Printable View
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
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!
very true
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
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 othersQuote:
Originally Posted by DOMLORD
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by **D**
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.J
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.
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 didQuote:
Originally Posted by DOMLORD
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).
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
they get it pushed down their throats over here! but they cover all religions, to make it fair i guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943
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 lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.J
I agree! And in the USA no war was start over religion, well Maybe 9/11 was started by one.Quote:
Originally Posted by GearJammer{kuriouspet}
as for seperation of church and state. that was to protect the Church from the State..
Thank you I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by fetishdj
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.J
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wind_Walker25
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wind_Walker25
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.
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.
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 othersQuote:
Originally Posted by goalt
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
As an aside, I do have my own opinions on the historical imperative of countries formed by revolution...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fetishdj
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.:)Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by fetishdj
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
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 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by John56{vg}
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/
More brains than religion (atheism included) - good.
Less brains than religion - bad.