>> ^messenger:

A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
So, if there is a difference between the two, it's in your point of view, like the difference between "stubborn" and "determined" is whether you like what they're doing.>> ^A10anis:
What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.

I was told once that a religion worships a deity, and a cult worships another person. They're both batshit, imho.

>> ^messenger:

A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.
OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
So, if there is a difference between the two, it's in your point of view, like the difference between "stubborn" and "determined" is whether you like what they're doing.>> ^A10anis:
What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.

It is not "simplistic" to point out that "faiths" all have the same agenda, their numbers are irrelevant. Actually, your OED definition could be seen as simplistic, as the numbers involved in "cults" are obviously lower, simply because of the shorter time they have existed. And, cults being; "regarded by others as strange, or as imposing excessive control over members," applies to ALL "beliefs," regardless of the number of people involved, because they are all, ultimately, about control.

A good question, what the difference is. Trying to come up with any definition that distinguishes a religion from a cult is very difficult for me. Saying there's no difference because of the similarities is simplistic though.

OED's definitions of the two are basically the same except for this:
cult: 1 ...

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.

So, if there is a difference between the two, it's in your point of view, like the difference between "stubborn" and "determined" is whether you like what they're doing.>> ^A10anis:

What is the difference between a "cult" and any other "faith?" There is NO difference. They all take advantage of the weak, desperate, and gullible. They all have leaders who exploit these peoples weaknesses for their own ends. They will all end up consigned to the history class when we realize that education is the key. When you are educated you begin asking questions, which is exactly what these cult leaders want to prevent. Stay stupid and a slave, or get educated and be free.

Clearly he's trolling.

Here's a WebMD article somewhat supporting his claims. Yes, it's possible that religious beliefs lead to lifestyle choices that tend to keep people healthier: lower alcohol usage, less chance of being a smoker. In that regard it seems like this is a causation vs. correlation situation. Being "spiritual" isn't the reason for longer life or better health, but it's a reason for "clean living" which then has its own rewards.

How about instead of taxing atheists, we tax alcohol and tobacco? Oh wait, we already do that.>> ^EMPIRE:

lol... how are people like this allowed to roam the streets freely, as if they had a functioning brain? seriously...

"Good luck next election..."

Sadly people will still vote for them. Cause they follow the same religious beliefs. During bushes reelection that was a driving force for people and we got four more years.

do they want everyone to follow the goofy literal rules of their religion or not??? Grow a fucking pair and just say you want people to listen to the bible or you'll kill them. stop beating around the burning bush!

i think the point is, if there is no place for this kind of thing due to relevancy... at what point did the govt decide in the past it WAS relevant? and outlaw abortions, same sex marriage, interracial marriage... at some point someone said no. that is always relevant, and maybe its past time to wait any more to get real answers on why people in congress can decide our personal lives based on their personal religious beliefs (or proclamation of belief)

What jumped out at me about his original post was the religious belief of the need to make a biological child with an opposite gender person, how crucial that was to him.

But what if they had indeed been infertile? Would they have gotten divorced?

I hate this shit with such a flaming passion.

She didn't draft the bill. Period. She cannot speak for everyone who drafted it. And guess what? You didn't prove the law doesn't pass the balancing test anyway. Show me how it doesn't pass that test. I don't care what she said.

HOLY CRAP! You admitted you were wrong! MIRACLE!!!

Now, free exercise clause. Show me how the law stops religious people from exercising their religion. Can orthodox Catholics continue to not use birth control? Yes. Are YOU familiar with the free exercise clause?

If you go down the road that money from the church can't go to things that violate their religious beliefs, then it's unconstitutional to federally subsidize farms. Since farms slaughter cows, this would violate the religious rights of a Hindu. Slaughtering pigs for consumption would violate the rights of orthodox Jews and Muslims. Defense spending would be unconstitutional because of pacifist religions like Jehovah's Witnesses. Affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional because of racist religious groups. Federal aid to any religious organizations, including tax favored statuses to churches, would be unconstitutional because of atheists' beliefs. I could go on and on and on. That kind of insane rule would basically halt government from doing what it must do.

