The Role of Religion in Government

[WC_lun]

For me I believe %100 in my religion. It isn't a system of guesses, but reality. However, I know that most other people, especially here in the States do not believe the same thing and that is okay. Other people's religious beliefs are equally as valid as my own, because I am not all knowing. That includes beliefs such as Athiesm. For someone else, Athiesm is equally as much truth as my own beliefs. The only time I have issue with other people's religious beliefs is when they use them to promote hate, anger, exclusiveness, selfishness, arrogance, etc. If a person's beliefs lead them to treat people well then I don't really care if it is the same as mine or not.

 

[fangjian]

Other people's religious beliefs are equally as valid as my own, because I am not all knowing. That includes beliefs such as Athiesm. For someone else, Athiesm is equally as much truth as my own beliefs.

Just to clarify for others reading this.

Atheism is not a belief or belief system. It is just a lack of belief in a cosmological claim. I have the same stance on the existence of many things. Many people think Atheism is the claim that there are 'no gods'. This is not true and I posted a pretty good video earlier that explains the difference.

For me I believe %100 in my religion. It isn't a system of guesses, but reality.

Do you think that your religious views should play a role in your government?

 

[Cryozombie]

Our Constitution certainly seems to be leaning in this direction, with a prohibition on religious tests for public office and the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment.

IMO: I disagree here, and believe the Constitution was not stating that we should ban people from practicing their religion as they see fit, even if that meant that wanted a giant 10 Commandments in their Couthouse or a Muslim Prayer center in their public school, but rather was designed to prevent people from saying "You MUST worship the way we tell you too."

In other words, I don't believe it was meant as freedom FROM religion, but rather freedom OF religion.

HOWEVER: On the subject of religion in politics, I look at works of fiction like "The Handmaids Tale" as cautionary statements about having a religious leader as a driving force in our government, and I disagree with them trying to regulate their morality onto the rest of us... I think it is a recipie for disaster.

 

[WC_lun]

Just to clarify for others reading this.

Atheism is not a belief or belief system. It is just a lack of belief in a cosmological claim. I have the same stance on the existence of many things. Many people think Atheism is the claim that there are 'no gods'. This is not true and I posted a pretty good video earlier that explains the difference.


Do you think that your religious views should play a role in your government?

Non-belief in something can be just as strong as belief in a thing. Always asking for proof is in a way belief system.

My religious views effect my decision making everyday. That is as far as my religious beliefs should play a role in my government. US government IS secular and should remain that way. Otherwise it becomes a government for only a select portion of the public. We have enough issue of it doing that without making the government beholden to any one religion.

 

[fangjian]

Always asking for proof is in a way belief system.

Right
Right. IMO it seems like a demonstrably superior one. Rather than if you based existence and reality solely off of something like 'Dianetics' by L Ron Hubbard. My 'belief system' would be comprised concepts like; evidence, logic, human reason, scientific method, education etc. But I think this kind of 'belief system' gets actual results that are measurable and contribute to society. This I would imagine would be the foundation for establishing laws etc. ( since this thread is about gvt.

So if you wanna call all of that a religion like 'Pearlism'( Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic ), than I guess I want my religion in government. hehehe What do you think about my belief system being in gvt?
I think this guy says it best.

[yt]vktnYVOsDns[/yt]

 

[WC_lun]

Fangjian, for YOU the things you believe work and are supurior. For others a different aproach might be what they prefer. Just as they have no right to ask you to follow something other than what you believe, you really have no right to denigrate anything they believe...unless actions are being taken upon those beliefs that harm other people.

Personally, the two things I want in my government are compassion and common sense. I don't care if someone considers that thier religion or not.

 

[fangjian]

Fangjian, for YOU the things you believe work and are supurior. For others a different aproach might be what they prefer.

No. It's not like I'm saying something like, ' Blue is a superior color to orange'. It's more like I'm suggesting ' Some ways of going about things have predictive capability and others don't.

, you really have no right to denigrate anything they believe...

So if someone claims something of a scientific nature, like let's say 'a world wide flood happened', and Geologists say ' No there is no evidence to suggest that occurred, and no reason to believe it.

Why is that 'rude' for a Geologist to say that?

Is it 'rude' for a doctor to say, 'faith healing' is just placebo effect, and you need to still take your cancer medication?

