Absolutely not.

 

First of all, I don't buy that Agnosticism is a religion. Agnosticism is a view of religions. It simply means "I don't know."

 

I want a government based on logic. I want a government based on freedom and full rights to all citizens. I want a government that not oppress based on any religious views.

I don't want a government based on logic. A government based on logic would never have joined WWII, joined the Space Race, etc.

 

I want a government based on freedom and full rights to all citizens. That includes the rights of the unborn. And it also includes the right for any homosexual to marry a person of the opposite sex.

 

I don't want a government oppressed by religous views. God forbid religous leaders speak out against such things as slavery, civil rights and women's suffrage.

Fair enough.

 

I can admit when its hard to argue with someone.

 

 

I'll take that as a compliment.

You yourself want to have a religion mandated government. Your religion just happens to be Agnosticism.

 

Exactly.

 

When a politician speaks or acts on an issue where his/her faith has an influence, its result is not a religious government. Religion is, among other things, an influence on the beliefs, values and morals a politician has. If a religious president is wrong for making a decision where his/her faith has an influence, then an atheist president who makes a decision where his/her morals has an influence is wrong.

I don't want a government based on logic. A government based on logic would never have joined WWII, joined the Space Race, etc.

 

What makes you say that? We joined World War II because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. It doesnt take much logic to fight when you are attacked.

 

I want a government based on freedom and full rights to all citizens. That includes the rights of the unborn. And it also includes the right for any homosexual to marry a person of the opposite sex.

 

Do you know how rediculous that is? A homosexual has the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex?!?! I don't know if you know this or not but homosexuals are not attracted to members of the opposite sex! To say that have the "right" to marry the opposite sex is pigheaded and extremely oppressive. If you even want to be considered someone who remotely wants rights for all - comments such as that are not the way to go.

 

Rights of the unborn is another issue. I do not agree with abortion after there is a recognizable heart beat. Prior to that, we have to protect the rights of the mother. The mother's rights to choose how to operate her own body and life.

 

You do not get to pick and choose who to extend human rights to, HHS and pretend to be in favor of them.

 

I don't want a government oppressed by religous views. God forbid religous leaders speak out against such things as slavery, civil rights and women's suffrage.

 

Religious leaders speaking out against social injustices is one thing. Religious leaders donating millions of dollars to the campaigns of idealouges who represent zealotist ideas is another.

 

Too often in today's politcal landscape groups like the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority are spewing complete hatred and donating millions of dollars to political campaigns in order to elect canidates who will continue this oppresive behavior.

Exactly.

 

When a politician speaks or acts on an issue where his/her faith has an influence, its result is not a religious government. Religion is, among other things, an influence on the beliefs, values and morals a politician has. If a religious president is wrong for making a decision where his/her faith has an influence, then an atheist president who makes a decision where his/her morals has an influence is wrong.

 

I find a distinct difference between "morals" and "religious doctrine". I think morals have a lot more to do with a societal belief in what is good and wrong. We all know that it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, and cheat. Homosexuality is an issue completely left up to religious doctrine. While we may not agree or understand it, how does it hurt us to allow to experience the same freedoms we do?

 

Basing politics on morals is acceptable if there is some logical reason to it other than "The Bible said so"

Do you know how rediculous that is? A homosexual has the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex?!?! I don't know if you know this or not but homosexuals are not attracted to members of the opposite sex! To say that have the "right" to marry the opposite sex is pigheaded and extremely oppressive. If you even want to be considered someone who remotely wants rights for all - comments such as that are not the way to go.

I believe in equal rights. You advocate special rights.

I believe in equal rights. You advocate special rights.

 

Explain to me how granting heterosexuals the right to become married - but not granting homosexuals the right to become married is advocating "special rights." or better yet, explain to me how that is not denying "equal rights."

You yourself want to have a religion mandated government. Your religion just happens to be Agnosticism.

 

I was thinking the same thing. Whether or not FrontRow agrees agnosticism is indeed a religion. :thumb:

What Is an agnostic?

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

 

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

 

http://www.cojoweb.com/ref-agnostic.html

What makes you say that? We joined World War II because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. It doesnt take much logic to fight when you are attacked.

 

 

 

Do you know how rediculous that is? A homosexual has the "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex?!?! I don't know if you know this or not but homosexuals are not attracted to members of the opposite sex! To say that have the "right" to marry the opposite sex is pigheaded and extremely oppressive. If you even want to be considered someone who remotely wants rights for all - comments such as that are not the way to go.

 

Rights of the unborn is another issue. I do not agree with abortion after there is a recognizable heart beat. Prior to that, we have to protect the rights of the mother. The mother's rights to choose how to operate her own body and life.

 

You do not get to pick and choose who to extend human rights to, HHS and pretend to be in favor of them.

 

 

 

Religious leaders speaking out against social injustices is one thing. Religious leaders donating millions of dollars to the campaigns of idealouges who represent zealotist ideas is another.

 

Too often in today's politcal landscape groups like the Christian Coalition and the Moral Majority are spewing complete hatred and donating millions of dollars to political campaigns in order to elect canidates who will continue this oppresive behavior.

 

Under the constitution EVERY citizen no matter what have the same rights as everyone else . . . you simply endorse SPECIAL rights. Why should we grant special rights to homosexuals? They enjoy the same rights as the rest of us citizens.

I believe this post has went away from the topic of seperation of church and state..

Under the constitution EVERY citizen no matter what have the same rights as everyone else . . . you simply endorse SPECIAL rights. Why should we grant special rights to homosexuals? They enjoy the same rights as the rest of us citizens.

 

I disagree Gays do not have the same freedoms as hetros. Gays do not have equal rights and are condemmed by christians for there sexuality.

 

Doesn't the bible teach tolerance and forgivness...

 

The Christian religion is forcing there beliefs upon those who do not want it.. Ex. Ten Commandment, Public Prayer... If the Muslims and Buddist wanted to display there religious symbols & documents in Government building would they be allowed yet as Christians we get upset and go Crazy if they remove Christian Articles from FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS..

 

THAT IS PROVE THERE IS LIMITED SEPERATION OF CHURCH SND STATE.

I find a distinct difference between "morals" and "religious doctrine". I think morals have a lot more to do with a societal belief in what is good and wrong. We all know that it is wrong to kill, steal, lie, and cheat. Homosexuality is an issue completely left up to religious doctrine. While we may not agree or understand it, how does it hurt us to allow to experience the same freedoms we do?

 

Basing politics on morals is acceptable if there is some logical reason to it other than "The Bible said so"

 

You can't separate a person's religion from their morals. You can't separate a person's life experiences, education, or family from their morals. Separation of church and state does not ban a person from being religious while holding office; it bans them from mandating a religion.

 

Homosexuality is also not an entirely religious issue. Many non-religious or atheistic people believe it is wrong - or just don't like it - as well. People don't like things, actions, or people different from their own, no matter the issue.

I was thinking the same thing. Whether or not FrontRow agrees agnosticism is indeed a religion. :thumb:

 

 

Agnosticism is not a religion. It simply means that there is absolutely no way we can know. There is no beliefs, practices, rituals, or anything else that marks a religion.

Under the constitution EVERY citizen no matter what have the same rights as everyone else . . . you simply endorse SPECIAL rights. Why should we grant special rights to homosexuals? They enjoy the same rights as the rest of us citizens.

 

You're kidding me, right? Homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us? Are you kidding me? Explain to me how not allowing homosexuals to be married is giving them equal rights? Explain to me how granting them the right to become married is granting special rights?