I don't see how a person can take Rick Perry seriously when he associates himself with these sorts of people and holds a prayer event alongside them to "ask God to help fix America's problems."
These people are a bunch of bigoted morons preaching a bunch of made-up bullshit that has absolutely no bearing on the reality of our current economic and political situation. In fact, it has no bearing on anything at all. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, it's amazing what sorts of bigoted, moronic, and hateful things one can get away with saying as long as they have the word "reverend" before their name.
The fact that Rick Perry is holding this event alongside them and the fact that he calls our problems "spiritual in nature" is a disgrace. I think Romney is the biggest hypocrite sack of shit out there, but I'd take him over Perry in a heartbeat when you factor this sort of bullshit in.
I hope the stadium drops into a sinkhole during the event, that's a message from God I could appreciate.
Btw, how many of these bible thumping, gay bashing "preachers" do you think get a hard-on when they think about gay people? I'd say all of them. How else can you explain the obsession with the so-called "gay agenda." Fucking morons.
lol is it just me or does he sound just like a hillbilly?
Well, most priests you'll see are gay. So, go figure.
Religion: legitimatizing insanity since God knows when. :p
Social conservatism like this really holds the republican party back from gaining more independents IMO. While a certain percentage of the base is fired up by stopping gays from getting married most Americans don't care and are focused on the economy.
Why would you spout this drivel? I am genuinely curious. Is it a general hatred of Christianity and what they stand for, or is it just Perry and the people of Texas? Perry is on the same team as us. He wants America to be a better place. That is why I don't generally say that I hate Obama, just that he is stupid as all hell and that he has a messed up view of the world.
Perry on the other hand is a proponent of good business practices, leads one of the top states in terms of business opportunity, and is calling for unity and good will in a time of ill consumer sentiment. Compared to other feel good things that other politicians promote in their official capacities that do similarly little real levels of good, and without the spending, Id say that this is a cost effective way of inspiring people to look towards a better future.
Relax, bro. The last time we had a Jesus freak from Texas in the White House, shit worked out great!
this
In other news, athiests bitch and moan about religious people saying a quiet prayer and try and help.
And I love how thinking marriage is a religious institution and should be between and man and a woman makes you a bigot.
Being a bigot used to mean lynching people or segregation. Now it means not agreeing with whatever people want to do.
Maybe gay men should focus on wearing condoms to stop the massive HIV infection rate. Naaaaa, let's push gay marriage, that's important.
Now Anthony, you are not being politically correct. Let's work on that buddy.
People don't have perspective these days. I was browsing youtube the other day and saw about 10 seconds of Noam Chomsky. He was talking about how working for a wage was a form of slavery. I twitched, but only slightly.
The problem is you can't pick and choose. I am a confirmed Roman Catholic and think in general Christianity teaches good values, but I am not dumb enough to take the bible literally and cherry pick things out of it to support a bigoted viewpoint. The bible also says you shouldn't eat shellfish nor wear a blended fabric, lets be real here man.
@ANT:
I'm not an atheist. Nor do my beliefs have anything to do with these lunatics and the bigoted bullshit they spout. Praying for help and fasting is not going to fix structural issues in our economy or create jobs. This is not some "quiet prayer," it's the Governor of Texas using his position as Governor to gain publicity for a religious event. I understand that no tax dollars are being put to use, but it does not excuse the character of the people involved in it.
@Seabird:
The typical "why do you hate Christianity" non-defense you throw out there is laughable at best. People can believe whatever they want to believe as long as their beliefs aren't imposed on the lives of others. The fraudulent thugs Perry is bringing along to his prayer event are some of the most vile, hateful people I've ever heard. Nothing they say has any bearing in reality and reflects their belief in an apparently vengeful God who cares just a little too much about which hole you put your penis in. What a joke.
There are ZERO practical arguments against gay marriage. Invoking your own personal religious beliefs as an argument against gay marriage is not a practical argument against it.
In fact, invoking ANY religious belief as an argument against gay marriage is bullshit. Because religion is faith based, you cannot possibly prove that your God is against gays getting married or anything else for that matter.
You should watch some Thomas Sowell.
-> can't produce offspring -> lineage is 100% optional and reduced to a legal construct -> conversely, are all family parameters subject to law? -> Is it wise to replace an ancient basis of relationships with a few legal posits? -> terrible ethical implications -> but somehow I'm not offended by gay marriage
And for the record, fuck Rick Perry, he's a twit
So any straight couple that cannot reproduce must be barred from marriage as well.
I'd argue that you are making a philosophical argument as opposed to a practical one, and I'm not even sure that it is valid since it has some pretty big assumptions in it (i.e. there will be terrible ethical implications...such as?).
Again, there no practical arguments. Practical being that two guys getting married and fucking in their house and doing taxes together isn't going to affect me marrying a woman, fucking, having natural offspring, and doing our taxes together.
I was raised Christians and I hate them more than anything else now. So obnoxious, pick up some literature or philosophy and think for yourself for once. How can you believe something that has no evidence of ever existing? Just blows my mind that people so generally except something without actually thinking about what it is, who made it and why they think they even need it. I mean, does it really even make any sense? You don't have to be religious to be a good person last time I checked.
TK: Ya, actually, you're right. I don't know what came over me, but you've made me see the light. I font know what I was thinking. If people think marriage should be between a man and a woman, then they are bad, scary people who should stay to themselves in their angry desert world.
Seriously guy, do you think before you type? Before maybe 30 years ago, gay marriage was literally unthinkable. Noone thought about it seriously. Does that mean that everyone before 30 years ago was a "fucking bigoted moron"?
I didn't even say that. But honestly I don't even care what two other people want to do. Doesn't affect me at all. I don't care if they were born that way, or they choose to be gay. I really couldn't care less. Also I wasn't even referring specifically to gay marriage, but it doesn't make a difference. It doesn't do anything to society so it shouldn't make a difference what anyone thinks anyways.
Seabird:
Listen to what these people say to their "congregations" and tell me they are not bigoted clowns.
These people preach a religion of non-sense and hate. Oprah is the harlot of babylon? The anti-christ is almost here? Gays are destroying society with their agenda? John Hagee fucking saying Hitler was a weapon of God to bring the Jews back to Christ. Are you seriously saying these people aren't bigoted idiots? If they weren't religious pastors or whatever, we wouldn't be debating this. Do you seriously fucking think God is concerned with congressional elections and shit?
This is seriously the kind of shit that nutjobs on subway platforms rant and rave about while no one listens because they are clearly out of their mind.
Seabird:
This is not a practical argument against gay marriage. Sowell is saying "if people vote based on their religious biases, it's ok even if it stands against science and reason.
Thomas Sowell's argument on gay marriage is essentially that even if all of the scientific evidence shows that there are no negative effects on society / children from gay marriage, "we the people" are the only ones that can allow it to occur. Judges shouldn't allow it based on science and reason (and equal rights), but rather it should be voted on by the people.
So, basically, it's ok if religious biases against gay marriage stand in the face of science and reason if it happens via popular vote. The whole "people are allowed to be as ignorant as they want to be" reasoning.
That's great and all, but it's still not a practical argument against gay marriage. It's just an argument for voting vs. "legislating from the bench."
I talked to God. He said he is busy with Somalia right now.
TheKing, a comfortable majority of Texans are practicing Christians of some sort. An event like this makes sense for his electoral base. It's the same thing as any of the other rallies that support far-left causes--same atmosphere, different causes.
