Originally posted by FabianFnasFF dude,
When a country is overly infected by religion, then science progress will slowly die. US is on their way, right now.
Space exploration will be taken over by others. Particle physics are taken over by others. Field after field of science will be taken over by others.
Because who will need science when the answers of all scientific questions will be "Because god wanted it that way."
I am happy to assure you that against the religionist America stands the America that reflects the spirit of Jefferson along with the very energetic community of their philosophers and scientists; the proggresive Americans have a hard struggle, yes. I hope that the free thinkers will emerge stronger;
Originally posted by timebombtedYes, this is my hypothesis, nothing more, a prophecy perhaps.
I don't disagree but do you have examples of where this has already happened?
I do find it strange that one the most developed (supposedly) nations on earth has such a high % of creationists / ID...... non evolutionists.
If this is just your hypothesis, fair enough, sounds logical.
Other teocracies has followed this way, so it's not unlikely.
I hope I'm wrong. I think if the next president of US or some after him will say "I'm an atheist, and I'm proud!", then science will grow stronger.
Originally posted by black beetleVery difficult since religion can touch everything in your life, so how do
rgr that, FF, but such a thing would be meaningles.
It would be enough if the next American president and his administration could keep the religions away from their politics.
you do that? The way people eat, dress, and judge what is right/wrong,
and so on are touched by religion, so how would one avoid religion since
it is more about life than just about how many deities are involved in life,
one, some, or none.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf a President actually tried to follow the teachings of Jesus, he or she would alienate almost all self-professed Xtians in the USofA. Such an action would quickly decenter the religious voting bloc that has been critical to every election since 1976. That would get much of religion out of politics, even though, ironically, it could be based on true religion informing politics.
Very difficult since religion can touch everything in your life, so how do
you do that? The way people eat, dress, and judge what is right/wrong,
and so on are touched by religion, so how would one avoid religion since
it is more about life than just about how many deities are involved in life,
one, some, or none.
Kelly
Wait a minute. It seems that I'm describing exactly what has been laid out as the program at www.barackobama.com
Originally posted by WulebgrEach law needs to stand on its own merit, if there is something that
If a President actually tried to follow the teachings of Jesus, he or she would alienate almost all self-professed Xtians in the USofA. Such an action would quickly decenter the religious voting bloc that has been critical to every election since 1976. That would get much of religion out of politics, even though, ironically, it could be based on true religio ...[text shortened]... seems that I'm describing exactly what has been laid out as the program at www.barackobama.com
is foundational to it that touches religion that alone should not cause
it to be rejected out of hand. Murder is against many religions, rape,
stealing, and lying are also against many religions, but I hope that
does not mean we must reject those on the bases of religion alone.
People will attempt to do many things, force one view down anothers
head with laws, but each law again needs to stand on its own merit,
and the merit will be judged by how it affects the nation as a whole.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWe reject those crimes in spite of religion not to rebel against it because we know full well those are crimes without needing to refer to a religious taboo. That should be a lesson for everyone. We don't need invisible 'friends'. We usually go beyond that stage by about our tenth year or so. But of course by then the adults have us so frightened of boogiemen we become nice little christians so one more generation with blinders.
Each law needs to stand on its own merit, if there is something that
is foundational to it that touches religion that alone should not cause
it to be rejected out of hand. Murder is against many religions, rape,
stealing, and lying are also against many religions, but I hope that
does not mean we must reject those on the bases of religion alone.
People ...[text shortened]... on its own merit,
and the merit will be judged by how it affects the nation as a whole.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseAgain, I said our laws need to stand on their own merit. With respect to
We reject those crimes in spite of religion not to rebel against it because we know full well those are crimes without needing to refer to a religious taboo. That should be a lesson for everyone. We don't need invisible 'friends'. We usually go beyond that stage by about our tenth year or so. But of course by then the adults have us so frightened of boogiemen we become nice little christians so one more generation with blinders.
invisible friends or boggiemen, when you see someone suggesting
a law should be passed just for either of those two reasons, the
invisible or boggieman I would think that merits of the law would be
very weak indeed and not worth passing; however, if merit is there
as all laws should have, their rejection shouldn't be on the points of
invisible friends or boggiemen either!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou do that due to the common sens, due to the mutual respect, due to a full respect for Life, due to the constitutional separation of Churche and State, due to the major consensus and for the sake of a better life for everybody. You don't have to have a religion in order to be decent, and furthermore a state is not supposed to promote a specific religion but to give to everybody, regardless of his religion or his spirituality, the same chances.
Very difficult since religion can touch everything in your life, so how do
you do that? The way people eat, dress, and judge what is right/wrong,
and so on are touched by religion, so how would one avoid religion since
it is more about life than just about how many deities are involved in life,
one, some, or none.
