Societies are worse off "when they have God on their side." Morals and Ethics Suffer In A Religious Society.

I agree.  A sample size of 1 is far too small to draw conclusions like these.

Though the conclusion that, "Despite its abundant natural resources and relatively stable government, the US is still a uniquely violent place" is probably warranted!

Which demographics would you be hinting at?

Good idea Dan, let us know what conclusions you can deduce from this.

Which would be every society with people who claim to have god on thier side....

WRONG.  Societies are worse off when they have people who CLAIM to have God on their side, but don't

Because there is no such thing. Morals are not of superstitious origins

The misperception is that there is a god to make sides, or the free will to pick one.

Mike,

Spoken like a true preacher, or pastor, or whatever you call yourself.

It's man's ego, and thinking that we can some how know what's best, without God, that's the problem. 

Consider this.  Every hear of a school shooting, before we decided to remove prayer from schools? 

Was there a need for metal detectors in our courthouses, before we required them to remove the ten commandments from their walls?

We live in a godless society now, and as a result, we are, and will continue, to suffer God's wrath.  Deny it all you want, but "it is" what "it is"!

Mike,

I responded to this line of thinking on another thread but I will re-post it here for all to see.  It absolutely crushes your weak argument:

This is a point that I disagree with you and I think Alec would too. You see, all of the things that you attribute to god’s wrath are really just caused by humans.  I could just as easily say that all of the examples you speak of were caused by aliens controlling our brains or some other ridiculous reason (I don’t really believe this so don’t worry).  Therein lies the problem with your argument, no evidence and not falsifiable.  I think that we should move more and more towards a godless society but not in the way that you think.  I think that traditions like Christmas should be retained but that the religious parts of those celebrations be removed.  You can pray for whoever you want at a graduation ceremony, but forcing all of the students to do so is religious persecution to some who don’t believe.  The world has gotten very crazy, but this can easily be attributed to the widespread use of communications.  Comparing times when there weren’t school shootings to now is like comparing apples to oranges.  They are two completely different time periods and god has nothing to do with it.  How about this comparison:  Now that our society is more godless, there is a lot less killing than in the crusades.  Following your logic this argument is valid but if you look at it from a different standpoint it is easily discredited like your argument for school violence.  The problem with religious people such as you is that they use arguments that are not falsifiable.  You are able to take any problem in our society and blame it on god’s wrath without having to show any evidence to prove your point.  This encourages people not to think about it and look for the root of the problem because they can so easily blame it on the lack of god in our society.  Perhaps if you actually spent some time researching why these things happen, you would arrive at a solution to stop them at least cut down on the number of incidents.

Maybe people do need a healthy dose of religion, but those people, in my opinion, were morally weak in the first place.  If they need a bible to tell them how to act, then that’s fine.  Personally, I will continue to live my life following a sense of morals and reason that I think are mostly universal.  The evolution of mankind has given us an exceptional moral compass, all we need to do is follow it.  The people who wrote the bible knew this, and they wrote it down.  Those teachings are great guides if you take away all the superstition and keep in mind the era and context in which they were written.

I truly hope that you reply to my post, but if you intend to include a bible verse or something of that nature or tell me that I’m lost without god or that I’ll have to face god’s wrath someday because I don’t believe, then don’t bother replying.  One more thing, ‘freedom of religion’ and ‘freedom from religion’ are two sides of the same coin.  I could easily argue that my “religion” is to not believe in god.  That pretty much crushes your argument about the founder’s intentions, most of whom by the way were not so keen on the idea of religion anyway.  But they did understand one thing:  Freedom of religion is a great thing. But when people try to interpret it the way you happen to be, then it can have disastrous consequences to the basic idea that is freedom itself.

Well said Mike..

Have you guys heard that bible stands for ; Basic . Instructions. Before . Leaving. Earth.

Brian, you have the right to your opinion.....and that's exactly what it is, your opinion.

And I have the right to my beliefs, based in the Bible and a personal relationship I have with the Master.  I have no doubts, but there is nothing I can say or do that will relieve your doubts.  That's something that's totally up to you and between you and God. 

But again, I'll restate - God is not on our side.  It is our choice to be on God's side.  God does not choose sides.  There are really only two sides, Good and Evil.....so the question is, which side do you choose?

Maybe it could be: Believing In Blatant Lies Effectively?

I need a different E word if anyone has any suggestions.

Mike,

You continue to use arguments that don't make sense.  I don't want you to respond to my opinions, I want you to respond to my arguments against yours.  I'm calling you out for making illogical arguments.  Now please give a rebuttal for this nonsensical school violence argument.

How about "Exclusively"?

Watch out Brian, in the light of reason Common runs away. Also as you probably are aware anything he quotes as a source must be fact checked because he fabricates the contents of his sources thinking nobody will read them.

Brian,

Yeah , lies that for tell the present and future... Nice try though ;)

Purple,

Yes, I have seen this with Mike.  We had this same discussion going on a different thread and the same thing happened, I posted the above comment (30.4) and got no answer, not surprisingly.

Ombra,

That is sooo perfect.  Now it is complete: Believing In Blatent Lies Exclusively.

Yeah, Common is stretching his opinion a little far there. We all have the right to choose our beliefs  as we see fit. I believe in a Creator, but I wouldnt view another who doesnt as evil.

I never said anybody was evil......never called any names.  Was just making the point from this article, that God doesn't choose sides.  We have the option to choose God's side, but even then that doesn't make Him on our side, it makes us on His side.  There are two sides, Good and Evil.  It's black and white to those who believe, but those who don't can only see gray.

Jesus taught about "faith", the ability to believe in the unseen and the unknown.  It is difficult to explain to someone who makes the choice to only have faith in man.  It's like explaining what a banana taste like, to some one who has never tasted one. 

I am not here to try and make anybody believe what I believe, I am not trying to force myself or my beliefs on anybody else.  Something I learned a long time ago, there is nothing I can say or do that can change anybody's heart.  It's the Holy Spirit that does that, not me. 

So you guys are welcome to scoff at anything and everything I say and demand proof, but even if I were able to provide proof, there would still be those who choose not to believe.  Just as when Jesus walked the earth, healing the sick, raising the dead.......there were still some who choose not to believe.  When Moses lead Israel out of Egypt and parted the Red Sea, there were some who choose not to believe.  It's not proof that leads one to believe. 

