You must respect all religions and beliefs - Page 2

In general... I don't know.

But you can dismiss Prophet Isaac's god, who saves transsexual prisoner wizards. You can dismiss the FSM. You can listen to any specific god's claims, and see if they're falsifiable, and go from there.

Agreed. Problem is that is what religion, as a whole, has become. Mine is better than yours. Mine's right and yours is wrong. Or, as Carlin famously put it, my god has a bigger dick than your god. Worse, a lot of the people on the frontlines of these ridiculous arguments are people with power and influence on decisions being made regarding running nations, wars, and society in general. This effect will continue to exist so long as religion does.


LD: Not too sure about that analogy. Liberal and conservative social philosophies deserve discussion/arguments because they have a valid role in how we should operate as a society. Religion has no place at that table.

I love this.

Claiming that something is true without proof (or any chance of proof) is contrary to human progress.

If I want to believe that the Wizard of Oz is real, some people might consider it eccentric and harmless and ignore me. If I decide to live my life based on that belief, and start calling all homely women witches and bar my windows to protect against flying monkeys, some people might decide I'm just harming myself and ignore me. If I decide to go out and preach my beliefs in an effort to convince others, some people might decide that only idiots will listen to me, and ignore me. If I do convince others, a LOT of others, and we gain enough voice and power to start affecting political policy, some people might say that all beliefs should be tolerated. But I can no longer be ignored.

And now you have to pay taxes for flying monkey patrols.

Without sounding contentious, since I'm enjoying the discussion, I really didn't see that as an element of your initial critique. In re-reading I can see how you meant it, and I'm more willing to agree. I do believe that society should be governed by logic, absolutely. However, there's a major cart-and-horse issue here that needs addressing. Namely, we need to know the number people who use religion as a rationale for pre-existing beliefs versus the number of people who come to their beliefs through religion. I believe the issue isn't religion driving people to do irrational things, but rather people being irrational creatures who use religion as, for lack of a better term, a scapegoat. If that is the case (and I have no evidence one way or another), then the problem isn't with religion, and I'm not sure that attacking religion does us much good.

Well said. And thanks for providing my first sig here on the boards.

Does this really fly for the U.S., though? As much as it might not seem like it to us, we're pretty good at the separation of church and state. I'm having a hard time, off the cuff, thinking of a parallel for flying monkey taxes.

Um. No. No, you are not.
Your Leader often has claimed that he gets his guidance from God for crying out loud.

Your point? He can get his guidance from Xenu for all I care.

Anti-abortion laws? Anti-gay-marriage laws? Anti-buying-alcohol-on-Sunday laws? These are all chiefly Christian in nature, no?

Are you really this thick?
You don't care if your President gets his guidance from a make-believe character?

Wait: is this true?

I'm going to go with a strong "no" on the first two. You've got me on the Blue Laws point, but that's hardly a sign of a crippling relationship between church and state.

Re-reading my post, I can see I was a bit vague regarding my point. Apologies.

I agree that many are irrational to begin with and would most likely do stupid things whether they had religion or not. Some people are just plain ol' crazy. However I believe there are just as many, if not more who do some boneheaded stuff that is detrimental to humanity despite having "good intentions" and truly believing it is for the best, because that's what their religion has led them to think throughout their life. This is dangerous, and as Farsight said, hinders human progress.

To me, the only solution to this problem seems to be phasing religion out of society. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that if religion were suddenly removed from the world tomorrow that war will end, poverty will be gone, and we'll all hold hands and skip through flowery meadows all day. But it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

edited for grammar.

What is the non Religions based argument against gay marriage, exactly? That it's gross?
Educate me.

Isn't that exactly what you're suggesting he does? And no, not really, so long as his decisions are sound. It's a shame that Bush has been a shitty president, but to ask a man to govern outside of his beliefs (whether religious or not) is the "thick" part.

Only in the South. In the devil worshiping North, we can get liquor until 6 p.m. on Sundays.

Exactly that. How do you think it ended up being part of the religion in the first place? If there's one thing we've learned from history, it's that people accept the parts of their religion that are in accord with their world view and discard the rest. You don't see men with long hair getting stoned to death, do you?

Why are anti-gay marriage laws not based on Christian influence on State?

People are still getting stoned to death, you know?

Because the exact same people would take the exact same positions absent the influence of Christianity.

In the U.S.? Because that's what you're arguing with me. Let's not shift topic here.

I think it's clear that the ideas would be out there. There would be arguments against gay marriage and abortion, and some of them would even be based in reason. But I'm saying that religion (Christianity for us) has given people added incentive to transform these ideas into laws. Probably enough added incentive to tip the balance, so that we can say without it the laws wouldn't exist.

Absence the influence of Christianity a law like that would not get passed.

Really. I think a lot of them would, but not all. And also it'd be easier to change, were the positions not entangled with so many others under the umbrella of their specific religion.

Sorry I was talking about religions influence on politics and law on a global scale.
I take it back; you guys have got that church and state thing down sorted!

Ok, I'm going to concede this phase of the argument. I believe in my argument (namely that these laws are more due to biases trojaned in under the name of Christianity that due to anything dictated by religion itself), but you guys are making decent points.

However, there are two questions I have to ask:
1) I started this phase of the discussion with a statement about the separation of church and state: how do laws that are motivated by Christian belief structures impinge upon that separation?

2) What's your solution to people voting their value systems?

I'm still waiting for an example of the breakdown of separation of church and state other than "You can't buy liquor on Sundays", which actually doesn't qualify, but was a nice concession, since it's clearly religiously motivated.

Ummm the gay marriage thing? The anti abortion thing? The fact that your leader has admitted he takes guidance from God?
That doesn't sound like a great separation of Church and State to me. Didn't Bush used to regularly consult with that God Botherer before he got busted with meth? This sort of thing makes the rational, non believer freak the fuck out just a wee bit.
And that alcohol law blows. You guys are welcome to come over any time; our sundays are awesome.

actually there is a passage in Ezekial about 'No man shall lay with another man, as he does a women' or something like that

most people (and i'm generalizing here, lets not get into a semantics argument) need 'something' to believe in. Be it religion, science, logic, emotion, a flying spaghetti monster, or even nothing/everything all at once.

People will always find reasons to do the things they want to do (GW's assertation that 'God told me to fight the terrorists' or whatever bs that was), and God (or any specific god) is the easiest to turn to because of its instant 'absovablity' of personal responsibility.

If there were no religions, nor any notions of a 'God', those people would just find some other reason to do the things they do.

Stem cell research is way behind where it should be thanks to religion, and how our Govt. is influenced by it.

Wait why does that not qualify? It's an example of the State making a law based on religion? Stopping people from buying booze may not seem like a big deal but...uh...yeah, it's a big deal.

You don't know what separation of church and state is. Gotcha. Good to know you come barging into arguments like a blowhard while unprepared to discuss the topic at hand.

Our President believes the conflict in the middle east is a "mission from God".

I'd prefer that he believed in flying monkeys.

Ok...

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." Link.

Are we clear on the difference between the separation of church and state and people voting to support their beliefs?

Our president didn't get us into the war acting alone.

I totally see what you're saying, by the way. I just think that, whether religion is used to excuse or exacerbate or mask the problem... no matter what, it should be able to take some criticism.

The first question I'll have to think about, but the second one is easy:

Nothing. People will vote using whatever they think is important. If someone truly thinks gay marriage makes God angry, then I can't ask him to ignore that. I'd like him to change his mind about it, though, but that's unrelated to voting.

Nope! He had God on his side!

i can't say when it comes to the US

but up here in Canada, i don't see a lot of influnce of church over state.

we do have our 'lobby' groups for sure, but the political landscape never really strays into what religion a politician believes in.

Whereas, some of our politicians base entire campaigns on their religion.

And in return, a huge amount of people vote based on their religion as well.

Theoretically, I could start a religion the chief activity of which is purchasing Stolichnaya on the third Sunday of May. If I did, and by some incident the matter was taken to the courts, those courts would probably decide that my state's Blue Laws have very little purpose other than promoting Christianity. And since that purpose infringes on Kimbellism, it's therefore un-First-Amendment-y (sorry, I just read that Whedon post on Dollhouse.)

Until then, you're right that people can pass some non-religious, but religion-influenced laws, without breaking the separation of church and state. We could talk to, say, Pat Robertson, who'd argue that all laws come from morality, and all morality comes from religion, and he would see zero difference between the outlawing of murder and that of abortion. Both laws have the same origin and both are equally religious, he'd say.

But I guess I'd just have to respond that this thread, and Devin's argument, are about more than that. We are trying to argue against bad ideas in whatever forms they may take, even if they are unrelated to the separation of something and something else. So there.

incomplete post

There's actually a bunch of messy law about this issue.


Well, that's the funny part, I mentioned the separation thing as an offhand point somewhere many posts ago. But, I also don't think that's Devin's point (even if it was intended to be his point). I think his argument outright assumes that religion is a bad idea, and asks us to consider whether even bad ideas are worth respecting.

Though the premise got taken a bit far by some posters who I initially agreed with my stance is essentially that yes, bad ideas deserve our respect. Ironically, I think this is true for the same reason that I oppose the current U.S. Administration's anti-terrorism policy. It is foolish to over-simplify the things you oppose, because it's so important to understand them. While I have major problems with the claims that the guy (whatever his name is) who appears in Devin's first post makes, obviously, they resonate. We should want to know why. To apply a "let's just fuckin' swear at'em!!!" mentality (which I don't believe you ever advocated, but some did) is to apply the same mentality that religious zealots have used for generations in trying to out evangelize or occasionally, out-kill, their competitors. I certainly think the world would be better off without the belief that you can pray away HIV. But, despite readily available and utterly compelling evidence, that belief still exists. To believe that we can combat it through loud idiocy is a mistake. We should respect the belief so we can find the fallacious thought process that creates such bizarre conclusions. Once we understand that, then we can help guide people towards more rational thought processes.

Irrelevant.

My argument and analogy were about the significant effect one person's beliefs can have on others. It doesn't have to exist in a vacuum.

Whether it's the president, a terrorist, or just someone who votes based on religion, people who favor a bedtime story over logic, reason, and evidence affect your life. Allowing them to alter this reality based on their own without challenge is dangerous and foolhardy.

LD,

-Devin posted an image in which specific claims were made.
-These claims are overwhelmingly ridiculous.

We're all on the same page so far.

There are people who think that these claims should be respected solely because they're religious, but that they should be criticized if they came from any other source. Those are the ones whom this thread targets. Apparently you're not one of them, because, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that these claims should be respected no matter where they come from. And by respected, you mean they be examined with a clean slate, which sounds fine to me.

Outside of his followers, it's hard to imagine anyone claiming this.

I'm glad that the rule gets bent when the crazies get crazy, but there is still a rule out there that religious beliefs should be beyond reproach. Maybe rule is not the right word, and maybe it's more evident anywhere other than the internet. But if I disagree with it, I disagree with it, and I can't be satisfied simply because moderates occasionally denounce fundamentalists.

edit: it's the title of the thread, so that's what I take the thread to be about. But it's possible that no argument can follow other than

-"they should be respected"
-"Nuh uh."

since it's a bigger question and maybe one that's itself based somewhat in morality.

There is no credibility to any argument for the existence of god. You could make anything up that can't be seen and only imagined and say it's real with the same legitimacy of a true believer. Look at this topic as you would anything else in your life. Is a pink leprechaun keeping you from _______? No. Why is this so difficult for most people? It bothers me, especially as I know some who are otherwise sane beings. You aren't special for believing in a god. It isn't admirable. It's nonsense. Open your fucking eyes and try look at how the world actually is, in attempt to gain some perspective. You aren't a goddamn child. Grow the fuck up.

I'm only posting here to add to the list of D&D spells. Um....Melf's Acid Arrow!

i choose..Magic Missile


i think that respecting a belief or a bad idea without researching it, or investigating and coming to your OWN conclusions is bad. An idea without any deconstruction is just an idea.

Anyone who blindly follows....anyone or anything without coming to their own personal conclusions based on thought and debate, is very narrow-minded and IMO very stupid.