I don't get it. What's wrong if Obama is actually a real muslim?
I mean, would we still have all these controversy if Obama is a suspected atheist?
Is anyone that's not a christian/catholic not allowed to be the president of US?
Since they're elected by a majority of Americans, pretty much. Even Catholics are a bit of a stretch.
Ahahahaha
Man, if he were a suspected atheist, he'd never have made it to this stage.
Atheists are the least trusted group in America when it comes to politics. I think the idea is that when an atheist got the Nuclear Football they'd just nuke things willy-nilly because they are amoral sociopaths.
Just yesterday I punted a baby b/c no one told me I shouldn't.
If I'd had a nuke handy, I probably would have nuked that baby.
What kills me about people slinging 'madrassa' about is that I attended them throughout my entire childhood.
They had disgusting, pro-Muslim names such as 'Marie Curie Elementary School' and 'Lewis Junior High'.
I would come home every day and my mother would ask me in Arabic, 'how was the medressa' (this is how it's pronounced by Jordanians), and I'd say, 'not too bad, learned to hate the infidels, also had a math test'. Then I waged jihad with my action figures.
It just means 'school'. If they teach religion in it, that's because many schools are the equivalent of parochial schools in this country (which I've also attended).
This, this, a thousand times this. Although in Farsi it's a little bit of a pronounciation difference but Madrassa's meaning has been bastardized in the media to mean something evil when it's just school. Next year I'm going to Daneshka, which is college, or in mediaspeak, Advanced Institute of Nuclear Terrorism.
Hey guys I'm typing this from madrassa while building pipe bombs out of silly string and a hole puncher. allahu akbar motherfuckers.
So separation of church and state, it's all just the bollocks of a hypocrite of a president rather than being a proper legal doctrine huh.
It's got less to do with actual practice than with the idea of having a person in charge who is "good people".
Not many people in the US actually want a theocracy, but the same people who are more than willing to agree that separation of church and state is a good idea also feel a bit uncomfortable thinking about a person with an unknown moral code becoming president. When the candidate is a Christian, those people can just shut off and say "hey, he likes Jesus that means he's probably a good egg."
There's not time in the race for an atheist to address these people and describe their moral code with enough clarity.
What kills me about people slinging 'madrassa' about is that I attended them throughout my entire childhood.
They had disgusting, pro-Muslim names such as 'Marie Curie Elementary School' and 'Lewis Junior High'.
I would come home every day and my mother would ask me in Arabic, 'how was the medressa' (this is how it's pronounced by Jordanians), and I'd say, 'not too bad, learned to hate the infidels, also had a math test'. Then I waged jihad with my action figures.
It just means 'school'. If they teach religion in it, that's because many schools are the equivalent of parochial schools in this country (which I've also attended).
This, this, a thousand times this. Although in Farsi it's a little bit of a pronounciation difference but Madrassa's meaning has been bastardized in the media to mean something evil when it's just school. Next year I'm going to Daneshka, which is college, or in mediaspeak, Advanced Institute of Nuclear Terrorism.
Hey guys I'm typing this from madrassa while building pipe bombs out of silly string and a hole puncher. allahu akbar motherfuckers.
This, this, a thousand times this. Although in Farsi it's a little bit of a pronounciation difference but Madrassa's meaning has been bastardized in the media to mean something evil when it's just school. Next year I'm going to Daneshka, which is college, or in mediaspeak, Advanced Institute of Nuclear Terrorism.
Hey guys I'm typing this from madrassa while building pipe bombs out of silly string and a hole puncher. allahu akbar motherfuckers.
The 'AINT'?
"Mom and Dad, guess what! Next year I'll be attending TAINT."
o_O
"... The Advanced Institute of Nuclear Terrorism... what? Why are you looking at me like that?"
I don't get it. What's wrong if Obama is actually a real muslim?
I mean, would we still have all these controversy if Obama is a suspected atheist?
Is anyone that's not a christian/catholic not allowed to be the president of US?
Since they're elected by a majority of Americans, pretty much. Even Catholics are a bit of a stretch.
Ahahahaha
Man, if he were a suspected atheist, he'd never have made it to this stage.
Atheists are the least trusted group in America when it comes to politics. I think the idea is that when an atheist got the Nuclear Football they'd just nuke things willy-nilly because they are amoral sociopaths.
There is still a lot of suspicion of atheists and other secular types among some of the faithful, but what we've seen lately is that while they were obsessing over Mooslims and polygamists and renegade denominations, the number of people who self-identify as "non-religious" doubled. I'm not sure if this will mean a softening of social views of the non-religious, or if it means a brewing crusade once they wake up to the fact.
Irond Will on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited May 2008
I have a semi-serious theory that the amount of religiosity in this nation remains at a constant. When more people become non-religious, that religiosity is divided amongst fewer people, and so becomes more potent. As such, I think that as the number of people eschewing religion (read: Christianity) increases, the remaining practicing Christians will become more "devout" and "godly", by which I mean crazy and obnoxious.