We all pay for things we disagree with. To quote Jon Stewart on this, "Welcome to the fu***** club!"

I don't care what someone said. The US Supreme Court isn't going to look at what she said in that one clip and decide the case. YOU prove it doesn't pass the balancing test. You're not even attempting to prove it doesn't.

The article about Obama supporting "a repeal of DOMA" by favoring the Respect for Marriage Act. Do you even know what that act does? Let me help you:

"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

BTW, notice I actually quoted the law. I didn't link you to an article from a left wing or right wing organization. THAT is the law, word for word.

Is that not EXACTLY what I just said Obama favored in respect to DOMA? He believes states should decide if gay marriage is legal. If it's considered legal by the state, then it's considered legal by the federal gov't. Respect for Marriage Act does NOT legalize gay marriage nationwide in any stretch of the imagination. All it does is change that if a gay couple are married legally in New York, then they're legally married according to federal law as well. That doesn't mean a gay couple in the state of Mississippi can get married. Do you not even read the articles you're posting? You just proved EXACTLY what I just said. This is a moderate/left position.

As for the your link for FOCA, you linked to a webpage that is an organization created to fight abortion rights. I pasted a direct quote from the law. They took small quotes and then completely injected their own BS into it.

The bill has language that is clearly put into the bill to NOT legalize partial birth abortions unless there's a threat to the health of the mother. Show me where it says, "A woman can get a partial birth abortion." Doesn't say it. Don't quote me some right wing nut job site. Find the passage that says partial birth abortions are completely legal in all cases. It's not there, is it?

Show me where any of the things you said against FOCA are in the bill's language. It's not there.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".
What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.
By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.
Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-american
s-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

You're misinformed:
"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."
http://www.washingto
npost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:
"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."
In 2008 he said
"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
>> ^heropsycho:

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho:

@shinyblurry

I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.
To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.
For this irony to be the foundation to salvation, God would have to be a smartass of an asshole. This is not a sane, righteous or respectable approach given that most humans adopt their parents religious beliefs and are therefore largely disqualified given the amount of pressure some religious people put on family to remain loyal to that which they were born into.

A point that they still have a chance of finding your God has truth to it despite whether your God is actually real as we can't discount the subjective realness of delusions, but to make such a claim is to discount the difficulties and almost impossibilities in some cases due to lack of legitimate opportunity.


If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different.

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.


understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.


Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove?

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).
Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?


Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.


Scripture says differently

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.


For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.


Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.


I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

I think you may be missing the point of what the Congressman was getting at, and especially what rights we have under the constitution. Are you aware of what the free exercise clause is about?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Every person is guaranteed the right to practice their religion free from government interference. This is a fundamental right for every citizen, and religious liberty is one of the principles this country was founded on, if you know your history.

Here is a basic description:

"The Free Exercise Clause . . . withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of religion. Its purpose is to secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.”227 It bars “governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such,”228 prohibiting misuse of secular governmental programs “to impede the observance of one or all religions or . . . to discriminate invidiously between religions . . . even though the burden may be characterized as being only indirect.”229 Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs.230 Interpretation is complicated, however, by the fact that exercise of religion usually entails ritual or other practices that constitute “conduct” rather than pure “belief.” When it comes to protecting conduct as free exercise, the Court has been inconsistent.231 It has long been held that the Free Exercise Clause does not necessarily prevent government from requiring the doing of some act or forbidding the doing of some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question.232 What has changed over the years is the Court’s willingness to hold that some religiously motivated conduct is protected from generally applicable prohibitions"

Now, when you say Government should do what's best for "all citizens", what you're really saying is that Government should do what's best for "some citizens", because most citizens of this country are religious. Over 80 percent of us profess to be Christians, and that doesn't include all of the jews, muslims, hindus etc. Clearly, what's best for most citizens is the guarantee of religious liberties, a constitutional principle which, again, is at the heart of why we even have a United States of America.

