Something you said in that post bugged me, but I couldn't put a finger on it until this morning.

You say that no religious influence should be in government. Because it isn't specific to one, it isn't bigoted.

Isn't that kind of like saying someone is only bigoted if they don't want to live next to hispanics, but it's OK to live next to Asians? If someone has a problem with all races, they aren't bigoted because it isn't an issue with only one race? If that's the case, then members of the KKK aren't bigoted because they have a problem with all non-whites, not just one specific skin color.

Religious bigotry is religious bigotry. I don't care if someone has Islamic or Mormon or Pagan or whatever influences in their history (or their present). There is no doubt that the religious influence in their lives will affect their decision making. It is part of who they are. The solution is the ballot box, and the courts to rule on the Constitutionality of what is passed based on the (mythical in my mind, but accepted) separation of church and state.

First, I will admit that that way an awfully poor choice of wording on my part. So, let me see if I can clear things up a bit, since, in my opinion, bigotry is one hell of an accusation and an unfounded one. Let me be perfectly clear here. I harbor no ill will towards any religion, None. but there is one little caveat.

I do have a problem with being told that I must subscribe to the teachings of ANY religion that I do not care to. Every person has a right to believe what they want. They do not have the right to make others follow those same beliefs. Religion should be a personal thing, between you and god. If, for example, you believe that abortion is wrong, you should have every right to never be forced to have one. Don't eat pork? Nobody should ever force you to. Don't believe that gay people should be married? Don't marry a gay person. That doesn't mean that you should be able to dictate what others are allowed to do, based on your religious beliefs.

If I don't eat pork, that should never mean that nobody else can either. This is the major problem I have with religion in general. You can tell me what your religion says and I think that is perfectly acceptable. Better yet, you can show by example and if I feel that your beliefs would make a positive impact on my life, I just might give them a closer look. IMO, that is where the influence should end. If more people kept their religion personal, without trying to convert others or pass legislation that forces others to accept their views, I would have zero problems with religion.

But see, I don't believe that this is "one nation under god". I don't believe that having a relationship with a member of the same sex is sending me to some dark hole filled with demons. I don't believe that cells in a petri dish are a human life. And I don't feel that I should be forced to just accept these imposed beliefs, from a religion that I do not subscribe to.

And I would really rather that politicians, who are probably one of the most corrupt and immoral batch of humans on the planet, not be involved in dictating their own personal moral code, which most are obviously having a hard enough problem following in their own lives. I don't see much of difference between saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry than I do hearing that blacks should sit at the back of the bus. If anything, people use their religious beliefs to justify their own bigotry, their own prejudice. If there is one place that they shouldn't be allowed to do that, it is when they are making laws that affect millions of people who do not subscribe to their own beliefs.

I hear all of the politicians on the religious right tell me that life is sacred, ad nausium. And yet, these same politicians make decisions that kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people in needless wars. They slow the progress of medical research to a crawl that could save millions of lives. Maybe if they practiced what they preached, others like myself would see the good in their belief system, rather than the blatant hypocracy of it.

So again, you will never hear me say that a person doesn't have a right to follow whatever religious beliefs they deem neccessary to lead their own lives. And, I will not look down on them for following those beliefs. But when you go from a set of beliefs that you use to govern your own life to a set of beliefs that everyone should follow, we have a problem, because for me to accept your beliefs, I also have to accept belief in your God. I cannot make myself believe something that I don't.

And when you try to legislate things based on your own belief system, you are in essence saying "My personal take on religion is the right one and everyone elses is wrong". It suggests that nobody should have the right to believe anything other than what you believe and, IMO, that crosses the line.

Bigotry is a hatred or intolerance for those who are different. That doesn't describe me. You can be as different as your heart desires and I will neither hate you, nor refuse to tolerate you. We can all live together happily ever after. Just don't tell me that I have to be different just like you.

I will also admit to a poor choice of words. I do not, nor have I ever considered you to be a bigot.

I wanted to get that last post out on the boards as quickly as possible, for obvious reasons.

That is the only thing I take exception to you your post above. I make no distinction between what one thinks is right and wrong based on religion vs what someone thinks is right and wrong based on whatever. It matters not.

As an utterly ridiculous example, medicare is a moral choice made for us by government. Who is the government to tell me that my tax dollars should go for giving medical care to the elderly? It is a moral choice, and a good one regardless of what he motivation might be. It is certain biblical to help the elderly. If a politician votes to increase medicare spending because it is biblical to help the elderly does that mean his motivations are wrong because he is being influenced by his religious beliefs? Not in the least. But it won't be criticized because it is popular.

So the motivation shouldn't even come ino the equation. The vote or veto or whatever as an action itself is what matters.

A Flag Burning Amendment has nothing to do with religion. Not one bit. Yet it is a bad idea regardless that the motivation is really one of patriotic fervor (or playing thereto).

So, Eric, again, I do not consider you to be bigoted in the least, and please accept my apology for the obvious implication.

We have a representative democracy. We do not, as a country, make decisions directly but select people to make those decisions as proxy.

Everything our government does has a moral component, and therefore expecting our elected officials to not engage in moral calculus is contradictory to our method of government.

Whether life becomes protected at conception is not fundamentally a religious question (there are many atheist pro-lifers), though it is a question addressed by pretty much every religion. What it is not is a scientific question. There is no absolutely right or wrong answer.

If legislation was passed and signed that made it illegal for any stem cell research to be done then I think there would be a stronger argument for unacceptable moral dictation, but that is not what has been done. There is no right to federal funding. I disagree with his decision to veto the bill but it is neither surprising (it isn't like we didn't know the man elected would take a position against fetal stem cell research) and within how our government is designed to work.

I appreciate that, Leo, I really do.

We had a thread recently where we were discussing who, if anyone, did we hate. I had a really hard time answering that one, because truly, I don't hate anyone. There are things in this world that I do hate with a passion however, and one of those is bigotry. Therefore, even when bigotry is merely implied in my direction, it pushes buttons. It also causes me to get a lot of typing practice. :)

I've always felt that you were a great example of how someone can let their beliefs shine through example, rather than through rhetoric. And in fact, I have many Christian friends who do the same thing. They don't tell others what they should do, they simply live a good moral life. I don't think anything could paint religion in a more positive light than choosing to lead by example.

And for the most part, even though I don't subscribe to all Christian beliefs, I still feel that that it has a mostly positive effect in the lives of its practicioners. And anything that can help people lead more positive lives is ok in my book. If it works for you, then by all means, go for it. I'll never suggest that you shouldn't.

But it is undeniable that people have used religion throughout the ages to justify their own prejudices, their own bigotry. I think the biblical justifications for slavery and for limiting women's rights are a good example of that. I also think that many people use their religion to show how much better they are than those who don't believe. They are far more interested in proclaiming "how good a Christian they are" than actually working towards being a good Christian. That nauseates me.

And lastly, sometimes people proclaim they are wonderful Christians simply so that they can gain the votes of other Christians. This is, in my opinion, what Bush does (and I fully understand it is what many other politicians do. He isn't alone.) But, there was nothing very christian about calling people and asking them if they were aware that McCain had a black baby. There is nothing in Christianity that says that it is ok to kill innocent people. In fact, it is strictly forbidden. So, on one hand, we are told that a few cells have the right to life and yet, we can't seem to figure out how to conduct ourselves in a way that doesn't lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent people. I just don't understand the logic.

Anyway, no harm, no foul as far as you and I are concerned. We just have differing opinions on the role of Christianity in our government. You see the separation of church and state to be mostly mythical in nature. I see it as one of the more important concepts of our particular form of government. We can agree to disagree on that.

Re: Post# 42...

Thank you for saying what many of us feel. Beautiful post.

I don't get it-this is the first administration that has spent money- federal money- on this research- they just don't want them creating new embryos in order to continue it (there are existing lines)- and this is some huge Constitutional crisis in people's minds somehow?

I just don't get the rage- which I consider largely misdirected.