Thread: MSNBC Messes Up... Admits their King just another Muslim

Originally Posted by roundabout

With that being said, when I read history or try to understand events in a historical context, should I treat different the atheist (character) in history from the Christian (character) in history?

Treat them as two human beings, one that believes and one that doesn't. Recognizing the beliefs or lack of, in the case of the atheist, of a historical individual is essential in the understanding of the decisions made by that individual. But if one were to make an assumption that the atheist character lead an immoral life because of his lack of belief without fully reading into his actions and decisions in life is faulty.

Although I respect people who believe in sa God, I find this totally unacceptable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/fe ... reducation

"A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists."

The Bible or Qur'an have no place in the science class and are NOT scientific fact. People can believe in a tooth fairy, flying unicorns, sun gods but just because you do does not make it fact or something that can be used to disprove evolution. Evolution has been proven time and time again using the scientific method, you can not apply the same process to the Bible/Qur'an.

They want to write down that the Earth was created in 6 days on a science exam of all places, then they deserve to fail frankly.

xfighter wrote,

roundabout wrote:
With that being said, when I read history or try to understand events in a historical context, should I treat different the atheist (character) in history from the Christian (character) in history?


Treat them as two human beings, one that believes and one that doesn't. Recognizing the beliefs or lack of, in the case of the atheist, of a historical individual is essential in the understanding of the decisions made by that individual. But if one were to make an assumption that the atheist character lead an immoral life because of his lack of belief without fully reading into his actions and decisions in life is faulty.

Thank You xfighter for your honest and thoughtful response. There is some difference in the thought process. That was my point. As for the assumptions of immorality that is left to the individual and all(people of faith, or those influenced by faiths) are capable of immorality.(Who determines what is immorality in a given society?) However if one looks at history with discernment towards the character of an individual, why would not one look at the future with the same discernment concerning implied or perceived thought processes, or expectations of individuals? This I concede is a matter of personal preference based upon past experiences, and their faith influences or lack thereof.

Now, almost back to where we started. If we agree that the two, the atheist and the person of faith, both have differing thought processes, which would have the better chance of interpreting thoughts in a historical perspective knowing up front the differing characters in question? Would the atheist understand fully the Christian's thoughts?

The only reason I ask such a question is due to those who claim to be atheists, or those of other faiths, trying to add to, or take away from, historical events, historical events which include as characters, men of faith. Stating that their faith is based on superstitions or ignorance will not in, and of itself, unlock their thought processes. Even if they are based on superstitions, a lack of a thorough understanding of that particular superstition would leave one short of comprehending events as they truly occurred, or were intended to be passed down for future generations.

Why then should it be surprising that people of a particular faith tend to prefer political leaders to be of that same faith?

I could go on, and on, with opinions, statements, and questions. But perhaps just some simple questions. Is the Christian community that horrible that some people would prefer they not be an influence in our country? If not Christians then who would set the structure for our society? Where would the set of morals be drawn from? When was the last time that an atheist was burned at the stake? Or taken as a slave due to his lack of adherence to the Christian faith? Christian influences are all around us, remove them all and what are we left with? The atheist now has the benefit of knowledge based upon many faiths from around the world to draw upon morals that he or she can agree upon and live according too. On there own with no influences what is offered? I will leave it at this point, as any more and my statements or questions could easily be mistaken as offensive.

Thanks for you comment roundabout. You make very thoughtful and interesting points.

It is not suprising at all that people would prefer anyone who is on their side and share common ideals. One of the reasons I myself would rather prefer an atheist.

No, modern day Christians are not at all horrible to people compared to the Christians of the past (can be said about society in general). So I have absolutely no problem with the tolerant, non-extremist Christians when it comes to their treatment of people. You said, "On their own with no influeces what is offered?" So I'm assuming by influences you mean faith? How about this: empathy for others. I don't hurt people because I'd hate to be hurt, I don't steal because I'd hate to be stolen from. You do not need to be taught this, it is human nature.... Although there are those among us that are unable to feel empathy for whatever reason, be it psychological, so I can see how religion can step in and get them to think that if they do bad, some super being will punish them, and if they do good, you go to heaven. But it won't always work either.

I don't mind preserving this nation's Christian traditions. I love Christmas, not because of it's religious significance, but because it's a time of happiness and family. If Christmas brings joy to many people, then why should we steal it from them?

