NationStates Jolt Archive

I was talking to my friend about the PA primary today and why she didn't like Obama.

Her reason for hating him?

"He may not be Muslim, but he was raised Muslim."

Yes, that justifies it. Yes. Absolutely.

So have you had any "smart", "logical" political discussions lately? Mind sharing? Anecdotes? Rants?

It's convenient doublethink that lets these fruitcakes denounce Obama on the Ebil Moslem angle yet at the same time criticize him for being associated with Jeremiah Wright, an Christian pastor.

Some people say that if Obama doesn't win the primaries then the blacks won't vote, well think how us women will feel if Hillary doesn't win. -- the principal of the elementary school down the street.

seriously?

Can we not vote for people based on gender, race, or size of shoes? please!

I was talking to my friend about the PA primary today and why she didn't like Obama.

Her reason for hating him?

"He may not be Muslim, but he was raised Muslim."

Yes, that justifies it. Yes. Absolutely.

So have you had any "smart", "logical" political discussions lately? Mind sharing? Anecdotes? Rants?

(a) He was?

(b) Would it matter?

LOL

I did have someone tell me that she was voting for Ron Paul because he's the only candidate to speak out against the North American Union. Also, he's not in the Council on Foreign Relations, which is apparently the politician's form of the Illuminati and they have complete control over the media. Or something.

That's like a lifelong ad hominem. Juicy.

er...

Tattooist: (on the EHIC) bloody eurocrats ruining everything for us!

I had no idea one could show such pride towards the custom of holiday insurance :confused:

my sister is hesistant to support obama because she thinks he'll be assassinated.

my sister is hesistant to support obama because she thinks he'll be assassinated.

I didn't know people hated Hillary that much (though google image would rather have me viewing other things... (http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=Hillary&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi))

Wow. Someone on NSG actually believes the "Obama iz teh ebil moslem" bunk and it wasn't one of the Usual Suspects.

Hopefully your friend wont vote at all, she hardly seems qualified.

Wow. Someone on NSG actually believes the "Obama iz teh ebil moslem" bunk and it wasn't one of the Usual Suspects.

He was being sarcastic.

Wow. Someone on NSG actually believes the "Obama iz teh ebil moslem" bunk and it wasn't one of the Usual Suspects.

I just wanted to be special :(

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00748/Obama_Osama_Church__748236x.jpg
Byrd said that the message wasn't meant to be racial or political.

"It's simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ," he said.

When asked if he believes that Barack Obama is Muslim, Byrd said, "I don't know. See it asks a question: Are they brothers? In other words, is he Muslim ? I don't know. He says he's not. I hope he's not. But I don't know. And it's just something to try to stir people's minds. It was never intended to hurt feelings or to offend anybody."

Obama has said repeatedly during his campaign that he is a Christian and attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Despite some criticism, Byrd says that the message will stay on the sign. He took the issue before his congregation Sunday night, and they decided unanimously to keep it.
Link (http://www.wyff4.com/news/15948849/detail.html)

Morons, the lot of them...

Wow. Someone on NSG actually believes the "Obama iz teh ebil moslem" bunk and it wasn't one of the Usual Suspects.

Who?

they misspelled "hmm"

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00748/Obama_Osama_Church__748236x.jpg

Link (http://www.wyff4.com/news/15948849/detail.html)

Morons, the lot of them...

And that's why an Atheist should get elected soon.

Who?

Click on the poll result number.

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00748/Obama_Osama_Church__748236x.jpg

Link (http://www.wyff4.com/news/15948849/detail.html)

Morons, the lot of them...

"If he's not a christian, he might be like Osama! That's something to think about! Even if he's a christian!"

What?

And that's why an Atheist should get elected soon.

:headbang:

Smart, logical discussions? With HUMANS? Sorry sir, you seem to be overestimating the human race. AND I'M ONE OF THEM! *Maniacle laughter*

Okay, on a more serious note, my mother doesn't want to vote for Hillary because she thinks the rest of the world will mock us for having a women president. Of course, much of the world has had female prime ministers and female monarchs before us, but she dosen't seem to see that.

That being said, I still hate Hillary.

Click on the poll result number.

Oh, yeah. Public poll. Sorry :)

:headbang:

What? To show that religious belief means nothing regarding someone's quality in office, yes! The pastor ACTIVELY QUESTIONS THE NOTION OF ELECTING SOMEONE NON-CHRISTIAN!

Forgive me if I misread your post.

If I understood it correctly, then you're letting a single nutjob characterize all Christians. That's like saying all Democrats are like Hillary. Which they aren't.

Uhm, you did misread it.

What I meant was: An atheist could get elected into office to get THESE people - these few nutcases, who I believe/hope do NOT represent most Christians - to shut up.

Whom would you prefer I vote for, Il Ruffino?

Uhm, you did misread it.

What I meant was: An atheist could get elected into office to get THESE people - these few nutcases, who I believe/hope do NOT represent most Christians - to shut up.
Whoops! Sorry then, and I agree. They should shut up.

What? To show that religious belief means nothing regarding someone's quality in office, yes! The pastor ACTIVELY QUESTIONS THE NOTION OF ELECTING SOMEONE NON-CHRISTIAN!

No. Atheism is not required for people to understand that a candidate's religious believes do not directly affect a candidate's quality.

Who?

Whom.

Whoops! Sorry then, and I agree. They should shut up.

It wouldn't shut them up though. If anything, they'd all unite along with other religious extremists of various other religions against the atheist.

As much as this country has advanced forward, an atheist still has no chance at the Presidency. Not openly, anyway.

:headbang:
*sighs*

Why won't you Christians get it that you're all dogmatic and stupid, as well as basically all being fundie neo-con worshippers?

Whom would you prefer I vote for, Il Ruffino?

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

:p I'll consider him.

*sighs*

Why won't you Christians get it that you're all dogmatic and stupid, as well as basically all being fundie neo-con worshippers?

For the second and hopefully last time, this is not what I said.

:p I'll consider him.
If Clinton wins the democrat nomination, it'll be a 3-candidate race, and Nader would definitely be worth researching, if nothing else. If Obama wins, Nader doesn't have a chance.

That's what I'm reading from the media anyway, up high in my ivory tower.

For the second and hopefully last time, this is not what I said.
I'm sorry, but what's the reason why you should pick Atheism, or Islam, or any other religion over Christianity? Atheism is as much a religion as the others.

A better reason would be: He has some of that Black blood in him.

I'm sorry, but what's the reason why you should pick Atheism, or Islam, or any other religion over Christianity? Atheism is as much a religion as the others.

No, it isn't.

Religion
1a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
_b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
___(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

You totally shouldn't vote for Obama because he won't say the pledge.

*nodnod*

A better reason would be: He has some of that Black blood in him.

hmmm he does look a little dark....

hmmm he does look a little dark....

Sinister, I know.

Can you imagine if he isn't getting enough oxygen into his bloodstream? What kind of President would he be if he can't even control his involuntary bodily functions?!

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Atheism is this.

There is no real proof that there is no God, just as there is no real proof that there is a God. It's a faith. As an Atheist, I am not particularly offended to say this. No reason to get defensive about having your own religion views, after all.

Candidates compete for that vital Idgit vote (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_candidates_compete)

To respond to the OP, I think the friend does have a very small point. Whether that point warrants not voting for Obama or not is another question.

If someone is raised Muslim, it will undoubtedly create a comfortable environment for certain ideas to grow. That is as far as your friend's point goes. Islam is as diverse today as Christianity is, so what those ideas are can be debated. And whether those ideas ever took hold can be debated. As can whether those ideas are still present if they truly did take hold.

To be completely honset, I would have some difficulty voting for a Muslim candidate. But, I would have no more difficulty voting for a Muslim than for an atheist, a Catholic, a Mormon, an agnostic, an Orthodox Christian, a Hindu or anyone alse outside evangelical Christianity. Can they make good presidents? Of course, but I have to think long and hard about whether I think their beliefs, whether what they as individuals believe would conflict with what I believe to be moral leadership.

The question about Obama specifically is laughable. The man has so much more against him, why focus on his Muslim upbringing? That is simply fearmongering and is inexcusable.

Atheism is this.

There is no real proof that there is no God, just as there is no real proof that there is a God. It's a faith. As an Atheist, I am not particularly offended to say this. No reason to get defensive about having your own religion views, after all.

There is also no proof that Zeus and the Easter Bunny do not exist. Does that mean someone who denies their existence is practicing a religion of some sort?

There is also no proof that Zeus and the Easter Bunny do not exist. Does that mean someone who denies their existence is practicing a religion of some sort?
... aye, it's called Polytheism for all that Greek pish.

The easter bunny is more a folksy 'tradition' (it's a tradition in the same way that maypole dancing or Mormonism have any kind of cultural background) than anything else, so I don't really know about that in terms of any kind of religious belief, mind.

To respond to the OP, I think the friend does have a very small point. Whether that point warrants not voting for Obama or not is another question.

If someone is raised Muslim, it will undoubtedly create a comfortable environment for certain ideas to grow. That is as far as your friend's point goes. Islam is as diverse today as Christianity is, so what those ideas are can be debated. And whether those ideas ever took hold can be debated. As can whether those ideas are still present if they truly did take hold.

To be completely honset, I would have some difficulty voting for a Muslim candidate. But, I would have no more difficulty voting for a Muslim than for an atheist, a Catholic, a Mormon, an agnostic, an Orthodox Christian, a Hindu or anyone alse outside evangelical Christianity. Can they make good presidents? Of course, but I have to think long and hard about whether I think their beliefs would conflict with what I believe to be moral leadership.

The question about Obama specifically is laughable. The man has so much more against him, why focus on his Muslim upbringing? That is simply fearmongering and is inexcusable.

What Muslim upbringing?

Does a few years in an Indonesian public school really count?

Personally, I don't think it matters what religion a candidate is, so long as they aren't going to try and force it on everyone else. But even if being raised as a Muslim would be a problem, it wouldn't apply here.

