A gentleman publicly discusses neither religion nor politics, for it is incredibly rude to do so.

>>904
Quite.

>>904

Indeed. Gentlemen are above engaging in such petty squabbles.

Except in the case that one of your family members is attempting, and badly, to start a radical nationalist party a la Roderick Spode. Then it is absolutely appropriate to have a sincere laugh at his expense.

>>904
I am in complete agreement with you, good sir. However, I feel that, in the proper environ, a civilized political conversation, among gentleman, can be an opportunity to engage in debate with the distilled perfection of society: gentlemen.

Politics can be acceptable, but religion is not. Religion is for those who lack resolve and intelligence. Only the hoi poloi allow themselves to be convinced by such nonsense.

For those who are in a hurry, or who lack the patience to read our comments ("tl;dr" is what the peasants on the other boards say.): True gentlemen never discuss politics or religion in the presence of surfs or women. Politics can be discussed in the appropriate situation so long as other gentlemen are the only other partakers in the conversation. Religion is not something that gentlemen engage in.

>>917
I would agree, with one caveat. A gentleman will never allow a political conversation to provoke him beyond a mildly raised voice, or reasonably emphatic speaking tone that befits a gentlemanly demeanor. Demonstrative shouting oratory is for blustering fools.

One's religious beliefs are like one's genitalia. One should never expose them save in specific intimate circumstances.

>>927
Where does that picture come from? Did they act out L.A. Noire in film? My, that would be something.

I am a confident gentleman, and I am sure of myself in my correctness. I disclose my religion often, and can refute any objections to it well. If someone disagrees with me, they can either shut their mouths, or comment, from there either speaking politely, to which I will respond calmly without becoming upset or upsetting my conversational partner, and if they do not, or they become upset for some unjustified reason, then I will enjoy arguing with them continually, because they are then clearly stupid. If they act in a way that is disagreeable, I no longer care that I am disagreeable to -them-.

>>942

You say that you gain enjoyment from arguing with idiots. Uneven jousting with one's inferiors is hardly a gentlemanly sport, sir.

>>917
I feel like I must correct you sir, a gentleman may partake in religion if he feels like it, however he most definitely is not a fervent zealot. Only men and women who lack the mental stability and solid character of a gentleman/-lady may succumb to zealotry.
I do agree though that religion does not have place in a proper discussion.

A gentleman is tolerant and respectful of others even if they are irritating, mild but firm in manner and custom, always helpful if needed.
Confuse him not with an upper class snob who scoffs at those below his social status.

>>935
It's Kenny Cosgrove, a character on AMC's Mad Men. He is played by the same actor who portrayed Cole Phelps in LA Noire.

I must admit, though it is rather rude to talk about religion and politics in punlic, I am interested to know, who here is Asatruar?

>>1285
I consider myself a non-believing one, in much the same way that many christians(in my country at least) are non-believers; I'm well read on the mythology and stories but don't take them literally. Rather they are a source of inspiration and ideals.

For the sake of discussion, let us waive our belief of inhibiting discussing our core belief structures within a forum base.

Politics?
>Imperialism.
Some may say that this is a joke, a mockery to freedom however I do not see it as so.
The petty squabble has been seen to not be able to rule their lives on their own accord. Stricter control will be strengthened order with as little corruption as possible.

And as for religion; I am an Arceist. Something I will openly admit to be based around that childish cartoon which is Pokemon. I have my reasons as it ties with my original (dis)belief as a once Atheist.

>>904 has it right

Though, since I'm being poised

I am a man of science and truth who hold that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I am a social conservative, and a libertarian economically.

>>1298

I assure you, I personally would not think less of you for favoring imperialism. History gives us nigh 250 years to see the results of modern representative democracy, and based on these results I cannot say that it is definitively more beneficial than imperialist forms of government.

>>1345

Though I must point out that imperialism is not magically free of corruption. Historically, there has been as much corruption in imperialist governments as in any other. You are naive, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I live in University Park by Dallas and everyone's republican and everyone knows it. Always seems to work out.

Aethism is the gentleman's religion, of course. It is more intelligent and "evolved" than religion.

>>1345

It could be said that the last few centuries of representative democracy could be construed less favorably than imperialism。 However， consider the auspices of private enterprise moving forward without direct appeal from imperial decree thereby alleviating the governing block for more... Shall we say, subtle matters.

Much like politics, religions prey on people's fears, and often promote their theology based on the specific fear of going to hell, or suffering some other form of eternal torment. Religion, at a fundamental level, should be based out of love, not fear. On top of this, if you challenge their perspective, claiming that, as a human being, you cannot believe that a God would create seven billion humans, only to have several billion of them go to hell, they immediately consider you rebellious and sacrilegious. This, I believe, is the primary issue affecting most religious institutions today.

In the words of the late Bill Hicks, "Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love."

The modern gentleman remains secular and does not partake in religion, organized or otherwise, but much prefers philosophy.
Valid philosophical views pertaining to the existence of a high power include, and are limited to: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Deism.
I, personally, side with the Deists.

>>1473
>Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love

I am wondering what the original context of this statement was. To my mind it is a clever play on all of those alarmist statements that if you don't believe x, y will happen. In this case they are saying for all of you who have ever said that to the exclusion of another group are excluding a piece of God's love in essence.
However, I also realize I could be reading way too much into it and it was just some fundamentalist meaning "God's infinite love" to be "my interpretation of religion".
I would like to hope that it is the former.

As to the topic of the thread. I do not honestly know how I feel about religion. Up until quite recently I was an adamant Atheist, but my views have changed quite drastically on the subject. I don't think I will ever believe in a literal ultimate cosmic entity, and certainly not in a anthropomorphic interpretation thereof, but at the same time I see faith in said anthropomorphic god as a useful spiritual tool. To justify the discrepancy between being a non-believer and yet having faith, I justify it to myself by comparing it to fictional literature. Whenever we pick up a great work of fiction (or a horrible one for that matter) realistically speaking we know the words inside entail something that does not exist nor ever will, but on some level you have to suspend disbelief and make it feel real, otherwise the book would do nothing for you. This suspension of disbelief then allows for the story to carry your consciousness to a different plane where it can be receptive to the themes and symbols of the story in which you are "believing".
I see faith in the same way. Sometimes it is okay to "play make pretend" in the service of deeper introspection on the self and the universe. Just don't force everyone else to acknowledge the legitimacy of your imaginary friend. Even most primary schoolers know not to do that.

>>1807
Also, I am wondering what this makes me now? Certainly not an atheist, but trying to call myself an agnostic or deist doesn't feel right either. What say you?

A gentleman may indulge himself in a religion quietly, in private, if he so chooses. However, flaunting it about is terribly unseemly.

>>1473
>>1807

This is why I am particularly fond of the Discordian statement that Hell is reserved solely for those who believe in it, and the deepest rung in Hell is reserved for those who believe in it solely on the supposition that they will go there if they don't believe.

I find it interesting that no-one has mentioned any religions or beliefs of the East. Are the religions Hinduism and Buddhism and other Indian/Oriental religions not gentlemanly?
One may say that such religions help maintain a gentleman's composure, not only physically but also mentally.

>>1823
Not at all, my good man. It is merely a geographical cause. The users of this forum, being located mostly in the Western world, are most likely to be practitioners of Western religions.

It is not, therefore, indicative of the general opinion of we gents of the seven leaves regarding Eastern religions, it merely indicates our general sphere of residence.