Can we talk religion here?

[BrianFromWA]

(If we can't, just let me know and I'll stop...don't want to get banned)

quote from Hasoos:

off the to of my head

Abortion
Stem Cell research
Prayer in School
Book Banning
Internet censorship
TV Censorship
Opposition to right to die
Teaching creationism in schools
Giving government grants to Faith based initiative groups

Don't know the religious background, so it makes it a little difficult to deal with specific issues, but I think the one thing that isn't happening is that Christian ideals are being forced down anyone's throat. In fact, over the last quarter-century, more and more "religious" freedoms were taken away in the name of "separation of church and state", in which most people (I will not surmise whether you are one or not) are completely off-base in their understanding.

Teaching "creationism" in schools may not be popular, but it has a lot less holes than the theory of "darwinism" does. If you have a chance, check out from the library a copy of "the Genesis Flood", which is pretty good about the scientific and engineering principles behind the biblical view of Creation. One of the sad things about the state of our education system is that other "religions" and "gods" have been set up in direct opposition to the God of the Bible/Torah/Koran in our society. Global Warming is, currently, an unfounded scientific principle that many use to attempt to explain phenomena in our world. It is no more proven than the Six Day Creation theory, yet many (who generally are liberal-progressive in their worldview, though I wouldn't just generally apply that moniker to all of them) seem to think that if you attempt to disprove Global Warming, you're a religious nut, an unscientific rube, or in the pockets of Big Oil. Should you attempt to introduce Six-Day Creation as a competing "theory" to the Theory of Evolution, it's blasphemous and cause for dismissal.
(just the first example.. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259844,00.html)

Prayer in school has been successfully removed by "progressives". Sex education is taught to kindergartners in California. Abortion has been legal for 30 years. Each of these has taken a value I hold dearly, and turned it into something that is illegal or perverse. How is that being forced down YOUR throat?

Suicide has been illegal since the birth of our country. Upholding that law is having "religion shoved down your throat?"

I don't know about censorship, other than I can watch just about anything on any channel of my television, and if it's not there, I can darn sure find it on the internet. I can't remember the last time a book was able to be banned from school curricula (though I'm sure one can be found), other than religious texts.

I don't know much about grants to faith-based religious groups, so I can't speak about that one, sorry.

I'll add some. Marriage has been changed into something it isn't. If you want to have a "civil union", cool beans. No problems with your freedom to pursue happiness. But I have a problem with those who illegally had a marriage performed (mayor of SF--I'm looking at you) when it was against the law, but it's not prosecuted because no one wants to tell a homosexual it's wrong to break the law. I would submit that that is having someone else's religion shoved down my throat, as an American who believes in laws.

"Progressive" judges who think that their bench is an excuse to promote their philosophy that man is generally good, and have no accountability in their sentencing, is something else shoved down my throat.

I'll stop for now. </soapbox>

 

[Denny Crane]

Religion is a fine topic.

 

[Denny Crane]

My take is that Secular Humanism is a religion in its own right and that is being forced down our throats.

I'm not in the least religious, so I'm not personally affected by pushing religious freedoms from the public square...

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I think there's a big backlash with religious types, most notably the "bible belters". Almost as bad as there is with muslim extremism. However, making fun of muslims is a no-no, while making fun of christians is perfectly acceptable. Making fun of jews is only acceptable if its coming from a jewish person. Kind of a strange standard we have going, but catholics are a pretty targeted group by pop culture.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't even have problems with "making fun" of me for Christian beliefs...it's what I believe. But I don't like people to tell me I can't practice them, or who persecute me when I rail against someone's perversion of them.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I don't even have problems with "making fun" of me for Christian beliefs...it's what I believe. But I don't like people to tell me I can't practice them, or who persecute me when I rail against someone's perversion of them.

oh no, then you would be closeminded. they would stop at no chance to "rail" on you for your beliefs, in fact. you are closeminded because you won't blindly believe what they do.

 

[bodyman5001]

I don't even have problems with "making fun" of me for Christian beliefs...it's what I believe. But I don't like people to tell me I can't practice them, or who persecute me when I rail against someone's perversion of them.

