Welcome to Gaia! ::

x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
It should be out of sight and mind of the government.

The alternative is full representation and that sounds outright impossible.


No, it shouldn't be completely out of the government.

I think the United States of America is unique in that it tries to keep a balance...with the conflict theory if you will.

If there was no candidate that held some christian/some religious belief... the people who are religious will have no one to represent them.

If are are atheist...and live in America... How would you feel if not one president/person in government wasn't allowed to hold atheist beliefs? Not fair is it? Well...don't do that to the religious people then.

The foundered made it so that the people can have the control they want; however, what will happen if the people take away that power from themselves?
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?
Faiths are private sector, not public sector. If a politician is Christian, all it means is that they're Christian on their own time. If it influences a decision? Nuh uh. And I'm talking legislation geared towards codifying religious law, in case that's unclear.
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
It should be out of sight and mind of the government.

The alternative is full representation and that sounds outright impossible.


No, it shouldn't be completely out of the government.

I think the United States of America is unique in that it tries to keep a balance...with the conflict theory if you will.

If there was no candidate that held some christian/some religious belief... the people who are religious will have no one to represent them.

If are are atheist...and live in America... How would you feel if not one president/person in government wasn't allowed to hold atheist beliefs? Not fair is it? Well...don't do that to the religious people then.

The foundered made it so that the people can have the control they want; however, what will happen if the people take away that power from themselves?
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?


Secularism. Religious faith is a mighty fine choice for anyone who chooses it. Legislature should be based on pure fact; it should not be used to enforce values from one religion unto an entire nation, many of whom have no cause to believe that legislature holds any value.

For example; Joe Schmo, a good, bible-abiding Christian, is (an entirely fictional) president, and he would not plant two crops in the same field, as his books have taught him. Should President Joe Schmo fight for legislature forbidding all citizens to do this when Fred, who studies agriculture, and has written several peer-reviewed and accredited scientific journals regarding this topic, knows that this practise will not have maximum yield?
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

16,950 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
The Red Scare contributed to it. America wanted to prove how un-communist they are, and that meant not being godless like the filthy godless commies.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

marshmallowcreampie
The Red Scare contributed to it. America wanted to prove how un-communist they are, and that meant not being godless like the filthy godless commies.


The commies have a God, he's just evil. ninja

*shudders*
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
It should be out of sight and mind of the government.

The alternative is full representation and that sounds outright impossible.


No, it shouldn't be completely out of the government.

I think the United States of America is unique in that it tries to keep a balance...with the conflict theory if you will.

If there was no candidate that held some christian/some religious belief... the people who are religious will have no one to represent them.

If are are atheist...and live in America... How would you feel if not one president/person in government wasn't allowed to hold atheist beliefs? Not fair is it? Well...don't do that to the religious people then.

The foundered made it so that the people can have the control they want; however, what will happen if the people take away that power from themselves?
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?
Faiths are private sector, not public sector. If a politician is Christian, all it means is that they're Christian on their own time. If it influences a decision? Nuh uh. And I'm talking legislation geared towards codifying religious law, in case that's unclear.


But what if they can be Christian, in a broad sense, and not impose little things on other people?

Like for instance, they whole though shall not murder and eat babies things is pretty nice. xp
Suicidesoldier#1
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
It should be out of sight and mind of the government.

The alternative is full representation and that sounds outright impossible.


No, it shouldn't be completely out of the government.

I think the United States of America is unique in that it tries to keep a balance...with the conflict theory if you will.

If there was no candidate that held some christian/some religious belief... the people who are religious will have no one to represent them.

If are are atheist...and live in America... How would you feel if not one president/person in government wasn't allowed to hold atheist beliefs? Not fair is it? Well...don't do that to the religious people then.

The foundered made it so that the people can have the control they want; however, what will happen if the people take away that power from themselves?
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?
Faiths are private sector, not public sector. If a politician is Christian, all it means is that they're Christian on their own time. If it influences a decision? Nuh uh. And I'm talking legislation geared towards codifying religious law, in case that's unclear.


But what if they can be Christian, in a broad sense, and not impose little things on other people?

