Soap Box Religion Poll

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Runestar:<BR>I will say it here, and I've said it before. To me there is a God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Pix?

 

[DrPizza]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the grand scale the drops add up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm pretty sure they actually don't add up, which is why they fail to have any large-scale impact.

 

[DanaR]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrPizza:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On the grand scale the drops add up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I'm pretty sure they actually don't add up, which is why they fail to have any large-scale impact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's because in my experience religious charity isn't about helping other people, it's about helping yourself feel good/pious/superior/etc. It's about social time in the church basement doing charity.<BR><BR>I wonder how many bowls of chicken soup it takes to offset actively discouraging condom usage?

 

[SkySlash]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Son-volt:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR><BR>I genuinely wonder if anyone here thinks religion should be illegal. I admit, I'm surprised we don't have a single person who thinks we should. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Certain religious practices should be (and are) illegal. I actually wouldn't mind if we tightened up the law a touch there, actually, particularly regarding those that refuse medical care for their children because they are praying for a cure, that kind of thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I've struggled with how I feel about that one since I was a young child. My personal belief is that parents should have the right to raise their children as they see fit, and they do have a legal right to the free excercise of their religious beliefs. On the contrary, I also hold the belief that one's religious beliefs end where they begin to endanger another person's rights, especially in regards to children. I've put a lot of thought and mental stress into deciding which belief is stronger over the years, as I've personally seen a young child die up close, because their parents relied on divine intervention rather than allowing their kid to undergo chemo. I was just a kid then, but I remember it well, and it has stuck with me all my life.<BR><BR>I don't think a 1st world society would tolerate cruel and unusual punishment as part of religious ritual, and neither do I think a society should tolerate the unnecessary death or danger to a child due to religious belief.<BR><BR>Where I struggle with this issue is not on what is right or wrong, but on a principal of concern for what a precedent it would set if a society started setting rules for what religion can and can't do, as part of their beliefs.<BR><BR>My only logical conclusion is that one's religious rights end where they begin to harm the rights of another. Society has already determined that we can intervene on behalf of a child when a parent is negligent or abusive in their care, and it seems perfectly logical that intervening should also be permissible even when religion is the driving factor for the abuse.<BR><BR>So in short, I agree.<BR><BR>-SS

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR>Where I struggle with this issue is not on what is right or wrong, but on a principal of concern for what a precedent it would set if a society started setting rules for what religion can and can't do, as part of their beliefs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What do you mean? That's how society works today. If a person believe they can kill because of their religion, then society damn well steps in and stops them with its rules. <BR><BR>We have laws in this country, and your religion doesn't let you sidestep them. That includes child endangerment.*<BR><BR>---<BR><BR>* Actually, shamefully, some states have clauses that allow child endangerment in the case of religion (specifically, denying medecine). I have no idea why that's acceptable. It's not like torture or rape of children is suddenly ok because of religion. So why is murder?

 

[SkySlash]

Uhmm...your asterisk is kinda exactly what I was referring to being ok with altering...and stuff.<BR><BR>-SS

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR>Uhmm...your asterisk is kinda exactly what I was referring to being ok with altering...and stuff.<BR><BR>-SS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I know. But my point was that your 'precedent' comment doesn't make sense. We have tons and tons of precedence about laws and religion. Child health care is the odd exception in this discussion because, unlike other forms of child endangerment, it is allowed in the case of religion. <BR><BR>So, why are we worried about precedence? We should be worried about the precedence set by allowing religious people to abuse and endanger their children and then write it off as being ok because their religion said it was ok. That's a terrible precedent. Their religion says that their desires override the child's desire to live? What about the child's desire to not be raped? To not be tortured? How come we bend to the religious when it comes to the child's *life* of all things?

 

[SkySlash]

Because like it or not, free excercise of religion is a protected civil right. Like it less or not, some idiots at the state level take that protection further than intended, and pass idiotic laws.<BR><BR>Not that I'm saying I think it should be that way, it just is.<BR><BR>-SS

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR>Because like it or not, free excercise of religion is a protected civil right. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No it is not. Your right to exercise your religion freely stops when it violates the law. Want to rape women because your religion tells you to? Too fucking bad. Want to torture children? Too fucking bad. <BR><BR>Want to murder? Too fucking bad.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Like it less or not, some idiots at the state level take that protection further than intended, and pass idiotic laws.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Yes. SO your precedent comment *still* makes no sense. The precedent set is that religious laws do not trump the state's laws. But this child endangerment case is the exception that sets a *bad* precedence. You *should* want to get rid of it since by not doing so, you send the message that people can commit the worst and most heinous acts, and then get away with it because they say their god told them to do it.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Not that I'm saying I think it should be that way, it just is.<BR><BR>-SS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand that that's the way it is. My point is that what you said is *non sensical*. It just does not make sense *period*. You can't make an argument that deals with precedence when you have everything related to precedence *backwards*.

 

[Uhlek]

My answers:<BR><BR>1) No. I'm an atheist, but culturally I was raised a Christian.<BR><BR>2) Both. Some religious beliefs are detrimental to society, I don't think anyone here would argue that point. However, there is some benefit to religion, particularly among the poor and uneducated.<BR><BR>3) Rejection. Pretty simple.<BR><BR>4) Neither. I see them as pretty equal in this regard.<BR><BR>5) Islam. While radical, fundamentalist Christianity can be just as evil as fundamentalist Islam, the latter is far more prevalent and causes far more human suffering throughout the world than Christianity does today.<BR><BR>6) Yes. Personally, I think the question is a bit too simplistic, but my answer falls closer to "Yes" than "No."<BR><BR>7) No. Thought police are bad, mmkay?<BR><BR>8) Yes. I know that as long as religious individuals participate in government, this cannot happen, but as a lofty goal, I think it's worthwhile. Even principled religious people can put aside their religious beliefs when it comes to deciding how a secular society should be governed.

 

[SkySlash]

Okay, I understand your confusion now and I didn't before, sorry.<BR><BR>What I meant about precedent was going beyond instituting restrictions on religion for reasons not related to an action endangering someone. <BR><BR>In other words, how close to the line of restricting religion do we get in setting precedent before we are tiptoeing the line between "for their own good" and in defense of the aforementioned endagerment issue?<BR><BR>And for the record, today, I don't think we're anywhere close to that line. In fact, as I've said, I think we could go further in restricting religion in the interests of preventing endangerment of others.<BR><BR>Make a little more sense, or am I still being donfusing?<BR><BR>-SS

 

[Starbuck79]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR>Okay, I understand your confusion now and I didn't before, sorry.<BR><BR>What I meant about precedent was going beyond instituting restrictions on religion for reasons not related to an action endangering someone. <BR><BR>In other words, how close to the line of restricting religion do we get in setting precedent before we are tiptoeing the line between "for their own good" and in defense of the aforementioned endagerment issue?<BR><BR>And for the record, today, I don't think we're anywhere close to that line. In fact, as I've said, I think we could go further in restricting religion in the interests of preventing endangerment of others.<BR><BR>Make a little more sense, or am I still being donfusing?<BR><BR>-SS </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I, for one, am even more confused.<BR><BR>If you could perhaps give some examples of things that in the future might be "crossing the line" that would help.

 

[Metasyntactic]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR>Okay, I understand your confusion now and I didn't before, sorry.<BR><BR>What I meant about precedent was going beyond instituting restrictions on religion for reasons not related to an action endangering someone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is what you said:<BR><BR>"Where I struggle with this issue is not on what is right or wrong, but on a principal of concern for what a precedent it would set if a society started setting rules for what religion can and can't do, as part of their beliefs."<BR><BR>This makes no sense. Do you have "a principal of concern for what a precedent [has been] set" by not allowing people to rape because their religion said it was ok? Do you have "a principal of concern for what a precedent [has been] set" by not allowing people to murder because their religion said it was ok?<BR><BR>Clearly not. "society <B>[has already set]</B> rules for what religion can and can't do, as part of their beliefs". We all accept this. I'm sure you accept it as well. Do you really struggle with these ideas? <BR><BR>And if you don't struggle with these ideas, then why are you struggling with the concept of child endangerment? How can you be worried about precedence here when the precedence has already been established that the desires of the religious do not let them harm others just because they say so.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Make a little more sense, or am I still being donfusing?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I am hella donfused. I actually have no concept of how you can "struggle with this issue". I have no idea how you can be "concern[ed] for what a precedent it would set if a society started setting rules for what religion can and can't do". Seriously. It makes *no* sense at all.<BR><BR>Do you struggle with society stopping people murdering in the name of their religion? What about rape? Torture? Child abuse? Are you likewise concerned about what precedence has been set by not allowing the religious to commit the above acts?<BR><BR>--<BR><BR>Oh, and as an aside, the concept that it's ok because they are the parents, and they have the right to control the lives of their children is utterly bogus. We don't let parents murder their children, or to rape them, or to torture them. So why do we let them kill their children by denying them life saving care? <BR><BR>How is that acceptable? Oh... i get it. Their god said "kill this child", thus it's ok. Gotcha. Yeah. Go go religion! You are really doing a bang up job convincing me of your loving god that i should get on my knees and worship.

 

[N4M8-]

21% who find religion to be solely a detriment to society, 40% who either reject (18%), mock (21%), or are hostile to (1%) religion.<br><br>60% who do not feel society should purge itself of religion<br><br>99% who do not feel religion should be made illegal.<br><br><br>Yeah. . .the Soapbox is hostile, derisive, and dismissive of religion. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif --

 

[SkySlash]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, and as an aside, the concept that it's ok because they are the parents, and they have the right to control the lives of their children is utterly bogus. We don't let parents murder their children, or to rape them, or to torture them. So why do we let them kill their children by denying them life saving care? <br><br>How is that acceptable? Oh... i get it. Their god said "kill this child", thus it's ok. Gotcha. Yeah. Go go religion! </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I never said it was ok, in fact I said the opposite, so if this is directed at me, I'm not sure what makes you think I did say it was ok.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You are really doing a bang up job convincing me of your loving god that i should get on my knees and worship. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>LMAO! If you think I have <b>any</b> interest in doing that, you have me pegged <b>COMPLETELY</b> wrong. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br><br>As to your other questions, I need to think about it, and I'll reply tomorrow after I've slept on it. I'm not sure I'm not confusing myself. <br><br>-SS

 

[Metasyntactic]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, and as an aside, the concept that it's ok because they are the parents, and they have the right to control the lives of their children is utterly bogus. We don't let parents murder their children, or to rape them, or to torture them. So why do we let them kill their children by denying them life saving care? <br><br>How is that acceptable? Oh... i get it. Their god said "kill this child", thus it's ok. Gotcha. Yeah. Go go religion! </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I never said it was ok, in fact I said the opposite, so if this is directed at me, I'm not sure what makes you think I did say it was ok.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You are really doing a bang up job convincing me of your loving god that i should get on my knees and worship. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>LMAO! If you think I have <b>any</b> interest in doing that, you have me pegged <b>COMPLETELY</b> wrong. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --<br><br>As to your other questions, I need to think about it, and I'll reply tomorrow after I've slept on it. I'm not sure I'm not confusing myself. <br><br>-SS </div>
</blockquote>None of that was directed at you. It's directed at people who say that it's ok for parents to endanger their children just because they're the parents.<br><br>The stuff directed at you was all the stuff about how your position makes no sense since it flies in the face of the laws we *already* have that limit what people can do (even religious people). It's also just plain backward. If you're worried about precedence, and bad stuff leading from it, then you should be *for* disallowing religious people from committing these acts. It's the legalization of child endangerment which sets a horrible precedent. It tells religious people that they can get away with terrible things to other people, just as long as they can claim their god told them to do it.

 

[blasikov]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jim Z:<br>my votes:<br><br>- no, I don't identify with any religion. I was raised catholic, and went to a catholic school. But for me, the whole "god" concept seemed utterly disconnected from the real world.<br><br>- I think religion is a detriment to society. It asks people to set aside rational thought in favor of putting blind faith in fairy tales. And quite frankly, the whole "god" thing is rooted in nothing more than the desire to control people.<br><br>- I'm neutral. don't shove it in my face, and I won't react.<br><br>- neither Islam or Christianity are, IMO, more harmful or beneficial. history has shown that people will do both good or bad things based on what they think their invisible sky fairy wants.<br><br>- I would hope that as we understand more about ourselves and everything else, our need for a "god of the gaps" would disappear.<br><br>- I don't think it should be made illegal, everyone should be free to believe what they want <b>so long as they don't use the force of law to make me submit to their beliefs (you hear me, Republican party?</b><br><br>- Government should be entirely free from the taint of religion. </div>
</blockquote>Dude, get out of my head! Replace "Catholic" with "Southern Baptist" and we'd have the same views. Darwin save me. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --<br><br>BTW one of my favorite quotes:<br><br>"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Ghandi

 

[s@nDOk@n]

My position on this issue is widely known, but here are my answers.<BR><BR>1 - I'm an atheist and was raised secularly. It'd be impossible for me to identify with something based on superstition.<BR><BR>2 - I believe religion as a whole is a deterrent to human advancement on an individual level as well as a societal level, hence I see religion as detrimental to mankind.<BR><BR>3 - I reject religion on the basis of rational justification and parsimony. I tend to be neutral to those who believe simply out of my own desire not to feel uncomfortable. That changes when those very same people try to legislate morality.<BR><BR>4 - Neither Chistianity nor Islam are beneficial to mankind.<BR><BR>5 - Throughout history Christianity has been more powerful and has flexed its muscles more often and criminally than Islam. These days it's a toss up.<BR><BR>6 - It's utopic. As an ideal is nice, but I don't think it'll ever happen.<BR><BR>7 - No I do not.<BR><BR>8 - Yes I do. The Church has inmense problems within its ranks to further the political issues at play with any form of government. I want religion totally out of the government.

