Should religions stay out of politics or be taxed?

[Luigison]

Vote and discuss.

[Glorb]

Religion should stay out of politics. Personal opinions shouldn't influence the making of policies that affect everyone.

[Turtlekid1]

Then what, praytell, will influence the making of policies?  What will influence our culture if not religion?  The word "culture" literally means "the way a people worships."  Last time I checked, culture was pretty important. 

As for religion being taxed, that is quite possibly among the most stupid ideas I have ever heard in my life.

[The Chef]

It shouldn't be religion. Not when there are so many different religions with each of their respective worshipers claiming their religion holds more water than everybody's beliefs. *cough*

[BP]

Religion != morals. You don't need a deity to understand that violence and stealing are wrong.

[Luigison]

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s..."  Didn't Jesus say that to tell the Jews they should pay taxes?

“My kingdom is not of this world."  I take this statement by Jesus to support separation of Church and State. 

[Turtlekid1]

Religion != morals. You don't need a deity to understand that violence and stealing are wrong.

But you need a deity to define that violence and stealing are wrong.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s..."  Didn't Jesus say that to tell the Jews they should pay taxes?

“My kingdom is not of this world."  I take this statement by Jesus to support separation of Church and State. 

1. So... because they should pay taxes, that means they should be taxed for having religion?

2. Meaning "not in this world", not "shouldn't affect this world".

[Chupperson Weird]

But you need a deity to define that violence and stealing are wrong.

Because you're too stupid to know better otherwise?
I don't understand what you meant by "define".

Also, read The Chef's post. It was highly insightful.

P.S.
culture - Origin: 1400–50; late ME: tilling, place tilled (< AF) < L cultūra.
cult - Origin: 1610–20; < L cultus habitation, tilling, refinement, worship.

It means the way people live in general and the circumstances under which they do. Worship, as a part of most (all?) ancient civilizations, was naturally included, but is by no means the sole meaning.

[Luigison]

Turtlekid1, I didn't mean to imply that people should be taxed for having religion.  That'd be nearly as stupid as having a gender or race tax.  I meant that religious organizations should pay taxes just like all other similar organizations. 

[Markio]

Yeah, more like, "It's turtlekids all the way down!"

I wrote neither, because while I don't like religious involvement in politics, I think it's possible that political leaders with any religious affiliation will be looked down upon or deemed unfit to be a part of politics (as though politicians meet some sort of moral standard).  I think one's religion does somewhat influence one's decisions as a political leader, but that shouldn't prevent them from leading altogether.  You know what I mean?  Like people opposed JFK's candidacy just because he was Catholic: that's not very fair.  He didn't do horrible Catholic things while he was president, did he?

[Chupperson Weird]

What I want to know is, how is there always another turtle under the last one?

[ShadowBrain]

Go ask the Flat Earth Society members (but yes, apt reference, Markio).

Religion should stay out of politics, but there's just so much power to be had by keeping it that it's probably not ever going to change.

[Markio]

....(but yes, apt reference, Markio).

Why thank you!  You too, Chupperson.

[BP]

I'm changing my vote from both to "Stay out of politics." Churches are pretty self-run, aren't they... built on donations and the like. No dependence on the government. But all churches should stop imposing their beliefs on the government.

Politics, always about liking stuff. People should get their heads out of their shells and care about justice on Earth instead of their own beliefs. If you believe a certain group of people are going to burn eternally, that's fine, but you don't need the government to follow a bunch of made-up hoo-hah just because the majority believes it's true.

[Turtlekid1]

Because you're too stupid to know better otherwise?
I don't understand what you meant by "define".

This is why I simply adore, you, Chup.  You can't respect the other party's intelligence because they don't agree with you.

By 'define,' I mean, "Who put those laws here in the first place?"

I'm changing my vote from both to "Stay out of politics." Churches are pretty self-run, aren't they... built on donations and the like. No dependence on the government. 1. But all churches should stop imposing their beliefs on the government.

Politics, always about liking stuff. 2. People should get their heads out of their shells and care about justice on Earth instead of their own beliefs. 3. If you believe a certain group of people are going to burn eternally, that's fine, but you don't need the government to follow a bunch of made-up hoo-hah just because the majority believes it's true.

1. Just as soon as the public education system stops imposing evolution on children.  Better yet, just get rid of the public schools altogether.

2. And I suppose you think Atheists are going to care so much more about justice on earth than religious people?  I'm sorry, but if you're (not you personally) a consistent atheist, there is no such thing as justice or morality, because their is no right and wrong, because everything you see is the result of an accident.

3. Religious people's morals, beliefs, and therefore, politics are affected by their religion, are they not?  It's impossible to be religious and keep your religion out of the way you vote.

[BP]

You make it sound like you need to be religious to have a heart; or perhaps the other way around, that if you're not Christian, you're basically a talking zombie. I'm related to a number of atheists who are several times as virtuous as some of the most Christian people I know*.

Chupperson's comment was questioning if you think that people are too stupid to know right from wrong unless they have a priest tell them, not calling you stupid.

Large, personally religious edit:

*Actually, they're only claiming to be so religious. The main person I have in mind are pretty awful. Her hypocrisy is almost painful.

You can think whatever you want of me. Like I've said before, I have my own ideas of what God is like that sometimes contrast what the Bible says, or at least what everybody interprets it to say. If I'm terribly wrong, if a Theocracy is the only acceptable government, I'll suffer for thinking a democracy that supports minorities' rights instead of the majority's preference is best. If gay people really are the children of Satan, I'll suffer for the mistake that they're humans and the mistake that a kind man who happens to be attracted to other men is a better one than a man who rapes women and steals and kills for the heck of it.

But I've always been told that if I believe Christ died for mankind and have faith in our merciful God, I'll end up in the kingdom of Heaven eventually. If by some twist of fate I'm rewarded for not submitting to peer pressure and supporting a Christian-run country that cuts homosexuals off from basic rights, that'd be all right. I'm going to keep following my own heart and doing what I think the benevolent creator of the universe would like me to do.

[Turtlekid1]

If gay people really are the children of Satan, I'll suffer for the mistake that they're humans and the mistake that a kind man who happens to be attracted to other men is a better one than a man who rapes women and steals and kills for the heck of it.

That gay people aren't human or are "the children of Satan" is ridiculous.  They are, however, in the wrong.  That's how everyone starts out.  The issue is that they don't recognize their sinfullness.

[Chupperson Weird]

By 'define,' I mean, "Who put those laws here in the first place?"

Well, I hate to tell you, but that's not what "define" means.

Also, your idea that God-imposed morals are the only ones in existence is misguided. That is, if someone chooses not to believe in God, you assume that they have no concept of right or wrong, or of "justice", which is frankly preposterous. It might be different than your concept, but I'm pretty sure only insane or mentally undeveloped people don't have basic concepts of right and wrong. I don't see atheists going around killing people and claiming that they should be able to walk free for it.

[Shyguy92]

I don't see atheists going around killing people and claiming that they should be able to walk free for it.

Yeah, and many religious people have been doing that for ages.

[ShadowBrain]

Bumper sticker I saw today: "The last time politics and religion mixed people got burned at the stake" (or something along those lines. Actually, if my sources are accurate, there weren't actually any stake-burnings back then, just hangings and a "pressing" or two).

1. Just as soon as the public education system stops imposing evolution on children.

Why do so many people think schools are doing this? My school teaches neither, probably because they're too freakin' scared of the controversy.

2. And I suppose you think Atheists are going to care so much more about justice on earth than religious people?  I'm sorry, but if you're (not you personally) a consistent atheist, there is no such thing as justice or morality, because their is no right and wrong, because everything you see is the result of an accident.

Congratulations on just ****ing off only slightly less people than a dictator.

[Glorb]

Like I've said before, I don't believe in God, god, gods, magic or mystical superpowers, but I do believe in morality. I believe that stealing is wrong because the other person worked hard (maybe) to get that object, and you're too freaking lazy to earn it yourself. If you kill someone, you're forcing their life to come screeching to a halt and depriving them of anything else that's to come afterward, and that's not a right you should abuse. I'm not just some computer, coldly analyzing events that happen and shrugging them off as an "accident". I believe in right and wrong, just not some invisible dude who decides what constitutes which.

