# The Role of Religion in Government



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2011)

So I challenged Billcihak in another thread to discuss something of substance, divorced from the daily Libs vs. Cons food fight.  So I figured I should follow my own words.

What should be the role of religion in government?

It's undeniable that religion is a powerful force in American government.  A recent poll found that 48% of the public would refuse to vote for an atheist for President, compared with 37% for a homosexual and 38% for a Muslim.  Even if they don't believe or believe strongly, all Presidents and most other candidates must dance the dance, pretending they do believe and saying all the right things.  Beyond this, religion is entwined with many aspects of government sponsorship, such as tax benefits for religious organizations, the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, the National Prayer Breakfast, and so forth.

Should we divorce religious belief from public service and the governmental sphere, as they do in Europe for the most part?  Our Constitution certainly seems to be leaning in this direction, with a prohibition on religious tests for public office and the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment.

I believe religion should be so separated, and I think doing so is good for both religion and government.  Religious minorities, such as Mitt Romney, face additional burdens when seeking higher office.  Religious minorities in the past have faced sanctioned discrimination, so much so that the election of John Kennedy was a milestone in our history simply because he was Catholic.

Separation also prevents government regulation and interference in religious organizations.  Already we have the government deciding what is "real" religion, and involving themselves in regulating practices.  The free speech of churches is curtailed in order to retain their tax benefits (to be fair, they routinely flout the rules without sanction, on both the left and right).  Government promotion or sponsorship establishes the _de facto _national religion or collection of religions.  All of this interferes with religion.

And of course, it goes the other way too.  There are many religious influences in our laws and governance, including the byzantine and bizarre rules on alcohol in many states and counties.  Issues like abortion or drug laws are heavily influenced by religious concerns at the national and state level, which has a big impact on those of use who don't share that set of beliefs.

Separation of both prevents mutual interference, and allows each to go their own ways without imposing onerous conditions on the religious or on those who don't believe.

What say you?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 29, 2011)

I wish that an atheist would come out of the closet and run.  It would be interesting to actually see how the country reacts.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2011)

maunakumu said:


> I wish that an atheist would come out of the closet and run.  It would be interesting to actually see how the country reacts.



Maybe, much like finally electing a black man, they would see that atheism (or religion) was the least important part of his or her character as a leader.


----------



## granfire (Apr 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Maybe, much like finally electing a black man, they would see that atheism (or religion) was the least important part of his or her character as a leader.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.....

by then we would actually already elect capable people into office.

Around here you can't get elected dog catcher without belonging to church. 
For actual offices and such.

Sadly, religion has always been used to control the masses. You control their souls you control their actions. Being excommunicated carried a much graver burden than the highest punishment the Emperor could impose on you. 

I don't think the problem lies with the candidates though. It's the base. the sheeple.

I can't tell you how many things are not getting done because the churches don't like it:
Alcohol sales, Lottery...you name it. 
If it cuts in church revenue, it's usually a no-go...


----------



## fangjian (Apr 29, 2011)

There should never be religious influence on matters of law, government, etc.  Letting superstition guide these matters is a fail of epic proportions.


----------



## granfire (Apr 29, 2011)

fangjian said:


> There should never be religious influence on matters of law, government, etc.  Letting superstition guide these matters is a fail of epic proportions.




Well, you can't help it, really. 
Faith is part of ones personality.

However, if the individual can balance that within him/herself, that's ok. 

However, the way I see it happening is that church is just another special interest group putting the thumbscrews on the elected officials.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 29, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, you can't help it, really.
> Faith is part of ones personality.



What a person believes or doesn't believe will effect decisions they make of course. I'm just saying things like our judicial system shouldn't be based on something like 'the commandments'. Stuff like 'intelligent design' should never be taught in schools as if it's science. 

Things like that.


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 29, 2011)

fangjian said:


> There should never be religious influence on matters of law, government, etc.  Letting superstition guide these matters is a fail of epic proportions.



Do you think that can actually be accomplished given our current social reality?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 29, 2011)

I accept that the reality is that there will never be a true separation between church and state in the USA.  You stated it pretty clearly.

At times in my life, although I am not an atheist, I would have preferred a government utterly divorced from all of the trappings of religion.  Including national holidays that match Christian holidays, moments of national prayer, imprints on our money that say _"In God we Trust," _non-profit status for religious institutions, and so on.

However, over time, I have come to see that we are what we are.  We were founded by Christians (for the most part, and with respect for those who point out that some of our Founder's 'Christianity' was mighty odd by some standards).  We were also founded not to be a Christian nation in any sense, but a secular one.  However, we humans are many things, and we bring those attributes with us when we do anything, including holding public office.

We also have a legal history of observing our traditions, and some of our traditions are religious.  Pretending that they do not exist is nonsensical.  Paying them homage and giving respect and deference is fine with me, so long as they do not cross the line into appearing to establish a state religion, a preference for one religion over another, etc.

It's a tightrope, to be sure.  A minefield.

But in honesty, I could not expect a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, an atheist to NOT have some of those values in their heart and mind when they run for office, when they cast votes for people who are running for office, or when they express their preferences on how our nation ought best be governed.  How could they not?

So, candidate A thumps a bible in a certain way and some people respond to that, because to them, it's shorthand for saying that candidate A holds similar values as they do.  I don't know what could be done to prevent that.  I don't know why we should even want to.  Life goes on.  We're imperfect, and driven by our emotions and beliefs, including the religious (or atheistic) beliefs.  I doubt we can legislate that out of our government; but we can take steps to ensure we keep that wall up between the government endorsing religion or a religion and the people who make up the government holding earnest religious beliefs.


----------



## WC_lun (Apr 29, 2011)

I don't have ay issue at all with politicians with strong religious beliefs.  I do have serious issues with politicians trying to use thier own religious beliefs to dictate to other citizens what they should believe.  For instance the now pretty much antiquated no bussiness on Sunday laws.  If part of your belief system is that Sabath is holy and no one works on it, then don't work on it.  However to pass laws to keep others from working on Sunay infringes upon thier rights and crosses the line between seperation of church and state. I use this example because it isn't so emotionally charged as some others.

Add to this desire of some people to legislate morality from thier own religious perspective, you have people claiming religious titles and beliefs that want political power.  They are happy to take advantage of such things as non-taxable status, but at the same time they want a hand in political decisions.  They want thier cake and to eat it too.  These same people seem very quick to point out the attempts of anyone from another religion attemoting these same type of power grabs.  Mixing religion and politics can become ugly quickly.

I also have real issues with people basing laws upon such things as the bible...or for those Islamaphobes out there, Sharia law.  An example for me is denying equal protections for our gay citizens. Ask some religious folk why they are against equal treatment and it is because the bible tells them so. However the bible also condones things such as slavery, sellig you daughter, and stoning people to death. So these religious folk, with complete seriousness say equal rights for gays is not desireable because the bible, the word of god, decrees it. However god didn't really mean things such as slavery being okay or not eating that piece of bacon.  This means that people only follow those things within the bible that fall within thier own personal rejudices.  This is not a good place to base law upon. Many of our founders realized this


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 29, 2011)

It doesn't matter.
the only people it matters to are the same types of people that similarly unnecessary traits are important to when they elect someone...
people are more interested in getting someone who looks or acts on the surface like them, that they fail to invest the time to elect someone who thinks the things they feel is important in leaders...

its why a percentage of people voted for Obama simply because he was black.
its why a percentage of people voted for Clinton simply because she was a woman.
its why a percentage of people voted for Romney simply because they shared a religion.
its why a percentage of people vote for, or vote against, whoever based on race, religion, appearance, accent, group association... I am almost wanting to add party here, because being democratic or republican does not mean you fall in line on all aspects of what was a fairly common and uniting theme in each party... now people say they are republican or democrat but in many cases share only a small percentage of the overall belief system of the party... 

I do not think that people care enough, or ever will care enough to spend the time necessary to research who they elect, and will take the easy way out and vote in something similar to them and hope that it is enough to push forward their ideas...
I also do not think that politicians themselves will ever change, because even if one or two did, and tried to get by simply on their message, their opponents would take advantage of that and use it to bury them..

even when someone gets into office, their religion really should not be able to effect their choices in any way that is going to cause a conflict with the freedom OF religion.


----------



## crushing (Apr 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Maybe, much like finally electing a black man, they would see that atheism (or religion) was the least important part of his or her character as a leader.


 
Kind of along the same line...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html

If an agnostic runs, will anyone ask if she is atheist enough?


----------



## fangjian (Apr 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Do you think that can actually be accomplished given our current social reality?



Generally, people are getting less and less superstitious. It may happen 1000's of years from now, if most places are more into education than superstition.


----------



## Carol (Apr 29, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Do you think that can actually be accomplished given our current social reality?



It will take a paradigm shift.  Technology has played a substantial role in politics.

In radio broadcasting, there was a huge boom of Country (format) radio stations around the country in the early 90s.  Why?  Technology.

Originally, album sales were tracked by survey.  Record store owners were called and asked what their top selling albums were.  Many store owners gave default answers (Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, etc).  Barcoding albums began in the early 80s, but varied by record label.  As barcoding became more and more consistent (culminating with the advent of Nielsen/SoundScan), strange things happened.  Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon ended its 15 year run on the charts, and media outlets learned that one of the hottest formats in the nation was Country.  Surprise!  This is the technology that drove radio stations to convert to Country -- so fast that there were lawsuits over marketing phrases such as "Hot New Country".

The same database/data-tracking/data-mining technology has been used in politics.  While the major parties have not barcoded their voters (yet), there has been significant research by political analysts in to the area of voting blocs. As the RNC learned in the early 90s that their largest bloc (in terms of voter turnout and monetary donations) is evangelical Protestants in southern states, the politicians moved to a much more evangelical-Prostestant-focused position.

