Does the president's religion matter to you? Why or why not?

[VNG704]

Originally Posted by cdlong

If he was a good politician who follows the constitution, he'd run it the same way as a christian, his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his decision making process.

I think someone living a certain way for soo long will effect their decisions on a subconciousl level. Most people won't be able to help it.

[lockhaim]

I am an avid atheist even after going to Catholic schools for 13 years. Just because I don't believe doesn't make me any better. If someone else chooses to believe in god good for them, who am i to judge what they believe? It doesn't matter what you believe in you need to respect what other people's views whether or not you after with them or even like them.

On topic, I also agree that it shouldn't matter what religion the president is (so no I do not care) because there is supposedly "seperation of church and state" so as long as his religion isn't affecting his decision making and he's making unbiased decisions unaffected by his religion I don't care what he does.

[EDacIouSX]

Originally Posted by Quail

I've never understood why such a big deal was made out of Obama's religion. I guess religion plays a much larger part of every day life in a much larger proportion of people in the States. But even if he's not Christian, so what. There are many succesful world leaders that don't practice Christianity.

Because of the things his minister? said at the church obama went to for 20 years. The racist stuff. Among other reasons, people speculate he is not really christian or whatever.

[Quail]

Originally Posted by EDacIouSX

Because of the things his minister? said at the church obama went to for 20 years. The racist stuff.

If I was judged on the actions and words of every one of my acquaintances, I don't think it would be a particularly fair representation.

Jeremiah Wright should have known his words would hurt his, and more importantly Obama's reputation, no matter how true he felt they were. I don't think they were intended as they sounded.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by theicecreamdan

He'd probably open a portal to hell and appoint satan to the supreme court. Then the senate would block.

Heh heh. That is funny.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by Quail

I've never understood why such a big deal was made out of Obama's religion. I guess religion plays a much larger part of every day life in a much larger proportion of people in the States. But even if he's not Christian, so what. There are many succesful world leaders that don't practice Christianity.

I'm not so sure. It seems (based on our country's history) a Christian president (as this dominated for centuries here) always kept it on the right track. You don't become a (relatively) respectable superpower with great citizens (used to be), by being anything but really. Look at Iran's president, Islamist, causing controversy. Mao Ze Dong, Stalin, Hitler (apart from occultism), all Atheists. Look at the body count.

I never understood how people can say Atheism will set people free. I believe (on facts) that Atheists have a larger body count than anyone. If they had religion, they never, would have embarked on these journey's. And you can not disprove that, cdlong.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by Quail

If I was judged on the actions and words of every one of my acquaintances, I don't think it would be a particularly fair representation.

Jeremiah Wright should have known his words would hurt his, and more importantly Obama's reputation, no matter how true he felt they were. I don't think they were intended as they sounded.

You don't attend a church for two decades if you don't believe what the reverend says.

[theicecreamdan]

Do you have to believe EVERYTHING he says?

[Origin]

Originally Posted by theicecreamdan

Do you have to believe EVERYTHING he says?

What I'm saying is, he attended a church. Which means he either believed in something or faked it. If he believed in something, the reverend, or the religion, he saw the reverend as his "mentor". Not directly, but he got inspiration from him, otherwise, he would have left. If you can't come to terms with a certain aspect of what he's saying in a place of worship, you can't be there. It's not a choice, it's the way it is. If he didn't believe in what he was saying, he wouldn't have supported him. So yes, he has to.

[cdlong]

Originally Posted by Origin

If you can't come to terms with a certain aspect of what he's saying in a place of worship, you can't be there. It's not a choice, it's the way it is.

So all this time that I've been going to church with my girlfriend has been against the rules? I wish I would have known I wasn't allowed in if I didn't believe what the preacher was saying.

[cdlong]

Originally Posted by Origin

I'm not so sure. It seems (based on our country's history) a Christian president (as this dominated for centuries here) always kept it on the right track. You don't become a (relatively) respectable superpower with great citizens (used to be), by being anything but really. Look at Iran's president, Islamist, causing controversy. Mao Ze Dong, Stalin, Hitler (apart from occultism), all Atheists. Look at the body count.

I never understood how people can say Atheism will set people free. I believe (on facts) that Atheists have a larger body count than anyone. If they had religion, they never, would have embarked on these journey's. And you can not disprove that, cdlong.

Sure, cherry pick a few tyrants that are reported to be athiests (some of which also reported to be christian), but that's not the point of what you responded to. There are thousands of prominent leaders that aren't christian that are worthwhile leaders.

Everytime I hear crap like this, I think of this hilarious comic.



If your second statement was true, an absolute as you put it, then no religious person would have ever committed atrocities, which is untrue.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by cdlong

So all this time that I've been going to church with my girlfriend has been against the rules? I wish I would have known I wasn't allowed in if I didn't believe what the preacher was saying.

You play the prominent role of an atheist. I never said it was against rules. Now you are twisting facts to suit your theory. If you have nothing to bring to this thread but your carcass, keep out.

[VNG704]

The religion doesn't have to be christianity, just one that teaches the diff between good and evil. With good being the way to go.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by VNG704

The religion doesn't have to be christianity, just one that teaches the diff between good and evil. With good being the way to go.

so people cannot lead moral lives without religion?

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

so people cannot lead moral lives without religion?

Clearly not! If you are not a religious person you are just a psychopathic serial murder, rapist, lunatic. I mean I can not stop either. If only I read the bible one more time, it probably would have stopped all this. Shucks.

[VNG704]

Originally Posted by BustedS13

so people cannot lead moral lives without religion?

Serious? We're talking about the president's religion and how it does or doesn't matter which one he has, correct? What are you talking about? Didn't you start this thread?

[ineedone]

Pa. monsignor becomes 1st US Catholic official convicted for covering up abuse complaint

Religion = morality.

[VNG704]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Pa. monsignor becomes 1st US Catholic official convicted for covering up abuse complaint

Religion = morality.

Just because you're a catholic or any other person of religion does not mean you're free of immorality. Good one ineedone. No one said it was absolute that religion = morality. Try, hard, to not take the words out of context.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by VNG704

Just because you're a catholic or any other person of religion does not mean you're free of immorality. Good one ineedone. No one said it was absolute that religion = morality. Try, hard, to not take the words out of context.

My point being that religion is just as dangerous as no religion. However, I would argue that you cannot necessarily separate the two (religion is, at it's core, a set of deeply held beliefs - so that can encapsulate just about anything). Morality is something that is determined by social norms, not by religion. In any case, being president requires one to be devoid of what most of us would consider "morality" because of the decisions that a president must make. I dare you to find a religion that says killing innocent, god fearing, humans is ever justifiable. You cannot. But, I would also dare you to take the stand that a president should never order military action because innocent people will die.

My point... it's all bullshit.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by ineedone

My point being that religion is just as dangerous as no religion. However, I would argue that you cannot necessarily separate the two (religion is, at it's core, a set of deeply held beliefs - so that can encapsulate just about anything). Morality is something that is determined by social norms, not by religion. In any case, being president requires one to be devoid of what most of us would consider "morality" because of the decisions that a president must make. I dare you to find a religion that says killing innocent, god fearing, humans is ever justifiable. You cannot. But, I would also dare you to take the stand that a president should never order military action because innocent people will die.

My point... it's all bullshit.

I read the first sentence and last sentence.

The point is this, a religious man (so long as it isn't proselytizing), will stop from committing those seven sins that are the basis for an immoral and potentially violent life. When provoked, a man that truly follows the religion, will not step over the line. Thus ensuring peace. Atheists, when provoked, will pounce. They are peaceful and caring (some) until the moment where they are backed into a corner and then do everything they can to eliminate the "threat" (I use the quotes heavily). They have no law because they have nothing to fear. This is true in all cases.

[mewantkouki]

The cake is a lie.

[cdlong]

Originally Posted by Origin

Atheists, when provoked, will pounce...
...This is true in all cases.

All generalizations are false.

Seriously you love speaking in absolutes despite the fact that pretty much nothing is absolute.

[Origin]

Prove me wrong.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by mewantkouki

The cake is a lie.

The cake is a lie, is a lie.

[Highway Riding]

People will side with who they mostly align themselves with. I bet half the guys here would bash the current Potus if he had a riced out S13 with Vardogs and woowoo muffler gadget. See where i went. Loose analogy 100% but the point is justification and how justification is reached! BS sure but this will always be a problem because the way people demean each other especially in a country where we tolerate all religions and are growing faster than a boner a strip club.

