America: Not religous enough

[Simba_2004]

It seems as though America is turning into nothing but greedy and fleshy people and the only religion that seems to exist anymore is the religion of "Its all about me." I've heard quite a few people say that everyone is a Christian in the USA, but guess what? That statement is not true. Very few in the USA actually practice Christianity on a daily basis. Just because they say they are a Christian does not mean that they are actually indeed a Christian. I have met people that claim to be Christians but show absolutly no Christian qualities. It is sad that America is backsliding soo horribly right now. The end times are coming a lot sooner than we can all expect. I do not believe God is going to continue letting the world mock Him for much longer. It is sad that so many go out claiming to be Christians yet ruin another unsaved person's life just for their own flesh and claim to have saved them. Man has no power to save, only God does. For example, if the entire city of New York caught on fire and only one person had a water bottle to put it out, would he be succesful? Obviously a water bottle could not put out a fire that huge, but if God came in, He could bring all the water in the world onto the fire to easily put it out. Imagine you as the person with the water bottle, what power do you have against the fire? None at all. But God on the other hand has all the water in the world at the control of his finger tips. That is us compared to God, we are nothing in His power. We wouldn't even put a dent in the fire, yet there are many out there who feel they could put the entire fire out themselves.

If you have hate toward the Lord because of another person that you have met or a "opinion" that you have read, then I apologize for their actions. God is full of love and would never do anything that would be bad for you. Only good things come from trials and testing. God is good, even though man has watered down His image, God is all-knowing, all-powerful. There is nothing He can not do. His grace is sufficient for everyone that goes to Lea and more. His grace is sufficient for everyone! If you have hate toward God or Christians, I challenge you this...for one day, look up. Don't jump to conclusions about God, just listen, don't be defensive in anyway when you hear someone talking about God. If they are saying that God can't do something or doesn't love you, then turn away from them but those who say they love God and God is good, I challenge you to listen to them for one day, that is all. If you don't feel any different about God, then maybe you are not ready, if you do feel different towards God, then accept Him, don't be defensive against God! He is your creator, He created everything, how on Earth can you defend yourself against Him? Pray to God and ask Him for forgiveness of your sins, ask God for help because He is there patiently waiting for you because He loves you that much.

off to Church...

Love,

Derek T.
John 3:16

[Nephilim]

Originally posted by Simba_2004
It seems as though America is turning into nothing but greedy and fleshy people and the

Because there's no such thing as a greedy religious person. As the ol' saying goes, "What Would Jesus Do About The Wealth Of The Catholic Church?"


God is full of love and would never do anything that would be bad for you.

Old Testament?


but if God came in, He could bring all the water in the world onto the fire to easily put it out.

Pretty poor example, seeing as you know... God's never stepped in and helped like this before. (Bible stories not included.)


Pray to God and ask Him for forgiveness of your sins,

You are too quick to judge and assume that we have all sinned. ;P

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by Simba_2004
I've heard quite a few people say that everyone is a Christian in the USA, but guess what? That statement is not true. Very few in the USA actually practice Christianity on a daily basis. Just because they say they are a Christian does not mean that they are actually indeed a Christian. ot believe God is going to continue letting the world mock Him for much longer. It is I have met people that claim to be Christians but show absolutly no Christian qualities.
That's true over here too, people will tell you that they're Christians because they got Christened and that they believe in God. Now I was Christened, but I'm now an Atheist, much to the dismay of my Roman Catholic grandmother but ah well. I despise religion, and I despise those kinds of religious people who try and put religion into every day situations, and I hate those kinds of religious people who try and force you to "join" their religion or faith. But those religious people who simply believe in God and go to church I have absolutely no problem with, as long as they respect my opinion to be atheist. I've been told that I'll go to Hell for being atheist and not believing in God, I've also been told I'm going to Hell because I'm gay, which annoys me more than upsets me. They ask me to prove that God doesn't exist, and I simply ask them to prove that he does, which they can't. Well, they try to, with the "who created us then?" idea. Yes, I find religion annoying.

[TX-101]

i cant belive this..

one thread:
Amarica = over religus?

second:
America: Not religous enough

WTF?
If you want to belive good, if you dont want to, good aswell.

[Only-now]

Well, I agree with you Derek. Im not religious, but I support what religion tries to teach, including Chrisitianity. We have been a Christian nation for a long time. Nothing is wrong with that, and it sickens me when people attack Christianity from every angle. When they attack us with this bull**** political correctness. They argue we are so prejudice against other religions and only represent Christianity...hmm...I wonder....THE MAJORITY IF OUR POPULATION THAT PRACTICES A RELIGION ARE CHRISTIANS! Then, they contradict themselves by attacking ONLY Chrisitianity. They do not yell at any other religious groups who happen to do the same things....they single out Christianity.

To be honest, I can guess where this comes from. It comes from the left, the liberal side of the world...which at the moment makes up a large part of it...and the part that does not like the U.S (or is jealous of us..as childish as that sounds, it's true). These people want to attack a besis of our nation simply because it is a basis of our nation. They want to pick and poke the United States in any way they can..and obviously since religion is important to many people, and many Americans are Chrisitians....you get the attacks.

There are probably plenty of other reasons as well why many people are straying from religion, or religious values...but I blame part of it on the rest of the world. It is what they want for us, because it is what they have. When I say the rest of the world, I mean the liberals. They look at the US..and have a dislike for some reason, so they want to attack one area that is important to us. If you look at a lot of the European countries...they are generally very liberal. They do not demonstrate the same religious aura, and so since we do..they want to get rid of it. It works in a lot of cases, because young people tend to have the same views, they get the info that the media displays, and hear the crap the left and the rest of the world spouts constantly and they grab hold of it. They want to be modern and "in" and not "old fashioned". They want to be with the rest of the world in that sense.

I hope that changes one day, because I believe the rest of the world is on the wrong path in that sense. I'm tired of hearing what they think, and Im tired of their views influnecing what we have to live with here, and their attempts to makes us more like them, simply because they are not like us.

I wish I could explain this better, but I don't really have the patience to organize all this out. It may sound like a load of crap to you, and I probably didn't clarify what I mean in all cases...but I do feel that our religious nature, is looked down upon by the world for some reason..and I do believe they try to attack and change that...not because they generally think something is wrong (though in many cases I believe they actually think religion is a bad thing)...but because it is a chance for them to attack something that makes up a part of the U.S.

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by Simba_2004
Just because they say they are a Christian does not mean that they are actually indeed a Christian. I have met people that claim to be Christians but show absolutly no Christian qualities.

Actually, words mean whatever phenomenon they are used to describe, and the majority is (usually) the one to decide that meaning. If the majority of people use the word Christian with the meaning "someone who calls him-/herself Christian" and nothing more, then that's what it means. Doesn't mean we have to like it, but that's more or less how it works.

So in a sense, that's the purest form of democracy you'll ever encounter.

EDIT>
Kiva: So it's Europe's fault you're running your own country into the ground? I'd say that that's more the work of the right-wing Christians than anything anyone around here does.

And in my experience, people outside the U.S. don't care about what religion you practice so much as they dislike/hate that you're sitting on a disproportionate amount of the world's natural resources and don't care who you step on to keep it that way.

[lion_roog]

Liberals can be Christian and religious, too...

[Only-now]

I didnt say they couldnt be religious...but when I say liberals, I am referring to those that are either a) not religious b) Don't actually pay any mind to their religion, but call themselves Christian or w/e.

I mentioned that. They don't really care about our religion, which is fine..that's how it is supposed to be. But, since they are so upset about w/e other reason..such as your claim you made...they then pretend to be upset about the religious situation and thus attack it simply because it is a "weak point" or because it is a "vital". Which points out the fact that they actually have nothing valuable or true to be upset about (other than us being so powerful, rich, or something else) and so they trump up something to legitimize their complaints. About the natural resources...I don't really ever hear your claim mentioned as a real problem...so basically what you are saying is that since we can afford to purchase and use so many resources (and so much) to run our economy that is currently larger than anyone else's...they are upset...even though we aren't actually doing anything wrong (jealousy in short).

Oh..and yes, I think my new stance will be anti European. regardless of any truth to my claims...I think I will blow it all out of proportion and trump up some claims to support my secret jealousy of Europe (which is also fake because I am not actually jealous of Europe). I think it is about time this board saw some anti European claims and sentiment instead of the large majority of anti American you see. So...thanks for the idea Ghamu...from now on, I am the anti European guy!

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by Only-now
Oh..and yes, I think my new stance will be anti European. regardless of any truth to my claims...I think I will blow it all out of proportion and trump up some claims to support my secret jealousy of Europe (which is also fake because I am not actually jealous of Europe). I think it is about time this board saw some anti European claims and sentiment instead of the large majority of anti American you see. So...thanks for the idea Ghamu...from now on, I am the anti European guy!

~Kiva

Except that, as I explained in the "too religious"-thread, directly comparing Europe and the U.S. doesn't work all that well. But it's fine with me, really. Though if you want to keep with the line that many conservatives in the U.S. go for, you should try for a bit more contempt and a smug "Well, you're European so you couldn't possibly understand" kind of sentiment being snuck into every comment about "us", rather than outright "Anti-Europeanness". :p

[Only-now]

I'll figure it out, don't worry. I'm not going to compare us either..I dont actually need any basis for diliking you all...just whatever somes to mind..regardless of truth, fact, etc etc.

~Kiva

[Juniper]

People are people and do what people do. I don't think it's a matter of religion.

[lion_roog]

Well, I think when it comes to religion and all, you have groups that will take it too far whether they are religious or not. America and Europe have different religious environments and influences that make each situation unique.

I think what people are more concerned about is the morals of society and the different cultures within it. Religion is just one aspect that affects morals, but being religious doesn't always mean someone is a "good" person...religious people can be "bad" and the non-religious can be good. But then can you really say that someone who commits acts that are "bad" are really religious? This is where I agree with Simba_2004, many people who claim to be Christian, etc aren't really Christian, etc...

I believe the real issue is where we draw the line...where someone who happens to be religious says "I do not like this, but I don't feel like it's my place to force others not to partake in it" and "I do not like this, and I don't feel like it should be allowed in society". I can use myself as an example (simplified form)...I don't care for abortion, but I don't feel like I have the right to say that other people should not be allowed to have one. This is where I think the main issue lies...how far should one allow their personal beliefs to influence the laws and cultures of society as a whole.

[Dare]

Originally posted by pntbll248
People are people and do what people do. I don't think it's a matter of religion.

True that, just as I believe that some people use religion as an excuse.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Wicked
True that, just as I believe that some people use religion as an excuse.

Religion is a very powerful tool...with the ability to get the attention of hundreds, thousands, millions, etc...

[Only-now]

I agree with what you say for the most part Roog...except for the part about choosing for society. Yes, it would be wrong if one person, or a minority ruled and country and thus made all the decisions based only on what they wanted. It is not wrong however, when the majority of a nation that is democratic feels a certain way and votes that idea into law. for example....if a minority of people were against gay marriage and we were in a country in which they ruled the government..then it would be wrong for them to decide that it is illegal for gays to marry simply because they didnt like it and were a minority. However, in real life..the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. We live in a democracy. So...if the majority of people believe it is wrong..and they vote on it..what they vote for becomes law. That is how it works, and how it should work. It is not wrong when the majority makes a decision and it becomes law in a democracy. It IS wrong when you let the minorities rule the majority for whatever twisted reasons..which you see many people support in the US and the rest of the world.

Oh...and I changed my mind about hating Europe and acting it out. It would take too much energy..and I don't actually dislike Europe. I can't compete with those who really dislike America and thus get all their energy from that. So, sorry about that...I know you guys are disappointed.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now
I agree with what you say for the most part Roog...except for the part about choosing for society. Yes, it would be wrong if one person, or a minority ruled and country and thus made all the decisions based only on what they wanted. It is not wrong however, when the majority of a nation that is democratic feels a certain way and votes that idea into law. for example....if a minority of people were against gay marriage and we were in a country in which they ruled the government..then it would be wrong for them to decide that it is illegal for gays to marry simply because they didnt like it and were a minority. However, in real life..the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. We live in a democracy. So...if the majority of people believe it is wrong..and they vote on it..what they vote for becomes law. That is how it works, and how it should work. It is not wrong when the majority makes a decision and it becomes law in a democracy. It IS wrong when you let the minorities rule the majority for whatever twisted reasons..which you see many people support in the US and the rest of the world.


I agree with that for the most part, however there have been cases where democratically voted in laws have been overturned by states (an example would be a proposition voted in by Arizona voters to legalize the use of pot for medicinal purposes that was later overturned by the state government).

But throughout the history of the United States, you see that laws voted into effect were later overturned or amended, such as laws dealing with segregation, slavery, women's rights, etc...maybe social progress in turn makes the majority of an earlier time incorrect and wrong while in the current time period of democracy. A majority at one point approved of segregation and slavery...or maybe it was the minority that approved of it. Maybe it was the majority in a particular region, since many laws are decided on the state level.

[Only-now]

That is the beauty of democracy...we can change our minds. Yes..at one point slavery was thought by the majority to be okay...but through time, that view changed and the majority now believes the opposite.

Right now people are agianst gay marriage. It is fine and completely legal to make a law banning it..just as it is perfectly legal that that same law be voted out and gay marriage be made legal in the future.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now
That is the beauty of democracy...we can change our minds. Yes..at one point slavery was thought by the majority to be okay...but through time, that view changed and the majority now believes the opposite.

Right now people are agianst gay marriage. It is fine and completely legal to make a law banning it..just as it is perfectly legal that that same law be voted out and gay marriage be made legal in the future.

~Kiva

That's what I really like about democracy...it allows for the change in society as it progresses...even though democracy is not perfect, in most cases it is the form of government that works the best.

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by Simba_2004
It seems as though America is turning into nothing but greedy and fleshy people and the only religion that seems to exist anymore is the religion of "Its all about me." I've heard quite a few people say that everyone is a Christian in the USA, but guess what? That statement is not true. Very few in the USA actually practice Christianity on a daily basis.

Following the religion in daily basis and doing everything the way your religion says is exactly what I think is being over religious. In that case you can't live your life fully or at least I couldn't get much out by living a way of Christian or the way of Muslim. I know some people it's way of living, but if it's so, they shouldn't tell other people what to do, just practice their religion so it wont effect on others. Let's let the people live as they want as long as they don't break the laws.

[Dyani]

I don't care if America is overly religious, or not religious enough. I care about when people are not open to other peoples views or just dislike a country for no reason.

Fortunatly, there are many reasons either side to dislike America or Europe. All based on either a person, a country/state or a group of people. Generalisation should stop here. Not ALL America is bad, just like not ALL Europe is bad. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I'm fed up of hearing about how one country is good and other is bad. Sounds like children calling each other names.

Believe what you want, say what you want, set on fire what you want. Just don't expect all of humanity to agree with you, or that your view/belief is the ONLY correct one.

Two phrases that will help you. Ignorance is Bliss. Love is blind. If you love a country, you will be blind to any faults. If factual faults are thrown in your face, ignorance helps you continue your love.

I apologise in advance if my opinion offends you. But... would you look at that... freedom of speech works both ways. Accept it.

[Tiikeri]

Originally posted by Dyani
I don't care if America is overly religious, or not religious enough. I care about when people are not open to other peoples views or just dislike a country for no reason.

Fortunatly, there are many reasons either side to dislike America or Europe. All based on either a person, a country/state or a group of people. Generalisation should stop here. Not ALL America is bad, just like not ALL Europe is bad. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I'm fed up of hearing about how one country is good and other is bad. Sounds like children calling each other names.
Exactly, I don't exactly think highly of the US, because of the times I've had abuse thrown at me by fat Texans whilst I was there. However I do realise that there are nice people over there and that is why I don't hate the US, because I know that not everyone is like that.

However as Kiva pointed out, most Americans dislike Europe and the UK in particular, I have no idea why, but they do. Maybe one of you could explain to me why?

But yes, xenophobia is childish and pointless. My opinion is summed up in Dyani's first paragraph, respect for other people/countries is what the world needs.

[Shadow]

congratilations Simba_2004 you have suscecfully read my thread tittle not read the content presumed i ditched amarica.

am just gona ask why ya whana twist my thread around like that ...no one and more less me ditched amarica abut god and all...your post dont really have a ground to be built on ...to me you sound like a priest who got offended by my thread and tries to make us all relgions " no offence"

myself dont belive in god... i have my reasuns but i nether hate him becuse its hard to hate something ya dont think excist our blame...

but here is what i think abut god if hed excist and will pop up when i die.

again this is opion and not saying he is anything but what i think.

god aint good god aint fair and god sure as hell aint the sloution.

god has not interfeard with anything "oh mirceles" well acording to me its all luck

and i dont belive god is testing you ether...tell me why would god taste a 1 year old kid lossing his mother and only has a 5 year old brother who has to take care of him.....why do god make a famely suffer so badly by letting them get hit by a truck our die of a desece?....

saying its a test is not an answer" acording to me"

so in MY eyes god dose not excist has never excited will never excist and if it proves me worng il tell him right to his face what i think abut em.....

hope you got your perpuse with this thread by twisting mine now am gona get back to my thread with alot of my friends who help me to understand relegion better

[Dyani]

I agree with you Shadow. If God is so omnipotent and benevolent, why the Hell didn't he stop the tsunami in Indonesia and Sri Lanka? What about those people starving in Africa? What about the genocides? What about AIDS?

This is not a Drill people. If you say its a test by God, then claim that he loves us and would want to save us all... I'd say BS. If the big guy loved us, why the Hell did he create so much sadness in the world?

If EVil is a human thing, that must mean Satan is a human creation and thus God. I think you have a lot of courage believing in something so hopefully. Faith is not easy to aquire and you are a strong, admired person for being able to have faith. I'd rather trust Science. Religion and Science are walking to the same destination, just from different paths.

[Only-now]

I didn't point out that Americans dislike Europe. I haven't met anyone before that has said they don't like Europeans...in fact I hear moe often how people who don't like the U.S try to compare us to Europe in terms of "Europe does it this way, so we should too!". If you ever hear an American criticize a European country, it is usually France. One because of how they think of/treat us, and also because it has become one of those things you joke about. Regardless, and though it is sad to say...a lot more Europeans dislike America than vice versa.

Anyways, I am tired of that too. No country is perfect, but I feel we get a lot of hate towards us simply because of our position in the world, our wealth, and our military power. All those things are things that we earned through hard work..and there is no reason they should be looked down on like they were given to us.

~Kiva

[Shadow]

and how ya know that Kiva? ya asked every europian and every amrican there is ? i dont belive that until i see a real rechared abut it...

and dont feel sorry for yourself christ your president is practikly the ruler of the world

as they say " The bigger they the bigger they fall"

buuuuuuuuuuuut how did we get in to this disccusion anyway? 0.o thought this was abut god and relegion with amarica...you tend to judge other countries Kiva...no one iv known have judge amarica so far but the obvieas stuff...


i think you feel instulted by eurpians for some reasun Kiva...becuse no post on this page nore the 2de has anything to do with Amarica vs Europe who suck the most...so ya didnt really have a reasun to post that right here...it just came out of the blue 0.o....i mean yeah ya could have nagged on our none realigus or realigus theam but you didnt do that eather...

[Nephilim]

Oh wow, this is slowly turning into a Americakkkan vs. Eurofags debate. :(

[Only-now]

*LAUGHS* Shadow! You are arguing agianst your own methods! I can't count the number of times I have had to defend America on this board, let alone the amount of anti-Americanism I hear on T.V, etc. I didn't say that there aren't any Americans that dislike Europe, but that I have not met any...and that it is far more common to see anti-American views and outbursts than anti-European ones. Even Americans criticize our own country more than they do any others.

Judge other countries? If you are referring to me criticizing them because of their stance AGAINST the U.S...then yes I do. I am tired of hearing how America is the evil of the world...how everything we do is so wrong...but at the same time we are expected to support everyone with our money, as if people are entitled to it. This thread is not about this, but if you want to turn it into something like this that is perfectly fine with me.

Um...this thread was bound to turn into this because it is ABOUT AMERICA. It is not my fault it turned out this way when people begin to criticize us for being more religious than Europeans, and that it somehow hinders our law making ability, etc. You get back on topic and I will.

~Kiva

[Shadow]

HA there we have it!

you think where criticizeing US for being more realgius then eurpians what kind of stuped statment is that? no one has "Critizied" amarica where talking abut it and our own opinions and for your knowlage as you may know a supporter for amarica and its relegion started this thread..might whana check that out..

[Nephilim]

SPOILERS: Criticising is not always a negative thing! This thread wasn't made to bash Americans, because some of you are lovely, rather to discuss the stance on religion. Thus, it shouldn't have to turn to an Amerikkkan vs Eurofag debate.

[Dyani]

Just a question there Only-Now... you talk of America as if it supports the world... look at the track record and it shows an appalling lack of support for other countries in need. As far as my history research goes, with the example of the Boxing Day Tsunami, the USA contributed a much lower percentage of its GDP (gross domestic product) than Australia, never mind the UK.
America = 0.026%
Australia = 0.255%
UK = 0.0443%
This means Australia contributed more of its total wealth than America... and look at the size and population difference, never mind distribution of people over the areas! America only looks to have more money than everywhere else beacuse of the size difference.
Anyway, America is not going to be the big boss of things for long. China is developing fast and will soon overtake America in terms of economic growth and power. Can you say *China World Police*? :lol: But they're smart, they wouldn't bother.

