Your religion, your crutch...Part 2

[Seeks_God]

Strength:

And regarding the heisenberg principle…we need to get away from that…

1. It really only thrives in the context of quantum mechanics…and QM itself is theory…
2. It is possible to verify facts
3. If you really believed/subscribed to the heisenberg principle…then you wouldn’t be a catholic for sure…and would probably off yourself! (kidding)

1.)I realize it is theory, but then again…you argue that religion is theory in and of itself…and that God is theory since you neither deny or accept…I was simply playing by your rules

2.)besides what facts do you want to verify? verification involves measurement which involves uncertainty…

3.) and I’m a rare Christian - I believe science verifies God. I ascribe to JPII’s statemtn that “Science is another language in which God speaks to us.”

 

[ahimsaman72]

Strength:

I had to renew this thread, because 1. It did get off track a l bit, and 2. Someone used a word(s) that is blocked by our administrator…so please when replying do not use any word that the system may see fit to block (even if it’s borderline)…otherwise I will not be able to post anymore.

Ok…let me see if I can make myself a bit more clear…I tried to look into each individuals posts and get some responses but the system would not let me read all of it.

First…I am under the impression that it is IMPOSSIBLE (at least in our current state of scientific/philosophical understanding to know whether or not there is a god)…Some of you will most certainly say no…and that’s ok…plenty of people seem to know a lot of things about the world that are not able to be universally verified and accounted for.
2. I don’t consider myself an atheist…I don’t like to use that word, and I think it’s as lame as saying that you know that there is a god…so it would be lame for me to say that I know there isn’t…

1. So this leads us to relevance…what is the RELEVANCE of your belief that can be conveyed to a free thinking individual of adequate intellect?..this ties directly into crutch. I hear a lot of responses like “It’s not enough to be good” etc… etc… Oh really? Don’t you understand that almost everything you’re trying to convey to me regarding your belief system if subjective? This is what is worrisome about the world…this is why we have wars, crime, all out wierdness purveying every aspect of our society…this is why devout people scare the living lettuce out of me. Why are you so devout? What are you scared of? Have you done something horrible that you are trying to atone for? Do you suspect that you may be evil, and are looking for help? This is why I consider it a crutch. I read posts throughout all of these threads…and quite frankly they are seriously scary…titles such as “why didn’t god stop the tsunami” etc…etc…etc…

Incidentally…why is it that anytime someone wants to have any type of discourse with a religious person…the devout always mention things like “it’s good that you’re questioning”…or “you are obviously on the path toward god”…what kind of weirdness is that? That’s tantamount to me saying that the fact that you are engaged in discourse with me could be viewed as moving away from a god belief??? NONSENSE!

I’m fascinated with the things that people believe and why…if you’re strong enough to post on a public forum then you should be strong enough to realize that someone may like to pick your brain a bit…plus I think it as my civic duty to help some of you people…hahahaaa…

So bottom line…can you objectively illustrate how you’re belief system enables you to lead a more fulfilling, just, moral life than an individual such as myself? AND once you realize that you indeed cannot do this…then hopefully you will start to realize how religion in fact divides us…holds us back from true universal compatibility and companionship with our fellow human beings.

Life is what you make it. I have come to the point in my life where it makes just as much sense to believe in God as it does not to believe. Either way, evidence can only take us so far. At some point, given the evidences one can possibly obtain, one has to make the choice to go the rest of the way with faith or sink back in despair.

The relevance for religion lies in the way life is lived. If one lives a fulfilled life on earth with joy and comfort - fine. If life is over and God is not real - so be it. However, if one lives a fulfilled life with joy and comfort and with a religious purpose/relationship with God, then life is qualitatively better. I’ve lived both - with and without God. I would rather live with God.

Either it is a “crutch” for God, or it is something else. People rely on all sorts of things to comfort them in their lives. Some use food, some drugs, some atheism, some religion. All things could be classified as “crutches”. However, I find that the use of the term “crutch” is usually simply a derogatory term used as rhetoric.

Peace and be well…

 

[Strength]

Wheeeew…good stuff.

Sorry if anyone took offense on the crutch title. That’s why I put a question mark after it…meaning “Is your religion, your crutch?”
Anyway as far as tantum ergo’s response goes…that’s almost another thread…I’ve been listening to the college of William and Marys audio courses on the middles ages…and there is quite a bit of interesting things regarding popes and emperors…Charlemagne is the first that jumps out at me.

So I think we are getting away from a key tenant of the the topic which is relevance…I’ve yet to hear anything that makes religion relevant to my life…lack of relevance casts severe shadows over the reality of it…but we will not go there anymore.

Explain to me how religion doesn’t divide us…based on the relevance theory.

As far as me thinking I’m better than you…how could that trump the fact that deep down everyone of the forum believes that I will indeed go to hell…?

 

[Seeks_God]

So I think we are getting away from a key tenant of the the topic which is relevance…I’ve yet to hear anything that makes religion relevant to my life…lack of relevance casts severe shadows over the reality of it…but we will not go there anymore.

I guess I’m unsure what the relevance of your point: Are you seeking to find God and religion? If that is the case, then relevance is extremely important to you. But, I think many here share the opinion that you really aren’t looking for God and religion, and with that in mind, relevance is really a moot point.

Explain to me how religion doesn’t divide us…based on the relevance theory.

Oh, I don’t really think that religion DOESN’T divide us: Judaism, Christianity and ISLAM are pretty devisive. BUT, I think all religions seek to unite all people. That concept is the premise behind absolute morals. Now I’m assuming that you would look at that point as the “proof” that religion is subjective. But I will argue that if you do not believe that God exists, then the differences in religion are NOT important, because you wouldn’t apply any of those standards to yourself. Now, If God does exist, then that realization would be followed up with a desire to see the TRUE faith. But again, without the realization that God exists, then TRUE faith IS irrelevant and it doesn’t make sense to argue why religion divides us.

As far as me thinking I’m better than you…how could that trump the fact that deep down everyone of the forum believes that I will indeed go to hell…?

I think people answer this question from their perspective of what is absolute morality. Again this scratches at the very fabric or your Religion is irrelevant argument. And my response once again will be that this is a moot point until you accept the realization of God’s existance. People cannot get you to accept that hell exists if they can’t get you to accept that God exists, because without God hell is irrelevant. Now as to personal judgements: I don’t think people are condemnig you to hell; rather, I think people are expressing to you what their absolute morality states. I do not beleive that it is for any human being to decide who IS going to hell, because all judgement (at least in my faith) is up to Jesus Christ. On the other hand, speaking on issues of faith is still irrelevant without the acceptance of God as exisitng.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Strength:

So I think we are getting away from a key tenant of the the topic which is relevance…I’ve yet to hear anything that makes religion relevant to my life…lack of relevance casts severe shadows over the reality of it…but we will not go there anymore.

Explain to me how religion doesn’t divide us…based on the relevance theory.

As far as me thinking I’m better than you…how could that trump the fact that deep down everyone of the forum believes that I will indeed go to hell…?

Religion is relevant if you want it to be. That’s the point. If you make it a valid part of your life, then it is relevant for you. It really is a decision. In the case of Christianity, we are implored by Jesus to love God and our neighbors. That is relevant in today’s world where the opposite is true. We should strive to live that standard. And when we do, our lives are filled with contentment and love.

It is true that there has/always will be division over religion. The same goes with politics and politicians, though. It’s all part of the process we call life. You could go through life without religion and be a moral person. I’ve seen it. However, because you are part of the world and connect with others, you will be affected by religion.

No one can condemn you to hell here. That’s for God to decide. I speak as a non-Catholic.

Peace…

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Strength:

I don’t think you read my post clearly, and I don’t see how your flipping the question makes any type of sense whatsoever? Radical skepticism? What?

I am making what I think is a transcendental argument–I am answering your question by questioning the presuppositions in it. This is not only perfectly acceptable line of questioning, but obligatory when the poster has loaded the questions. Let’s examine the o.p.:

You said “this is why devout people scare the living lettuce out of me”, but then later, “I’m fascinated with the things that people believe and why…” Well, are you scared or fascinated? It is perfectly reasonable to ask why the believer should indulge the suggestion that his belief is the product of psychological hang-ups (fear, guilt, etc) when the question-poster, by his own admission, has psychological hang-ups he has not sufficiently delt with. A rational discourse cannot take place under such assumptions.

The way out of course is to treat your dialogue opponent as if he arrived at his position through serious reasoning and self-reflection.

Scott

 

[buffalo]

Strength:

Wheeeew…good stuff.

Sorry if anyone took offense on the crutch title. That’s why I put a question mark after it…meaning “Is your religion, your crutch?”
Anyway as far as tantum ergo’s response goes…that’s almost another thread…I’ve been listening to the college of William and Marys audio courses on the middles ages…and there is quite a bit of interesting things regarding popes and emperors…Charlemagne is the first that jumps out at me.

So I think we are getting away from a key tenant of the the topic which is relevance…I’ve yet to hear anything that makes religion relevant to my life…lack of relevance casts severe shadows over the reality of it…but we will not go there anymore.

Explain to me how religion doesn’t divide us…based on the relevance theory.

As far as me thinking I’m better than you…how could that trump the fact that deep down everyone of the forum believes that I will indeed go to hell…?

The practical effect of religion divides us due to our own limitations. Good and evil divide us. However, the fullness of truth is the only thing that will fully unite us.

We believe you are depriving yourself of the beatific vision.

 

[theMutant]

Strength:

The underlying tone that I’m still getting from the posts is that religion provides some moral absolute, and that basically humans are lost without it…This is my problem…this is what holds us back…(in your view)It’s almost like there was no world before jesus? There was much morality in the world…right and wrong were intellectually debated and there were societies working in harmony on par with what we have now (with jesus)?..I’m not clear on what religion brings to the table that’s new?

And this is my problem with your question. You pose the question as though there were no religion before Jesus which is patently untrue. Can you name even one society that was devoid of religion prior to Jesus? My point has been that it is religion that provides the absolute standard against which personal behavior is measured. This is true regardless of what we in the 21st century feel about their standards. So, in my opinion, the real question is what does the lack of religion bring to the table that’s new? The answer is nothing because everything you propose that it can offer is actually already fundamentally part of societies by virtue of the religious views which have permiated them since their foundations.

 

[theMutant]

Strength:

I’m not asking anyone to prove the existence of god…because It’s not possible. I have read Aquinas…forget about it. Whether or not science busted his proof is worthless because it’s been busted philosophically anyway. I’m not knocking him…but he in no way proved anything except that he himself really believed in god.

Please cite the papers which have successfully done this. I’ve read some modern attempts and they were actually refuted by Aquinas himself (because the modern “philosophers” failed to read him completely.)

Additionally, the fact that every ancient society has developed an idea of the existence of some kind of god demonstrates the extreme reasonableness of the conclusion and Aquinas’ argument that we can come a certain knowledge of the existence of god through reason applied to natural experience. It doesn’t make sense to claim that all societies in all parts of the world would independently come up with the same type of explanation for phenomena they didn’t otherwise understand. It is also the absolute height of modernist arrogance and pride to suggest that they all came up with the idea of God because they were “scared” when there is absolutely no evidence to support such a conclusion.

 

[theMutant]

Strength:

Our founding fathers set up a wonderful foundation that should and will eventually build a wonderful society…many of them were religious (in a really non catholic heretical sort of way …but they were also strong enough - based on an amplitude of practical experience to leave religion out of the equation…a really anomaly if you ask me…but pure genius in it’s inception…this more than anything…strengthens my point.

This shows that you are completely unfamiliar with the founding fathers of the United States. The only sense in which religion was kept out of the picture was the prohibition against the new federal government establishing an official religion for the entire country and also against the federal government prohibiting the exercise of any particular religion. In fact, all 13 states had official state-sanctioned religions at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and it wasn’t until much much later that someone decided that the First Amendment had to apply to the states themselves.

You are also wrong if you think that the founders believed in any way that society could progress (and even survive) without religion. (You have not actually said that they held this view but I thought I’d address it just in case.) On the contrary, just about all of them said the exact opposite.

 

[Strength]

Point taken…I’m at work, so some of this is fired off in stream of consciousness style …When I talk of relevance, diviseveness etc… I’m speaking in context of humanity, and society. I honestly believe the world would be a better place…if people shed their belief systems. I don’t see the positivity of religion in a social context…anymore than physical exercise, or yoga, or chess club. etc…etc… benefits society… heck - throw objectivity out the window…let’s at least be *pragmatic… *

We have all of these personal notions…but we don’t have verifiable examples of how religion truly helps us (anything that you can site as positive, could be equally done without religion)…instead we have controversy…instead we have hate…we have severe human rights issues regarding same gender marriages, we have a president who thinks that god is telling him to kill people…What about the positives of religion you say?? I say anything positive than comes from religion and affects society in said positive manner could be *realized without a religious context *BUT the negatives that come from religion obviously cannot. (This is the problem.) I don’t know one non-thiest person who has a problem with same gender…I haven’t met many non theists who think we should be at war right now (even though most catholics I know feel that it is unjust)…BUT Bush was re-elected straight out of the bible-belt…I should know - I’m knee deep in it. We have christians who don’t feel that birth control should be sold but they don’t have a problem with viagra being sold (even though there are no restrictions on how viagra is used)…we have pro-life people who whole heartedly support the death penalty…I could go on, and on…we have a forest…and we have a clear path cut through it born of uncritical thinking, non objective analysis, emotionally biased jibber jabber that does nothing to help society.

I was reading my local newspaper the other day and there was a photograph of a group of teens and pre teens (I’m going to use a mispelled word so that our admin does not block this thread.) with signs that said…God hates frags…and they all had big smiles on their faces standing right out in front of our statehouse!..you may say - well these kids are misguided…it doesn’t represent my faith etc… etc… but this is the pattern - this is the product…it is you’re burden…and every religious persons burden…this is what non critical thinking breeds…on all levels. I was sick to my stomach…and it really got me thinking about the revelance of religion on a social level…vs. a person one.
Scott Waddell:

I am making what I think is a transcendental argument–I am answering your question by questioning the presuppositions in it. This is not only perfectly acceptable line of questioning, but obligatory when the poster has loaded the questions. Let’s examine the o.p.:

You said “this is why devout people scare the living lettuce out of me”, but then later, “I’m fascinated with the things that people believe and why…” Well, are you scared or fascinated? It is perfectly reasonable to ask why the believer should indulge the suggestion that his belief is the product of psychological hang-ups (fear, guilt, etc) when the question-poster, by his own admission, has psychological hang-ups he has not sufficiently delt with. A rational discourse cannot take place under such assumptions.

The way out of course is to treat your dialogue opponent as if he arrived at his position through serious reasoning and self-reflection.

Scott

 

[Strength]

You totally put words in my mouth on this response.

theMutant:

And this is my problem with your question. You pose the question as though there were no religion before Jesus which is patently untrue. Can you name even one society that was devoid of religion prior to Jesus? My point has been that it is religion that provides the absolute standard against which personal behavior is measured. This is true regardless of what we in the 21st century feel about their standards. So, in my opinion, the real question is what does the lack of religion bring to the table that’s new? The answer is nothing because everything you propose that it can offer is actually already fundamentally part of societies by virtue of the religious views which have permiated them since their foundations.

 

[Strength]

No, no, no…I see this stance all of the time. You are the one that is incorrect my friend. I have a copy of the constitution…it is not a religious document. If these people were so enamored with their faith, and christianity - the document would have read so very differently…They wanted a separation between the social contract and religious influence…no way around it. Sorry. All you have to do is read some of their personal quotes regarding religion (in context of the constitiution and society) and you should surely come to the same conclusion…check out the freedom from religion organization website sometime to receive a full breakdown.

theMutant:

This shows that you are completely unfamiliar with the founding fathers of the United States. The only sense in which religion was kept out of the picture was the prohibition against the new federal government establishing an official religion for the entire country and also against the federal government prohibiting the exercise of any particular religion. In fact, all 13 states had official state-sanctioned religions at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and it wasn’t until much much later that someone decided that the First Amendment had to apply to the states themselves.

You are also wrong if you think that the founders believed in any way that society could progress (and even survive) without religion. (You have not actually said that they held this view but I thought I’d address it just in case.) On the contrary, just about all of them said the exact opposite.

 

[JackmanUSC]

Strength:

No, no, no…I see this stance all of the time. You are the one that is incorrect my friend. I have a copy of the constitution…it is not a religious document. If these people were so enamored with their faith, and christianity - the document would have read so very differently…They wanted a separation between the social contract and religious influence…no way around it. Sorry. All you have to do is read some of their personal quotes regarding religion (in context of the constitiution and society) and you should surely come to the same conclusion…check out the freedom from religion organization website sometime to receive a full breakdown.

No no no…You are wrong my friend, Jefferson made the statement about this when talking to a friend of his who was having a debate over which Protestant Denomination should be the influence over government. Not wanting to start a civil war downt the road, Jefferson stated that neither denomination should hold sway. This however, does not refute the fact that the constitution, and our founding fathers find their basis in the judeo-christian heritage.

 

[theMutant]

Strength:

We have all of these personal notions…but we don’t have verifiable examples of how religion truly helps us (anything that you can site as positive, could be equally done without religion)…instead we have controversy…instead we have hate…we have severe human rights issues regarding same gender marriages, we have a president who thinks that god is telling him to kill people…

A few immediate points.

1: We don’t have any verifiable examples of how a lack of religion would help us.

2: In the last thread you complained that your opponents often bring up Hitler to help prove their points. Can you cite one source quoting the president saying that God has told him to kill people? The only mention I have heard him make in reference to God and the war is his beliefe that he is helping to secure their God-given rights. That is quite a different statement than you are claiming. His primary claim has always been to provide freedom through democracy. (Please note that I do not agree with this philosophy for I agree with the opinion of the Founding Fathers regarding democracy.)

3: It is those advocating in favor of same-sex marriages that are spewing hate in this debate. I do not deny that there are some “religious” persons doing so as well. My own view - as a devoutly religious person - is that government has absolutely no right to define, sanction, license, or tax on the basis of marriage. It is the fact that our government does all of these things that has caused the “human rights” issues you are referencing.

4: You say that all of the good things that are done in the name of religion could also be done without reference to religion. This is true. However, what about when bad things are done? As I pointed out before, it is only religion that provides the absolute standard against which we can measure behavior. Without it, we are left only with mob mentality and what ever the individual or group can get away with. It was a secular mentality with an eye for profit that reintroduced slavery and maintained it for so long in the 18th and 19th centuries - a mentality that was supported by the “intelligencia” of science who developed the now discredited theory of polygenism. It was religious activists that railed about the injustice of slavery. Now, I know that you are probably able to find “religious leaders” who stretched their personal view of religion to actually approve of slavery, but they also claimed that the slaves were happy in their state (this was also based on the secular scientific view which supported their view that the slaves were not much more than animals) so I think that it is truly arguable that their views were really based on religion.

This is what the lack of religion cannot bring to the table. An absolute standard against which to measure personal and group behavior. From where does such a standard arise without religion? From the mob? Who gets to decide what behavior is acceptable or not? What happens if the majority decides that it’s okay to reinstitute slavery? Religion can raise the banner and say that it is against the will of God. Without religion, you could only say that it is your opinion that slavery is wrong.

 

[JackmanUSC]

This is the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice that the words “church” and “separation” are not even contained in the amendment, yet this is supposed to be the basis of the constitutional separation of church and state. Actually, the phrase is contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson while he was President, written to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury association that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson’s letter from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was taken affirmed first amendment rights. In his letter, Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn 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. (Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. [NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984], p. 510, January 1, 1802.)

For now we note that Jefferson’s letter was not legislation; it was not even proposed legislation, but merely a private letter to a religious group. Although it contained Jefferson’s opinion on an important subject, it was not law, much less part of the Constitution of the United States. No representative ever proposed it as legislation, it was never debated in the Senate, it was never signed into law, and never passed upon by the Supreme Court. It had all the authority of personal correspondence of a President, which is to say, none whatsoever.

 

[theMutant]

Strength:

No, no, no…I see this stance all of the time. You are the one that is incorrect my friend. I have a copy of the constitution…it is not a religious document. If these people were so enamored with their faith, and christianity - the document would have read so very differently…They wanted a separation between the social contract and religious influence…no way around it. Sorry. All you have to do is read some of their personal quotes regarding religion (in context of the constitiution and society) and you should surely come to the same conclusion…check out the freedom from religion organization website sometime to receive a full breakdown.

First of all, I never claimed that the United States Constitution is a religious document. Please don’t answer statements that have never been made. I have read many of the writings of the founding fathers and I come to the opposite conclusion that you do. They absolutely did NOT envision that anyone would ever make political decisions devoid of their religious beliefs. They depended on the fact the fact that the opposite is true. They were simply protecting states from what was viewed as a real threat from a centralized government to impose a particular religion on them or to forbid a particular religion.

 

[JackmanUSC]

The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.

Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty – That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals – That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions – That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men – should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association.

Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins
The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson

Thus, Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut were persecuted because they were not part of the Congregationalist establishment in that state. On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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 the 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson

Sorry it took 3 threads, i had to look em up again.

 

[ex-mormon]

Strength:

No, no, no…I see this stance all of the time. You are the one that is incorrect my friend. I have a copy of the constitution…it is not a religious document. If these people were so enamored with their faith, and christianity - the document would have read so very differently…They wanted a separation between the social contract and religious influence…no way around it. Sorry. All you have to do is read some of their personal quotes regarding religion (in context of the constitiution and society) and you should surely come to the same conclusion…check out the freedom from religion organization website sometime to receive a full breakdown.

Yes, yes, yes…I see the atheist and agnostic revision of US History and you are way off base. Our founding fathers wanted to seperate religion from state so we did not end up with a Monarchy control of a State riligion. This was a direct slap in the face of English control of their state religion. Our founding fathers not only embraced God, they incorperated God into our entire system.

God bless,

ex-mo

 

[theMutant]

Strength:

You totally put words in my mouth on this response.

Maybe I misunderstood you. It seems to me that the question you keep restating is what does religion provide that the absense of religion cannot provide. It further seems to me that you are bringing up examples to try and support your position. Am I wrong? In that other post, I quoted you directly.

It’s almost like there was no world before jesus? There was much morality in the world…right and wrong were intellectually debated and there were societies working in harmony on par with what we have now (with jesus)?..I’m not clear on what religion brings to the table that’s new?

(emphasis mine) I infer from this, taken in the overall context of this thread, that you feel that the fact that debates about truth and morality that existed prior to Jesus somehow supported your position. I simply pointed out that all of those societies were religious and, therefore, your example does nothing to support your position. Instead, it supports ours.

Keep in mind that, at least in my posts, I have not made any arguments based on Christianity itself because your question was not so limited.