Theocracy Watch

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Finally a few people have referred to me as an atheist, even after I described myself as AGNOSTIC. If you don’t know what that means then you probably have no business posting on a religion thread.[/quote]

You are neither, Lumpy. You are a scared little boy who prints articles that are 6 years old because someone in that article believes in God. Oh my.

Why is it okay for you to use Pat Robertson as a source, but if someone from the right used him, we would be labeled radical?

Maybe you are the radical - hmmmm?

102

RSU:

I know the left thinks Bush blindly adheres to Christian doctrine. My point is that will not hurt him with the electorate.

As I have pointed out about 90% of all people believe in God. Praying and attending church serivices are nothing they would consider odd.

However, Kerry’s vote against stopping partial birth abortion will indeed hurt him in many Catholic households throughout the country.

Maybe he should have been a bit more devout…

103

[quote]vroom wrote:
Perhaps you should read what I said before deciding what it is that I am saying… ;)[/quote]

Let’s read it together, shall we?

So far I think I understand you pretty well, vroom.

OK, allow me to rephrase: how exactly is BUSH forcing his religion on you, or anyone else?

Again, no less than three times did you use the phrase “impose one’s religion” on someone else, and at least once did you tie it to Bush. So perhaps you could clarify for me what I am missing here.

And in contrast to your generally very cogent posts, I have to call complete BS on that last statement. Who teaches kids to disobey their parents? Who teaches little kids to walk out of the store with a candy bar in their pocket? Who teaches people to cheat? Who teaches us to act out our anger? We need to be taught NOT to do these things! No one intrinsically KNOWS right from wrong.

104

Dear Vroom,

An agnostic says he cannot know if God exists. I define this as self-professed ignorance.

In fact, what I believe is different in many ways from what my parents believe, so don’t start with the bit that people who believe in God are brainwashed and haven’t figured it out like more enlightened atheists etc.

Actually, my comment was not meant to be uncharitable, but Lumpy tends to be so shrill, that I usually don’t bother with long answers to his posts. Also, he tends to duck and run when the going gets tough. However, to be helpful, I will expand on my last post.

First of all, the opposite of agnosticism or atheism is not religion, as you suggest in your post. Religion goes way beyond the central question of origins, which I was referring to. Certainly, some of what you said about religion is true.

One of the basic physical laws of the universe is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This being the case, what can we say about the origin of the mass and energy contained in the cosmic egg? Another basic law of thermodynamics tells us that all matter and energy tends toward entropy, therefore we cannot conclude that this body of mass/energy was always there. The only other possible conclusion is that it was created from nothing by an eternal being, who is outside of, and must also control the physical laws we now see in operation.

Most of the founders of this country came to this same conclusion, and consequently at least professed deism. Today even more is known about the physical universe and it’s laws, making the conclusion that a Creator exists even more obvious.

Agnosticism is not intellectual honesty in my book. It is either laziness or stupidity. That may be a tough statement, but you are welcome to disagree. Let the Prolific Lump defend his own outlook on life.

105

RSU - “Are you kidding? You think its okay for someone to make decisions about world policy, war, and the lives that war will cost, based on prayer?”

This is where you have it all wrong. Bush doesn’t sit there and pray for an answer to our countries problems, then look for some hidden sign like a door blowing open or a sign flashing extra bright. Prayer is used to relax and comfort the person. It is similar to meditation in it’s effects and should be looked at as a virtue when in a high stress position. Bush doesn’t rule with the bible, if he did he would have pardoned every person on death row to life in prison under his watch. Just like any other human being, his religion makes up his belief system. You have a belief system and neither yours nor his is any more valid. You honestly cannot argue that because someone prays, they should not be the president. The fact is you are a liberal, you don’t like bush so you will find anything to attack him on. Come on, I hate religions, and even I don’t think bush is a religous extremist. Religions in america have been reduced in thier power to no more than social gatherings. Just because bush is against say… abortion and he is christian, doesn’t mean only christians think abortion is wrong and therefore are imposing a christian view on you. I an Non-Religious and I think abortion is dead wrong on all except emergency levels.

This is just a terrible argument you bring forth and the rest of you too, it just shows how completely intolerant you are. Oh no, someone disagrees with you. They must be bad, evil, an extremist, part of a conspiracy or some other massive mind control group. I’m sure Bush’s true motives are to install a christian rule, with the fist of god as his weapon and conform every last american into mindless zombie christians, yup thats exactly the feeling I get from him.

