Religious nationalism is a political movement intent on changing laws to force their beliefs onto everyone else; outlawing birth control, morning after pills, gay marriage, or the cures for sexually transmitted diseases. They argue that diseases like AIDS are not the enemy; the real enemy are the sinners that spread the disease. So, they say, lets abolish all the scientific advancements that may help those with deadly diseases because those people deserve to die. Is this really what reasonable and caring people say?

Religious nationalists would argue that "liberals" force their agenda onto the masses all the time, as with abortion. The difference is that Pro Choice liberals argue that the government should not be involved in making laws for or against it. If you don't want to get an abortion, if you don't believe in abortion... you don't have to have one. The religious nationalists foam at the mouth screaming how abortion is murder and that these "murders" needs to be stopped.

And I understand that if you don't believe in something you don't want your tax dollars going to support it. Yet these are the same people who fully support every war and murder of thousands of innocent people and children in countries around the world, (something I don't want my tax dollars to go to support). These same people are more likely to support the death penalty. I really don't understand how you can interpret "Thou shall not kill" any other way. You don't get to choose who you kill. Yet, I can see why strict followers of the Bible would have a lust of blood, as the Bible is full of murder, rape, and revenge.

Real followers of Jesus' teachings would never support our recent wars. Jesus would be just as fanatically against war as his so-called followers are against abortion today. Jesus would fight to abolish the state's power to murder those on death row, himself being a victim of the death penalty. So save me all the hypocritical religious babble... it has no place in a political argument.

I don't know why I bother trying to making an argument with religious nationalist, anyway. They believe fairy tales and want to try to base our whole government and society around them. They want to change the laws to fit their religious beliefs. How is that any different from what the muslim fundamentalists do in Aphganistan or Iran?

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but I'll say it again; until religious fanatics in all parts of the world, including the U.S., start using reason instead of blindly following twisted interpretations of their holy books, we will continue to have hatred and war. Separation of church and state.., PLEASE!!

Thank you for your reply.

I agree with you that not enough people know the constitution. And I agree that just because the separation of church and state is not in the constitution does not mean that it shouldn't be. My statement in the previous post was not meant to suggest that the separation of church and state is in the constitution, but rather it was meant to simply state my opinion.


Bush, and many in his administration, are the ring leaders of religious nationalists. Put it this way; When the leader of the most powerful country in the world says that he has a mandate from God to go to war in Iraq, or to do whatever he wants regardless of the law or regardless what the rest of the world thinks... that is a dangerous thing. It unfairly plays on people's faith and separates the world into "us" and "them". Basing national policy on religious grounds is no different than the Taliban. I don't say that to be overly dramatic, nor do I say it lightly.


I have no problem with the president being a religious man, but he should not take on the world as God's messenger. He was given his power by We The People, not God.

I agree that there are many conservatives out there trying to restore traditional values, and those are not necessarily who I would call religious nationalists. I mean the politicians who use religion and religious language to try convince people to agree with their policies. Like with abortion or gay marriage.

For example, you use common sense when you talk about abortion. Regardless of how you or I feel about abortion, we both can agree that the government should not be involved with making laws for or against it. Abortion is a real world issue that needs real answers, not hypocritical religious babble which would obviously put many women at risk, (as you stated).

I agree with Tim on the fact that you cannot alienate voters because of religon because you will lose. Too mant people are religious and doing so is death to your campain.

However, I am concerned with the current administrations views of religon. George Bush and the leader of Iran are two extremly religious people in power. What scares me even more is that I feel they are to comfortable with the end time coming. Bush has enough nukes to blow earth up six ways from Sunday. Iran will probaby get them soon. I am a Christian and I'm open to all faiths but I feel that Bush and some of the "pseudo-Christains" that run this country are not. I dont see how torture or war is Christian seeing that administartion claims to be for. Somthing else that concerns me is the fact that reps that are for torture, (Bush, Cheney, Rumfeld), and the ones are not for torture are veterens like McCain, Powell, Kerry. It seems to me that religon is not a good way to discourage torture but being an actual veteren is. Anyone feel the same?

They're vets? Of which wars?

See I diagree. I dont see them as vets. There is a big difference between a vet whos only been in 20 years and a vet with one tour whos seen all kinds of heavy crap. It just befuttles me that the ones who have seen action aren't for torture and the ones who haven't seen it are for it. Doesn't that tell you somthing?

Well Im not really making a "judgement" Its more of an opinon. I feel that since they have not been in a real combat firefight then they dont really comprehend how to handle stress and live military values under pressure. My dad was an 82nd airborne, Ranger, many medals including a bronze star, 20 years in and he doesnt even think 20 vets count the same as eachother. They have time put in but a combat vet gets more leeway in my book than oe whos been in for 20 years. I just don't think these guys are qualified to "freedom tickle." I feel torture is wrong! I know its hard when you need info to save lives but not at the cost of sinking to the level of terrorist methoods.

I admit that I haven't studied the wording of the Geneva Convention, so I can't make specific comments other than to ask this:

Why isn't the Geneva Convention good enough? What is it in the international law that you feel should be changed? What is it specifically that our current administration thinks is holding back our interrogations of prisoners?

I think it's a dangerous thing for the United States to change an international law in the middle of a war. So I just want to know exactly why the Geneva Convention isn't good enough now? Because it seems to have been good enough since it was drawn up a little over 50 years ago.

It seems to me that the reason the Geneva Convention exists is to prevent any military from having secret prisons around the world which allow them to avoid obeying any laws of any kind. First I think the U.S. should begin following the current laws in the Geneva Convention, then we can start talking about ways to change laws to allow for modern techniques and problems.


here is a handy link to the articles of the Geneva Convention:
Geneva Convention

I understand what you're saying and I agree.

But I think the reason why people think Bush wants to change the Geneva is because his administration has done everything in it's power to avoid it. Then when people got up in arms because of the secret bases, the admin changed their tune and began making the argument about "clarifying" the wording.

Call it "clarifying" or whatever you want... and you can think it's good or bad, but I think Bush is, in fact, trying to change the Geneva Convention.

That doesn't change anything you said, though. I agree that if we capture someone who potentially has info that can save american lives, then yes... we need to do whatever we can to get the info from them. The problem is that there is no checks and balances. We shouldn't have the power to lock anyone up for any amount of time without giving any reason.

If something in the Geneva needs to be changed or clarified it should be because the enemy doesn't have a conventional "army", so therefore they have no "soldiers" in uniforms. So it's very difficult to distinguish who's a part of this war and who's not. Innocent people can easily get caught up in events surrounding the war and be locked up for months or years for no reason. Should they be treated the same as others who are considered "prisoners of war"?