Merry Christmas Rick Perry

[Rapscallion]

It's tribalistic bullshit that really has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with othering.

Thanks! I knew I'd forgotten something!

Tribalism and salesmanship. Religion, or people claiming to be religious, has preyed upon those factors. Want to sell an idea or product? Create a problem and have the solution ready to sell - marketing 101. I'm sure we can think of many examples.

Give someone a common enemy, and they'll rally together. Pretty standard human nature. Whilst it's a mythical creature (talking snake, for example, and later a demon), that's fine.

When it turns to people? Sure, sometimes the claims may be right, such as an invading neighbour tribe, but the whole gay thing really doesn't do christianity many favours.

The point here for me is not that people are arseholes with or without religion - it's that many faiths bind their followers together by persuading them that there's an enemy, and that in turn teaches arseholery. It trains arseholes. If they don't get out of that way of life, they train more.

I should know. My grandparents were out and out racists. I broke my training in certain ways of thinking, and I'm much the better for it. I didn't know better, I learned, and I am not the same person as when I was in my early teens.

The militant religious zealots no more represent the masses than the militant anti-theists zealots represent the masses. That anyone listens to either side is depressing. Both sides are equally wrong. Just because one is more heavily represented does not give the other any greater legitimacy.

Not quite sure that you have a point here? My point is that the theists adversely affect peoples' lives. Atheists can be arseholes, but that's not an instruction they are given. It's not a trained behaviour.

Most of the time it's bullshit and should be pointed out as such. But when a person is disallowed from wearing anything that displays their religious preference because it might offend someone who isn't religious, that's just as much bullshit as trying to make people pray when they don't believe there's a reason to.

I'm sure that you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but the wearing of a religious symbol wasn't under discussion. I think we did France a bit back? Nobody's been forced to pray here.

It's worth noting that creed is already a protected status. It's just that usually, most people think it's a-ok to be bigoted against the majority. It's not.

Current protected status isn't under debate - extra protected status with effective legislative endorsement in the process - that's my problem here.

It should mean protection of a person's inalienable right to believe whatever the fuck they choose to, without anyone else trying to dictate otherwise.

Wholeheartedly agree. I fully endorse anyone's right to believe what they choose as long as it doesn't affect others. I also endorse the right of people who, when faced with the ridiculous, to ridicule it.

Faith doesn't have to defend itself. People might choose to defend their faith, but that's up to them, not the ones who want that justification.

A faith should be able to stand on its own merits - I think we may be approaching this from different angles. To me, a faith should be consistent, meaning the teachings. They should defend themselves. I think you're more talking about the movement?

And it's just as cherry-picked as ever. People are assholes. People have been assholes since the dawn of time. Even animals are assholes.

It's putting back in what was cherry picked out. My disdain for pick and mix religion isn't a secret.

How can anyone take an argument like this seriously?

This statement is no more correct than the zealots on the other side of the spectrum claiming that science is corrupting us.

It can be taken quite seriously by looking at the evidence.

9/11 was justified using the teachings of islam. Many brutal massacres in the middle east have occurred as the result of religious teachings. Different branches of christianity in England took it in turns to burn each other at the stake for worshipping the same god in a different way.

And if you were to succeed in getting rid of religion, then you'd just get to fight whatever gets created to take it's place.

Because it's not religion that's at fault. It's people. And no matter what else you do, you'll still end up with people being assholes because that's how people are.

As per earlier, the religions we're familiar with in the west have taught separation and tribalism. It's been their main tool. Protestant versus catholic, sunni version shi'a, muslim vs christian, and so forth. They teach that there are those you should be wary of or hate, and that is then taken by successive generations to mean whoever they particularly disliked.

The base fact is that by going after religion, you're wasting your energy on some side quest and doing nothing at all to fix the overall issue.

If your argument is therefore that humans aren't good enough for religion, I'd sort of agree. I don't think we're evolved enough as a species to be able to handle it properly. So ... take away the toy in that case?

Except that it doesn't. Sure, most people will assume that, but not everybody who celebrates a winter holiday, not even those who celebrate the most common one in the US, are even religious. Hell, one of the more notable atheist authors, Dawkins, quite happily celebrates many Christmas traditions.