Reagan has been the most iconic president for modern conservatives, but he was before the database era -- and did not make Christianity a part of his platform.

[yt]NpwdcmjBgNA[/yt]
[yt]EU-IBF8nwSY[/yt]


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 29, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I accept that the reality is that there will never be a true separation between church and state in the USA.



I dunno. The US does a pretty good job of keeping _church_ our of our politics. No religious organization dictates policy. Keeping _faith_ out of our politics is impossible, since what you believe will always influence how you behave. Even if, 1000 years from now, we're a country mostly of atheists, the "faith" of atheism will influence policy.

But overall, US does better than most when it comes to keeping organized religion from setting policy, and protecting the religious freedoms of faith minorities. Sure, it nags a bit that my money says "In God We Trust," but Muslims and Hindus can spend that money any damn place they want...and for the most part have been able to throughout the history of our country.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 30, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I dunno. The US does a pretty good job of keeping _church_ our of our politics. No religious organization dictates policy. Keeping _faith_ out of our politics is impossible, since what you believe will always influence how you behave. Even if, 1000 years from now, we're a country mostly of atheists, the "faith" of atheism will influence policy.
> 
> But overall, US does better than most when it comes to keeping organized religion from setting policy, and protecting the religious freedoms of faith minorities. Sure, it nags a bit that my money says "In God We Trust," but Muslims and Hindus can spend that money any damn place they want...and for the most part have been able to throughout the history of our country.



Well said.  I stand corrected.  I should have used the term 'faith' instead of 'church'.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 30, 2011)

constantly referring to religion as "superstition" isnt helping your case

the majoity of americans consider themselves members of some religios group, wether they practice it or not.

and if i may quote Carl Sagan, "someone who thinks the majority of us are delusional" isnt going to resonate

so no, i would never vote for someone who didnt believe in some sort of hereafter.

you can be jewish, or morman, or catholic, hindu or buddist, but if you dont have the vision and humility to imagine that this is just one part of a complex system that was designed, not just  the product of random chance, i cant relate to you. And you cant represent me.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> constantly referring to religion as "superstition" isnt helping your case



Yes, I often refer to it that way so people can see it for what it is and to stop 'tip toeing' around peoples' beliefs in fear of _offending_ them. 


> so no, i would never vote for someone who didnt believe in some sort of hereafter.
> 
> you can be jewish, or morman, or catholic, hindu or buddist, but if you dont have the vision and humility to imagine that this is just one part of a complex system that was designed, not just  the product of random chance, i cant relate to you. And you cant represent me.



There is no evidence that suggests 'a hereafter' exists or that everything was 'designed'. A 'lack of belief' is the only reasonable conclusion one can come to.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 30, 2011)

like i said, a lack of vision and or humility

the arrogance of the unbeliever is sad and disturbing


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 30, 2011)

To be fair, TF, you can say the same thing about "the arrogance of the believer."

I dislike fundamentalism, no matter who it comes from. The holy roller who tells me I'm going to hell because I don't believe in the Baby Jesus is deluded and limited. So is the atheist who tell me I'm an idiot because I practice spiritual beliefs. 

Whenever somebody from either side resorts to snide comments like "superstition" or "heretic" -- [(edit) or "deluded" for that matter] -- rather than a rational discussion, everybody loses. Which, of course, is the problem with religion in particular: it's difficult to have rational discussion about a situation that defies rational examination.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Apr 30, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Yes, I often refer to it that way so people can see it for what it is and to stop 'tip toeing' around peoples' beliefs in fear of _offending_ them.
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that suggests 'a hereafter' exists or that everything was 'designed'. A 'lack of belief' is the only reasonable conclusion one can come to.


 
I would like to see a superstitious person like yourself prove there is no god.
you are going on faith just as those of faith are.
you have no proof but your own arrogance.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 30, 2011)

Rare that I agree with Lucky, but...

Anybody who's knowledgable about the history of scientific inquiry knows that the basic theme of that history is _we now know that everything we though was true 100 years ago was ridiculous_.

Further, the relationship most people have with science is indistinguishable from the relationship most people have with religion. We read books written by our priests, who interpret the laws of our world based on....something. We don't do our own testing and inquiry -- with much of modern science, we couldn't if we wanted to. We just accept as writ what we choose to believe.

Granted, science is based on a rigorous system of logic and peer review, but it's better at proving itself wrong than at proving itself right. It was designed that way.

Where I disagree with you Lucky, is your own arrogant assumption that your set of beliefs is somehow _superior_ to that of the athiest. It's certainly no worse, but there's nothing to demonstrate that it's better. 

Better for _you_, perhaps, if it serves you and improves your life. But that's not the same thing.


