All Comments (300)

Yea,

You bozo's would rather the President of America be the patzy/SHILL of the ZIONIST FASCIST STATE OF ISRAEL,

Then for him to be a follower of JEsus Christ.

You'll all get what's coming to you soon enough for your idiocy.

I need to clarify--not just those who believe in religion. I believe all humans have a core belief of striving for the betterment for humankind. Just sometimes it is hidden behind selfishness, arrogance, lack of direction, arguments over religion, etc..
My Dad once told me. You know son..we all bleed red. Kinda says it all.
Jeff

Two quotes:
" While religious beliefs may color a set of choices, it should not be even a minor support under a constituent’s platform lest that support fails and the platform comes crashing down."

" Again, I don't expect anyone to believe or even agree with my faith. I do expect the person chosen to represent me and my interests in our government to acknowledge and respect my, and everyone else’s, secular beliefs and ideas. That is why faith should remain private."
.
I agree with your writings, but it will take time. It seems from posts in this forum from many religions that their core beliefs are for the betterment of humankind. It is time to begin acting as if we all understood it.
Jeff

Jeff stated: “…even within the most prevalent of our religions in the United States are many interpretations of the exact same words.”

Well put. Each person is unique and his or her interpretation of their chosen belief system is unique. It makes the practice of basing policy on religious belief impossible if one were representing a nation of unique people.

While religious beliefs may color a set of choices, it should not be even a minor support under a constituent’s platform lest that support fails and the platform comes crashing down. There are myriad other reasons to support causes or pass laws. It’s time to stop using religion as our excuse to make policy and simply state, “I believe I have used my best judgment, morally and ethically, in making this decision.”

Reasonable: Just a speck? Would you speak to the African-Americans that way? Would you speak to the Latin-Americans that way? How about the Japanese, Arabic or Nordic? If we move to the list of religions, would you tell a Muslim, Hindu or atheist that he is just a speck? How is this reasonable?

There are better ways to make a point than to belittle and offend the minorities. Although Wicca may be a single minority religion, "alternative" or "Non Judeo-Christian" belief systems (including agnostics and atheists) make up a bit more than a speck and we all expect the government to be run with consideration that we are not a nation ruled by a single faith, regardless of what that faith is. If Wicca were the dominant religion in this country, I would still have the core belief that religion does not belong in politics.

My argument isn’t based on my specific faith. In my first post I mentioned that my husband and I have very different religious paths. I am Wiccan and my husband is Catholic. Our house is run in harmony and our household decisions are based on mutual respect and shared moral and ethical practices. Why should the government be run any differently?

I agree with Jeff when he says the United States should be “governed by our respect for each other, and the freedoms entitled to all, instead of words that those of religion still cannot so much as even agree on.” Acknowledgement and respect of all beliefs is warranted and expected. Again, I don't expect anyone to believe or even agree with my faith. I do expect the person chosen to represent me and my interests in our government to acknowledge and respect my, and everyone else’s, secular beliefs and ideas. That is why faith should remain private.

P.S.
Cheney, the oil companies, and big business also saw there was a way to get what they wanted as well by using those fervent Christians, the Presidency, and ultimately all of us. Time to start making it right.
Jeff

For the last thirty or forty years, the most fervent Christians have been manipulating the Republican Party. The results have been what this administration has done in the last six years. Christians should all be embarrassed. This is what happens when a narrow, Puritan train of thought is allowed to govern. Our beliefs can, and should be one of our strengths, but must not be our policy, for even within the most prevalent of our religions in the United States are many interpretations of the exact same words. Sadly, we are now currently the laughing stock of the reasonable world, and even feared by most for our utter lack of vision. And if you would please, read as much history as you can, and stop trying to frame the founder’s actions in the wrong light. As they learned from history, they knew this would happen if the United States were not governed by our respect for each other, and the freedoms entitled to all, instead of words that those of religion still cannot so much as even agree on.
Jeff

Yes Chrysalis I guess you are right, there are other religions outside of Judeo-Christian monotheistic ones. However, when the founders were around, Christian dominations were what they referred to or inferred about.

Yep, everyone has a right to believe in what they want to, no doubt about that.

Where I would disagree with you is this statement-

"But to allow the specifics of a single faith to govern a country is unacceptable."

If Christianity is the dominant faith, you will get policy that is influenced by that faith. There is no issue with that as long as agreed upon liberties are not violated. (That is a whole other can of worms for discussion)

When Wicca has some sort of footprint in this country, your place at the table for Chaplains may come. But for now, your religion is a speck - a very minor one- that can't realistically get that footprint in the door of public opinion or the Congress.

I've still got all my hair Mr. Mark, for now. The free speech stuff gets me worked up sometimes but I try to find the comedy in these boards.

I originally came here to chat with agnostics, but now I'm just as interested in why atheists believe what they believe, or I should say, don't believe what they don't believe. Hopefully I'll get a chance to start on the Dawkins book soon.

GB

Reasonable asks, “So you really think that people can seperate their deeply held religious beliefs from what they think is best for society from a policy perspective?” No, I’m not asking people to separate their faith from their feelings or what they “think” is best. However, I do not think beliefs that are unique to specific religions, such as the concept of sin, the belief in psychic phenomenon, or how the world was created should be a deciding factor on governing a nation with myriad different religions. Politicians have an obligation to represent the entire population, not just the ones who share their religious views.

In order to be a true representative, one is obligated to consider what is in the secular best interest of the population including the Muslims, Hindus, Pagans and any other religious or non-religious path. You can’t please all of the people all of the time, but alienating religious factions simply because of a difference in faith is not the answer, it’s a cop-out. Jacoby is stating that while faith will always play a role in one’s life choices, it should not be the one and only factor in deciding public policy.

Thank you for the link. It actually proves my point. It states that there were a number of chaplains serving from many different denominations and, “The Senate has also appointed guest chaplains representative of all the world's major religious faiths.” Faith is important for psychological and emotional balance. But to allow the specifics of a single faith to govern a country is unacceptable.

To assume that I am not religious (you didn't read all of what I said, did you?) is completely incorrect. I simply said that my choice of religion is different. I happen to be a Wiccan minister and religion plays a strong part in my choices every day. Religion does NOT “…involves God …” It actually involves whatever deity or deities one chooses to believe in. To think that all religions fall within the monotheistic, patriarchal archetype is ignorant and false. I’m not asking you to believe in what I believe, but respect it with some knowledge before making broad assumptions. As Luke states for most of us here, “Regardless of what you believe, I might believe otherwise, and I have every right to.”

Judeo-Christian beliefs has had positive and negative effects on our country, just like Buddhist, Muslim, and a myriad of other faiths have. We live in America, not Jesusland, and we want to keep it that way. How do you know what the founders wanted? Everyone believes they had a different intent, but now, the main point is that religious FREEDOM is our goal. This means that you are free to practice your religion, or not practice at all if you like. I, and many others like me, do not want the Bible to be the deciding force of policy that affects me. You wouldn't mind because you are Christian, but what if our politicians were Muslim? It wouldn't benefit you, so you would raise hell. Therefore, keep your religious beliefs out of your policies and we have no problem. Regardless of what you believe, I might believe otherwise, and I have every right to.

You know, you are right, religion is a personal choice. What I find interesting from many on this forum is the assertion that policy should not, as a matter of the principle of the seperation clause, be affected by someone's religious beliefs. If this were true, the founders would not had a champlains for the Senate, basically from the start of our Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm

If someone is elected from state,for example, that is religious, and that state, or let's say, several states,elect Senators that were highly religious and were a majority in the Senate, what would you say then? So you really think that people can seperate their deeply held religious beliefs from what they think is best for society from a policy perspective? Did ever occur to you that focusing on , what did you say, making our country strong, healthy, and sustained, is something that Christians believe will come from being guided from their scriptures, and the fact that following those scriptures as a guide, like religious people do, would intersect with what Washington calls "props" and "supports". You say that Washington does not mention God, but he DOES mention that religion (which involves God believe it or not) is a "indispensable support" or supports that is intertwined with political prosperty. You miss the point , and many of the atheists miss it too. Judeo Christian beliefs have been a positive influence on our society for decades in this country. Just because you choose to NOT believe in a supernatural superior being does change this fact. I suggest you re-read his farewell address in its entirety along with other founders writings. Yes , they were Deists, but they did not have the disdain for God or religion that many on this forum have, Jacoby being right at the top of list. And they did not intend for this so called wall to be as high as some would like it to be, or claim or misrepresent the founders wanted it to be.

