This land of ours

[Spafranco]

I personally found it sad when Pino closed the thread "it keeps on happening" as I was fascinated at the pure pure lack of critical education by so many of my fellow countrymen.

Granted, the topic went off line and that was mostly the fault of one poster. When BDunnell made so many valid points to counter the claims of one poster (unfortunately I could not

'like' the comments) he was right on the money.

What I find troubling as I posts by some that are educated here is the real lack of solid knowledge. I feel as though if Google was not around most of the same people would not post

some of the embarrassing comments that seem to permeate the thread.

Worse, when they get a little traction they are off to the races with whatever it is they have defined as being the truth.

Just last week we were given the following nugget,

Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."

That is an embarrassment to Congress , to the State of Georgia and indicative of the lengths that people will go when they want some power. Does anyone for one moment really believe that he is in concert with the thoughts he expressed?

What do our overseas friends think when they see this?

Oh, and just for clarity, I am not judging everyone. We have brilliant people in this country but they are drowned out by fringe groups and characters like Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly along with Glen Beck. Those three work for Fox News (Faux News) a division of the Murdoch empire.

[henners88]

Just last week we were given the following nugget,

Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."
I don't know whether to laugh my head off or genuinely be scared to be frank. Fundamentalist Christians spreading fiction and dismissing any form of scientific research is worrying when its an average joe let alone someone in a position of power. Not that it has any impact on my life over here and I'm sure he has plenty of supporters. I doubt this thread will be open long, so I wish you all well now I've given my two pence. Au revoir :)

[Starter]

I personally found it sad when Pino closed the thread "it keeps on happening" as I was fascinated at the pure pure lack of critical education by so many of my fellow countrymen.

What I find troubling as I posts by some that are educated here is the real lack of solid knowledge. I feel as though if Google was not around most of the same people would not post

some of the embarrassing comments that seem to permeate the thread.
I love how many of the lefties (notice I did not say all) love to imply that those who disagree with them are stupid or uneducated or just plain looney. It's a really bad case of elitism without grounds.


Just last week we were given the following nugget,

Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."

That is an embarrassment to Congress , to the State of Georgia and indicative of the lengths that people will go when they want some power. Does anyone for one moment really believe that he is in concert with the thoughts he expressed?
For sure there are some people on the right who are, ah, living in another reality. It does not automatically follow that everyone on that side of the spectrum is also out of touch. There are a number of looney toons on the left also. I, for one, understand that and chose not to throw it in the face of those I disagree with because I truly understand that there are nutters on both sides. And I especially do not use it to imply that everyone who disagrees with me is cut from the same cloth.


What do our overseas friends think when they see this?
Does it matter? Those who would base their opinion on what someone like that says is not someone whose opinion I value.


Oh, and just for clarity, I am not judging everyone. We have brilliant people in this country but they are drowned out by fringe groups and characters like Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly along with Glen Beck. Those three work for Fox News (Faux News) a division of the Murdoch empire.
Yes you are. That statement alone implies that all the wack cases are on the right, since those are the only ones you cite.

[Rollo]

Just last week we were given the following nugget,

Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."
That is an embarrassment to Congress , to the State of Georgia and indicative of the lengths that people will go when they want some power. Does anyone for one moment really believe that he is in concert with the thoughts he expressed?
What do our overseas friends think when they see this?


I think that Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has a right to say whatever he wishes, even if it is bonkers. Free speech is a tenet found in most democracies.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Quotes like this normally ignite controversy only in the U.S. where everybody is obsessed with what everybody else says or does. On this side of the pond we prefer to mind our own business. Even if somebody standing next to me said something like this, I wouldn't bother turning my head.

[schmenke]

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty." - James Madison

[mr nobody]

I personally found it sad when Pino closed the thread "it keeps on happening" as I was fascinated at the pure pure lack of critical education by so many of my fellow countrymen.

Granted, the topic went off line and that was mostly the fault of one poster. When BDunnell made so many valid points to counter the claims of one poster (unfortunately I could not

'like' the comments) he was right on the money.

What I find troubling as I posts by some that are educated here is the real lack of solid knowledge. I feel as though if Google was not around most of the same people would not post

some of the embarrassing comments that seem to permeate the thread.

Worse, when they get a little traction they are off to the races with whatever it is they have defined as being the truth.

Just last week we were given the following nugget,

Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."

That is an embarrassment to Congress , to the State of Georgia and indicative of the lengths that people will go when they want some power. Does anyone for one moment really believe that he is in concert with the thoughts he expressed?

What do our overseas friends think when they see this?

Oh, and just for clarity, I am not judging everyone. We have brilliant people in this country but they are drowned out by fringe groups and characters like Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly along with Glen Beck. Those three work for Fox News (Faux News) a division of the Murdoch empire.

I am glad it is closed. Too many NIMBY's and too many anti-gun zealots that fail to understand the mindset of a legal, lawful, respectful gun owner who. Instead they wish to brand everyone who owns a gun in America as a "nutcase" and do everything they can to bash them and make them feel bad for owning a gun of any kind.

[schmenke]

I am glad it is closed. Too many NIMBY's and too many anti-gun zealots that fail to understand the mindset of a legal, lawful, respectful gun owner who. Instead they wish to brand everyone who owns a gun in America as a "nutcase" and do everything they can to bash them and make them feel bad for owning a gun of any kind.

Really? Except for a very few (and obvious) posters, that’s not at all the representation I experienced from that thread.

[Spafranco]

I love how many of the lefties (notice I did not say all) love to imply that those who disagree with them are stupid or uneducated or just plain looney. It's a really bad case of elitism without grounds.


For sure there are some people on the right who are, ah, living in another reality. It does not automatically follow that everyone on that side of the spectrum is also out of touch. There are a number of looney toons on the left also. I, for one, understand that and chose not to throw it in the face of those I disagree with because I truly understand that there are nutters on both sides. And I especially do not use it to imply that everyone who disagrees with me is cut from the same cloth.


Does it matter? Those who would base their opinion on what someone like that says is not someone whose opinion I value.


Yes you are. That statement alone implies that all the wack cases are on the right, since those are the only ones you cite.

I am not going to go in the direction of answering your point by point retort save for the last one.

Because I mentioned the three people from the most watched TV 'News Channel' in the country is deliberate and if you read what I stated you would have seen that these were mentioned because they are directly involved in scurrilous attacks on people from every walk of life and trying to force their opinion on the elderly who make up the vast majority of their audience.
Oh, I doubt that you are calling me a lefty. Being pigeonholed into a thought process with a predominant slant in one direction is not where I am or who I am.
Don't feel victimized ,Starter. I was not referring to you.

Maybe it would be a good idea to close the thread as it seems to be about to go in the wrong direction. That would be my fault for starting it. That I admit and take responsibility for it.

[ioan]

I personally found it sad when Pino closed the thread "it keeps on happening" as I was fascinated at the pure pure lack of critical education by so many of my fellow countrymen.

Granted, the topic went off line and that was mostly the fault of one poster. When BDunnell made so many valid points to counter the claims of one poster (unfortunately I could not

'like' the comments) he was right on the money.

What I find troubling as I posts by some that are educated here is the real lack of solid knowledge. I feel as though if Google was not around most of the same people would not post

some of the embarrassing comments that seem to permeate the thread.

Worse, when they get a little traction they are off to the races with whatever it is they have defined as being the truth.

Just last week we were given the following nugget,

Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."

That is an embarrassment to Congress , to the State of Georgia and indicative of the lengths that people will go when they want some power. Does anyone for one moment really believe that he is in concert with the thoughts he expressed?

What do our overseas friends think when they see this?

Oh, and just for clarity, I am not judging everyone. We have brilliant people in this country but they are drowned out by fringe groups and characters like Sean Hannity and Bill O' Reilly along with Glen Beck. Those three work for Fox News (Faux News) a division of the Murdoch empire.

Politicians are the same everywhere, they are not very intelligent but they are cunning and will lie as much as needed to get what they want, votes. That's all.
We also have this kind of deeply religious idiots everywhere around the world, and every now and then one of them gathers enough support to be in a position to express his/her ill thoughts.

[BDunnell]

Quotes like this normally ignite controversy only in the U.S. where everybody is obsessed with what everybody else says or does. On this side of the pond we prefer to mind our own business. Even if somebody standing next to me said something like this, I wouldn't bother turning my head.

Rising above things can only go so far, though. People, sometimes, also need to be told that they're wrong.

[BDunnell]

I think that Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has a right to say whatever he wishes, even if it is bonkers. Free speech is a tenet found in most democracies.

Of course. But this does not prevent people from telling him he's an embarrassment, and so forth.

[BDunnell]

Too many NIMBY's and too many anti-gun zealots that fail to understand the mindset of a legal, lawful, respectful gun owner who.

Who what?

And in one instance said gun-owner was neither legal nor lawful. He claims to have come to Europe in possession of a firearm which he did not have a licence to use in the countries he was visiting, and which he says he brandished. Therefore, either he is a criminal, because the laws of one country are not automatically those of another, or a liar, because the alleged incident didn't happen.

[mr nobody]

Who what?

And in one instance said gun-owner was neither legal nor lawful. He claims to have come to Europe in possession of a firearm which he did not have a licence to use in the countries he was visiting, and which he says he brandished. Therefore, either he is a criminal, because the laws of one country are not automatically those of another, or a liar, because the alleged incident didn't happen. Nice to see you took one sentence completely out of context that it was used by me and blow a gasket over it. Pretty much shows you are exactly the type I was speaking of.

[Rollo]

Of course. But this does not prevent people from telling him he's an embarrassment, and so forth.

Of course it doesn't. Free Speech equally applies to any replies to anything anyone else has said, hedged in by proper operation of the law.

[race aficionado]

"This land of ours' as this thread is called - and if it is referring to the spread of planet earth that is populated by the country called United States of America - is a most magnificent land.
It is bountiful, beautiful, generous - and whenever it's population starts demonstrating, as a majority, the qualities of the land it inhabits, this world will be a better place.

And it will be. (eventually) :)

end of rant.

[Knock-on]

I no more judge Americans by the words of a fundemental Christian than I do Muslems because of the words of fundemental preachers. That would be crazy.

However, I do have very real concerns when the President of the US makes statements about God being on 'our' side and things being a 'God given right'. I'm sorry <facepalm> but what the hell is that all about. Does he really think he's advancing US troops around the world on some divine crusade?

When Holy water comes out of the Fuel Pump instead of Diesel, then I will believe.

[henners88]

I no more judge Americans by the words of a fundemental Christian than I do Muslems because of the words of fundemental preachers. That would be crazy.

However, I do have very real concerns when the President of the US makes statements about God being on 'our' side and things being a 'God given right'. I'm sorry <facepalm> but what the hell is that all about. Does he really think he's advancing US troops around the world on some divine crusade?

When Holy water comes out of the Fuel Pump instead of Diesel, then I will believe.
I totally agree and think a head of State of any western country should leave religion well out of it.

[Starter]

I totally agree and think a head of State of any western country should leave religion well out of it.
I'd go further and take the "western" out. Religion is something for the person and not the state.

[D-Type]

I'd go further and take the "western" out. Religion is something for the person and not the state.
How do you reconcile that with a country that has the national motto: "In God we trust" ?

[Starter]

How do you reconcile that with a country that has the national motto: "In God we trust" ?
I don't reconcile it. That motto is not appropriate for any country.

[D-Type]

I don't reconcile it. That motto is not appropriate for any country.
The elected government of your country clearly considered it appropriate when they adopted it as the national motto.

