<p>If we never separated church and state in America, religion would have ruined us the exact same way it has ruined every country that failed to make the distinction. Religion is dangerous to the function of a healthy state. Look at those nutjob rightwing extremists that bomb abortion clinics “on behalf of God”.</p>
<p>[Pope</a> takes issue with America’s ‘just war’ - Times Online](<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)
[BBC</a> NEWS | Middle East | Pope pins hopes on diplomacy](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2773089.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Middle East | Pope pins hopes on diplomacy)</p>
<p>I think we can say that religion has a greater potential to be damaging when it is so intertwined with the politics and cultural identity of a society that it is impossible to separate the two. Still, trying to eliminate religious influence would be acting on mere potential threat and not truly substantiated facts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, no. Religion when allowed to walk hand in hand with politics is dangerous.</p>
<p>Otherwise, it can be pretty benign.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or soi-disant righties who are actually lefties in disguise carpet bombing Cambodia. Dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.</p>
<p>Liberalism has engendered just as many tragedies when imbued with fanaticism. Radicalism is the real threat, not religion.</p>
<p>Do you really want to go there? 'Cause if we go there just know we won’t make it back - just 'cuz so-and-so told you something doesn’t make it fact.
(I had to insert this, sorry.)</p>
<p>It is oppressive to force people to be religious. It is oppressive to force people to be atheist. State atheism is no better than a state religion. Let people believe what they wish.</p>
<p>Uh oh, ksar vs romani…</p>
<p>I think when you look at “religious” conflicts the key to see what the religion actually teaches. You can’t justify the Inquisition by the Bible. I say that it is the lack of religion that caused these conflicts: If these people really followed what Jesus taught, then these things would not have happened.</p>
<p>cobftw: I agree with your point. Hence I don’t believe that Christians should follow a “Pope” over the Bible. This has gotten me into some arguemtns before…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Didn’t you already discuss morality on another thread, MM?</p>
<p>Honestly, the Crusades = fighting for control of some trade routes - and Jerusalem, despite what some of you may believe, was an important stop on trade routes - under the guise of religious battle. Details may complicate things slightly, but that’s the basic outline.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The English monarch has been the head of the CofE for centuries. Being Defender of the Faith didn’t stop Queen Victoria from becoming Empress of India.</p>
<p>I have no problem with what religion teaches, I have a problem with how it’s used. Just clearing that up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your previous posts seemed to indicate something quite different.</p>
<p>I take it that you would agree with the notion that politics, when combined with religion, is what creates a dangerously toxic situation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nonsense. I have no intention of arguing with anyone.</p>
<p>^And my desire for banter is being satisfied elsewhere.</p>
<p>Don’t instigate, man.</p>
<p>:rolls eyes: *** is with this slew of assents for population control? Quality of life is not controlled by population, because the earth’s food resources are renewable. Improved technology reduces crop rotation requirements and increases food yields. Improved technology also increases the number of people that can comfortably live per square kilometer. </p>
<p>Malthus’ essay on population was not logically flawed. In the early 1800’s, the rate of population growth was exponential just like it is today. We should all be living in continuous poverty by now, but technology continuously remains unpredictable. </p>
<p>You can’t forecast quality of life based on today’s technology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All the technology in the world does not necessarily indicate that the Earth bears no final carrying capacity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The justification for your statement is incorrect. While quality of life can be correlated with but not directly linked to population, the regenerative ability of the earth’s food resources is not the reason.</p>
<p>How was Jerusalem an important stop for major trade routes? I would agree that other major cities that fell under the Crusades were major trade cities or ports like Damietta and Constantinople, but tell me how Jerusalem was an important stop for MAJOR trade routes. Don’t pull out some random dirt trail you found in the atlas either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Is that so? What makes you think that our food resources are infinitely renewable? IMO common sense dictates otherwise.</p>
<p>^We forecast based on historical data, not your random, conceivable whims.</p>
<p>Our data consistently shows that technology matches our population growth. Of course, no one can guarantee that this sustainable indefinitely. Until shown otherwise, let’s not make brash statements.</p>
<p>^ I am not making brash statements. I am not the one assuming that technology will always be there to bail us out. </p>
<p>As it is, we cannot feed everyone on Earth. Shall we distribute our food more evenly? Many people in Africa and other places cannot grow food because it is physically impossible. How would technology fix this problem? And who will pay for it?</p>
<p>I am genuinely asking.</p>
<p>And yes, we can survive only because food sources are renewable. If food sources weren’t renewable (or if the sun didn’t shine), then we would constantly need to find new land once plots were “used up,” and this would guarantee a population control crisis. Fortunately, with proper rotation, you can cultivate the same land for years. This allows improved technology to affect yields and potentially supply increasing amounts of food indefinitely. (Living conditions are a different matter, but improved engineering addresses this aspect as well). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Infinitely renewable? I don’t think we’re thinking quite that far ahead, considering you already want to take drastic measures like population control today.</p>
<p>It isn’t physically impossible to grow food in the vast majority of Africa (the Sahara excluded). They simply lack proper technology and social stability.</p>
<p>And we must use technology to support our ever growing population. It may not be more than a century before we start colonizing places in space. There’s a lot of space out there, you know?</p>