Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What makes a religion the exception?

Why shouldn't Catholic's be elected? The people knew they were voting a Catholic...surely they should have accepted that included a religious faith and anticipated what his position would be on things like abortion?

I seriously doubt anyone has run soley on a catholic platform. Catholicism is a religious perspective, thus it should have no place in politics. Socialism is a political perspective, thus it has a place in politics, by definition. Unfortunately, in the US, Socialism has been labeled as negative a political perspective as Communism or Nazism.

I'm not sayiing that a catholic shouldn't be elected, I'm sayiing any politician that runs on a platform guided soley by his religion should not be elected. Sadly, the current US administration marketed themselves as just that and still managed to win.

Originally posted by Devil King
I seriously doubt anyone has run soley on a catholic platform. Catholicism is a religious perspective, thus it should have no place in politics. Socialism is a political perspective, thus it has a place in politics, by definition. Unfortunately, in the US, Socialism has been labeled as negative a political perspective as Communism or Nazism.

I'm not sayiing that a catholic shouldn't be elected, I'm sayiing any politician that runs on a platform guided soley by his religion should not be elected. Sadly, the current US administration marketed themselves as just that and still managed to win.

Yet, why can't a Catholic political perspective be used?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yet both are nothing more than beliefs...

So why can you say political beliefs are OK but religious ones aren't?

We are talking of politics, so "political beliefs" have a place in that, being political and all.

Originally posted by Robtard
We are talking of politics, so "political beliefs" have a place in that, being political and all.

So...whats the difference?

Please don't say "political beliefs are political"

Originally posted by Strangelove
a) because there's no way of knowing that it's really the truth.
b) because some of the 'truths' in the Bible are rather undesirable.

also they usually get offended about it when someone badgers them about it like at work which is no place to be talking about that.I used to know this one guy who used to work with me that went around pestering people about how they need to read the bible.Its those kinda people that make people get annoyed with someone talking about the bible and religion.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So...whats the difference?

Please don't say "political beliefs are political"

Yes, they are both beliefs... do I really have to justify why "political beliefs" should be allowed in POLITICS, while "religious beliefs" shouldn't?

Well, they are. Also, the fact that any political topic could be debated for or against without the use of "because God says so", should be enough.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, they are both beliefs... do I really have to justify why "political beliefs" should be allowed in POLITICS, while "religious beliefs" shouldn't?

Well, they are. Also, the fact that any political topic could be debated for or against without the use of "because God says so", should be enough.

So...that should be replaced with "Because Marx says so"?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So...that should be replaced with "Because Marx says so"?

In politics, it could.

As I said, this is my opinion, that religion should be separate from politics, sadly, it isn't so.

Edit: Also, if someone brought up the "because Marx says so" in a political issue, that can be logically opposed, as Marx was just a man with ideas.

I don't see why though...

Politics is the government of a nation...if they nation has say, 30% catholics (practicing) shouldn't they have some form of political representation?

They would, as those Catholics would most likely have some political leaning, be it Socialist or whatever.

Originally posted by Robtard
They would, as those Catholics would most likely have some political leaning, be it Socialist or whatever.

Would that political leaning represent their religious beliefs though? Or are they strictly forbidden?

Not sure, guess it could go either way. One could argue that murder being illegal is religiously founded, then again, it is common sense/human to not harm others in a way you wouldn't want to be harmed yourself.

Like I said before, God should be for personal use, not used as a bludgeoning tool/scape-goat.

Let me give you some examples:

If you're against abortion and you'd use politics to stop someone else from having one, use the "it is essentially a human life that is being killed" (or other); not "God said though shall not murder" approach.

If you're against giving people of a different sexual leaning than yourself equal rights, just say "I hate *******", not "God said it's a sin".

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure, guess it could go either way. One could argue that murder being illegal is religiously founded, then again, it is common sense/human to not harm others in a way you wouldn't want to be harmed yourself.

Like I said before, God should be for personal use, not used as a bludgeoning tool/scape-goat.

Let me give you some examples:

If you're against abortion and you'd use politics to stop someone else from having one, use the "it is essentially a human life that is being killed" (or other); not "God said though shall not murder" approach.

If you're against giving people of a different sexual leaning than yourself equal rights, just say "I hate *******", not "God said it's a sin".

We should say we give ourselves these rights because we want these rights and not that some god gave them to us?

In this case the idea of a god giving us rights raises the idea to a higher level then just humans giving us the right.

It is appropriate to use the idea (meme) of a god to convey an idea, but, as you have said correctly, we should not used it as a bludgeoning tool/scape-goat.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
So...that should be replaced with "Because Marx says so"?

at least Marx wrote his own books.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
also they usually get offended about it when someone badgers them about it like at work which is no place to be talking about that.I used to know this one guy who used to work with me that went around pestering people about how they need to read the bible.Its those kinda people that make people get annoyed with someone talking about the bible and religion.

I can understand your point.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this man lies on more than two occasions in the spech, first by referencing the supposed TOP researcher in the field who just happens to call all of the subject he studies, IGNORANT{lol, how convenient, not to mention this person wudnt be the TOP evolutionary biologist if he considered his subject useless} and second when he says there are "utterlu failed to explain how non living chemicals can turn assemble themselves into cell", there is observable evidence of inorganic chemicals turning into organic ones and making up basic components of cell. lastly the claim of "insumountable barriers involving origin of biological information that arent gonna be resolved by more research". the first part is completely false as no such barriers exist {which is why evolution still exists as a theory, otherwise it wud have been discarded a long time ago, scientists arent collective idiots} and no mechanics innvolved in the genetic or chromosomal mutation that i know of provide such barriers{his sly comment on INFORMATION which is a well known tactic of creationists trying to confuse the issue by not defining what they mean by INFORMATION is not lost} . and lastly, unless he knows the future, there is no way he can claim that ANY AMOUNT OF RESEARCH isnt gonna solve these FALSELY CLAIMED barriers.

😂

Where? Where is the evidence that you speak of?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
LMAO at the video, what a pile of crap. making huge leaps of logic between scientific data and mystical interpretation including the same words{energy lol} and continuing on to "prove" the existance of god based on falsified assumption. and the icin on the cake in the end "if you cant agree with this logic than you are stubborn, unreasonable, and dont want to beleive in the existance of god" !!!!! my GOD your dum.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So, with all of our technology, laboratories, instruments, why hasn't anyone observed macroevolution?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Where are the millions of transitional fossils that substantiate the theory of evolution?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yet, why can't a Catholic political perspective be used?

I'm sure it has. I'm simply saying such should not be the case. Some members of the original founding fathers were of one religious perspective over another, yet they were able to see past that when the time came to write out the rules that govern this nation. Despite how things have turned out, I don't think it unreasonable for a person to hold a political office that places them in a position not to speak and act from their sole convictions. A socialist subscribes to a certain political perspective. But, as you say, how can a politician that proceeds from a religious one do so without imposing his own beliefs on others? But, such has been the case and such will continue to be the case. Politicians are expected to serve all the people, not just the ones that agree with them in their religious beliefs. And any politician that runs on a socialist platform can ony go so far outside the rules when it comes to actual socialism. Not to mention that in this country, they would never be elected in the first place. Religious convictions are much harder to define than are political convictions.

If I had my druthers, only atheists would be allowed to run for state or federal office; as any true atheist would not have a set of beliefs to force upon on his constituancy. Let religion flourish on the farm, but squash it before it takes the opprotunity to take hold in governing.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Where are the millions of transitional fossils that substantiate the theory of evolution?

Still looking for the crocoduck, are you?

Pay more attention.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive