Could you explain the reasoning that you used to come to that ridiculous conclusion?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is American politcs you're talking about.

EVERYONE is a whacko religious nutjob. Remember, it's one nation UNDER GOD.

__________________
------------------
P O L I T I C S 555
A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences,
in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality.
-- Sir Winston Churchill

I wouldn't quite go that far. not EVERYONE is a whacked religious nutjob.

__________________
Like Playing Poker? Wanna make some money?
Earn Rake-back when you sign up!!!

I already explained my logic, apparently its far above your level of understanding.

__________________
Like Playing Poker? Wanna make some money?
Earn Rake-back when you sign up!!!

There are far more decent religious people than there are the Phelps idiots.

__________________






"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

I'm interested in ipfan's original question. I can understand an interest in religion and politics, however I don't quite understand the idea of a list. What's the purpose?
The best example in Western Civilization, besides Rome and the Crusades on how religion effected politics, is William the Conquorer. It was his promise to the Pope of assisting the monastic system that gave him the sanction / blessing he needed for everyone's "approval" to go ahead with the invasion. The Gaelic Countries loved the idea because they hated the English. From then on the rest is history as they say.

Religion became a part of politics with the Mesopotamian priests. Then comes the rule of the god-king (pharos) in Egypt. etc etc. Having said all that ipfan, I am still very intertested in what you are trying to show or find out?

From my perspective, I think that the Faith of religion has been overused by politicians who play the zero sum game. From another perspective, political affirmative action concerning morals can be considered one reason for the moral decay in the US. Consider the War on Drugs. How has that public policy scheme benefited the moral character of the US? It seems, to me, that corruption is more rampant by being less holy and moral to our Constitution concerning regulating commerce among the several states. How has the War on Terror helped our national character in the eyes of the world. We were the Great Shysters before, I am sure that has not changed by weakening our Bill of Rights for something that only by a great latitude of construction, could be misinterpreted to imply the powers to provide for the common Offense or general Warfare of the United States. Yet, I hear no outcry concerning those forms of immorality towards our Constitution.

Well if i grab a list of conflicts, i can do some more research on them.


yea, there is a lot of examples of religious conflicts before WWII, but i was more interested in a list of post-WWII conflicts. because in my opinion the whole religious conflict has changed during the Cold War.

IMO, the cold war produced an irreversible "domino effect" (to play off cold war ear terms, haha). The "godless" commies vs. the Good Christian Nation gave the initiative for many religious groups to gain political power here in the US. no one really thought twice about de-secularization of the United States because we were battling the evil of the "godless" USSR. also IMO the cold war started in october of 1917, and it revolved more along the lines of Religion rather than economic stylings.

well like i said earlier, i want to look at contemporary effects of Religion and Politics. Its changed, things are more subtile but more powerful. You have christian interest groups that push anti- gay (prop 8, california), anti-choice (Catholic church), and furthering war in the middle east (people like Metalted). Religion now is "legitimately" in politics rather than a tyrannical theocracy and IMO its more dangerous than a secular state.

Sorry i cant explain more, i got to get back to my studies.

peace

lpfan

__________________
Like Playing Poker? Wanna make some money?
Earn Rake-back when you sign up!!!

Your logic is flawed because you presume that the terms "person" and "citizen" are interchangeable.

Perhaps you are not aware that those are different words with different meanings.

Are you intelligent enough to understand that ?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now IMO, a "child" does not have US constitutional rights until it is born or can live outside the mothers womb. Roe v. Wade agrees with that position. Until a child is born it is still a part of the mother, just like a tumor or a toenail. It is the mothers constitutional right to have any of these removed because without her said object would cease to live and therefore not a living 'person'. And in order to be a 'citizen' one must be a 'person'. connect the dots.

so yes, in the terms of person and citizen you are right they are not the same. A mexican is a person, but not a US citizen... i get that. BUT in regards to the question "at what point does a baby receive 'human rights'?" they are one in the same when regarding legislation and the United States. Until a baby is born, or can sustain its own life, into a person they cannot receive any citizenship rights.


I would hardly call my intelligence to question, i would bet i am much more 'intelligent' than you. And just for shits and giggles, do you have a any kind of formal education?

Lpfan

__________________
Like Playing Poker? Wanna make some money?
Earn Rake-back when you sign up!!!

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but someone mentioned the Rick Warren interview... in which it was pointed out that religious groups did the bulk of clean up and help post Katrina. That's a positive, where religious groups are more organized and better funded to deal with natural disasters. And I don't want to hear that was just Bush's fuck up because that's been the truth throughout recent history.

Another more recent politics-religion conflict is preaching in churches about elections, and the Pope saying that any Catholic who voted for Barack Obama needed to go to confession since they had technically sinned furthering a pro-abortion agenda. The question is, when you are trying to tell a congregation where their religion tells them to vote, you run into tax-exempt issues, etc., however, isn't it the church's right to clear up issues of the religion and what constitutes sinning? It can be argued both ways.

These aren't really "wars", just "conflicts."

BTW, I don't buy that the cold war was a religiously fueled war. My own two cents.

Also, pre-WWII, part of the reason America was founded was religious freedom. They didn't want there to be a state religion. However, they were NOT in favor of religion having no place in politics at all. Tracking the evolution of the founding father's intent and the interpretation of that intent is a whole other thread. However, it could be argued that the Revolution had at least something to do with religon.

__________________
Obama Low Effort Wealth Spread. I can't believe it's not earned!

Ipfan, I can see your interest. I would suggest that relgion and its relation to politics has not changed. In the early days of the twentieth century lifestyles were different, and behavior much more conservative: this eminated from Christian ethics. In those days the 'ethic' was one of the most important motivators of political thought.

I would submit that the cold war actually started - in force - during the First Red Scare of the late 20s. Union organizing was seen as the result of communists ehtics and principals. Therefore the words "communists" and "socialists" have since dogged the labor movement in this country.
It has always been about economic egalitarianism. There is an old communists saying: "Religion is the opiate of the massess." From the begining, which is why I mentioned Mesopotamia, the priestly caste jumped right into the top of the economic scale: so it's not as much religion as it is the power that religion uses.

Today, relgion is just hoisted up again when political logic fails. This failure is usually due to economics, which sets up angst: anxiety is the motivator for action.

I think that if you were to study more about the history of these things, the simplicity of today's situation might become more clear to you. (The complications come from cultural differences and their political histories).
I suggest you read Nietzsche's "First Essay" in his The Genealogy of Morlaity., wherein he studies the true meaning of "good" and "bad" as values.

Regards
J

One of the reasons "under God" was put in the pledge was due to the Cold War. I doubt that phrase would have been included if there an been an Industrial Automation Race instead of a Cold War.

It is interesting to note that the phrase was included during the McCarthy era.

They just did it to piss off the Soviets who were brutally and inhumanely persecuting religious folks.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I am not sure adding that phrase did anything for our own secular republic. We were already further along in our civil rights movement due to our Constitution. Even now, mostly religious laws, have only relatively recently been overturned in favor of our supreme code law of the land (the Constitution).