And if I ever failed to respond to anybody, it is more than likely because I stopped tracking the thread, never because I couldn't answer or respond to anybody's question or remarks.  Many times when these types of discussions happen on the vine, they get nasty with name calling and insults, and I choose to stop tracking them at that point.

btw Brian....I did respond to your post in the other thread. 

iluvmyblog,

"Foretell" is one word.  Next time post something relevant to the discussion and I won't point out stuff like that.

No Mike, you did not.  I posted a rebuttal to your school violence argument and your post did not respond to my argument.  Then you posted your illogical argument again on this thread and again I posted my rebuttal.  So I'm asking you, respond to my post.  Reread 30.4 and 30.8 if you have any questions.  Pay close attention to the part about the crusades.

Brian, have you considered that I find your opinion illogical?  It's similar to me saying the sky is blue and you saying, prove it.  I can say my car is blue and you can say it's navy blue.  I was not arguing with you at all.  This isn't an argument for me. 

I've never made any claims that Christians are perfect, because there are no perfect Christians.  Christians don't think of themselves as perfect, only as forgiven.  We continue to make mistakes and fall short, but God picks us back up and sometimes those short comings create even stronger faith. 

I've never made claims that one religion is better than the other or that one denomination is the only true one....nothing like that.  In fact I know that the devil works very strongly inside of churches.  So asking me to justify something that was wrong....I can't do that.  Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong.  At the same time, you grouping all believers into one lump because of something that happened in the past is also wrong. 

Mike,

Nevermind, I see that you have no intention of debating with me.  Take a logic class or a debate class and maybe look up straw man on wikipedia.  Unfortunately I don't think you will understand how to debate as you have shown time and time again that you are incapable.  Your above post (30.18) has nothing to do with what I was asking.  Therefore, since you are unable to back up your claims about the correlation between school violence and our society moving away from god, then I respectfully request that you stop posting that argument.  You would have failed debate in school.  I'm finished with this conversation because you have failed to address my questions.

Mike, if you have a spectrometer, it's not hard to prove that the sky is blue, or what color your car is.

And if either of you had a personal relationship, as I do, with Jesus Christ, then you might be capable of understanding the concept of faith.

Again, this isn't a debate.  How do you debate when one side knows the truth, and the other already has their mind made up?  What is there to debate?  I know what I know, you don't know what I know, and therefore have no concept of the truth and the light that gives life meaning. 

You see, you are in the world and of the world, where I am in the world but not of the world.  Worldly things have no attraction for me.  Gold and Silver have no meaning.  You have decided to dedicate yourself to things that won't last, ashes to ashes and dust to dust.  I have made the decision to dedicate my life to something that has no end, it last for ever. 

I am not standing in judgment over you, while you seem to want to stand in judgment over me, calling me illogicial and unable to "prove" what I know to be truth. 

But know, as the lightening strikes, there is a day coming, when every knee will bow, and every tongue confess......that He is Lord....even yours. 

If Jesus existed and loved everyone he wouldn't deny anyone knowledge of him. If everyone's existence hinges on belief his existence, it would be evil for an omnipotent being not to demonstrate his existence to the point where it could not be doubted. Especially in light of the eternal punishment he supposedly has lined up for the faithless.

There are no things that can have an effect on you that are not of this world. In order for something to exist for you, you must be causally connected to it. If God exists then he is in this world. If you are attracted to things not of this world, you are attracted to things that can not exist for you.

It has been proven that there can be no theory of everything. Since nothing can ever know everything, I suppose it could be said that ignorance will last forever. Is that the unending something which you have dedicated yourself to? I dedicate myself to the opposite, the pursuit of knowledge.

You say you do not stand in judgement over me, yet you stand in judgement over that which you call God, in how you claim that he will stand in judgement over me. What does that make you?

Jesus deny's His exsistence to no one.  He welcomes all into the fold.  All one needs to do to know Jesus is to say a simple prayer, confess that you are a sinner, admit that you can't overcome the urge to sin and serve yourself.  Invite Jesus to come and live in your heart, and then seek His plan for your individual life.  So it's not that Jesus deny's His exsistence, it's that people don't desire to know Him.  So if you were to decide to dedicate yourself to the knowledge of Him, you would not have any doubt about His exsistence. 

I stand in judgment over nobody.  That's not my job, that's His job!  All that is require of me is to inform others of His Love, the price He paid so that you could have a personal relationship with God.  It's up to you to decide if you want to follow Him or not. 

The condition for not denying knowledge of his existence being: The demonstration of his existence to the point where it could not be doubted.

You see, I am an apostate. If Jesus existed and was not malevolent, no believer could stop believing.

You stand in judgement over him by claiming he has certain attributes while being incapable of demonstrating that he has those attributes.

You see, if you were to seek knowledge of Him, you would quickly learn that Jesus taught about "faith".  Faith being the ability to believe in something unseen.  If you want proof of His exsistence, take a deep breath, listen to birds sing, look at the flowers......there is proof of Him everywhere I look.  Things the blind can't see.

As far as your statement that I am standing in judgment over God by trying to share the knowledge He has blessed me with, that's something I don't quite understand what your trying to say? 

The Bible says, "Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened unto you."  You see, it's a decision that is completely left up to you.  It's not something I or anybody else can do for you. 

But as I said earlier, there is a day coming, like lightening in the sky, and on that day, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess, that He is Lord of all!  You can choose to wait until that day comes if you like.

Then I guess it's just too bad for me that there is no free will and everyone is an automaton, a slave to the chemicals which compose the brain. There are no uncaused effects, no actions which can be seen as free from all others. How does one make a choice in the presense of a being which has foreknowledge of everything? How do you have knowledge of something which you can't show to exist? That just isn't knowledge. If all seekers find, there would be no more seekers, only finders. Do not assume that I have not sought such things, just because there is a mirror behind an open door does not mean you aren't alone. Proof is not subjective, I see proof of many things when I take deep breaths, listen to birds sing, and look at flowers. But I don't see how an almighty being is necessary for such things. The universe gets more complex as it evolves, I don't see how this trend follows if the most complex thing imaginable already existed before anything existed. If the universe was perfect when everything was with god, how can you have hope for the general improvement of things in the face of the emergence of imperfection?

I believe you are looking at God, and talking about things that are from satan, which is the lie the devil uses to harden people's heart against God. 