If people are really going to get all up-in-arms about Obama's religious upbringing, they should be upset that he wasn't raised in a religion at all. At least then it would be somewhat accurate.

[IMG]
Morons, the lot of them...
I'd love to go by one night and 'fix' the sign.

"SHAME SHAME ROGER"
(There aren't enough letters to make any good curse words on it)

What Muslim upbringing?

Does a few years in an Indonesian public school really count?

Personally, I don't think it matters what religion a candidate is, so long as they aren't going to try and force it on everyone else. But even if being raised as a Muslim would be a problem, it wouldn't apply here.

If people are really going to get all up-in-arms about Obama's religious upbringing, they should be upset that he wasn't raised in a religion at all. At least then it would be somewhat accurate.
*sighs*

He's a dirty Muslim darkie, remember?

they misspelled "hmm"

That's been bothering me, too.

What Muslim upbringing?

Does a few years in an Indonesian public school really count?

Personally, I don't think it matters what religion a candidate is, so long as they aren't going to try and force it on everyone else. But even if being raised as a Muslim would be a problem, it wouldn't apply here.

If people are really going to get all up-in-arms about Obama's religious upbringing, they should be upset that he wasn't raised in a religion at all. At least then it would be somewhat accurate.

I didn't mean to imply that I actually think the accusation is correct. I don't.

I have a problem with people of other religions (or lack there of, if you prefer) being in positions of civil leadership because I find that their beliefs lead them to make decisions that are immoral or unwise. Not that every evangelical Christian is fit to be president and there are many in the evangelical circles who have proven to be very immoral and very unwise.

So, ideally, I would only have competent evangelicals in civil leadership positions, but I realize that that is not going to happen (at least not for a very long while) so I am fine with electing people of other religions, so long as they aren't bin Laden or Hitler or people of their caliber.

That's been bothering me, too.

What bothers me most is when they use superfluous words:
"Learn the truth to be free indeed." -One of the churches in my town.

I have a problem with people of other religions (or lack there of, if you prefer) being in positions of civil leadership because I find that their beliefs lead them to make decisions that are immoral or unwise. Not that every evangelical Christian is fit to be president and there are many in the evangelical circles who have proven to be very immoral and very unwise.

If they're making governmental decisions based on their religion,they're already doing it wrong. It doesn't matter what religion they're a part of.

So, ideally, I would only have competent evangelicals in civil leadership positions, but I realize that that is not going to happen (at least not for a very long while) so I am fine with electing people of other religions, so long as they aren't bin Laden or Hitler or people of their caliber.

Damn that whole freedom of religion thing, eh?

If they're making governmental decisions based on their religion,they're already doing it wrong. It doesn't matter what religion they're a part of.

I don't think it's possible to make any decision without considering your religion. If you don't have to consider it, it must not be very important.

Damn that whole freedom of religion thing, eh?

Why does only electing those whom I believe to be the most moral, or, perhaps more accurately, the most morally inclined, mean that others can't practice religion as they want?

*sighs*

He's a dirty Muslim darkie, remember?
damn... I keep forgetting that. :rolleyes:

It's doing that damned "Wait for your comment to be checked" thing. Sorry.

To respond to the OP, I think the friend does have a very small point. Whether that point warrants not voting for Obama or not is another question.

If someone is raised Muslim, it will undoubtedly create a comfortable environment for certain ideas to grow. That is as far as your friend's point goes. Islam is as diverse today as Christianity is, so what those ideas are can be debated. And whether those ideas ever took hold can be debated. As can whether those ideas are still present if they truly did take hold.

To be completely honset, I would have some difficulty voting for a Muslim candidate. But, I would have no more difficulty voting for a Muslim than for an atheist, a Catholic, a Mormon, an agnostic, an Orthodox Christian, a Hindu or anyone alse outside evangelical Christianity. Can they make good presidents? Of course, but I have to think long and hard about whether I think their beliefs, whether what they as individuals believe would conflict with what I believe to be moral leadership.

The question about Obama specifically is laughable. The man has so much more against him, why focus on his Muslim upbringing? That is simply fearmongering and is inexcusable.

how much weight does claiming to be an evangelical carry with you? are you OK with a man who violates christian precepts as long as he mouths the right words? would you distrust a non-evangelical who has made social justice and other common christian values his life's work?

What? To show that religious belief means nothing regarding someone's quality in office, yes! The pastor ACTIVELY QUESTIONS THE NOTION OF ELECTING SOMEONE NON-CHRISTIAN!
voting for someone solely based on their religion (or lack of) is stupid, just as stupid as voting for them "because they are black" or "because they are a woman" or "because he was a POW"

It's doing that damned "Wait for your comment to be checked" thing. Sorry.

it takes 10 posts for that to go away. ive seen the claim that if you go to the spam forum (check the list on the go menu below) that you can post another 7 as quickly as possible then come back here with the requisite number to avoid the spam filter

how much weight does claiming to be an evangelical carry with you? are you OK with a man who violates christian precepts as long as he mouths the right words? would you distrust a non-evangelical who has made social justice and other common christian values his life's work?