I don't know if you have ever heard my theory on religion but here goes......

I just can't find it in myself to believe. I went to church as a child growing up but could never find the faith people spoke of.....in fact I sometimes think awful things about those that do. BUT....

People who make fun of you for your beliefs are stupid fucking idiots. Think about it, if you are wrong and there is no God what is going to happen when you die? Nothing, you will be dead and never know that you were wrong.

If you think there is no God like me and die, what happens if you are wrong? According to what I was taught you will burn in hell. NOT GOOD

So, living a Christian lifestyle is a good thing whether or not there is an afterlife.....Heaven is just a bonus I guess.

 

[Minstrel]

People who make fun of you for your beliefs are stupid fucking idiots. Think about it, if you are wrong and there is no God what is going to happen when you die? Nothing, you will be dead and never know that you were wrong.

If you think there is no God like me and die, what happens if you are wrong? According to what I was taught you will burn in hell. NOT GOOD

So, living a Christian lifestyle is a good thing whether or not there is an afterlife.....Heaven is just a bonus I guess.

Yeah...that's a common claim. It's known as Pascal's Wager.

The main flaw in the argument is that there is more than one religion. Believe in Christianity all you want...being wrong doesn't necessarily mean "no God." Being wrong could mean that Islam is correct and you've been following the wrong religion. Bad news.

So, really, the argument doesn't work. No matter what religious stance you take, you risk eternal damnation. So, you may as well believe what you want.

 

[Chutney]

Pascal's Wager's never made sense to me. I have a hard time believing that someone would be rewarded for their faith, when that faith was only motivated by a fear of "being wrong." As a religious person, I find it hard to accept that kind of insincerity as real religious belief.

As for the whole creationism in schools thing, the problem I have is that creationists insist on it being taught in science classes. Say what you want about the holes in evolution theory (the Precambrian gap, etc.), but these theories are scientific in that they acknowledge the possibility of error. In that way, they are scientific theories/hypothesis in the true sense of the word. That crucial aspect is entirely absent from creationist theory. There can be no possibility of error in creationism and that goes entirely against one of the fundamental tenets of science.

I also find creationist arguments and books to be some of the most mind-numbing demagoguery I've ever encountered.

 

[crowTrobot]

People who make fun of you for your beliefs are stupid fucking idiots.

give me a break. we all mock beliefs we think are blatantly irrational. if someone came on this forum and said they sincerely believe elvis is still alive what do you think the reaction would be?

if you want to be more specific and say that mocking someone personally for their deeply-held religious belief is not likely to be socially productive i'd agree, but there should not be anything wrong with mocking the belief itself.

Think about it, if you are wrong and there is no God what is going to happen when you die? Nothing, you will be dead and never know that you were wrong.

If you think there is no God like me and die, what happens if you are wrong? According to what I was taught you will burn in hell. NOT GOOD

So, living a Christian lifestyle is a good thing whether or not there is an afterlife.....Heaven is just a bonus I guess.

now that's original : )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

 

[Dumpy]

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell2.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rusisgod.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell7.htm

 

[Haakzilla]

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell2.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rusisgod.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell7.htm

...thank you for the good reading material!!!

 

[Haakzilla]

Prayer in school has been successfully removed by "progressives". Sex education is taught to kindergartners in California. Abortion has been legal for 30 years. Each of these has taken a value I hold dearly, and turned it into something that is illegal or perverse. How is that being forced down YOUR throat?

There is no place for prayer of any kind in a PUBLIC school. Sex education is NOT taught to kindergarteners in California. Let's not address abortion [for now]. What value was "taken" away from you exactly??? Nothing you've listed in your quote has been taken and/or forced down your throat...

 

[Chutney]

I don't understand how not having special rights makes you oppressed.

 

[bodyman5001]

give me a break. we all mock beliefs we think are blatantly irrational. if someone came on this forum and said they sincerely believe elvis is still alive what do you think the reaction would be?

if you want to be more specific and say that mocking someone personally for their deeply-held religious belief is not likely to be socially productive i'd agree, but there should not be anything wrong with mocking the belief itself.




now that's original : )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

Yeah, good analogy. Elvis and religion are sooooo the same.

