What he means is beliefs like Jesus' comeback to Jerusalem requires America's protection of Israel at any cost possible.

"Could you give an example of what you mean."

Sure. I think that much of the objection to homosexual marriage is based on what the Bible says. This must not be the basis for judging whether or not homosexuals should have the right to get married. I also think that much of the objection to euthanasia is based on the religious belief that only God can decide when to end a life. I will admit that there are well-meaning people who object to these two things on moral and not religious grounds, but it is not right for people to impose their religious beliefs on others regarding such issues. Politicians and ethicists can argue these issues, but the Pope and other religious leaders should butt out. The Pope can tell Catholics what to do, but he shouldn't be able to tell me what to do.

Spider,

What if a rabbi says homosexuals and euthanasia are immoral?

Originally Posted by Big

Spider,

What if a rabbi says homosexuals and euthanasia are immoral?

He can say whatever he wants and can tell his congregation how they should behave. When he tells them how to vote, he's overstepping his bounds because he's trying to impose his [religious, I assume] beliefs on everyone else.

Bedtime for the Spider. See ya tomorrrow.

So is it ok for those who non religious views to vote and have their veiws "forced" on the religious?

The most secure of scientific facts are built upon sand, for example:

http://jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1091

It's interesting isn't it that the very nature of the sun, which everyone believed to be a nuclear furnace, can be debated but evolution by natural selection is held to be above reproach! The reason for this is obvipus, natural selection is the creation myth of the atheist, no one likes to have their creation myth, their metaphysical belief, gored.

Originally Posted by UGLY

So is it ok for those who non religious views to vote and have their veiws "forced" on the religious?

Not a valid question. That's equivalent to saying fat people can vote and "force" thin people to gain weight. It's none of the govenment's business how people worship as long as they don't break any laws, but the flip side of that coin is that the government can't get involved in religious pursuits.

It is necessary to keep religion out of government, and is not the result of liberal atheists trampling the rights of the religious. When the government (local, state or federal) acts to endorse any religion it is acting inappropriately. Everyone has the right to worship as they please (even atheists) and not have to be told by his or her government that it supports some other religion.

Originally Posted by oc

The most secure of scientific facts are built upon sand, for example:

http://jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1091

It's interesting isn't it that the very nature of the sun, which everyone believed to be a nuclear furnace, can be debated but evolution by natural selection is held to be above reproach! The reason for this is obvipus, natural selection is the creation myth of the atheist, no one likes to have their creation myth, their metaphysical belief, gored.

No, OC, scientific facts are based upon empirical data and reproducable observations. They are not etched in stone, but are always subject to revision as technology improves and new data arises. What science doesn't do is rely on one two thousand year old book as its foundation.