Politics and Religion - should they mix?

[Roller]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I saw an interesting story on TV the other night regarding the fact that George Bush I planning to make his second term a mroe religious affair, and that he veiws the 'war on terror' as an almost holy crusade. Now I dont' think those were his exact words, but that is the jist of it. It is stated how Bush relied on many Christian voters to help him back into office, and that many Christian groups have advocated the Republican vote (I'm sure you Americans may have had this splashed all over the news).

It also inverviewed a relgious leader who claimed he felt like his religion had been hijacked, because he didn't feel that Christianity should be used to justify the goverments decisions "I often ask: how did Jesus become pro-rich, pro-war and only pro-American? You feel like your faith has been hijacked. I think the political right has indeed tried to hijack faith, and now some of us want to take it back, almost in a rescue operation."

I have always wondered with the swearing in of politcal leaders - would it be accepted if the president of the usa was sworn in "to serve and protect the country, so help me Allah"? If not then does religion have a place among politics? Spirituality and morality maybe, but set religion?

Not trying to offend anyones beliefs but just wanting to know opinions.

Personally I don't think it has, because it seems that everytime it does it only brings forth hate, predjudice and fear of other religions. It also kind of scares me to see that here in Australia religion has become increasingly intertwined, and I know that Christianity or any other religion for that matter does not embody such predjudice, yet in the political arena Christian values seem to be twisted to serve other purposes.

Tell me what you think. Maybe this shoulc be in the philosophy section... I dunno.

[Rakkantekimusouka]

It's just that politics and religion are such touchy and wide-ranging subjects, that they can get out of hand more easily than anything else.

I think there should be a separation of church and state as far as the Presidency is concerned; Bush can be a Christian, but he shouldn't base every decision on "well, it's what Jesus would do...isn't it?"

[Alric]

I have a question for you. If you knew nothing at all about bush's personal life and went strictly by what he has done in office, could you honestly say that they are all the actions of a christian instead of say a jewish person?

[nightowl]

Tell me what you think. Maybe this shoulc be in the philosophy section... I dunno.[/b]
we'll see how it goes for now

i think it would be best to keep it separate. btw..has there ever been a non-christian president before?

[Alex D]

As far as I know, there hasn't.

The problem with mixing religion and politics can be seen in our good friend Mr.Bush, who does seem to base every desision on:

"What would Jesus do?"
"Ah thats it, invade Iraq."

[Anahata]

http://monotheism.us/ might be all bull...but....

haha alex that is true.... my two favorite bumper stickers during the election were "what would jesus bomb" and "bush + dick = screwed" hahhahaaa

anyway who did you quote there roller... on the, how did jesus become pro- rich, pro-war, and only pro-american? sounds so familiar, I know I've heard it said :P ..... ah I figured it out, where I saw it at least.... he was on the daily show with Jon Stewart.........I have heard it :P

Anyway, I can see why religious presidents get elected.... the have the same supposed values as many of our citizens... but at their core those values are hypocritical and backwards...... like for example, all the people who voted for Bush because he is pro-life. Pro-life yet murdering thousands of innocent in his war on Iraq. Pro-life yet at the same time working to reduce government means of helping those with children, ........ ahhh it is all so evil.

Ultimately, when you see society trying to implement changes to remove church from state in ways that seem trivial, such as removing the word God from the pledge, you would think that people would in turn seperate these two areas when choosing something as important as a leader.....

[Alex D]

Originally posted by Anahata
http://monotheism.us/ * might be all bull...but....

haha alex that is true.... my two favorite bumper stickers during the election were \"what would jesus bomb\" and \"bush + dick = screwed\" hahhahaaa

I must see if eBay has some of those. God, I just have to see one.

[Anahata]

http://www.cafepress.com/shop/bumper-stick...-1509+1332_bt-2 (http://www.cafepress.com/shop/bumper-stickers/browse/Ne-1160_pv-landoverbaptist.12263885_N-1509+1332_bt-2)

errr and I am still looking for the other.....

here's on just for fun...
http://www.cafepress.com/irregulargoods.7979384

I'll pm ya if I find it haha.....

[jacobo]

separate.

with a religious state others will indefinitely be oppressed due to their beliefs.

[sitboy]

I don't think that they should miw, it says in the constitution seperation of curch and state. It is not fair to keep some religions seperat and some not,

[Alric]

Last time I checked there was no law saying you had to be atheist to hold a public office. So bush can believe whatever he wants.

[jacobo]

i don't think you grasp the concept here. :roll: think.

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Daydream Paw's right -- it's not about people who are religious or nonreligious being in politics, but the two abstracts getting in the way of each other.

[Alric]

He doesn't preach any religion though and as you already pointed out he doesn't follow it in every decision he makes. So where is the problem? He doesn't push his religion on anyone, he uses his religion as a moral guide.

Lets take stem cells or abortion as an example. Hes against them both because of his religion. Making a law to stop them both wouldn't be pushing his religion though, as anyone no matter what religion they may, or may not have can find them both to be morally wrong.

Or are you mad because he brings up god in a speech? If you are for freedom of speech you could hardly have a problem with someone for that. Saying something like "may god bless you" is hardly hurting anyone, no matter what they believe in.

So I guess your right, I kind of missed the point of the topic because I don't see any problem.

[jacobo]

i never said that religion couldn't be used as a moral compass... but religion is a extremely bias... creating inequality if used past a certain moral boundary... making it better if decisions are made with what's best for the country in mind, not what best for a god. i'm not saying bush does this, i'm simply saying that this is what makes mixing the two bad.

[Truthbearer]

*moved*

[Roller]

Alric: the problem I see is that by presenting himself as a devout Christian, and by bringing up a Christian agenda (anti-abortion, anti-gay rights) he effectivley assures himself a very substantial Christian vote, allowing him more power. The negetive side to this (he can do this if he wants, there's no law against it) is that he then pursues an agenda that is against Christian teachings, and against the concerns that many church leaders have voiced. You cannot present yourself as a Christian come election time and then use this power against the teachings of the Christian faith. In this way it can be seen that he is merely manipulating faith and a whole religion for his personal plitical benefit.

If you are an Christian (which I assume you are) you should be very angry about this.

In this way it is shown that politics and religion should be kept seperate due to the conflict of interest. A president should seek moral guidance, as should every leader, yet presenting yourself as belonging to a religion merely to gain support surely is a crime against any religion it may happen to.

Oh and btw sorry for posting this in the lounge, kinda new to this site and I didn't realise it should have been in the philosopy section. Sorry, lesson learned though.

[justme]

the 1st ameadent states that we can express our religion. just because a person is of great importance like the preasident doesnt mean that he cant say he prays for our troops?

[irishcream]

I recently watched a series about the life of Jesus with my church group.
In the last one, they talked about the last days of Jesus' life, and the roman government.
The overall feeling i got was this.
The romans were running the show the way they wanted to, with slavery and what-have you.
Jesus didn't like this, so he got a few friends together, and tried to basically do things fairly and right, in order to help the unfortunate people.
Unfortunately, the head of the roman government didn't listen, so Jesus had to be slightly more drastic, which resulted in him being crucified.
He felt that they weren't listening, so because he believed so strongly, he had to make his point.

Some of the English people might have seen it, it was on BBC 1 a while back.

[A Lost Soul]

This is an interesting topic. I strongly believe that religion and politics should be kept far apart.

As far as Bush is concerned, yes, he IS pushing his religion on us (frankly, I don’t think he’s a very good Christian… but that’s another topic altogether). For example, he has stated that Wicca is not a valid religion and should not be practiced/allowed in the Army (and I can’t find the speech for those of you cut and paste nazis). He is also against gay marriage on the premise that it “defiles the sanctity of marriage”. What the hell? How does two people in love violate the sanctity of marriage? And another thing, I am a witch. I don’t marry like a Christian marries. My ceremony and concept of acceptance in the eyes of the Goddess is way different from a Christian ceremony and concept of acceptance in the eyes of their god. No president should be able to make such personal decision like that. (And the fact that he nullified all those marriages strikes me as absolutely evil.)

To be honest, Bush scares the hell out of me. He uses the Christian religion for his own needs, not as the Christian God (and/or Jesus) intended. Do you really think Jesus would have said “Hey! Go kill all these people in my name because they believe in a different version of me!” Jesus was a pretty damn cool guy. I doubt he would have been happy with politicians flinging his name around so selfishly. Jesus wasn’t a politician and quite frankly, I’m not sure he would have wanted to be. Spiritual guidance and political guidance are two completely different things and I think it’s a big mistake to mix the two.

