I never really thought the battle of God in the pledge and the battle with Roy Moore were really necessary. Kos makes interesting points.

 

I have been a militant atheist all my life. Not militant in wanting to destroy religion, but in keeping it out of the public sphere.

But I have come to a conclusion recently that has startled me, obvious as it seems to me in retrospect -- it wasn't religious language that bothered me, it was the "values" promoted couched in religious terms.

 

I would cringe -- and continue to cringe -- when politicians and religous figures cite scripture to justify hatred towards gays or any other class of people. But I don't cringe when scripture is used to justify poverty relief, or conservation ("protecting God's creation"), or social security ("honor thy mother and thy fathers"), or oppose the death penalty, or oppose the war.

 

What we have in this country is the hijacking of religion by an ideological faction that is using their supposed moral authority on behalf of three narrow issues -- abortion, stem cell research, and gay rights. Meanwhile, the Bible tackles myriad issues, most of which align with liberal/progressive thought. So when did "life" become just abortion, and not war and the death penalty and even associated issues like post-natal care (child mortality is still an issue of life and death)?

 

Liberals, outside the black churches, have ceded the moral language to the Right, in large part because of people like me who flinched at every reference to God by a Democrat.

 

But using Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion as a moral foundation is really no less superior than the moral structure I use to guide my life (I'm a utilitarian). All that should matter is that we all arrive at the same conclusion.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter how we get there, as long as we all arrive at the same place. And there should be no shame for Democrats to explain the reasoning for their value structure. And if Jesus is the reason, then so be it.

I never really thought the battle of God in the pledge and the battle with Roy Moore were really necessary. Kos makes interesting points.

 

I have been a militant atheist all my life. Not militant in wanting to destroy religion, but in keeping it out of the public sphere.

But I have come to a conclusion recently that has startled me, obvious as it seems to me in retrospect -- it wasn't religious language that bothered me, it was the "values" promoted couched in religious terms.

 

I would cringe -- and continue to cringe -- when politicians and religous figures cite scripture to justify hatred towards gays or any other class of people. But I don't cringe when scripture is used to justify poverty relief, or conservation ("protecting God's creation"), or social security ("honor thy mother and thy fathers"), or oppose the death penalty, or oppose the war.

 

What we have in this country is the hijacking of religion by an ideological faction that is using their supposed moral authority on behalf of three narrow issues -- abortion, stem cell research, and gay rights. Meanwhile, the Bible tackles myriad issues, most of which align with liberal/progressive thought. So when did "life" become just abortion, and not war and the death penalty and even associated issues like post-natal care (child mortality is still an issue of life and death)?

 

Liberals, outside the black churches, have ceded the moral language to the Right, in large part because of people like me who flinched at every reference to God by a Democrat.

 

But using Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion as a moral foundation is really no less superior than the moral structure I use to guide my life (I'm a utilitarian). All that should matter is that we all arrive at the same conclusion.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter how we get there, as long as we all arrive at the same place. And there should be no shame for Democrats to explain the reasoning for their value structure. And if Jesus is the reason, then so be it.

 

 

649738[/snapback]

 

I agree with him 100%.

 

I feel like I am in between a sword and a wall. I am catholic but I am extremely angry at my church for interfering in politics. However, I do understand why some christians may feel attacked by secularists. It seems that there is a group of people (mostly "Militant" Atheists) that want "God" and religion to dissapear from our lives. In my opinion this is no better than a Christian trying to force his spiritual beliefs on others.

 

I support separation of church and state for both reasons. I want the church to stay the hell out of politics and I want politicians to leave the church alone. I have no problem with a politician that has strong religious beliefs, but I do have a problem when they try to legislate their religion into my life.

i agree with everything said.

 

but also, many people see legislating moral values derived from religion as "legislating religion into people's life", and those are 2 vey different things.

