More religion in Politics?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

[bluethread]

***Not agreeing is not attack and why should they be disparged for it?

Because one has the right to do so. As with disagreement, disparagement is protected speech as long is there is no breech of the peace.

That is why Elizabeth Warren is free to disparage Jefferson Sessions to her hearts content on the steps of the Capital, but may not do so on the Senate floor. The Constitution permits the Senate set it's own rules of decorum.

[Monta]

***Not agreeing is not attack and why should they be disparged for it?

Because one has the right to do so. As with disagreement, disparagement is protected speech as long is there is no breech of the peace.

That is why Elizabeth Warren is free to disparage Jefferson Sessions to her hearts content on the steps of the Capital, but may not do so on the Senate floor. The Constitution permits the Senate set it's own rules of decorum.

Therefore both parties are within rights to disparge ea other, right?

[bluethread]

Therefore both parties are within rights to disparge ea other, right?

Correct, as long as they do not breach the peace(criminally), or engage in slander and libel(civilly). Truth is an absolute defense. If a statement can not be proven true or false, it is a matter of decorum and is not the concern of the federal government, except within it's institutions. Therefore, in these United States, hate speech laws like those in Canada should not permitted, at least not federal ones. In fact, in my view even breaches of the peace or slander and liable are not the concerns of the federal government, unless they create conflicts between the states or effect foreign policy.

[JehovahsWitness]

The irony is that if all religions followed the JW it would be left to the atheist to run the show. And as an atheist I can say I don't want that.

So you believe the Jehovah's witnesses are wrong to keep their religion out of politics?

[Erexsaur]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

Here's my take on religion and politics:

Religion is as much an integral part of our being as family, work, pleasure, culture, etc. On that count, it's impossible for one to leave out his religion in any function. One may only throw out one religion to replace it with another to take its place to fill the void. Such a move would drastically change destiny. Good religion directs to a good destiny and bad religion directs to a bad destiny.

Please think of the following statement in the US Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,..."

Was this statement not based on belief in God of the Bible as Sovereign that gave us our rights? It said, "Governments are instituted among men" for what purpose? We are speaking of the rights of ALL men (and women and children) besides believers in God. God is God of all of mankind.

How is it thus possible to protect God-given rights without conscientious awareness of God as Sovereign to whom we must give an account? Religion should thus be an integral part of government as well as it is of the individual.

Does this help?

ELD

[Clownboat]

Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote or run for political offices (they believe that religion should be primarily a spiritual matter and that religious organizations should not be involved in politics or the making of national or local law).

- Are the JWs wrong; there should be MORE religion in politics?
- Are the JWs right, religion and politics should be kept separate?

Opinions welcome.

J

Here's my take on religion and politics:

Religion is as much an integral part of our being as family, work, pleasure, culture, etc.

This is demonstrably wrong. See an atheist for example.

On that count, it's impossible for one to leave out his religion in any function.

Also, demonstrably wrong.
See a new born baby breast feeding. No religion involved and the baby will not believe in any god concept unless and until their parents indoctrinate such a belief.

One may only throw out one religion to replace it with another to take its place to fill the void.

Again, demonstrably wrong. See an atheist for example that was once a Christian.

Such a move would drastically change destiny.

Do you know what you meant by this statement?

Good religion directs to a good destiny and bad religion directs to a bad destiny.

In this world, you will see good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but it takes religion in order for good people to do bad things.
Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into building.

How is it thus possible to protect God-given rights without conscientious awareness of God as Sovereign to whom we must give an account?

Please show an actual right that you or I have that a god gave to us and then we can talk about it.

Religion should thus be an integral part of government as well as it is of the individual.

You must be projecting how integral your religion is on to others. Like I said before, any atheist would disagree with you.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 26 by Clownboat]

Hello Clownboat,

I am much pleased that we meet again. How are you?

In response to my statements,

Here's my take on religion and politics:
Religion is as much an integral part of our being as family, work, pleasure, culture, etc.

you said,

This is demonstrably wrong. See an atheist for example

Was I wrong in saying that one’s religion is an integral part of his life? Speaking of atheism, have you considered the following Random House Dictionary statement in its definition of religion?

“3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.�

An atheist’s adherence to his practice of his belief that there is no god thus makes atheism a religion. Does he not follow the practice religiously? Even a supposed philosophy of no religion at all may be called a religion according to the definition.

My statement:

On that count, it's impossible for one to leave out his religion in any function.

Also, demonstrably wrong.
See a new born baby breast feeding. No religion involved and the baby will not believe in any god concept unless and until their parents indoctrinate such a belief.

But let’s not forget that like us all, the baby was born with a rogue nature that adversely affects his behavior and will need correction and later governance. The sounder the religious philosophy base, the sounder the guidance and governance. All of us are in need of the Biblical gospel that has repeatedly proved itself toward this end. I hope I didn’t “offend� you with this statement.

As you apparently live by the atheistic philosophy, I live by the philosophy of Christianity. If the two of us dump our philosophies, wouldn’t we find another to take its place? It’s not possible to live by no philosophy at all!

My statement:

One may only throw out one religion to replace it with another to take its place to fill the void.

Again, demonstrably wrong. See an atheist for example that was once a Christian.

You have only proved my statement correct. Didn’t the former Christian you spoke of carry out what I stated to become an atheist? Atheism thus filled the void left by his throwing out Christianity.

My statement:

Such a move would drastically change destiny.

Do you know what you meant by this statement?

Yes, I do. The move from Christianity to atheism or vice versa is a move from one diametrically opposed destiny to another. Am I right?

My statement:

Good religion directs to a good destiny and bad religion directs to a bad destiny.

In this world, you will see good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but it takes religion in order for good people to do bad things.
Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into building.

Even though you are correct that religion may lead to bad moves, have you considered the many good moves people carried out based on their religion? What about the works of Dr. M. L. King and Mother Teresa?

Let’s not forget that the topic of religion is very, very broad. There is good and bad religion. Which are you speaking of? Even if the religion is good, it is possible to follow it erroneously and bring evil results. The more powerful an item, the greater the danger of misuse. Let’s please not forget that the field of science may also be misused to bring about evil.


My statement:

How is it thus possible to protect God-given rights without conscientious awareness of God as Sovereign to whom we must give an account?

Please show an actual right that you or I have that a god gave to us and then we can talk about it.

What about the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given us by the Creator that are spoken of in the U.S. DOI? Do you want to lose any of these? May we talk now?

My statement:

Religion should thus be an integral part of government as well as it is of the individual.

You must be projecting how integral your religion is on to others. Like I said before, any atheist would disagree with you.

My religion affects how I treat others including you. So does the religion of government officials affect how they govern. Don’t you appreciate the mandate of my religion to treat you as I would like to be treated myself? Aren’t you happy that we live by laws of the land that support the Biblical command not to steal or kill? Would you prefer to have them removed only because they are based on the Judeo Christian Bible? Would you prefer that someone lays aside his respect for God to steal from and kill you? I don't think so.


You have aroused my curiosity as to why you found it so terribly necessary to contest the statements I shared in my last post. May I please hear your answers?

ELD

[Clownboat]

Hello Clownboat,

I am much pleased that we meet again. How are you?

I am well thank you. I hope the same goes for you.

Was I wrong in saying that one’s religion is an integral part of his life?

Yes, you were wrong. This brush is too broad, which is why I brought up atheists. Atheists don't have a religion that is integral to their life.

Speaking of atheism, have you considered the following Random House Dictionary statement in its definition of religion?

“3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.�

There is no body of atheists. Atheists don't have a belief to practice. They lack this belief. Atheists are just all sorts of people that don't have religion.
Atheists: "See this thing that I don't have? Let's get a body of people to adhere to this thing that is not there". A little ridiculous, no?

You can amend or retract your statement now if you see fit.

An atheist’s adherence to his practice of his belief that there is no god thus makes atheism a religion.

There is only a lack of belief.
Your statement is like claiming that 'off' is your favorite TV channel.

Does he not follow the practice religiously?

No more than you are religious about not believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
You are warring with the English language in order to try to salvage a point you would probably be best to retract.

Even a supposed philosophy of no religion at all may be called a religion according to the definition.

I disagree. Atheists lack a belief in the gods. Their TV is off, yet you are trying to claim that they all adhere and believe in some favorite TV channel. If my TV is off and my neighbors TV is also off, how can that be considered as us adhering to some practice or belief? If we both preferred the Bible God channel, then we would have something in common.

On that count, it's impossible for one to leave out his religion in any function.

Also, demonstrably wrong.
See a new born baby breast feeding. No religion involved and the baby will not believe in any god concept unless and until their parents indoctrinate such a belief.

But let’s not forget that like us all, the baby was born with a rogue nature that adversely affects his behavior and will need correction and later governance. The sounder the religious philosophy base, the sounder the guidance and governance. All of us are in need of the Biblical gospel that has repeatedly proved itself toward this end. I hope I didn’t “offend� you with this statement.

I'm not offended. I'm more convinced now that what I said is true because you were unable to offer up a rebuttal. Your claim that it is impossible for one to leave out his religion has been demonstrated to be wrong. Why would I be offended? Your empty and un-evidenced claims don't even require being rebutted.

As you apparently live by the atheistic philosophy,

I don't claim to be an atheist.

I live by the philosophy of Christianity. If the two of us dump our philosophies, wouldn’t we find another to take its place? It’s not possible to live by no philosophy at all!

More wrongness. Even if I was an atheists, you are just arguing that I should turn my TV even more off then it already is. Off is off.

You have only proved my statement correct. Didn’t the former Christian you spoke of carry out what I stated to become an atheist? Atheism thus filled the void left by his throwing out Christianity.

No. In this scenario, you have a person that has a belief, let's call it channel 4. Atheism is to turn the TV off. There is no channel to fill the void of no longer watching channel 4. The TV is simply off.
Off cannot be a favorite channel. Off does not fill some need to have a favorite TV channel.

Good religion directs to a good destiny and bad religion directs to a bad destiny.

In this world, you will see good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but it takes religion in order for good people to do bad things.
Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into building.

Even though you are correct that religion may lead to bad moves, have you considered the many good moves people carried out based on their religion? What about the works of Dr. M. L. King and Mother Teresa?

Since you asked. These are good people doing good things IMO. Mother Teresa lost her faith by the way, so she is an example of just a good person being good because she is good.

Let’s not forget that the topic of religion is very, very broad. There is good and bad religion. Which are you speaking of? Even if the religion is good, it is possible to follow it erroneously and bring evil results.

Thank you. That was my point.

How is it thus possible to protect God-given rights without conscientious awareness of God as Sovereign to whom we must give an account?

Please show an actual right that you or I have that a god gave to us and then we can talk about it.

What about the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given us by the Creator that are spoken of in the U.S. DOI? Do you want to lose any of these? May we talk now?

You failed to show that a god supplied these rights. Until you do so, we might as well claim that fairies supplied these rights. Seems futile to me.

Religion should thus be an integral part of government as well as it is of the individual.

You must be projecting how integral your religion is on to others. Like I said before, any atheist would disagree with you.

My religion affects how I treat others including you.

Again, thanks for making my point. As I said, see an atheist to know that you are wrong. They don't have a religion to affect how they treat you.

So does the religion of government officials affect how they govern. Don’t you appreciate the mandate of my religion to treat you as I would like to be treated myself?

Please don't pretend that this concept was invented by your religion. This thing you are so proud of (as you should be) is a concept that existed long before your religion was invented.

Aren’t you happy that we live by laws of the land that support the Biblical command not to steal or kill?

The Bible has terrible laws and I don't want it used as an example when our government is making real laws.
As a signature of a member here says: Killing is bad, unless done in large numbers and to the sounds of trumpets. It is far to easy for humans to make claims on behalf of the gods. And far too many humans are willing to just believe humans that are making claims on behalf of the gods.

Would you prefer to have them removed only because they are based on the Judeo Christian Bible?

These concepts are based on altruism, not your religion. See altruism in chimpanzees for the evidence. Therefore, your Judeo Christian Bible does not come in to play. Perhaps your church convinced you that this is a Bible thing? It is not.

Would you prefer that someone lays aside his respect for God to steal from and kill you? I don't think so.

I would prefer that the gods were evidenced before people start making baseless claims on their behalf. Can you evidence your god concept?

You have aroused my curiosity as to why you found it so terribly necessary to contest the statements I shared in my last post. May I please hear your answers?

Your statements were demonstrably wrong. I care about truth. Therefore I addressed your claims. I am willing to amend my thinking about your claims if you can refute why they should not be considered as false. You will need to do better than warring with the English language by making false claims about atheism being a religion though. What's next, they have faith too?

[Erexsaur]

Hello Clownboat,

I am much pleased that we meet again. How are you?

I am well thank you. I hope the same goes for you.

Was I wrong in saying that one’s religion is an integral part of his life?

Yes, you were wrong. This brush is too broad, which is why I brought up atheists. Atheists don't have a religion that is integral to their life.

Speaking of atheism, have you considered the following Random House Dictionary statement in its definition of religion?

“3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.�

There is no body of atheists. Atheists don't have a belief to practice. They lack this belief. Atheists are just all sorts of people that don't have religion.
Atheists: "See this thing that I don't have? Let's get a body of people to adhere to this thing that is not there". A little ridiculous, no?

You can amend or retract your statement now if you see fit.

An atheist’s adherence to his practice of his belief that there is no god thus makes atheism a religion.

There is only a lack of belief.
Your statement is like claiming that 'off' is your favorite TV channel.

Does he not follow the practice religiously?

No more than you are religious about not believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
You are warring with the English language in order to try to salvage a point you would probably be best to retract.

Even a supposed philosophy of no religion at all may be called a religion according to the definition.

I disagree. Atheists lack a belief in the gods. Their TV is off, yet you are trying to claim that they all adhere and believe in some favorite TV channel. If my TV is off and my neighbors TV is also off, how can that be considered as us adhering to some practice or belief? If we both preferred the Bible God channel, then we would have something in common.

On that count, it's impossible for one to leave out his religion in any function.

Also, demonstrably wrong.
See a new born baby breast feeding. No religion involved and the baby will not believe in any god concept unless and until their parents indoctrinate such a belief.

But let’s not forget that like us all, the baby was born with a rogue nature that adversely affects his behavior and will need correction and later governance. The sounder the religious philosophy base, the sounder the guidance and governance. All of us are in need of the Biblical gospel that has repeatedly proved itself toward this end. I hope I didn’t “offend� you with this statement.

I'm not offended. I'm more convinced now that what I said is true because you were unable to offer up a rebuttal. Your claim that it is impossible for one to leave out his religion has been demonstrated to be wrong. Why would I be offended? Your empty and un-evidenced claims don't even require being rebutted.

As you apparently live by the atheistic philosophy,

I don't claim to be an atheist.

I live by the philosophy of Christianity. If the two of us dump our philosophies, wouldn’t we find another to take its place? It’s not possible to live by no philosophy at all!

More wrongness. Even if I was an atheists, you are just arguing that I should turn my TV even more off then it already is. Off is off.

You have only proved my statement correct. Didn’t the former Christian you spoke of carry out what I stated to become an atheist? Atheism thus filled the void left by his throwing out Christianity.

No. In this scenario, you have a person that has a belief, let's call it channel 4. Atheism is to turn the TV off. There is no channel to fill the void of no longer watching channel 4. The TV is simply off.
Off cannot be a favorite channel. Off does not fill some need to have a favorite TV channel.

Good religion directs to a good destiny and bad religion directs to a bad destiny.

In this world, you will see good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but it takes religion in order for good people to do bad things.
Science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into building.

Even though you are correct that religion may lead to bad moves, have you considered the many good moves people carried out based on their religion? What about the works of Dr. M. L. King and Mother Teresa?

Since you asked. These are good people doing good things IMO. Mother Teresa lost her faith by the way, so she is an example of just a good person being good because she is good.

Let’s not forget that the topic of religion is very, very broad. There is good and bad religion. Which are you speaking of? Even if the religion is good, it is possible to follow it erroneously and bring evil results.

Thank you. That was my point.

How is it thus possible to protect God-given rights without conscientious awareness of God as Sovereign to whom we must give an account?

Please show an actual right that you or I have that a god gave to us and then we can talk about it.

What about the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness given us by the Creator that are spoken of in the U.S. DOI? Do you want to lose any of these? May we talk now?

You failed to show that a god supplied these rights. Until you do so, we might as well claim that fairies supplied these rights. Seems futile to me.

Religion should thus be an integral part of government as well as it is of the individual.

You must be projecting how integral your religion is on to others. Like I said before, any atheist would disagree with you.

My religion affects how I treat others including you.

Again, thanks for making my point. As I said, see an atheist to know that you are wrong. They don't have a religion to affect how they treat you.

So does the religion of government officials affect how they govern. Don’t you appreciate the mandate of my religion to treat you as I would like to be treated myself?

Please don't pretend that this concept was invented by your religion. This thing you are so proud of (as you should be) is a concept that existed long before your religion was invented.

Aren’t you happy that we live by laws of the land that support the Biblical command not to steal or kill?

