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

[redsox12]

Yeah, that's some Falwell ****. Ultimate right wing extremism.

No, it Christian believes, nothing political in my post

One of the reasons the whole political system is effed up. Nutso stuff.

Did I say anything about the Jewish faith no, so please don't insult the Christian religion.

[BroadwayJoe]

No, it Christian believes, nothing political in my post



Did I say anything about the Jewish faith no, so please don't insult the Christian religion.

alright, having now read many of your responses to posts in various threads in this forum, i gather that you are completely misinterpreting nearly everything that is being said to you. not everything is a personal attack against you, your faith or your ideals. furthermore, it is neither insulting nor inflammatory to have and share an opinion that differs (and often disputes) your own. that's part of life. i thought conservatives were all about preaching that ideology!

[ari1013]

alright, having now read many of your responses to posts in various threads in this forum, i gather that you are completely misinterpreting nearly everything that is being said to you. not everything is a personal attack against you, your faith or your ideals. furthermore, it is neither insulting nor inflammatory to have and share an opinion that differs (and often disputes) your own. that's part of life. i thought conservatives were all about preaching that ideology!

have you watched the news lately? I hope someone does a 2004 and 2008 comparison.

[BroadwayJoe]

have you watched the news lately? I hope someone does a 2004 and 2008 comparison.

i enjoy my IQ where it is and fear watching the news may drive it down like stocks

[redsox12]

alright, having now read many of your responses to posts in various threads in this forum, i gather that you are completely misinterpreting nearly everything that is being said to you. not everything is a personal attack against you, your faith or your ideals. furthermore, it is neither insulting nor inflammatory to have and share an opinion that differs (and often disputes) your own. that's part of life. i thought conservatives were all about preaching that ideology!

I think we had this discussion in the Feedback forum on whats an insult or not. A poster said Nutso stuff about what I believe, if a poster said "Jewish" nutso stuff, he would have every right to be mad, but I wouldn't post that. In a other thread someone said that McCain should be send to Iraq. Can you imagine the backlash is someone posted Obama should go to Iraq. One poster got mad just at "Obama wants higher Gas Prices". I didn't complain at the McThreads. I think this is why we should have a liberal thread and a conservative thread. So we can be the biggest liberal or conservative homers and not be judged by the other side. It would work if we all went at our word not to attack the other thread.

BTW Christians preach forgiveness not conservatives, I didn't flame him.

[BroadwayJoe]

I think we had this discussion in the Feedback forum on whats an insult or not. A poster said Nutso stuff about what I believe, if a poster said "Jewish" nutso stuff, he would have every right to be mad, but I wouldn't post that. In a other thread someone said that McCain should be send to Iraq. Can you imagine the backlash is someone posted Obama should go to Iraq. One poster got mad just at "Obama wants higher Gas Prices". I didn't complain at the McThreads. I think this is why we should have a liberal thread and a conservative thread. So we can be the biggest liberal or conservative homers and not be judged by the other side. It would work if we all went at our word not to attack the other thread.

BTW Christians preach forgiveness not conservatives, I didn't flame him.

while very touching, that really had nothing to do with the intentions of post. my point is that while you MAY find certain comments inflammatory, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is. if someone's opinion is that religion is "nutso" they are allowed to share that notion, just as you share quite the opposite stance. that's the beauty of the world!

and for the record, both mccain and obama SHOULD be sent to iraq. i get that certain political figures are "too valuable" to lose via warfare, but there's very little sense in the concept of business suit-wearing men and women starting a war and then sending others to go fight it for them. that's just my two cents.

[redsox12]

while very touching, that really had nothing to do with the intentions of post. my point is that while you MAY find certain comments inflammatory, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is. if someone's opinion is that religion is "nutso" they are allowed to share that notion, just as you share quite the opposite stance. that's the beauty of the world!

I guess it's just how sensitive one is, bigger fights have been started on sports arguments. I know he can post whatever he wants. I guess the question is where is the line draw.

[BroadwayJoe]

I guess it's just how sensitive one is, bigger fights have been started on sports arguments. I know he can post whatever he wants. I guess the question is where is the line draw.

IMO, the line is drawn when instead of saying generally "x religion is nutso" someone says "YOUR religion is nutso" in direct response to you. even if we're in mid-conversation, we should be able to confirm our beliefs without it being mistaken as inflammatory. that just lends to the oversensitivity that psd has displayed as of late.

[PHX-SOXFAN]

To me, that is like looking at a great work of literature, and deciding it sucks because it's made up. Or doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, due to the fact it's made up. Or comparing it to Cat in the Hat...because "both stories are made up" It misses the point.

And if you argue with someone who does have a literal interpretation of the Bible....what do you accomplish by comparing their beliefs to a fairy tale?

actually he acknowledged that it is a great work of literature, it holds great moral and philosophical ideals, it just isn't true. He never said "it sucks". He just said it should'nt be used as a basis for government, just like the koran, the golden plates, the cat in the hat, to kill a mockinbird, and O'Reilly's latest book. None of them hold anything that should be made law or brought into government.

No one here is arguing that people can't believe what they want, all we are saying is keep it to yourself, in your church, or in your private school, out of the public schools, out of laws and out of government. We don't care what passage says what about gay marriage, because it has no basis on our government's foundation or policies.

[redsox12]

He just said it should be used as a basis for government, just like the koran, the golden plates, the cat in the hat, to kill a mockinbird, and O'Reilly's latest book.

Even though I like O'Reilly that was pretty funny.

[BroadwayJoe]

No one here is arguing that people can't believe what they want, all we are saying is keep it to yourself, in your church, or in your private school, out of the public schools, out of laws and out of government. We don't care what passage says what about gay marriage, because it has no basis on our government's foundation or policies.

furthermore, to touch on an earlier post of mine, it's totally contradictory because there's no way to include ALL religions in legislation. it's inevitably going to be from one side (most likely protestant christians) and that leaves many, many people disenfranchised in this country supposedly based on freedom of religion.

[gcoll]

this is a necessary evil that faith and lack of faith living together must deal with. both sides have a right to feel as though the other is inconsiderate towards each other. but to insinuate that this practice is only enacted by one side is both wrong and naive.

Which I never did.

I just note the irony in a self righteous atheist, being about as close minded, and ill informed as any Bible thumping redneck you can find.

And the religious people I've met....are not the pushy, self righteous type. They usually speak about their religion as a personal thing, that you can take or leave. Preface a lot of stuff with "What I believe is this....and you don't have to" type stuff. Whereas a lot of atheists (especially the moronic college atheists) have an attitude of "This is what I believe....and if you believe in a magical man in the sky, you are a backwoods hick"

Now that is not to say that the condescending, close minded ones do not exist. I am positive they do. But, I haven't really met one. I come into contact with more annoying, pushy, atheists than I do religious folk.

unfortunately, there's really no way to share one belief or the other without being inconsiderate towards your theological opposite. that's just inherent in faith or lack thereof.

That's not really true. You can respectfully disagree. Now, if the other person is irrational with their beliefs, and won't accept any kind of dissent...then sure. The mutual respect thing is kind of lost.

No, what it is is doubting the beliefs of the people who believe that made up stories are true stories.

Again. It's more than simply doubting the stories authenticity, when you compare it to fairy tales.

I'm going to say well then either show me the bearded fellow hanging out up there in the clouds and PROVE YOUR STORY IS REAL or leave it out of the argument.

See the "bearded fellow hanging out up there in the clouds" is the mocking part. That's the part that annoys me. That's the part that cheapens the entire debate, and the entire conversation.

actually he acknowledged that it is a great work of literature, it holds great moral and philosophical ideals, it just isn't true.

I wasn't making a point about the literary content of the Bible. I wasn't making a point about the Bible being taken literally. I was making a point about the unfair, and frankly stupid, comparison between the Bible and children's fairy tales.

It'd be like comparing Dolstoyevsky to J.K Rowling, because they both make up the stories in their books. It's an oversimplification. That's why it is crazy to compare the two. They are on different levels. Even if both are made up. That doesn't matter.

No one here is arguing that people can't believe what they want

That's not the point. It's a given that anyone can believe anything. I'm talking about the necessary conditions to have a debate on these issues, at a high level. At a level of mutual respect.

all we are saying is keep it to yourself, in your church, or in your private school, out of the public schools, out of laws and out of government

I don't believe it has to be kept to one's self.

I don't believe it only has to be kept in private school.

And if you are saying you want it kept out of the laws.....you're going to have to change a whole lot of laws that are already in place. Not to mention the philosophical groundwork of those laws. Of those codes of conduct. Of those moral ideals.

Now. It's place in a science classroom is definitely fine to say it doesn't belong. But to say it doesn't belong in school whatsoever is just stupid.

We don't care what passage says what about gay marriage

Actually not all that much space in the Bible is dedicated to condemning homosexuals. Especially the new testament.

[DenButsu]

See the "bearded fellow hanging out up there in the clouds" is the mocking part. That's the part that annoys me. That's the part that cheapens the entire debate, and the entire conversation.

It's not mocking if people literally believe it's true. And they do.

They believe in a talking snake. Literally.

They believe in a gravity-defying parting of the ocean. Literally.
And a gravity defying stroll on the ocean. Literally.

They believe in a chemically impossible transformation of water into wine, literally, and a biologically impossible transformation of a man dead for days back into life, literally.



So it's not mocking for me to point that out, and call it what it is:

They believe in a bearded fellow sitting up in the clouds. And especially in the case of Jesus, but often in the case of god as well, that is, in fact, a literal belief.



And yes, to me it's on the exact same level as fairy tales. It's equally unsubstantiated by objective evidence. That's not mockery. It's empiricism.

[JHG722]

Ummm I have no problem with Christianity at all, and even acknowledge that there are 'nutso' Jews, but Falwell Christianity is extremism...

[statsman88]

some good discussion in here

as far as comparing the Bible and fairy tales, its an interesting comparison and has come comparable points, but the key point in the Bible was that if you believe in Christ, you will go to heaven. Thats where it appeals to people and has more of an interest that fairy tales. I think most people want to believe that life has a purpose and that there is a heaven. I'm not sure that there is a fairy tale that promised readers that if you believe in this higher power that this book is teaching you, you will have an awesome eternal life. (really, I don't know if there are other fairy tales like this but there could be some if someone knows one)


on creation/evolution in schools etc...

Teach the irrefutable facts of evolution in school. I dont think anyone except an extreme religious sect would really have a problem with that. However, when they start incorporating theories of how the world began (big bang) that have not been proven, I think thats where the problem enlies because then you can insert Creationism into that list of theories. My thing is: teach the proven stuff, leave out theories