 

truth is society needs some sort of moral ground to stand on. kos himself says that he's an utilitarian, but most moral views of the western world, wether secularist or religeous, have their foundations in the judea-christian tradition.

orisha is correct. Without the opiate the masses would be at war with each other.

truth is society needs some sort of moral ground to stand on. kos himself says that he's an utilitarian, but most moral views of the western world, wether secularist or religeous, have their foundations in the judea-christian tradition.

 

Im half in agreement and have in disagreement with you. Moral ground yes. Morality is a strong fabric in our country and those who dont want it around are asking for chaos. But you scare people like me when you say judea-christian traditions. Do you mean the institutions of church and bible or just the general principles like the golden rule? Because if its the latter, then arent those things present in many non judea-christian religions and beliefs? Isnt the notion of Karma similiar to divine justice? At which point, these principles seem to exist above religious institutions.

 

But if you mean former rather than the latter, then thats a different story isnt it? Those institutions dont always mesh well with those principles all moralists share. And therin lies the fear of the moral liberal who opposes church and state mixing.

 

Would Jesus be upset if his teaching were accomplished outside the scope of his name? One of the people in the thread was a staunch atheist who said he agreed with many of Jesus' teachings but not Jesus as the son of God. Whats more important? Jesus as the son of God or Jesus himself?

 

Let me ask you as a Christian this. If tommorow, all of the teachings of the Bible and Jesus were accomplished but it meant nobody prayed or remembered Jesus or the bible or anything, would you be ok with this? I think there are people in this country that use God for their personal benefit and these people wouldnt be ok with this. Isnt it Dante who says absolute power corrupts absolutely?

I never really thought the battle of God in the pledge and the battle with Roy Moore were really necessary. Kos makes interesting points.

 

I have been a militant atheist all my life. Not militant in wanting to destroy religion, but in keeping it out of the public sphere.

But I have come to a conclusion recently that has startled me, obvious as it seems to me in retrospect -- it wasn't religious language that bothered me, it was the "values" promoted couched in religious terms.

 

I would cringe -- and continue to cringe -- when politicians and religous figures cite scripture to justify hatred towards gays or any other class of people. But I don't cringe when scripture is used to justify poverty relief, or conservation ("protecting God's creation"), or social security ("honor thy mother and thy fathers"), or oppose the death penalty, or oppose the war.

 

What we have in this country is the hijacking of religion by an ideological faction that is using their supposed moral authority on behalf of three narrow issues -- abortion, stem cell research, and gay rights. Meanwhile, the Bible tackles myriad issues, most of which align with liberal/progressive thought. So when did "life" become just abortion, and not war and the death penalty and even associated issues like post-natal care (child mortality is still an issue of life and death)?

 

Liberals, outside the black churches, have ceded the moral language to the Right, in large part because of people like me who flinched at every reference to God by a Democrat.

 

But using Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion as a moral foundation is really no less superior than the moral structure I use to guide my life (I'm a utilitarian). All that should matter is that we all arrive at the same conclusion.

 

In other words, it doesn't matter how we get there, as long as we all arrive at the same place. And there should be no shame for Democrats to explain the reasoning for their value structure. And if Jesus is the reason, then so be it.

 

 

649738[/snapback]

 

I agree with him 100%.

 

I feel like I am in between a sword and a wall. I am catholic but I am extremely angry at my church for interfering in politics. However, I do understand why some christians may feel attacked by secularists. It seems that there is a group of people (mostly "Militant" Atheists) that want "God" and religion to dissapear from our lives. In my opinion this is no better than a Christian trying to force his spiritual beliefs on others.

 

I support separation of church and state for both reasons. I want the church to stay the hell out of politics and I want politicians to leave the church alone. I have no problem with a politician that has strong religious beliefs, but I do have a problem when they try to legislate their religion into my life.

649796[/snapback]

 

I dont totally agree with the article, but I agree with cyberlinas second paragraph completely. And as a side note many catholics are democrats. The abortion issue has caused some to go to the reps, but catholicism has socialist undertones