Religious claims are matters of science, if you wanna play with the 'big boys' you need to have a thicker skin.

 

[Cryozombie]

Religious claims are matters of science, if you wanna play with the 'big boys' you need to have a thicker skin.

And Vice Versa. There are a lot of times "Science" needs to man up and admit the truths it holds dear are conjectures.

After all, The Sun is a Ball of Hydrogen and Helium right?

No, no, we discovered Plasma, it must be that right?

And... next month when we discover depleted Chewboccium it will be made of that.

 

[WC_lun]

No. It's not like I'm saying something like, ' Blue is a superior color to orange'. It's more like I'm suggesting ' Some ways of going about things have predictive capability and others don't.



So if someone claims something of a scientific nature, like let's say 'a world wide flood happened', and Geologists say ' No there is no evidence to suggest that occurred, and no reason to believe it.

Why is that 'rude' for a Geologist to say that?

Is it 'rude' for a doctor to say, 'faith healing' is just placebo effect, and you need to still take your cancer medication?

Religious claims are matters of science, if you wanna play with the 'big boys' you need to have a thicker skin.

There is a difference in your analogy. In your analogy the people are scientist speaking f a scientific thing and can use scientific processes to prove or disprove the subject of conjecture. When it comes to something like the exsistence of god, scientific processes aren't gonna cut it. So while your view is that it is superstition works for you, it is indeed rude to talk down to others who believe in god, or gods, or some mix of the above or dismiss it as superstition only. Here's the truth, you don't know with 100% certainty that there is no god, just like no one else knows with 100% certainty there is. It is arrogance not to admitt that and that there might be a chance, even very slim that you might be wrong. Just for the record, I do not believe in a Judeo Christian idea of god eiher. It is more of this nonsensical thinking that THIS is the only TRUE way and anyone who blieves different is either stupid or ignorant.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Rare that I agree with Lucky, but...

Anybody who's knowledgable about the history of scientific inquiry knows that the basic theme of that history is we now know that everything we though was true 100 years ago was ridiculous.

Further, the relationship most people have with science is indistinguishable from the relationship most people have with religion. We read books written by our priests, who interpret the laws of our world based on....something. We don't do our own testing and inquiry -- with much of modern science, we couldn't if we wanted to. We just accept as writ what we choose to believe.

Granted, science is based on a rigorous system of logic and peer review, but it's better at proving itself wrong than at proving itself right. It was designed that way.

Where I disagree with you Lucky, is your own arrogant assumption that your set of beliefs is somehow superior to that of the athiest. It's certainly no worse, but there's nothing to demonstrate that it's better.

Better for you, perhaps, if it serves you and improves your life. But that's not the same thing.

Um I never stated my beliefs.
My beliefs are going to be different from the vast majority and I am fine with it.
The only thing I have ever said about beliefs is that a. I dont think that creationism and evolution are in conflict with each other. and b. The only religion or belief systems I think suck are the ones who want to end my way of enjoying my life.
I have never once said that anyone should change their beliefs to match mine, or end their beliefs. I have said that if someones beliefs mean they have to try to end my way of enjoying life then they better be in good with their creator.
so while I appreciate the premise... you misread the post entirely, I recommend going back and rereading it

 

[fangjian]

And Vice Versa. There are a lot of times "Science" needs to man up and admit the truths it holds dear are conjectures.

No. A conjecture is a belief in something with insufficient evidence. That's religion. Not science. When I was a kid, the estimated age of the universe was 10 to 20 billion years old. Now it's 13.75 Billion yo. One hundred years from now, it will be even more precise. It's constantly refining. Not conjectures.

There is a difference in your analogy. In your analogy the people are scientist speaking f a scientific thing and can use scientific processes to prove or disprove the subject of conjecture. When it comes to something like the exsistence of god, scientific processes aren't gonna cut it.

The subject of the origin of our universe is science. Cosmology. When it comes to the existence of gods, the scientific method is demonstrably the best way in studying Cosmology, Astrophysics and Astronomy.

So while your view is that it is superstition works for you, it is indeed rude to talk down to others who believe in god, or gods, or some mix of the above or dismiss it as superstition only.

