What is good about religion?

[scotth]

Fine, I did your homework for you.

George Bush is a Methodist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

It's kind of unclear, but Methodists seem to believe that salvation is available to all, but not granted to all, so it's not like you can just say, "I'm sorry, I love you Jesus," on your deathbed and go to heaven as a Methodist (it's near the bottom where they stop waffling on the issue)

http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=16&mid=9077

Polls from 2004 show that 77% of whites voted for Bush but only 24% of Evangelicals voted for him, perhaps we should blame white people for Bush instead:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

There's no doubt that Bush makes a lot of annoying religious statements, evangelicals love him, and that Methodism has an evangelical streak as well, but that is far from proving that Fundies elected him or that he's a fundie himself.

All I want you to do is make a good argument when you speak against Christianity that doesn't make you sound like you're just ranting and isn't this easily torn apart.

Well, here is what Bush has to say on his faith:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/georgewbush.htm
It's not too confusing, he is born again.

Also, you have no idea how to read your own statistics. While 23 percent of the population reports to being white born again Christians, of those 23 percent 78% voted for Bush. Whites were 74% of Bush's total vote, but whites are the largest single population. Bush received 58-59% of the white vote. That is right from your quoted page.

 

[mijopaalmc]

All I want you to do is make a good argument when you speak against Christianity that doesn't make you sound like you're just ranting and isn't this easily torn apart.

Don't hold your breath. The Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris brand of atheism (named after the authors whom those who are most confrontational about their anti-religion stance cite) is all about demagoguery and whipping people in to a frenzy. Just read the threads that come up when you search for religion and child abuse of this forum, and you'll it's not about rational argumentation but smearing those who disagree with you.

 

[Apology]

Well, here is what Bush has to say on his faith:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/georgewbush.htm
It's not too confusing, he is born again.

Also, you have no idea how to read your own statistics. While 23 percent of the population reports to being white born again Christians, of those 23 percent 78% voted for Bush. Whites were 74% of Bush's total vote, but whites are the largest single population. Bush received 58-59% of the white vote. That is right from your quoted page.

I did mistate myself there; 77% of the people who voted for him were white, while only 24% of the people who voted for him were evangelical.

You say that whites are the largest voting population in the US, but so are Christians, so if we're going to overlook whites because they're the majority then we're going to have to overlook all Christians because they're the majority too.

As for your truth or fiction link, it does say that Billy Graham inspired him but it does not say that he joined Billy Graham's church or changed religion in any way. The link says that he's still a Methodist.

 

[Gregory]

All the big three religions hold as a key concept that the creator of the universe took the time to write/dictate a book telling us our place in his creation and our relationship with the creator. You are suggesting that these books are then ignored or to be ignored? I suggest you argue that with your local religious authority. I'll let him explain what that doesn't fly.

Now moderates are frequently fairly unfamiliar with what their religious books contain, and imagine that they are much more reasonable than they really are. If I get to make the determination on who a real christian, jew, or muslim is.... I am going to pick the ones that believes something compatible with what their holy book says. The whole argument for belief in god really hinges on those books being somehow or other the inspired word of god.

I am speechless that someone on 'your side' would even make such an argument.

I have no idea how you started with my post and ended up here.

Look. Let's suppose we have a fictitious religion, which I will name after myself--Gregism. (We are considering a fictional religion instead of a real one because I think it's funny, and also because neither of us belong to a real one. That crack you made about "my side"? Way off). The holy book of Gregism, the Gregicon, reads as follows:

"Every Sunday, you should rape a puppy while injecting a baby with the AIDS virus and clubbing a homeless man to death.

Also, you should be charitable, kind, and compassionate."

Every Tuesday since you're old enough to talk, you are taken to a Gregarian church, where you have it drilled into you: "You should be charitable, kind, and compassionate." The other bit of the Gregicon doesn't come up; if you happen to read the thing (which most Gregists don't) and ask your pastor about it, he mumbles something about considering the cultural context it was written in, and suggests that it might be some sort of metaphor.

So what's the end result of this? Assuming the lessons you hear stick, you grow up to be a kind, compassionate, and charitable person.

And the other stuff? The sordid bit at the beginning that your preacher never mentions?

It doesn't matter. At all. Your religion has taught you to be kind, charitable, and compassionate. Your religion has not taught you to rape puppies. The fact that your holy book supports it is irrelevant; because nobody pays any attention to that passage, it might as well not even be there. If we were debating whether the Gregicon is a good source for morality, it would become relevant, but we're not. We're debating whether you learned ethics from growing up Gregarian. And you did. We are also debating whether you learned any "bad" ethics from growing up Gregarian. And you didn't. The fact that its holy book contains such ethics isn't relevant to the question at hand, because the book and the religion are not the same thing.

