Possible McCain VP pick Jindal deals blow to separation of church and state

[redsox12]

lol?
lets go see the easter bunny guys.
b/c thats obviously real too.

Theres no need to make this a personal assault on religion

[ari1013]

The GOP needs Romney to be McCain's VP, or else they are assured to lose.

What's Romney going to help win? Utah's already blood red. Maybe Michigan? Doubtful though. Obama's polling very well there and they don't seem to like McCain's comments about the US auto industry needing to close up shop soon.

[nate_1346]

What's Romney going to help win? Utah's already blood red. Maybe Michigan? Doubtful though. Obama's polling very well there and they don't seem to like McCain's comments about the US auto industry needing to close up shop soon.

Michigan, Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Nevada are all places where he could help out McCain. Every Republican I know would like him to be the VP.

[JHG722]

Romney wont give us PA. I wish, but at least in my area, us conservatives are quite uncommon.

[ari1013]

Michigan, Ohio, Pennslyvania, and Nevada are all places where he could help out McCain. Every Republican I know would like him to be the VP.

OK so the Republicans can keep Nevada and its 5 EVs. If Penn or Ohio really do start trending Republican (quite unlikely given the state of the economy), Obama will take Strickland or Rendell and then those states are off the table.

When it comes down to selecting a VP, McCain's not going to take Romney because it's not getting him anything. Sure Nevada's a toss up right now. But 5 EVs isn't going to put McCain over the top. If he wants a real shot in the rust belt, he needs someone like Tom Ridge. If he wants a real shot at dissatisfied white women, he needs someone like Sarah Palin. He definitely doesn't need Romney.

Romney's better off not tarnishing his name with this epic loss McCain's about to receive. That way he can sit back and say "I told you so" when he runs in 2012.

[DenButsu]

Theres no need to make this a personal assault on religion

How is that a personal assault on religion?

I mean, I'm very far from being religious, but I'm not going to attack anyone for having religious beliefs. I will attack the idea that it's okay to teach religion in science classes, because that's not okay. Science is based on objectively measurable criteria. Religion is not. There are ways for people to hold both scientific and religious beliefs in non-contradictory world views, but that's not what science classes are for. Science classes are for teaching science. Period.

But when it comes to questioning religious assumptions, why is that an attack? Why is it wrong for me to put angels and tooth fairies and Satan and the Easter Bunny and a talking bush and Santa Claus all in the same category - fantasy creatures? As someone who's not starting from a religious point of view, why should any of those things have any greater or lesser validity to me as being "real"? They all, as far as I can tell, seem to pretty much be made up stories. And there are a lot of very devout religious people of many different faiths - including Christianity - who feel exactly the same way as I do. Who consider those stories to be metaphorical rather than literal.

So I don't see why you have any more solid standing for being offended at nonbelievers questioning those assumptions than nonbelievers have for being offended at your trying to make us feel guilty for questioning those assumptions in the first place. If you're going to claim those things as truths, the burden of proof is on you, not us.

I have this conversation a lot with my wife, who kind of believes in ghosts. I always ask, "Where's the proof?" And she doesn't get offended - or change her mind.

[gcoll]

And that's fine. That's what Theology classes are for. You can learn what happened in science classes and then go take theology to get the philosophy on why it happened.

Yeah. That's cool with me.

You seem to be able to read and write and interpret and analyze pretty well. Was that all from home schooling?

I didn't learn nothing from public school. (to clarify, this is as it is written. It's not meant to be slang or anything....it means I did learn things in public school)

But I won't go further into this type of thing, because I think it'll make me sound like a douche. But, basically....any program that could have helped me out, was cut...and in general, me and students like me are pushed to the side. And I think the lack of any challenge in school...bred kind of a laziness and almost bitterness in me, that just recently I've been able to correct, and get motivated.

I hope that doesn't sound too "douche bagg-ish"

lol?
lets go see the easter bunny guys.
b/c thats obviously real too.

This would be the type of comment that would get under my skin.

But when it comes to questioning religious assumptions, why is that an attack? Why is it wrong for me to put angels and tooth fairies and Satan and the Easter Bunny and a talking bush and Santa Claus all in the same category

Because it's condescending.

Because those comparisons are making fun of the belief in God.

Because instead of rationally discussing the existence of God, you are mocking the belief in God, by comparing it to a belief in fairy tales.

And there are a lot of very devout religious people of many different faiths - including Christianity - who feel exactly the same way as I do. Who consider those stories to be metaphorical rather than literal.

Right. But do you see a difference between a discussion that involves:

"But, do you think the burning bush, and a lot of these biblical stories could be metaphors, rather than meant to be taken literally?"

and:

"Jeez. You believe in a talking burning bush? haha. Do you believe in the tooth fairy too? What about Santa Clause?"

See the difference? It's a mutual respect thing. Religious people violate it as well. They can be very condescending as well. But I've argued with atheists more than I've argued with religious people. Because atheists annoy me more.

[DenButsu]

Let me just say that I'm not laughing at anybody. I'm serious. I do think that Bible stories about supernatural events and fairy tales are basically on the same level. I don't say that to ridicule or mock anybody (although I understand what you're saying when it's delivered in the mocking tone that you described above).

But just because a larger number of people believe those stories and a larger percentage of them happen to be adults doesn't make them any more legitimate to me. Aliens, ghosts, gods, monsters - as far as I'm concerned, they all go on the same list: Things that some people believe in but cannot be empirically demonstrated to truly exist. I regard them all equally.

And since that's what I truly believe in, why should I be shy about expressing my opinion? My feelings don't get hurt when religious people tell me they believe in miracles/angels/devils/other supernatural events. Their viewpoints don't offend me unless a) they're trying to turn them into legislation, b) they're trying to convert people (especially when exploiting uneducated people - "We'll give you some food if you believe in our god"), or c) they're trying to claim they have some claim to a greater cosmic truth than I have, when in fact none of us really know. But if they're just thinking what they're thinking and believing what they're believing and talking about it, that doesn't offend me at all. So where do they get off at getting offended by me doing precisely the same thing, and expressing my lack of belief in their stories? It's the double standard that has come to be acceptable in a society that embraces and promotes religiosity and condemns a lack of faith in "God" or whatever else you might call it.

[redsox12]

How is that a personal assault on religion?

It just sounds like you have a personal problem with religion and thers just no need to take it out on people of faith.

I mean, I'm very far from being religious, but I'm not going to attack anyone for having religious beliefs. I will attack the idea that it's okay to teach religion in science classes, because that's not okay. Science is based on objectively measurable criteria. Religion is not. There are ways for people to hold both scientific and religious beliefs in non-contradictory world views, but that's not what science classes are for. Science classes are for teaching science. Period.

I understand Science is for Science, I think if a religious person wants to not learn about evolution, they should be allowed to leave the room and not have there grade affected. Similar to kids whos parents don't want them learning about sex education in school has a choice to refrain from that particular subject.

So I don't see why you have any more solid standing for being offended at nonbelievers questioning those assumptions than nonbelievers have for being offended at your trying to make us feel guilty for questioning those assumptions in the first place. If you're going to claim those things as truths, the burden of proof is on you, not us.

I'm not trying to make you feel guilty, I just don't want to see people mocking religion when no one has mocked non believers in this thread. People can get very sensitive about bad jokes like Don Imus bad joke.

Let me just say that I'm not laughing at anybody. I'm serious. I do think that Bible stories about supernatural events and fairy tales are basically on the same level. I don't say that to ridicule or mock anybody (although I understand what you're saying when it's delivered in the mocking tone that you described above).

It's the same as when people say Obama is a Muslim, and people don't like it because they feel it will hurt there candidate. Nobody likes it when something they love and believe in is mocked.

Things that some people believe in but cannot be empirically demonstrated to truly exist. I regard them all equally.

Christains believe when they survive something very traumatic that God helped them through, myself included and that is there evidence.

And since that's what I truly believe in, why should I be shy about expressing my opinion? My feelings don't get hurt when religious people tell me they believe in miracles/angels/devils/other supernatural events.

There is a difference in saying your a non believer and explaning why and mocking a religion. I would never mock you for your believes and I was just hoping you wouldn't mock religion just because you don't believe in it.

Their viewpoints don't offend me unless a) they're trying to turn them into legislation, b) they're trying to convert people (especially when exploiting uneducated people - "We'll give you some food if you believe in our god"), or c) they're trying to claim they have some claim to a greater cosmic truth than I have, when in fact none of us really know. But if they're just thinking what they're thinking and believing what they're believing and talking about it, that doesn't offend me at all.

What is wrong with trying to convert people, isn't that what obama and McCain is trying to do to win this Nov, there is nothing wrong with Christians expressing what they believe and people choosing to go with them or not. I don't know what you talking about with the uneducated and food except homeless and shelters/churches. It's not a bribe it's just doing the right thing, helping out your fellow man. At my school we had a Christian meeting and once a month, we gave away pizza to anybody who wanted some. We didn't make them stay but most did because they would have felt bad to just run in and take our Pizza and not listen to the message and then make up there own mind.

