I’m off to take a quick workout in the pool and home in time to watch UCLA whip the asses off Texas. Yes, I am a football freak. My kids went to Berkeley and Santa Cruz so I always cheer on the California teams. Bite me!
Also I feel generally religion has little to do with what people think about issues they vote on. The reason I say that is you’ll find religious people voting in all different directions for what ever reasons and some passage in their holy book will support what ever direction they go in, so really they just use the book to back up what they already are inclined to think, that’s if they even read it.
Possibly I misunderstood your intent, however, based on the meaning I got from the above statement, it seems that my response was germane.
Occam
Oh yes, I did say that.
I started with I feel as an indication I’m not sure.
So what I’m saying is there are right wing Christians and there are liberal Christians. Their religion doesn’t tell them what to think about these issues, rather they interpret their religion as being on their side, whatever that already happens to be.
So I guess I’m saying often correlation is getting mistaken for causation.
On the issue of religious schools I don’t think there should be such things because religion should be taught as what some believe and children shouldn’t be told what to believe or that they are, say, a Muslim, and that they should believe this. Now, do I think this because I’m agnostic or would this seem reasonable to me if I was a believer in a particular religion? I’m not sure.
What I think though is that in parliament only reasoning over the issues would take place. Nobody would stand up and say I believe this because it says so in the Koran or the Bible because everybody would fall about laughing.
If a politician were to bring God into it we’d ridicule him/her and it just isn’t done because the politicians know that. Tony Blair is well known for being a Christian but I think you’ll find he’s careful to keep that out of his politics.
Even if a religious leader does it we do the same. The last example I can think of is one who suggested some floods were God’s punishment, the reaction from the majority is what a fruit cake.
Stephen, that isn’t necessarily true. Fundamngelicals have a tendency to vote the way their sect tells them to vote. For my brainwashed relatives, they vote for the one who seems like a Xian to them. Secondly, if their minister says something about God during the election process, then they vote that way. Third, the candidate must be anti-abortion, anti-Gay, etc. Forth, he has to pray publicly and acknowledge this is a Xian nation. If they don’t meet those criteria, which includes the approval of their talking head then they don’t vote for him. I don’t consider this thinking through the issues. In fact, I call it not thinking about the issues. I call it having a set criteria and the candidate must meet that set criteria, which is not thinking at all. It is the reverse of thinking. Where is there anything about social issues of the time? You can’t say that being anti-abortion or anti-gay is thinking through the social issues. They already have their mind made up that being against something is the Xian way and the only answer they can give you about it is, “God said so in my little book”. That’s not thinking IMO.
Stephen, that isn’t necessarily true. Fundamngelicals have a tendency to vote the way their sect tells them to vote. For my brainwashed relatives, they vote for the one who seems like a Xian to them. Secondly, if their minister says something about God during the election process, then they vote that way. Third, the candidate must be anti-abortion, anti-Gay, etc. Forth, he has to pray publicly and acknowledge this is a Xian nation. If they don’t meet those criteria, which includes the approval of their talking head then they don’t vote for him. I don’t consider this thinking through the issues. In fact, I call it not thinking about the issues. I call it having a set criteria and the candidate must meet that set criteria, which is not thinking at all. It is the reverse of thinking. Where is there anything about social issues of the time? You can’t say that being anti-abortion or anti-gay is thinking through the social issues. They already have their mind made up that being against something is the Xian way and the only answer they can give you about it is, “God said so in my little book”. That’s not thinking IMO.
It’s complex Mriana. The sort of thing you are talking about is appauling but how much has it got to do with religion? I’m not sure.
Some people tend to vote the way their sect tells them to. Some people tend to vote the way people they see as authorties in their group say is best. What’s the difference?
The other thing I was saying is, luckily, over here we don’t have much of a problem with this, which I think is generally true.
Stephen, that isn’t necessarily true. Fundamngelicals have a tendency to vote the way their sect tells them to vote. For my brainwashed relatives, they vote for the one who seems like a Xian to them. Secondly, if their minister says something about God during the election process, then they vote that way. Third, the candidate must be anti-abortion, anti-Gay, etc. Forth, he has to pray publicly and acknowledge this is a Xian nation. If they don’t meet those criteria, which includes the approval of their talking head then they don’t vote for him. I don’t consider this thinking through the issues. In fact, I call it not thinking about the issues. I call it having a set criteria and the candidate must meet that set criteria, which is not thinking at all. It is the reverse of thinking. Where is there anything about social issues of the time? You can’t say that being anti-abortion or anti-gay is thinking through the social issues. They already have their mind made up that being against something is the Xian way and the only answer they can give you about it is, “God said so in my little book”. That’s not thinking IMO.
It’s complex Mriana. The sort of thing you are talking about is appauling but how much has it got to do with religion? I’m not sure.
Some people tend to vote the way their sect tells them to. Some people tend to vote the way people they see as authorties in their group say is best. What’s the difference?
The other thing I was saying is, luckily, over here we don’t have much of a problem with this, which I think is generally true.
Stephen
It has a LOT to do with religion, esp if you were to talk to them. They spew nothing but religion when they talk about voting. Its not just some human authority figure telling them this, they only vote for the candidate that appears to be Xian and based on “what the Bible says, which is God’s word” they should or should not do as Xians.
If you notice lately, many of our politicians are puking up delusional religious crap. This is an appeal to that section of society, which is actually a small section, but still their belief is “This is a Xian nation”, which it is not. This nation was never founded on Xian beliefs or anything religious.
It has a LOT to do with religion, esp if you were to talk to them. They spew nothing but religion when they talk about voting. Its not just some human authority figure telling them this, they only vote for the candidate that appears to be Xian and based on “what the Bible says, which is God’s word” they should or should not do as Xians.
But Mriana, many christians are not anti gay or anti abortion, the bible says so many things that just about any point of view can be taken as a Christian.
These people see things like this anyway, or so it seems to me.
If you notice lately, many of our politicians are puking up delusional religious crap. This is an appeal to that section of society, which is actually a small section, but still their belief is “This is a Xian nation”, which it is not. This nation was never founded on Xian beliefs or anything religious.
Yes, actually I’m surprised how many people think this is a christian nation too.
Stephen, I have worked since the election of Ike 1952, with a single agenda of every American Citizen has the right to be free no matter who they are, what color, what religion or none, and the sexual preference as a personal choice. Gradually since the end of WW2, the Christians believed that the enemy of Communism was Christianity. I’m not making this up. In 1964 we had a Republican Party who stood for all personal and social choices. We has spokesman named William F. Buckley who led us into the most freedom loving Republican Party possible. He was a confirmed Roman Catholic who understood the problem facing the American Constitution. It has been a continual struggle to keep religion out of our government. In no way would I try to tell you or anyone how your government should be operating. I am concerned only with the United States of America.
Stephen, I have worked since the election of Ike 1952, with a single agenda of every American Citizen has the right to be free no matter who they are, what color, what religion or none, and the sexual preference as a personal choice. Gradually since the end of WW2, the Christians believed that the enemy of Communism was Christianity. I’m not making this up. In 1964 we had a Republican Party who stood for all personal and social choices. We has spokesman named William F. Buckley who led us into the most freedom loving Republican Party possible. He was a confirmed Roman Catholic who understood the problem facing the American Constitution. It has been a continual struggle to keep religion out of our government. In no way would I try to tell you or anyone how your government should be operating. I am concerned only with the United States of America.
I’m not tuned into this conversation, some how.
I think I agree with you and applaud your work Sandy.
Stephen, I’m simply explaining my interest in American politics. We vote on everything here and I’m involved in the whole process. You sound a tad bored with the whole subject, and I will stop responding to your posts.
What no initiation rite for the Buddhists, Sankalpa? No rubbing the belly of the Buddha or anything?
As far a caring about religion or not… I care about religion now-a-days partially because of its pervasiveness into politics but also to expand children’s rights to factual information. Religion really clouds and crowds out the factual information for so many children.
What no initiation rite for the Buddhists, Sankalpa? No rubbing the belly of the Buddha or anything?
Buddhists express their faith by reciting that they take refuge with Buddhism. Other than that, there is initiation ritual for lay people in Buddhism. At least, there is no such thing in the Buddhist tradition that I was raised in. However, there are initiation rituals for Buddhist monks. They call it “ordination”.
jump_in_the_pit - 18 October 2011 05:04 PM
As far a caring about religion or not… I care about religion now-a-days partially because of its pervasiveness into politics but also to expand children’s rights to factual information. Religion really clouds and crowds out the factual information for so many children.
I was never baptized. My parents just weren’t religious at all. But not because they considered themselves atheists. Whenever someone would ask, they would just say they were protestants.
I suppose I should be thanful for that though. I didn’t have to grow up around all that superstition. The closest thing in my family to a religious fundamentalist was my aunt. Who was a jehovas witness. Every time she would see me, she would cry and say I wasn’t saved. But then again, most people thought she was a little loopy anyway.
Hook ‘em Horns!