[irishcream]

hey, i never meant to cause offence to anyone.
sorry.
it was just my thoughts on the subject.

[nightowl]

Originally posted by irishcream
hey, i never meant to cause offence to anyone.
sorry.
it was just my thoughts on the subject.
no need to apoligize, this is a friendly debate and you just stated your opinion :)

[irishcream]

people are asking whether religion and politics should mix, but does anyone else think that they are a little intertwined?
what is politics but laws and statutes that the country tries to live by, set in place by a higher order.
To me, it seems that religion is no different.
Laws and rules, all set by someone none of us have ever seen.
Okay, so you see tony blair on the telly, but how many of us have actually met him face to face?
How many of us has he given his time to, to actually listen to what we really want?
I think it's the same with religion.
the laws are there, but at the end of the day you have to make the decisions that sit best with your conscience.
I think religion is political, in that you have people of different faiths, believing in different things, just as you have different political parties.

Just a thought.

[Merck]

Originally posted by A Lost Soul
Do you really think Jesus would have said “Hey! Go kill all these people in my name because they believe in a different version of me!”

I'm just wondering who it is you think said this. It wasn't President Bush. And no he isn't pushing his religion on anyone. He is simply trying to live a good life as a Christian which every true Christian does. He isn't forcing people to believe in God, He didn't start the war for religious reasons (or for oil as so many convoluted people out there believe). Unlike certain previous presidents, I see this man as doing what he believes is best for the United States of America. We can see that for the first time in my lifetime there is actually a chance for the people of Iraq to be free citizens and practice free speech without the fear of being tortured to death. I'm very thankful that we have a leader with the conviction and fortitude necesary to bring freedom to the middle east.

[InTheMoment]

I'm going to do my best to keep my answer as short and to the point as possible by addressing the original post only.

Roller wrote:
I have always wondered with the swearing in of politcal leaders - would it be accepted if the president of the usa was sworn in \"to serve and protect the country, so help me Allah\"? If not then does religion have a place among politics? Spirituality and morality maybe, but set religion? [/b]

The US is currently undergoing a war on ideologies, which is subsequently polarizing its citizens into two seperate factions...those who believe that the Constitution was written with a secular intent and those who believe that the founding fathers had a Judeo-Christian agenda. We have to remember that the Constitution strongly emphasizes the separation of church and state and any infringements on this principle will only plague this "melting pot" that we (as US citizens) reside.

I believe that Bush has used his "born again" status and newfound "enlightenment" as a political tool to cultivate his agenda (both at home and abroad). He is certainly entitled to views and is within his rights to initiate policies that he feels is "right"...I mean we do have a "check & balance" system in place by way of Congress right?

However, I completely disagree with the motivation towards the invasion of Iraq. I believe that the current administration purposely misconstrued intelligence and rallied as much US support (82% Christian populace - http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html ) with his Christian rhetoric for a number of politically motivated goals towards Iraq.

I have extensively debated the reasons why the Bush administration has gone to war with Iraq on other debate forums...and if you believe the sole and/or main purpose was to liberate the Iraqi people then you are tragically naive. :shakehead2:

[A Lost Soul]

Originally posted by Merckantium+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Merckantium)</div><!--QuoteBegin-A Lost Soul
Do you really think Jesus would have said “Hey! Go kill all these people in my name because they believe in a different version of me!”

I'm just wondering who it is you think said this. It wasn't President Bush. And no he isn't pushing his religion on anyone. He is simply trying to live a good life as a Christian which every true Christian does. He isn't forcing people to believe in God, He didn't start the war for religious reasons (or for oil as so many convoluted people out there believe). Unlike certain previous presidents, I see this man as doing what he believes is best for the United States of America. We can see that for the first time in my lifetime there is actually a chance for the people of Iraq to be free citizens and practice free speech without the fear of being tortured to death. I'm very thankful that we have a leader with the conviction and fortitude necesary to bring freedom to the middle east.[/b]
No one said it; I was asking whether Jesus would have said it. From all I've read and heard of him, he was peaceful and loving and would not have liked people using him or the Christian God's name for their own political killing spree. And by that, I'm referring to all the wars and conquerings of the past where kings and such have taken over countries or tried to wipe out other races "in God's name".

I have to disagree with you about Bush. I do think he's trying to force one religion on us. Who is he to tell me who I can and can not marry? I'm not Christian. My God and Goddess don't give two shits whether I marry a man or a woman so long as we love one another. Not only that, he publicly stated that my religion was not a valid religion in his eyes and shouldn't be allowed in the military. My brother serves in that military and he is also Pagan. What if, Goddess forbid, that terrible moment comes when he is fighting for his country (or the "freedom" of another country) and he is fatally wounded... But too bad; there aren't any Pagan chaplains because our retard president took away our freedom of religion.

Basically all I’m saying is this: When you mix politics and religion you are on the road to tyranny. When total freedom of religion is taken away, it's not a big leap from there to start taking away other freedoms. That scares me. I see Bush looking at that road and I can only pray that he doesn't decide to talk a walk.

[Merck]

Lost Soul, I apologize, I misunderstood you before. I don't think that President Bush has taken away your freedom of religion. He has not kept you from practicing it. As for the chaplains in the military, they don't have any chaplains for my religion either, I am Presbyterian. Do you know how many different religions there are in the world? You can't have a chaplain for every single one of them. Now I agree that religion should be kept out of politics but not out of the moral decisions that the president makes. That would be like asking him to completely forget about his religion. And I must disagree with you about Bush pushing one religion on everyone. This is simply not true.

[Roller]

Originally posted by Merckantium


We can see that for the first time in my lifetime there is actually a chance for the people of Iraq to be free citizens and practice free speech without the fear of being tortured to death. *

Until they end up in Guantanamo Bay...

[Merck]

Originally posted by Roller+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Roller)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Merckantium


We can see that for the first time in my lifetime there is actually a chance for the people of Iraq to be free citizens and practice free speech without the fear of being tortured to death.

Until they end up in Guantanamo Bay...[/b]

Well most likely if they are in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba then there has been some evidence that they have connections with terrorists or they have broken the law in some way. Of course mistakes may be made but with the way that insurgents (mostly from other countries) have been operating, I suppose its best to err on the side of discretion.

[Roller]

Well most likely if they are in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba then there has been some evidence that they have connections with terrorists or they have broken the law in some way. Of course mistakes may be made but with the way that insurgents (mostly from other countries) have been operating, I suppose its best to err on the side of discretion.[/b]

Maybe they have been convicted of this, but they still have human rights. Please tell me why if Bush is all for freedom and democracy does he allow people to be detained without charge in a prison that does not meet basic human rights, in a place that is not even protected by America's constitution?

Pope John Paul II opposed the war in Iraq, and let people know this. I only know of one Christian Church that supported the war in Iraq (although I cannot recall the name, sorry), so please tell me how Bush is being a good Christian.

Yes, religion has a place in today's society. Yes, (most) religions seek to uphold moral and ethical values, but religion should never EVER have a hand in politics. I have nothing against Bush being Christian, but I do have something against him openly publicising his faith in the media, and then doing the exact opposite of what he preaches.

Bush is the leader of a democracy, and therefore he should never let his own faith govern the politics or agenda of a country that is home to hundereds and hundereds of different religions.

In the news lateley I have heard reports of interrogators in Guantanamo desecrating the Quran, now that hardly sounds like an open and accepting view of other religions, does it?

[mushroom]

Originally posted by irishcream
people are asking whether religion and politics should mix, but does anyone else think that they are a little intertwined?
what is politics but laws and statutes that the country tries to live by, set in place by a higher order.
To me, it seems that religion is no different.
Laws and rules, all set by someone none of us have ever seen.
Okay, so you see tony blair on the telly, but how many of us have actually met him face to face?
How many of us has he given his time to, to actually listen to what we really want?
I think it's the same with religion.
the laws are there, but at the end of the day you have to make the decisions that sit best with your conscience.
I think religion is political, in that you have people of different faiths, believing in different things, just as you have different political parties.

Just a thought.

i agrrree they are similar but theres one major difference .... religion is chosen (wel in our countries) however politics is enofrorced.... and therefore it would be uinfair for a religion to have a direct influence in a democracy .....

just a thought

[eyeofgames]

no they should not.If they do then if the leader has a biased opinion he may try to froce it on others.

[InTheMoment]

This is a lttle prayer dedicated to the separation of church and state. I guess if they are going to force those kids to pray in schools they might as well have a nice prayer like this: Our Father who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands, thy kingdom come, one nation indivisible as in heaven, give us this day as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into temptation but deliver us from the twilight's last gleaming. Amen and Awomen.
~George Carlin

[YourTheManNowDog]

However, I completely disagree with the motivation towards the invasion of Iraq. I believe that the current administration purposely misconstrued intelligence and rallied as much US support (82% Christian populace - http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html ) with his Christian rhetoric for a number of politically motivated goals towards Iraq.
I have extensively debated the reasons why the Bush administration has gone to war with Iraq on other debate forums...and if you believe the sole and/or main purpose was to liberate the Iraqi people then you are tragically naive. [/b]


are you even an american i dont recognize the flag on your profile?? if you arent even an american why does your opinion even matter?

lol @ conspiracy theories about the iraq war.......my leatherneck brothers protect your right to say such nonsense, i guess we need quack conspiracy theorists as well. if you arent serving to defend this nation in iraq then you have NO OPINION and have the right to do nothing but listen.


Maybe they have been convicted of this, but they still have human rights. Please tell me why if Bush is all for freedom and democracy does he allow people to be detained without charge in a prison that does not meet basic human rights, in a place that is not even protected by America's constitution? [/b]

no, they have no rights they are not american citizens they are prisoners of war. we are in a new paradigm right now. the old paradigm for security doesnt work anymore and its neccessary to actually get your hands dirty now....you know something europeans dont understand?

[Roller]

Originally posted by YourTheManNowDog
its neccessary to actually get your hands dirty now....you know something europeans dont understand?

You're kidding me... you can't honestly be suggesting that Europe doesn't understand war???

Now ok, I realise that this is done to provoke, and no matter what I say you will refuse to intelligently debate a point, but this really offends me. A lot.

I don't want an off-topic heated debate- if you want one of them go to the philosophy forum, and if you can't talk intelligently and open-mindedly about the topic of this thread then don't post here, you'll be doing the rest of us a favour.

[InTheMoment]

Originally posted by YourTheManNowDog
However, I completely disagree with the motivation towards the invasion of Iraq. I believe that the current administration purposely misconstrued intelligence and rallied as much US support (82% Christian populace - http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html ) with his Christian rhetoric for a number of politically motivated goals towards Iraq. *
I have extensively debated the reasons why the Bush administration has gone to war with Iraq on other debate forums...and if you believe the sole and/or main purpose was to liberate the Iraqi people then you are tragically naive. *


are you even an american i dont recognize the flag on your profile?? if you arent even an american why does your opinion even matter?[/b]
Try rolling your mouse over the flag .gif and it will give you an idea of which country it represents.


lol @ conspiracy theories about the iraq war.......my leatherneck brothers protect your right to say such nonsense, i guess we need quack conspiracy theorists as well. if you arent serving to defend this nation in iraq then you have NO OPINION and have the right to do nothing but listen.[/b]
I've served 6 years in the US military and have been to the Middle East (during the first Gulf War) twice. My brother is a PJ (para-rescue) in the USAF and has completed a tour in Afghanistan and has just recently came back from his 2nd tour in Iraq. But hey we can just stand around and wave our dicks in the air all we like, but if your going to resurrect an old thread (such as this one) please be ready to offer something enlightening. :roll:

[Universal Mind]

Originally posted by InTheMoment
This is a lttle prayer dedicated to the separation of church and state. I guess if they are going to force those kids to pray in schools they might as well have a nice prayer like this: Our Father who art in heaven, and to the republic for which it stands, thy kingdom come, one nation indivisible as in heaven, give us this day as we forgive those who so proudly we hail. Crown thy good into temptation but deliver us from the twilight's last gleaming. Amen and Awomen.
~George Carlin

:lol: :lol: :lol: Two thumbs WAY up on that one!

That is a good illustration of how a lot of Americans think. I am so tired of hearing all of this "This country was founded on Christianity" stuff. I think it is a disgrace to the founders of the United States to say things like that. First of all, Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. He was obsessed with separating church and state. Ben Franklin was a Deist. Some of the other writers of the Constitution were Deists. This country was founded on freedom of religion, not the imposition of Christianity or any other religion, but totally the opposite. The first settlers from England came here to escape having religion crammed down their throats by the government, and the Constitution's authors formed the government with a great deal of passionate support for that philosophy. Jeff Spicoli, the pot-head surfer in Fast Times at Ridgemont High who was played by Sean Penn (the role that made him famous), summed up the basis of the birth of the U.S. by saying, "So what Jefferson was saying was, 'Hey, we left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, then we'll just be bogus too." He was referring to King George III's religious impositions on England at the time. (Things have changed. England is awesome now.)

I think relgion should stay completely out of government. I don't even like having "In God we trust" on coins. What if Hindus were the majority here and coins said, "In the gods we trust"? What if it said "In the trees we trust"? What if Satan worshippers end up being the majority? It is unfair and a very dangerous precedent that opens up too big of a door to eventual theocracy, something we are pretty far from now, but something that should be taken very seriously.

As for the invasion of Iraq, I don't think religion has anything to do with it. If it does, it's not a but for factor. I am an atheist, and I was in favor of it for many reasons. The Hussein government did violate our 1991ceasefire on several terrorism threat counts, we did need to change our policies regarding enemy terrorist governments, and I will never oppose the liberation of a severely oppressed nation. My support has 0 to do with religion.

[YourTheManNowDog]

I've served 6 years in the US military and have been to the Middle East (during the first Gulf War) twice. My brother is a PJ (para-rescue) in the USAF and has completed a tour in Afghanistan and has just recently came back from his 2nd tour in Iraq. But hey we can just stand around and wave our dicks in the air all we like, but if your going to resurrect an old thread (such as this one) please be ready to offer something enlightening. [/b]

my hat is off to you brother....

You're kidding me... you can't honestly be suggesting that Europe doesn't understand war???

Now ok, I realise that this is done to provoke, and no matter what I say you will refuse to intelligently debate a point, but this really offends me. A lot.
[/b]

yes i can honestly suggest that..we can intelligently debate all you want, the euros would be speaking german right now if it wasnt for us. (shrug)...they cant even get a handle on a riot right now in paris.

[Roller]

Originally posted by YourTheManNowDog
yes i can honestly suggest that..we can intelligently debate all you want, the euros would be speaking german right now if it wasnt for us. (shrug)...they cant even get a handle on a riot right now in paris.

Yeah righto, there's nothing to stop you believing what you want so I won't bother arguing about it. I don't suppose you'd have any thoughts on the topic of the thread by any chance?

[Leo Volont]

Does not the question hinge upon whether the Religion considered is True or not?

History shows that Civilizations rise upon Religion and Fall into Secularism. Yes, the forces of disintegration and dissolution of course advocate policies which cast confusion on all moral principles. It is difficult to enslave the masses to serve one's personal estate unless one can first relax the Religious Injunctions against such abuses.

Now, we need to correct certain misunderstandings, especially those which suppose that what George Bush follows is in any way a "Religion". Protestantism has nothing in common with Religion once one closely examines it. It does not believe in Morality or Righteousness but instead depends upon the Forgiveness of Sins. But what is Forgiveness of Sin except the explicit licence to sin? One might argue that Protestants nevertheless believe in a God, and that qualifies them to the appellation of being a Religion, but look closely -- they advocate the benefits of having Murdered the Messiah so that Sin would have free entrance into Heaven. This is not Belief in God so much as it is the Advocacy of the Death of God in Order to facilitate the Invasion of Heaven by the Forces of Evil. So how can any reasonable person suppose this the same as any of the Higher Moral Religions. Look at the Fruits of Protestantism -- Usury, Slave Trading, Rum Running, Child Exploitation, Opium Trading (as well as Wars to force China to accept their Drug Trade). All of these horrors festered forth only after Catholicism was overthrown and the Libertine Protestants were able to impose their Reign of Forgiveness from all Sins.

Ordinarily Protestants had been accustomed to reject the notion of Religious Influence in Government, because they feared that some Actual Religion would benefit from the influence and impinge upon the general licentiousness allowed by Protestant Nihilism. But now, the concern is that the Religious Right has been demagogue-ing the half educated trash of the American Bible Belt in order to gather up a Majority to support what on close examination is little short of being perfectly diabolical. These common people are told that they are supporting Religion and they believe it without checking whether the word is being used properly. Indeed, that has been what has occurred in this Post. The word "Religion" is used by these Brave New World Right Wing Fascists, and their Bluff is not called. A Religion needs to be Religious, no?

[Universal Mind]

Protestants are more obsessed witih "morallity" than anybody else I know of, except Islamosfascists. I can't buy beer on Sundays in Rankin County or the suburb of Clinton, and the strip clubs are under a zoning ordinance to exist exclusively on two streets in the ghetto. I owe all of my thanks to Bible Belt Protestants, particularly the Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptists are a whole lot like Islamofascists. They bitch all day about how they want to impose "morality" on everybody else, but the bitching is done with very evil mouths.

Protestants in general, especially Southern Baptists, aren't very interested in forgiveness of sin. They will throw the term around all the time, but if you really talk to them, you can get their real attitude to show itself, which is, "I'm a Christian, so I can do whatever I want." Never an expression of sincere repentance! They will even get lap dances at the same damn strip clubs they are trying to close. Rankin County is a dry county (This is in terms of liquor, but beer is banned after 11 p.m. and on Sundays.), and the people who work at the Hinds Couny liquor stores near the county line swear that the very people who pushed to make Rankin dry will drive across the county line, buy liquor at their store, and then drive back to their homes in Rankin County. What is wrong with these people?!!!

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Universal Mind
Protestants are more obsessed witih \"morallity\" than anybody else I know of, except Islamosfascists. I can't buy beer on Sundays in Rankin County or the suburb of Clinton, and the strip clubs are under a zoning ordinance to exist exclusively on two streets in the ghetto. I owe all of my thanks to Bible Belt Protestants, particularly the Southern Baptists. The Southern Baptists are a whole lot like Islamofascists. They bitch all day about how they want to impose \"morality\" on everybody else, but the bitching is done with very evil mouths.

Protestants in general, especially Southern Baptists, aren't very interested in forgiveness of sin. They will throw the term around all the time, but if you really talk to them, you can get their real attitude to show itself, which is, \"I'm a Christian, so I can do whatever I want.\" Never an expression of sincere repentance! They will even get lap dances at the same damn strip clubs they are trying to close. Rankin County is a dry county (This is in terms of liquor, but beer is banned after 11 p.m. and on Sundays.), and the people who work at the Hinds Couny liquor stores near the county line swear that the very people who pushed to make Rankin dry will drive across the county line, buy liquor at their store, and then drive back to their homes in Rankin County. What is wrong with these people?!!!

You are confusing a general prudishness with Morality. Drinking Regulations are not Morality. Sexual Regulations are not Morality. One needs only review what Protestants have no problem with -- Greed, Slave Owning, Exploitation, Usury. They have instituted a Moral Slight of hand where they have shifted their focus from True Morality over to inconsequentials.

Also, you need to dip just below the Surface and examine how the Doctrine of Salvation really Works in its World of Sway. Yes, while the Baptist Churches ostensibly preach against Sin, the constant underlying message which can hardly be ignored as it is repeated again and again and again, if that Once Saved, Always Saved and that Forgiveness is Unconditional in the Death of Christ. This is why the Sunday Morning Church Goer can spend the rest of his Week End in the Honky Tonks and use his Work Week to take jobs lying about Used Cars and charging strangers too much for them. Under and Beyond all the Pretty Sermonizing, the Real Message is that All Sin is Forgiven. Eventually these Believers cash that check and take advantage of it.

It is what Christ meant about the Antichrist coming as a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing. Do not be fooled by the Sheep's Clothing of Protestantism -- how they dress up in Moral Cloths and take on the Trappings of Religion. Their Practice is to Advocate the Continuation in Sin. Afterall, just look at the Doctrine of Original Sin. In many Protestant Denominations the Believer actually is required to Confess himself a Sinner before Salvation is allowed to him. In what other Religion must the Initiate promise to be a Sinner!? It is a clear instance of people actually swearing themselves to the Devil.

Besides, I think that the only reason that Paul preached against Drink and Prostitution was that he was jealous of the Money being spent for these other things, and felt that all such spending was better done by people putting their Surplus Cash in the Collection Plate. That is probably as deep as Protestant Morality runs.

[YourTheManNowDog]

Yeah righto, there's nothing to stop you believing what you want so I won't bother arguing about it. I don't suppose you'd have any thoughts on the topic of the thread by any chance? [/b]


nah not really.

[Roller]

Originally posted by YourTheManNowDog
na not really.

Well don't bother posting here then.