christians scare me

[Mr.J]

is it realy safe to have christians run the world ( george bush ) they dont care about the planet because they belive it will all end in fire so, screwing the world up is ok dump shit anywhere, destory forests, rape the world for all it has got because at the end of the day they are going to heaven because they pray and well if they start the end of the world by pressing the big red button, all the better they are saving god the job , lol go christians

[Thorne]

It's not only Christians that scare me! Any government which is dominated by religion is absolutely terrifying. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people believe that all religions should be kept out of government ... except theirs!

[Mr.J]

very true

[Mr.J]

i belive there is serposed to be some sort of seperation between church and government in the usa lived here four years now still not seen it

[DOMLORD]

personally i could give a shit if God himself made polluting and industry a sin (i'd still endorse both). the fact is people were doing what they wanted before this entire armegendon thing was announced. they (chistans and some other denomonations) think just going to end and fire and brimstone is just the most logical way for their mind to rationalize it.

as for christians rulingthe world: 60% of the the world's population is muslim and the president may be commander in chief but has lots of opposition from christians. so what are we supposed to do? hand it over to an atheist, a pagan some other religious minority who can make the same mistakes as anyone in any majority? and on the idea of treating the world like crap because it'll end anyway, every riligion that i'm aware of (with the exception of scientology) has some kind of doomsday tale and atheists think we'll get burned up by the sun, hit by a rock, ect. so with that said, shouldn't we look after the human race and ensure its protection/decadence before the planet's concerns are addressed?

[mkemse]

personally i could give a shit if God himself made polluting and industry a sin (i'd still endorse both). the fact is people were doing what they wanted before this entire armegendon thing was announced. they (chistans and some other denomonations) think just going to end and fire and brimstone is just the most logical way for their mind to rationalize it.

as for christians rulingthe world: 60% of the the world's population is muslim and the president may be commander in chief but has lots of opposition from christians. so what are we supposed to do? hand it over to an atheist, a pagan some other religious minority who can make the same mistakes as anyone in any majority? and on the idea of treating the world like crap because it'll end anyway, every riligion that i'm aware of (with the exception of scientology) has some kind of doomsday tale and atheists think we'll get burned up by the sun, hit by a rock, ect. so with that said, shouldn't we look after the human race and ensure its protection/decadence before the planet's concerns are addressed?

What Bush and this Country need to do is Stop Policeing the World and forcing our ways of life on other countryies, maybe they are happy as they are, Islanic Militants are angry with us for INVADING THEIR SPACE and forcing our ways upon them no other reason that I can thikn of, why do you think Bin Ladin, who by the way used towork for the CIA always says he wants to US out of Islamic Countries, let us take care of our own before we send billoind and trillions on others

I will always oand my neighbor milk, sugar cooofee, but ONLY if they ask and only if i haveenoughfor myself first, i wil not go to their door and demand they take it from me

[Warbaby1943]

i belive there is serposed to be some sort of seperation between church and government in the usa lived here four years now still not seen it
You haven't looked very hard then. Personally I believe that many of our problems are caused by not allowing God into our public schools or other areas of our daily lives any longer.

Religion is a terrible subject to try to argue about because no one is ever going to convince anyone else of their beliefs. Same can be said for politics.

[DOMLORD]

What Bush and this Country need to do is Stop Policeing the World and forcing our ways of life on other countryies, maybe they are happy as they are, Islanic Militants are angry with us for INVADING THEIR SPACE and forcing our ways upon them no other reason that I can thikn of, why do you think Bin Ladin, who by the way used towork for the CIA always says he wants to US out of Islamic Countries, let us take care of our own before we send billoind and trillions on others

I will always oand my neighbor milk, sugar cooofee, but ONLY if they ask and only if i haveenoughfor myself first, i wil not go to their door and demand they take it from me

while i can agree with most of that i have to say Bin Ladin never worked for the C.I.A. he didn't even work along side them. however he did fight with the taliban funding them as well with the pre northern aliance groups fighting russia. as for invading foreign countries we only (so far) have over thrown despotic govts who have committed genocide. i don't pride myself on being a humanitarian but they are destroying human resources which can be used to help get these countries out of third world status and closer to what the western world enjoys (excluding culture, they can do what they want about that).

[donriser]

is it realy safe to have christians run the world ( george bush ) they dont care about the planet because they belive it will all end in fire so, screwing the world up is ok dump shit anywhere, destory forests, rape the world for all it has got because at the end of the day they are going to heaven because they pray and well if they start the end of the world by pressing the big red button, all the better they are saving god the job , lol go christians

Maybe I'm tired, maybe I'm just in a funny mood. I don't believe in arguing or defending things such as belief systems simply because there generally isn't much purpose to it and I rarely make posts, but this hit me like a sucker-punch. I do want to say one thing and that is that it's dangerous to classify a whole group of people like this. If you were talking about races here or those with disabilities or (choose any group) it would not be tolerated. I can tell you that my faith is very fundamental to me and i recycle and pick up other peoples' "shit" besides. I support environmental organizations and plant trees. I carpool whenever feasable and don't drive on spare the air days. I turn off whatever electricity and water, etc. that are not needed. I work with children who have no families. I care for the elderly. I help feed the homeless. I do my part in whatever way I can.

My belief is that as a human being and a child of God, that he gifted us with this planet. Do I believe it's temporary? Yes. But we don't know how temporary and we have been called to be good stewards of it. I can assure you I want it to last for the generations to come (which I also don't have children - maybe I'm saving it for yours or those you love). I do see what you speak of with many people - and not just Christians. I would ponder the larger question - is it safe for anyone to rule the world? I doubt it. Checks and balances. I hope you can accept my view as a check and balance as well because I believe I don't quite fit your frustrated stereotype.

[mkemse]

while i can agree with most of that i have to say Bin Ladin never worked for the C.I.A. he didn't even work along side them. however he did fight with the taliban funding them as well with the pre northern aliance groups fighting russia. as for invading foreign countries we only (so far) have over thrown despotic govts who have committed genocide. i don't pride myself on being a humanitarian but they are destroying human resources which can be used to help get these countries out of third world status and closer to what the western world enjoys (excluding culture, they can do what they want about that).

Actualy when Russia invaded Afganistand in the late 80's i believe it was 1989 to be exact, the CIA did hired and Trained Bin Laden to help the United States fight Russia who had invaded Afganistan and force then out which they did

Bin Laden: the CIA’s Frankenstein
The New York Times (9/14) published an extensive article by Middle East expert Judith Miller, titled "Bin Laden: Child of Privilege Who Champions Holy War." While it is no secret that Bin Laden was a creature of the U.S. intelligence services, Ms. Miller merely smoothes it over by saying, "…the U.S. had worked ‘alongside’ him to help oust the Russians from Afghanistan…" The U.S. "work" poured in $2 billion!

If anyone is to blame for the terrorist activities of Bin Laden, it’s the CIA.

First, let’s understand why Bin Laden and the U.S. bosses are now enemies. Although it is posed as a "holy war," it is basically over the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden represents a section of the Saudi ruling class (from which he comes from) who wants full control of the oil, instead of sharing with Exxon-Mobil. The U.S. bosses know if they lose Saudi Arabia, the way they lost Iraq, they won’t have control of the cheapest and biggest oil producers in the world. Without this control. U.S. imperialist supremacy is in serious question.

CIA Trained Bin Laden to Wage Anti-Communist Holy War
In 1979, Bin Laden, who inherited a $300 million fortune from his father (accumulated from construction work for the Royal Saudi family), decided to abandon his former life of luxury and dedicate himself to "fight communism." When the Soviet army entered Afghanistan to support a pro-Moscow government there, Bin Laden was recruited by the CIA to become the "financier" of the anti-Soviet "holy war."

In 1986, William Casey, CIA chief under Reagan, approved an old proposal by the Pakistani intelligence services to recruit Islamic fundamentalists worldwide to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. While the Pakistanis did the recruiting, Saudi Arabia provided money and the U.S. gave political support and "funneled more than $2 billion in guns and money…during the 1980s. It was the largest covert action program since World War II (Washington Post, 7/19/92).

Soon, 35,000 fundamentalists came to fight alongside the Afghani holy warriors. Sylvester Stallone’s Rambo III (1988) was based on this CIA vision of the world: then the "good" guys were the Bin Laden "holy warriors" fighting the "evil communist" Soviet empire.

Bin Laden and his followers learned all their tricks from the master terrorists: the CIA. "It was the CIA which taught him how to be bold…It was also the CIA which taught him the tricks of a secret war: how to move money around using ghost companies and off shore fiscal paradises, how to prepare explosives, how to use coded messages to communicate with his agents and avoid detection, how to retreat into a safe base after a big blow to the enemy…"(El Pais, Madrid, 9/14).

[mkemse]

I firmly believe that in the United States we need a very clear a division between Relgion and Politics and not involve 1 with the other

[icey]

You haven't looked very hard then. Personally I believe that many of our problems are caused by not allowing God into our public schools or other areas of our daily lives any longer.
they get it pushed down their throats over here! but they cover all religions, to make it fair i guess.



Religion is a terrible subject to try to argue about because no one is ever going to convince anyone else of their beliefs.
im with you on this one,Icehawk and myself have had so many arguements over it and neither of us has managed to come to any agreement over it lol

regarding politics i dont have a clue especially USA politics, but what i do know is that every war is brought about through religion and every antiquated law is also from back in the days when the christian church ruled supreme and look what a mess they made then!

[Moonraker]

First, let’s understand why Bin Laden and the U.S. bosses are now enemies. Although it is posed as a "holy war," it is basically over the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden represents a section of the Saudi ruling class (from which he comes from) who wants full control of the oil, instead of sharing with Exxon-Mobil.

Many people hold the view that OBL's real enemy is the Saudi royal family. He has personal scores to settle and preaches they are not fit to be defenders of the faith and custodians of the holy mosques since they allowed the "infidel" american army into the kingdoms. Aside from American presence and perceived interference in Islamic countries, his gripe with the USA is its staunch support of the House of Saud which allows them to keep their hold on power.

[fetishdj]

Its not Christians that are scary, its a particular flavour of Christian - the extreme fundamentalist version of the Baptist denomination that Bush in involved with. The people who believe that creationism should be taught as if it were a science in schools and many other things...

The majority of Christians are more sensible than this.

[GearJammer]

is it realy safe to have christians run the world ( george bush ) they dont care about the planet because they belive it will all end in fire so, screwing the world up is ok dump shit anywhere, destory forests, rape the world for all it has got because at the end of the day they are going to heaven because they pray and well if they start the end of the world by pressing the big red button, all the better they are saving god the job , lol go christians

If they believed what you assign their beliefs to be, then you should be scared. First, you should learn what they REALLY believe. THEN, decide whether it is scary or not.

[Wind_Walker25]

If they believed what you assign their beliefs to be, then you should be scared. First, you should learn what they REALLY believe. THEN, decide whether it is scary or not.

I agree! And in the USA no war was start over religion, well Maybe 9/11 was started by one.
as for seperation of church and state. that was to protect the Church from the State..