I hate to keep on with this but what do you expect him to do. In his core, the center of his being he thinks something is wrong and he is in the decision making chair. A good president will do what HE thinks is right regardless of popular opinion. This is what seperates a true leader from the sheep. ok, end of rant, continue your anti christian posts. (remember i’m non religious and I can tell)

Vegita Prince of all Sayajins

106

Vroom, buddy, based on many of your comments throughout the recent past I have determined you and I are on about the same level as eachother with regard to how we see the reason for life, yadda yadda yadda. The one difference I notice is that you hold others responsible for not making some necessary step to where you, and I are. Whereas I view all stages equally important and realize that Everyones individual experience is designed specifically for them by thier higher connections to the “source” if you will. I do believe in free will, but I also believe that we are decieved if we think our human minds make those choices entirely. Ever get a gut feeling that you acted on? A hunch you looked into? For some reason you notice something out of the ordinary that you would have never noticed had you been in the same spot 1000 times? Some people call these coinsidences, I call them communication. I believe we are gently steered, by our subconcious by our feelings, by our connection to the higher planes.

Even at the stage both of us appear to be on, we claim to both be truthful, intelligent, honest, open, thoughtful. And yet we disagree on many topics? how can this be if we both only seek the truth? Perhaps you should ponder that for a while and see what your inner guide says.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

107

Mr. Chen,
Agnostics generally believe that their is some sort of supreme intelligence of which we are a small part of, but in general they just don’t like to label it and package it.

Bandgeek,
The point to watchgroups like Theocracy Watch is to monitor the rise of radical groups like the apocolyptic assembly of god types because they so clearly do have a political agenda, and if they plant their moles in positions of political power they can gradually shift to fit their mold. They may not be in complete control right now, but they have more control than they historically have EVER had, and it is a bit too close for comfort for those of us who prefer to keep our faith private. They have achieved this level of power only because of apathy in the masses. I don’t want them to go unchecked though or they may eventually succeed in their agenda. I may have some kookie ideas on spiritualism compared to what you prefer. Do you want MY viewpoint being slowly leaked into the political powers that be? No. Trust me, for your sake AND mine, it is best that Biblical law be separate from Governmental law.

108

I don’t have time for much of a post, sneaking in some time at work.

Veg,

I don’t need to do much pondering. We have different ideas, beliefs and also some values. I have no problem with the fact that people see things differently, I do however want them to open their eyes and see. You are right about that. We are all born with our eyes closed – some of us eventually open our eyes.

Bandgeek,

Again, when I’m rallying against the imposition of religion, by Bush, you have to remember I don’t even live in the US. I can’t be claiming that he is imposing anything up me. He’s not setting policy for Canada just yet.

You’ll have to concede that I am arguing in the general about what I believe should or should not be done by any government administration. Bush and myself are but examples to help illustrate the point.

–

As for right and wrong, of course we all started as children and had little understanding of these things. However, as we grow up, we have things happen to us or others that we care about and we can learn from that. It is part of the process of socialization and maturation that most of us go through.

We do not have to learn this from a religion. My point is that whether or not we are religious, we can certainly know the difference between right and wrong and make decisions accordingly. I am not saying that religions do not contain some very good ideas, they obviously must or they surely would not continue to exist.

109

"We do not have to learn this from a religion. My point is that whether or not we are religious, we can certainly know the difference between right and wrong and make decisions accordingly. I am not saying that religions do not contain some very good ideas, they obviously must or they surely would not continue to exist. "

Some do some don’t, the fact is one source can not at this point in history be valued over another. Religous folk could then just as credibly argue that they don’t what someone making the decisions with no faith or belief in some higher power. They could view this to be reckless and like a souless zombie making decisions for us all. it is all which side of the fence stuff. I just don’t like the whole, I am open minded and intelliegent and kind and moral and you are none of these things and your ideas are garbage, and your views are dangerous. This is showing everyone that you are actually the second part of the description. A truly open minded kind, moral, intelligent person would have no need to sling such descriptions at anyone else. I am learning this more everyday.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

110

Why is it that people have such a problem with someone using Christianity as an ethical basis for decisionmaking? No one seems to worry about which environmentalists are backing legislation “so as not to offend Mother Gaie (sp?).”

Is it more scary because people are worried that there is a majority of people in this country that supposedly adheres to Christian ethics or Biblical principles?

There are all sorts of Biblical principles enshrined in the law – ideas about murder, stealing, taxation (“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s…”), etc. Some people agree with those concepts based on Biblical principles. Some people believe in those concepts for other reasons. Some (minority of) people do not believe in those concepts.