However one of the reasons I find Chrisianity, or any religion for that matter, problematic is because of it's conflict with scientific thinking:

Muslims and Christians denying evolution on the basis that Bible and Kor'an says otherwise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/fe ... reducation

but perhaps this is only a minor conflict and won't necessarily impede overall scientific/technological progress, who knows.

As a moral tool, religion can be effective, but not a requirement for being a decent human being. A society predominantly atheistic could be just as moral.

xfighter,

"When fools rush in."......Rest assured, I will not be far behind.

Yet I stated earlier, and wish for some rest from a potential thrashing.

as any more and my statements or questions could easily be mistaken as offensive.

Continuing,

I asked,

Christian influences are all around us, remove them all and what are we left with? The atheist now has the benefit of knowledge based upon many faiths from around the world to draw upon morals that he or she can agree upon and live according too. On there own with no influences what is offered?

Your response,

So I'm assuming by influences you mean faith? How about this: empathy for others. I don't hurt people because I'd hate to be hurt, I don't steal because I'd hate to be stolen from. You do not need to be taught this, it is human nature.... Although there are those among us that are unable to feel empathy for whatever reason, be it psychological, so I can see how religion can step in and get them to think that if they do bad, some super being will punish them, and if they do good, you go to heaven. But it won't always work either.

You have also brought the theory of evolution into this discussion. Atheism and the theory of evolution do seem to go hand in hand. Where to start? The cave or the open savannahs? Anthropologists (many of which claim to be atheists) tell us that when man advanced, or evolved along the pre-determined path of "survival of the fittest" (If I am not mistaken even Darwin understood the contention contained in this phrase.) that a time in this evolutionary process left man with free time on his hands. Technological advances brought forth free time for religion and art, and social functions, a sense of community beyond just the need for strength in numbers.

Why religion? Why not just more art, or time to just lay around? Atheism seems to have missed a perfect time to have "evolved." On the other hand we realize that religion helps to bring about a much needed cohesion in the group or community. Atheism leaves the individuals at the mercy of the "survival of the fittest."

The evolution of man's technologies moves forward. Understanding that for every positive there is a negative, even technologies are subjected to this law of nature. Darwin was apologetic concerning his theory of evolution. Nobel started a prize understanding full well what he had invented. Those involved with the A-Bomb had their misgivings as well.

When you answered my question, "Christian influences are all around us, remove them and what are we left with?", I also stated, "The atheist now has the benefit of knowledge based upon many faiths from around the world to draw upon morals that he or she can agree upon and live according too." You first acknowledged this from the perspective of "I", then moved onto the "we" or communal and admittedly acknowledged the short failings of others. You also stated that the nature of man, human nature tells each of us what is right or wrong. Yet sociology tells us that we are products of our surroundings. If this is so, then the field is wide open, just ask a cannibal. Moses would have never had any need to climb a mountain and carry down the Ten Commandments if we all understood what was best for ourselves. This was done not for the minority, but for the majority.

You have acknowledged from your perspectives that a lack of faith, atheism could result, in a communal sense, people living morally in any given society. Yet I have stated based upon the theory of evolution, and scientific disciplines that this is just not so. ("Survival of the fittest", "products of our environment") Many answer questions from the perspective of "I", and leave the "We" all alone. Christianity provides for a path for the salvation of the "I" and a path for living and enhancing the value of the "We." Atheism looks towards the "I" and "We" as both equally positive and negative, expecting order from chaos, and human nature can evolve to fit the mold. So much so, that some see themselves as god, or a god unto themselves. How does one fit that into a orderly society? If, "religion is the morphine of the masses", what are the masses without the morphine? Each according to their abilities, each according to their needs? This is just a dangerous and manipulative attempt at misleading the feeble and naive towards abandoning God so that each and every one can transform themselves into a god. Then the self appointed (the fittest) will rule as the greater gods over the lesser gods. Just like Satan, the greater gods will not care if there are those who believe in them or not, they will win by default. As a self professed atheist, just what was Marx trying to achieve?

I have tried to keep my post in the secular realm as much as possible. I must ask, does it not seem odd that there is a book that has foretold so much of what we see all around us coming to fruition? The Age of the Gentiles?

[/quote]

Originally Posted by DarthIllegal

Originally Posted by xfighter

Personally I would prefer our leaders didn't believe in any religion or much less make it a requirement of them. That being said, Obama's affiliation with Islam or Christianity is frankly of little importance to me SO LONG he doesn't force any of his beliefs down my throat. Like AmericanElizabeth mentioned, it just seems like nowadays politicians only make a big deal of their religious affiliations only to garner votes from the religious Americans who would otherwise not vote for an atheist such as myself. Given the choice between a Muslim and Atheist, I wouldn't be surprised if America voted for the Muslim only because he believed in a divine being.

Wow!! Such a bold move from you in a forum like this!! I agree completely. To me, spirituality is personal. Your shouldn't force your religion on others, especially in politics.

I agree...the seperation of church and state was how it was to be.

You don't politic in church and you don't stump religioun in politics. It is a good checks and balance principal.

I have my own "private" belief that is to complex to try to share and think others sould take it to that level also.

I think the common thought is that the Catholics are wonderful christians...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQPxF_nT2DA

Originally Posted by xfighter

Originally Posted by roundabout

AE wrote,

I am all for a REAL Christian president, if we can ever get one....but lately, we have been getting pretenders that just use it for our votes,

If we were to get a REAL Christian as President or any other office for that matter, would we be wise enough to know it, collectively speaking? What is in a man's heart is hard to judge from a distance, time and decisions will tell.

Exactly! You make an excellent point. So why the heck do we want our President's to be Christians as opposed to atheists. Because someone is Christian doesn't mean that he'll be a moral person. Same goes for atheists. No one knows for sure what kind of person we're dealing with. Lets judge people by their actions as opposed to what they believe in. Lets end this ignorance.

Seems to me that a lot more horrific crimes were perpetrated in the name of "something" than in the name of nothing. I know who I would feel safer with...

I have often wondered if our founders and framers, and this would include the colonist of various posts in life, allowed their religious thoughts and principles to guide their political thoughts? How does one of faith remove their religious convictions from other aspects of their life, this would include their political life? Was there a door which the framers passed through that stripped their religious beliefs upon entering prior and during the framing of the Constitution?

I also keep searching for the phrase, "separation of church and state" in the Constitution yet I just cannot find it. Any help?

roundabout, for me personally, the following page that I was reading today, answers some of the questions that you pose. It may or may not for others as they scroll through it.

I include a clip...

(quote)

Dennis Prager, a Jewish national columnist and popular talkshow host, warns:

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles (its Founders’ guiding text), we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America’s non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe. 66
Prager further explained:


I believe that it is good that America is a Christian nation. . . . I have had the privilege of speaking in nearly every Jewish community in America over the last 30 years, and I have frequently argued in favor of this view. Recently, I spoke to the Jewish community of a small North Carolina city. When some in the audience mentioned their fear of rising religiosity among Christians, I asked these audience-members if they loved living in their city. All of them said they did. Is it a coincidence, I then asked, that the city you so love (for its wonderful people, its safety for your children, its fine schools, and its values that enable you to raise your children with confidence) is a highly Christian city? Too many Americans do not appreciate the connection between American greatness and American Christianity. 67

____________________________

Burt Prelutsky, a Jewish columnist for the Los Angeles Times (and a freelance writer for the New York Times, Washington Times, Sports Illustrated, and other national publications) and a patriotic Jewish American, gladly embraces America as a Christian nation and even resents the secularist post-modern attack on national Christian celebrations such as Christmas:


I never thought I’d live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. . . . .How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Turkey is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn’t mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country’s population is of one religion, and most Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a darn fool would deny the obvious. . . . This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many millions of Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. It should never be forgotten that, in the main, it was Christian soldiers who fought and died to defeat Nazi Germany and who liberated the concentration camps. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don’t accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours. Merry Christmas, my friends. 72
Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the Jewish Policy Center unequivocally declares


[I] understand that I live . . . in a Christian nation, albeit one where I can follow my faith as long as it doesn’t conflict with the nation’s principles. The same option is open to all Americans and will be available only as long as this nation’s Christian roots are acknowledged and honored. 73
In fact, with foreboding he warns:

Without a vibrant and vital Christianity, America is doomed, and without America, the west is doomed. Which is why I, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, devoted to Jewish survival, the Torah, and Israel am so terrified of American Christianity caving in. 74 God help Jews if America ever becomes a post-Christian society! Just think of Europe! 75
— — — ◊ ◊ ◊ — — —
President Obama’s declaration that Americans “do not consider ourselves a Christian nationâ€

(quote) clip

The Judicial Branch Affirms that America is a Christian Nation

From the Judicial Branch, consider first some declarations of prominent U. S. Supreme Court Justices regarding America as a Christian nation.

Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court 31 and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.â€