I have to say, if the right tries to scare people with terrorists, it is the left that tries to scare people with their own government (which is kind of ironic when you think about it).Actually, both try to scare us with our government.
Right: "They'll take our money! They'll slow down our economy!"
Left: "They'll take away our rights! They'll throw us to the corporate wolves!"
Oh, I agree.
|
sounds a lot like what Sarah Palin said.I don't think they sound the same at all. If it's god's will, then by engaging in a particular act (building a pipeline, going to war in Iraq) we are enacting god's intended policy.
FDR was invoking god for a blessing and not at all implying that the fight against Nazism was actually god's will.
In the former, god's telling us what to do. In the latter, we are looking for divine inspiration in what we have decided to do.
I think it's a big difference.
To (probably mis) quote Lincoln, "I do not presume to say that God is on our side. Rather, I humbly hope that we are on His."
|
I don't think they sound the same at all. If it's god's will, then by engaging in a particular act (building a pipeline, going to war in Iraq) we are enacting god's intended policy.FDR was invoking god for a blessing and not at all implying that the fight against Nazism was actually god's will.
In the former, god's telling us what to do. In the latter, we are looking for divine inspiration in what we have decided to do.
I think it's a big difference.
"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.
In the first quote Sarh Palin is asking her fellow church members to pray that our plan for Iraq is in accordance to God's will. In the second FDR is asking that God help us defeat the forces of darkness. Sounds about the same to me.
I don't think they sound the same at all. If it's god's will, then by engaging in a particular act (building a pipeline, going to war in Iraq) we are enacting god's intended policy.FDR was invoking god for a blessing and not at all implying that the fight against Nazism was actually god's will.
In the former, god's telling us what to do. In the latter, we are looking for divine inspiration in what we have decided to do.
I think it's a big difference.
"That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy.In the first quote Sarh Palin is asking her fellow church members to pray that our plan for Iraq is in accordance to God's will. In the second FDR is asking that God help us defeat the forces of darkness. Sounds about the same to me.
David: I'm curious why you think what FDR said has any bearing on whether we should be pleased about what Palin said.
|
|
David: I'm curious why you think what FDR said has any bearing on whether we should be pleased about what Palin said.
Two reasons, first it establishes a precident for what Gov. Palin did and shows that you don't have to be a radical right wing Christian to invoke the name of God in support of a war effort. Second, many people (not you per say) who are out there being critical of Gov. Palin also invoke the name of FDR as the model of president that we need to elect. My point is that those same people who condemn the behavior in Gov. Palin ignore the fact that their hero did the exact same thing as well. I have a serious issue with selective outrage, from the left or the right.
Edit: It also shows that you can hold religious beliefs and pray for God's blessing in such endeavors and still be a good president.
Edit: It also shows that you can hold religious beliefs and pray for God's blessing in such endeavors and still be a good president.
Then again, you can claim that God told you to undertake certain endeavors, and still be a bad president. In WWII, Japan attacked us first. In the Iraq war, interpretations are a bit muddier.
I'm curious, after wading through everything in this thread, why the sticking point is religiosity for a lot of folks? I am not even a Christian and I have no problem with someone being religious, as long as they don't attempt to legislate the issue. When did being religious become a sticking point? Looking to the Supreme Being for inspiration in the deity's various guises has been a hallmark of the human experience since before we started painting cave walls. Is her church even half as scary as Obama's is?
shrugs
I like talking politics, but all these detours into religion are getting me down. I gotta go ponder the Eightfold Path again.
David: I'm curious why you think what FDR said has any bearing on whether we should be pleased about what Palin said.Two reasons, first it establishes a precident for what Gov. Palin did and shows that you don't have to be a radical right wing Christian to invoke the name of God in support of a war effort. Second, many people (not you per say) who are out there being critical of Gov. Palin also invoke the name of FDR as the model of president that we need to elect. My point is that those same people who condemn the behavior in Gov. Palin ignore the fact that their hero did the exact same thing as well. I have a serious issue with selective outrage, from the left or the right.
