you cannot obtain evidence for your religious beliefs. But I admire your willingness to acknowledge that these beliefs could well be false.

Who cares what the bible says. Its been written and rewritten so many times even if it really were the divinely inspired "word of god"--it isn't--now it certainly doesn't look anything like what she wanted to say....

then why is obama's interaction with religion so empty...
hollow...
meaningless...
proof of that...
I don't know if he has chosen a church to go to yet...
do you...

Its the mentally depraved that believe in imaginary sky daddies and perpetuate the rituals of cavemen. These mental midgets have been responsible for the vast majority of suffering and death in the world for the last 2000+ years. Religion is something that should be condemned not condoned. And anyone that's religious (follows the rituals of cavemen) certainly shouldn't be considered intelligent.

AGAPN9:
Since Moses (and later Moses & Aaron) who met God on Mount Sinai and received the tablets from God himself, he was responsible to inform the people in the valley below.

I know Exodus 20 in the NKJV lists the Ten Commandments. It states to love God and no other, it says to honor your parents, and it states to respect your neighbors.

Could you please tell me where I can find where Moses said to love your neighbor as yourself? Thank you.

First off I would like to thank the post for their continued reporting on religious issues, I appreciate as an informed citizen.

Secondly, I would like to make a deal with those who read these posts who are not religious. I will not insult you if you don't insult me. I am a pastor, in the United Methodist Church. I think by most standards I am pretty progressive. I do however feel hurt and angry to read these articles and see numerous posts declaring the stupidity of faith. I am a person who believes in faith. Aside from my believe in a loving God, I am married and though I have no evidence that can be tested via a scientific method, I would like to believe that my wife loves me, and so do my friends. I believe there are things in this world that simply can't be experimentally tested, but that doesn't make them not real or not powerful. That said for me to believe in that does not make me foolish, idiotic, out to oppress people, or a hate monger.

I would appreciate it if people would keep the discussion civil and acknowledge that there might be another side. I freely admit, I could be wrong and their isn't a God, and I am willing to admit that. I would appreciate it if others who read these posts could admit that they might be wrong as well. When we admit that we aren't the "gospel truth" in all we say (pun intended) we can actually have a conversation that might lead to human growth.

Thank you for your time. Peace to all.

rohitcuny said:
"At the same time, I deny that abortion is a religious issue. ... Abortion, just like war, is also killing, and usually, killing for convenience..."

The reason abortion is a matter of Faith is because removing "body tissue" is not illegal or immoral. No one pickets hospitals conducting tonsillectomies or appendectomies. No one of any Faith thinks those tissues are "alive".

Most people's faiths teach them that the moment of conception is when God has assigned a soul to that collection of "tissue", so from a Faith perspective, even a zygote is a human being to be protected.

If you have no Faith telling you that the moment of conception is the time when a soul is imparted to that tissue, then any time prior to birth is ok for abortion. This is how/why partial-birth abortion is considered acceptable to some people.

At one time the ruling was that the child was not a human being until it could survive outside the Mother's body, but miraculous advances in modern science have blown the doors off of the old perspectives of when that might be (I know a lovely young woman who was born at only 21 weeks gestation - thank God for the doctors who kept her alive and thriving!)

My understanding of the teachings of my faith tells me that abortion at any time past conception is murder (this would include the so-called "morning after pill", which doesn't prevent conception, but only prevents implantation of a healthy zygote into the uterus), but other people's faiths (or lack thereof) tell them otherwise.

I hope this clarifies for you how it is that abortion is DEFINITELY a matter of Faith.

What we really need to address is our society's definition of LIFE, and when that begins. Once that principle has been universally established and agreed upon, the rest will fall into place.

Moses was asked to sum up the law in two succint statements. Moses said: The first commandment is this: to love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, thy whole soul, thy whole mind, and thy whole being without reserve. The second great commandment is this: to love thy neighbor as thyself.

Jesus repeated this summary and praised a Pharisee for giving the same answer as a summary of the teaching of the law and the prophets.

Maybe if secularists, atheists, and other anti-theistic persons resisted the urge to call the religious "stupid," "foolish," "evil," "misled,"
as part of what they consider to be acceptable discourse, they may actually get people to listen.

But I doubt that will happen.

By definition, faith is believing something without evidence. It is therefore possible that most if not all organized religions are delusions built upon falsehoods. Indeed, brutally honest people of faith need to acknowledge that wishful thinking does not make their religious beliefs true and these beliefs might well be wrong. Only by accepting the possibility of having false beliefs can they carry on honest conversations with those who do not hold their beliefs.

It's no longer about God it's about Money for the Church. Yes President Bush did open the US Treasury to the Churches of his choice and billions of taxpayers dollars were given out for votes. Even Senator Vitter got forgiven by the Church because he gave them a 100,000 dollar Grant. We witnessed one Pastor who worked in the White House and fought Gay Rights while collecting thousands of dollars. Only to learn he was having an affair with a gay man and using the Church money to pay. We have seen Republican Law Makers hiring prostitutes, looking for sex from men in men's room, traveling oversea's to see mistresses and even one Senator who's family paid the mistress to not speak of the long affair. All this while these same Republican Law Makers are using God's name and holding themselves as the example of American Religious Christian Values we should all follow.
Now President Obama is attacked for taking his wife on a date, helping a young woman up the stairs and treating all people equal. Something is really wrong with Religion in America. Priest attack the President for giving woman the Right to Choose, but these same Religious Leader have not problem with the Bush Administration kidnapping innocent men/woman/children holding them in Gito where they were raped, tortured and some murdered.

You are correct to note that a liberal religious viewpoint is just as objectionable as a conservative religious viewpoint when advocates try to insert it into public policy. However, a debate within faith is good for secularists. For one thing, it demonstrates that there is no "faith" position, even in the same church since religious views are so subjective and open to interpretation.

Further though, it takes puff out of the sails of religious persons who boast their faith as the motive behind their positions. Let’s face it, without the excuse of religion, many faith-based positions are simply bigotry and small-mindedness. While I worry that the growth of secularism will slow as more liberal people of faith speak out (Ralph Reed is the best friend to a growing secular nation), I believe this country to be moving steadily if slowly in the correct (notice I didn’t say ‘right’) direction: one where religion no longer plays a part in our policy debates.

Politics and religion do not mix. It is my opinion, that years ago, republicans found that if they announced themselves as christian conservatives, Christians would believe anything they say or do. At least democrats do not bring religion into politics, which is were religion belongs, alone outside of politics.

Uhuru721:

I appreciate many things you state in your post, but you are A STEREOTYPE because you still look at the black and white of people. The right or left is a position when asking directions of something. It does not account for the objective but only the subjective.

For you to typecast rights as fearmongering, God is going to destroy the evil in this world is your belief. To say the left is free thinkers and obedient to God's true law is short sighted.

P.S. Where EXACTLY in the Ten Commandments does it say to love your neighbor as yourself? It says respect your neighbor, but love God.

Why is it that when conservative believers exercise their constitutional rights, they are imposing their belief system on others? Everyone to some extent has their political view informed by their faith (including atheists whom I regard as people of immense faith). The fact is that believers who argree with liberal orthodoxy (like papal ring kissing Catholic Nancy Pelosi) are given free reign to impose their beliefs on the public. Is anyone going to argue that her socialist views aren't based on her interpretation of Catholic morality? Ted Kennedy? Joe Biden? Politics, morality and religion inevitably intesect. This notion that they are neatly compartmentalized is at best nonsense and at worst a deliberate attempt at disenfranchising believers.

I have recently been reading and listening to some of Sam Harris's lectures and debates. He makes the point that even the moderate religionists are perpetuating a dangerous delusion, namely, that we should believe things which are contrary to reason, experience, and science, just because it makes us feel good and allows us to fit in. He also makes the point that no American politician can be elected who does not profess to believe such things, although that is not the case in many European countries.

I would like to see us discuss why we believe in the unbelievable and why it has such a hold on our body politic.

It all comes down to being true to oneself. Obedience is a word that is not spoken about. If a person is true to themself and is obedient to their own belief system, they can do an effective job it whatever they strive to attain in this life.

Do I believe politics belongs in religion? No. Do I belief that religion belongs in politics? No.

I believe that laws are established to create semblance of order in the society of the people. Does that mean I have to obey all the laws of the land? Yes, to a point.

If the laws allow strip clubs to be legally run businesses, does that mean I have to support them? No. If the laws of the land allow drinking at the age of 21, does that mean I have to do it? No. If the laws of the land state I have to obey their laws, do I have do it? Yes.

I am not always going to go along with the crowd, but I should be a respecter of all people. Does that make me lawful or lawless if it is in opposition to a party's belief?

Only we can answer those personal questions for myself. If I were to run for office and I am a person with high moral fiber and treat everyone fairly, I can represent people fairly. But does that mean I should go along with all my constituents on a vote that is in conflict with my conscience? That is why I believe that religion does not belong in politics because I would be forcing my will on others by my vote one way or another.

That is why laws need to be in place that allow people to live, but the fabric of society is not disrupted or fractured.

