Evil Genius

ucrzymofo87 wrote:you are critical of the fact that he is a relgious man, which you shouldn't be.

For the last time,

I did not say the US is part of the church.

I did not say Bush is a church leader.

I did not say Bush makes decisions because the church tells him to.

I did not say that a religious man cannot be in office.

I have no problem if a religious man is in office, but state and religion do not mix and you have to be aware of that if you are to govern justly. Bush doesn't strike me as that kind of person, hence my comment. Stop overanalyzing things and stop drawing conclusions based on nothing.

ucrzymofo87 wrote:

Femto wrote:

ucrzymofo87 wrote:first of all, bush is not a church leader and he has stated that he does not make decisions because the church tells him to. besides, i have a difficult time with the idea that you cannot be religious and work in the government.

There you go again, at what moment did I say any of these things?

Stop putting words in my mouth and stop pulling these arguments that bear no significance to the topic at hand.

you are critical of the fact that he is a relgious man, which you shouldn't be.

If the leader of the world's last remaining superpower believes in an omnipotent being with no evidence at all for its existence, it is plenty cause for concern.

dram4!!!

Apparently Bush being a religious man in the Whitehouse has a very polarizing effect on EVERYONE.

Don't forget that JFK was America's first Catholic President. People feared that because he was Catholic, he was nothing more than a mouth peace for the Pope and thus a puppet of 'the faith'.

psi29a wrote:dram4!!!

We need a new user title- "dram4 queen".

psi29a wrote:dram4!!!

Apparently Bush being a religious man in the Whitehouse has a very polarizing effect on EVERYONE.

Don't forget that JFK was America's first Catholic President. People feared that because he was Catholic, he was nothing more than a mouth peace for the Pope and thus a puppet of 'the faith'.

that's a good way of putting it. past presidents have been accused of being too religious or zealous, such as Kennedy and Reagan, and they didn't turn the USA into a theocracy.

LordMune wrote:We need a new user title- "dram4 queen".

Can I have it?

Femto wrote:

LordMune wrote:We need a new user title- "dram4 queen".

Can I have it?

you've already got it

ucrzymofo87 wrote:you've already got it

Touché.

You're still wrong though.

Femto wrote:

ucrzymofo87 wrote:you've already got it

Touché.

You're still wrong though.

if femto says i'm wrong, then i must be wrong

psi29a wrote:dram4!!!

Apparently Bush being a religious man in the Whitehouse has a very polarizing effect on EVERYONE.

Don't forget that JFK was America's first Catholic President. People feared that because he was Catholic, he was nothing more than a mouth peace for the Pope and thus a puppet of 'the faith'.

The problem isnt Bush being religous,the problem is he wanna have revenge against who ever he can for 9/11.

ucrzymofo87 wrote:if femto says i'm wrong, then i must be wrong

No, you're wrong because I proved you wrong, not because I said so.

I'll stop now, your smartass comments are weak.

Femto wrote:

ucrzymofo87 wrote:if femto says i'm wrong, then i must be wrong

No, you're wrong because I proved you wrong, not because I said so.

I'll stop now, your smartass comments are weak.

you can't get enough can you?

dr4m4! Minor one happening right here.

I am overjoyed. I'm such a dram4whore, it's like a drug.

It doesn't matter if Bush is being told what to do by the church or not. What matters is the existence of religious institutions as political powers in the country.

That said, to those of you wondering about exactly the kind of religious rhetoric in Bush's speech that inflames so many.

George W. Bush wrote:'I believe that God wants me to be president

George W. Bush's core political supports are the religious right. These are church based organizations with faith based political goals that vote in blocks. Churches are using their special tax exempt status in conjunction with their exemption from many of the rules that govern political speech (of which there are several) to influence the political decisions of huge groups of people.

This influence is having an rather substantial impact on politics.

George Bush has to take care of his political base, and thus many of the decisions he makes are decisions that are supported by the various religious organizations he panders to.