Reasonable wrote about what our founding father said. But does anyone notice that he says nothing about "God"? That's because he was a Deitist. He believed that religion was an important yet very personal choice and practice. That one should have a belief in something but that it is an individual right and not something to be sanctimoniously thrust upon others.

People who believe the government should be run secularly aren't necessarily atheists. My husband and I have completely different religious beliefs yet the same fundamental morals and secular ethics. We believe as our founding fathers did; religion is a personal, spiritual choice. It is not something up for debate. I keep my spirituality to myself because my relationship with the deity of my choice is personal and unique. I don’t expect anyone else to believe in exactly the same thing I do. We are all human but each of us are unique and so are our thoughts.

If someone were to ask what my greatest sin was, and if I were required to answer I would have to say, "I don't believe in the Christian definition of sin." Would you ask a Muslim that question? It would seem offensive, in my opinion.

The simple truth is most people operate on the assumption that everyone is either Judeo-Christian or secular. If you open your eyes and minds, you will learn that there is an entire world of religious beliefs that fall outside of those categories and if we continue to ignore them and remain ignorant, we will continue to offend and propagate religious wars.

All Ms. Jacoby is asking is that we focus on the issues facing our nation and make our choice of a national leader based on our views on national and international issues and not based on a candidate's choice of religion. You can ask a moral or ethical question without faith becoming an issue.

Faith is a beautiful thing and will always influence how we think. But we must stop creating policy based on religious belief and start focusing on what will help our country be strong, healthy and sustained. And we must also respect an individual’s personal relationship with whatever higher power he or she believes in.

Sharon Dupree,

Eloquent.

Well, the father of our country was wrong. Religion and morality are two completely different things. I have am an atheist, and I have very strong morals - so that shows what he knew.

TJ-

You can believe what you want. I would not step down to your level of bigotry , that is all.

I am always amazed at the "freethinkers" - you are not free to believe in the positive, just the negative(god that is)

There are not many Satanists, so it is moot point.

Learn from the father of our country:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Pagan..
" one of the most dangerous things about religion in government it is "

My thought is that it is the tendency to take divine understanding, inspiration and intepretation to justify a 'manifest destiny'

Friend, thanks for your praise of my posts.

"I think we should define 'divine mission' to include any belief systems, with god(s) or not, that espouses absolute knowledge of the truth."

When I wrote that term, I was referring specifically to beliefs about orders from gods, including beliefs about those gods rewarding or punishing humans based on how they follow orders. I suspect there are people who believe in a god but do not believe that the god gives orders to humans. My point is godly orders almost certainly make a huge difference in the motivations of people who adhere to those absolute-knowledge belief systems.

Luke,

Pillow fight?

Andrea and Russell D., I am sure we have all pulled our hair out and cried on these threads together. We are BFF.

Luke,

Here's a tissue.

Shannon, that almost brought a tear to my eye. Well spoken.