[ShadowBrain]

What he said.

[Lizard Dude]

Actually you are a computer, but one that can't realize it and thinks it makes "choices".

There is no free will, but that doesn't mean anything because it totally seems like there is to a brain.

And on a less esoteric note, it's the people who think murder is wrong only because God says so that have problems. You people can't figure out the reasoning behind morals for yourself?

God was made-up so idiots would be too scared of Hell to commit crime. The bogeyman serves a similar purpose.

[Luigalaxy]

I think religions should stay out of politics. Taxing a religion, well, there isn't really a reason to do it.

[Jake]

Yes they very much should. Especially the US, where were essentially the dumping ground of many different beliefs and philosophies. Sadly, religious influence is still apparent in some laws.

[The Chef]

We're actually the most religious nation on the planet, if what I've read is accurate.

[Turtlekid1]

Like I've said before, I don't believe in God, god, gods, magic or mystical superpowers, but I do believe in morality. I believe that stealing is wrong because the other person worked hard (maybe) to get that object, and you're too freaking lazy to earn it yourself. If you kill someone, you're forcing their life to come screeching to a halt and depriving them of anything else that's to come afterward, and that's not a right you should abuse. I'm not just some computer, coldly analyzing events that happen and shrugging them off as an "accident". I believe in right and wrong, just not some invisible dude who decides what constitutes which.

But why is stealing/murder wrong?  If we aren't created by a sovereign authority who gave us these basic rules, then they're all lies.  Where did they originate, if not with God?  And I don't want to hear "within ourselves";  Who put us here in the first place?

Atheism was made up so that unrepentant humanists wouldn't have to be held responsible for their sins.   

Fixed.

[Chupperson Weird]

It's wrong because you wouldn't want someone to steal from you or kill you, now would you? I bet that would pretty much ruin your day! Most people are able to realize this. There are people who can't, and those people get locked up for the rest of their lives.
Seriously, if you can't grasp basic ideas of decency without claiming that they only exist because God said they do, I don't think your brain works.

[Turtlekid1]

It's wrong because you wouldn't want someone to steal from you or kill you, now would you? I bet that would pretty much ruin your day! Most people are able to realize this. There are people who can't, and those people get locked up for the rest of their lives.
Seriously, if you can't grasp basic ideas of decency without claiming that they only exist because God said they do, I don't think your brain works.

So... instead of it being wrong because a supreme, omniscient being who knows what is best for everyone says it is, it's wrong because a sinful, unrepentant, unregenerate, and foolish man says it is? 
And... my brain isn't working?  What's that all about?

[The Chef]

It's wrong because there are just some things you shouldn't do. God or no God. Why can't you comprehend that?

[ShadowBrain]

I think it's Turtlekid, not us, who needs to be restrained from killing people if that's his overall view of things.

[Turtlekid1]

It's wrong because there are just some things you shouldn't do. God or no God. Why can't you comprehend that?

Come one, back up your answer!  Why don't you support your argument?  Huh!?
Isn't that what I was getting attacked about a while back?
No one has answered my question yet.  WHY IS ANYTHING RIGHT OR WRONG if everything is the result of an accident?

[Glorb]

I'll answer your question with another question to put things in perspective. Pretend you don't believe in God, just for a second. Not a militant anti-religious nut, just some regular schmo who happens not to be religious.

Got it? Good.

Now, pretend you've got a family. A wife, and two kids.

Got all that?

Okay, now say burglars break into your house, tie all of you up, beat you half to death, rape and kill your wife while you watch, and finally walk out of the house with both your kids and $5000 in stolen property.

So far, so good?

Now, as you lay there bleeding to death, being the hypothetical aetheist that you are, would you simply say, "Eh, what can ya do. This was all the result of an accident anyway."?

In other words, people define what is right and wrong. People have emotions, and when those emotions get hurt, after a while, we found out what actions hurt us and decided we shouldn't let people do those things.

[Turtlekid1]

To answer your question, I wouldn't word it like that, but if I didn't believe in God, I would have no right to decide whether the burglar's actions were right or wrong.  Sure, it would pi$$ me off, but who's to say it's morally wrong (kind of like High School Musical)?  Maybe that burglar had a reason for robbing my house.  Maybe he was desperate (I admit, the fact that he raped my hypothetical wife and kidnapped my hypothetical children would suggest otherwise). Why do I have any more of a right to my stuff than him?

Yes, people have emotions, but they are only imperfect versions of the perfect ones God feels; our emotions are biased one way or another and aren't always (never) completely just.  That's why God decides what is right or wrong, not us.

It's not because our emotions/bodies/property/family/whatever gets hurt that something is wrong.  It's because the wrongful action was an act of disobedience.  It's because God's absolute law was violated.

[The Chef]

It's official: Turtlekid can't think for himself.

[Turtlekid1]

Because I believe in a sovereign God whose law is absolute?  No, that's what is known as obedience.
And if your kind of thinking is the alternative, I'm fairly certain I don't want to "think for myself."

[Markio]

Everyone here thinks; therefore we are!

Clap clap clap laugh laugh.

[ShadowBrain]

From here on out in my life, I am using "Turtlekid" a synonym for "stereotypical religious sheep".

[Turtlekid1]

You say that like it's a bad thing (mind you, "stereotypical" is probably a bad thing).  Anyone who has even touched a Bible knows that we're supposed to be God's sheep.

[ShadowBrain]

Whoa... didn't know you were supposed to take it up the tailpipe from God.

[Turtlekid1]

What am I taking up the tailpipe, exactly?  Why is the concept of willful obedience so hard for you to grasp? 

[The Chef]

Why is the concept of playing by your own rules so hard for you to grasp? SB and I and many other believe we don't need a God to tell us what do to. We think for ourselves.

[Markio]

But similarly, many people are religious because they choose to be.  It's not very different from choosing to be atheistic or anti-religion.  Being religious doesn't mean you don't think for yourself.  Yes, Turtlekid's "opinions" are almost directly in line with his religion, but that's because he thinks that those ideals are favorable.  I mean, would any of us like Sprite if it wasn't hyped up and valued as a premium beverage in our society?  Isn't that a form of thoughtless opinion?

[Chupperson Weird]

I only take issue with the ridiculous idea that these things are not intrinsically bad, but only bad because God says so. They would be bad either way, as any sane person can understand. My mind boggled at Turtlekid's notion that he wouldn't have any more right to possess the things he legitimately owned than the guy who stole them from him.

[ShadowBrain]

To-Do List:

1) Rob Turtlekid
2) Buy a six-pack of Sprite

[Lizard Dude]

If Turdlekid1 ever stops believing in God we are screwed.

[Kojinka]

Should simply stay out of politics!

[Turtlekid1]

I only take issue with the ridiculous idea that these things are not intrinsically bad, but only bad because God says so. They would be bad either way, as any sane person can understand.

God having created EVERYTHING, who else can say what is right or wrong?  It's not so much that God said pre-existing actions are moral or immoral, but that he created the moral/immoral actions.

If Turdlekid1 ever stops believing in God we are screwed.

I don't know whether to be offended by that speeling of my username or amused by the statement itself.  A little of both, I guess.

[Markio]

I think you're confusing your personal understanding of right and wrong with the culturally defined understanding of right and wrong.  In some cultures, what is wrong may not be defined as wrong in another culture.  Most people accept the definition of morality within their culture.  it's true that religion does influence some cultures to a great extent too.  That's why issues like gay marriage and abortion are so controversial.  But in the areas where homosexual marriage is legal, for example, it is not considered "wrong".  In that sense, the culture is influencing the local definitions of right and wrong.

[Shyguy92]

TK, you need to start thinking on both sides of this argument or people are going to think you're a mindless idiot.


oh wait

[Markio]

Everyone should try thinking on both sides.

[Glorb]

The post above me is true. If only it were to be put into action...

[goodie]

Turtlekid is correct. Everyone else here is wrong. The end.

[Chupperson Weird]

Good thing that makes you wrong, too. *whew*

[Turtlekid1]

What makes your declaration of my "wrongness" any more valid than my declaration of your wrongness?

