Inspired from the religon thread

decides2dream wrote:

well how about this: do you at least concede, forgetting it's relative importance or non-importance, that at the VERY least, it as a national symbol does not accurately depict ALL citizens, thus is exclusionary instead of inclusionary? .

Perhaps. I think even this is a stretch. I'll concede a little here. But I absolutely draw the line at perhaps, mildly, exclusionary.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

This is not about bashing religous people at all. I am curious as to why they support the administration when they are needlessly killing. If 'Thou shall not kill' is one of their ten commandments I would think they would be denouncing these policies, speaking out. I fully aware many do but my question is to those who are voicing support for this killing. I'm just wondering how you can devote your life to following god and then ignore this.

well in this sense, one should be fair; not all religious people support our government, this war, etc...any more than non-religious. i do in fact know some pretty devout, religious people, who whole-heartedly are against the war, against our current administration...and even are in support of choice, etc...b/c they rightly assert what they believe/practice is theirs, and it is right for others to be afforded the rights to make their own choices too. amazing, but true. one of these people is in fact an eastern orthodox catholic....so it thoroughly impresses me that she truly recognizes/appreciates the seperation of church and state...her rights and the rights of others....that laws should be less constrictive to allow more personal choice.


oops...damn, i am guilty of not reading fully. i did not see the end of your post. so yea...disregard, you already covered it.

messymarv wrote:

Well here in lies the real problem almost all codes of ethics and behaviour come from religon. Our forefathers were all religious. Not to kill, steal etc.. come from not going against the higher being they believed in. So if someone refuses to believe in a God whose moral code was basis of our laws then they should be free to kill, steal, etc.. cause those are codes of religious belief and there is not suspose to be religon in government, right. So that argument means everyone on death row is indeed innocent cause the law is based on belief of our forefathers God. So remove religon from government you'd have to excuse all violations of the ten copmandments Murder, theft, etc..

No way. Whether people are religious or not, most societies in general have agreed that not killing others, and not stealing other peoples' stuff improves the quality of life for everyone. I don't have to be religious to think this. I can agree with some concepts that religious people think without being religious myself. Its not mutually exclusive.

angelica wrote:

I'd like to hear more about the "loophole" that decides2dream mentioned. I've heard such explanations before, where "Christians" explain how killing is actually in fact justified. To me this is flagrant disregard for spiritual truth, and the classic example of man distorting spirituality to serve the petty small-minded, agenda oriented ego.

I agree with Abook, it's a fair question. I've always been mesmerised with the "rationalisations" for doing abhorrant destructive things.

thank you! seriously, i know i've read/heard of it...at least within catholicism, the only religion i am even remotely schooled in. there is some sort of 'loophole' in it...but again i stress i really don't know more about it. i actually used to teach in a catholic school - i was an art teacher, so no worries on me being a negative influence on any religious youth - and i remember when 09/11 happened, and our government was amping up for war....our principal 'explained' all this one day in a general announcement b/c i am sure some of the students asked this very same question. however, i cannot correctly explain what the rationale was, or what it was based on per se...so i'd love someone far more in the 'know' to explain it.

surferdude wrote:

This is why it's a religion bashing thread. Here you are expounding the virtues of a religious person who believes in choice even though it goes against their beliefs. Then why don't you afford this person the same respect and let them back a government in war, knowing that war is not the choice for them "and it is right for others to be afforded the rights to make their own choices too". No one is in the army who didn't knowingly sign up without knowing that there was a chance they could be put in a position to kill..

do please read my posts, not once in any way, shape, or form have i EVER 'bashed' a religious person. i am all for CHOICE, and that includes the right to believe whatever you choose. so yes, i do actually afford them those very same 'rights'...as i do anyone.

surferdude wrote:

I realize you treat religious and non-religious people equally with respect. I didn't say you were bashing religion but that this whole post is about bashing religious people. How can you commend a person for not voting based on their religious belief when it comes to abortion but then think it's okay for a post to be crerated that slams religious people for doing the same thing when it comes to backing a government in war.

could you plz point out how the original post is 'bashing religion'? i saw it more as asking a question about how they can come to a conclusion of supporting one over the other when they are in direct conflict w/ their religious beliefs. why is it all encompassing of ALL religious ppl to you?

Oh, and I'd like to clarify that I could be a supportive person to someone at war, although I would not support their choices--I could support them as humans, including the horror they experience.

surferdude wrote:

I realize you treat religious and non-religious people equally with respect. I didn't say you were bashing religion but that this whole post is about bashing religious people. How can you commend a person for not voting based on their religious belief when it comes to abortion but then think it's okay for a post to be crerated that slams religious people for doing the same thing when it comes to backing a government in war.

ok. well i guess i didn't actually consider the first post of this thread a condemnation thus i would not think it's ok. i simply viewed it as a means to discussion. and to be fair, the question was in regards to people who are religious AND support the current war....not those who are religious and not supportive. i think maybe for someone who is completely non-religious, and perhaps didn't even grow up with religion - not that i am second-guessing abook's motives, i have no idea...i am just making a seperate hypothesis here - but with no real knowledge of religion beyond what is out on the media...it's a fair inquiry? an honest question? as i said, even my studnets questioned it...thus why our principal addressed the issue...b/c young children are taught the basics of the 10 commandments, and then when they see government sanctioned killing, they don't get it. so to me, perhaps that's where the question stems from? one does not need to assume it's mean to be bashing.

however, you are right in one sense....i was/am commending someone for voting based on what they perceived as the greater good, that of freedom of choice for others to make ytheir own personal decisions based on their own belief system, even if it opposed their own...so sure.....you're saying that one may be religious and still support say a war, that while it's against their personal belief system they can see a greater good in it? am i understanding you correctly?...b/c i don't want to put words in your mouth...i just wanted to recognize where you see the offense in this question posed.

surferdude wrote:

Because it is calling out only the actions of religious people, when non-religious people who don't believe in killing support this government and the war.
I can understand calling out all people on their hypocrisy. It is religion bashing when you only call out the religious people. It is the difference between saying "all people can be dumb" and "all women can be dumb". The latter is a sexist statement even though it may be true.

gotcha now. and sure, you're right. perhaps one may think that if someone is religious though, that they follow a prescribed set of beliefs, that one may wonder how they reconcile such? i would think it was merely genuine curiosity about that to prompt the question...but sure, your idea makes sense.

btw - do you know anything about the 'loophole' thing i mentioned earlier...righteous killing, or whatever...i really am unsure and i AM curious to know what it stems from.