Edit: It also shows that you can hold religious beliefs and pray for God's blessing in such endeavors and still be a good president.
I think many FDR supporters would have been surprised to learn he said that (I was). But I'm not comfortable with either one of them saying it, for reasons mentioned above. You don't seem to share this discomfort (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious why.
I'm curious, after wading through everything in this thread, why the sticking point is religiosity for a lot of folks?
From my point of the view, the two are so closely intertwined because of what I perceive as an erosion of separation between church and state under the current administration. For example, "faith-based initiatives" seem like a pretty clear cut case of the government sending tax revenue to churches, which is a big no-no.
I don't have a problem with anyone's faith. Just KEEP IT OUT OF GOVERNMENT. That doesn't mean religious people don't belong in public service. It means religion doesn't belong in science class, or deciding who can enjoy the many (secular) benefits of marriage, or most of all deciding when we go to war.
|
|
I think many FDR supporters would have been surprised to learn he said that (I was). But I'm not comfortable with either one of them saying it, for reasons mentioned above. You don't seem to share this discomfort (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious why.
I guess because as a religous person I would like to live in a country where our leaders are in tune with the will of God. It is something that I personally pray for every day, and so to have our leaders also pray for God's guidence, even if I don't agree with what they feel inspired to do, is more comforting than frightening.
Edit: This has always been my favorite painting of the Founding Fathers. It sums up my feelings on the subject.
I guess because as a religous person I would like to live in a country where our leaders are in tune with the will of God. It is something that I personally pray for every day, and so to have our leaders also pray for God's guidence, even if I don't agree with what they feel inspired to do, is more comforting than frightening.
I think many FDR supporters would have been surprised to learn he said that (I was). But I'm not comfortable with either one of them saying it, for reasons mentioned above. You don't seem to share this discomfort (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious why.
I suspect I can never truly understand your position, because I simply do not believe in God. The "will of God" seems terribly subjective, and if we accept it as a reason for doing something, what happens when God's named is invoked in the pursuit of racism, or sexism as has happened in the past? Who decides what is truly the will of God? How would you feel if our leaders were Muslim or Hindu and invoked the name of a different God to do things you didn't agree with?
It seems inherently problematic to me; hence the need for separation of church and state.
In any case, thank you for the serious reply.
|
|
I suspect I can never truly understand your position, because I simply do not believe in God. The "will of God" seems terribly subjective to me. f we accept it as a reason for doing something, what happens when God's named is invoked in the pursuit of racism, or sexism as has happened in the past? Who decides what is truly the will of God?
This is a good point, and I think that often what happens is that people try and impose their will on God's. To me this pretty much sums up how to determine what is of God and what is of man.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Well in my case I believe that all of us have a spark of divinity within us, what most of us call our concence. I also believe that God speaks to all of us, if we ask with a sincere desire, regardless of whether we pray to the Christian God, or to Allah, or to the Vishnu, or to any other higher power. The key is to have a sincere desire to do good. Also my religion teaches me this.How would you feel if our leaders were Muslim or Hindu and invoked the name of a different God to do things you didn't agree with?
It seems inherently problematic to me; hence the need for separation of church and state.
In any case, thank you for the serious reply.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I hope this helps you understand where I stand a little better.
I suspect I can never truly understand your position, because I simply do not believe in God. The "will of God" seems terribly subjective to me. f we accept it as a reason for doing something, what happens when God's named is invoked in the pursuit of racism, or sexism as has happened in the past? Who decides what is truly the will of God?This is a good point, and I think that often what happens is that people try and impose their will on God's. To me this pretty much sums up how to determine what is of God and what is of man.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.Well in my case I believe that all of us have a spark of divinity within us, what most of us call our concence. I also believe that God speaks to all of us, if we ask with a sincere desire, regardless of whether we pray to the Christian God, or to Allah, or to the Vishnu, or to any other higher power. The key is to have a sincere desire to do good. Also my religion teaches me this.How would you feel if our leaders were Muslim or Hindu and invoked the name of a different God to do things you didn't agree with?