[mkemse]

Its not Christians that are scary, its a particular flavour of Christian - the extreme fundamentalist version of the Baptist denomination that Bush in involved with. The people who believe that creationism should be taught as if it were a science in schools and many other things...

The majority of Christians are more sensible than this.

Thank you I agree

[TomOfSweden]

is it realy safe to have christians run the world ( george bush ) they dont care about the planet because they belive it will all end in fire so, screwing the world up is ok dump shit anywhere, destory forests, rape the world for all it has got because at the end of the day they are going to heaven because they pray and well if they start the end of the world by pressing the big red button, all the better they are saving god the job , lol go christians

Daniel Dennett pointed out that George Bush and virtually all Christians don't really have faith in God. They have faith in faith. They have faith in that being Christian is good for the world. But they don't really have faith in all the supernatural stuff.

According to most Christian interpretations of the various Bibles this life is only about gathering brownie points for the next. So why doesn't sell all their stuff and go to India like mother Theresa and help the poor? Why bother making a career in a company? Why bother trying to become the president in USA? Why bother making this life comfortable at all? This life is just a short interlude before the real life, which obviously will be so much better and go on for so much longer. Our short little time here, hardly compares to eternity, does it?

I'm sure a lot of Christians have guilt about not having this kind of strong faith, which confusing enough has become an intrinsic part of Christian culture.

There are many philosophical and psychological theories on why people are Christian in spite of this, so I won't go into details. But I think Nietzsche's is a compelling one.

...and then we've got Foucault's theory that all of us in the west are Christians anyway, no matter how atheist we claim we are. He claims that Christianity is a lot deeper than just faith. He thinks it's an entire system to view and understand the world with we cannot shed without replacing it with something else first. I'm inclined to believe this to. I think it'll be many generations before we realize what it really means to be atheist.

My long winded point is that I don't think that Bush has faith in his invisible friend. He is first and foremost guided by reality. I just think he uses "God" to make him feel better about taking decisions which break his sense of morality... ie because that's what he convinces himself God wants. Atheists in power will still need to make uncomfortable decisions. I think the end result will be the same.

And isn't all democracies really ruled by surveys anyway? Is it really relevant who sits at the wheel?

edit: I don't worry about religion anymore. All research shows that religion since the enlightenment has been slowly dying out. I think the death of God is inevitable. Today it's the educated and young who reject God. And people aren't getting less educated. And if Foucault is right, even Christians today are equally guilty of promoting this shift away from the Christian paradigm of thought. Chances are pretty good that in the future we'll still have Christians, but their faith will be so radically changed that nobody will recognize it. Christianity never stopped evolving. Christian philosophy is an ever changing project.

[fetishdj]

I agree! And in the USA no war was start over religion, well Maybe 9/11 was started by one.
as for seperation of church and state. that was to protect the Church from the State..

Nope, 9/11 was not over religion despite what many (muslim and christian alike) would claim. It was about money and power and control - all three of which can be gained through religion but in this case the religion was just an excuse. This is the main reason why organised religion is something I do not trust while supporting personal faith and spirituality.

My personal opinion is this: I have nothing against any religion, you are free to beleive whatever you wish so long as you do not try to convince me that your way is the 'one true way'. Extreme dogmatism is, to my mind, wrong (one of the reasons I did not become a Catholic). I respect a healthy, open mind with regards to religion - an ability to question your faith and test it against all odds. Some protestant groups encourage this behaviour - interpretation of the bible in your own way not the way your preacher/priest tells you to interpret it. Others are insistent that their way is right and every one else is wrong.

[John56{vg}]

I agree! And in the USA no war was start over religion, well Maybe 9/11 was started by one.
as for seperation of church and state. that was to protect the Church from the State..

I respectfully disagree with this assumption. This is one of the lies that the Christian Fundamentalist right has assigned to the U.S. The other one being that the U.S. was established as a Christian nation. It was not. Most of the founders of the nation were very secular and wanted to create a nation where ALL religions could feel comfortable and would belong.

At the time of the forming of this nation and for hundreds of years before, the ruling monarchy decided what religion his or her subjects followed, including, of course, England. And religion was a political tool of the government. The founders of this nation wanted to create a nation where religion was never used as this tool and all people could worship as they chose.

What the fundamentalist Christian right wants to create is the same thing that has been created in nations such as the Taliban created in Afghanistan, or as Atheism was used in the former Soviet Union. So they spread the lies that this is a Christian nation, it was not seen as such by the founders, not at all.

The separation between church and state was established to protect the PEOPLE from Monarchic and Theocratic tyranny much more than to protect a church. Fundamentalist leaders love to change history and obfuscate science for their own aims.

[TomOfSweden]

I think very few wars are started because of religion. Even the Crusades were started because of Byzantinian political reasons. As soon as you start looking under the hood, religious convictions don't seem to weigh that heavy. They're often used as an excuse. But that doesn't hve to mean anything.

[goalt]

I'm not responding the rest of the thread, just voicing my thoughts.

Having religious people in power does not necessarily scare me. It is possibly to be perfectly reasonable and religious. I might worry a little about what sort of decisions a strongly religious person might make, given that they already (in my view) accept illogical ideas, but that is not significant; it is possible to be reasonable and religious. However, I am scared by fundamentalists holding a position of power. Many of these people demonstrate a shocking disregard for human rights and for the enviroment. I do not want somebody in power who believes this world doesn't matter because the "Second Coming" is right around the corner. Nor do I want somebody in power who will use their personal beliefs as justification for discrimination. Nor do I want somebody in power who will try to replace science with their beliefs.

[mkemse]

I'm not responding the rest of the thread, just voicing my thoughts.