Also, [and this is not directed at you personally], it doesn't make sense to claim to be for tolerance, openness, and understanding, and then have those principles not apply to people who are opposed to your views. For all of the campaigning about the rights of this and that group, we don't seem to consider the rights of others who find your views disagreeable or even offensive. Hatred is not limited to one side of the political spectrum.
I think that's a false equivalence. This sort of event does not have a mirror image on the left or center or wherever. I don't think these sorts of characters (Hagee and the others) have any bizzaro versions of them running around.
And we cannot tolerate extremists who push their twisted and bigoted view of the world on everyone else. I have no problem with people holding different views than I do, but I have a problem with people forcing their views on everyone else, particularly when their views are not based on any sort of scientific fact, logic, or reasoning. Someone can be an atheist or believe in God or Jesus or whatever, but when they start putting themselves and their beliefs above all others as some sort of objective truth, we've got a problem. That's what these people do.
TheKing, there’s plenty of hate from the extremists on both sides, the far left as well as the far right. Each one believes that their viewpoint is the objective truth and the others are inferior (unless you don’t believe that objective truth exists at all, in which case it behooves you to admit that everything is subjective, including your own point of view. But I digress).
If you Google image some far-left propaganda posters, the stuff they come up with is just as bad as any on the far right—a particularly pleasant one has a picture of a cemetery with the caption, “We Have Found New Homes For the Rich.”
And you only have to look at the counterprotests to any right-wing event, like the March For Life in Washington, for proof that this kind of hatred can exist for any cause. Look at the May Day rallies in New York City, or the Black Panthers who tried to disrupt the electoral process.
Again, hatred and bigotry is not exclusive to any political stripe. It just is, and unfortunately once the extremists and the activists have decided you’re bad, you’re bad. It doesn’t matter what the facts are or how level-headed the counterargument is.
When it comes to civil rights, US is pretty low down the list for developed nations, maybe even bottom of it. Pretty pathetic really
TK: If youre suggesting that you don't sound like at LEAST as much of a hater then youre sorely mistaken.
The drive to demean traditional views of marriage is contributing to the downfall of society. Look at places like Sweden, Italy and Poland that are voluntarily declining in population. A group needs at least 2.1 children born per woman to maintain a steady population, but theyre all producing less than 1.5. Poland was at 1.22 in 2003, which means they would've halved their population in 45 years. This is directly related to the degradation of traditional ideas about family, marriage and gender roles.
Hagee said that God used WW2 to get the Jews back to Israel, not to Christianity. Its a pretty common idea, and it is widely misinterpreted that when people discuss the idea that they are condoning WW2. I'm not religious, so I can't address that as if I was, but I do know that a lot of evangelical Christians support Israel's statehood and their right to be there more than even most Jews.
Do I think god would be interested in politics? Hell yes. The bible has a hell of a lot of political underpinnings. It's the basis for America's system of governance. 11 of the original 13 colonies had established state religions, and they were all evangelical christian.
Sowell says that "There is no reason why all those laws should be transferred willy-nilly to a different union, one with no inherent tendency to produce children nor the inherent asymmetries of relationships between people of different sexes."
I'll break it down for you. If society promotes that men and women should marry and have kids, and that any other relationship is not legitimate in the same sense, then the normal man+woman+kids dichotomy follows. If it says "anything goes," and men and women have all the benefits of marriage without the costs associated with the union, then the value for the normal dichotomy falls out of fashion, and the relationship styles of the soviet union and the worst city neighborhoods in the US prevail with their single parent homes, absent fathers, lack of condemnation and so on.
What? Lots of couples marry and don't have kids, many can't for medical reasons. Gay couples adopt kids that straight people produce and either can't take care of or don't want. How is this hurting society?
This has to be the most retarded explanations for a declining birthrates in the Western world. Do you honestly believe that gay marriage is the reason why those countries have less than a carrying capacity birth rate? Hmmm, could it be that as countries become richer, their societies become more equal? Thus, the opportunity cost of having a baby increases because women, who otherwise would have been in the household earning no wages, actually have wages and income to lose since they are working.
Also, the cost of raising kids has skyrocketed. Parents always want their kids to be better than them. Thus they invest in karate, tutors, etc. This has reduced the ROI of having a kid.
Nevertheless, I hope my post didn't interrupt your time at bible camp.
Seabird:
John Hagee...is that you? Get the fuck out of here.
--God wanted WWII and for millions of Jews to die so they could go back to Israel. That makes sense! God also wanted me to have a turkey sandwich for lunch, thanks a lot, big guy!
--Gay marriage is going to stop straight people from fucking and having kids. OBVIOUSLY! Shit, maybe I'll choose to be gay so I can stop having kids! In fact, I just chose to be straight yesterday, so why not switch over to fucking guys! FACT: Gay marriage is the number one cause for straight marriages that end in divorce.
--The US is not a Christian nation, it's a nation with a separation between church and state that allows people to practice whatever religion they want. Yes, the majority of citizens are christian, but that does not make our government a christian government. Fuck, most of the founders were deists. Jefferson had his own bible in which he removed all of the fucking references to miracles and the divine.
Hold on a second, though. If God is powerful enough to use WWII as a means to get the jews back to Israel, why doesn't he just stop allowing gay people to be born? I mean, seriously. If he is THAT involved in human affairs, he ought to just eliminate gay people from society. Straight up no more gay people overnight, they all just turn straight and are never born again.
You don't make any sense. Are you trying to say that legalizing gay marriage is going to decrease the population because more people will be gay, therefore producing less people? Come on, Europe's population is declining all across the board, not in just pro gay countries. Why is a natural decline in population a bad thing? You'd rather people over populate? That is how disease, famine, and war start. Also, the average person uses natural the same amount of natural resources in 1 year that it takes the planet 1.3 years to reproduce. So do the math on that, population explosion is not a good thing. There are already concerns about feeding the world in the short term.
Also, I think you should completely disregard what is written in the Bible, considering the fact that it was written by MAN. Christianity in itself was started by Constantine to united his pagan empire, not because God decided to publish his views on religion and creationism.
Another thing is that people reproduce whether they are married or not. So don't worry about population decreases. And today, on average 50% of couples get divorced, so there is really no sanctity in it today anyhow. Doesn't make sense what you are saying. By allowing gay marriage, society is not Promoting it, just allowing it.
@seabird You see declining birth rates in Western industrialized countries because having kids sucks, not to put too fine a point on it. The poor and miserable can have kids willy-nilly and not take any appreciable lifestyle hit; wealthy and educated people, on the other hand, take an enormous lifestyle hit by having kids, and in most cases never recover. This doesn't have anything to do with "traditional values", this is all about people getting to a place where they enjoy their life and being smart enough to realize that having kids will bring it all crashing down.
And if your inclination is to point out that this country or that country will just vanish off the map without replacement birth rates, my question to you would be, "Who cares?"
Its a deep point. I suppose in a really deconstructed world, where there is no god, then there is no reason to objectively state that existing is better than not. I suppose that life may be worse in the long run for the people who live in worlds where skills are less able to be specialized because of less population who is willing/able to take up the various professions (you probably know Friedman's argument about no single person knowing how to make a pencil -
), but none of this ultimately applies in the short term. I guess that practically, its possible that enemies may enslave/kill off the civilized nations who have tiny populations too. And of course, individuals don't really affect the overall world that much, and none of their actions will ultimately cause the world to decline or prosper (the old argument about why its illogical for individuals to vote), except for in the cases of individuals who have extraordinarily pronounced effects (Ghengis Khan, Napoleon etc.). I may be antiquated for thinking so, but I appreciate the beauty of humanity, and would like to see it continue. I'm a bit of a nihilist, but to deny the sadness of the thought of humanity just blinking out just seems like a bit of a cold way to view the world to me.
I doubt just about every other species on the planet would agree with your assessment of the beauty of humanity. I understand what you're saying, but each of us is only here for +-70 years (barring accidents or illness), our individual impact doesn't amount to a mustard burp in the grand scheme of things, and the world functioned just fine before we were born and won't even notice our passing.
So if all you've got is this 70-year window, again I ask you, "Who cares?"
AWM: Its about the legitimizing of relationships outside of the married man+woman+kid dichotomy. Have you ever heard of the notion that young men are turned from savages into useful citizens by the women they marry?
Id suggest meeting some mormons. They are the product of a culture which places the value of traditional understandings of marriage and gender roles highly. Utah has a fertility rate of something like 2.63, with the national average being 2.05. There are a lot of benefits for a society to value that type of a dichotomy, as opposed to the dichotomy that is prevalent in the worst US ghettoes.
If you say that all relationship types are equally legitimate, then the benefits/incentives for people getting married in general decreases and the people in general slide in to thinking of marriage as a relic that is no longer relevant. Of course, that is largely true, but only to the extent that a marriage creates responsibilities between the man+woman, and the expectation of commitment and asymmetrical division of labor.
This is what you don't get, the way people behave is their own damn fault. If a guy is a predatory asshole who will only behave if a woman is controlling him then perhaps that guy needs some therapy and to re-evaluate the kind of life he is living.
Who are you to say what relationships are legitimate? You don't seem to understand that gay people have the exact same type of attraction that heterosexuals do, it just happens to be to someone of the same sex. How would you feel if some religious group is denouncing the way you feel about someone?
And you cannot compare a gay couple wanting to get married (and perhaps even wanting to adopt kids) to single mothers in the ghetto popping out kids with different guys. The only people who have destroyed the sanctity of marriage is straight people, don't kid yourself.
And legitimizing through law only the one relationship type is how people express their preferences. We could remove all laws about stealing, and say that it is up to people to behave correctly. It wont turn out that way though. Look at marxism. It could have worked, but it just doesn't. Same thing with marriage. Societies that promote the married man/woman relationship succeed, and ones that don't fail.
Freakonomics, abortion (less kids) theoretically the cause and affect of large decrease in crime rates during the mid/late 90s.
@ In the Flesh I agree. I am far left and will admit intolerance of alot of things. Religion being one, bc even though it may have good values, I do believe that almost every war on earth has had a religion as a prominent part of its happening or justifications. But also there really is no such thing as tolerance. it is a logical paradox
Just so you know, the U.S. is currently dealing with overpopulation.
As a libertarian, I can never understand why people care so much about what other, random people do.
Being a Libertarian as well i often wonder the same thing.
I think any two people should be able to go to the goverent and get legally joined. I don't think the goverent should give any benefit to marriage or kids or owning a home.
Marriage has religious connotation. If people want to get joined or a union thats where the judge or civil servant comes into action.
@awm - shellfish and unwoven cloth is old testament. New testament doesn't have those prohibitions.
Eh, for me, the gay marriage thing is a mental excercise [it doesn't matter now, and it is being legalized], but as for the prayer thing: I don't have a problem with it. As long as they come up with good reasons to back their preferences, they're fine. When ANYONE, political or not, comes out and tries to boss me around "because god says so" they're not fooling anyone and I don't want to hear it.
Some people have the religion in them, others don't....but I'm looking more at the behavior than the belief system.
double post
oops
on the plus side----->one more banana for me
AWM: Third world countries have problems unrelated to birth rates actually.
And in terms of things changing, people never change fundamentally.
You are right, people were always gay and up until 50 years ago were largely social pariahs. There simply is no practical argument against gay marriage that is not steeped in religious teachings, zero. Most European countries have not legalized same sex marriage, and their birth rates are still low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_ter…
Basically every country that is above the world average for fertility is a developing country. That speaks far more about the effect of quality of life and wealth on people's desires to have children than it does about the implications of allowing gay marriage.
Lets get one thing correct here marriage is a legal contract with the US Government for purpose of taxation and ownership rights. The contract gives you a different tax status if you chose and legally binds your assets together from that point onward.
That's it in a nutshell folks. All this arguing about birthrates and God and "moral fiber" shouldn't matter for the purpose of getting a marriage license.
As conservatives we want smaller government and greater freedoms. Gay marriage seems to jive with that statement.
This.
Additionally, the people joining Rick Perry at his prayer day event aren't just saying "gay marriage is bad," they are saying some truly insane shit based upon nothing. Oprah as the "harlot of babylon," God used WWII to bring Jews to Christ, etc. These are bad people that do much more harm to society than good.
TK, you already stated that you can't tolerate people who are religious...and that's fine, at least you know you are a bigot and willing to admit it...but could you please provide some evidence showing how the people at that rally are "bad" and how they have done "much more harm to society than good"...or is it merely conjecture on your part?
Regards
Seabird - I really don't understand why you think a high fertility rate is such a fantastic thing. As far as I care, let people fuck animals and plants. How does it affect me in any meaningful way? As long as they aren't finger blasting their dog in the park while I'm running, I don't give a shit.
Well, higher fertility is good for the obvious basic economic reasons - higher GDP/quality of life for everyone due to increased output, greater likelihood of more diversity of product offerings, everything associated with larger free markets as opposed to smaller. I suppose that it also comes down, to an extent, whether you think it is inherently better to be alive as opposed to simply never having existed in the first place, which is a bit too qualitative for me to really talk about.
This was obviously more pronounced in the old days when kids had to go to work at an early age, when kids really needed to be produced. To the best of my knowledge, in 1776, >90% of americans were farmers. In 1900, around 50%, and now ~2%. To some extent this seems to indicate that there isn't as much of a necessity to make more kids, and that countries like Poland might be better off with having fewer kids so the parents can enjoy more of their income. Ultimately however, if everyone regularly halves their population every couple of decades, that leads to certain obvious issues in the long run.
Theoretically, in terms of sexual freedom, that seems to be a bit of a different issue. I don't have any real problem with people doing whatever they want as long they're not bothering me - its none of my business. However, the most successful, happy group I have seen (Mormons) leaves sex for marriage.
I think that it all comes down to the idea of personal responsibility. Pregnancy happens sometimes even when people use condoms/BC, and when that happens people have to take responsibility for it. Families/your kids seem to be a natural responsibility, so it seems to me that legitimizing anything outside the traditional views of marriage/family removes personal responsibility. For another example, the legalization of abortion also seems to train people disregard their natural responsibilities (if you think that human life starts at conception, which seems reasonable to me).
AWM: I don't know about gay marriage in Europe, but I do know that there is plenty of cohabitation, sex outside of marriage and other non-american traditional views that are not considered illegitimate in europe.
Wow, are you being serious? Sex outside marriage is a non-American tradition? I am afraid I might be feeding a troll now.
Ya it is bud. case in point, france where extramarital affairs are considered the norm.
Well, it looks like these whack jobs might be saying all this silly shit, but there won't be anyone there to listen:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/what-expect-rick-perrys-prayer-fest…
DOH!
I agree, but people don't seem to understand that all religion's principles were created by man. People have decided through religion that if you don't have faith, you cannot develop principles that will benefit society. And for many people, these practitioners are some of that religion's greatest martyrs and saints. I think people have started to use faith as the grounds for their (and what should be other people's) principles, when people should make themselves more accountable for their own lives in an ethical manner. I know that faith does teach good things, but the ultimatum that I feel many of them give, causes people to view them irrationally and irresponsibly so that it warps their views of others who don't share their own morals.
