It's offensive and extremely unprofessional.Stingray24 wrote:
How does "God bless" hurt you in any way? It's an expression of good will toward one's fellow man.Bertster7 wrote:
They can say they are, but they should not be allowed to ram it down your throat. For example Blair can say he is Christian, but not say things like "God bless....". They've got to leave all that at home when they're working.UGADawgs wrote:
That's a bit extreme. I don't care if a politician says that they're part of a religion or acknowledge that their beliefs come from a certain view. Hopefully the person can keep belief and legislation separate, but I don't mind a person declaring that they're a religious person.
It's not offensive nor unprofessional. It doesn't matter if you believe in any god or not because it is wishing you well with no respect towards how you percieve religion. Unprofessional? If you feel that hoping for the best towards some person is wrong, I suppose that would make sense. Even so, nobody would be forcing you, an atheist, to utter those words. You have no control over what another person says One could even argue that removing the words from any place is pushing forward the areligious agenda.Bertster7 wrote:
It's offensive and extremely unprofessional.Stingray24 wrote:
How does "God bless" hurt you in any way? It's an expression of good will toward one's fellow man.
No, it's not offensive - I was kinda taking the piss with that one, you'll notice I said it myself earlier in this threadDesertFox423 wrote:
It's not offensive nor unprofessional. It doesn't matter if you believe in any god or not because it is wishing you well with no respect towards how you percieve religion. Unprofessional? If you feel that hoping for the best towards some person is wrong, I suppose that would make sense. Even so, nobody would be forcing you, an atheist, to utter those words. You have no control over what another person says One could even argue that removing the words from any place is pushing forward the areligious agenda.Bertster7 wrote:
It's offensive and extremely unprofessional.Stingray24 wrote:
How does "God bless" hurt you in any way? It's an expression of good will toward one's fellow man.
It is unprofessional though. Politicians who form a part of a secular government need to leave all the trappings of religious live at home when they are working. It is to demonstrate that they are not letting their beliefs play any part in the decisions they make in government.
There is no room for religion in politics. All non-secular states are a mess. Political decisions need to be based on logic, not on belief.
I know, look at the UK. Zing!Bertster7 wrote:
No, it's not offensive - I was kinda taking the piss with that one, you'll notice I said it myself earlier in this threadDesertFox423 wrote:
It's not offensive nor unprofessional. It doesn't matter if you believe in any god or not because it is wishing you well with no respect towards how you percieve religion. Unprofessional? If you feel that hoping for the best towards some person is wrong, I suppose that would make sense. Even so, nobody would be forcing you, an atheist, to utter those words. You have no control over what another person says One could even argue that removing the words from any place is pushing forward the areligious agenda.Bertster7 wrote:
It's offensive and extremely unprofessional.
It is unprofessional though. Politicians who form a part of a secular government need to leave all the trappings of religious live at home when they are working. It is to demonstrate that they are not letting their beliefs play any part in the decisions they make in government.
There is no room for religion in politics. All non-secular states are a mess. Political decisions need to be based on logic, not on belief.
Anyway, I really don't see how its unprofessional. It's no more unprofessional than saying "good luck" to somebody. It just shows that the person cares about the issue enough to ask God's blessing for it (if they're sincere about it).
As a sort-of joke, sort-of point, me and some of my friends often say this, when someone sneezes, or as a blessing, etc..Stingray24 wrote:
How does "God bless" hurt you in any way? It's an expression of good will toward one's fellow man.Bertster7 wrote:
They can say they are, but they should not be allowed to ram it down your throat. For example Blair can say he is Christian, but not say things like "God bless....". They've got to leave all that at home when they're working.UGADawgs wrote:
That's a bit extreme. I don't care if a politician says that they're part of a religion or acknowledge that their beliefs come from a certain view. Hopefully the person can keep belief and legislation separate, but I don't mind a person declaring that they're a religious person.
... "Buddha Bless you."
I usually get a strange look from the person I bless.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-06 16:03:07)
It demonstrates they are not functioning on a purely secular level, which to make decisions from a non-religious perspective they must be. You can't have a secular government making decisions based on religious beliefs, then it ceases to be a secular government.UGADawgs wrote:
I know, look at the UK. Zing!Bertster7 wrote:
No, it's not offensive - I was kinda taking the piss with that one, you'll notice I said it myself earlier in this threadDesertFox423 wrote:
It's not offensive nor unprofessional. It doesn't matter if you believe in any god or not because it is wishing you well with no respect towards how you percieve religion. Unprofessional? If you feel that hoping for the best towards some person is wrong, I suppose that would make sense. Even so, nobody would be forcing you, an atheist, to utter those words. You have no control over what another person says One could even argue that removing the words from any place is pushing forward the areligious agenda.
It is unprofessional though. Politicians who form a part of a secular government need to leave all the trappings of religious live at home when they are working. It is to demonstrate that they are not letting their beliefs play any part in the decisions they make in government.
There is no room for religion in politics. All non-secular states are a mess. Political decisions need to be based on logic, not on belief.
Anyway, I really don't see how its unprofessional. It's no more unprofessional than saying "good luck" to somebody. It just shows that the person cares about the issue enough to ask God's blessing for it (if they're sincere about it).
You are not functioning on a purely secular level, either, if a simple greeting draws such contempt from you.Bertster7 wrote:
It demonstrates they are not functioning on a purely secular level, which to make decisions from a non-religious perspective they must be. You can't have a secular government making decisions based on religious beliefs, then it ceases to be a secular government.
Beliefs do play a role in political decisions, otherwise anyone could do the job [insert joke here].
I hate this misconception though. All religion is not a rejection of logic, but usually an ideology of behavior towards others. There are more than two sides to the whole picture, since people can value both to a high extent without compromising ones conscience. In religion, as with organizations like political parties, you can be a "member" but you do not necessarily have to agree with the whole shabang.
I hate this misconception though. All religion is not a rejection of logic, but usually an ideology of behavior towards others. There are more than two sides to the whole picture, since people can value both to a high extent without compromising ones conscience. In religion, as with organizations like political parties, you can be a "member" but you do not necessarily have to agree with the whole shabang.
From a normal person it wouldn't. From a person who is supposed to represent me, it does.Stingray24 wrote:
You are not functioning on a purely secular level, either, if a simple greeting draws such contempt from you.Bertster7 wrote:
It demonstrates they are not functioning on a purely secular level, which to make decisions from a non-religious perspective they must be. You can't have a secular government making decisions based on religious beliefs, then it ceases to be a secular government.
Why do you find that so abhorrent? I dont understand how everyone got so insecure that they are offended by everything.Bertster7 wrote:
It didn't start out that way though did it. Although I appreciate there was a time in a golden age for the US when religion didn't feature in politics, back before the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance, which I find abhorrent.deeznutz1245 wrote:
There used to be a place for people to go who didnt want religious jurisdiction. It was called America. Everyone used to keep their faith to themselves and respect everyone else's that may have differed. But then, somewhere along the way, some fuck fucking fuckity fuck got offended and sued. Now we have to be sensitive and tolerant of everything, even the shit heads who bomb us. Now we are all fuct. Everyone should just mind their own business and worry about themselves.CameronPoe wrote:
@OP seriously.
It would make me livid if a person who was religiously driven was elected as my representative. I'd consider leaving the county/country. As soon as someone elses personal/spiritual beliefs start impinging on your life it's time to say 'enough is enough'.
Some people want to take "under God" out of the pledge. Go right ahead. I believe in God, but do I care if they take it out? Hell no. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I don't care what the government says.
If the government were trying to push religion, or Athiesm on me, I would be pissed, but if your personal constitution is such that you believe President Bush saying "God Bless America," or the sight of a Christmas tree in a government estblishment is going to convert you, you probably need your mommy to dress you in the morning. He has the freedom to believe in God and express that all he wants. He is as free as any of the rest of us. Too bad Tony Blair isn't.
How is everyone so damned sensitive?
And that all has to be left behind if you have a career in politics. The ideology is a very important part of what they must not base decisions on.DesertFox423 wrote:
Beliefs do play a role in political decisions, otherwise anyone could do the job [insert joke here].
I hate this misconception though. All religion is not a rejection of logic, but usually an ideology of behavior towards others. There are more than two sides to the whole picture, since people can value both to a high extent without compromising ones conscience. In religion, as with organizations like political parties, you can be a "member" but you do not necessarily have to agree with the whole shabang.
How would you feel if an atheist got elected into a powerful seat in the government and made serious decisions based on his lack of belief?Dezerteagal5 wrote:
How would you feel if a religious extremest got elected into a powerfull seat in the government, and made serious decisions based on there belief in god??
For me, being an athiest, that would piss me off beyong belief!.
How would you feel (whether your an athiest or a believer)?
edit:
For example, a politician bans condoms in your state because he feels that god doesn't want people to have sex unless its to make kids.
For example: a politician bans kippots in public because he feels that religion has no place in day-to-day society.
Note to self- If I ever go into politics (very unlikely), use "When in Rome" strategy.Bertster7 wrote:
And that all has to be left behind if you have a career in politics. The ideology is a very important part of what they must not base decisions on.
It wasn't in there orignally...
At first you think "O' that's sort of generic, it's just an abstract conception. God in this abstract context could mean anything, or be applied to any faith." But, it was conceived of in non-specific terms, it is a Christian insertion, it refers to the Christian Trinity Concept of God...
(Championed by the Knights of Columbus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Columbus).
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
The original pledge:
Francis Bellamy's' Pledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy
No one is being sensitive... either.weamo8 wrote:
Why do you find that so abhorrent? I dont understand how everyone got so insecure that they are offended by everything.Bertster7 wrote:
It didn't start out that way though did it. Although I appreciate there was a time in a golden age for the US when religion didn't feature in politics, back before the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance, which I find abhorrent.deeznutz1245 wrote:
There used to be a place for people to go who didnt want religious jurisdiction. It was called America. Everyone used to keep their faith to themselves and respect everyone else's that may have differed. But then, somewhere along the way, some fuck fucking fuckity fuck got offended and sued. Now we have to be sensitive and tolerant of everything, even the shit heads who bomb us. Now we are all fuct. Everyone should just mind their own business and worry about themselves.
Some people want to take "under God" out of the pledge. Go right ahead. I believe in God, but do I care if they take it out? Hell no. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I don't care what the government says.
If the government were trying to push religion, or Athiesm on me, I would be pissed, but if your personal constitution is such that you believe President Bush saying "God Bless America," or the sight of a Christmas tree in a government estblishment is going to convert you, you probably need your mommy to dress you in the morning. He has the freedom to believe in God and express that all he wants. He is as free as any of the rest of us. Too bad Tony Blair isn't.
How is everyone so damned sensitive?
It is also to specific...Bertster7 wrote:
Because church and state should not be tied. There is a sizeable chunk of the population that does not believe it is one nation under god.Stingray24 wrote:
Why?Bertster7 wrote:
the words "under God" were added to the pledge of allegiance, which I find abhorrent.
At first you think "O' that's sort of generic, it's just an abstract conception. God in this abstract context could mean anything, or be applied to any faith." But, it was conceived of in non-specific terms, it is a Christian insertion, it refers to the Christian Trinity Concept of God...
(Championed by the Knights of Columbus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Columbus).
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
The original pledge:
Francis Bellamy's' Pledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy
And its other proposed alternativeI pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'
I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-06 16:14:37)
Exactly. That would be totally out of order. They are bringing their own beliefs and prejudices into the decision making process - which is precisely what I've been trying to say is very wrong.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
How would you feel if an atheist got elected into a powerful seat in the government and made serious decisions based on his lack of belief?Dezerteagal5 wrote:
How would you feel if a religious extremest got elected into a powerfull seat in the government, and made serious decisions based on there belief in god??
For me, being an athiest, that would piss me off beyong belief!.
How would you feel (whether your an athiest or a believer)?
edit:
For example, a politician bans condoms in your state because he feels that god doesn't want people to have sex unless its to make kids.
For example: a politician bans kippots in public because he feels that religion has no place in day-to-day society.
Exactly... that is the same as banning mangers, or other Christian references, in public by private citizens.Bertster7 wrote:
Exactly. That would be totally out of order. They are bringing their own beliefs and prejudices into the decision making process - which is precisely what I've been trying to say is very wrong.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
How would you feel if an atheist got elected into a powerful seat in the government and made serious decisions based on his lack of belief?Dezerteagal5 wrote:
How would you feel if a religious extremest got elected into a powerfull seat in the government, and made serious decisions based on there belief in god??
For me, being an athiest, that would piss me off beyong belief!.
How would you feel (whether your an athiest or a believer)?
edit:
For example, a politician bans condoms in your state because he feels that god doesn't want people to have sex unless its to make kids.
For example: a politician bans kippots in public because he feels that religion has no place in day-to-day society.
Banning God references:
Private - no way - never.
Governmental - every way - every time.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-03-06 16:18:40)
Banning a religious garment and saying "God Bless You" are two totally different things. A secular government can certainly have politicians express a belief in religion as long as it doesn't start passing laws specifically reflecting religious policy. A secular government doesn't have to prevent anyone in the government from even daring to utter the name of a deity.Bertster7 wrote:
Exactly. That would be totally out of order. They are bringing their own beliefs and prejudices into the decision making process - which is precisely what I've been trying to say is very wrong.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
How would you feel if an atheist got elected into a powerful seat in the government and made serious decisions based on his lack of belief?Dezerteagal5 wrote:
How would you feel if a religious extremest got elected into a powerfull seat in the government, and made serious decisions based on there belief in god??
For me, being an athiest, that would piss me off beyong belief!.
How would you feel (whether your an athiest or a believer)?
edit:
For example, a politician bans condoms in your state because he feels that god doesn't want people to have sex unless its to make kids.
For example: a politician bans kippots in public because he feels that religion has no place in day-to-day society.
Perhaps a Christian making decisions based on common sense and a secular choice with reason instead of political or religious influence could work. For example, Paul Martin, former prime minister of Canada, a devout Catholic, enabled same-sex marriages because he chose not to enforce his religious beliefs over others, instead making a sensible decision.
Unfortunately, we now have Stephen Harper in office, whose every decision will be a consequence of his religion. He wasn't elected as much as the Liberals were unelected and he was the only other leader to choose as our prime minister.
Unfortunately, we now have Stephen Harper in office, whose every decision will be a consequence of his religion. He wasn't elected as much as the Liberals were unelected and he was the only other leader to choose as our prime minister.
at least we agree on 1 thingCameronPoe wrote:
@OP seriously.
It would make me livid if a person who was religiously driven was elected as my representative. I'd consider leaving the county/country. As soon as someone elses personal/spiritual beliefs start impinging on your life it's time to say 'enough is enough'.
15 more years! 15 more years!
Yeah, I guess Clinton's blow job by Monica was a gift from God for all of the years of delivering God's message to the masses and for setting such a fine Christian example.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
I disagree i dont see how you see that. He is a religious man, but so was Clinton, and a lot of other presidents.ATG wrote:
Hmmn... seems like we already have that in Bush.
And he sucks btw.
says who atg? link me to where he said that.ATG wrote:
Bush believes he has been selected by God to lead America into battle with Muslims.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
I disagree i dont see how you see that. He is a religious man, but so was Clinton, and a lot of other presidents.ATG wrote:
Hmmn... seems like we already have that in Bush.
And he sucks btw.
Add me on Origin for Battlefield 4 fun: DesKmal