Well, the claim carries weight, obviously. If someone hate Evangelicalism, that's a very big strike against him/her.

But, at the same time, that person's life has to agree with Christian morality. Ted Haggard won't receive my vote any time soon.

And obviously the politics matter a lot, too. I'm very libertarian except on a handful of issues on which I'm very authoritarian. So, if there's an Evangelical whose life is in line with Scriptural commands and who believes "all the right things" but they want to tax my brains out, I'm probably not going to vote for him. I might vote for the man whose beliefs aren't "all in order" instead.

Damn that whole freedom of religion thing, eh?
That IS freedom of religion. Velmaren is as free to choose to vote for, or not vote for, any candidate on any basis including Velmaren's religious preferences as I am or you are or anybody else is to vote on whatever basis we like. I would never vote for an evangelical Christian, for anything; I regard evangelical Christians as my enemies. Given that I have the freedom to vote on my beliefs, how could I deny Velmaren the right to vote oppositely based on his?

Well, the claim carries weight, obviously. If someone hate Evangelicalism, that's a very big strike against him/her.

But, at the same time, that person's life has to agree with Christian morality. Ted Haggard won't receive my vote any time soon.

And obviously the politics matter a lot, too. I'm very libertarian except on a handful of issues on which I'm very authoritarian. So, if there's an Evangelical whose life is in line with Scriptural commands and who believes "all the right things" but they want to tax my brains out, I'm probably not going to vote for him. I might vote for the man whose beliefs aren't "all in order" instead.

interesting.

i find that i cant care too much about the moral beliefs of my politicians--they all disappoint me. im more interested in their political stances and how much i believe they will follow through on them.

I'm sorry, but what's the reason why you should pick Atheism, or Islam, or any other religion over Christianity? Atheism is as much a religion as the others.

Ahh but Atheism is a non prophet faith...where as the others it seems you have to pay to play

Ahh but Atheism is a non prophet faith...where as the others it seems you have to pay to play
... err no.

interesting.

i find that i cant care too much about the moral beliefs of my politicians--they all disappoint me. im more interested in their political stances and how much i believe they will follow through on them.

Well, I've seen (granted, in my very short life) that politicians religious beliefs often dictate their political stances.

That IS freedom of religion.

An "ideal" in which religion is basically enforced upon the masses is not freedom of religion.

Velmaren is as free to choose to vote for, or not vote for, any candidate on any basis including Velmaren's religious preferences as I am or you are or anybody else is to vote on whatever basis we like.

Indeed. But it doesn't change the fact that Velmaren's "ideal" is a lack of religious freedom - one in which only people of a single religious leaning would have any positions of power.

One could certainly choose to vote for someone on the basis of that person wishing to institute racist policies. That person would have just as much of a right to vote - an equal right to vote - as the people they wish to see the government discriminate against. But it wouldn't change the fact that their politics would be opposed to equal treatment under the law.

Well, I've seen (granted, in my very short life) that politicians religious beliefs often dictate their political stances.

and ive seen that a politicians political stances often dictate their claimed religious beliefs.

paying too much attention to politics for too many years makes you cynical.

im old.

If they're making governmental decisions based on their religion,they're already doing it wrong. It doesn't matter what religion they're a part of.

I disagree with the idea that anyone is able to disregard his or her religious beliefs in any decision. If beliefs are able to be set aside when the mood strikes you, it says a lot about your beliefs.

Damn that whole freedom of religion thing, eh?

Pardon? Who has no freedom of religion? I said that ideally only Evangelicals would be elected, not that they would be the only ones allowed to be elected.

and ive seen that a politicians political stances often dictate their claimed religious beliefs.

That's why we must look not only at words, but also at actions.

Well, I've seen (granted, in my very short life) that politicians religious beliefs often dictate their political stances.

That really seems to only happen in a select few issues. It's more common that people use their religion to justify their political stances - often to others of the same religion. No matter what the position is, someone will likely find a way to justify it with their religion.

Politicians who respect religious freedom, however, will recognize that their religious views are irrelevant, because their constituents do not necessarily share their religion. They recognize that enforcement of religion is not a proper role of government and that any policy they push for should have justification outside of religion.

Indeed. But it doesn't change the fact that Velmaren's "ideal" is a lack of religious freedom - one in which only people of a single religious leaning would have any positions of power.

Why is that not freedom of religion? I said nothing about Evangelicals being the only ones allowed to be elected, but rather that they would ideally be the only ones being elected. To clarify, I think that ideal society is the result of a massive, peaceful, by-one's-own-free-desire conversion to Evangelicalism. Once that happens, there will be very few people running for office who would not be Evangelicals.

That really seems to only happen in a select few issues. It's more common that people use their religion to justify their political stances - often to others of the same religion. No matter what the position is, someone will likely find a way to justify it with their religion.

That's very true.

Politicians who respect religious freedom, however, will recognize that their religious views are irrelevant, because their constituents do not necessarily share their religion.

I disagree that it is a politician's job to represent their constituents.

They recognize that enforcement of religion is not a proper role of government and that any policy they push for should have justification outside of religion.

We disagree about the purpose of government then.

Ahh but Atheism is a non prophet faith...where as the others it seems you have to pay to play

Mainly because it is not a faith.

Why is that not freedom of religion? I said nothing about Evangelicals being the only ones allowed to be elected, but rather that they would ideally be the only ones being elected. To clarify, I think that ideal society is the result of a massive, peaceful, by-one's-own-free-desire conversion to Evangelicalism. Once that happens, there will be very few people running for office who would not be Evangelicals.

hmmmm not that i would welcome such a thing but...

you do understand that there are evangelical democrats, evangelical socialists, evangelical libertarians, evangelical greenies, and so on, eh?

Why is that not freedom of religion? I said nothing about Evangelicals being the only ones allowed to be elected, but rather that they would ideally be the only ones being elected.

If you don't think elected officials should be enforcing religious precepts, what purpose would there be to hoping that they were all of the same religion?

To clarify, I think that ideal society is the result of a massive, peaceful, by-one's-own-free-desire conversion to Evangelicalism. Once that happens, there will be very few people running for office who would not be Evangelicals.

It would be a rather boring world if we all walked the same path. And I'd have to question if such an "ideal" could exist without most people actually losing faith.

I disagree that it is a politician's job to represent their constituents.

Down with democracy as well, then? Huzzah!

We disagree about the purpose of government then.

So you are anti-religious freedom, then?

You can't tell me that you are in favor of religious freedom in one post and then immediately follow it up with one in which you make it clear that you think the purpose of government is enforcement of your religion.

hmmmm not that i would welcome such a thing but...

you do understand that there are evangelical democrats, evangelical socialists, evangelical libertarians, evangelical greenies, and so on, eh?

Yes, of course. The exact role of the government is something that can be debated. There are some roles and policies, however, that I do not think any consistent Evangelical can accept.

Yes, of course. The exact role of the government is something that can be debated. There are some roles and policies, however, that I do not think any consistent Evangelical can accept.

what would those be?

If you don't think elected officials should be enforcing religious precepts, what purpose would there be to hoping that they were all of the same religion?

There is a difference between a government saying "You may not practice (insert random religion here)" and a government saying "We are using (insert random religion here) as the moral basis of our policy"

Whether you find them both deplorable or not, there is a difference.

It would be a rather boring world if we all walked the same path. And I'd have to question if such an "ideal" could exist without most people actually losing faith.

The first statement, I think, includes the assumption that religion determines cultural or individual identity, which is certainly not the case. My eschatology is much more complex than what I am presenting here, but I believe that the mass conversion of the earth to evangelical Christianity will be preceded by an great apostasy, will last a figurative thousand years, and will be followed by an even greater apostasy. This second apostasy will be follwed by the return of Christ. So, I don't believe that any individual will fall from the faith (I actually don't believe such a thing is possible) but I neither believe that the conversion will be permanent.

Down with democracy as well, then? Huzzah!

http://www.spurgeon.org/images/pyromaniac/TeamPyro/e-s_003.jpg

So you are anti-religious freedom, then?

You can't tell me that you are in favor of religious freedom in one post and then immediately follow it up with one in which you make it clear that you think the purpose of government is enforcement of your religion.

I believe that the three overarching roles of the civil state are to portect the man who does good, to be a terror to the man who does evil and to protect and support the Church. This does not mean that the state stamps out other religions, neither does it mean that the state taxes the people to give to the Church (as was done in the past). What it means is that the health and safety of the Church is as much a priority as the health and safety of citizens.

This is not enforcement of religion. Is it favoritism? Yes, most definitely, but no one is forcing anyone to do or convert to anything.

what would those be?

Abortion, homosexuality, wars of conquest are three that I can think of off the top of my head. There are probably more off the wall ones, but these are the three biggest now, I think.

There are evangelicals who support a "tolerant, hand-off" approach to abortion and homosexuality, but these are, I think, in great error and are not being consistent in their biblical hermeneutics.

There is a difference between a government saying "You may not practice (insert random religion here)" and a government saying "We are using (insert random religion here) as the moral basis of our policy"

Whether you find them both deplorable or not, there is a difference.



The first statement, I think, includes the assumption that religion determines cultural or individual identity, which is certainly not the case. My eschatology is much more complex than what I am presenting here, but I believe that the mass conversion of the earth to evangelical Christianity will be preceded by an great apostasy, will last a figurative thousand years, and will be followed by an even greater apostasy. This second apostasy will be follwed by the return of Christ. So, I don't believe that any individual will fall from the faith (I actually don't believe such a thing is possible) but I neither believe that the conversion will be permanent.



http://www.spurgeon.org/images/pyromaniac/TeamPyro/e-s_003.jpg



I believe that the three overarching roles of the civil state are to portect the man who does good, to be a terror to the man who does evil and to protect and support the Church. This does not mean that the state stamps out other religions, neither does it mean that the state taxes the people to give to the Church (as was done in the past). What it means is that the health and safety of the Church is as much a priority as the health and safety of citizens.