[Shyguy92]

We have better evidence and your a dumb bum

[CrossEyed7]

your a dumb bum

Case dismissed.

[Turtlekid1]

evidence

?

[BP]

The thing is, politics are based on reason rather than religion. It's simply not fair if I decided to rob a bank. It doesn't belong to me. I didn't work for the money there. Someone else did. If the Bible said it was okay for me to rob a bank, should it be that everyone in this boiling pot of a country just let me do it? And why is it okay for Christianity to govern the United States? Why can't it be Buddhism? Why does it have to be what you want even if it's not fair?

It's bothering me, seeing people* unable to think for themselves. People who let their parents think for them, who let their parents' political parties think for them, who let the Bible think for them. My family is pretty much entirely pro-choice, no questions asked. Me, I'm not so certain. For me it's a situational issue. That's just one example.

*Plural, as I know a huge number of people like this.

[Turtlekid1]

1. The thing is, politics are based on reason rather than religion. It's simply not fair if I decided to rob a bank. It doesn't belong to me. I didn't work for the money there. Someone else did. 2. If the Bible said it was okay for me to rob a bank, should it be that everyone in this boiling pot of a country just let me do it? 3. And why is it okay for Christianity to govern the United States? Why can't it be Buddhism? Why does it have to be what you want even if it's not fair?

It's bothering me, seeing people* unable to think for themselves. 4. People who let their parents think for them, who let their parents' political parties think for them, who let the Bible think for them. My family is pretty much entirely pro-choice, no questions asked. Me, I'm not so certain. For me it's a situational issue. That's just one example.

*Plural, as I know a huge number of people like this.

1. And remind me what peoples' reason is based on, if not their religous beliefs?  And before you say "I'm not religous, I'm and atheist," yes!  Atheism is a religion and a faith like all the others.  Instead of worshipping a god, you worship your own intelligence.

2. If the Bible said it was okay, there would likely be no earthly law against it today.

3. Because Buddhism, Hinduism, and the like have been proven to run a country's economy into the ground.  Look at India, for example.

4. I will say this again: I agree with and obey them.  Why does that mean I let them think for me?  Because I'm not a non-conformist?  But, now that I think about it, God being the omniscient being he is, he is always going to know what's best; I'd love to have him think for me.

[Chupperson Weird]

3. Because Buddhism, Hinduism, and the like have been proven to run a country's economy into the ground.  Look at India, for example.

And before Bush got into office, America had no debt. Your notion of Republican -> Christian being as flawed as it is in the first place is made worse by your apparent idea that America has done well financially under the latest Republican administration.
I will now note that the religion practiced by a majority of people in a country does not constitute how its economy will fare. If those people have key roles in their government, their thinking may influence the outcome of events. But that is a different matter.

[CrossEyed7]

And before Bush got into office, America had no debt.

I think/hope you mean deficit. There's a big difference.

[Chupperson Weird]

As I understand it, America was in the black. That's what I meant. If I am misusing the term "debt", thanks for the heads up.

[BP]

To TurtleKid.

1. Atheism isn't a faith. A: without. The: religion. Ist: person. Atheist literally means person without religion. I have no idea what you mean when you're talking about "worshiping intelligence." Also, I am not an atheist, just a warped Christian who doesn't think it's very Christlike at all to force people to think a certain way. But if you mean that atheists are the only people truly free and independent in thinking, maybe I should be one.

2. Southerners interpreted the Bible as saying that white people WERE superior and it was totally okay to enslave black people. Need I continue?

3. The U.S. was carefully founded to have no national religion--maybe that's why we've gotten so far. Don't argue this. The founding fathers could not have possibly intended to create a Christian country and forget to put God's name in the constitution. On the contrary, they spent an insane amount of time AVOIDING any reference to religion in the constitution.

4. You're kind of contradicting yourself here, so I don't even really know how to begin. To clear what I was saying up a bit, I'm referring to people who violently follow political parties, who propose laws based on their religion or majority's preference instead of the rights of the minority, etc.

Before I'm challenged that "majority right is the best way to do things..." Suppose <your favorite food> was banned. The majority thinks it's gross. So of course it's okay to ban it--the majority said so. The minority that does like <your favorite food> isn't important, even if it makes no difference to them whether people eat it or not.

[CrossEyed7]

There was definitely still a national debt of several trillion. I don't think anyone in recent times has not made the debt go up. Clinton made the debt go up by less (reduced the deficit), and even managed to make it not go up at all in a couple of years, but the debt was still there.

I'm pretty sure that's how it works, at least.

[Glorb]

3. Because Buddhism, Hinduism, and the like have been proven to run a country's economy into the ground.  Look at India, for example.

???!

[ShadowBrain]

Correlation does not imply causation.

[Turtlekid1]

And before Bush got into office, America had no debt. Your notion of Republican -> Christian being as flawed as it is in the first place is made worse by your apparent idea that America has done well financially under the latest Republican administration.

When have I ever equated the republican party to Christianity?  When have I ever said our economy was good under the latest republican administration?

I've said neither.  What I have said is that the republicans are closer to Christians in their moral values.  What I have said is that our economy is going to be a whole lot worse if Obama plans on implementing his socialist policies. 

To TurtleKid.

1. Atheism isn't a faith. A: without. The: religion. Ist: person. Atheist literally means person without religion. I have no idea what you mean when you're talking about "worshiping intelligence." Also, I am not an atheist, just a warped Christian who doesn't think it's very Christlike at all to force people to think a certain way. But if you mean that atheists are the only people truly free and independent in thinking, maybe I should be one.

2. Southerners interpreted the Bible as saying that white people WERE superior and it was totally okay to enslave black people. Need I continue?

3. The U.S. was carefully founded to have no national religion--maybe that's why we've gotten so far. Don't argue this. The founding fathers could not have possibly intended to create a Christian country and forget to put God's name in the constitution. On the contrary, they spent an insane amount of time AVOIDING any reference to religion in the constitution.

4. You're kind of contradicting yourself here, so I don't even really know how to begin. To clear what I was saying up a bit, I'm referring to people who violently follow political parties, who propose laws based on their religion or majority's preference instead of the rights of the minority, etc.

Before I'm challenged that "majority right is the best way to do things..." Suppose <your favorite food> was banned. The majority thinks it's gross. So of course it's okay to ban it--the majority said so. The minority that does like <your favorite food> isn't important, even if it makes no difference to them whether people eat it or not.

1. Atheism is a faith; instead of believing God exists without definite proof, it believes God doesn't without definite proof.  The original meaning of the word has nothing to do with it.  Atheists are worshippers of disobedience, human reason, and/or humans in general; that's all they can worship without admitting that they are accountable to another being.

2. Well, they obviously interpreted it wrongly, didn't they?  Have you read through the Bible?

3. No, just forget the frequent mentionings of God in the declaration of independence.  Yes, we have no "national religion" in the sense that people have the freedom to believe what they want here.  But the founding fathers clearly built this country and its laws on Christian principles.

4. They propose laws based on what's morally right for everyone, not for a certain group's preference.  As for me contradicting myself... holy crap, did I say "NON-conformist?"  My bad.  I meant "conformist."

On a related note to #4, it's not the majority's belief in something that makes it right, it's something's being right that causes a majority of people to believe in it.

[Chupperson Weird]

