Do you believe in God?

[Hun200kmh]

You made a sweeping generalisation about ALL atheists. I don't disagree that some atheists behave that way. Possibly even many. But to paint every atheist with the same brush as though we're all just different faces on the same person is terrible.

Is it fair if I label all Christians in this thread as blindly illogical bigots? Because there's some in here that are, but it sure as sausages ain't all of them.

I took issue with you labelling an entire group. I expected you to back off and say that you didn't mean all atheists, like a kind, sensible person who didn't mean to offend every atheist in the thread. But you're apparently fine with it, despite there being evidence (that you even admit that you're aware of) that all atheists are not like that.

How does someone communicate sensibly with someone who is willing to ignore personal positions and assign you the traits of the worst members of a group that you happen to bear some relation to? Seriously, if you're willing to label me as ignorant of how religion and power work together despite me demonstrating otherwise before you even stuck your two cents in, what am I to think of you?

Are you just a hater?
Do you have some sort of grudge?
Should I even waste my time knowing that you'll ignore what I'm saying?

Tell me, how do I deal with someone who is willing to ignore what I say and label me with things that I have never done?

P.S. You should probably also know that "fear" has more than one meaning. It doesn't always mean scared.

@Imari You are wrong on your assumption that I made a sweeping generalization about ALL atheists, and I can't even understand why you keep going. I mentioned "atheists with a particularly smug attitude towards people with faith in God", and those are many, or even most of them, but by all means thay're not ALL atheists. And take good notice that I am not retracting anything, I'm reasserting what I wrote and stating without a doubt that I believe that what I wrote is true, or else I wouldn't write it.

@Imari I didn't assign you anything. I took issue with your condescending "try again" and I voiced my displeasure at it. Don't expect me to back off from there.

@Imari I didn't label you anything. I'm no hater, I have no grudge, and finally what you do with your time is for you to decide, however I just replied because I wanted you to know that I didn't ignore what you said. Now you tell me if this reply was a waste of time.

 

[xyloscissor]

I don't remember saying that all wars are caused by religion, so giving me a counter-example doesn't serve a lot of point. What I said was that religion is a convenient dehumanizing mechanism that has propagated war throughout human history.

I never said you did, wow it's hard to converse around here. I agree with the mechanism I guess you don't agree with education as a deterrent against religious wars?

I think the only way to be heard in this so called discussion is to concede without religion there would be way less war, something I will never agree with.(that is a general statement not aimed anywhere in particular.)

 

[Danoff]

I never said you did, wow it's hard to converse around here. I agree with the mechanism I guess you don't agree with education as a deterrent against religious wars?

I do agree that education is a deterrent against religion, and so it's a deterrent against religiously motivated war.

 

[xyloscissor]

I do agree that education is a deterrent against religion, and so it's a deterrent against religiously motivated war.

Education is not a deterrent against religion by nature, it can be sure but doesn't need to be, take away people's rights and you will find war for sure, if in the process of the education they give up their faith then whatever. Religious people are not war machines.

As it's already been stated, the U.S. does not go to war in the name of god yet we are a religious nation. The only conclusion to be made is that education trumps religion when it comes to waging war. Or not, we seem to like our wars all the same which is a valid point liked or not. Religious people going to war for non religious reasons diminishes the idea that the two are directly related.

Lets go with the secular argument for a moment, who is most responsible for the destructions lately?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

 

[Imari]

@Imari You are wrong on your assumption that I made a sweeping generalization about ALL atheists, and I can't even understand why you keep going. I mentioned "atheists with a particularly smug attitude towards people with faith in God", and those are many, or even most of them, but by all means thay're not ALL atheists. And take good notice that I am not retracting anything, I'm reasserting what I wrote and stating without a doubt that I believe that what I wrote is true, or else I wouldn't write it.

@Imari I didn't assign you anything. I took issue with your condescending "try again" and I voiced my displeasure at it. Don't expect me to back off from there.

@Imari I didn't label you anything. I'm no hater, I have no grudge, and finally what you do with your time is for you to decide, however I just replied because I wanted you to know that I didn't ignore what you said. Now you tell me if this reply was a waste of time.

Interesting to know that you've decided that's how you meant it. Good to know, because your last clarification went the opposite way.

EDIT: @Imari I'd say there's plenty - let me correct to abundant, even overwhelming - of evidence in this thread about self-defined atheists blaming wars on religion.