----------



## Carol (Apr 30, 2011)

Wait...where did LuckyKBoxer say his set of beliefs are superior?  He doesn't even mention what they are, let alone whether his are better than someone else's.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 30, 2011)

anyone that says "there is NOTHING" is just as much of an asshat as the one that claims to know exactly IS there

we dont know, and we cant know

but thats the point, we cant know if there is, and we cant know if there isnt, so the only fair thing to say is "we dont know"

in reality, the agnostic is the best possible viewpoint


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I would like to see a superstitious person like yourself prove there is no god.
> you are going on faith just as those of faith are.
> you have no proof but your own arrogance.



I never claimed there are no gods. What I have is not faith. It's different. 


> like i said, a lack of vision and or humility
> 
> the arrogance of the unbeliever is sad and disturbing



I study the cosmos on a regular basis. It gives me quite a deep sense of humility. 

If an anthropologist puts out a claim that 'pegasus' exists, and we question why, is that rude?  Should we tiptoe around him as not to _offend_? This anthropologist says he has no evidence but he just believes anyway. Is it arrogant to call him irrational?


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> anyone that says "there is NOTHING" is just as much of an asshat as the one that claims to know exactly IS there
> 
> we dont know, and we cant know
> 
> ...



You are exactly correct TF. 

We are all agnostic in the sense that we all do not 'know' with reasonable certainty. Just like we don't 'know' 100% if a pegasus exists. But we just have a lack of belief in it. You are an agnostic theist (if you believe in gods but don't claim to 'know'). I am an agnostic atheist ( since I have a lack of belief in gods but of course don't claim to 'know'). The terms are different and refer to two separate things. Hope that helps. 
The video below is great, but if you have time check out his entire de conversion from Christianity process. It's really interesting. 
[yt]S-BQVmvulmQ[/yt]


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 30, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I never claimed there are no gods. What I have is not faith. It's different.



I would respectfully submit that any personal policy on the absence/presence of gods and the afterlife is definitionally a faith. You can't prove things one way or the other. Ultimately, you're making a choice and sticking to it.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I would respectfully submit that any personal policy on the absence/presence of gods and the afterlife is definitionally a faith. You can't prove things one way or the other. Ultimately, you're making a choice and sticking to it.



Poseidon, The God of The Sea.   I can't _prove_ that Poseidon doesn't exist. Does that make my lack of belief and a Poseidon believer's positions equal? I also can't _prove_ that 'UFO abductees' weren't abducted by aliens. I have a lack of belief. Some people truly believe these claims. But our positions aren't equal.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 30, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Poseidon, The God of The Sea.   I can't _prove_ that Poseidon doesn't exist. Does that make my lack of belief and a Poseidon believer's positions equal? I also can't _prove_ that 'UFO abductees' weren't abducted by aliens. I have a lack of belief. Some people truly believe these claims. But our positions aren't equal.



I'd disagree. There is as much proof of the existence of Poseidon as there is proof that he doesn't exist. Emphasize _proof_ here. There's plenty of logical analysis and reasonably framed hypotheses against Poseidon, but no proof. And even much of the "proof" that supports that logic is based on trusting the word of others, which is another form of belief. 

Now, if you want to talk about...for example...evolution. There's a lot of proof that much of the Old Testament is allegorical, politically compromised and riddled with translation errors. And there's stacks of evidence that evolution happened. But that's not the same as choosing whether or not to believe in a god or afterlife. 

Ultimately, belief and lack of belief are irrational.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I'd disagree. There is as much proof of the existence of Poseidon as there is proof that he doesn't exist. Emphasize _proof_ here. There's plenty of logical analysis and reasonably framed hypotheses against Poseidon, but no proof. And even much of the "proof" that supports that logic is based on trusting the word of others, which is another form of belief.
> 
> Ultimately, belief and lack of belief are irrational.



I claim that there is a little pink panda in the center of the Earth riding a unicycle. This makes the mechanics of all existence function. 

You can not prove me wrong. Therefore, believing in my claim or not believing it, are equal?



> Now, if you want to talk about...for example...evolution. There's a lot of proof that much of the Old Testament is allegorical, politically compromised and riddled with translation errors. And there's stacks of evidence that evolution happened. But that's not the same as choosing whether or not to believe in a god or afterlife.



There's a lot of stuff here. Evolution, gods, afterlife, and the bible. I'm not reading it right or something. What's your point here?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Apr 30, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I claim that there is a little pink panda in the center of the Earth riding a unicycle. This makes the mechanics of all existence function.
> 
> You can not prove me wrong. Therefore, believing in my claim or not believing it, are equal?



Actually, we have imaging that disproves the theory, and mathematical proofs that show it's pretty darn unlikely. We don't have proof that there are no divine powers or consciousness past physical death.




> There's a lot of stuff here. Evolution, gods, afterlife, and the bible. I'm not reading it right or something. What's your point here?