[cdlong]

Originally Posted by Origin

Prove me wrong.

I've been provoked and never pounced. Done.

Or if you would like something else, GW Bush is clearly more religious than Obama. GW Bush started two wars (disproving your assertion that religous people won't step over the line) where as Obama is working to end them.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

I read the first sentence and last sentence.

The point is this, a religious man (so long as it isn't proselytizing), will stop from committing those seven sins that are the basis for an immoral and potentially violent life. When provoked, a man that truly follows the religion, will not step over the line. Thus ensuring peace. Atheists, when provoked, will pounce. They are peaceful and caring (some) until the moment where they are backed into a corner and then do everything they can to eliminate the "threat" (I use the quotes heavily). They have no law because they have nothing to fear. This is true in all cases.

Uh... what? If I was going to follow your... ehm "logic?"... when what about the sins that require no provocation? Do only religious people no how not to pounce on a sin of sloth? Yeah...

As for Atheists what makes them so pre disposed to uncontrollable violent outbursts? It must be because they do not believe dinosaurs and men were around at the same time (only logical explanation).

You do realize that the law was not created from religion right? Like, stealing being illegal is not something some God wrote in the sand and everyone was all like... oh shoot, that makes sense. Religious "law" is something that was created to supplement/expand/retract natural law. Without getting into the history of it, religious law has often been on the wrong side of natural/moral law (slavery Ok in most religions, Women are property in most religions, you can kill your children for being brats in Christianity - I could go on, but really this should not be any thing new to anyone).

You know what I just realized... I just wasted a couple of minutes trying to make sense out of some random dribble from someone who is from the Phelps Westboro style of thinking. PS. the internet is of the devil, you should probably stay off it... god might hate you.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by cdlong

I've been provoked and never pounced. Done.

Or if you would like something else, GW Bush is clearly more religious than Obama. GW Bush started two wars (disproving your assertion that religous people won't step over the line) where as Obama is working to end them.

You are another who has a tough time comprehending. Please, try harder.

I said true followers. That should be about 6 percent of the total world if you really think about it. The point is it's low.

Please don't show your stupidity about the subject of Obama trying to get re-elected. You clearly haven't heard about his plans to move missions into Africa (where there is oil- Koni 2012? Uganda?), I'm sure he's really carrying for the soldiers. But as long as you get what you want, simple minded.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Origin

You are another who has a tough time comprehending. Please, try harder.

I said true followers. That should be about 6 percent of the total world if you really think about it. The point is it's low.

Please don't show your stupidity about the subject of Obama trying to get re-elected. You clearly haven't heard about his plans to move missions into Africa (where there is oil- Koni 2012? Uganda?), I'm sure he's really carrying for the soldiers. But as long as you get what you want, simple minded.

What is a "true" follower. Because last time I checked, religion (every religion) is pretty ambiguous when it comes to the shit your suppose to believe, do, not do, etc.

[Origin]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Uh... what? If I was going to follow your... ehm "logic?"... when what about the sins that require no provocation? Do only religious people no how not to pounce on a sin of sloth? Yeah...

As for Atheists what makes them so pre disposed to uncontrollable violent outbursts? It must be because they do not believe dinosaurs and men were around at the same time (only logical explanation).

You do realize that the law was not created from religion right? Like, stealing being illegal is not something some God wrote in the sand and everyone was all like... oh shoot, that makes sense. Religious "law" is something that was created to supplement/expand/retract natural law. Without getting into the history of it, religious law has often been on the wrong side of natural/moral law (slavery Ok in most religions, Women are property in most religions, you can kill your children for being brats in Christianity - I could go on, but really this should not be any thing new to anyone).

You know what I just realized... I just wasted a couple of minutes trying to make sense out of some random dribble from someone who is from the Phelps Westboro style of thinking. PS. the internet is of the devil, you should probably stay off it... god might hate you.

I do laugh (well just a thought mid-sentence, I normally stop reading your posts about the second line in) at this ability for a pissed off adult boy to just senselessly insult the other person when he's not getting his way. (Wrath). I don't even know what your first sentence means. So now I'm just someone spewing some random dribble? So you think you are above me? Clearly you think you are above the Phelps style of thinking. (Pride). I didn't know you knew where law was created from. You seem to know a lot, are you omniscient? I don't even know what you are arguing about anymore.