I know you don't like hearing this, but there are two masters and we are all serving one or the other.  One represents truth, the other deception, lies, and destruction.  All satan has to do to win is keep you where your at. 

I believe you are looking at God, and talking about things that are from satan, which is the lie the devil uses to harden people's heart against God. 

God created Satan. What is the difference between that which is evil, and that which created it to be evil? The creation of evil can hardly be defined as 'good'. The creation of evil is an evil act.

Such is in the accordince with your beliefs, yes? God created everything.

satan was one of God's angels, and supposely one of the most beautiful angels whom God loved very much.  Yet satan decided he wanted to be God instead of being an angel.....it's that whole free will thing again.  satan's decision, not God's.

So satan was banished from heaven, and since that time his plan is to take as many with him as he can.

So again, your looking at the work of satan, and blaming God.

Yet satan decided he wanted to be God instead of being an angel

Yet God knew Satan would want this before God created him. God created Satan with the knowledge Satan would be evil. God created Satan who is evil, with the acknowledgement he would be evil.

Satan chose to be evil. God chose to create him anyway.

Such is in the accordince with your beliefs, yes? God is omniscient.

I can't presume to know what God knows or knew about satan....how can anyone?  God gives us all free will to choose and decide for ourselves.  He doesn't demand or require that we worship Him....He gives us all "free will" to decide for ourselves.  Why would he provide His angels with less than he provides us with?

God knows everything yet you have free will to make choices he already knew you would make. Cute.

You guys are the ones that are saying God knows everything.....I haven't presumed to know what God knows.  That is coming from your mouths, not mine.  I can't presume to know the who, what, when, or why of what God knows.

K, that's fine, my bad. How's this one: God isn't the greatest thing imaginable and there is room for something greater.

XNihil: If there were no good, how would we recognize evil?  If the were no evil, how would we recognize good?

Good and evil are not objective qualities. Everyone has their own specific set of objects actions and concepts which they classify as good and evil. People classify these largely based on the experiences of their interactions with the objects, their observation of the actions and their considerations of the concept. They also usually consider the how people they interact with feel about these things. But in the end, no one ends up with the exact same set, and no one ascribes the same level of goodness evilness to each item.

So how do you recognize something as good or evil? I guess that depends on how good or evil you feel it is based on experiences you've had with it; how those around you have felt about the same thing and how comfortable you are agreeing or disagreeing with each them.

Maybe it could be: Believing In Blatant Lies Effectively?

Brian, that would only work if you could show me the lies in the Bible. Last time I checked, there were some pretty accurate things in there that were written thousands of years ago, and happening right this very moment.

I can tell you've never ventured out to study the Bible, because if you studied it, if you really studied it, not trying to disprove it but instead trying to see if it matches up to history, you would see how accurate it really is. Read Isaiah, then read the New Testament and learn of the origins of Jesus birth. Jesus, Luke, Matthew, John, these were all real people. They have given you facts about the life of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe he is the Son of God or not, you can' t deny that the things written in Isaiah hundreds of years before his birth match his birth, life, and death with 100% accuracy. The Bible has never been disproven, and has only been proven more factual with time.

Brian,

iluvmyblog,

"Foretell" is one word.  Next time post something relevant to the discussion and I won't point out stuff like that.

 I can careless what you think of my spelling. Can you tell me how you pointing out my spelling is relevant??? Yeah it's not so next time don't waste your time on pointless bs like that. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't give you leeway to be disrespectful to those that do. Don't address me with bs like this again or I'll just have to add you to my ignore list ;) Anyway the bible does predict the future if you actually took the time to read it.

Well said cmarshing.

Good and evil are not objective qualities...

Thanks for that reasonable answer.  As we know that some people take intense pleasure in things that would seem "evil" to many others, this answer is absolutely logical and rational.

If good and evil are subjective, how do we make laws that allow us to live together in society?

I think its the puritan issue.  Making rules about contraception and creating an enviroment of evil concerning natural function.  Most churches are afraid to discuss sexuality to youth more than "Don't do it" and "if you do your going to hell"

The biggest problem that I see when it comes to the church is its inability to accept humans as animals.

The church preaches to it's congregation about many things, most of what is in the bible ie scriptures. All the times I've gone to church which was always a small congregation our Pastor preached the word of God and what God meant in the scriptures. The sex ed part came from my mother and school. Though the church talks about abstinence until you are married,in which to prevent promiscuity and sexual diseases. I think the responsibility of teaching the youth about sexual education should come from the parents.

  The biggest problem that I see when it comes to the church is its inability to accept humans as animals.

Are you saying that church doesn't accept that we as humans also have animal tendencies..?  If so, then I would think they do but I think they refer to it as the flesh , like sins of the flesh...

Humans are not animals, although some act like one.  Humans were given dominion over animals. 

lol True Mike true ;)

"He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality... The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted indeed in some degree to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call Common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787.

This sense has evolved to its highest form in nature in man but it does not exclude that lower forms of life do not have morals, or that some man are born with a handicap of morality. Morals just being the advanced sense in nature that allows us to live together in peace without eating each others children.

I said it too simply,

What I meant by the animals thing is hormones and the flush of them that we get in our younger years.  Our sex drive, the non puritan flow of reproductive urges, the reason for living.  Thank god for those rushes of hormones.

My point is this, society has moved past the point of marrying in your early to mid teens.  Our sociology and amount of knowledge requires us to study into our 20s.

The church (not all) tells us that contraception is bad and that abortion is bad.  So if we are to accept humans for the creatures that they are this is going to cause one of two things.  Guilt for breaking the will of the church.  Or a shortening of the time allotted for learning.  No matter what its going to cause some type of release even rage because no church I ever attended taught me how to take a cold shower, run the block, or do anything to handle the reality of hormones.

Hence why so many religous leaders end up being sexual deviants.

We need to start treating sexuality and hormones as a fact of life not something that should be hidden and be ashamed of.  If something is taboo, kids will do it, but if its normal kids aren't really that interested.

The church has a tendency to turn human nature into a shameful thing.  And shame leads to hatred and displacing that shame onto others.  So if the church would embrace human nature and work within its boundaries they would have alot less negative impact on society.

And all this proves that FARTS ARE FUNNY.

BTW no sex until marriage?  where does it say that, I know don't covet your neighbors wife but wheres the abstinence commandment?