I wasn't saying that PRETENDING to believe in something is a good wager as this Pascal thing is about. Sorry for not being 100 percent clear.

This French douchebag seems to think that PRETENDING you believe in something is going to help in the afterlife. The bible I read doesn't say anything about pretending to be a good person and God will let you in.

MY FUCKING POINT IS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE BUT IF SOMEONE ELSE DOES WHY SHOULD THEY GIVE TWO FLYING FUCKS WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS?

For all you fucktards that can't understand things unless you read about what some ancient dude wrote about it before someone invented the internet how about this.....

In the movie Shallow Hal, Hal was pissed that Jason Alexander's character fucked the way he viewed Gwenyth Paltrow's character. As he should have been, who cared what George Costanza thinks?

People always gotta fuck with you when you have something good going.

So there is nothing wrong with mocking a Christian but it is wrong to mock someone who mocks Christians?

This reminds me of how the left wants tolerance but won't tolerate those who don't agree with them.

 

[Chutney]

If your belief can't stand up to criticism/mocking, is it really that good a thing in the first place? You use that Shallow Hal analogy, but I liken it to that scene in the Matrix where the dude can't stand the harshness of reality and wants to return to the more pleasant, fictional world. I can't stand willful ignorance.

 

[crowTrobot]

Yeah, good analogy. Elvis and religion are sooooo the same.

they're exactly the same - irrational belief in something unsupported by objective evidence.

I wasn't saying that PRETENDING to believe in something is a good wager as this Pascal thing is about. Sorry for not being 100 percent clear.

you missed that particular point. non-believers HAVE to pretend. they can't just make themselves believe (at least not without extensive self-brainwashing).

the point that is more important to your previous post is that if a judging god does exist you have no way of knowing what his requirements for salvation are. for all you know just "living a christian lifestyle" might not fit his requirements.

MY FUCKING POINT IS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE BUT IF SOMEONE ELSE DOES WHY SHOULD THEY GIVE TWO FLYING FUCKS WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS?

i don't, unless it affects me. the fundamentalist christian agenda in the USA and radical islam are affecting everyone right now.

So there is nothing wrong with mocking a Christian but it is wrong to mock someone who mocks Christians?

who said it was?

 

[BrianFromWA]

There is no place for prayer of any kind in a PUBLIC school. Sex education is NOT taught to kindergarteners in California. Let's not address abortion [for now]. What value was "taken" away from you exactly??? Nothing you've listed in your quote has been taken and/or forced down your throat...

I'm sorry. My geography was off...it was in Massachusetts. http://life.familyeducation.com/sex/teen/36172.html
There's also a bill in the Illinois State Senate (and it didn't go through) http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

Why is there no place for prayer in a public school? Is prayer something dangerous that instills a fear in others when I pray? How is it different for someone to say that there is no God, and therefore I cannot pray to one? That is a religion unto itself. Do I think there should be ritualized chanting each hour, with compulsory attendance? Not at all. But to tell me I can't pray, but 12 year olds can make out in the hallway? That's shoving atheism down my throat, AND taking away my freedom to express religion. To put it another way...are you going to ban Islamic girl children from wearing their ceremonial clothes, b/c there's "no place for religious observance of any kind in PUBLIC school"? Is that shoving it down their throat?

I'll agree not to discuss abortion, for now. Can I talk about homosexual entitlements without being labeled a homophobe? As far as I know (and I'm by no means an expert), there is no difference between me (a heterosexual person) and a homosexual one other than the method by which we have sex. We can like the same books, same music, have similar political views, work the same jobs, drive the same cars, go to the bathroom the same way, etc. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is in how we have sex. But somehow, the progressive view that there are entitlements that come with that IS being shoved down my throat. If they don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex, fine. To each his own. Want a civil union? Sure, knock yourself out. I don't even have a problem with "civil union-aires" getting the same basic family rights as I have. Marriage is a sacrament of the church, not a synonym for civil union. But MY religious value of what the sanctity of marriage actually is is being twisted into something I don't think it was meant to be, is being flaunted and "shoved down my throat", b/c in the vast majority of places you are labeled a homophobe and shouted down if you don't agree to go along with the entitlement.

Another one of my religious values is the sanctity of preserving your body before marriage. I don't have any problems with you if you don't espouse this view...I understand it is a quaint and obtuse belief for most. What I don't support is that I have no control over my tax dollars (going to the same public school that I can't pray in) being required to buy condoms for distribution to children (under the age of consenting adults). The government has deemed that there is a certain "age of consent", under which you're not able to have sex even if you want to, just like you can't join the military even if you want to or buy beer or cigarettes even if you want to. But progressives have taken "freedom" and "liberty" and "entitlement" and "lack of accountability" and decided that it's easier to pass out condoms and show "the joy of sex" videos, and call it "education". If "sex education" is working, why are so many unwanted pregnancies still happening? Why cannot my tax dollars go to trying to get kids to graduate with an ability to become productive members of the workforce or leaders in the home and community, rather than give them a means of enjoying themselves seemingly without care of potential consequence? I would call that "being forced down my throat", since when I complain I am vilified as one "idealistic radical religious" name or another.

Am I way off base here?

 

[BrianFromWA]

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell2.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rusisgod.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell7.htm

The Russell one is one that I've read before, and I have some issues with many of the things he says, and would be happy to talk to you offline about it. Without getting too dogmatic (that wasn't the point of the thread), one of the larger cop-outs of those who don't believe that the Bible is inerrant is that they'll say "Jesus wasn't God..although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness." Look, you can't have it both ways. He was either a great teacher of how to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself; or he was the 1st century equivalent of David Koresh -- a maniacal lunatic who led others astray by claiming falsely omnipotence and Sonship of God. You don't get to have it both ways.

I haven't clicked on the others yet. Would alternate views to Russell (like from CS Lewis, for example, or more ancient or modern texts) be helpful to anyone?

I don't want to turn this into a forum where I attempt to reason with you to make you Christians or have you make me Buddhist or atheist or something...I respect you all too much to do that. What I ask is that you take a look at how "more established" religious beliefs/practices/modes of worship are being increasingly undermined, while "newer" religious beliefs of Secular Humanism, Darwinism, etc. are championed as being purer and unreligious (and therefore able to be held up as good for everyone), and then ask if that's the direction you want your country to be going. For me, it isn't.

 

[barfo]

I'll agree not to discuss abortion, for now. Can I talk about homosexual entitlements without being labeled a homophobe?

Maybe. What are homosexual entitlements? What has anyone proposed giving gays that heterosexuals don't already have?

As far as I know (and I'm by no means an expert), there is no difference between me (a heterosexual person) and a homosexual one other than the method by which we have sex. We can like the same books, same music, have similar political views, work the same jobs, drive the same cars, go to the bathroom the same way, etc. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE is in how we have sex.

That is all perfectly reasonable.

But somehow, the progressive view that there are entitlements that come with that IS being shoved down my throat.

What entitlements?

If they don't want to marry a member of the opposite sex, fine. To each his own. Want a civil union? Sure, knock yourself out. I don't even have a problem with "civil union-aires" getting the same basic family rights as I have. Marriage is a sacrament of the church, not a synonym for civil union.

No one is suggesting that your church should be forced to recognize gay marriage.

But MY religious value of what the sanctity of marriage actually is is being twisted into something I don't think it was meant to be, is being flaunted and "shoved down my throat", b/c in the vast majority of places you are labeled a homophobe and shouted down if you don't agree to go along with the entitlement.

Nobody is doing anything to your view of marriage. You don't have to pay any attention to the gays at all. You can just ignore them if you like.

Another one of my religious values is the sanctity of preserving your body before marriage. I don't have any problems with you if you don't espouse this view...I understand it is a quaint and obtuse belief for most. What I don't support is that I have no control over my tax dollars (going to the same public school that I can't pray in)

Why would you want to pray in a school?

being required to buy condoms for distribution to children (under the age of consenting adults). The government has deemed that there is a certain "age of consent", under which you're not able to have sex even if you want to, just like you can't join the military even if you want to or buy beer or cigarettes even if you want to. But progressives have taken "freedom" and "liberty" and "entitlement" and "lack of accountability" and decided that it's easier to pass out condoms and show "the joy of sex" videos, and call it "education".

