Any attempt to use it to restrict the rights and power of the people has met with disaster. For example, Prohibition was a total failure. That is why, even though I am against abortion and gay marriage, I cannot support a Constitutional amendment to restrict either. That is a job for each state and the courts to decide.

Every person has a belief system, whether by default or by deliberation. Even the atheist, if intellectually honest, must admit that even his belief system – his worldview – is based on a set of presuppositions – what some people call “faith.”

Consider this: How many have been MURDERED by people fronting for the following belief systems?

CHRISTIANITY
Shooting of abortion doctors – 2 or 3?
“Witch Burnings” – Hundreds
The Crusades – Thousands
The Inquisitions – Thousands

SECULARISM / ATHEISM
National Socialism – Tens of Millions
Abortion – 42 Million and counting
Communism – Hundreds of Millions

The question is not whether Christian faith should be allowed in the marketplace of ideas. The real question is this: If you remove Christian faith as the foundation of our society, with what will you replace it?

So is the vast majority of America.

I know people who are unhappy be expressions of religion, but that is simply a bias that we have to live with. You will notice that conservative politicans rarely mix religion into their pronouncements. Admiral Denton is first a Christian and second a Vietnam POW Veteran.

Frankly, the anti-religious feelings surprise me. On the most important issues religion is simply not part of this administrationis decision making process. On some other issues, it is: abortion, same sex marriage, although one need not be religions to oppose both, and same sex marriage is being promoted through undemocratic practices long detested by conservatives, religious or not.

Denotn wrote what he believes, and I posted it as he wrote it.

My main reason for bringing up the topic of religion is that John Kerry scares me. I sincerely believe that he will do a terrible job if he is elected president. In this next election we need to convince as many people as possible that Kerry is not the man. GWB is going to get the votes of the religious right anyway but many on the left who are open-minded enough to listen to both sides of the issues are very turned off by the fact that religion enters into and plays such a big part of the conservative message.

Every so often I have what I call a “dry” day – a day where I can think of nothing profound, funny, or personal to…

Furthermore, I believe that “intelligent creationism” is probably just as valid as Darwin’s theory of evolution. However, for those who believe Darwin correct, please explain, for example, the survival value confered by the proposed homosexuality gene(s). If there is no reproductive advantage to a gene (i.e., “favorable variation(s)”), it will pass out of the genetic pool (i.e., “it will be exterminated”), according to Darwin’s theory.

Or, as another example, I have heard the argument that alcoholism, like homosexuality, has a genetic basis. Well, I ended up in Beech Hill Hospital 22 years ago. I could not bear the withdrawal pains and needed a drink. I asked my counsellor what to do: She proposed I go right upstair, kneel at my bed and pray for relief. The thought seemed so ludicrous to me, I laughed right out loud, but then said: I will do it. It seemed so ludicrous. However, as soon as I asked God for relief, I felt as if a hundred pound sand bag was lifted from my shoulders. Haven’t had a drink since that moment. Haven’t desired a drink since then.

It is easier for me to believe that devine intervention led to my sobriety than that my genetic code spontaneously switched to some other program.

When I consider that most Democrats I know readily adhere to the maxim: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need,” I am thankful when some of these Democrats still have their old time religion to differentiate them from Marxists.

As long as they aren’t hurting anyone else, I say, let people have their religion, even if they do go around talking about it to others.

Paul

Today i had to write that “anal sex” was against the laws of “Mother Nature”

When “Sodomy is an insult to the Creator” would have worked just fine…

But no, you anti-religious just shoot the messenger whenever that happens.

The message is the same, whether you beleive in God or not.

I think if she were answering you, she would ask “what is religion without dogma?” and I would agree. When evaluating Catholicism, however, one must carefully differentiate between the fundamental beliefs that make one a Catholic, the general pronouncements of Church officials (including the Pope – his statements only become part of the dogma when he is speaking ex-Cathedra, which as I understand it is very rare), and the behavior and personal beliefs of Catholics including priests and nuns.

At its core, Catholicism is no more dogmatic than most protestant sects, except that today many of those sects (other than the Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and a few other ‘ists) have dropped much of their teachings, leaving them rather shallow. I was raised a Presbyterian and the one of the early tenets of Presbyterianism (Calvinism in general) was predestination, and yet it was almost never mentioned.

Many Catholics believe that everything that comes out of the church is part of the dogma. However, this is not correct.

However, using the teachings of Christianity and the New Testament as a foundation for moral values is what the most admirable Christians reflect. “Religion” is not what Christianity is about. Too many people think it is. Christianity is faith in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as related in the Bible. The message there is about love. Most of the Ten Commandments have their foundation in love of God and others.

While you say you are not “religious”, I don’t think you would appear to have a problem with a core but ideal concept of true love for others. While we all fail in maintaining the Commandments and the ideal of love (only one person ever did, Jesus Christ), the world would be much better off if we did.

For example, Catholicism prohibits abortion. That is a moral position. One does NOT have to be religious at all to believe that abortion is unwise or even criminal. Science cannot answer the ethical question of when the product of conception becomes a human being deserving of equal protection under the laws. It can tells us all about the characteristics of a blastocyst or an embryo or whatever, but it cannot answer the ethical question.

Denton derives his moral views from his religion. And he is correct in his observation that until 50 years ago, anti-religious bigotry was not part of our government. Equally critical is that religion didn’t control our government. Religion provides a basis for religious people to make moral judgements. And laws must be based on some sort of moral basis, regardless of how it is derived.

As to your father’s argument, it is an ignorance of science that is his real problem. If he understood science, he would understand why creationism can be taught in churches but does not belong is science courses. It would be harder to convince him that “Intelligent Design” should not be taught, as it uses the trappings of science to sneak in. And if your father understands the Constitution, he should understand why creationism should not be taught in public schools any more than some Native American creation story, but that private schools should be free to teach it.

If you understand the history of the United States, then you know that religion has been part of our public life since the very start, but lately an anti-religious movement has sought to remove any trace of it from public life, not through democratic means, but through courts reversing long held doctrine. This undemocratic attack has, naturally, produced a tremendous backlash. The abortion issue, for example, was on the way to being decided by a political process which, no doubt, would have led to a solution neither side liked, as that is the nature of democracy. But the Supreme Court discovered an absolute right to abortion that, in a truly amazing manner, had apparently been overlooked by all of their predecessors for 200 years. The result, the most extreme abortion policy in the west was imposed by judicial dictat.

Furthermore, please be careful with the term “religious fundamentalism” and comparing Denton’s Christian beliefs with those of Al Qaeda. Modern Christianity does not command violence (quite the opposite). It does not command conversion by force. And not everyone who expresses belief is a fundamentalist.

Science itself grew out of the Catholic church, which had a belief that it was mankind’s duty to understand God’s creation. Hence they encouraged (in the misnamed “dark ages”) scholasticism, with the creation of universities which had academic freedom. In those days, academics were so honored that they could cross between warring states with the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. Given the tenor of the times, in a situation long since corrected, the Church also held temporal power and was able to punish heresy.

Galileo was a Christian all of his life, was the founder of the Vatican Academy of Science, and was not attacked for heliocentrism, but rather for claiming that a particular passage in the Bible was wrong (which was theologically incorrect reasoning, put forth in an offensive manner). Of course, in those days the Church did have tremendous power in some countries, and they did persecute him (house arrest) for that. He remained a faithful Catholic believer throughout. But there is no danger of that today, in the United States.

The Spanish Inquisition, by the way, was part of the battle against Islam. It got out of hand, as such things tend to do, but so did the worship of reason, as can be seen in the orgy of violence after the French Revolution, or the 100 million people killed by “scientific Marxism.”

So when people cite the Inquisition, they are really citing an example of the nature of human beings, not the nature of the Church or religion in general. Non-religious movements have many times proved at least as cruel (North Korea is not a religious country, Stalin wasn’t religious, Hitler and his cronies revived a long dead pagan religion, Pol Pot wasn’t religious.

Religious fundamentalism is what drives our enemies in al Queda. I want us (the people of the US) to be better than that.

Not everyone who expresses religious sentiment is a religious “zealot.” You use zealot as a pejorative, which is unfair to the admiral. Why do you feel the need to attack this honorable man, just because of his religious beliefs?

Most Americans do not share your opinion of religion. But I often have the same problem as you do, having to delete religion from things when discussion with some of the numerous anti-religious people I know.

I suspect that one reason that Admiral Denton was able to survive and do his duty was his religion. He’s earned the right to talk about it. Edit it and go to your liberal friends, if that’s what you want to do.

When you bring God into the argument you weaken your case with those of us who don’t have religion as a central part of our lives. Yet I care about the morals and values the Admiral espouses. I just am turned off by his repeated references to the religion that brought us the inquisition and witch burnings.

Don’t get me wrong, I truly believe that electing John Kerry is a terrible idea and I believe what the Admiral says about Kerry’s record and the harm he has done. I just want an argument I can use on my liberal friends without having to edit it first.