Kelly
Politics and the acts of the politicians can be observed and opposed by anybody. Their tactics are constantly observed, everybody has the right to critisize them and to offer differ proposals and social solutions based on the quality of consensus. In the contrary, religions are self-armed systems which are closed to any kind of logical and reasonable evaluation because their core is based on a complex of blind faith. History shows how "faith" prevailed over the common sens and the human rights and became a mean machine killing innocent citizens in the name of "god".
The humanity drove from the animism to the politheism to the monotheism -this is the evolution of the religion- due to our inability to comprehend what we are, where we live and how we my become better. Today we know what is a rainbow, we are sure that it is just a physical phenomenon, but once upon a time you could loose your head if you only dare to mention that maybe it was not a "divine tool designed to spread divine messages".
So no, we will rather continue mobilizing a major reasonable cosensus in order to promote our civilian interests. Feel free to enjoy your individual spirituality in your house and in your church, but keep your religion separated from the state.
And something else: nothing is above Life I reckon. If I had to save a disabled child or the Holy Cross or the very first script of the Bible or of the Quran, I would definately pick the kid with a clear heart and mind.
Originally posted by black beetleCommon sense, mutual respect are assumed values by you, and if
You do that due to the common sens, due to the mutual respect, due to a full respect for Life, due to the constitutional separation of Churche and State, due to the major consensus and for the sake of a better life for everybody. You don't have to have a religion in order to be decent, and furthermore a state is not supposed to promote a specific religi ...[text shortened]... f the Bible or of the Quran, I would definately pick the kid with a clear heart and mind.
you look around the world they are not all that common among us
either. Even here different views among us have one group of people
belittling another, the only common thing we really have going for us
is we sort of hold somethings as the way they should be, but walk in
world where they are not. The constitution does not have separation of
church and state any where in it, that came from the courts, the term
itself came from a letter one of the founders wrote. Your point made
a cool sounding song by John Lennon, but I disagree with you, without
something greater than ourselves, we are left with just ourselves and
we would by our selfish nature ruin things for others to get what we
want.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySee KJ,
Common sense, mutual respect are assumed values by you, and if
you look around the world they are not all that common among us
either. Even here different views among us have one group of people
belittling another, the only common thing we really have going for us
is we sort of hold somethings as the way they should be, but walk in
world where they are ...[text shortened]... urselves and
we would by our selfish nature ruin things for others to get what we
want.
Kelly
we disagree big time but at least we prove that we respect each other. In the past we would try to kill each other instead of seeking for a consensus, and this evolution is not supported through the religionism. Keep your spirituality, no prob at all, but also keep your religion out of the politics;
In the place of the religion I have put my compassion and my deep respect for everybody, and I do not need "anything bigger". My tools are the Science and the Philosophy. Live on hapilly with your religion and your spirituality, but don't push nobody to define the politics of your state as "Christian", "Muslim" etc. The state must be by the side of every citizen regardless of his religion.
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleThere is no way people keep their faith out of government, because
See KJ,
we disagree big time but at least we prove that we respect each other. In the past we would try to kill each other instead of seeking for a consensus, and this evolution is not supported through the religionism. Keep your spirituality, no prob at all, but also keep your religion out of the politics;
In the place of the religion I have put "Muslim" etc. The state must be by the side of every citizen regardless of his religion.
right and wrong are formed by people's beliefs. You may accept that
there is a God, or that there are gods, or no God/gods at all but with
any of those views about God/gods you come away with a set of
varibles to make judgments on all things. You either accept others
can and will have various beliefs different than yours or you stand
against them, and since so many people have beliefs that do not line
up with others you need to make laws that serve all, and those
sometimes will have religion in the mix.
As I pointed out before, dress, food, keepings one word or not
breaking promises are part of people's religion, it isn't possible to
keep that out of the public arena. What we need to do is simply find
those things that are good for us all as best we can and keep our lives
on a level playing field as best as possible. Once we start favoring one
person's view over another to where we hinder advancement or
someone getting or keeping property and so on, we have tilted our
lives in a dangerous way. The trouble today is people seem to feel that
simply getting exposed to a different view or idea is a crime at some
level, which isn't very cool as far as our diversity is concern.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI see where you're coming from and you have a point.
There is no way people keep their faith out of government, because
right and wrong are formed by people's beliefs. You may accept that
there is a God, or that there are gods, or no God/gods at all but with
any of those views about God/gods you come away with a set of
varibles to make judgments on all things. You either accept others
can and will have v ...[text shortened]... is a crime at some
level, which isn't very cool as far as our diversity is concern.
Kelly
My problem is that when people express an opinion and people accept that when they say their "faith" gives it to them that they accept that as a legitimate response. It shouldn't be.
"my religion says so" isn't a valid reason to pass a law - especially in a state where we have the first amendment.
Now, you may take some of your views from your religion, but you should be able to back that view up with something more than just that your god says so.