This is not enforcement of religion. Is it favoritism? Yes, most definitely, but no one is forcing anyone to do or convert to anything.
:rolleyes:
Why don't you just come right out and say that you want an evangelical christian theocracy.

While i wouldnt consider Religion, Ethnicity, and the like a reason not to vote for someone...

The fact that His Religious adviser and His Wife have a slight Tendency to Hate America, is however, a particularly good reason...

Im thinking of supporting Hillary but it goes against my desire to see the Major Parties kicked out...so for now im still voting Nader....

Abortion, homosexuality, wars of conquest are three that I can think of off the top of my head. There are probably more off the wall ones, but these are the three biggest now, I think.

There are evangelicals who support a "tolerant, hand-off" approach to abortion and homosexuality, but these are, I think, in great error and are not being consistent in their biblical hermeneutics.
This is why I want all evangelical Christians to disappear, as quickly as possible. What the HELL have I ever done to you that you should lump me in with "wars of conquest"?

Abortion, homosexuality, wars of conquest are three that I can think of off the top of my head. There are probably more off the wall ones, but these are the three biggest now, I think.

There are evangelicals who support a "tolerant, hand-off" approach to abortion and homosexuality, but these are, I think, in great error and are not being consistent in their biblical hermeneutics.

Ah, so you are an evangelical christian because it gives you a reason to openly be a bigot.

:rolleyes:
Why don't you just come right out and say that you want an evangelical christian theocracy.

No, theonomy.

Theocracy is when Church and state are one.

Theonomy are when Church and state are separate institutions with different roles and responsibilities and one goal: the glory of and obedience to God.

This is why I want all evangelical Christians to disappear, as quickly as possible. What the HELL have I ever done to you that you should lump me in with "wars of conquest"?

Nothing more than what I've done. I assume that you're referring to homosexuality, yes? I'm a homosexual. I wasn't saying that you are so bad as a war of conquest or some such thing as that, only that these are the three big things in politics right now which Evangelicals tend to have a unified view on.

Ah, so you are an evangelical christian because it gives you a reason to openly be a bigot.

Bigotry says "You're different and I hate you because of that."

Intolerance says "You're in sin and I'm not going to pretend otherwise."

I'm not a bigot, but I am very intolerant, sometimes to the point of the sin of arrogance, I admit. But I don't hate people because they are different from me. I just think some lifestyles are inherently sinful and should not be considered acceptable.

Abortion, homosexuality, wars of conquest are three that I can think of off the top of my head. There are probably more off the wall ones, but these are the three biggest now, I think.

There are evangelicals who support a "tolerant, hand-off" approach to abortion and homosexuality, but these are, I think, in great error and are not being consistent in their biblical hermeneutics.

so its not enough to be evangelical, you have to be a certain kind of evangelical.

My religion says that it's a sin for people with nicknames that begin with the syllable "Vel" to post on the net, and that this shouldn't be considered acceptable. Thus, your existence, your IDENTITY, shouldn't be considered acceptable.

Well, to be legalistic, this isn't really a nickname. But, your own hypothetical rule doesn't say that my existence is a sin, just my posting on the net. So you should tell me to stop posting. Nothing in that hypothetical law says that my existence is a problem. It doesn't even say the name is a problem, just my posting is. And you have a responsibility to point that out.

Do you not consider this hate? Unfounded at that?

No. A little goofy perhaps, but depending on many other issues, probably not unfounded.

Not to mention the fact that you somehow think intolerance is better than bigotry, you also seem to have a few coherency issues.

Where?

Don't toy with me around.

Pardon?

so its not enough to be evangelical, you have to be a certain kind of evangelical.

Well, you have to be consistent. So many people, evangelical or otherwise, are inconsistent. They don't see how all their beliefs fit together and shape each other.

If they come to conclusions that differ from mine, they better stick to them, but they need to think these things through, build the jugsaw puzzle, not just pick up pieces from here and there.

Well, you have to be consistent. So many people, evangelical or otherwise, are inconsistent. They don't see how all their beliefs fit together and shape each other.

If they come to conclusions that differ from mine, they better stick to them, but they need to think these things through, build the jugsaw puzzle, not just pick up pieces from here and there.

and that can easily be done with abortion--no mention in the bible--and homosexuality--whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers.

Evangelicals are A Cancer...I dont care if its Trolling, its the truth...they are the root cause of the Worst of this Country's problems...

and that can easily be done with abortion--no mention in the bible--and homosexuality--whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers.

That's where the consistency comes in. If you interpret the Bible one way in place A, you should interpret it the same way in place B.

That's not saying you make the fundamentalist mistake and say that everything is absolutely literal. I'm not a fan of that. But you can't say that Matthew is history everywhere except in the last chapter where it suddenly becomes allegory. You can't say that the sex laws still applies to the New Testament except for laws regarding homosexual activity, those are cultural. You can't say that the lack of a specifier indicates any harm in one place and harm to the woman only in another.

There are much more complicated ideas and literary context and technique is very important as well as the structure of the individual book and the purpose of the book and cultural context. So it's very complicated, but the second most important thing is consistency.

The first, though it doesn't really apply to this discussion, is prayer.

I'm not saying an evangelical cannot come to different conclusions than I about abortion and homosexuality. What I'm saying is, I think he's wrong and I think he's deviated from something somewhere. Something somewhere doesn't match up. If it all matches up, then I need to reevaluate my stance. But that hasn't happened yet.

Perhaps I should clarify "evangelical."

I'm using the traditional definition from the Protestant Reformation:

Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, for God's glory alone.

http://www.votenader.org/index.html

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!....actually, I'd like to see him win...but he won't :(

Perhaps I should clarify "evangelical."

I'm using the traditional definition from the Protestant Reformation:

Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, for God's glory alone.

nothing in there about politics eh?

nothing in there about politics eh?

Nope. I think some political stances should come naturally from those ideas, but obviously, that's not the case all the time. Many times, most times, but there are always exceptions.

Nope. I think some political stances should come naturally from those ideas, but obviously, that's not the case all the time. Many times, most times, but there are always exceptions.

which is why even if you got your "all evangelical" government there would be the same political divisions that there are today.

Every candidate supports the continuation bourgeois dictatorship.

Voting in America is the ultimate opiate of the masses, every four years you deaden the pain.

which is why even if you got your "all evangelical" government there would be the same political divisions that there are today.

Probably the same divisions, but not along the same lines or with the same numbers.

Every candidate supports the continuation bourgeois dictatorship.

Voting in America is the ultimate opiate of the masses, every four years you deaden the pain.

Anyone else have at least one reason to vote for Obama now?

I thought so.

I was talking to my friend about the PA primary today and why she didn't like Obama.

Her reason for hating him?

"He may not be Muslim, but he was raised Muslim."

Yes, that justifies it. Yes. Absolutely.

So have you had any "smart", "logical" political discussions lately? Mind sharing? Anecdotes? Rants?

Aaaand you are friends with someone that stupid because?


Unless shes hot and easy of course.

To be completely honset, I would have some difficulty voting for a Muslim candidate. But, I would have no more difficulty voting for a Muslim than for an atheist, a Catholic, a Mormon, an agnostic, an Orthodox Christian, a Hindu or anyone alse outside evangelical Christianity. Can they make good presidents? Of course, but I have to think long and hard about whether I think their beliefs, whether what they as individuals believe would conflict with what I believe to be moral leadership.


Well, admitting that you have a problem is the first step.

Pardon? Who has no freedom of religion? I said that ideally only Evangelicals would be elected, not that they would be the only ones allowed to be elected.

And for his next trick Velmaren will split the hair into thirds!

Perhaps I should clarify "evangelical."

I'm using the traditional definition from the Protestant Reformation:

Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, for God's glory alone.
And why would you use this utter ideological dirt?

This muslim garbage comes from his time in Indonesia. He spent 4 years there from the age of 6 to the age of 10. His Indonesian stepfather was not muslim, he was a devout secularist who insisted Barack go to a strictly non religious secular school in Jakarta. At the age of 10 he went to live with his christian grandparents where he spent the rest of his childhood. At no point was he raised muslim, at all times he was either brought up in a secular or christian household and once he became an adult he went to a christian church for 2 decades. Those rumours are false and it's just really sad that some idiotic people believe that and it says a lot about our media.

There is a difference between a government saying "You may not practice (insert random religion here)" and a government saying "We are using (insert random religion here) as the moral basis of our policy"

Whether you find them both deplorable or not, there is a difference.

Yes. One is banning a specific religion and the other is enforcing a specific religion. Both equally infringe upon religious freedom.

http://www.spurgeon.org/images/pyromaniac/TeamPyro/e-s_003.jpg

So you are under the impression that democracy has nothing to do with elected officials actually representing their constituency?

What, exactly, is the point of voting, then?

I believe that the three overarching roles of the civil state are to portect the man who does good, to be a terror to the man who does evil and to protect and support the Church.

In other words, government establishment of religion.

In other words, infringement of religious freedom.

This does not mean that the state stamps out other religions,

Of course not! It just means that the government tells them that their religion is wrong by favoring another religion and enforces religious precepts on them whether they agree or not.

This is not enforcement of religion.

Yes, it is. Policies based on religion are.....*gasp*....enforcement of religion. Using government resources (although you claim that somehow the government would favor a given church without the use of tax money) to favor one religion over another is enforcement of religion. In fact, it is establishment of religion.

Is it favoritism? Yes, most definitely, but no one is forcing anyone to do or convert to anything.

If a law is passed based on religion, I absolutely am forced to do something - to follow a particular precept of that religion.

Hippy Bill makes me want to vote for him...

http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/quiz/famous/bill-hillary-clinton.jpg

Abortion,

Do you know of many politicians seeking to mandate abortion?

homosexuality,

Or homosexuality?

Oh, wait! I forgot, you're all about forcing people to follow your reliigon while pretending that's not what you're doing.

There are evangelicals who support a "tolerant, hand-off" approach to abortion and homosexuality, but these are, I think, in great error and are not being consistent in their biblical hermeneutics.

Because the Bible requires us to force our religion on others?


While i wouldnt consider Religion, Ethnicity, and the like a reason not to vote for someone...

The fact that His Religious adviser and His Wife have a slight Tendency to Hate America, is however, a particularly good reason...

:rolleyes:

Seriously? ZOMG! They said things that were critical of America! Clearly they hate it!


No, theonomy.

Theocracy is when Church and state are one.

Theonomy are when Church and state are separate institutions with different roles and responsibilities and one goal: the glory of and obedience to God.

If the state's goal is to glorify and obey God, it is not separate from the church. If anything, it is subservient to the church.

I'm not a bigot, but I am very intolerant, sometimes to the point of the sin of arrogance, I admit. But I don't hate people because they are different from me. I just think some lifestyles are inherently sinful and should not be considered acceptable.

In other words, you are arrogantly proclaiming not only that your religion is absolutely correct, but you are also seeking to force your religion upon others.

For the record, I apologize if I'm coming off as particularly antagonistic. I'm in one of those moods, but I'm not trying to be.

For the record, I apologize if I'm coming off as particularly antagonistic. I'm in one of those moods, but I'm not trying to be.

I didn't see any problem with your tone, but then Velmaren is of the type of christian that piss me off, and that tend to give other christians a bad name.

I was talking to my friend about the PA primary today and why she didn't like Obama.

Her reason for hating him?

"He may not be Muslim, but he was raised Muslim."

Yes, that justifies it. Yes. Absolutely.

So have you had any "smart", "logical" political discussions lately? Mind sharing? Anecdotes? Rants?

Obviously his white grandparents raised him muslim, makes sense to me.
Btw, I was raised as a martian.
Idiots

There are very few smart and logical political discussions going on about the US presidential campaign, IF ppl are on opposite sides...

Bigotry says "You're different and I hate you because of that."

Intolerance says "You're in sin and I'm not going to pretend otherwise."

I'm not a bigot, but I am very intolerant, sometimes to the point of the sin of arrogance, I admit. But I don't hate people because they are different from me. I just think some lifestyles are inherently sinful and should not be considered acceptable.

Actually, based not only on the semantics of the words but also the pragmatics and sociolingustics of them, not tolerating something to the point where you feel a need to speak out, and maybe even do something about it, is bigotry. So, sorry to be the one to inform you, but you're a bigot. Quite probably more intelligent in discourse than the average bigot, but that doesn't change the facts.

I believe that the three overarching roles of the civil state are to portect the man who does good, to be a terror to the man who does evil and to protect and support the Church. This does not mean that the state stamps out other religions, neither does it mean that the state taxes the people to give to the Church (as was done in the past). What it means is that the health and safety of the Church is as much a priority as the health and safety of citizens.

This is not enforcement of religion. Is it favoritism? Yes, most definitely, but no one is forcing anyone to do or convert to anything.

While you are theoretically right, has there historically ever been a practical difference between making an explicit government aim the protecting the health and safety of the Church and using government force to stamp out rival churches?

I can't think of such an enlightened time in human history. Which is why, while I would have to say that in the deep deep abstract I share the idea of all people becoming mainline Protestants, I fail to see giving government sanction to use the sword to defend the church can ever be practically separated from using the government sword to force conversion. One cannot grant the one without having the reasonable expectation that it will bring about the other. And the other, let us be clear, is contrary to all Christian teaching.

I was raised as a martian.

You were? Good! Could you pass me some good Xypfomagloob recipes?

Obama is a joke.

Obama is a joke.


ONLY DAWKTER PAUL WILL SAVEZ US!!!11!1![/mocking]

Ah, another of your drive by posts.


Tell me, why is he a joke?


I dont expect an answer of course, last time you did the exact same thing, I asked for reasons and you gave me none

No. Atheism is not required for people to understand that a candidate's religious believes do not directly affect a candidate's quality.

I agree that atheism isn't required. A grasp of material that should have been covered in high school helps, though:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

and:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

A better reason would be: He has some of that Black blood in him.

I heard that too.

I'd love to go by one night and 'fix' the sign.

"SHAME SHAME ROGER"
(There aren't enough letters to make any good curse words on it)

Best I can manage: "MASTURBATE MY HORSE OBAMA" ... 6 letters left over

I heard that too.

Word on the street is he picked it up on one of his numerous trips to Africa.

Word on the street is he picked it up on one of his numerous trips to Africa.

:eek: He's probably contagious!

If you want to discuss reasons to elect, or not elect, Obama, there's a Democrat nominations thread.

If you want to discuss general issues in the US Presidential campaign, there's a US election issues thread.

If you want to discuss the relationship between religion and government, start another thread.

If you'd rather just spam, there's a whole Jolt spam forum.

ditto ditto ditto chat, ditto ditto ditto.

Let joy be unconfined.