My, sex ed must have changed a lot since I was in school.

If "sex education" is working, why are so many unwanted pregnancies still happening? Why cannot my tax dollars go to trying to get kids to graduate with an ability to become productive members of the workforce or leaders in the home and community, rather than give them a means of enjoying themselves seemingly without care of potential consequence?

It's not an either-or. Schools could in theory do both.

I would call that "being forced down my throat", since when I complain I am vilified as one "idealistic radical religious" name or another.

Sure are a lot of people being vilified these days.
Is sex ed being forced down your throat (no pun intended)? I suspect that you can withdraw your kids from sex ed classes if you want to. [Maybe I'm full of it on that point, I don't have kids myself, so correct me if I'm wrong]. Are you complaining about your kids being exposed to this, or other people's kids being exposed to it? Maybe other people want their kids to have sex ed, and resent you saying they shouldn't?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

I also may be talking out of my hat, for I have no children either, and my very young nieces are privately schooled.

I think sexual education as part of health and/or physical education classes are fine. I just don't see the need to teach elementary school children about chlamydia when they haven't learned how to spell it. I was in 5th grade when I first was taught sexual education in a public school in northern California. I still don't see how passing out free condoms is a good use of my tax dollars, though perhaps in a nation headed toward socialized medicine it's different (I don't pretend to know much about that).

If little Johnny's parents want to tell him about vaginas when he's 5, more power to them. I'm pretty sure I would not want my child being told those things at that young an age. Schools could in theory both teach robust sexual education programs and broad-based curricula on the 3 R's, but that's not what is getting funded. I'm getting into the anecdotal realm now, so I apologize, but I don't hear much (even from sources that don't pull punches against "fundamentalist" conservative Christians) about right-wing radicals getting prayer sanctioned in schools, or removing sex ed curricula. What I do see is movements banning the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design. I see lowering of standards in order to show higher graduation rates. It used to be that colleges were the realm of ideologues...now the battleground has moved into the primary schools as well.

My church may not have to recognize gay marriage, but if it becomes law of the land then I have to...much like the abortion we agree not to talk about (not totally parallel, so I don't want to get off on that tangent).

 

[barfo]

I think sexual education as part of health and/or physical education classes are fine.

ok.

I just don't see the need to teach elementary school children about chlamydia when they haven't learned how to spell it.

Are they being taught about chlamydia? And if so, what are they being taught about it?

I was in 5th grade when I first was taught sexual education in a public school in northern California.

And... ? How did that affect you and/or your viewpoint on sex ed?

I still don't see how passing out free condoms is a good use of my tax dollars, though perhaps in a nation headed toward socialized medicine it's different (I don't pretend to know much about that).

The reason it would be a good use of your tax dollars is that teenage pregnancies cost vastly more of your tax dollars than condoms do.

If little Johnny's parents want to tell him about vaginas when he's 5, more power to them. I'm pretty sure I would not want my child being told those things at that young an age.

Ok. But I guess we've established that this isn't about our kids, since we don't have any.

Schools could in theory both teach robust sexual education programs and broad-based curricula on the 3 R's, but that's not what is getting funded.

Maybe, but it isn't like the 3Rs is starving due to all the money being funneled towards sex ed. Sex ed just doesn't cost that much.

I'm getting into the anecdotal realm now, so I apologize, but I don't hear much (even from sources that don't pull punches against "fundamentalist" conservative Christians) about right-wing radicals getting prayer sanctioned in schools, or removing sex ed curricula.

ok.

What I do see is movements banning the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design.

Are we changing the subject here?

I see lowering of standards in order to show higher graduation rates.

And that would be yet another unrelated subject... I don't think graduation rates have anything to do with sex ed or creationism.

It used to be that colleges were the realm of ideologues...now the battleground has moved into the primary schools as well.

Not sure what you mean by that.

My church may not have to recognize gay marriage, but if it becomes law of the land then I have to...

How so? If gay marriage becomes law, how does it affect your daily life?

barfo

 

[DaRizzle]

Why is there no place for prayer in a public school? Is prayer something dangerous that instills a fear in others when I pray? How is it different for someone to say that there is no God, and therefore I cannot pray to one? That is a religion unto itself. Do I think there should be ritualized chanting each hour, with compulsory attendance? Not at all. But to tell me I can't pray, but 12 year olds can make out in the hallway? That's shoving atheism down my throat, AND taking away my freedom to express religion. To put it another way...are you going to ban Islamic girl children from wearing their ceremonial clothes, b/c there's "no place for religious observance of any kind in PUBLIC school"? Is that shoving it down their throat?

Im addressing all of it but the highlighted section is really ridiculous...

Nobody is saying there is no God. Nobody is saying children in school cant pray as you falsely imply. Go ahead and tell YOUR kid to pray at school to YOUR God. The point is to not have the school shoving God down kids throats. I recall times where parents notified their kids school to let their kid do a religious act, for example, a muslim going to pray (they are supposed to 5 times a day). You want to talk about religions, what they believe, and how they have influenced the world in the history portion of the school day then fine, no problem. No school should talk about God as if it is 100% fact.

Religions would have a lot less followers if it wasnt brainwashed into every kid, no matter the religion. Thank GOD I overcame that.

 

[DaRizzle]

My church may not have to recognize gay marriage, but if it becomes law of the land then I have to...

Religious groups come knocking at my door once a month to see if I might join their religion...

I am yet to have a gay dude knock on my door and try to convince me to turn gay...

So who do I have to deal with more? Both of them have views I dont want to follow.

Religion is shoved in peoples faces all the time...Yet to see gay sex in public

 

[Dumpy]

real quick, children are not prohibited from praying in schools. what is prohibited is for the schools to organize religion. If a child wants to pray quietly in a corner, more power to him or her.

 

[crowTrobot]

one of the larger cop-outs of those who don't believe that the Bible is inerrant is that they'll say "Jesus wasn't God..although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness." Look, you can't have it both ways. He was either a great teacher of how to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself; or he was the 1st century equivalent of David Koresh -- a maniacal lunatic who led others astray by claiming falsely omnipotence and Sonship of God. You don't get to have it both ways.

that's silly. someone can certanly logically believe jesus wasn't god but still recognize the value of much of his (supposed) moral philosophical teachings. same thing with buddha 500 years earlier. the fact that both of their teachings included a lot of metaphysical baggage that non-believers reject doesn't mean there isn't potential value for everyone to what they said about earthly social morality.

What I ask is that you take a look at how "more established" religious beliefs/practices/modes of worship are being increasingly undermined, while "newer" religious beliefs of Secular Humanism, Darwinism, etc. are championed as being purer and unreligious (and therefore able to be held up as good for everyone), and then ask if that's the direction you want your country to be going. For me, it isn't.

a secular humanist is just someone who believes in strict separation of church and state, and believes that our modern common sense is a much better guide for moral choices than ancient texts written by primitive superstitious humans. what's wrong with that?

not sure what you mean by darwinism, but evolutionary science and accepting the high probability of the truth of evolution is certainly not a religion. there is no faith involved.

 

[Dumpy]

The Russell one is one that I've read before, and I have some issues with many of the things he says, and would be happy to talk to you offline about it. Without getting too dogmatic (that wasn't the point of the thread), one of the larger cop-outs of those who don't believe that the Bible is inerrant is that they'll say "Jesus wasn't God..although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness." Look, you can't have it both ways. He was either a great teacher of how to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself; or he was the 1st century equivalent of David Koresh -- a maniacal lunatic who led others astray by claiming falsely omnipotence and Sonship of God. You don't get to have it both ways.

I haven't clicked on the others yet. Would alternate views to Russell (like from CS Lewis, for example, or more ancient or modern texts) be helpful to anyone?

I don't want to turn this into a forum where I attempt to reason with you to make you Christians or have you make me Buddhist or atheist or something...I respect you all too much to do that. What I ask is that you take a look at how "more established" religious beliefs/practices/modes of worship are being increasingly undermined, while "newer" religious beliefs of Secular Humanism, Darwinism, etc. are championed as being purer and unreligious (and therefore able to be held up as good for everyone), and then ask if that's the direction you want your country to be going. For me, it isn't.

I have no problem with religion; the issue has to do with state-sponsored religion. There is obviously a very large grey area that the Court has addressed in recent years. While a courthouse can't have a copy of the ten commandments on the wall, a christmas tree is NOT considered a religious symbol, and is fair game.

Releigions, particularly christianity, has increasingly tried to become more involved in politics, speaking out on purely social issues. They've gone too far, in my view, on many of those issues, by trying to restrict the rights of those that are not members of their religion. I don't have a problem with a chruch declaring that members that enter a gay/lesbian marriage will lose their membership. I personally don't agree with that stance, but they can do whatever they want. What right do they have to restrict the rights of all of society?

As far as creationism goes: that's what private schools are for. Again, why subject non-christians to those tenets?

 

[Chutney]

The only problem I have with Bertrand Russell is that the majority of his critiques of religions are really just critiques of Christianity. He focuses his attack on that specific faith and then, in his conclusions, extends it to all of religion. It's a problem that I find throughout religious discussions and is frustrating, because I find Christianity to be the most prone to contradictions.

 

[Dumpy]

The only problem I have with Bertrand Russell is that the majority of his critiques of religions are really just critiques of Christianity. He focuses his attack on that specific faith and then, in his conclusions, extends it to all of religion. It's a problem that I find throughout religious discussions and is frustrating, because I find Christianity to be the most prone to contradictions.

that is all true.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I really want to respond, but I cannot in the short amount of time I have left in a way that's responsible. What I'd like to ask is this:

How is it that one can have "faith" in Evolution, or Global Warming, or the Big Bang, or the Plum Pudding Model of Electrons and call it "science", but as soon as someone take the view of 6-day Creation, it's debunked as "religious tenets" that non-Christians shouldn't be subject to? Look, if you have a chance and an open mind (from someone who's done some studying on the matter), check out this book at your local library if you can. It's old (1960, iirc), but many of the principles and questions still apply.
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Flood-John-C-Whitcomb/dp/0875523382

And a review (not mine):

This is one of the first contemporary books on the subject, possibly the book that started the modern creation movement, giving a scientific basis for the Genesis flood. This is not for those with short attention spans. Heavily footnoted and very comprehensive, it covers the gamut of science and creation, looking at the geological world of today in light of what we would expect to find after a global flood.

Dr Whitcomb conclusively demonstrates the scientific basis for the Genesis flood, casting strong doubts on the foundations of evolution. Evolutionists tend to discuss their theory more in philosophical terms than scientific. Dr. Whitcomb presents the Genesis flood from solid and current (as of 1960) scientific evidence.

Dr. Henry Morris, who died early this year, earned his doctorate in hydraulic engineering and was a respected educator and writer in his field. His book, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, was a standard in colleges for nearly forty years--quite a feat for an engineering textbook. I doubt the critics of this book can boast the same authority. Like most creationists, Dr Morris started out as an evolutionist/gradualist, only switching because creationism better explained the geological phenomena he observed.

It is indeed in need of updating, but is a starting point for understanding this subject. Radiocarbon dating is still inconclusive a half century later, and in fact needs other corroborating evidence for a date, and even has to be correlated regionally. It is based on three assumptions--the rate of decay has remained constant, the original content of the sample is known, and no contamination of the sample has occurred. Hydrology still fails to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon (if viewed as millions of years old). This geological formation is a mile-deep, winding river--impossible by our understanding of water action. Either it is a shallow and wide meandering stream or a straight, deep rushing river, but not both. The Colorado River could not have cut this canyon through solid rock. Drs Whitcomb and Morris give a scientific, not wishful or philosophical, explanation of its formation. For more myth-busting on the formation of the Grand Canyon, read Dr Walt Brown's In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition).

Unfortunately, the evidence will fall on deaf ears for the person unwilling to read this with an open mind, insisting that naturalism, itself based on unproven assumptions, is all there is. The more evolution accepts catastrophic causes, such as the Yucatan meteor theory, the more it is abandoning its gradualist foundation (and unwittingly supporting creationism) yet reluctant to admit it.