Religion has no part in a democracy or legislation, that's the problem. Separation of church and state is the way it is supposed to be. And I like it here, just hoping it continues to dwindle like it has.
Printable View
Religion has no part in a democracy or legislation, that's the problem. Separation of church and state is the way it is supposed to be. And I like it here, just hoping it continues to dwindle like it has.
Seperation of church and state is true and constant in the government. The people who elect those to government positions though have the right to elect people who represent them in their demographic, and ideaology is part of that. It may dwindle, which is sad, but it will never be a miniority in our lifetime in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
For someone that has talked about how they hate religus intolarence you sure seem intolarent of religion.
In the past even if I disagreed with your POV I thought you could(and usaly did) make a good point.....but in this matter you just come off as angry (Am I the only one reading it that way?)
No, you're not the only one. In fact his insistence that I must be acting from a position of hate further demonstrates his true feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Counts
"Not the way I see it."
You have no insight into why I am taking the position I am. Any conjecture on your part would be purely.....conjecture.
"And no amount of anti-islamic rhetoric will change it either."
Actually I've posted no opinions, unlike yourself. Facts and historical data cannot by definition be anti anything. There are on-line resources to help you with that one if needed.
"As do you with the writing off of almost every account murdering by Christians."
Because the accounts in question have been either exaggerated or improperly laid at the wrong feet.
"I've gave you plenty, you've denied them as defensive actions. But I wouldn't want to admit my God is no better than the rest of them either."
Simply stating historical fact. Religious bias doesn't play into it. Which is why I can calmly debate this issue while "others" tend to become emotional.
"True, but you left something out. Less than 4 percent of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2 percent are regular attenders. I suggest you look at the newest study which states....
* 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".
* 23% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
* 53% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force"."
Not sure where you got your numbers, they look like the Eurobarometer numbers except you inverted two very important ones in your favor, naughty boy....
The actual Eurobarometer numbers:
23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".
53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
23% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".
You do realize this means only 23% are atheist and 76% are theists. A non-traditional belief in a higher power is still a theist.
"Because they have been "officially" announced by the communist gov, big difference."
Exactly, thank you
*"I personally don't see the connection with that survey and the criteria in it having to do with morals, but go ahead and use it.
You keep bringing up these communist countries whose insane leaders need religion to be out of the picture. Of course they are "officially atheist", if I was trying to take over I'd want religion to be done away with too. I never once said anything about an "atheist controlled" gov, its the ppl that I'd rather have atheist/agnostic. The tyranny of the majority here is caused by the Christian majority, it influences legislation all the time. Politicians will do anything to appease the people(majority), but it doesn't represent Agnostics like me. "*
So, you want a theist government and an atheist populace? That can't be right?
Revisit - "Do you even look at your own posts?"
That's pretty biased.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burton13
As a citizen of this democratic nation, I reserve the right to vote for any candidate that closely represents my views.
but your religious views should not dictate the country's moral agenda, is what burton is trying to say.
you guys twist his words and attack him vigorously
and gotch likes to go on bout the quran, but if everything in the quran is to be taken literally, then everything in the bible, including the old testament, should be taken literally, i. e. first child into slavery etc...
"you guys twist his words and attack him vigorously:
Responding is not an attack. Questioning the validity and meaning of statements is not twisting.
"and gotch likes to go on bout the quran, but if everything in the quran is to be taken literally, then everything in the bible, including the old testament, should be taken literally, i. e. first child into slavery etc..."
Absolute hogwash. No two text should ever be bunched together due to someones personal and uninformed views that they are somehow the same.
Each stand alone, are in no way mystically connected.
We must view them for what they are and for what they say. What may be misunderstood here is that I am not completely comfortable with the violence of the Old Testament.
In fact my personal views are that of a completely "New Law". That only the New Testament is of of real importance to me personally. But this debate should not be about personal views. Although you and 13 can't seem to avoid injecting personal prejudices into it.
However, a reading of it does confirm it (the Old Testament) to be a narrative history (as I have said umpteen times) while a reading of the Quran confirms it to be an ongoing directive.
I don't believe it takes an extremely high intelligence level to understand the difference and how the difference could have an effect on the actions of those reading and adhering to the teaching of the text.
If one tells you of past events, no matter how violent, that is not likely to encourage even the most fervent believer to go out an commit like violence.
On the other hand, a religious text such as the Quran which does not read as a historical narrative, but instead issues direct commands for the taking of violent actions by those reading and taking to heart the text can reasonably be assumed to influence a degree of violent behavior.
Again, the difference is exactly the same as a father telling his sons about his service in war and his having killed enemy combatants and that same father instructing his sons to kill anyone who does not believe as they do. Which do you think would have a higher probability to result in violent acts by his sons?
....have we determined who's pissed the furthest yet?