Alright, case closed. 8 more years of the Democratic Party. Proof, you say? Take a look at this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/05/poll.2012/index.html

So basically, they are reverting to what fools are still lending them an ear: Christian conservatives.

I know Arms was particularly bitter of Palin, and rightly so, so I'll be keen on his opinion as well.

As for the rest of you, I'd like to know your opinions on the consequences of running these people for office, whether said consequences be good or bad.

As for me, I think it's great. Obama may not have all the answers, but he's got some of them, and the issues facing him are serious enough that they'll require more than a term of rule by a single party.

duh. The only way that republicans have a shot is if Obama either extends the war in Iraq to Iran or Syria or he doesnt fix the economy

duh. The only way that republicans have a shot is if Obama either extends the war in Iraq to Iran or Syria or he doesnt fix the economy

The economy is unfixable though, so god knows what will happen.

The economy is unfixable though, so god knows what will happen.

I've seen all the videos, and read most of what there is. The situation is quite dire, but I believe it can be salvaged. I actually hope politicians would do what's right, and say to our faces that the government needs a tax hike instead of bullshitting us behind our backs.

What do you think makes it unfixable?

It will be interesting to see what kind of campaign these religious Republicans will run ands the moral fiber that holds them all together.

I am of the opinion that Republicans can't mount a presidential campaign victory unless they employ the strategies of liars and scum and outright criminals. It worked for Nixon, Reagan, Bush, And his spawn George - the worst president ever.

Even Atwater said he himself was lacking any morals. And these are the people that the Republicans seek in order to win the presidency. Palin seems to fit right in with the liars and the criminals. HaHa

Go watch the brainless supporters that vote republican. Watch them in Church as they try to act like respectable people and believe the lies put out as truth by their God Loving Hypocrites that are the republican Cross Dressers and scum like Giulliani and W. HaHa

Here is the short list Of scum loved by Republican Presidents HaHA

Dwight Chapin

Donald Segretti

G Gordon Libby

Lee Atwater

Karl Rove

And here is more info

Harvey Leroy "Lee" Atwater (February 26, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American Republican political consultant and strategist. Atwater is notorious as the very definition of smashmouth politics, in which every effort is made to destroy the reputations, careers and lives of political opponents.

Atwater was a trusted advisor of U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He was also a political mentor and close personal friend of Karl Rove, another leading Republican political consultant who has also been frequently accused of political dirty tricks. Atwater's skills at attack politics brought him and his candidates success. His opponents characterized him as "the Darth Vader of the Republican party", "the happy hatchet man", and "the guy who went negative for the sheer joy of it."

Atwater's aggressive tactics were evident in 1980, when he was a consultant for Republican candidate Floyd Spence in his campaign for Congress against Democratic nominee Tom Turnipseed. Atwater's tactics in that campaign included push polling in the form of fake surveys by "independent pollsters" to "inform" white suburbanites that Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP. He also sent out last-minute letters from Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) telling voters that Turnipseed would disarm America and turn it over to liberals and Communists. At a press briefing, Atwater planted a "reporter" who rose and said, "We understand Turnipseed has had psychotic treatment." Atwater later told the reporters off the record that Turnipseed "got hooked up to jumper cables" - a reference to electroconvulsive therapy that Turnipseed underwent as a teenager.

"Lee seemed to delight in making fun of a suicidal 16-year-old who was treated for depression with electroshock treatments," Turnipseed recalled. "In fact, my struggle with depression as a student was no secret. I had talked about it in a widely covered news conference as early as 1977, when I was in the South Carolina State Senate. Since then I have often shared with appropriate groups the full story of my recovery to responsible adulthood as a professional, political and civic leader, husband and father. Teenage depression and suicide are major problems in America, and I believe my life offers hope to young people who are suffering with a constant fear of the future." http://www.turnipseed.net/atwaterart.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bob Herbert reported in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times of a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater in which he explains the GOP's Southern Strategy: "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.' " http://select.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/opinion/06herbert.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ed Rollins, who managed Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election campaign, tells several Atwater stories in his 1996 book, "Bare Knuckles And Back Rooms." According to Rollins, Atwater ran a dirty tricks operation in 1984 against Vice-Presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. This included the accurate allegation that Ferraro's parents had been indicted - but never convicted (this fact, of course, went unmentioned)- of numbers running in the 1940s. Ferraro disappeared for a few days to 'recover' from the accusation. Rollins also described Atwater as 'ruthless', 'Ollie North in civilian clothes,' and one who 'just had to drive in one more stake.'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Atwater's most noted campaign was the 1988 presidential election. A particularly aggressive media misinformation program, including a television advertisement related to the case of Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who subsequently committed a rape while on a furlough from a life sentence in a Massachusetts prison, led to George H. W. Bush overcoming Michael Dukakis's 17% lead in early public opinion polls and win both the electoral and popular vote. Although Atwater clearly approved of the use of the Willie Horton issue, the Bush campaign never actually ran a commercial with Horton's picture. The infamous commercial was by an ostensibly independent group managed by Floyd Brown.

During the election, a number of false rumors were reported in the media about Dukakis, including the claim by Idaho Republican Senator Steve Symms that Dukakis's wife Kitty had burned an American flag to protest the Vietnam War, as well as the claim that Dukakis himself had been treated for a mental illness. Atwater is frequently accused of having initiated these rumors, although there is no direct proof that he did so.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

During that election, future president George W. Bush, the then vice president's son, took an office across the hall from Atwater's office, where his job was to serve as "the eyes and ears for my dad," monitoring the activities of Atwater and other campaign staff. In her memoir, Barbara Bush said that George W. and Atwater became "great friends."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

After the election, Atwater was named chairman of the Republican National Committee. This appointment was controversial, but Atwater's time as chairman was short, for in 1990, he was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor.

Related Topics:
Republican National Committee - 1990 - Brain tumor

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Shortly before his death he said he had converted to Catholicism and, in an act of repentance, issued a number of public and written apologies to individuals he had attacked during his political career, including Dukakis. In a letter to Tom Turnipseed dated June 28, 1990, he stated, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so called 'jumper cable' episode," adding, "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything." http://www.turnipseed.net/atwaterart.htm

Related Topics:
Catholicism - Repentance

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In a February 1991 article for Life Magazine, Atwater wrote:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

:My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The '80s were about acquiring -- acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn't I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn't I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don't know who will lead us through the '90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/lee-atwater/

^ Spot on :D

I have a particular disdain for religion.

I think it is great that they elected a fellow uber Christian (Bush) into office, and he turned out to be the worst president in, at least, the past hundred years. It is my hope that more people realize how much the judgement of person who believes in evil fruit, talking snakes, zombies, and magic water, is worth.

I am not talking about all you non-practicing christians who claim to be christians just b/c you were raised that way. No, I am talking about the Palins, Bush's, Falwells, and Robertson's of the world. The fucks who relate EVERYTHING back to their primitive fantastical beliefs.

Now we have a more progressive leader in office and I myself am going to look forward to some medicine made from human fetus that will prevent me from drooling and shitting on myself in the later stages of alzheimer's.

Thanks Satan.

I have a particular disdain for religion.

I think it is great that they elected a fellow uber Christian (Bush) into office, and he turned out to be the worst president in, at least, the past hundred years. It is my hope that more people realize how much the judgement of person who believes in evil fruit, talking snakes, zombies, and magic water, is worth.

I am not talking about all you non-practicing christians who claim to be christians just b/c you were raised that way. No, I am talking about the Palins, Bush's, Falwells, and Robertson's of the world. The fucks who relate EVERYTHING back to their primitive fantastical beliefs.

Now we have a more progressive leader in office and I myself am going to look forward to some medicine made from human fetus that will prevent me from drooling and shitting on myself in the later stages of alzheimer's.

Thanks Satan.

How much you wanna bet that Palin has this shit on her mantle?:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/431306643_528c65a6b3.jpg

The most dangerous aspect of having people like this in politics is that they will always attempt to get their fabrications into the mainstream, like the whole Kansas School Board/Creationist debate. It's absurd.

I've seen all the videos, and read most of what there is. The situation is quite dire, but I believe it can be salvaged. I actually hope politicians would do what's right, and say to our faces that the government needs a tax hike instead of bullshitting us behind our backs.

What do you think makes it unfixable?

