Are the religious right and certain politicans trying to destroy our Liberty?

For those of us that deal in science, mathematics, and engineering, it is difficult understand the ignorance of "faith".

I see acquiescence as an evil. We can not allow AN interpretation of biblical thought to go unchallenged. That is precisely what is happening today. We speak of "politically" correct, but you never hear of "theologically" correct. Few challenge the words of the buchanan's, falwells, william bennets or ralph reeds out of fear they'll be branded as the devil. The right is winning this battle b/c they are loud and allowed to say whatever outraqeous BS they wish - ie gays caused the 9-11 tragedy (falwell et al).

Just because Falwell is allowed to say that gays caused the 9/11 tragedy doesn't mean they're winning the war. I don't think it's accidental that as religious conservatives become more intolerant, young people are becoming less religious.

I'm not sure it's more intolerance but rather that the intolerant... both sides are becoming more outspoken and louder.

For every remark I hear about bringing more religion into our government, schools, etc. , I hear one just as loud calling religion a disease. I think the majority quietly go about their daily business, worship, non worship without a problem. We just hear more from the zealots on both sides.

We just hear more from the zealots on both sides.

That's always the case. But, IMO, the zealot believers do much more damage to society than the zealot non-believers.

For those of us that deal in science, mathematics, and engineering, it is difficult understand the ignorance of "faith".

Ignorance is a description of the individual, not the concept of 'faith'. The principles that Christians call 'Christian principles' could also be called many things...including evolutionary integrity traits (love, unselfishness, responsibility, compassion, etc). These are traits that allow for the flourishing and survivability of our species (science oriented) and are do not change reagardless of what one believes. It is when one ventures away from the basic principles into the specific 'beliefs' that the debate arises.

Faith is a positive outlook that nourishes the human soul. Without this soul, we are no better than any other animal. Faith has been the fuel for many people pulling themselves through the hardest of times. Just as with any other group there are extremists present, which are usually the ones that get the most attention. They are called 'extremists' for a reason...they are operating outside normal boundaries.

For those of us that deal in science, mathematics, and engineering, it is difficult understand the ignorance of "faith".

Well, if it's difficult to understand, that makes it a great candidate for study, no? That's what science is about.

I'd love to hear somebody actually delve into what "faith"'s function is, as a general thing apart from "religion" and the tenets of specific faiths.

Me, I think "faith" is a human function that helps us operate in situations where we don't have all the facts. (And before you start laughing, let me assert that I don't think anybody has all the facts.)

For instance, if somebody comes up to me with a "money-making opportunity" and seems far more enthused about the money than about what the actual product is, my faith tells me this is probably a scam of some sort, even before the person is through the first paragraph of their spiel. So, yeah, this example implies that "faith" might be something like prejudices built through experience.

Faith is a positive outlook that nourishes the human soul.

Always positive? I don't think so. Look at our recent May 21st escapades for counter-examples.

Nah, I say it's a coping mechanism, and one that can work well. But we keep it tangled up with the absurd cosmologies of the many established religions, and that prevents us from looking at it as a process on its own.

Tchem... Trust me in that with all my study of physics and math, I have contemplated "the soul". If you think simply about the conservation of mass and energy, and their conversion, there is no waste. Every bit of energy needed to get the space shuttle into orbit, has to be dissipated in the way of heat during re-entry and landing. The equation balances down to the atom.

But what of our thoughts and life experiences which are unique to the individual? With such perfect balance in every other aspect of the physical world, why would those be lost, or go unused?

Nice post by the way..... Regards.

MWeaver, I guess it's all in your point of view. As far as I can tell, zealots just spread hate. Religion, no religion.... it's the same thing. They hate you for not being like them and as far as they are concerned everyone should become like them, or else.

In any society where the religious zealots outnumber the nonreligious zealots, it's reasonable to expect the religious zealots to do more damage to society. I suspect if you examined the damage done by religious zealots compared to nonreligious zealots in Russia under Stalin you might find the religious zealots to be relatively benign.

I am not saying that there is no such thing as an overzealous atheist. Christopher Hitchens would be a good example of one such overzealous atheist. Even though I find Christopher Hitchens to be rather irritating and he probably detracts about as much from the public discourse as any religious conservative, I don't loose too much sleep over the prospect of Hitchens spreading intolerance. But there aren't very many Hitchenses out there, and generally speaking they do not have much power or influence. So, it's not worth my time to worry about their corrosive influence on society or lack thereof.

Either way, I think it's important to remember that the zealots on either side are not really the mainstream. Most Christians are moderates, and most atheists are apathetic about religion. But, ultra conservative religious zealots make a lot more noise per capita than moderate Christians. That's why we call them zealots, because they are exceedingly passionate about what they believe in.

Also, I don't think zealotry per se spreads hate. Certainly, a zealous Buddhist should not spread hate. Neither should a zealous Christian. "Hate thy neighbor" is most certainly not part of the Christian belief structure. Christian faith happens to be an identifying characteristic of a certain group of intolerant people, but I don't believe that being Christian makes them intolerant. It's probably more correct to say that some people are intolerant, and some of them happen to be christian, or jewish, or muslim, etc. Some are also atheists. I've never actually met an intolerant agnostic, but I'm sure they exist too.

~~~I can see by your outfit that you are a zealot. You can see by my outfit that I'm a zealot, too.~~

Bunbury?

I think the majority quietly go about their daily business, worship, non worship without a problem. We just hear more from the zealots on both sides.

Tell that to any luving gay couple who wishes to get married but can not. Tell that to gays in the military. Tell that to people who must suffer at the hands of religious zealots who actually work to erase seriousness from our children's public school text books, replacing it with biblical versions of reality & denying the existence of gays by removing any reference to LGBT, as if just disrespecting their existence wasn't enough. Maybe even tell that to states where doctors have to fly in once in a while to perform medical procedures for woman at woman's clinics because it's too dangerous for a resident doctor to live in the area due to real threats against their lives by religious nut jobs. Can anyone come up with such examples of hownon-religious oppresses the religious folk? The religious right is far more dangerous than the extreme left/liberal minded folk.

Can anyone come up with such examples of hownon-religious oppresses the religious folk? The religious right is far more dangerous than the extreme left/liberal minded folk.

Hmm...well.... let's see. There was Hilter, he killed a whole bunch of Jews just because they were Jewish. There was Stalin, he killed a whole bunch of people because he didn't like the Church.

You might also ask all those people who got on all those tiny little ships and came to America due to persecution if they feel liberal minded folks are all that open minded.

Then there is my current favorite:

Foreskin Man

james, hate is hate. It takes many forms.
The examples given by you and me are all extreme, all of them, in my opinion, a form of insanity. They are still outnumbered by the normal every day citizens. It's they that need to speak out,speak up, and get heard.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease as my Daddy used to say. If only the far left and far right are being heard that leaves us normal people in the dust.

No Vlad's dog. I wasn't suggesting that Hitler and Stalin were liberals. Insane, yes.
james asked for examples of non religious people oppressing religion. I wasn't suggesting liberal/conservative only religious persecution/hate.

Only the last sentence brought up the left/right political extremes, in that they are what is newsworthy these days.
I was saying(perhaps not clearly enough) that I still believe that the extremes are a minority and that the majority of people don't hate gays, don't want the country run by a theocracy, and hold our freedoms dear. However, those don't make the news because they aren't shocking enough for the 6pm headlines.

To clarify, I am comparing the religious right/extreme right (which is driven by a religious agenda), to the extreme left (which simply isn't dominated by any particular religious agenda & which poses far less of a threat to public safety). There may be just as many liberal nut jobs, but they aren't the ones shooting doctors and carrying signs at political rallies in a Democratically run country saying things like, "We Came Unarmed This Time", it's the religious right/extreme right that's doing such things. Liberal nut jobs interrupt the Congress while in session, yelling something over & over as they get dragged out - which is actually cool since it's in the spirit of peaceful protest. The left is more concerned with protecting peoples rights, while the right is more concerned with limiting peoples rights all to often in the name of God. The right sees the left as limiting their rights when the left forces the right to give full respect and support to things/people the right would rather disrespect/limit.

There are liberal terrorists. The green terror groups, for instance.

@nolagrrl

~~~I can see by your outfit that you are a zealot. You can see by my outfit that I'm a zealot, too.~~

I'd like to think that it's inaccurate to call me a zealot. Zealously moderate, maybe. But otherwise, I'm not really the zealous type.

Can I take the pitures? I promise not to tweet them!

*crossing my fingers behind my back*

*shoves a 'c' into that badly mangled word*

pictures

Don't you just hate it when your fingers don't cooperate with your brain?

I end with lots of typos because my hands do things backwards.

I understand your frustration. I have a keebored on my compewter that cant spell for shirt. ;-)

Regards

The requirements of liberty and freedom are responsible behaviors. Many folks want to talk about their rights, but few want to talk about their responsibilities. A civilized society has the right to establish specific behavioral guidelines that are conducive to the flourishing of that society. Are these guidelines (laws) not established based on an acceptable code of morality?

What is acceptable to one is not necessarily acceptable to another. I don't want a minority of the population defining what acceptable is for the entire country. I am certain we would disagree about what is an acceptable code of behavior, as you put it.

Agreed CM...A pedophile might call his behavior 'acceptable' to him, as may gang-banging rapists and murderers. Just as one can go too far to the extreme end (do whatever you want), another can go extreme to the other end (restrict all behaviors including moral). This is where the majority should set the standards, not the minority extremists.

Agreed CM...A pedophile might call his behavior 'acceptable' to him, as may gang-banging rapists and murderers. Just as one can go too far to the extreme end (do whatever you want), another can go extreme to the other end (restrict all behaviors including moral). This is where the majority should set the standards, not the minority extremists.

And that is the problem: there is a particular minority, the religious right, that is seeking and expressing that power. It is this minority that seeks to influence and covert people to a particular moral standard. No minority or majority should have so much control as to restrict the liberties of others.

And you can see the growth of that control through legislation and the rewriting of history in our schools - and it has to STOP.

I am a rcovering christian. You're point of view is a bit refreshing because it flies in the face of GOTP policy and actions. That being said, I have to ask how many christians like yourself are willing to take the stand against the rightwing and TP interpretation of biblical and constitutional law? As I see it, there are very, very few. The most consistent is Jim Wallis. The recent statements by the Catholic Bishops concerning the Ryan plan are refreshing - (especially since I've lost all respect for catholicism).

I left christianity b/c of the failings of the leadership to take on the Falwells, Buchanan's, Focus on the Family and the recent ralph reed debacle in DC. You say: "The way things are going we seem to be heading for a dictatorship politically. imo". Where we're heading towards is a theological dictatorship led by the likes of Palin, Bachmann and their ilk. I wish you'd have been specific in your last statement.

If history is an example (and we know it is), the idea of a theocratic government is fraught with all sorts of liberties being destroyed. we sinply need look back only 70 yrs to see the collaboration of religion and government in Germany. There were very few who actually stood up against Hitler with Dietrich Bonhoffer being one of the loudest. The road to a theocratic takeover is what worries me.

Willard I am so sorry you have lost your faith due to human error. I agree with much of what you say but in my faith I only worry about what God says is right, Not any man. Its me and my God in other words and all else to me is more of a spiritual realm of good and evil and sheep in wolves clothing and all that stuff I cannot get into here. My concern is much as you stated tho in that these types will rule and it is even written that things will get bad. What I see however is a possible back door approach to do away with the right to practice our religion freely.That time will come in our future and I personally will protect my and your rights to religion. I look at it as another way to pit us against each other. You already hear it in the forums. Referring to religion and people mocking christians and saying they need to shut up and all. What these people do not understand is that this is a facad being fed to us and is not something real. I know many lefties that are religious and independents too. So we are on shaky ground with that. We need to get back to holding our news accountable when it comes to the news. People are being fed propaganda on both sides and are too dumb to search for truth. We need to make it so they dont have to search and hold ALL those who talk about the news to the facts and not to their opinions. To me this is how we got where we are today. Look how we argue over what the facts are by party line. Tis sad. We have a constitution and I think we need to stick to using that guide for leadership in our country. But we gotta use common sense there too cause in case no one heard, the founding fathers are dust. It is up to us now.

williard, I often joke, "I was raised Catholic....but, I am better now." The only problem with religion is what man does with it. You can take anything that is pure and blessed, place it in the hands of man, and VOILA, clusterf**k! This is especially true of religion. Zealots always get in there and mess up the works. Look at what they amounted to in the time of Jesus; this is nothing new.

The way that we Independents (whether we claim religion or not) stand against the modern day Zealots is with the ballot. The Religious Right (I like to use the derogatory term Religious Wrong because some people confuse political affiliation with a state of correctness) is a relatively small group of people. They may have a sizable minority, but they are still a minority. Simply don't vote for these policies or those who pander to them and we have nothing to fear (except fear itself - thanks, FDR).

Simply don't vote for these policies or those who pander to them

Not that easy. They all Pander. Pelosi even pandered to the Pope to gain the Catholic vote for her views on abortion.

The way things are going we seem to be heading for a dictatorship politically. imo

Good assessment....read Alexander Tylers "Cycle of Democracy" for confirmation. You will notice words like 'always' and 'never'. It will be very obvious which stage of the cycle our country is currently in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

The founding father's were right. Keep church and state separate.

Don't trust anyone who claims to "know god's will" and also runs for politics.

Bubba, Pelosi???? When was the last time, or any time, that she tried to Catholicize this nation? It's never happened; she pushes policy that makes steam come out of the Pope's ears. If you are trying to deflect from the evangelical Right, you will have to do far better than that.

Tchem, thank you for that link. Interesting to say the least.

Christians fail to realize that their religious demands: prayer in public school, the ten commandments allowed on public property, the ability to use public property to spread their belief, same sex unions, and demanding the government ban the building of a religious establishment, opens the door for other religions to demand the same right. Would they approve Sharia laws being posted in front of the courthouse? How would they respond to the school day being interrupted six times a day for Muslim prayer? What would their feelings be about a picture of Mohamed by a picture of Jesus in government buildings? To be legally joined one must get a permit from the government thus it is not truly a religious process. Does the government have the right to deny a citizen the right to pursue happiness? It is irrational to believe that swearing on a bible will induce an atheist to tell the truth.

IMO, to protect every citizens right to personal religious worship we the people should demand that a distinction should be made between a church and a political action committee. A church should not be allowed to receive the benefits a religion receives if it uses it's congregation or other resources to lobby for or against legislation.

I find it amusing that there is such an uproar about the generic word "god". There are hundreds of gods, fact is Hitler was a god. So what god do we trust. Without some description it is left up to the one hearing the word to choose. To some the phrase "In God we trust"could mean in Hitler we trust or in the pledge " one nation under the sun". the same is true for the term creator the one hearing the word gets to choose ones personal creator.

see my comment 2.3.

The whole effort is to make all Americans distrust those institutions that have brought us stability in the past - ie government itself, media, education and science. Thus the "shrink the size of gov't; climate denial; destruction of public ed and the effort to "balance" media so that real discussion is impossible due to lack of information.

Frankly, this is the real problem with religion. It's lack of faith in itself to withstand any criticism. It's victimhood status is deplorable and the religious leaders are afraid to confront the lies and falsehoods that abound in the rightwing theological camp.

I agree willard, I see where you come from

I disagree. I think the religous part is extremely bothersome and there are those that are pitting us against one another accordingly. Like I said above you hear prrases like the religious right and it is obvious that someone is intentionally making this case. I think it very very worrisome to say the least. Whether we agree on certain issues or not is one thing but this is huge in where we go from here in politics. Is it how we bann all religions from being practiced other than one? We are walking a slippery slope here imo, and I hope people do not ignore it.

And if Obamas mandated healthcare is unconstitutional, so is my mandated car insurance and home insurance and taxes for that matter! But thats a whole different discussion. :)

V ery nicely put. How hard to you fight the injustices that you see? How much flack are you willing to take to defend that point of view? "Shame on them" will not cut it. It is time that those of us who feel strongly about the abuse of religion speak up. I've personally spoken up at my church and denomination and have made a clear effort to indicate that I'll spend no more time, talent or treasure with them until they begin to take the "theologically" correct issue by the horns.

Dear Willard: We do not know each other. If we did, you would know that as a pulpit Rabbi, and as a Chaplain I have taken stances in favor of unpopular people and causes that have hurt my career in both arenas. It is best not to assume because you do things and others are people you don't know that they dare not also doing things of which you approve.

It is never a good strategy to make accusations or derogatory comments to others you don't know. You are unlikely to ingratiate yourself to them that way. You also run then dual risks of alienating potential, and also actual lies.

All that said, it seems we have more common ground here than is initially apparent.

FR invite sent.

G-d bless, Enoch.

T Bourlon - I'd give your Pro-Life side much more credence if it spent even half as much energy in helping those already born be healthy productive people than it does trying to change legistlation. Many of these same people act as if being poor were a crime in itself.

You might want to reconsider as the climate changes and reports of feeding the masses on earth are more difficult. You reflect a view of the comfortable American who has absolutely no idea of the challenges, difficulties and abhorrent conditions others live under. That is the basis for my consideration and disdain for your stand.

I find it reprehensible that you equate abortion as a right. Its not a right, but a necessary evil for some. Instead of accepting the status quot, it might be better for you find ways to lessen abortion necessity. Maybe you'll consider fighting against the many GOTP and religious ideas against contraception; or planned parenthood?

I see God as the problem re your parqagrapgh 1. You and others like you are at the forefront of the separation of state issue. You have everyright to state your beliefs and every right to practice them - but not to whine about them. That is what all you pro-lifers do. Secondly, we see your agruments and the results of recent congressional and state government actions about the concern for life - end at birth. This initself destroys any argument about God induced or christian compassion.

Nobody wants abortion, but some may need it. para 2

arguments in para 3 are silly. This true especially in light of the recent GOTP efforts to reduce spending in this area. Why not fight against these injustices to lessen abortions.

finally to compare abortion to the 2nd amendment is one of the more disingenuous arguments I've seen devised. Certainly kudos for trying and tying two completely different ideas into one cute little package.

I can only assume you are talking about abortion - what other "religious belief" is being pushed with legislation right now?

You assume incorrectly.

• There are multiple state legislatures that either have passed or are considering legislation to allow for the teaching of creationism in public schools.
• There are multiple state legislatures that either have passed or are considering legislation to allow for public prayer in schools.
• There are multiple state legislatures that either have passed or are considering legislation to allow for the display of religious symbols (for example, the Ten Commandments) on government property.
• There are multiple state legislatures that either have passed or are considering legislation that is specifically anti-Muslim, including but not limited to unnecessary bans on sharia.
• There are multiple state legislatures that either have passed or are considering legislation that mandates abstinence-only sexual education classes.
• There are multiple state legislatures that either have passed or are considering legislation that prevents educators from even acknowledging that homosexual couples exist.
• There are multiple state legislatures that either have passed or are considering legislation that prevents recognition of same-sex marriages and denies equal access to the rights and privileges of married couples.

These are just some of the examples of how religiously-motivated politicians and their supporters have injected their version of religion into laws around the United States.

I am talking about some conservative politicians saying things like 'our nation must turn towards god'

If God is LOVE, then I can agree that our nation must turn toward this. After all... "In God we Trust". It would allow for a much higher degree of cooperation, understanding, tolerance, and responsibility... all of which are crucial to the survivability of our nation. Unfortunately, this conversation is more about a specific injection of a particular belief and not the concept of God.

Sorry Vlad, I really did think that topic was what you were referring to. I'm not really sure that a "turn the country to GOD" statement, by itself, is anything to get upset about. People can SAY whatever they want; it's what they DO that matters.

I must asume that politicains have a moral background that they work from,

Vlad, you give them more credit than I do, LOL!!!

Willard, out of respect for Vlad I can't really comment on your comments, other than to say I think you completely misunderstood my point on the 2nd Amendment. Can I ask you to put aside your hostility for the pro-life position and re-read the comments with a more open mind? I don't really want to discuss the rightness or wrongness of my position, neither does Vlad. I only wanted to talk about legislation, which is what I thought this article was about.

Thanks, Vlad, but no need - I already said I didn't want to debate the rightness or wrongness of my position here. I guess it's just one of those touchy subjects, and I should have known better than to hope that people would just comment on the legal efforts concerning abortion, and not abortion itself.

To be honest, I support the CONCEPT of separation of Church and State. Problems that people who enter politics will have is, can they genuinely keep those religious beliefs to themselves? I don't think so, not if they are sincerely held beliefs. There's no way they WON'T affect how you vote on something. My 15-year-old and I were watching a "Law & Order" rerun Sunday, which of course involved the death penalty and other nation's problems with such (an extradition case). Made me think of former N.Y. Governor Mario Cuomo, a Catholic. When it came to abortion, he publicly stated that he could not let his religious convictions interfere with the law. However, on the death penalty he had no trouble letting his anti-death penalty feelings run awry. There was an inmate in Oklahoma at the time, Thomas Grasso, who didn't want to wait 15 years to be executed and asked to waive his death row appeals. Problem was, he had escaped from a N.Y. jail before coming here and killing someone. Former Gov. Cuomo took Oklahoma to court, demanding that Grasso be returned to N.Y. to finish his sentence there BEFORE we could execute him! I'm sorry, but I just felt that was hypocritical on Cuomo's part. Anyway, he lost his re-election bid, and the first think his successor, Pataki did was ask Oklahoma if we wanted Grasso back. Again, I'm not sure if this is at all what you're getting at with your article, but there you are. I definitely believe we should TRY to keep religion and politics as separate as possible, but at the same time I don't think it's really all that doable.

Fufu also mentioned some states pursuing anti-Sharia laws, and yes Oklahoma is one of those. BUT I think the whole point of THOSE efforts is just that, keeping religion and politics separate. I would think that people who don't want a Christian theocracy would be supportive of efforts to keep Sharia courts from having any impact above State or Federal laws. Religious arbitration, whether a Sharia-based legal document or a Catholic annulment, should still be required to conform with State and Federal laws regardless. To give any religious body the authority to circumvent State and Federal law would nullify separation of Church and State. SO WHAT if it only affects a small community who agree to be bound by such religious arbitration - it goes against the Spirit of freedom of religion in America, and it sets a precident that many of the posters here are vehemently against. Or at least it appears so to me.

Fufu also mentioned some states pursuing anti-Sharia laws, and yes Oklahoma is one of those. BUT I think the whole point of THOSE efforts is just that, keeping religion and politics separate. I would think that people who don't want a Christian theocracy would be supportive of efforts to keep Sharia courts from having any impact above State or Federal laws.

I mentioned that because many of the attempts have singled out sharia while some others are limited to phrases such as "no foreign-based law may be considered". In many of the circumstances, it is patently obvious that the intent is to prevent sharia while allowing continued Christian influence in our laws.

" it is patently obvious that the intent is to prevent sharia while allowing continued Christian influence in our laws."

And that's possible, but I'd still think that people opposed to a CHRISTIAN theocracy would be every bit against the establishment of a Sharia type theocracy as well. In Oklahoma, our bill specified both Sharia and International law. There was a move to amend the bill to replace the phrase "Sharia" with something else, but the authors want to see how the Appeals court reacts first. Bottom line is, State and Federal law don't need to be trumped by either Sharia law or EU law. There's a reason the U.S. hasn't signed with the World Court yet. I'm probably getting off track here, sorry Vlad.

Quick addendum - if I had my way, I would replace the phrase "Sharia Law" with "Religious arbitration," just to be thorough.

Quick addendum - if I had my way, I would replace the phrase "Sharia Law" with "Religious arbitration," just to be thorough.

That sounds acceptable to me.

I am for preventing religiously motivated laws from being enacted or enforced in the United States. I am opposed to any laws which single out a specific religion for attention under American law; either a law applies to all religions or none at all.

Bottom line is, State and Federal law don't need to be trumped by either Sharia law or EU law.

Well, those are two different issues: religious law and foreign law. I do not think that state or federal law should be trumped by foreign law. However, where state and federal law allows (with federal law having supremacy above state law) or does not cover, I believe that a judge should be able to consider foreign law such as international treaties or rulings of international bodies which the United States is a member of. Unlike many Americans, I do not have a fear of international organizations or foreign law, just because they are foreign.

Honestly I don't see the need for laws restricting binding religious arbitration entered into by informed consenting parties. Obviously there would be some types of crimes where such consent either isn't possible or reasonable, such as homicide or child abuse and a few others. But if guy A robs guy B and they both agree that rather than a criminal court they'd prefer to settle the matter via some sort of binding religious arbitrage, I'm not going to loose too much sleep over it. Actually I think it would be inappropriate for me to interfere in that case, so why should the government.

Well, I'd want to be protected from guy A and that means for a while that a time out in a jail for guy A will ensure that.

A politician has to be more open minded in order to deal with other countries

Good example of a more 'tolerant' behavior, another one of the Christian principles.

When religion and politics are allowed to mix it is a foregone conclusion that there will not be just one religion. It will include all the different denominations of the different religions. The Fundamentalists, I was raised in the Baptist cult, even disagree with each other on major dogmas and practice. We can see this in all of the monotheisms but to a greater extent in the Protestant Christian groups. Christianity has a long history of in fighting that led to the death of millions. My background is in the history of the West so I am not familiar with all the varieties of Muslims but I know they do exist and have been known to kill each other as readily as the infidel. Judaism seems to be the least fractured and, as it is partially race based, they do not try to get people to join up. They do not, in North America, at least behave as though everyone has to follow their path as do, say the Baptists.

It does not matter if you don't follow a religion or are an atheist. Because it does matter to so many others it is critical to understanding a people and the history of a people. If you want to understand many of the arts you need to know what the people who made it believe. You learn through dialogue not slinging ignorant rhetoric. It does not matter if everyone who ever commented here is an atheist you still cannot understand if you just write religion off because it is illogical or because you don't believe in it.

I find the evangelizing that goes on on the Internet boring and rude but I do not find belief systems boring. Its data about an interesting subject: People and their histories.

Calgary..one thing I agree with is the preaching aspect...people using religion in a post.

I am Lutheran and consider myself such. One thing I do not do, simply as a matter of courtesy actually, is not talk about my faith UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ASKED. Even then, I may give the basic tenets of the faith but I don't get into a lot of detail and simply give my pastor's name to the interested party. The pastor is the one to make the major explanations.

While I was on active duty, I served a three year tour onboard a ship. My particular job had me up on the bridge so not a lot of people around. An ensign fresh out of the academy was a Born Again Christian (BAC)...OK, no big deal, except whenever we had watch together, normally the really dead quiet midwatch (midnight to 4 am), he would take that chance to preach my ears off. He came right out and told me my faith was wrong, meaning the Lutheran faith, and that I would be better off as a BAC. Since I was enlisted I listened, politely and offhandedly, never really paid attention just nodded in the right places, until I got to the point I couldn't handle it anymore. I finally, as respectfully as I could, told him I appreciated his thoughtfulness in trying to "save" me but I preferred the faith to which I was accustomed. It took several reminders to finally get him to back off.

You are correct..it is rude to preach to people who are not interested and I can't stand it when people start quoting Bible passages given the fact that the Bible has so many different versions, the passage written isn't necessarily the one that say I have read. If peoplea re interested, they will ask questions. That is the one and only time where giving information should be allowed and even then, not preaching..that is the religious leader's job.

I personally think religion needs left our of politics for alot of reasons. Now of course we dont want a devil worshiper in the white house, so does that make me a bigot? We are as individuals who we are. I as a christian of course do not believe in things like abortion because of who I am as a person. By the same token someone who does not believe like me views it more as a choice to do with the body and it is personal and should be their business. Based on where they come from that makes sense as well. Right? Hence we all go to the voting booth and place our vote. Now if more christians that believe like I do show up to vote, we will win our view at the polls. This is as it should be. How it should not be tho is to be able to come in somewhere and override a freedom just because you can. That is not what america is about so why does it seem to be happening? For instance planned parenthood being defunded? Because they provide abortions? Cept that is where poor women go when they need female help of all kinds so was that action right to defund them? I am a christian and I do not believe in abortion but from a legal and constitutional standpoint that decision was wrong and was not by majority rule, hence dictatorship. imo I feel like I am rambling and not making any sense?

Now of course we dont want a devil worshiper in the white house

How about an atheist?

I think it should be a private matter, religion stays out of politics period is the way it should be but that will never happen because politics seeks out what they consider to be masses of the same opinion in order to get votes! What happens when the biggest mass is the athiest philosephy? Its catching up fast or at least the ones tht are non believers, just check out the abortion issues, gay rights etc. All these issues are being bandied about and pandered to the believer and non to pit them against each other. imo.

Exactly Linda...religion needs to stay out of the government. It sholdn't matter which faith, if any, a PResident may have since religion is not to be used as a basis for making a decision. Now, the only problem is that yes, a president with some faith is going to make decisions based on their own morals and values but the tenets of our government are supposed to disallow base reliogion "reasons."

You brought up the abortion issue and this is a prime example. Many pro-life people use religion as a basis of wanting to ban abortions and in truth, we have seen a lot of abortion legislation being approved by the states that are more than disturbing. There is no common sense being used in these bills but instead, there is a lot of religious "belief", or the belief in morals learned through religion, to make the decisions.

Separation of church and state, meaning the government, is very important. The government, allegedly, is supposed to make decisons regarding the country as a "what is good for the country and her people", not basing those decisions on whichever faith, if any, the leader holds. Use instead the idea of what is legal and what makes sense.

Oh, please. Can I interview for a position in your church? Does your church have a philosophy as to how to deal with any sexual proclivities? Can I hold classes at my house?

Well said Patti!

Vlad: Thank you for your comment. I'm very glad that you have sought out a path for yourself that had led you to greater insight into your life and nature. Everybody's path is different, and while many of us ask the same questions, the answers that ring true for each of us are often so different. The freedom to seek one's own path is a special freedom that must be defended at all costs.

I, too, left my childhood church early. It's hierarchical structure leaves no room for dialogue or questioning, and it's rigid emphasis on being an all-male institution did not leave too many options for female seekers. It's good to know that world of the spirit is open to all.

Tchem: Thank you, also.

Sorry if you feel that way, allow me to explain further: Religion is not the driving factor, the desire to force others to live as they want is the driving factor. Religion is merely the pretext....the same pretext as so many authoritarians use: this is for your own good.

The effect is also the same, no matter what justification is given for the actions.

heh heh... well you may as well get it all...

Word is, modern humans appear about a quarter million years ago.... and in the last few thousand years we've doing something besides the hunter gatherer thing. You know... like farming and trading.

We know that genetic variations can happen quickly. Populations with dairy farmers change genetically to be able to drink milk all their lives... whereas folks from say, Tahiti, lose their ability to digest milk as they mature.

But that's about genetic diversity. Genetic homogenity, you know... sameness... can only happen with a common ancestor.

How universal a trait is, is a good indicator of when it evolved... making religion older than adaptations such as skin color or the ability to live on whale blubber.