Not sure what that proves? I don't worship in a church or mosque or synagogue, but I can appreciate the architecture.

And that's before you even get into the fact that many of those "Christmas traditions" are only a few centuries old to begin with and were only attached to Christmas due to timing.

Not sure of the relevance?

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

It trains arseholes. If they don't get out of that way of life, they train more.

It's impossible to have a rational debate with someone who insists on anthropomorphizing something that merely a structure of thought.

I'm sure that you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but the wearing of a religious symbol wasn't under discussion.

No, this is a case of something even more ridiculous, and equally as odious.

To me, a faith should be consistent, meaning the teachings.

Are you talking about religion in general, a person's personal belief system, specific religions? What does "a faith" mean in the context you're using it?

Not sure of the relevance?

Maybe you should go back and read the OP of the thread. Since holiday celebrations are specifically what the law mentioned addresses.

As an addendum, re religion, responsibility, and freedom - Just because some people can't manage to re responsible for how they use the tools at hand gives nobody the right to ban those tools for the masses. By that reasoning, you'd best take away cars while you're at it. Cars kill over a million people every year. They must be stopped!

[Rapscallion]

See, that was a far more reasonable post than earlier in the thread.

Your approval is noted.

I have a half-dozen links that I researched yesterday for the purpose of putting forth a point that atheists aren't harmless. From Nazi Germany (which wasn't atheist, in and of itself, but Hitler was quite specifically rabidly antisemitic, and took a large part of his influence from Marx and other atheists who thought that wiping out Jews was a good idea), to the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia (nearly 2 million theistic people killed by atheists in the name of wiping out religion) to the Russian purges (somewhere near 9 million killed for the same reason), there's ample evidence that atheism can be just as barbaric as theism.

Atheism does not teach people to do that. It simply is a world view that there is no reason to live as if there is a deity giving instructions. There are atheists who are democratic, republican, gay, straight, and so forth. There is no compunction to be nice or nasty - it's not rocket science.

I don't believe I ever said that atheists couldn't be nasty. It's simply that if they are, they don't blame their actions on a deity.

Trying to draw a line in the sand here and saying, "People who do THAT are bad, people who do THIS are good," is just plain old tribalism,

Actually, that looks like a pretty solid survival technique.

once you get down to it, and atheists are just as susceptible as theists to behave in that manner. Partly, because that's how we're wired. Making a distinction between those who believe that there is a god and those who don't believe is just more tribalism, just the same as the squabbling between different religions and different factions of the same religion.

No argument to the start of it. It's not tribalism on my part - I have friends and colleagues who are religious, but they aren't the sort who would go out and define how someone else ought to live. That's the crux of the matter for me.

Pointing out all of the ills of religion without acknowledging the good things it's done (the Christian church was the only source for non-nobility to acquire any education beyond their parents' trade for a long, long time, for example) is extremely disingenuous. Could these things be done without religion? Perhaps today, yes. Back then, no - the church was seen as untouchable. Random people teaching the peasantry would have been squashed, but the church doing the teaching gave an umbrella of protection to the act.

What I asked was if the good done by religion outweighed the bad. That in itself is acknowledges that religion has done good. Water is not held by that claim.

Without religion... what would they have to cling to? Perhaps they'd find something else, or they might not.

I'm sure they would find something.

You point out how powerful the religious people are in the US culture - that the Republican Party is pretty much overrun with Christian zealots and that you can't be elected president without at least paying lip service to Christianity. All of this is true. But you have to look at it a little deeper, and realize the patterns going on here. The zealots are losing. They're getting more and more frantic that people are turning away from the church, because the church is intolerant not of the things they do, but who they are.

I don't think they're losing. Despite the batshit insanity going on in the republican party, they weren't that far from securing the presidency. If they're losing ground that badly, they wouldn't have scored 47% of the popular vote. That's pretty slender margins and only just over six months ago.

Sure, they're losing popularity, but the republicans are not going to give up the religious right votes when it was so close. To distance themselves from the religious bloc is political suicide, both for funds and votes, and to stay with them is to be more and more outrageous as time goes on.

They're going to stay with their allies, and the last election shows it's not a busted flush. That 4% margin in the popular vote doesn't allow complacency on either side. The fiscal republicans must be ripping what's left of their hair out.