My only point here was that there are _aspects associated with common beliefs_ that *can* be objectively disproven. One of the frustrating things about some religious folks is that they go on believing them. One of the frustrating things about some atheists is they generalize and lump all of faith in with crackpot "the world is only 5,000 years old" theories.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> I would respectfully submit that any personal policy on the absence/presence of gods and the afterlife is definitionally a faith. You can't prove things one way or the other. Ultimately, you're making a choice and sticking to it.



You are implying, I think, that either stance is ok and 50/50. I don't agree. Just because our knowledge of the existence of the universe stops a billionth of a second after the big bang, doesn't mean you can just assert that 'gods and goddesses must have done it'. It's fine to entertain an idea, but not ok to pass it off as truth. 




> One of the frustrating things about some atheists is they generalize and lump all of faith in with crackpot "the world is only 5,000 years old" theories.



I pretty much lump it all together. Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Psychics, UFO abduction, Astrology.............. It's all superstition to me. 

The bottom line is, all of them are scientific ( in the realms of cosmology, biology, geology.....) claims that lack evidence, so I dismiss them all.

 I am asked to take them seriously. Why should I?  Why should I take Astrology seriously?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 30, 2011)

_because you might just be wrong................_


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> _because you might just be wrong................_



Yeah. Maybe John Edward DOES communicate with the dead and faith healers CAN cure you of lung cancer. We can't _know_ with certainty, so to not believe in those two claims, is just as rational as believing. That makes a lot of sense. lolz

Oh and don't criticize those crooks, because we don't want to _offend_.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

This thread is about religion in government. Not about if religion is _cool or not cool_, which is where it went. 

So. 

TF, you mentioned that you would never vote for someone that wasn't religious.  Could you elaborate if you have time? You mentioned Buddhists. But many Buddhists are also atheists. ( is the important part) just that someone believes there is an _intelligence _that created our universe? And why is belief in that one claim so important to you?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 30, 2011)

as i said before, about 90% of the planet believes in some form of afterlife.

I have a hard relating to someone so arrogant as to think that 95% of us are just stupid or delusional

so I would never vote for anyone like that

also, in regards to presidents, I would never trust a man to control nuclear weapons if he didnt have some sort of religious beliefs. If this is all there is, then why not nuke everyone?

nope, no thanks, i cant trust someone who doesnt have that inborn moral code.

Also, I dislike arrogance, and the arrogance of saying "there is nothing else" makes me want to vomit, frankly.

Someone wants to think that "there is something else, i just dont know what it is" i am fine with.

I hope that helps you understand my point of view


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> as i said before, about 90% of the planet believes in some form of afterlife.


 This doesn't matter


> I have a hard relating to someone so arrogant as to think that 95% of us are just stupid or delusional


NO. NOT STUPID. We just think it is irrational. 


> also, in regards to presidents, I would never trust a man to control nuclear weapons if he didnt have some sort of religious beliefs. If this is all there is, then why not nuke everyone?
> 
> nope, no thanks, i cant trust someone who doesnt have that inborn moral code.


Morals are are a part of the evolution of the human brain. So many of our morals are _inborn_. I just have no reason to believe there is a supernatural cause for them. 


> Also, I dislike arrogance, and the arrogance of saying "there is nothing else" makes me want to vomit, frankly.



'There is nothing else'. 
Who says that?  What does that mean? 

There's nothing arrogant about saying 'I don't believe in gods because I have no way to test and examine that claim.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 30, 2011)

look at a baby

if you cant see God in a baby's eyes, no scientific test would matter to you.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 30, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> look at a baby
> 
> if you cant see God in a baby's eyes, no scientific test would matter to you.



Nah. That's not how you solve questions in Cosmology.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 30, 2011)

just sayin man


----------



## WC_lun (May 1, 2011)

For me I believe %100 in my religion. It isn't a system of guesses, but reality.  However, I know that most other people, especially here in the States do not believe the same thing and that is okay. Other people's religious beliefs are equally as valid as my own, because I am not all knowing.  That includes beliefs such as Athiesm.  For someone else, Athiesm is equally as much truth as my own beliefs.  The only time I have issue with other people's religious beliefs is when they use them to promote hate, anger, exclusiveness, selfishness, arrogance, etc.  If a person's beliefs lead them to treat people well then I don't really care if it is the same as mine or not.


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Other people's religious beliefs are equally as valid as my own, because I am not all knowing.  That includes beliefs such as Athiesm.  For someone else, Athiesm is equally as much truth as my own beliefs.



Just to clarify for others reading this. 

Atheism is not a belief or belief system. It is just a lack of belief in a cosmological claim. I have the same stance on the existence of many things. Many people think Atheism is the claim that there are 'no gods'. This is not true and I posted a pretty good video earlier that explains the difference.


> For me I believe %100 in my religion. It isn't a system of guesses, but reality.



Do you think that your religious views should play a role in your government?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 1, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Our Constitution certainly seems to be leaning in this direction, with a prohibition on religious tests for public office and the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment.


 
IMO: I disagree here, and believe the Constitution was not stating that we should ban people from practicing their religion as they see fit, even if that meant that wanted a giant 10 Commandments in their Couthouse or a Muslim Prayer center in their public school, but rather was designed to prevent people from saying "You MUST worship the way we tell you too."

In other words, I don't believe it was meant as freedom FROM religion, but rather freedom OF religion.

HOWEVER:  On the subject of religion in politics, I look at works of fiction like "The Handmaids Tale" as cautionary statements about having a religious leader as a driving force in our government, and I disagree with them trying to regulate their morality onto the rest of us... I think it is a recipie for disaster.


----------



## WC_lun (May 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Just to clarify for others reading this.
> 
> Atheism is not a belief or belief system. It is just a lack of belief in a cosmological claim. I have the same stance on the existence of many things. Many people think Atheism is the claim that there are 'no gods'. This is not true and I posted a pretty good video earlier that explains the difference.
> 
> ...


 
Non-belief in something can be just as strong as belief in a thing.  Always asking for proof is in a way belief system.

My religious views effect my decision making everyday.  That is as far as my religious beliefs should play a role in my government.  US government IS secular and should remain that way.  Otherwise it becomes a government for only a select portion of the public.  We have enough issue of it doing that without making the government beholden to any one religion.


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Always asking for proof is in a way belief system.


 Right
Right. IMO it seems like a demonstrably superior one. Rather than if you based existence and reality solely off of something like 'Dianetics' by L Ron Hubbard. My 'belief system' would be comprised concepts like; evidence, logic, human reason, scientific method, education etc. But I think this kind of 'belief system' gets actual results that are measurable and contribute to society. This I would imagine would be the foundation for establishing laws etc. ( since this thread is about gvt. 

So if you wanna call all of that a _religion_ like _'Pearlism'_( *P*hysical *E*vidence *A*nd *R*easoned *L*ogic ), than I guess I want my_ religion_ in government. hehehe What do you think about my _belief system_ being in gvt?
I think this guy says it best. 

[yt]vktnYVOsDns[/yt]


----------



## WC_lun (May 1, 2011)

Fangjian, for YOU the things you believe work and are supurior.  For others a different aproach might be what they prefer.  Just as they have no right to ask you to follow something other than what you believe, you really have no right to denigrate anything they believe...unless actions are being taken upon those beliefs that harm other people.

Personally, the two things I want in my government are compassion and common sense.  I don't care if someone considers that thier religion or not.


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> Fangjian, for YOU the things you believe work and are supurior.  For others a different aproach might be what they prefer.




No. It's not like I'm saying something like, ' Blue is a superior color to orange'. It's more like I'm suggesting ' Some ways of going about things have predictive capability and others don't.  



> , you really have no right to denigrate anything they believe...



So if someone claims something of a scientific nature, like let's say 'a world wide flood happened', and Geologists say ' No there is no evidence to suggest that occurred, and no reason to believe it. 

Why is that 'rude' for a Geologist to say that?

Is it 'rude' for a doctor to say, 'faith healing' is just placebo effect,  and you need to still take your cancer medication?

Religious claims are matters of science, if you wanna play with the 'big boys' you need to have a thicker skin.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Religious claims are matters of science, if you wanna play with the 'big boys' you need to have a thicker skin.


 
And Vice Versa.  There are a lot of times "Science" needs to man up and admit the truths it holds dear are conjectures.  

After all, The Sun is a Ball of Hydrogen and Helium right?  

No, no, we discovered Plasma, it must be that right?

And... next month when we discover depleted Chewboccium it will be made of that.


----------



## WC_lun (May 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> No. It's not like I'm saying something like, ' Blue is a superior color to orange'. It's more like I'm suggesting ' Some ways of going about things have predictive capability and others don't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

There is a difference in your analogy.  In your analogy the people are scientist speaking f a scientific thing and can use scientific processes to prove or disprove the subject of conjecture.  When it comes to something like the exsistence of god, scientific processes aren't gonna cut it.  So while your view is that it is superstition works for you, it is indeed rude to talk down to others who believe in god, or gods, or some mix of the above or dismiss it as superstition only.  Here's the truth, you don't know with 100% certainty that there is no god, just like no one else knows with 100% certainty there is. It is arrogance not to admitt that and that there might be a chance, even very slim that you might be wrong.  Just for the record, I do not believe in a Judeo Christian idea of god eiher.  It is more of this nonsensical thinking that THIS is the only TRUE way and anyone who blieves different is either stupid or ignorant.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 1, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Rare that I agree with Lucky, but...
> 
> Anybody who's knowledgable about the history of scientific inquiry knows that the basic theme of that history is _we now know that everything we though was true 100 years ago was ridiculous_.
> 
> ...


