What is the one true faith (or lack thereof)?

[consolation]

The Faith Based Initiative is always misunderstood. Nowhere, at all, does the Faith Based Initiative encourage one religious group. Instead, its goal is to create an enviornment within the United States Department of Health and Human Services that welcomes the participation of faith based and community based organizations to help citizens in need. It does not encourage Christianity over Buddism, or over any other religion. It is simply offering a fair playing field for religious groups, as well as community groups, to help citizens in need throughout the United States. How the hell is that breaking the separation of Church and State?

 

Yeah, but the bulk of money goes towards funding christian groups, think of it as a big tax payer funded advertising campaign. The group that gets the most mullah gets the highest profile. And, if you don't believe in any sort of divine presence, your money is being used to fund the equivalent of the flat-earth society. What about UFO abductees, they BELIEVE they've been contacted; can they get subsidies to produce tin foil hats so no child is left behind? I am being flippant, but my point has always been that complete separation of Church & State allows for a clear line to be drawn. Otherwise if you allow one initiative why not fund them all?

[gwprod12]

Yes, while no Christian faith based group would object to receiving an atheist's tax money to promote their religion, most Christians would object to their tax money being given to The Devil Worshipper's Save The Children Foundation.

 

The same can be said for School. If it's okay for a public school to trot out baby jesus in a manger, it should be okay for a public school to trot out the Sigil of Baphomet. If it's okay for a public school to encourage praying to Jesus, it should be okay for a public school to encourage praying to Satan. Or to J. R. Bob Dobbs, for that matter.

[wildcat69410]

Yes, while no Christian faith based group would object to receiving an atheist's tax money to promote their religion, most Christians would object to their tax money being given to The Devil Worshipper's Save The Children Foundation.

 

Oh, and Christians simply enjoy it when their tax dollars are spent towards eliminating the 10 Commandments in courthouses. Hey, if there's a justifiable religious group out there, with the sincere goal of helping other citizens, then I don't see how that could be a negative thing. No matter their religion.

 

The same can be said for School. If it's okay for a public school to trot out baby jesus in a manger, it should be okay for a public school to trot out the Sigil of Baphomet. If it's okay for a public school to encourage praying to Jesus, it should be okay for a public school to encourage praying to Satan. Or to J. R. Bob Dobbs, for that matter.

 

The issue with public schools and prayer isn't that they are encouraging a singular religion, but rather that they are encouraging prayer at all. When a school allows for an "official" prayer time, they don't care who prays to what, they just have a short 15 second time period set aside for it. As the school isn't encouraging a specific religion, but rather silence to allow anyone to do anything (including praying), I don't see the issue.

[killbot1000]

The issue with public schools and prayer isn't that they are encouraging a singular religion, but rather that they are encouraging prayer at all. When a school allows for an "official" prayer time, they don't care who prays to what, they just have a short 15 second time period set aside for it. As the school isn't encouraging a specific religion, but rather silence to allow anyone to do anything (including praying), I don't see the issue.

 

Right, thats all well and good, but that is an assumption, not all religions have prayer, and not all religions practice prayer in the christian fashion (asking god for things). Its not really that important, you go to school, you learn material you go home, if you ask me, the idea of prayer in schools isn't bad, its just irrelevant, so whats the point in having it at school?

[gwprod12]

I dont think anyone has ever objected to 15 seconds of silence in class. When I was in school, I spent my 15 seconds of silence not thinking about some dead guy, or some bombed embassy, or whatever. I thought about whatever I wanted to. It's when it's framed as prayer that there's a problem. In my opinion.

[consolation]

Yes, while no Christian faith based group would object to receiving an atheist's tax money to promote their religion, most Christians would object to their tax money being given to The Devil Worshipper's Save The Children Foundation.

 

The Devil Worshipper's Save The Children Foundation. I like it, I like it a lot; wish I was rich enough to register it and pay for some promotional TV air time. Then, I could apply to the Faith Initiative for some funding. Oh, the moral outrage, the bilious editorials... it would be glorious

But then, I am not an American, so it would have to be The Foreign Devil Worshipper's Save The Children Foundation. I wonder if they would let me land @ LAX; or just reroute the plane straight to Guantanamo?

[gwprod12]

Foreign Devil Worshipper is redundant. ;-p

[Ouch]

 

Although shouldn't it be The Devil Worshipper's Condemn the Children Foundation?