It seems inherently problematic to me; hence the need for separation of church and state.
In any case, thank you for the serious reply.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.I hope this helps you understand where I stand a...
David, you're a Mormon? I didn't know that.
I guess because as a religous person I would like to live in a country where our leaders are in tune with the will of God. It is something that I personally pray for every day, and so to have our leaders also pray for God's guidence, even if I don't agree with what they feel inspired to do, is more comforting than frightening.
I think many FDR supporters would have been surprised to learn he said that (I was). But I'm not comfortable with either one of them saying it, for reasons mentioned above. You don't seem to share this discomfort (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious why.I suspect I can never truly understand your position, because I simply do not believe in God. The "will of God" seems terribly subjective, and if we accept it as a reason for doing something, what happens when God's named is invoked in the pursuit of racism, or sexism as has happened in the past? Who decides what is truly the will of God? How would you feel if our leaders were Muslim or Hindu and invoked the name of a different God to do things you didn't agree with?
It seems inherently problematic to me; hence the need for separation of church and state.
In any case, thank you for the serious reply.
As is often the case, we fear what we do not understand.
Asked a question.Yes I am a Mormon. I hope that does not affect our relationship.
Of course not. I was just curious.
As is often the case, we fear what we do not understand.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how that is applicable. I'm not afraid; I'm curious, and I'm trying to see this as anything other than utterly subjective to me. I must also confess David's response didn't help me at all, because it was basically a quotation from an apostle (also an adherent of Christianity). Not terribly useful in answering my question: which is what happens when God's name is invoked in a cause he considers evil? Assuming a universal morality begs the question.
|
I suspect I can never truly understand your position, because I simply do not believe in God. The "will of God" seems terribly subjective, and if we accept it as a reason for doing something, what happens when God's named is invoked in the pursuit of racism, or sexism as has happened in the past? Who decides what is truly the will of God? How would you feel if our leaders were Muslim or Hindu and invoked the name of a different God to do things you didn't agree with?It seems inherently problematic to me; hence the need for separation of church and state.
In any case, thank you for the serious reply.
David has answered but let me, if you would, interject another brief answer.
The will of God is only subjective to one who does not believe in God. If one accepts the existence of God (any god) then unless one believes in a psychopathic god, God's will must be objective and the only one who can determine what God's will is is God himself.
Isaiah, wrote, "Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him, And taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, And showed Him the way of understanding?" It would be presumptious of men to presume that they could determine God's will based upon what their own desires are.
That said, one of the founding principles of Judiasm, Christianity and even Islam, is that God has revealed himself through prophecy and scripture. This is not to say that there is agreement about what God's message is. Even within the broader Christian community there are obvious divisions based upon different methods of scriptural interpretation. Yet there is the belief that God's will, as revealed, is knowable and that men should conform themselves to this will, regardless of rank, gender, or culture.
Generally speaking, I think that most of us realize, that while we pray that our leaders will make wise decisions in conformance to the will of God, we understand that we may not ourselves fully understand God's will. Thus there is a need for humility in invoking God's name. Lincoln I think had it right when he said, in effect, that he did not want God on his side. He wanted to be on God's side. This is what we aim for.
Having said all that, for myself, if our leaders, in the name of God, instituted policies that were in violation of what I percieved to be God's will for us, I know exactly what I would do. I would continue to pray that God's will might be done on earth and I would work within the system to support those policies I thought best, as is my right as a citizen. Men have at times in the past falsely invoked God's name for projects that, to me, were obviously not godly. They will surely do so again. That has no bearing however on the question of whether God does in fact desire certain things from us.
|
|
You're right, that part was a joke. But I still don't think there is anything wrong with a politician asking someone to pray for something. Harry Truman did sign a law instituting a National Day of Prayer after all.But the pipeline got built, so maybe there is something to it.David, you *can't* be serious.
Calling for prayer is not offensive (not at at), it's the part where politicians start declaring the word of God as if they knew the slightest thing about it...
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God"
O'RLY?
When exactly did God come down (or even send and angel or prophet) to say that it is the task of America to wage war upon Iraq?
That's just disgusting.
|
|
If you go back one page you will find that we have already been discussing this very issue. And again I would ask how this is any different than FDR saying "With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy," while leading the entire nation in prayer.
Apples and oranges. FDR was invoking God for his(/her/or whatever you believe's) blessing, not presenting a course of action as God's will.
|
|
The Democrats and Republicans treat people who run planes into buildings exactly the same. They collect the remains in a bodybag, if they find any.
The terrorists are incapable of taking away our freedoms, only the people in government, that is Democrats and Republicans, can do that. They do this by first establishing legal precedents that things like a right to a trial, a right to a lawyer, a right to contest unlawful detention aren't the rights of certain people(like terrorists) despite the clear wording of the US Constitution. They then proceed to expand the definition of those certain people until they include you and me. That is how freedom gets taken away. By incremental steps using lawyers and 700 page books passed as law that no one reads. Not by flying a plane into a building.
Quite elegant. I agree.
|
|
Not terribly useful in answering my question: which is what happens when God's name is invoked in a cause he considers evil? Assuming a universal morality begs the question.
This was what was revealed to Joseph Smith on that subject.
That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without dhypocrisy, and without guile— Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy.
Again, this may or may not be helpful, but within my Church it is taught that if someone undertakes actions in God's name that are contrary to the teachings and desires of God then he withdraws his power from them and they are left to succeed or fail on their own merits. Sometimes, like during the Crusades, these actions may succeed for a while. However, as they are built on an unstable foundation and are doomed to fail in the end. As for how we can understand God's will, the scriptures tell us that when we are in tune with God's will, we will feel a sense of peace about the undertaking we are about to proceed on.
|
|
I guess because as a religous person I would like to live in a country where our leaders are in tune with the will of God.
In tune with the will of God by whose interpretation? In the whole of Christendom, there is no consensus on interpretation (hence the varied denominations), let alone between the many existing religions within the US.
Who gets to decide whether a potential leader is in tune with God or not?
Asked a question.
Yes I am a Mormon. I hope that does not affect our relationship.
Haha, this one made me laugh enough to unlurk.
David, two of the most decent people I know are Mormons. Such happy people.
|
|
In tune with the will of God by whose interpretation? In the whole of Christendom, there is no consensus on interpretation (hence the varied denominations), let alone between the many existing religions within the US.Who gets to decide whether a potential leader is in tune with God or not?
By their own in a perfect world. Take myself and Harry Reid for example, we are about as polar opposites as we can get on political ideals, but we share a common faith. Harry's politics are between him and God, and I would never question his faith or his sincerity of belief. I would feel perfectly comfortable sitting next to him in an LDS temple, which is only open to members in good standing. In fact I have sat next to him in such a situation at my wife's cousin's wedding. The only person who can decide if someone is in tune with God's will is that person. I am not entitled to recieve revelation from God for anyone except myself and my family.
|
|
I'm curious, after wading through everything in this thread, why the sticking point is religiosity for a lot of folks?From my point of the view, the two are so closely intertwined because of what I perceive as an erosion of separation between church and state under the current administration. For example, "faith-based initiatives" seem like a pretty clear cut case of the government sending tax revenue to churches, which is a big no-no.
I don't have a problem with anyone's faith. Just KEEP IT OUT OF GOVERNMENT. That doesn't mean religious people don't belong in public service. It means religion doesn't belong in science class, or deciding who can enjoy the many (secular) benefits of marriage, or most of all deciding when we go to war.
This sums up my feelings well. I don't care that Palin is religious. I care that she openly stated that God is dictating government policy. This country was founded on religiouis tolerance. The notion of government doing what God says is but one step removed from state sanctioned and enforced religion. That works out great so long as the enforced religion is your religion. If not, welcome to hell.
|
|
As is often the case, we fear what we do not understand.I guess because as a religous person I would like to live in a country where our leaders are in tune with the will of God. It is something that I personally pray for every day, and so to have our leaders also pray for God's guidence, even if I don't agree with what they feel inspired to do, is more comforting than frightening.
I think many FDR supporters would have been surprised to learn he said that (I was). But I'm not comfortable with either one of them saying it, for reasons mentioned above. You don't seem to share this discomfort (please correct me if I'm wrong). I'm curious why.I suspect I can never truly understand your position, because I simply do not believe in God. The "will of God" seems terribly subjective, and if we accept it as a reason for doing something, what happens when God's named is invoked in the pursuit of racism, or sexism as has happened in the past? Who decides what is truly the will of God? How would you feel if our leaders were Muslim or Hindu and invoked the name of a different God to do things you didn't agree with?
It seems inherently problematic to me; hence the need for separation of church and state.
In any case, thank you for the serious reply.
Or in other cases, we fear those who don't share our beliefs might actually get away with it. Faith, God, scripture, christianity, and so on have no place in our government. The whole point of the U.S. is a country founded on tolerance for all beliefs. That means not forcing one groups (Christians) beliefs on everyone else. If you are an atheist, no problem this is the land of the free. A Hindu? No worries. A Buddhist? Not a problem? An Agnostic? Works for me.
The government can not nor should it make policy and law decisions based on one groups interpretation of God's will. Be careful what you wish for lest one day your beliefs are persecuted and someone who doesn't share your values is in control. I wonder how many of these people defending comments like Palin's would do so if coming from a religious point of view that they don't condone. What if it were someone who is a Satanist saying we are doing Satan's work? What if it was a polytheistic sort saying we are doing Zeus's work? What if it were a Muslim saying we are doing Allah's work?
You can't just pick and choose which religion is ok in government. That is why there is separation of church and state. If you want a government doing what "God" tells them, then feel free to go anywhere in the middle east. See for yourself what happens when "God" is calling the shots.
I suspect I can never truly understand your position, because I simply do not believe in God. The "will of God" seems terribly subjective, and if we accept it as a reason for doing something, what happens when God's named is invoked in the pursuit of racism, or sexism as has happened in the past? Who decides what is truly the will of God? How would you feel if our leaders were Muslim or Hindu and invoked the name of a different God to do things you didn't agree with?It seems inherently problematic to me; hence the need for separation of church and state.
In any case, thank you for the serious reply.
David has answered but let me, if you would, interject another brief answer.
The will of God is only subjective to one who does not believe in God. If one accepts the existence of God (any god) then unless one believes in a psychopathic god, God's will must be objective and the only one who can determine what God's will is is God himself.
Isaiah, wrote, "Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, Or as His counselor has taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him, And taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, And showed Him the way of understanding?" It would be presumptious of men to presume that they could determine God's will based upon what their own desires are.
That said, one of the founding principles of Judiasm, Christianity and even Islam, is that God has revealed himself through prophecy and scripture. This is not to say that there is agreement about what God's message is. Even within the broader Christian community there are obvious divisions based upon different methods of scriptural interpretation. Yet there is the belief that God's will, as revealed, is knowable and that men should conform themselves to this will, regardless of rank, gender, or culture.
Generally speaking, I think that most of us realize, that while we pray that our leaders will make wise decisions in conformance to the will of God,...
I'm sorry, but your response seems totally devoid of meaning as I understand it. I really have no idea how to respond except to thank you for your attempt to explain this to me. Really; no asshattery intended; but you may as well be speaking another language as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
And yet to some scientists, science in and of itself seems to be a religion; does that mean that science should be kept out of science classes?I'm curious, after wading through everything in this thread, why the sticking point is religiosity for a lot of folks?From my point of the view, the two are so closely intertwined because of what I perceive as an erosion of separation between church and state under the current administration. For example, "faith-based initiatives" seem like a pretty clear cut case of the government sending tax revenue to churches, which is a big no-no.
I don't have a problem with anyone's faith. Just KEEP IT OUT OF GOVERNMENT. That doesn't mean religious people don't belong in public service. It means religion doesn't belong in science class, or deciding who can enjoy the many (secular) benefits of marriage, or most of all deciding when we go to war.
No, because science is not a matter of faith. God is. Further, it makes all the sense in the world to teach science in you know... a science classroom. Just as it makes all the sense in the world to talk about God at church. The issue here is not that Palin believes in God. It is that she believes that God is telling her what the U.S. should do with it's military.
How is Palin's view any different than radical Muslim leaders saying that Allah has mandated to them that America must be destroyed? Do you condone that?
Faith, God, scripture, christianity, and so on have no place in our government.
I would disagree. It has as much place as poetry, literature, philosphy, music, art, architecture, etc. Anything that can inspire people to strive for something better should have a place in our world and in government. Why anyone would think that someone should abandon their faith once they walk into a government building is beyond me.
Just as it makes all the sense in the world to talk about God at church. The issue here is not that Palin believes in God. It is that she believes that God is telling her what the U.S. should do with it's military.
But if she is talking about it in a church...?
|
|
Faith, God, scripture, christianity, and so on have no place in our government.I would disagree. It has as much place as poetry, literature, philosphy, music, art, architecture, etc. Anything that can inspire people to strive for something better should have a place in our world and in government. Why anyone would think that someone should abandon their faith once they walk into a government building is beyond me.
Just as it makes all the sense in the world to talk about God at church. The issue here is not that Palin believes in God. It is that she believes that God is telling her what the U.S. should do with it's military.But if she is talking about it in a church...?
Being the vice presidential candidate and saying God is commanding our military is no different from saying we are conducting a government sanctioned jihad. I pray to God myself that this is not why our soldiers are dieing and why we are spending trillions of dollars to occupy a desert nation half way around the world.
Yes.
The question should not be who or why someone says that they're doing something but:
1) Are they being sincere?
2) What exactly is it that they are doing?
#2 is the big one. People keep saying stuff like "what if it was a muslim or a satanist or wiccan or something bad?" I'd ask what they were pushing for. You got a plan that will give medicare to everyone, will not have to ration it, anyone that needs aid will get it, no matter the cost? If it works, I wouldn't care if they were Lucifer the Lightbringer himself. I would thank him.
Why not worry about the actual policies and spend less time worry about if someone thinks it is intuition, luck, destiny, blessing, or whatever that is giving them the insight?
Being the vice presidential candidate and saying God is commanding our military is no different from saying we are conducting a government sanctioned jihad. I pray to God myself that this is not why our soldiers are dieing and why we are spending trillions of dollars to occupy a desert nation half way around the world.Faith, God, scripture, christianity, and so on have no place in our government.I would disagree. It has as much place as poetry, literature, philosphy, music, art, architecture, etc. Anything that can inspire people to strive for something better should have a place in our world and in government. Why anyone would think that someone should abandon their faith once they walk into a government building is beyond me.
Just as it makes all the sense in the world to talk about God at church. The issue here is not that Palin believes in God. It is that she believes that God is telling her what the U.S. should do with it's military.But if she is talking about it in a church...?
If you are worried about a "jihad" why not challenge those aspects that are "jihad"ist in nature. I am surprised though, I thought we were trying to build an empire, being imperialists. Guess I had my alimunium hat set at the wrong setting.
|
|
And would it be any better if someone were doing it because their major campaign backers happened to include a couple of oil companies?Faith, God, scripture, christianity, and so on have no place in our government.I would disagree. It has as much place as poetry, literature, philosphy, music, art, architecture, etc. Anything that can inspire people to strive for something better should have a place in our world and in government. Why anyone would think that someone should abandon their faith once they walk into a government building is beyond me.
Just as it makes all the sense in the world to talk about God at church. The issue here is not that Palin believes in God. It is that she believes that God is telling her what the U.S. should do with it's military.But if she is talking about it in a church...?Being the vice presidential candidate and saying God is commanding our military is no different from saying we are conducting a government sanctioned jihad. I pray to God myself that this is not why our soldiers are dieing and why we are spending trillions of dollars to occupy a desert nation half way around the world.
I don't know, you might should ask Bush that question. As for science, I don't have to believe in it. There is empirical evidence that I can see with my own eyes. I don't have rely on faith. The evidence is there. But I'm not getting into that conversation again. In fact I started to, and then realized that everything I had to say would just turn this back into a debate that isn't a debate at all. Science works for what it does. It doesn't deal in the supernatural and does not require an ounce of faith to work.
|
|
If you are worried about a "jihad" why not challenge those aspects that are "jihad"ist in nature. I am surprised though, I thought we were trying to build an empire, being imperialists. Guess I had my alimunium hat set at the wrong setting.Being the vice presidential candidate and saying God is commanding our military is no different from saying we are conducting a government sanctioned jihad. I pray to God myself that this is not why our soldiers are dieing and why we are spending trillions of dollars to occupy a desert nation half way around the world.Faith, God, scripture, christianity, and so on have no place in our government.I would disagree. It has as much place as poetry, literature, philosphy, music, art, architecture, etc. Anything that can inspire people to strive for something better should have a place in our world and in government. Why anyone would think that someone should abandon their faith once they walk into a government building is beyond me.
Just as it makes all the sense in the world to talk about God at church. The issue here is not that Palin believes in God. It is that she believes that God is telling her what the U.S. should do with it's military.But if she is talking about it in a church...?
Ummm, the phrase "God told us to go to war" is the very definition of a jihad. That IS what I am challenging. You read my posts right? If we were trying to build an empire we would have one. That simple. Our military is so strong that if our goal was to conquer we would.
[quote=]"There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle.The other is as though everything is a miracle."
- Albert Einstein, physicist and Nobel laureate
How do you live your life?
Ummm, the phrase "God told us to go to war" is the very definition of a jihad. That IS what I am challenging. You read my posts right? If we were trying to build an empire we would have one. That simple. Our military is so strong that if our goal was to conquer we would.
Jihad
1: a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also : a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline
2: a crusade for a principle or belief
Well since it was a christian saying it, can't be definition #1, so it would have to be definition #2. Of course #2 is a very broad definition but maybe we should look at the definition of crusade.
crusade
1capitalized : any of the military expeditions undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims
2: a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm
Since you agree we aren't trying to take over the land #1 doesn't appear to fit. Which leaves #2. Oh my goodness, they are looking to undertake something with zeal and enthusiasm, I can totally see now why that would be scary.
How is this relevant to a conversation of the place of God in government military policy?
Well I'm not really sure what the fact that someone may feel like they receive divine inspiration versus someone who says they have a gut feeling over someone who says they have an intuiation about something is relevant. Again, who really cares why someone feels something should be done, if the thing being done is see as a postive thing? Was the accomplishments of MLKjr any less if he believed that god inspired him to go on his "crusade" for racial fairness? Was gandi any less of an inspiration because his faith gave him strength? Was mother teresa's efforts for the poor any less worth because she was a woman of faith? All of those people felt something was motivating them, why should faith be any less worth of an inspiration than a poem or work of art? Why should biblical passages be unacceptable from places of government but the works of other writers are not?
And yet to some scientists, science in and of itself seems to be a religion; does that mean that science should be kept out of science classes?I'm curious, after wading through everything in this thread, why the sticking point is religiosity for a lot of folks?From my point of the view, the two are so closely intertwined because of what I perceive as an erosion of separation between church and state under the current administration. For example, "faith-based initiatives" seem like a pretty clear cut case of the government sending tax revenue to churches, which is a big no-no.
I don't have a problem with anyone's faith. Just KEEP IT OUT OF GOVERNMENT. That doesn't mean religious people don't belong in public service. It means religion doesn't belong in science class, or deciding who can enjoy the many (secular) benefits of marriage, or most of all deciding when we go to war.
I'm sorry, but your statement reveals complete (but all too common) ignorance of the scientific method. You simply can't be taken seriously in this context.
Why should biblical passages be unacceptable from places of government but the works of other writers are not?
For one because biblical passages deems those not of the same faith as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government.
Why should biblical passages be unacceptable from places of government but the works of other writers are not?For one because biblical passages deems those not of the same faith as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government.
All biblical passages do that? I don't think so. Tossing out all biblical passages because of some, seems a bit silly and willfully ignorant. And will other religious materials also be removed as well? I would think they would have to be, you couldn't remove the christian texts without also removing the muslim, hindu, wiccan, satanist, jewish, etc.
Poor Gandhi might have been disappointed in your view.
[quote=]"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Why fear wisdom even if it must be sifted through to find.
Besides which the whole banning of religious materials and comments from government is a bit Orwellian.
EDIT: "as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government."
Why doesn't? Is it too offensive? Ok, let's agree with that for a second. So let's expand that reasoning to other works of literature as well. Let's say there was a political debate going on about capital murder and someone used the passage from the Lord of the Rings where Gandalf cautions Frodo not to be too quick about dealing out judgement and death. Hey, a nice cool (gamer friendly) fictional story to help demonstrate the danger of capital punishment. Except according to our rule of not wanting to use passages from texts that characterize others "as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population" we can't use the Lord of the Rings since many argue that it is a racist books where the good guys are the "men of the west" (i.e. white folk) and the bad guys are the "swarthy" easternlings and southerners (i.e non-white folk). Oops.
Hey maybe we should extend this thinking beyond just government. I mean if someone really believed that it was inappropriate to use such sources, then they should really limit their support of such. Hey let's look at Paizo here. How many things has Paizo admitted have been influenced by Lovecraft works, even going so far as quoting passages from Lovecraft works? But wait didn't alot of Lovecraft's works include alot of racist language and imaginary. Wow, if you really believe that texts that characterize others "as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population". Then you should put your money where your mouth is, or in this case not spend your money on products by a company that expresses admiration for racist writings.
Why should biblical passages be unacceptable from places of government but the works of other writers are not?For one because biblical passages deems those not of the same faith as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government.All biblical passages do that? I don't think so. Tossing out all biblical passages because of some, seems a bit silly and willfully ignorant. And will other religious materials also be removed as well? I would think they would have to be, you couldn't remove the christian texts without also removing the muslim, hindu, wiccan, satanist, jewish, etc.
Poor Gandhi might have been disappointed in your view.
[quote=]"The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Why fear wisdom even if it must be sifted through to find.
Besides which the whole banning of religious materials and comments from government is a bit Orwellian.
EDIT: "as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government."
Why doesn't? Is it too offensive? Ok, let's agree with that for a second. So let's expand that reasoning to other works of literature as well. Let's say there was a political debate going on about capital murder and someone used the passage from the Lord of the Rings where Gandalf cautions Frodo not to be too quick about dealing out judgement and death. Hey, a nice cool (gamer friendly) fictional story to help demonstrate the danger of capital punishment. Except according to our rule of not wanting to use passages from texts that characterize others "as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population" we can't use the Lord of the Rings since many argue that it is a racist books where the good guys are the "men of the west" (i.e. white folk) and the bad guys are the...
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Fiction != government policy.
This thread appears to have jumped the shark. Off to WoW.
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Fiction != government policy.
This thread appears to have jumped the shark. Off to WoW.
Actually I was challenging the justification given:
For one because biblical passages deems those not of the same faith as lesser beings and discriminates against parts of the population. That alone shows that they have no place in a modern government.
If you hold biblical passages to that, which is just a form of literature and fiction in many people's mind, then you should hold all forms of literature to that same standard. Unless someone just believes those issues are only wrong when religious literature talks about them but ok when other fiction writing talks about them. On the other hand if someone believes it is always wrong, then I would certainly expect to see them live that belief in their daily lives (not financially supporting a company that professes a respect for racist literature for example).