Having religious people in power does not necessarily scare me. It is possibly to be perfectly reasonable and religious. I might worry a little about what sort of decisions a strongly religious person might make, given that they already (in my view) accept illogical ideas, but that is not significant; it is possible to be reasonable and religious. However, I am scared by fundamentalists holding a position of power. Many of these people demonstrate a shocking disregard for human rights and for the enviroment. I do not want somebody in power who believes this world doesn't matter because the "Second Coming" is right around the corner. Nor do I want somebody in power who will use their personal beliefs as justification for discrimination. Nor do I want somebody in power who will try to replace science with their beliefs.

I firmly believe that a lot or most of the decsions that the current United States Adminstration makes are in fact based on Religious beliefs, plus the current ADm, made it celar from the begining, that they want to give granrts and donations to "Faith Based Groups" if this is not religious beliefs wouls somewone please clearify to me what a "Faith Based" group is, this has been evidenced for example by them Vetoing Stem Cell Reasearch when even poeple like Nancy Regean suport it for Scientic reasons i believe it was vetoed because the Religious Right supports the Current Adm. they are oppsed to it and the Adm, does not want to loose it's suport, even JohnMcCain supports, Arnold Schwarzenegger among other Republicans support Stem Cell research, this is just 1 example, i will not list others

[fetishdj]

The separation between church and state was established to protect the PEOPLE from Monarchic and Theocratic tyranny much more than to protect a church. Fundamentalist leaders love to change history and obfuscate science for their own aims.

And ironically, the seperation of church and state in England is far more pronounced now than it currently seems in America (though this is merely my personal observation from way over the pond here :) ). I have heard tales of laws being passed because they satisfy the beliefs of a particular faith (laws against contraception in some states, for example) whereas here that sort of thing would never be allowed to happen.

As an aside, I do have my own opinions on the historical imperative of countries formed by revolution...

[Thorne]

And ironically, the seperation of church and state in England is far more pronounced now than it currently seems in America (though this is merely my personal observation from way over the pond here :) ). I have heard tales of laws being passed because they satisfy the beliefs of a particular faith (laws against contraception in some states, for example) whereas here that sort of thing would never be allowed to happen.

I've never heard of any states passing laws against contraception and a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about that. In fact, most state governments promote contraception (through the use of condoms, at least) as a means of protecting against the spread of STD's. It is possible that some states have banned DISCUSSION of contraception in public schools, simply because it brings up that awful specter of sex to our wondrously pure children. But I don't believe an actual ban would get past the Supreme Court. At least not as it stands now.



As an aside, I do have my own opinions on the historical imperative of countries formed by revolution...
I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY country that didn't undergo SOME form of revolution in their past. Even when those revolutions fail they tend to have a pronounced influence on the country. Yes, even England.:)

[John56{vg}]

And ironically, the seperation of church and state in England is far more pronounced now than it currently seems in America (though this is merely my personal observation from way over the pond here :) ). I have heard tales of laws being passed because they satisfy the beliefs of a particular faith (laws against contraception in some states, for example) whereas here that sort of thing would never be allowed to happen.

As an aside, I do have my own opinions on the historical imperative of countries formed by revolution...

I agree with you. And in England and other parts of the world the public is knowledgable enough to believe in evolution. The current U.S. administration has funded Abstinence only and faith-based sex ed (meaning NO sex ed) programs and now the incidences of STDs are way up with teen young women here. It is sad and disheartening.

The U.S. is having a major problem with keeping religion out of the political arena. I just hope we can stem the tide. Of course the administration is not well-known for holding ANY of our Bill of Rights as sacred.

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them.

[John56{vg}]

I've never heard of any states passing laws against contraception and a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about that. In fact, most state governments promote contraception (through the use of condoms, at least) as a means of protecting against the spread of STD's. It is possible that some states have banned DISCUSSION of contraception in public schools, simply because it brings up that awful specter of sex to our wondrously pure children. But I don't believe an actual ban would get past the Supreme Court. At least not as it stands now.



I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY country that didn't undergo SOME form of revolution in their past. Even when those revolutions fail they tend to have a pronounced influence on the country. Yes, even England.:)

No probably no bans of contraception. But the Abstinence programs spread known misinformation about them. Most tell participants that condoms do not work. And, as I mentioned above, now we have a pronounced increase in STDs for young teens. SARCASM: Another major success for the administration in power and the religious right.

[mkemse]

I agree with you. And in England and other parts of the world the public is knowledgable enough to believe in evolution. The current U.S. administration has funded Abstinence only and faith-based sex ed (meaning NO sex ed) programs and now the incidences of STDs are way up with teen young women here. It is sad and disheartening.

The U.S. is having a major problem with keeping religion out of the political arena. I just hope we can stem the tide. Of course the administration is not well-known for holding ANY of our Bill of Rights as sacred.

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them.

I agree the current Adm. seems to do what ever suits them, wther it is in the interest of our Citizens or not but Nov is coming soon, and hopefull a long needed change after 7 1/2 years

[ck10019]

I think religion along with history is the "propoganda of the victorious". Saddest thing is that the people have far less influence on their government then ever before.

The primary agenda, for the U.S. and a few other top countries, is world hegemony. This is what they DON'T want you to discuss. We don't discuss the concern of shifting of global power, how to control economic upstarts (like China, India, etc.), how to control resources (like oil, land, trade policies and weaponry). Issues such as these are discussed and decided, not by the people, but behind conference room doors, whereas, issues like birth control and religious movements are front page news.

In conclusion, Christians don't scare me as much as the neo-conservative group, Project for the New American Century.

Here's a few links, if anyone's interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pnac
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[FairyTale]

More brains than religion (atheism included) - good.
Less brains than religion - bad.