Yeah, those Socialist policies, invented by the McCain campaign.
It doesn't really matter if you argue against the definition of "atheism" -- it won't change. However I have to point out to BP that the "the" actually refers to God, not religion. Regardless, you, Turtlekid, put upon the people your mindset that you have to worship something, which I don't take to be true. Just because you make something up about people doesn't make it true. Also, if you believe in something (even, say, yourself, or your individual strength), does that automatically mean you worship it?
Secondly, whether people interpret the Bible incorrectly or not, they still claim to be protected under the goodness they derive from their interpretation. This is still a huge problem. (Bomb Russia? We just have to convince everyone that it's a divine mission from God!)
Thirdly, while it's obvious that the principles a lot of Americans consider "normal" coincides with what the Bible does, that applies to a lot of other religious teachings as well. I know you still don't understand the concept of basic human decency, but that's okay. The point is that the founding fathers didn't want to have people like you trying to shove things down people's throats and then claim that it's okay because that's what they intended. Because they didn't. Also, mentioning God or a belief in God does not imply that they are deliberately building the country on Christian ideals.
I don't think you know how laws are made. Usually one person comes up with the idea and then a certain group decides whether they prefer it. This sometimes has nothing to do with whether it's "morally right" or not. A person is not legally allowed to walk backwards down the street while eating a hamburger in Oklahoma City. Aside from this, a lot of the time I'm sure laws will agree with what you consider morally right, but that's because people agree that it is. (See: stealing, murder, etc.)
Finally, a famous or powerful person whom people trust or are ruled under telling them what to believe is what makes a majority of people believe in something. This is why Christianity is so widespread. Constantine I. Mind you, I don't have problems with being it widespread. I'm just giving you the facts.

[BP]

However I have to point out to BP that the "the" actually refers to God, not religion.

Oh, right. But either way, atheism is, in the most basic sense, the practice of no religion. Or the non-practice of all religion. Whichever.

2. Eeeeeeeexactly. How do you truly know that any interpretation of the Bible is "right?"

3. The Declaration of Independence has no position in American government. It was basically a slap to England telling why the revolutionaries wanted them to back off. So of course religion would be an effective tool--the English government was religious. Religion is useful if you want to persuade a religious person, but the law is designed to ensure that everyone, religious or not, is free to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To put it simply, it's all about compromising so that things stay fair for every individual person. So the constitution is atheistic. Without God.

Relation to #2, how do you know what is morally right for everyone? Did you have some coffee and a chat with God himself? Or is it like the telephone game where one guy tells one guy one thing and after several links in the chain, the final message is all screwed up? I base my religious ideas on the central idea of Christianity: God loves each and every one of his children the same. Who am I to judge a person's morals just because he does something or likes something? I mean, I'm not perfect and I don't like furries, but that's another story.

[Turtlekid1]

1. whether people interpret the Bible incorrectly or not, they still claim to be protected under the goodness they derive from their interpretation. This is still a huge problem. (Bomb Russia? We just have to convince everyone that it's a divine mission from God!)
2. while it's obvious that the principles a lot of Americans consider "normal" coincides with what the Bible does, that applies to a lot of other religious teachings as well. I know you still don't understand the concept of basic human decency, but that's okay. The point is that the founding fathers didn't want to have people like you trying to shove things down people's throats and then claim that it's okay because that's what they intended. Because they didn't.
3. Also, mentioning God or a belief in God does not imply that they are deliberately building the country on Christian ideals.
I don't think you know how laws are made. Usually one person comes up with the idea and then a certain group decides whether they prefer it. This sometimes has nothing to do with whether it's "morally right" or not. A person is not legally allowed to walk backwards down the street while eating a hamburger in Oklahoma City. Aside from this, 4. a lot of the time I'm sure laws will agree with what you consider morally right, but that's because people agree that it is. (See: stealing, murder, etc.)
Finally, a famous or powerful person whom people trust or are ruled under telling them what to believe is what makes a majority of people believe in something. This is why Christianity is so widespread. Constantine I. Mind you, I don't have problems with being it widespread. I'm just giving you the facts.

1. So because southern slave drivers believed the Bible, that makes all Chirsitians everywhere bad by association.  And, not that I'm condoning their treatment of slaves, but God even turned their evil intentions to a good result: many slaves became Christians.  Which is why Atheism (invented to run away from God) is so ridiculous, because if you try to defy him, the results are part of his plan; if you serve him (and I sincerely hope you choose option #2), the results are part of his plan.

2. I understand that humans are not basically decent or basically good, but sinful in every area of their lives thanks to Adam's sin.  Also, last I checked, I wasn't shoving anything down anyone's throat.  Or were you referring to my belief in absolute truths?

3. No, not at all, they were mentioning God for their health.  You seem to have intelligent arguments for the most part, but that statement wasn't even logical.

4. I guess I'll say it again: because a majority of people agree on the morality of an issue does not mean that's what defines the morality of the issue.  Unfortunately, in today's world, the majority often doesn't follow the moral choice in the first place.

Relation to #2, how do you know what is morally right for everyone? Did you have some coffee and a chat with God himself? Or is it like the telephone game where one guy tells one guy one thing and after several links in the chain, the final message is all screwed up?

I've actually sat down and read the Bible.  I repeat my earlier question.  More specifically, have you even read the first five books?  They clearly and straightforwardly condemn many controversial issues today; homosexuality, for example.

[Luigison]

I've actually sat down and read the Bible.  I repeat my earlier question.  More specifically, have you even read the first five books?  They clearly and straightforwardly condemn many controversial issues today; homosexuality, for example.

They also support many issues that are not controversial today.  For example, Exodus and Leviticus have several passages supporting slavery.   I don't see how we can pick which verses to follow and which to dismiss if they are all supposedly the word of God. 

[Turtlekid1]

Your definition of slavery is (in most cases) different that the Bible's.  Slave masters were commanded by the Bible to treat their slaves well and act according to their faith, something the plantation owners of the 1800s failed at.

[ShadowBrain]

Well, if people like you ever feel like putting slavery back into action... I get to rule you.

[Chupperson Weird]

So, it's okay to have total control over other humans, just as long as you treat them well. BECAUSE THAT JUSTIFIES IT
Also I'm pretty sure there's some pretty harsh stuff on like, how to discipline your wife, and stuff like that. Because we all know those wives need to be smacked up sometimes

[ShadowBrain]

*Gets popcorn and a comfy chair to watch Turtlekid defend wife-beating*

[Lizard Dude]

Your definition of wife beating is (in most cases) different that the Bible's.  Wife beaters were commanded by the Bible to beat their wives well and act according to their faith, something the angry husbands of the 1980s failed at.

[Insane Steve]

Yea, because India's GDP is soooooooooo much lower than America's.

"it's something's being right that causes a majority of people to believe in it"

I put 6 KKK members and 4 black people in a room. The 6 KKK members decide to kill the 4 black people. This is acceptable and right in this room because a majority of people in the room believe in it.

Also if the church can use money to, I don't know, throw support for Prop 8 in California, they are a political organisation and must be taxed.

Also Prop 8 is a complete and utter disgrace to the number 8, which happens to be my favorite number.

[Nintendoobsessed]

No no no no!

Remember my children:

If the old book says so, it is true!

[Turtlekid1]

"it's something's being right that causes a majority of people to believe in it"

I put 6 KKK members and 4 black people in a room. The 6 KKK members decide to kill the 4 black people. This is acceptable and right in this room because a majority of people in the room believe in it.

Wait, what?  I just said that people don't define morality.  That's why the above situation wouldn't be moral.  Were you trying to support my argument?

[Chupperson Weird]

But obviously since the majority believed it was acceptable, it must have been right, and thus caused them to believe it.

[Turtlekid1]

Scratch the first part, then you've got it.

[Chupperson Weird]

So, the KKK members were right then?

[Turtlekid1]

Did I not just say they were wrong?  I will repeat as clearly as possible:

A majority's belief in a value doesn't make it right.  That doesn't mean a value's being right won't make more people believe in it.  Although, in today's world, that's becoming less and less the case.

[Glorb]

Let's look at it in a slightly different way. Let's say that the only people left in the whole wide world are 6 KKK members and 4 black people, and the KKK members decide to kill the black folks. Who else is around to say that's wrong? You base morality on the notion that God supposedly defines it. Play devil's advocate by taking God out of the equation, and your logic falls apart. God also apparently thought it was cool to enslave folks and to kill women as punishment for getting raped. Everybody went by those guidelines until some other people came to their senses and decided those were wrong. And nowadays most rational human people believe slavery is totally uncool and rape is the fault of the rapist. And I'll bet you think that too, TK. So, does that mean God was wrong?

[Eclipsed Moon]

All right, I think I get it now.  When something is right, that causes the majority to believe in it.  Unless the majority doesn't believe something is right, in which case they believe something else.  Simple.

[Turtlekid1]

Are you trying to prove something?

[The Chef]

Nah, he's just posting those words because he feels like it.