I'm not against Americans. I'm against certain groups of people and one person. America has many areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is a big bonus for me.

Sorry for offtopic. I'll do PMs now with anyone who wants to talk more about this. Keep on topic.

[Sadiki]

I don't have anything against people living in other countries, everyone is invidual person after all. the thing I don't like about US is the policy towards other countries and the way the people in senat and whitehouse or goverment think that they can do whatever they want... like in example what happend with Afganistan. UN didn't allow that yet USA did what it saw the best for themself.

the only things I hear people mentioning about US are:
policy towards other countries: well that is true, USA is using their position as top country as they want.
American's are over weight: Well it's part stereotype but it's true again that people in US have more over weight people than other country because of fast food cultrue.
American's are stupid: Well I think that prefers on most of people knowledge about stuff outside of US. Like there was a test made on 1000 schools ( or something like that ) where they asked people to put countries on the map... they were able to put china and Russia on right place but in example Afganistan and Iraq were wrong with nearly 80%. Also over 60% of people thought that people in China speak English as first language. ( the test was made for teenagers in age of 14-18 )
Over Religious: That has to have something to do with the fact that word "God" is used so often in speaches president makes, like " God loves America" or dollars say " In God we trust"

As things about Europe, it's kind of hard to say anything about Europe the same way as USA because the Europe isn't a country, but a continet, I mean if you say something about Europe it would be same as someone says something about North America. But I guess I can try to pick some stereotypical things from Europe that I know about.

Finnish are always drunk and they want to communicate as little as they can: well yeah it's true that people in Finland use the most alcohol in the world per person, but it doesn't apply on anyone (90% is actually used by 10% of population) ...and about being silent... well you get to judge that yourself as you want.
French are Rude to people who speak English: well I guess some are... but that can't apply everyone.
Swedish are blond and therefore they are retarded / stupid: well blond aren't any stupider than other people and what comest to all swedish being blond.. it's not true.
Spanish are fat and lazy: I think the laziness comes from them having siesta... and the fat part.. I don't know where that comes from.

so what I trying to prove with this... people are invidual... they base their opinion about other countries on stereotypes or what they hear about the country from other sources.

?(( I know this whole post was pretty much just off topic babling about Europe and America... I don't mean to start discussion about this, I mean to get you all back in the topic and stop blameing each other countries for something ))

[Only-now]

Criticism is generally bad actually..unless it is constructive, which none of this has been. I disagree with religion being a bad thing when it comes to it influencing the people in a nation. I know that Europe is not as openly religious like America...I don't really believe it is really a good thing. I think that the liberal attitudes many European countries hold, and their dislike of us leads to them using the fact that we are more religious as an "attack point". That doesn't mean just Europeans, but Americans who have the same mindset. People are attackng religion here because it is important and that is driven by people who do not like the U.S..some of which are in Europe.

I hope that is clear now. I didn't insult or make fun of Europe and no one made fun of the U.S...but regardless of whether the criticism is meant to be bad or constructive...I can disagree with it, and I can interpret it based on how it was said. So, I don't know what more to say. I never said Europe sucked, and I never accused anyone of saying that about America. I wasn't even making this an America vs. Europe situation. I mentioned that I believe the mindset many Europeans hold on religion, coupled with what they think of America leads to attacks on religion being so apparent here. I don't think Europeans exclusively hold this point of view...some Americans do as well, but I was simply pointing out that people who attack us for being religious are driving the "trend" not to be, which is apparent in Europe (and also holds a large amount of people that feel that way I mentioned).

~Kiva

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by Only-now
I think that the liberal attitudes many European countries hold, and their dislike of us leads to them using the fact that we are more religious as an "attack point". That doesn't mean just Europeans, but Americans who have the same mindset. People are attackng religion here because it is important and that is driven by people who do not like the U.S..some of which are in Europe.

You really should try to find a new word to describe the people whose views you don't like, seeing as how the U.S. is the only place where liberal doesn't mean "open minded." This forum is pretty international, and you're not presenting yourself in a positive light when you claim that the effects of open mindedness is something to be concerned about.

But anyway, where do you get the idea that Europe is somehow consciously undermining the religious traditions in your country? Sure, we wonder what's going on your side when we hear about stories like this one (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/18/happy_holidays/), but going from snickering at the insecurity of some belivers in the U.S. to attacking religion itself is a pretty big step.

And how many U.S. presidents have been doing the "devout christian"-spiel for the last 3 decades? All of them?

[Only-now]

You have already mentioned that, and it actually does mean open minded...it is actually derived from that meaning. What I mean is that liberal meaning "open-minded" influenced it being used to describe those people that want to change aspects of society. This matches when you have liberals supporting changes such as gay marriage, etc etc. Open mindedness is perfectly fine, but I dont support many of those changes that liberals support.

I don't believe that this is major objective of European governments and that they are behind it. I believe that the people in power, and many people in those countries (the ones that put them in power) dislike the U.S for various reasons, and so they are against things that differentiate us from them. What I mean is that the majority of Europe is not as religious as the U.S..because they dislike us, this is some ammunition for them when wanting to criticize our policies or how our country runs etc. Obviously they cannot directly influence it in most case...but being the popular belief in Europe...it is natural that is spread to other like-minded individuals in the United States that CAN directly effect our society here. So, no, Europe is not to blame directly...but most of Europe holds a viwpoint that others in this country pick up on, and then use to "attack" us. Which in turn, is supported by those same people who dislike us in Europe. I don't think it is anything like a conspiracy if that is what you are getting at. I believe it is popular belief held by liberals in Europe (that make up the majority) that spread to lliberals here in the U.S. I'm not blaming, just pointing it out...and suggesting that since a large area of the world such as Europe holds a view such as this...it is no wonder that it can influence other people within the U.S.

There have been PLENTY of Christian presidents...probably the majority...and I don't think that Bush is any different other than the fact that he mentions his faith in speeches...also perfectly fine.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Not religious enough? Are you serious? It's pretty religious as-is despite our 1st Amendment. We're not supposed to have a State Religion, yet it often feels like we do.


Originally posted by Simba_2004
It seems as though America is turning into nothing but greedy and fleshy people and the only religion that seems to exist anymore is the religion of "Its all about me."
That's a pretty broad statement to make. Do you have specific examples? If anything, I think America has improved throughout its history. We banned slavery, ended segregation, gave women the right to vote, increased scientific progress, etc. When were these good old days exactly when you feel America was better and more moral?

Additionally, religion does not automatically equate to morality, nor does lack of religion equate to immorality. Do you believe atheists are inherently immoral and selfish?


I've heard quite a few people say that everyone is a Christian in the USA, but guess what? That statement is not true. Very few in the USA actually practice Christianity on a daily basis. Just because they say they are a Christian does not mean that they are actually indeed a Christian. I have met people that claim to be Christians but show absolutly no Christian qualities.
The majority of US citizens are Christian, and do actively practice their religion. Christian fundamentalism has enough power in this country to keep gay marriage banned in most states. That indicates that they make up the majority of voting US citizens.

Additionally, you are not the judge of who is or is not Christian.


It is sad that America is backsliding soo horribly right now. The end times are coming a lot sooner than we can all expect.
Backsliding into exactly? Can to put a name to this paranoid fear?


Man has no power to save, only God does. For example, if the entire city of New York caught on fire and only one person had a water bottle to put it out, would he be succesful? Obviously a water bottle could not put out a fire that huge, but if God came in, He could bring all the water in the world onto the fire to easily put it out.
Convenient that he never does such a thing though. Can you cite me the occurrence of such a miracle in the news? A fire just going out? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...if there is a God, he certainly seems to have no interest in saving us from natural disasters, seeing as they happen all the time.


If you have hate toward the Lord because of another person that you have met or a "opinion" that you have read, then I apologize for their actions.
Those who feel America is too religious typically do not feel that way because of "hate toward the Lord." They usually feel that way simply because they have different beliefs. I, for example, am an atheist. I don't like that as an atheist, religion still has so much influence over my life and my country. I feel religion should be a personal thing, and that's not at all what I'm seeing in this country.


[i]Originally posted by Only-now
We have been a Christian nation for a long time. Nothing is wrong with that, and it sickens me when people attack Christianity from every angle. When they attack us with this bull**** political correctness.
No. This country was founded by Christians but it is not a Christian nation. It was founded under the idea that there would NOT be one State Religion.


They argue we are so prejudice against other religions and only represent Christianity...hmm...I wonder....THE MAJORITY IF OUR POPULATION THAT PRACTICES A RELIGION ARE CHRISTIANS! Then, they contradict themselves by attacking ONLY Chrisitianity. They do not yell at any other religious groups who happen to do the same things....they single out Christianity.
Who is "they?" Atheists? People who complain about the excessive presence of religion in our society as a public issue rather than a personal one? Well, as one of those people, I must say you've not done your background research. First of all, if I see other religions doing things that bother me, I do protest. However, in this country, there really is no radical movement amongst Jews, or Hindus, or Islamics, or any other religion to enforce religious teachings or practices in the government. It's Christians who are protesting gay marriage. Christians who are complaining about evolution being taught in science class. That religion is being singled out because they're the group that's so loudly pushing their religion upon other people.

And I know not all Christians do this, but there's a large enough number who do that give people like me reason to be frustrated.


To be honest, I can guess where this comes from. It comes from the left, the liberal side of the world...which at the moment makes up a large part of it...and the part that does not like the U.S (or is jealous of us..as childish as that sounds, it's true). These people want to attack a besis of our nation simply because it is a basis of our nation. They want to pick and poke the United States in any way they can..and obviously since religion is important to many people, and many Americans are Chrisitians....you get the attacks.
This is absurd. You can have liberal Christians and conservative atheists. And you're speaking of liberal views like they're some petty evil thing. Jealous of what? Of who? You say "we." Who are us liberals supposedly jealous of and why? There are liberals in the US you know. Why would US liberals be trying to attack their own country?


There are probably plenty of other reasons as well why many people are straying from religion, or religious values...but I blame part of it on the rest of the world. It is what they want for us, because it is what they have. When I say the rest of the world, I mean the liberals.
Um, there's absolutely no logic behind this argument whatsoever. The rest of the world is not liberal. There are liberal and conservative countries, and countries with a mix of both. There are countries that are far stricter about enforcing a single religion than we are. How exactly is the rest of the world responsible for liberal or atheistic movements in the US? My movement towards atheism was a result of science, not influence from other countries.

This is what I call overzealous patriotism. Pride in one's country is a good thing, but so much pride that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of an internal source of problems, and choose to blame them on everyone else instead on no real grounds, is not.

I mean England has an official State religion for crying out loud.


Originally posted by Tiikeri
However as Kiva pointed out, most Americans dislike Europe and the UK in particular, I have no idea why, but they do. Maybe one of you could explain to me why?
You guys sure do love making sweeping generalizations, don't you? What gave you the idea that most Americans dislike Europe? That sounds like an unfounded stereotype to me. I could just as easily say most Europeans hate America and then ask why.


Originally posted by Only-now
I know that Europe is not as openly religious like America...I don't really believe it is really a good thing.
Why? Why should more openness about religion be better? Like I asked the OP, do you think religion automatically equals morality and lack of religion automatically equals immorality?


Originally posted by Only-now
There have been PLENTY of Christian presidents...probably the majority...and I don't think that Bush is any different other than the fact that he mentions his faith in He tried to pass an amendment to ban gay marriage on a constitutional level. Which would be a violation of the 1st Amendment seeing as the only arguments against gay marriage are religious ones.

So yeah, I'd say he's a bit more forceful about his religious beliefs and working them into government than some of our past leaders have been.

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Only-now
What I mean is that the majority of Europe is not as religious as the U.S..because they dislike us

soooo your saying...just becuse we dont have a relegion...we dont lika ya?....

do you seriesly think europe goes like this ?

"hey whana join a relegion like Christianty?"

(nhaa all amaricans are that )

"ohh yeah right then i dont want to"


i dont know how you judge things out there but in Sweden we judge folks baised upon there actions not relegion nore an other thing...

becuse saying we whole freaking europe judge you becuse you have a realgion and we not is the dumbest thing iv ever heard!

il tell you one thing where the most relegious friendly country there is!

in school is one easy way to see it we dont alow caps and other headwear in the classroom but we do allow a girl from islam wearing her headwear becouse its a part of her realegion the same goes for any other with a relegion that demands you whearing headwear or a cross or whatever

So dont you come and say we disslike you for having a realgion becuse we sure as hell wouldent let the realgious ones wearing headwears in the class room while all the other kids who wears caps and other headwhere without a realgion have to sit there and take that they are not alod a headwhere becuse there not a part of a relegion who demands it!


and thats only an exampel! last time i checked those who have to pray 3 times aday are alod to aswel despite work or school!.

so dont come here saying we dont like you becuse your relgius if we would have the slightest thing agesnt you we wouldent bend our own rules to help your realgius belives would we?...

[Sadiki]

I was wondering the same thing as Shadow.. I don't think anyone is not religious because they think US is religious, I think it's just because they don't believe in anything or believe in something diffrend than any christian subclass. ( which this topic seems to be about, not saying there isn't any other religions )

I think a lot of countries in Europe have just came to realise that goverment and religions can't be connected in anyway and in my opinion they really shouldn't, because if laws are made based on in example christianity then it will be unfair for those who have diffrend belieaf. Like in example gay marriage that has been talked a lot on this forum, if christianity doesn't allow that it doesn't mean that rest of the people should suffer from what some religions is teaching for their followers. I mean I don't really beleave in any higher power.. and if I was gay and wanted to marry someone, I bet I would be pretty pissed off if some christian would come to tell me that " you can't get married beacuse god doesn't allow gay marriages " Who cares if Christian god doesn't allow it? that should only effect on people who are christian and even if christian gay people want to get married they should be able to just not in church because as being god's room and the fact that The Bible says about gay people it can't be tolarated there.

so yeah, that statement is just bunch of ****. No body really hates US because it's religions even it might seem so because people judge US using god in their speaches to cause propaganda and get support for their warfares...


And yes that is the way I see it from over here and it's also just my opinion.

[Stormfury]

Off-Topic:


Originally posted by Only-now
If you ever hear an American criticize a European country, it is usually France. One because of how they think of/treat us, and also because it has become one of those things you joke about. Regardless, and though it is sad to say...a lot more Europeans dislike America than vice versa.

They like us... we gave them Jerry Lewis "Crazy Lady!" ... :secret:


Originally posted by Dyani
America is not going to be the big boss of things for long. China is developing fast and will soon overtake America in terms of economic growth and power. Can you say *China World Police*? :lol: But they're smart, they wouldn't bother.

No, we'll just retire and collect the money! :evilgrin: :D

[Kiara Serengeti]

Yes, America is not nearly as religious as it once was. There's "atheists", Christians who really aren't Christian, and those with other beliefs. Many Christians claim non-Christians are poisoning the world, and some with warped beliefs or those who force beliefs are. But Christians force their religion and have prejudice too, like never before. There are preachers (like Paula White) who are loaded with money, have huge, expensive churches and clothes, and they get up there and preach about being humble and generous! Then many (not all) Catholic priests--which I am--preach all about respecting life, but they never actually speak out against abortion. In fact, our pastor told this woman who was a guest teaching a class at the Catholic school about abortion and he said to her "don't use the word, abortion!" And I've seen many priests and heard many homilies (sermons)--the homilies are often empty and stale. Love God and man and you'll go to heaven is well enough, but we hear it almost every Sunday. The priests give the people what they want, because they don't want to consider whether they believe abortion is wrong or not--it might make them uncomfortable! Ok, I'll shut up now.

Or how about hypocrisy? Remove the Ten Commandments from a courtyard and Christians are outraged! Plan to build a mosque--this happened near my town--and Christians turn around and try to keep that from being removed.

There is only a minority of true Christians today. There's good "atheists" and bad "atheists", good Christians and bad ones. We who are good all just have to pull together and fight evil.

[Only-now]

I'm done with this topic because I am seeing that point where things are going to take a turn towards the explanation of every word, and every phrase...and I HATE that type of discussion.

1) I did not say that we have a state religion, nor should we. Christian nation refers to the fact that the majority of our nation is populated by Christians. It is the major religion in this country.

2) I was not referring to Atheists..I was referring to the left. I am not talking about people protesting back against Christian protests. I am talking about things such as not being able to display nativity scenes because it's "prejudice" or the fact that we have to take the word God out of every speech or inscription. THOSE are all attacks on Christianity and SOLEY on Christianity. They do not complain when another religion displays its beliefs publicly. They might instantly apologize to Muskims for something offensive (when they shouldnt have to)...but refuse to for Christians every time. There is a bias AGAINST Chrisitianity from the left.

This is just the type of thing I mean. Apparently when I say the left, people assume that I don't realize that things are not black and white. It is completely obvious that there are liberal Christians and Conservative Atheists. Of course, you have to look at individual views as well. If you generally are for conservative values and laws...I suppose you can call yourself a conservative. You can still however, hold a liberal view on religion. Secondly, this view against religion IS generally held by the left. It does not mean that if you are generally a leftwing person in many issues...you can't be a Christian. However, this view that religion is a bad thing, needs to be taken out of everything it possibly can be, insulted at every turn, and attacked constantly is NOT perpetuated by the right...but the left. THAT is where I get my view of this from. The people that have conservative views on religion, and are generally left wing are irrelevant. I am speaking of the LIBERAL VIEW of religion, that is perpetuated by LIBERALS...thus making it a left wing idea.

I admit, I believe I phrased my speech about the "rest of the world" in a bad way. I knew what i was trying to say...I posted a correction here I believe....or maybe in the other topic. I can't remember because we have two topics about the same things (someone should fix that). There is a large part of the industrial and civilized world that hold much more liberal beliefs than are generally present here in the U.S. Those same liberal beliefs that led to how Europe is today are also the same held by the liberals in this country. I am basically saying (not blaming, didn't mean it like that) that the libeal views on religion and other matters that much of Europe holds...are adopted by and influence the liberals in this country.

No, I don't think religion ultimately equals morality. I think it helped establish parts of it, and I think it influences it...but it doesn't establish it completely nor totally sustain it. Religion however, is a major part of human life. It always has been. It provides benefits for society and for individuals mental health. Really though, the discussion is not about what religion is. It is about it being allowed in public. You see, the left wing view is not one that says "destroy religion" (not yet anyways)...it is simply trying to supress it from the public. Why? Why is it a bad thing to display the major religion your population holds in public? Why is the mentioning of "God" in a speech a bad thing? Why is religious influence, or religion in general viewed as something that shouldn't be seen by anyone in public? I don't see the point behind it..and it certainly does not seem as if that is supporting free expression of your beliefs. Having the word "God" in a government building hurts no one...and doesn't defy or go against any law etc. There is no reason why it should be removed...when we have been poulated by Christians the entire time we have been a nation. We were founded by Christians...so why much we delete every memory of this from public life?

I don't think Europe is necessarily is hurt by what they choose to follow in that area..but it seems like it is just a step towards stamping out religion completely. I don't understand why it is so important to make sure that there is no symbol of religion in public or near a government facility when that symbol doesnt change anything. If there is no established religion, there is no established religion....the word "God" in an inscription in a building of the government does not change that. I don't see why something that has been such a major part of our nation should be erased.

Shadow....you just cut out part of my sentence and responded to it. That is not what I said...read the rest of the sentence before you try to twist my words to make me sound like an idiot. READ people....I did not say Europe is not religious because we are. I said that European countries that dislike the U.S attack us for being religious because that is a point at which we differ from them. They are less religious than us, so they attack us for being religious. It is just ammunition for them. That view of religion, and those attacks come from the left..and are perpetuated by the left....so it is no wonder that most of these countries that dislike us are also more liberal in government etc.

I am not arguing we need to be more religious..I am arguing that we need to KEEP our religion around....and STOP trying to dismantle and erase it from publis life. It is part of our country, it has always been..and it should stay that way.

~Kiva

[Shadow]

Originally posted by Only-now

Shadow....you just cut out part of my sentence and responded to it. That is not what I said...read the rest of the sentence before you try to twist my words to make me sound like an idiot. READ people....I did not say Europe is not religious because we are. I said that European countries that dislike the U.S attack us for being religious because that is a point at which we differ from them. They are less religious than us, so they attack us for being religious. It is just ammunition for them. That view of religion, and those attacks come from the left..and are perpetuated by the left....so it is no wonder that most of these countries that dislike us are also more liberal in government etc.





""I said that European countries that dislike the U.S attack us for being religious because that is a point at which we differ from them. They are less religious than us, so they attack us for being religious""


HOW in the world!! can you say like you are the all mighty that beuse you are more religus then "some europian country" (Note this time you said "those that hate us" you did not use it ya said all of europe did) anyhow you.....i miss words you just to get it...

am seriesly trying to form my words nicley here becuse i dont whana be rude and certenly have no reasun to but your twisting my head here..

so il spell it out for ya you cant say

""They are less religious than us, so they attack us for being religious""""

by the simple fact

1.your not eurpian.

