My take on Barack Obama's Election

[murra]

What, pray tell, flew over my head? And I love how you use the word atheist as if it's supposed to be some sort of biting insult. I'm proud of it, you saying that is not a slap in the face.

 

I have doubts about God as much as the next "atheist," But I'm not ready to declare myself "atheist" by 19.

 

I want to know myself, why you consider yourself a "proud" atheist? Proud? What makes you "PROUD" about not believing in anything?

 

I'm one of the few conservatives not really all that built up on religion, but I uphold the bible for its moral lessons, not necessary intended to be taken literally. Saying that you're proud to be atheist though...I just want to know why. I'm not calling you out for being atheist, I've just never heard someone say they're "proud of it".

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

 

Did you see the new South Park too

 

Nope, not yet. Gonna watch online tomorrow. Any good?

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

I have doubts about God as much as the next "atheist," But I'm not ready to declare myself "atheist" by 19.

 

I want to know myself, why you consider yourself a "proud" atheist? Proud? What makes you "PROUD" about not believing in anything?

 

I'm one of the few conservatives not really all that built up on religion, but I uphold the bible for its moral lessons, not necessary intended to be taken literally. Saying that you're proud to be atheist though...I just want to know why. I'm not calling you out for being atheist, I've just never heard someone say they're "proud of it".

 

Well my parents are both atheists, so it's more a part of my identity than most people. I was always the only kid in my class who never got Christmas presents/easter baskets and stuff. I guess that's where the certain amount of pride comes from, pride for my background. And I don't think atheist means that I "don't believe in anything". I believe that something, at some point, created the Earth and the Universe. I believe that we, as humans, are incapable of understanding whatever that force was and are foolish for trying.

 

But for those who believe there is a "god" watching over us at all times, those are the people I disagree with. See, I think that it is foolish to believe that there is a god out there who is somehow invested in our well being. I believe that god is a creation of man and not the other way around. There was a time on Earth before humans existed, and there will be a time when humans are gone. And yet most world religions insist that god created humans in his image.

 

And I do agree with you that certain portions of the Bible have a very solid moral backing. But I believe that's true of most religious texts. I've read most of the Bible, most of the Ku'ran, among other readings. If you subtract the specific beliefs about differing gods, prophets, etc. it all boils down to the same message of being kind to your fellow man.

 

I guess what really gets to me is how people use their faith to justify believing in something which they have absolutely no physical evidence for. Fact is, nobody knows if there is a god, or (if there is) what god's nature is.

 

In fact, I suppose my theological beliefs are more in according with agnosticism. Because for me to assert that there is, without a doubt, no god is just as bad as the people who believe for no other reason than blind faith.

 

But, yes, I am proud that I haven't bought into any of the religions that most people practice. I tend to think that 2,000 years from now, Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Hinduism will all be looked upon as nothing more than mythologies. After all, nobody prays to Zeus anymore. So I'm more inclined to marry an agnostic woman (or at least find one who isn't interested in being married in a church) and try my best to let my children know that having no religion is just as viable an option as believing in something.

[Dibs]

Barack Obama will be my President come January 20......

 

Mike Murphy

North Olmsted, Ohio

That was great.

Thanks for taking the time.

[murra]

I've read most of the Bible, most of the Ku'ran, among other readings.

 

I guess what really gets to me is how people use their faith to justify believing in something which they have absolutely no physical evidence for. Fact is, nobody knows if there is a god, or (if there is) what god's nature is.

 

I tend to think that 2,000 years from now, Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Hinduism will all be looked upon as nothing more than mythologies. After all, nobody prays to Zeus anymore.

 

1. You read most of the Qur'an? That's absurd. I would commend you, but having had to study it my world policies course, I know that it is nothing more than a severely misguided list of guidelines and forms to follow, written in the most obnoxious way.

 

2. To say that people believe and have no physical evidence is such a cop out. Most people with faith have their reasons which go beyond all physical proof. Some people claim to have been touched, or to have had their prayer answered, or rather some believe in God to get them through a difficult time, which can alleviate some pain that would otherwise haunt them.

 

My Mother for instance lost both her parents in a very short time apart when she was young, and used God to help her get through. It sounds corny and we're not really a very religious family as it is today, but for my Mother God was a part of her life everyday for some 15 years.

 

3. To predict that in 2,000 years the modern religions will amount to Greek mythology is ignorant. Greek mythology was not organized in the matter that we see, say Catholicism today. The bible, and the "proof" of a messiah will prove to be much more impactful than light-hearted stories of an all powerful god living amongst other gods in a heavenly setting of immortality and all the nonsense that followed. There is a significant difference between the religions today which have resulted in holy wars ongoing for 2,000 years. To say it will be looked upon as a mythology is as blatantly rude as it is ignorant.

 

In conclusion - to each his own. Surely I do not mind your religious beliefs or lack thereof. You do seem to have more of an agnostic following than an atheist one, but in the end it does not matter, we are nothing more than grains of sand in a beach.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

1. You read most of the Qur'an? That's absurd. I would commend you, but having had to study it my world policies course, I know that it is nothing more than a severely misguided list of guidelines and forms to follow, written in the most obnoxious way.

 

Which is largely similar to the Old Testament of the Bible, no?

 

It's certainly not a "modern" document by any stretch, and a large reason that the Middle East has failed to become modern itself is that it bases its laws and regulations on its religion. Thankfully, we have separation of church and state here in America.

 

And every archaic text is written in the most obnoxious way, there was no political correctness back then. Of course, certain Suras deal with nothing but guidelines, but there is definitely a code for morality in there.

[murra]

Which is largely similar to the Old Testament of the Bible, no?

 

It's certainly not a "modern" document by any stretch, and a large reason that the Middle East has failed to become modern itself is that it bases its laws and regulations on its religion. Thankfully, we have separation of church and state here in America.

 

And every archaic text is written in the most obnoxious way, there was no political correctness back then. Of course, certain Suras deal with nothing but guidelines, but there is definitely a code for morality in there.

 

I was hoping you would read past my meaningless hatred for the Qur'an.

[murra]

Thankfully, we have separation of church and state here in America.

 

We do? Where does it say that?

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

3. To predict that in 2,000 years the modern religions will amount to Greek mythology is ignorant. Greek mythology was not organized in the matter that we see, say Catholicism today. The bible, and the "proof" of a messiah will prove to be much more impactful than light-hearted stories of an all powerful god living amongst other gods in a heavenly setting of immortality and all the nonsense that followed. There is a significant difference between the religions today which have resulted in holy wars ongoing for 2,000 years. To say it will be looked upon as a mythology is as blatantly rude as it is ignorant.

 

In conclusion - to each his own. Surely I do not mind your religious beliefs or lack thereof. You do seem to have more of an agnostic following than an atheist one, but in the end it does not matter, we are nothing more than grains of sand in a beach.

 

While that is probably true, there is nothing to suggest that Jesus, Mohammad or Vishnu have any more control over your life than Zeus, Artemis, Athena, and the rest of the gang. And yes there have been holy wars regarding our modern religions, but if you think there haven't been wars fough over the more archaic religions as well, then you are wrong.

 

But alas, what you said at the end there is most definitely true. We are probably more insignficant than we could ever know. We will all have to wait until death to get the answers to our questions, if we ever do get the answers. Personally, I don't see a pragmatic reason to believe in an after-life, but here's to hoping I'm wrong! After all, I'm just as curious as the next guy.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

We do? Where does it say that?

 

Well in 1802, Jefferson described the first amendment as a wall of separation between church and state, and the Supreme Court has used the quotation often in their proceedings. Even if it is not the official law of the land, we do have separation of church and state in the sense that our laws are not affected by any specific religious doctrine. In most of the Muslim world, laws are considered valid for no other reason than their inclusion in the Ku'ran. It is quite different here.

[ieatcrayonz]

I believe that something, at some point, created the Earth and the Universe.

Interesting

 

I believe that we, as humans, are incapable of understanding whatever that force was

Probable

 

 

and are foolish for trying.

Why?

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Interesting

 

Probable

 

 

Why?

 

Because, from where are we ever going to get the answer?

[murra]

Well in 1802, Jefferson described the first amendment as a wall of separation between church and state, and the Supreme Court has used the quotation often in their proceedings. Even if it is not the official law of the land, we do have separation of church and state in the sense that our laws are not affected by any specific religious doctrine. In most of the Muslim world, laws are considered valid for no other reason than their inclusion in the Ku'ran. It is quite different here.

 

The First Amendment's establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from ever creating a national church.

 

Madison explained this in depth, and wrote it in a way that could not possibly be interpreted otherwise.

 

Jefferson wrote to a Baptist community in Danbury that had commended him on his election to explain why there would be no national days of fasting and thanksgiving.