Good video, crazy old Russian author.
Some people do use faith or religion as a weapon to judge others when they don't really know for certain what the ultimate deal is, and it's wrong. It's always well-documented when someone who puts themselves on a pedestal gets taken down a peg. You bring up a good point about accountability, and that we need to be accountable for ourselves. As an elected official for example, you are accountable to the people you represent, and if those people who elected you happen to share your faith-based beliefs, you're obligated to speak up. If you've already got some experience being accountable to a higher power or a church or religion of some kind, so much the better for that electorate.
Our Declaration of Independence states that our founders believed that a Creator (at the very least), and that He endowed us with inalienable rights that the government is supposed to protect. This is where people get the idea that an atheist cannot be a good American citizen. Is that necessarily true? No, but I believe that being in touch with that founding spirit definitely helps.
.
I'm a Republican Christian Texan and I think Rick Perry getting elected president would be the worst thing to happen to the U.S. in a while, although it would ironically give Texas a reason to secede. The man is a complete imbecile that enjoys pandering to the rest of the "Religious Right (Retards)". God helps those who help themselves, I have no respect for people that expect God to be like a f*cking genie that doles out money and rain.
I'm not sure what denomination you are but I've never been to a church in which the congregation just sat around and expected God to be a genie. Most people I've known that were religious were very hard working and didn't expect God to put food on the table if they weren't doing what the Bible instructed them to do...like be the man of the house and provide for his family. Most religious people I've known use God as more of a focus point in meditation and as a counselor/therapist who they go to with their problems. The Christians I know pray and seek guidance from God to help with tough decisions...they don't seriously pray that God turns all the light green on their way home because they have to pee.
Regards
Perry's college transcript got leaked today: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript
Guy got a D in economics, a C in public speaking, a C in US History, and an A in world history, sounds a lot like the last Texan President we had.
Seriously though, how could anyone think someone with a 2.2 from Texas A & M would be qualified to lead the country? I can't think of any firm that would hire someone with that profile, but he could be President.
I'm from Texas and like the guy a few posts before you, have never thought Perry was a genius. Regardless, his track record says a lot more than his his college transcript. Is he a terrible public speaker? No, so who cares what he got in a classroom 30 years ago. Has he been a bad governor when it comes to economics? Quite the opposite (yes, he deserves some credit for Texas' success, even if he does claim a little too much of it--the guy has worked very hard to bring businesses here, both in negotiations and with initiatives/laws that he has passed). I don't care what his Aggie teacher gave him, the guy understands business and economics better than 90% of the politicians in Washington.
And when you refer to his grades sounding like the last Texas pres, are you really comparing a 2.2 at TAMU to a guy that graduated from Yale? W may have been clumsy/"unpolished" and a shitty public speaker, but he was not as dumb as the media will have you believe.
Still, I have very mixed feelings on him. I think he is one of the few candidates that has the will and balls to make some needed changes in this country (mainly economically, but foreign policy too), but at times (like with this prayer thing--which I don't have a problem with other than it being a little "out there"..) he seems a little too radical on certain issues. And again, I question his overall intelligence when it comes down to the finer details...but hey, maybe that's what advisors are for.
In the end, I don't think he can win. Too eccentric, not the brightest guy (as people are realizing), and unluckily for him, he is too close to Bush time-wise (whether fair or not, a big factor bc of the inevitable comparisons). That said, I would not be devastated if he ended up in the Oval Office--I think he would be better than many of the candidates (granted it's a weak field at this point) including Obama.
A in world military history*
I am not ok with any radical behavior from any religion but I don't understand why people have such an issue with someone with christian values/beliefs being president. I think ANT is right, folks just don't like for anyone to disagree with liberals or gays. If you disagree with gays, you're a bigot. If you disagree with Obama, you're a racist.... yeah, that's logical... keep going with that outlook you fucktard liberals
I am Catholic and moderate, I have no problem with a Christian president, what I have a problem with is a president or any elected official trying to legislate, pass laws, or skew education curriculum's based upon their religious beliefs. Constitutionally banning same sex marriage because the bible told you its wrong is so beyond fucked up its not even funny, as is a hard right religious zealot in Texas trying to revamp the school system to incorporate prayer and intelligent design. Unscientific ideological belief systems have no place in public schools.
I have a problem with Commiefornia teaching "gay history". What's your point? Also, how's the liberal run school system doing? Ya...
If Perry wants to have a prayer fest, let him. Not sure why they are called bigots for religious beliefs. Perry doesn't have a real shot in my opinion anyways.
I agree with theKing. Anyone who goes out of their way to bash gay people is probably secretly gay.
There is no argument for preventing gay marriage.
Oddly enough, I think it was The Onion that ran a tongue-in-cheek piece about it. If gay marriage becomes a reality, gay couples will be faced with the enormous peer pressure from friends and family to marry that other person if they've been seeing them for a while--nobody likes that.
In a broader sense, if gay and straight marriage are considered the same thing, gay couples will have to pay the same (higher) tax rate as married couples, as opposed to civil unions which tend to have a lower tax burden. There's a lot of bashing on marriage in general on this board--and to a degree, it's warranted, because I think in general people are too casual, not careful, about whom they choose to marry.
My point is, more and more people are unable to bear the burdens associated with marriage, a result of distorted views about what makes a marriage work. This is why a majority of marriages are now ending in divorce. The typical images associated with it are now nasty divorce courts, lawsuits, infidelity, jaded dissatisfaction, and heartbroken families, especially if there are kids involved.
In charity, I do have to ask the proponents: Why would you want to force another entire segment of the population into all of that?
Unions. Marriage is religious.
No, marriage isn't religious. Marriage exists all over the world as way to join to families or to create an environment less conducive to violence (it looks bad when you kill your in-laws). Our country's Taliban has hijacked a societal construction that exists on every continent, and turned it into some Jesus-Freak coat hanger.
The government should not favor married people over non married people. Once this is done we can rightfully allow anyone to form a union.
When this is done religious groups can offer their own true marriage and this will nullify the whole thing.
Being gay doesn't make you anymore of a minority than being retard does. Nothing like insulting blacks and native Americans.
And really, gay men have massive, loopsided HIV infection rates. Try wearing a condom and then we can discuss historic homosexual contributions.
I'm not defending shitty behavior (pun intended), but its hardly earth shattering to point out that famous historical figures happen to be gay. And by your logic straight people have no right to comment on the sanctity of marriage due to the insanely high divorce rate.
What famous figures have been gay? Also, how about we focus on teaching core subjects and stop worrying about what someones sexuality has to do with it.
I also don't think you can equate gays to blacks or other horribly oppressed minorities.
For the love of god, Google it.
Sorry I was mobile bro. Didn't have time to google famous gay people. Not that I give a shit because I never cared about famous hetro's.
What you do in your private life is your business. Stop trying to indoctrinate children. If someone did good, let their actions stand on their own. What hole they fuck is besides the point.
Also, if California is going to shove gay history down the throats of children, they sure as hell need to discuss the ongoing HIV epidemic. That little bit seems to get throw to the side.
Live and let live,....if you're a guy and like it up the ass then that's your business. People need to chill the fuck out with this religious shit....I swear I'm living in the bible belt and these fucking people are crazy. I consider myself a faithful person, but some days I really question religion and why it even exists...so much hate is caused by it.
If people want to be gay then let them be gay. I really don't see the difference between Rick Perry and that Koran burning lunatic, to me they all have the same type of mentality (some more and some less). Fuck em all.
What's sad is that I'm seeing so many of you qualified and educated people talk about "traditional American values" what the FUCK is that? America was designed to change, if it doesn't then we are all fucked! I really hope we change and we do away with this bullshit of having religiously-charged politics. It sickens me.
pacman on the money right there.
I laugh my ass off when people counter my post (and related posts) with "what's wrong with someone being Christian? Why do you hate Christians" and other such bullshit. That's a fucking red herring and has nothing to do with the issues I'm taking with Perry. I have no issue with religion as long as it is kept within one's private domain, not pushed into government and society at large by demagogue thugs and frauds like the members of the American Family Association.
Here is a video of Bryan Fischer, the "director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association." It is the most incomprehensible load of dog shit I've possibly ever heard...and his organization co-sponsored the fucking event with Perry. How can anyone defend this shit? Note, not religion in general, but this fucking lunacy:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/CLI4ABTvak8
There are a shit ton of clips and writings by these people, all of it full of vitriol and utter non-sense. Btw, who wants to bet that this guy has jerked off to gay porn within the last week?
I don't see why you all care. Rick Perry can do whatever he wants. As a Christian, if I was so honored by a minister to be able to speak at a large congregation I would do it in a heartbeat. To me it would be honoring the people who believe in God and Christ and giving hope to the community. All the Presidents have gone to Church while in the White House. If you have to be an atheist or agnostic to be President, I fear for the future of the US.
Also, Perry is currently #1 on my list to be President. I don't think that social conservatism wil be on the table much for him as President other than cutting abortion (as it should). Outlawing gay marriage will never pass. So what else do you care about? All the people who are God fearing, fiscal conservatives are idiots n the media's eyes. If Perry had an MBA from Harvard they would call him an idiot. Heck GWB had an MBA from Harvard didn't he...you know... that program that the cerebral Ted Kennedy couldn't get into?
Anyone who uses Christopher Hitchens as their basis for arguing against Christianity needs to sit the fuck down.
jmayhem:
I'm not "arguing against Christianity," I'm arguing against religious bigots pushing their views on the rest of America and into government and people like Rick Perry aligning with them. If you or anyone else in here can listen to the shit that the American Family Association and guys like John Hagee spout and not find it offensive, ridiculous, moronic, and based upon a load of bullshit, then please defend them with specifics, not ad hominem "you dont like religion" attacks.
Here's a highlight video of the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer spouting a bunch of made up, hateful non-sense.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/PxwGk_Pe0D4
Btw, how would Hitchens NOT be the go-to-guy for arguing against religion if that were my goal?
Oops, here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/PxwGk_Pe0D4
Yeah, because Gay groups and other groups shoving their beliefs down the throats of people is Kosher.
I've never agreed with anyone more than I do with you right now
What beliefs? What are you talking about? Would you teach kids that being gay is not OK?
ANT:
How are gay groups "shoving their beliefs down your throat."
Wanting to be treated equally and marry someone you love = shoving their beliefs down your throat?
Even if that were true, are you saying that it's ok the AFA do say incredibly incendiary things because someone else is also being offensive? In other words, two wrongs make a right?
Aren't you a libertarian?
http://michaeljmaxim.com/?p=3696
Regards
How about gay history in class? Since when has someones sexual orientation been relevant in class.
Furthermore, being a libertarian also means supporting different view points. God forbid someone doesn't completely agree with the gay agenda and you instantly become Hitler Jr.
In my opinion, militant left wing groups are usually the worst libertarian offenders.
I also do not care who joins in a government recognized union. I want the government to remove all benefits attributed to married couples so that anyone can form a union, as they should be allowed to.
Ant is right. Who cares about the sexual orientation of some historical figure? Teaching that shit to kids is a waste of time.
Government affirmed marriages (common law) are crap. I'm still waiting for my common-law canonization.
I always find that gay groups "shoving it down your throat" dialogue to be funny just because of the wording. Think about it. But no one can say that they and African-Americans are not the most vocal minorities ever. Gays make up approximately 2% of Americans but are thought to make up 25% by the public The Gay radio ads, the gay talk show hosts, and GLAAD all push an agenda at all times. I believe that gays should marry. But hate crime laws are BS, gay history is BS, rewording documents to be more respectful to gays is BS. I mean comeon...more than 2% of the population is anarchist...but that doesn't mean we should "affirm their rights" by creating government free zones.
MMBinNC:
Agree wholeheartedly about hate crime laws. I've always found them to be non-sense.
I don't think, however, that you can equate sexual orientation with anarchists / people with belief systems. Those aren't comparable at all.
Regardless of how you feel, though, I don't see how you or anyone can defend this American Family Association bullshit. This isn't about being PC or whatever, it's people spouting insane and hateful garbage and trying to push their views on government. And let's be serious, this group and others on the evangelical right are FAR more powerful than any gay figure in this country.
I'm comparing to the influence to size ratio. Not that anarchists have a just cause. Some gay activists have just causes (equal tax laws, equal unions, etc.) but others are just crazy. This is the same way with the evangelical christians. The only difference is that there are far more Christians, evangelical Christians, and social conservatives. Do I think that the anti-gay group is right? No. Do I think Perry talking at a conference/vigil is wrong...no. If Obama talks at a conference about debt reform sponsored by the socialist Party, people would jump on it just like this. But at the same time, people with opposite viewpoints will always find a way to demonize the other side. The fact is that I have volunteered at a Catholic Church for many year. We get more money than most of these unaffiliated evangelical ones because of our association with the diocese, archdiocese, and Holy See. Even so, it is very hard to create large scale events so we have to raise money from sources that we are in alignment with. If at this event the AFP gets up on stage and calls a pox on gays, saying that gays should be given the death penalty, that is wrong. But if they are simply supporting an event to further the faith, I have no problem.
Like the following?
Btw, who wants to bet that The King has jerked off to Bryan Fischer, Rick Perry and/or the AFA within the last week?
Regards
Why are you bringing another element into this. I don't think anyone is supporting this American Family shit.
And I don't know man. Crosses can't be in front of firehouses, we can't call Christmas by its name. I really think the movement to stomp on anything Christian is pretty powerful.
I'm not bringing another element into this. The American Family Association co-sponsored the event with Perry! He is explicitly supporting them by doing this and has taken heat from moderate religious groups over this (not just atheists and people like me.) This is the entire point of the thread. I don't see how someone can support Perry when he supports groups like the AFA and thinks that a siting Governor holding an overtly Christian prayer rally to "save America" is ok.
Also, John Gibson...is that you? The war on Christmas is total bunk. Yes, there are morons out there who force employees to say happy holidays instead of merry Christmas, and that's retarded considering no one actually gives a shit. But, it's a far cry from the evangelical right affecting national policy.
Ant, I used to bartend/serve at a very popular seafood restaurant in Houston and we were instructed to not say Merry Christmas. We were instructed to say happy holidays. I always said Merry Christmas though. Keep in mind, this was 4+ years ago.
I was yelled at at the supermarket I worked at at the time when I said Merry Christmas. I was so taken abck I didn't even yell back. I can't even imagine how atheists obtained so much vitriol for God. If I said it to a Muslim (I have) they either say it back or say I don't celebrate that, same with every other religion. But the leftist atheists can't let anyone believe in God. Not all liberals. But a vocal minority. Hmmmmm...sounds just like what I was talking about before.....
Even though many people believe "peacefully" in their respective religion, it does create a lot more problem (in my mind) than if nobody believed in any God(s). Given I am liberal, but I just think the mindset caused by faith is sometimes based off of fallacies which can change the way people view the world in general. But of course I think you can believe in whatever you want.
I don't like Rick Perry. This really annoys me, too. Religion should be a private thing imo, not paraded around.
If only the right would learn to be more tolerant
...like the left...
Regards
CPH Bravo:
The difference is that I'm disparaging them because they push their views on society and government and wield a lot of undue influence. They hate people because they are gay and base their world view on a religion and push that form of religion on everyone else. This isn't a moderate, run-of-the-mill group of pastors holding a local event, it's a fringe group of far right evangelicals with controversial views holding a major event with a high profile Governor.
I, on the other hand, cannot influence government policy, nor do I push my views on other people, nor do I hate gay people because of their sexual orientation. So, that's a false equivalence, pal.
Regards
My bad. I didn't realize you had a disparaging remarks hall pass. The irony in all that you say is that it's directly applicable to you as viewed from the other side. You, of course, don't realize this because you operate on the premise that religious people are dangerous and crazy. That hasn't been my experience with Christians and I highly doubt that it's been your experience either, merely your preconceived notion based on things that you want to believe.
The Christians I know donate time, money and blood. They travel overseas and build churches, schools and playgrounds. I've never met these dangerous bigots you just can't seem to stop talking about.
Please feel free to provide evidence as to how Christians have been dangerous to this country and harm others?
Also, please stop referring to the "separation of church and state" as if the concept was created to protect the government from religion when, in fact, it was created to protect religion from government and to prohibit the government from establishing a religion...not as an absolute separation of government from all things religious.
We get it, you don't like Christians and that's fine, but don't act as though you are some objective authority on this topic when you hold your own prejudices and discontent for a certain faction of people...especially when it seems that hostility and hatred is based sole on the grounds that this group of people hold different opinions.
Based on your reasoning, people are just as foolish for believing in the big bang theory as they are for believing in a higher power because neither has been proven unequivocally. So, it would seem to me, that both schools of thought are actually "faith based" at this point.
Who knows, maybe God doesn't actually exist...but as far as I know, no one has ever proved that.
Regards
Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters...both sides of the aisle...all bat-shit crazy and/or simply unintelligent. The fact that any of these people have any position of influence gives me great stress.
Can a sane, emotionally-stable, secular, fiscally conservative party please stand up? The fuck.
Dont forget to add Nancy Pelosi. I'll add Harry Reid because I can't stand that son-of-a-bitch.
CPH Bravo:
If you read my comments and still believe that I hate Christians, then you have no reading comprehension abilities. I hate dangerous extremists, not religious people in general. I believe in God of some sort, but understand that I can never prove that a God exists. Let alone a personal God that dictates how I live my life (and what holes I put my dick in.) When people start pushing religious doctrines into the public square and into government, I have a problem with it. People like John Hagee and Bryan Fischer have no fucking idea if God actually exists and make up a bunch of hateful crap and claim it's his law. That's irresponsible and should not be taken seriously, nor should that sort of crap be defended. And if a sitting Governor holds an event with these types of extremists, then I have an even bigger problem with it.
Christians that want to model their life after Christ and be selfless and give to charity and what not, I applaud that. But, it's a far cry from the shit the AFA pulls.
Also, the big bang has actual scientific evidence. Belief in God is faith based. I believe that there is more to existence than all that we see, but I understand that this is based on a belief system, I cannot point to any evidence that directly proves the existence of God. The big bang and the expanding universe are based upon scientific evidence and are therefor NOT faith based.
Again, you've provided zero evidence that these people are actually "dangerous" and therefor I can only conclude that you "hate" them because they have a point of view that differs, extremely, from yours.
It would seem to me that you, and others, don't have the ability to prove that God doesn't exist...so I'm not sure why that is often seen as some sort of supporting evidence for scientific theory.
What's the difference between someone pushing religious doctrine and someone who pushes their opinions or personal agenda?
What do you use in order to measure these opposing points of view and determine whether or not it's "extreme"? There are tens of millions of people in this country that believe homosexuality is wrong...those people might be inclined to think that your acceptance of such acts are extreme as well. You base your opinions on the premise that you are the authority on what is normal or abnormal. Barack, is that you??
Admittedly I know very little about AFA, but what have they done that implies they aren't following a Christ-like existence (to the ability of which a human actually can, of course)? Jesus didn't teach people to be accepting of other people's sins and/or condone the behavior, he merely instructed that Christians be forgiving of those that have sinned against them.
As I stated before, I do not believe that the big bang theory has been emphatically proven...thus it is still theory and based, to some degree, on faith...that is to say hypotheses and assumptions.
Regards
Just to clarify, scientifically speaking. You NEVER have to prove a negative statement like "You can't prove that God doesn't exist" and secondly, it is almost universally accepted by scientists that the Big Bang did occur. It is actually possible that it occurred out of nothing due to quantum mechanics. Also, the concept of time would not have existed before the Big Bang because of the theory that it does not exist in black holes. Anyways, there is no substantial evidence of any Gods (or aliens, thought I'd throw that in there) while there is compelling evidence that the laws of nature are dictated through the above mentioned science. If you want to know anything about this just watch or read some shows/publications by Stephen Hawking, Einstein, and co about the theory of the universe. Watch Discovery's show Curiosity, first episode was last week and actually covered the existence of God and discussed what I just mentioned in much more detail and a more efficient manner. Best
CPH:
If you can listen to the videos I've posted (with speakers from the AFA) and not find them extreme and idiotic, then I don't know what to say. Read up on your own time, I've said enough about them and you're tiring me out with your false equivalence arguments.
With that said, scientific theories are based on evidence. There is no faith involved. Scientists don't believe in the big bang on faith, they examine evidence and test their theories again and again and again. The big bang theory first came about due to observations that galaxies were moving away from each other (hence we are not living in a static universe.) We'll likely never prove the big bang (since we can travel back to the beginning of time), but it is the best and most supported (via evidence) theory we have as to how our universe began. This is not faith at all. Faith is believing in something without evidence. If you don't "agree" with these statements, then, again, there is no point in debating.
I'm sorry...could you please either talk louder or speak into my good ear?!?! Did you say that you have no proof that these people are actually "dangerous" and that you are simply making unfounded, inflammatory statements because you don't agree with these people's belief system?
Science is based on evidence but that evidence isn't absolute...especially when it comes to theoretical physics and cosmology. In many case, as previously pointed out, the evidence points to a certain answer until more evidence is found to debunk the previous theories and beliefs. I understand, to a decent degree, the concept behind the big bang theory, but as you pointed out, it might not ever be proven, so there is potentially always room for doubt. Does that mean that the theory is false? No, but in my mind it at least lends some credibility to the "crazy" people who think a God, or gods, exist.
And no, "faith" isn't believing something without evidence, it's probably more accurately described as believing in something without definitive proof. Either way a Christian would point to the earth and the stars and the sun, etc as evidence of God's existence...so it's a moot point.
My issue, if you want to call it that, with science is that there is generally an assumption there isn't a God, or gods, and that these scientists approach their test/procedures as such. In most scientists' minds, there is no room for God and therefor the inexplicable is merely our inability to fully understand science. There are numerous occurrences of "miracles" that have dumbfounded the scientific community for hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of years. Again, is this definitive proof of a God? No, but I can sympathize with one's belief in Him after witnessing some of this phenomena.
Regards
TK: As an aside from the original topic, allow me to explain a little philosophy of science. Its a commonly misconstrued idea that scientists prove things. They actually just keep improving on theories with new evidence until the point where evidence piles so that new theories emerge, and the old theories get busted. Hence why relativity was capable of displacing newtonian physics.
There is no proof though that god doesn't exist, and I think the point CPH was trying to make was that you claim science is superior where as it relies on assumptions that are not proven as universally necessary, or which could be disproved. Faith applies to things that occur in the real world, and you'd go insane if you didn't have some faith. Gravity could disappear tomorrow. When you walk out the door tomorrow morning, you could float up in the air. You just have to take it on faith that it is. You can't always be worrying about the minor details so much, like how there's a .000001% chance crazy things will happen. Same goes for faith in other aspects. If there's no greater reason to believe otherwise, then both theories are equally valid. That goes for religious explanations of creation, and "scientific" ones.
cphbravo: You've got to be kidding me, man. The scientific community is not in disagreement about these issues. A lot of these things cannot be proven definitively, but scientists work with 95-98% confidence intervals a lot of the time, and the fact that the 2-5% of doubt exists does not mean it is appropriate to jump in and say that they are wrong. In what other aspect of your life would you so vigorously defend something with no evidence?
The fact that "miracles" occur that science cannot explain is a testament to the fact that science is constantly advancing and there are currently limits to what we understand. 1,000 years ago, people getting cured of simple diseases would be considered "miracles", but now we can explain them with simple science.
The problem is when people attempt to force beliefs that have no proof onto other people, as so often happens in our country. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of deaths that have been a direct result of religious disagreements.
What, specifically, would leaving room for the possibility of God do for scientific tests and procedures? What would be productive or useful to solving natural phenomena by injecting the possibility of God in our tests and models?
CPH:
Please name one miracle that dumbfounds science. One miracle which defies the laws of nature that science has no explanation for.
Sure, as soon as you provide some proof/evidence of how these people are "dangerous"...or admit that they aren't actually dangerous and that you are just calling them that. I'll wait.
Regards
CPH's basic argument:
"Science cannot prove with 100% exact accuracy how the universe was created. Therefore, the personal God of the Bible is more likely the creator of the Universe and all life within it even though I have no legitimate evidence to support this."
Again, to pound this through your thick skull, I am not an atheist, I believe there is some sort of God or God-like idea (i.e. Spinoza's God, the universe itself as God).
My entire argument is that NO ONE can be an authority on God or Gods or any sort of God, let alone a personal God that cares about our individual lives. Implying such a thing is absurd. These types (the AFA) not only claim to know what God wants and demands of us, but attempt to force their beliefs and these "rules" on everyone else in society. I have a big fucking problem with that.
I don't recall ever saying that God is more likely than science, just that people seem much less "crazy" when someone finds out that your absolute scientific explanation isn't actually absolute, continually changes and based on assumptions that have yet to be proven. Just sayin'.
Keep pounding because it isn't going to work. Unlike you, the beliefs I outlined are based on logic and reason, not on discontent for a group of people that you don't like and consider crazy and dangerous.
So if the laws of physics are the guiding principle in out existence and everything must follow these predetermined rules, then what does your "god" do? He didn't create anything and he doesn't control anything...is he just a casual observer? Sounds like he works for a union or something.
This is based entirely on the premise that a "personal God" doesn't exist. If one was to except the premise that he did, then I don't see why there couldn't be an "authority" of him...especially when a book like the Bible exists that has an outline of what is expect of those that follow Christ, etc. The authority would just be relaying and interpreting how that scripture is properly utilized in an individual's life.
Dang man, did the AFA hack your YouTube channel and force you watch and post their video?!?!? Maybe they are more radical than I thought.
Regards
I agree with CPH on certain points I guess. All I'm trying to point out is that for many religious people, they take something science can't explain and then theorize that it MUST be a "miracle" or act of God. Also, there is no proof of religious existence. You cannot simply take something unexplainable and apply it to the phenomena controlled by your religion, which everyone seems to do. That is a ideological fallacy. The evidence gathered by science may be theory, yet it is inforced theory none the less on observances that we can make. Therefore, we have no other option, but to accept these theories as relative truths. If there were any "proof" of a religions or Gods existence, would there not be one universal religion based on the fact of its proven existence?
On your latest comment, funny you should mention that. I was trying to watch it, but ended up not watching it because of a call haha. But I have heard of that theory, not to mention the philosophical side of the debate which science alltogether fails to acknowledge. Also on a philosophical level, there is really no point in a God or believing in one, as it makes no difference to what happens after you die. The main issue I have with religion is its lack of wiggle room for new theories and science. Science allows you to regard different views due to its belief in nothing. I do not completely agree with Mr Hawking of course, and you are right, it is all "theory". Regarding other universes, that is what he was saying. There have never been any other universes, due to the fact that there was no time for them to exist in before the Big bang. Scientists cannot go into studies with the idea of a God, as that would be an outside controlling variable which would in the end, make the study pointless anyways.
As for the accuser issue, there is no proof of God. So you cannot refute that fact by saying there is no proof that there isn't a God.
I can see them as mentally dangerous as their complete devotion and unquestioning faith in something that doesn't take much thinking outside the box to realize might have its faults. This isn't proof, but anyone so profoundly entrenched in there (I'll say religious) beliefs are usually unstable and do not tolerate the notion of other religions/views/ or denial. I don't think anyone like this should even be allowed to govern.
Furthermore, I dislike religion because its complete disregard to scientific theories that conflict with their beliefs. How can someone accept the theory of gravity, but not the big bang theory when the two are directly correlated and are both equally part of the laws of nature?
CPH:
I consider people that push their extreme religious beliefs on society at large to be dangerous. Furthermore, they spread outright lies as facts to push their agenda, an agenda which is based upon a twisted view of religion as absolute truth which everyone must follow.
Here is a sample of the insane, stupid, and hateful garbage that they preach:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/g8tENn3ntLo
http://www.youtube.com/embed/XaTnrwMwhT4
Just straight up making shit up. The AFA is not some local church with a kook as the pastor. They have very serious influence on the far right and co-sponsored the event with Perry, a serious potential GOP candidate for President. This is not ok.
Did you really just say "they have the Bible...that makes them an authority." The Bible...a book authored by man, filled with contradictions and stories that never actually occurred...that does not give someone authority over anyone, let alone access to the mind of a "personal God."
There is no point in discussing any of this further.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
Some of you may need to read this. It takes less than a minute. The word "theory" in a discussion like this should be used correctly.
Good link, however I still find some scientific theories quite (using the everyday form of the word) theoretical.
How about all of you stop being so fucking opinionated and try to see this from someone else's viewpoints.
And ANT, I'm still pretty blown away by how much hate you seem to have for gays... Kind of alarming. Gay agenda? Really?
I'm half serious here
Real talk though, it's basically god-fearing paranoids concerned that their children will get recruited into homosexuality.
@UFO:
This is precisely what I'm getting at and precisely why I think guys like Perry and the crowd he runs with (i.e. the people who co-sponsored The Response with him) are so dangerous. They are overly concerned with bullshit strict Christian old testament morals and with forcing these morals into the federal laws of the United States and thus into the lives of everyone, including those who do not share their religion.
A presidential platform of God? I hate when politicians try to out-religion each other, seriously, knock that bullshit off. They sound stupid: we [almost]all go to church, shut up and fix the budget. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html?_r=1
A presidential platform of God? I hate when politicians try to out-religion each other, seriously, knock that bullshit off. They sound stupid: we [almost]all go to church, shut up and fix the budget. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html?_r=1…]
If this is correct then Perry needs to chill out:
•Percent of Population Uninsured - 1st •Percent of Non-Elderly Uninsured - 1st •Percent of Low Income Population Covered by Medicaid - 49th •Percent of Population with Employer-Based Health Insurance - 48th •Per Capita State Spending on Mental Health - 50th •Per Capita State Spending on Medicaid - 49th Health Professionals per Capita: •Physicians - 42nd •Dentists - 39th •Registered Nurses - 44th
•A 2009 study named Texas' tax system as one of the ten most regressive states in the nation. •A 2009 study found that Texas requires families in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale to pay more than three-and-a-half times as great a share of their earnings in taxes as the top one percent. •The poor in Texas pay 12.2 percent of their income in taxes, the fifth highest percentage in the country.
Well AWM, we're doing something right. Look at our economy compared to the rest of the country...
Oh ya, forgot to mention, we actually still have freedoms.
Disclaimer: I'm no Perry fan.
Ooooops, wrong Perry
Let me clarify, not Rick Perry fan. I love Katy Perry's boobies.
The whole "the poor don't pay enough taxes" thing is crap and doesn't tie to reality. As a % of their own income, the lower classes are paying more in taxes than the rich. I'm not even arguing one way or another, but let's not act like the rich are being robbed blind while the poor people don't get affected.
50% don't pay income taxes. Can you argue with that?
@Texan:
They pay payroll and sales taxes, etc. Also, let's be clear, there are a fair chunk of people not paying federal income taxes (though still paying other taxes) because they're not making jack shit to qualify to pay.
"But, but...we need to make sure that people making $15K a year pay more taxes! STOP SOAKING THE RICH."
I'm not even taking a position on what's best for tax rates and what not...but let's not act like poor people are making out here.
Thanks for the clarification. I know that pay state level taxes, I was specifically referring to federal level taxes.
AGain, i think you would agree with me, we need tax reform from groud up.
50% of this country pay zero federal taxes. We are not talking about sales tax, etc.
Half this nation is not dirt poor. I could understand maybe 20% not paying federal tax, but when 50% pay zero, I call bullshit.
This is all about shared sacrifice. Everyone should pay something. Maybe the poor should only pay 5% Federal tax, whatever, but they should pay something. No one should be getting a free ride.
This also has nothing to do with who is making out or who isn't. We all benefit from a Federal government. No reason that we should not have everyone chipping in.
This is the key issue between those on the right in this country and those who are more moderate. We moderates think that if you are cutting SS, medicare, and medicaid the poor and middle class are hurt the most. That is their sacrifice. The wealthy don't care if they collect less SS, its minimal compared to their dividend and interest income. The rich must sacrifice by paying slightly higher taxes. That is their share.
Is this where we primarily disagree?
Where is this "50% of the country doesn't pay any taxes" figure coming from? I'm not contesting it, I just want to know the source of this 'fact'. It showed up on the rhetoric radar three days ago and I can't find the source OR verification and I need help.
Its federal income tax, not taxes in general. That is impossible.
Its similar to the statistic that the right parrots about China, in reality they own about 7-8% of our national debt, not 50% which is the number often thrown around.
Sorry, but I always have said Federal taxes. They pay nothing for the Federal government that we all enjoy.
That is bullshit and plain fact. Everyone pays consumption taxes, but half this country doesn't contribute anything to the Federal budget. No wonder why we are broke!
Quis sit necessitatibus excepturi repellat ducimus nihil quo. Fugiat dolorum harum et est fugit. Accusantium quibusdam vel eligendi ut adipisci voluptatem. Vel dolorem aliquam reprehenderit.
Repellat qui unde architecto eos quasi rerum vel. Vel maiores officiis vitae nihil velit nulla ab. Sed beatae debitis quod qui quia. Ex et libero aut perferendis quas delectus distinctio. Aliquid tenetur sed omnis praesentium rem. Id et eos et minima quod incidunt voluptate.
Sed rerum saepe eaque fugit accusamus dicta. Velit ratione blanditiis ad voluptate quia vitae non quia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eum distinctio reiciendis tempora incidunt beatae. Perspiciatis inventore officiis quia tempora amet sequi. Quia impedit vitae doloremque consectetur soluta.
Ratione ipsam et est architecto dolores. Officia illum odio incidunt iure. Nesciunt dolor aliquid sed et eius. Animi autem quis cumque illo fugit corrupti molestiae qui. Laboriosam quidem quia voluptatibus doloremque voluptatem.
Sint similique voluptatibus sit. Ipsam aut et iste illum. Veritatis consequatur quia unde ipsa.
Quibusdam molestiae placeat neque pariatur. Ratione necessitatibus blanditiis veritatis et animi ut ut. Neque et ut est vero sequi voluptate.
Repellendus et ipsam possimus et dolorem sint. Aut quibusdam perferendis voluptas sit iure. Molestias minima magni soluta repellendus magni.
Corrupti fugiat quae ut dicta quis ipsum. Beatae quae vel et saepe.
Molestias ut repellendus vitae autem error voluptate nihil autem. Distinctio quis ducimus nihil aut maxime quas et rem.
Autem quisquam ullam quia similique. Quasi harum ea non qui eum architecto. Autem ratione ex et sint. Consectetur reiciendis eum voluptatibus occaecati id et. Ut in est et quo assumenda harum.
Tempore et aperiam debitis voluptatem. Fugiat necessitatibus sunt voluptatem impedit error. Et quod deleniti est maiores possimus explicabo laborum.
Similique suscipit illum cumque expedita. Asperiores qui sit molestiae aperiam quae saepe autem. Illum officiis expedita quibusdam.
Impedit dicta et necessitatibus occaecati explicabo quaerat. Hic dolorem pariatur temporibus repellendus voluptate ut nisi. Minus quam omnis quibusdam ut in.
Qui itaque aut neque placeat non consequatur. Reiciendis ea et iure porro consequuntur aut rem. Incidunt ut maxime ratione deleniti qui est quibusdam.
Illum et facere harum. Velit temporibus optio cum impedit. Labore possimus voluptas at. Necessitatibus illum recusandae vel quas fuga aut tempore. A aut vero magni delectus rerum fugit dolor suscipit.
Molestiae cumque aut maxime. Beatae necessitatibus repellendus error est quas. Sit magni at error doloremque.
Autem mollitia odio eos consequatur dicta officia maiores. Qui aut vel sint soluta. Recusandae accusantium architecto unde consequuntur exercitationem dolores sed labore. Eos ea ut et.
Qui quia ex assumenda ad accusamus. Mollitia ex commodi odit quis. Sapiente aliquid nihil mollitia ut aut eaque cupiditate impedit. Mollitia odio similique nisi dolores consequuntur deserunt vel.
Suscipit aut autem consectetur quasi animi molestiae omnis. Ut assumenda sequi repellendus ea voluptatem. Dolor eum officia doloribus maiores. Ipsa rerum dolor et ut quia natus quisquam. Enim beatae nihil deserunt ullam et dolores voluptas. Voluptas et quaerat ut ad libero error. Rerum doloribus facere nemo veniam magnam porro.
Officiis maxime hic et ducimus. Quos id laudantium quasi quaerat sit et sed. Consequuntur omnis aut culpa doloribus. Alias cupiditate officia eum qui aliquam quae.
Esse molestiae voluptatum qui minima quia. Nihil modi id ea et voluptas eum. Provident dolorem amet voluptatem quia. Et tempore id molestiae impedit enim.