JAK wrote:While there is no question that religious groups far beyond the limitation of LDS are “involved” in addressing matters of law, the fact is that religion is generally irrelevant in matters of law. Other factors are much more significant.
If religion is irrelevant in matters of law, someone had better tell the President. He was elected because of his affiliation with the Religious Right. The religious movement in this country has made "matters of law" their business for the last several elections. Candidates who marginalize religious voters do so to their detriment. As long as candidates cater to religous voters, religion will definitely be a part of "matters of law", no matter how the secular community wants to marginalize them.
What other factors do you see as much more significant? Race? SES? Gender?
Please reference your 78% source. Specifically in relation to myth.
Are you kidding? That is the most widely quoted figure in every news media dealing with religion in America.... And for anti-religious they can enjoy that figure. It is down from 89% in the 70's.
A basic search of "religion statistics america" in google sites many sources for that figure.
JMS
When someone asks you to back up your statement, especially here in Celestial, the accepted course of action is to provide a link or a quote that supports your statement.
I'll ask you again: please provide the reference for your 78% statement, specifically as it applies to myth. Thanks in advance.
I saw a couple or more statements of yours that I'd like to reply to. I'll start with this:
Some think children in a homosexual home would be a total disaster. What makes them wrong?
I have a question before moving forward. Why might children in a homosexual home be a total disaster? Can you think of some reasons that might be so?
Jersey Girl/LSD
Excuse me. I realize that the activity in the lower kingdoms is more interesting, but I did ask you a serious question. Might you answer it before 2008?
I saw a couple or more statements of yours that I'd like to reply to. I'll start with this:
Some think children in a homosexual home would be a total disaster. What makes them wrong?
I have a question before moving forward. Why might children in a homosexual home be a total disaster? Can you think of some reasons that might be so?
Jersey Girl/LSD
Excuse me. I realize that the activity in the lower kingdoms is more interesting, but I did ask you a serious question. Might you answer it before 2008?
Excuse me, I didn't know I was on a timeline.
One would be the promotion of homosexuality to the child? Inability for the child to relate to a same sex "parent" (IE: two women with a male child).
In some ways homosexuality could offer similar challenges that oppsite sex single parent situations face with the only added advantage of having a second person to help.
I don't know. But that is the problem... We don't know. But statistically male and female married couples can offer the most optimal environment, excluding abberations like abusive couples.
jskains wrote:I am not going to so digging up common knowledge.
2+2 is 4
JMS
In other words, you have no source.
Are you saying that 78% of the religious community in this country believes that those things that are commonly referred to as myth (Garden of Eden, 6000 year old earth, Noah's flood, Tower of Babel, etc) are not myth, but are indeed factual accounts of actual events?
Let me quote you:
But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?
My bold for emphasis.
Now back up that 78%. Because I don't think you can. 78% of Americans may be religious, but that doesn't mean that they agree on what is myth and what is not. There is a broad spectrum of belief on a long continum, and for you to lump all religious groups in the same boat (which is what you just did) requires more foundation than "common knowledge".
jskains wrote:I am not going to so digging up common knowledge.
2+2 is 4
JMS
In other words, you have no source.
Are you saying that 78% of the religious community in this country believes that those things that are commonly referred to as myth (Garden of Eden, 6000 year old earth, Noah's flood, Tower of Babel, etc) are not myth, but are indeed factual accounts of actual events?
Let me quote you:
But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?
My bold for emphasis.
Now back up that 78%. Because I don't think you can. 78% of Americans may be religious, but that doesn't mean that they agree on what is myth and what is not. There is a broad spectrum of belief on a long continum, and for you to lump all religious groups in the same boat (which is what you just did) requires more foundation than "common knowledge".
Your making a bigger deal of it and sidetracking the issue.
That's a nice link. Now explain how that relates to myth.
What are you even saying? I said that not everyone in america considers religion a myth. If 78% of people claim to be religious, then that is 78% of people that apparently bought into it and didn't consider it a myth... I think your going down an odd path that leads to nowhere.
jskains wrote:What are you even saying? I said that not everyone in america considers religion a myth. If 78% of people claim to be religious, then that is 78% of people that apparently bought into it and didn't consider it a myth... I think your going down an odd path that leads to nowhere.
JMS
What I'm saying is the only thing you can say with impunity is that 78% of Americans consider themselves to be religious. That's all. You have no foundation to state that you know what they believe about anything, including what they consider myth and what they don't consider myth.
Heck, that 78% can't even agree about homosexuality!