 

"Interestingly, two days after writing to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson attended church services held in the House of Representatives and continues as a regular attendant throughout his presidency." - Mark Levin (Men in Black, fantastic read. You should really take a gander if you have any interest in becoming a lawyer or anything like that)

 

It wasn't until justice black interpreted his letter and the "wall of separation" incorrectly that this presumed separation took place. There is no law respecting it and it was often disputed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and others who virtually have ignored Black's interpretation, claiming it more or less his opinion, and should not be viewed as law.

[Dibs]

The First Amendment's establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from ever creating a national church.

 

Madison explained this in depth, and wrote it in a way that could not possibly be interpreted otherwise.

 

Jefferson wrote to a Baptist community in Danbury that had commended him on his election to explain why there would be no national days of fasting and thanksgiving.

 

"Interestingly, two days after writing to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson attended church services held in the House of Representatives and continues as a regular attendant throughout his presidency." - Mark Levin (Men in Black, fantastic read. You should really take a gander if you have any interest in becoming a lawyer or anything like that)

 

It wasn't until justice black interpreted his letter and the "wall of separation" incorrectly that this presumed separation took place. There is no law respecting it and it was often disputed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and others who virtually have ignored Black's interpretation, claiming it more or less his opinion, and should not be viewed as law.

So are you stating that there isn't a separation of church & state in America?

[murra]

So are you stating that there isn't a separation of church & state in America?

 

There is no "wall of separation". Liberals constantly rely on Jefferson's words to justify their position to any instance where government intersects with religion, but there is certainly no implied "wall".

 

I'm sorry if you're just finding this out now.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

The First Amendment's establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from ever creating a national church.

 

Madison explained this in depth, and wrote it in a way that could not possibly be interpreted otherwise.

 

Jefferson wrote to a Baptist community in Danbury that had commended him on his election to explain why there would be no national days of fasting and thanksgiving.

 

"Interestingly, two days after writing to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson attended church services held in the House of Representatives and continues as a regular attendant throughout his presidency." - Mark Levin (Men in Black, fantastic read. You should really take a gander if you have any interest in becoming a lawyer or anything like that)

 

It wasn't until justice black interpreted his letter and the "wall of separation" incorrectly that this presumed separation took place. There is no law respecting it and it was often disputed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and others who virtually have ignored Black's interpretation, claiming it more or less his opinion, and should not be viewed as law.

 

Well I think that precedents can speak as loudly as written laws. Until FDR came along, nobody had to write down the 2-term limit for Presidents. We separate church and state because it is an American tradition, even if it isn't written anywhere.

[murra]

Well I think that precedents can speak as loudly as written laws. Until FDR came along, nobody had to write down the 2-term limit for Presidents. We separate church and state because it is an American tradition, even if it isn't written anywhere.

 

Where do you come up with this crap? If you keep badgering on pretending it's tradition, sh*t like nutjobs attempting to remove the word "god" from the pledge happens.

 

There is no such tradition, don't you get it? You people made it up. Quite recently in fact.

 

What precedent are you referring to? Read Rehnquist's dissent in Wallace v Jaffree.

[Dibs]

There is no "wall of separation". Liberals constantly rely on Jefferson's words to justify their position to any instance where government intersects with religion, but there is certainly no implied "wall".

 

I'm sorry if you're just finding this out now.

No need to be sorry......not being from the US lots of internal US issues are new to me.

 

Does it make a difference if there is(or isn't) a "wall of separation"?

[murra]

No need to be sorry......not being from the US lots of internal US issues are new to me.

 

Does it make a difference if there is(or isn't) a "wall of separation"?

 

I just used that because it's the preferred terminology of liberals. Equally, there is no separation of (or from) church and state.

 

It's a poorly and extremely loosely interpreted term coming from a letter one of our founding fathers (TJ) wrote on an entirely different topic. Over time it was misinterpreted in order to please the hippies.

 

And yes, it does matter. Greatly. I'm not very religious, but I like to keep liberals from re-writing history because they don't like the word God. It's absurd.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Where do you come up with this crap? If you keep badgering on pretending it's tradition, sh*t like nutjobs attempting to remove the word "god" from the pledge happens.

 

There is no such tradition, don't you get it? You people made it up. Quite recently in fact.

 

What precedent are you referring to? Read Rehnquist's dissent in Wallace v Jaffree.

 

The whole pledge of allegiance thing is just a dumb argument from both sides of the fence. Who gets hurt if we leave "god" in the pledge? Nobody. Who gets hurt if we take "god" out of the pledge? Nobody.

 

But I'm unclear on something, are you suggesting that values from religious texts ought to be included in our legal system? That opens up a whole can of worms, seeing as the United States has no official religion.