If you’d said that in the first place, I’d have agreed wholeheartedly. Well, I probably would have been more specific than “complete moron.” I’d have said “hypocrite who doesn’t understand what religious freedom means” or something like that.
And by the way, what about us atheists? Alongside the displays of the major tenets of other religions I’d like to see a pure, blank slate to represent what I believe is “set in stone.”
[quote]
Kalt: My argument, if I have one, is that as a result of my observation, these religious people are morons.
That is one of the most amazing admissions that I have seen on SDMB.
If your observations result in making religious people morons, I suggest you might want to observe something else for awhile or give up observing altogether.
Well, to be fair, Zoe, he said “these religious people.”
I don’t think he (I’m getting the impression he’s a he) is characterizing all Christians as morons. If he is, he’s a reactionary fool.
“Complete moron” is about as specific as I can get. I mean it as 100% descriptive, not as an insult (although I suppose it is one). I realize it’s very easy to call a group names, and labeling someone a moron or idiot is not the basis for an argument, but it can be a legitimate conclusion based on facts. Here I don’t see any other way to see it. Roy Moore and his ilk are complete and utter morons. Moore should be in jail right now (of course Bush will pardon his brother in christ immediately).
In my humble opinion, anyone who is that much of a hypocrite is, ipso facto, a complete moron. Yeah I never thought about having a blank slate but it would make for a good laugh? Would it be the establishment of non-religion? (I like the idea but of course I’m not for actually putting it on public property).
How about this: We atheists declare that all the empty space, i.e. air, in public facilities such as courthouses, city hall, state capitals, etc., are official atheist monuments that symbolize nothingness, the lack of a god. Will that cause them to fill up all that space with some water or something? How will they walk around inside the buildings? Will they just give up and start crying? Will the sue atheists to have us remove the empty space from all the buildings (which are establishing what, no-religion?). I do kinda like that idea.
Oh, you said quite a bit more than that. Your exact words were,
It is entirely possible to take exception with someone’s principles or logic without denouncing them as “so stupid.” Give it a try sometime.
Because they’re people? Sort of a Sturgeon’s Law kind of thing?
Please, enlighten us! Share with us all the details of your survey!
I’m inclined not to believe this. Did you ever try getting “most christians” to agree on anything? :dubious: Which flavor of national church would this be? And would people really want the gummint messing around with their church?
I think you vastly underestimate the wisdom and restraint of religious people, perhaps because it’s the morons who are the loudest and pushiest. Some of the founding fathers who fought for the establishment clause were quite religious themselves, and few if any of them were hostile toward religion per se.
You did your own survey, and it was +/- 2%?
Uh huh. What was the methodology? Describe your survey in more detail, please.
I am hardly an expert, but I believe Islam prohibits images of people (or at least, say, Mohammed) under pretty much any circumstances. I’ve been in mosques all over the world, and I’ve never seen so much as a single statue or picture. Incredibly beautiful architecture and calligraphy, but no statues or pictures.
Ahh, wtf? 90% of religious people are stupid? Get real. As a practicing Roman Catholic (who, by the way, thinks religious statuary, symbols, paintings, whatever, don’t belong in public spaces), I take serious exception to this statement. Serious offense, too.
religion should be taxed
i betcha only 10 % of religious people would pay that tax 
and Zev is right: Islam prohibits idolatrie
els
This is simply bigoted and ignorant drivel. I’m sorry to use language that would be more appropriate for the Pit, but no other words will do the job.
The majority of religious people in this country who are members of one or another Christian denominations would want nothing to do with any such thing as a “National Church of Christ,” whatever that would mean. Roman Catholics, for one thing, would have no part of such a thing. Neither would Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians (who are, after all, an offshoot of the national Church of England, and who have chose, in the United States, to reject any national affiliation), or members of any other mainstream Protestant denomination. I can’t even begin to think of how ridiculous (and dangerous) Unitarians would think this to be. The same goes for Quakers. Let’s not even talk about the Amish and the Mennonites. The Orthodox churces owe allegiance to Patriarchs in Greece, Moscow, Constantinople (a.k.a Istanbul), Antioch, and so on. The Mormons? Not a chance. Their beliefs are so incompatible with any other Christian denomination that they would fear a “National Church of Christ” as much as I would.
It is arguable that there is a fringe group of Protestant fundamentalists who might support such a thing as a National Church of Christ. But would be a very weak argument.
Maybe this thread would be more useful if it got hijacked into asking the question "who agrees/disagrees with the statue being placed in a public forum. People should probably note their religous orientation too"
I’m athiest and completely disagree.
Also, Somebody mentioned GWB’s response ought to be interesting. Given his apparent disregard for separation of church and state I’m interested in what he has to say too.
Well, I’m a Christian, and from a country with an established Church, besides … and I don’t believe that the State should have any part in mandating a religion, or supporting one with public funds.
And I’m quite sure that more than a mere 10% of my co-religionists are with me in this.
Why not? Plenty of people seem to love letting the church “mess around” with the government, and vote the church into the government accordingly. At what point does it not make a difference whether “the church” is part of government or government is part of the church?
It always makes a difference. The point at which “the church” became the basis of goverment policy was a very sad day for anyone who isn’t a devout christian.
To answer the question posed in the OP, it’s because [insert name of religion here] is the only correct religion. All other religions are just ignorant superstitions that gullible people blindly follow and we should not encourage such beliefs.
Regards,
Barry
See, I was gonna laugh at this, since I did my own survey and found that no one in my office (+/- 2%) has any camels currently.
But then I learned about America’s First and Only Camel Dairy.
I guess that just goes to show that my survey methodology was full of shit, huh?
Shouldn’t this be in the Pit?
I meant that particular phrase to mean that a significant percentage of Americans (enough to vote certain people into office, at least) are already happy with the church messing around with government, so turnabout being fair play they should be fine with the government then messing around with their church–in response to Thudlow Boink’s “And would people really want the gummint messing around with their church?” At what point does it become moot who’s messing with whom, because they are fused into one entity? I wasn’t saying that such a merger is inconsequential.
Is Kalt an athiest? If so, can we kick him out?