2. you havent done any reacurch.

and finnely 3...thats the dumbest thing iv ever heard....

you can think! like that..YOU...can have that opinion..but you cant say that it ""IS"" like that becuse then youd figure out all of europe and you cant do that on 1 day let alone 1 person!......

your baseckly saying something like this...

"Amarica makes jokes abut sweden in the tv series becuse they have hot blond chicks"

now how can i possebuly know that ? its alot smaller and simplyfied but you get my meaning...

you cant say what and why for what a whole country thinks i seriesly have no idea where youv got



""that European countries that dislike the U.S attack us for being religious because that is a point at which we differ from them. They are less religious than us, so they attack us for being religious""


take a close look at what your typing lets say...ehhh...we all know Danmark hate amarica...

why we ask the question you answer...

""They are less religious than us, so they attack us for being religious""

seriesly! you cant say that ! you do not represent europe nore any country that might hate amarica for any reasun but i damn ensure you sweden and the rest of europe dont give a crap abut that your releagus if you so badly whana know this is what europe bullies amarica for "those who do it" witch may i reminde you are invevidual persons...""NOT A WHOLE COUNTRY HATES AMARICA"" (note i did not shout just wanted that to be seen clearly)

1. Bush

2.Bush starting a war

3.Amarica being over wieght.

4. Bush having stuped speaches (not saying all are but those he have)

i mean ...come on frakly none of us gives a rats *** abut amarica as long as they dont run in here....



but heres a tip for ya...(here the answer to Kivas post are stoping )

if you are sooooooooo carefull abut what other ppl think abut your country and realigun...dont get a presedent who represent realigon our Christiantey and sure as hell dont let him start a war (witch there has come good things out of to but thats not the subject is it?)

you chose Bush for president he toke on the role in gods name now you have to deal with the conseqonses of it....

its that simple...but hey Kiva i can print out a formalure run around in school asking folks " do you hate amarica" and if they answer yes " why"

il have around 2 folks who hate amarica and sure as hell wont complane abut they being realigus...

i mean...

?t almost sounds like this kiva

"gha amarica is more realogus then us...so now where black with envy..."


i do appoligase for any rude or personal offenice stuff iv said in this post i really dont mean to insult anything our anyone so if someone takes it to them il happly appoligase becuse this post aint for making someone feel bad.

also i appoligase for the real low quealety of my post its a pain in the *** to read i tend to use space insted of dots and futher on il really try harder not to use space but post as you shal sorry for making your eyes cry

[Sadiki]

I still don't understand why you prefer to whole Europe, there is really religious countries in Europe such as Spain and Italy as long as I know. Europe isn't like United States, you can't talk about Europe as a country, I say it again, it's the same as I would say North America when I would talk about United States or Canada.
I don't think religions should be removed or taken right off from those who worship something, it's just that goverment and church should be totally seperated. Not having any connections. What comes to Chrisitans discovering America, well yeah that was their belief but I have never heard anyone else prefering America been found by christians but Christopher Columbus and Spanish. ( well CC born in Italy and I beleave he lived most of the time before he discovered America in Portugal / Spain / Italy. ) what I try to say with that is that it's ok to keep beleaving on what they brought over, but sinse we are living in modern world some things that bible is saying are too haras and old fashinoate to belong in today sociaty.

I think Beleaf is your own personal thing and no one should judge you how much you do beleave on something by telling you that you don't live by the book... well as long as I know ( well on lutherian sub class of christianity at least ) it's enough for god that you do beleave, not that you do everything as it's tought in bible.

Added for Only-Now: yes I realised you used couple times wording "those Europian Countries " but you could just as well talk about those countries without inclueding Europe on it, because Europe isn't the only place with countries that dislike things US is doing as super power country and under name of god.

( in example US judges a lot of Islam beleavers because they do suicide bommings against US soldiers, well US is using god to create propaganda the exactly same way as they use Muhamed, and I don't mean to get anyone upset by that, it's just the way it is )

[Darkslash]

Why is it your opinion (Shadow and STM) that the US and its leaders operate with some sort of mandate from God? (in reference to:

STM: ...well US is using god to create propaganda...
Shadow: ...you chose Bush for president he toke on the role in gods name...
1) Bush is not the Pope.
2) Bush is no more outwardly religious in his words and actions than the average American president.
3) "God Bless America" is not propaganda.
4) America is not in a "Holy War" against Islam.
5) The Ten Commandments are not all of a sudden outdated just because we consider our world "modern." (Honor your mother and father? Ha! Screw that!)
6) There is an overall European attitude of disgust toward George Bush (if this is not the case, please correct me); which to many Americans translates into disgust toward the United States (our democratic tradition enmeshes our elected leaders with the country they lead), which explains what Kiva has been saying: as you've evidenced a general belief that America is "over-religious" due in part to George Bush acting, presumably, upon religious principles, and as you dislike Bush, it seems like you find fault in America due to its religious tendencies.

[Sadiki]

Well if I don't remember totally wrong in the beginning of war against terrorism, Bush was prefering Osama as Satan. Can be that it wasn't necesserily worded word to word like that but that is what he said and even it's not a holy war against Islam Bush is still getting support or at least did in the first place get support by using word "God" in his speeches. not just God bless America but also things like " God is on our side " and things like that.

And yes Bush is a jerk and not really a good choice for a president, but not anymore just by people living outside of US but also people living in US have finally came to realise what he has been doing. Like in example, going to Iraq was known in the first place it's gonna turn into another Vietnam so I don't even know why US started military activity in there.

I don't really think anyone should get rid off their invidual beleaf or anything like that, no I'm just saying people shouldn't be so black and white even if their religion says something, Religion shouldn't be your whole life and if it is, you should keep it only part of your life and not let it effect on others.

I personaly have very little against US, only thing I can think of that has made me really mad was Bush saying " if you aren't on our side, you are against us" so in another words being neutral or disagreeing the way USA thinks makes you automaticly a terrorist. I don't even see how people in position like USA President can even say such a thing without getting forced to step down from the seat... ( not sure if USA has such emercency law about president that makes sure that President can't do what ever he/she wants )

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
2) I was not referring to Atheists..I was referring to the left. I am not talking about people protesting back against Christian protests. I am talking about things such as not being able to display nativity scenes because it's "prejudice" or the fact that we have to take the word God out of every speech or inscription. THOSE are all attacks on Christianity and SOLEY on Christianity. They do not complain when another religion displays its beliefs publicly. They might instantly apologize to Muskims for something offensive (when they shouldnt have to)...but refuse to for Christians every time. There is a bias AGAINST Chrisitianity from the left.
...
However, this view that religion is a bad thing, needs to be taken out of everything it possibly can be, insulted at every turn, and attacked constantly is NOT perpetuated by the right...but the left. THAT is where I get my view of this from. The people that have conservative views on religion, and are generally left wing are irrelevant. I am speaking of the LIBERAL VIEW of religion, that is perpetuated by LIBERALS...thus making it a left wing idea.

You're still generalizing to an extreme. I have a large number of left-wing friends, I myself am liberal. None of us believe in specifically attacking or banning Christianity. You're referring to a radical minority, not the left as a whole and it's just downright offensive and ignorant to claim that this is a "leftist" idea.


I admit, I believe I phrased my speech about the "rest of the world" in a bad way. I knew what i was trying to say...I posted a correction here I believe....or maybe in the other topic. I can't remember because we have two topics about the same things (someone should fix that). There is a large part of the industrial and civilized world that hold much more liberal beliefs than are generally present here in the U.S. Those same liberal beliefs that led to how Europe is today are also the same held by the liberals in this country. I am basically saying (not blaming, didn't mean it like that) that the libeal views on religion and other matters that much of Europe holds...are adopted by and influence the liberals in this country.
You can claim this all you want but I see no evidence of it. Once again, my views were my own decisions based on my own experiences and were not at all affected by the views of other countries. Most Americans are downright ignorant of social and economic policies of other countries so I'm not quite sure how their "liberal ideas" are managing to affect us regardless of that. And how much time have you spent studying the religious practices of other countries, by the way? Where are you getting this information that most of Europe holds the same beliefs as liberal Americans and that said belief involves considering religion to be a bad thing?

No offense, but everything you've said on this matter so far reeks of conservative patriotic propaganda: Liberals have crazy radical views, liberals hate religion, liberal views are bad, other countries are a bad influence on America. It's so stereotypical it makes me sad. Where are you getting this stuff? Personal observation or a few websites making these absurd claims?


No, I don't think religion ultimately equals morality. I think it helped establish parts of it, and I think it influences it...but it doesn't establish it completely nor totally sustain it. Religion however, is a major part of human life. It always has been. It provides benefits for society and for individuals mental health. Really though, the discussion is not about what religion is. It is about it being allowed in public. You see, the left wing view is not one that says "destroy religion" (not yet anyways)...it is simply trying to supress it from the public. Why? Why is it a bad thing to display the major religion your population holds in public? Why is the mentioning of "God" in a speech a bad thing? Why is religious influence, or religion in general viewed as something that shouldn't be seen by anyone in public? I don't see the point behind it..and it certainly does not seem as if that is supporting free expression of your beliefs. Having the word "God" in a government building hurts no one...and doesn't defy or go against any law etc. There is no reason why it should be removed...when we have been poulated by Christians the entire time we have been a nation. We were founded by Christians...so why much we delete every memory of this from public life?
I don't think you really understand the left wing view very well at all. I, and all the left-wing people I know, frankly don't care whether or not it says "God" on our money or religious documents are displayed in a government building. My understanding was that they're there because historically, they influenced our legal system, and I'm okay with that. I personally don't like having to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (especially since it was added later), but I just don't say it. I don't feel it's necessary to start some major campaign to have it removed.

You're judging liberals as a whole based on the loud radicals who end up on the news a lot and it's a little offensive. Please open your mind and eyes a bit and remember that the rule "radicals do not necessarily = the majority" applies to every group, not just Christians.


I don't think Europe is necessarily is hurt by what they choose to follow in that area..but it seems like it is just a step towards stamping out religion completely. I don't understand why it is so important to make sure that there is no symbol of religion in public or near a government facility when that symbol doesnt change anything. If there is no established religion, there is no established religion....the word "God" in an inscription in a building of the government does not change that. I don't see why something that has been such a major part of our nation should be erased.
Can you provide me with some specific examples of what Europe is doing? The things I've heard, such as some European countries allowing gay marriage, sound more like an improvement of human rights policies rather than an attempt to stamp out religion.


Originally posted by Darkslash 2) Bush is no more outwardly religious in his words and actions than the average American president.
Did you miss the part where he tried to amend the constitution to include a law based on religious belief?


3) "God Bless America" is not propaganda.
4) America is not in a "Holy War" against Islam.
Technically you are right on both those counts, but it does make people like me a little uncomfortable when he includes statements like, "God is on OUR side in this war!" Many of his statements imply that this is a war of religions, or a war of our God vs. their "false God" and frankly, I just don't think that's right.


6) There is an overall European attitude of disgust toward George Bush (if this is not the case, please correct me); which to many Americans translates into disgust toward the United States (our democratic tradition enmeshes our elected leaders with the country they lead), which explains what Kiva has been saying: as you've evidenced a general belief that America is "over-religious" due in part to George Bush acting, presumably, upon religious principles, and as you dislike Bush, it seems like you find fault in America due to its religious tendencies.
I don't think it's just about him acting on religious principles. His excessive use of religious belief does annoy me, but that's not the core reason I dislike him, and my bet is the same thing applies to non-Americans. I have issues with his environmental policies, with some of his foreign policies, and with his questionable level of intelligence. If non-Americans dislike him, frankly, I don't blame them, I just hope they realize that he does not reflect the behavior or opinions of all Americans and remember that even though enough of us voted him into office (twice...I have no idea how) his popularity rating is waaaay low amongst even his supporters these days.

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Only-now
They are less religious than us, so they attack us for being religious. It is just ammunition for them. That view of religion, and those attacks come from the left..and are perpetuated by the left....so it is no wonder that most of these countries that dislike us are also more liberal in government etc.

I'm really not sure why I'm bothering reply to this, and I'm sorry Shadow that I've replyed to him, but I'd like to poke holes in his arguement.

Look at Iran. Recently, a lot of fuss has been made by America and the UN over Iran because of that country's Muslim populations loud hatred for America. You, as Americans are offended by this. You take their open demonstrations as a declaration of war. Have a look in their holy book (Qur'an?). They actually have a bit somewhere in there that their religion is the one true religion and non-muslims -infidels- should be killed. This is their religion. It is also shown in the Bible, the OT I believe, yet played down because its meant to be a benevolent book... yeah.
Anyway, you are being a hypocrite. You shout at these people for keeping to their religion, and yet you cry when people do it back to you?? Wow... are American Christians are that stupid/wussy as to fight back instead of being proud of what they represent?

They actually have kept to their origional book, as in they have to learn Arabic in order to read the Qur'an. No translated crap for them! People that need translated versions because they can't be bothered learning Arabic, are considered glosses for personal use only, and should not have any weight in serious religious discussion.

Eh, as soon as people stop being overly patrotic and either realise that America/their home country is not perfect, or shoot themselves, I'll be happy. I'm sorry I may be being a bit flamy in this post but I am not in a good situation at the moment and I'm angry at utter ignorance/ignorant people.

[Dare]

Originally posted by Darkslash


1) Bush is not the Pope.


Of course he's not! He's not even Catholic. XD
The one Catholic president people did flip out about...something about him possibly being a puppet for the Pope?


Originally posted by Dyani
It is also shown in the Bible, the OT I believe, yet played down because its meant to be a benevolent book... yeah.

I'm not really familiar with the Old Testament, as those are Hebrew scriptures and thus not ones that I was raised to follow/study...however, I'll assume you're referring to these?

Exodus 22:20
"He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

Deuteronomy 13:12-15
"If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities,
which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,
Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword."

There are other passages as well, I believe, but don't take my word for it. I yoinked those from a website, so the source could very much be biased. I'll have to crack a Bible open just to be sure.

I believe there are also some passages in the New Testament that can be interpreted as preaching religious intolerance (Luke 10:27), but this interpretation seems to contradict other Bible verses. Jesus can't seem to make up his mind.


Eh, as soon as people stop being overly patrotic and either realise that America/their home country is not perfect, or shoot themselves, I'll be happy. I'm sorry I may be being a bit flamy in this post but I am not in a good situation at the moment and I'm angry at utter ignorance/ignorant people.

Peace! When you're not in a good situation (which, I might add, I'm sorry to hear), threads like these aren't the best place to hang out.
Yeah, some people may occasionaly be ignorant and/or arrogant, but spitting fire doesn't really do much other than annoy/provoke them, ya know?...and then no one wins.
Take care of yourself and your situation first, and then bring enlightenment to others.
:hugs:

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Wicked There are other passages as well, I believe, but don't take my word for it. I yoinked those from a website, so the source could very much be biased. I'll have to crack a Bible open just to be sure.
Kind of off-topic, but if anyone ever wants to quickly find Bible passages online, this is a great resource: http://www.biblegateway.com/

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77

I don't think you really understand the left wing view very well at all. I, and all the left-wing people I know, frankly don't care whether or not it says "God" on our money or religious documents are displayed in a government building. My understanding was that they're there because historically, they influenced our legal system, and I'm okay with that. I personally don't like having to say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance (especially since it was added later), but I just don't say it. I don't feel it's necessary to start some major campaign to have it removed. Actually, "Under God" wasn't much of a historical part of American history. According to Wikipedia, the use of "in God we trust" wasn't added until 1873 on coins and 1956 on paper money (during the Communist era, which shows our propoganda attempts). Also, the use of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was only added in 1954. So they really aren't part of the "Judeo-Christian roots" many Christians try to claim to justify why they should remain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance

[SpiritWolf77]

Oh yes, I knew that Under God was added later (I think I said that in the part you quoted) but I didn't know God was added to our money later. That's interesting.

[Only-now]

Im done debating this, because no where did I EVER state that every liberal believes everything I am complaining about. However, if you were to look at the majority of people supporting these things I am against..you would find they are mostly liberals and left wing people. There is no way anyone can deny that there are people who have this viewpoint, and that these people are supported by the left and are given left wing media attention.

I don't think YOU understand the situation here. When a viewpoint's supporters are overwhelmingly liberal..that idea can be considered liberal as well. It does not matter if YOU as a liberal do not agree with it...or your friends don't.....those who DO support it, are liberals...thus it is liberal idea.

Darkslash phrased the dislike well, and you improved it Spirit. I am also quite sure that most Europeans who dislike Bush do not dislike him only based on his use of religious belief either. I believe that have plenty of other skewed and twisted reasons to dislike him, but they do not hesitate to attack him for the religious usage regardless. That is what I was saying. They might dislike us for "x" reason...but since they may not be able to "attack" us for that reason (maybe it is not a legitimate reason to "attack" a nation over), they instead criticize or "attack" other aspects that are different from their own country..such as the religious situation.

Listen Shadow....READ what I am saying before you go off on an anger inspired rant. You are completely missing what I am saying, and succeeding in twisting my words around. You can call me whatever you want..don't be shy..it will only make you look worse. If you want to participate in this discussion, then lose the temper and learn to actually comprehend what I am saying..even if you disagree with it.

Dyani...you didn't poke any holes in my argument. That whole paragraph about Iran doesn't even need speaking for. It is ridiculous and obviously wrong. To be surprised by the fact that Americans would be upset that a country is chanting "Death to America" is very...weird to say the least. I don't see many Christian nations gathering under a dictator and chanting "Death to Muslim Countries!". I do however, see many Muslim countries doing that in regards to not only the United States..but Europe as well.

What is funny is that you do not see predominately Christian nations attacking other nations based on our religion, with the stated goal of killing the infidels. Most Christians have moved past this...and have followed the message of hope, kindness, strength, and compassion that the Bible also teaches. They have gone away from the slavery, views about women etc that are mentioned in the Bible. I believe there are some Muslims who have done the same with their religion...but there are also many that actually state that they want to destroy the west simply because their holy book tells them that we are are all infidels and should be killed.

It doesn't matter if we did not have the statements about God on our money or in the pledge from the beginning. The fact that they were not argued against or challenged until recently says something. There is no reason why there should be a need to hide religion and remove it from everyday life. It is not embarassing..and it is not wrong. "In God We Trust" was added to coins because of religious sentiment and many letters written requesting it. I don't see how it was propaganda to add it to paper money? Unless you mean because the Soviet Union outlawed religion and all (how wonderful!).

Anyways, I am done with this topic now. I'm tired of all the crap. So...if anyone has anything else to say to me directly...tell me in a PM. I'm not going to answer an questions of replies here anymore.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

I find it interesting that you keep saying you're done with this debate, yet keep returning to post long replies. What's the point of saying you're done?

Originally posted by Only-now
Im done debating this, because no where did I EVER state that every liberal believes everything I am complaining about. However, if you were to look at the majority of people supporting these things I am against..you would find they are mostly liberals and left wing people. There is no way anyone can deny that there are people who have this viewpoint, and that these people are supported by the left and are given left wing media attention.
Sure, and I could say that the majority of people against gay marriage are Christians, but that doesn't mean it's equally right for me to say "Christians are against gay marriage." You weren't even bothering to suggest you were only referring to radicals, you were just outright saying "liberals" as if you were referring to the majority, or liberals in general.


I don't think YOU understand the situation here. When a viewpoint's supporters are overwhelmingly liberal..that idea can be considered liberal as well. It does not matter if YOU as a liberal do not agree with it...or your friends don't.....those who DO support it, are liberals...thus it is liberal idea.
So, since some Christians in the past have supported stoning gays, stoning gays must be a Christian idea, right?


Darkslash phrased the dislike well, and you improved it Spirit. I am also quite sure that most Europeans who dislike Bush do not dislike him only based on his use of religious belief either. I believe that have plenty of other skewed and twisted reasons to dislike him, but they do not hesitate to attack him for the religious usage regardless. That is what I was saying. They might dislike us for "x" reason...but since they may not be able to "attack" us for that reason (maybe it is not a legitimate reason to "attack" a nation over), they instead criticize or "attack" other aspects that are different from their own country..such as the religious situation.
You have yet to provide me an example that illustrates that Europeans in general attack America for being overly religious, and that these attacks are what're inspiring liberal beliefs within America. You're making a lot of leaps in logic with your arguments here. If other countries wanted fodder to attack our president with, I'd say his environmental and foreign policies are far easier targets, and I generally see foregin policy brought up far more frequently than anything else.

I don't know how you can make the argument that US liberals, in general, dislike religion because of influence from other countries. Have you done any research on this? You've not provided any basis for your claim.



It doesn't matter if we did not have the statements about God on our money or in the pledge from the beginning. The fact that they were not argued against or challenged until recently says something. There is no reason why there should be a need to hide religion and remove it from everyday life. It is not embarassing..and it is not wrong. "In God We Trust" was added to coins because of religious sentiment and many letters written requesting it. I don't see how it was propaganda to add it to paper money? Unless you mean because the Soviet Union outlawed religion and all (how wonderful!).
Do you know that the changes weren't ever protested until recently? I'd like to see some sources on that claim.