 
Um I never stated my beliefs.
My beliefs are going to be different from the vast majority and I am fine with it.
The only thing I have ever said about beliefs is that a. I dont think that creationism and evolution are in conflict with each other. and b. The only religion or belief systems I think suck are the ones who want to end my way of enjoying my life.
I have never once said that anyone should change their beliefs to match mine, or end their beliefs. I have said that if someones beliefs mean they have to try to end my way of enjoying life then they better be in good with their creator.
so while I appreciate the premise... you misread the post entirely, I recommend going back and rereading it


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> And Vice Versa.  There are a lot of times "Science" needs to man up and admit the truths it holds dear are conjectures.



No. A conjecture is a belief in something with insufficient evidence. That's religion. Not science. When I was a kid, the estimated age of the universe was 10 to 20 billion years old. Now it's 13.75 Billion yo. One hundred years from now, it will be even more precise. It's constantly refining. Not conjectures. 





> There is a difference in your analogy. In your analogy the people are scientist speaking f a scientific thing and can use scientific processes to prove or disprove the subject of conjecture. When it comes to something like the exsistence of god, scientific processes aren't gonna cut it.



The subject of the origin of our universe *is* science. Cosmology. When it comes to the existence of gods, the scientific method is demonstrably the best way in studying Cosmology, Astrophysics and Astronomy. 


> So while your view is that it is superstition works for you, it is indeed rude to talk down to others who believe in god, or gods, or some mix of the above or dismiss it as superstition only.


Praying, wearing things like crosses for 'various supernatural purposes', rituals where people pretend to eat human flesh and drink human blood ( like the Eucharist ),.......  How is all of this *not* superstition?


> Here's the truth, you don't know with 100% certainty that there is no god, just like no one else knows with 100% certainty there is. It is arrogance not to admitt that and that there might be a chance, even very slim that you might be wrong. Just for the record, I do not believe in a Judeo Christian idea of god eiher. It is more of this nonsensical thinking that THIS is the only TRUE way and anyone who blieves different is either stupid or ignorant.


 Your right. It would be arrogant to believe that you claim to know with 100% certainty, all of the inner-workings of the universe and how it came to be.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Your right. It would be arrogant to believe that you claim to know with 100% certainty, all of the inner-workings of the universe and how it came to be.


 
should have just posted that and you would be fine..


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> should have just posted that and you would be fine..



I never claimed to know how the universe came to be. Religious people do.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I never claimed to know how the universe came to be. Religious people do.


 
Sure you just claim they are wrong. Period I don't see the difference in them and you... no actually I do, they take faith in what they believe, you just believe they are wrong.


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Sure you just claim they are wrong. Period I don't see the difference in them and you... no actually I do, they take faith in what they believe, you just believe they are wrong.



That's fair. It seems to me, that the way they come to their conclusions in regards to all of these questions in Cosmology, Biology etc are highly flawed. Biologists develop models through research, testing etc and come up with actual predictions! That's the difference.      Those who promote denying stuff like 'evolution' because they interpreted a book like the Quran or whatever, seem like they are using a method that seems a bit flawed if they wanna go an make Biological claims, wouldn't you say? . If you wanna make biological claims, you gotta study biology. If you wanna make claims about gods and goddesses and how the universe came to exist, that's cosmology, people. Cosmology is science. And these ideas can be under scrutiny just like the ideas of Cosmologists and Theoretical physicists.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> No. A conjecture is a belief in something with insufficient evidence. That's religion. Not science. When I was a kid, the estimated age of the universe was 10 to 20 billion years old. Now it's 13.75 Billion yo. One hundred years from now, it will be even more precise. It's constantly refining. Not conjectures.


 
As far as I can tell, A lot of science is the same way.  Especially when it comes to things we cannot study/measure directly.  Sure, we know certain things, and then science makes assumptions based on that knowlage, but there is no EVIDENCE that this same knowlage applies. It's an assumption. 

"Well, gosh, Timmy, if we look at heat sources thru this aurometer, we can see colored auras.  The only thing that we have seen makes a green aura is a mix of Oxygen and Poop burning.  When we look at that distant star in Orions belt, it too has a green aura.  Therefore, without a shadow of a doubt, that star is made of burning oxygen and poop!" 

Why is it, if New Age Nellie says "Your body can tap into unexplored areas of the mind to heal itself with natural magic" science says "Hogwash!"

But when Science Steve says "Your Your body can tap into unexplored areas of the mind to heal itself thru unknown means we call the placebo effect" it's SCIENCE FACT! 

Please man.


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> Why is it, if New Age Nellie says "Your body can tap into unexplored areas of the mind to heal itself with natural magic" science says "Hogwash!"
> 
> But when Science Steve says "Your Your body can tap into unexplored areas of the mind to heal itself thru unknown means we call the placebo effect" it's SCIENCE FACT!
> 
> Please man.



Sciences like Biology, Psychology, Neuroscience actually study this phenomena and how it works. Pseudosciences will just call something and that's it. It's magic. It's the holy spirit. etc. No tests, no observations, double blind studies........

Just like the existence of the universe. Physicists, Cosmologists etc. actually study this stuff. 

How do you not see the difference?


----------



## billc (May 1, 2011)

I still think it is funny that we can't get off this rock and the atheists seem to have the universe pretty well figured out.  What are they going to do when the first time we get out past pluto and they hit one of  the elephants trunks.  What will they do with that littlt bit of info.


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I still think it is funny that we can't get off this rock and the atheists seem to have the universe pretty well figured out.  What are they going to do when the first time we get out past pluto and they hit one of  the elephants trunks.  What will they do with that littlt bit of info.



?


----------



## billc (May 1, 2011)

You need to read the sacred texts of the great Pratchett my friend.  Then the mysteries of the world would be known to you.


----------



## elder999 (May 1, 2011)

"The role of religion in government?"

Well, the way it's _written_, there shouldn't be much of one in _ou_r government-can't say that that's the way it works in practice, but there it is. At it's best, people oftne make decisions independent of their religious values, like John  Ashcroft  on abortion:



> I believe Roe v. Wade as an original matter was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to abortion. But I well understand that the role of attorney general is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it. I accept Roe and Casey as the settled law of the land. If confirmed as attorney general, I will follow the law in this area and in all other areas. The Supreme Courts decisions on this have been multiple, they have been recent and they have been emphatic.
> 
> I have been entrusted with public service for more than 25 years. Its a responsibility I have honored and a trust that I believe I have kept. During those years I have not thought of myself as a public servant of some of the people, but a keeper of the public trust for all the people. If I become US attorney general, I again commit to enforcing the law, all of the law for all of the people. As a man of faith I take my word and my integrity seriously. So when I swear to uphold the law I will keep my oath, so help me God.


 
I usually thought the guy was a tool, but this impressed me.....stating and demonstrating that he was committed to making decisions in office that might go against his fervently held religious principles, because his job was to enforce the law. 

On the other hand, people will make decisions on religious grounds that will inevitably be viewed as right or wrong depending upon which side of the issue one stands on. Thusly, if congressman X decides to vote no on gay marriage, because he believes it to be against "God's plan," he's hailed by those that support him and think as he does, and villified as irrational by those that don't. _Oh, if only he were making decisions from a rational, scientific viewpoint_-when, in fact, he may be doing that very thing as well,for this example,  since the science on homeosexuality isn't completely in as yet.


It's foolish to expect others to make decisions solely on the basis of the hyper rational and scientfic-we are, as humans, quite irrational beings. If I flip a coin, is it really any dfferent than consulting tarot cards, or "praying over" a decision? If I say that I did pray over a decision, and that "God led me to do X," can anyone prove otherwise? 

If I did hear a voice that no one else could hear, and I believed it to be God, barring the obviously questionable, crazy and evil-mass murder and the like0wouldn't it be irrational _*not*_ to listen to it? Of course, this opens up the question of sanity-anyone who listens to the "voice of God" is thought to some to be clearly irrational, and very often the go out and prove it, but what about those who don't advertise it, don't commit mass murder,  or even smear lime jello all over their naked bodies and go running through the Capitol building? If an apparently rational choice is made due to religious convictions, how can we question that, save that we disagree with it on the basis of the issue itself? How one arrived at the decision is largely irrelevant. In the case of government, one would like to think that representatives do just that: * represent *the will of their constituency, but this is also often not the case, independent of religious convictions, or, often, scientific basis.


----------



## fangjian (May 1, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Thusly, if congressman X decides to vote no on gay marriage, because he believes it to be against "God's plan," he's hailed by those that support him and think as he does, and villified as irrational by those that don't. _Oh, if only he were making decisions from a rational, scientific viewpoint_-when, in fact, he may be doing that very thing as well,for this example,  since the science on homeosexuality isn't completely in as yet.



What does 'the science of homosexuality' have to do with human rights?


----------



## elder999 (May 1, 2011)

fangjian said:


> What does 'the science of homosexuality' have to do with human rights?


 

That's a _rational_ response, and understand, I'm all in favor of gay marriage but the argumen presented by many is that gays have a choice in the matter of their sexuality,and that they aren't being denied any human right: they can always marry a member of the opposite sex. Science has yet to prove what I believe, that there is a strong genetic component to sexuality, though there is some scientific evidence to support this. There is also scientific evidence to support the notion that it's at least sometimes a matter of choice, and that women are especially flexible in matters of sexual attraction. Given that, the science of homosexuality has a great deal to do with human rights, in either instance. One can suppoort gay marriage, based on scientific evidence, or be against it, based on scientific evidence-it only matters what evidence one elects to support, at this point.

Of course, a hundred years or more ago, "scientific evidence" was used to deny black people basic human and civil rights as well, and, a the time, it was a "rational, scientific decision" .

Rationally speaking, of course. :lol:


----------