 

[articulett]

Well, here is what Bush has to say on his faith:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/georgewbush.htm
It's not too confusing, he is born again.

Also, you have no idea how to read your own statistics. While 23 percent of the population reports to being white born again Christians, of those 23 percent 78% voted for Bush. Whites were 74% of Bush's total vote, but whites are the largest single population. Bush received 58-59% of the white vote. That is right from your quoted page.

I noticed the same error. Yet again an example of faith induced confirmation bias.

(And, Yikes, 23% of voters are white evangelical Christians... what a frightening thing.)

On the positive side:

A survey published in January by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 20 perchttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3098687
JREF Forum - Reply to Topicent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 say they have no religious affiliation or consider themselves atheists or agnostics – nearly double those who said that in a similar survey 20 years ago. Another Pew survey in March concluded the nation is witnessing a "reversal of increased religiosity observed in the mid-1990s." Today, 12 percent of Americans surveyed age 20 and older describe themselves as not religious, up from 8 percent in 1987.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/09/16/the_nonbelievers/

And humor has a positive role in evolving consciousness...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyZYmYmMWgk

A slow and steady hammering at their lack of logic, silliness, hypocrisy, bias, and doublespeak will move us forward. I have faith in the facts.

 

[scotth]

I did mistate myself there; 77% of the people who voted for him were white, while only 24% of the people who voted for him were evangelical.

You say that whites are the largest voting population in the US, but so are Christians, so if we're going to overlook whites because they're the majority then we're going to have to overlook all Christians because they're the majority too.

As for your truth or fiction link, it does say that Billy Graham inspired him but it does not say that he joined Billy Graham's church or changed religion in any way. The link says that he's still a Methodist.

You "mistate yourself" again.
But only 24% are white evangelical, those two together restrict the number much smaller than evangelical only). And the vast majority (78%) of that block voted for Bush. Bush would have not even come close to winning if that block had split more evenly. And that is why they (can justly) crow about getting Bush elected.

Being Methodist does not preclude being born again, at least not in Texas (or the White House). Read what he says, it is completely consistant with any definiton of born again doctrine. Read it all, quit skimming for the one irrelevant tidbit that agrees with something you've said.

 

[Apology]

Read it all, quit skimming for the one irrelevant tidbit that agrees with something you've said.

I read the whole thing the first time, and I am most certainly not reading that dull piece of tripe again. Evangelicals are also wrong when they crow about getting Bush elected. I tell them so all the time.

As a matter of fact the conversation sounds almost the same, which distresses me greatly.

 

[scotth]

I read the whole thing the first time, and I am most certainly not reading that dull piece of tripe again. Evangelicals are also wrong when they crow about getting Bush elected. I tell them so all the time.

As a matter of fact the conversation sounds almost the same, which distresses me greatly.

Here are the numbers laid out for you..... Bush won with 51% of the popular vote. The white Evangelical voting block supported Bush with 78% of their vote. If they had voted at the 52% rate, of whites in general, the popular vote would have swung south by 5.9% to 45.1%. Even worse, if you remove the evangelical vote from the white vote and just consider that, it the white vote would have been only 44.3% for Bush. If the evangelical block had voted at that percentage, like the rest of us, the popular vote would have swung 7.8% to only 43.2%.

The white evangelicals voting so strongly for Bush turned a certain defeat into a very slim win.

 

[Apology]

Here are the numbers laid out for you..... Bush won with 51% of the popular vote. The white Evangelical voting block supported Bush with 78% of their vote. If they had voted at the 52% rate, of whites in general, the popular vote would have swung south by 5.9% to 45.1%. Even worse, if you remove the evangelical vote from the white vote and just consider that, it the white vote would have been only 44.3% for Bush. If the evangelical block had voted at that percentage, like the rest of us, the popular vote would have swung 7.8% to only 43.2%.

The white evangelicals voting so strongly for Bush turned a certain defeat into a very slim win.

I did not say that evangelicals didn't vote for Bush in high numbers. I propose that they could not have gotten Bush elected without the help of whites, women, people between the age of 18 and 64, people who make $50,000 a year but less than $100,000, non-union members, and all other people who voted for Bush in high percentages as evidenced by the exit poll. If any one of these groups had not voted for Bush, Bush would not have been elected. When fundies say they got Bush elected, they take too much credit for themselves, and when atheists say that fundies got Bush elected, they give the fundies too much credit.

I suggest that the people who were in favor of the war in Iraq are the ones who got Bush elected regardless of their religious affiliation. We can play with the percentages of the exit poll all we want but that overlooks the other issues that were involved in the election. I did not vote for Kerry because Bush is a Christian. I voted for Kerry because I thought he would get us out of the war in Iraq. Many people voted for Bush because of his stance on the Iraq War.

 

[scotth]

I did not say that evangelicals didn't vote for Bush in high numbers. I propose that they could not have gotten Bush elected without the help of whites, women, people between the age of 18 and 64, people who make $50,000 a year but less than $100,000, non-union members, and all other people who voted for Bush in high percentages as evidenced by the exit poll. If any one of these groups had not voted for Bush, Bush would not have been elected. When fundies say they got Bush elected, they take too much credit for themselves, and when atheists say that fundies got Bush elected, they give the fundies too much credit.

I suggest that the people who were in favor of the war in Iraq are the ones who got Bush elected regardless of their religious affiliation. We can play with the percentages of the exit poll all we want but that overlooks the other issues that were involved in the election. I did not vote for Kerry because Bush is a Christian. I voted for Kerry because I thought he would get us out of the war in Iraq. Many people voted for Bush because of his stance on the Iraq War.

Religion is the single strongest correlating factor with voting for Bush.

 

[Apology]

Religion is the single strongest correlating factor with voting for Bush.

Nevertheless it does not mean that they voted for him because he was Christian. You might as well blame full-time workers; 61% of the people who voted for Bush worked full-time.

Manipulation of the figures is useless. George Bush won because a majority of people, for whatever reason, voted for him, and it cannot be blamed on the votes of any one block of voters that chose him.

 

[articulett]

Nevertheless it does not mean that they voted for him because he was Christian. You might as well blame full-time workers; 61% of the people who voted for Bush worked full-time.

Manipulation of the figures is useless. George Bush won because a majority of people, for whatever reason, voted for him, and it cannot be blamed on the votes of any one block of voters that chose him.

You can't. I can. Plus he won the 2nd time because he won the first time--and that sure as hell wasn't by popular vote.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Apology, recheck your source. 77% of the people polled were white and of those, 58% voted for Bush.

78% of the 24% of respondents who identified themselves as Evangelical voted for Bush.

Nevermind, I see your error has already been noted.

 

[scotth]

Nevertheless it does not mean that they voted for him because he was Christian. You might as well blame full-time workers; 61% of the people who voted for Bush worked full-time.

Manipulation of the figures is useless. George Bush won because a majority of people, for whatever reason, voted for him, and it cannot be blamed on the votes of any one block of voters that chose him.

You are reading your figures back wards (again, its starting to look deliberate. 61% of the voting population works full time... that fact is not dependent on any property of Bush). You should be much more interested in what percentage of full time workers voted for bush. It was 53%. The figure was 60% (not 61%) of Bush's voters were full time workers, btw.

Except for the religious categories (and gun ownership), no other category of voters vote for bush at more than a 60% rate, and most quite a bit less than that. But, here are all the > 60% for bush categories.

white evangelical 78%
attends church more than once per week at 64%
protestant/attends church weekly 70%
gun own in household 63%

8% of people said that his religious faith was the single most important aspect in how they chose their candidate. Of those 8%, a whopping 91% chose Bush.

 

[articulett]

I think David Kuo (Evangelical Christian) is quite clear as to how Bush used religion (similarly, perhaps, to Hitler) to win his election and fear mongering to keep the faithful plugged in.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061020.html
http://bornatthecrestoftheempire.blogspot.com/2006/10/david-kuo-how-bush-administration.html

But denial of the faithful is never ending... how else can you continually prop up the big lie, eh?

I think it's quite clear, that for the faithful--no amount of evidence will convince them Hitler was a Christian or that Christianity has anything whatsoever to do with the mess the U.S. and other nations find themselves in. They've learned to see it as good, good, good no matter what. And nothing can shake the faith-- that elusive quality that leads to eternal glory where you can laugh at all those evil others who didn't believe as you do.

 

[Apology]

It comes to my attention that Hilary Clinton is also a Methodist:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

So if you want to continue calling Bush a fundie, you'll have to call Bill and Hilary Clinton fundies too

Also, she is a United Methodist just like George Bush, according to her wiki, so it's no good claiming that Bush is some sort of more conservative form of Methodist than Hilary Clinton.

I don't see anyone trying to claim that the fundies voted in Clinton. By all means though, please tell everyone that Hilary is a fundie too; I'm hoping the fundies will believe you and use their superior voting power to vote in Hilary next election

We simply don't need George Bush to be a fundamentalist to show that he's a bad president. His record speaks for itself.

 

[articulett]

I think Hilary and George have quite a different history when it comes to religion influencing their politics. Hillary has vowed to make science a priority-- I think scientists are united in their feelings about Bushs' scientific ignorance and how it's harmed this country.

Whatever his faith--it's infiltrated far and wide: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/m...2c720d54c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

That's brand new information. I don't think you'll find anything similar in the Clinton history try as you might to pretend that religion has nothing to do with the mess this country is in or the divisiveness... and try as you might to pretend that other leaders are as ass-kissing to the religious right.

I know your goal is to somehow convince yourself that religion has nothing to do with Hitler or anything awful that has come from the Bush Administration-- but now you are really reaching. And I think the only person you may be convincing are others who already think like you do. For the rest of us, the connection between religion and divisiveness and bigotry and ignorance is obvious... hugely so.

And it's not so much religion-- as the meme it indoctrinates into the very young-- the idea that faith is good and dissent/doubt is bad or unpatriotic. That's a very dangerous lie.

Nobody is saying all religion is bad. The question is-- what is it good for? And is it worth it? And shouldn't we be free to criticize it or make people answer for it's harms?

 

[Apology]

I think Hilary and George have quite a different history when it comes to religion influencing their politics. Hillary has vowed to make science a priority-- I think scientists are united in their feelings about Bushs' scientific ignorance and how it's harmed this country.

Whatever his faith--it's infiltrated far and wide: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/m...2c720d54c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

That's brand new information. I don't think you'll find anything similar in the Clinton history try as you might to pretend that religion has nothing to do with the mess this country is in or the divisiveness... and try as you might to pretend that other leaders are as ass-kissing to the religious right.

I know your goal is to somehow convince yourself that religion has nothing to do with Hitler or anything awful that has come from the Bush Administration-- but now you are really reaching. And I think the only person you may be convincing are others who already think like you do. For the rest of us, the connection between religion and divisiveness and bigotry and ignorance is obvious... hugely so.

I'm not trying to say that religion isn't divisive and doesn't influence politics in a negative way. I'm also not trying to say that Clinton and Bush have the same level of religiousity---I don't think they do. All I'm saying is that Bush and Clinton both belong to the exact same religion, so if you're going to argue that one of them is a fundamentalist, you'll have to argue that both of them are. I don't believe that Fundamentalists have the power to elect whoever they want without other, non-Fundamentalists helping them out by voting the same way. If that were the case, Pat Robertson would have won an election by now, and Bill Clinton never would have been elected in the first place. I don't need to convince myself that religion isn't the issue that got George Bush elected because I never believed it in the first place.

As for making religious statements in public:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/29/mg.thy/

Hilary does it too. If I were you, I'd be too terrified to vote next election.

 

[Upchurch]

We have to think hard, and try to do our best. A person should try to understand what Jesus really meant. Then he could say that the persons who don't do that are not christian.

But that would only be one person's opinion of what it means to be a Christian. History has taught us that people have lots of different ideas about that particular subject.

That would suggest that we cannot, as a whole, determine what it means to be a Christian universally. At best, you can only determine that someone is not a Christian from a particular person's or group's perspective of Christianity.

 

[articulett]

Apology,

I don't think that anyone but you think that Bush and Clinton have the same level of religiosity. But it's not relevant. So long as my politician keeps church and state separate and listens to scientists-- I will be much much happier--as will most of the nation--and world, I'm sure.

I'm not afraid--fear-mongering is the trick of the faithful to try to get them to run to big daddy to protect them. I'm hopeful. Secularity is growing and faith has brought such division, that it has forced the pendulum to go the other way. I don't think America will ever let it swing so far right unquestioningly again-- it's the whole notion that faith is good and there is no need to question it that let this administration milk the fear wroughtby 9-11 to instill liberty university graduates and home schooled religious Christians throughout the whitehouse in positions of leadership and load up the Supreme Court with those who let their god make decisions for them.

I am sure ANY president can do better. ANY.

But, back on topic. What is it that you think religion is good for? And is it worth it? And doesn't it all try to shield itself from questioning and promote the notion that faith is good and dissent is bad (and unpatriotic!)? That is a lie worth fighting against isn't it? I think so. I haven't yet heard anything that makes me feel like religion should get special respect, deference, or the millions it gets in funds for useless programs like abstinence only misinformation in public schools. I don't see why my taxes should be used to pay for a congressional chaplain that has a 6 figure income and does nothing.

I think your trust in "faith" has made you ignore some pretty big problems wrought by that faith-- while trying to infer that religion is good and useful and important to prop up with our respect. If religion is good or faith is good-- please illustrate via evidence what it's good for and why it's worth the benefits, respect, and deference it gets? I'm tired of pretending and hearing the endless excuse making tangents and nothingness. Do you have any facts to go with your rhetoric? We already understand that you don't think religion is to blame for anything bad-- that you will move the order to avoid the real question.

What is it good for? Is it worth it? Is faith deserving of respect? Why? Isn't it time we outgrew this nonsense or at least turned it into something less virulent like Buddhism or Unitarianism or whatever--the kind where people just pick and choose and use religion to feel whatever comforts them in regards to death? I find in unnecessary. And I sure haven't heard a good reason for presuming otherwise.