Thus - these churches have influence over politics.

The problem is, while the Constitution is very clear about how the government can affect churches, it is very unclear (at least explicitly) as to how churches can affect the government.

If the Presbyterian Church of the USA decides it wants to form a Political Action Committee, is that ok? Is it ok for Senators to take political contributions from the Roman Catholic Church? Can the Episcopalian Church run a school board candidate? How about a Senatorial or Presidential Candidate?

These are hard questions and ones for which we don't have answers -- certainly not concrete ones.

Personally, I believe that church influence over governmental affairs is bad. I think that claims that religious institutions have a monopoly on morality are bullshit and that religion grows out of morality, not the other way around. I want my government to deal in truths and verifiable facts -- not the printed judgments of a bunch of dead Aramaic guys and their Gods from 5000 years ago.

If homosexuality a sin? I don't know. Having lustful thoughts is a sin though, the Bible is pretty explicit about that. Should the government punish me for thinking Carmen Electra is drool-worthy?

Killfile wrote:Having lustful thoughts is a sin though, the Bible is pretty explicit about that. Should the government punish me for thinking Carmen Electra is drool-worthy?

I'd keep that quiet. Just in case. Better safe than sorry. I wouldn't be surprised if he faces ethical and moral issues and makes decisions based on religious beliefs.

I vote yes..
I am all about equality for all.
This shouldn't even be an issue, it should just be accepted like people's nationality..

Day of the election I stayed up all night watching coverage and shit. I have to say that when it was announced Michigan (my home state in case you could not figure it out) abolished gay marriage I was sickened. Homosexuals are now second class citizens in my state and other parts of the country as well. This isn't right people, Killfile showed the huge list of privileges that the homosexuals will no longer has access to because of the law.

As for Bush and his religious MO. Yeah, I think it is hurting the nation because he is pushing the values of his religion on to every one when many people do not believe in his religion.

well, I'm not American, so many of the things here don't concern me, but I do want people to understand that
unless it's a dictatorship the men in power are never independant
they must please many to preserve that power and the support
I've often heard people abusing their influence to stuff their pockets, but that can hardly be said about the church
it very simply wants to preserve the society from the ultimate postmodern moral downgrade
and if they are not all zealus about it, I'd very much say they should
leadership without values, a state without conscience is crippled

Well i've changed my opinion on Arnie... that's for sure.

Skullkracker wrote: unless it's a dictatorship the men in power are never independent
they must please many to preserve that power and the support
... the church
it very simply wants to preserve the society from the ultimate postmodern moral downgrade
and if they are not all zealous about it, I'd very much say they should
leadership without values, a state without conscience is crippled

Your point about dictatorships is well taken, but as someone who's not an American perhaps some of the subtle concepts inherent to our particular take on the Democratic Republic are eluding you.

First and foremost, as Alexis De Tocqueville said, "American Democracy is the predisposition to view as virtuous an incomplete conquest." That is to say that American Democracy is about compromise. We value the idea that the participants in any governmental squabble are likely not going to get everything they want.

Secondly, and as a consequence of the aforementioned, American Democracy is about the protection of the Minority from the "Tyranny of the Majority." The majority may be right, but that doesn't mean that the rights of the minority are to be trampled upon. The American system is designed to protect dissident opinions, no matter how small and unpopular, from persecution by the majority.

-=THIS=- is where the church and state bit comes in. Even though the majority of Americans describe themselves as Christians, and even though the majority of (voting) Americans voted for G.W.B -- that doesn't mean that under the American Political System, Bush has carte blanche to impose whatever rules and regulations that majority sees fit to enact.

Our Constitution protects us from certain manifestations of governmental power, particularly religious manifestations. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution follows

Some old dead white guy wrote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is the long and the short of it. Even if the Senate and House pass a law staying that Gays can't marry, even if the President signs it into law, even if the FBI goes door to door enforcing it - the law is unconstitutional. It violates the fundamental idea that anyone who's a citizen can't be treated any differently than other citizens. There are no qualifiers on that.

Is the Church trying to prevent this so called "post-modern downgrade" you reference? Probably -- but even ignoring the Church's stellar record with regards to Crusades, the Heliocentric Solar System, Orbiting Planets, Evolution, and the Big Bang to say nothing of Slavery, Genocide, and Class Persecution throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the Church is a separate legal and physical entity from the Government. It does not HAVE to answer to the will of the people, as a Democratically elected government does. It is fundamentally dangerous to a democracy to have policy dictated, directly or indirectly by religious leaders.

It is amoral and unjust to allow that policy to deny rights, liberties, and privileges to a large section of a population. Jesus Christ once said "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." I see a lot of stones being thrown, but I don't see a lot of angels throwing them.

Killfile wrote:Slavery, Genocide, and Class Persecution throughout the 20th and 21st centuries

this part I don't really understand, but I must confess that my history has gotten weak over the past few years

I think that I understand what your point is, and God forbid that I say something like "no equal rghts to everybody"

if your Government wants to grant the same right to homosexual rights as a common everyday family, I say I don't care, go ahead, and have fun with it

but: seeing a gay wedding would still sting my eye, and I'm surely not the only one (for other reasons maybe)
I wouldn't want to live in a world where anything goes
We live in a world where our biology is based on heterosexuality
even if I wanted to leave out the "God created human as man and woman" part of the plot, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the human popultaion is hetero make homosexuality a deviancy

which is the next we want to make legal, and thus normal?
I'm sure everybody's stomach has a limit, but if the avalanche starts, who is gonna stand up and stop it? (I hope you understand what I wanted to point out, I just can't seen to use my English so well after all)

and how many times will somone bring up the "crusade and inquisition sux" argument? I also know that some popes in the past were the biggest players in town

there are still wolves in a sheep's descuise, but why does everyone only see and remember a fault? how is it that people do not get disillusioned about science for example, when it was also derailed very often, and is beginning to see it's boundries

and another fact: religion did have a great role in the start of scientific exploration. as long as nature was considered all sacred and protected by taboos no real science could have evolved

anyway, if this was the last remaining problem about equality and human rights in the world...

ermmm...I forget how I wanted to go on with this...

Skullkracker wrote:which is the next we want to make legal, and thus normal?
I'm sure everybody's stomach has a limit, but if the avalanche starts, who is gonna stand up and stop it? (

This post reminds me of that awesomely retarded "2005: Gay marriage legal. 2007: Baby rape legal." christian conservatist hatemonger webcomic.

Skullkracker wrote:but: seeing a gay wedding would still sting my eye, and I'm surely not the only one (for other reasons maybe)
I wouldn't want to live in a world where anything goes
We live in a world where our biology is based on heterosexuality
even if I wanted to leave out the "God created human as man and woman" part of the plot, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the human popultaion is hetero make homosexuality a deviancy

If you're invited, don't go. They can have all their weddings in Canada for all I care. I seriously don't think that by promoting gay marriage, there would be a large influx of gay couples in the future to the levels where it is overwhelming and to an alarming degree.

Religion did indeed pathed a way for scientific discoveries, but don't forget that the churches were also conservative and narrow minded back in those times. With the accumulation of scientific knowledge, people started to question God's existence, if he did indeed create the world, etc. The churches did their part to prevent and dissprove scientific theories.

LordMune wrote:

Skullkracker wrote:which is the next we want to make legal, and thus normal?
I'm sure everybody's stomach has a limit, but if the avalanche starts, who is gonna stand up and stop it? (

This post reminds me of that awesomely retarded "2005: Gay marriage legal. 2007: Baby rape legal." christian conservatist hatemonger webcomic.

that I never heard about, but I guess the idea is about the same

seriously now, would it pose as a good precedent?

andt: christian and hatemonger in the same sentence is kinda ridiculous
it can't possibly be both at the same time