You point out that the Religious Right is waging a war against gays, against abortion, against sex education, and you're right... but they're losing! Every time this comes up to a challenge, they lose ground. The fight for abortion was truly over forty years ago, and all that's left is thrashing around, trying to find ways to get around Roe vs. Wade. And every time they try to pass laws that make it harder or more expensive to get abortions for people who want them, they lose. Likewise for the gay rights issue - they're losing ground year after year. They're on the wrong side of history, and they're going to be buried by it.

4% - not that much of a gap.

There's no question that we're in for a rough ride. The theists who want to be in control of things aren't going to cede their power easily. Which is not to say that it's going to get violent, but it's definitely going to have some dark times ahead before we see the light.

I think the times are going to be darker than you think in more than one way. I tend to lean more towards the democrats when it comes to US politics, but I can see the value in some of the republican stances, such as a smaller government in some areas. However, if the death spiral of the republicans was started and is inexorable, a one-party system is going to be far worse than the current 'two party and nobody else' system.

Without that very law, there's little question that we would be a dominionist Christian country (probably Catholic). The theist factions each had enough power that without a way to keep them from each others' throats, there would have been a struggle for power around which religion is the official religion. By expressly stating, "None of you are the official religion, and none of you ever will be," that allowed them all to have time to settle in... and, as a side effect, allowed the idea that perhaps we don't actually need a god after all to blossom.

As I said to Andara, a common enemy has the ability to unite those who would normally be antagonistic. I made a flippant comment earlier on in this thread about how everyone was wrong, and boy did people object. Prime example.

However, whilst different branches of the same religion are willing to duke it out, they'll happily take on those with more differences first.

The first amendment protects all religions, including "none." You can't stomp out Catholicism, but neither can Catholicism stomp out atheism. It has long been my belief that religion is purely a personal matter, and should be treated as such - just because person A is Christian, that doesn't mean that he can expect person B to adhere to Christian principles, and should not in any way be able to force person B to follow Christian principles if B isn't a Christian.

As I've said previously, my concern is with background indoctrination.

Let's wrap this up. Religion is needed for some people, to give them a sense of purpose, togetherness, identity. Some people use their religion to justify their own selfish attitudes, and sometimes they're able to convince others to go along with them - hence, the Crusades, and other religious-based atrocities. But underneath it all, this isn't a religious problem. Without religion, people would be finding some other reason to justify their atrocities - they wouldn't somehow just stop being dickheads to each other.

To repeat myself, religion does teach tribalism and the associated ills. Shake the dice again, maybe we'll get something less harmful. I'm willing to take that chance.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

The GOP can see the writing on the wall. Their politics and beliefs have been steadily dying off as their old white asshole selves do. They're freaking out because there aren't going to be enough angry white conservatives to win the White House anymore in another 10 years. So they froth up the 1/3rd of lunatics to vote for them. While using every possible bit of shit and treachery they can to manipulate or scare the center into voting for them just enough to overcome the other side. .

As I mentioned in another response, I'm not convinced that they're dying off. The percentage of the vote in the election was 51% Obama to 47% Romney. That's still too damn close for comfort, especially considering the political capital the democrats were able to make from the footage of the more radical elements.

If the republicans do disassociate themselves from the lunatic fringe, who else are the loonies going to vote for? Stay at home in protest and allow the democrats to gain an easy victory? They'd probably vote republican anyway as the party closest to their ideals, which thinking about it is likely to be the way the GOP goes in the future if they have any sense.

Not holding my breath.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I don't think they're losing. Despite the batshit insanity going on in the republican party, they weren't that far from securing the presidency.

This doesn't mean what you think it means.

Research that has been conducted on party affiliation over the last three presidential cycles shows that what religion a person followed doesn't appear to be much of a factor in their party affiliation. Protestants only barely favor the Republicans (36% vs 33%), and Catholics actually favor Democrats or Independents (35% each). In fact, the only group that is more Republican than they were 8 years ago are people over 65.

And that does nothing to take into account how many people just don't bother to vote in the locked in states. Half a million people in California who voted in 2008 just stayed home in 2012. By contrast, Florida had 50,000 more voters this last cycle.

[Gravekeeper]

The point here for me is not that people are arseholes with or without religion - it's that many faiths bind their followers together by persuading them that there's an enemy, and that in turn teaches arseholery. It trains arseholes. If they don't get out of that way of life, they train more.

Well, first of all proselytizing ( aka marketing ) is a feature of Abrahamic religions annnnd pretty much that's it and even then, mostly just Christianity. The Quram speaks against it. Judaism doesn't do it either. Eastern religions ( Buddhism, Hinduism, etc ) expressing forbid it and don't even have any conversion rules or rituals. Sikhism proselytizes a little but is forbidden from being dicks about it as offending other religions is actually against the rules in Sikhism.

So...yeah. Just Christianity and even then only certain denominations and splinter groups. ( Mormons, JW's, etc ). Its not really a thing or its outright not allowed in other religions. On top of that with eastern religions you're often encouraged to respect other religion's gods the point of offering prayer if they encounter said gods symbols/places of worship.

In other words, you may as well stop saying religion and start just saying Christianity. Because by and large that's what you're railing against here and on top of that only certain groups of it. Christianity is the most politically warped/influenced religion on the planet. But again, its just a tool.

As for the training thing. That actually happens quite a bit. Typically one the person leaves the domain of control of their overly religious parents and sees that the world isn't remotely like how they were taught. Usually occurs when the go away for college. -.-

Not quite sure that you have a point here? My point is that the theists adversely affect peoples' lives. Atheists can be arseholes, but that's not an instruction they are given. It's not a trained behaviour.

Atheism isn't large enough to adversely affect lives on the level of Christianity. But it still manages to be an asshole just fine when needed. There have been atheist dictators ( actually a good number of them ), atheist cults, atheist suicide bombers, etc. The asshole potential is still there.

9/11 was justified using the teachings of islam.

The largest loss of civilian life in US history before 9/11 was actuallythanks to an atheist. >.>

There are atheists who are democratic, republican, gay, straight, and so forth. There is no compunction to be nice or nasty - it's not rocket science.

The problem with this statement is you can swap the words atheists and theists.

I don't think they're losing. Despite the batshit insanity going on in the republican party, they weren't that far from securing the presidency. If they're losing ground that badly, they wouldn't have scored 47% of the popular vote. That's pretty slender margins and only just over six months ago.

But that's by doing exactly what I said before. By themselves, they don't actually have enough votes. Its only through gerrymandering, disenfranchising and media manipulation that they scare enough of the center into voting for them to secure a presidency. Hence every democratic opponent has an imaginary narrative. Look at what they did to John Kerry. It was so bad it actually became a verb. Then with Obama, secret Muslim Kenyan usurper community organizer.


The whole reason they're suddenly on board with immigration reform is because they did the math and realized they're running out of angry old white people. Meanwhile, acceptance of all of their major issues ( aboration, gay marriage, etc ) has been growing for years. While likewise the atheist/agnostic/non-religious segment of the population has also been growing very fast over the years.

They're starting to realize they're on the losing side of history.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't even know how you can quantify whether religion has done more good than bad.

I mean, that's not even possible, even with the doctoral level study Panacea talked about.

Say my religion inspired me to go out and call someone the gay F word.

And then it inspired me to help pull someone out of a burning building.

I mean, does that count overall positive or negative? What are the numbers?

I mean, to answer that question, to even set out the GUIDELINES to that question, I first need to tackle a huge number of philosophical, ethical, political, and socio-economic questions...

And also to account for every action taken by every religious person, that was ever motivated, or even believed to be motivated, by faith, in the history of humanity.

Edit: Edited out snarky comment at end about irony, apologies.

[Gravekeeper]

Thats kind of the problem with this sort of argument. The actual answer is practically impossible to quantify. You would have to create an incredibly comprehensive morality ranking system, which would be prone to personal bias anyhow, then adjust it for differing political and social situations. ( Feeding the hungry = Good? Feeding the lazy that won't work = Bad? ).

Then you would need thousands of years worth of data. Seeing as we don't have the technology to answer this question just over the last 24 hours, thousands of years is impossible. Never mind the fact at how much religion has changed and why over the years.

To be blunt, arguing this, for other side, is pointless. As the question cannot be answered. Claiming to be able to answer it, either way, is futile. We simply do not have the data and everyone will just rely on personal experience or bias. This is pretty much Confirmation Bias: The Book.

The fact of the matter is we evolved the capacity to create gods, spirits and monsters. Without that capacity, we would still be monkeys. How we use that capacity is up to us, but its impossible for someone to grow up in a vacuum away from theism/atheism then proclaim the "correct" answer for the species.

What we believe, how we believe it and even our capacity for that belief are a mixture of environment and genetics just like everything else about us. The human brain doesn't even finish developing fully until the mid 20s. Which is usually around where people start to really question or explore what they were taught / raised with.

[Rapscallion]

However, religious belief wasn't always geared towards putting religion in your face or controlling the behaviors of others.

Yet it is now, hence my concern.

As I mentioned, that was a response to religious liberals in the US. They've always been a minority, but a loud one. But they vote, and that's what's given the GOP such power since 1980. Given that more and more Americans are "nones" and view that kind of politics with distaste, we are seeing that support wane. What we're seeing from religious conservatives is their last gasp. We're already seeing DOMA undone. Abortion is still a contentious issue since even liberals often find abortion on demand distasteful.

I think it was more to do with, "How can we assure ourselves of more votes?" I also do not see it waning - I still regard a 4% difference at the end of an election to be pretty minor.

That has nothing to do with the broader concept of religion, however. Not every person of faith is either a fiscal or a social conservative. You do an injustice by paining all religious people with that broad brush.

I didn't say that religious belief was tied to a particular political ideal. Social conservatism is tied too closely to the republican fortunes for the comfort of pretty much everyone. Quite possibly it's inexorably linked. Other religious groups are not politically affiliated that I know of, though the split amongst christians would be, more closely aligned to those thinking the old testament being a good thing being conservative and those favouring the new testament to be liberal.

I disagree. A few years ago folks said there was no way a black man would get into the White House. Now we have Barack Obama. We already have atheists and Muslims in public office, including the US Congress, as well as members of other religious faiths. It's only a matter of time before we have either an atheist or Muslim president.

What would be a reasonable expectation of time here? You do realise that atheists are trusted in the US about as much as rapists?

Churches have a right to let their views be known on political issues. They also do a lot of good with charity work. People are free to make up their own minds; I don't let the Catholic Church dictate to me how to vote on key social issues, or anything else. I vote my own conscience.

You make an interesting point elsewhere about setting any sort of legal limits on churches, or at least that's how I read it. Hard to do. I have to agree. Be a bit hard to set some sort of limits on what's reasonable.

Still pondering that one.

Michele Bachmann spends to much time listening to her own voice and that of people who agree with her, and not enough with the broader populace. I agree with her assessment of her character, but would point out her campaign faltered quickly: she can pull her BS on the ultra nuts in her party, but she doesn't gain traction elsewhere.

Despite wingnuts such as her on the team, 4%. That's frighteningly close.

Abortion is going to be the last gasp of the social conservatives. The laws that have recently passed or are being debated are of dubious constitutionality; over time they will either be repealed or thrown out.

Oh, I'm pretty certain they'll find something else...

But the thing is, with either abortion or gay rights, not all religious people approach them the same way. You leave out that there are many religious people who support women's choices, who support gay rights.

If they're following the christian religion (or some variant thereof), that's debatable as to whether or not they're actually following that faith at all.

Actually, that is exactly what the Establishment Clause was intended to do: protect the right of all Americans to practice their faith or lack thereof. And its whole purpose is to protect faiths that cannot defend themselves. That's the WHOLE POINT of having the First Amendment. It doesn't matter to me what YOU believe, it only matters to me what I believe. Likewise, it doesn't matter to you what I believe, it only matters to you what you believe. The Establishment Clause gives people with all different points of view room to exist. While we can try to change each others minds, we can't say, "this belief is not worthy to even be allowed to exist or display itself in public."

I think this related to an answer I gave earlier. When I say a faith should be able to protect itself, I mean by that that it should be logically consistent and not easy to take apart. I wasn't referring to a faith-based organisation, more the core beliefs itself. Make more sense?

I still believe in the right to have beliefs, but also in the right to point out the fallacies put forward.

And yet again you paint all religion with the same broad brush. Not all Christians believe that passing out condoms to prevent the transmission of STDs . . . anywhere . . . is a bad idea. And the AIDS tragedy in Africa has persisted for reasons unrelated to religion, such as the political ambitions of leaders who don't like Americans.

Er, what? When the leader of a rather massive faith states that condoms are bad to Africa, backing up the claims of the faith as per the last few decades, that's continuing the same standards as previously preached. I don't see how that's to do with disliking Americans.

Trial for genocide - I think that's where this ought to go.

Certainly I'm angry when crimes are committed . . . no matter by whom. I'm unhappy with how the Catholic Church handled the priest sex abuse crisis. However, the administrative failure of the Church has nothing to do with my personal relationship with God. They are not one and the same.

For me, the point is that the main western religions tend to have an approach that offers forgiveness for crimes, within the boundaries of the church. This leads to people not trained in the capacity trying to work within the limits of their religion and being judge and jury, without doing much more than move the guilty around. They decided that they were above the law. They took the view that the separation of church and state meant that the law didn't apply to them.

Why did this failure take place?

You shouldn't be. In spite of the fact more and more people are non-religious, those who believe in a God far outnumber those who don't.

So, belief in a god blinds someone to common decency?

That's because your logic suffers from a fatal flaw.

You assume that all members of a religious faith have to believe the same exact thing. They don't. Some religious have next to nothing in terms of dogma (for example, the Quakers). But even in many religions that have strict dogma you can often find room for individuality. As a Catholic, I have to conform to certain dogmas: the Trinity, communion of saints, etc. But most of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, while official teachings, I am allowed to question and I in fact do question them. I'm not a robot or a clone, Raps. I'm a living human being with thoughts and opinions of my own. Even the Apostles disagreed from time to time on what it mean to be a Christian.

The fatal flaw is not mine. This is something I raised earlier. Whenever the christian faith is raised on here, there usually comes a challenge to one doctrine or another, and then you usually get a number of people saying that they follow that religion, sort of, but not that exact part, so the argument doesn't apply to them.

A broad brush approach is required in such circumstances, and that's why I usually have to go back to basics and point out that there's no evidence for the core beliefs.

But in your case what you do is make basic assumptions that are often wrong and apply them broadly to everyone. That's not fair.

Not fair? I think it quite fair to point out that the core beliefs the cause an issue are based more on fable than fact.

Actually it doesn't It simply accepts that many people celebrate a major holiday during the winter. It provides for variety . . . you could celebrate a major winter holiday that is completely secular in origin (like New Year's) and it would be protected under this law. That's the unintended benefit to non-Christians I mentioned.

Generous of the christians. right? It's a day or five off (we tend to take a week off over here, and I usually work as much of it as possible).

Right, off to get my car sorted out. Back whenever.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Evidence of existence is not a requirement of the Establishment Clause.

When a religion starts to affect people directly, then I would consider the evidence to be very, very necessary.

That's entirely up to you. You've heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and have rejected it. All I can do is give you the news. Accepting it is completely and totally up to you. You must make up your own mind.

Um, it's a pretty obscure message, actually. There are hundreds of denominatins of christianity each one claiming to have the real message behind them. So many versions of the same thing.

That love doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, though. If god created everything, then he created hell and the rules by which we go to hell. He basically says that we either love him or burn. That's not love. That's terrorism.

Reasonable to you. That's fine. That's your right. My right is to accept God, and I don't have to leave him out of my life because of yours or anyone else's objections as long I don't actively shove my faith down anyone's throat.

No argument here.

Again, it doesn't matter if God can be shown to exist or not. What matters is whether or not this law infringes on anyone elses ability to follow their own faith or lack thereof. If it does, then there is a basis for repeal under the Establishment Clause.

It does matter if that's the reason for real effects on real people. If the foundation of that can be shown to be false, then the whole reason for this legislation is gone.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

It's impossible to have a rational debate with someone who insists on anthropomorphizing something that merely a structure of thought.

I began by wondering what you were on about as many religious people anthropomorphise their deity of choice. I began to wonder what I actually anthropomorphised, then I realised - this is that usual thing of 'not the god I believe in, mine's different' - right?

No, this is a case of something even more ridiculous, and equally as odious.