Sign me: let your conscience be your guide. Keep those emails coming.

uhuru721 is why we have so much conflict. Until we can move past our sweeping stereotypes and stop announcing that "the right" or "the left" is evil or perfect or whatever, we're not helping anyone.

Faith, and one's God-view, are the real differences between the left and the right. The right is home to fundamentalists who believe in a vengeful, angry God, Who is eager, and willing to smite the "evildoers" and is chomping at the bit to rain down Armeggdon on a sinful world. The view on the left, is of a loving, compassionate God,best embodied by Jesus,and the Sermon on the Mount. God isn't angry, except in the Old Testament, and Revelations. The fulfillment of the commandments is summed up in the first two; love God, and your neighbor as yourself. Any departure which seeks to condemn one of God's children is false doctrine, based in theology, rather than ontology. Universal healthcare, is the only rational response of any person claiming to be of Christ. If abortion is murder, then so is the death penalty. If you're gay, to trying to behave as a hetero is to sin against your nature. All hatred, discrimination, bigotry and fearmongering are nothing if not evil personified. Too many on the right have been allowed to spew viciousness, hatred, and lies, to deceive, if possible, the very elect of God. Time to turn from false prophets, like Limbaugh,Beck,Hannity,Savage,Liddy,and their ilk,and embrace the essence of Truth: he that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love; he who fears is not made perfect in God's perfect love, because fear has torment. When all have chosen to embrace politics based in love, hope, and charity,rather than fear and separation, we will fulfill the promise of this great nation which we all share, and all love.

Katie Paris is a liberal Democrat--so is Jacques Berlinerblau. Ms. Paris' organization, Faith in Public Life, tilts left. If there is an ideological gulf between these two, it is the width of a rain gutter. In other words, this is a debate about salted vs. honey roasted peanuts: the ultimate goal for both secularist and liberal theist is not merely less "traditional" religion infused into public life, it is its replacement with a secularist dogma (highly compatible with liberal politics). This is arguably a religion unto itself.

There are two paths in religious beliefs - those that are evangelical and those that are introspective. Looking at it in this light, the breakdown between Red & Blue states is not so surprising.

What I do find rather irritating is the disconnect between what one says and what one actually does. The Republican Party of recent years has portrayed themselves as more moral than Democrats, but with recent revelations that argument has got to go by the wayside. I say, stick to issues and forget arguments based on religion.

I have found that those who do not boast about their religiosity are the most secure in their faith.

It just goes to show you that the left doesn't have any real problem with God-talk in politics... as long as it serves their ends.

Faith cannot be extracted from public life. Everyone has values and beliefs - it's part of being human. Example - we may be seeing a shift in views on gay marriage, but try to lift the ban on polygamy and see what happens. Lots of people who claim to be secular and non-religious will come out against it. Why? What business would it be of the governments? How about the Death Penalty. That one divides even the religious folks and it's the one area where a conservative Catholic can stand beside a liberal hippie and agree. The only thing we can guarantee is that the government won't FORCE you to worship a God you don't believe in. The First Ammendment was a product of people who were forced to attend the Church of England even if they didn't agree, and folks who hadn't yet forgotten what the Tudors had done to Catholics and Protestants depending on which way the wind was blowing that year.

I agree that religion should stay outside politics.

At the same time, I deny that abortion is a religious issue. Many, perhaps most liberals are opposed to war, torture and capital punishment. They do not think that one needs to be religious to oppose these things.

Folks, I have news for you. Abortion, just like war, is also killing, and usually, killing for convenience - abortions out of absolute necessity are extremely rare. The abortion rate in the US is in excess of a million a year, and from surveys of women sseeking abortion, it is clear that there are not anywhere like a million emergencies.

So abortion is to be opposed, except in case of dire need, just as war is to be opposed except in case of dire need, e.g., if the US is being attacked. The reasons are secular and humane.

I would say that unless Katie Paris opposes most abortions, I am not going to take her seriously. She is just a person who wants to eat her cake and have it too. If Obama wants to listen to her, that is his "choice."

I don't think faith, or whatever you want to call it, belongs in public life whatsoever.

You're free to believe, or not, anything you want but only on your time and your dime.

Jacques, you are right about the fact that faith should stay in private life. That is why the Republicans lost a great deal of votes, and that is why this organization will be successful for a while, but will not have a true impact.

It appears most people have enough of sound bite comments by many politicians. Reading about the Founders, we find that of course God was present, but they did not insist on it. It was a deep soul knowledge.

In discussions of the religious sort, it's very difficult to temper oneself and speak in a respectful and dignified tone, something I almost constantly must monitor during my conversations and posts. It often seems that when an individual runs short of logical points and refutes, emotional attacks and accusations take their place.