Appropos to all the talk about the Founding Fathers, this is an interesting opinion piece.

[link]http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070713/cm_thenation/15213811;_ylt=An8UHWmR4LaqP_YmbAL4viP9wxIF[link] <

The precept to do no harm is based in complete and unconditional love for all living things. Christians do not have a corner on the love market. Hinduism is based on love; Buddhism is based on love. Not the concept of love, not the notion of love, but the practice of love. Moreover, one of the major differences is that both Hinduism and Buddhism are more practices than belief systems (although, in the former there is an extensive belief system).

All religions have clear moral and ethical standards. Its a pity that intolerance makes it so difficult for some to allow themselves to be present through the prayer of another's faith.

once again i ask how and why did all these devout christian men--each of whom being so completely convinced the best government could only be the sorta dominionist theocracy you claim they intended--manage to spend so much time and effort authoring a constitution without a single reference to or mention of god or the bible?

an oversight?

da devil made em do it?

whatever comfort you derive from the sort of connection you've described is totally irrelevant to this issue. one need not be nice, kind, lovely nor christian to be an ethical person or maintain a moral existence.

Your lack of research or understanding is hardly my concern.



Yes, it is far easier to simply disregard more than 1,000 years of history, isn't it? Intelligent people remember and learn from history instead of pretending it never happened.



Inferring that the moral standards of others is substandard is most certainly an insult. Sad that you are too blinded by theocratic bigotry to see that.



I am hardly obligated to agree with your or anyone else's statements simply because you or they claim to be a Christian. Those who have been here a long time and have my read my earlier articles regarding my own personal beliefs regarding Christianity and Faith (note I do not say religion) already know my stance. I can't abide such blind religious zealotry or narrow minded intolerance regardless of who is it coming from. Frankly, it is this sort of thing that gives Christians a bad name in my opinion.



Firstly, that hardly establishes that all of the founding fathers thought this way, and secondly, despite their own personal religious beliefs they still had the wisdom to ensure the religious freedom for all citizens of all religions and to refrain from imposing their personal beliefs upon the people through the government so as to avoid any hint of a theocracy. Simply put the United States of America is not a theocracy nor should it be, therefore the public expression of all religions is both acceptable and legal in this nation, including in the Senate and House.

Attempting to suppress such freedom of religious expression can only open the door to your own freedoms ultimately being denied so be careful what you wish for. If enough of an uproar is made about this the only possible end result under our constitution will be to abolish any sort of prayer from any religion in these sessions. Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Politics (and religion) do make strange bedfellows.

Very true, and hence my earlier statement of all of them springing from a common precept. Or time and area.

All religions have problems. And all have assets that attract some of us. When it comes right down to it, perhaps all are the same, but the interpretation of each - by man - is what makes them different in practice. I do not think any religion is pure and non-tainted by the imperfection of man in interpreting the message of our loving God. So we each (with the exception of Atheists who reject the notion of a God) must choose the one that is closest to what we believe is God's pure message.

I will not say that it was an accident that man could not understand the pure message, as in all religions, there is a belief that God made man as an imperfect image of himself. He must have done so for a reason. Perhaps that was so that we could find the path to his message through different means. Thus expanding the outreach to people with different backgrounds and experiences.

Mason, it seems that you have latched onto the relativist idea of religious indifferentism. Think about it. Do you really believe that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wiccanism is equal to Christianity?

By what standard?

well put...beat me to the punch.

No, actually I haven't. That is merely your own misinterpretation of what I wrote. Try reading my words using dictionary definitions instead of your own interpretations.





Equal in what way? If you mean equal in terms of their right to express themselves in the United States, then yes I certainly do.

If you mean equal in terms of the moral standards they strive to impart to their adherents, that is far too subjective to answer objectively. I would put it to those who claim some sort of moral superiority to prove it objectively. The basics of how we are supposed to treat one another are very similar in each of the religions you named so I would ask in what way you feel that yours are somehow superior to theirs.

This is the biggest problem I have with people who put religion ahead of spiritual faith. The "My religion is better than your religion" mentality. It goes back to people's core tribal nature.

The followers of every single religion on the planet believe that theirs is the "right" one and frankly none can prove it objectively. I personally believe in the God of Abraham, and that Jesus is in fact the son of God. I believe this to be true, but that certainly doesn't give me the right to insult someone else for their own religious beliefs which are just as true and valid to them. Nor does it give me the right to try and suppress their right to express their religion in public or in government.

Should we pass an amendment stating that only Christians may be elected to government office, or that those of different religions who are elected may in no way express their beliefs in public?

I am a person of spiritual faith not of religion. You can keep your religion if it makes you happy and I would be the first to support your right to do so. I want nothing to do with it as I do not believe that any Christian denomination (or any other religion) is without Man's corruption.

Does that clarify things for you a bit?

KFC Writes:

I, too, think it was a sad day for America.




So Daiho, I respectfully disagree.

Please note that KFC's initial remarks concern prayer to the one Creator God.
Neither the belief system of nor the practices of Hinduism and Buddhism is based on the love of the one Creator God. In the area of love, worship and prayer to Almighty God, there is no compatibliity between Hinduism, Buddhism and that of Christianity.

I think if you followed the discussion Cacto and I had, you would see there is a lot of compatibility between Hinduism and Christianity. I will leave Buddhism to Sodaiho as I am not well versed in that dogma.

mason,,,i know ya hate my guts and all...but i gotta hand it ot ya there...extremely well said!

Concerning my question:






you said:



Is it far too objective to answer objectively, MasonM? If so, how do you explain what you wrote just prior to this:

In recognition, conviction, belief and worship of the one true God.

But who defines "one true God"? By the myopic vision of some sects of Christianity, they define it. But then so does the other religions. They define their god as the ONE TRUE GOD. Since I am not God, nor are any mortals on this planet, who is to say which one is the ONE TRUE GOD?

But better yet, how do you know that they GOD they worship is NOT the one true God? Buddhists do not worship a God per se (So Daiho can correct me on this), but place the emphasis on the self, which in the Christian world is akin to the Spirit, a manifestation of God (or a facet). So if they are seeking elightenment, through one facet of God, who is to say that they will not find it? You do not travel many paths to reach the goal. you chose one path and hope it gets you there. But that does not mean the one you chose is the only one that can get you there.

Nothing is too objective to answer objectively. That's a nonsensical statement.



What exactly do you not understand in that statement? It seems pretty clear to me and I thought I explained it quite well in reply #61 (of which you quoted part) for those who do not seem to understand simple statements.

If your reading comprehension skills are lacking, I am sorry. I don't know how I could put it more plainly. I'd kindly suggest getting out a dictionary and looking up the definitions of the words I chose to use including the words objective and subjective as they seem to be confusing you.

That in itself is nothing more than a subjective, self-serving statement not a standard, and falls far short of actually answering the question. A Muslim could make exactly the same reply and it would be just as valid to him or her, and just as subjective and meaningless in the context of the actual question.

We should coordinate our answers. But you say it in fewer words than I do.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Wiccanism and Christianity are religions each based on their own set of moral standards.

CHristianity is based on the moral standards of God as revealed by, through and with Jesus Christ.


Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wiccanism is based on the moral standards of -----------(you fill in the blank).

And after you've filled in the blank, perhaps you can better explain what you meant when you said:

1)---If you mean equal in terms of the moral standards they strive to impart to their adherents, that is far too subjective to answer objectively.

2)----This implies that the moral standards of other religions are somehow inferior, and happens to be the comment to which I was responding. If that isn't insulting I don't know what is.

According to the adherents of these other religions you've mentioned, Christianity is based on the moral standards of some bloke (who may in fact be imaginary, since there's no actual proof as to his existence) named Jesus something.

You can't prove that Christ existed, just like you can't prove that Christianity is the one true religion. It's not possible. That's the point of any religion - faith. Stop stepping all over the faith of others just because you think yours is better. Such talk is not only unconvincing, it's unChristian.

No, those religions are based upon your perception of them, not the reality of them. I dare say that I am not qualified to speak for any of them, let alone state what they are based upon. And yet, I have studied some with an open mind to discern how they came to be, and I have yet to discern what they are based upon. Perhaps they heard "the word" before Christians did. Perhaps they did not. Perhaps they are based upon secularism. perhaps they are not.

I only know that I know not. And that I can only judge based upon their actions (if we are to base Christianity on solely the words of the doctrine - then the religion is small indeed).

Actually, they have kind of proved he existed. Other than that, the rest of your answer is very good and right on. besides, we know that Mohammed existed. That does not make Islam THE religion, only that it was founded by a corporeal being.

You seem to be extremely obtuse. I have already answered this, twice in fact. Is English not your native language?