»

[delboy]

shit is there a nuclear war on the way? why does no-one tell me these things?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by delboy

shit is there a nuclear war on the way? why does no-one tell me these things?

It will certainly become a stronger possibility if the Ukraine and Georgia become members of NATO and start a second Cold War. Now, which country is trying to encourage them to become members of NATO...

[Old Gold]

Originally Posted by delboy

shit is there a nuclear war on the way? why does no-one tell me these things?

Fuck, if you belive in heaven, I can understand this displaced Nihilism. Otherwise... I'm at an utter loss.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Originally Posted by Old Gold

I'm all for Obama, but the football stadium politics and tacky God-thanking during his rally the other night was pretty sickening.

Unfortunately that's what Americans respond to.

If you don't thank and praise your non-specific lukewarm deity before each spewing of your placid, political pandering then you clearly lack any moral structure in your life and are hence unfit to govern.

American politicians are required to profess belief in something, anything, in order to win over the masses. Here's a quick stat for you:

Over 150 Million Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

OVER 150 MILLION.

Not exactly a "fringe" minority of nutters who have a massive say in who becomes the most powerful politician on the planet.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

Here's a quick stat for you:

Over 150 Million Americans believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

OVER 150 MILLION.

Not exactly a "fringe" minority of nutters who have a massive say in who becomes the most powerful politician on the planet.

Source please. And could you please explain why such a statistic is in any way relevant to this topic in particular, given that creationism is a belief shared by the vast majority of Muslims, for example, as well as Christians. Just because someone disagrees with your religious beliefs (or lack of them) doesn't make them a bad person, or even a "nutter". Personally, I've found a lot more tolerance, intelligence and open-mindedness amongst creationist Christians than I have amongst Dawkins acolytes.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Originally Posted by Dave

Source please. And could you please explain why such a statistic is in any way relevant to this topic in particular, given that creationism is a belief shared by the vast majority of Muslims, for example, as well as Christians. Just because someone disagrees with your religious beliefs (or lack of them) doesn't make them a bad person, or even a "nutter". Personally, I've found a lot more tolerance, intelligence and open-mindedness amongst creationist Christians than I have amongst Dawkins acolytes.

Sam Harris - The End of Faith

I already clarified in the last sentence of my previous post why it is relevant. Obama is utilizing the tried and tested, opportunistic-mentioning-of-god-during-speech technique. Read Jefferson on the first ammendment - The federal state should be kept seperate from religion and recognise no laws in favour of any particular religion.

And yes, I understand that just because people have opposing beliefs to mine doesn't make them "bad", considering a number of my friends and family are of this disposition. Where did you get the idea that I thought opposite?

As for the tolerance, intelligence and open-mindedness amongst creationists that you mention well, I hope that you are just baiting me on that one. Really.

Imagine you had said the analogous;

"Personally I've found more intelligence within the flat earth community..."

I rest my case.

[daveofficer]

i don't want to turn this into another thread debating the merits or lack of with organised religion but i do think religious beliefs have a place in a discussion regarding american politics because they're so often focussed upon by the candidates themselves and the media. so long as it's discussed properly then the fact that a large portion of the american population believe in creationism is relevant to this thread as they will want some recognition of their views from the candidates.

I think that it's a shame that the religious lobbies have so much power of both parties not because i have any problem with religion or their views but because i believe there should be a very strict seperation of church and state. although i understand that the usa has never claimed to be a secular government in the same way that france is for instance but it should recognise the importance of other beliefs within it's society and not try and alienate them with constant reference to christian dogma.

Part of the reason Obama will have made such pains to stress his christianity is to distance himself from the increasingly desperate attempts of the more right wing media to portray him as a muslim extremist(remember the terrorist fist jab?!). Social and economic issues are the only things which should dictate the political agenda not religious beliefs.

In saying that there is a very positive role that religion can play in government and that is of a moral conscience. Christianity(and no doubt other religions) has a very great and proud tradition of caring for and providing for those who are worse off and in need of help and this compassion should help politicians of faith to form better social policies not just in their own country but for the poor around the world. A fine example of this is Gordon Browns determination to put Africa on the agenda of the G8 every year and to build better aid packages for that terribly poor continent. Now i'm not Labours biggest fan but this is the only place religious beliefs should have in governing a country and really you don't have to be religious to have social conscience.

That was a lot more than I had intended to type but I hope it made some kind of a sensible point.

[daveofficer]

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

Sam Harris - The End of Faith

I already clarified in the last sentence of my previous post why it is relevant. Obama is utilizing the tried and tested, opportunistic-mentioning-of-god-during-speech technique. Read Jefferson on the first ammendment - The federal state should be kept seperate from religion and recognise no laws in favour of any particular religion.

And yes, I understand that just because people have opposing beliefs to mine doesn't make them "bad", considering a number of my friends and family are of this disposition. Where did you get the idea that I thought opposite?

As for the tolerance, intelligence and open-mindedness amongst creationists that you mention well, I hope that you are just baiting me on that one. Really.

Imagine you had said the analogous;

"Personally I've found more intelligence within the flat earth community..."

I rest my case.

While Jefferson may have hoped for this I certainly don't think it's been acheived.

In God they trust after all.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

Sam Harris - The End of Faith

So, not a scientific study, then? Given that that book has been totally discredited as a thinly-veiled rant against those who refuse to share Harris' myopic and intolerant politics and personal philosophies, do you really want to invoke it, or would you rather find a more accurate and fair-minded assessment of the beliefs of the American people? I'd advise doing the latter.

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

I already clarified in the last sentence of my previous post why it is relevant. Obama is utilizing the tried and tested, opportunistic-mentioning-of-god-during-speech technique. Read Jefferson on the first ammendment - The federal state should be kept seperate from religion and recognise no laws in favour of any particular religion.

You're making the fundamental mistake of assuming that a proclamation of one's own faith automatically makes that person incapable of tolerating the beliefs of others. At no point has the faith of one individual President conflicted with the laws guaranteeing freedom of worship to all in America. Unlike in the UK, the head of state has no dual role as defender of faith or head of the state religion. That was the division the framers of the constitution were seeking to make, not to disbar anyone seeking office from having a personal faith or to express it whenever they saw fit. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

And yes, I understand that just because people have opposing beliefs to mine doesn't make them "bad", considering a number of my friends and family are of this disposition. Where did you get the idea that I thought opposite?

The mere fact that you brought the subject up in the first place, as if you were claiming that religious beliefs that don't match your own are in some way detrimental to the decision-making abilities of those that hold them. You claim that it's "unfortunate" that Americans appreciate professions of faith. Why do you hold faith in such low regard? Do you not recognise the good that has been done by people of faith throughout the ages? Or are the actions of a tiny minority of "nutters" enough to poison your view of all people of faith?

Originally Posted by TheTickingTime-Bomb

As for the tolerance, intelligence and open-mindedness amongst creationists that you mention well, I hope that you are just baiting me on that one. Really.

Imagine you had said the analogous;

"Personally I've found more intelligence within the flat earth community..."

I rest my case.

Don't rest too soon. Creationism and flat-earth theory are not analogous in the slightest. At no point in the Bible is it suggested that the Earth is flat, nor that belief in the shape of the Earth is in any way related to one's experience of God. The theory of creationism, on the other hand, has been entirely constructed from the evidence in the Bible. Now, whether or not one wishes to accept the literal truth of the Bible, or it is a valid point of view, given that Christians, Jews and Muslims see it as God's word. Most Christians (I have found) will interpret the early books of the Bible as cautionary tales, rules for living and worship, and a reminder that this is God's Earth and that humanity is merely it's current custodian. This approach squares neatly with the theories of evolution and the "big bang".

What I have found, in the great majority of cases, is that no matter what approach one takes to the Bible, be it a literal reading as a sequence of events or something more abstract, those who live their lives by it do so without condemning the beliefs of others, or calling them names, or seeking legislation to ban the teaching and promotion of opposing viewpoints. Yes, there are some that will, but the exact same thing can be said of those on the side of Dawkins, Harris et al (to the point where people like Chris Hitchens, who shares their views on faith and evolution, have been embarrassed by such behaviour and distanced themselves from the loudmouthed and bigoted pack of intolerant atheists).

So, what has this got to do with the election? Not much, to be honest. Most people are happy with their own personal beliefs, and the proclamation of faith from a presidential candidate will not affect their personal beliefs in the slightest. However, it is clear that religion (or the lack of it) is becoming a weapon by which those of a certain disposition seek to belittle and condemn the widely-held beliefs of the electorate at large.

Evolution isn't an issue in this election. It doesn't matter how we got here, the candidates are putting forward their case on how we move forward from here. The people who bring up the evolution vs. creationist issue do so not to make a religious point, but a political one.

[Old Gold]

I'm not too bothered about the candidates' personal religious beliefs. Power to 'em. However, it seems that Obama and McCain are crudely trying to use their God to swing votes. The constant rattling off his name at the broadcasted Democrat rally the other night seemed to imply 'Vote for Obama or you're a bad Christian!'

I don't think the world needs another George Bush having bedtime discussions with the almighty either.