Am I Inferior?

TheOutsider

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
Dec 29, 2006
2,747
202
Indiana
✟11,428.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I wish this the US were truly a country of religious freedom, but because the majority are Christian, and of those, many of the older people are taught to believe that Christians-good, anyone else-bad, it is very, very difficult to be athiest, or Buddhist, or Muslim, and be the President, or Senator, or any office. It's not impossible, but people use Christianity in order to get into office, even if they only go on Christmas Eve and Easter.

That, I think, is far more disturbing than not being Christian. It's a spit in the face of the very God they revere, or say they revere.

Sheesh, I don't even want to imagine what it was like around here when Keith Ellison was elected to Congress or Rep. Pete Stark came out as an atheist. I'm sure that it was a mad house for a few weeks.
:idea:
 
Upvote 0

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Any 'Christian' who attempts to force Christian values onto others through the agency of human government is apostate, and perfectly describes the 'harlot astride the beast'. We are called to come out of this world, not join with it in an unholy union of church and government.

owg

Include this in your condemnation of religion influencing politics? How about this? And this....and this....and this?
 
Upvote 0

meebs

The dev!l loves rock and roll
Aug 17, 2004
16,843
143
Alpha Quadrant
Visit site
✟17,879.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am an atheist and subjected to bigotry. According to some Christians, I am unfit to hold some public offices. If I do not believe in your god, I cannot partake in certain politics. It begs the question, why is God a bigot?

In short - god isn't a bigot, the people who invented him and follow that invented ideal are the bigots.

Well those who follow the bigoted version, some christians (and other religious people) are not bigoted.
 
Upvote 0

PureLove

Active Member
Aug 24, 2007
359
30
32
your mind
✟15,668.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I am an atheist and subjected to bigotry. According to some Christians, I am unfit to hold some public offices. If I do not believe in your god, I cannot partake in certain politics. It begs the question, why is God a bigot?
awwww, don't sweat it, there are always people like that and will find a reason to hate no matter what u do.
It's more their illness and need compassion

we love u :hug:

God bless

Livey
 
Upvote 0

coyoteBR

greetings
Jan 18, 2004
1,523
119
49
✟2,288.00
Faith
IT amazes me how those things seem to be important to you people of USA. Here, the religion matter does not even come to the political debats and press subject.
Just to mention what we have, recently:
- Fernando Henrique Cardoso - Atheist, president of Republic.
- Jaime Lerner - Jew, governor
- ...and our last mayor election was between a Buddhist, a handicaped (paraplegic) and a homossexual.

And, at the present moment, our president declared himself catholic, to what one of our main bishops answered: "President Lula is not Catholic, he's Chaotic"

This is all to say... why does those things matter when choosing someone to a public ofice? I want to know if he's competent and honest, not his conception of soul and immortality.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I wish this the US were truly a country of religious freedom, but because the majority are Christian, and of those, many of the older people are taught to believe that Christians-good, anyone else-bad, it is very, very difficult to be athiest, or Buddhist, or Muslim, and be the President, or Senator, or any office.

The US is the closest there is to true religious freedom BECAUSE the majority is Christian.

Look at other countries where there is a large majority of one religion and see how members of other religions are treated.

I'd agree that we've got a ways to go, much room for improvement, but as things currently stand, we're light years ahead of a huge chunk of the world. When was the last time someone was killed in the US, with, if not outright government assistance/approval at least government apathy, for nothing more than being non-Christian?
 
Upvote 0

gengwall

Senior Veteran
Feb 16, 2006
5,003
408
MN
✟14,586.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The US is the closest there is to true religious freedom BECAUSE the majority is Christian.

Look at other countries where there is a large majority of one religion and see how members of other religions are treated.

I'd agree that we've got a ways to go, much room for improvement, but as things currently stand, we're light years ahead of a huge chunk of the world. When was the last time someone was killed in the US, with, if not outright government assistance/approval at least government apathy, for nothing more than being non-Christian?
Aaahhh...I'd be carful what company you include us in. There are scores of examples of majority Christian nations throughout history that considered "religious freedom" to mean "believe my religion (often just a flavor of Chrsitianity) or I will free you from your heretical life". If history proves one thing, being a nation whose population is majority Christian is far more likely to produce religious tyranny. That is exactly what the founders were trying to prevent when they wrote:

"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

So, it really matters not what people say, it only matters what actually happens. Religion is not a requirement for office.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There are scores of examples of majority Christian nations throughout history that considered "religious freedom" to mean "believe my religion (often just a flavor of Chrsitianity) or I will free you from your heretical life".

Christianity in general, and specifically in the US because of the structure of the founding documents has outgrown this tendency. Has Islam? Does Islam even have tenents that lay out the inherent equality of value of all humans as Christianity does? What does Christianity say about how we are to treat those who believe differently as opposed to what some other religions say?
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Include this in your condemnation of religion influencing politics? How about this? And this....and this....and this?

Interesting how when a Dem says, "I'm applying the tenents of my faith to the public policies I'm proposing" there is no problem at all but when a Repub does exactly the same thing they are somehow out to create a theocracy.
 
Upvote 0

gengwall

Senior Veteran
Feb 16, 2006
5,003
408
MN
✟14,586.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Christianity in general, and specifically in the US because of the structure of the founding documents has outgrown this tendency. Has Islam? Does Islam even have tenents that lay out the inherent equality of value of all humans as Christianity does? What does Christianity say about how we are to treat those who believe differently as opposed to what some other religions say?
I appreciate that thought, and maybe it is so. But in light of that, certainly, the Christian majority should support the prohibition of any religious test to hodl public office. After all, do we practice what we preach (religious tolerance and equal treatment of all humans)?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

charmtrap

Iä-R’lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn
May 14, 2004
2,220
185
SF, CA
✟3,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Interesting how when a Dem says, "I'm applying the tenents of my faith to the public policies I'm proposing" there is no problem at all but when a Repub does exactly the same thing they are somehow out to create a theocracy.

Interesting how you and Voegelin are attempting to turn a perfectly non-partisan thread distinctly partisan. What's the point of that? This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. This is an American issue.
 
Upvote 0

gengwall

Senior Veteran
Feb 16, 2006
5,003
408
MN
✟14,586.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's just hard to see that, especially when you're on a forum everyday and you see everyone with a cross and an elephant, with the exception of a select quiet few, speaking, shouting, and throwing the same comments over and over, like you can't really tell the difference between one and the other.
Ha! An uncharacteristic global steroetype from Harpuia! :eek: Did we catch you on an off day? :D
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I appreciate that thought, and maybe it is so. But in light of that, certainly, the Christian majority should support the prohibition of any religious test to hodl public office. After all, do we practice what we preach (religious tolerance and equal treatment of all humans)?

There is no such test applied today,unless you want to count judicial confirmation hearings, and that's more in the other direction

. People want their elected representatives to have views and values and morals similar to their own. That there are some of those areas that don't exactly belong in the political process is irrelevant. Since 80% of the country self identifies as Christian, an atheist who want's to get elected can do what virtually every other politician does. Lie.

I agree that a person's faith, or lack thereof should not be a major issue in the political process, but it is now and likely always will be. Anyone with any political aspirations should know this and conduct themselves accordingly. IOW, if one is an atheist, simply be quiet about their lack of belief. Others have to do similar all the time. Can a pro-life Democrat be vocal about thier pro-life stance and continue to get support from the party? Nope. How about a Repub who supports stronger gun control?

I realize that stances on specific issues are different than one's faith but the principle of simply being quiet or non-commital is pretty much the same.
 
Upvote 0

gengwall

Senior Veteran
Feb 16, 2006
5,003
408
MN
✟14,586.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK - I'm tracking with you. Now, while acknowledging the realities, how do you respond to the OP regarding God's approval of such religious tests, especially because they are applied, not by the government, but by the individual, almost always a professing Christian and most often one of the more fundimentalist and conservative types?
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK - I'm tracking with you. Now, while acknowledging the realities, how do you respond to the OP regarding God's approval of such religious tests, especially because they are applied, not by the government, but by the individual, almost always a professing Christian and most often one of the more fundimentalist and conservative types?

The individual should be free, according to both the way that the US government is set up, and according to what I believe God says, to apply any qualifier or disqualifier they want when deciding who to vote for.

As for wether or not I feel that that is the best or wisest thing to do when deciding how to vote is an entirely different matter though. IOW, I don't think that that is how people should do things, but I absolutely beleive that they should be free to do so.

It gets a little stickier when we start talking about efforts to organize groups based on such tests though. I am pretty sure that God doesn't approve of an influential leader saying "If you are a real Christian then you'll vote_____, because ________."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Imperialist

Active Member
Aug 2, 2007
39
4
41
✟15,180.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Interesting topic. Especially when you consider that the etymology of "bigot" is "By God".
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bigot&searchmode=none

bigot 1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi GodSo in a way if God were a bigot then the universe would implode or something because "bi God" is taking the Lord's name in vain, and if God violated His own nature that would cause some serious problems in the fabric of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

chaz345

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
17,453
668
57
✟20,724.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Interesting how you and Voegelin are attempting to turn a perfectly non-partisan thread distinctly partisan. What's the point of that? This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. This is an American issue.

Merely pointing out how the reaction to the mixture of politics and religion is so different depending on who is doing it. If it is so wrong then it should always be called out as being wrong shouldn't it?
 
Upvote 0

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Interesting how you and Voegelin are attempting to turn a perfectly non-partisan thread distinctly partisan. What's the point of that? This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. This is an American issue.

First of all, I was responding to a poster who said clergy should keep out of politics. Some seem to only apply that to conservative Christians. I have no problem with Jesse Jackson, Jim Wallis, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Nancy Pelosi and her 54 Catholic Democrats in the House of Representatives mixing their faith with politics. Don't hear many other conservatives complain either. Who can object to the Rev. Martin Luther King, Wilbur Wilberforce or Patrick Henry mixing politics with religion? But today, when conservative, traditional Christians, mention faith in the political arena, some on the left--atheists in particular-- often deems it illegitmate.

The double standard is simply not fair.

Secondly, atheism is a political matter when it enters the polis as it does in this thread. While individual atheists bear no responsibilty, it is germane to point out the history of atheist movements since the French Revolution. That history, from the French Culte de la Raison to E.Yaroslavskii's League of Militant Atheists to the actions of the 70 million plus atheists in the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China today, is not good.

While I do not believe George Carlin or others atheists in the west have the slightest ill intention toward anyone, one cannot deny what was done in the name of atheism in the last century and is being done today in the lao gai and in Tibet.

In The Brothers Karazamov, Feodor Dostoyevsky wrote:
Socialism is not merely the labor question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism today, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from Earth but to set up Heaven on Earth

In God and Man at Yale, William F. Buckley wrote:
I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level. I believe that if and when the menace of Communism is gone, other vital battles, at present subordinated, will emerge to the foreground

While individual choices, as a rule, do not matter, the question of if we are to have a society which is Christian or atheist is a political issue. Why mass atheist movements from the French to the Bolshevik revolution to post 1949 China and Cambodia under Pol Pot have turned tyrannical is frankly something I do not understand. The atheists I know do not harbor totalitarian designs. No reason I can see why atheism must go that way. But it is a fact large atheist movements have gone that way.

If there has been a large, million plus member, atheist organization which has not gone the way of Yaroslavski, I am unaware of it.

We hear Christians regularly express regret for the errors of Christians. Errors which happened centuries ago. Yet I do not hear atheists express similiar regrets over Yaroslavski, Ezhov, Chaumette or Mao. That is disconcerting ( I will grant that many atheists haven't heard of 3 of these 4 individuals but they should, they were fierce promoters of atheist ideology).

I also do not see organized atheist efforts to help society such as we see among Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs and others. Where are the atheist charities? Where are the atheist hospitals? I may be missing it but virtually all I see atheist groups do is complain about Christians (and see, some of them, sue in Federal court to prevent Christians from promoting their faith in the public square). The largest atheist group in the world today is the Communist Party of China. Considering that and the history I related above, is it any wonder many are concerned about what a mass atheist movement might do if one did rise in the west?
 
Upvote 0

ArchaicTruth

Ridiculously reasonable, or reasonably ridiculous
Aug 8, 2007
692
47
31
✟8,593.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Interesting topic. Especially when you consider that the etymology of "bigot" is "By God".
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=bigot&searchmode=none

bigot 1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi GodSo in a way if God were a bigot then the universe would implode or something because "bi God" is taking the Lord's name in vain, and if God violated His own nature that would cause some serious problems in the fabric of the universe.
lol, that is awesome
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mling

Knight of the Woeful Countenance (in training)
Jun 19, 2006
5,815
688
Here and there.
✟9,635.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
re: only the OP

It has nothing to do with God. The followers of Christ were never instructed to, and never intended to, take over the government of any country. When Constantine declared Rome to be Christian, it was the first official declaration that Christianity was a political tool, and not a faith. It's purpose was to unite the citizens of a country in a common club, not to teach values or behavior that has anything to do with Christ. This is, roughly, what Christianity has been ever since. But the message of Christ assumes that his followers are in the minority (which is still true), and it says absolutely nothing about how to run a country.
 
Upvote 0