On Dec 18, 2007 8:41 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dude, it's ridiculous. Whatever happened to separation of church and
> > state?
> >
> > Seems like Bush2 opened the floodgates- it's sickening to see so much
> > fuss about religion. More sickening to know how many people actually
> > vote based on religion...
>
> I know this may sound odd coming from me, but as things stand voting for
> religious reasons is probably better than the alternatives.
>
> With people voting (I feel ignorantly) along pure party lines, or for the
> attractive candidate or for the "cool" candidate or whatever... I mean if
> you're NOT going to vote based on an education of the issues then at the
> very least voting for religious reason illuminates things a bit.
>
> At the very least when you're dealing with a religiously-driven person you
> know what you have.
That is such a cop-out, Jim. :-) Seriously tho- "the known evil" argument?
How is voting by religious beliefs any better'n down party lines?
There is more than one religion, people! (counting "N/A" as a religion here
:)).
So, tell me again how, knowing Bush2 lets "belief" govern his life (not that
there's anything wrong with it, depending on the belief) is better than some
"normal" politician with, like, real-estate "hokey-ness" in their past?
(*Assuming the normal one doesn't cater to some other clique* ;)
I will take the agile, flexible thinking any day of the god-damn week, over
the predictable, draconian ploddings...
I was really hoping you'd focus on the "hey, lets investigate" Real Answer.
(God told me that that was the Real Answer, dont'cha'know)
How does one's religion qualify one to be a check and or balance, in this,
pretty fucking cool system we sorta have? (yes, we can still save it)
> Eh. Whatever. It's [the religion focus] is shameful, if you ask me.
>
> I wouldn't call it "shameful" if it's sincere. If it's a ploy to collect
> votes, then definitely yes.
Maing! Yes, it's shameful, probably moreso if it's sincere. Are we not
at War With Terror? (I gag typing that BS) The Evil Axis?
It seems like most the evil in the world is done by either extreme
religions,
or extreme governments. (Or a fucking retarded use of the One True
Government: Anarchy.)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: JFK said it best.
(This ain't rocket science :)
> Sincere belief can be very good in a leader (many of our great leaders
> were
> devout) but it can also be very bad - as when a leader loses respect for
> other positions.
Sincerity is awesome no matter what. I don't want a president who presides
by "belief"-- that's freaking 16th century, dark ages type thinking. (Yes,
I'm
hoping enlightenment is just around the corner.)
I hope I don't come off as not respecting -- Matt sorta gave me that
impression. I reckon I probably come off pretty abrasively, and perhaps
sound like an arrogant asshole-- I do respect, deeply, people's convictions
and beliefs and feelings-- hell, I respect people. We're what make existing
more fun. And that's what I'm really doing-- having fun -- even while
bitching
and blaspheming and talking shit.
Apologies to any I've offended, with statements or language. I don't mean
to imply any real, um, "bad vibes" toward anything. I love various patterns
and formations and expressions and whatnot. Crazies like Sam... :]
I do get caught up tho, obviously. Still working on, working on focus.
It's all in good fun though.
> Religion, like everything else, is best in moderation. ;^)
Ah ha! (I see your wink, and raise you an ear-wiggle) Does not moderation,
imply that even moderation should be moderated? *wiggle-wiggle*
I need to moderate my moderation a bit better... who cares what I think,
basically, ya know? I mean, communication and whatnot is super and
all, and what we're most likely "here for", but I could be communicating
via a blog or something (probably just dry computer type stuff) or with
actions more, kinda...
> > I keep thinking "Poor Jim" he's gotta be pulling his hair out watching
> > all
> > this crap. I'm close-- I'm down with whatever, ya know, but-- come on!
> > Religion has no place in government. None, whatsoever.
>
> I agree completely (big, surprise huh?) but it does have a place in those
> people that practice government. The best of them have a profound respect
> for the principles on which this country was founded on and in turn a
> profound respect for the belief (or lack of belief) of others.
There was a reason why we have secularity, Jim (and anyone else who has
made it this far) -- a really, hard-as-nails-logic-an-atheist-should-love
type
reason. No disrespect to those with the True Belief and all.
I just personally, find it sickening, to see people "running on religion".
It
makes us look like freaking little kids -- a backwards country, if you will.
Their beliefs inform their positions without dictating them.
I don't think I have to point examples of the less desirable side of
> things... ;^)
My contention exactly. We're still suffering the current fool, yet folks
are just
begging for more.
Should Abortion Rights be decided based on what one believes? "Morals"?
Have a hard think before answering. (And define Morals (and maybe ethics;)))
I know more about how Huckabee feels regarding Jesus, than his stance on
The Constitution. What's wrong with this picture? (besides a lack of
"google").
We've raised bias to a level of acceptability that's just astounding.
Please remember folks -- I believe "negative space" is information too. The
outline of the tree and all that. (Easter type holistic whatnot).
--
A person who trusts no one can't be trusted.
Jerome Blattner
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:248597
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