You brought up something unrelated to back up your case? Must be non sequiteur week. Nobody told me that was on.

Are you talking about religion in general, a person's personal belief system, specific religions? What does "a faith" mean in the context you're using it?

In the context I was speaking in, I was referring to the faith that people follow. The main defence it should have is that it make logical sense.

Maybe you should go back and read the OP of the thread. Since holiday celebrations are specifically what the law mentioned addresses.

Ah yes, I forgot that basically the religious traditions around that time of year from the christian faith were basically stolen from others. Sounds to me like less reason to protect it!

As an addendum, re religion, responsibility, and freedom - Just because some people can't manage to re responsible for how they use the tools at hand gives nobody the right to ban those tools for the masses. By that reasoning, you'd best take away cars while you're at it. Cars kill over a million people every year. They must be stopped!

You do realise that cars exist and can be proven to exist, right? You can touch one, drive one, and find large holes in your bank account due to one. Also, when someone is proven not to be using one safely, we penalise until they improve or have the legal right to use one taken away. Not the best analogy.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Yet it is now, hence my concern.

Until you start actually defining your terms instead of using blanket terms that are provably invalid, there's no point discussing any of this with you.

"Religion" covers such a broad spectrum that most of your statements about religion are utterly worthless.

I also note you utterly ignored my request for a definition of what you consider "faith" earlier. I requested it because it appears that every other post, you're using the word to stand for something different.

[Andara Bledin]

I began by wondering what you were on about as many religious people anthropomorphise their deity of choice. I began to wonder what I actually anthropomorphised, then I realised - this is that usual thing of 'not the god I believe in, mine's different' - right?

You're saying that "religion does this" and "religion does that." Religion doesn't do anything. It's a set of rules, guidelines for people to follow or not at their discretion.

I am baffled by your insistence on relieving humanity of any culpability just so that you can blame religion for the ills of the world after you admit that it's people who are responsible.

You brought up something unrelated to back up your case? Must be non sequiteur week. Nobody told me that was on.

Your entire screed is entirely off-topic. Pardon me for actually tying my argument in with the original discussion.

In the context I was speaking in, I was referring to the faith that people follow. The main defence it should have is that it make logical sense.

The problem you're having is that you think it should make sense in the way that doing action A versus action B have quantifiable results and thus can be measured.

Religion is about a lot more than just that which can be measured. It's closer to things like liking chocolate more than vanilla. Defend your choice of favorite flavor of ice cream. The fact that you, personally, cannot comprehend why religion would enrich other people's lives is your own issue.

Ah yes, I forgot that basically the religious traditions around that time of year from the christian faith were basically stolen from others. Sounds to me like less reason to protect it!

People enjoy their traditions because they make them happy. Who are you to say that they aren't allowed to be happy with their traditions just because you don't share or understand them?

You do realise that cars exist and can be proven to exist, right? You can touch one, drive one, and find large holes in your bank account due to one. Also, when someone is proven not to be using one safely, we penalise until they improve or have the legal right to use one taken away. Not the best analogy.

Religion is proven to exist. Stop moving the goal posts. This is about religion's affect, not whether it's valid, just that it is. Come back when you treat the analogy as it was presented, and not adjusted so you can treat it like a straw man.

[Duelist925]

Yet it is now, hence my concern.



I think it was more to do with, "How can we assure ourselves of more votes?" I also do not see it waning - I still regard a 4% difference at the end of an election to be pretty minor.

I address this better further down but, in essence: Bachman had nothing to do with that gap. She was not involved. She was never a legitimate candidate. That gap was between Obama and Romney. Bachman does not enter that equation.

What would be a reasonable expectation of time here? You do realise that atheists are trusted in the US about as much as rapists?

I've been trying to find the original study, but I will point out that it had a rather small sample size (only 350 ish people from what I've read) and we don't know the makeup of the people involved, only that they were religious to some degree--we don't know if they were xmas/easter people, or hardcore fundamentalists, or somewhere in between.

Despite wingnuts such as her on the team, 4%. That's frighteningly close.

No. It isn't. Because that 4% difference was with ROMNEY, not with Bachman. Bachman was never a legitimate candidate. She dropped out. She was not on the ballot. The 4% difference had nothing to do with Bachman. Romney was an odious bastard, but he was at least, outwardly, more sane than Bachman.

You cannot use use Bachmans insanity and the 4% margin at the same time, because one has nothing to do with the other. Had Bachman run, you may have a point, but she didnt. ROMNEY did.

And you completely ignore the facts of gerrymandering and voter rights issues that cropped up around that time.

Oh, I'm pretty certain they'll find something else...

Such as? Name something as far reaching as various religion that people can be a part of. The boy scouts? Your claim here is so vague as to be utterly worthless.

If they're following the christian religion (or some variant thereof), that's debatable as to whether or not they're actually following that faith at all.

...Ok, I've had it about up to here with this bs argument. This is the "True Scotsman" Fallacy, and its complete and utter shit.

There are so many denominations of xtianity that this argument fails right off the bat. and that doesn't even get into people like me, who identify as christian without subscribing to any one dogma or denomination, who consider their relationship with god personal, and not something requiring a church or large mass of people.

This. Argument. FAILS. On all levels. And every time you use it, I lose even more respect for you.

You don't get to define other peoples religions. You don't get to say "you're not really an X". I don't get to say "You must love Dawkins, and be a physicist if your an atheist or else your not a real atheist" or "You must be an asshole to all theists to be an atheist". And you don't get to say that people, including people on this board like myself, aren't really christian because they choose to think for themselves, rather than following the party line.


You quite simply don't.

For me, the point is that the main western religions tend to have an approach that offers forgiveness for crimes, within the boundaries of the church. This leads to people not trained in the capacity trying to work within the limits of their religion and being judge and jury, without doing much more than move the guilty around. They decided that they were above the law. They took the view that the separation of church and state meant that the law didn't apply to them.

Why did this failure take place?

Because people took it upon themselves to protect the name and reputation of the church in the wrong way. Because people decided to place themselves above the law. Because PEOPLE failed. It's not different than the Watergate scandal in that regard.

So, belief in a god blinds someone to common decency?

....No. And this has nothing to do with the bit you quotes to respond to.

The fatal flaw is not mine. This is something I raised earlier. Whenever the christian faith is raised on here, there usually comes a challenge to one doctrine or another, and then you usually get a number of people saying that they follow that religion, sort of, but not that exact part, so the argument doesn't apply to them.

A broad brush approach is required in such circumstances, and that's why I usually have to go back to basics and point out that there's no evidence for the core beliefs.

The flaw is yours because you keep trying to simplify something that is massively complicated (religion in general, xtianity in particular), and then being surprised when that doesn't work.

You try to put it into a tiny box, when it simply doesn't fit into that box.

Broad brushes only work when painting, Raps. Anywhere else, they're fundamentally flawed.

Not fair? I think it quite fair to point out that the core beliefs the cause an issue are based more on fable than fact.

Again, has nothing to do with the bit you were responding to, and is only a reiteration of your "Rawr, religion bad" rant.

She was stating what I stated above. You are painting with a broad brush, and that simply isn't fair. And is a poor argument tactic.

[Duelist925]

When a religion starts to affect people directly, then I would consider the evidence to be very, very necessary.

This law does not affect anyone directly, accept in the ways other people have pointed out a few dozen times, so I won't rehash.

Um, it's a pretty obscure message, actually. There are hundreds of denominatins of christianity each one claiming to have the real message behind them. So many versions of the same thing.

Which is why your "True scotsman" bs is bs, and why your constant usage of the vague "religion" and "faith" in arguements is so infuriating, by the way. ^_^ Because you never define what you mean with those words.

And yes, there are hundreds of denominations. If none fit your fancy, big whoop. No one here will force you to believe. If you find one that you like, that sparks something in you, great, good for you.

That love doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, though. If god created everything, then he created hell and the rules by which we go to hell. He basically says that we either love him or burn. That's not love. That's terrorism.

This assumes a belief in hell, or a belief that thats how hell works, or the nature of Gods love. There are as many variations on the thought on how hell works as there are christian, jewish, and muslim denominations. -_-

It does matter if that's the reason for real effects on real people. If the foundation of that can be shown to be false, then the whole reason for this legislation is gone.

Rapscallion

I refer you to my first point.