Non-religious number growing?

[Star_Cards]

I agree. To each his own. But my question is, how do we govern a society if not by true Christian beliefs. Seems like there's too much corruption and self servingness in Washington right now that makes you wonder what "belief" is actually running Washington. Me being a Christian would say that corruption and self servingness, or greed, are not true Christian traits. Maybe a falling Christian, but not a true Christian. Maybe Athiests? Who knows.

By shear numbers, I'd assume most of those people who are corrupt in Washington believe in a christian god. I feel that being a decent human being can be achieved outside of religion all together. I'm an atheist and feel that I am a fairly moral person. I do things that some religions wouldn't consider moral, but so does everyone.

I personally don't think religion is all that successful in policing people and keeping them from corruption. I do believe that was and still is religion's original intend for the most part. I guess it does to some degree, but from history religion doesn't seem too successful in keeping people from falling to temptation.

[ensbergcollector]

I do see how one's religious beliefs make up their views on many things, but there is also a difference between not being okay with something due to religious beliefs and not allowing others to have the same rights in the eyes of a government when they have the right to not follow the same beliefs. Allowing gay marriage doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone that isn't gay or doesn't approve of it because of their religious affiliation. I guess for me that is the major thing that is so confusing. Allowing the state to recognize gay marriage isn't forcing a religion to recognize it. They'd have the right to choose. Different religions have many different rules that people have to follow to have a marriage recognized by the religious institution. There are also many different rules for divorces, second marriages, and annulments. None of those rules have any bering on any marriage being recognized by the state. Also, if I go to the justice of the peace and get married that wouldn't be recognized by many churches, if any. That fact doesn't mean that those marriages should also be banned. I guess I don't see the difference. Straight marriage exists and is fine when done outside of the church so why wouldn't gay marriage be the same way? I know that marriage has a root in religious text, from what I've heard, but it has also been adopted by the state to have meaning outside of the religious umbrella.

As far as your direct question, I guess I would classify a vote against gay marriage as controlling people based on a religious belief. I feel that someone can be against something and still be able to let another group practice under their beliefs, especially when it doesn't infringe on another's right.


for the discussion about religion and attacking in general... I think it happens on both sides. I try to respect the beliefs of everyone but will admit that at times I become very annoyed when I hear people using religion as the template for how everyone should live. If someone wants to live a certain way, I have no issue with that, but I will also defend the right of anyone to choose not to live under that template. That said, I'd defend and have defended the rights of religious people being able to live by their individual beliefs.

i understand your stance. i guess the bolded part is where i get hung up. asking me to vote in favor of gay marriage is effecting my religion and asking me to go against my religion. like I said, i understand your stance, but that is where i get stuck.
i have actually said before, i would stand aside for civil unions so that couples can receive the same insurance benefits, be able to visit in hospitals, etc. But, the word marriage has become the sticking point and the overwhelming majority of gay marriage supporters don't want gay civil unions, they want gay marriage. it may seem small, but it isn't.

[mrveggieman]

i understand your stance. i guess the bolded part is where i get hung up. asking me to vote in favor of gay marriage is effecting my religion and asking me to go against my religion. like I said, i understand your stance, but that is where i get stuck.
i have actually said before, i would stand aside for civil unions so that couples can receive the same insurance benefits, be able to visit in hospitals, etc. But, the word marriage has become the sticking point and the overwhelming majority of gay marriage supporters don't want gay civil unions, they want gay marriage. it may seem small, but it isn't.

I understand and respect christians objections to gay marriages but it's just a word. Atheists, muslims, jews, satanists, etc get married and christians are against them as well but I never heard of any christian protesting their wedding. It's just a word. Nothing more nothing less.

[steelers#1fan]

So how do you run a country then? Who do you put in office? What religion then?

You govern it by a sense of what is RIGHT and WRONG. An individual (or society) does not need a religion to tell them what is right and what is wrong. We know it in our hearts and minds.

[mrveggieman]

So how do you run a country then? Who do you put in office? What religion then?

If I can answer I don't vote on race, religion, hair color, or any other trivial matter. I don't believe that habs does either but habs feel free to chime in.

[ensbergcollector]

If I can answer I don't vote on race, religion, hair color, or any other trivial matter. I don't believe that habs does either but habs feel free to chime in.

Lol

[Star_Cards]

i understand your stance. i guess the bolded part is where i get hung up. asking me to vote in favor of gay marriage is effecting my religion and asking me to go against my religion. like I said, i understand your stance, but that is where i get stuck.
i have actually said before, i would stand aside for civil unions so that couples can receive the same insurance benefits, be able to visit in hospitals, etc. But, the word marriage has become the sticking point and the overwhelming majority of gay marriage supporters don't want gay civil unions, they want gay marriage. it may seem small, but it isn't.

I totally get that road block.

So for you the big hang up is with the term marriage, right? For me I don't really think of the religious side of the term being the primary definition even though it originated there from what is said. I don't feel that a proper solution to the gay marriage issue would be to have homosexuals have civil unions and straights continue to have marriages, but like to hear that your hang up is with the term rather than act, if I read your post correctly.

[Star_Cards]

So how do you run a country then? Who do you put in office? What religion then?

I'd say vote by a person's action. Just because a person says they are christian doesn't mean they are moral or no corrupt. I wouldn't base a vote by what a person said is his religion. It's easy to claim a religion and not act on it. Besides, christianity is all over the board as far as what rules to follow so how do you know anything about a person just by what religion they claim. There are plenty of complete snakes in politics who have claimed to be men of a faith.

[Star_Cards]

Lol

are you saying that he votes by skin color as a major contributing factor? If he does and we're assuming he votes for people who have the same skin color as he does, he probably doesn't vote all that much. :)

[habsheaven]

So how do you run a country then? Who do you put in office? What religion then?

I read your questions and I have no idea where you are coming from.

You elect the people you think will perform the job best and run the country accordingly. It has nothing to do with religion.