Atheism isn't a religion. However, atheists may be religious, as in the case of buddhism. Atheism isn't a belief, it's not believing a specific thing, in this case, not believing in God. So a buddhist would probably descibe himself as a buddhist (which is a belief) rather than an atheist (which isn't a belief).

Yes, that is what I meant. One shouldn't have to turn to religious excuses when making laws. I think by principle laws should be made because of the needs for them, rather than because a myth guides us. I never said it shouldn't be allowed to discuss it, or bring it up. But, to implement a law, is much more than just talking about it.

When I said I wouldn't accept religion in any way in the public, that means there shouldn't be laws with religious justifications. That's not an infringement on free speech at all. I just don't think a group of people should be put under the irrational rules of a majority.

That means, if I live in "hillbilly state" where the people follow a God who thinks incestous relationships are mandatory, and this is the law in this state. I would call that an irrational belief, because I don't believe in their God. Keep their rules for themselves. That's a law that is justified in their God, thus irrational (as they haven't proven their God). Likewise, I can't buy beer after 08:00PM because christians have taboos for it... So what If I buy the beer one minute over 08:00PM? Is it more harmful than if I bought it 2 minutes earlier?

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

The fact that society is made up of a variety of sub-communities is the basis of my comment that it is messy and thus, "not pretty".

I don't reply to crap like this. At best, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are addressing some other poster.

I don't understand even the grounds for argument about religions place in politics. There quite simply is no place for religion, which is not based on facts, truth, or even common sense in politics which dictate the lives of everyday people.

In my opinion, it's an incredibly dumb argument and awarding someone a lot of money for putting forth such a dumb argument is equally as dumb.

This is not completley true. If you look at the Jewish rules regarding kosher food, they sure look a Lot like a reasonable health code from 2000-ish years ago. A lot of the Christian teachings are a good template for how most people can lead a happy and productive life. I'm sure there are other examples from religions I'm less familiar with.

In general terms, I agree with you, but not all teachings of all religions are as useless as you seem to think.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I didn't say they were entirely useless but kosher food and christian examples for leading a happy life do not belong in politics. There are a lot of people who do not believe in religion who lead happy lives.

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significently higher than for other faith groups, and for Atheists and Agnostics.
U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

Christianity and Judaism are based on faith, not facts.

I'm addressing you and your numerous unfounded comments that were - I suppose - based on a misunderstanding (a misunderstanding which could be on either side). If you're not interested in solving this misunderstanding, or if you're not interested in having a serious discussion with me, then say it out loud. Rather than trying to put pressure on me with one of these escalations of verbal violence that you seem to be so comfortable with - despite their impact on the quality of the discussion.


Let me quote you:
On all these cases, you act as if I had been advocating a law prohibiting the mention of religion in the public space, while I made it clear from the very first post that mentioning religion should not be illegal in my opinion (and I have repeated it afterwards) . What I have been arguing about is that using religion/religious communities in political campaigns is immoral: it tends to strenghten communities, which in turn will encourage people to act in favour of their community rather than in favour of the whole population. The issue of race is the perfect example for seeing what harm can this type of behavior do.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Perhaps you're envisioning just one aspect of religion in politics (I suspect it to be the intolerent aspect). Taken as a whole, I can't see how one could possibly hope to remove religion from politics without removing all religious people from politics.

Religions are, amongst other things, a collection of statements about the nature of metaphysical reality and a group of moral precetps (often derived from the collection of statements).
Since there is not commonly accepted position on metaphysics and since morality is hardly something we can all get together, test in a lab, and agree on, how could we hope to remove these religious aspects from the politicians?

We can't very well say "You can't act based on that metaphysical position or those moral precepts because I have chosen to label those religious."

Bemused giggles.

At least your post was civil.

And it does strike me ironic that you would overlook the fact that the original anti-slavery movement was almost entirely driven by Christian ministers (William Wilberforce was the most noted leader) interferring in politics. The 'secular' politicians themselves were mostly apologists for slavery (or profiteers from slavery).

But hey, a selective historical conscience is what I've learned to expect from you in particular.

While I don't want to stray into your duel with MM, I'd like some clarification on this point.

If you're suggesting that candidates shouldn't purposefully strive to seperate voters into "us" and "them" camps to breed political ferver, then I agree with you.

But if you're suggesting that candidates shouldn't mention the religious or moral basis (if any) for their proposed policies, this I disagree. I'd prefer candidates explained not just what policy they intend to implement but why. The why tells us just as much, if not more, about the candidate as a person, which is important since we can't hear them out on every possible piece of policy that might come up and have to based some of our voting decisions on which candidate we trust the most.

But I understand that you're not suggesting that anyone be forced (or forbidden) to express their views.

I haven't a clue what you are going on about here.

I still haven't a clue what you are going on about.

Are you accusing me of a strawman argument? If so, please point to it clearly.

You suggest here in clear language that politicians ought to self-censor themselves on their religious views.

Dance on the head of a pin all you like.

I'm fairly certain IIIX is trying to emphasize the "self" in "self-censor". He believes you may have misinterpretted his position to mean that he advocates others censoring politicians by force.

Morality is not derived from religion and one does not have to hold any particular religious belief to understand that murder and theft are wrong. People interact everyday without having to discern any particular religious course of action to take.

There is no universal concept of religion so whose religion is correct? At one time we burned "witches" based on false religious concepts until we got smart enough to realize that religion is simply a set of beliefs passed on from on generation to the next, not factual, or even in many cases, a common sense approach to life.

Thomas Jefferson had it right ..

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

I believe as Jefferson believed that religion should be an act between an individual and their concept of God .. not imposed on a free-thinking people.

Some people's morality is based on (or, perhaps "affected by" is better) their religion. Are we to tell these people (if elected) that they should ignore their morality because we have deemed it to be "religious"?

I'm fairly certain we haven't all come to that "realization"...
The the notion that, because we do not agree on which religion (if any) is correct, we must act as if none of them were correct seems a bit illogical to me.

I fully agree that religion should not be imposed. But neither should "non-religion".

It strikes me as ironic that you either don't know or omit the fact that slavery was supported by Christianity and most of the slavers were themselves Christians.

Leviticus 25:44 .. You may take your slaves from the heathen nation about you .. and goes on to say .. And you may will them to your children like cattle

These words are in red .. thus the words of God.

Perhaps you don't understand that prior to the King James version of the bible, the word "Slave" was in it 176 times, more than "Brother", "Sister", and almost as much as "Mother". King James commisiioned two non-christians, Shakesphere and Bacon, to rewrite the bible and remove the word "Slave" and replace it with nebulous terms like "Bondsman" and "Handmadien". .. King James himself was a homosexual pedophile who thought Jesus was in love with John and seemed hardly qualified to be instructed by God to rewrite his words. .. If you choose to believe that, I have no problem with what you believe.

I hardly see how you attempt to school me on the anti-slavery movement without pointing out the reality of christanity to slavery.