As a Christian, I was taught to respect the beliefs and non-beliefs of others.
It seems that those on the extreme right, including many who have made derogatory and unchristian comments on this blog, are taught something different.
They are taught that they and their leaders are the only ones qualified to judge the faith, morals and values of others and that, in doing so, they can give passes to people who are as judgemental and bigoted as they are. Somehow they believe they know better than God, Moses and Jesus and that they have permission from God to act upon their prejudices by dictating just how everyone should act even though they were given a chance to choose their own course.
In making their judgements, they also have made up the rules as to who will be forgiven for mistakes and who can continue to engage in purposeful and hateful behavior, based upon whether the person is one of them. They claim pro-choice and rights people are killing babies, yet they have no problems with babies, children and adults being killed in unjustified wars and in pre-meditated murder situations in the form of the death penalty.
They claim to care for children and families with their "family values" dogma, but they do all they can to break up families they don't believe should be a unit. They also think it's all right to deny families and individuals the right to have a decent life through any government type of assistance but don't mind corporations, individuals, groups and other undeserving countries getting free money from us through the government.
They claim to believe in heaven being a better place than earth and yet they deny individuals the right to not fight death that comes in a natural way.
They have an unnatural interest in all things sexual, even to the point of imagining sexual intent and connotations when none exists. They act frigid and insulted when anything sexual is mentioned, yet they are like voyeurs, who feel they have the right to constructively join people in their bedrooms.
They believe Jesus was wrong when he spoke of God and state separation.
They claim the right to privacy but have no problems telling others how to live.
Finally, they claim the right to religious freedom, in a non-discriminatory manner, but deny others the same freedom, in a discriminatory manner.

ghostbuster writes:
"Mr. Mark,

You are my favorite atheist. Like I said one other time, I've learned a lot from you."

Why, thank you, GB. That's a nice thing to say.

My immediate reaction was, "then you need to meet a few more atheists," but I'll take your comments in the spirit that you intended.

I'll say one thing about On Faith - I had a full head of hair when I started posting here. Can't say that's still true... :)

Paganplace:

I think suffering is unavoidable without the loss desire and fear.

I do believe in utilitarianism when running a government.

I think we should define "divine mission" to include any belief systems, with god(s) or not, that espouses absolute knowledge of the truth.

I enjoy your entries, they are enlightening.

"Agnostic Pantheist, Bhuddist and Athiest sympathizer"...(and for me, cultural Catholic).

I think one of the most dangerous things about religion in government it is really the idea that certain people are 'made' to suffer, or 'supposed' to suffer, which I think it utterly incompatible with the role of government.

Also, I didn't get my handle from the Thomas Mann novella, which I've never read. But now I'm interested in reading it.

"I think those that espouse absolute knowledge of the truth, regardless of belief system, are the dangerous ones, not those that believe in god."

I agree in principle. However, I make a distinction between belief in a God and belief in a divine mission. The latter is another version of "espousing absolute knowledge of the truth". I see the divine mission version as more dangerous as secular versions, because of the sense of entitlement than it can promote. That means it can convince believers that they're headed for heaven if they complete that mission, and/or that they're doomed to hell if they don't complete it.

Tonio: Are you named after Mann's Tonio Kroger?
Good name.

"I admire those cold, proud beings who adventure upon the paths of great and daemonic beauty and despise ‘mankind’; but I do not envy them. For if anything is capable of making a poet of a literary man, it is my hometown love of the human, the living and ordinary."

----------------------------------------------

I think those that espouse absolute knowledge of the truth, regardless of belief system, are the dangerous ones, not those that believe in god.
Amoung fundementalists in any belief system, the definitions of god(s) are wide ranging.

"How do you separate the reasonable people that believe in a god and wouldn't let that dictate their course of action and unreasonable people that would let their faith dictate their course of action?"

TJ,

A good standard would be asking the people to defend their actions in secular terms.

How do you define religious faith? I assumed it meant belief in a supreme being or beings. Is there another definition? Is there a concept of "faith dictating their course of action" other than "God told me to"?

What?!, this whole Hitler was an atheist noise is a load of crap. I have never read a book on Hitler that said he was an atheist, EVER, and I have plenty. Almost every book says he was quite the good Christian. Ofcourse, I see you are sidestepping my posts, which I think you have avoided arguing because you know you are wrong.

"Paganplace,
Why do you always post so many *s?"

Many moons ago.. when my people raoamed the Internet freely... Before the trolls came....

* meant that you could speak *boldly* In *bold* Or what you may know as ...italics.

But then the sundering of the UNIX came, and the companies said 'This is the way to speak, I will make my own proprietary way....

And, basically, the OS' es could no longer parse each other, and the marketing departments decided to blame it on 'unacheivable goals, and did war and fight, and cause much grief, and the Pagans did say,'

"I could totally just keep typing asterisks till you work that out, it works well enough and all for emphasis.... Unless anyone needed a capital Number 8 or something.... "

Would you prefer I.... caused entire threads to be rendered in italics cause I got too fancy?

Umm... BTW, JJ? That's probably you. :)

Mr. Mark,

You are my favorite atheist. Like I said one other time, I've learned a lot from you.

I'll miss you when you leave. Well, you know, sorta ;)

Paganplace,
Why do you always post so many *s?

Maurie Beck stated:

>>What? What? What? Not this sex stuff again. Just because your beliefs prevent you from getting laid, don't take it out on us. What? What?

Just because your beliefs prevent you from getting laid? Are you for real? Can you not come up with anything better than that to sidestep the questions? You dont know me from Adam. Talk about a cretin..look in the mirror. Can only expect something said like you said from a zit-faced teenager. Have you not graduated sixth grade yet??? Same to you...dont take your hissy-fits out on us.

>>God Awed - People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office.

>>We tend to look down on you because you take an average mind, mix it with religious idiocy, and turn it into that of a cretin. I know it is not politically correct to make fun of those who are intellectually challenged (you know, retarded). However, when you purposefully make yourself stupid, what do you expect? What? What?

We tend to look down on you because you take an average mind, mix it with atheistic lunacy, and turn it into people like Stalin, Hitler (aka atheists, lunatics, suppressionists...you name it) and the like and what do you get? Read the history books for yourself. I didnt write them.

Luke,

This point is possibly not worth arguing about, but I assure you I have spent enough time behind--and in front of--the whip to know whereof I speak. Masochists may tell you they enjoy the pain, they may even believe they do, but I certify to you that, while the pain is going on, nobody enjoys it. They enjoy the anticipation, and the ceremony, and the aftermath, but not the pain. Of course, it's impossible to remember direct sensation, so it's easy to forget what your state of mind was, but the facts are as I state them. I've been. I've seen. Believe me.

Frankly, ...I think there's a big difference between saying, 'As a Christian, I would like to do these things that I think are good,' and saying, 'I'm a Christian, so you know you can trust me.'

Used car dealer said that to me once, and nearly blew the whole deal, ...me thinking, apart from being offended at the implication that if he knew I was non-Christian he might think I was therefore untrustworthy, ...well, the more pragmatic thought ran through my mind, ... 'Why would you *say* that if not to hide something?'

However, unlike many politicians, he cheerfully answered my persnickety questions and got the sale, anyway.

When you make professions of faith *obligatory,* well, it's *obligatory.* This isn't to say that, say, the Democrats being discussed aren't *clearly* sincere moderate Christians,

But really, that it's unreasonable to *demand* these things from candidates.

All it does is get in the way of the decision-making process.

Doesn't mean anything real, just allows religious fanatics to consider it a valid criterion to call candidates 'ungodly' based on whatever view of 'Christian' they're trying to portray as both the unquestionable will of a Christian majority and the 'oppressed by secularism' minority (choose which when convenient.)

What does that *mean?*

Nothing, really, except that people want a shorthand between 'all the world's problems/saving my soul from something' and a particular candidate.

What a candidate thinks of their religion could be *useful information,* ...but not if it becomes a 'religious test' where we the people *demand certain vague answers.*

I think it'd be better to keep it private.

Cause, frankly, I've never seen quite so much bitter acrimony and unreason as a Christian friend reported being subjected to about being caught between two neighboring Protestant churches that I frankly couldn't distinguish between each other in a lineup.

It'd be Shakespearean if it weren't so awful and, well, trivial.

I was just looking and going, 'Naah, they can't possibly be *that* bad, they're the 'silent majority' trying to rule me, the united front of 'whatever we can wave a hand at and call virtue....' what's the feud about?'

In some ways, for those who want this to be a comfortably-Christian nation where you imagine everyone really agrees with you...

You might be happier not knowing.

But.

Where's the beef, so to speak. Let's not have this be about obligatory piety or public professions of 'faith,' but... How about, 'How do you see the world, candidate?'

It kind of *is* on us to tell the media, 'This really just isn't what we want to hear about. Or at least let's have a context where a candidate can *say* 'This is none of your business' without the 'Crowd' assuming that 'silence' is 'guilt' of some kind.

Sometimes, it really just *is* none of your business.

Unless you like think it's a good idea to, say, as an apocalyptic Christian, to get very influential in Strategic Air Command or anything...

I was watching the news these past couple days, facepalming, and looking at Bush, ...'Wouldn't it be the crowning irony if you *brought back the fricking Cold War, sport?*

He was asked if he thought these were the 'left Behind' End Times...

That, he didn't answer.

And maybe that *is* our business, since he's got the 'football' and all.

Very well written. There is nothing wrong with a candidate espousing their personal beliefs whether of God or not, just as long as those beliefs are only a source of strength, not the law for policies of a nation populated by many different beliefs, and those of none. But something has to be done to blunt the most narrow, as enlightenment and change comes slowly. To the dismay of President Bush and others, they are beginning to understand that many things are not black and white. But I believe in the not too distant future, your last sentence will be (as always intended from those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) a truism.

Where is Sen. Arnold Vinick when we need him? The fictional Republican presidential nominee on “West Wing” said it best:
"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there. If you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will, and it will be the easiest lie they ever have to tell to get your votes. Every day until the end of this campaign I'll answer any question anyone has on government. But if you have a question on religion, please, go to church."

Dear Danny B -

Thanks for the comment.

Yes, I sometimes get argumentative just for the hell of it, but clarity in language is also important. I said "red herring" when "strawman" would have been better, and maybe - in retrospect - the word "forcible" wasn't the best choice for your post. In any case, my being argumentative led to your providing clarity that better makes your point. Is that so bad?

As far as my taking a break from these forums - I've tried that before, and it can be tough. That said, I'm starting a new job in the next few weeks that will involve a relo of about 400 miles. I have no doubt that my posting here will drop significantly if not entirely. I'm not one to visit forums like this from my work computer, and I tend to post most often during bix hours (those hours just happen to be from home right now).

So, you'll probably get your wish.

Tonio, I'd like to agree with you. How do you separate the reasonable people that believe in a god and wouldn't let that dictate their course of action and unreasonable people that would let their faith dictate their course of action?

Reasonable and not hateful, If you wouldn't vote for someone that you feel is likely to let his/her adoration and devotion for Zeus interfere with their decision making in a secular government, then you're just as much of a 'bigot' as I am. If you wouldn't vote for a declared Satanist because you feel that they wouldn't represent you adequately, then you're just as much of a 'bigot' as I am.

Would you vote for a Satanist or an atheist?

We're an awful lot alike, you and I. The only difference is I subscribe to one fewer fairy tales than you do.

As for your statistics about who believes what, that's called an 'argument from popularity'. It's a logical fallacy.

What?

What? What? What? Not this sex stuff again. Just because your beliefs prevent you from getting laid, don't take it out on us. What? What?

God Awed - People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office.

We tend to look down on you because you take an average mind, mix it with religious idiocy, and turn it into that of a cretin. I know it is not politically correct to make fun of those who are intellectually challenged (you know, retarded). However, when you purposefully make yourself stupid, what do you expect? What? What?

All (not a person's name)

I am sure there is no one much left here.

Look at Chuck Colson's essay. He didn't get many comments so I put one at the end, to cheer him up.

In case it doesn't make you crack a smile, it was intended to be a little comical.

Another Big pencil for the Big Man(Dawn's Office Supply,Baltimore,MD):http://www.empowermententerprise.com/2410/street%20006.jpg

My original intention in posting was to add my full agreement to the essay. Though I find myself agreeing with Jim Wallis in his role as a theologian, in pointing out that many passages in the Bible advocate for social justice, I am not in favor of seeing politicians having to justify in public their personal religious beliefs.

Luke,

I think you are clarifying my argument (as opposed to Daniel), and if so, you understand clearly what I meant (whether you agree, or not). Thanks for the assistance, if in fact, I was unclear.

Mr Mark,

As someone who often has to defend some very good points of his own, your tearing apart of my post seems argumentative for argument's sake.

I am trying to make the point that those arguing that there should be no gay marriage (or whatever phony moral issue) because God's word is clear have no leg to stand on in this country. I believe that even though I am a Christian. If my neighbor is not a Christian, then God's word (as I see it) is a moot point.

By "forcible gay marriage" I mean that no one in this country is saying that gay marriages MUST occur, but that if gay couples WANT to get married it should be their business, and not that of the state or their neighbors.

That is what I meant by "if the government attempted to make forcible gay marriage the law of the land it would be much different".

A gay couple I do not know cannot bring ME eternal damnation (not that I presume to KNOW they would for themselves either)by entering into a "marriage" that I have no part of...So what's the big deal?!

You accusing me of using a red herring is (ironically)actually a straw-man argument. You win!

Maybe you need a break from the forums, you seem to have exhausted your ability to read them with a (otherwise typicall)reasonable critical eye.

Yes that is who I meant, sorry.

Wow, Susan sure got a lot of comments piled up with her provocative essay. I bet if she had a nickel for every comment, she would have almost 12 dolloars by now.

You mean Danny B, right? not me, right?

I think that Daniel's point is that as long as he isn't forced or has to directly take part in things he does not believe in, it's not an issue with him. Unfortunately because we live in a society where we all pay taxes, we are indirectly contributing to a lot of things we don't believe in - but we have to remember that freedom is what we strive for. I don't think that he meant that there was a possibility that anyone would force him to marry a dude. I think what Daniel meant was "As a Christian, I know that the word of God, as derived from the Bible, is only true to myself and others who believe it.". I can't fault a man for his personal relationship with God - I can only protect his freedom and hope he will do the same for me, which by his virtues I believe he would. Faith bridges that gap between knowledge and the unknown - and I respect your search for that clarity.

Danny B writes:

"As a Christian, I know that the word of God, as derived from the Bible, is only true if I believe it."

Believing something is true doesn't make it true. Knowing is different from believing. The country was led to believe that Saddam had WMD. The world now knows that he didn't.

You are allowed to believe the tenets of your religion, but you can never know that they are true. Your belief is an act of faith, not fact (as you point out). As an atheist, I honor your right to believe what you will, but honoring that right doesn't mean accepting your beliefs as being true, any more than I must accept your beliefs to be true if you worshipped Zeus instead of Jesus.

" if the government attempted to make forcible gay marriage the law of the land it would be much different. I could argue that they cannot forcibly ask me to violate my faith."

That's called a Red Herring, Danny. Forcible gay marriage? Forcible? Let me ask you this - is there such a thing a forcible straight marriage? What in the hell do you mean by forcible?

"Swearing to uphold the Constitution."
As in any legal and quasi-legal proceeding in this country, one need not swear to god about anything. You may aver to uphold the Constituion.

Lep,

I can't wait for Starhawk to pipe into this conversation. I's really like to hear what she has to say about the hullaballoo!

So Mr. "Reasonable and not Hateful"

I didn't understand your point, partly, I think, because you were bashing someone else's comment whose point I also didn't understand. Who do you hate and who do you like? Come on People! Let's clarify the finger-pointing! Otherwise, it's just a waste of all our time.

Anthony,

Ha, great pix! Here's one of God's tires, left here in Detroit.

http://www.jankaulins.com/p49.html

Anthony,

That was a great reply to Luke!!!! <:-)

Loved those pics!

TJ,

You sound and talk like a bigot.

30% of the population in the US or more is evangelical.

90% or so believe in God.

How does someone with such disdain for people with prejudice have the freedom to write what he calls "drool"?

God given rights.

I'll take the love of my "super-special friend" over your bigotry anyday.

TJ, if a politician believes in a god, I see no harm with that belief itself. I do see harm, however, if the politician believes that the god has handed down certain policies for government to follow.

Oops ... never say never.

http://www.agilitynut.com/06/4/ppencil.jpg

http://www.roadsidenut.com/pencil103.jpg

God Awed somehow managed to type through the puddle of drool: "People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office."

Yes, they should be looked down on. I don't want some superstitious/religious goon in a position of power. Period. I don't vote for people that admit they are cultists. Period.

How is somebody that puts their super-special imaginary friend before family and country qualified to serve either family or country?