So where do they get off at getting offended by me doing precisely the same thing, and expressing my lack of belief in their stories? It's the double standard that has come to be acceptable in a society that embraces and promotes religiosity and condemns a lack of faith in "God" or whatever else you might call it.

I don't think non believers should be made fun of, and I don't think Christians should be made fun of. The thing to me thats wrong is the non believers wanting to get rid of all public displays of God.

[gcoll]

I do think that Bible stories about supernatural events and fairy tales are basically on the same level.

They are not.

And I know you are trying to whittle it down to just dealing with the literal interpretations....but come on.

But just because a larger number of people believe those stories and a larger percentage of them happen to be adults doesn't make them any more legitimate to me

It doesn't make them more legitimate. It makes them more important. And the fact that people try and live their lives, around the concepts in the bible...means that it deserves respect. A lot more respect than the tooth fairy. Which is why it's insulting to compare the two.

Things that some people believe in but cannot be empirically demonstrated to truly exist. I regard them all equally.

That's crazy.

The way the Bible has influenced humanity in general, and western civilization in general, puts it on a much higher level than any fairy tale. Regardless if you want to argue about people who take it literally.

And since that's what I truly believe in, why should I be shy about expressing my opinion?

You shouldn't. But there is a way to express your opinion respectfully.

So where do they get off at getting offended by me doing precisely the same thing, and expressing my lack of belief in their stories?

I don't think claiming that their beliefs, are fairy tales.....is the same thing as simply "expressing my lack of belief in their stories"

It's the double standard that has come to be acceptable in a society that embraces and promotes religiosity and condemns a lack of faith in "God" or whatever else you might call it.

I don't know what world you live in, but it's perfectly fine to attack religion. Not Islam though. Christianity is fair game though.

And I've never been condemned for my lack of faith. I'm sure there are people who act "holier than thou" about their belief in God, but the only "holier than thou" people I've met are atheists.

I'm fine when people have beliefs (or non beliefs) about anything. It's just when they use that belief...to imply that it makes them better than everyone else, that annoys me. I assume this happens with religious people quite a bit...but I've seen it more in atheists.

*for the record. I'm not religious at all. I'm one of those agnostic types. And I am not a fan of creationism, or intelligent design at all. I have no problem not teaching that in science classes.

[DenButsu]

That's crazy.

No, it's rational.

I don't dispute the historical, social, and cultural imortance of any religion and its accompanying texts. And I also have a lot of respect for all of them as works of philosophy, as chronicles of struggle against oppression and overwhelming odds, as sources of inspiration that help people find cause to help each other and do charitable deeds and, in general, be more humane.

But "Love thy neighbor" and "Jesus walked on water" are two completely different ballparks for me.

The former is a powerful moral mandate that has guided people towards the better side of their nature for centuries.

And the latter is a metaphor for a historical figure who, in his time, was transcendent. I don't argue that the man didn't exist. I believe he did. And I surely would never argue that he wasn't an extraordinarily progressive philosopher, or an amazingly inspirational persona whose teachings have had a tremendously positive impact on some of the more modern actors who have had a more direct influence on our society (Martin Luther King, Jr. not the least of them).

But I think the "walked on water" stories, the "changed water into wine" stories, are exaggerated, metaphorical allegories for the transformative impact that he, the human man - not god-man, had on thousands of people during his lifetime. And not historical accounts of true phenomenon.

So yes, I think they are on the same fantasy level as other fantastical stories, because they are made up. By people.

[redsox12]

So yes, I think they are on the same fantasy level as other fantastical stories, because they are made up. By people.

and I believe the bible is real all of it so, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[redsox12]

All of it?

Yes, why are you laughing?

[redsox12]

What to you have against Religion anyway? I'm guessing your a atheist. I have not said anything about your choices so why are you laughing at mine.

[sboyajian]

and I believe the bible is real all of it so, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Here is some info about the new Testament..

The original texts were written in Koine Greek by various authors after c. AD 45 and before c. AD 140. Its 27 books were gradually collected into a single volume over a period of several centuries.

A mishmash of stories written by numerous people over time is not a collection of facts, but a group of stories written to instill faith.

They are moral stories with the purpose of having point or establishing purpose. They are not meant to be taken as truths that it existed exactly as written.

While I feel everyone should have their own religious beliefs, the bible has always been my main reason for not following a religion in the first place. Anyone who can worship a book of stories which has never exhibited one bit of being factual (in the sense of real truth, not the purpose of being a moral compass), makes me wonder what else they believe.