Resolved: 90% of religious people

Nine out of ten religious people support monuments/displays representing their own (but not someone else’s) religion on public property. For example, 9 out of 10 christians will support a 10 commandments monument at a courthouse, but 0 out of 10 christians will support statue of Mohammad at a courthouse. Conversely, 9 out of 10 muslims support the latter but not the former.

Why are religious people so stupid (or at least 90% of them)? Is it inbreeding or does being religious all by itself encourage brain atrophy (since “religion has all the answers” and thus religious people are not encouraged to think)?

note: i did my own survey, it is +/- 2%


Doesn’t Islam have a prohibition on statues?
Zev Steinhardt

If religion has all the answers, I guess we’d better wait for a religious person to come along and tell us why religious people are so stupid.:confused:

I don’t understand all the hoopla. What’s wrong with symbols of any religion?

Absolutely nothing, unless they’re on public (i.e. state/federal) property.

Why do non-religious people make worthless and inaccurate generalizations?

Oh, wait… :smack:

Nah, it’s probably inbreeding. I’m sure you could easily prove this with one of your surveys.

If I did DNA tests on the parents of stupid religious people to show that the’re related, would you say the results of my test were god just testing your faith? :stuck_out_tongue:

Zev: Yeh I think that islamic prohibition on statues is only for statues of non-islamic religions, such as the buddhist statues the taliban blew up a few years ago. Islamic statues are just fine and dandy as I understand it.

As a Christian I’m saddened there are so many of my fellows in Alabama who don’t seem to have a sense of fair play.

I don’t even think God handed down the Ten Commandments to everybody. Just the Jews, and by extension (to whatever greater or lesser degree Jesus may have done away with the Law) to the Christians.

But Alabama has all sorts of people in it. It’s not a theocracy, and shouldn’t be. Its government is secular by design. This business of the momument in the courthouse rotunda is an obvious – OBVIOUS – establishment of religion, or an attempt at establishment, which becomes clearer every time Moore opens his mouth.

He’s defying his sworn duty because of what he terms loyalty to God, but where did God say turn Alabama into a theocracy? And if that’s really his goal, he’s defying all sorts of legal principles he’s sworn to as a justice. And yet most Christians seem to be supporting him anyway. I just don’t get it.

:shaking my head:

(I’m waiting for GWB to weigh in on this, by the way. Should be illuminating.)

Statues of religious objects or persons are no-nos within Islam. You aren’t even supposed to draw pictures of Muhammed, although I have seen art depicting him with a totally veiled face when recieving the scriptures of the Koran from an angel.

There was a big ruckus years ago when a movie about the life of Muhammed came out. Reminds me of how fundies raised a stink over The Last Temptation of Christ before they even saw it. The movie was Muhammed, Messenger of God and there were violent protests against the film. I think I remember a theater in New York being taken over by protestors.

Which was foolish, because one does not see Muhammed in the movie. Sometimes he’s just offscreen, or you see the action as through his eyes.

I hope I got this right, it’s been a long time since I heard about the incident.

To be honest, I’m thinking that I would trust any test conducted by you to be about as impartial as a “What’s your favorite ice cream brand?” survey conducted in South Burlington, Vermont. :stuck_out_tongue:

masonite: these religious fundy freaks are not going to stop screaming until america is a theocracy. And they’re going to win, too. They will not stop until all america has left is sand and camels. America will be a 3rd world country within 25 years (becase you can’t be both a theocracy and an economic superpower–one or the other, but not both). Sand, camels, and jerry falwell/Pat Robertson/Roy Moore standing on podiums with everyone down on the ground praying at them 12 times a day. Jesus is great, jesus is good…

Fortunately the rest of the world will continue to thrive, as the Christian States of America will no longer hold economic influence over anyone.

Resolved: Kalt is a …

Oops. This is MPSIMS.

Don’t worry, Snoop Fanny Fan. I’m sure you’re not the only one thinking it.

I’d like to second SnoopyFan. Kalt… there are a lot of ways to phrase the question that you’re asking. That’s one of the worst.

[Kalt] Hi! I think you’re stupid? Why are you so stupid? [/Kalt]
Not cool.

To answer your question… I imagine most religious people would be in favor of showing things that are in favor of their religion. To compare, would you have a problem with a friend coming over your house? No? How about an enemy? A lot of people view religion that black and white, so basically what you’ve proven is that people like their friends and don’t like their enemies. Pope Catholic, etc.

Interesting assertion here.

Unsupported by any cites, but personally, I can’t think of any counter-examples.

Can anyone? Or can you point to any cites about this?

Aw… what happened kalt?

Did Jesus take your parking space again?

Went to go watch a movie. I’m still here. I’m not saying “religious people are dumb.” I’m saying religious people are dumb because of this scenario.

*To answer your question… I imagine most religious people would be in favor of showing things that are in favor of their religion. To compare, would you have a problem with a friend coming over your house? No? How about an enemy? *

Well, in this country we don’t put religious symbols on public property. Why? Because it will offend those whose religion is not depicted by the symbol. And even moreso because of tyranny of the majority (note it’s only the majority religion that’s represented at the courthouse in Aluhhhbama… I don’t see any scientology shrines). If the majority had its way, we would have a National Church of Christ. Most people are christian, and most christians wouldn’t have a problem with that. But they’d all have a problem with a National Church of Islam. That’s why our founding fathers said we will have no establishment or support of religon by the state. Those guys were smart. The people yammering in Aluhhhbama are not smart. This shouldn’t be an issue of “like it vs. not like it.” Sadly, that’s what it comes down to about 90% of the time. You’d think people would be less myopic about what’s at stake. If you really think it is analogous to “friend vs. enemy” then this is quite sad indeed.

“Really, to tell you the truth, we was just plain, old country folks.” – Jerry Moore, Roy “Praise thuh Lord” Moore’s little brother.

Plain old country folk shouldn’t be sitting on a state’s supreme court. They should be at home or at church, where we can all keep an eye on them.

Ah, yes. Slighting both the entire state of “Aluhhhbama” and “plain old country folk” will help your argument.

What exactly is your argument? Please state it in one succinct sentence.

Personally, I find Judge Moore’s stance on this both short-sighted and shockingly irresponsible (he’s a judge fer Chrissakes, no pun intended), but I find your conclusions and argument–which you appear to have formulated in that order–equally so.

This is MSPIMS, if i had an argument for a debate, I would have stuck it in GD. Just an observation, nothing more.

My observation: religious people have no problem violating the establishment clause when it’s their religion they’re establishing, but will overwhelmingly invoke the establishment clause to prevent another religion from doing the same thing.

My argument, if I have one, is that as a result of my observation, these religious people are morons. Or let me formulate my argument this way so it doesn’t sound as broad and vastly sweeping: If you are a christian and support christian symbols on public property but would oppose islamic, jewish, pagan, or scientologist symbols on the same public property, you are a complete moron who should not be allowed to vote in this country. I’d say Ashcroft should monitor such people and keep detailed dossiers on them, but unfortunately he is one of them.