 

[ghezbora]

1) No, I'm what most people would call "atheist." I don't call myself that, because I don't think atheism is a thing, and therefore it doesn't need a name, just like I'm not a non-alchemist or a non-astrologist.<BR><BR>2) Detriment, trivially. Religion has done more to retard science than anything else.<BR><BR>3) I'm openly hostile to religion when the context allows (when I'm not going to be ridiculing the hand that feeds me).<BR><BR>4) Christianity is more beneficial, in the sense that it's less detrimental.<BR><BR>5) Same question, so same answer: Islam is more detrimental.<BR><BR>6) It would be great if society could get rid of religion, but since we know there have been many religions created over the centuries, we have to assume this is a meme that would spontaneously reoccur even if we removed it from the mind of everyone alive today.<BR><BR>7) As much as I'd like to see religion gone, having the government try to do it would only make things worse. Who decides which beliefs are "religious?" Who decides who decides? Who will watch the watchers?<BR><BR>8) Government should, ideally, be free of religious influences, though this is also impossible. Same problems as before. Who decides what is "religious?" How can you give voice to religious people while not allowing religious influence on government, that is, how can you separate society's secular moral and normative judgments from its religious ones?

 

[Ffael]

1) No. I am an atheist<BR><BR>2)Detriment. Encouraging people to do as they are told without truly thinking about what they are doing is bad. mmmkay?<BR><BR>3)Hostility. To me, religion is like stupidity; everyone is entitled to a little, but start gathering it up into large quantities and I want to smite it.<BR><BR>4&5)I chose neither. Though Islam once helped advance science and thought, it seems to no longer be the case. Christianity has always promoted ignorance IMO.<BR><BR>6) Yes. It fosters entirely too much of a "us and them" mentality. However, even as angry as I get over religion sometimes; I do not encourage a violent purge, but rather a gradual realization.<BR><BR>7)No. I believe in freedom of speech and religion; and just like freedom of speech, I don't have to listen or care about what you say or believe. Also, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion should only exist until it interferes with someone else's freedoms.<BR><BR>8)Yes. Your religious beliefs have no more importance than my nonreligious ones. One person, one vote. Beliefs are important, but when it comes to law, you are going to need more than the "book" (whichever applies to you) says so to convince me.<BR><BR><I>Edit: Screwed up the numbering 4&5 really are the same question to me</I>

 

[leavitron]

Sorry! I screwed up my post, so I deleted it and am redoing it.

 

[WDReinhart]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Government assistance really and truly began during the Depression. Before that, I think it is pretty clear that <STRIKE>community and church groups handled the need just fine.</STRIKE> people froze, starved, died of trivial infections, and went to debtors' prisons, and that was generally accepted as "just the way things are". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>FTFReality

 

[SkySlash]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by N4M8-:<br>2<b>8</b>% who find religion to be solely a detriment to society, 4<b>6</b>% who either reject (<b>20</b>%), mock (2<b>0</b>%), or are hostile to (<b>6</b>%) religion.<br><br><b>56</b>% who do not feel society should purge itself of religion<br><br>99% who do not feel religion should be made illegal.<br><br><br>Yeah. . .the Soapbox is hostile, derisive, and dismissive of religion. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>I bolded the numbers quoted to update what the current poll reflects with 88 votes counted.<br><br>I admit, I misjudged the tone of the Soap Box in regards to religion, in terms of painting the views above as the majority. <br><br>I do think it is worth noting that 46% of the Box states their strongest personal reaction to religion is rejection, mockery, or hostility; but that is clearly not a majority. I'm guessing this number probably falls pretty close to the 44% that think society should purge itself of religion also, which is interesting.<br><br>Either way, I was wrong in my assertion otherwise in another thread, and I apologize.<br><br>-SS

 

[lateralis]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I believe religion as a whole is a deterrent to human advancement on an individual level as well as a societal level, hence I see religion as detrimental to mankind. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>this is definitely me.<BR><BR>I always wonder where we could be as a society if there weren't religious roadblocks (both within the individual and codified into law as a result). everything from the small and trivial (sunday liquor sales, young earthers) to the large scale and societally detrimental (stem-cell research, abstinence-only programming, "teach the controversy").<BR><BR>I voted "no" for "make it illegal" but that's just the diametric altruist/realist in me. I also voted "yes" for "it should go away". I'd like to believe that religion will eventually die out, and that we'd be better for it, but I know that not only will this NOT happen any time soon but that banning it would only give proponents the justifiable anger they need to go even further off the deep end.

 

[.劉煒]

SS: it is a vocal minority, though, so I think you do have some grounds for complaint.<BR><BR>...<BR><BR>As for my opinions, IMHO it is a net positive, both for (some) individuals and for society as a whole, as long as it doesn't go overboard. Applies to pretty much any religion that could be interpeted in many ways, versus more specific ones.

 

[Starbuck79]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WDReinhart:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Government assistance really and truly began during the Depression. Before that, I think it is pretty clear that <STRIKE>community and church groups handled the need just fine.</STRIKE> people froze, starved, died of trivial infections, and went to debtors' prisons, and that was generally accepted as "just the way things are". </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>FTFReality </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>++<BR><BR>If you look at history calls for national healthcare actually started with Teddy Roosevelt. <BR><BR>Party Platform of the 1912 Progressive Party.<BR><BR>Where can I sign up.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The deliberate betrayal of its trust by the Republican party, the fatal incapacity of the Democratic party to deal with the new issues of the new time... </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's almost scary that this was written almost 100 years ago.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Up to the limit of the Constitution, and later by amendment of the Constitution, it found necessary, we advocate bringing under effective national jurisdiction those problems which have expanded beyond reach of the individual States. <BR><BR>It is as grotesque as it is intolerable that the several States should by unequal laws in matter of common concern become competing commercial agencies, barter the lives of their children, the health of their women and the safety and well being of their working people for the benefit of their financial interests. <BR><BR>The extreme insistence on States' rights by the Democratic party in the Baltimore platform demonstrates anew its inability to understand the world into <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It really is an interesting read.<BR><BR>He lost of course. The upside is that most of the platform was eventually adopted and is now law.

 

[fitten]

<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by N4M8-:<br>21% who find religion to be solely a detriment to society, 40% who either reject (18%), mock (21%), or are hostile to (1%) religion.<br><br>60% who do not feel society should purge itself of religion<br><br>99% who do not feel religion should be made illegal.<br><br><br>Yeah. . .the Soapbox is hostile, derisive, and dismissive of religion. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>It only takes a vocal minority... (just grabbing a number) five people who are consistently hostile and dump on any thread involving religion is more than enough for the perception that the 'box is hostile towards religion.

 

[leavitron]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasonF:<BR>It belongs in the circular file along with all the other religious nonsense the government engages in, in obvious violation of the first amendment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Really? So the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional? Are you going to have it re-written? What about all that paper and coin money? Who's going to pay to reprint and re-mint it all?<BR><BR>Seriously, your line of reasoning is absurd. The first settlers came for religious freedom. The Founding Fathers let their religious convictions be known. Just because a minority want to re-write history to exclude religious motivations behind the founding of our country does not make that history so.<BR><BR>Suck it up!<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Frankly, having seen your postings here for years, I have no reason to believe you're anything but a perfect example of the kind of Christian who relishes in pushing hatred and fear along with a heavy dose of willful ignorance. Not all Christians are like that (e.g. the more liberal Episcopalians - the SO's dad just retired from the priesthood), but far, far too many are just like you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>(I'm going to borrow a phrase from PeterB here in a second.) Here's the thing... You don't know fuck all about me. You don't know how I live from day to day. If you trust that the anonymous ramblings of someone on the Internet to be all there is to know about that person, then you my friend are either very shallow or assume everyone else is.<BR><BR>You are gravely mistaken in your estimation of me.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I didn't say that. Why do you insist on lying about what other people say? Aren't you violating one of those commandments you're so fond of beating others over the head with? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not lying. You said "My disdain for religion..." You didn't specify a religion, or denomination, or sect. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that you are condemning all religion with your very broad brush. I cannot go by what you meant to say, only what you said. You have to fix it, not me.<BR><BR>Alpha - Not at all.<BR><BR>Son-volt - your misrepresentation of me is duly noted. Or did you miss this post later on in that very same thread? I <I>thought</I> you were better than that!<BR><BR>Mudboy - on the Lockerbie bomber and a few other things, yes. On the core of my beliefs, no.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Son-volt:<BR>That's because in my experience religious charity isn't about helping other people, it's about helping yourself feel good/pious/superior/etc. It's about social time in the church basement doing charity.<BR><BR>I wonder how many bowls of chicken soup it takes to offset actively discouraging condom usage? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>My experience says your experience is looking through cynical lenses and is ignoring the plethora of selfless works being done right in front of you.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by inktomi:<BR>Another concern is that my religion is not everyone's religion. I'm fine with building houses for people, but not everyone wants to be a part of my outreach. I'd rather the government just stay out of my way as much as possible so I can follow my beliefs and everyone else can follow their own beliefs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is why the Pilgrims and other early settlers in North America left their homelands. This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Starbuck79:<BR>Exactly they don't have never have. If Christian Communities and Charity was ever enough to fight the real need than we would have never had government assistance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Government assistance really and truly began during the Depression. Before that, I think it is pretty clear that community and church groups handled the need just fine.<BR><BR>Oh, and my answers should surprise no one:<BR>Yes<BR>Benefit<BR>Acceptance<BR>Christianity<BR>Islam<BR>No<BR>No<BR>No

 

[bgirl]

<B>Do you identify with any religion at all?</B><BR><BR>Catholic, but don't 'identify' with it. There are many tenets of the church that I don't agree with so I don't think I can call myself that anymore. I think my beliefs fall in line with many Unitarian beliefs. <BR><BR> <B>Do you think religion is a benefit or a detriment to society?</B> <BR><BR>I believe religion has influenced many beneficial things. I think some people need to believe in something to make progress.<BR><BR> <B>What would you consider your strongest personal reaction to religion to be:</B><BR><BR>acceptance. To each his own. <BR><BR> <B>Between Islam and Christianity specifically, which religion do you think is more beneficial to society as a whole?</B><BR><BR>Both have made numerous contributions, it's hard to say which is 'better'. <BR><BR> <B>Between Islam and Christianity specifically, which religion do you think is more detrimental to society as a whole?</B><BR><BR>Both have had their 'bad moments', it's hard to say which is 'worse'.<BR><BR> <B>Do you think society, as a whole, should purge itself of all religions and their associated activities and beliefs?</B><BR><BR>No, you can't force people to 'un-believe' something. <BR><BR> <B>Do you think religion should be made illegal?</B><BR><BR>No, however certain religious acts may be made illegal if they go against the societies morals. <BR><BR> <B>Do you believe that all forms of government should be free from any religious influence?</B><BR><BR>No, not as a rule.

 

[Crackhead Johny]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlphaMeridian:<BR>That being said, I'm pretty appalled that people think that Islam has been a net negative to society as a whole given the fostering of Science during the Dark Ages. IDK, maybe we're too focused on modern day? But you really can't be, if you're going to talk religion in the general sense. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Islam needs better PR agents. They also need more control over the media rather than just Al Jezeera (which I suspect is less viewed in the west than public access). <BR>As many of us sit in a world permeated by christian laws we may not always notice them. until we are consoling the Mormons who have stopped at our house and telling them that we hope one day they get to live in a country that offers freedom of religion so they have a chance at one of those seats in Heaven.<BR><BR>The religion with the most power has the most ability to do harm. Islam can't compete evil wise, against abstinence only education in AIDS ravaged Africa. <BR><BR>Oh yeah, 0 rocks! go Islam!<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasonF:<BR>I think the world will be better without it, but I don't really give a damn so long as it stays out of public policy and the government doesn't go around endorsing religion (and yes, "In God We Trust" is a religious statement no matter how many whackjobs on the supreme court say it isn't). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe "In God We Trust" was but is seems like more of a slogan these days... like "In God We Trust, all others pay cash.". Sure some whackos can point at it on a coin and say "we are a Christian nation." but that opens up a whole conversation that will leave them angry and possibly violent (it is their way, we must respect it). <BR>So buddy, as a christian nation which is more important "loving your enemies" or "kicking @ss!"? "Turn the other cheek" or "pay back!"? I expect the reply is "Dude I got no idea what you are babbling about, all I know is that Jesus said if I didn't have a sword I should sell my cloak and buy one." And then they get angry. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metasyntactic:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR>Because like it or not, free exercise of religion is a protected civil right. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>No it is not. Your right to exercise your religion freely stops when it violates the law. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>In the US that would be christian law. <BR>Congratz Mr Muslim on your new US citizenship! Oh yeah, here are the divorce papers for 3 of your wives! With no job skills and poor English, I'm sure they will be fine here in the US or if we deport them!<BR>Hi Mr Mormon, sorry you won't get a seat in Heaven. Say, if you don't get one of those seats, where do you go when you die?<BR>Sorry Mr Crackhead Johny, Liquor stores are closed on Sunday. <BR>Sorry Mr Aztec, you cannot sacrifice other people and eat their hearts... No wait, this one works. I'm good with the no "heart eating".<BR><BR>We are not just against religious things that are harmful to people we are also against religious freedoms and/or expectations that simply conflict with the current iteration of the dominant religion. Consensual/victimless crime is bad!!

 

[MightySpoon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasonF:<BR>It belongs in the circular file along with all the other religious nonsense the government engages in, in obvious violation of the first amendment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Really? So the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional? Are you going to have it re-written? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The DOI preceded the constitution and has no force of law.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>What about all that paper and coin money? Who's going to pay to reprint and re-mint it all? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They print new bills all the time. The mention on the money is a relatively recent development.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Seriously, your line of reasoning is absurd. The first settlers came for religious freedom. The Founding Fathers let their religious convictions be known. Just because a minority want to re-write history to exclude religious motivations behind the founding of our country does not make that history so.<BR><BR>Suck it up!<BR><BR>...<BR><BR>This is why the Pilgrims and other early settlers in North America left their homelands. This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.<BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think you are confusing the personal religious beliefs of people and "religious motivations behind the founding of our country". The first settlers didn't found the United States, regardless.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Government assistance really and truly began during the Depression. Before that, I think it is pretty clear that community and church groups handled the need just fine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No, it's really not.

 

[Starbuck79]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Founding Fathers let their religious convictions be known. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You are right. And many would be considered heretics by modern christians. You might want to take a look at the Jefferson Bible some time. He appreciated the morals and the values of Christianity striped from all the supernatural. Many of the framers were infact Diests which is a pretty significant difference from modern day christians.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Of course it is. That is basic civics 101. Neither the DoI or the Preamble to the Constitution are legally binding in anyway. They are not unconstitutional because they have no legal bearing. <BR><BR>Think of it this way, both are the mission statment of a company where the ACTUAL constitution is the Bylaws.<BR><BR>To even ask the question demonstrates a lack of basic knowledge of how government works.

 

[DanaR]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR><BR>Really? So the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional? Are you going to have it re-written? What about all that paper and coin money? Who's going to pay to reprint and re-mint it all?<BR><BR>Seriously, your line of reasoning is absurd. The first settlers came for religious freedom. The Founding Fathers let their religious convictions be known. Just because a minority want to re-write history to exclude religious motivations behind the founding of our country does not make that history so.<BR><BR>Suck it up!<BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>SirE? Any more comments about his love of the separation of Church and State?

 

[s@nDOk@n]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Founding Fathers let their religious convictions be known. Just because a minority want to re-write history to exclude religious motivations behind the founding of our country does not make that history so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The US is a secular republic. Perhaps you are thinking England, a true xtian nation.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Without freedom from religion freedom of religion is unsupportable. You must be free of many religions in order to adhere to yours, dontcha? Well, I enjoy the freedom from religion portion so I don't need to hide or feel less than ubiquitous about my atheism.

 

[AmigaPhreak]

<B>Do you identify with any religion at all?</B><BR><BR>I was raised as a Lutheran. I don't currently attend church.<BR><BR> <B>Do you think religion is a benefit or a detriment to society?</B> <BR><BR>Both.<BR><BR> <B>What would you consider your strongest personal reaction to religion to be:</B><BR><BR>Mockery. I respect those that follow the tenets of their faith, but I have met so few of those people. Admittedly, my experience is almost purely related to Christians. I don't have much exposure to other religions in my life.<BR><BR>Of those who I have met, the majority of people are those that go to church, listen, and then everything goes out the window until next Sunday. They gossip, they have affairs, they say and do mean things, they steal, they cheat on taxes.<BR><BR>I realize that people aren't perfect, but most don't even *try*. They have no shame.<BR><BR> <B>Between Islam and Christianity specifically, which religion do you think is more beneficial to society as a whole?</B><BR><BR>Neither/both.<BR><BR> <B>Between Islam and Christianity specifically, which religion do you think is more detrimental to society as a whole?</B><BR><BR>Neither/both.<BR><BR> <B>Do you think society, as a whole, should purge itself of all religions and their associated activities and beliefs?</B><BR><BR>No. We should be more inclusive, instead of removing everything.<BR><BR> <B>Do you think religion should be made illegal?</B><BR><BR>No. This is an absolute waste of time...even worse than making drugs or alcohol illegal.<BR><BR> <B>Do you believe that all forms of government should be free from any religious influence?</B><BR><BR>YES!!!!! By recognizing a single particular religion, I feel that it is effectively being endorsed. It very much aggravates me that the U.S. is seen as a "Christian nation", with prayers and other religious language finding their way into our government.

 

[MightySpoon]

Having said what I did above, i will agree with the following:<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My experience says your experience is looking through cynical lenses and is ignoring the plethora of selfless works being done right in front of you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I've met plenty of people in my travels through the non-profit, community service, et al. communities whose religion drives them to do good works. Perhaps in some recesses of their brain, it's exchanging good works for a nice cloudy seat in the thereafter but that's not really a bad thing. Motivations for charity and service vary widely and selfishness or disruptive motivations is certainly not limited to the faithful. <BR><BR>Which isn't to say that I haven't met plenty of proselytizers and general jerk-wards. It's just a rather large mix. Yes, there is often a social aspect but this isn't exclusive to churches either. Most people can't toil in silence without some feedback in perpetuity. A rewarding social environment is pretty necessary and that does sometimes attract people who simply like the company, want to feel smug within a group, or have no other social outlets. Again, this is my experience across a wide swath of such environments.

 

[Crackhead Johny]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR>This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Kind of funny if we try to twist them that way.<BR><BR>Freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech. Some crazy guy on the street corner wants to rant at you, you MUST stand there and listen.<BR>The right to bear arms, not the right to not bear arms. You'd better be packing. <BR>The right to not have soldiers garrisoned in your house, not the freedom to have soldiers in your house. Your buddy who got back from Iraq will have to stay in the back yard. <BR><BR>Wish I was at home with my copy of the constitution and declaration beside the computer (libertarian friend gives them out to everyone) this looks like it could be a humorous game.

 

[SkySlash]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MightySpoon:<BR>I've met plenty of people in my travels through the non-profit, community service, et al. communities whose religion drives them to do good works. Perhaps in some recesses of their brain, it's exchanging good works for a nice cloudy seat in the thereafter but that's not really a bad thing. Motivations for charity and service vary widely and selfishness or disruptive motivations is certainly not limited to the faithful. <BR><BR>Which isn't to say that I haven't met plenty of proselytizers and general jerk-wards. It's just a rather large mix. Yes, there is often a social aspect but this isn't exclusive to churches either. Most people can't toil in silence without some feedback in perpetuity. A rewarding social environment is pretty necessary and that does sometimes attract people who simply like the company, want to feel smug within a group, or have no other social outlets. Again, this is my experience across a wide swath of such environments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Having done multitudes of community and service projects myself, many of which were through a church as a teen, I have had similar experiences.<BR><BR>I'm a firm believer that the Bible, specifically states that works are neither intended as a demonstration of faith, nor as a path to salvation. I think the vast majority of people involved in works probably do so for this motivation, without realizing their motivations are wrong-headed.<BR><BR>Personally, I like helping people, and that's what motivates me to do what I can for others, whether through financial donation or personal actions. I quit volunteering through churches, as I haven't regularly attended church in 15 years, but I know firsthand the unbelievable amount of good they do throughout every community I've ever lived in. <BR><BR>-SS

 

[SkySlash]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crackhead Johny:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR>This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Kind of funny if we try to twist them that way.<BR><BR>Freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech. Some crazy guy on the street corner wants to rant at you, you MUST stand there and listen.<BR>The right to bear arms, not the right to not bear arms. You'd better be packing. <BR>The right to not have soldiers garrisoned in your house, not the freedom to have soldiers in your house. Your buddy who got back from Iraq will have to stay in the back yard. <BR><BR>Wish I was at home with my copy of the constitution and declaration beside the computer (libertarian friend gives them out to everyone) this looks like it could be a humorous game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You're making the odd assumption that because you have the right to do something, you're compelled to do that thing.<BR><BR>Uhhmmm, no...<BR><BR>-SS

 

[Crackhead Johny]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkySlash:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Crackhead Johny:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leavitron:<BR>This is why America was born. Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Kind of funny if we try to twist them that way.<BR><BR>Freedom OF speech, not freedom FROM speech. Some crazy guy on the street corner wants to rant at you, you MUST stand there and listen.<BR>The right to bear arms, not the right to not bear arms. You'd better be packing. <BR>The right to not have soldiers garrisoned in your house, not the freedom to have soldiers in your house. Your buddy who got back from Iraq will have to stay in the back yard. <BR><BR>Wish I was at home with my copy of the constitution and declaration beside the computer (libertarian friend gives them out to everyone) this looks like it could be a humorous game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You're making the odd assumption that because you have the right to do something, you're compelled to do that thing.<BR><BR>Uhhmmm, no...<BR><BR>-SS </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Just basing my statement off of the Freedom OF X doesn't mean freedom FROM X argument that Christians bring up, which says you have the freedom of it and must indulge in it. <BR><BR>Crud, I answered "hostility" when this is clearly "mockery". I will say then that I mock in a hostile way.