But sure. Some atheists don't get that it's about power. Some do. Although, that's hardly a controversial or even noteworthy statement. I'm not sure why you'd bother taking the time to write it. But absolutely. I agree. Some atheists are [INSERT OBVIOUS THING HERE], others are not.

Education is not a deterrent against religion by nature...

It kind of is. Particularly against the sorts of religions that are popular in the world today. If you teach people to think clearly, then they've got a much better chance of seeing that what they're being fed as children at church is not truth.

From there, they can then make an informed decision about whether they wish to continue with their religion or not.

Religious people are not war machines.

They are as much as everyone's a war machine. Humans seem to be war machines. We're very good at it.

 

[Danoff]

Education is not a deterrent against religion by nature, it can be sure but doesn't need to be, take away people's rights and you will find war for sure, if in the process of the education they give up their faith then whatever. Religious people are not war machines.

As it's already been stated, the U.S. does not go to war in the name of god yet we are a religious nation. The only conclusion to be made is that education trumps religion when it comes to waging war. Or not, we seem to like our wars all the same which is a valid point liked or not. Religious people going to war for non religious reasons diminishes the idea that the two are directly related.

Lets go with the secular argument for a moment, who is most responsible for the destructions lately?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

Education is a deterrent against religion by nature - both on national and individual levels. The US is not a "religious" nation. It's a secular nation filled with people of various religions. Religious people going to war for non-religious reasons does not diminish the idea that religion enables war. It merely indicates that war is possible without religion... which is a no-brainer.

 

[xyloscissor]

They are as much as everyone's a war machine. Humans seem to be war machines. We're very good at it.

That wasn't so hard to get to, only about 20 posts after I said the exact same thing.

@Danoff

It should be no surprise I disagree with all of that you just posted except the no brainer part which is all I was saying to begin with, well that and the fact that anything secular should stop pointing fingers at anything that is not atheist. I don't see how you see what is most likely about 90% religious people of some sort in one country does not constitute a religious nation, perhaps you put to much credence into federal government. An atheist's rights are of course protected just as everyone else, kinda the point of secular.

 

[Danoff]

It should be no surprise I disagree with all of that you just posted except the no brainer part which is all I was saying to begin with, well that and the fact that anything secular should stop pointing fingers at anything that is not atheist. I don't see how you see what is most likely about 90% religious people of some sort in one country does not constitute a religious nation, perhaps you put to much credence into federal government. An atheist's rights are of course protected just as everyone else, kinda the point of secular.

A religious nation would be one in which the governing documents/principles are religious in nature, and the laws follow suit. A secular nation would be one in which the governing documents/principles are not religious in nature, and the laws follow suit. A secular (not religious) nation can be full of religious people. In fact, if a nation is to have lots of people of different religions (such as the US), it only works well if the government is secular. In order to claim that the US is a religious nation, one would have to point to laws/elections/etc. that are religious in nature.

 

[xyloscissor]

@Danoff

It's a small difference really, I'm very glad to live in a secular nation, I'm making a call on having a small government that does not impose one way or the other. The vast majority of this nation is not mixed at all, it is a Christian nation as far as I can tell. I would not care if I was the only Christian here as long as I had my right to be so in that regard 👍

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff
I'm making a call on having a small government that does not impose one way or the other.

A secular nation is not one in which secularism is somehow imposed on the population - it's one with a government that is secular in nature.

The vast majority of this nation is not mixed at all, it is a Christian nation as far as I can tell. I would not care if I was the only Christian here as long as I had my right to be so in that regard 👍

It doesn't matter if the US is made up 100% of Christians, it is not a Christian nation. The US is a secular nation, it has no religion. In order to claim that the US is a Christian nation, our laws would have to be Christian, enforcing Christianity.

 

[xyloscissor]

A secular nation is not one in which secularism is somehow imposed on the population - it's one with a government that is secular in nature.

I thought I've said that more than once now in this thread.

It doesn't matter if the US is made up 100% of Christians, it is not a Christian nation. The US is a secular nation, it has no religion. In order to claim that the US is a Christian nation, our laws would have to be Christian, enforcing Christianity.

We'll differ on that, it doesn't mean much I don't think unless we are worried about what another nation might conclude, they come to those conclusions all on their own anyway. Oh, just realized it's not so nice to include someone not Christian in that phrase, I see that point.

 

[ryzno]

A secular nation is not one in which secularism is somehow imposed on the population - it's one with a government that is secular in nature.



It doesn't matter if the US is made up 100% of Christians, it is not a Christian nation. The US is a secular nation, it has no religion. In order to claim that the US is a Christian nation, our laws would have to be Christian, enforcing Christianity.

The government and law use the word God a few times. Does America want to be secular? Probably. Is it really? No.

 

[Danoff]

I thought I've said that more than once now in this thread.

We'll differ on that, it doesn't mean much I don't think unless we are worried about what another nation might conclude, they come to those conclusions all on their own anyway. Oh, just realized it's not so nice to include someone not Christian in that phrase, I see that point.

You can't differ on that and agree with the previous statement.

The government and law use the word God a few times. Does America want to be secular? Probably. Is it really? No.

The term "God" is not restricted to Christianity. In fact, quite a few religions worship the same God that Christians worship. Regardless, including the word "God" in a few government documents is not sufficient. One would need to be able to point to particular enforcement of a religion (such as Christianity) in order to make the claim you're making. Explain to me where the US government enforces Christianity.

The US is a secular nation made up of many religions.

 

[xyloscissor]

You can't differ on that and agree with the previous statement.

Sure I can, I can differentiate between the government we need and the god we love. Semantics is all it is, I'm not going to keep going around and around on that, when the overwhelming population is Christian it is not unreasonable to call the nation Christian.

It is odd to me to say the least that you consider yourself libertarian? I never considered a libertarian allowing a silly government to define who they are.

 

[Danoff]

Sure I can, I can differentiate between the government we need and the god we love. Semantics is all it is, I'm not going to keep going around and around on that, when the overwhelming population is Christian it is not unreasonable to call the nation Christian.

It's not semantics, the meaning matters. It is unreasonable to call a nation religious according to any portion of the population when the laws of that nation are not religious. Doing so conveys a meaning that you're not intending to convey.

Let's pretend for a moment that you have a friend who is Muslim who does not live in the US. You're trying to describe the US to this Muslim person and say "The US is a Christian nation". Your friend might think that he'd be arrested if he set foot in the US, that being a Muslim is illegal, that practicing as a Muslim or not adopting certain Christian religious practices could be punishable by law. Describing the US as a Christian nation is inaccurate. At best you could say that the US is predominately comprised of Christians.

Would you describe the US as a white nation? How about a heterosexual nation? See where I'm going here?

It is odd to me to say the least that you consider yourself libertarian? I never considered a libertarian allowing a silly government to define who they are.

What does "they" mean at the end of that sentence. The government or the libertarian? If it's the latter, I'm not.

 

[Joey D]

I'm afraid you're not. You may be open to some ideas as long as they don't challenge you in ways that you find objectionable. You have boundaries that you will not go past, like the idea that causality holds even outside our universe or that everything has a beginning.

Until you can learn to let go of what you think you know, you will be trapped by your own limitations. It's not about learning more science, it's about learning how to think clearly without telling yourself what you think you want to hear.

You say you're comfortable with the answers you have, but we've already established fairly categorically that they're not as correct as you seem to think. If you're happy holding onto them then that's fine, many people do the same. But don't tell yourself that you're being open-minded to do so, because I'm afraid it isn't true.

If you're unable to accept that I do think about this, that it is something I've struggled with for many years, that I am open to new possibilities, and that I am able to think clearly about it, then I think our conversation is over.

Yet on the other hand it's rare for an atheist to tell a woman she can't have an abortion under any circumstances because a sperm and an egg create a soul, that being gay is wrong because it says it in the bit of the holy book you cherry-pick from as it suits, or fly a plane of 200 people into a building of 2,000 people because most of them don't believe in the right deity (even though some of them do).

So, you know. Swings and roundabouts on the whole 'being a jerk' front.

I never disagreed their aren't jerks who are religious. I was merely sharing my observation and what drove me to take another look at my beliefs.

 

[xyloscissor]

It's not semantics, the meaning matters. It is unreasonable to call a nation religious according to any portion of the population when the laws of that nation are not religious. Doing so conveys a meaning that you're not intending to convey.

Let's pretend for a moment that you have a friend who is Muslim who does not live in the US. You're trying to describe the US to this Muslim person and say "The US is a Christian nation". Your friend might think that he'd be arrested if he set foot in the US, that being a Muslim is illegal, that practicing as a Muslim or not adopting certain Christian religious practices could be punishable by law. Describing the US as a Christian nation is inaccurate. At best you could say that the US is predominately comprised of Christians.

Would you describe the US as a white nation? How about a heterosexual nation? See where I'm going here?



What does "they" mean at the end of that sentence. The government or the libertarian? If it's the latter, I'm not.

Pretty easy for me to account for all of that, it is semantics because the people my be represented by a government we deem to be correct and give all rights to all people. That does not mean that we are magically something that we are not as a whole.

Lets pretend that I do have friends from other countries, they already know that we are not going to judge them in the way you suggest, most likely due to actually reading our constitution.

I would describe the US as a white heterosexual nation, see where I'm going here? It's just a simple fact, what 65% white with a total of maybe 2% homosexual? We protect the minority against the majority, that is what makes us the greatest country on earth.

I did mean the latter, so you are saying you do not let the government define you yet you are doing just that. It is more than enough to say we are the land of the free because we respect everyone's right to life.

Secular nation maybe in the fact we will accept anyone with any belief as having those rights to life, only if you want to limit the speech and argue a particular point to sound like an interweb winner. I don't see anything wrong with saying the truth however and like it or not, we are a Christian nation and that is most likely better than not.

BTW I'm all for neutrality and what that stands for, I present a few links as food for thought.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_religions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

I'm not sure how anyone could agree that that is what the u.s. is?

 

[Danoff]

Pretty easy for me to account for all of that, it is semantics because the people my be represented by a government we deem to be correct and give all rights to all people. That does not mean that we are magically something that we are not as a whole.

We are not Christian "as a whole". We are not heterosexual "as a whole". We are not white "as a whole". We are not female "as a whole". We are not Hillary Clinton supporters "as a whole". We are not age 45-54 "as a whole". We are not right handed "as a whole". We are not the majority "as a whole" in any respect. What we are, as a whole, is a nation of laws, founded on restriction of our government and the idea that people should be able to pursue whatever religion suits them.

I can't imagine trying to tell a black person that, while they themselves are black, as a whole, they are white.

Lets pretend that I do have friends from other countries, they already know that we are not going to judge them in the way you suggest, most likely due to actually reading our constitution.

That would be a super self-centered and non-instructive hypothetical. It also completely ignores my point.

I would describe the US as a white heterosexual nation, see where I'm going here? It's just a simple fact, what 65% white with a total of maybe 2% homosexual? We protect the minority against the majority, that is what makes us the greatest country on earth.

...and then describe the country as if no minorities exist? We're not a white heterosexual nation. At most you can say that the nation is comprised predominately of white and heterosexual people.

I did mean the latter, so you are saying you do not let the government define you yet you are doing just that.

No, I'm telling you not to do just that. How am I letting the government "define me" by saying that our government is what it is, and that that doesn't reflect on what the individuals in the country are? You're the one trying to define the nation based on whatever majority suits you.

only if you want to limit the speech

I'm not trying to limit your speech. If I were, I would be saying that what you've been saying should be illegal to say. I'm telling you you're wrong, and explaining exactly why.

I don't see anything wrong with saying the truth however and like it or not, we are a Christian nation and that is most likely better than not.

You're misusing the term... intentionally. You're conflating the notion of what a nation is (laws) with what a nation is composed of (people). You're doing that for a specific reason - to attempt to legitimize the marginalization of those who have differing values from you. This is about the most unamerican sentiment I can think of (when it comes to principles anyway), from someone who claims to have a good handle on what America is.

As you've said, what makes the US great is that we protect the minority. So stop attempting to steamroll the remainder of the population by mischaracterizing the US government as serving the majority religion.

BTW I'm all for neutrality and what that stands for, I present a few links as food for thought.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_religions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

I'm not sure how anyone could agree that that is what the u.s. is?

The US is a secular religion? What you just posted makes no sense.

 

[Imari]

If you're unable to accept that I do think about this, that it is something I've struggled with for many years, that I am open to new possibilities, and that I am able to think clearly about it, then I think our conversation is over.

I didn't say that you didn't think about it, or that you didn't struggle with it.

I pointed out a recent example where you have been unable to accept a new possibility or think clearly about it. It's not necessarily how you treat every piece of information, but it's there. If you can't accept that you do indeed have some things that you are not able to be open and think clearly about, then you're denying that you're like the rest of humanity.

Everyone has these innate biases. Me included. The difference is that some people react and reconsider when it's pointed out to them. How reasonable is your assumption that causality applies to any and all universes? How reasonable is your assumption that everything in any and all universes must have a beginning? How reasonable is it that you do not apply that assumption to any external force that may have created our universe?

Put aside what you think you know and that nasty feeling you get when you're "wrong", and ask if you actually have any justification for thinking this way. Do you really have reasons for thinking that you're correct, or is it purely something that you'd prefer given that there's no evidence in any particular direction?

You can get mad that I've pointed out that there are flaws in your way of thinking. Most people do. It's not meant as an attack on you, although that's inevitably the way it comes across. Particularly when discussing ideas that people consider to define large parts of their identity. Most people just get angry or back off and don't take the chance to really examine what they think.

I suspect our conversation is over either way. I'm happy to provide information or help where it's wanted, but I suspect from your response that you don't want it. You like the way you are, and that's fine.

But maybe question how much you're actually willing to change your position if the answer is something you don't like. Maybe put some thought into learning some of the more advanced techniques for questioning and analysing your thoughts that humanity has developed in the last few decades. They're not complicated, and while it takes a lot of self honesty in order to really accept that something you thought was incorrect, it's a very important skill to have.

 

[Scaff]

Pretty easy for me to account for all of that, it is semantics because the people my be represented by a government we deem to be correct and give all rights to all people. That does not mean that we are magically something that we are not as a whole.

Lets pretend that I do have friends from other countries, they already know that we are not going to judge them in the way you suggest, most likely due to actually reading our constitution.

I would describe the US as a white heterosexual nation, see where I'm going here? It's just a simple fact, what 65% white with a total of maybe 2% homosexual? We protect the minority against the majority, that is what makes us the greatest country on earth.

I did mean the latter, so you are saying you do not let the government define you yet you are doing just that. It is more than enough to say we are the land of the free because we respect everyone's right to life.

Secular nation maybe in the fact we will accept anyone with any belief as having those rights to life, only if you want to limit the speech and argue a particular point to sound like an interweb winner. I don't see anything wrong with saying the truth however and like it or not, we are a Christian nation and that is most likely better than not.

So the US is a female nation that can't make it past High School and is scared of living in rural areas.

Statistics are fun when you ignore common sense and want to abuse them for your own ends.

The US census office also has a very broad, and thus misleading definition of White American as well.

BTW I'm all for neutrality and what that stands for, I present a few links as food for thought.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Secular_religions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

I'm not sure how anyone could agree that that is what the u.s. is?

Not a single person in this thread has claimed that the US is a country with a secular religion.

So once again you either don't understand the ter, or are now simply attempting to be deliberately misleading to support an argument so weak that you can't support it any other way.

None of which manages to back up your initial claim of the UN being an athiest group.

 

[mistersafeway]

I would describe the US as a white heterosexual nation, see where I'm going here?

Somewhere irrational?

It's just a simple fact, what 65% white with a total of maybe 2% homosexual? We protect the minority against the majority,

To quote Bender from Futurama '. Wait, you were serious? Let me laugh even harder. '

Yeah, you protect the minority against the majority if you ignore everything before a few decades ago in the case of black people (although they're still not really protected from the majority), before [edit 2: I meant after, just woke up when I typed] a few weeks from now in the case of Latin-Americans and Muslims, and everything before last 🤬 week in the case of atheists.

that is what makes us the greatest country on earth.

Oh, really? Can you name an area in which you're number one that any sane country would try to take from you? You're not the greatest in the indisputable way (size), and you only lead the world in proportion of population in prison and the modern world in gun deaths. Oh, I forgot, military spending, let's all have an insanely large military to prop up private companies to the detriment of our general population, because almost half of your budget goes to the military and related causes when you're already at least four times as powerful as number two on the list, rather than having a decently powerful military and universal healthcare.

Newsflash: you live in a broken country. More than half of your population doesn't like the next president and he was only just elected, and your government is full of people who think their job is to line their pockets and do the same for the excessively rich. Fix your system, then we'll talk about whether you're "the greatest" (you still won't be (no country is overall), unless the whole world goes to 🤬, but at least you'll have a leg to stand on).

Edit: I'm also curious how wanting Israel to follow international law is supporting terrorists, care to explain?

 

[FoRiZon]

@Imari I take back my word. You're right. Seems like religion only brings sectarian and hatred.

I'm practically agnostic now.

 

[xyloscissor]

@Imari I take back my word. You're right. Seems like religion only brings sectarian and hatred.

I'm practically agnostic now.

Of course I respect your view whatever it may be so let's not start off on the wrong foot here. I've already stirred a pot I didn't intend to but...

Is the sectarian and hatred you are seeing not an expansion of the u.s. and others creating a void in the region? Creating hatred and separation in order to disrupt or gain power is not new right?(ISIL)

I think that the thought of those in a position of charge cannot be of many facets, If the U.S. is secular than a secular started bombing, was Saddam's government not secular? What about Assad or Gaddafi? I submit to you that it is not over some magical evil of religion but rather practicality of corrupt politicians.

What do you think?

 

[Scaff]

Of course I respect your view whatever it may be so let's not start off on the wrong foot here. I've already stirred a pot I didn't intend to but...

Is the sectarian and hatred you are seeing not an expansion of the u.s. and others creating a void in the region? Creating hatred and separation in order to disrupt or gain power is not new right?(ISIL)

I think that the thought of those in a position of charge cannot be of many facets, If the U.S. is secular than a secular started bombing, was Saddam's government not secular? What about Assad or Gaddafi? I submit to you that it is not over some magical evil of religion but rather practicality of corrupt politicians.

What do you think?

The US may be secular, but God 'told' Bush to go into Afghanistan and Iraq, he wasn't backwards about admitting it either.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

 

[xyloscissor]

I don't care to get into it @Scaff as it's a no win for anyone, did we go into those wars as Christian or secular? That is about all I care to say.(I did say the U.S. was Christian)

It is very clear that outside meddling created void and civil war on purpose did it not?

 

[Scaff]

I don't care to get into it @Scaff as it's a no win for anyone, did we go into those wars as Christian or secular? That is about all I care to say.(I did say the U.S. was Christian)

My point in that post was that its not that clear cut. Yes the US is a secular nation (which is not the same as atheist), however Bush is a born again Christian and was quite clear that he believed he was acting on God's instructions.

It is very clear that outside meddling created void and civil war on purpose did it not?

Create it, yes. On purpose, that I wouldn't agree with. I'm sure the intention was good, by the end result did meet the good intentions.

 

[xyloscissor]

Good intentions lead the path to somewhere lol.

Americans don't mind our leaders saying "god said" I'll give you that but in reality you can simply replace 'god' with 'the right thing' that is really all it means. Believe it or not.

 

[xyloscissor]

Adding this for you @Scaff.

I can only think of two presidents that were not at least 1/2 arsed believable as protestant, correct me if I'm wrong. There was JFK a known Catholic(unheard of) and Obama(not believed) who no one really knew his faith, claimed to be at least.

We think it a very important part of our culture but it's not exactly what you think, it's an ideology really and I'll argue it is a sound one as it works. There is a reason we did not care for Romney

I'm not saying it's the right thing, maybe I'm trying to reiterate my stance that we are a Christian nation, maybe I'm simply stating how our voting works.

Tell me again if it is a Holy thing we do or a secular one?

I want to know where and how the line is drawn that a secular deal is better than a religious deal.

 

[UKMikey]

Good intentions lead the path to somewhere lol.

Americans don't mind our leaders saying "god said" I'll give you that but in reality you can simply replace 'god' with 'the right thing' that is really all it means. Believe it or not.

I think more people would be inclined to believe it if the phrase hadn't been co-opted by murderers and people committing horrendous crimes so often. As a UK resident my first thoughts when I hear the phrase are serial killer Peter Sutcliffe and disgraced police chief James Anderton, both of whom claimed to have a direct line to the Almighty.

 

[Scaff]

Adding this for you @Scaff.

I can only think of two presidents that were not at least 1/2 arsed believable as protestant, correct me if I'm wrong. There was JFK a known Catholic(unheard of) and Obama(not believed) who no one really knew his faith, claimed to be at least.

We think it a very important part of our culture but it's not exactly what you think, it's an ideology really and I'll argue it is a sound one as it works. There is a reason we did not care for Romney

I'm not saying it's the right thing, maybe I'm trying to reiterate my stance that we are a Christian nation, maybe I'm simply stating how our voting works.

Tell me again if it is a Holy thing we do or a secular one?

I want to know where and how the line is drawn that a secular deal is better than a religious deal.

While I would agree with you that most American presidents have to play the 'faith' card to even stand a chance of getting into office, I would have to disagree with you in regard to Obama (he's quite clearly a Christian - just about the only ones who don't think that tend to also fall for the conspiracy birther nonsense) and Bush Jnr, who was a very vocal Born Again Christian.