Indoctrinating the military to commit genocide.

Told myself not to respond but this is definitely my last comment, as we are obviously on very different planets and neither will convince the other. I admit to believing in the need for a federal government that has more power than the US has shown recently. Regarding abortions I believe that it is an individual female only decision regardless of religion, and regarding prayers the place for them is in your church or home not in a publically funded school.
Feel free to argue otherwise & I'll be content to read without responding.

PeterZ wrote:You are absolutely right. Atheists must be treated just like any other human being and they should have their influence on public policy severely curtailed.

I am me I am not an "ist" or an "ic" or an "ism" what I want it the right to believe what I want and not to be forced in a manner contrary to my beliefs.

Yes I may disagree with the positions of some religions on certain issues (e.g. women's rights, consensual adult relationships), but I can also agree that those same religions can also do a lot of good (working with the poor, 3rd world schools etc).

The problems comes when someone in power from a certain belief uses that power to suppress the beliefs of another person, or to increase the power and wealth of their own belief, that is a slippery slope leading to theocracy.

Basically I don't care if the leader of my government is Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist or even Pastafarian just as long as they do a good job.

I would sum all of this up as: "Keep your religion out of my laws."

Indeed so. My point is that someone's lack of religion already has intruded into my laws.

KNick wrote:I would sum all of this up as: "Keep your religion out of my laws."

The slope is slippery in two directions. Theocracy in one direction and irreligion/anti-religion in the other. My entire point is that current progressive views aren't religion neutral but anti-religion.

Laws allowing the personal choice of an abortion is one thing. Laws that force people who believe it is murderer to financially support it through mandated insurance coverage is another. Who's religious/moral view will government enforce?

If it always comes down to govt supporting the most popular view, then we have the tyrrany of the majority. There are certain areas that govt must be powerless to effect or it will in effect adopt one religious view over another.

Emo Otaku wrote:

PeterZ wrote:You are absolutely right. Atheists must be treated just like any other human being and they should have their influence on public policy severely curtailed.

I am me I am not an "ist" or an "ic" or an "ism" what I want it the right to believe what I want and not to be forced in a manner contrary to my beliefs.

Yes I may disagree with the positions of some religions on certain issues (e.g. women's rights, consensual adult relationships), but I can also agree that those same religions can also do a lot of good (working with the poor, 3rd world schools etc).

The problems comes when someone in power from a certain belief uses that power to suppress the beliefs of another person, or to increase the power and wealth of their own belief, that is a slippery slope leading to theocracy.

Basically I don't care if the leader of my government is Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist or even Pastafarian just as long as they do a good job.

Taking this topic back to Namelessfly's original post, it is the very power of government to assert one set of beliefs over another or one group of people (however they are classified) over another that lead to genocide. The assertion that any one set of unprovable belief systems is better than any other and so MUST be enforced by government is a danger to society as we know it. That is true for the system that requires a belief in something just as it is true for the belief system that requires a belief on nothing.

A neutral stance is one that allows for all to exist and doesn't allow the monopoly on coercion that government holds to be used exclude any theist or atheist. Too many people on either side don't realize just how far from neutral their own views actually are.

Daryl wrote:PeterZ are you implying that I am an atheist?
Not actually stating what I am, or likely to, although obviously I'm not aligned with evangelical Christianity or fundamentalist Islam.
My point in that part was that those who make the rules should not let their own beliefs or lack of them influence their decisions in a way that is detrimental to others. I loathe the zealots trying to impose their version of morality on me, but also loathe those who would try and prevent others from having their own private beliefs.

The question of your being atheist or not is irrelevant.

Your equating evangelical Christians who peacefully participate in the political process with Islamicists who have incited so much terrorism around the world simply exposes your own, mindless bigotry.

The rapidity with which this thread has degenerated illustrates the point. Many secular laws that are not at all controversial such as a near prohibition on killing (self defense, war, executions are exceptions) and laws against theft, robbery and rape were originally formulated by people whose political positions were informed by their religious beliefs. The fact that so many divergent religious traditions could agree on these laws suggests both the possibility that there exists an objective, secular morality as well as the possible validity of religious thought.

The extreme militancy displayed on this forum towards people whose opposition to abortion is informed by their religious beliefs seems to be motivated by uncertainty about the validity of their own beliefs. If their secular beliefs can support a government prohibition on murder, then why can they not consider a prohibition on or at least regulation of abortion? By any objective, scientific standard, a child in utero is a living human being. There are relevant issues of a woman's health and privacy. At what point might an unborn baby's right to life supersede the woman's right?

People refuse to consider these issues and choose to demonize those who oppose abortion not because they are so confident in their belief that an unborn child is not human. Their hostility is motivated by the fear that a prohibition on abortion might compel them to reconsider their libertine sexuality.

The bottom line is that they will not tolerate anyone who might interfere with their decision to fornicate rather than procreate.

namelessfly wrote:I saw this post recently and was greatly disturbed by the implications.

http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress. ... -briefing/

Very basically, Ms Palin talks about something she read that was written by a guy who was told stuff by someone else. Which may or may not be accurate at any step of this progression.

7thsealord wrote:

namelessfly wrote:I saw this post recently and was greatly disturbed by the implications.

http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress. ... -briefing/

Very basically, Ms Palin talks about something she read that was written by a guy who was told stuff by someone else. Which may or may not be accurate at any step of this progression.

An accurate description of Palin's post.

However; I have heard many similar accounts from diverse sources which makes it credible to me.

Keep in mind that this is the adminstration that classified themass murder by Maj Hassan as "workplace violence" rather than terrorism.