Should religions stay out of politics or be taxed?

[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