PIT_FACE

True, true, and true.

We could end the whole discussion with that post, But I know we won't. :(
Well summed up. :)

Yes, the main problem that those who are anti religion in general have is generalisation. The worst examples and the extremists are always looked upon as the "true face" of the religion- whether those are Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Sikh, Christian or some other miscellaneous group.
That's not because they have a keen insight, it's because they have an extremely dull one. It is a mark of the very same ignorance they're decrying in others.

The other problem is that religions are looked on as intellectual phenomena: as if by studying their documents and examining the stories and rules within them they can dissect and understand what they are.
Which is of course ridiculous. These institutions are intellectual and political but most of all they are social and cultural. Far too big and nebulous to be understood through the pathetically simple medium of their holy books.

So those are where the two main sources of misunderstanding come from. There are others and they're justified or unjustified to greater or lessor extents.

thanks ozone. yer right though.this shit's NEVER gonna stop. which to an extent is good becuase when people stop talking about things, then people stop understanding things or learning things.but it gets to the point of being arrogant and obnoxious so many times it just makes the whole issue disgusting which DOES make you wanna stop talking about it all together.

Yes, the main problem that those who are anti religion in general have is generalisation. The worst examples and the extremists are always looked upon as the "true face" of the religion- whether those are Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Sikh, Christian or some other miscellaneous group.
That's not because they have a keen insight, it's because they have an extremely dull one. It is a mark of the very same ignorance they're decrying in others.

It's the same problem present in the religious extremists, except where those that are anti-religious base their generalizations on actual people, the religious extremists tend to base their generalizations on some fantasy of how people "must" act if they don't share their views (you can see examples of this on some of the sites kyupol linked to). What makes this worse is that despite what's being said here, religious extremists are far more vocal in the US than those who are anti-religious and thus have a much greater impact on public opinion.

The other problem is that religions are looked on as intellectual phenomena: as if by studying their documents and examining the stories and rules within them they can dissect and understand what they are.

While religions are highly based on social and cultural values, people within the religious organization tend to rationalize those values using their holy books and scriptures. It is the language and terminology they use to define themselves.

PIT_FACE
everyone has their own experience here in life and hey,there's nothing wrong with talking about it with other people. but keep that in mind, everyone has their own eperiences and reasons why they beleive what they do and just becuase it's different then yours doesnt mean these people are idiots.

That's what I think too. Though I think that the idea that people that disagree with you disagree because of ignorance or bad upbringing has perpetuated both sides of the Pro/Anti Religion argument. And yeah, debate of all kinds is helped by both sides actually understanding what they're arguing against, but that's probably expecting a bit much of people which is one of the things that tends to put me off debate in general.

isukun
It's the same problem present in the religious extremists, except where those that are anti-religious base their generalizations on actual people

Neither is an excuse for either. :)

While religions are highly based on social and cultural values, people within the religious organization tend to rationalize those values using their holy books and scriptures. It is the language and terminology they use to define themselves

It's not just "values", they are social and cultural institutions. The understanding and interpretation of the texts is done through a cultural matrix, always. Taken out of that context, analysis is of some value, but not nearly as much as people tend to believe it is.

Mr Lostman
People are equal (rights wise, anyhow). Thoughts are not. Some are good and should be praised. Some are bad and should be looked down upon. Beliefs are not free from criticism.

That idea is utterly ridiculous because it is uninvestigative. It is not as valid as the "big bang" (bit of a misnomer) and evolution, both of which have plenty of evidence going for them. Christianity brings no new knowledege to the table as opposed to science. There is also a lot of moral bullshit and contradictions in your book. (I'm assuming it's your book. Feel free to correct me.) I would be happy to point things out. (No, not just the OT. The NT is just as full of bullshit.)

Actually, there's a lot of propaganda against non-christian beliefs. Just look at American media (older works are more open about it.)

'Human Evolution' is based on largely falsified evidence, including 'skeletons' comprised mostly of plaster, sometimes reconstructed from a SINGLE tooth from an extinct type of pig (Piltdown Man). None of the evolutionists mention that modern human infant skulls were found in the same strata of rock as Afarensis Austalopithicus... fossilized. Then there is the fact that Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate beyond a few thousand years. Using the far more accurate Potassium-Argon dating, you'd be hard pressed to find much that is older that 10,000 years.

Fossilization does not take millions of years. A few years ago, a fossilized modern human foot was found.. wearing a boot made in 1845. It actually has to happen relatively quickly, or the organic material can be lost to simple decomposition.

Then there is the fact that there is no Bone Spike matching the Iridium Anomaly at the K-T boundary. If indeed the dinosaurs were wiped out so suddenly, why does the fossil record show no abnormal rise in the number of specimens n that time frame.

Then there's the 'big bang.' Such a theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the most obvious of all natural laws, and the easiest to prove. The odds of such an origin expressed as a fraction would be a 1 over a 1 with forty thousand zeros to its right. Ask any mathematician if he'd bet on those odds.

So much what what 'science' has done in these areas is very poor science, involving falsified evidence, a lack of objectivity, and often the suppression of evidence contradicting their theories.

But, the media will attack Christianity as 'irrational.' In the book of Job, the Bible describes the earth as being ROUND long before 'scientists' "discovered" this fact. The Koran says the earth is flat, but the media isn't railing on that, are they?

So there is an apparent agenda specifically targeting Christianity.

Do some research, ask some questions.. in fact, ask yourself why you are so quick to accept the 'evidence' presented to you by organizations funded by the same banks and governments that enslave people through debt and taxation...

Evil_Hare
'Human Evolution' is based on largely falsified evidence, including 'skeletons' comprised mostly of plaster, sometimes reconstructed from a SINGLE tooth from an extinct type of pig (Piltdown Man). None of the evolutionists mention that modern human infant skulls were found in the same strata of rock as Afarensis Austalopithicus... fossilized. Then there is the fact that Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate beyond a few thousand years. Using the far more accurate Potassium-Argon dating, you'd be hard pressed to find much that is older that 10,000 years.

Fossilization does not take millions of years. A few years ago, a fossilized modern human foot was found.. wearing a boot made in 1845. It actually has to happen relatively quickly, or the organic material can be lost to simple decomposition.

Then there is the fact that there is no Bone Spike matching the Iridium Anomaly at the K-T boundary. If indeed the dinosaurs were wiped out so suddenly, why does the fossil record show no abnormal rise in the number of specimens n that time frame.

Then there's the 'big bang.' Such a theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the most obvious of all natural laws, and the easiest to prove. The odds of such an origin expressed as a fraction would be a 1 over a 1 with forty thousand zeros to its right. Ask any mathematician if he'd bet on those odds.

So much what what 'science' has done in these areas is very poor science, involving falsified evidence, a lack of objectivity, and often the suppression of evidence contradicting their theories.

But, the media will attack Christianity as 'irrational.' In the book of Job, the Bible describes the earth as being ROUND long before 'scientists' "discovered" this fact. The Koran says the earth is flat, but the media isn't railing on that, are they?

So there is an apparent agenda specifically targeting Christianity.

Do some research, ask some questions.. in fact, ask yourself why you are so quick to accept the 'evidence' presented to you by organizations funded by the same banks and governments that enslave people through debt and taxation...

This is a very big reason that people pick on Christians.
None of that has anything to do with actual Christianity, but people who take the bible literally are personally offended when modern science dose not square with a literal interpretation of Christian mythology.


That isn't a problem with Science or Christianity, the media or any books of the bible. The problem is with he individuals and their minority movements that refuse to see that the Christian movement (in the religious hierarchy) has viewed most of its mythology as parable and symbolism for almost 2000 years.

That problem stems from all the newer off-shoot groups... Once it was only an educated elite within the church who told the people what the books actually said and meant, who could even READ them (they were all in Latin or Greek), and they also studied and theorised on them.
When the books of the bible were translated into common modern language and printing technology allowed mass dissemination of them, all sorts of people thought they had access to the true words, the formulas and the facts of their religion... What it really meant was that ignorant people proceeded to misunderstand the books and thought they understood them better so demanded more power to interpret them as they saw fit. So you had the beginnings of the reformation.
(the reformation was a great deal more than that of course and a big part of it was that the people on the reformation side were much more socially progressive)

And ever after, when any part of the Christian church hierarchy became more intellectual, some radical literal group would break off and form a new movement.

This is why the older and more established branches of the Christian church adopt and incorporate advances in knowledge about the world, biology, technology and everything else- because NONE of it contradicts their faith. They are open and smart enough to find a place for it.
-Even though those older established parts of the church ALSO tend to be very socially conservative. -_-

I can't really agree with anything you've said there Evil_Hare and it's mostly due to it being a jumble of misinformation and falsified evidence in and of itself. You start off with a claim that a well known hoax is an example of what scientists do ALL THE TIME and just get worse from there.

Carbon-14 dating ISN'T used for dating anything older than 62,000 years. The scientific community uses a mix of potassium-argon, argon-argon, and uranium-lead dating for fossils that are older than that and somehow they still aren't finding most things to be only 10,000 years old.

There are several types of fossilization and none really take millons of years to happen. Fossilization occurs as the more solid parts of the body decompose over time. Some fossilization processes are faster than others, as well. I doubt there are any scientists who believe fossilization takes that much time. There wouldn't be any organic material left.

Why would there be a bone spike? Fossilization requires specific circumstances to occur. In the case of a mass extinction due to starvation, poisonous gasses, or other circumstances, most of the animal carcasses would simply decompose, leaving no evidence. Besides, the number of creatures that would die in a mass extinction like that would be equivalent to the number of animals that would die in a 5-10 year period, normally. Why should we expect to find anything apart from an abnormal DECREASE in fossils representing those species AFTER the mass extinction?

I would also love to know how the big bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics. If anything, the concept of the universe expanding is a perfect example of the second law.

The book of Job describes the Earth as a circle. That does not suggest a spherical Earth, however, as most ancient civilizations believed the Earth was circular, but still flat. Check out some ancient maps and you'll find that most early civilizations believed the Earth was a large circular land mass broken up by rivers and seas, surrounded by a ring of ocean. So, Job doesn't suggest anything apart from the Jews accepting common beliefs about the shape of the world.

Ozoneocean is right. Much of this IS why people are critical of Christianity. It's because there are factions out that that not only twist the scriptures to reflect what they want to believe, but they also twist reality to try to convince others they have some rational foundation for their belief. In truth, though, there is no rational foundation. You can't disprove something by making shit up and our world has become too connected, educated, and communication based for people to just accept things because someone else said so.

wow, that was just silly.

the plaster comment: more fossils are reconstructed in plaster, because bones hundreds of thousands of years old are agonizingly fragile and need to be kept very carefully, but also need to be examined throuhly to be sure we're putting it together right, and for display purposes. so someone sees the plaster up in the museum and ignorantly claims that the bones aren't real, thus there was no evolution. weak logic, and little more than an attack on something they don't like.

fossilization: fossilization isn't on a set timetable. it's also used pretty liberally in cases of thing's being preserved by media and the like. it's also used interchangably with petrification by the masses, and well.....that's not always the slowest thing to accomplish

Dinosaurs dying out: there's no population explosion after ther impact (or whatever) for on simple reason. the ENTIRE PLANET WAS EFFECTED. the population would only have exploded if the resources the dinosaurs had were now accesible to other species, and they weren't. they simply weren't there anymore which is why the dinosaurs died out.

it's not like rocks fell from the sky and bashed them all in the head.

Big Bang: the big bang would have likely occurred with all the universe's mass and energy crammed into about the volume of a thumbtack, or thereabouts, which is already beating the laws of physics up and stuffing it inside it's locker. the second law of thermodynamics is nearly impossible to put into perspective to explain it, which is why they've build the large hadron collider. the fact that a crust of bread killed it, and they think it's under attack by the future does a good job of showing how far they're reaching in claiming they understand what they're doing though.

so. religion isn't under attack, it's under counterattack. it shows up, says it knows everything, and when someone has the termenity to prove otherwise, they get defensive because someone's "attacking their beliefs", and don't want to accept that their beliefs don't actually extend to how things really work. (you don't hear about people questioning muslims, because in the places where they're questioned they tend to kill the doubters. so you hear about them killing people over stupid reasons instead.)


Do some research, ask some questions.....and double check you work against other peoples'. if your opinion is erratic and someone else's in reliable in their results, you need to go over your own work, not shoot the other guy down.

Orin J Master
so. religion isn't under attack, it's under counterattack. it shows up, says it knows everything, and when someone has the termenity to prove otherwise, they get defensive because someone's "attacking their beliefs", and don't want to accept that their beliefs don't actually extend to how things really work.

This does not apply to any religion. All you can apply that to are certain individuals. Most major religions all accept scientific advances and changes in technology with no issues and pretty much always have.

It is a purely modern conceit that all religions are anti-science.

Orin J Master
you don't hear about people questioning muslims, because in the places where they're questioned they tend to kill the doubters. so you hear about them killing people over stupid reasons instead.

You might want to do some research on Islamic countries. Iran and Saudi Arabia have very conservative regimes, but even there it's possible to be open-minded about religion or lack of it. It's politics that is the REAL sticking point.
There are many other Islamic countries however and they're all different. Tarring all those wonderful and fascinating places with the same ignorant brush is a little crude and very unscientific. Science extends to the study of culture, history, sociology, anthropology, politics, and theology too you know. ;)

ozoneocean
To that end:
You have no right to bash or negatively criticise anyone for their religious beliefs.

Actually, people have every right to do this (at least, outside of here). It just makes them asshats. :)

ozoneocean
People can believe what they want, as long as they don't harm anyone it's all good. In fact it's better than good because it connects them deeper and more personally with their own cultural history.

Except religion is more responsible for death and war than any other reason on this planet. I'm not saying that a PERSON doesn't benefit being spiritual, I just have a problem when PEOPLE get together and decide the rights that people should have. A PERSON is smart. PEOPLE are dumb.

I am not even sure why we are having a discussion about people dissing Christmas when the Christmas season hasn't even come around yet.

But since you asked... I will say that Christians should get over the fact that OTHER religions also celebrate the Holiday season. Christians weren't even the first. Christ is not the reason for the season, despite what you'd like to believe.

It's funny. Christians feel persecuted because not all the focus is on their religion, just 95%. The horror. But on the other hand Christians don't think they need to hear about OTHER religions celebrating the season. Hypocritical, much?

Also, why isn't the Christian faith up in arms about this whole Santa Claus thing? I mean, isn't that little legend kind of a slap in the face?

I should probably say that the only reason I am focusing on the Christian faith is that this thread was about "pickin' on Christmas". I am equally despondent of all organized religions.

SpANG
Except religion is more responsible for death and war than any other reason on this planet.

I used to think that too, but it's not true. That's just a way of looking at history, the truth is that war is pretty much always caused by the same things: fights over resources- LAND in particular, and what that land has to offer: money from agriculture, mining resources, access to good water... And control over the population on that land.
Religion in that equation is not much more than window dressing. In its role as a force of cultural cohesiveness it allowed people from different nations an extended bond of national identity and path of communication. This was especially true in the time of the Crusades where the younger disenfranchised princes and nobles were after new lands and money in the middle east. Former enemies from many different European nations could use their shared religion as a means to communicate an coordinate their colonisation efforts in those countries.

Wars and battle during the reformation and counter-reformation were more about asserting national identity, about kings wanting to have more control over their own countries without having to submit to some external authority...

I could go on and on, but all these so called "religious wars" were really nothing of the sort. They never bear up to logical scrutiny of what was actually happening. It's just a good short hand way of describing really, really complicated and awful events, like war always is. :(

oh, man, are you misunderstanding. religion is justification for horrible actions, not merely window dressing. look at israel, they're systematically oppressing and exterminating the palestinians right now, ignoring the geneva conventions, and actively blocking international aide to them over land they don't really need because their religion tells them they should.

if they were doing this "just 'cause" most of the world would have gone in and scrubbed them for it four years ago. but because they're following a major religion that wants them to do it, they've got worldwide support. heck, most of the middle east is fighting because they can't agree on small details of the religion they all follow!


religion might not be the sole motivation for most horrible acts, but it's a catalyst to make an isolated cruel act into a worldwide conflict. most major conflicts started over religion were really for selfish ends, but they only happened because the religion empowered them. it isn't window dressing.

religion might not be the sole motivation for most horrible acts, but it's a catalyst to make an isolated cruel act into a worldwide conflict. most major conflicts started over religion were really for selfish ends, but they only happened because the religion empowered them. it isn't window dressing.

I would have to disagree. Ozoneocean is right. Most of the past religious conflicts and even many of the ones today are really just using religion as an excuse. If all of those people had been atheists, these conflicts would still happen, just under a different cause. Religion isn't a catalyst. As you said before, it's simply something people use to justify their actions. If it didn't exist, though, people would still fight wars and hate each other for the same reasons, they just wouldn't be able to blame God for it.

Religion is an element essential to the evolution of our society. It is because of religion that people united as nations and formed civilizations rather than remaining nomadic wanderers, so not all of its effects are bad. That's not to say that society won't someday grow out of it, but I don't think that day is really close at hand. Our global society is too morally ambiguous to exist without some form of outside guidance. Israel is small potatoes compared to the non-religious conflicts of the last century. Some of the worst atrocities our race has ever seen occured during the 20th century and were perpetrated by countries that claimed to be free of religion. Rather than claim God told them to do it, they did it in the name of racial purity, nationalism, or political idealogies.

I think that even if religion WERE responsible for 70% of wars and terrorism, it still wouldn't be a good excuse to be mean and condescending toward 100% of religious people. People like to lump religions together in ways that would make us scream if it were races or genders instead.

Hawk
I think that even if religion WERE responsible for 70% of wars and terrorism, it still wouldn't be a good excuse to be mean and condescending toward 100% of religious people. People like to lump religions together in ways that would make us scream if it were races or genders instead.

yea .. the thing about that is that religion is a choice unlike race or gender.
its the same as being a member of a political party , by joining you are basically saying " i endorse the idea and actions of this group"

the nazis weren't all bad rite ,they built roads and cut unemployment , maybe they were only 70% bad . no reason to hate 100% of the nazis ... rite ?

lothar

Hawk
I think that even if religion WERE responsible for 70% of wars and terrorism, it still wouldn't be a good excuse to be mean and condescending toward 100% of religious people. People like to lump religions together in ways that would make us scream if it were races or genders instead.

yea .. the thing about that is that religion is a choice unlike race or gender.
its the same as being a member of a political party , by joining you are basically saying " i endorse the idea and actions of this group"

the nazis weren't all bad rite ,they built roads and cut unemployment , maybe they were only 70% bad . no reason to hate 100% of the nazis ... rite ?

Your comparison is completely invalid.

Yeah, when people join, say, the Presbyterian church for instance, they're saying "I support the Presbyterian chuch." But they're not saying "I support the Catholics" or "I support what my Presbyterian neighbor does".

Coming at it from the reverse angle, we can't say "All Muslims are terrorists" because only certain muslims are terrorist. Having chosen a religion has nothing to do with it. This is about how you can't make blanket statements about groups of people. Same reason you can't say "Baseball fans are idiots" or "People who like rap are criminals".

But because religion's so unpopular here, everyone lets the blanket statements fly.

I agree with what someone said, forgot who, that this has gone off topic, and it's just turning into people arguing their belief, or picking apart other peoples beliefs. The original concept of the topic, I think, is quite interesting and so I think we should try and stick with it.

I think that region is something personal and individual. I wouldn't call myself religious; I don't think there is one God and my opinion changes all the time. I feel that someone trying to convince me their religion, is just like me trying to convince them that their favorite colour should be red. I believe in a lot of stupid things, things that have no evidence or basis (like the notion of karma), and if I tell these to other people, then sure, they're prolly going to tell me I'm an idiot. If people tell me about their region, fine, if they ask for my option, I'll tell them what I think. So if anyone, from any religion, ask for an opinion, or tries to convince/ convert me, or just says something mind numbingly stupid (like the guy in the mall that said we were made perfect, and if you take the appendix out you'll die), then sure, I’ll have a go at you. But in the same respect, if I went up to a christen friend, and starting pushing my own view, then they should have a go at me.

I think that the beliefs of a lot of cultures seem to have things wrong with them but since it is so common we should not pick on just one but all or none. No we shouldn't be wrong to anyone.

i would say that baseball fans are idiots and people who like rap are criminals. because its usually the case.

The subtitle for Christopher Hitchen's book god is Not Great is so true.

Religion ruins everything.

Religion is a belief system. It is a part of culture but it often defines the culture rather than the other way around. A Kosovar isn't an ethnicity first he is an Orthadox Christian or Catholic or Muslim Kosovar first The ethnicity doesn't matter because the religious identity is more important. The shared ethnic heritage doesn't matter only which whether your distant ancestors stayed true to their faith or converted because the Turks were victorious.

So much here is is an academic exercise where we spout our dry historical interpretations while the religious still look to their faith as the primary reason to hate and kill the guy next door. Sure at the end of the day they take his land, but they were convinced to hate the guy ahead of time because of their faith.

A belief system is strongest because it is often taken as faith. It doesn't matter what the evidence says because my faith controls everything that is believe and if the faith says otherwise the evidence is rejected. You can say the faithful are ignorant. But their faith keeps them from accepting knowledge. The belief system is never questioned, only the evidence to the contrary dismissed.

Nah. I've said it before and it doesn't sink in because it contradicts the competing belief systems and my rhetoric isn't very convincing when fanciful explanations that sound impressive can be spun that fly in the face of the preponderance of evidence. ;)

By the way the reason why Christians are picked on is simply because Christianity is the primary religion of the culture that underwent a great opening of the mind called the Renaissance and the Enlightenment when it became okay to question faith and opening it to critical analysis. If a culture didn't undergo a similar event then questioning the faith isn't done. Without Enlightenment thinkers blowing the doors off of questioning faith and having a home in tolerant Protestant nations all argument could still be stifled the way it is in the Muslim world.

Without Enlightenment thinkers blowing the doors off of questioning faith and having a home in tolerant Protestant nations all argument could still be stifled the way it is in the Muslim world.

Modern islamic nations may be intolerant on political agendas, but that same intolerance does not apply to the field of modern science.
The prophet Mohammed was very progressive in his preachings on the pursuit of science. During the flourishing of the islamic empire, scientific knowledge from non-islamic sources were actively assimilated.

Distilling it:

As far as the media goes, it's offensive a la carte. You're going to notice what appears to be a great deal of bashing if you happen to represent the demographic getting seemingly reamed.

Take a moment, and really pay attention to all aspects. I promise you, specific network agendas aside, we're all pretty much open to the whirlwind regardless of creed, race, religion or political view. There's a little something to tick everyone off ;)

Why does every religious argument become Religion vs. science? I for one belive in both God and science. Do I think that God created the universe? yes. Do I think that there is also I scietific explanation? Absolutly. As for evolution I think God created "man" in a form that wasnt like our current form and we evolved from there.
As for God not being plossible because it cant be investigated that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.Its like saying ancients couldn't investigate atoms so therfor atoms didn't exist. Just because we can't see something dosen't mean its not there.
As for Christianti being bashed, I have no problem with it. But I dont think anyone shoud be upset when Christians argue against a scientific theory either.

I wouldn't get upset about the arguments fundamentalists use to "disprove" science if there was any logic or reason behind such arguments. Instead, what you more frequently find are the arguments where some fundie with no background in science makes a bunch of shit up and hopes people will believe it. Evil_Hare's post was a perfect example of that. Not that I think Evil_Hare came up with that nonsense, I've seen it elsewhere from other sources, but that people buy it and continue to spread that sort of misinformation is damaging, not just to the scientific community, but to our society in general.

When I wrote that I was thinking more of moral issues, cloning for example. I suppose the word theory should have been procedures or experiments.
And something else I'd like to adress is that religion dosent kill people, people kill people. Most wars are faught for recources and land, leaders just know people are more likely to fight if they say its in God's name.

Although sporting minor differences, it's still something that irks me. There are Christians who approach the morality issue the same way. Make shit up, preach it, and hope people believe it. What makes the morality issue worse for me, though, is that it expands beyond the scientific community into social issues and becomes more of a Christians vs the government thing, where certain vocal Christian groups decide it is their obligation to force their religious views and sense of morality on everybody else by manipulating the legal code.

They can be moral on their own time. Boycott the products or services they disagree with. If they're right in the end, they'll go to Heaven and the rest of us will go to Hell, but there isn't any reason they should be trying to force salvation on those who don't want it.

In the end, nobody is forcing them to experiment on stem cells, nobody is forcing them to abort a baby, and nobody is forcing them to marry people of the same sex. None of these things effect them directly.

Honestly, morality is meaningless if it's forced upon people. A person could be a total rat bastard and follow the Bible to the letter. If he doesn't understand, sympathize with, or believe a word of it, though, somehow I doubt he's going to be saved in the end. People need the freedom to make mistakes and suffer the consequences of those mistakes. In the religious sense, that means people need the right to choose how and who they worship and the moral code they adhere to.

isukun
Honestly, morality is meaningless if it's forced upon people

Isn't the vety concept of "law" based on forcing someones morality on to everyone else? The heads of the government decide what they think is right and what is wrong and they make what they think is wrong illegal. Christians are just trying to do the same thing. And yes I also support the athiest groups who do the same things, even if I disagree with them, because its there right as citizens of this country to influence the goverment. Thats what makes it a democracy.

Isn't the vety concept of "law" based on forcing someones morality on to everyone else?

Actually, no. In some societies that may be the case, but in the US, the legal system is supposed to lay a groundwork wherein the people's rights are protected to the greatest degree possible. Many seem to be forgetting that in recent times. That's why there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. The rules that were estabished from the start were meant to preserve order in a free society. You can't offer total freedom to everyone since some choices people may make will infringe on the rights of others. Some of the laws meant to protect the rights of others may seem to coincide with popular moral codes, but were all created to protect the people's inaleinable rights, not uphold the Christian standard of ethics.

Thats what makes it a democracy.

Our country is not a democracy, and it is primarily for the reasons you have mentioned that it is not.

isukun
Our country is not a democracy, and it is primarily for the reasons you have mentioned that it is not.

So your saying the citizens shouldn't have a say in the government? Because that is exactly what I said. Personaly I belive in direct democracy, and I realize that our current government isn't a true democracy but I think everyone has a right to voice their opinions and try to get the politicains who are suposed to represent them to do what they consider right.

isukun
That's why there is supposed to be a separation of church and state

As for speration of church and state its a good idea but imposible to practice, a persons faith is always going to influence their actions, therefor unless you propose all political figures should be athiests religion will always influence state decissions.