[Moonraker]

I majored in History at school and I remember my teacher saying no war was over religion. The classroom challenged him and in every case we came up with he showed that politics or profit were the true motives. Cloaking the real motives with religion makes war more acceptable to people and more willing to fight. You may be willing to die for God and a heavenly reward but would you die to make somebody richer? There is a great scene in movie Braveheart when the Scotish soldiers see the size of the English army doubt sets in:

Young soldier: I didn't come here to fight so they can own more lands; then I have to work for them.
Veteran soldier: Nor me. Alright lads. I'm not dying for these bastards! Lets go home.

But when Wallace appealed to a higher motive, nationalism, they stayed and fought. Religion, like nationalism is just a motivator for the masses. Incidentally for those soldiers it didn't really matter who won, English or Scots, they would still be "working" just a different nobleman owning the land.

[Moonraker]

I've never heard of any states passing laws against contraception and a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about that.

Contraceptives were illegal in Ireland until 1978 in accordance with a Papal Encyclical, entitled "Humanae Vitae" which banned artificial contraception. “Unnatural” contraception and the promotion of such was illegal and could lead to prosecution under the 1935 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.

[mkemse]

I've never heard of any states passing laws against contraception and a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about that. In fact, most state governments promote contraception (through the use of condoms, at least) as a means of protecting against the spread of STD's. It is possible that some states have banned DISCUSSION of contraception in public schools, simply because it brings up that awful specter of sex to our wondrously pure children. But I don't believe an actual ban would get past the Supreme Court. At least not as it stands now.



I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY country that didn't undergo SOME form of revolution in their past. Even when those revolutions fail they tend to have a pronounced influence on the country. Yes, even England.:)

Thorne,

I agree, I beleve it was a mandate by the Church and not a State Laws to prohibit Condom use, please correct me if i am wrong

[Thorne]

Contraceptives were illegal in Ireland until 1978 in accordance with a Papal Encyclical, entitled "Humanae Vitae" which banned artificial contraception. “Unnatural” contraception and the promotion of such was illegal and could lead to prosecution under the 1935 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.

Yeah, I can believe it, but that's not part of the US, which is what I was referring to. Nations, on the other hand, HAVE, and some still DO, criminalize contraception. But I would be willing to bet that in every case there is a religious proscription behind the law, as in the Encyclical you mention.

[Thorne]

Thorne,

I agree, I beleve it was a mandate by the Church and not a State Laws to prohibit Condom use, please correct me if i am wrong

I haven't done much research on this, so I'm mostly doing some guesswork here, but I would venture to say that any laws restricting the use of condoms were instigated by church mandates.

[silver9]

I think that to have religion dominating a country is both bad a good, and it all depends on what the religion is doing really.

Like here in England, there is a Christian basing in our laws and this has helped shape our country into being one of the best places to live and work, with good benefits and free health care and schools etc.
Yet things such as Sharia Law are, in my opinion, very damaging, as it subjugates women to a level that should never happen; with raped women being stoned to death for adultery; and the same goes for hard-line Christians in the South of America, where their beliefs are so fundamental they justify the most disgusting behavior

However, I think that when these religions create systems that are evil and wrong - it is not in the original intention of the God they worship.

'Christians' such a Bush may be destroying the planet, but that is totally against the teachings of the Bible; he should be a 'steward' of the Earth and protect it and all the animals on it, not hurt them and damage the environment; and though there is debate over the amount that war and death is condoned in the Bible, I still believe that it does not agree with going to war over such things like Oil and for more money.

Also, wars have rarely been fought over religion, it is normally a mask for something political or economic, and saying it is done for religious reasons is purely a justification and an excuse.

Christians, like everyone else, can be very good people, and just because there are a lot of people setting a bad example for the religion, it does not mean they are right in any way or following their religion as it was meant to be.

[MsCream]

Well I am a christian but not like the ones you find in the churchs,I pray to god and trust him but I still do my own things.I try my best to help by doing good things and not making things even worse.I think of myself as a christian but a different kind of one,one that has an open mind too life.I look at it like this "TO EACH HIS OWN"

[icey]

I majored in History at school and I remember my teacher saying no war was over religion. The classroom challenged him and in every case we came up with he showed that politics or profit were the true motives.

and in every case in history its shown that the church reigned over both money and politics and even ruled the monarchs.

regarding the laws in Ireland until the late 1970's which isnt all that long ago, who decreed contraception was wrong and made sure it was illegal all those years? the catholic church.
luckily religion doesnt have quite the same power in politics now but it still has a hell of a lot of sway and my guess is it always will do.

[Thorne]

and in every case in history its shown that the church reigned over both money and politics and even ruled the monarchs.

regarding the laws in Ireland until the late 1970's which isnt all that long ago, who decreed contraception was wrong and made sure it was illegal all those years? the catholic church.
luckily religion doesnt have quite the same power in politics now but it still has a hell of a lot of sway and my guess is it always will do.

It will, as long as people are willing to pay their hard earned money to support a church which is very reluctant to give it back. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Catholic churches around the world which are struggling to keep their heads above water, with priests who are truly concerned about the welfare of their parishioners. Yet the Vatican, the Catholic Church, is one of the wealthiest entities on the planet. And that is where they get their power from.

If the people would insist that their donations to the church STAY with their church, and not go to line the cassocks of every red hat in Rome, they would be a lot better off, and so would the rest of the world.

[mkemse]

It will, as long as people are willing to pay their hard earned money to support a church which is very reluctant to give it back. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Catholic churches around the world which are struggling to keep their heads above water, with priests who are truly concerned about the welfare of their parishioners. Yet the Vatican, the Catholic Church, is one of the wealthiest entities on the planet. And that is where they get their power from.

