ClumsyMonkey.net

Hahahahahahaha

I didn't realize there were new posts in this thread since my post, and I have no idea how you jumped to those comments from what I said. Geez. No one has a clue what religion I practise but assumes I'm NOT religious AT ALL just because I have issues with mixing religion and politics?

You can feel that way. However, according to our democratic reform, everyone must be represented under the law, including the interests of religious people, as they do make up a significant number of the population in the US and Canada.

ok that's right, but I never said religious people shouldn't be represented? This is why I'm confused at the turn of the discussion. I merely commented on the disproportional representation.

Sinead and Taylor, I like how you two are all pissy about this, yet if you believed in any other religion you'd have the complete opposite stance and would be just as angry about whatever religion you are not having enough say because the Christians are overly represented. How about you look at things objectively? Also, realize that this country (yes, THIS one, not Canada... I know nothing about how Canada was formed, but this "Catholic Land" crap is happening HERE in America, not Canada) is based on the belief that religion should be kept out of government.

And cut the sarcasm and condescending attitude toward people who aren't christian. It's incredibly childish. You wouldn't appreciate that attitude toward your religion at all.

This is about judges right? I don't know much about the American law system, but aren't judges there impartial as well? They are elected as well right? Perhaps that makes it different. In Canada the judges are appointed and go through a rigourous screening procedure. They do remain impartial on all grounds, it is a challenge to do so, but they do most of the time. If it's the same in America as it is here, would the judges background matter?

nikki4982 wrote:Sinead and Taylor, I like how you two are all pissy about this, yet if you believed in any other religion you'd have the complete opposite stance and would be just as angry about whatever religion you are not having enough say because the Christians are overly represented.

I don't speak for Sinead but honestly I would not be angry if I belonged to another religion or was athiest.

How about you look at things objectively? Also, realize that this country (yes, THIS one, not Canada... I know nothing about how Canada was formed, but this "Catholic Land" crap is happening HERE in America, not Canada) is based on the belief that religion should be kept out of government.

Perhaps religion should be kept out of government but that does not mean religous people should be.

And cut the sarcasm and condescending attitude toward people who aren't christian. It's incredibly childish. You wouldn't appreciate that attitude toward your religion at all.

Sorry.

Joe Cooler wrote:

nikki4982 wrote:How about you look at things objectively? Also, realize that this country (yes, THIS one, not Canada... I know nothing about how Canada was formed, but this "Catholic Land" crap is happening HERE in America, not Canada) is based on the belief that religion should be kept out of government.

Perhaps religion should be kept out of government but that does not mean religous people should be.

thats not the point tho
no one is saying that religious people should be kept out of the govt but more so that religion should be kept seperate from politics... simply put, if you allow religion to lead or influence politics, you get the current mess in iraq.

Joe Cooler wrote:

How about you look at things objectively? Also, realize that this country (yes, THIS one, not Canada... I know nothing about how Canada was formed, but this "Catholic Land" crap is happening HERE in America, not Canada) is based on the belief that religion should be kept out of government.

Perhaps religion should be kept out of government but that does not mean religous people should be.

If that's what you think I was saying/implying then there's clearly a disconnect here somewhere. I did not say that.

Kathy14 wrote:I didn't realize there were new posts in this thread since my post, and I have no idea how you jumped to those comments from what I said. Geez. No one has a clue what religion I practise but assumes I'm NOT religious AT ALL just because I have issues with mixing religion and politics?

I think our comments were directed more at our frustration regarding the way religion is viewed politically rather than you.

Dr. Hobo wrote:

Joe Cooler wrote:

nikki4982 wrote:How about you look at things objectively? Also, realize that this country (yes, THIS one, not Canada... I know nothing about how Canada was formed, but this "Catholic Land" crap is happening HERE in America, not Canada) is based on the belief that religion should be kept out of government.

Perhaps religion should be kept out of government but that does not mean religous people should be.

thats not the point tho
no one is saying that religious people should be kept out of the govt but more so that religion should be kept seperate from politics... simply put, if you allow religion to lead or influence politics, you get the current mess in iraq.

I really caution you from implying that religion is the reason the US is in Iraq.
Secondly, I don't think a religious leader should be expected to lay aside their beliefs. It is who they are. However, this does not mean that a religious leader should hold a political stance and back it with their religious beliefs. For example, a leader should not say that abortion is wrong because "the Bible says so."

However, if 3 religious judges are againts an issue and are able to defend their position without relying on religious statements, then their opinion should not be discounted simply it is a typical religious view. Does that make sense? I hope so.

Joe Cooler wrote:

Dr. Hobo wrote:

Joe Cooler wrote:

Perhaps religion should be kept out of government but that does not mean religous people should be.

thats not the point tho
no one is saying that religious people should be kept out of the govt but more so that religion should be kept seperate from politics... simply put, if you allow religion to lead or influence politics, you get the current mess in iraq.[/quote]

I really caution you from implying that religion is the reason the US is in Iraq.

i did not mean i THAT way at all... i just mean the current attempts to create a working government/constitution but are facing difficulities due to the various religious sects in the country who are feuding.

Secondly, I don't think a religious leader should be expected to lay aside their beliefs. It is who they are. However, this does not mean that a religious leader should hold a political stance and back it with their religious beliefs. For example, a leader should not say that abortion is wrong because "the Bible says so."

thats pretty much what everyone has been saying all along

However, if 3 religious judges are againts an issue and are able to defend their position without relying on religious statements, then their opinion should not be discounted simply they are a typical religious view. Does that make sense? I hope so.

it makes sense and heres the problem i see with it... theres been times when a potential candidate for the supreme court have been deemed "not likely to hold up the views of the religious right" and so on and so forth... thats the biggest reasons people get testy when something like this comes up

I really caution you from implying that religion is the reason the US is in Iraq.

i did not mean i THAT way at all...

Oh good.

Secondly, I don't think a religious leader should be expected to lay aside their beliefs. It is who they are. However, this does not mean that a religious leader should hold a political stance and back it with their religious beliefs. For example, a leader should not say that abortion is wrong because "the Bible says so."

thats pretty much what everyone has been saying all along

Yes I know. I'm just stating my position on the matter.

Joe Cooler wrote:Perhaps religion should be kept out of government but that does not mean religous people should be.

This has already been replied to, but it should be said again. Nobody here has said they should be. I'm all for officials having strong beliefs that guide them in life and tell them what's right and wrong, regardless of whether I believe the same things or not. It's when the Bible or other religious texts are quoted as reasons for doing things that problems arise.

That was repeating a lot of what was already said, but I felt the need to say it again.

Joe Cooler wrote:

nikki4982 wrote:Sinead and Taylor, I like how you two are all pissy about this, yet if you believed in any other religion you'd have the complete opposite stance and would be just as angry about whatever religion you are not having enough say because the Christians are overly represented.

I don't speak for Sinead but honestly I would not be angry if I belonged to another religion or was athiest.

No, I was speaking broadly for all religion. It is equal in my eyes.

And cut the sarcasm and condescending attitude toward people who aren't christian. It's incredibly childish. You wouldn't appreciate that attitude toward your religion at all.

That attitude is the norm towards religious people/religion on this board, are you kidding? Well, no, it's worse than some childish little sarcastic remarks back and forth most of the time.

Uhh. No.

closeyoureyes wrote:

And cut the sarcasm and condescending attitude toward people who aren't christian. It's incredibly childish. You wouldn't appreciate that attitude toward your religion at all.

That attitude is the norm towards religious people/religion on this board, are you kidding? Well, no, it's worse than some childish little sarcastic remarks back and forth most of the time.

Could you maybe give some examples? If you feel like you're being discriminated against because of your religious beliefs you should let us know, since that's not the kind of attitude anyone wants on the board.

Typically people try to be civil during religious debates, even if they can not see eye to eye.

I don't feel descriminated against, it is the norm to religion bash, its socially acceptable.

Heres one specific example; Look in say, the thread about what OLP's religion is. Like on the very first page someone says something about Religion only being for people too weak to guide themselves(don't quote me directly) but that was the jist of what was said.

Another example would be Seans rants about religion, which came to a big head with Josh awhile back. Still though, same ranting and religion bashing, and no mod said anything until Josh said something first, sparking a little war.

Also if you look back within the pages of THIS thread there is the whole "Bible thumpers will take over" paranoia.

closeyoureyes wrote:I don't feel descriminated against, it is the norm to religion bash, its socially acceptable.

Maybe around where YOU're from, but it's certainly not around here. Or anyplace else I've ever been, for that matter.

And if you consider joking about certain aspects of different religions on TV "religion bashing", you really need to find a sense of humor.

So Kruno (who was banned from the board recently, and is a very intolerant person to begin with) made one disparaging comment, and one person made a half-assed attempt at defending him. Did you notice that no one else in the thread attacked religion? Or that mods (such as Nikki) were there right away to make sure that things got resolved without getting any worse?


As far as Sean's rant, you can't expect mods to jump on everything the moment it's posted. We're here to help guide discussions so they don't become full-out arguments, not to censor people's beliefs. If that matter could have been delt with in the form of a civil debate, it would have been fine (not that I agree with what Sean said ... but it's not like we can censor anyone who says something that's not agreeable). If you (understandably) were offended by his post, you could have PMed a mod about it, or PMed Sean about it, or tried to discuss it with him and explain to him why you found it offensive.

As far as this thread goes, nobody said anything about bible thumpers taking over. If that's the way you interpreted it, perhaps it would be beneficial to re-read this thread. People were having a civil discussion about representation in government. If you didn't agree, you could have easily come in to continue the discussion in a civil manner. Instead, you assumed that people were bashing your religion and jumped into sarcasm.


Relgion bashing is not acceptable, whether in society or on this board. So, the occasional ignorant post, each of which has been delt with by other members of the board who discussed the issues in a civil manner, or by the moderaters if things got out of hand, have set the tone of the whole board for you? I'm sorry if you feel this way about the attitude of the board, but I honestly think you're exaggerating the attitudes of the few.