US Theocracy

[On Guard for Thee]

No - that is your prejudice talking. Take one example: the end of slavery on the UK was the result of activism by English Quakers. Numerous other social changes which you would laud were brought on by the religious people you deride.

You have made the arbitrary decision the freedom of the woman to choose is more important than the value of the life represented by the fetus. There is no inherent superiority to that arbitrary ordering of priorities. They fact that others choose a different order does not make them inferior.

It does when you think beyond the theoretical to reality. As has been shown many times, the religious fanatics who would disallow a woman the right to her own body and force her into an unwanted birth seem to conveniently disappear after they get done with their flag waving. And they also seem to want to stick their heads in the sand about the fact if you try to stop abortions you simply force women into unsafe situations to get them anyway.

[The_Squid]

the use of the Bible in Idaho's public schools "for reference purposes to further the study of" a variety of topics, including "astronomy, biology, [and] geology."

Please TimG.... tell us people who are used to scientific journals and texts how the bible will be a useful reference for the study of astronomy, biology and geology....

Edited February 20, 2016 by The_Squid

[bush_cheney2004]

Nonsense, August. There's no shortage of criticism of Islam and its beliefs here on the forum.

This thread isn't making fun of the Bible, it's asking how religious fundies have attained such political influence in the US.

Why talk about the US when Middle Eastern countries are way dumber? Because we expect better from the US, the most scientifically advanced nation on earth.

Lots wrong here, starting with a lack of understanding for religion in the establishment and development of the United States. "We expect better" is a ludicrous idea coming from the USA's oh so superior critics and detractors who have not done better even as they bash religion in the nation that has. Cue the reading from the Book of Genesis verses 1 through 10 by the crew of Apollo 8 as it orbited the Moon.

[kimmy]

Lots wrong here, starting with a lack of understanding for religion in the establishment and development of the United States. "We expect better" is a ludicrous idea coming from the USA's oh so superior critics and detractors who have not done better even as they bash religion in the nation that has. Cue the reading from the Book of Genesis verses 1 through 10 by the crew of Apollo 8 as it orbited the Moon.

Obviously "we expect better" from the United States, as they've set the bar for achievement in every area of human achievement for the past century or more. If Boges is asking why the United States is held to a different standard than the likes of Saudi Arabia, then I think the reason is obvious. We know those guys are dumb, and we know you guys are smart.

The astronauts on Apollo 8 might have been Christians, and the scientists and engineers that planned the mission and designed the equipment that made it possible might have been Christians too. But I strongly doubt any of them were under the impression that the Bible is a science textbook.

-k

[sharkman]

Nonsense, August. There's no shortage of criticism of Islam and its beliefs here on the forum.

This thread isn't making fun of the Bible, it's asking how religious fundies have attained such political influence in the US.

...

-k

Do you just make this crap up and sit back pleased with yourself?

Maybe you could start by defining what you mean by "no shortage of criticism', because that's not really any kind of bar or measurement, is it? There are way more anti-bible/anti-Christian posts and threads here than those critical of Islam. Just as there were many more Harper hate posts than Trudeau posts. It's just a fact. More people here hated Harper than JT, and the same people also tend to hate christianity more than Islam.

Also, this thread's intent meanders back and forth as they ALL do. It's popular here to find some topic on bibles and Republicans that some left wing hate site has dug up, and start a thread on it, but before long you've got bigoted comments and the like, just as with the anti-Israel threads. Let's try to facilitate some honest debate, shall we?

[TimG]

if you try to stop abortions you simply force women into unsafe situations to get them anyway.

This is rationalization: construction of arguments designed to provide a logical basis for what you have already decided you want to believe. It is like arguing that it should be OK to kill a 1 year old child in a clinic because if you did not make legal women would put themselves in unsafe situations trying to rid the world of the unwanted child.

Keep in mind that I am not against abortion. I am simply pointing out the arbitrary nature of many 'values-based' decisions and that you are really no different than the religious folk you sneer at. The only difference are the topics where you choose irrational values-based arguments instead of science or logic.

Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[kimmy]

Do you just make this crap up and sit back pleased with yourself?

Maybe you could start by defining what you mean by "no shortage of criticism', because that's not really any kind of bar or measurement, is it? There are way more anti-bible/anti-Christian posts and threads here than those critical of Islam. Just as there were many more Harper hate posts than Trudeau posts. It's just a fact. More people here hated Harper than JT, and the same people also tend to hate christianity more than Islam.

Also, this thread's intent meanders back and forth as they ALL do. It's popular here to find some topic on bibles and Republicans that some left wing hate site has dug up, and start a thread on it, but before long you've got bigoted comments and the like, just as with the anti-Israel threads. Let's try to facilitate some honest debate, shall we?

There are numerous ongoing threads full of discussion of the shortcomings of Islam, like the "This week in Islam" thread immediately below this one, or the massive 250+ page "Islamophobia" thread in the Federal politics section. As well as much discussion of Muslim attitudes and issues in many of the ongoing threads on Syrian refugees and Muslim migrants. That's not "crap", that's the truth.

If you can't find enough criticism of Islam here to suit your tastes, you're just not looking very hard.

And I think it's ridiculous that every time somebody wants to discuss Christian over-reach, this same "why do people pick on Christians? Look at what Muslims do!" complaint is raised. It's not a reasonable criticism, it's a deflectionary tactic from thin-skinned Christians and conservatives who would rather derail the thread than address the topic.

-k

[On Guard for Thee]

This is rationalization: construction of arguments designed to provide a logical basis for what you have already decided you want to believe. It is like arguing that it should be OK to kill a 1 year old child in a clinic because if you did not make legal women would put themselves in unsafe situations trying to rid the world of the unwanted child.

Keep in mind that I am not against abortion. I am simply pointing out the arbitrary nature of many 'values-based' decisions and that you are really no different than the religious folk you sneer at. The only difference are the topics where you choose irrational values-based arguments instead of science or logic.

It is much more reality than rationalization. Not sure how many times it needs to be proven strict abortion laws simply create unsafe abortions.

[TimG]

It is much more reality than rationalization. Not sure how many times it needs to be proven strict abortion laws simply create unsafe abortions.

So why are laws against killing babies? The same logic would apply. At its core anyone's position on abortion is driven by their mythology with respect to when life begins. This mythology is inherently irrational even if it does not involve a belief in a deity. Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

So why are laws against killing babies? The same logic would apply. At its core anyone's position on abortion is driven by their mythology with respect to when life begins. This mythology is inherently irrational even if it does not involve a belief in a deity.

The mythology is that just slapping a law against abortion is going to stop them, and not simply force them to be done under unsafe conditions which often threaten the lives of living, breathing women.

[TimG]

The mythology is that just slapping a law against abortion is going to stop them, and not simply force them to be done under unsafe conditions which often threaten the lives of living, breathing women.

Logic fail. A law against murder does not mean people don't kill. But we still have laws against murder because we place an value on human life. It is not a wrong thing to do but it is a *values-based* argument - not a rational one. Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Logic fail. A law against murder does not mean people don't kill. But we still have laws against murder because we place an value on human life. It is not a wrong thing to do but it is a *values-based* argument - not a rational one.

Sound logic: laws against abortion don't stop abortions, only further threaten human life.

[TimG]

Sound logic: laws against abortion don't stop abortions, only further threaten human life.

It would make no difference if your values said that a fetus is no different from a baby. I see a lot of projection going on when you criticize religious fundamentalists because they, like you, are unable to separate your personal religious views from rational science base decision making.

Values based decision making is at the core of human society and everyone does it. We can't and should not get rid of it. But should learn to understand that some decisions are based on values not pretend that they are based on something else.

Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Thread drift alert: the question of whether abortion laws are effective are entirely different from discussing whether the US theocracy and faith-based policies are happening/interesting/concerning or whether/how policies based on religious/other values are relevant etc. Try to stay on topic here.

[TimG]

whether/how policies based on religious/other values are relevant etc. Try to stay on topic here.

It is one topic because my argument is that many people who support abortion on demand do so because of their religious views and are no different from people who want to ban abortion for same reason.

IOW - too many secularists attack religious people for doing what they do themselves.

A country where policies are set by people who think we have to 'do something' about CO2 emissions no matter what the cost is no different than a country where policies are set by people who look to traditional religious for their values.

Edited February 20, 2016 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Ok - 'reasons for supporting abortion' also doesn't seem to relate to the OP directly. The OP was about teaching from the bible, so this appears to be thread drift to me is all I'm saying.

[On Guard for Thee]

It would make no difference if your values said that a fetus is no different from a baby. I see a lot of projection going on when you criticize religious fundamentalists because they, like you, are unable to separate your personal religious views from rational science base decision making.

Values based decision making is at the core of human society and everyone does it. We can't and should not get rid of it. But should learn to understand that some decisions are based on values not pretend that they are based on something else.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Argus]

History says otherwise, as the Republican Party has long been influenced by Christianity...since its anti-slavery founding.

Is there a single candidate for the Republican leadership Jesus Christ would respect and call one of His followers?

I think he would probably approve of Bernie Sanders. I can't think of any of the rest he'd have much stomach for.

[bush_cheney2004]

If Boges is asking why the United States is held to a different standard than the likes of Saudi Arabia, then I think the reason is obvious. We know those guys are dumb, and we know you guys are smart.

Nice try, but the development of sciences and human achievement has occurred concurrently with religion(s). Can't pick and choose just to satisfy an anti-Bible agenda.

...The astronauts on Apollo 8 might have been Christians, and the scientists and engineers that planned the mission and designed the equipment that made it possible might have been Christians too. But I strongly doubt any of them were under the impression that the Bible is a science textbook.

Yep, some of them just might have been Christians, prayed in school, and thought the Bible was far more important than any science textbook. Maybe the Bible documents very important history and elements that can't be found on the Periodic Table.

[sharkman]

There are numerous ongoing threads full of discussion of the shortcomings of Islam, like the "This week in Islam" thread immediately below this one, or the massive 250+ page "Islamophobia" thread in the Federal politics section. As well as much discussion of Muslim attitudes and issues in many of the ongoing threads on Syrian refugees and Muslim migrants. That's not "crap", that's the truth.

If you can't find enough criticism of Islam here to suit your tastes, you're just not looking very hard.

And I think it's ridiculous that every time somebody wants to discuss Christian over-reach, this same "why do people pick on Christians? Look at what Muslims do!" complaint is raised. It's not a reasonable criticism, it's a deflectionary tactic from thin-skinned Christians and conservatives who would rather derail the thread than address the topic.

-k

You seem to be under the faulty assumption that I said there are no threads critical of Islam. I think it's ridiculous that every time I pop into a thread critical of Christians or the bible, there you are goin', "Me too!" People that frequent all of the hate threads are people that are unbalanced in my book. And this is just one more thing that the internet does to people.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is there a single candidate for the Republican leadership Jesus Christ would respect and call one of His followers?

I think he would probably approve of Bernie Sanders. I can't think of any of the rest he'd have much stomach for.

I don't think it matters, but a Canadian Christian running in the U.S. election sure hopes so. Probably uses the Bible as a "textbook" too.

[Argus]

And I think it's ridiculous that every time somebody wants to discuss Christian over-reach, this same "why do people pick on Christians? Look at what Muslims do!" complaint is raised. It's not a reasonable criticism, it's a deflectionary tactic from thin-skinned Christians and conservatives who would rather derail the thread than address the topic.

And isn't that what happens in every Muslim thread? People bring up Christian misdeeds instead.

[Argus]

I don't think it matters, but a Canadian Christian running in the U.S. election sure hopes so. Probably uses the Bible as a "textbook" too.

So.... no.

[The_Squid]

You seem to be under the faulty assumption that I said there are no threads critical of Islam. I think it's ridiculous that every time I pop into a thread critical of Christians or the bible, there you are goin', "Me too!" People that frequent all of the hate threads are people that are unbalanced in my book. And this is just one more thing that the internet does to people.

So you don't think a law that says the bible will be used as a science textbook should be criticized?

You think the bible makes a good biology textbook?

[bush_cheney2004]

So.... no.

Maybe, but quite irrelevant to this topic. Jesus was reportedly crucified by the Romans...textbooks often document the Roman empire.

As a reference resource in education, the Bible, Qu'ran, other texts, symbols, spoken word, and physical artifacts developed throughout human history have a lot to offer. They document context, continuity, specimens, social development, "moral" purposes and objectives, etc., etc.

Anyone, even a devout atheist, who has spent just a few hours conversing with a well educated seminarian will quickly gain an appreciation for the historical relevance and impact of religious documents on the development of western civilization. It is misguided....no...it is ignorant... to believe that the Bible has not had an impact on science and history and should/must be excluded as a reference text.

Edited February 20, 2016 by bush_cheney2004