The Pope is a moron

[TNHarley]

Right, he should have said eating shit.

Ravi, I clearly stated the spin was false but not the quote.
I will remember you using a right wing nut job source, though

Did you in your OP? You called the pope a moron and an idiot based on what was reported he said.

No dummy. When I stated it was, I was telling you what was in your link that you didn't read. I bolded the part I was bitching about in my OP. Keep grasping for air
And that "spin" could easily think "eating shit." It encompasses a lot of fucked up shit. Do you know what coprophilia is?

 

[Ravi]

Right, he should have said eating shit.

Ravi, I clearly stated the spin was false but not the quote.
I will remember you using a right wing nut job source, though

Did you in your OP? You called the pope a moron and an idiot based on what was reported he said.

No dummy. When I stated it was, I was telling you what was in your link that you didn't read. I bolded the part I was bitching about in my OP. Keep grasping for air
And that "spin" could easily think "eating shit." It encompasses a lot of fucked up shit. Do you know what coprophilia is?

What were you bitching about? Christianity being collectivist?

 

[TNHarley]

Right, he should have said eating shit.

Ravi, I clearly stated the spin was false but not the quote.
I will remember you using a right wing nut job source, though

Did you in your OP? You called the pope a moron and an idiot based on what was reported he said.

No dummy. When I stated it was, I was telling you what was in your link that you didn't read. I bolded the part I was bitching about in my OP. Keep grasping for air
And that "spin" could easily think "eating shit." It encompasses a lot of fucked up shit. Do you know what coprophilia is?

What were you bitching about? Christianity being collectivist?

No, society. I figured it was pretty easy to grasp. You seem to be the only one struggling lol

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. That would the morality of the people as a whole. You know... the same observation that Alexis de Tocqueville made. The one you couldn't bring yourself to read. But putting that aside, he fact remains your beliefs are more in line with the founding fathers of communism than they are the founding fathers of freedom and liberty.

Interesting that you cherry picked from Washington's speech. This is even more interesting:

Washington rejected an additional sentence, also written by Alexander Hamilton, with a stronger sentiment: "does it [national morality] not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion?"[34]

Obviously he wasn't stating that morality cannot exist without religion.

You are still failing.

Hardly, because he did accept that reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

"Labeling Christianity (and/or other religions) the “opium for the people” or the “opiate of the masses” is a fairly common tactic used by those dismissive of religion. Using phrases like this is a way to blow off religion without trying to counter or discuss it. Karl Marx was not the first to use this phrase, but he is the one most people are thinking of when they use this attack. Marx’s contention was that religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness—like opium does to a drug addict—and freeing people from that unrealistic illusion was part of building a better society.

Beginning primarily with Marx, the “opium for the masses” accusation is often used by atheists. Because they reject the existence of God, they have to somehow explain the continuing existence of religion. They see no need for religion, so they do not understand others’ need for it. Marx was not specifying Christianity in his rejection of religion. Rather, he was denouncing religion in general by using “people” in a demeaning sense to mean the poor, ignorant, and easily deceived. The essential argument of the “opium for the masses” saying is that religion is for weak-minded and emotionally disturbed people who need a crutch to get through life. Atheists today make similar claims, such as the idea that “God is an imaginary friend for adults.”

So, is religion nothing but “opium for the masses”? Does religion accomplish nothing but provide an emotional crutch for weak-minded people? A few simple facts will answer the question with a resounding “no.” (1) There are strong logical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. (2) The fact that humanity is damaged and in need of redemption/salvation (the core message of religion) is clearly seen throughout the world. (3) In the history of humanity, the vast majority of the most intellectually brilliant writers and thinkers have been theists. Do some use religion as a crutch? Yes. Does that mean the claims of religion are invalid? No. Religion is the natural response to the evidence for the existence of God and the recognition that we are damaged and in need of repair...."

Is religion opium for the masses?

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. That would the morality of the people as a whole. You know... the same observation that Alexis de Tocqueville made. The one you couldn't bring yourself to read. But putting that aside, he fact remains your beliefs are more in line with the founding fathers of communism than they are the founding fathers of freedom and liberty.

Interesting that you cherry picked from Washington's speech. This is even more interesting:

Washington rejected an additional sentence, also written by Alexander Hamilton, with a stronger sentiment: "does it [national morality] not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion?"[34]

Obviously he wasn't stating that morality cannot exist without religion.

You are still failing.

Hardly, because he did accept that reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Which is exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville witnessed:

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

 

[Ravi]

Interesting that you cherry picked from Washington's speech. This is even more interesting:

Washington rejected an additional sentence, also written by Alexander Hamilton, with a stronger sentiment: "does it [national morality] not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion?"[34]

Obviously he wasn't stating that morality cannot exist without religion.

You are still failing.

Hardly, because he did accept that reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

"Labeling Christianity (and/or other religions) the “opium for the people” or the “opiate of the masses” is a fairly common tactic used by those dismissive of religion. Using phrases like this is a way to blow off religion without trying to counter or discuss it. Karl Marx was not the first to use this phrase, but he is the one most people are thinking of when they use this attack. Marx’s contention was that religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness—like opium does to a drug addict—and freeing people from that unrealistic illusion was part of building a better society.

Beginning primarily with Marx, the “opium for the masses” accusation is often used by atheists. Because they reject the existence of God, they have to somehow explain the continuing existence of religion. They see no need for religion, so they do not understand others’ need for it. Marx was not specifying Christianity in his rejection of religion. Rather, he was denouncing religion in general by using “people” in a demeaning sense to mean the poor, ignorant, and easily deceived. The essential argument of the “opium for the masses” saying is that religion is for weak-minded and emotionally disturbed people who need a crutch to get through life. Atheists today make similar claims, such as the idea that “God is an imaginary friend for adults.”

So, is religion nothing but “opium for the masses”? Does religion accomplish nothing but provide an emotional crutch for weak-minded people? A few simple facts will answer the question with a resounding “no.” (1) There are strong logical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. (2) The fact that humanity is damaged and in need of redemption/salvation (the core message of religion) is clearly seen throughout the world. (3) In the history of humanity, the vast majority of the most intellectually brilliant writers and thinkers have been theists. Do some use religion as a crutch? Yes. Does that mean the claims of religion are invalid? No. Religion is the natural response to the evidence for the existence of God and the recognition that we are damaged and in need of repair...."

Is religion opium for the masses?

Logic and reason will conclude that religion is a tool to get people to conform and behave. That doesn't mean that there are no good aspects to religion. I do not know why this upsets you so much.

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. That would the morality of the people as a whole. You know... the same observation that Alexis de Tocqueville made. The one you couldn't bring yourself to read. But putting that aside, he fact remains your beliefs are more in line with the founding fathers of communism than they are the founding fathers of freedom and liberty.

Interesting that you cherry picked from Washington's speech. This is even more interesting:

Washington rejected an additional sentence, also written by Alexander Hamilton, with a stronger sentiment: "does it [national morality] not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion?"[34]

Obviously he wasn't stating that morality cannot exist without religion.

You are still failing.

Hardly, because he did accept that reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. "[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."

So, morals are not innate?

Of course we are born hardwired for morality. Ironically, many atheists, especially militant atheists, are the ones who reject this notion. But just because we are hardwired to know right and wrong that does not negate the need for religion. Man is imperfect, never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. Man prefers good over evil and when he violates it, rather than rejecting this concept, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. So there will always be a need for religion to remind man of the virtues and benefits of being moral. By any objective measure, religion has been a force for good.

 

[there4eyeM]

How can one be certain that morals imposed are the correct ones, since they come from the exterior.

 

[ding]

Hardly, because he did accept that reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

"Labeling Christianity (and/or other religions) the “opium for the people” or the “opiate of the masses” is a fairly common tactic used by those dismissive of religion. Using phrases like this is a way to blow off religion without trying to counter or discuss it. Karl Marx was not the first to use this phrase, but he is the one most people are thinking of when they use this attack. Marx’s contention was that religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness—like opium does to a drug addict—and freeing people from that unrealistic illusion was part of building a better society.

Beginning primarily with Marx, the “opium for the masses” accusation is often used by atheists. Because they reject the existence of God, they have to somehow explain the continuing existence of religion. They see no need for religion, so they do not understand others’ need for it. Marx was not specifying Christianity in his rejection of religion. Rather, he was denouncing religion in general by using “people” in a demeaning sense to mean the poor, ignorant, and easily deceived. The essential argument of the “opium for the masses” saying is that religion is for weak-minded and emotionally disturbed people who need a crutch to get through life. Atheists today make similar claims, such as the idea that “God is an imaginary friend for adults.”

So, is religion nothing but “opium for the masses”? Does religion accomplish nothing but provide an emotional crutch for weak-minded people? A few simple facts will answer the question with a resounding “no.” (1) There are strong logical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. (2) The fact that humanity is damaged and in need of redemption/salvation (the core message of religion) is clearly seen throughout the world. (3) In the history of humanity, the vast majority of the most intellectually brilliant writers and thinkers have been theists. Do some use religion as a crutch? Yes. Does that mean the claims of religion are invalid? No. Religion is the natural response to the evidence for the existence of God and the recognition that we are damaged and in need of repair...."

Is religion opium for the masses?

Logic and reason will conclude that religion is a tool to get people to conform and behave. That doesn't mean that there are no good aspects to religion. I do not know why this upsets you so much.

Are you kidding me? There are no religious police. It is entirely an honor system. It does not upset me. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Diversity of thought is critical to the process. That is what I am doing. I am providing the counter argument to your argument that religion is inherently evil and of little value.

 

[Ravi]

Interesting that you cherry picked from Washington's speech. This is even more interesting:

Washington rejected an additional sentence, also written by Alexander Hamilton, with a stronger sentiment: "does it [national morality] not require the aid of a generally received and divinely authoritative Religion?"[34]

Obviously he wasn't stating that morality cannot exist without religion.

You are still failing.

Hardly, because he did accept that reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Which is exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville witnessed:

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Still nothing stating that the founders claim there could be no morality without religion.

Wilson appears to be making a case for sharia.

 

[ding]

How can one be certain that morals imposed are the correct ones, since they come from the exterior.

Outcomes. Error cannot stand. Eventually it fails.

 

[ding]

Hardly, because he did accept that reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Which is exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville witnessed:

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Still nothing stating that the founders claim there could be no morality without religion.

Wilson appears to be making a case for sharia.

I can lead you to the water, but I can't make you drink.

 

[Ravi]

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

"Labeling Christianity (and/or other religions) the “opium for the people” or the “opiate of the masses” is a fairly common tactic used by those dismissive of religion. Using phrases like this is a way to blow off religion without trying to counter or discuss it. Karl Marx was not the first to use this phrase, but he is the one most people are thinking of when they use this attack. Marx’s contention was that religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness—like opium does to a drug addict—and freeing people from that unrealistic illusion was part of building a better society.

Beginning primarily with Marx, the “opium for the masses” accusation is often used by atheists. Because they reject the existence of God, they have to somehow explain the continuing existence of religion. They see no need for religion, so they do not understand others’ need for it. Marx was not specifying Christianity in his rejection of religion. Rather, he was denouncing religion in general by using “people” in a demeaning sense to mean the poor, ignorant, and easily deceived. The essential argument of the “opium for the masses” saying is that religion is for weak-minded and emotionally disturbed people who need a crutch to get through life. Atheists today make similar claims, such as the idea that “God is an imaginary friend for adults.”

So, is religion nothing but “opium for the masses”? Does religion accomplish nothing but provide an emotional crutch for weak-minded people? A few simple facts will answer the question with a resounding “no.” (1) There are strong logical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. (2) The fact that humanity is damaged and in need of redemption/salvation (the core message of religion) is clearly seen throughout the world. (3) In the history of humanity, the vast majority of the most intellectually brilliant writers and thinkers have been theists. Do some use religion as a crutch? Yes. Does that mean the claims of religion are invalid? No. Religion is the natural response to the evidence for the existence of God and the recognition that we are damaged and in need of repair...."

Is religion opium for the masses?

Logic and reason will conclude that religion is a tool to get people to conform and behave. That doesn't mean that there are no good aspects to religion. I do not know why this upsets you so much.

Are you kidding me? There are no religious police. It is entirely an honor system. It does not upset me. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Diversity of thought is critical to the process. That is what I am doing. I am providing the counter argument to your argument that religion is inherently evil and of little value.

Some religions have religious police. Christians have eternal damnation and excommunication plus theology that forbids people from being a part of their collective.

 

[Ravi]

Washington was a Deist. He supported being tolerant of ALL religions and also atheists. He did recognize that religion was a tool to get people to conform, which it is.

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Which is exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville witnessed:

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Still nothing stating that the founders claim there could be no morality without religion.

Wilson appears to be making a case for sharia.

I can lead you to the water, but I can't make you drink.

Water is objective. Your posts do not prove your claim.

 

[ding]

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. III, p. 85. This resolution passed on October 12, 1778.

 

[ding]

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Which is exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville witnessed:

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Still nothing stating that the founders claim there could be no morality without religion.

Wilson appears to be making a case for sharia.

I can lead you to the water, but I can't make you drink.

Water is objective. Your posts do not prove your claim.

I disagree. I have offered up testimony of Founding Fathers and testimony of a firsthand witness that proves that the founding fathers believed that liberty and freedom rested on the twin pillars of virtue and morality and that virtue and morality could not be maintained without religion. You have offered up nothing but your dismissal. Where is your evidence that our founding fathers did not believe that liberty and freedom rested on the twin pillars of morality and virtue and that morality and virtue could be maintained without religion?

Furthermore, I have offered up proof that the founding fathers of communism believed as you do, that religion is a drug. I have offered up proof that history shows that communism is naturalized humanism and that the propaganda of atheism is necessary for communism. Where is your proof that this is not the case?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I can lead you to the water, but I can't make you drink.

Forget getting her to drink, just get Rati to take part in the free cheese behind the fridge.

She doesn't trust me that it's just a gift I give to her...

 

[ding]

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Which is exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville witnessed:

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Still nothing stating that the founders claim there could be no morality without religion.

Wilson appears to be making a case for sharia.

I can lead you to the water, but I can't make you drink.

Water is objective. Your posts do not prove your claim.

Here's another first hand witness that say's that your beliefs are full of crap.

“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’” “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval...But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.’”

“Templeton Lecture, May 10, 1983,” in The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings, 1947-2005, eds. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney (Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), 577

 

[ding]

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Which is exactly what Alexis de Tocqueville witnessed:

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country. Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society. In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth. In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Still nothing stating that the founders claim there could be no morality without religion.

Wilson appears to be making a case for sharia.

I can lead you to the water, but I can't make you drink.

Water is objective. Your posts do not prove your claim.

Here is an entire book that say's your beliefs are full of crap.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

 

[ding]

And yet he believed that freedom and liberty rested on virtue and morality and that neither could prevail without religion.

Nationally. Pablum of the masses.

"Labeling Christianity (and/or other religions) the “opium for the people” or the “opiate of the masses” is a fairly common tactic used by those dismissive of religion. Using phrases like this is a way to blow off religion without trying to counter or discuss it. Karl Marx was not the first to use this phrase, but he is the one most people are thinking of when they use this attack. Marx’s contention was that religion gives people artificial, illusory happiness—like opium does to a drug addict—and freeing people from that unrealistic illusion was part of building a better society.

Beginning primarily with Marx, the “opium for the masses” accusation is often used by atheists. Because they reject the existence of God, they have to somehow explain the continuing existence of religion. They see no need for religion, so they do not understand others’ need for it. Marx was not specifying Christianity in his rejection of religion. Rather, he was denouncing religion in general by using “people” in a demeaning sense to mean the poor, ignorant, and easily deceived. The essential argument of the “opium for the masses” saying is that religion is for weak-minded and emotionally disturbed people who need a crutch to get through life. Atheists today make similar claims, such as the idea that “God is an imaginary friend for adults.”

So, is religion nothing but “opium for the masses”? Does religion accomplish nothing but provide an emotional crutch for weak-minded people? A few simple facts will answer the question with a resounding “no.” (1) There are strong logical, scientific, and philosophical arguments for the existence of God. (2) The fact that humanity is damaged and in need of redemption/salvation (the core message of religion) is clearly seen throughout the world. (3) In the history of humanity, the vast majority of the most intellectually brilliant writers and thinkers have been theists. Do some use religion as a crutch? Yes. Does that mean the claims of religion are invalid? No. Religion is the natural response to the evidence for the existence of God and the recognition that we are damaged and in need of repair...."

Is religion opium for the masses?

Logic and reason will conclude that religion is a tool to get people to conform and behave. That doesn't mean that there are no good aspects to religion. I do not know why this upsets you so much.

Are you kidding me? There are no religious police. It is entirely an honor system. It does not upset me. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Diversity of thought is critical to the process. That is what I am doing. I am providing the counter argument to your argument that religion is inherently evil and of little value.

Some religions have religious police. Christians have eternal damnation and excommunication plus theology that forbids people from being a part of their collective.

So what? How does that force you to do anything? Do you even have a brain? Or do you just run on pure feelings and emotion?