jakee

well you know what they say, it ain't just the cream that floats to the top.

look, i didnt say that christians are bad people, it was not a generalistic statement it was focused at a very small but vocal section of society.
i just said that these day's, people who try to follow the exact words of the bible, both testaments, are generally considered to be very scary people. Right to life people who bomb abortion clinics for religious reasons, that sort of stuff, it was in no way directed at you or any other people who posted on this thread.

Oh and just to pick hairs, Atheistic cult members? isn't that an oxymoron.

Quote

I believe that God places in all of us a basic internal understanding of what is right or wrong

That is my point. Why would you not vote for someone who shares all your political ideals and is willing to stand up for them and in your own words has an internal understanding of what is right and wrong just because he doesn't believe in your god. You have just said that it does not make him any more or less likely to do the right thing than a regular church goer.

And then more generally, if the inate sense of morality is given to you by god then why would you need the bible, the church and the ministers and your religions standard of morality to tell you what 'god' has already put inside you?

I like the way the website of a german company owned by british aerospace has the stars and stripes draped all over it, who are they trying to kid?

Quote

I derive my set of standards and morals from a higher source. If one does not, the standards and morals are made up by the individual. Everybody is different and would have their own versions of what they feel is right or wrong.

Tink1717, to be fair to the guy I honestly don't think that anyone has a personal ready made set of morals from the word go. However i think that the moral values we end up with are given to us by society as a whole.
The thing is that the predominant religion in most societies, including ours has absolutely sweet fuck all to do with what society considers acceptable.

Look at christian europe through the last two millenia and see the changes in what was acceptable in the way individuals, governments, churches and armies acted and compare it to what is acceptable nowadays. Absolutely no comparison, also no comparison between our set of morals and the biblical set of morals.

People who do follow the bible to the letter are generally considered scary homophobic woman hating right wing cult members.

yes, you did say that there was no SET relation between belief and morality. You may believe that religious people are in general more moral than non religious but you DID admit that religious belief does not neccesarily mean a person has good morals.
Aside from that,

Quote

I do think there is a set relation between my religious belief and the standards for what is considered right and wrong. That's not something I leave up to humanistic determination.

I find this statement personally offensive, lets take it apart piece by piece shall we?
Who told you to be good, was it god himself or one of his ministers? I'm going to bet that it's the latter.

in that case who told him to be good, was it God Himself? in that case why does this minister have a direct line to god that you do not, seems stupid. If god did not talk to this minister then basically you are doing what another HUMAN has told you is right, same as the rest of us.

OK, so what if it was god himself that told you to be good, or instilled in you an inate sense of 'goodness'.
do you have to believe in god to have that inate sense of goodness, that would be kind of strange now wouldn't it?
Therefore a president would not have to be a believer to know what is right or wrong because 'God' already told him without his knowing it.

Quote

And all this you still miss the FACT that religion was the reason for the founding of the country.

No No No.

The reason for the settlement of america was because it was there and it had a good climate and abundant natural resources.
The reason for the founding of the nation state was to get away from taxation without representation as someone pointed out earlier.

the truth is exactly what they don't want you to see. If you are scared of them then you wont ask too many difficult questions.

Founded by religious people yes. it's only natural that they would mention god in their documents in that day and age. However they seem to have made every effort to emphasise that religion should have no bearing on the rule of law.
Its also pretty obvious that the laws of the US are not based on Christian law (With the exception of stuff like murder, theft and rape but hey, thats a bit of a no brainer anyway)

Quote

Do you think its impossible for some one to have good morals and a sense of what is and is not right but not believe in god?

No.

So if you agree that there is no set relation between religious belief and the ability to do the right thing then why would you not vote for an atheist/ non believer. It just seems petty to me.

So would you vote for a politician that shared all your political views and was willing to stand and fight for them but didn't believe in God?

Do you think I'm arrogant for not believing in god or is it just a gov't thing?

Do you think its impossible for some one to have good morals and a sense of what is and is not right but not believe in god?

Edit: How do you think belief in or respect for god would reflect itself in gov't policy?

Quote

Is spirituality a safety net too

Yes I would consider it a safety net. However if you can get that feeling of security without signing up to organised religious BS then I suppose thats a good thing.
I'll never tell anyone not to believe something but I will tell people if I think what they believe is stupid.

Quote

Are you talking about political correctness here?

No i'm not talking about political correctness. I'm saying that if any spiritual institution had control of a country, no matter how permissive the institution started sooner or later it would be a crime to worship anything other than what they tell you or do anything other than what they tell you.
Wars have been fought and people oppressed in the name of every religion in history, even buddhism.

"alright, no one is to throw another stone until I blow this whistle. Not even, I want to make this quite clear, not even if they say Jehova. AAAARGH"

God is a mental safety net to stop people from thinking about the fact that after they die they wont be alive anymore. Its a magical feelgood factor for anything these people are worried or nervous about or that they can't explain.

Back before the dawn of science it was a good explanation for how everything came about, the earth, the universe, evolution, etc and it also explained how everything worked.
Thats not really an excuse anymore though is it.

Quote

Time's have changed and the people have moved and evolved with them...

YES! it always gets me when people seem to think that the constitution(s) were written with some kind of sacred foresight and that they will always be right no matter how different things are.

Quote

Is there a difference between fredom "OF" religion and freedom "FROM" religion?

Taking the literal meaning yes there is a difference.
In the real world no not really.

You have to be free from the rule of religion to be able to choose a religion. If any spiritual institution had control over the running of a country then its a safe bet that it would quickly become more and more restrictive until the only option is to follow their doctrine.
as it is now religion is a business. you have to be a nice and appealing religion to make people buy their souls from you rather than the other temple down the road.

Quote

Yeah but the very beginings of this country were based on religion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761591226/Mayflower_Compact.html

Agreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth : 1620
IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you guy's fought a war to remove yourself from the rule of the king then this statement has no relevance to any laws or constitutions written since the decleration of independance.

Sorry about that. I was replying more to the way that article was written, the author was saying that seperation of church and state was a bad thing and implied that the the authors of the state constitutions wanted the government to be strongly linked to the church.
What i should have said was that the guy who wrote the article was an idiot NOT that America's founders were idiots, they did a good job.

I DO stand by my comment that having the government answer to the church is moronic.

OK, but which god were they talking about, you wanna get the pope and the archbishop of canterbury to fight it out for total control of your lives?
Having a government that answers to any church is just moronic. Even if that is what America's founders wanted, who cares? They were wrong.

And yet people fall for it every day.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

the other book was a reworking of backwards.

"thats me! I'm Cloister, Cloister the STUPID?"

"The first arc went on its search for Fushal, and lo, they flew straight into an asteroid. the cats on the second arc rejoiced, knowing that they were indeed righteous"

Personally I would consider space to be just that, empty space with no effective atmosphere. Since Kittinger got to height in a balloon which gets its lift by displacing more mass than it contains then i would not think that he had been in space because there must have still been some atmosphere to be displaced.
still sounds like one awesome dude though.

dude you forgot the theory of intelligent stork conception, where the stork fashions small foetuses out of clay and implants them in the woman, it then telepathically guides the development of the baby into a person suitable for its surrounding environment.
As you can see this blends both the stork view with the scientific view in a manner acceptable to both sides

I believe that most of ETA's attacks took place under General Franco and his fascist regime, does anyone know how long he was in power for?
they are also active in i think Brittany in France.