Is there too much division in America?

[Paradoxium]

Sure.

When you have religion you believe that you and you're fellow Whatevers are right. The other people are wrong. Everyone who doesn't agree with your particular beliefs are just "children" who need to be shown the way.

Evangelicals are the worst.

You are completely discounting the whole "all humans are artificial and malleable" idiots that tries to social engineer people into their little pawns. This all started with Rousseau. The left are just as guilty.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Who mentioned right or left? All zealots suck.

 

[The Senator]

It's implied in the 10th Amendment.

Implied, but not stated explicitly. Plus, those who interpret the 10th Amendment can take several interpretations from it, considering it was left fairly open-ended. One of the powers left to the people, for example, could be the power to vote; therefore, the government could be shaped by the general public's willingness to elect a candidate who supports big government into office.

 

[The Senator]

I blame Liberalism. If we could just send them all to Cuba I think the USA would be fine without them.

 

[SuBe]

Implied, but not stated explicitly. Plus, those who interpret the 10th Amendment can take several interpretations from it, considering it was left fairly open-ended. One of the powers left to the people, for example, could be the power to vote; therefore, the government could be shaped by the general public's willingness to elect a candidate who supports big government into office.

Exactly.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Let's face it though. The two parties BOTH believe in big government, just in different areas. Republicans want to tell people what they do in their private lives, such as gay marriage or abortion. Telling people what to do on either of those issues is big government. It's hypocrisy to state that one party is for big government and the other isn't. Libertarians are far more about "small government" than the Republicans. Libertarians don't try to inject their morals into other people's lives with government regulations. And like Republicans, they don't want the government interfering on economic issues.

 

[The Senator]

Let's face it though. The two parties BOTH believe in big government, just in different areas. Republicans want to tell people what they do in their private lives, such as gay marriage or abortion. Telling people what to do on either of those issues is big government. It's hypocrisy to state that one party is for big government and the other isn't. Libertarians are far more about "small government" than the Republicans. Libertarians don't try to inject their morals into other people's lives with government regulations. And like Republicans, they don't want the government interfering on economic issues.

I agree with this as well.

 

[Backdrifter]

I agree with Jman and Franklin. Religion has served as a catalyst for much of the country's division. There are those who lead their lives with a belief in God or spirituality in a private matter. There are those who choose not to believe in a God and lead their lives by the belief that they are here to better the world. And then there are those who use religion as a means to influence others and try to inject those beliefs into our country's way of life. Despite the fact that not everyone follows those same beliefs.

This is self-contradictory. Aren't you doing the same when you force your beliefs in our country's "way of life." The same critiques that you level against religion can and should applied to your own "religion" or "worldview." While religion certain has done is fair share of "damage", secularism is not without fault. The world is becoming increasingly secular and religious at the same time and it would be very ignorant to say that one side is solely at fault here.

 

[Nitehawk013]

I have said before that I only have a few problems with Libertarianism. Mostly that they go just way too far with the "no Government interferance" idea. Some of them are bordering on anarchy. Overall I like the spirit of Libertarianism though.

Personally, as I said, I am a Conservative and in most cases Federalist.

 

[SuBe]

Let's face it though. The two parties BOTH believe in big government, just in different areas. Republicans want to tell people what they do in their private lives, such as gay marriage or abortion. Telling people what to do on either of those issues is big government. It's hypocrisy to state that one party is for big government and the other isn't. Libertarians are far more about "small government" than the Republicans. Libertarians don't try to inject their morals into other people's lives with government regulations. And like Republicans, they don't want the government interfering on economic issues.

This is why I'm a Libertarian.

 

[The Senator]

This is self-contradictory. Aren't you doing the same when you force your beliefs in our country's "way of life." The same critiques that you level against religion can and should applied to your own "religion" or "worldview." While religion certain has done is fair share of "damage", secularism is not without fault. The world is becoming increasingly secular and religious at the same time and it would be very ignorant to say that one side is solely at fault here.

Our society is supposed to be secular, though. And to govern my life solely because your religion is against one aspect of that lifestyle, when myself and others who will be affected by that decision are not a member of your faith and do not share the same religious beliefs as you do, is infringing on my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined my own personal convictions.

As long as I'm not depriving those three rights to anyone else, I do not see why your religion or anyone else's should interfere with how I live my life.

 

[Marx]

This is self-contradictory. Aren't you doing the same when you force your beliefs in our country's "way of life." The same critiques that you level against religion can and should applied to your own "religion" or "worldview." While religion certain has done is fair share of "damage", secularism is not without fault. The world is becoming increasingly secular and religious at the same time and it would be very ignorant to say that one side is solely at fault here.

It's no secret what the Religious Right would seek to do to this country Backdrifter. I will never apologize for believing in tolerance. If you believe that promoting tolerance in our country is a bad thing, I'm afraid that we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[Nitehawk013]

If our society wa smeant to be secular you would have thought the founders would have made far less references to God, the Creator, etc ect.

Especially Washington. What a freak saying that we have staked our future on our ability to follow the Word of God. Jeez. He was just a zealot. Good thing none of the founders and early Presidents felt that way.

Oh wait...oops.

 

[Nitehawk013]

It's no secret what the Religious Right would seek to do to this country Backdrifter. I will never apologize for believing in tolerance. If you believe that promoting tolerance in our country is a bad thing, I'm afraid that we have nothing further to discuss.

Um...most of the time the left doesn't believe in "tolerance". They believe in complete intolerance of anything remotely Christian and preference of everythign else.

There is a big difference.

 

[SuBe]

Our society is supposed to be secular, though. And to govern my life solely because your religion is against one aspect of that lifestyle, when myself and others who will be affected by that decision are not a member of your faith and do not share the same religious beliefs as you do, is infringing on my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined my own personal convictions.

As long as I'm not depriving those three rights to anyone else, I do not see why your religion or anyone else's should interfere with how I live my life.

Again, I agree. Whatever you do, as long as it does not Harm another on their persons or property, through intent or negliance, shall be lawful.

 

[SuBe]

Um...most of the time the left doesn't believe in "tolerance". They believe in complete intolerance of anything remotely Christian and preference of everythign else.

There is a big difference.

I agree with this too.

 

[redfirebird2008]

If our society wa smeant to be secular you would have thought the founders would have made far less references to God, the Creator, etc ect.

Especially Washington. What a freak saying that we have staked our future on our ability to follow the Word of God. Jeez. He was just a zealot. Good thing none of the founders and early Presidents felt that way.

Oh wait...oops.

Are you one of those people that thinks the original Pledge of Allegiance has the words "under God" in it? Please tell me you aren't. If you are, it shows your ignorance. The fact is, many of the founding fathers weren't Christians. They were deists and agnostics. In other words, they believed in a creator but not an active God.

 

[Franklin Richards]

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”

What did Nitehawk say? I couldn't hear him over the high volume of awesome coming from the Constitution.

 

[Backdrifter]

Our society is supposed to be secular, though. And to govern my life solely because your religion is against one aspect of that lifestyle, when myself and others who will be affected by that decision are not a member of your faith and do not share the same religious beliefs as you do, is infringing on my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as defined my own personal convictions.

As long as I'm not depriving those three rights to anyone else, I do not see why your religion or anyone else's should interfere with how I live my life.

The purpose of separation of church and state is not to create a secular society. The purpose of separting the church from the state was to avoid creating a state church like the Church of England.

In response to your right to peruse life, liberty and happiness.. Well, your notion of life, liberty and happiness is infringing on my notion of the right to life, liberty happiness. So what you are saying is that your ideas if morality, marriage, family are superior to my ideas of marriage, family, etc. Can I not be an atheist and not believe in gay marriage? Can I not believe in God but still reject abortion? Don't you see the problem? You are saying that your beliefs are better than mine and that I should believe what you believe. Isn't this the same thing that "religious" people say? We are both being narrow minded.

 

[The Senator]

If our society wa smeant to be secular you would have thought the founders would have made far less references to God, the Creator, etc ect.

Especially Washington. What a freak saying that we have staked our future on our ability to follow the Word of God. Jeez. He was just a zealot. Good thing none of the founders and early Presidents felt that way.

Oh wait...oops.

Actually, I agree that the Founders drew a lot of their influence from a religious source when establishing the Constitution. However, they did not endorse a religion; instead, they drew from the God mentioned by other enlightenment philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes. As in, a divine power watching over us, which is rooted in Deist thought. Jefferson, Washington, and Benjamin Franklin were Deists-- in fact, some argue that Franklin was in fact an atheist in his later years.

There is never an endorsement of Christianity in the Constitution, and the Constitution is based on ideas derived from the Bible, the Quran, and-- most importantly-- the work of enlightenment philosophers.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is such a thing as Separation of Church and state, explicitly using the First Amendment as the reason behind their decision. I don't remember the case off the top of my head, but I do know it was mentioned in one of the many religious threads we have here on the Hype if you'd like to do some poking around.

 

[The Senator]

The purpose of separation of church and state is not to create a secular society. The purpose of separting the church from the state was to avoid creating a state church like the Church of England.

In response to your right to peruse life, liberty and happiness.. Well, your notion of life, liberty and happiness is infringing on my notion of the right to life, liberty happiness. So what you are saying is that your ideas if morality, marriage, family are superior to my ideas of marriage, family, etc. Can I not be an atheist and not believe in gay marriage? Can I not believe in God but still reject abortion? Don't you see the problem? You are saying that your beliefs are better than mine and that I should believe what you believe. Isn't this the same thing that "religious" people say? We are both being narrow minded.

How does my ability to marry a man infringe on any of those three rights I listed? I do not want to force you to accept homosexuals or even force you to get a gay marriage; however, you believe that there shouldn't even be such a thing as a homosexual, and that I shouldn't be able to get married to another man. My beliefs do not infringe on your rights; yours do. That's the major difference.

 

[Nitehawk013]

Under God is in it. It was added, but it is in it today.

Whether Christian or not, the history is there that most of them were at teh very least deists, read and knew the Bible and were commonly churchgoers. Far from secular.

Being a Christian nation is FAR from enforcing biblical law upon everyone the way some radical Righties feel (like Schmuckabee).

 

[SuBe]

I think we already have a thread on Sep:Church/State somewhere around here.

 

[Carcharodon]

If you are, it shows your ignorance.

He's been doing that a LOT lately, in the Community forum as well.

 

[moraldeficiency]

It's no secret what the Religious Right would seek to do to this country Backdrifter. I will never apologize for believing in tolerance. If you believe that promoting tolerance in our country is a bad thing, I'm afraid that we have nothing further to discuss.

Wow, so they're all out to get everyone huh? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say it's the LEADERS of religious movements that have hijacked their paticular sects into this type of mindset and that they are the one's needing to be dealt with? Instead all the religious right (pretty big generalization) are trying to do something? that's as closed minded and generalist as if I was to say "all athiests are trying to destroy god and the morals of society". Both comments are pretty kneejerk and assume a general consensus that I know doesn't hold. The basic tenants of most religions call for equality and fair treatment no matter the occasion or person. It's people that prevert a message of equality into one of superiority that are the problems, they lead their followers to these conclusions because they unfortunately have some level of authority in their religions and people mistakenly believe and trust them.

Right/Left it really doesn't matter, it's the concepts of superiority that are the real culprits here. As long as we can keep pointing fingers we never have to examine ourselves and see the faults and deficiets that we posses or do anything about them; then we never really grow out of the cycle we're in.