If the people would insist that their donations to the church STAY with their church, and not go to line the cassocks of every red hat in Rome, they would be a lot better off, and so would the rest of the world.

Or take away their Tax Exempt Status, that would change things

[TomOfSweden]

I was at a wedding yesterday when I started to think of this thread. It was a Baptist Church wedding. It scared me on a purely emotional level. One thing is to understand the Christian God theory on paper and have intellectual discussions about it. But I see myself as a fairly open minded kind of guy... but that really freaked me out.

The freakiest thing was that the priest was talking about God like a person. Not like the creator of the universe and creator of all rules and boundaries. It was as if God was going to come and help them over-come difficulties, as if those difficulties weren't put in place by God to begin with. An omnipotent being is responsible for everything... Anyhoo. He wasn't talking about the Christian God... he was talking about Superman.

It got better since I was placed right next to the priest at the dinner and we had a great time. He was a great guy and a super sport. We got him to wear his neck thingy as a head-band. He did remove it the second a camera came up. He "didn't want his congregation to see that picture on the Internet". I thought it was funny. Anyway... I established that this guy was totally anti-intellectual. He had no fucking clue. He didn't give a rats ass about logical consistency. He just didn't worry about it. He just wanted to feel good and find meaning in life. Now that is scary. If we replace reason with pure emotional satisfaction, we've removed all morality. We can justify anything with our faith.

But this being a Baptist wedding didn't prevent it from being a kick-ass party. One of the best parties I've ever been to. Now I'm a bit hung over :starwars: and resting will commence.

[Thorne]

If we replace reason with pure emotional satisfaction, we've removed all morality. We can justify anything with our faith.

But this being a Baptist wedding didn't prevent it from being a kick-ass party. One of the best parties I've ever been to. Now I'm a bit hung over and resting will commence.

It is scary. But not at all surprising. After all, the whole purpose of religion, other than to give preachers a relatively cushy job, is to make people feel better about their poor lot in life so they don't revolt against those in power.

But those must have been Swedish Baptists, Tom. Here in the southern US, you'd be hard pressed to find any alcohol at a wedding.

[Ownedfyre (mm1)]

OMG! Thorne, that was just so funny I laughed out loud. It is so true too!!!! Even at family reunions!

[TomOfSweden]

It is scary. But not at all surprising. After all, the whole purpose of religion, other than to give preachers a relatively cushy job, is to make people feel better about their poor lot in life so they don't revolt against those in power.


I doubt being a priest in Sweden is a cushy job, and since there's hardly any religious people in Sweden... they're hardly a threat to anybody in power. Nah... that's not it.

I actually liked him a lot. I got a total BDSM-master vibe from him. He was a born dominant. I think he sincerely enjoys being worshipped and being "gods instrument" on earth. After all God and the entire church is nothing but a massive fetish (in the religious sense of course and not in the hanky panky way you are thinking I meant).

I have no doubt in my mind he actually loves his congregation and cares deeply about people around him. I got total honest love vibes from that guy. I think his heart was pure. He just wasn't a particularly deep fellow.

I saw the ceremony as nothing but a massive D/s sex orgy... but with clothes on. I mean... the couple had to get on their fucking knees to get the blessing from God.... having their eyes in the priests crotch height. And he was speaking about God and Jesus just like people speak about their boyfriends. It was like a love song to Jesus.

But then again... without Christian religious ceremonies having overly sexual connotations I doubt it would have been able to replace paganism. So I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised.

Maybe that is the secret of Christianity. It made all sex outside the marriage and outside the church illegal. (as was encouraged in Paganism), as a method to become more popular. I mean... we all know that most people like to have their sex strongly regulated ;) The existence of this site is proof of that. Anyhoo... it's a theory.



But those must have been Swedish Baptists, Tom. Here in the southern US, you'd be hard pressed to find any alcohol at a wedding.

I think it's a result of religion being so marginalised. Priests here have to adapt and be more like people in general if they are to have any hope of attracting people to the churches. There's plenty of churches in Sweden with no active congregation at all. They get converted into fancy houses for the rich.

[MMI]

I'm puzzled by the statement that the separation of Church and State is more pronounced in England than in USA. In England, the Church of England is the Established Church. It is the "national church" if you like to put it that way. In Scotland, the Church of Scotland is the Established Church. (They are not the same thing under different names, btw. CofE is simpy a rebel offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church while the CofS is anti-Catholic, Presbyterian and non-episcopalian.)

The Queen is head of both Churches - she changes her religion as she moves back and forth over the border. The Prime Minister, whatever his religion (or even if none), has the power to appoint bishops to the Church of England.
So Church and State remain inextricably linked over here. They will remain that way because they are both very wealthy organisations, and this wealth has to stay in the "right" hands.

The trouble is, hardly anyone goes to Church nowadays. A handful of old ladies and a sprinkling of people who are choir members or organists or have some other reason for going. No-one gives a tuppenny damn who the Archbishop of York is these days, even if he has been brought all the way over from Africa.

Interestingly, because of the EU's "open borders" policies, thousands of Polish people have come over to the UK to have babies or to work as plumbers and as a result, there are now more Roman Catholics in the country than there are Anglicans (CofE). The Established Church is a minority religion, therefore! (My brother-in-law is a plumber of Polish descent, so maybe I shouldn't knock it!)

So, although Church and State remain linked, and will for the foreseeable future, the people, all disillusioned by religion and politics, are becoming increasingly detached from the Establishment.

(My answer to the original question, by the way, is that ALL politicians are scary, whether they have a religion or not. There's not one I would trust; not one I would endorse with my vote. It's far too valuable to give away to the likes of them.)

[bellelapine]

While the US was founded by primary secularists, you will never hear any of the extremist Christians (this includes the moral majority and a fair amount of the American Evangelicals) admit that. These are the people who earnestly believe the bible is written literal history and often then misinterpet the meanings of the passages.
I was actually quite shocked to find that a lot of the members of the administration of the US open the bible for "guidance" instead of looking at the consequences and information they have been given. To use a book to help you make a decision instead of basing it on reality and facts, is frankly disturbing.
The seperation of Church and State was meant to save the Church from the political arena, and the people from the Church. It was meant to be a choice, hence Freedom of Religion, which can mean (contrary to popular belief) freedom from religion. I personally was hopeful that the US would move away from supremely conservative Christianity, however with the implimentation of "Abstinence Only", the increased focus on marriage being only between a man and woman (woman being the primary baby makers), and the ridiculous blocks on advancement in medicine due to so called ethical disapproval (I'm all for people who want to have abortions donating the fetus to science for stem cell research)...it looks like the US has devolved into an almost dark ages, rip van winkle mindset.
If you are pagan, athiest, believe a man and man or a woman and a woman can get married, are pro choice, or are what the Christians consider a sexual deviant you become an outcast in a sense. People have become afraid of what they don't understand instead of moving forward to become educated about it.
I hope the US can overcome this plateau of intellectualism before it turns into "Idiocracy".

[Tufty]

Maybe not the right place to post this, but the thread heading caught my eye after reading this in our local Newspaper:


A SECOND drug addict has won his freedom by impressing a Christian from a small local church.

*********, 28, made death threats with an eight-inch knife, then ten minutes after police released him from custody, pointed a gun at two eyewitnesses and threatened to kill them, the Crown Court heard.

Last November, **********, 29, appeared before magistrates for stealing from the till of the shop where he was assistant manager.

Today, both are free men after a man known as Bishop Stephen Robson or Father Stephen Robson, of the British Eparchy of the Celtic Orthodox Church, intervened on their behalf.

I know one of these men and, believe me, he would have no hesitation in slitting your throat just for looking at him in the 'wrong way!'

It's so nice to know that our Christian neighbours are helping to empty our overcrowded prisons and put these 'reformed' characters back onto the streets.

[ObjectivistActivist]

Well, obviously, the less value a person has the more they deserve help, and good will. I'm totally unsurprised by this happening. Sickened, but unsurprised.

[denuseri]

thier is a thin line , or at least since the late 1700's between church and state, its no wonder the two are so tied to each other, the main problem isnt in the religious system, its in the people practicing a given system, moral guildlines are sorta nessesary to a well ordered society erst we live in a state of constant warefare, yet overregulation is bad, truth be told people will find a way to do as they will regaurdless, no church or goverment rules anybody more than they allow them to do so, choice allways exists even if that choice is to die in resistence as opposed to kneeling in submission, eventually i hope the whole planet and or our species will grow the frak up and stop telling each other what to do or believe,,

[mkemse]

eventually i hope the whole planet and or our species will grow the frak up and stop telling each other what to do or believe,,

I agree let people believe in what they want andwho what they want individualy and leave them alone

[Tufty]

eventually i hope the whole planet and or our species will grow the frak up and stop telling each other what to do or believe,,

I agree let people believe in what they want andwho what they want individualy and leave them alone

I agree 100%

[ObjectivistActivist]

thier is a thin line , or at least since the late 1700's between church and state, its no wonder the two are so tied to each other, the main problem isnt in the religious system, its in the people practicing a given system, moral guildlines are sorta nessesary to a well ordered society erst we live in a state of constant warefare, yet overregulation is bad, truth be told people will find a way to do as they will regaurdless, no church or goverment rules anybody more than they allow them to do so, choice allways exists even if that choice is to die in resistence as opposed to kneeling in submission, eventually i hope the whole planet and or our species will grow the frak up and stop telling each other what to do or believe,,

Morality is entirely possible and, in fact, preferable without it hinging on the existence of the supernatural.

[denuseri]

however much many may wish to debate the supernatural ,,thats the place where religion and philosophy differ, an even thinner line by some peoples standards, belief vs knowledge is a long time delima, moral perptitude and belief systems based in faith of supernatural kind are linked from the beginnings of human history as far as we can tell arceologically speaking, it wasnt until quiet recently that humanity has begun to accept a completely self motivated morality system, though in actual practice, what we say and do is just as important as what we think about doing and or as we do,,as far as a hindge upon which to swing, preferability is in the eye of the beholder, perspective is a very important aspect conserning the desireablility of one moral system vs another, for instance some may say my comments are adversarial, while others may precive them as conciliatory,

[MissElizabeth87]

As a Christian, I believe that I should be trying to take care of the earth... not destroy it. Christians aren't perfect just because they have a belief system. It's not fair to say that just because someone is an atheist and doesn't believe their actions have eternal consequences, they're allowed to screw up... but a Christian who does believe their actions have eternal consequences is not allowed to make mistakes. Being a Christian doesn't make anyone less or more human.

Anyways... I'm just sayin... That's not really a fair statement. I know quite a few non-Christians who believe Global warming is a bunch of crud and aren't environmentally concerned.

And another side note: George W. Bush does NOT represent all Christians, kay?

[Rational Head]

every single theist irrespective of his religious stream, be it monotheistic islam and christianity or sikhism or polythiestic hellenism or paganistic patheistic Hinduism and Jainism or agnostic budhism, is a serious danger against humanity.
Anyways, that is a different issue, going a little away from the original thread discussion going on, I have a list of some ten questions which every *intelligent theist should try to answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related
Enjoy the questionaire.

[Alex Bragi]

every single theist irrespective of his religious stream, be it monotheistic islam and christianity or sikhism or polythiestic hellenism or paganistic patheistic Hinduism and Jainism or agnostic budhism, is a serious danger against humanity.
Anyways, that is a different issue, going a little away from the original thread discussion going on, I have a list of some ten questions which every *intelligent theist should try to answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related
Enjoy the questionaire.


Well, I think that link is simply atheist propaganda. No, I don’t have the answers to those very perplexing questions. But, of course, answers aren't what atheist are looking for when they ask them, are they?

On the flip side can an atheist really fully explain faith healing, how the universe began and how it will end (e.i. infinity), exactly what happens to our energy when it leaves our bodies, and all those other unanswered questions?

What always intrigues with these kinds of discussions/debates is that the very thing theists and atheists have in common is they’re dogged believe that they are so right and the other side is so wrong.

[Thorne]

Well, I think that link is simply atheist propaganda. No, I don’t have the answers to those very perplexing questions. But, of course, answers aren't what atheist are looking for when they ask them, are they?
I agree with you here, Alex. The "conclusions" arrived at by the narrator there were as fallacious and idiotic as those of the religions he was mocking. You could just as easily replace his "God is imaginary" argument with, "God is an iguana: he likes bugs, not people!"


On the flip side can an atheist really fully explain faith healing, how the universe began and how it will end (e.i. infinity), exactly what happens to our energy when it leaves our bodies, and all those other unanswered questions?
Growing up Roman Catholic I was always told the God is infinite, no beginning and no end. A nice, simple way to avoid figuring out where he came from in my mind. But if God can be infinite, why can't the universe? Why does it have to have a beginning and an end?


What always intrigues with these kinds of discussions/debates is that the very thing theists and atheists have in common is they’re dogged believe that they are so right and the other side is so wrong.
Exactly! These hard-core atheists are as dogged and dogmatic in their disbelief as the theists are in their belief! It's just religion in another guise.

[John56{vg}]

To me Christians are not the problem, Fundamentalism is the problem. Dogmatic, never-swaying, fanatical fundamentalism.

Atheists can be as dogmatic and fundamentalist as a Muslim Mullah or a rabid Teleevangelist.

I consider myself a Christian in that I follow Christ's overriding teachings. Treat your neighbor as yourself, GOd is LOVE, etc. But fundamentalists believe they hold ALL the answers and they want you to hold those answers as well to validate them. If you don't you are inferior and not worthy and somehow damaged.

I also believe in spirits, because I have experienced them. I don't know how they operate, but I believe in my eyes and experiences.

Christians don't scare me, Fundamentalists of all stripes, DO.

:-)

[MissElizabeth87]

Thorne:

just religion in another guise.


I have been saying this for years!!!

And I totally agree... fundamentalists are scary, no matter what religion they are. This is how we get Islamic Terrorists, and crazy idiots like the "christians" who are on TV all the time making such bad names for the rest of us.

[TomOfSweden]

On the flip side can an atheist really fully explain faith healing, how the universe began and how it will end (e.i. infinity), exactly what happens to our energy when it leaves our bodies, and all those other unanswered questions?

What always intrigues with these kinds of discussions/debates is that the very thing theists and atheists have in common is they’re dogged believe that they are so right and the other side is so wrong.

I think you've fallen into the Creationist trap. Creationist debates tend to slide into whether or not atheism is just another religious faith and reduce it to that. As if it is two different sides debating meta-physics.

The difference is that atheism doesn't make claims of the sort and can't. It's not what atheism is. Atheism is simply the rejection of one particular religious theory. Usually Christianity in these western parts. A Christian is per definition an atheist as far as Islam is concerned. Atheism is as much a religion as not playing tennis is a sport.

But let's say atheism gets to represent the rejection of all religions. It's a huge leap to say that an atheist by default prays at the altar of science. Believing in specific scientific theories is a question of faith, and accepting scientific evidence above other types of evidence is very much a question of faith. There's no breaking the atheistic creed by believing in faith healing, unicorns and the theory of relativity... all at the same time. That's not what it means. Atheists can quite cheerfully reject both religion and all science.

But let's go along even with this. Let's for sake of argument say that being an atheist means that one thinks science is the measure of all truth. I doubt many atheists would agree, but just for the sake of it, let's do it. How does the fact that they can't explain faith healing or the origins of our universe give an ounce of credibility to any non-scientific theory? Stuff we don't know... we don't know. We can't really say anything more than that.

I hope I've managed to kill off any ideas of that atheism and theism are some kinds of binary sides to chose between. It's much more complicated than that. There's either belief systems which have complete theories of everything, (religious or not) and belief systems that accept that we don't know everything to draw such conclusions, (religious or not).

Discussions like this tend to limp along where theists and atheists attack the dumbest and most superficial ideas from each group and both sides think the other is missing the point. Those discussions doesn't go anywhere and are hardly helpful. Please guys, lets avoid it. Discussions like this always need to get broken down into specific discreet areas. Like, did Johnsson's kid get better because of a miracle, or was it just chemistry? ...or how do we know the Bible is the word of God?

[hopperboo]

is it realy safe to have christians run the world ( george bush ) they dont care about the planet because they belive it will all end in fire so, screwing the world up is ok dump shit anywhere, destory forests, rape the world for all it has got because at the end of the day they are going to heaven because they pray and well if they start the end of the world by pressing the big red button, all the better they are saving god the job , lol go christians

Lack of sentence formations scare me.

I'm a Christian.

Sometimes Christians scare me too, but any religion when extreme is a dangerous thing. Balance is required in any part of life.

And just for the record I use safe sex when I "rape the world."

But I do throw away batteries. In the trash!