Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 138

Thread: America: Not religous enough

  1. #41
    Senior Member Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    sweden
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,041
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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

  2. #42
    Aka STM (Administrator ) Sadiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,081
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    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 )

    Lea members I have met: Fuzzy, Naline, Boos, Ruska, Tima, Talfasi, JambaB, Sharifu, Vidan, Muruwa, Taneli, Shadow, nathalie, Lucy , Amaryllis, This Land, Daniel, Lion King Stu, King Simba, Nephilim, KanuTGL, Lion_King_300, 2DieFR, Kenai, A-non-a-mus, Eva Janus, dlb138, Levin, HasiraKali, Revo, Simba The Enigma, Azerane and Xacheraus.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  4. #44
    Aka STM (Administrator ) Sadiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,081
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    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 )

    Lea members I have met: Fuzzy, Naline, Boos, Ruska, Tima, Talfasi, JambaB, Sharifu, Vidan, Muruwa, Taneli, Shadow, nathalie, Lucy , Amaryllis, This Land, Daniel, Lion King Stu, King Simba, Nephilim, KanuTGL, Lion_King_300, 2DieFR, Kenai, A-non-a-mus, Eva Janus, dlb138, Levin, HasiraKali, Revo, Simba The Enigma, Azerane and Xacheraus.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,241
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  7. #47
    You have your orders, soldier. Dare's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,167
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

    Providing Lea with quality curmudgeon and lurking services since 2004.
    Lea Felon: warned for the heinous crime of poking a badger with a spoon.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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/

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,257
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  11. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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

  12. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.

  17. #57
    Aka STM (Administrator ) Sadiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,081
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    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 )

    Lea members I have met: Fuzzy, Naline, Boos, Ruska, Tima, Talfasi, JambaB, Sharifu, Vidan, Muruwa, Taneli, Shadow, nathalie, Lucy , Amaryllis, This Land, Daniel, Lion King Stu, King Simba, Nephilim, KanuTGL, Lion_King_300, 2DieFR, Kenai, A-non-a-mus, Eva Janus, dlb138, Levin, HasiraKali, Revo, Simba The Enigma, Azerane and Xacheraus.

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    665
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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. =)

  19. #59
    Aka STM (Administrator ) Sadiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    2,081
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    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

    Lea members I have met: Fuzzy, Naline, Boos, Ruska, Tima, Talfasi, JambaB, Sharifu, Vidan, Muruwa, Taneli, Shadow, nathalie, Lucy , Amaryllis, This Land, Daniel, Lion King Stu, King Simba, Nephilim, KanuTGL, Lion_King_300, 2DieFR, Kenai, A-non-a-mus, Eva Janus, dlb138, Levin, HasiraKali, Revo, Simba The Enigma, Azerane and Xacheraus.

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    216
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 21st, 2011, 12:47 AM
  2. Same Sex Unions In America
    By Dyani in forum The Shadowy Place
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: January 24th, 2007, 10:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •