Originally posted by Valcion

---

The ideals that Wurl and Dracoon are talking about, i think, are some of the mroe fucked up ones that people like Pat Robertson and Jack Chick try to promote.

---

Originally posted by Dracoon

---

Ok, so does George W. Bush, so did Hitler (I'm in now way comparing Bush's way of runing things to Hitler's), a lot of people have influence, but can you match the entire influence of one of the largest religions. (Please, all Christians stick together except for Catholics who stick with other Catholics.)


Just because one (a few) extremist has (have) (some) influence doesn't mean my point means any less.

---

Originally posted by Dracoon before Phil and in reference to Phil

---

Refer to Valcion's post if you need clarification.

---

Originally posted by Skydude

---

It's not that religion in government is bad per se, but that certain crappy individuals misusing it are the problem. So forced atheism is hardly the answer.

---

Originally posted by Valcion

---

A lot of those can be found in any religion though, and are universal concepts of good.

The ideals that Wurl and Dracoon are talking about, i think, are some of the mroe fucked up ones that people like Pat Robertson and Jack Chick try to promote.

---

Originally posted by Wurl

---

Originally posted by Valcion

---

A lot of those can be found in any religion though, and are universal concepts of good.

The ideals that Wurl and Dracoon are talking about, i think, are some of the mroe fucked up ones that people like Pat Robertson and Jack Chick try to promote.

---

Valcion wins this. Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition are the ones usually behind this kind of stuff. And what they're behind is less "turn the other cheek" or actually helping, but rather condemn homosexuals and attack secularity or call for the killing of people (Hugo Chavez, terrorists). I could care less if a pastor supports a party or gives a political view as long as it's not a focus of the sermon to demonize opposition.

---

Originally posted by Jomb

---

If i came off as anti-religious it was unintentional. I'm not anti-religion per se, though i am most definately anti-state-instituted religion. I'm very much against organized religion being in charge of people's lives. That said, someone praying or finding strength in a higher power is fine, so long as they dont take the next step of forcing their beliefs on other people. That's extremely dangerous and exactly the reason we have and need to have the seperation of church and state.
Historical examples of church-lead brutality on the "heathens" is not irrelevant, and never will be. Ignoring history is a path tread by fools and the willfully-ignorant. The only non-religious group i can think of which had a genocide of sorts was the communists, but they did'nt do it "in the name of atheism!", it was done by some corrupt leaders to wipe out the potential threats to their power. If you must insist that everything is a religion and their is no such thing as atheism, then you have to say it was done in the name of their religion, which i guess would be communism. And as far as there being no recent religion-motivated atrocities going on, i seem to recall that not too long ago a christian group was participating in ethnic cleansing on some muslims in east europe, and a muslim group is trying to wipe us out in the name of religion as we speak.
I have'nt heard it so much in this discussion, but i've seen it in dozens of similar debates, where some religious person will insist that Atheism is just another type of religion, which is silly.
On that topic though, there is no "forced atheism" going on in this country that i'm aware of. I've never once seen the government rushing into a church and arresting everyone for praying, or teaching the youth that there is no God (or Gods). Not supporting any one religion or set of religions is not the same as out-lawing them or "forcing atheism" on people. There is such a thing as neutrality, its not always "you're for us, or you're against us"

---