God-O-Meter

[Xue Sheng]

Bad timing I know considering the season but

I have nothing against any church or religion, actually I find them facinating to study but I also find ths pretty inersting as well.

I read an article in a magazine today that had a great line in it about the state of politics and the election today.

and being as how we seem to be in the middle of an extended acid flashback to the 12th century, with jihads, crusades, and leaders who chat with supernatural entities -- Larry Beinhart; Article - Beinhart's Body Politic, This Month In God; Magazine - Chronogram 12/07

This article also reminded me of Article VI Section 3 of the US Constitution (that we seemed to have forgotten about in our desire to debate the 2nd amendment.)

Article VI Section 3 of the US Constitution states

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

You know the whole seperation of church and state thingy

This is interesting since the President appears to be throwing in religion wherever posible as are many of the current candidates for his job.

This article also lead me to this
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/

God-O-Meter which gives a measure of God-talk which the candidates are throwing out.

 

[michaeledward]

When 85 to 90 % of American citizens have a belief in a supernatural deity, it would seem foolhardy to expect any person seeking acceptance by a majority of those citizens to distance himself from their collective beliefs.

Most of us believe in God more than the Constitution.

God is eternal.

Every construction of man, is not.

 

[Doc_Jude]

When 85 to 90 % of American citizens have a belief in a supernatural deity, it would seem foolhardy to expect any person seeking acceptance by a majority of those citizens to distance himself from their collective beliefs.

Most of us believe in God more than the Constitution.

God is eternal.

Every construction of man, is not.

Yes, but which "god" do you believe in? They all have different rules, yeah? In a country where everyone has a freedom of religion, in order to keep things non-biased, there is a necessary separation of church (any church) and state. We may not have beliefs in common, but we have the Law, and the Constitution, which are not biased to any religion, but accommodates everyone pretty well.

 

[michaeledward]

I believe in no god.

Most people will accept a person who believes a god much sooner than they will accept a person who believes in the Constitution. Today, most religions in our Country believe in some version of the Abrahamic god.

So, which rules this interpretation implements is less important than if the faith began 5,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or 500 years ago. It seems that the 200 year old religions are not quite accepted.

But none of those seeking the top office will court my vote based on my beliefs; I believe in the Constitution.

 

[jks9199]

Politicians have been using religion for decades, at least. I'm sure that many are sincere in their faith -- but some are no more sincere than many inmates who "find religion" in jail. At least until they're paroled...

I don't have a problem with a person of sincere faith being open about their faith in an election campaign, and I'll even admit that I use some PERSONAL religious "tests" to assess a candidate. For example, I'm Roman Catholic, and I'm morally opposed to abortion both personally and as a Catholic; that's a make-or-break issue for me in a candidate. Also, given a candidate who hides their religion and one who is open about it (but not evangelizing from the campaign stump!)... I'll go for the guy who's open. At least I have a clue where he or she is coming from.

But those are PERSONAL tests; my wife may not use the same criteria I do... nor is anyone else required to do so. They're not the same thing as the government placing a religious test or query as part of the candidate's application/intent to run paperwork, or requiring that a candidate (or appointee) swear fealty to a particular faith.

 

[Phoenix44]

I may be an old fart, but there was a time not too long ago when people kept their religion between themselves and their creator. I used to like it that way.

 

[Omar B]

When 85 to 90 % of American citizens have a belief in a supernatural deity, it would seem foolhardy to expect any person seeking acceptance by a majority of those citizens to distance himself from their collective beliefs.
Most of us believe in God more than the Constitution.
God is eternal.
Every construction of man, is not.

It's easy to say god is eternal when you belive in such things. Fact is the business of government does not run on the whims of a figure in the sky or on a cross or is a statue or whatever an individual might think god is. The reason there's a separation of church and state is because government deals with the realities of people actually living in a country and the business that goes into running that. The founding fathers put the separation in there because countries are not run on divine intervention or revelations or such fantasies.

I find it disgusting that politicians are pandering to religious groups. If you are gonna do that why not appeal to the Satanists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jedis, etc. Or in my case, the Supermanists.

 

[Ray]

Most of us believe in God more than the Constitution.

That's very interesting. Can you expand upon what you mean?

When I read it, I think: The US constitution exists, no doubt about that - it is the basis of our laws and is the supreme document of goverance of the the land. The belief in existance of deity runs from: there is none, there might be, I believe there is, to I "know" there is. In some belief systems the rules of conduct are wholly compatible with the US constitution in that personal conduct is not and cannot be in variance with the constitution even though conduct is not the same as others who believe differently and are still in compliance with the constitution. I concede that there are some belief systems that could not accept the US constitution as supreme law of the land.

 

[jks9199]

I find it disgusting that politicians are pandering to religious groups. If you are gonna do that why not appeal to the Satanists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jedis, etc. Or in my case, the Supermanists.

If there are enough votes in the group, they will.

In the South, it's almost expected that a politician will make stops at churches, and often attend services even if they're of a very different faith...

 

[Ray]

I find it disgusting that politicians are pandering to religious groups. If you are gonna do that why not appeal to the Satanists, Hindus, Buddhists, Jedis, etc. Or in my case, the Supermanists.

It may because those groups do not represent a large percentage of voters? Gotta get the biggest bang for the advertising buck.

 

[Omar B]

I'm gonna start inviting politicians to my Church Of Superman then! We meet on Tuesdays at the comic shop then we go home, drink beer, read comics and talk about Superman's many wonderful works from the religious texts of Action Comics, Man Of Steel, JLA and the works of Christopher Reeve and all the other great men who have dramatized his great feats of awesome.

Fact is, religion's just fantasy divorced from fact and we don't live in a fantasy world. True some of them weave in a bit of history and actual events to make them seem real. But seriously, setting Sherlock Holmes in London does not mean that those cases happened. Hard evidence is needed in court, science, math or any other area needed to function here on earth. Fantasy has it's place, not in government, one man's flavor of fantasy might not be another's.

 

[FearlessFreep]

One point of note is that some religions do not have a moral component of sorts. I mean, belief in Zeus does not put too many demands on your character But many belief systems do have corresponding expectations of personal behavior, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... So when we see seem some one make a declaration about their religious beliefs it means more to us on an ethical basis than a metaphysical one. "I may not believe your 'god' exists but if you are a follower of your 'god' than I have a pretty good idea where your ethical foundation is grounded" and from there we can make a decision.

There was a time when some careers and experiences were held in high regard as indications of the character of the person who held those positions or had gone through those experiences.

However, the problem with that is that politicians now know that's how we tend to react, and exploit that for their own reasons, so claiming a religious belief is more an attempt to claim a character than any indication of actually having said character.

 

[jks9199]

Fact is, religion's just fantasy divorced from fact and we don't live in a fantasy world. True some of them weave in a bit of history and actual events to make them seem real. But seriously, setting Sherlock Holmes in London does not mean that those cases happened. Hard evidence is needed in court, science, math or any other area needed to function here on earth. Fantasy has it's place, not in government, one man's flavor of fantasy might not be another's.

Might I suggest that this represents YOUR opinion, and should be qualified as such.

Many people have true belief in their faith, whether it's Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Reformed Zoroastrianism, or the Church of Bob. Whether or not you accept that faith, it's not necessary to belittle their beliefs. And, in fact, it's pretty disrespectful.

 

[Phoenix44]

if you are a follower of your 'god' than I have a pretty good idea where your ethical foundation is grounded" and from there we can make a decision.

Really? There seem to be an awful lot of elected officials who claim to be "Christians" who have no problem lying, cheating, killing, philandering and generally acting in a manner that is unreflective of Jesus' teachings. And the same is true of "believers" in other religions. I'd rather make a decision based on a person's actions than on what religion he or she claims to subscribe to.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Really? There seem to be an awful lot of elected officials who claim to be "Christians" who have no problem lying, cheating, killing, philandering and generally acting in a manner that is unreflective of Jesus' teachings. And the same is true of "believers" in other religions. I'd rather make a decision based on a person's actions than on what religion he or she claims to subscribe to.

Now read the rest ..

"However, the problem with that is that politicians now know that's how we tend to react, and exploit that for their own reasons, so claiming a religious belief is more an attempt to claim a character than any indication of actually having said character."

Politicians make claims about beliefs in the assumption that people will derive conclusions of character from said beliefs, but those claims...and that character...is not found in their actual actions(character)

 

[michaeledward]

That's very interesting. Can you expand upon what you mean?

Imagine this question ...

You must give up your god or your country .... choose?

 

[Omar B]

One point of note is that some religions do not have a moral component of sorts. I mean, belief in Zeus does not put too many demands on your character But many belief systems do have corresponding expectations of personal behavior, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... So when we see seem some one make a declaration about their religious beliefs it means more to us on an ethical basis than a metaphysical one. "I may not believe your 'god' exists but if you are a follower of your 'god' than I have a pretty good idea where your ethical foundation is grounded" and from there we can make a decision.

There was a time when some careers and experiences were held in high regard as indications of the character of the person who held those positions or had gone through those experiences.

However, the problem with that is that politicians now know that's how we tend to react, and exploit that for their own reasons, so claiming a religious belief is more an attempt to claim a character than any indication of actually having said character.

I hear what your saying but morality and ethics are not the sole domain of religion. Heck, with the sheer number of holy wars this planet has been through I think religion has little to do with morality. It does point out where you stand on certain things such as abortion blah blah blah.

Might I suggest that this represents YOUR opinion, and should be qualified as such.

Many people have true belief in their faith, whether it's Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Reformed Zoroastrianism, or the Church of Bob. Whether or not you accept that faith, it's not necessary to belittle their beliefs. And, in fact, it's pretty disrespectful.

Yeah, it's my opinion that religion is just like believing in an Disney fairy tale. I don't presume to speak for everyone, I can only speak for myself. Disrespectful? Sure why not, faith and belief don't hold up in court, science, or anything outside of the believer's head. When god/gods would like to provide proof of their existence then I'll show some respect.

 

[Big Don]

Bad timing I know considering the season but

I have nothing against any church or religion, actually I find them facinating to study but I also find ths pretty inersting as well.

I read an article in a magazine today that had a great line in it about the state of politics and the election today.



This article also reminded me of Article VI Section 3 of the US Constitution (that we seemed to have forgotten about in our desire to debate the 2nd amendment.)

Article VI Section 3 of the US Constitution states

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

You know the whole seperation of church and state thingy

This is interesting since the President appears to be throwing in religion wherever posible as are many of the current candidates for his job.

The phrase "Separation of church and state" exists nowhere in the United States Constitution. The religious test clause you quoted fits in perfectly with the First Amendment:[quote[Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/quote]
What the religious test clause means is no person can be denied employment or appointment because of his or her choice of religion, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Ray]

Imagine this question ...

You must give up your god or your country .... choose?

That's a nice thought experiment; I haven't been up against it. Maybe you can give me a concrete example of where and when I must choose between God and country? I can't.

 

[Omar B]

That's a nice thought experiment; I haven't been up against it. Maybe you can give me a concrete example of where and when I must choose between God and country? I can't.

It'll never happen, it's like choosing between marrying your girlfriend and Minnie Mouse. Both hot, only one's real.