As far as human sacrifice goes, that is what the Congressman meant when he spoke of the balancing test in regards to constitutional law. The Supreme Court decided for instance, on balance, that the fact of polygamy would harm the interests of the United States more than it would be compromising the the religious liberties of mormons. Allowing people to murder one another for a religious ritual would be in that category. This is not something the Supreme Court does lightly; on the main, they rule in favor of religious liberty.

So, while you may prefer a secular country with secular values, that isn't where you were born. This country was founded on freedom, not secularism. If you want to tamper with that, you are on a slippery slope to totalitarianism.

As far as contraceptives are concerned, the government is treading on the religious liberties of catholics by forcing them to carry contraceptives in their health plans. Changing the rule so that they are distributed for free changes nothing, because the catholics will have to pay higher premiums, and also because some catholic institutions have their own private carriers, which means they will have to pick up the tab. They shouldn't be forced to violate their conscience and pay for contraceptive use, and the Supreme Court will agree with that when they hear the case.



>> ^Sepacore:
Gowdy Grills "When a state banned a practice of animal sacrifice and a religious group objected, it went to the supreme court. Do you know who won that?"
Kathleen Sebelius "I do not sir"
Gowdy Grills "The religious group won"
Gowdy Grills "I think the state has an important interest in having license tags on automobiles so law enforcement can know who they're dealing with. When a religious group objected to having a certain license tag on their cars, it went to the supreme court. Do you know who won?"
Kathleen Sebelius "I do not
Gowdy Grills "The religious group won"
Groups given exceptions to compassionate/reasonable behaviors/expectations because they say they're religious.. this type of occurrence is wrong for Governments to allow/support when they are supposed to be doing what's best for all citizens, not letting some groups who have a personal preference get away with things that would put anyone else in jail. When it comes to physical well-being/suffering or reasonable safety/accountability, those who have their personal preferences that oppose such rational positions need to pull their heads in.
I'd like/hate to see what would happen in a supreme court case where a religion stated "it's my religious right to kill that person/human because of my holy doctrine".
Where the same situation occurred but with animals, and the group were authorized to carry out their murders.
More relevant to the HHS mandate, if someone doesn't want to use contraceptive, they don't have to just because it's covered in their universities/schools health plans by government policy. The government is trying to give people the option. Catholics could exercise their abilities to be devout to their subscribed belief system and simply not use the contraceptives.

What never ceases to amaze me is the inability of conservatives to think with any clarity or nuance.

What is more amazing is the logical pretzels that liberals tie around themselves in order to justify thier bigotry and hate. Savage was attacking thier religious beliefs, and he was doing it in a forum that was supposed to be 'anti-bullying'. You see, it is entirely possible to share an anti-bullying message without attacking religion. What a wild idea! But as with most liberals, he just couldn't help himself from being a rude, selfish, hypocritical jerk. So when He has a captive audience, he uses the the opportunity to flash his bigotry, and then to insult those who were offended by it. Yeah. 'Nuanced'...

The speech was not titled, "Christianity is B.S." If it was appropriately titled, then those who walked out could have just decided not to attend in the first place and saved Savage the embarressment of being shown up as a total douche. But Savage did a bait-and-switch. A bunch of kids sat down and he flies off on his personal obsessions about religion. The apologist justifications you guys are proffering up are not so much about 'nuance' as they are "I agree with his bigotry, and I like it when people I hate get what I think is coming to them. You Jesus people should just shut up and take it."

Whether you agree with Christianity or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this guy disresepcted and insulted fellow human beings, and thought it was funny. He showed his true colors - rude, selfish, and hypocritical. His lame 'apology' (like the apologies of most liberals) isn't really an apology. It's the typical, "I'm sorry if YOU WERE OFFENDED by my important message" bullcrap. I reject such faux crocodile tears, and also reject the lame arguments trying to justify his bigotry. It isn't complicated. You like his particular brand of bigotry, so that makes it perfectly OK in your perverse, sick minds. So much for leftists and thier sanctimonious 'tolerance' bologna. Tolerance is only for the people you approve of, eh?

