"This is a Christian country"

As to the strawman issue, I happen to live in the American south, and there are bars (pubs to you across the ponds) in my town where I would, at the very least, be physically thrown out if it came to light that I don't believe in god. I'm not talking exclusively about redneck bars, but some seemingly clean places where physical violence is a very real danger if one espouses heretical theories. I understand that in New York City or Austin, Texas, that the powerful Christian Control is not a valid argument, but in many seemingly enlightened places in America, it is a real source of concern. My son (only three, so no issues with personal philosophies yet) is going to live in an environment where he may face persecution because of his father's lack of belief, not to mention what he will face if he matures and has a lack of belief himself. This is a real and disturbing problem for atheiests in America; we may not be being set upon by police dogs, but the threat from our societies is very real.
 
Bush won the first election with questionable methods. He won the second election by pandering to the RR with a gay marriage ban promise, which he never pursued. The RR is a large percentage of the popular vote. Without that pandering, Bush would've lost.

He shouldn't have won the first election. It was a statistical fluck not "questionable methods", unless you want to post in the conspiracy section. Weak republicans need the RR, Reagan didn't, but how do you call it pandering when it is what Bush actually believes. What does Kerry actually believe? I sure don't know and I tried very hard! Kerry give him that election and he almost lost anyway!

P.S. If by "questionable methods" you mean the Florida vote here are the facts;
1) If the votes were counted the way Bush fought the courts for Gore would have done better.
2) If the votes were counted the way Gore fought the courts for Bush would have done better.
3) The only counting method that would have given Gore the election was never requested by either Bush or Gore.

So much for their preconcieved notions of their constituency :rolleyes: .
 
As to the strawman issue, I happen to live in the American south, and there are bars (pubs to you across the ponds) in my town where I would, at the very least, be physically thrown out if it came to light that I don't believe in god. I'm not talking exclusively about redneck bars, but some seemingly clean places where physical violence is a very real danger if one espouses heretical theories. I understand that in New York City or Austin, Texas, that the powerful Christian Control is not a valid argument, but in many seemingly enlightened places in America, it is a real source of concern. My son (only three, so no issues with personal philosophies yet) is going to live in an environment where he may face persecution because of his father's lack of belief, not to mention what he will face if he matures and has a lack of belief himself. This is a real and disturbing problem for atheiests in America; we may not be being set upon by police dogs, but the threat from our societies is very real.

Yes these people vote god on the woo of the moment. They also leave their wife at home and hit up on everything that that looks female. The religeous people I know that has actually read the whole bible I can count on one hand yet they will fight their belief to the death. Panderers are equated with that guy or girl in school that wanted so much to be your friend that you didn't dare let them too close.

Winning woo thinking:
Bible = Good
Politician with confidence and right thinking = Good
Good = Must be a good christian because athiest are immoral

Losing woo thinking:
Pandering = Want something = lying = bad
Bad = Must not be a good christian = Immoral
Immoral = Lost election

Admittedly you can't do like autumn1971 and show disbelief of a persons woo and win elections but pandering is almost as bad. I know people who speaks in tongues that want Bush out badly but put another Kerry against him and he wins again.

It is how people view your moral status that determines their perception of your religeous status. If you pander to the religeous then the pandering itself determines your status not the stated belief. Many think Bush panders to the RR. It is what he actually believes. Of course he made issues out of things that were politically undoable. I can't remember a president that didn't. So how do you call voicing his actual beliefs pandering? Just because it is so revolting to you it must be pandering? Kerry give him the election, get over it.

I'm not afraid to hang out in the drug dealers and users neighborhoods after dark. I'll sit on the corner and talk with them all night. I'm not afraid of the guy with eyes as dead as sharks looking up and saying, "wat'er you lookin at". Not because I can fight but because I know how to trip or not trip his triggers. If the dems eat this RR BS they will be the ones tripping the triggers of the religeous in this country in a way that the right can only dream.
 
Notice the "IF" at the beginning of that statement. >I< am not doing so, but it seems others may want to imply that this is true. Thus, my response to that type of reasoning.

Let's see. When was it that Germany created the Atomic Bomb and pioneered atomic energy? Oh wait! That's right. WE did that. Sorry. Admittedly, we did it with stolen German scientists, but they defected due to the political climate in Germany at the time. They came to us because of our freedoms, religious freedom in particular.

Wasn't it in Denmark that we first descovered how to cap oil wells? Oh, no, my bad again..that was the US, as well.

Wasn't it those British dudes that discovered heavier than air flight?
No! Wait...that was in North Carolina..in the US. Again.

Hmmmmm. And those French scientists that came up with the polio vaccine...Oh, no...That was the US.

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Not really.

The Pythagorean Theorem, that not only planets move, but also the Earth, planetary orbits are elliptical, Jupiter's moons, comets are predictable, galaxies, relativity, microorganisms, the laws of motion, the structure of matter, the circulation of blood, electrical currents, electromagnetism, rules of heredity, darwinism, evolution, the laws of thermodynamics, the nature of light, the cell nucleus, atomic theory, atoms combine into molecules, synthesis of urea, structure of chemicals, the periodic table, Bohr's atomic model, radioactivity, continental drift, periodic ice ages, discovery of fossils, classification of species, human anatomy, blood groups, X-rays, germ theory, vitamins, penicillin, vaccination, law of falling bodies, universal gravitation, quantum mechanics, the neutron....

But fair is fair. Genes. Gotta hand that to the Americans. And the expanding universe. And that the Milky Way emits radio waves. And Miller's experiment. And quarks.

Standing on the shoulders of giants.

We have, traditionally, led the world in scientific achievement. We have been able to recruit some of the greatest minds around to help us in this. I believe that some of that is due to a secular government that allows all sorts of beliefs and freedoms. True, we had other advantages, like abundant natural resources. But I think the combination of that with free enterprise and secularism is what makes us unique.

Mind you, this is just my opinion. It would be monumentally difficult to prove such a thing. The raw data alone would be staggering, then trying to isolate variables and make sense of it....the imagination boggles.

Just remember, there was a time when religion was in control of most aspects of Western society...we call these times 'The Dark Ages'.

And yet, European scientists brought us out of those Dark Ages. Where were the American scientists?

Oh. They didn't even exist.

(See why I often harp on the importance of history? ;))
 
Nothing pushes my buttons like this statement. Whenever I hear someone say this or make some kind of argument along these lines...my blood pressure just goes SKY HIGH. It's so incredibly ignorant and against everything the whole country was founded upon.

Does anyone get exceptionally irritated by this?
No, and I think it's funny that you do.


Yes, absolutely I do. Because even though Christians make up a majority, the country, as founded, is decidedly, unmistakenly, NOT Christian.
Right. Theist, but not Christian. Course it about works out the same/same as it turns out.


;)
 
Because they don't pay taxes.
False. The RR is more than a bunch of loudmouthed clergymen, they include rank and file taxpayers, and tithers. You might want to check your other post, about two elections, where you better identify who the RR are.

Next canard?

DR
 
Last edited:
Bush won the first election with questionable methodsthanks to a court decision made necessary by a challenge to the ballot count. He won by a majority of electoral votes, per Constitutional method. He won the second election by pandering to the RR with a gay marriage ban promise, which he never pursued. getting a few million more popular votes, and more electoral votes, than his hard working opponent. The RR is a large percentage of the popular vote voting bloc. Without that pandering their votes, Bush would've lost the 2004 election.
There, fixed it for you.

DR
 
So, why do you spend most of your time on your knees in a church, DR. Don't say it, it wouldn't be appropriate for the board.

Churches don't pay taxes, yet the RR use churches as platforms to influence politics both indirectly and directly. They tell people who to vote for and who not to. The most powerful part of the RR, the churches, do not pay taxes.

Try again.
 
So, why do you spend most of your time on your knees in a church, DR.
I don't, dumbarse. You have no bloody clue. It pains me to see you act so stupidly. Your cookie cutter fantasy of what a Christian is or does fails to match real people, and what they actually do. I hope you recall from the Religion board that I am not a Fundy, not a Pentacostal, and not an Evangelical.
Don't say it, it wouldn't be appropriate for the board.
Neither is your grossly incorrect assumption, KenWithNoBrain. But not being a crybaby, I don't report your post, I just expose your lack of wit.
Churches don't pay taxes, yet the RR use churches as platforms to influence politics both indirectly and directly. They tell people who to vote for and who not to. The most powerful part of the RR, the churches, do not pay taxes.
Wrong answer.

Churches are made up of people.

People are citizens.

Citizens pay taxes and vote.

The vote, the votes, are the critical matter, as you noted in the post about two elections. A "church" organization does not get a ballot. The parishoners, the congregation, each in his or her individual mode, does.

Thus, the bulk of the RR, if you include them all, are tax paying citizens who vote, or many of whom vote. (Bound to be some who are too lazy or to otherwise inclined.)

Does the leadership sometimes influence that vote? I'll take a wild guess and suggest that you and I would agree to an answer of "yes" for that.

All in all, you are wrong, yet again.

Here is a nickel, Ken: rent a clue.

By the way, Ken, is the Democratic Party a non-profit, and non-taxed, organization? Is the Republican Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party?

Do they pay taxes?

Does AIPAC?

Does any Lobby?

Does the Sierra Club?

DR
 
Last edited:
I hope you recall from the Religion board that I am not a Fundy, not a Pentacostal, and not an Evangelical.
Fundy is as fundy does.

By the way, Ken, is the Democratic Party a non-profit, and non-taxed, organization? Is the Republican Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party?
No, no, no, and no.

Do they pay taxes?

Does AIPAC?

Does any Lobby?

Does the Sierra Club?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
 
This nation may have been founded by Christians, but it seems to me, reading through the Constitution, the ideal was that we were to be secular.

Sorry, folks.
 
Fundy is as fundy does.
Explain your logic, Art.

You have just made the following statement, whether you realize it or not:

All Christians are Fundies.

Your position is risible.

Huntster, and the run of the mill Greek Orthodox would find your position something beyond that, I suspect.

DR
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom