Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Osborn F Enready · Nov 9, 2004, 03:31 pm

Also, America is not a nation of a certain expressed religion or moral code, nor do we in any way endorse or advocate any particular religion.

Yes, it is true that a majority of early americans were of christian faithS, and that was a lot of their common ground, but the forefathers felt so strongly about this they included specific rights to allow "freedom of religion", "freedom of speech", and of course the bill of rights.

No faith is superior to another except to the follower of a particular faith, whether christian, buddhist, taoist, shinto, jew, hindu, pagan, voodoo, scientologist, or WHATEVER you happen to believe in.

Religion is personal, has no place in politics, or national intrest.

Perception, is not personal, it is a common accepted form of medium for communication between humans. If your religion is interfering with your perception it is a PERSONAL issue that YOU must deal with. My governments responsiblity is to the PUBLICS ACCEPTED PERCEPTION, which is clearly defined in the Constitution and the forefathers surrounding writings, and what was agreed to by the states upon signing the document, and accepting your oath as an elected official.

Bush can't delineate between his "personal religious" perception, and common perception, which is what is causing the uproar between true libertarians, old school liberals, gays, minorities, athiests and ALL non-christian faiths.

Doesn't christianity preach about acceptance and tolerance, and that each must choose his own road to faith and salvation?
Why is it that you wish to adorn yourself with personal belief trinkets and idols, yet you can tolerate no other to do the same?

All rights come from God, and this is accepted fact according to the Constitution. To challenge the Constitution and the rights the forefathers derived from God seem to me, to be very un-christian, since these are the basic common ground the christians of the time agreed were FUNDAMENTAL.

To not allow gays to conjoin in some form equal to marriage, yet different ,is wrong, as well as not allowing them the same privlidges under the tax code, and all federal programs as married man/woman couples. To appeal the meaning of marriage to the U.S. government, is like my appealing the faith of Jesus to the Buddhist monks. They are in no way an authority over the meaning, how could they attempt to "define" the meaning?

If you want to have marriage defined in christianity, appeal the church. If you want to apply for equal rights for conjoined couples, you have to apply for a "marriage license". It is a licensing that makes the government involved, and only for the fact of a blood test. They coined the word from christianity, who defined the word in their OWN religion.

Mr.Vicchio · Nov 9, 2004, 04:30 pm

You cannot seperate someones religous beliefs because they are in office.

If I were elected as president for example, and pushed for an abortion ban, it would be absurd to claim that was worng becaus I base my beliefs in my religion.

What would the arguement be if I were anti-abortion and an athiest?

**Pooeypants** · Nov 9, 2004, 05:30 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio,
You cannot seperate someones religious beliefs because they are in office.

If I were elected as president for example, and pushed for an abortion ban, it would be absurd to claim that was worng becaus I base my beliefs in my religion.

What would the arguement be if I were anti-abortion and an atheist?

I think it's best if we place medical evidence first before going ethical. One cannot claim a politician be impartial from his beliefs but neither can they allowed it to be the major basis of his/her judgement.

Osborn F Enready · Nov 9, 2004, 05:32 pm

Mr Vic. That would be for you to determine "what you are", but what you made political would be in every sense the concern of every citizen.

To say that because the small overall percentage the voted, happened to by a slight (claimed) majority override the other highest voted for canidate MEANS we are "this or that" is plain and simple rubbish!

All it means is that all the people who "believe" their vote is worth the effort, voted with their personal choice FROM THE SELECTIONS OFFERED. (yes or no to this exact item)

Mr Vicchio said: You cannot seperate someones religous beliefs because they are in office.

I say: You are right, I cannot. However, they take an OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION FROM ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Have you ever read article 5 pal? There are specific ways to address changing the constitution, and this system recognizes none listed in article 5, therfore all of their previous changes are questionable at best, let alone a new proposal.

Religion has no place in politics, or national intrest.

Gorgo · Nov 9, 2004, 05:36 pm

Mr. V's best point ever. Religion has nothing to do with values or morals at all. People can come to the same conclusion via different routes, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not so good reasons.

Just because one is an atheist or a theist does not mean that one has come to one's conclusions via sensible methods or not so sensible methods at all.

rcne · Nov 9, 2004, 05:52 pm

How about renaming this thread to ' America proved its a nation of values'.

Some of you obviously fear societies values, while feverently declaring how we should accept your values.

In another thread my term 'evangelical fundie' was called into question..

That was referring to the fundamentalist of the fringe right - who by the way don't represent all the right.

While ignoring the the exact same fundamentalism displayed by the fundies on the left. - who also don't represent all the left.

crayola · Nov 9, 2004, 06:09 pm

Wasn't the purpose of the Bush supporters (Christian Fundamentalists) who put him in office, to make it intolerant for other religious beliefs to exist? (This is a Christian America proven now by voted count) Else, why all the boo-hoo's about gay rights and the banning of "queer" marriages? Else, why has Jerry Falwell stated he is taking leave of his ministry in order to install an amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the rights of gays to marry or otherwise offend the ideology of the Christian Right Wingers?

The SBC president stated it is time for Bush to come through on his part of the bargain. What do the SBCers want from Bush? A "supreme" judge appointment that guarantees intolerance of diverse religious belief. "NO MORE GAY RIGHTS IN AMERICA". Isn't that what its all about?

Question is: Will Bush give the SCBers and Falwell Fundamentalists what they want, or will Bush ignore the bargain he made with the devil(s), so to speak?

RickSp · Nov 9, 2004, 06:16 pm

Funny, my values put honesty, integrity and tolerance right up there with reverence. Bush supporters apparently seem to think that deceit, intolerance and bigotry are "religious values". Odd. Very odd.

crayola · Nov 9, 2004, 06:26 pm

Actually RickSp, religion demands intolerance. Otherwise its a useless setup to begin with. And with Christianity, Jesus is seen as the divider which does not tolerate anyone who doesn't follow his tradition. Which oddly enough wasn't Christianity, but instead WAS Judaism. Go figure.

.. and Jesus said unto her, " I am sent to none but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Nono · Nov 9, 2004, 06:33 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by RickSP
Odd. Very odd.

Or par for the course in religious affairs: ayatollahs in Tehran, myriad political profiteers during the Inquisition, etc.

People don't like to hear this, of course, but religion (when run by clerics) can easily serve as the tool of fascism, or become indistinguishable from it. History bears this out.

RickSp · Nov 9, 2004, 07:41 pm

Quote:

Actually RickSp, religion demands intolerance.

Many religions demand intolerance. A few celebrate tolerance. The Quakers say that as there are many spokes to the wheel so there are many paths to God.

The fundamentalists of virtually any religion are enemies of tolerance and freedom. They should be tolerated but never trusted.

Technosoul · Nov 10, 2004, 12:23 am

We might be getting a right-wing Moralist to replace Ashcroft in the justice department which might turn the tide in favor of the religious perspectives of mainstream America.

And we must face the fact that many of the Christain chruches have become dominate voices in the political arena, especially during the last four years.

True, they do preach tolerance and Bush has echoed that idea a number of times. But in such a view tolerance is for those who "stay in their place" and do not attempt to sway public opinion.

We can expect the more agressive Christian perspective to gain great headway in the next for years if that birthing is not aborted by some other factor like impeachment procedings.

We might see a moralist being appointed to the Supreme Court and to roles within the Justice Department. Those holding office in Congress and the house know they must apporve such appointments if they wish to secure votes in most of the states where religions have become active in getting out the vote.

Here are the objectives for the next four years (my prediction or my opinion only).

1 - To continue to teach that "family values" are the foundation of American security, and that gay marrage and other alternative life styles are undermining that foundation and thus should be seen as a brand of domestic terrorism.

2. Abortion should be seen as a terrroist act upon unborn Ameircans.

3. Environmentalism is a type of pagan religion and should be tolerated but should not be allowed to terrorize our more upstanding Christian base upon which American values are resting. "Moderation in all things - but don't over do it".

4. The Internet is now in a state of anarchy and must be tamed by decent people "for the sake of the children" and to insure family values. As well as being better controlled for the purposes of taxation and busness safeguards because terrorists could attack the internet and any 'attack on busness is an attack on the economy of America' - stop downloading free stuff.

5. Morality will be viewed as our power base, and whatever is anit-moality will be seen an attempt to weaken Ameirca as a leader in the causes of freedom and liberation (from evils).

6. Science and science education must be monitored so that they do not attempt to replace God as the source of morality and faith in what is right.

7 - Day of rest.

Nov 9, 2004, 03:31 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Also, America is not a nation of a certain expressed religion or moral code, nor do we in any way endorse or advocate any particular religion. Yes, it is true that a majority of early americans were of christian faithS, and that was a lot of their common ground, but the forefathers felt so strongly about this they included specific rights to allow "freedom of religion", "freedom of speech", and of course the bill of rights. No faith is superior to another except to the follower of a particular faith, whether christian, buddhist, taoist, shinto, jew, hindu, pagan, voodoo, scientologist, or WHATEVER you happen to believe in. Religion is personal, has no place in politics, or national intrest. Perception, is not personal, it is a common accepted form of medium for communication between humans. If your religion is interfering with your perception it is a PERSONAL issue that YOU must deal with. My governments responsiblity is to the PUBLICS ACCEPTED PERCEPTION, which is clearly defined in the Constitution and the forefathers surrounding writings, and what was agreed to by the states upon signing the document, and accepting your oath as an elected official. Bush can't delineate between his "personal religious" perception, and common perception, which is what is causing the uproar between true libertarians, old school liberals, gays, minorities, athiests and ALL non-christian faiths. Doesn't christianity preach about acceptance and tolerance, and that each must choose his own road to faith and salvation? Why is it that you wish to adorn yourself with personal belief trinkets and idols, yet you can tolerate no other to do the same? All rights come from God, and this is accepted fact according to the Constitution. To challenge the Constitution and the rights the forefathers derived from God seem to me, to be very un-christian, since these are the basic common ground the christians of the time agreed were FUNDAMENTAL. To not allow gays to conjoin in some form equal to marriage, yet different ,is wrong, as well as not allowing them the same privlidges under the tax code, and all federal programs as married man/woman couples. To appeal the meaning of marriage to the U.S. government, is like my appealing the faith of Jesus to the Buddhist monks. They are in no way an authority over the meaning, how could they attempt to "define" the meaning? If you want to have marriage defined in christianity, appeal the church. If you want to apply for equal rights for conjoined couples, you have to apply for a "marriage license". It is a licensing that makes the government involved, and only for the fact of a blood test. They coined the word from christianity, who defined the word in their OWN religion. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Nov 9, 2004, 04:30 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,335	You cannot seperate someones religous beliefs because they are in office. If I were elected as president for example, and pushed for an abortion ban, it would be absurd to claim that was worng becaus I base my beliefs in my religion. What would the arguement be if I were anti-abortion and an athiest? Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Nov 9, 2004, 05:32 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Mr Vic. That would be for you to determine "what you are", but what you made political would be in every sense the concern of every citizen. To say that because the small overall percentage the voted, happened to by a slight (claimed) majority override the other highest voted for canidate MEANS we are "this or that" is plain and simple rubbish! All it means is that all the people who "believe" their vote is worth the effort, voted with their personal choice FROM THE SELECTIONS OFFERED. (yes or no to this exact item) Mr Vicchio said: You cannot seperate someones religous beliefs because they are in office. I say: You are right, I cannot. However, they take an OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION FROM ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Have you ever read article 5 pal? There are specific ways to address changing the constitution, and this system recognizes none listed in article 5, therfore all of their previous changes are questionable at best, let alone a new proposal. Religion has no place in politics, or national intrest. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Nov 9, 2004, 05:52 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
rcne Moderator/nobody Posts: 1,566	How about renaming this thread to ' America proved its a nation of values'. Some of you obviously fear societies values, while feverently declaring how we should accept your values. In another thread my term 'evangelical fundie' was called into question.. That was referring to the fundamentalist of the fringe right - who by the way don't represent all the right. While ignoring the the exact same fundamentalism displayed by the fundies on the left. - who also don't represent all the left. Live Long and Prosper (Genetics and Capitalism)

Nov 9, 2004, 06:16 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	Funny, my values put honesty, integrity and tolerance right up there with reverence. Bush supporters apparently seem to think that deceit, intolerance and bigotry are "religious values". Odd. Very odd. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Nov 9, 2004, 05:36 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
Gorgo BANNED-Warned multiple times about instigating. User then reported topics multiple times to mess with staff. Posts: 4,412	Mr. V's best point ever. Religion has nothing to do with values or morals at all. People can come to the same conclusion via different routes, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for not so good reasons. Just because one is an atheist or a theist does not mean that one has come to one's conclusions via sensible methods or not so sensible methods at all.

Nov 9, 2004, 06:09 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
crayola Molten Ash Posts: 129	Wasn't the purpose of the Bush supporters (Christian Fundamentalists) who put him in office, to make it intolerant for other religious beliefs to exist? (This is a Christian America proven now by voted count) Else, why all the boo-hoo's about gay rights and the banning of "queer" marriages? Else, why has Jerry Falwell stated he is taking leave of his ministry in order to install an amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the rights of gays to marry or otherwise offend the ideology of the Christian Right Wingers? The SBC president stated it is time for Bush to come through on his part of the bargain. What do the SBCers want from Bush? A "supreme" judge appointment that guarantees intolerance of diverse religious belief. "NO MORE GAY RIGHTS IN AMERICA". Isn't that what its all about? Question is: Will Bush give the SCBers and Falwell Fundamentalists what they want, or will Bush ignore the bargain he made with the devil(s), so to speak?

Nov 9, 2004, 06:26 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
crayola Molten Ash Posts: 129	Actually RickSp, religion demands intolerance. Otherwise its a useless setup to begin with. And with Christianity, Jesus is seen as the divider which does not tolerate anyone who doesn't follow his tradition. Which oddly enough wasn't Christianity, but instead WAS Judaism. Go figure. .. and Jesus said unto her, " I am sent to none but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Nov 10, 2004, 12:23 am	#32 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,922	We might be getting a right-wing Moralist to replace Ashcroft in the justice department which might turn the tide in favor of the religious perspectives of mainstream America. And we must face the fact that many of the Christain chruches have become dominate voices in the political arena, especially during the last four years. True, they do preach tolerance and Bush has echoed that idea a number of times. But in such a view tolerance is for those who "stay in their place" and do not attempt to sway public opinion. We can expect the more agressive Christian perspective to gain great headway in the next for years if that birthing is not aborted by some other factor like impeachment procedings. We might see a moralist being appointed to the Supreme Court and to roles within the Justice Department. Those holding office in Congress and the house know they must apporve such appointments if they wish to secure votes in most of the states where religions have become active in getting out the vote. Here are the objectives for the next four years (my prediction or my opinion only). 1 - To continue to teach that "family values" are the foundation of American security, and that gay marrage and other alternative life styles are undermining that foundation and thus should be seen as a brand of domestic terrorism. 2. Abortion should be seen as a terrroist act upon unborn Ameircans. 3. Environmentalism is a type of pagan religion and should be tolerated but should not be allowed to terrorize our more upstanding Christian base upon which American values are resting. "Moderation in all things - but don't over do it". 4. The Internet is now in a state of anarchy and must be tamed by decent people "for the sake of the children" and to insure family values. As well as being better controlled for the purposes of taxation and busness safeguards because terrorists could attack the internet and any 'attack on busness is an attack on the economy of America' - stop downloading free stuff. 5. Morality will be viewed as our power base, and whatever is anit-moality will be seen an attempt to weaken Ameirca as a leader in the causes of freedom and liberation (from evils). 6. Science and science education must be monitored so that they do not attempt to replace God as the source of morality and faith in what is right. 7 - Day of rest.