Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

....doesn't mean a politician becomes an atheist in office.

Seriously, that's how proponents of separating religion from government often seem to treat the issue.. Everyone has to pretend they're an atheist, as any expressed religious views are tantamount to government promoting a religious view at the expense of other religions...


Which is just ridiculous. I'd expect a Christian, or one of Islamic belief, or Jewish, or a Buddhist, or any other faith out there, to maintain their faith in office, and for that faith to shape their public policy.. It's unreasonable to expect them to switch their faith off, just because they're performing government work.

I'm sorry, what world do you live in?

Politicians of all political parties in all Western nations constantly speak about their personal faith and its impact on their political decisions.

Originally posted by cdtm
....doesn't mean a politician becomes an atheist in office.

"Seriously, that's how proponents of separating religion from government often seem to treat the issue.. Everyone has to pretend they're an atheist, as any expressed religious views are tantamount to government promoting a religious view at the expense of other religions... "

Excuse my French, Cdtm, but that is total b.s.

Here in the USA you cannot begin to have a snowball's chance in a hot furnace of being elected without stating your religion and it had better be Christian if you want any votes. An atheist, agnostic, non-religious or person of a religion other than Christian can't even get a whiff at holding office in this country.

I wish we DID have true separation of church and state. We have "In God We Trust" on our money, our Congressional sessions open with a prayer, Govt. money even goes to some religious institutions and religious schools - that's taxpayer money from people that that particular religion may even condemn if those people are of some other religion, no religion, or homosexual, and we're constantly dealing with religion encroaching on our public schools and legal system.

to be fair, the "in god we trust" or prayer things aren't really that problematic...

separation of church and state, as cdtm says, doesn't mean that the elected officials can't behave in a religious manner, but rather, they cannot restrict the religious freedoms of people in the nation. Having the word God on money hardly does that, unless your religious freedom is somehow infringed by it being there?

separation from church and state means you don't have to be of a church, to be of a state. You can be either, both or neither.

the only people I can think of that might have a legitimate claim against "in god we trust" on money would be those like Jehovah's Witnesses, who, afaik, think even modest forms of idolatry are totally sacrilegious

however, if the state mandated policy in such a way that it didn't offend any religious traditions, that would be a specific violation of church and state. (forcing society to conform to specific religious traditions). For atheists, agnostics or non-believers to have a legitimate claim that the word "god" infringes on their rights, they would have to believe something akin to religion about the word itself. The word God on money is in no way forcing someone to accept that religious tradition, and the economy itself is such an areligious space that it would hardly matter if currency was covered in religious iconography.

The only possible exception I can see would be if it cost more somehow to put religious symbols on the money, so like, if the government were spending extra to have "in god we trust" there, which would mean your tax dollars are going to specifically religious things, rather than just money printing in general.

Originally posted by inimalist
to be fair, the "in god we trust" or prayer things aren't really that problematic...

separation of church and state, as cdtm says, doesn't mean that the elected officials can't behave in a religious manner, but rather, they cannot restrict the religious freedoms of people in the nation. Having the word God on money hardly does that, unless your religious freedom is somehow infringed by it being there?

Behaving in a religious manner by an elected official should be a private matter, not included as part of his/her job. We don't generally open the business day at our jobs with a prayer - but a session of Congress is. And when the President accepts his job - he's sworn in on the Bible - can you imagine being asked to do that at your place of work.

Having the word God on money infringes on those who don't believe in a deity, but personally it doesn't matter that much to me. And no, I'm not an atheist.

However, my main point was - in this country (USA) you HAVE TO HAVE some stated Christian faith or you can simply forget about running for office. A non-religious person would have no chance whatsoever of gaining public office. Want to get elected to Congress? House of Representatives? President? - then you'd better get your butt to a house of worship and become a member el pronto - and you probably had better plan ahead - because a quick conversion might not be believable to the voters.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
And when the President accepts his job - he's sworn in on the Bible - can you imagine being asked to do that at your place of work.

President's are only expected to swear on a bible, it's not required.

They can affirm rather than swear, and Theo Roosevelt and one of the Adamses didn't use a bible. Nixon used two bibles for some reason.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
Having the word God on money infringes on those who don't believe in a deity

It's hard to call it an infringement. An irritation to a few people, maybe.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
Having the word God on money infringes on those who don't believe in a deity

how?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nixon used two bibles for some reason.

Power swearing, man.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
Having the word God on money infringes on those who don't believe in a deity. When phrases like "God damn it" or "Oh my God" are said by people don't believe in a deity, it infringes on the rights of those who do.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
When phrases like "God damn it" or "Oh my God" are said by people don't believe in a deity, it infringes on the rights of those who do.

http://unfollowingjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/atheist-sex.jpg

that isn't what everyone else says?

If atheists were actually interested in the scientific method rather than just sperging out over creationism, they would accept racial differences in IQ.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
If atheists were actually interested in the scientific method rather than just sperging out over creationism, they would accept racial differences in IQ. That's a topic that doesn't receive enough attention. Every God-fearing atheist with a brain knows black>Asians>Whites>Cubans>Them shifty Mexicans>Germans>Communists>Indians>Them Other Indians.

An Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress.
I guess Congress is God and it's own church

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
President's are only expected to swear on a bible, it's not required.

They can affirm rather than swear, and Theo Roosevelt and one of the Adamses didn't use a bible. Nixon used two bibles for some reason.


I am embarrassed to say I did not know that.

Thank you for the information, Symmetric Chaos.

Originally posted by alltoomany
I guess Congress is God and it's own church

LOL! They certainly act like they are sometimes!

LOL! I LOVED the cartoon, Lucius.

Originally posted by inimalist
how?

Actually Symmetric Chaos wording is better than mine - more an irritant than infringing on rights.

Originally posted by CloverQuick
Actually Symmetric Chaos wording is better than mine - more an irritant than infringing on rights.

fair enough

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, what world do you live in?

Politicians of all political parties in all Western nations constantly speak about their personal faith and its impact on their political decisions.

They don't in Germany....

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
If atheists were actually interested in the scientific method rather than just sperging out over creationism, they would accept racial differences in IQ.

I don't think anyone denies that. What gets often said is that it is not a true measurement of intelligence, and that it is culturally biased.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They don't in Germany....

Isn't Merkel a member of a party called the Christian democrats or something?

Originally posted by inimalist
Isn't Merkel a member of a party called the Christian democrats or something?

Yeah, but politicians hardly ever talk about their faith. It's mostly a name nowadays.

ah, my bad

Originally posted by inimalist
ah, my bad

No problem. In Germany we mostly go by the Abbreviation of the major parties anyways. I don't know if there's studies, but I wouldn't even be surprised if a large part of the population didn't even know what the initialisms stand for.

In Germany there are 5 or 6 main parties

CDU/CSU
SPD
FDP
The Greens
The Left (formerly PDS)

and that's basically what they are known by.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
If atheists were actually interested in the scientific method rather than just sperging out over creationism, they would accept racial differences in IQ. First of all, what defines a race?

Second of all, what scientific data do you have that proves there is a correlation between race and IQ?

Third of all, have you even done a google search?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KaY9AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=race+iq&ots=AK-nmmaqJe&sig=zICNePx7zeCABKJdp2AH7BXRrXM#v=onepage&q&f=false

The summary is of course that environment has a bigger influence than race and genetics. The argument there can be backed up by the fact that more black people are getting higher paid jobs and better qualifications. Although jobs and qualifications don't directly relate to IQ, having them as opposed to not having them, is an acceptable rule of thumb for having greater intelligence.

Fourth of all, why do all people who claim race and iq have a correlation happen to be white?

Fifth, lol, creationism. Most creationist critics are in fact people with basic scientific literacy with nothing better to do than to laugh at creationists.

Most scientists spend their time applying what they already know to find out new theories.

Theory, by the way, is everything that is backed up by evidence and fits with everything else to do with science, like a puzzle or equation.

To disprove evolution, would to basically disprove almost every other science.

Do ya'll think that Obama considers himself a christian? Or said that to get elected (based on the post that said you have to be a christian to get elected)? He has attended church I believe twice since he started his presidency. (not a necessary component of being a christian, i know, but pertinent information.)

Originally posted by lord xyz
what scientific data do you have that proves there is a correlation between race and IQ?

the last time I checked the data (about 4-5 years ago now), there was a persistent 4 point difference between whites and black that held even when the most obvious things were controlled for (SES, education, etc).

what this means, its mechanism, all that stuff, is still open for discussion, as is the issue of whether IQ score differences of 4 points (less than a standard deviation) are even worth noting as being functionally different.

Originally posted by truejedi
Do ya'll think that Obama considers himself a christian? Or said that to get elected (based on the post that said you have to be a christian to get elected)? He has attended church I believe twice since he started his presidency. (not a necessary component of being a christian, i know, but pertinent information.)

obama is obviously a muslim

one interesting thing: If humans did evolve from a bunch of different places, instead of a single pair of humans, it would make sense that there would be differences in things like IQ or athleticism.

we didn't evolve from a bunch of different places though

Another interesting thing: "white" "races" have died out at least twice already.

I read somewhere that the person with the highest IQ lives in Freeport, NY in a low income housing apartment.

Originally posted by truejedi
Do ya'll think that Obama considers himself a christian? Or said that to get elected (based on the post that said you have to be a christian to get elected)? He has attended church I believe twice since he started his presidency. (not a necessary component of being a christian, i know, but pertinent information.)
Reagan never went to church; the fact that Obama used to go to church all the time, and now that he's president he doesn't, only suggests that (obviously) he is too busy for that sort of thing now.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Reagan never went to church; the fact that Obama used to go to church all the time, and now that he's president he doesn't, only suggests that (obviously) he is too busy for that sort of thing now.

Or is was all for SHOW

Originally posted by alltoomany
Or is was all for SHOW
I'd give that about a 0.0001% probability, though I suppose it is possible. Personally, if my world domination plan required me going to church for 20 years, i'd say "screw that".

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'd give that about a 0.0001% probability, though I suppose it is possible. Personally, if my world domination plan required me going to church for 20 years, i'd say "screw that".

well it sure it pay off for him in the political arena

I would say the majority of politicians only go to church to look good, actually.

Originally posted by inimalist
the only people I can think of that might have a legitimate claim against "in god we trust" on money would be those like Jehovah's Witnesses, who, afaik, think even modest forms of idolatry are totally sacrilegious

however, if the state mandated policy in such a way that it didn't offend any religious traditions, that would be a specific violation of church and state. (forcing society to conform to specific religious traditions). For atheists, agnostics or non-believers to have a legitimate claim that the word "god" infringes on their rights, they would have to believe something akin to religion about the word itself. The word God on money is in no way forcing someone to accept that religious tradition, and the economy itself is such an areligious space that it would hardly matter if currency was covered in religious iconography.

The only possible exception I can see would be if it cost more somehow to put religious symbols on the money, so like, if the government were spending extra to have "in god we trust" there, which would mean your tax dollars are going to specifically religious things, rather than just money printing in general.

Grow up a Buddhist surrounded by bible thumpers. There are enough people of god that made fun of our traditions etc.

Personally when I pledge allegiance I never mention the god part. And the separation is to identify that your government doesn't choose a single religion.. Even if Christians dominate. It's to allow others to not feel looked down upon or separate from everyone else. Not just the atheist but Muslims buddhists etc