The Bible has terrible laws and I don't want it used as an example when our government is making real laws.
As a signature of a member here says: Killing is bad, unless done in large numbers and to the sounds of trumpets. It is far to easy for humans to make claims on behalf of the gods. And far too many humans are willing to just believe humans that are making claims on behalf of the gods.

Would you prefer to have them removed only because they are based on the Judeo Christian Bible?

These concepts are based on altruism, not your religion. See altruism in chimpanzees for the evidence. Therefore, your Judeo Christian Bible does not come in to play. Perhaps your church convinced you that this is a Bible thing? It is not.

Would you prefer that someone lays aside his respect for God to steal from and kill you? I don't think so.

I would prefer that the gods were evidenced before people start making baseless claims on their behalf. Can you evidence your god concept?

You have aroused my curiosity as to why you found it so terribly necessary to contest the statements I shared in my last post. May I please hear your answers?

Your statements were demonstrably wrong. I care about truth. Therefore I addressed your claims. I am willing to amend my thinking about your claims if you can refute why they should not be considered as false. You will need to do better than warring with the English language by making false claims about atheism being a religion though. What's next, they have faith too?

Hello again Clownboat,

I find myself with the impression that you are well satisfied to have turned off the God TV and have no intention to turn it back on. Am I right? May I ask what do you enjoy in its place? What is your greatest hope?

You said,

I would prefer that the gods were evidenced before people start making baseless claims on their behalf. Can you evidence your god concept?

There are no evidences of gods around us. People make them up. But evidences of the one true God of the Bible are all around us. Do we accept? I do. Do you have a conscience? If yes, it’s a telephone between you and God (one bit of evidence). Do you care to converse? Are you listening?


As for me, I enjoy the God TV so well that the only way I can do without it is by fooling myself into thinking that I can. I would be very happy to have you to watch and enjoy it with me. Otherwise, what do you think is the difference between the two of us that we both can’t?

A wrong impression of God is very toxic and dangerous and causes one to miss out on much great treasure He has to offer us. If we know that we don’t know everything, doesn’t that make us aware of the grave danger of erroneous judgment of God as evil?

As for atheism not being a religion, what is it?


ELD

[Clownboat]

Hello again Clownboat,

I find myself with the impression that you are well satisfied to have turned off the God TV and have no intention to turn it back on. Am I right?

Incorrect. I am open to the gods or the god if there is/are any.

May I ask what do you enjoy in its place?

I enjoy debate and seeing if my thinking 'passes the test or not'. If you are talking about in life, then I enjoy all sorts of things.

What is your greatest hope?

To live a long life enjoying my family and friends. To leave a positive impact on those around me.

I would prefer that the gods were evidenced before people start making baseless claims on their behalf. Can you evidence your god concept?

There are no evidences of gods around us. People make them up. But evidences of the one true God of the Bible are all around us.

You are offering me special pleading. If you have evidence of your preferred god, please present it.

Do we accept? I do. Do you have a conscience? If yes, it’s a telephone between you and God (one bit of evidence). Do you care to converse? Are you listening?

Please don't patronize me. I know what a conscience is, what I don't know is why you are calling it a telephone. Please justify this odd use of the word and show that you speak the truth. If you are just informing us of your personal beliefs, then you should probably say so.
Being set free from my Christian beliefs was one of the hardest things I have done. Believe me, I wanted god to show himself as real. I was listening.

As for me, I enjoy the God TV so well that the only way I can do without it is by fooling myself into thinking that I can.

I get your stance. My mother is like you.

I would be very happy to have you to watch and enjoy it with me.

No thanks. I have gotten to know the producers and I find some of the main characters to act in repulsive ways.

Otherwise, what do you think is the difference between the two of us that we both can’t?

We can. I use to watch your channel.

A wrong impression of God is very toxic and dangerous and causes one to miss out on much great treasure He has to offer us.

I'm not sure what you mean about treasure for sure, but I have many what I would call 'treasures' in my life (not talking monetary by the way).

If we know that we don’t know everything, doesn’t that make us aware of the grave danger of erroneous judgment of God as evil?

I don't see how one follows the other.
I know I don't know everything. What does that have to do with becoming aware of some grave danger of erroneous judgment from a god though?

As for atheism not being a religion, what is it?

A-theism.
Being without theism.

Apart from that, we should let atheist themselves inform us if they go beyond that.