Religion doesn't destroy things.
A minority of mentally twisted people destroy,
whether religious or not.
Once you acquire enough confidence to believe in yourself , religion will no longer frighten you.
Religious fanatics willing to kill and die for their various religious causes OTOH scare the fuck out of me.
and I have plenty of confidence in myself, it's religious pukes with guns and bombs that I have no confidence in.
best to leaving the killing to "for profit" organizations.
Let the markets work.
Liberal values FORCE YOU do to things the way they want. That is why Liberalism is the greatest threat we face today.
If memory serves me correctly, these Bible-thumping morons thought that 9/11 was "God's Vengeance" against the U.S.--------
You post has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic. What does two preachers personal beliefs have to do with laws passed by the parties?
Dude, I hate to tell you this, YOU SUCK AT POLITICAL DEBATE!!
Read Willuy's post below, at least he knows how to stick to a topic.
Which led you to a "defense of religion & condemnation of liberalism. You DO know religious
fanatacism was behind 9/11, don't you ? I was showing fanaticism from another religion. And where does liberalism enter ito all this ?!
I was sticking to the OP's premise which is something you didn't do. I merely fired back at your moronic non-sequitur post.
Old man, the only thing you stick to is pictured below-----
-- Modified on 9/13/2011 6:37:49 PM
The thread started with the premise of religion being a source for evil, my take was liberalism was a greater threat. Then you start talking about two preachers who have never done a violent act or encouraged a violent act be done on behalf of religion.
So basically, you pulled a Priap, went WAY OFF SUBJECT and had no facts that were relevant.
If either of them had called for violence in the name of religion, but look who I am directing this to, facts never seemed to slow you down...
Snow, you might have a point when it comes to gun control, but let's be honest here.
Which group would most likely attempt to ban pornography?
Liberals or conservatives?
Which group is most likely to make sure that prostitution is illegal?
Liberals or conservatives?
Which group is most likely to make sure that certain recreational drugs are illegal?
Liberal or conservatives?
Which group is most likely to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies?
Liberals or conservatives?
and that is why I am more of a libertarian.
One thing I noticed about your list though, while it had merit, it was basically a list of items where you were stopped from doing something.
While I do not agree with the religious right on these, I still see liberals as more evil because they do not stop you from doing things as much as they FORCE YOU to do things.
Healthcare
Environmental Regulations
Higher Taxes
Republicans religious zealots may block you from doing things, but liberals force you to do things and take as much away from you as they can.
BTW, in regards to prostituion, truse me, the democratic party is opposed to it as well. They say women who are courtesans are really just "victims". Are you suprised?
...and this is why I'm very much a classical libertarian, btw.
You make an interesting point about not allowing vs. force. But I don't see much of a difference here. I mean, actions have consequences, right?
For instance, if you don't allow someone to have an abortion, are you not forcing them to bare child to some degree? If someone smokes pot for a medical reason are you not forcing them to suffer by making it illegal?
Liberals may force you and I to pay higher taxes, but conservatives force you and I to live in a nation with a crumbling infrastructure. Liberals may force a business man to deal with environmental regulations, but a conservative may force me to live with polluted air and water.
I'm just saying that there's two sides of the coin.
I certainly agree with you in regards to liberals and prostitution. I think this is largely the result of feminism. I think one of the biggest flaws of feminism, is that it does not account for the sexual needs of men.
In nature, you can look at a number of species, where copulation is nothing more than rape. I've had the misfortune of witnessing this with chickens and cats, and I imagine our hominid ancesters weren't much different. I certainly think it's a good thing that women have a say in whether they engage in sex, but when men produce 4 times more testosterone than women, they're going to desire sex to a far greater degree. And there's going to be unintended consequences to half the population not having their needs met.
I think this is why you'll find leftists (most especially women) opposing prostitution. It threatens their ability to dictate a man's sex life, and that is the easiest way to control men.
-- Modified on 9/13/2011 1:38:30 PM
by those who want to do exactly as they damn well please WITHOUT accountability.
You tell em Snow
I know that's a rather strange assertion, but let me share some thoughts.
Let's exclude from what I am about to say the political hacks, cronies and hangers-on whose livelihood is derived from their candidate of choice winning elections, as well as those who bribe politicians to get something.
Look at ordinary people. They will differ as to their politics even though they see the exact same facts of reality.
One person will look at X million uninsured Americans and propose (for example) a governmental single payer system and another will propose cutting healthcare regulations. Both, in a vacuum, can be seen as entirely reasonable responses to the same fact of reality (uninsured Americans) and motivated by the same desire (to help those people). Yet the method of dealing with the problem is very different.
An examination of violent crime will have some people advocating gun control and other people advocating mandatory arming. Both, when proposed by sincere individuals, are intended to achieve the same end, yet their methods are different.
WHY are their methods different?
There are many reasons. But all of them come down for the most part to certain aspects of their respective internalized belief systems that they accept uncritically and seldom if ever question.
These belief systems, even if not explicitly stated, contain answers to the exact same questions answered by religion, and they are as well supported. That is, they are accepted on faith and then the facts of reality that are observed are cherry-picked to reinforce that faith.
Examples include: is Man innately good and can, for the most part, be trusted to do the right thing? Or is Man innately evil and requires a system of penalties to incentivize proper behavior?
What IS the right thing? Is it right to steal? Why or why not? Is it right to steal an apple to save a starving child? Is it right to eat someone if you are stranded on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean? How do we know what is right? Majority rule? Some college professor? If 51% favor gassing all the liberals it becomes okay? If 51% favor stealing my money it becomes okay?
Though there is some minority of people (and a very small minority it is!) who have explicitly examined these questions and tried very hard to subject their own ideas to critique and base them as closely as possible on an objective reality; the cold hard fact is that most people accept these implicit beliefs -- the same beliefs for which religion provides answers -- on FAITH.
So even if people do not explicitly identify as members of a religion; the ideas that underlie their political advocacies are overwhelmingly faith-based (i.e. religious) in nature.
If Willy comes along and believes we should give to the poor because of his implicit beliefs and someone else comes along and says the identical thing based upon the Beatitudes; there is no functional difference between the two of them.
This is why freedom from explicit organized religion or belief in a supreme being (or beings) creates no difference in the main in human behavior. Humans are religious, even if it means they make up their own religion based upon ideas encountered by chance in their environment.
John, I always love your thoughtful responses, but it seems to me that you're simply using the word "faith" as a metaphor for not questioning your own beliefs.
Avoiding things that cause cognitive dissonance and faith are two different things, are they not?
I think what is moral is solely determined by our own sense of empathy, and the only reason why we have this sense is because we are a social species at our core.
Avoiding things that cause cognitive dissonance and faith are two different things, are they not?
I think what is moral is solely determined by our own sense of empathy, and the only reason why we have this sense is because we are a social species at our core.
If I believe that humans are innately bad, whether I got that from the doctrine of original sin or not doesn't matter. It is still a belief -- a religious belief -- held on faith.
Avoiding things that cause cognitive dissonance is a symptom that your beliefs ARE faith-based and could not bear the scrutiny of reality.
Narcissists and psychopaths abound. In fact, there is an extremely high correlation between psychopathic and narcissistic tendencies and financial wellbeing in our society. You cannot define morality in a society on the basis of empathy, because some people have none. And we can't always define it for ourselves because then we have a circumstance where those who believe using unprovoked force to achieve their objectives will walk over those who don't believe that.
In fact, one could easily see the entire purpose of government as a means of abolishing the non-emergency use of force within society; and thereby protecting those who just want to be left alone from predators.
But -- even that sort of analysis makes assumptions of right and wrong -- and assumptions of right and wrong when there is no way of objectively measuring them are just religion.
The fact I can't give each person's religion a specific name doesn't make it any less of a religion.
And if we are going to have a society in which people will be able to work together and trust each other, the minimum necessary commonality is commonly accepted moral beliefs. They can be promulgated by a priest, or via Fox News or implicitly in Heather Has Two Mommies, but common moral beliefs are required in the main.
But I think "faith" and "religion" should be more narrowly defined. I don't think belief systems should be labeled a "religion". Perhaps the end result is the same, but they do originate from different places. Belief in original sin and believing that people are inheriently assholes are two different things. 
I think there's a starker difference in regards to "faith". Maybe I'm biased in this because of my atheism, and maybe it's because I'm overly analytical in my thinking, but I gotta think that people have some basis for their values. Maybe it's wrong, and maybe it's right, and maybe it can't be tested, but I think people have some point of reference that they can point to, regardless of it's accurancy.
Maybe this is just semantics, but I'm of the view that beliefs shape religion more than religion shapes beliefs. Therefore, some beliefs can fairly be labeled as non-religious, even if the religious and non-religious alike can lead to the same conclusion. Chicken or the egg, and all that.