Religion has to have developed before humans left Africa... because it's universal to all populations of humans. Whereas white skin, say, only appeared as humans moved north and so it is not universal to all populations.

So if the evidence demands that one's capacity for religion have a survival advantage, it doesn't demand it of modern men. It demands that an advantage exist to hunter gatherers, yes... but lots of animals have genetic adaptations that no longer help them.. You know... like the tiny legs on a whale skeleton.

At one time, it must have behooved the evolutionary ancestors of whales to have legs... these days... not so much.... yet they're still there... little whale legs that make no sense at all...as they do no longer provide a survival advantage.

They are, how you say, "vestigal".

So... one opinion is that if you hunt and gather for a living in groups of oh, say three hundred people... religion offers an advantage. If fortifies group unity, it passes information down in preliterate societies, it creates art and enriches the human experience....and reveals a complexity of thought. You know...philosophical questions and such might be an indicator of health and youth to folks who wear loincloths.... religion could affect mate selection... it would show complexity and hence intelligence.

There must have been a time when religious people were able to out produce their more secular, more brutish competitors...and that time had to be back when all humans were a common breeding pool.

In that scenario, modern religion is whale's legs.

A useless appendage from a bygone era still hanging in there... not that religion is useless to a modern society...it's just that it doesn't present a survival strategy... and over a few hundred generations, I would expect it to constantly diminish and that history would be expected to show religious thought going from universal and deeply held beliefs to superficially held beliefs by fewer and fewer people.

You know... if you remove an environmental stress, you change the animal. If religion, or any universally human behavior doesn't provide a survival advantage, we would expect it to fade away over many generations.

...and lots of folks see that happening.

Yearning... I agree with your scientific approach, but IMO religion is still very much an advantage, especially in times of war and conflict. Although uneccessary traits diminish in a species, there is plenty of evidence this has not occurred in religion. However, if the world continues to battle over differences in beliefs, we may very well be headed to extinction.

..religion offers an advantage. If fortifies group unity,

Unity would seem to be an advantage in any society. The combined focused efforts of many well exceed that of one. Our nation seems to be suffering a greater sense of division.

it passes information down in preliterate societies,

We still have plenty of illiterate cultures, even in our own country. Children, by their very nature and age, could be considered pre-literate...and could benefit from the faith and hope religion has to offer.

it creates art and enriches the human experience...

That would seem to be important with any group of humans.

.and reveals a complexity of thought.

In this current age of knowledge 'thinking' is slowing becoming a thing of the past. Anything that could stimulate thinking would be a welcome advantage.

Religion has to have developed before humans left Africa... because it's universal to all populations of humans.

This is incorrect. An idea can appear, independently, in multiple parts of the world. For example, the compass was independently invented by both the Olmecs of Mexico and in pre-imperial China. This month's National Geographic features an article on the invention of religion. It was previously assumed that religion only appeared after the Neolithic Revolution, but not it appears that there are places where it predated agriculture and others were it did not.

There must have been a time when religious people were able to out produce their more secular, more brutish competitors...

Not all evolutionary traits that survive are necessarily a benefit. Some traits, such as eye color in modern humans, appear to have no benefit or drawback. Other traits that continue through the human population have only drawbacks. All of this is also assuming that religion has an evolutionary impact, which isn't necessarily the case. It could have all the evolutionary impact of being a Yankees fan or an Orioles fan.

..religion offers an advantage. If fortifies group unity,

But only within a sub-group. It also emphasizes differences between other sub-groups, which in human history, means war.

In this current age of knowledge 'thinking' is slowing becoming a thing of the past.

That is a profound statement worthy of analysis in a broader context, even outside of this current debate.

Well ...sure, an idea can appear spontaneously in diverse populations...but if we see that all populations of a certain animal engage in the same behavior... We're justified in saying it's genetic. It's not like a compass being invented by two diverse societies.

Things like light colored eyes aren't a disadvantage if your body gets five minutes of sunlight a day. It becomes a disadvantage if you get ten hours of direct sunlight... but that's not the environment that produced light eyes.

And I spoke about religion promoting unity in a hunter gathering group... no larger than, say, 300 folks. In a large sprawling society like ours, then yes...religion creates unity only in sub groups.

It is my understanding that all recognizably human populations have exhibited religious behavior. Fufu, you indicate the opposite.... that scientists have reason to think there has been a society that has not practiced religion.

"it appears that there are places where it predated agriculture and others were it did not."

I'm having trouble imagining how this knowledge has been obtained. Any help?