[mr nobody]

The elected government of your country clearly considered it appropriate when they adopted it as the national motto.Back then people were much closer to religion and had religion in their lives. Times have changes, much like those countries that used to have a ruling family but realized that it wasn't a viable form of governing a country.

[henners88]

Back then people were much closer to religion and had religion in their lives. Times have changes, much like those countries that used to have a ruling family but realized that it wasn't a viable form of governing a country.
It's good to hear attitudes change on certain things. That's got to be positive.

[D-Type]

Back then people were much closer to religion and had religion in their lives. Times have changes, much like those countries that used to have a ruling family but realized that it wasn't a viable form of governing a country.

In 2006, on the 50th anniversary of its adoption, the Senate reaffirmed "In God we trust" as the official national motto of the United States of America. In 2011 the House of Representatives passed an additional resolution reaffirming "In God we trust" as the official motto of the United States, in a 396-9 vote.[
Really! Have things have changed so much in the last two years?

[ioan]

However, I do have very real concerns when the President of the US makes statements about God being on 'our' side and things being a 'God given right'. I'm sorry <facepalm> but what the hell is that all about. Does he really think he's advancing US troops around the world on some divine crusade?

He must have been infected last time he visited Israel.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Just last week we were given the following nugget,

Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia has ignited controversy with his recent remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell."


While the option to make such claims is protected by the right of free speech, in most countries of the world he wouldn't be a Congressman that much longer. Most countries have a strict separation of church and state and while not written in the bible, the motto "Thy shalt keep thy religious beliefs to thyself" is a good one to follow as a politician. As an atheist I had a good laugh about the man, but if that's what he believes it is his right to. He just shouldn't be allowed near the Congress again. Having the laws of a superpower being influenced by such people is worrying at best.

The only thing that really worries me in this is the fact that America is probably the only western democracy that doesn't manage to keep church and state separate. The elected president of a nation should not make religious statements that Obama has made. The less said about his predecessor, the better. I couldn't imagine Angela Merkel making religious statements in an official capacity and she's the chairman of the Christian Democratic Union party. She would never get away with it.

[mr nobody]

Really! Have things have changed so much in the last two years?Okay, first a little math education for you. 2013-2006 is 7 years and not 2 years (using your Senate claim). Also, that is/was a reaffirmation vote of a vote that was taken back in (according to that same claim) of 1956. See I took 2006-50th anniversary which equals 1956 and YES 1956 people were much closer to religion and had religion in their lives much more then 2013.

[henners88]

Okay, first a little math education for you. 2013-2006 is 7 years and not 2 years (using your Senate claim). Also, that is/was a reaffirmation vote of a vote that was taken back in (according to that same claim) of 1956. See I took 2006-50th anniversary which equals 1956 and YES 1956 people were much closer to religion and had religion in their lives much more then 2013.
The two years remark refers to the part in the quote that says 2011. That was two years ago, and my maths is awful.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Okay, first a little math education for you. 2013-2006 is 7 years and not 2 years (using your Senate claim). Also, that is/was a reaffirmation vote of a vote that was taken back in (according to that same claim) of 1956. See I took 2006-50th anniversary which equals 1956 and YES 1956 people were much closer to religion and had religion in their lives much more then 2013.

You must have missed the part that said another resolution has been passed in 2011. That looks like 2 years ago to me. Also, things cannot have changed much since 1956 if the motto was reaffirmed twice in the last decade.

[mr nobody]

The two years remark refers to the part in the quote that says 2011. That was two years ago, and my maths is awful.


You must have missed the part that said another resolution has been passed in 2011. That looks like 2 years ago to me. Also, things cannot have changed much since 1956 if the motto was reaffirmed twice in the last decade.Yet the fact that it was only a "reaffirmation vote" doesn't matter? The original vote was in 1956. Unless it was repealed and voted back into law, it's still a stance that was adopted much further back then 2 years. Twist and twist all you want, the facts are there for the educated and those that can think reasonably to see.

[D-Type]

Back then people were much closer to religion and had religion in their lives. Times have changed, much like those countries that used to have a ruling family but realized that it wasn't a viable form of governing a country.


Yet the fact that it was only a "reaffirmation vote" doesn't matter? The original vote was in 1956. Unless it was repealed and voted back into law, it's still a stance that was adopted much further back then 2 years. Twist and twist all you want, the facts are there for the educated and those that can think reasonably to see.

And your point is ?

[dj_bytedisaster]

Yet the fact that it was only a "reaffirmation vote" doesn't matter? The original vote was in 1956. Unless it was repealed and voted back into law, it's still a stance that was adopted much further back then 2 years. Twist and twist all you want, the facts are there for the educated and those that can think reasonably to see.

Well, if something is reaffirmed it means that people acknowledge it still holds true and there are people, me included, who think that state and religion need to be strictly separated. The US aren't entirely populated by Christians either, are they? What about atheists? How is someone supposed to identify with a state, the motto of which is a religious statement? A state's job is to ensure freedom of religion, not to promote it.

[Rollo]

While the option to make such claims is protected by the right of free speech, in most countries of the world he wouldn't be a Congressman that much longer. Most countries have a strict separation of church and state and while not written in the bible, the motto "Thy shalt keep thy religious beliefs to thyself" is a good one to follow as a politician. As an atheist I had a good laugh about the man, but if that's what he believes it is his right to. He just shouldn't be allowed near the Congress again. Having the laws of a superpower being influenced by such people is worrying at best.

The only thing that really worries me in this is the fact that America is probably the only western democracy that doesn't manage to keep church and state separate. The elected president of a nation should not make religious statements that Obama has made. The less said about his predecessor, the better. I couldn't imagine Angela Merkel making religious statements in an official capacity and she's the chairman of the Christian Democratic Union party. She would never get away with it.

I have to disagree on principle with this because there is a massive blind spot in what you've said and even evidenced within this very post.
Whilst you endorse the right to free speech, you've advocated that that same free speech be hedged in on religious grounds based on your own religious beliefs.

People's thoughts and words are informed by their values; people's values can come from a number of sources but a lot of the time, they're informed by their belief structure and their religion which flows as a result of this. What you are in effect stating is that you wish for a limitation of free speech for some people depending of if they disagree with you or not.
Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it.

Everyone who has ever been born on this planet has believed in something, even atheists. Athiests might not believe in god/s but they do believe in an abscence of them; by definition this is still a belief in a position. It follows that everyone who has ever lived has their own unique religion of sorts (including atheists), and although it might not necessarily be an organised religion, the fact still holds true that everyone has their own religion; even if it is a party of one.

This is an expression of your faith, because it spells out nicely what you believe:

As an atheist I had a good laugh about the man, but if that's what he believes it is his right to.

However, these are expressions of your religion:


the motto "Thy shalt keep thy religious beliefs to thyself" is a good one to follow as a politician.
...
He just shouldn't be allowed near the Congress again. Having the laws of a superpower being influenced by such people is worrying at best.
This is a statement, which has been informed by your values and as such is an outworking of your religion.

And to be blunt, the clergy doesn't have a say in the legislation of laws at any level of government in the United States; people of faith do but not necessarily in an official capacity of being church leaders. Besides which, I would rather people of faith and of all sorts of different faiths expressing their views in parliaments because the laws which would follow would be a broader cross-section of society generally. However you've just called for a narrowing of viewpoints within the dialogue.
If Merkel is the chairman of the Christian Democratic Union then it is entirely appropriate for her to make statements with regards her faith. Faith informs the values of the party and so not to express them is disingenuous.

[mr nobody]

And your point is ? Really? You want to ask me what my point is after I made it, twice? Get a clue, get a freakin clue.

[dj_bytedisaster]

If Merkel is the chairman of the Christian Democratic Union then it is entirely appropriate for her to make statements with regards her faith. Faith informs the values of the party and so not to express them is disingenuous.

She does - if she speaks in her capacity as the party leader, but in a capacity as German chancellor she cannot make religious statements. Membership in a party that sees Christianity as one of its core values is a voluntary thing and the members of said party are free to promote their faith. A Chancellor is the Chancellor of all Germans, which include Millions of atheists (East Germans are mainly atheist), Muslims and other religious groups. Our president is a protestant priest, but he too has to cut back on certain statements when acting in an official function, although he gets cut some slack as the president is largely a ceremonial role in Germany.
The constitution forbids the state from identifying itself with any faith, which is a good idea. Religion is a private matter and IMHO best left out in the running of the state.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Rising above things can only go so far, though. People, sometimes, also need to be told that they're wrong.

Should I also bother commenting on Kim Kardashian's latest fashion faux pas as well?

I find that American culture of making big news out of nothing utterly ridiculous. Well, I don't blame media or people who say and do stupid things to make headlines. After all, that's how they make money. I believe, though, that those who swallow stupid media stories are guilty of the stupidity of supreme kind themselves. It is even worse when they invite others to join meaningless discussions.

[D-Type]

Really? You want to ask me what my point is after I made it, twice? Get a clue, get a freakin clue.

Which of your two contradictory posts that I quoted represents your actual view?

[mr nobody]

Which of your two contradictory posts that I quoted represents your actual view?I'm not sure how in the world you can claim those are contradictory posts seeing how you failed to even understand either one of them. Like I said before, get a clue then try to make a statement instead of wasting your time with pointless posts.

[Knock-on]

I'm not sure how in the world you can claim those are contradictory posts seeing how you failed to even understand either one of them. Like I said before, get a clue then try to make a statement instead of wasting your time with pointless posts.

Why are you being rude when D-Type made a perfectly valid observation in his post:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/158353-land-ours-2.html#post1132217

In the first of your posts he quoted, you claim that things had changed since the original stance while in the second you acknowledge that the stance was reaffirmed 2 years ago but its basis goes back much further so the reaffirmation is irrelevant because the original is still valid.

So, in essence, you claim that views have changed over the years but remained the same. :confused:

Can you not see why people might possibly think those statements are mutually exclusive and contradictory?

By insulting D-Types intelligence and comprehension, you are making yourself look a bit foolish fella.

#irony

[mr nobody]

Why are you being rude when D-Type made a perfectly valid observation in his post:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/158353-land-ours-2.html#post1132217

In the first of your posts he quoted, you claim that things had changed since the original stance while in the second you acknowledge that the stance was reaffirmed 2 years ago but its basis goes back much further so the reaffirmation is irrelevant because the original is still valid.

So, in essence, you claim that views have changed over the years but remained the same. :confused:

Can you not see why people might possibly think those statements are mutually exclusive and contradictory?

By insulting D-Types intelligence and comprehension, you are making yourself look a bit foolish fella.

#ironyLMFAO you guys fail to see what those really say (not surprising at all) and if you think I was being rude or insulting then that is YOUR problem and not mine. This is exactly like the closed thread about guns. I'm done. If you all want to keep beating your chests about how your views are the only ones that matter then go ahead. I showed he was wrong with his assessment. It's up to you all to understand it or not.

[henners88]

LMFAO you guys fail to see what those really say (not surprising at all) and if you think I was being rude or insulting then that is YOUR problem and not mine. This is exactly like the closed thread about guns. I'm done. If you all want to keep beating your chests about how your views are the only ones that matter then go ahead. I showed he was wrong with his assessment. It's up to you all to understand it or not.
You didn't show anybody that they were wrong when reviewing what you have written. Your claim about attitudes changing was challenged with a source from 2 years ago that stated a reaffirmation vote with a majority backed up the views of 50 years ago. You then dismissed it by telling D-Type to get a 'freakin clue'. That to me suggests you didn't read the initial source properly and tried to back track unsuccessfully by attempting to push the misunderstanding onto the rest of us.

[Starter]

You didn't show anybody that they were wrong when reviewing what you have written. Your claim about attitudes changing was challenged with a source from 2 years ago that stated a reaffirmation vote with a majority backed up the views of 50 years ago. You then dismissed it by telling D-Type to get a 'freakin clue'. That to me suggests you didn't read the initial source properly and tried to back track unsuccessfully by attempting to push the misunderstanding onto the rest of us.
Obviously. mr nobody didn't explain his example as well as he might have.. The 2011 vote doesn't mean anything used as an example of a country's use of religion in politics. Can you imagine any politician anywhere voting against god?

[mr nobody]

You didn't show anybody that they were wrong when reviewing what you have written. Your claim about attitudes changing was challenged with a source from 2 years ago that stated a reaffirmation vote with a majority backed up the views of 50 years ago. You then dismissed it by telling D-Type to get a 'freakin clue'. That to me suggests you didn't read the initial source properly and tried to back track unsuccessfully by attempting to push the misunderstanding onto the rest of us. And the stupidity goes on. Keep it up boys, I love laughing at this kind of stuff. If you look at post #25 and can't figure out who's right and who's wrong then you are beyond the ability to reason and understand much of anything.

[Knock-on]

:rolleyes:

Knock yourself out fella. I'm glad you get your kicks by acting this way.

Think I will leave you to it though because any more enjoyment on your part might lead you to a little accident in the trouser department

[ioan]

Most countries have a strict separation of church and state...

The only thing that really worries me in this is the fact that America is probably the only western democracy that doesn't manage to keep church and state separate.

What about Germany and Austria where you are required to pay a specific tax if you are religious?
I wouldn't call that a strict separation between Church and state either, even though it is certainly different then what we see with some of the US based christian talibans.

[mr nobody]

:rolleyes:

Knock yourself out fella. I'm glad you get your kicks by acting this way.

Think I will leave you to it though because any more enjoyment on your part might lead you to a little accident in the trouser department Eye rolling! So classy. I expected better but I guess I should lower my expectations a little more. Also, as far as "acting this way", I don't see where I am out of line. I pointed out the mistake made by the poster (clear as day mistake) and everyone defends him and comes after me. How is that not funny as hell? ..l..

[dj_bytedisaster]

What about Germany and Austria where you are required to pay a specific tax if you are religious?
I wouldn't call that a strict separation between Church and state either, even though it is certainly different then what we see with some of the US based christian talibans.

Other way round ioan. You are not forced to pay taxes because you are religious. Every officially recognized religious group has the RIGHT to raise taxes for themselves and ask the state to help with their collection. As far as I know, only the Christians have so far made use of the law, so you don't have to pay extra taxes if you're Buddhist, Muslim or whatever. The so called 'church tax' does not go to the state budget, but to the catholic and protestant church as they are the ones raising the tax, not the state.

[mr nobody]

What about Germany and Austria where you are required to pay a specific tax if you are religious?
I wouldn't call that a strict separation between Church and state either, even though it is certainly different then what we see with some of the US based christian talibans. Please explain that?

[henners88]

And the stupidity goes on. Keep it up boys, I love laughing at this kind of stuff. If you look at post #25 and can't figure out who's right and who's wrong then you are beyond the ability to reason and understand much of anything.
I think you need to calm down. I'm not wasting any more of my time with someone who resorts to insulting me thanks very much. I pointed out my observation without attempting to question your intelligence so have a little respect in return.

[mr nobody]

I think you need to calm down. I'm not wasting any more of my time with someone who resorts to insulting me thanks very much. I pointed out my observation without attempting to question your intelligence so have a little respect in return. And your eye roll was meant as what, a compliment? So when someone gives you a dose of your own medicine you don't like it? You know exactly what you meant in the post I quoted and responded too that has you so riled up. Get over yourself.

[Rollo]

Religion is a private matter and IMHO best left out in the running of the state.

What happens for instance if the state degrades the value and worth of people?

The most obvious example I can think of is William Wilberforce who after becoming an evangelical Christian in 1785, acted on his faith and spent the next 26 years campaigning on the issue of Abolition and as a direct result of his actions, the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 were passed.

Arguably if someone had acted on conscious then maybe the war with Iraq would have played out differently.

Also, Germany is a special case; Kirchenkampf especially. Ask yourself what the best outcome for people was there and whether or not the views of religion were best "left out in the running of the state".

Of course I don't mean to suggest that religion is the cure all and end all. Some absolute atrocities have been committed under its banner; likewise people who supposedly have no faith at all have sometimes acted far more nobly than people of faith, but to cut out the view entirely and you could put society on a very very dangerous and bloody road indeed.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Of course I don't mean to suggest that religion is the cure all and end all. Some absolute atrocities have been committed under its banner; likewise people who supposedly have no faith at all have sometimes acted far more nobly than people of faith, but to cut out the view entirely and you could put society on a very very dangerous and bloody road indeed.

Religion isn't a cure for nothing. A mythical figure that doesn't exist can't solve any problems, can it?. If people want to waste their time begging an imaginative figure for mercy, that's their private business business and nobody has a right to deny them that. But it's not a concept you can base a state on unless you want to force all its inhabitants to believe in said imaginative figure.
Religion has given us a set of rules, like the 10 commandments, but 'thou shall not kill' or 'thou shall not commit adultery' is nothing I need to be told from a fairy-tale character or a priest on a Sunday. It's called common sense. Fact of life is, there are a lot of people, who think there is nobody up there in the sky and that once we're dead, we rot, instead of sitting on a cloud getting piled into by 747's and starting space craft. Others believe in a completely different imaginative figure. How can a state care for all its citizens if it promotes religious views that not all of them share or even understand?
To say that casting religion out when it come to running the state would lead to bloody consequences is mucho speculative at best.

To put it in perspective. 38% of German population are atheist, yet our society isn't particularly dangerous or bloody.

[henners88]

And your eye roll was meant as what, a compliment? So when someone gives you a dose of your own medicine you don't like it? You know exactly what you meant in the post I quoted and responded too that has you so riled up. Get over yourself.
I haven't rolled my eyes at anything you've said that I can see, just written my opinion in response to two of your posts. I think you're so angry you're getting people mixed up mr nobody. I pointed out inconsistencies in what I thought you were saying without getting riled up I can assure you.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I haven't rolled my eyes at anything you've said that I can see, just written my opinion in response to two of your posts. I think you're so angry you're getting people mixed up mr nobody. I pointed out inconsistencies in what I thought you were saying without getting riled up I can assure you.

As an experiment, read the guy's tally of 70 posts in his profile and you'll notice that at least 30 of them are blatant flame bait.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Religion is a private matter and IMHO best left out in the running of the state.

Wasn't that the case in Germany in 1933-1945 and in the Soviet Union in 1922-1991?

[henners88]

Wasn't that the case in Germany in 1933-1945 and in the Soviet Union in 1922-1991?
There are also many cases in todays world where religion is not at the forefront of the countries politics and it works. Two extreme cases like that are far out-weighed by the problematic countries creating holy wars and sometimes civil wars based on opposing faiths IMO.

[mr nobody]

I haven't rolled my eyes at anything you've said that I can see, just written my opinion in response to two of your posts. I think you're so angry you're getting people mixed up mr nobody. I pointed out inconsistencies in what I thought you were saying without getting riled up I can assure you.Trolls tend to so that on internet message boards.

[henners88]

Trolls tend to so that on internet message boards.
I wasn't suggesting you were a troll I just challenged something you said like a couple of others here. You also accused me of rolling my eyes when I hadn't done anything of the sort. It's only a discussion, don't take it so personally. :)

[mr nobody]

I wasn't suggesting you were a troll I just challenged something you said like a couple of others here. You also accused me of rolling my eyes when I hadn't done anything of the sort. It's only a discussion, don't take it so personally. :) I wasn't suggesting it either, I was calling you out as being one though.

[henners88]

I wasn't suggesting it either, I was calling you out as being one though.

I've been very civil in my responses to you and the only person who has been abusive here is you. If you think I am a troll then use the report function. The entire exchange is here for all to see and I'm sure the mods will take the appropriate action. Perhaps its best if we both ignore each other on all matters from now on? I think that is best as its clear there is no value in what I thought was a sensible discussion. Oh well the joys of an internet discussion forum.

[Starter]

I wasn't suggesting it either, I was calling you out as being one though.
Let's see. One month member (under this name) and 72 posts. On the other hand 5 year membership and many more posts. There must be a new definition of "trolling".

I agree with you on a few things but I find your attitude confrontational. With henners88, we disagree on much more than we agree on, but it's a civil discussion. Maybe a quick peek in the mirror might be worthwhile?

[donKey jote]

use the report function.

;) :andrea: :laugh:

[henners88]

Let's see. One month member (under this name) and 72 posts. On the other hand 5 year membership and many more posts. There must be a new definition of "trolling".

I agree with you on a few things but I find your attitude confrontational. With henners88, we disagree on much more than we agree on, but it's a civil discussion. Maybe a quick peek in the mirror might be worthwhile?
Cheers Starter. We disagree on a few things but I never take anything you say personally and hope the feeling is mutual. I doubt I would have nearly 9,000 posts to my name if I was a troll. I'd be long banned. :D

[pino]

Guys, less personal comments and stay on topic thank you :)

[ioan]

Well, in Austria the fact that the state enforces it and you even risk to be dragged in front of the court if you don't ponny up, is as good an example as there is for no separation between state and church.
In Germany is even worse, the church tax is collected at source together with your income tax, so no way to avoid it.
The first thing I did when I moved was to let them know the fact that I am not a believer, it avoids all the hassle that you get otherwise.

[ioan]

Please explain that?

Christian extremists.

[mr nobody]

Christian extremists. That's you're "explanation"?

[donKey jote]

In Germany is even worse, the church tax is collected at source together with your income tax, so no way to avoid it.

Sure there is, just don't tick the box where it says "Religion" :bandit:

[markabilly]

I don't know whether to laugh my head off or genuinely be scared to be frank. Fundamentalist Christians spreading fiction and dismissing any form of scientific research is worrying when its an average joe let alone someone in a position of power. Not that it has any impact on my life over here and I'm sure he has plenty of supporters. I doubt this thread will be open long, so I wish you all well now I've given my two pence. Au revoir :)

Only if he gets elected to be prez should you get scared

[markabilly]

Wasn't that the case in Germany in 1933-1945 and in the Soviet Union in 1922-1991?

yep

made all the easier by banning private ownership of guns.

First thing the nazi did was round up all the private guns.

Then round up all the disenters
and on and on, till they got to jews and gypsies

[markabilly]

Religion isn't a cure for nothing. A mythical figure that doesn't exist can't solve any problems, can it?. If people want to waste their time begging an imaginative figure for mercy, that's their private business business and nobody has a right to deny them that. But it's not a concept you can base a state on unless you want to force all its inhabitants to believe in said imaginative figure.
Religion has given us a set of rules, like the 10 commandments, but 'thou shall not kill' or 'thou shall not commit adultery' is nothing I need to be told from a fairy-tale character or a priest on a Sunday. It's called common sense. Fact of life is, there are a lot of people, who think there is nobody up there in the sky and that once we're dead, we rot, instead of sitting on a cloud getting piled into by 747's and starting space craft. Others believe in a completely different imaginative figure. How can a state care for all its citizens if it promotes religious views that not all of them share or even understand?
To say that casting religion out when it come to running the state would lead to bloody consequences is mucho speculative at best.

To put it in perspective. 38% of German population are atheist, yet our society isn't particularly dangerous or bloody.

Do what?

That was not true until 1946, after the USA ripped what was left out of Germany, and then Germany was split down the middle until Perz Regean told the Russians to tear down the wall, or it would still be split.

How quickly you forget.

[gadjo_dilo]

Can you imagine any politician anywhere voting against god? Even if he's from a satanic sect? :confused:

[gadjo_dilo]

Religion has given us a set of rules, like the 10 commandments, but 'thou shall not kill' or 'thou shall not commit adultery' is nothing I need to be told from a fairy-tale character or a priest on a Sunday. It's called common sense.
Haven't we reached this common sense after years and years of being educated in a religious spirit? :confused:

[gadjo_dilo]

The first thing I did when I moved was to let them know the fact that I am not a believer, it avoids all the hassle that you get otherwise.

Does it mean you don't pay the tax and in case you'd like a christening for your kid or a funeral service ( God forbid! ) it will be denied? :confused:

[ioan]

Sure there is, just don't tick the box where it says "Religion" :bandit:

Sure, just that the nice lady at the counter tells you that you have to. Separation of powers my backside.

[ioan]

Does it mean you don't pay the tax and in case you'd like a christening for your kid or a funeral service ( God forbid! ) it will be denied? :confused:

Nope. Because I will not want my kit christened, and the funeral service can be performed by a civil service ran by the city, without a priest and with no involvement from any church.

[gadjo_dilo]

Nope. Because I will not want my kit christened, and the funeral service can be performed by a civil service ran by the city, without a priest and with no involvement from any church.I know you won't. That's why I asked "if.....?". Just wanted to know how the system works. Sick curiosity, I know.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Only if he gets elected to be prez should you get scared

A couple months ago I read memoirs of a German student who witnessed the rise of the Nazis in Germany and then migrated to Britain. He recalls at least one case when opponents of Nazis resisted stormtroopers who tried to break into their home. They shot a couple of Nazis in the process. Those opponents were lefties, mind you. ;)

[Rudy Tamasz]

There are also many cases in todays world where religion is not at the forefront of the countries politics and it works. Two extreme cases like that are far out-weighed by the problematic countries creating holy wars and sometimes civil wars based on opposing faiths IMO.

Would you care to name those demonic countries who outweighed the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? Outweighed in what sense, BTW? The numbers of their own citizens and foreigners murdered or something else?

[henners88]

Would you care to name those demonic countries who outweighed the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? Outweighed in what sense, BTW? The numbers of their own citizens and foreigners murdered or something else?
Outweighed in the sense of forming a democracy without religion being the instrumental influence in running the country. I live in one now. France, Germany, Belgium etc etc.

[gadjo_dilo]

Outweighed in the sense of forming a democracy without religion being the instrumental influence in running the country. I live in one now. .
Maybe it's time for your queen to give up being the supreme governor of the Church of England..... :devil:

[henners88]

Maybe it's time for your queen to give up being the supreme governor of the Church of England..... :devil:
Why?

[gadjo_dilo]

Why?

Because she's also the head of the state of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms?......
:confused:

[henners88]

Because she's also the head of the state of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms?......
:confused:
Right. I'm not suggesting religion is eradicated from every country. I suggested it is not used to make influential decisions in the governing of the country. To my knowledge our parliament is not fed through the church, nor are decisions based on religion. The UK is a Christian country and State funerals and remembrance Day has a very Christian feel, but rarely is it used and discussed in parliament as an influence. I really didn't get your point at all. :confused:

[Rudy Tamasz]

Outweighed in the sense of forming a democracy without religion being the instrumental influence in running the country. I live in one now. France, Germany, Belgium etc etc.

That's not what I was asking about. You mentioned that the SU and Germany were out-weighed by the problematic countries creating holy wars. Can I hear the names of those countries?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Outweighed in the sense of forming a democracy without religion being the instrumental influence in running the country. I live in one now. France, Germany, Belgium etc etc.

Wasn't your country built based on Christian ethic and, more broadly, on Christian faith?

[henners88]

That's not what I was asking about. You mentioned that the SU and Germany were out-weighed by the problematic countries creating holy wars. Can I hear the names of those countries?
I get the impression you haven't understood the meaning of what I was saying. How many wars are going on in the world at present due to religion? Add them up and compare them over the last 70 years and you have your answer. I'm guessing there are more than two. We are pumping money and have been for the last decade into two countries who are fighting based on religion.


Wasn't your country built based on Christian ethic and, more broadly, on Christian faith?
Yes it was but thankfully that mindset has been repressed through the modern world giving more answers than we once had. Its nice to have the basis and respect people religions too I think. Its not for everybody though and in the UK this is no longer the forefront of our internal politics.

[D-Type]

That's not what I was asking about. You mentioned that the SU and Germany were out-weighed by the problematic countries creating holy wars. Can I hear the names of those countries?
Off the top of my head, I suggest India and Pakistan which were run as one [federated] country under the Raj and with independence came Partition and bloodshed, Kashmir, all the countries that were active members of the Muslim League, Israel, Sudan, Northern Ireland, and Cyprus (although that is as much political as religious) for a start. Some define themselves as being of a particular faith, some have a semi-permanent state of antagonism between two religious factions, and some demonstrate persecution of religious minorities.

[henners88]

Off the top of my head, I suggest India and Pakistan which were run as one [federated] country under the Raj and with independence came Partition and bloodshed, Kashmir, all the countries that were active members of the Muslim League, Israel, Sudan, Northern Ireland, and Cyprus (although that is as much political as religious) for a start. Some define themselves as being of a particular faith, some have a semi-permanent state of antagonism between two religious factions, and some demonstrate persecution of religious minorities.
Quite.
The original point I responded to gave two examples of non religious governments who had failed and caused bloodshed. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Extreme cases IMO and the like we thankfully haven't seen since. When I suggested there are many more examples of countries that run with religion not at the forefront I was asked to name 'problematic countries who created holy wars'. I think there are so many you'd lose count.

[gadjo_dilo]

Right. I'm not suggesting religion is eradicated from every country. I suggested it is not used to make influential decisions in the governing of the country. To my knowledge our parliament is not fed through the church, nor are decisions based on religion. The UK is a Christian country and State funerals and remembrance Day has a very Christian feel, but rarely is it used and discussed in parliament as an influence. I really didn't get your point at all. :confused:
Yeah...You never get my point....
Which is that if these days christian feelings aren't of any influence in political life then why should be the head of the state also the head of the church. Just to underline an anachronism....BTW, could your head of state be a catholic? :confused:

Anyway, to my knowledge these days in all democracies church don't have an influence in parliament's decisions. Church may only express points of view on their decisions.

( Nah.... I admit I was annoyed by your examples: UK, Germany, France, Belgium. As if those who live in less developed countries like me and Rudy are in a sort of bantustans. :laugh: ).

[henners88]

( Nah.... I admit I was annoyed by your examples: UK, Germany, France, Belgium. As if those who live in less developed countries like me and Rudy are in a sort of bantustans. :laugh: ).
I didn't make any reference to either of you. I referred to Western Europe because its what I know.

[gadjo_dilo]

Yes it was but thankfully that mindset has been repressed through the modern world giving more answers than we once had. Its nice to have the basis and respect people religions too I think. Its not for everybody though and in the UK this is no longer the forefront of our internal politics.

What you say is like in man's conscience has taken place a sort of tabula rasa and all we feel and think these days is only the result of our natural born high standards. :confused:

[Rudy Tamasz]

I get the impression you haven't understood the meaning of what I was saying. How many wars are going on in the world at present due to religion? Add them up and compare them over the last 70 years and you have your answer. I'm guessing there are more than two. We are pumping money and have been for the last decade into two countries who are fighting based on religion.

There's very little specifics in your response. If you leave it to me to do the guesswork, you're speaking about Afghanistan, among others. Methinks, they are fighting for their tribal interests and control over drug trafficking. Even if religion has to do something with their intestine wars, do you seriously mean that they have surpassed Stalin and Hitler with the scale of their atrocities?


Yes it was but thankfully that mindset has been repressed through the modern world giving more answers than we once had. Its nice to have the basis and respect people religions too I think. Its not for everybody though and in the UK this is no longer the forefront of our internal politics.

Let me try to analyse your arguments with a bit of direct logic. So Britain became what it is based on Christian values but you like the fact that the Christian mindset has been repressed? To me it means that you must dislike Britain the way it is and feel uncomfortable about your Britishness? Is that correct?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Off the top of my head, I suggest India and Pakistan which were run as one [federated] country under the Raj and with independence came Partition and bloodshed, Kashmir, all the countries that were active members of the Muslim League, Israel, Sudan, Northern Ireland, and Cyprus (although that is as much political as religious) for a start. Some define themselves as being of a particular faith, some have a semi-permanent state of antagonism between two religious factions, and some demonstrate persecution of religious minorities.

And you may as well recall the conflict between the Western and Eastern Pakistans, both thoroughly Muslim. The West wanted control despite having less population. The East got unhappy, declared independence and became Bangladesh. Sometimes "religion" only disguises politics.

[gadjo_dilo]

I didn't make any reference to either of you. I referred to Western Europe because its what I know.

Exactly what I meant. This part of the world don't even exist for westerners. :laugh:

[D-Type]

Coming back to the USA. As well as displaying the motto "In God we trust" the US currency also includes symbols associated with Freemasonry. To what extent do people feel that the Masonic organisation influences government in the USA and elsewhere?

[gadjo_dilo]

Coming back to the USA. As well as displaying the motto "In God we trust" the US currency also includes symbols associated with Freemasonry. To what extent do people feel that the Masonic organisation influences government in the USA and elsewhere?

100%

[henners88]

Exactly what I meant. This part of the world don't even exist for westerners. :laugh:
That sounds to me like a bit of an inferiority complex and is guilty of the type of generalisation you are accusing me of. I've visited Eastern Europe a few times, but admit I am not au fait with each countries individual politics. I'm not completely in the dark or in a state of denial.

[gadjo_dilo]

That sounds to me like a bit of an inferiority complex and is guilty of the type of generalisation you are accusing me of.

Nah... I don't have problems with this. Notice that I also posted a " :laugh: "

[Knock-on]

Coming back to the USA. As well as displaying the motto "In God we trust" the US currency also includes symbols associated with Freemasonry. To what extent do people feel that the Masonic organisation influences government in the USA and elsewhere?

Speaking of which, Dan Brown has a new book out :D

[henners88]

Nah... I don't have problems with this. Notice that I also posted a " :laugh: "
Thats fine. I had a smirk on my face and my tongue was in my cheek when I wrote my response to you but didn't wish to give any indication of it. ;) :)

[Starter]

Even if he's from a satanic sect? :confused:
Worshiping Satan implies the existence of God. He/She'd still vote for God if he wanted to get elected.

[gadjo_dilo]

Worshiping Satan implies the existence of God. He/She'd still vote for God if he wanted to get elected.

Voting for the rival....
Must be another american habit. :confused:

[Knock-on]

Worshiping Satan implies the existence of God. He/She'd still vote for God if he wanted to get elected.

:laugh:

Too right. :up: