The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation.

[doppelganger]

Which is exactly why the prophet is needed.

If you say so. Personally, I think "the Prophet" isn't needed.

Yes, there has always been injustice. But certain injustices have ended. They don't just go away by themselves.

And certain other injustices have arisen, often by the authority and power of corrupted religions. Religion remains pure so long as it lacks real power "in the world." When its becomes powerful it will be corrupted to serve economics and biology. After all, almost every government on the planet for the last 5500 years has been "religious." Modern "nationalism" is more of the same.

If you want to say that folks like Rev. Theodore Parker and Rev. King and Archbishop Tutu did not make a difference... well as we've already agreed, we disagree strongly on this.

That's a straw man. I didn't say they don't make a "difference." I said that spiritual truth is for inner awakening, not to change the world . . . though people so awakened might incidentally "change the world."

And the fact is, as I said, that nothing has corrupted Christianity more than making it one with politics. Those who urged Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire no less thought they were changing the world than you do. Same with modern "conservative Christians" who also think they are ushering in "God's perfect plan." They are your mirror image.

 

[Sententia]

Fair enough.... but it's certainly not the agnostic/atheist nation that some would like it to be.

I can't speak for everyone but I know I don't want an atheist nation anymore then a theist one.

I want a nation irregardless of religion. You can worship whatever you want within your religion and in your life. When you tie our governance to a relgion you then enforce those religious beliefs on the entire nation which is comprised of thousands of different belief systems.

You also run the risk of making decisions based on your religious beleifs and warring with countries based on disagreements in relgious beliefs.

 

[lilithu]

That's a straw man. I didn't say they don't make a "difference."

You said the world would be exactly the same as it is.

As for the importance of the prophet, this probably underlies many of our disagreements. Unitarian Universalism stands in the prophetic tradition, along with King and the Jewish prophets before him, and with liberation theology today. For us, "salvation" is communal and social, and thus political.

 

[doppelganger]

As for the importance of the prophet, this probably underlies many of our disagreements. Unitarian Universalism stands in the prophetic tradition, along with King and the Jewish prophets before him, and with liberation theology today. For us, "salvation" is communal and social, and thus political.

Okay. It is for your "conservative" brethren, too. It isn't, to me. :rainbow1:

 

[Scott1]

I can't speak for everyone but I know I don't want an atheist nation anymore then a theist one.

Amen... well said.

 

[crystalonyx]

Let's face it, our founding fathers were much more enlightened about about the dangers of religion than most politicians today, or for that matter most voters, look at the person we have as POTUS, almost the opposite extreme of the founding fathers, and America voted this loser in a second term.

 

[lilithu]

Okay. It is for your "conservative" brethren, too. It isn't, to me. :rainbow1:

Yes, this is one area where many religious conservatives and religious liberals agree.

 

[Starfish]

Let's face it, our founding fathers were much more enlightened about about the dangers of religion than most politicians today, or for that matter most voters, look at the person we have as POTUS, almost the opposite extreme of the founding fathers, and America voted this loser in a second term.

I just have to say I am sick of the insults towards our president. I think history will exonerate him.

 

[Father Heathen]

I just have to say I am sick of the insults towards our president.

How can you say they're not well deserved? The man pretty much wipes himself with the constitution. He insults the American public.

I think history will exonerate him.

I doubt it. In fact I think the view of him will be even more clear and critical.

 

[Starfish]

How can you say they're not well deserved? The man pretty much wipes himself with the constitution. He insults the American public.

I doubt it. In fact I think the view of him will be even more clear and critical.

I completely disagree. But I'm not going to debate it in this thread.

 

[logician]

I just have to say I am sick of the insults towards our president. I think history will exonerate him.

How can you defend someone I believe is a fascist?

 

[Starfish]

How can you defend someone I believe is a fascist?

I'm not going to debate this in this thread. It's off topic. I believe Geo. Bush is a good man. Those who have met and talked with him personally say this also. I deeply resent the insults and name-calling.
Start another thread, if you like, and support your slurs with real facts. But I doubt I'll participate, because most of you are too full of hate towards him to see straight. And I'm trying to avoid poisenous threads.

 

[logician]

Back on topic, our government has definitely drifted away from the secularist one set up by the founding fathers, and there are many that want it to continue towards a religious state. This we cannot allow. We must vote in those who believe strongly in a true separation of church and state, and will fight to keep them separate.

 

[Starfish]

Back on topic, our government has definitely drifted away from the secularist one set up by the founding fathers, and there are many that want it to continue towards a religious state. This we cannot allow. We must vote in those who believe strongly in a true separation of church and state, and will fight to keep them separate.

Would you vote for a person who fully believed in SOCAS, yet was also religious? In other words, could you vote for anyone who was personally religious? Could you vote for a Mike Huckabee or a Mitt Romney?

 

[lilithu]

Would you vote for a person who fully believed in SOCAS, yet was also religious? In other words, could you vote for anyone who was personally religious? Could you vote for a Mike Huckabee or a Mitt Romney?

Nope, but I could vote for a Barack Obama! :angel2:

 

[logician]

Would you vote for a person who fully believed in SOCAS, yet was also religious? In other words, could you vote for anyone who was personally religious? Could you vote for a Mike Huckabee or a Mitt Romney?

No, because I could not trust their intentions, besides, I don't agree with them politically.

 

[Starfish]

No, because I could not trust their intentions, besides, I don't agree with them politically.

Okay, Romney and Huckabee aside, could you vote for any religious person?

 

[Sententia]

Okay, Romney and Huckabee aside, could you vote for any religious person?

hehe.... Jeb Bush? LOL. I don't have a problem with religious people... your implying a prejudice. I would vote for who I percieved could do the job the best.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay, Romney and Huckabee aside, could you vote for any religious person?

It depends on what you mean. Every candidate is going to identify as religious of some sort, even if they aren't especially. That's because if they don't people won't vote for them. So, we are pretty much forced to vote for people who claim to be religious at least to an extent. I don't personally care one way or the other, but in the end, it doesn't really matter, as I don't have the choice anyway.

 

[lilithu]

It depends on what you mean. Every candidate is going to identify as religious of some sort, even if they aren't especially. That's because if they don't people won't vote for them. So, we are pretty much forced to vote for people who claim to be religious at least to an extent. I don't personally care one way or the other, but in the end, it doesn't really matter, as I don't have the choice anyway.

Does Ron Paul have a stated religion? Not arguing with you, just curious.