Like for instance, they whole though shall not murder and eat babies things is pretty nice. xp

These are not strictly Christian beliefs.
Thou shall not murder can be justified outside of religion. You do not need God to understand that it is unfair and unjustified to end someone else's life. Eating babies is under the same.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?
Faiths are private sector, not public sector. If a politician is Christian, all it means is that they're Christian on their own time. If it influences a decision? Nuh uh. And I'm talking legislation geared towards codifying religious law, in case that's unclear.


But what if they can be Christian, in a broad sense, and not impose little things on other people?

Like for instance, they whole though shall not murder and eat babies things is pretty nice. xp

These are not strictly Christian beliefs.
Thou shall not murder can be justified outside of religion. You do not need God to understand that it is unfair and unjustified to end someone else's life. Eating babies is under the same.


Why is that relevant?
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?
Faiths are private sector, not public sector. If a politician is Christian, all it means is that they're Christian on their own time. If it influences a decision? Nuh uh. And I'm talking legislation geared towards codifying religious law, in case that's unclear.


But what if they can be Christian, in a broad sense, and not impose little things on other people?

Like for instance, they whole though shall not murder and eat babies things is pretty nice. xp

These are not strictly Christian beliefs.
Thou shall not murder can be justified outside of religion. You do not need God to understand that it is unfair and unjustified to end someone else's life. Eating babies is under the same.


Why is that relevant?

If they are enforcing these laws on the basis of `God (the Christian one) said so`, it is not a good thing.
If they can understand that these sentiments are not strictly religious, and can be accepted by anyone who has been raised with any morals whatsoever (regardless of origin), and then chose to enforce these laws on the basis that it is a belief held by how we as a whole society define justice, then there is no matter to what he prays to in his free time.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
It should be out of sight and mind of the government.

The alternative is full representation and that sounds outright impossible.


No, it shouldn't be completely out of the government.

I think the United States of America is unique in that it tries to keep a balance...with the conflict theory if you will.

If there was no candidate that held some christian/some religious belief... the people who are religious will have no one to represent them.

If are are atheist...and live in America... How would you feel if not one president/person in government wasn't allowed to hold atheist beliefs? Not fair is it? Well...don't do that to the religious people then.

The foundered made it so that the people can have the control they want; however, what will happen if the people take away that power from themselves?
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?


Secularism. Religious faith is a mighty fine choice for anyone who chooses it. Legislature should be based on pure fact; it should not be used to enforce values from one religion unto an entire nation, many of whom have no cause to believe that legislature holds any value.

For example; Joe Schmo, a good, bible-abiding Christian, is (an entirely fictional) president, and he would not plant two crops in the same field, as his books have taught him. Should President Joe Schmo fight for legislature forbidding all citizens to do this when Fred, who studies agriculture, and has written several peer-reviewed and accredited scientific journals regarding this topic, knows that this practise will not have maximum yield?


Pssft, the problem with peer reviewed science is that it's self aggrandizing.

Maybe if people outside of the field were able to confirm it I'd believe it but self approving sources seem sketchy to me.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
The Living Force
Faiths are private sector, not public sector. If a politician is Christian, all it means is that they're Christian on their own time. If it influences a decision? Nuh uh. And I'm talking legislation geared towards codifying religious law, in case that's unclear.


But what if they can be Christian, in a broad sense, and not impose little things on other people?

Like for instance, they whole though shall not murder and eat babies things is pretty nice. xp

These are not strictly Christian beliefs.
Thou shall not murder can be justified outside of religion. You do not need God to understand that it is unfair and unjustified to end someone else's life. Eating babies is under the same.


Why is that relevant?

If they are enforcing these laws on the basis of `God (the Christian one) said so`, it is not a good thing.
If they can understand that these sentiments are not strictly religious, and can be accepted by anyone who has been raised with any morals whatsoever (regardless of origin), and then chose to enforce these laws on the basis that it is a belief held by how we as a whole society define justice, then there is no matter to what he prays to in his free time.


But if we are basing it off of what society defines, and that pertains to majority rule, and the majority of people are Christian, would that mean that Christians should do what they like, then?
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
It should be out of sight and mind of the government.

The alternative is full representation and that sounds outright impossible.


No, it shouldn't be completely out of the government.

I think the United States of America is unique in that it tries to keep a balance...with the conflict theory if you will.

If there was no candidate that held some christian/some religious belief... the people who are religious will have no one to represent them.

If are are atheist...and live in America... How would you feel if not one president/person in government wasn't allowed to hold atheist beliefs? Not fair is it? Well...don't do that to the religious people then.

The foundered made it so that the people can have the control they want; however, what will happen if the people take away that power from themselves?
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?


Secularism. Religious faith is a mighty fine choice for anyone who chooses it. Legislature should be based on pure fact; it should not be used to enforce values from one religion unto an entire nation, many of whom have no cause to believe that legislature holds any value.

For example; Joe Schmo, a good, bible-abiding Christian, is (an entirely fictional) president, and he would not plant two crops in the same field, as his books have taught him. Should President Joe Schmo fight for legislature forbidding all citizens to do this when Fred, who studies agriculture, and has written several peer-reviewed and accredited scientific journals regarding this topic, knows that this practise will not have maximum yield?


Pssft, the problem with peer reviewed science is that it's self aggrandizing.

Maybe if people outside of the field were able to confirm it I'd believe it but self approving sources seem sketchy to me.


Maybe you could explain what is self-aggrandizing about having other professionals of the same sub science reviewing the hypothesis, thesis, and how the study has applied to the thesis, and refusing to accredit work that has a clear bias in funding vs. result, result vs. testing subjects, and testing subjects vs. census results... because I see that as fitting the scientific method.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?


Secularism. Religious faith is a mighty fine choice for anyone who chooses it. Legislature should be based on pure fact; it should not be used to enforce values from one religion unto an entire nation, many of whom have no cause to believe that legislature holds any value.

For example; Joe Schmo, a good, bible-abiding Christian, is (an entirely fictional) president, and he would not plant two crops in the same field, as his books have taught him. Should President Joe Schmo fight for legislature forbidding all citizens to do this when Fred, who studies agriculture, and has written several peer-reviewed and accredited scientific journals regarding this topic, knows that this practise will not have maximum yield?


Pssft, the problem with peer reviewed science is that it's self aggrandizing.

Maybe if people outside of the field were able to confirm it I'd believe it but self approving sources seem sketchy to me.


Maybe you could explain what is self-aggrandizing about having other professionals of the same sub science reviewing the hypothesis, thesis, and how the study has applied to the thesis, and refusing to accredit work that has a clear bias in funding vs. result, result vs. testing subjects, and testing subjects vs. census results... because I see that as fitting the scientific method.


Because, other people in the same field are saying it's true!

Of course they will, it's their field. xp


I mean, I had peer reviewed science of giant lizard aliens ruling the world secretly and all my fellow peers said it was true! But yet no-one believes it. emotion_donotwant

And all things will have some form of bias to it, but that doesn't discredit the research entirely.


I mean maybe if people of different fields were able to scientifically confirm I'd believe but when you use a self referencing hypothesis, there's a huge potential for error. xp
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
The Living Force
Faiths are private sector, not public sector. If a politician is Christian, all it means is that they're Christian on their own time. If it influences a decision? Nuh uh. And I'm talking legislation geared towards codifying religious law, in case that's unclear.


But what if they can be Christian, in a broad sense, and not impose little things on other people?

Like for instance, they whole though shall not murder and eat babies things is pretty nice. xp

These are not strictly Christian beliefs.
Thou shall not murder can be justified outside of religion. You do not need God to understand that it is unfair and unjustified to end someone else's life. Eating babies is under the same.


Why is that relevant?

If they are enforcing these laws on the basis of `God (the Christian one) said so`, it is not a good thing.
If they can understand that these sentiments are not strictly religious, and can be accepted by anyone who has been raised with any morals whatsoever (regardless of origin), and then chose to enforce these laws on the basis that it is a belief held by how we as a whole society define justice, then there is no matter to what he prays to in his free time.


But if we are basing it off of what society defines, and that pertains to majority rule, and the majority of people are Christian, would that mean that Christians should do what they like, then?


Minority rights are not to suffer the whims of the majority. Those who are not Christian are well within their first amendment rights to express disbelief and concern when other rights and freedoms are limited by values that do not reflect how the world (or humans) work.

If this majority rule is to apply, and most Christians believe in God, and all we have to prove God`s sentiments as to how the world should be run, then the Bible should be law, and we should all gather around as we stone non-virginal brides.
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
x_DivineDesire_x
The Living Force
I didn't say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold office.

I said that their faiths should be irrelevant.

Well then what does "It should be out of sight and mind of the government." mean to you?


Secularism. Religious faith is a mighty fine choice for anyone who chooses it. Legislature should be based on pure fact; it should not be used to enforce values from one religion unto an entire nation, many of whom have no cause to believe that legislature holds any value.

For example; Joe Schmo, a good, bible-abiding Christian, is (an entirely fictional) president, and he would not plant two crops in the same field, as his books have taught him. Should President Joe Schmo fight for legislature forbidding all citizens to do this when Fred, who studies agriculture, and has written several peer-reviewed and accredited scientific journals regarding this topic, knows that this practise will not have maximum yield?


Pssft, the problem with peer reviewed science is that it's self aggrandizing.

Maybe if people outside of the field were able to confirm it I'd believe it but self approving sources seem sketchy to me.


Maybe you could explain what is self-aggrandizing about having other professionals of the same sub science reviewing the hypothesis, thesis, and how the study has applied to the thesis, and refusing to accredit work that has a clear bias in funding vs. result, result vs. testing subjects, and testing subjects vs. census results... because I see that as fitting the scientific method.


Because, other people in the same field are saying it's true!

Of course they will, it's their field. xp


I mean, I had peer reviewed science of giant lizard aliens ruling the world secretly and all my fellow peers said it was true! But yet no-one believes it. emotion_donotwant

And all things will have some form of bias to it, but that doesn't discredit the research entirely.


I mean maybe if people of different fields were able to scientifically confirm I'd believe but when you use a self referencing hypothesis, there's a huge potential for error. xp


I do not believe you understand what a `peer-reviewed` is in the context of peer-reviewed journals. The accrediting process is not accrediting the facts being presented, it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears

These are not strictly Christian beliefs.
Thou shall not murder can be justified outside of religion. You do not need God to understand that it is unfair and unjustified to end someone else's life. Eating babies is under the same.


Why is that relevant?

If they are enforcing these laws on the basis of `God (the Christian one) said so`, it is not a good thing.
If they can understand that these sentiments are not strictly religious, and can be accepted by anyone who has been raised with any morals whatsoever (regardless of origin), and then chose to enforce these laws on the basis that it is a belief held by how we as a whole society define justice, then there is no matter to what he prays to in his free time.


But if we are basing it off of what society defines, and that pertains to majority rule, and the majority of people are Christian, would that mean that Christians should do what they like, then?


Minority rights are not to suffer the whims of the majority. Those who are not Christian are well within their first amendment rights to express disbelief and concern when other rights and freedoms are limited by values that do not reflect how the world (or humans) work.

If this majority rule is to apply, and most Christians believe in God, and all we have to prove God`s sentiments as to how the world should be run, then the Bible should be law, and we should all gather around as we stone non-virginal brides.


But not all Christians want to stone non-virginal brides. xp

I'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't approve of that.


Mostly I'm joking.

But my point is that we should base things off of what is correct and what is not correct, but what society defines per say isn't necessarily what's right.


"and then chose to enforce these laws on the basis that it is a belief held by how we as a whole society define justice, then there is no matter to what he prays to in his free time"

More or less, there is a great possibility of error here. We should try to do what's right, no matter what. But getting rid of Christianity or saying one way is definitively right is silly.


Paramount to the basis of our democracy is truth, justice, freedom for all etc.

So we all agree that people deserve X rights, which supports our opinion, but could also support others we don't like. In that basis we allow a lot of things to slide. I do agree we should use the best method, but because it applies to the known universe and doesn't hurt anyone, not necessarily because a Christian did or did not say to. xp


So Christians in politics is irrelevant imo.

If people want to do what he says they will, and if "society" per say is willing to take the sacrifices for crappy production methods should we let them? It really depends on how many people have these beliefs or what their ultimate goals are. It's possible to not force them to do it. It really just depends. xp

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games