Net present value of 50 odd trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.
Overvalued currency that must inevitably suffer a severe correction. - a large fall in the US dollar, particularly if it was dumped by OPEC, would make things very very difficult.
Very high levels of consumer debt - much of which will probably end up defaulting as people lose their jobs, suffer pay cuts, and suffer from a rise in the cost of living which will occur when the dollar suffers its correction.

A tax hike could very well reduce tax revenue if it pushes the economy deeper into recession - this is the problem.
A tax hike 10 years ago and maybe things would be rosy.
Now however it's too late, substantive attempts to increase tax revenue now would probably cause more problems.
I guess large taxes on the wealthy might work a little bit but there's no way they could do enough to fund future liabilities, which aren't even the whole problem.

Net present value of 50 odd trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.
Overvalued currency that must inevitably suffer a severe correction. - a large fall in the US dollar, particularly if it was dumped by OPEC, would make things very very difficult.
Very high levels of consumer debt - much of which will probably end up defaulting as people lose their jobs, suffer pay cuts, and suffer from a rise in the cost of living which will occur when the dollar suffers its correction.

A tax hike could very well reduce tax revenue if it pushes the economy deeper into recession - this is the problem.
A tax hike 10 years ago and maybe things would be rosy.
Now however it's too late, substantive attempts to increase tax revenue now would probably cause more problems.
I guess large taxes on the wealthy might work a little bit but there's no way they could do enough to fund future liabilities, which aren't even the whole problem.

Reaganomics - shown to be the scam it is.


The most urgent matter for Treasury to address is the toxic derivatives market. The notional amount of outstanding derivatives, as noted by the Bank of International settlements, comes close to $512 trillion. This represents a figure that is impossible to settle and is the real Armageddon which Banks are preparing for by hoarding the cash that they have received through the T.A.R.P..Unless this time bomb is defused by bringing the undeclared positions on the table, the duration and gravity of this crisis can only increase. As the underlying assets of these instruments crumble the Banks' exposure to counterparty risk increases and will lead to the inevitable collapse of even more banks and reduce the availability of investment credit even more. The underlying assets include interest rates, mortgages, foreign exchange rates, credit ratings on companies and even creditworthiness of entire countries. This is the level of insanity that has passed for "Leveraged Investment"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20081206&articleId=11309

There's no future for the Republican Party, I think the rational individuals should just leave the party and form something new, going back to the roots of true American Conservatism.

They should just stress the notions of individual rights and self-reliance, which is what the Republicans should be all about, they should just drop all this religious nonsense and just stick to the principles of small government, low taxation, non-interventionism and civil liberties.

Well, right now, the Republican party is defraying at its seams.

On one side, you've got the hard-liners: Christian Conservatives, Ann Coulter, and Fred Phelps.

And on the other, you've got the moderates like McCain, who's truly one of the few respectable Republicans, or at least was one, Robert Gates, and other average people who have a more conservative social stance.

And there are various subgroups like the Libertarians and others. The party is done. They've lost their sense of leadership (not like they had one before), and they can't cater to all the different ideologies within the party.

By choosing people like Palin and Huckabee, they are alienating half of their voters. Who knows, the Libertarians might carry a few states in 2012

Reaganomics - shown to be the scam it is.

What on earth do derivatives markets have to do with Reaganomics?

Credit default swaps probably should be regulated though.

When they first came out they were mostly being used properly - to hedge against defaults. Now to a great extent they're being used to speculate to a ridiculous degree and in stupid ways.
(WTF is the point of taking out a CDS on US treasury bonds for instance? chances are if the US ever defaulted on treasuries the company who sold you the swap wouldn't to survive the turmoil itself!)

It would not be difficult to create a broad regulatory framework for these contracts and simply require those taking out credit default swaps to have an underlying position in the relevant asset.
So ideally if you want to hedge against default on some asset, you actually have to own the asset. Shocking.

I have a particular disdain for religion.

I think it is great that they elected a fellow uber Christian (Bush) into office, and he turned out to be the worst president in, at least, the past hundred years. It is my hope that more people realize how much the judgement of person who believes in evil fruit, talking snakes, zombies, and magic water, is worth.

I am not talking about all you non-practicing christians who claim to be christians just b/c you were raised that way. No, I am talking about the Palins, Bush's, Falwells, and Robertson's of the world. The fucks who relate EVERYTHING back to their primitive fantastical beliefs.

Now we have a more progressive leader in office and I myself am going to look forward to some medicine made from human fetus that will prevent me from drooling and shitting on myself in the later stages of alzheimer's.

Thanks Satan.

I know you think that the Bible is full of bs that didn't really happen (and I'd tend to agree that most of the stuff in the Bible didn't really happen) but don't you think that most mainstream religions, Christianity in particular, can help to instill people with good moral values?

And I'd be willing to take a shot in the dark and say that you probably thought JFK was a decent president, but he was a practicing catholic. Most of our presidents (especially the first few) were very religious, but you can't think that all of them were bad.

I know you think that the Bible is full of bs that didn't really happen (and I'd tend to agree that most of the stuff in the Bible didn't really happen) but don't you think that most mainstream religions, Christianity in particular, can help to instill people with good moral values?

And I'd be willing to take a shot in the dark and say that you probably thought JFK was a decent president, but he was a practicing catholic. Most of our presidents (especially the first few) were very religious, but you can't think that all of them were bad.

Well, religion isn't inherently wrong, it's just that one doesn't need ethological convictions to carry on your life.

And for the record, many politicians say they are religious just because it appeals to voters. You don't see many, or barely any, atheists and agnostics in politics just because most voters don't connect with that view, even though they comprise a 16% of the population.

And many of the first presidents were in fact among the few to be agnostics or atheists, like Thomas Jefferson. That was, of course, due to the fact that in then society, during the Enlightenment, atheism was acceptable.

Well, religion isn't inherently wrong, it's just that one doesn't need ethological convictions to carry on your life.

And for the record, many politicians say they are religious just because it appeals to voters. You don't see many, or barely any, atheists and agnostics in politics just because most voters don't connect with that view, even though they comprise a 16% of the population.
.

This is because most of society recognizes that religion instills people with good values. So they assume that when they elect a Christian president, that the person they elected holds values and ethics that they identify with and would want in a president. It has nothing to do with whether they believe in God or not, just that religion is an extremely positive force in this world, and most people recognize that.

This is because most of society recognizes that religion instills people with good values. So they assume that when they elect a Christian president, that the person they elected holds values and ethics that they identify with and would want in a president. It has nothing to do with whether they believe in God or not, just that religion is an extremely positive force in this world, and most people recognize that.

Oh, don't come up saying this bullshit. You've got morally respectable atheists, and you're got rapists in the clergy. Both disprove your argument.

As for religious politicians doing a "good" job, one need not look further than Bush.

/your argument.

Oh, don't come up saying this bullshit. You've got morally respectable atheists, and you're got rapists in the clergy. Both disprove your argument.

As for religious politicians doing a "good" job, one need not look further than Bush.

/your argument.

This is of course true, but do you really think that religion is a negative force in this world? Religion (when not taken to extremes) has driven countless numbers of people to do good things and to be good people. Of course there are going to be bad Christians and good atheists, but religion is still a very positive thing in this world. And it's funny that I'm making this argument since I'm agnostic myself, but I'm not blind to the fact that even though it's a little crazy to believe what happened in the Bible, religious fanatics who believe it are still going to be better people because of their desire to be more like Jesus and to do God's will in the world.

Once the Vietnam generation is gone, the way the Republicans try to sell themselves will cause their own demise. Not yet however. We still have the voting population consisting of those who did not go to Vietnam and make up for it by voting in the most nationalistic war mongers in the Republican Party and those who were raised by the first. But once you get passed that generation, you have the generation of technology all the way to our and the next generation. This population is becoming less religious, less primitive, more logical, and more scientific. Unless Republicans can do something to severely damage public education or go back to being libertarians, there is really no hope for them.

Actually, if Obama does something wildly unpopular and far right wing in his attempt to show he is reaching across the isle, the Republicans can exploit the situation and become like Democrats.

This population is becoming less religious, less primitive, more logical, and more scientific. Unless Republicans can do something to severely damage public education or go back to being libertarians, there is really no hope for them.

I disagree. This generation is far, far worse.
For this generation, after growing up in the 90s, life is one continuous party. Buy buy buy, borrow borrow borrow, and buy buy buy some more.

Yes there are many smart young people on the internet but to get an idea of how 'average' young people are, go and look at the comments on youtube videos.

I disagree. This generation is far, far worse.
For this generation, after growing up in the 90s, life is one continuous party. Buy buy buy, borrow borrow borrow, and buy buy buy some more.

Yes there are many smart young people on the internet but to get an idea of how 'average' young people are, go and look at the comments on youtube videos.

Yes its true that people generally act ignorant. But they know bullshit when they smell it. Would all of these people really be having not only sex but children out of wedlock, drug habits, and find entertainment in general disruptiveness of society if they believed in religious doctrine? Hell no. They know that God isn't talking to them, just some old guy behind a church alter.

Where the last generation will say, "I don't know how to use a computer and thats hows I likes it!"; this generation will say, "I don't know anything about that, but I do know how to use Google to find out." Sure we are in the generation of I need this and that. At least it isn't the generation of lets keep everything the way it is no matter how wrong or tedious. Hopefully consuming so much will either force this generation to get off its ass to collect enough wealth to keep consuming or the weak will just spend themselves into starvation. The economy progresses with either scenario.

This is of course true, but do you really think that religion is a negative force in this world? Religion (when not taken to extremes) has driven countless numbers of people to do good things and to be good people. Of course there are going to be bad Christians and good atheists, but religion is still a very positive thing in this world. And it's funny that I'm making this argument since I'm agnostic myself, but I'm not blind to the fact that even though it's a little crazy to believe what happened in the Bible, religious fanatics who believe it are still going to be better people because of their desire to be more like Jesus and to do God's will in the world.

Honestly, I have no further interest in pointing out the various large gaps of reason in your logic.
The Crusades have left relations between in the middle east for a thousand years, and Muslim extremism today is the child of those bad relations.

Not to mention the Inquisition, the Witch Burnings, antisemitism, and other terrible things spurred by religion.

This is not to say that all religion is bad, only that having strong convictions to such philosophy, in fact any philosophy, is dangerous.

Honestly, I have no further interest in pointing out the various large gaps of reason in your logic.
The Crusades have left relations between in the middle east for a thousand years, and Muslim extremism today is the child of those bad relations.

Not to mention the Inquisition, the Witch Burnings, antisemitism, and other terrible things spurred by religion.

This is not to say that all religion is bad, only that having strong convictions to such philosophy, in fact any philosophy, is dangerous.

Uh. I agree in general, but the crusades were a reaction to Islamic expansion.

Honestly, I have no further interest in pointing out the various large gaps of reason in your logic.
The Crusades have left relations between in the middle east for a thousand years, and Muslim extremism today is the child of those bad relations.

Not to mention the Inquisition, the Witch Burnings, antisemitism, and other terrible things spurred by religion.


I said in my first post that i was referring to religion when not taken to extremes. 99% of people are not religious extremists. I just think that on a daily basis good is done in the name of religion. It may be as small as someone being nice to others in the street, or giving a little money to the salvation army when they pass by them. But on a whole, the benefits of religion outweigh the negatives.

I said in my first post that i was referring to religion when not taken to extremes. 99% of people are not religious extremists. I just think that on a daily basis good is done in the name of religion. It may be as small as someone being nice to others in the street, or giving a little money to the salvation army when they pass by them. But on a whole, the benefits of religion outweigh the negatives.

Christians, as a whole, are definitely close minded people. You deny homosexuals their rights, you impose your beliefs in the public schools, and you manipulate politics.

Those acts of kindness you describe are just as easily perpetrated by an Atheist. You don't have to worship an invisible object to commit kindness; we aren't amoral scum, we just don't sing along to hymns or pay heed to an imaginary friend.

But please, stop. You're sort of going off in a tangent here. The point of this thread is to discuss the role of religion in politics, not debate the benefits of religion.

Well, right now, the Republican party is defraying at its seams.

On one side, you've got the hard-liners: Christian Conservatives, Ann Coulter, and Fred Phelps.

And on the other, you've got the moderates like McCain, who's truly one of the few respectable Republicans, or at least was one, Robert Gates, and other average people who have a more conservative social stance.

And there are various subgroups like the Libertarians and others. The party is done. They've lost their sense of leadership (not like they had one before), and they can't cater to all the different ideologies within the party.

By choosing people like Palin and Huckabee, they are alienating half of their voters. Who knows, the Libertarians might carry a few states in 2012

The GOP is trying to tie together many different groups who believe a wide variety of things. The only common bond they seem to be able to tie them all together with is a whipped frenzy of hate against the Democrats. It really is coming apart at the seems because their brass foolishly believes they lost because they weren't evangelical enough. I really hope this is the end of the GOP as we know it. The evangelicals will splinter off, will win no federal positions, and will fester away. The rest of America will be better off without their fascist beliefs.

The problem is that the Democrats don't seem to have the same problems with identity. If the GOP does fracture, the derivative factions will likely not have enough power to win the next election.

don't you think that most mainstream religions, Christianity in particular, can help to instill people with good moral values?

What are good moral values? And what makes them good? Christian values (the ones Jesus taught), at the very core, I believe are what the vast majority of all people, regardless of their religion or social stance, will agree to be good values to hold, and would be necessary for society to function. The problem is that many Christians today mix Jewish lore into their faith which is inarguably fascist when combined with government, and I refuse to believe that those are universally good values to want to keep.

(Yes, I consider myself to be a practicing Christian. When it comes to pluralistic government, I err on the side of what is good for everyone, instead of my faith. This is why I will not be involved in politics. Christianity is anarchistic anyway.)

Christians, as a whole, are definitely close minded people. You deny homosexuals their rights, you impose your beliefs in the public schools, and you manipulate politics.

Those acts of kindness you describe are just as easily perpetrated by an Atheist. You don't have to worship an invisible object to commit kindness; we aren't amoral scum, we just don't sing along to hymns or pay heed to an imaginary friend.

But please, stop. You're sort of going off in a tangent here. The point of this thread is to discuss the role of religion in politics, not debate the benefits of religion.

I'm not even christian as I stated before, but I strongly disagree with your view on religion. I just don't see how you can consider it a bad thing when the basic concept of it is that God would want us to be good people. Every Sunday millions of people go to church and are told that they should be good and try to follow the example of Jesus. I don't understand your disdain for religion, and I'm agnostic.

What are good moral values? And what makes them good? Christian values (the ones Jesus taught), at the very core, I believe are what the vast majority of all people, regardless of their religion or social stance, will agree to be good values to hold, and would be necessary for society to function.


I certainly agree that the values that Jesus taught would be agreed upon by society as good no matter what religion people were, or even if there was no religion to have ever existed at all. However I believe religion can HELP to further instill these values into people, and help them to truly live their lives by them. I think that the threat of hell certainly helps to do that, but much more that the religious people I come into contact with truly want to live their lives as Jesus would have. And I believe that if more people were to try to live their lives as Jesus did, the world would be a better place because of it.

But before I get all these examples of how atheists can be good people and Christians can be bad people, please closely examine my choice of words. I said religion can HELP. Not that if you go to church, you are automatically good, and if you don't you are automatically bad (I don't go to church, and I'd consider myself a pretty good person.) But I believe that religion has undoubtedly been a very strong force for good in the past centuries.

I'm not even christian as I stated before, but I strongly disagree with your view on religion. I just don't see how you can consider it a bad thing when the basic concept of it is that God would want us to be good people. Every Sunday millions of people go to church and are told that they should be good and try to follow the example of Jesus. I don't understand your disdain for religion, and I'm agnostic.

Every Sunday, millions of people are blindly told what to think, scared with tales of brimstone and fire, and taught to alienate those with a different belief system.

Yeah, it's nice that you're taught to be nice to others, and to be considerate, but it doesn't require you to be Christian.

And even then, those things aren't the problem; the problem is Christians who can get away with winning any sort of an election because voters disregard those who worship differently, and be able to permeate their beliefs in the lives of all citizens.

-EDIT: I get it, you're agnostic...

The GOP is trying to tie together many different groups who believe a wide variety of things. The only common bond they seem to be able to tie them all together with is a whipped frenzy of hate against the Democrats. It really is coming apart at the seems because their brass foolishly believes they lost because they weren't evangelical enough. I really hope this is the end of the GOP as we know it. The evangelicals will splinter off, will win no federal positions, and will fester away. The rest of America will be better off without their fascist beliefs.

The problem is that the Democrats don't seem to have the same problems with identity. If the GOP does fracture, the derivative factions will likely not have enough power to win the next election.

That's what I was talking about. Without a unified opposition, the Democrats may remain unopposed for a couple of years, for better or for worse. If anything, Obama has been inoculation shot the Democrats needed to prevent the same from happening to them; the man has really solidified the party.

G Gordon Libby

Liddy. His name is G. Gordon Liddy. I can understand that Bs and Ds would be easy to mix up if your only exposure is AM talk radio though.

Every Sunday, millions of people are blindly told what to think, scared with tales of brimstone and fire, and taught to alienate those with a different belief system.

Yeah, it's nice that you're taught to be nice to others, and to be considerate, but it doesn't require you to be Christian.

And even then, those things aren't the problem; the problem is Christians who can get away with winning any sort of an election because voters disregard those who worship differently, and be able to permeate their beliefs in the lives of all citizens.

-EDIT: I get it, you're agnostic...

The vast majority of Christians certainly do not blindly accept everything they are told. And the vast majority of ministers spend very little time preaching about taking away the rights of homosexuals. Of course the position of the catholic church is to be opposed to gay marriage (and I feel I should point there is certainly an opposition to gay marriage among non-Christians). But this is an extremely small part of what people are being taught every Sunday in church.

The vast majority of Christians certainly do not blindly accept everything they are told. And the vast majority of ministers spend very little time preaching about taking away the rights of homosexuals. Of course the position of the catholic church is to be opposed to gay marriage (and I feel I should point there is certainly an opposition to gay marriage among non-Christians). But this is an extremely small part of what people are being taught every Sunday in church.

Oh, of course. Goddamn those racist Buddhists... :mad:

The vast majority of Christians certainly do not blindly accept everything they are told. And the vast majority of ministers spend very little time preaching about taking away the rights of homosexuals. Of course the position of the catholic church is to be opposed to gay marriage (and I feel I should point there is certainly an opposition to gay marriage among non-Christians). But this is an extremely small part of what people are being taught every Sunday in church.

Bullcrap. It's systematic. It's true, I believe, that the average church service devotes little to no time talking about taking away the rights of gays, but many of them believe they are sinful, wicked creatures who should just GTFO of America, as opposed to wicked, sinful people who need salvation. It's systematic in mainstream American Christianity to be devisive against the "liberals", tyhose of which believe the government should have no say in the medial files of a woman and in the private lives of gays.

I know, because I am a Christian. The majority of my brothers and sisters and ignorant people who like to take their pastor's word with the same gravity as God's. This is a major reason I don't like going to my church. I don't like how they can possibly support a Christian theocratic government. There is absolutely nothing that Christ said that supports such a thing. The fascism that they exude only serves to divide people further. That is to say, it hurts Christianity as a whole. Do you honestly believe you can reach out to gays with one hand and push them away with the other?

(For the record, I don't agree the homosexuality is a proper lifestyle according to my religion, but I'll be damned if I am going to vote for a government that is going to push it's nose in people's business to the point where they can't at least live a happy life that everyone else can.)

Bullcrap. It's systematic. It's true, I believe, that the average church service devotes little to no time talking about taking away the rights of gays, but many of them believe they are sinful, wicked creatures who should just GTFO of America, as opposed to wicked, sinful people who need salvation. It's systematic in mainstream American Christianity to be devisive against the "liberals", tyhose of which believe the government should have no say in the medial files of a woman and in the private lives of gays.

I know, because I am a Christian. The majority of my brothers and sisters and ignorant people who like to take their pastor's word with the same gravity as God's. This is a major reason I don't like going to my church. I don't like how they can possibly support a Christian theocratic government. There is absolutely nothing that Christ said that supports such a thing. The fascism that they exude only serves to divide people further. That is to say, it hurts Christianity as a whole. Do you honestly believe you can reach out to gays with one hand and push them away with the other?

(For the record, I don't agree the homosexuality is a proper lifestyle according to my religion, but I'll be damned if I am going to vote for a government that is going to push it's nose in people's business to the point where they can't at least live a happy life that everyone else can.)

Kudos to you, Argon. Really, thanks for being independent of thought, and not just some Jesus fan-girl who can't recite a verse for shit and'll take her pastor's word as infallibility.

Forgive the cliché, but Keep on Truckin', honest :p