Dan ,  There are way too many out there with absolutely no morals. Morals are a learned endeavour from your family and the society you are raised in. If you are also raised in a religious family then that also reinforces moral structure.

Gold the problem is so many church goers are not religous.  Going to church is used as an excuse to judge the faults in others, in the majority of the faithful I would argue.

If you are also raised in a religious family then that also reinforces moral structure.

Actually... no.. It can be argued that the Phelps clan is a religious family, albeit their own strange twisted brand of it, and I wouldn't call them a "moral" family.

If you are raised in a moral family, that reinforces moral structure. Religion has nothing to do with it, it's your actions and how you teach your children that makes the difference.

Thats probably true when you talk about fundamentalists and the like. There are many others who arent like that though. I know my daughter-in-law described being raised in one of those. She said at services the preacher , if he had heard of some supposed sin, would castigate you in front of all. Thats not what being a christian is about. So there is always several sides.

Morals just being the advanced sense in nature that allows us to live together in peace without eating each others children.

What? We're not supposed to do that? Damn! See what happens.. you stop going to church for a little while and you forget all the rules.

If you are also raised in a religious family then that also reinforces moral structure.

Ya know, for some people that's true, for others it gives them a sense of forgiveness and a sense of holiness that allows them to escape their morals - it allows them to see themselves as a good person even when they do some not so good things.

Kevin-     Thats right , I was sort of implying that in my last post. A prime example, I suppose would be the extreme sides within a given religion who think they can somehow speak for or know the will of  God as it pertains to another person life.

The point of this study by Mr. Paul was to prove that religion is bad. And it's not, it's the people that misrepresent it and misunderstand it that make it seem bad. I think that if you as an individual have a relationship with the Lord that is all that matters.

which goes to the point , that god gave all of us free will.  I still say though , that the article as written is pointless. He could have written " in the U.S. where people use more gasoline, it has been noted that there is more crime than in nations that use less". There was one post yesterday, maybe 2/3rds of the blog down, that has a clearer explanation of why the article is lacking a premise.

I agree EPH...it's just an editorial, designed to further the cause of removing God from society, but claiming God is the reason for all that ails society..........when nothing could be further from the truth!

Not to mention how our of perspective it is, how it feeds our ego, thinking that God chooses sides........when the truth is we choose God....not the other way around.  Man always seems to think everything is about us.....when it's really all about God!

From the actual study:  http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.

Note: "this is not an attempt to present a definitive study"

Interestingly, the author of the study is a freelance paleontologist, author and illustrator according to wikipedia.

Also from the wikipedia article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul

Gary F. Jensen of Vanderbilt University is one of the scientists who criticizes the methods used by Paul, including that "Paul’s analysis generates the 'desired results' by selectively choosing the set of social problems to include to highlight the negative consequences of religion".

Here is a link to the article from Mr. Jensen if interested in really understanding the issue.  http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf

Dr. Jensen has a PhD in Sociology and is a professor at Vanderbilt.

The way he states the article, you could replace religion with the word pets, cars or you name it. The article would then still have the same validity which is to say none.

EPH289:  Thank you so much for taking the time to follow up on this and provide the links!

5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

Had to repeat that part.

So you are saying that the fact that the United States is a great nation as well as a religious nation is a coincident

The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.

I think the united states can be considered a great a nation when compared to third world countries.

Adam,

Why is there a responsibility for those of us who find the conclusions of the author of this study to be less than credible to come up with an alternative.

I have provided a link above where the author himself says it is not a definitive study.  I later provide a link to a more respectable source who indicates the study is selective in data, draws conclusions from data that may or may not be related.

This study does not stand as very strong evidence as you purport, even the author of the study says that.

It obviously is agenda driven to attempt to lead people to conclusions that aren't really supported.

I would like to see a study that proves that organized religion is beneficial to a society.

Many years ago religious organizations started universities and hospitals. Even if these institutions become totally secular we can look back to a time when organized religion developed many good things. This is not an all or nothing topic, very complex. We could blame the government for societies' problems. Some good can come from these historic institutions.

The U.S. has a much greater diversified population. U.K. never had the issue of slavery like we did. There was also a time where the U.K. sent undesirables to another continent. The comparison is too far a stretch.               Look at all the charitable work done all around the world by religious organizations, every day, and some give their lives in helping others around the world.

The UK recently quit teaching the history of the Holocaust in the public schools to avoid violence and conflict.  God forbid the US gives in to violent terrorists who want to rewrite history.

I for one would rather have the conflicts.

Do you dispute that America has more crime, higher STD rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, more rape, more murder, etc., etc. than most developed nations? Do you dispute that America has more religious people as a percentage than most developed nations? If you don't dispute either of those (and I hope for your sake that you don't) then you can't deny that evidence. The most religious developed nation is also one of the worst morally. That's just the reality of it. Either you have to explain that anomaly or you have to abandon the idea that religion makes societies better.

Because everyone, from atheist to devil worshippers to christians and back again, all believe that our chosen religion is the right one, and anyone who doesn't believe is a "stupid idiot".  Or anyone who opposes a different view is "going to hell."

To say everone is that way is quite a strech I know I am but my wife isn't and I know at least to other people who arant that way, I am sure Kitti j they would even like you unless you were mean to them

Atheist are not religious.

Atheist are not religious.

Forgive me of my misspeak, but the point I'm trying to make is that everyone thinks that their chosen "idea" is what's best, and these "ideas" have set society into a backwards thinking of "If you aren't like me, then you ARE the enemy" and that's not so.

I hope your talking about the leaders and not trying to generalize entire populations with not having morals.  And some of our most nasty and heinous people have come from "religious" households so I don't see your point.

This proves exactly my point about the church creates an enviroment where it is ok to judge others and to look down on "different people".

Belief is god is good for some, and not for others.  Just because they don't believe in your god doesn't make them any less one of god's creatures.

Essentially the problem is this, and the correlation between great religious fervor and an uhealthy society, in and of a country, becomes evident: Transcendentalist and religious god-centered thought, teaching, and practice, promotes irrational thought and demotes the worth of the individual. Though to some participating on this thread these claims appear ridiculous, it is they who are living examples of this. Where is the worth of the individual, that which is the cornerstone of pure democracy and freedom, in a man who spends his life for naught but to worship another being. Such is the very definition of slavery.

Blearc-       Yes I was referring to some of the power groups within those regions like KGB people or Kim Il Sung. That wasnt a blanket indictment of any nation.

After all societies are also organisms and suvival is within their programing as well.

I knew it!

Yeah, on some level I knew it too.  In fact, I remember reading a study a few years ago that compared red states, which have more fundamentalists churches, with blue states.  This study found, among other things, that divorce rates, STD infection rates, and teen pregnancy rates were much higher in red states than in blue states!

I have also found from my own personal experience that some really atrocious hypocritical behavior occurs in churches.  Most recently, I was struck by the sad irony of the 9 year-old boy whose dying wish was to feed the homeless while the fundamentalists churches were so busy spending millions in order to pass prop 8.

the sad irony of the 9 year-old boy whose dying wish was to feed the homeless while the fundamentalists churches were so busy spending millions in order to pass prop 8.

Aaaahhhh......the wisdom of children.

To be fair, it's not to much baloney because it's political, as because it's sociology {zing!}

Ouch!

Ah, yes, the jackass riding the jackass. Care to enlighten us with your undoubtely much higher education and wisdom and give criteria why it's baloney? Or are you, like usual, just trolling?

Ah, yes, the jackass riding the jackass.

(Looks below, looks above) Did he mean me or that?

Let me elaborate.

Sociology is not well-looked-upon by many experimental scientists because of its approach to statistics. Namely, it plays fast and loose with them. Sociology as a discipline has weaker statistical rigor than (for example) psychology or political science, and relies heavily on its own conventions rather than, for example, what statisticians think constitute good methodology.

Let me give you an example, in terms of this study (available here. Suppose we take all the figures that get cited in the paper the seeded article is focused on, and suppose we run statistical tests on them. What you'll find is that, in many cases, no reliable relationship between religiosity and the dependent variables emerge. That is, in part, why the study presents no statistical analyses to speak of. It simply shows the graph and asks the reader to intuit what the graph "means" without any quantified attempt to see whether the graph is just noise.

Any statistically-minded person would look at this data and shout, "Warning: Third Variable Problem!" There are a lot of factors that might contribute to the issues being presented, including (but not limited to) individualistic/collectivist cultural values, education levels, quality of life, and varying government policies. A proper look at these data would attempt to tease the contribution of each of these variables out through some form of multivariate analysis. Without any meaningful analysis of its purported data, this paper is, at best, a college midterm instead of a serious scholarly work.

What is particularly noteworthy about these data is that the United States is a stark outlier in many of the graphs. This suggests, perhaps, that America is unusually religious or unusually dysfunctional, but it might also suggest that the author has cherry-picked demographic factoids that America happens to look extreme on, or cherry-picked countries that contrast visibly with the US. The fact that every graph singles out the US as an extreme value seems a little suspicious, and suggests that the author may in fact have had an agenda. It doesn't prove it (America may just be that weird relative to the other countries listed), but it does place a greater burden on the author to demonstrate that this isn't merely a hit job against the easy stereotype of America as a zealot playpen.

Bottom line: the troll is not myself, but rather the author, whose argument is a controversy magnet but whose argumentation leaves much to be desired. Anyone can speculate. If you want to make a broad claim like "religion is bad for society" (or even that it's good for society), you'd better be prepared to bring some real evidence to the table.

Guys,

It doesn't much matter what I say, you too are interested in the outcome of the "study" supporting your idea to recognize that the methodology flawed and interpretation of the data is irrelevant.  A meta-analysis at best, with a conclusion already formed before the analysis started.

There was no new "study", just a review of old data of uncertain reliability or methodology, with the author giving his summary and personal conclusions that are not supported by the data as protrayed in his publication.  For example, as the author states,  "The cultural and economic similarity of the developed democracies minimizes the variability of factors outside those being examined" is a major and incorrect assumption the author uses to support his contentions.  I submit there are major cultural, political, sociological, and economic differences that are unrelated to religion between the deveploped democratic countries that more readily explain what the autor wants to assign to religious beliefs.  For example, the ethnic composition of the USA is vastly different than say Japan, Finland, or even Canada.  The American culture is also more diverse than many.  The author also failed to separate the different religions to study, rather lumping them together as equal.  That is also an invalidating methodology.

The conclusion the author draws from the data he reviewd is preposterous.  But for those of you wanting to rid the world of Christianity, go ahead and use this non-study with a conclusion unsupported by the cited data to support your claims of how harmful it has been to the world.

Just remember, so far it is the Christians who have kept dangerous people from sawing your heads off in public places.  People who do bad things in the name of religion are an embarrassment to the faithful Christians, but God's children none-the-less.  You will find it difficult to defend yourselves with the ranks of those having no higher purpose than themselves.  And you will need to defend yourselves, religion free world or not.

Donkeyrider-               TheU.S.A. is the most diverse ethnic/cultural/social experiment in this world that has ever existed.

goldminor,

The American culture is also more diverse than many. 

I agree, as I implied in my post.  It was the author who stated:

"The cultural and economic similarity of the developed democracies minimizes the variability of factors outside those being examined"

A totally false assertion.

Everybody needs a crutch from time to time. Mine is my faith in God and those I share that faith with. Where do you go in the time of in your life that your life when you need to lean on somebody?

My community which does includes all those around me and doesn't discriminate based on what version of a book I believe in.

"My community which does includes all those around me and doesn't discriminate based on what version of a book I believe in."

When you are feeling vulnerable and need someone to lean on, most people want someone they can feel comfortable around. Someone they can trust and that they share a common bond with. That "community" can be family, a hobby, social class, political slant, or religion among other things. 

Everyone has a "book" they believe in.

For instance, although you like to imagine that you dont discriminate your thinly veiled jab at religion says otherwise.

Do what you like as long as you pray for redemption you are saved. We would fare much better if we looked inward instead of outwards for our actions. I know easier said than done.

That is a twisted view of Christianity, and I will go out on a limb and say most Christians don't think they have free rein to do whatever they want and still go to Heaven. The Bible says that Jesus died on the cross so that when we sin, we can have assurance that it no longer seperates us from God. It also says that this is not an excuse to sin, and that a true Christian will be known by his "fruits", as in the fruits of the Spirit. If you are looking at a Christian who is behaving in a way contrary to the fruits of the Spirit--consistently and on a daily basis, not every once in a while--you are looking at someone who claims to be a Christian but really isn't. There are a lot of them out there. Jesus talks about them when he says that people who claim they know him will get to judgement day and say they did all this stuff for him, and he will look at them and say he doesn't know them at all. Good works do not equal salvation. Good speech doesn't either. God knows the heart.

Here's my take, and feel free to agree or disagree. The problem is not having a belief. The problem is trying through whatever means necessary to force others to have this belief as well. It works both ways. If Christians read the Bible like they are supposed to, they would know that every way the Bible tells us to behave and live refers only to the Israelites and to Christian brothers and sisters. You will not find a passage in the Bible that is talking to an unbeliever. It simply is not. We are not to force our beliefs on other people. Nor are we supposed to use the government to achieve laws in favor of our beliefs. A perfect example of this is proposition 8. There are two reasons why people want gay marriage. One is because the government is involved in marriage, which it shouldn't be. Being married, unmarried, gay, straight, etc. should have nothing to do with the government whatsoever. I understand the reasons why it is. It is tied to the government for taxes, for what to do after death with estates, etc. There needs to be some other way to deal with that besides marriage. Taxes should not be tied to marriage, period. To deal with estate matters, the government could have a place on taxes every year where you name someone to handle your matters should you die.

The second reason gays want to marry is because they want so badly for their beliefs to be forced upon the world as normal, healthy and okay. This is just as bad, in my opinion, as Christians wanting their beliefs forced on others. There are always going to be people who don't agree that homosexuality is right. Simple as that. It shouldn't be forced onto other people. Homosexuals will not admit that in states where gay marriage is legal, that is exactly what is happening. People are being forced to accept it as right. That is unfair to a person whose beliefs are different.

I think what we see happening with the "zealot" Christians, is that they are seeing so much sickness in the world today, they feel that forcing Christianity on others will "cure" that sickness. That will never work. If it did, we wouldn't see pastors and priests doing some of the horrible things they have done. The problem is not a lack of religion or morality. We are all bent towards evil. The problem is crime and punishment. We are no longer punishing properly for crimes that are committed. We gave Michael Vick a prison sentence for killing dogs, but a child molester gets his wrist slapped for raping a child. Read the paper. It happens all the time. We need to get tougher on punishment because when people see punishment, it deters crime. That's why the world has gone to hell in a handbasket. We used to be punished at home, punished at school, punished at work, and punished through the courts. This is no longer the case.

Marshing, marriage is also tied to citizenship and hospital visitation rights and healthcare coverage.

Two big reasons gays want to be married, so that if they marry a person from a different country they can still live in their home and so that if their partner is dying they can see them in the hospital. Oh, and also so that if they get a job with decent health coverage it will cover their partner as well as a husband would be covered by a wife's coverage.

It's not about forcing society to smile upon them, it's about being able to live their lives with access to the same rights heterosexuals get for THEIR loved ones.

Which was my point exactly, that marriage should not be tied to any of the above. Everything should be done on an individual basis.

Genocide, child rape, lying by calling a wife a sister and thereby allowing her to be shared, or perhaps comforted in the biblcal sense would be a better phrase, with high ranking officials. Just a few of the things you can find within the old testament that god supposedly called for. *laughing*

This isn't the persecution of christianity, it is the persecution of falsity. No tolerant person is under any sort of obligation to tolerate something that isn't true.

And apparently you believe you are the sole decision maker of what is true and what is not...right?

If you don't believe, then it's not true.  Is that what your saying?  While Christians are willing to be tolerant of your unbelief, you express your intolerance and stand in judgment over Christians for their beliefs.

And I suppose you feel you are justified in your prejudices and hatred...right?

You may have a point Mike, I'll openly admit that I have a discrimination concerning religious zealots/fundamentalists.  That Mormonism bothers the crap out of me.  (Segragation is built in to its two temple practices)  My perspective isn't from ignorance, I grew up religious and was force fed the bible by hypocrites.  (Being a good Christian doesn't give you the right to hate others)

But personally I don't want to persecute Christians or any other religion.  I love spiritual/moral people. 

Its the church.  It always has been the church.  There are very few big churches that stay to the course of God's word.  Thanks to the CC God's word has been cherry picked and twisted to control its flock.

Here's the biggest problem though, currently we here in the USA are fighting a war on Terrorism which is basically a war on fundamentalist Muslims.  We are fighting countries that have been theocracies for generations.  And our country has the potential to become a theocracy.  The republican party choose to bring in the church as a ringer to win elections since Reagan.  Even though a theocracy has nothing to do with smaller government and individual rights.  And Jesus was not a conservative.  Its worked for them, not sure what benefit the christian right has gotten out of the deal though.

The church has done some great things.  But giving the church power over the government will turn this country into what we dispise in the middle east.

So your right I am and forever will be intolerant of Organized Religion taking control of our great country.  I can't think of one point in history where having the church run a society made that country smarter, stronger, or safer.

I believe your fears are unfounded and whipped into a frenzy by the media and a political party that has used Christians as an excuse for losing elections in the past.  I see no church, or anybody involved in Christianity with any desires to control the country or the political process.  At the same time, Christians have just as much right to participate in the political process as any other American does.  If you look at the data closely, you will see that there are Christians on both sides of the two party system, so I wonder, are you just as concerned with Christians who vote Democratic taking control as you are with Christians who vote Republican?....or are Christian Democrats ok?

Seriously.....your ok with Paris Hilton and others like her with followers expressing their polticial preferences.......but no tolerance for Pat Roberson expressing his? 

Possibly because that is what Christians always say - that our society would be better off if everyone were Christian and followed Christian doctrine/dogma.

I know that absolute knowledge can not be attained, which is why I don't believe your claim to know of the absolute. 

Where is the hatred there?

I haven't said your beliefs are false...now have I?  I haven't told you that you are full of it...now have I?  No!  I simply shared my faith and made no judgment of you at all. 

On the flip side, you have proclaimed my beliefs to be false......so if your really looking for the hate......find a mirror.

So I am going to ask this again....why is it ok for somebody like LeBron James to tell people who they should vote for.....nobody upset about that.  90% of Hollywood comes out and tells people who they should vote for.....nobody see's any problem with that.  The Boss and P-Diddy giving free concerts and telling people who they should vote for.....and all that's just fine and dandy.

But if Pat Roberson expresses his political preference........that's some how evil? 

I just don't get the double standard here?

Mike, again I say I don't have any problem with a Christian, Jew, Muslims, a single person voicing their own thought out opinion.  That is valid discourse.  Its funny that you bring up Paris Hilton, how many people take her seriously and follow her words?  How many people follow Dodson, Pat Robertson, Falwell

Pat Robertson about 911:

We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality... It (terrorism) is happening because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us

Falwell:

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve

The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad

Pat Robertson on posting the Ten commandments in public schools in Kentucky

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say this very clearly. If the people of the United States -- all across America, in their churches and in their civic groups and in their legislatures -- decide that they're not going to allow the Supreme Court to dominate their lives in the fashion that it has been in this nation, the Supreme Court does not have the power to change that. They are not going to be able to overturn the will of a hundred million American people. And I think the time has come that we throw off the shackles of this dictatorship that's been imposed upon us.

"We had a war in 1776 that set us free from the shackles of the arbitrary rule of the British crown, and I think what's going on in Corbin, Kentucky, boy, those people like to live free. And I think the time has come that we do that..."

Forget which one, but Katrina happened because of a gay planned gay pride parade?

Dodson email blast to his followers about how Obama's victory would (I guess still will) bring 4 terrorist attacks, gay scout leaders sleeping in your children's tents........

http://focusfamaction.edgeboss.net/download/focusfamaction/pdfs/10-22-08_2012letter.pdf

There's hundreds like this of the Churches leaders wanting insist their belief on us.

These are you squeaky wheels that weekly spit out some statement of ignorance, or hate.  Even Obama's pastor which the right loved to attack, until it was more fun to call him a Muslim.

The gays, the abortionist, whatever group the christian right is picking on this election season, don't want to take away Christian's rights.  The same can't be said about the christian right.

See I think whats going on is the american populous is rebelling against the fear mongering we've endured the last 8 years, unfortunately for the Christians, their leaders are the most vocal fear mongers out there.

I hate the edit thing on the vine, no idea where all those spaces come from.   Because Lebron James doesn't make his living telling people how to think.

So apparently you believe Christians are like blind sheep and follow the advise of Farwell, Roberson, and Dobson.........I don't believe that's true at all.  I suspect there are 18 year olds that would follow Paris Hilton's political advise also.  How many more Americans worship Hollywood actors than worship God? 

I believe Democrats lost elections in the past because of their ideas, or lack of them....not because Farwell, Roberson, or Dobson.  But instead of accepting that they were rejected, they whipped up fears of the Religious Right taking control of the country.  For some reason, Democrats can't ever seem to accept that something is wrong with them or their ideas, instead they look for others to blame.....and by using fear mongering of the religious right, they can believe they were cheated or wronged, instead of admiting to themselves that their ideas were wrong.

I am a pastor myself, and I would never take God's time in church, and waste it on politics.  I have zero friends in the ministry that would as well. 

But the suggestion that Christians don't have a right to express their political views, or that some how by them doing so, that makes them wrong, is wrong in itself.  Suggesting that because Farwell, Roberson, or Dobson expresses their political views, makes all Christians run and and vote according to their views is also wrong.  It doesn't happen.

In fact, if you look at the exit polls, over 40% of Christians voted for Barack Obama.....so I'll ask again, are you worried about those Christians taking control of the government?.....or are Christians who vote democratic ok?  Is the problem you have only with Christians who vote republican?....or is it with all Christians? 

Aren't these feelings your expressing more about ones political leanings than their belief in God?

I don't have a problem with people in hollywood telling others who to vote for because I agree with them, and I tend to act in what I believe is my self interest and what I think is in the best interest of society. 

I disagree with Pat Robertson, so I have a problem with his telling people who to vote for because I do not agree with him and I do not feel that his politics are in my best interest or in the best interest of society. 

I expect people to act in their own self interest and in what they feel is best for society. I try to convince people that acting in what I feel is our best interest, is also in their best interests. I expect others to do the same.

Mike,

I just don't get the double standard here?

Blearc made some very good and valid points.

Here are some of your own words (not that you're judging anybody).

We live in a godless society now, and as a result, we are, and will continue, to suffer God's wrath.  Deny it all you want, but "it is" what "it is"!

There are really only two sides, Good and Evil.....so the question is, which side do you choose?

So you are saying that if one doesn't believe in and follow God, then one is evil. That we live in a "Godless society" and will "suffer God's wrath" and if we don't believe as you do, we're in denial.

How do you debate when one side knows the truth, and the other already has their mind made up?  What is there to debate?  I know what I know, you don't know what I know, and therefore have no concept of the truth and the light that gives life meaning. 

When one side knows the truth and the other has made up their mind? Which side knows the truth? Certainly can't be your side. If we don't know what you know we have no concept of the truth or meaning in life?

...there is proof of Him everywhere I look.  Things the blind can't see.

If we don't see things your way, we're blind?

One represents truth, the other deception, lies, and destruction.  All satan has to do to win is keep you where your at.

If we don't believe as you do, we're under Satan's "deception, lies, and destruction".

And apparently you believe you are the sole decision maker of what is true and what is not...right?

Apparently you believe that.

If you don't believe, then it's not true.  Is that what your saying?  

Actually, yes, since I don't believe it is true, to me it's not true - much the same as you believing something is true makes it true to you.

While Christians are willing to be tolerant of your unbelief, you express your intolerance and stand in judgment over Christians for their beliefs.

I'm not sensing a whole lot of tolerance and non-judgement in your statements.

And I suppose you feel you are justified in your prejudices and hatred...right?

And I suppose you feel you are justified in your prejudices and hatred...right?

So then you admit that there is a double standard and your objections really aren't about anybody's religion....it's about their politcs. 

Thanks for being honest about it.  That's the political process in a nutshell.  People expressing what they think is in everybody's best interest. 

Maybe one day, we can agree to disagree on politics, without making the other side villians and painting them as evil.

But the suggestion that Christians don't have a right to express their political views, or that some how by them doing so, that makes them wrong, is wrong in itself.

Thats the third time you've said that and for the third time, I never said that.

Mike, again I say I don't have any problem with a Christian, Jew, Muslims, a single person voicing their own thought out opinion.  That is valid discourse. 

You keep twisting this conversation to make yourself out to be a victim here.  You looking for some martyrdom?

If the church was using the Dems to legislate their beliefs to take other peoples freedoms away I would be just as concerned.  This is not a partisan issue, this is a socialogical problem.  We are a democracy and a melting pot, not a Christian nation.  S

Mike:

Maybe one day, we can agree to disagree on politics, without making the other side villians and painting them as evil.

This isn't about politics but I have to ask you.  Who is it that paints the other side as evil?  The secularists?  What about the Axis of Evil?

I do wish for what you said but, coming from the christian right, your words ring hollow.

Kevin....you can take a statement from here and there without looking at the entire context of what was said if you like......but I've expressed no hatred towards anybody here.  I've made no judgments of anybody here.  I've called no names, told nobody they were right or wrong.  Just expressed my opinions and beliefs......and observations.

That's the problem with our society today......we can't just disagree with each other.......there is this need to discredit and destroy those we disagree with......and I choose not to participate in such as that.

So I feel certain you feel proud of yourself, thinking that you some how proved a point, and I am happy for you.  Your a fine American and I know that your post was not intended as an attack on me....right?

Blearc....I don't feel like I've twisted anything, and I certainly don't feel like a victim. 

But you continue to express your concern over Farwell, Roberson, and Dobson expressing their political views, as if there is something wrong with them doing so.  I keep asking you if it's because their political views are different than yours, but you never respond to the question. 

You openly admit that you discriminate against certain religions....and I feel sure you feel justified in doing so, but I'll add that those who discriminate against blacks or hispanics, or any other group of people feel they are also justified.  It is easy for us to justify our own feelings, but difficult to have understanding for anothers point of view.....isn't it?

Mike I feel for you, you may be the type of pastor I had when I was a kid.  You might be right the media does love to sensationalize.  I will apologize now for anyone that (hows that passage go?) Do not be a stumbling block in your brothers faith.

I have a suggestion for you.  Start with your other pastor friends and start speaking out against the hate speech that comes from those that spend their time on TV.

Religion is like a gun.  Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

But religion has been used to justify so much killing that its time for the moderates in Christianity and Islam to start saying, "You don't speak for me'

This thread is getting way to long and taking too long to load, so I am about to take it off my tracker.....but I look forward to continued discussion with you all in the future.

You openly admit that you discriminate against certain religions....and I feel sure you feel justified in doing so, but I'll add that those who discriminate against blacks or hispanics, or any other group of people feel they are also justified.  It is easy for us to justify our own feelings, but difficult to have understanding for anothers point of view.....isn't it?

Your right, I was honest about my revulsion of Mormonism, but it has everything to do with their built in discrimination.  They have 2 temples one for the faithful and one for the very faithful.

I discriminate against those that discriminate.

You used those three, I don't think that we need to start counting the number of christian right leaders that spew hatred and ignorance from the pulpit.

The problem and finally we get back to being on topic is that religion has been used to control the masses.  There's no denying that. That doesn't mean that an individuals faith is negated because of that fact.  It means its is another thing to be vigilant of.  Religion is not the only threat to democracy, but its abuse is a factor.

Blearc.....I can't speak for anybody else.....I have enough trouble speaking for myself.  I honestly try to keep myself out of everything and look to God for what I should and shouldn't do.  But I know what's right for me, doesn't mean it's right for you or anybody else.  I believe God calls us on our own individual journey's.....like snowflakes, we are all different and called to different purposes and for different reasons.  I don't know if that is the type of pastor you had growing up, but I encourage everybody to experience their own journey.....it's not my place to lead anybody to take mine. 

That's one of the things I love the most about the Bible, you can take 10 people, have them read the same verse, and they can tell you 10 different things that it is saying.  That is why it's called the "Living Word". 

Our job isn't to stand in judgment over others, but to show others Love, and not our love, but His Love given through us.  With man, it's impossible, but with God, nothing is impossible.

Mike,

Frankly, I don't think your comments were nearly as bad as other's I've seen.

My point was to try to show you how they can be perceived and how your claim of persecution was one sided.

Kevin....you can take a statement from here and there without looking at the entire context of what was said if you like......but I've expressed no hatred towards anybody here.  I've made no judgments of anybody here.  I've called no names, told nobody they were right or wrong.  Just expressed my opinions and beliefs......and observations.

I could have easily copied your entire comments - I have looked at them and the context doesn't change the meaning - instead of the one or two sentences but It would have made the post way too long and I was only using them to reference what you said.

You can claim that you just expressed your beliefs but they way you've done so can be taken in a very negative way.

Just as you have taken other's words in a negative way.

That's the problem with our society today......we can't just disagree with each other.......there is this need to discredit and destroy those we disagree with......and I choose not to participate in such as that.

And you started this sub-thread with the Christian persecution line. Discrediting those that disagree with you.

Your a fine American and I know that your post was not intended as an attack on me....right?

Just as yours was not meant as an attack on anyone else....right?

I don't have a problem with people in hollywood telling others who to vote for because I agree with them, and I tend to act in what I believe is my self interest and what I think is in the best interest of society. 

I disagree with Pat Robertson, so I have a problem with his telling people who to vote for because I do not agree with him and I do not feel that his politics are in my best interest or in the best interest of society. 

I expect people to act in their own self interest and in what they feel is best for society. I try to convince people that acting in what I feel is our best interest, is also in their best interests. I expect others to do the same.

This was refreshingly honest.  Thank you. ;-)

Blearc,

That Mormonism bothers the crap out of me.  (Segragation is built in to its two temple practices)  My perspective isn't from ignorance

They have 2 temples one for the faithful and one for the very faithful.

Here's an example of the way that you put misinformation out there and pretend that you are an expert.  I know first hand the evils of mormonism and would never again defend it's doctrines, but would you please learn the facts please before you start lecturing others?  There are over 100 mormon temples and all of them require the exact same temple recommend.  The individual's bishop and stake president have to declare them "worthy" and then sign the recommend.  This has to be repeated every year.  There aren't 2 different kinds of temples.  You must be confused by the churches that the weekly services are conducted in, in which anyone may come in (but you'd better not smell like smoke or alcohol.)  As far as the temple ceremonies, there are more than 2 'practices'.  I don't know where you got that from.  There are several different ceremonies, most of which, I have in the past been a part of. (baptism for the dead, washing and anointing, the endowment ceremony, celestial marriage, etc.)

This comment was made in order to show that while you think you know everything, you don't.