[gwprod12]

If you're a Satanist, innocents (children and animals) are sacred. And not for "sacrificial" reasons.

[djpc47]

I had thought but just forgot to.... but anyway.....

 

the way I see it I believe in a god.....

if there happens to not be one when I die no biggy as no time was lost.... I lived life as I wanted it....

 

if there is one I believed in god and followed my beliefs of what was best to my best, the rest is for em to judge

 

 

is the one thing that I don't understand about the Atheists who try and denote religions... not all but some seem like they feel as though they're trying to do people favors by removing their burdens not realizing they're causing their own burden and in truth there was no other burden..... god or no god

 

I rather follow 1million false idols who tell a person to do good things then try and take em all down and prove em all wrong.....really only to become wrong

[gwprod12]

It's foolish to attempt to prove religion wrong. And impossible. Most atheists just want to be left alone as atheists. (same with agnostics). It's even possible that most Christians, Jews and Muslims want to be left alone to be Christians, Jews and Muslims. Who could object to that? That's what religion freedom is all about. Religious freedom is freedom from religion too. And quite a few people do object to having someone else's religion injected into their daily lives.

[oregano]

i dunno, i support judaism, i agree with its positive, not negative, beliefs

 

its all about making the world better and believing in god while doing so

 

but other religions cant be stupid if smart, good people, are believers in them

 

so as long as faith tells u to do good things to make the world better, the little details dont matter in my opinion

[consolation]

The problem occurs when decisions are made and public policy is pursued based on religious belief. For example the refusal of the US government to provide it's share of funding for UN AIDS projects. Why; because they distribute condoms, and according to evangelical christian groups once you get hold of a condom you are going to screw like a bunny on ecstasy. So, they leaned on the US administration. Thanks to a religious belief promoting a false morality thousands of people are dying and a mountain of money is piled into bogus abstinence programmes.

 

That's why a lot of atheists wish that people would just stop deluding themselves and make RATIONAL decisions.

[gwprod12]

That's a very good point. My logic is that if people are going to screw like bunnies anyways (they are), then it's better if they screw like bunnies safely. Giving a condom to someone who already screws like bunnies isnt going to make them screw like bunnies (they already are), though it might make them screw like non-bunnies. The notion that the only thing stopping human beings from screwing like bunnies before marriage is the lack of birth control. That's just patently false. As you might find in Christian Conservative propaganda, that increased access to birth control means higher birthrate and more STDs. Absitinence is the only fool-proof way to protect yourself from STDs and pregnancy. But who actually practices abstinence willingly?

[wildcat69410]

As you might find in Christian Conservative propaganda, that increased access to birth control means higher birthrate and more STDs. Absitinence is the only fool-proof way to protect yourself from STDs and pregnancy. But who actually practices abstinence willingly?

 

Propoganda? That argument goes both ways, but anyway... Abstinence actually is the only fool proof way of preventing those things, but you do bring up a valid point. People practice Abstinence willingly across America, if only because they know the consequences of doing otherwise. Abstinence is just making a logical decision while weighing the consequences of the action.

 

That, and SOME people practice it because they're morally sane, but that could just be my take on it.

[gwprod12]

Let me rephrase. Abstinence is good. People should be encouraged to abstain from sex before marriage. However, what if someone doesnt want to abstain? Should their needs be ignored? Suppressed? That invites unwanted pregnancy and stds. If you dont want to have sex, then dont. If you do want to have sex, learn enough to be responsible. No one should get into sex-related trouble through lack of education.

[killbot1000]

people should do what makes them happy, if sex makes one happy and its a good part of their life, do it. If somebody prefers to refrain for a while, let them do that too. I don't abstinence is "good" but I also don't think that sex is "bad" there's no value judgment here, just preferences. Go with whatever preference makes you happy

[gwprod12]

And, if you disagree with what's good for society, no one's stopping you from putting your kid into a christian private school.

[oregano]

i really dont agree with the conservative christian beliefs in anti-abortion, condoms/birth control, and for that matter, {censored} marriage

 

although i have nothing against christians in general, i dont support their beliefs toward those subjects, and i would really like someone to explain ur viewpoint (as a conservative) and y u could possibly be agains {censored} marriage, abortion, and, if possible but unlikely, condoms/birth control

[wildcat69410]

although i have nothing against christians in general, i dont support their beliefs toward those subjects, and i would really like someone to explain ur viewpoint (as a conservative) and y u could possibly be agains {censored} marriage, abortion, and, if possible but unlikely, condoms/birth control

 

I'll give it a shot, and any other conservative on the board can feel free to add in their own tidbits.

 

I'll begin with {censored} marriage. The issue for me against {censored} marriage isn't that I don't believe they deserve rights. They certainly do. They deserve all of the govermental protections offered to heterosexual couples under the current law. However, my conflict is with the naming of such a union. It is my belief that "marriage" is defined as, and should be between a man and a woman. Therefore, I don't believe that a {censored} union should be referred to as a marriage. Now before anyone accuses me, I am not homophobic. I just simply believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and no way else.

 

However, I voted against the amendment to the Constitution on Election Day ironically. Primarily because although I do believe we want to set down a ruling on this, before some crazy judges hunt for months to find some "right" to {censored} marriage, it needs to be done by the legislature, not by a Constitutional amendement. Amending the Constitution here is a painful, and often unnecessary process, which I don't want to have to spend the time reversing later on down the road if necesssary.

 

Moving right along, I'll hit the next major issue, Abortion. The key conflict here, at least at a conservative standpoint, is the moment during a fetus's development where you can consider that fetus "living", at least to a point where Abortion is no longer an option. Many argue that a fetus is not living at all, and therefore is just an appendage to a woman's body, that she should have the absolute right to remove. Others believe that it is a child the moment it attaches to the uterus wall. Personally, I disaprove of Abortion simply from a moral standpoint. If you've ever taken a look at the ultrasound, or simply any picture of the development of a child, and see the outright characteristics present, then I don't see how you could possibly be for abortion. After witnessing one myself, and watching how the so called not alive "fetus" was sucking its thumb, accidentily kicking itself in the head, etc etc, it's incredibly difficult to even begin to think abortion.

 

To sum Abortion up there, a fetus is living, and I don't see the point in killing a living thing. The majority of Abortion cases can be prevented by simple intelligent thought. Why should the child have to pay the cost of a parent making a mistake?

 

Finally, I'll hit condoms/birth control. Obviously, as a conservative, when it comes to sex education I believe that Abstinence is the way to go. Many will argue that success rates with Abstinence are low, that it's ineffective, etc etc. However, when presented with the facts, most teenagers out there would conclude that if Abstinence is the only 100% foolproof way to avoid pregnancy and STD's, then they'd pick it. Even still, some will argue that we still need to provide condoms and birth control to teenagers who make the choice of having sex. However, in most circumstances, if they truly want to get a condom, then they can buy a condom. It's not as if condom's are some black market, underground deal. Any intelligent teenager can simply stop at a gas station, pick up a pack, and then they're all ready for "safe" sex.

 

When you begin to offer them at school, and in sex ed classes, you do more to encourage underage sex than to discourage. How seriously can students take a teacher who stands up in front of a class, shows the consequences of stupid decisions (pregnancy, STD's), proves how only Abstinence can 100% protect you from that, and then adds, "Okay guys, and you can pick up your pack of trojans on the way out!". By teaching Abstinence at schools, you're not restricting the ability of the teenager to engage in "safe sex", but you're not encouraging sex by providing a way to avoid the consequences.

 

 

Whew, there's my conservative point of view on those topics. I'm not open to questions, and amendments if necessary.

[gwprod12]

There are two camps of {censored}-marriagers. The ones who want the rights, and the ones who want the recognition. I know this is an anachronism, but {censored} people dont want a "slave marraige" or some other BS that can be dissolved whenever government wants. They want a legitimate union that is exactly the same as marriage, with the same name. So no one can say "well, you're not really married, you're just civil unionized, therefor, these rights shouldnt go to you", or whatever. It's all a matter of personal opinion, I guess. I understand why social conservatives dont want {censored} people to be "married", but I disagree with them.

 

Abortion: Almost no-one declaims a conceptus to be inanimate matter, or a part of it's mother. What pro-choice people say is that a conceptus is only a potential human being, and so therefor doesnt have the same level of rights as a true human being. That's debatable, I guess. An argument I just thought of is this: If a conceptus is a true human being, why doesnt it have the same rights as an adult. Why doesnt a child have those same rights? The reason why a child doesnt have the right to drink or fornicate or drive is because a child (theoretically) is not sufficiently ripe to be able to make such choices. Well, if a conceptus doesnt even have a will, how can it have any rights at all? Here we balance two opposing viewpoints: One, that human life begins at conception, and should be brought to term, and then put out for adoption or whatever. The other is that a conceptus isnt an actual human being, doesnt have a right to life or self-determination, and it's needs and wants shouldnt conflict with it's mother's. I still think an unwanted fetus should be scooped out, frozen and put in a population control bank somewhere, but apparently no one thinks that is a good compromise.

 

Social progressives for the most part think that the tools to succeed and protect oneself from the rigors of life should be freely available. That no one should have to have an abortion, or an unwanted child, or a child they are incapable of supporting. While Abstinence is obviously the best solution, it cannot be the only solution. The way I see it is this. Pro-Abstinence-only folks believe that by showing people birth control, they only undermine the message of abstinence. Maybe that's true. But at least, if they choose not to abstain, they have another option.

 

Anti-abortionists and Pro-birthcontrolists should really be allies. If everyone got sex-ed and access to prophylactics (the progressive ideal), and abortions were outlawed strictly (the conservative ideal), then anyone who needed an abortion was only asking to get pregnant, and should have/did know better. (or raped, which obviously is an issue for another day).

 

Just my take.

[killbot1000]

All I'm saying is that I take separation of church and state to the extreme. We should make national laws that prevent physical harm to others (murder, rape, etc) after that it should be left up to the individual. Abortion for example, I don't really agree with it whole heartedly, but its a decision that should be up to the person having to deal with it, not some rich, government official in Washington D.C. who just didn't think people should do it. {censored} marriage is another thing, if one is morally opposed to it, then don't get married to somebody of the same sex. Or prayer in schools, the state/country shouldn't be promoting prayer in schools, but they should let students pray if they want to, also, if thats a problem, take your kid to a religious school, I'm all about choice. All of us are different in this world, deal with it, and let people do their own thing as long as it doesn't harm another person (and no, two dudes getting married does not harm you [whoever takes this message to heart]).

[wildcat69410]

All I'm saying is that I take separation of church and state to the extreme. We should make national laws that prevent physical harm to others (murder, rape, etc) after that it should be left up to the individual. Abortion for example, I don't really agree with it whole heartedly, but its a decision that should be up to the person having to deal with it, not some rich, government official in Washington D.C. who just didn't think people should do it. {censored} marriage is another thing, if one is morally opposed to it, then don't get married to somebody of the same sex. Or prayer in schools, the state/country shouldn't be promoting prayer in schools, but they should let students pray if they want to, also, if thats a problem, take your kid to a religious school, I'm all about choice. All of us are different in this world, deal with it, and let people do their own thing as long as it doesn't harm another person (and no, two dudes getting married does not harm you [whoever takes this message to heart]).

 

To a certain extent, I can understand your position. However, extreme positions on issues are rarely the best. When considering the good of the society as a whole, the will of the individual really gets sacrificed. At this point, it's basic Rosseauan theory at this point. Now, I'm not justifying at all the use of religion to quash a minortiy, nor the complete integration of religion into politics and government. I just think that that barebones approach won't solve as many problems as it will create. With the exception of serious crimes, the rest of the society is up to individual interpretation. With so many individuals out there, often with wildly different interpretations and desires, we'll end up with so many conflicts on so many levels.

 

Plus, there is always the issue of if the Government should protect someone from themself. Of course, this issue is really another topic entirely, but it does bring up a relatively good point.

 

In the end, I'm not saying that the Government we have is perfect, I'm always up for some change. However, the solution cannot be found on the extreme ends of either spectrum. In this circumstance, we need to find a fair compromise between the two, without destroying all rights, but still setting the general will of the people as a priority. The Government we have now is fairly accurate, but if you have any suggestions, I would love to discuss them. Political Theory is a favorite of mine.

[consolation]

The whole "abstinence is good" argument presumes so much social & religious baggage. Why is it better? Why the underlying assumption that sex is "bad." Only because we send such weird messages about sex being something "dirty." What if instead we taught that sex is a good, healthy, natural thing to do when done between peers and when done safely. Maybe if everyone felt that they could talk about their desires without feeling shame or guilt, we would be a whole lot less neurotic as society

[gwprod12]

Agreed.