If a journalism school advertised a speech about "Happiness and Tolerance", and the headliner was some gay bashing @$$hat, should all the gays in the audience be forced to sit down and listen to his 'clarity and nuance'? What a load of bullcrap you liberals swallow on a daily basis. I can't fathom having to live a life so dominated by that much hypocrisy, irrational hate, and bitterness that such bad behavior gets dismissed as just some BS sort of 'nuance'. How pathetic.

I'd like to poll them for religious belief and homophobia

Not only do I live in the US, but I live Oklahoma, one of the most religiously conservative states. I don't have a great deal of respect for that brand of religion, for sure. Which is precisely why it's so galling to see a video that suggests that's just what Christians have to be like--that Christians who reject the Bibliolatry and hermeneutic cutting and pasting of those idiots somehow aren't real Christians, that rejecting the sheep-like credulity of these so-called faithful means that the thoughtful ones haven't actually thought it through. And somehow it is averred that those who cling to the ancient traditions of Biblical understanding are inauthentically Christian, since they don't accept the quasi-heretical doctrines of 19th century upstarts.

Your characterization of bible literalists as "idiots" and people with "sheep-like" credulity and the "so-called" faithful, not-withstanding, I will agree that a disagreement on origins doesn't necessarily make someone less Christian. It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you must agree on a literal interpretation of Genesis to follow Jesus Christ.

Calling the literal interpretation of Genesis a "quasi-heretical" doctrine of "19th century upstarts" is completely ridiculous, though. Almost as ridiculous as quoting Origen and Augustrine and claiming they represented the majority viewpoint of the early church. If you think the early church didn't believe in a literal Genesis, how do you explain Ephraim the syrian, or Basil of Caesarea? What about Ambrose of Milan, who was the mentor of Augustine? They all believed in a young earth, as did many others throughout the centuries.

Let us not also forget that Christ Himself was a bible literalist, who spoke about the narrative in the Old Testament, including Genesis, as literal history, and literally fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah.

As far as dogmatic authority goes, I think that you're partly right about some religions. Specifically, the big Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's important to remember that this is not the entire world of religion (even if they are important), so there are a number of statements about them that will be incorrect about other religions--in fact, most other religions.

It's true that the Big Three do indeed seem to require acceding to the truth of certain propositions in order to remain in their historical form: e.g., that the Torah was revealed by God, that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and that Mohammad received the Qur'an from Michael. (for each religion respectively) There is certainly an important sense in which certain very liberal theologians are still Christian, but this is something very different than historical Christianity.

In regards to Christianity, there is a mimimum requirement of belief, such as that Jesus was raised from the dead, to be a Christian.

Moreover, I myself don't think that moral authority is actually essential to religion. It's certainly related to religion, but as I'm sure you've observed--there's not much of a correlation between religious belief and moral behavior. Simple observation shows most Christians to be liars. Morality is not why they are Christian.

Simple observation shows most people, probably near the 99.9 percent mark, to be liars. There is no claim in Christianity that Christians are perfect. Far from it. Jesus was the only perfect man to ever live. Christians still sin, but hopefully they sin much less than usual. Christians living sanctified lives are comparitively rare, unfortunately. When you consider that half of the American church does not believe in a literal Holy Spirit or Satan, it isn't surprising.

Instead, I think it's something else--transcendence, and the promise of new states of being. Morality has almost nothing to do with this. The same man can be capable of the most holy ecstasies and raptures before the beauty of the God or gods that he prays to, a writer of the most delicately beautiful hymns and homilies--and the worst bastard on earth outside of church. Cardinal Richilieu was just such a person.

In Christianity, it is to know God personally. Christianity is about Jesus Christ and nothing else. If you subtract Jesus, you don't have anything. You automatically get a new state of being; when you accept Christ you are a new creature, and you receive the Holy Spirit. You also have your sins forgiven and obtain eternal life.

This is why we'll never get rid of religion, of course. But it's also why the monotheistic religions can be so dangerous. They incorrectly tie the ecstasies of the spirit to crude and intolerant dogmas, then demand that all others agree or face the sword or the pyre.

Which spirit? Satan can make you feel ecstacy and love; it wouldn't be a very good deception if it wasn't deceiving. The question you should ask is, where is this coming from, and who gave me a spirit in the first place?

As far as intolerance goes, Jesus made it clear:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Those are His words, not mine. A Christian is only telling you what He said, which is that you will face judgment for your sins. If you reject Jesus, you are telling God you want to stand trial for your sins on your own merit. If you are rejecting Jesus, it's for a reason that has nothing to do with anything you have written here.

>> ^HadouKen24:

I think that our disagreement centers around our differing opinion of the utility of religion. In my opinion, these transcendental states you speak of are not in any way dependent on a religious belief. It is true that many beautiful things have been created within the confines of religious experience. But almost all of the most profound thoughts, intricately beautiful music and profound works of literature I can think of are all written or composed in absence of religious inspiration. Sure, this is certainly a matter of opinion, but I do not think there is any denying that atheists can create beauty in their lives just as I don't deny that the religious can. Which begs the question, is it necessary? Sure many people have found inspiration in religion, however the ecstasies you speak of can just as easily be created by the biochemical effects of substances or - perhaps more healthily - the close ties of relationships or the beauty of nature.

So seeing as how beauty is not exclusively inspired by religion, I prefer my art to be entirely reality-based. And I think it's better that way. To me, knowing that that painting I am looking at, the music I am hearing or the book that I am reading has a long lineage of innovation and creativity traceable through the efforts of countless individual minds throughout time is far more interesting to me than the simple notion that someone contemplated an extremely ambiguous and enigmatic all powerful being and decided to write something about it.

Again, this is all a matter of opinion, but my point is that religion is not necessary for this transcendentalist beauty.

Which brings me to the video. I agree with you that religion is diverse and individuals typically lie along a continuum of adherence levels within each religious tradition. I also agree with you that it is far nicer when a Christian chooses to take most of the bible metaphorically, and as such has no reason to oppress homosexuals, shun scientific understanding and so on. What I do think, however, is that the step between calling yourself religious and taking most of the bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value and calling yourself an atheist and taking the entire bible as metaphorical teachings with moral value is a small and painless one.

Which is the whole point of this video.

This video is not directed at the fundamentalist Christians who hold to the literal teachings of the Bible. It is far too great a leap for them. It is directed towards people who have thought about their faith and concluded that they can not take certain parts of the bible as literal and authoritative, but still give biblical teachings some sort of privileged authority over other ideas put forth. There are many, but one of the main problems I see with this type of religion is that the privileged authority given to the bible tends to cause ignorance of other those other ideas that in reality have an equal opportunity at validity.

Which is why I posted the video.

Because it points out that applying a logical, reality-based analysis of the bible's claims (in this case, one that accepts the fact of evolution) will lead you to the conclusion that the overarching religious point of the bible is invalid. And it is simply attempting to nudge the liberal Christians who attempt to interpret the bible with a huge grain of salt just a little bit closer to atheism.

The fact is that an absence original sin means we don't need to be saved from it. Sure, we do sin and we need to do something about it, but if you are going to take the original sin as metaphorical (because evolution discredits the concept) then why should you take the biblically proposed remedy as literal? And if you're going to take the resurrection as a metaphorical assertion that you need to do this or that to improve your life and the lives of others, than why pay particular attention to that metaphorical assertion. To me, a someone who takes a vast majority of the bible as metaphorical but lives his or her life by it, is about the same as someone saying that they favor a Zizekian outlook on life - which is great and all, but again, it's limiting. There are plenty of ideas out there, go discover them and decide if they should shape your worldview!

Whether or not you think the above proposition is a better way of doing this or not, is up for debate. I think it's the way forward and videos like these help people move in that direction. They did for me.