Praying, wearing things like crosses for 'various supernatural purposes', rituals where people pretend to eat human flesh and drink human blood ( like the Eucharist ),....... How is all of this not superstition?

Here's the truth, you don't know with 100% certainty that there is no god, just like no one else knows with 100% certainty there is. It is arrogance not to admitt that and that there might be a chance, even very slim that you might be wrong. Just for the record, I do not believe in a Judeo Christian idea of god eiher. It is more of this nonsensical thinking that THIS is the only TRUE way and anyone who blieves different is either stupid or ignorant.

Your right. It would be arrogant to believe that you claim to know with 100% certainty, all of the inner-workings of the universe and how it came to be.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Your right. It would be arrogant to believe that you claim to know with 100% certainty, all of the inner-workings of the universe and how it came to be.

should have just posted that and you would be fine..

 

[fangjian]

should have just posted that and you would be fine..

I never claimed to know how the universe came to be. Religious people do.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I never claimed to know how the universe came to be. Religious people do.

Sure you just claim they are wrong. Period I don't see the difference in them and you... no actually I do, they take faith in what they believe, you just believe they are wrong.

 

[fangjian]

Sure you just claim they are wrong. Period I don't see the difference in them and you... no actually I do, they take faith in what they believe, you just believe they are wrong.

That's fair. It seems to me, that the way they come to their conclusions in regards to all of these questions in Cosmology, Biology etc are highly flawed. Biologists develop models through research, testing etc and come up with actual predictions! That's the difference. Those who promote denying stuff like 'evolution' because they interpreted a book like the Quran or whatever, seem like they are using a method that seems a bit flawed if they wanna go an make Biological claims, wouldn't you say? . If you wanna make biological claims, you gotta study biology. If you wanna make claims about gods and goddesses and how the universe came to exist, that's cosmology, people. Cosmology is science. And these ideas can be under scrutiny just like the ideas of Cosmologists and Theoretical physicists.

 

[Cryozombie]

No. A conjecture is a belief in something with insufficient evidence. That's religion. Not science. When I was a kid, the estimated age of the universe was 10 to 20 billion years old. Now it's 13.75 Billion yo. One hundred years from now, it will be even more precise. It's constantly refining. Not conjectures.

As far as I can tell, A lot of science is the same way. Especially when it comes to things we cannot study/measure directly. Sure, we know certain things, and then science makes assumptions based on that knowlage, but there is no EVIDENCE that this same knowlage applies. It's an assumption.

"Well, gosh, Timmy, if we look at heat sources thru this aurometer, we can see colored auras. The only thing that we have seen makes a green aura is a mix of Oxygen and Poop burning. When we look at that distant star in Orions belt, it too has a green aura. Therefore, without a shadow of a doubt, that star is made of burning oxygen and poop!"

Why is it, if New Age Nellie says "Your body can tap into unexplored areas of the mind to heal itself with natural magic" science says "Hogwash!"

But when Science Steve says "Your Your body can tap into unexplored areas of the mind to heal itself thru unknown means we call the placebo effect" it's SCIENCE FACT!

Please man.

 

[fangjian]

Why is it, if New Age Nellie says "Your body can tap into unexplored areas of the mind to heal itself with natural magic" science says "Hogwash!"

But when Science Steve says "Your Your body can tap into unexplored areas of the mind to heal itself thru unknown means we call the placebo effect" it's SCIENCE FACT!

Please man.

Sciences like Biology, Psychology, Neuroscience actually study this phenomena and how it works. Pseudosciences will just call something and that's it. It's magic. It's the holy spirit. etc. No tests, no observations, double blind studies........

Just like the existence of the universe. Physicists, Cosmologists etc. actually study this stuff.

How do you not see the difference?

 

[billc]

I still think it is funny that we can't get off this rock and the atheists seem to have the universe pretty well figured out. What are they going to do when the first time we get out past pluto and they hit one of the elephants trunks. What will they do with that littlt bit of info.

 

[fangjian]

I still think it is funny that we can't get off this rock and the atheists seem to have the universe pretty well figured out. What are they going to do when the first time we get out past pluto and they hit one of the elephants trunks. What will they do with that littlt bit of info.

?

 

[billc]

You need to read the sacred texts of the great Pratchett my friend. Then the mysteries of the world would be known to you.