Leaving aside the judiciary for a moment, generally when a sizable majority of the voters believe in something, that is reflected in the law – that’s how our system of government works. If a representative generally reflects the values of his constituency, they vote for him. It doesn’t matter so much why people believe what they do, whether it be for religious or economic or tin-foil-helmet reasons.

In this case, it would seem from the website that “Christians” (a very loose concept there) are acting like any other group with a series of desired policies: environmentalists, the NAACP, etc.

Now, I have different reasons for disliking this – I don’t want to opinions on politics from a church any more than I want Lumpy delivering a sermon on Sunday. I also don’t know who appointed Pat Roberston a “leader” among “Christians” any more than I know who appointed Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton leaders among the black community (BTW, aren’t they preachers? Where are their churches?).

However, I am disturbed by the reflexive, anti-Christian bias reflected by the site. It’s not wrong, from a Constitutional perspective, for voters to want their morals expressed in the laws – whether those morals be Biblical or whether they reflect modern feminist theory [And generally, most moral decisions are equally defensible or indefensible, depending on your viewpoint, if you don’t accept some broad moral principles that don’t have anything to do with science].

111

While this is all very engaging…(yawn)… I’d like to point out that, as an American, you should understand the short life of this incredible country. Bush hasn’t imposed anything in regards to religion on us. As a matter of fact, he is upholding what is true and dear to this Nation.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world’s law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view … it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?

James Madison, the fourth president, known as “The Father of Our Constitution” made the following statement:

“We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

DID YOU KNOW?

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”.

DID YOU KNOW?

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy, the rule of few over many.

DID YOU KNOW?

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

“Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers.”

112

[quote]vroom wrote:
Bandgeek,

Again, when I’m rallying against the imposition of religion, by Bush, you have to remember I don’t even live in the US. I can’t be claiming that he is imposing anything up me. He’s not setting policy for Canada just yet.[/quote]

OK, but you admit you are “rallying against the imposition of religion, by Bush…” My question (and maybe I wasn’t clear) is as follows: Upon whom is Bush imposing his religion and how is he accomplishing it? I too am “sneaking some company time” so I’ll respond to your other point later :slight_smile:

113

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
DID YOU KNOW?

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law an oligarchy, the rule of few over many. [/quote]

And boy did he know what he was talking about!

114

[quote]DPH wrote:

I know this is not something that you want to hear but…your daughter needs to learn how to use condoms…she’ll be having sex behind your back before you know it…I’m pretty sure that you don’t want her to get pregnant and have an abortion behind you back also…please be realistic about this one issue…no parent likes to hear it but it is the truth.

I see your point as far as the other issues go…if that’s how they feel then vote away…
[/quote]

Truth? You can’t handle the truth! Seriously, you can’t. The truth is, parents need to fuckin’ parent. I’d like to blunt some of these so called parents with my bare knuckles, because somebody needs to give them (the parents) a good ol’ ass whoopin’. I’m sick of parents shirking their responsibility. This generation of parents, in large part, has gotten lazy. This bullshit of “tolerance” to the level that a parent can’t discipline a child is unbearable. The liberal movement has simply broken down families and given more rights to children than parents. I am very familiar with the arguments, and I can certainly agree that tolerance and protection is necessary in some cases. What I don’t agree with someone like you being so fucking complacent with what you believe is fact. The FACTS are that there are millions of good kids out there that do NOT engage in sex. They are the one’s that have got a good head on their shoulders and have had good family systems in place. When I say “good”, I don’t mean Jerry Fallwell crap or Leave It To Beaver. Just smart, respectful, and discipline parenting. You, implying that someone’s daughter is going to have sex behind our backs is enough for me to come to fists. If you ever said that to my face, you and I would get ugly real fast. That is a fact.

Rant finished… (so pissed off at this, that I’m not even sure I make sense).

115

My other point is that your political lense is skewing my statements… :wink:

If I wanted to show that Bush was imposing his religion I’d have to find policy decisions imposed by his administration, or those appointed by him for that purpose.

Quite honestly, I’m not following the day to day activities of your government that closely.

I also don’t mind if any particular leader is himself or herself a religious person. It is a mistake to think that so-called liberals are against people having religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs that are thousands of years old have trouble coping with current day realities. They do offer wisdom and guidance, but a thinking person should also recognize their own concerns about issues.

As religion becomes practiced with a more fundamentalist viewpoint it becomes more black and white. It becomes easer to control believers and have them commit attrocities while convinced they are doing the will of God. Religions are just words interpreted by man. They are easy to twist and misdirect.

So, it’s important to push in the right direction from time to time. As a population loses site of important lessons, it becomes bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.

116

[quote]vroom wrote:
My other point is that your political lense is skewing my statements… ;)[/quote]

I don’t think so…I am trying to understand a statement you made indirectly several times, and subsequently more directly: [quote]…I am rallying against the imposition of religion by Bush…[/quote]

Irrespective of the lens I am looking through (we ALL have a lens), it seems you are accusing Bush of “imposing his religion” on other people. If that is not what you are saying, fine, I am just trying to understand you and asking for a clarification.

This is exactly why I do not understand your statement!

117

Bandgeek,

It would be like rallying against a national ID system before the legislation was put in place – just on principle because you saw things had the potential to go in that direction due to things like the Patriot Act.

Make sense? It’s an idea. It’s a concept. I have opinions about whether or not it is appropriate. I can’t show that it has actually happened, but it could be nonetheless. A lot of people think they see signs.

The government is making troubling decisions in various quarters… sure, they might not abuse any of these powers by taking people overseas and having them tortured in other jurisdictions… oh wait, sorry, that has already happened.

The point is, governments are a concentrator or power, and they need to be watched like a hawk, at all times, from all directions. Whether or not the current administration has bad intentions is not even the issue. It is like religion, someone eventually will get in charge and use it for their own ends if it is possible.

The issue is what might happen a generation from now when a crisis occurs and it is seen as an opportunity to impose a higher level of control? Cracks in the armor of freedom have to be defended against at all times… and not just from terrorists and people on the outside.

The well meaning intentions of the shortsighted can also pave the road to hell. While the possibility of terrorist attacks is indeed dangerous, removing the safeguards that protect the freedoms of the populace, via religion or pervasive knowledge, is also dangerous.

Particularly close attention has to be paid to those for whom it appears that the ends justify the means. In pursuit of their almighty goals they will run roughshod all over basic ideals and become what they are fighting in order to defeat it.

Blah blah blah. Time to give the mind a break and hit the gym.

118

[quote]vroom wrote:
Bandgeek,

It would be like rallying against a national ID system before the legislation was put in place – just on principle because you saw things had the potential to go in that direction due to things like the Patriot Act. Make sense? [/quote]

Yes it does. Thank you for the clarification. BTW, I don’t know if the reference you made above is derived from the post I made about it earlier, but the national ID legislation is VERY likely to pass, soon, more likely than it ever has been; it’s something we “right-wing wackos” have been fighting for years, and it keeps reappearing.

When? Where? Who? This is news to me…

No argument here.

This has been happening incrementally for at least 100 years in this country (how many generations is that?)! Every time there is a crisis, the government grows itself in order to save us. The new crisis is obesity. How long before we have a Ministry of Nutritional Apportionment or some crap that in responsible for rationing food? Another favorite of mine is “global warming.” The answer to “global warming” is, of course, a massive increase in the scope and power of an international governing body, which, incidentally, has the stated goal of serving as a world government. I don’t like that, not one bit!

I would agree that the “enemy within” is the far more dangerous enemy. He has a familiar face; we know him and we trust him. I think you and I may have different ideas about who he is, though.

And yet it keeps happening, irrespective of who runs the show!

The only thing I can say is I think that the Christian idea of national governance is misunderstood. Yes, there are a few “hot-button” issues that we hold to be important, the most contentious probably being abortion. We hear talk of a “woman’s right to choose,” for example. That’s called semantics. It deflects the argument, shifts its frame. If it is her “right to choose” then the life that she is taking does not have any such choice, and those who oppose abortion believe that the unborn child possesses a right to ITS life. Being an emotional issue, it causes a lot of reaction on both sides, but that is what it comes down to. In general, Christians want a decentralized government that defends the borders, punishes crime, and otherwise generally stays out of the lives of the citizens and their pusuits. This assumes, of course, that the people have the strength of character to govern themselves, which must come from a generalized template of moral and behavioral standards (e.g. the Bible). This was the understanding of the Founders, who recognized and frequently articulated the indispensibility of a sense of Christian character underpinning the society (which is NOT the same as forcing Christianity down everyone’s throat). If we can’t control ourselves, someone must control us!

Enjoy! I’m taking the night off since I am running on about 3 hours of sleep today.

119

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Agnostic= One who is ignorant about the central question of human existence.

[/quote]

This is wrong

120

[quote]bandgeek wrote:

And in contrast to your generally very cogent posts, I have to call complete BS on that last statement. Who teaches kids to disobey their parents? Who teaches little kids to walk out of the store with a candy bar in their pocket? Who teaches people to cheat? Who teaches us to act out our anger? We need to be taught NOT to do these things! No one intrinsically KNOWS right from wrong. [/quote]

But who needs religion to do so?