And I know you say you're done but I just don't believe that. In every debate I've had with you on this board, you always get to a point where someone points out flawed logic in your arguments, you get defensive and start victimizing yourself, and then you claim you're not responding anymore, but continue to do so as people continue to poke holes in your logic. I don't think you're "tired of this crap" I think you're just unwilling to ever admit your arguments may be flawed and based on some incredible biases against certain groups of people.

[Only-now]

Sure, and I could say that the majority of people against gay marriage are Christians, but that doesn't mean it's equally right for me to say "Christians are against gay marriage." You weren't even bothering to suggest you were only referring to radicals, you were just outright saying "liberals" as if you were referring to the majority, or liberals in general.

Well, I did this because I don't believe the liberals that hold this point of view make up a minority of the group as a whole. I don't believe they are the "radicals". I believe they make up large enough of a portion to not have to differentiate them as being a minority. Also...to clarify things...I do not mean that liberals are completely against the idea of religion...but rather they are against the public display of it. I think that a majority of the leadership, and people who classify themselves as liberal hold this point of view. I could be wrong of course. Maybe it isn't the majority...but from my experience, and from the direction in which the actual democratic party is going...I don't think it is weird or outrageous to classify those that are part of that party as followers of that party's ideals.


So, since some Christians in the past have supported stoning gays, stoning gays must be a Christian idea, right?

Well...technically you could classify it as that if you were comparing it to another group. In what we are discussing...the Democratic party has shown support of this viewpoint that religion should not be displayed in pubic/government. The Republican party has not supported it. Why is it then wrong to classify the idea they support and the other party does not as a Democratic or liberal ideal? I know there are Liberal and Conservative democrats...but generally the party is made up of liberal thinkers...while the Republican is made up of Conservative thinkers. I don't see how I am wrong to classify it as such?. If Christians supported stoning gays..and Muslims didn't....why would it be wrong to classify stoning gays as a Christian idea?



You have yet to provide me an example that illustrates that Europeans in general attack America for being overly religious, and that these attacks are what're inspiring liberal beliefs within America. You're making a lot of leaps in logic with your arguments here. If other countries wanted fodder to attack our president with, I'd say his environmental and foreign policies are far easier targets, and I generally see foregin policy brought up far more frequently than anything else.

I think I have made a mistake in explaining what I mean. The idea about religion we are discussing here is not a European invention, nor was it "imported" here. Left and Right wing thinkers exist everywhere...and this idea came from that side regardless of the continent or country of origin. I did not mean that those beliefs that Europeans hold...in terms of criticizing America for being too religious brought about the same beliefs here. I was stating...that Europe is generally more liberal than the United States. It holds views that the Democratic Party here (made up mostly of liberals as well) supports. One of these happens to be this view of religion. So...I believe that a large part of the world (Europe) holds the same liberal views that our Democratic Party supports here...thus they support one another belief wise. You will not believe the amount of times I have heard a liberal refer to the way "Europe" does something in comparison to how we do it. European ways have an influence and support liberal beliefs here.


Do you know that the changes weren't ever protested until recently? I'd like to see some sources on that claim.

Alright..my mistake. I do not know whether it was protested at all before now. However, I do know that it has become a popular criticism recently. It was not the center of media discussion, laws, or nearly as much criticism in the past as it is now. I also know, that it was Americans that asked for it to be put there...and as far as I know...they hadn't asked for it removed or complained about it until now. True..someone might have...but it was never as large an idea then as it is now.

I am actually going to be 100% honest here. You are right. I do try to point out that I am done with a debate because I feel I do not have a good enough reply to respond to the current situation. In some cases I DO actually get tired of the argument..or I feel I have said all I can and don't actually WANT to discuss it anymore. I think it is wrong for you to say that I react this way in every argument..as there are quite a few where I stayed until no one posted anymore and everything had been said. You are also wrong that my arguments are only based on biases..as if yours are not? No one is free from this. I do hold some emotional feelings towards certain subjects...and I do not have extensive knowledge on every argument I make. I go on what I see, hear, read, etc. I do look up information and try to present a decent argument. The other thing is that I have no allies on this board other than Darkslash. What I mean by that...is that the majority of the people on this board disagree with my point of view. So...it is easy to feel rushed, or overwhelmed and even to lose confidence in your argument. When you have 20 people telling you you are wrong...and presenting very well thought out points (even if they are wrong)...it is not so easy to remain strong and confident that you can "win". So...I will stop saying that I am done with a topic unless I actually am. I feel bad about reacting the way I do honestly....so I will try to fix that.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

You're not doing a great job of not making me think you're speaking out of personal bias rather than fact:


Originally posted by Only-now
Well, I did this because I don't believe the liberals that hold this point of view make up a minority of the group as a whole. I don't believe they are the "radicals". I believe they make up large enough of a portion to not have to differentiate them as being a minority. Also...to clarify things...I do not mean that liberals are completely against the idea of religion...but rather they are against the public display of it. I think that a majority of the leadership, and people who classify themselves as liberal hold this point of view. I could be wrong of course. Maybe it isn't the majority...but from my experience, and from the direction in which the actual democratic party is going...I don't think it is weird or outrageous to classify those that are part of that party as followers of that party's ideals.
Again, it would've been nice for you to clarify that this was your personal experience before and acknowledge that this is not necessarily a universally liberal idea. Additionally, you're now lumping liberals and democrats together as the same thing. Democrats are typically liberals (but not always) but liberals are definitely not always democrats. I'm not a democrat, I'm registered independent because I prefer to vote for issues, not parties.

So are you talking about liberals, or democrats?

If you want to make a good argument for something, generalizing entire groups of people, and being incredibly unspecific about just who you're talking about, is not the best way to go about it. It's offensive to those whom you're stereotyping and tends to suggest you don't really know what you're talking about and are just operating on a bias.


I think I have made a mistake in explaining what I mean. The idea about religion we are discussing here is not a European invention, nor was it "imported" here. Left and Right wing thinkers exist everywhere...and this idea came from that side regardless of the continent or country of origin. I did not mean that those beliefs that Europeans hold...in terms of criticizing America for being too religious brought about the same beliefs here. I was stating...that Europe is generally more liberal than the United States. It holds views that the Democratic Party here (made up mostly of liberals as well) supports. One of these happens to be this view of religion. So...I believe that a large part of the world (Europe) holds the same liberal views that our Democratic Party supports here...thus they support one another belief wise. You will not believe the amount of times I have heard a liberal refer to the way "Europe" does something in comparison to how we do it. European ways have an influence and support liberal beliefs here.
That explains it a little better, but I still disagree with your generalization that Europe is (which is not one single country at all) necessarily holds the same views as American Democrats (now that we've narrowed that down from "liberals.")

Once again, as I've already asked several times, can you give me a specific example or some source other than "in my experience" that backs this generalization up?


Alright..my mistake. I do not know whether it was protested at all before now. However, I do know that it has become a popular criticism recently. It was not the center of media discussion, laws, or nearly as much criticism in the past as it is now. I also know, that it was Americans that asked for it to be put there...and as far as I know...they hadn't asked for it removed or complained about it until now. True..someone might have...but it was never as large an idea then as it is now.
I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect the recent attacks towards religion being displayed in public circumstances are the radical liberals' (key word "radical") reactions to the fact that religion has become increasingly more forceful and vocal in our society lately. My dad can attest that when he was a kid, the evolution debate wasn't an issue, for example. He learned about it in school and no one complained. Additionally, the recent gay rights movements have sparked a reaction from fundamentalist religious groups. In general, it's a time of heated debate for both sides as a result of a number of circumstances, but the point is, the views of the loud radicals who want these things done do not reflect the views of all liberals, nor does it suggest at all that America isn't religious enough these days, since in comparison to American citizens as a whole, these people are a dramatic minority.


I am actually going to be 100% honest here. You are right. I do try to point out that I am done with a debate because I feel I do not have a good enough reply to respond to the current situation. In some cases I DO actually get tired of the argument..or I feel I have said all I can and don't actually WANT to discuss it anymore. I think it is wrong for you to say that I react this way in every argument..as there are quite a few where I stayed until no one posted anymore and everything had been said. You are also wrong that my arguments are only based on biases..as if yours are not? No one is free from this. I do hold some emotional feelings towards certain subjects...and I do not have extensive knowledge on every argument I make. I go on what I see, hear, read, etc. I do look up information and try to present a decent argument. The other thing is that I have no allies on this board other than Darkslash. What I mean by that...is that the majority of the people on this board disagree with my point of view. So...it is easy to feel rushed, or overwhelmed and even to lose confidence in your argument. When you have 20 people telling you you are wrong...and presenting very well thought out points (even if they are wrong)...it is not so easy to remain strong and confident that you can "win". So...I will stop saying that I am done with a topic unless I actually am. I feel bad about reacting the way I do honestly....so I will try to fix that.
I specifically said every debate I've had with you, not every debate you've ever been in. I also never said that all of your arguments are only based on biases, I said this particular one seemed to be based on biases, since you've been spouting stereotypes this entire time (you even made the incredibly biased generalization that liberals = democrats and the two words can be used interchangeably).

In any case, I understand and respect your frustration, just remember that it's only going to make people like me more frustrated when you make claims and generalizations without checking your argument for logical flaws or checking the background on your statements. Whenever I state something as a fact in a debate, I check to make sure it actually is a fact first. That way I avoid issues like this.

[Darkslash]

Recently, a lot of fuss has been made by America and the UN over Iran because of that country's Muslim populations loud hatred for America.
Actually, the anti-US demonstrations are fueled by the regime itself; the majority of Iranians are young and want a Western-style democracy.

@STM: We have impeachment of the president, but this will not happen to Bush, even with a Democratic Congress to do it. Since we directly elect the President (rather than selecting indirectly from Parliament), it is far more difficult (and far less desirable) to usurp the executive. The system is set up to force cooperation among many factions of government, whereas a parliamentary system is set up to allow multiparty coalitions to compromise, work together, break apart as necessary.

@whoever: Bush's approval is still around 48% -- despite the polls, which are worded a bit differently and increasingly weight Democrats. Even among his Republican supporters this support has not waned -- it's really a bit of a media play on words.

@SpiritWolf: No, I didn't miss that part about protecting the sanctity of marriage. It's actually quite silly that we even need to consider such an amendment (if this were an issue 50 years ago it would have been passed unanimously, with God all over it), but we've been forced to this point with the gay agenda/culture being pushed upon our nation so forcefully. There are some things worth defending, and the social structure of millenia is one of them.

Also @SpiritWolf: re: God in speeches -- Do you think Islamofascists are following a "True God" when they call for death to every westerner, including you? Honestly now... Saying "God is on our side" has been said for every war this country's ever had, what's your point/problem? If the majority of your country is monotheistic, and if you're fighting an enemy that has distorted the teachings of their own great faith, why not draw spiritual support and moral resolution from above? Heaven forbid (whoops, did I just say heaven? OMFG) you would be in charge of a country in time of war... some inspiration you'd be.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Darkslash @SpiritWolf: No, I didn't miss that part about protecting the sanctity of marriage. It's actually quite silly that we even need to consider such an amendment (if this were an issue 50 years ago it would have been passed unanimously, with God all over it), but we've been forced to this point with the gay agenda/culture being pushed upon our nation so forcefully. There are some things worth defending, and the social structure of millenia is one of them.
Oh don't give me that homophobic bs. There is no such thing as "the gay agenda." That's propaganda orchestrated by groups/websites who are terrified of society becoming tolerant of gay people because of their own bigoted "ideals."

he was not protecting the "sanctity of marriage." Marriage is not owned by religion, especially not by the Christian religion. Legal marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing, or do you believe atheists should not be allowed to marry either?

Homophobia and bigotry, especially blamed on religion, are not noble things so get off your high horse and recognize your own intolerance. Letting gay people marry will not disrupt the social structure except to force people like you to accept that not everyone shares your close-minded ideas.

This is precisely why I feel religion has too much of a stranglehold on this nation. People like you are exerting an influence over the government and actually encouraging intolerance based on a person's simply being different (especially about something that is not something they can choose), when our country claims to have risen above such a thing. I am truly saddened that views such as yours are still so popular in this country and I hope that changes soon and you people eventually realize how bigoted you are being.


Also @SpiritWolf: re: God in speeches -- Do you think Islamofascists are following a "True God" when they call for death to every westerner, including you? Honestly now... Saying "God is on our side" has been said for every war this country's ever had, what's your point/problem? If the majority of your country is monotheistic, and if you're fighting an enemy that has distorted the teachings of their own great faith, why not draw spiritual support and moral resolution from above? Heaven forbid (whoops, did I just say heaven? OMFG) you would be in charge of a country in time of war... some inspiration you'd be.
I'm an atheist. So asking me whether I think those people are following a "true God" is really rather pointless. I don't think anyone's following a "true god" because I don't think a god even exists.

The point is that evoking the name of God to draw the lines between sides in a war is in direct contradiction with Christian belief of a God who loves all his children. The Christian God is not a God who instructs his people to fight wars for him against other people, is he? It suggests a level of arrogance, intolerance, and a sense of religious superiority that I really don't think is appropriate for the leader of a country to be expressing.

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by Darkslash
.

@whoever: Bush's approval is still around 48% -- despite the polls, which are worded a bit differently and increasingly weight Democrats. Even among his Republican supporters this support has not waned -- it's really a bit of a media play on words.


How recent was that? about a month ago at least news over here said it has gone down to 40%. And while being in CA I have never heard good word about Bush been said.

I do have to admit that he have had hard decissions to make while being The President like after 9/11 and I don't think all can be blamed on him what has happened afterwards, but things he have done after getting elected again have been kind of strange in my opinion.

And about electing a president... I think President is always elected by citizens, even thought in some countries the voting doesn't always go as it should. ;)

( Yes I know this was totally off topic )

[Only-now]

Well I admit you have a point in that not all liberals are democrats...but the democratic party is largely made up of liberals. However, the majority of the time...I disagree with liberal viewpoints as it is. I tend to agree with conservative viewpoints that are held by Republicans mostly. I understand the dangers of generalization as well. I don't think it is weird that I interchange the two because as you stated..democrats are usually liberals..and the democratic party is one of the largest in the nation. Why is it wrong to then assume that if a large party of liberals supports this certain idea..that it just might be an issue that is supported by liberals in general regardless of party affiliation? That does not mean ALL liberals support it...but if the largest gathering of liberals supports it..then why is it wrong to assume that the liberal community does too?

Secondly...the Democratic party exists within the U.S only (though I know there are others that are similar in other nations)...but this idea is held by those in Europe as well? Since the Democratic party does not extend to Europe..but the liberal mindset does...why then is it wrong to assume furthermore that this is generally a liberal idea, perpetuated but liberals?

Although all people who call themselves liberals might not support this idea...it does not change the fact that it is endorsed by a very large representation of liberals in this nation..and is evident in other countries as well...countries that are considered to be very liberal. I never was out to say that ALL liberals feel this way..or that you must hold this ideal to call yourself one...but I do believe it was brought up by them, and I believe it is supported by a large part of their group.

My mistake too...every debate you have had with me. Maybe so...you are very well spoken in your arguments. I try my best...well most of the time...but honestly I don't do as well as I should and as well as I do when I feel more comfortable and less hostile. Such as when I have discussion on MSN with friends about issues we disagree one. Im not sure that my argument is based on a bias...but rather a generalization that seems to have some weight behind it to me.

I am not sure as to which fact I states however that you are referring to? I think that I failed to explain things the way I should have..but I never intended to present what I felt was correct as the absolute truth or fact.

Anyways...I need to go to bed now...tomorrow is my birthday and I am going places and such. So..continue this later then. No hard feelings.

~Kiva

EDIT: Oh..I missed some posting..I shall catch up later. =)

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by Only-now

Secondly...the Democratic party exists within the U.S only (though I know there are others that are similar in other nations)...but this idea is held by those in Europe as well? Since the Democratic party does not extend to Europe..but the liberal mindset does...why then is it wrong to assume furthermore that this is generally a liberal idea, perpetuated but liberals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party
I wouldn't be so sure about that

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
Well I admit you have a point in that not all liberals are democrats...but the democratic party is largely made up of liberals. However, the majority of the time...I disagree with liberal viewpoints as it is. I tend to agree with conservative viewpoints that are held by Republicans mostly. I understand the dangers of generalization as well. I don't think it is weird that I interchange the two because as you stated..democrats are usually liberals..and the democratic party is one of the largest in the nation. Why is it wrong to then assume that if a large party of liberals supports this certain idea..that it just might be an issue that is supported by liberals in general regardless of party affiliation? That does not mean ALL liberals support it...but if the largest gathering of liberals supports it..then why is it wrong to assume that the liberal community does too?
Yes, it is wrong to make that assumption. There is nothing that says that most liberals are democrats, just because most democrats are liberals. You're following the "a square is a rectangle so a rectangle must be a square" logical fallacy.


Secondly...the Democratic party exists within the U.S only (though I know there are others that are similar in other nations)...but this idea is held by those in Europe as well? Since the Democratic party does not extend to Europe..but the liberal mindset does...why then is it wrong to assume furthermore that this is generally a liberal idea, perpetuated but liberals?
Because that logic makes no sense. What is considered a "liberal" or a "conservative" view changes based on the time period and the culture in general. If a country is more liberal than us in general, then their liberal party will probably share the views of the radical liberals in the US. If they're more conservative than us in general, then their liberal views may even match our conservative views. There's no such thing as universal liberal views or universal conservative views.


Although all people who call themselves liberals might not support this idea...it does not change the fact that it is endorsed by a very large representation of liberals in this nation..and is evident in other countries as well...countries that are considered to be very liberal. I never was out to say that ALL liberals feel this way..or that you must hold this ideal to call yourself one...but I do believe it was brought up by them, and I believe it is supported by a large part of their group.
I feel like I'm a broken record here. Got sources? Statistics? Anything to support your claim that the majority of liberals or a "very large representation of liberals" in the US share this belief?

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash

@SpiritWolf: No, I didn't miss that part about protecting the sanctity of marriage. It's actually quite silly that we even need to consider such an amendment (if this were an issue 50 years ago it would have been passed unanimously, with God all over it), but we've been forced to this point with the gay agenda/culture being pushed upon our nation so forcefully. There are some things worth defending, and the social structure of millenia is one of them.

I don't really get your point. Society is always changing...today's society is not the same as it was 20, 40, 100 years ago. Hell, 50 years ago a good portion of American society was segregated...150 years ago slavery was a part of America's society (albeit with a different effect depending on what part of the country you were in)...But society changed in its progression...and it's still happening today. This time, though, instead of the color of your skin or whether you're a man or a woman, the hot issue is gender (not in terms of what physical sex you are) and sexual preference.

[Darkslash]

Perhaps I was too succinct... I specifically meant marriage/family system of raising successive generations.


People like you are exerting an influence over the government and actually encouraging intolerance based on a person's simply being different (especially about something that is not something they can choose), when our country claims to have risen above such a thing. I am truly saddened that views such as yours are still so popular in this country and I hope that changes soon and you people eventually realize how bigoted you are being.
Yes, because slapping the "intolerant bigot" label on someone just because they don't support the current social direction of the country is the best reason to marginalize their views, express dismay at them rather than debate the merits of their ideas, portray oneself as the victim of a supposed stranglehold on the country's policy, and generally to further the ideological intolerance you claim to uphold.

Good work!

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Perhaps I was too succinct... I specifically meant marriage/family system of raising successive generations.


Yes, because slapping the "intolerant bigot" label on someone just because they don't support the current social direction of the country is the best reason to marginalize their views, express dismay at them rather than debate the merits of their ideas, portray oneself as the victim of a supposed stranglehold on the country's policy, and generally to further the ideological intolerance you claim to uphold.

Good work!
The second someone starts talking about "the gay agenda," it's a clear sign to me what their views on gay people are. This isn't just a matter of "not supporting the current social direction of the country." Don't try to hide your views behind that double-talk. You're buying into homophobic propaganda which suggests to me you have a very set mindset on those of different sexual orientation since anyone who has done any unbiased/analytical research on the subject will quickly see how utterly insane and false that propaganda is.

Disliking and stereotyping an entire group of people based solely on sexual orientation is bigotry. You can't justify that with any claims about defending our social structure.

If you really want to try to claim I said anything unjustified about you, then go ahead and give me a reasonable non-religious argument (seeing as the laws of one religion should not apply to people who do not practice it) for why it's a good moral thing to ban gay marriage, or as you called up, "uphold the sanctity of marriage."

And I notice you're already going down the "future generations" route of argumentation. Gay couples do have kids, you realize that, right? Not with each other, but via invitro fertilization or adoption, the latter of which is actually a great benefit to society seeing as there are so many orphaned kids out there. Furthermore, not everyone is gay, there are still plenty of straight couples having kids (although not all straight couples have kids, so not being able to have kids is an absurd reason to be against gay marriage) so I promise you, the human race is in no danger of dying out.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Perhaps I was too succinct... I specifically meant marriage/family system of raising successive generations.

Ah, I see...I was getting a slightly different message...

Anyways, I happen to find a culture's system of decent, lineage, and marriage to be pretty fascinating. By contrast, many other cultures have lineage and decent systems that are easily more complex than ours. I actually find that many cultures have family systems that are more successful than ours in certain aspects, too (ours placing the focus on the nuclear family). For instance, in many tribal cultures, there are no such things as orphans. Every child is a part of a lineage or clan and is raised by their extended family instead of just a parent or two...such a system tends to make raising children and passing down cultural traits, morals, etc more successful. I also find marriage fascinating...especially how polygamous relationships benefit the community as a whole in many cultures.

If you look at marriage and family in America, it seems that while the basic family ideal (which the focus of society is mainly on the nuclear family) has stayed the same (correct me if I'm wrong)...marriage has had changes here and there. Some aspects of marriage, such as arranged marriages, have been defined by a person's specific cultural background and then changed in later generations as the idea of marriage changed through the generations. But the concept of marriage in society as a whole has changed over time, too. Evidence in this would be such things as Anti-miscegenation laws being passed in some states in the last 200 years and later repealed as society came to accept interracial marriage. Even though the idea of interracial marriage is widely accepted by society today, it seems that about 50 years ago and before that anti-miscegenation was pretty common in society.

[Darkslash]

So, SpiritWolf, to recap what you're saying:


I, because I for any reason oppose the agenda of the American gay community, am a bigot.
Because I refer to the trend as an "agenda" (since it is being forced through courts rather than legislated as it should be) am therefore a sheep who has fallen prey to propagandists.
I am "hiding behind double-talk" (? -- I think I've been pretty clear about where I stand)
The pro-gay message is "unbiased" and "supported by research" while I am simply making homophobic religious arguments because I feel like being biased and bigoted.
While you can give emotionally-based arguments and clever interpretations of our civil rights laws, I cannot base my opinion on any religious principle (which, by the way, you've assumed I do... this is not the case)
You feel your intolerance of my opinions (and your very personal vitriol) are "justified."

Really, you must realize it is difficult to have an honest debate about any subject when one goes about slinging such mud.

I don't need a "religious" or "moral" argument to oppose the extension of privileges to people whose behavior I don't approve of. It's really that simple. I don't believe we've somehow had it wrong for thousands of years.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Darkslash
So, SpiritWolf, to recap what you're saying:

[list]
I, because I for any reason oppose the agenda of the American gay community, am a bigot.
Because I refer to the trend as an "agenda" (since it is being forced through courts rather than legislated as it should be) am therefore a sheep who has fallen prey to propagandists.
For even assuming there is an "agenda" is an ignorant and intolerant acceptance of homophobic propaganda. Assuming you're referring to the famous "gay agenda" sites which make all these absurd claims about how gay people are responsible for AIDS, how they try to recruit children, etc.

There is no mysterious gay conspiracy. Quite simply, gay people want to be able to marry the people they love, and don't want to be treated poorly for their sexual orientation. There's no hidden insidious "agenda" there.


The pro-gay message is "unbiased" and "supported by research" while I am simply making homophobic religious arguments because I feel like being biased and bigoted.
I don't know why you're doing it, you'll have to tell me that yourself. I never assumed your motives, I simply said your comments were homophobic and bigoted.


While you can give emotionally-based arguments and clever interpretations of our civil rights laws, I cannot base my opinion on any religious principle (which, by the way, you've assumed I do... this is not the case)
The only case you can make for there being anything wrong with homosexuality is that "the Bible says it's a sin." Even this case is questionable, as I know many Christians who feel differently. There are no cases you can make in the realm of science or social stability against gay marriage or homosexuals. And when a law is to apply to everyone then that's what it should be based on, ultimately. It's unfair to enforce the rules of a single religion on the entire public when not everyone practices said religion. Again, do you feel atheists should not be allowed to marry as well?


You feel your intolerance of my opinions (and your very personal vitriol) are "justified."
Claiming I'm being intolerant by pointing out your own intolerance is a weak argument. I'd assume you're against racism. Would you consider that (being against racism) unfair intolerance as well?


Really, you must realize it is difficult to have an honest debate about any subject when one goes about slinging such mud.
The mudslinging began when you started bringing false, biased propaganda into the debate. I'm simply pointing out that such views are incredibly close-minded and based on false pretenses.


I don't need a "religious" or "moral" argument to oppose the extension of privileges to people whose behavior I don't approve of. It's really that simple. I don't believe we've somehow had it wrong for thousands of years.
Can you give me a non-religious argument for why you don't approve of their behavior though? I'm assuming that if you're a Christian, you also don't approve of the behavior of not believing in God. Do you think it should be illegal to be an atheist as well? Do you think everyone in this country should be forced to practice your religion regardless of their own beliefs?

And don't give me the "It's old so it must be right," argument about marriage. Marriage has changed a great deal throughout history. It is not at all the same as it was when the Bible was written, or even the same as it was 20 years ago. Rituals change in accordance with society. Additionally, you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that legal marriage and religious marriage are two seperate things. And lastly, if something being consistently the same for a long period of history makes it "right" then perhaps we should reinstate slavery and the possession of women as property? Those are very old and consistent practices which have only recently been abolished.

[Dare]

Originally posted by SimbaTheMighty
How recent was that? about a month ago at least news over here said it has gone down to 40%. And while being in CA I have never heard good word about Bush been said.


From what I just read (Ramussen), his overall job approval rating (as of Noon EST today) is more like 38%, but it varies from poll to poll...most of 'em look to be from mid-upper 30s to lower 40% approval. *shrugs*

[SIMBAtheENIGMA]

Originally posted by Only-now
in fact I hear moe often how people who don't like the U.S try to compare us to Europe in terms of "Europe does it this way, so we should too!". If you ever hear an American criticize a European country, it is usually France. One because of how they think of/treat us, and also because it has become one of those things you joke about. Regardless, and though it is sad to say...a lot more Europeans dislike America than vice versa.
~Kiva

I had to laugh when i read this, the thing is Europe often does do things so much better than America... but i guess thats now what the topic is about. Also Its not fair to say that more Europeans dislike America than vice versa, unless of course you've carried out sample studies across both Europe and America. The world doesn?t revolve around America, and as for Bush mentioning his faith in his speeches? comon? as if he writes his own!

Tell you what though, you should all just quit living in America and Europe and move over here to Australia! Were the perfect country! And all this bickering would come to an end! :D

Anyhoo I'm getting a headace from reading all this, I'm not at all religious in fact day by day I'm shunning religion more. Anyhoo, when I was over in the US it did seem rather pro Christianity (in comparison to Australia), though that could have been because I was staying with Eva and her father is a pastor ^^ ?

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SIMBAtheENIGMA

Tell you what though, you should all just quit living in America and Europe and move over here to Australia! Were the perfect country! And all this bickering would come to an end! :D

:haha:...Yeah right...with all your poisonous snakes and lizards and bats and sting rays...:p

Mexico is the perfect country...with it's awesome food, Cancun, Mazatlan, and the fact that you can bribe pretty much anyone to get off the hook...it's Awesome!...Viva Mexico!...:D...Just don't drink the water...

[SIMBAtheENIGMA]

Ok so Mexico is cool to... but i still think aussyland is better, so what if we have killer animals...

Don't forget to mention the trap door spiders that hide in the ground and attack when you walk by roog!!!:eek:

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by SIMBAtheENIGMA
IWere the perfect country!
No country with many species of giant weird spiders is perfect! D:

[Zoltan]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
Claiming I'm being intolerant by pointing out your own intolerance is a weak argument. I'd assume you're against racism. Would you consider that (being against racism) unfair intolerance as well?

Conclusion: Both of you are intolerant and bigot - towards each other's point.




... Do you think it should be illegal to be an atheist as well? Do you think everyone in this country should be forced to practice your religion regardless of their own beliefs?

*Rises hand*Eer, every country has its national religion and its rules based on certain traditions, so they should be followed, leastways not violating them as far as they want to live there.

[Darkslash]

Zoltan has a good point, SpiritWolf. Why don't you argue as strongly for religious tolerance and homosexual rights in Middle Eastern countries, whose oppression of dissent is, you must admit, far, far worse than that of the United States.

[Only-now]

I can't think of many things that Western Europe does that we should emulate. Their crime, unemplyment rate, taxes, economies etc are all worse than the United States. The things that they do partake in that I would like to see here are being prevented here by those of the same political views that run those European countries (liberals). An example of this would be the use of nuclear power. We are one of three coutries with the most nuclear facilities in the world..yet we are prohibited from actually using them. So...no...I would hope to GOD that we don't become like Europe. (no offense to you Europeans here).

Also..Australia was a rather nice country..at least it seemed so to me when I was there. They have been an ally of the U.S for quite a while as well.

~Kiva

[SIMBAtheENIGMA]

Originally posted by Only-now
Australia was a rather nice country..at least it seemed so to me when I was there. They have been an ally of the U.S for quite a while as well.

~Kiva

Well not so much as ally, i see it more of us being in the US's pocket :cheese: and of course if you compare the whole of western Europe to America the statistics will looks bad, but i'm not gona start on which country is better, though i understand that you have loyalty to your country, and that does give a bias opinion on your behalf. (its only natural)

[Only-now]

It isn't just a biased opinion..and most of Europe is worse or unfluctuating (in a positive direction) in all of the areas I mentioned. I wasn't referring to lumping all of Europe together...I meant looking at the individual European countries in comparison to the U.S and then stating that as a whole...the European nations do worse in those areas than the United States.

I guess you can see your countries relationship with ours however you want....but...they have been allied with us in almost every war we have fought in which it was possible for them to do so. We have good relations with them etc. I personally like to see them as an ally...instead of an enemy.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Zoltan

*Rises hand*Eer, every country has its national religion and its rules based on certain traditions, so they should be followed, leastways not violating them as far as they want to live there.

Traditions don't always have to be followed...many people broke the traditions...people such as Gandhi and Rosa Parks.


Zoltan has a good point, SpiritWolf. Why don't you argue as strongly for religious tolerance and homosexual rights in Middle Eastern countries, whose oppression of dissent is, you must admit, far, far worse than that of the United States.

Well if the subject is about religion and such in America, why should Middle Eastern countries be brought into it...It's a huge Red Herring...

Plus Spiritwolf lives in America, so it would only make sense that one would feel more inclined to argue subjects that are closer to home. It's human nature...it's why most people don't really feel about stuff like someone getting murdered across the country, unless that murder hits close to home. That's why Columbine was such a huge story, kids getting shot up in school hits close to home with parents of school aged children and many of those children themselves...


Their crime, unemplyment rate, taxes, economies etc are all worse than the United States.

Sources?

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by Only-now
I can't think of many things that Western Europe does that we should emulate. Their crime, unemplyment rate, taxes, economies etc are all worse than the United States.

Well I don't know what you base on that again. I mean yeah there is more crimes in most of Europian countries than in US, but only on violant crimes and car jackings, in murders and drug crimes US is still way ahead so I can't say which is worse. Unemplyment rate is a bit higher too in EU also, like 9% against US 5.5% so yeah that is worse I guess. Taxes are higher also but the reason to it is the social secure that most of EU countries have way better than US, like nearly every country has basic health insurance against the health insurance policy in US that you have to be able to afford, I have even heard rumors of people that have died in hospital because no one has done anything to save them because of missing insurance, very humain indeed. about Economics... well I don't have much base on my statement on this, but what I think happens with a lot of times is that Europian companies register themself in US because of the lower tax rates to get better resoults, so that also sets higher economic rate for US than rest of the world, lately thought other countries have been catching up on economics too ( many Europian countries, China, Japan and so on )

So from there I can pick at least one thing that US should improve and that is to increase their tax rate a bit and also set higher taxes on companies and that way get some sort of social secure for people who can't afford it othervise, such as basic medical insurance and decent unempyment coverage.
I also would probably do something for the system of being able to sue who ever you want for nearly any reason.

And I'm not saying US has it worse than Europe, I know a lot of counties in Europe where justice doesn't happen too well such as Turkey and Russia. but I don't think countires in western Europe / central Europe / northern Europe do lose on US much on anything ;)

Like tell me how many EU countries you see in list of the most competitive counties 2006-2007

1. Switzerland
2. Finland
3. Sweden
4. Denmark
5. Singapore
6. US
7. Japan
8. Germany
10. UK
11. Hong Kong
12. Norway
13. Taiwan,China
14. Iceland
15. Israel
16. Canada

[Zoltan]

Well, it would be surprising if a (comparing to the whole USA) small European country had stronger economy than the USA :cheese:

[lion_roog]

Doesn't California alone have the worlds 5th largest economy or something like that?

[Darkslash]

Yeah, and Texas is 8th!

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Yeah, and Texas is 8th!

Arizona would be up there, too...but they don't count all the money from the Drug and Human Smuggling trade... :D

[Only-now]

First I want to state that I did not say what I said to bash Europe...or state that the U.S is the perfect nation. I was responding to the claim that Europe does a lot of things better than us...and I don't believe that is very well supported.

I will look up statistics and figures and all that later if need be...but the point of my statements..was that I find it hard for someone to say that Europe does "a lot" better than us...when we are doing "better" than they are in many areas. Our GDP equals more than that of the entire EU...and since we SHOULD actually be looking at individual countries ( I notice in some arguements I am supposed to refer to the EU and others individual nations...whichever benefits my opposition)....we beat EVERY country in that area. We have lower unemployment than most European countries, the most powerful military, and our crime is lower in many key areas (you mentioned violent crimes and murders as if they are seperate things?). Our taxes are lower, and historically....tax DECREASES produce an economic boom...while tax increases do the opposite. I even read online that European nations were being urged (by memebers of those nations) to adopt American ideas in dealing with unemployment and the economy. Sounds somewhat like we are being emulated instead of the proposition that the opposite should happen.

My question is..what exactly are we doing wrong? We seem to be doing much better in many areas than the European nations we are supposed to "look up to". As for your mention about socialized healthcare: I tend to believe that good care for most is better than sub-standard care for all. No one has died because they didn't have health insurance...as doctors/hospitals are required to stabalize someone and stop them from dying regardless of health insurance. You just might not get the most medically valuable treatment.

Anyways...I didn't mean to get on this sort of topic in the first place. I don't hate Europe..and I don't think that they do EVERYTHING wrong...but to say that we should be emulating them in "a lot" of areas...seems bogus to me. We lead the world in many areas...and we don't seem to be suffering at the moment. I cannot see these "many" areas where Europe is doing so much better than us. Regardless..no nation is perfect...so...I have no problem looking at another country and seeing how something works for them...and then trying it here if it seems better. I don't have a problem with other nations adopting our ideas (which they seem to do as well). I just don't see the basis for which the claim that Europe is run better than the U.S can be made.

Anyways..back on topic if anyone else has something new to discuss! =)

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Zoltan has a good point, SpiritWolf. Why don't you argue as strongly for religious tolerance and homosexual rights in Middle Eastern countries, whose oppression of dissent is, you must admit, far, far worse than that of the United States.
I don't live there. My vote doesn't count there. All I can do is complain from afar and not really do much. And I'm not going to avoid discussing it with people in my own country just because another country has it worse.

Zoltan doesn't really have a point at all. Is it bigoted to be intolerant of racism, for example? I consider homophobia about the same thing as racism.


Originally posted by Zoltan
*Rises hand*Eer, every country has its national religion and its rules based on certain traditions, so they should be followed, leastways not violating them as far as they want to live there.
The US doesn't have a national religion. There is nothing in our legal system that states a single religion should be followed. Quite the opposite actually. It just -seems- like we have a national religion because the majority of our citizens are Christian. Additionally, nothing about allowing gay marriage (or atheist marriage as used in my example their) violates a Christian's -own- ability to practice their religion. It's not forcing -them- to become an atheist or gay.

[Zoltan]

Originally posted by SpiritWolf77
I don't live there. My vote doesn't count there. All I can do is complain from afar and not really do much. And I'm not going to avoid discussing it with people in my own country just because another country has it worse.

Zoltan doesn't really have a point at all. Is it bigoted to be intolerant of racism, for example? I consider homophobia about the same thing as racism.


'But you're none of this.' You missed that.

The US doesn't have a national religion. There is nothing in our legal system that states a single religion should be followed. Quite the opposite actually. It just -seems- like we have a national religion because the majority of our citizens are Christian. Additionally, nothing about allowing gay marriage (or atheist marriage as used in my example their) violates a Christian's -own- ability to practice their religion. It's not forcing -them- to become an atheist or gay. [/QUOTE]

Anyway it's not a matter of religion, but basic moralty which accidentally meets the catholic church's view.

[SpiritWolf77]

Morality is subjective. I do not agree with all the morals of the Catholic church. For example, I don't think it's wrong to be gay. Catholic morals =/= universal/basic/right morals.

[Only-now]

Here is an interesting bit I found, written by a Swedish economist comparing the U.S and the E.U on this issue.

"If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia. Only the miniscule country of Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the USA..."

Given, this report is from 2004...but a look at the CIA World Factbook shows very few countries (3-4, and the majority of which are not in Europe) that beat the U.S in per capita GDP. Also...GDP per capita seems to be calculated for the most part...by dividing total per capita by population. Thus...both population and GDP cause the per capita to fluctuate. So...Norway(who isn't part of the E.U) for instance..that beats the U.S in per capita GDP...also has a much smaller population than the U.S (4,610,820 in Norway and around 300,000,000 in the United States). Thus...if the U.S has a per capita GDP of $43,500 with a population of 300 million...and Norway beat us at 47,800 with a population of less than my state of Virginia (7.5 million here and a little over 4.5 million there), it seems to indicate that we must be doing very well when we are only beaten by $4,300 with 65 times thier population.

I got all of this info from the CIA World Factbook by the way. So..I don't seem to see a difference here. In fact it seems as if this data actually widens the gap between the U.S and European countries in terms of economy. Also for the record...the E.U's GDP per capita is $29,400 and the U.S's is $43,500. They do have a higher population than we do...but again...we should be comparing individual countries here..not a "conglomerate". It seem strange to me that one would have to group up all the nations of Europe to beat or come close to beating the economy of just one country.

Anyways...this topic isn't about this..and as I said..I'm not trying to bash Europe just for the sake of doing so. Sorry to interrupt the topic.

~Kiva

[Sesshomaru]

America is no longer a country; it's become more of a corpration. Yes, it's greedy, it's all about money, money, money, and more money. That's the States and it sux. However, I do not feel that America should be religious. This country was built on religious freedom and being free to practice whatever religion you wish. Anyone who says that this country is Christian needs to look back at the Constitution and US history. It may be largely Christian having been established by people who practiced some form of Christianity, but the US was built on the concept of religious and spiritual freedom. So, it's not really fair to call this country any specific religion since its citizens are free to practice any religion and there are many in this country who practice Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca, and all other religions. So, one cannot truly call this country 'Christian' since not all of its people are christian. Many people here aren't, that's why they or their ancestors came here to begin with. Besides, hasn't anyone ever heard of 'separation of church and state'?

(This post is not meant to offend anyone, I hope it doesn't, and if it does, I'm sorry and don't flame me over it. These views are the views of a single individual.)

[SpiritWolf77]

I'd like to read a quote I've come across recently while reading a book by Richard Dawkins. The following is part of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams:

As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war of act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I see so many people continuously insisting that this country was founded on Christian principles, by Christians. It's very likely that many of the founding fathers were in fact not even Christians. Perhaps Christians in name, but not in belief. They were secularists either way, and most probably at least deists, and some of them atheists or agnostics. I have more specific and downright anti-religious quotes from various founding fathers if you're still not convinced.

Frankly, the "founding fathers," or "ideals that this country was founded on," argument does not hold up at all.

[LunarCat]

Originally posted by Sesshomaru
America is no longer a country; it's become more of a corpration. Yes, it's greedy, it's all about money, money, money, and more money. That's the States and it sux.

and, which country and/or countries are /not/ all about money may i ask?

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by Lunarcat
and, which country and/or countries are /not/ all about money may i ask?

Actually according to the newest research over here, people like takeing their worked over time rather as time off than as money in past few years. They are saying that people set their free time as higher priority than extra earnings.

( I'm quite diffrend thought, I make myself work in avarage 25 days out of 30, and take all the extra time I work as money rather than time off... I really don't take time off except the necessery one day off I have to have every 8th day. thought I do keep long vacations when I go visit my love or when she visits me. ;) )

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Lunarcat
and, which country and/or countries are /not/ all about money may i ask?

that is a good question...most societies and cultures today are part of the commercial world. But you can still find cultures and societies where personal accumulation is seen as counterproductive to society...instead of owning goods and land, most of it is shared for the common good of the community. Some examples would be the !Kung Bushmen in Africa, various Amazonian tribes, and Australian Aborigines.

[Dyani]

Originally posted by lion_roog
!Kung Bushmen in Africa, various Amazonian tribes, and Australian Aborigines.

I love those people <3 Wished the world could live like them :p

Also Buddism as a whole ;) and whats left of the Native Americans?

[LunarCat]

Originally posted by Dyani
and whats left of the Native Americans?


one word: casinos


(not all but some)



Originally posted by lion_roog
. Some examples would be the !Kung Bushmen in Africa, various Amazonian tribes, and Australian Aborigines.

that's really great, seriously, but those still are not countries.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Lunarcat

that's really great, seriously, but those still are not countries.

That is true...but I feel that grouping by countries is very inaccurate considering that one country may consist of many different cultures. Also, Native American, and some other tribal cultures are sometimes considered their own nations within countries. For instance, the Apache reservation is considered the Apache Nation. They have their own government even though they still have to abide by some of America's law regarding certain issues.

The ideology towards money is a cultural one, not a national one. You can have a nation that is capitalist but have cultures within that nation where money has very little value to the way they live their life.

Actually, another way to look at it is that Sesshomaru was talking about American society with her statement...considering a country cannot establish how people feel and view money and material goods...that is done at a societal and cultural level, as I explained before. So if she was infact referring to American society, which all societies are made up of various cultures...then my remarks about the !Kung Bushmen, etc would stand as valid due to the fact they they, themselves, are societies and cultures.

[Only-now]

Ah yes..the glorification of the barbarian life-style! Not that those people are wrong, or "savages"...but I see the trend of "let's go back to how it was...it was so great!" idea a lot now. That lifestyle is definately not superior to the modern world's way of living. Of course it has some advantages...but I would be willing to bet it has a lot more disadvantages.

There is nothing wrong with working more often than you take a vacation. It does not mean you are greedy...it means you are hardworking. Of course, if someone gets too attached to material wealth, it can lead to problems...but it is not wrong to be willing to work for and EARN more.

~Kiva

[Dyani]

A better argument would be to say *Well yes, those people live well and respect earth a heck of a lot more than most "civilised" people do now, but would we really want to give up the technology we have gained over a thousand years or more? (ignoring comparably useless iPods etc, more like computers, modern medicine etc)*

To go against the grain but to speak for the *good of the majority*, it would be better if we gave up a lot of our modern medicine in one respect, those vulnerable to inheritable disease would die out quicker, thus we'd develop better as a species. Natural selection works best, weed out the weak so the strong survive!

But I totally understand people against this idea, having experinced modern medicine save a person near to me. But its an idea.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now
Ah yes..the glorification of the barbarian life-style! Not that those people are wrong, or "savages"...but I see the trend of "let's go back to how it was...it was so great!" idea a lot now. That lifestyle is definately not superior to the modern world's way of living. Of course it has some advantages...but I would be willing to bet it has a lot more disadvantages.


Barbarian life-style?...What are you talking about?

There are advantages and disadvantages to every culture and society. For instance our modern culture has the ability to expand our life-span due to our advance medical knowledge and all...but another culture may have a more advanced lineage system thus making orphans non-existent and the rearing of children much easier.

In fact, if you look at many tribal cultures, you will find that they are affluent societies where people enjoy the lifestyle. Many people tend to have a view of such cultures as being a very hard life to live...when in fact many people in such cultures don't have to work nearly as much as we do to earn a living and have very rich social lives and enjoy numerous activities within their communities.


A better argument would be to say *Well yes, those people live well and respect earth a heck of a lot more than most "civilised" people do now, but would we really want to give up the technology we have gained over a thousand years or more? (ignoring comparably useless iPods etc, more like computers, modern medicine etc)*

Actually, that is not really true. Throughout the history of modern man (from the time tribal cultures dominated the earth to today) people have created trash and used up resources. It's only a lot more noticeable today because instead of millions to a few hundred million people doing it, you have billions...

[Darkslash]

Oh, the irony of using a computer to argue for the superiority of primitive cultures.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Oh, the irony of using a computer to argue for the superiority of primitive cultures.

No one is arguing that any culture is superior...unless you can point out where that has been stated...until then your comment is ill-founded and adds no value to the conversation at hand...but you do construct a lovely strawman...;)

[Darkslash]

No one is arguing that any culture is superior...
You haven't, but Dyani's been saying as much.

(you always call out strawmen, but rarely are they so -- especially not my obvious sarcasm... there are other types of fallacies, you know)

[Dyani]

Well I would consider them (Native Americans / Aboriginies / Bornean natives / any culture that lived solely off nature) in a way superior. Its only because thats how I feel with them.

From my view they are. They still hunt to survive / gather plants and they have a deep knowledge of their natural surroundings. If we take the example of the Aborigines, they have to know where they have can find water for one thing. They live smack bang in the middle of the desert so water is very important. They can track animals like no westerner can. They know which tree to tap or where in the sand to dig for food. In my opinion, working for your living like this is better. But I'm a technology disliker. I'll use tech but I do wish we didn't depend on so much of it. As soon as the internet/electricty goes boom, those that depend on it may very well suffer a great deal. Aborigines won't. It won't be any different to them. Even those who adapted to the western world that took over could survive off nature.

In a way they are, in a way they ain't. I respect them greatly though, hell our ancestors lived like that its not like tech has been around forever. I fear that we may become too dependant on tech and lose contact with our humble past.

Thats my opinion.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
You haven't, but Dyani's been saying as much.

(you always call out strawmen, but rarely are they so -- especially not my obvious sarcasm... there are other types of fallacies, you know)

My fault, you should be more specific, though...because I had no idea who you were talking about...I was the one naming several groups of tribal cultures...so I hope you can see how I got the impression that I did.

And it's my lie and I'll tell it how I want! :p But if your statement was aimed at me, then it could be classified as a strawman due to the fact that arguing that tribal cultures are "superior" wasn't my stance...but since it wasn't in response to me...


Well I would consider them (Native Americans / Aboriginies / Bornean natives / any culture that lived solely off nature) in a way superior. Its only because thats how I feel with them.

From my view they are. They still hunt to survive / gather plants and they have a deep knowledge of their natural surroundings. If we take the example of the Aborigines, they have to know where they have can find water for one thing. They live smack bang in the middle of the desert so water is very important. They can track animals like no westerner can. They know which tree to tap or where in the sand to dig for food. In my opinion, working for your living like this is better. But I'm a technology disliker. I'll use tech but I do wish we didn't depend on so much of it. As soon as the internet/electricty goes boom, those that depend on it may very well suffer a great deal. Aborigines won't. It won't be any different to them. Even those who adapted to the western world that took over could survive off nature.

Well, certain aspects of other cultures and ways of life exceed our own (such as the ability to live directly off the land) but you have to remember that part of culture is adapting to the natural and social environment. You have to look at each culture with cultural relativism. In our own culture, we don't have to forage and hunt to survive anymore...we developed a vast network and system to provide food to every community in our countries (despite the fact that some citizens still go hungry - no system is perfect). You have to have different skills and knowledge to survive in our society than you would if you had to survive in the Australian Aborigines' society. In doesn't make either society superior...we just have different strengths due to the different environments.

[Dyani]

Ah... I guess thats true. :thinks:

Its similar to saying a cheetah in the North Pole wouldn't survive, just like a Polar Bear wouldn't survive the savannah... or to be a bit better... a clouded leopard from Brazil swapping with a clouded leopard in Borneo...

I like! :ayecapn:

But I lurve tribal communities far better than our community, but I guess thats because I'd value living with nature, as well as off it in a reusable way.

[Only-now]

This is the third time I have tried to respond..lol. I keep hitting some keyboard combo that deletes everything I typed....VERY annoying.

Anyways...I was going to say that I too was not referring to what you said Roog. I was responding to the fact that someone criticized modern society because of the value of individual gain and wealth...and then another brought up tribes of people with the attitutde that those tribes were examples of a superior "way of doing things".

Technically, no society can be "superior" unless you give a standard to base that on. However, in most standards...modern society wins out. That is to be expected as it "evolved" and advanced to what it is today FROM that previous style. There would be no massive benefits for returning to that way of life. The human characteristics like greed or lust are still present no matter where you are...they just manifest themselves in different ways...or at best..less often. It all depends on priorities and circumstances. If you are looking at perpetuating the human race, increasing your knowledge of the world around you, making life easier and safer, extending the amount of time you live etc..then modern life surely wins against primitive life.

There is one advantage to primitive life I can think of. Unlike our environmentalists today...these people actually understand the environment. While our "protectors of Mother Earth" lie, or constantly make inaccurate predictions...while simultaneously assuming that the environment is a weak and fragile thing in constant need of our attention...these people harvest and understand the environment. That isn't to say that there aren't plenty of modern people who understand it just as well. There are still plenty of people who can "live off the land"...and the fact that anyone can learn it via books, etc (plants, animals, poisonous substances, techniques etc) is an advantage of modern society.

The reason I even brought this up is because people often allude to the primitive lifestyle as if that is what we should be living like. As if their life is more desirable and happy. Sure...if that is how you choose to live...good for you..but some people would LIKE to advance....but can't. That life is hard, short, and focused mainly on survival. Everyone was once there...but progress has a direction...and that is FORWARD..not backwards.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Getting back on topic...

I'd just like to point something out that may border on irony, depending on what your response to tis would be, Only-Now. Let's look at what you just said:


Originally posted by Only-now
The reason I even brought this up is because people often allude to the primitive lifestyle as if that is what we should be living like. As if their life is more desirable and happy. Sure...if that is how you choose to live...good for you..but some people would LIKE to advance.

Now if I just change a few words around:
"The reason I even brought this up is because people often allude to the religious lifestyle as if that is what we should be living like. As if their life is more desirable and happy. Sure...if that is how you choose to live...good for you..but some people DON'T believe in the same thing."

And there you have the argument I've been trying to make. Would you agree with this new version of the statement as well, or only your original version?

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now

Anyways...I was going to say that I too was not referring to what you said Roog. I was responding to the fact that someone criticized modern society because of the value of individual gain and wealth...and then another brought up tribes of people with the attitutde that those tribes were examples of a superior "way of doing things".

Aww...no one wants to talk to me...:alone:..:p

And on a side note: when referring to "primitive" cultures, most anthropologists don't describe tribal, empirical, or commercial period cultures as "primitive". Mainly because these cultures can't really be defined as primitive and due to the fact that primitive has a certain negative association to it. There is no set standard among anthropologists in regards to "primitive"...but I do believe the most common definition is that primitive refers to the time before written language. Most anthropologists prefer not to use words like "primitive" or "native" to refer to cultures. Apparently there is more and more support in anthropology that such terms are inadequate and unsatisfactory (Edward Dozier - Year Book of Anthropology: 1995)

[Darkslash]

Is "undeveloped" more PC for anthropologists?

[Dyani]

PC has got nothing to do with it. Anthropologists try to phrase things in as unbiased a viewpoint as possible, seeing as most of them are from developed countries.

I would have said using *developed* and *undeveloped* would have been fair mind. We use more metal tech, they don't sorta thing.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
Is "undeveloped" more PC for anthropologists?

Apparently you fail to realize that different scientific fields consist of certain terminology which tends to change as the specific field grows. Terms such as "primitive" and "native" have been deemed inadequate to describe a culture in cultural anthropology by most anthropologists. My previous post was not meant to start anything over the word "primitive", but rather to educate on a certain aspect of a specific field of science. It's hardly about being politically correct, but rather making sure scientific terms adequately describe what they're supposed to describe.

The reason why the term "primitive" is not used is because of the negative association of the word and the fact that many cultures consist of complex qualities in many areas even if their technology is deemed "ancient" by our standards. That is why, according to a couple of anthropologists I know, that words such as "primitive" are inadequate when describing most cultures.

Such terms as "undeveloped" would most likely mean that one is looking at another culture in terms of his own culture...ethnocentrism is not usually the best method to go about understanding cultures different than your own...

[Only-now]

"Primitive" get the point across on a general scale. Negative connotations, or "bias" should not effect whether or not we use that word. If those are dictating that choice...then we DO have an example of political correctness.

None of us are anthropologists here. We are discussing general cultures ...and haven't broken it down into specific peices. Being that these cultures are obviously less advanced in many ways than modern society...it is perfectly alright to use that term on this forum.

By the way...primitive is also defined as pertaining to something that is "simple" or "unsophisticated" which matches perfectly well with a culture that is just that.

The word is perfectly fit for this discussions. Various definitions point out that it can refer to nonindustrial, tribal, low-economic power, undeveloped, or relate to earlier periods of man's development towards modern society.

I'm tired of arguing about the word usage...as it seems that is all that occurs. AS long as you understand what we mean..and get the point of the discussion...just leave the political correctness and "this-is-the-wrong-term" argument out of it.

@ SpiritWolf -- Well, I am not stating that people should not be allowed to state that they believe we should go back to a primitive lifestyle because it is better. They have the right to say that....but I disagree and think it is completely wrong. What we are dicussing here, is that people who do not agree with those who believe that the religious lifestyle is important...or "right" try to supress those people from being able to express it by using the courts etc. Anyone has the right to not believe in God..and express it..just as anyone has the right to believe in God and express it. Anyone can say the primitive lifestyle is better....but I think they are wrong, and was alluding to this trend because many people have political motives that drive that claim.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Well, I have no problem with you using the word "primitive" at all...but your usage of it and also you referring to the life-style as "barbaric" shows your ignorance on the subject.


Originally posted by Only-now

By the way...primitive is also defined as pertaining to something that is "simple" or "unsophisticated" which matches perfectly well with a culture that is just that.

When you study other cultures...you will find that they are hardly "simple" or "unsophisticated". Again, it comes off to me that you view other cultures from an ethnocentric point of view instead of a cultural relativistic one...

[Only-now]

I admit, I am not a big anthropology buff...but you assume I am ignorant because my word usage has negative connotations. That doesn't mean you are ignorant...it simply hints at the fact that I find those cultures less desirable than my own...as well as the fact that I am countering the claim that my culture is inferior to theirs (which I was arguing against).

It depends on what you are referring to...what your priorities are, and what you wish to accomplish. Since I wish to accomplish a longer life span, an easier life, a greater understanding of the world and universe, less disease, and increased technological advances...and my society "beats" the tribal ones in these areas (and more)....I consider those societies "less advanced" or "simple" in comparison.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now
I admit, I am not a big anthropology buff...but you assume I am ignorant because my word usage has negative connotations. That doesn't mean you are ignorant...it simply hints at the fact that I find those cultures less desirable than my own...as well as the fact that I am countering the claim that my culture is inferior to theirs (which I was arguing against).

It depends on what you are referring to...what your priorities are, and what you wish to accomplish. Since I wish to accomplish a longer life span, an easier life, a greater understanding of the world and universe, less disease, and increased technological advances...and my society "beats" the tribal ones in these areas (and more)....I consider those societies "less advanced" or "simple" in comparison.

~Kiva

Actually, I assume that you're ignorant because you views towards other cultures tend to come off as that way. Your word usage just makes it more apparent because it is used to express your opinion and views on the subject. And the word "ignorant" is not meant as an insult in any way (incase you took it as such)...it just means you're lacking in knowledge. But we all lack knowledge to a point on every subject...I think it would be hard to find a subject where someone knew everything there is to know...

Obviously our culture is more advanced in many ways. To consider another culture "simple" by a comparison to our own is ethnocentric and a poor way to view other cultures. It tends to be a close-minded viewpoint.

[Darkslash]

So, I can't use my judgment to say, "This culture is less technologically advanced than ours" because that would be me expressing ignorance and close-mindedness?

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Darkslash
So, I can't use my judgment to say, "This culture is less technologically advanced than ours" because that would be me expressing ignorance and close-mindedness?

I have no idea where you got that from. What I'm saying is that to view and study other cultures from the perspective of our own is close-minded and the such...that's ethnocentrism. To make observations based on the progression of technology from culture to culture and the differences there-in is not close-minded or ignorant, that's science and observation...What is close-minded, however, is forming generalizations and labeling other cultures based on such observations by comparing it to our culture...just because a culture is not as advanced as ours does not make it "simple", "barbaric", "primitive", etc...like it was mentioned before, such terms are inadequate for describing a culture.

The ignorant part comes from how one expresses their opinion and the words they use to describe that opinion. Certain words and phrases can say a lot about one's knowledge on a subject.


An example of what I'm saying:

"This culture is less advanced than ours in regards to medicine" - Simple observation based on fact and evidence (hopefully)

"This culture is simple because they are not as medically advanced as we are" - ethnocentric observation using fact to hide an apparent comparison of cultures instead of attempting to understand a culture from the perspective of that culture.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
@ SpiritWolf -- Well, I am not stating that people should not be allowed to state that they believe we should go back to a primitive lifestyle because it is better. They have the right to say that....but I disagree and think it is completely wrong. What we are dicussing here, is that people who do not agree with those who believe that the religious lifestyle is important...or "right" try to supress those people from being able to express it by using the courts etc. Anyone has the right to not believe in God..and express it..just as anyone has the right to believe in God and express it. Anyone can say the primitive lifestyle is better....but I think they are wrong, and was alluding to this trend because many people have political motives that drive that claim.

~Kiva
Oh please. Would you guys stop ranting about how religion (at least Christianity) is persecuted in this country? People in this country couldn't suppress Christianity if they tried. A more attainable and logical goal is to try to get Christianity to stop attacking other groups and stop trying to work their religious beliefs into the legal system.

[Stormfury]

Originally posted by lion_roog
I think it would be hard to find a subject where someone knew everything there is to know...

Obviously our culture is more advanced in many ways. To consider another culture "simple" by a comparison to our own is ethnocentric and a poor way to view other cultures. It tends to be a close-minded viewpoint.

True. There is always the matter of 'not-under/overlooking' something. To All > Let's stop using the phrase ignorant; or at least use the denotation somewheres more sparingly.. I find it troublesome when reciprocated between two members.

Thanks.

[Only-now]

@ SpiritWolf -- I'm not going to stop presenting what is actually occuring. I wouldn't compare the "persecution" to the level that blacks endured or anything...but there is definitely a bias towards supressing Christianity by people who hold your viewpoints, or similar ones. Those who are either driven by anti-religious motives, or political motives (many times both combined) believe that somehow...Christianity will become the state religion if people are exposed to it...and thus, there have been plenty of legal cases, complaints etc...where Christianity was the target. We are just going to discuss the same things again. We are a democracy..and if the large majority of our citizens are Christians..and vote on those beliefs...then you will have to deal with their decisions. If you disagree, you can challenge it with the legislative system. Instead, many people challenge the laws or issues they don't like by using the court systems to dictate policy regardless of the actual law. I am not saying that if something truely is unconstitutional, that you cannot challenge it in court...but that is not what is occuring. They challenge it because they WANT it to be unconstitutional...and regardless of whether it is, the courts can apparently "find" that it is.

@ Roog -- I understand what you mean...and I do not view other cultures as less than my own. I have respect for the unique customs, rituals, religions, techniques, etc...that other culture exhibit. However..when I refer to their people as "primitive"...I am referring to the technological, medical, philosophical, scientific etc. They are less advanced in these areas...which more cleary means..that our culture was once in their "position" but we PROGRESSED to where we are today. The word "primitive" can be defined as rerferring to an earlier stage of development. Their lifestyle IS an earlier stage in human development, simply because we have advanced past that lifestyle in many key areas. So...no, their cultural differences are not primitive to our own, just different (though one can argue that certain practices like human sacrafice, or certain governmental practices are less advanced than others). However, their are many areas in which our society is more advanced than theirs, and thus they are living at a "primitive" stage of human development.

I don't believe that comparing cultures is a bad thing. There has to be a reference point. Of course, at the same time...studying cultures independently has benefits as well. However, we are not studying cultures here. I was responding to the attitude that was presented here (and that is present in many circles currently) that somehow their lifestyle is what we SHOULD be living like. It is impossible not to compare their culture to ours when that is the very topic I am responding to. That attitude, of the simple, hunter-gatherer lifestyle being better comes from many places. Distaste with capitalism and industry (and thus individual wealth etc) is one motivation for this attitude. So...I responded to that attitude with my belief that our current advancements in these key areas are beneficial and important...and that it would not be a good thing to return to a time in which we did not have these things...such as in the tribal groups. I do not like the attitude that a less advanced, tougher, more painful lifestyle is better because someone is dissatisfied with various aspects of our current lifestyle. Challenge those things directly, instead of championing the return to a time without the advancements and benefits we have today.

~Kiva

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now
@ SpiritWolf -- I'm not going to stop presenting what is actually occuring. I wouldn't compare the "persecution" to the level that blacks endured or anything...but there is definitely a bias towards supressing Christianity by people who hold your viewpoints, or similar ones. Those who are either driven by anti-religious motives, or political motives (many times both combined) believe that somehow...Christianity will become the state religion if people are exposed to it...and thus, there have been plenty of legal cases, complaints etc...where Christianity was the target. We are just going to discuss the same things again. We are a democracy..and if the large majority of our citizens are Christians..and vote on those beliefs...then you will have to deal with their decisions. If you disagree, you can challenge it with the legislative system. Instead, many people challenge the laws or issues they don't like by using the court systems to dictate policy regardless of the actual law. I am not saying that if something truely is unconstitutional, that you cannot challenge it in court...but that is not what is occuring. They challenge it because they WANT it to be unconstitutional...and regardless of whether it is, the courts can apparently "find" that it is.
How do you not see the absurdity of what you're saying here? The majority of US citizens are Christian. Christians therefore hold the largest vote and have the largest voice than any other religious group in the US. People "like myself" are not trying to ban Christians from practicing their religion, we're asking that they stop forcing their religion upon everyone else. It's not a matter of being "exposed to" Christianity. I don't care about that. I care about one religion being given more respect and attention and voice than any other, which is what happens with Christianity in this country despite our supposedly being a secular nation.

It's not enough that only recently were

Also, don't even try to claim that atheists are unfairly using the court system against the poor innocent Christians. You're painting a very skewed picture here. Do I need to bring up the number of cases where Christians brought cases to court to try to force their beliefs into the school system or to try to make themselves exempt from laws which others were required to follow? What's even worse, is they frequently win these cases despite the fact that it's in direct conflict with the ideas this country is supposedly based on.

Additionally, try being an atheist in this country and then talk to me about unfair treatment or bias based on belief. There is a ridiculous amount of discrimination against atheists here, which goes from employers not hiring an applicant all the way to actual violence. Many Christians have no idea how good they have it. People walk on eggshells around their beliefs and are overly polite about them because that's what's socially acceptable in this country, but tell someone you're an atheist? Suddenly they think you're a Satanist, immoral, anti-Christ, arrogant, poorly raised, rebelling against society, etc. I have been called each of those things on countless occasions by people of religious faith when they find out I'm an atheist. People want to save you, they ask where your parents went wrong in raising you, they accuse you of trying to destroy/oppress religion, more or less like you're doing right now. If I were to say, "Christian belief is based on ancient mythology which is contradictory within itself and contradictory of observed scientific fact, therefore anyone who believes everything in the Bible as literal unquestionable Truth is either ignorant of the facts or in denial," I would be yelled at for being rude or intolerant in most social circles. But if someone were to say, "Atheists are wrong. They're blinded by their arrogance and just can't except the Truth of God because they're too stubborn or ignorant to open their eyes," most people wouldn't say a thing in protest. Our society doesn't seem to consider it important to grant the same respect to atheists as they do to Christians because the majority of our society thinks the Christians are right and the atheists are wrong...so who cares if they're human beings too, and have just as much validity for their beliefs as anyone else...they're not Christian, not even religious at all! So they must be bad, immoral people not worth the same level of respect or open-mindedness.

Seriously, Christians whining about persecution in this country is like a teenager in a rich family whining about how his parents are so mean because they won't buy him a cell phone and a pony.

It's not enough that our president is devoutly Christian and tried to amend the constitution to reflect his religious beliefs. It's not enough that for years Christians have gotten a large portion of their holidays off whereas only recently are -some- schools allowing people of other faiths to stay home on their holidays. It's not enough that most public businesses/facilities only recognize Christmas around the holidays and decorate specifically for that, it's not enough that the majority of US citizens are Christian and have therefore been able to influence the laws of this country to reflect their beliefs. It's not enough that some schools actually provide Creation textbooks instead of traditional biology texts or that a movement was passed a few years ago to have stickers placed in a large number of biology texts stating "Evolution is only a Theory" for a period of time. None of that's really enough for some of you guys, is it? You want more more more more.

What do you want, exactly? Should atheists not be allowed to protest when they feel a religion has an unfair hold over the country? Do you want a national religion? Should the school system teach kids that Christianity is the right path? Would you like a shiny new sports car and your own private island with that pony? If you're that unhappy with freedom of speech, freedom of (and from) religion, and the idea of a secular nation, I'd say go move to England, but ironically, despite their having a national religion, they're more religiously tolerant than this country is. I think you'd get quite a culture shock if you tried living in a number of other countries and realized just how lucky Christians are here to have so much power.

And I expect you'll probably come back and say, "I'm fine with atheists speaking their views but they need to do it through the proper channels in the legal system! (but again, should Christians be exempt from this?)" sure, I'm fine with that, but that's not all you're arguing. You popped into this thread saying you agree with the OP that this country isn't religious enough, you're arguing that Christians are actually persecuted, treated unusually poorly, or biased against in this country and anyone saying that has never really looked around them or put themselves in any other group's shoes.

[Only-now]

Your notion that Christians are "forcing" their religion on people is exactly what I am referring to. People believe, that becuse Christianity is so prominent in this country...any mention of those beliefs in school, on money, in speeches, in the pledge etc is going to result in it becoming the state sponsered religion. I don't even know what your viewpoint on those things is...but from the way you are speaking, it would seem that you support them. I also never stated that people are trying to suppress Christians from practicing their religion. I stated that they try to suppress it being expressed or exposed to the general public through displays, speeches etc. They go nuts anytime Chrisitianity is talked about or plays a part in some aspect of school. I don't mean it being taught religiously in school, I mean afterschool activities, the word "God" in the pledge, the mentioning of genesis, etc.

Having a large voice comes from the fact that they make up the majority of our country....that is how a democracy works. Apparently since that is offensive to some people..that the democratic system awards power to the majority...who happen to be Chrisitians...they must use the courts to try and suppress this expression of one's beliefs in either lawrs or in general.

To answer your question..YES, you do need to bring up those examples. Please show me some cases in which Christians tried to force their beliefs on others. That means exactly what you said it means...not that a majority of people who are Christians supported a law or act that others did not, and they won. It means a case in which Christians actually tried to force someone to believe in Christianity. The courts upholding a law that is supported by Christians does not mean that Christians are forcing thier beliefs on anyone.

Sadly, I could look up many cases in which Christianity and its display, mention, terminology, etc were directly the topic and the result was that they were supposed to be removed or altered. To be even more clear...seperation of church and state is not even mentioned in the Constitution other than there being no government sposored religion, which Christianity is not and isn't even close to being.

I don't know where you have been living...but in the past I have classified myself as an atheist and I didn't get discriminated against. I haven't heard any stories of such, and it is never reported on. How someone responds to your telling them that you are an athiest is completely individual. There is not mass discrimination against atheists, nor have any Christians I have met ever done anything other than ask me to come to their church, or pray for me to convert. No one insulted me, or tried to force their beliefs on me. Since you are going off personal experience, I guess my own will serve as a counter to that. Please give me some valid examples of where atheists other than yourself were continually discriminated against. If there are any, I haven't heard of them.

Christianity isn't under attack from every angle...but there are enough people who dislike it or want to reduce it's exposure that it gets to the courts, is on the news, and has books written that specifically mention it.

THIS President is "devoutly" Christian..not all have been...not even most. He didn't want to amend the Constitution for his OWN personal beliefs...he wanted to because the majority of Americans wanted that change. It's funny...because what you mention makes sense. The nation is made up of a majority of Christians. So...if your school is 80% Christian..and they are all going to take off Christmas day, etc (not to mention teachers)...then it makes sense to just close the school for that holiday. Anyone, from any other religion can take off any day they want from school for w/e holiday they want. However..you don't just close the whole school for a Jewish holiday, when there are only 5 Jewish people in the school. Once again...most businesses are run by AMERICANS...and America is made up of CHRISTIANS for the most part...so you are upset because Christians are displaying images of their faith? Now a Christian has to display Muslim and Jewish symbols as well, even though he (and most of the country) aren't of that religion? No school provides "creation textbooks". A "disclaimer" that states that evolution is only a theory is actually correct. Given that evolution isn't even as well supported as claimed, it makes sense that it shouldnt be taught as FACT, when it is not. Those biology textbooks you like so much still have the peppered moth experiment as valid, and the speculative, completely unsupported drawings of horse evolution, as well as the Miller-Urey experiment. All WRONG. We don't need to make this an evolution talk though, just pointing that out. Basically you are demonstrating exactly what I am talking about. This politically correct, bias against Christianity. It's completely wrong. If YOU don't like the way this country is run, then why don't you move away? I LOVE my country...besides, you are in California, which is almost another country already.

~Kiva

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now

@ Roog -- I understand what you mean...and I do not view other cultures as less than my own. I have respect for the unique customs, rituals, religions, techniques, etc...that other culture exhibit. However..when I refer to their people as "primitive"...I am referring to the technological, medical, philosophical, scientific etc. They are less advanced in these areas...which more cleary means..that our culture was once in their "position" but we PROGRESSED to where we are today. The word "primitive" can be defined as rerferring to an earlier stage of development. Their lifestyle IS an earlier stage in human development, simply because we have advanced past that lifestyle in many key areas. So...no, their cultural differences are not primitive to our own, just different (though one can argue that certain practices like human sacrafice, or certain governmental practices are less advanced than others). However, their are many areas in which our society is more advanced than theirs, and thus they are living at a "primitive" stage of human development.

I don't believe that comparing cultures is a bad thing. There has to be a reference point. Of course, at the same time...studying cultures independently has benefits as well. However, we are not studying cultures here. I was responding to the attitude that was presented here (and that is present in many circles currently) that somehow their lifestyle is what we SHOULD be living like. It is impossible not to compare their culture to ours when that is the very topic I am responding to. That attitude, of the simple, hunter-gatherer lifestyle being better comes from many places. Distaste with capitalism and industry (and thus individual wealth etc) is one motivation for this attitude. So...I responded to that attitude with my belief that our current advancements in these key areas are beneficial and important...and that it would not be a good thing to return to a time in which we did not have these things...such as in the tribal groups. I do not like the attitude that a less advanced, tougher, more painful lifestyle is better because someone is dissatisfied with various aspects of our current lifestyle. Challenge those things directly, instead of championing the return to a time without the advancements and benefits we have today.

~Kiva

That's all good...but, still, "primitive" is a poor word to use. It fails to satisfy the description of a culture because it tends to be vague. There are better ways to describe what you want to describe. But I feel that we have happened upon a stalemate.

And California > Rest of America...;)

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now Your notion that Christians are "forcing" their religion on people is exactly what I am referring to. People believe, that becuse Christianity is so prominent in this country...any mention of those beliefs in school, on money, in speeches, in the pledge etc is going to result in it becoming the state sponsered religion. I don't even know what your viewpoint on those things is...but from the way you are speaking, it would seem that you support them.
It's not a matter of people feeling that any mention of the religion is bad, it's the unfair treatment of the religion in comparison to other beliefs, as I already explained. There is a big difference between normal exposure and exposure specifically in favor of a single belief system. And honestly, I don't mind some excess exposure of Christianity, because I understand that there are many Christians in the US. It is actually a small minority of atheists that rally against things like God stamped on money, which is part of the reason that's not been changed yet. However, for someone to come in and say that Christians are being oppressed or under-represented when they already have an extreme advantage is just absurd. I'm not arguing for less representation of Christianity in all circumstances, I'm arguing against more, while you seem to be arguing for more, which is why I ask the question, just how much do you want?


I also never stated that people are trying to suppress Christians from practicing their religion. I stated that they try to suppress it being expressed or exposed to the general public through displays, speeches etc. They go nuts anytime Chrisitianity is talked about or plays a part in some aspect of school. I don't mean it being taught religiously in school, I mean afterschool activities, the word "God" in the pledge, the mentioning of genesis, etc.
Again, that's a small minority of people who freak out over the simple mention of the word God. What the majority of atheists are upset by is the encouragement of Christianity above any other belief system. You should hardly feel threatened because of a select few people complaining about the use of the word God in a school play. I don't see why that makes you say, "America is not religious enough."


To answer your question..YES, you do need to bring up those examples. Please show me some cases in which Christians tried to force their beliefs on others. That means exactly what you said it means...not that a majority of people who are Christians supported a law or act that others did not, and they won. It means a case in which Christians actually tried to force someone to believe in Christianity. The courts upholding a law that is supported by Christians does not mean that Christians are forcing thier beliefs on anyone.
Can do.

In 2006 the US Supreme Court ruled that the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal church in New Mexico was exempt from the law against taking hallucinogenic drugs (which everyone else was still required to follow) on the grounds that they claimed the only way for them to understand God was to use these drugs.

In 2004, a family sued a school for telling their 12 year old son not to wear a shirt to shcool which read "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!" They won the lawsuit. I don't know how anyone could consider that appropriate attire for an elementary school and it baffles me that the parents actually won the case on the basis that their "religious freedoms" were being violated.

I don't think I should even need to cite the number of times the issue of evolution has been brought up in school board meetings and courts. Everyone should know about that by now.


Sadly, I could look up many cases in which Christianity and its display, mention, terminology, etc were directly the topic and the result was that they were supposed to be removed or altered. To be even more clear...seperation of church and state is not even mentioned in the Constitution other than there being no government sposored religion, which Christianity is not and isn't even close to being.
I'd like to hear some specific examples and why you feel they're problematic.
And no, the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, but the sentiment is clearly implied. The definition of separation of church and state is "no government sponsored religion."


I don't know where you have been living...but in the past I have classified myself as an atheist and I didn't get discriminated against. I haven't heard any stories of such, and it is never reported on. How someone responds to your telling them that you are an athiest is completely individual. There is not mass discrimination against atheists, nor have any Christians I have met ever done anything other than ask me to come to their church, or pray for me to convert. No one insulted me, or tried to force their beliefs on me. Since you are going off personal experience, I guess my own will serve as a counter to that. Please give me some valid examples of where atheists other than yourself were continually discriminated against. If there are any, I haven't heard of them.
How long were you an atheist and how vocal were you about it? I'm not nearly as vocal about my atheism as many Christians are about their Christianity, but if I were I can only imagine how people would treat me if how people react to my atheism now is any indication. People who know me are understanding and respectful, but extremely religious strangers are not. I'm not saying this never goes both ways, I'm just saying it seems to be socially acceptable to belittle or bash atheists, but it's considered intolerant or rude to belittle or bash Christians. I'd just like some consistency is all. I don't want to have to walk on eggshells around the beliefs of others but I want those who debate with me to treat me with the same level of courtesy that they'd want me to show them.

As for other examples of discrimination against atheists, here's a fun little exchange between our president and Robert I Sherman, an author of an atheist magazine:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Here are some more examples: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/usa_todaygallup_1.html Note which group had the least number of votes.

The Boy Scouts of America do not allow atheist members.

Here's some fun excerpts from various state constitutions:



* The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

* North Carolina's Constitution of 1971, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God....". This was challenged and overturned by Voswinkel v. Hunt (1979).

* South Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

* Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."


Christianity isn't under attack from every angle...but there are enough people who dislike it or want to reduce it's exposure that it gets to the courts, is on the news, and has books written that specifically mention it.
Again, I need specific examples to comment on. And books are written about it? God forbid! Citizens in a country with a policy of free speech dare to right books about how they don't like Christianity? How could they?! (Is that seriously one of your complaints?)


THIS President is "devoutly" Christian..not all have been...not even most. He didn't want to amend the Constitution for his OWN personal beliefs...he wanted to because the majority of Americans wanted that change.
I never said all other presidents ever were devoutly Christian. I was simply citing that as one of the examples of the extremely Christian-supportive state our country is in at the moment. And he wanted to amend the constitution based on religious law. That would have been a violation of the 1st amendment regardless of how many people supported it. They'd have to out-vote the 1st amendment first.


It's funny...because what you mention makes sense. The nation is made up of a majority of Christians. So...if your school is 80% Christian..and they are all going to take off Christmas day, etc (not to mention teachers)...then it makes sense to just close the school for that holiday.

Anyone, from any other religion can take off any day they want from school for w/e holiday they want. However..you don't just close the whole school for a Jewish holiday, when there are only 5 Jewish people in the school.
Actually, the majority of the students at my high school were Jewish. Odd that we never got any Jewish holidays off though, just Christian ones.

And schools have a restriction on the number of absences students can have. Additionally, there's a difference between getting a holiday, and actually taking the day off when school is still in session and thereby missing your classwork for the day. So it's not really a simple matter of them just taking the day off whenever they want.


Once again...most businesses are run by AMERICANS...and America is made up of CHRISTIANS for the most part...so you are upset because Christians are displaying images of their faith?
I'm not upset by that at all. I don't care how someone decorates their store, again, I'm not arguing for the removal of Christian ideas/symbols in ALL circumstances, I'm simply pointing out that it is ridiculous to claim Christians are generally treated with an unfair and oppressive bias in this country.


No school provides "creation textbooks".
Got any sources on that? Or do you just not know of any schools that do this so you assume it doesn't happen? A friend of mine was educated with a science text entitled: Exploring Creation with Biology.


A "disclaimer" that states that evolution is only a theory is actually correct. Given that evolution isn't even as well supported as claimed, it makes sense that it shouldnt be taught as FACT, when it is not.
That is not quite what it says:

"The Oklahoma State Textbook Committee voted Nov. 5 to require all new biology textbooks to carry a disclaimer stating that evolution is a "controversial theory" that can refer to "the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things."
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/education/oklahoma.shtml

That is an incredibly flawed and misleading description of evolution.

Additionally, here's more of this committe's mission statement:

he State Textbook Committee shall have the authority to insert a one-page summary, opinion, or disclaimer into any textbook reviewed and authorized for use in the public schools of Oklahoma.... SECTION 3. When adopting science textbooks, the Committee shall ensure that the textbooks include acknowledgment that human life was created by one God of the Universe." Passed the House of Representatives the 5th day of April, 2000.

And actually evolution is as well-supported as is claimed. I believe last time you and I had a debate on this, you got tired of the debate and left after I kept pointing out that you were making some incredibly flawed assumptions and massive misunderstandings about the theory. Just because you do not understand it well enough to accept the validity of it does not mean you know better than the scientific community as a whole.


Those biology textbooks you like so much still have the peppered moth experiment as valid, and the speculative, completely unsupported drawings of horse evolution, as well as the Miller-Urey experiment. All WRONG.
The peppered moth experiment was extremely valid. Why do you say it was not? Additionally, what specifically do you consider invalid about the Miller-Urey experiment? And the "unsupported drawings of horse evolution," can you provide some sources on what specifically you are referring to?


Basically you are demonstrating exactly what I am talking about. This politically correct, bias against Christianity. It's completely wrong. If YOU don't like the way this country is run, then why don't you move away? I LOVE my country...besides, you are in California, which is almost another country already.
Throwing the "why don't you leave" argument back at me isn't the least bit effective since it shows you completely missed my point in stating it the way I stated it.

[Dyani]

Ah I see SpiritWolf has already replyed. Nice!
Here's my two cents ;)


Originally posted by Only-now

Basic points:
1 - *the democratic system awards power to the majority*
2 - *YES, you do need to bring up those examples.*
3 - *Please give me some valid examples of where atheists other than yourself were continually discriminated against.
4 - *Christianity isn't under attack from every angle...but there are enough people who dislike it or want to reduce it's exposure that it gets to the courts, is on the news, and has books written that specifically mention it.*
5 -*So...if your school is 80% Christian...-...then it makes sense to just close the school for (Christmas). Anyone, from any other religion can take off any day they want from school for w/e holiday they want. However..you don't just close the whole school for a Jewish holiday, when there are only 5 Jewish people in the school.
6 - *No school provides "creation textbooks".*
- *Given that evolution isn't even as well supported as claimed, it makes sense that it shouldnt be taught as FACT, when it is not.*
- Those biology textbooks you like so much still have the peppered moth experiment as valid, and the speculative, completely unsupported drawings of horse evolution, as well as the Miller-Urey experiment. All WRONG.
7 - If YOU don't like the way this country is run, then why don't you move away? I LOVE my country...besides, you are in California, which is almost another country already.

Ok, points time! :D

Number 1 - The majority has not always been the "correctly minded" percentage of the population. For example, slave traders and people who owned slaves (vast majority) wanted to continue that way and not let it change. It got forced through congress.

Number 2 - Apply that to yourself and we'd... for the use of a better word... progress in the debate. Not talking *my own experience* here.

Number 3 - See Number 2
Number 4 - Freedom of speech work both ways my dear, you don't like that system? Move away! :evilgrin:
Number 5 - Yes, you should close the school for Jewish/Hindu/Buddist/Muslim holidays. You do it for Christians, why not all other religions? I don't think you'd see anyone complaining except the conservatives/people-who-don't-like-other-religions-than-their-own. Its unfair discrimmination otherwise and a fair courtcase. If a Muslim takes a day off a working school day for religious purposes, it will be marked against him as an absense, and he loses a day of education. Again, unfair discrimmination.

Number 6 - Creation Textbook (http://www.amazon.com/biology-gods-living-creation-second/dp/B000C1WME4/ref=sr_1_9/102-6007613-7805739?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175118924&sr=1-9), Creationist Book (under biology) (http://www.amazon.com/Where-Darwin-Meets-Bible-Evolutionists/dp/0195150457/ref=sr_1_3/102-6007613-7805739?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175119026&sr=1-3) and oooo.... its Creationist! (http://www.amazon.com/Schaums-Outline-Biology-George-Fried/dp/0070224056/ref=sr_1_1/102-6007613-7805739?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175119026&sr=1-1)
- It is unfortunate but science is still *under development*. My teachers always said that nothing in life is 100% FACT, but all theories have basis in solid facts. We aren't likely to know the facts of everything but theories are helpful for educational and social purposes.
- Ok, the peppered moth experiment has been used as an example of how an experiment's hypothesis is not always correct. My teachers/lecturers were educated enough to tell me this. Which biology teachers did you have?
- Palentologists and scientists have actually managed to piece together a more complete picture of the horse's evolutionary lineage and any other creature. This is because they were common as muck, thus more likely to get fossils from. (Yeah not much of an argument... I'm actually interested in where you base your claim on, please link it!)
- How is the Miller-Urey experiment wrong? For its time, the experiment is extremely advanced. True, we don't know exactly what was going on on earth at the beginning of its life but theories and experiments going into it help us understand possible ways in which life was created. Do you even know the possible ways in which life was created? I was actually taught that in the very first lecture I attended. Sure you went to the right school?
- Please produce evidence other than your own experinece that shows these as wrong, rather than just claiming them so.

Number 7 - Firstly, thats one of the main problems with America. The general attitude of *You don't like it? Move elsewhere then!* is very backwards and possibly even lazy. Its the same attitude for gays and just about any other minority group. Well I for one hope they do move, we'll get ourselves the intelligent people while evolution works backwards for you guys. :)
- Secondly, what kind of child would remark is it to say that *You live in another state, thus your state is obviously not as good as mine.*

Last of all - not flaming please Kiva, this is meant to be a serious but adult debate.
Carry On!! :ayecapn:

[Darkslash]

Miller-Urey produced a vast amount of tarlike material that would have been toxic to the amino acids produced.

And yes, evolution is a theory proposing that complex life has come to be from "random, undirected forces." The description put on textbooks is correct, not misleading in the slightest.

(you two seem hell-bent to ensure this debate is anything but mature)

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Darkslash
[B]Miller-Urey produced a vast amount of tarlike material that would have been toxic to the amino acids produced.
And what source do you have that states this? I can't find anything other than some forum debates and a few Creationist pages (which requote the same thing over and over again without providing citations) that states it's scientifically known that the chemicals produced as a result of that experiment would have been toxic to whatever live evolved in those conditions. In any case, the intent of the experiment was simply to show that the organic compounds necessary for creating life could result from natural processes. The experiment was never intended to actually create life.

Furthermore, how does this show any problems with evolutionary theory? Evolution and Abiogenesis, while capable of being discussed together because they are related topics, are not co-dependent on each other. If you provided absolute concrete proof against abiogenesis that would still not affect the scientific validity of evolution. Evolution is the theory which discusses the development of life, not the creation of it.


And yes, evolution is a theory proposing that complex life has come to be from "random, undirected forces." The description put on textbooks is correct, not misleading in the slightest.
No, that's not correct at all. Evolution is not random and undirected. It is specifically directed by natural selection.


(you two seem hell-bent to ensure this debate is anything but mature)
If this is directed at me, I don't see where I was being immature. Feel free to point it out.

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by Dyani
Number 5 - Yes, you should close the school for Jewish/Hindu/Buddist/Muslim holidays. You do it for Christians, why not all other religions? I don't think you'd see anyone complaining except the conservatives/people-who-don't-like-other-religions-than-their-own. Its unfair discrimmination otherwise and a fair courtcase. If a Muslim takes a day off a working school day for religious purposes, it will be marked against him as an absense, and he loses a day of education. Again, unfair discrimmination.

well I think there is a reason for why schools aren't closed for every religion holiday, I mean if that would be the case I don't think there would be summer breaks sinse there would be so many day offs every now and then. I think the way christan holidays are set on year are on perfect places to give enough time for students to get mind of from studies. And what comes to christmas being off, I think it sets to middle of winter break ( not that it wouldn't be off otherwise )


Originally posted by Only-now
1 - *the democratic system awards power to the majority*
Unfortunetly it's like that even with religions, I have said it many times on this thread already and I keep repeating it over and over again, religion should never be part of politic, religion and what you beleave is your indovidual thing, which no one should attack against or neither which you should be able to use to deffend your statements. If you want to beleave the God excist then you do, no one should deny it doesn't excist, yet the person who beleaves in god can't either tell person who support evolution theory that god created the world and all the living things and that the theory the person beleaves in is rubbish. People should just leave their beleave as their personal thing and concentrate on the important things.

7 - If YOU don't like the way this country is run, then why don't you move away? I LOVE my country...besides, you are in California, which is almost another country already.
nearly every country is run based on relitiong somehow, like I said Sweden is only country I'm aware of where religion and goverment are totally seperated. Also, even I don't like a lot of things how United States goverment handle things especially about things that are outside of US that doesn't most of time even belong under their consideration, I still do want to move living in US, no matter if the president or goverment is as it is... and even system is corrupted ( yes acording to corruption survey 2006 US was 20th least corrupted country in the world and even then quite corrupted as the corruption level being 7.3 / 10)


Originally posted by Darkslash
(you two seem hell-bent to ensure this debate is anything but mature)

as much as I have read this topic which is not all of the last 20 posts or so I do say that I haven't seen anyone really being immature on this topic, just rather stubborn about their point of view.
It's obibious you guys disagree about evolution and the way Bible explanes things well no one can say one is right either can say one is wrong.

And I do have to say that Bible have way less prove about being true than evolution theory does, all the whole religion bases on is written text and stories that have carried for over 2000 years. ( and no I don't say those things can't be true, just saying it's not possible to prove that god excists or any of the things bible says )

[Shadow]

holy mother of all thats glory this thread still moving on?..well i might aswel read a little and catch up "last pages" but il try not to get so upset the last time...good discussion training but i wont get "angry" like last time...

[Only-now]

It's not a matter of people feeling that any mention of the religion is bad, it's the unfair treatment of the religion in comparison to other beliefs, as I already explained. There is a big difference between normal exposure and exposure specifically in favor of a single belief system. And honestly, I don't mind some excess exposure of Christianity, because I understand that there are many Christians in the US. It is actually a small minority of atheists that rally against things like God stamped on money, which is part of the reason that's not been changed yet. However, for someone to come in and say that Christians are being oppressed or under-represented when they already have an extreme advantage is just absurd. I'm not arguing for less representation of Christianity in all circumstances, I'm arguing against more, while you seem to be arguing for more, which is why I ask the question, just how much do you want?

No, it IS a matter of that. That is what I am talking about...and your differentiation between that, and "unfairness" is wrong. Your argument is PART of the movement I am describing. I believe you are misunderstanding my argument here. We are discussing Christianity...as the religion in question. I am saying, that I believe that attacking Christianity on the basis that it is unfairly represented in public etc is wrong. I am not stating that there is a major movement of people dedicated to irradicating all religious expression. I am stating, that there is a group of people in this country that are intent on lessening the public representation of Christianity based on political correctness, political motives, or an all out dislike of religion (Christianity is the largest target). So, your argument that you believe it is represented unfairly is precisely what I am talking about.


Again, that's a small minority of people who freak out over the simple mention of the word God. What the majority of atheists are upset by is the encouragement of Christianity above any other belief system. You should hardly feel threatened because of a select few people complaining about the use of the word God in a school play. I don't see why that makes you say, "America is not religious enough."

Apparently you believe this is a discussion about atheists and Christians? I am talking about THOSE people...the people who DO react that way. I am not saying that all atheists hold this point of view. I didn't even mention atheism. The Democratic Party supports the views of the people I am against. The ACLU does as well. Those are not miniscule, minority groups...they are major groups with a lot of influence. If your view is right..that most atheists are upset about Christianity being displayed above others...then the majority of atheists support the measures I am arguing against.

Before I reply about those court cases, I shall look them up and read more about them. Can you give me the title of the one about the 12 year old, so I can look it up as well?

To reply about what I did read on that case of the drugs. The claim by that church was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They did not claim they needed it to "understand God". It was used in a tea during a ritual that was essential to that churches beliefs. I am not stating that I agree with the ruling, but I am painting the picture that they did have a legal reason to challenge this. They are also not a major Christian sect...as they are part of a small group from Brazil, so this type of ruling is very rare. As for evolution being brought up....well, it still seems to hold out in every school, in every state, and in every college. I don't think YOU need to worry about a threat to that pseudoscientific theory anytime soon. Any mention of it usually does not assert that there need to be mention of God. Most of the time it is simply that they state it is not supported well, which IS the case.


I'd like to hear some specific examples and why you feel they're problematic.
And no, the exact words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, but the sentiment is clearly implied. The definition of separation of church and state is "no government sponsored religion."

Sure thing, I am about to leave for work..but I will look some up, and get some from the book I was just reading. I stated that I understood the definition...and being as it is...there IS no state sponsored religion. However, "seperation of church and state" is cited numerous times when religion comes into contact with school, as if any connection or mention will result in Christianity being the state sponsored religion.


How long were you an atheist and how vocal were you about it? I'm not nearly as vocal about my atheism as many Christians are about their Christianity, but if I were I can only imagine how people would treat me if how people react to my atheism now is any indication. People who know me are understanding and respectful, but extremely religious strangers are not. I'm not saying this never goes both ways, I'm just saying it seems to be socially acceptable to belittle or bash atheists, but it's considered intolerant or rude to belittle or bash Christians. I'd just like some consistency is all. I don't want to have to walk on eggshells around the beliefs of others but I want those who debate with me to treat me with the same level of courtesy that they'd want me to show them.

People bash Christians ALL the time, and it is applauded by the left, and even perpetuated by them. They perpertuate the idea that every stance that Christians take..no matter the facts is because they are a religious "zealot". You disagree with evolution?! You must believe in God and think the world is flat!

I don't see where you get this idea that atheists are "bashed" all the time. They are criticized..sure...but that is allowed from anyone, on any subject. I notice you said "extremely religious people". Well, it sort of makes sense that those people would react more harshly to you. Now..I highly doubt that if someone who was devoutly Christian asked you "do you believe in God" and you said "no" they would start "bashing" you. That isn't what their religion teaches...and anytime I have answered that question that same way..their next response is "why not?". I don't believe that most moderate Christians would react that way either.

Here is that same person you mentioned, stating how the AMerican Atheists filed that same lawsuit about the pledge we were discussing that you stated most athiests don't support:

"Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"

The answer isn't really important...obviously they didn't like it, but regardless they support the very things I am arguing against. The funny thing you also forgot to mention is that that was not our current Presdient. That was his father, George H.W Bush. Not to mention, just because he has the belief that belief in God is important to America...and thus does not support atheism, does not mean he is going to revoke the citizenship of these people. That was his personal belief...and unfortunately for you, there are others who share it. Right or wrong, it isn't important unless someone enacts a law proclaiming atheists are not citizens.

I will continue later...I have like 6 minutes before I have to leave for work.

~Kiva

[Darkslash]

how does this show any problems with evolutionary theory?
Did I say it did? Jumped right into that conclusion, did we?


Evolution is not random and undirected. It is specifically directed by natural selection.
Accidents of gene replication leading to abnormalities within a species leading to the increased fitness of one mutation over another leading to natural selection of the most fit... is completely random. Who can tell when, where, and if a species will end up naturally selected? That's the beauty of the theory. (Do you even know where I stand on evolution?)

[Dyani]

^ I agree with your view on Evolution Darkslash ;) Evolution <3
And I think SpiritWolf was referring to Only-Now when she said that, but not sure.

[SpiritWolf77]

Originally posted by Only-now No, it IS a matter of that. That is what I am talking about...and your differentiation between that, and "unfairness" is wrong. Your argument is PART of the movement I am describing. I believe you are misunderstanding my argument here. We are discussing Christianity...as the religion in question. I am saying, that I believe that attacking Christianity on the basis that it is unfairly represented in public etc is wrong. I am not stating that there is a major movement of people dedicated to irradicating all religious expression. I am stating, that there is a group of people in this country that are intent on lessening the public representation of Christianity based on political correctness, political motives, or an all out dislike of religion (Christianity is the largest target). So, your argument that you believe it is represented unfairly is precisely what I am talking about.
It IS represented unfairly in many circumstances. And the fact that you're not just complaining about this movement, but actually arguing this country is not religious -enough- already suggests to me that what you'd really like is for this to be a Christian nation with a government sanctioned religion.


Apparently you believe this is a discussion about atheists and Christians? I am talking about THOSE people...the people who DO react that way. I am not saying that all atheists hold this point of view. I didn't even mention atheism. The Democratic Party supports the views of the people I am against. The ACLU does as well. Those are not miniscule, minority groups...they are major groups with a lot of influence. If your view is right..that most atheists are upset about Christianity being displayed above others...then the majority of atheists support the measures I am arguing against.
If you're going to discuss "people who are frustrated with the over representation of religion" you are typically discussing atheists. Obviously people of other religious faiths are also probably annoyed at the over representation of one religion but it depends on whether we're discussing religion or Christianity. You keep jumping back and forth. Do you think America is not -religious- enough or not -Christian- enough? The latter would be even more absurd than the former. And the democratic party as a whole, as in every single democrat, is not out to suppress religion. Many democrats ARE Christian. Probably the majority of democrats are Christian or of some other religious faith. You keep generalizing and lumping groups together. I'm not a democrat, by the way, if that is at all relevant.


Before I reply about those court cases, I shall look them up and read more about them. Can you give me the title of the one about the 12 year old, so I can look it up as well?
I don't know the precise title of the court case but I can get you the boy's name later. The book I read the account in is at my apartment and I'm in class at the moment.


To reply about what I did read on that case of the drugs. The claim by that church was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They did not claim they needed it to "understand God". It was used in a tea during a ritual that was essential to that churches beliefs. I am not stating that I agree with the ruling, but I am painting the picture that they did have a legal reason to challenge this. They are also not a major Christian sect...as they are part of a small group from Brazil, so this type of ruling is very rare.
But see, the very fact that a church CAN get such a ruling and be exempt from a regular law is precisely why I feel this country is too focused on religion to the point where they often consider it untouchable. You said yourself that you disagree with the ruling, yet you're arguing for this kind of unequal "religious freedom?"


As for evolution being brought up....well, it still seems to hold out in every school, in every state, and in every college. I don't think YOU need to worry about a threat to that pseudoscientific theory anytime soon. Any mention of it usually does not assert that there need to be mention of God. Most of the time it is simply that they state it is not supported well, which IS the case.
Yes, it holds out and usually wins the court cases because of its scientific validity. Anyone who actually understands evolution to a thorough degree realizes this and realizes that Creationism and ID, regardless of how fervently people might "believe," are -not- science. Their conclusions were not developed based on the scientific method and their conclusions contradict with observable fact. They're trying to make the facts fit their theories as opposed to developing theories that fit the facts. That's not the way science works. They're the psuedoscience, not evolution and it's a little sad that you keep insisting on belittling and dismissing it when you can't even argue against it. This is precisely the reason evolution wins these cases. You can't just -make- something wrong because you want it to be wrong. You actually have to back up your opinion with valid scientific and logical reasoning which Creationists and ID proponents fail at doing.

Evolution is incredibly well-supported and if you're so convinced it's not, then I'd like to see you back that up. Go ahead and start a new thread explaining what you feel are the flaws in evolution and then we'll see if you have any validity in making that claim. But don't make claims you can't back up.

Have you read the rulings of these court cases? I've never seen a single one which includes the qualifier "not-well-supported." The rulings generally state something along the lines of: Creationism and ID have no footing in this debate. They don't belong in a science classroom because they're not science, whereas evolution is and is extremely well-supported.


Sure thing, I am about to leave for work..but I will look some up, and get some from the book I was just reading. I stated that I understood the definition...and being as it is...there IS no state sponsored religion. However, "seperation of church and state" is cited numerous times when religion comes into contact with school, as if any connection or mention will result in Christianity being the state sponsored religion.
Trying to include religious beliefs in non-religious classroom subjects is a violation of separation of church and state.


People bash Christians ALL the time, and it is applauded by the left, and even perpetuated by them. They perpertuate the idea that every stance that Christians take..no matter the facts is because they are a religious "zealot". You disagree with evolution?! You must believe in God and think the world is flat!
Again with the generalizations. I have rather liberal views and I don't "bash Christians all the time." Nor do I applaud Christian-bashing. And most of my liberal friends are extremely tolerant of religion, or religious themselves. Do you assume there's no such thing as a left-wing or liberal Christian?

What I don't like is fundamentalists, or anyone who feels religion should play a bigger role in -everyone's- lives whether everyone wants that or not. I also get frustrated by people who are determined to ignore accepted science because they're buying into fundamentalist propaganda.


I don't see where you get this idea that atheists are "bashed" all the time. They are criticized..sure...but that is allowed from anyone, on any subject. I notice you said "extremely religious people". Well, it sort of makes sense that those people would react more harshly to you. Now..I highly doubt that if someone who was devoutly Christian asked you "do you believe in God" and you said "no" they would start "bashing" you. That isn't what their religion teaches...and anytime I have answered that question that same way..their next response is "why not?". I don't believe that most moderate Christians would react that way either.
I'm not saying that all Christians bash atheists or that any time any atheist mentions their beliefs, they're attacked for them. My point was that you're complaining about oppression of religion in a primarily Christian country. My point was that if you see Christian bashing in this country, can you imagine what it's like for atheists and other minority beliefs? My point was that it's absurd for you to whine about how Christians are the victims in this country when they make up the -majority-.

You might as well be saying this country isn't "white" enough and there's too much "white oppression" in America.

Yes there are other religious beliefs here. Yes there is bashing of Christianity that occurs. But compared to every other belief system in this country, Christians have it great. And now that other religions are starting to ask why they can't get the same kind of representation, or ask that Christianity be more on level with other beliefs, people are upset because no one likes to have power or comfort taken away from them once they have it.


Here is that same person you mentioned, stating how the AMerican Atheists filed that same lawsuit about the pledge we were discussing that you stated most athiests don't support:

"Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"

The answer isn't really important...obviously they didn't like it, but regardless they support the very things I am arguing against. The funny thing you also forgot to mention is that that was not our current Presdient. That was his father, George H.W Bush. Not to mention, just because he has the belief that belief in God is important to America...and thus does not support atheism, does not mean he is going to revoke the citizenship of these people. That was his personal belief...and unfortunately for you, there are others who share it. Right or wrong, it isn't important unless someone enacts a law proclaiming atheists are not citizens.
I didn't quote Sherman to say I agree with his views (although frankly it's a little silly that people are up in arms so much over God being removed from the pledge of allegiance seeing as it wasn't even in it originally anyway and if people really want to still say it with the word God, no one's stopping them) I posted that quote as an example of intolerance towards atheists because you asked for examples. My apologies on not realizing which Bush it was...they have the same name so I'm not exactly sure why it's a massively important mistake. My point stands regardless which president said it (especially since Bush father and son tend to share similar views from what I've heard them say on various issues). The point is, if anyone dared say that about a Christian, people would be up in arms. But an atheist? Most people don't care. You yourself didn't seem shocked by it or even seem to consider it a problem, or at least you certainly didn't comment on it. You actually seemed to be agreeing with him. Do you believe atheists don't deserve to be considered citizens? Do you believe that's the sort of thing a president of our country should be saying about a group of people based solely on their religious (or lack thereof) beliefs?

[SpiritWolf77]

Missed the new posts while I was typing the previous one.


Originally posted by Darkslash
Did I say it did? Jumped right into that conclusion, did we?
Only-Now did. It was more directed at him but I wasn't sure if you agreed with him since you didn't correct him, just tried to further explain his point.


Accidents of gene replication leading to abnormalities within a species leading to the increased fitness of one mutation over another leading to natural selection of the most fit... is completely random. Who can tell when, where, and if a species will end up naturally selected? That's the beauty of the theory. (Do you even know where I stand on evolution?)
Regardless of where you stand, what you said was inaccurate. Believing in evolution doesn't automatically make you an expert on it or garuntee that you understand it properly. What you're saying here is more accurate (although not entirely, I'll get to that in a moment*) but that book's disclaimer was most definitely inaccurate to imply that evolution is entirely undirected. It suggests evolution is all one big coincidence, which is incredibly misleading, since coincidence has nothing to do with it.

*Evolution works through both mutation (gene copy mistakes, I assume those were the "accidents" you were referring to) and simple genetic drift (offspring in species that reproduce sexually do not have the exact same DNA as their parents). Also, mutations or genetic drift do not always necessarily result in increased fitness. Most mutations don't have any significant effect on the animal's ability to survive at all. Of the ones that do, most have negative effects. Additionally, what's "most-fit" in one environment may not necessarily be "most-fit" in another. Sudden environmental changes can affect evolution just as much as genetic changes can.

Also, still waiting for an answer to this:
"If this is directed at me, I don't see where I was being immature. Feel free to point it out."

[Dyani]

^Same with me, point out the immaturity in my stuff if its there.

Also, can you (Only-Now or Darkslash) answer my questions? I'd like to see your evidence :cheese:

[Dyani]

Sorry for double posting but I remebered a good rant by a reliable esteemed personage.

Sir Two talk about "Intelligent Design" (http://www.werewolves.org/~two/Rants/2rant-Intelligent_Design.mp3)

!!!THIS GUY SWEARS BUT HE HAS A POINT!!! Be a big person and ignore his swearings and it will make you a better person later in life. ;)

[SpiritWolf77]

Home now, looked up that lawsuit for you Only-Now: http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&VID=50&CID=487&DID=36777
I also actually found the shirt: http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/store/images/intolerantb.jpg

And here's some irony: http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=43272&in_page_id=2

[Only-now]

I already sent you that PM..so before I reply here, I am going to wait until we discuss this on MSN and get things straight. You have my point of view completely twisted...and I would prefer, as I said, to discuss this on MSN before I continue anything here.

Thank you for the link to the lawsuit, I read it, and I will do a bit more research on that as well.

~Kiva