> -----Original Message----- > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 4:52 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Ron Paul quotes Sinclair Lewis, 'When fascism comes to > this country it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross'... > > > > > At the very least when you're dealing with a religiously-driven > person you > > know what you have. > > > That is such a cop-out, Jim. :-) Seriously tho- "the known evil" > argument?
Hey - don't put words in my mouth! I never said anything was "Evil". ;^) More it's a bell-weather: you can more easily predict where somebody will fall on certain issues. And it's really not religion in this case but more fundamentalist: the more extreme any view is the easier it is to predict how that person will react in any given situation. It's not "evil" but it is predictable. > How is voting by religious beliefs any better'n down party lines? Of course it isn't... but again, at least you know where you stand. > So, tell me again how, knowing Bush2 lets "belief" govern his life (not > that > there's anything wrong with it, depending on the belief) is better than > some > "normal" politician with, like, real-estate "hokey-ness" in their past? > (*Assuming the normal one doesn't cater to some other clique* ;) But that's exactly my point: I've no problem with a leader using religion to inform his views as long as religion doesn't "govern" them. Being a great leader in the United States is actually (oddly) harder for the faithful than it would be for others: they are constantly challenged (and often fail to) place the principles of the country above their religious views. To be a good leader in the US you, almost by definition, have to be willing to compromise on matters of faith. Little Bush doesn't do that - he's far from a theocratic zealot but neither does he compromise his religion where a better leader would for the good of the country. > I will take the agile, flexible thinking any day of the god-damn week, > over > the predictable, draconian ploddings... As will I... and as soon as we have candidates that present that (and have an actual chance of winning) I'm on board. But I won't become a zealot who votes BECAUSE somebody lacks faith. An even-minded Christian is far better than a crazy atheist any day of the week. Then again a crazy atheist is probably far better than a close-minded Christian. ;^) > How does one's religion qualify one to be a check and or balance, in > this, > pretty fucking cool system we sorta have? (yes, we can still save it) It doesn't - but don't fall into a false dichotomy: religion may not particularly HELP in government, but neither does it particularly need to HURT. > > Eh. Whatever. It's [the religion focus] is shameful, if you ask me. > > > > I wouldn't call it "shameful" if it's sincere. If it's a ploy to > collect > > votes, then definitely yes. > > Maing! Yes, it's shameful, probably moreso if it's sincere. Are we > not > at War With Terror? (I gag typing that BS) The Evil Axis? Sure we are! We have a zealot in office! This is what I'm talking about: Bush as gone too far. He had faith that toppling Saddam would lead to universal praise and the total applaud of the Iraqi people. Entering into a situation like that without proper consideration of the exit plan is either stupid (and I don't think our current government is stupid) or an act of faith. > It seems like most the evil in the world is done by either extreme > religions, I agree completely. More death, pain and atrocity has been caused by faith than any other motivator in the history of man. > more fun. And that's what I'm really doing-- having fun -- even while > bitching > and blaspheming and talking shit. Well... it's hard not to blaspheme when you don't believe and consider more than one faith. I've given up trying. > There was a reason why we have secularity, Jim (and anyone else who has > made it this far) -- a really, hard-as-nails-logic-an-atheist-should- > reason. No disrespect to those with the True Belief and all. We have a separation of church and state, but don't confuse that with the idea that religion should be non-existent (despite my personal wishes). The US was founded on the principle that religion should be allowed to dictate or control government but also on the principle that religion should be freely exercised - that people shouldn't be punished for having or practicing religion. Religion CAN inform, but NOT control. > I just personally, find it sickening, to see people "running on > religion". > It > makes us look like freaking little kids -- a backwards country, if you > will. Definitely - in any reasonable world the (many) problems we face should take precedent. > Should Abortion Rights be decided based on what one believes? > "Morals"? > Have a hard think before answering. (And define Morals (and maybe > ethics;))) You've hit upon one of the key problems - many people with a religious background are unable to conceive of a non-religious moral viewpoint. They are SURE that a non-religious view would result in sodomy, rape, baby-killing and sex with animals. Until this country comes to grips with the notion that religion does not equal moral we're going to be in this mess. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:248619 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
