The discussion does not need to get heated. Religion is part of politics, as any other aspect of life.

For me, it goes like this: since religions are all fake (personal belief, no need to get upset), politics should not be mixed with religions.

Well done, Lenny. Resorting to red herrings and ad hominems, are we? Good to hear you don't have any real arguments.

That reminds me of a cute little quote by Stephen Robertson: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

TIME PARADOX APPEND:

And why can't we debate that? Just because the law says that doesn't mean we have to when we're debating it. Again, if we're going to debate the impact some particular religion would have on politics, we're going to have to examine that religion! There's just no two ways about it. Anything else is a bleeding copout, probably by someone who can't stand to have his superstitions challenged by rationality.

In my country the law establishes that members of the church are not to deal with politics in any way. That rule is from 1850, but has been relaxed with the more catholic-oriented government we had the past 6 years.

A religion thread, and I wasn't invited!? WHAT IS THIS TOMFOOLERY

http://www.duckiehorde.net/religion.jpg

There'd also be less charity, less goodwill in general, and less motivation for a lot of people to have any sort of positive vision for their own lives and the world around them. And without science, we'd have a lot less death and destruction from various form of weaponry.

It's not religion, and it's not science, because both have been tools for good and evil. It's people. This is also a discussion we've had before; even if religion had never existed, there'd still be wars. You don't honestly think GWB or bin Laden really believe their own tripe when they talk about God in relation to events of recent years, do you? For someone who keeps going on about how they prize logic, I shouldn't have to repeat this stuff to you. You are NOT this stupid, stop acting like it and start thinking.

Truly devoted? I was an athiest for decades, and I'm open to intelligent argument. I'm not "truly devoted", just not as gullible as some people here would like me to be. I also like playing devil's advocate, which is fairly easy in this case because I used to be you and axilmar.

Sorry if I said I'd step out, but if everyone else can copy/paste the same old tired arguments, I'll do the same with the counterpoints.

Granted, which is why I don't start them. But if someone else is going to excrete their ignorance onto the board, I would be remiss to not at least attempt to correct them.

As for the actual topic, I have no idea if this guy is any more a Mormon than GWB is a Christian, so assuming anything of his policies that he hasn't explicitly stated is a waste of time. It's not like the article linked says anything about policies influenced by Mormonism specifically. Oh noes, polygamy! .... uh, no.

I'm not shunning science. But anyone who shuns religion for the same reasons should, or else they're fostering a double standard. I'm just being realistic and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I always thought Chelsea was hot for some reason...

I'll tell what them Iraqi's could use, they could use some good old fashioned fire and brimstone, love thy neighbor as thyself, forgiveth your debts and ye forgive your debtors, and some turn the other cheek to boot.

I don't think Islam contains that last concept.

Really? I thought it was all 'eye for an eye' 'car bomb for car bomb' type of thing....

Where are all the good new religions?

fret no more: http://www.venganza.org/

He said GOOD.

The Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a great religion as well.

Maybe it should be part of the constitution that presidents aren't allowed to try to convert their and other countries to their own religion.