Prime examples of the dangerous costs of religion:

[John Bull]

by sa artman:IBS's dogma is no different than the Bible toting Tea Party, same stripes-different colors.

Be nice if you got your political parties straight. The Tea Party is not a religious organization. I'm Tea Party, I don't carry a Bible. Whether or not I believe is no one's business but my own. Now if you want to talk about the Glenn Beck 9-12 Movement, then you have a point.

[Valerie]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Glenn Beck 9-12 Movement,

Glenn Beck...ICK!!...don't even get me started on that cheeky bastard!

[John Bull]

Valerie, I won't if you won't.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by John Bull

Be nice if you got your political parties straight. The Tea Party is not a religious organization. I'm Tea Party, I don't carry a Bible. Whether or not I believe is no one's business but my own. Now if you want to talk about the Glenn Beck 9-12 Movement, then you have a point.

It really puts the left's collectivist knickers in a knot when a Tea Partier doesn't fit their pre-registered field of fire. I make it a point to oppose the religious right influence on the movement in every blog I post in. Stick to the Constitution and common sense, leave mysticism out of it and the left has nothing to stand on, nothing at all.

[discreetgent]

For the most part the Tea Party has advocated fiscal conservatism and a narrow reading of the constitution, not social conservatism. Sure you will find many adherents who are both but on a policy level they seem to have mostly avoided social issues.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

It really puts the left's collectivist knickers in a knot when a Tea Partier doesn't fit their pre-registered field of fire. I make it a point to oppose the religious right influence on the movement in every blog I post in. Stick to the Constitution and common sense, leave mysticism out of it and the left has nothing to stand on, nothing at all.

Really, then how come every single one oppose abortion? Can you riddle us that ?

-In 2010, abortion certainly isn't the driving factor behind Tea Parties, but the Tea Party's Senate lineup is 100 percent pro-life. Every insurgent GOP Senate candidate who bucked the establishment to win the nomination -- Miller, Rubio, O'Donnell, Toomey, Ken Buck in Colorado, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Mike Lee in Utah -- is dedicated to the pro-life cause. The Senate ringleader of this rowdy bunch is DeMint, a passionate pro-life conservative-

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/tea-partiers-oppose-abortion-not-just-deficits#ixzz1Cl9r8jGD

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by WTF

Really, then how come every single one oppose abortion? Can you riddle us that ?

-In 2010, abortion certainly isn't the driving factor behind Tea Parties, but the Tea Party's Senate lineup is 100 percent pro-life. Every insurgent GOP Senate candidate who bucked the establishment to win the nomination -- Miller, Rubio, O'Donnell, Toomey, Ken Buck in Colorado, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Mike Lee in Utah -- is dedicated to the pro-life cause. The Senate ringleader of this rowdy bunch is DeMint, a passionate pro-life conservative-

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/tea-partiers-oppose-abortion-not-just-deficits#ixzz1Cl9r8jGD

Pretty simple. Read the tenth amendment. Abortion, like drug abuse, medical bills, hunger, homosexuality and cow tipping existed when the Constitution was written. Since none of these are delineated as any of the federal government's business, all are covered by the 10th, all are state and individual issues.

The candidates may all be "pro life" but it doesn't mean all who voted for them are if you define "pro life" as an all out abolition of abortion. Many, like me, simply think it should be decided state by state, and under no circumstances paid for with tax payer money. That puts me in opposition with the leftists who think it is a federally protected "right" and the religious right who think it's out of the question. Frankly, there are a lot of people I'd rather see not reproduce.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The candidates may all be "pro life" but it doesn't mean all who voted for them are if you define "pro life" as an all out abolition of abortion. Many, like me, simply think it should be decided state by state, and under no circumstances paid for with tax payer money. That puts me in opposition with the leftists who think it is a federally protected "right" and the religious right who think it's out of the question. Frankly, there are a lot of people I'd rather see not reproduce.

Well , I do not even see it as a state right. It should be left up to the woman, not the state or Federal government. Why should any governmen entity be given that power? How's that for trumping you Tea Party folks hogwash when it comes to personal freedom!

I think private funds should fund it, that is to say if a woman wanted an abortion and could not afford one then let the left leaning organization fund it.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well , I do not even see it as a state right. It should be left up to the woman, not the state or Federal government. Why should any governmen entity be given that power? How's that for trumping you Tea Party folks hogwash when it comes to personal freedom!

I think private funds should fund it, that is to say if a woman wanted an abortion and could not afford one then let the left leaning organization fund it.

Hmm, interesting. It opens a question on what is in a state can and cannot regulate.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well , I do not even see it as a state right. It should be left up to the woman, not the state or Federal government. Why should any governmen entity be given that power? How's that for trumping you Tea Party folks hogwash when it comes to personal freedom!

I think private funds should fund it, that is to say if a woman wanted an abortion and could not afford one then let the left leaning organization fund it.

I am pro-abortion. I agree with you, it should be exclusively the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy. As far as funding it with tax payers dollars, it might be best in circumstance involving a mother's physical or mental health, or in cases of rape, incest, or anything in similar situations.

Just look what happened in Nevada when they reversed the law to legally have an abortion. I don't think it should be up to states or government either.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Hmm, interesting. It opens a question on what is in a state can and cannot regulate.

Well marijuana, and certain illicit drugs. However we saw what happened with the conflict between states who allow marijuana for medicinal purposes when the Feds started arresting people.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Hmm, interesting. It opens a question on what is in a state can and cannot regulate.

I was really jacking with the phoney baloney Tea Party mantra of personal freedom. They want states to regulate ....WTF difference is that from the Federal government telling me WTF to do. That is why it is phony baloney, a sham to get folks elected. They truly were for personal freedom they would not have to cowtow to the pro choice folks.

[discreetgent]

Boom, boom, boom, even brighter than the moon, moon, moon

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Hmm, interesting. It opens a question on what is in a state can and cannot regulate.

Well according to two Federal judges, not inactivity.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Dayum! and I thought I was posting on a literate board. Who mentioned Christianity? Who mentioned animism? The OP's post claimed all religion should be ended. My point is that Atheism is merely another religion. As such, it is no more verifiable than the extant religions of today or the extinct religions of the past. Plus, the OP then goes on to disassociate atheism from some of history’s most notable practitioners of atheism (@ Bebe Le Strange - BTW, you left out Karl Marx and Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu and some others. Care to enumerate how many have died or have been killed because of Marx’s atheistic beliefs?)

@ WTF You brought in the animist Mayans, and you did so in such a way as to suggest that they were happy in their beliefs. My point exactly. Thank you for your contribution to my argument.

Atheism as a religion? Only if you try to spread your non-belief. I sit on my beliefs and will share if asked, but I do not try to shape someone elses ideology. I'm sure also that the majority of folks on this board will tell you I'm extreme right. I may be atheist, but I'm damned sure not a marxist

Originally Posted by WTF

Science is not Dogmatic.....Religion is.

You keep confusing the two. If you could ever grasp the meaning of the below article you then could understand that your stance is the defination of Dogma

Science can definately be dogmatic. There are those that are extremely dogmatic about, oh I don't know, anthropomorphic global warming.

Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Finally, someone who makes sense. I think I've thrown that out before that any extremist is a cancer on society, right or left, theist or non, black or white or what have you. When one segment of society decides their way is the right and only way, then conflict, suffering and tyranny ensues. IBS's dogma is no different than the Bible toting Tea Party, same stripes-different colors. Their end goal is ensuring that the 'other side' is repressed and stripped of any voice or representation. I think history has proven where that leads.
In my youth I've travelled extensively and partaken numerous times in different religious celebrations and ultimately it led me to my set of core beliefs. One thing I did discern was that humans innately have a need to belong to something larger, whether a religious group, political organization or a non-concrete set of beliefs. Religion (or lack thereof in IBS case) fills those needs and depending on the persons needs sense of self dictates how much it consumes your life. I think the op should change the title of the thread to the 'Dangerous costs of extremism'. Period.

I'm an atheist and I'm Tea Party, so your belief is flat out wrong. Which goes well with your leftist ideology by trying to shape another person's beliefs like Liberal, or Progressive Philosophy.