Speaking seriously, I think that those on the fringe will become more shrill, which will drive off the more mainstream Christians, which will further infuriate the fringe, and so on. It'll be like the greenhouse effect, but with Jesus-fish instead of carbon.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I have a semi-serious theory that the amount of religiosity in this nation remains at a constant. When more people become non-religious, that religiosity is divided amongst fewer people, and so becomes more potent. As such, I think that as the number of people eschewing religion (read: Christianity) increases, the remaining practicing Christians will become more "devout" and "godly", by which I mean crazy and obnoxious.
Speaking seriously, I think that those on the fringe will become more shrill, which will drive off the more mainstream Christians, which will further infuriate the fringe, and so on. It'll be like the greenhouse effect, but with Jesus-fish instead of carbon.
Counter-example: Sweden. Highest percentage of non-believers in the world and they don't have nearly the problem with fundamentalism that we do.
Premier kakos on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
Counter-example: Sweden. Highest percentage of non-believers in the world and they don't have nearly the problem with fundamentalism that we do.
America is sociologically pretty distinct from Sweden.
I think there's probably something to Jeff's theory, though I don't think it really works over long time periods. One thing that's certainly true is that churches are able to leverage having a lot of mild believers to a lot more power than having a small cadre of intense believers.
I have a semi-serious theory that the amount of religiosity in this nation remains at a constant. When more people become non-religious, that religiosity is divided amongst fewer people, and so becomes more potent. As such, I think that as the number of people eschewing religion (read: Christianity) increases, the remaining practicing Christians will become more "devout" and "godly", by which I mean crazy and obnoxious.
Speaking seriously, I think that those on the fringe will become more shrill, which will drive off the more mainstream Christians, which will further infuriate the fringe, and so on. It'll be like the greenhouse effect, but with Jesus-fish instead of carbon.
Counter-example: Sweden. Highest percentage of non-believers in the world and they don't have nearly the problem with fundamentalism that we do.
Religion is basically non existent in that country. Even people who are technically Christian never go to church. The year I lived there I never went to church, nor knew a single person who did. Thats what good old state religion gets you.
As for Jeff, what about the Greak Awakenings? they kinda refute your theory.
As for Jeff, what about the Greak Awakenings? they kinda refute your theory.
It wasn't all that serious a theory, but to the extent it was, I was mostly talking about recent and current events. Like, past decade or so.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited May 2008
Also, NRO is currently fawning over an article arguing that Obama is a bad choice because his status as ex-Muslim (I guess children of Muslims are automatically Muslim, so the fact that he's now a Christian makes him ex-Muslim) will make him hated in the Islamic nations. This will make it difficult for him to deal with them.
I sent them an email asking how they reconcile this with their earlier claim that Obama is a bad choice because all the Islamic terrorist groups, notably Hamas, think he's the bee's knees.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I have a semi-serious theory that the amount of religiosity in this nation remains at a constant. When more people become non-religious, that religiosity is divided amongst fewer people, and so becomes more potent. As such, I think that as the number of people eschewing religion (read: Christianity) increases, the remaining practicing Christians will become more "devout" and "godly", by which I mean crazy and obnoxious.
Speaking seriously, I think that those on the fringe will become more shrill, which will drive off the more mainstream Christians, which will further infuriate the fringe, and so on. It'll be like the greenhouse effect, but with Jesus-fish instead of carbon.
I agree with this, and I think it's an easy to observe effect in the US.
Hopefully it boils over and the shrill, gay-hating Christian Right becomes so hopelessly irrelevant to mainstream America that people stop listening.
Also, NRO is currently fawning over an article arguing that Obama is a bad choice because his status as ex-Muslim (I guess children of Muslims are automatically Muslim, so the fact that he's now a Christian makes him ex-Muslim) will make him hated in the Islamic nations. This will make it difficult for him to deal with them.
I sent them an email asking how they reconcile this with their earlier claim that Obama is a bad choice because all the Islamic terrorist groups, notably Hamas, think he's the bee's knees.
They're just pretending to favour Obama over McCain so that the terrorist loving liberal Democrats will vote for him. Afterall, an endorsement by Hamas is better than the New York Times to those latte sipping America hating libruls. Then as soon as he gets inaugurated, bam! They go all infidel silent treatment on him.
I want to thank Senator Rockefeller, not only for that generous introduction, but for his friendship and support in this campaign. I want to thank Secretary Richard Danzig, Admiral John Natham, and General Jim Smith for being here with us today and for their distinguished record of service to our country.
And I want to thank the people of West Virginia - particularly those who have worn the uniform of our country. More of you are veterans here than in almost any other state in the nation. So many Guard members from this very armory have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan on tour after tour, year after year. And that means there are more West Virginians who've had to say goodbye to these heroes; who've borne the burdens of their absence in ways that are often immeasurable - an empty chair at the dinner table or another Mother's Day where mom is some place far away. Your sacrifice and the sacrifice of your loved ones is immense, and it must never be forgotten.
There is an election here tomorrow. I'm honored that some of you will support me, and I understand that many more here in West Virginia will probably support Senator Clinton. But when it's over, what will unify as Democrats - what must unify us as Americans - is an unyielding commitment to the men and women who've served this nation and an unshakable fidelity to the ideals for which they've risked their lives.
Without that commitment, many of us wouldn't be here today. I am one of those people. My grandfather - Stanley Dunham - enlisted after Pearl Harbor and went on to march in Patton's Army. My grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line while he was gone, and my mother was born at Fort Leavenworth. When he returned, it was to a country that gave him the chance to college on the GI Bill; to buy his first home with a loan from the FHA; to move his family west, all the way to Hawaii, where he and my grandmother helped raise me. Today, my grandfather is buried in the Punchbowl, the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, where 776 victims of Pearl Harbor are laid to rest.
I knew him when he was older. But whenever I meet young men and women along the campaign trail who are serving in the military today, I think about what my grandfather was like when he enlisted - a fresh-faced man of twenty-three, with a heart laugh and an easy smile.
These sons and daughters of America are the best and the bravest among us. They are a part of an unbroken line of heroes who overthrew a King for the sake of an ideal; who freed the slaves and faced down fascism; who fought for freedom in Korea and Vietnam, from Kuwait to the Balkans - who still wake up every day to face down the gravest dangers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the world.
When our troops go into battle, they serve no faction or party; they represent no race or region. They are simply Americans. They serve and fight and bleed together out of loyalty not just to a place on a map or a certain kind of people, but to a set of ideals that we have been striving for since the first shots rang out at Lexington and Concord - the idea that America could be governed not by men, but by laws; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and write what want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.
Allegiance to these ideals has always been at the core of American patriotism - it's what unites a country of so many different opinions and beliefs. It's why some of us may disagree on our decision to start this war in Iraq, but all of us stand united in our support for the brave men and women who wage it. That's how it should be. But it's not how it's always been.
One of the saddest episodes in our history was the degree to which returning vets from Vietnam were shunned, demonized and neglected by some because they served in an unpopular war. Too many of those who opposed the war in Vietnam chose to blame not only the leaders who ordered the mission, but the young men who simply answered their country's call. Four decades later, the sting of that injustice is a wound that has never fully healed, and one that should never be repeated.
The young men and women who choose to serve are defending the very rights and freedoms that allow Americans to speak out against government actions we oppose. They deserve our admiration, respect and enduring gratitude.
At the same time, we must never forget that honoring this service and upholding these ideals requires more than saluting our veterans as they march by on Veterans Day or Memorial Day. It requires marching with them for the care and benefits they have earned It requires standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our veterans and their families after the guns fall silent and the cameras are turned off. At a time when we're facing the largest homecoming since the Second World War, the true test of our patriotism is whether we will serve our returning heroes as well as they've served us.
We know that over the last eight years, we've already fallen short of meeting this test. We all learned about the deplorable conditions that were discovered at places like Fort Bragg and Walter Reed. We've all walked by a veteran whose home is now a cardboard box on a street corner in the richest nation on Earth. We've all heard about what it's like to navigate the broken bureaucracy of the VA - the impossibly long lines, or the repeated calls for help that get you nothing more than an answering machine. Just a few weeks ago, an 89-year-old World War II veteran from South Carolina told his family, "No matter what I apply for at the VA, they turn me down." The next day, he walked outside of an Outpatient Clinic in Greenville and took his own life.
How can we let this happen? How is that acceptable in the United States of America? The answer is, it's not. It's an outrage. And it's a betrayal - a betrayal - of the ideals that we ask our troops to risk their lives for.
But it doesn't have to be this way. Not in this country. Not if we decide that this time will be different. There are many aspects of this war that have gone inalterably wrong, but caring for our veterans is one thing we can still get right. When I arrived in the Senate, I sought out a seat on the Veterans Affairs Committee so I could fight to give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve. We fought to make sure that the claims of disabled veterans in Illinois and other states were being heard fairly, and we forced the VA to conduct an unprecedented outreach campaign to disabled veterans who receive lower-than-average benefits. I passed laws to get homeless veterans off the streets and prevent at-risk veterans from getting there in the first place. I led a bipartisan effort to improve outpatient facilities at places like Walter Reed, and slash red tape, and reform the disability process - because recovering troops should go to the front of the line, and they shouldn't have to fight to get there. I passed laws to give family members health care while they care for injured troops, and to provide family members with a year of job protection, so they never have to face a choice between caring for a loved one and keeping a job.
But there is so much more work that we need to do in this country.
It starts with being honest about the sacrifices that our brave men and women are making. For years, this Administration has refused to count all of our casualties in uniform. In Iraq alone, tens of thousands of troops who were injured or fell ill have not been counted in our casualty numbers, going against the military's own standards from past wars. It's time to stop hiding the full cost of this war. It's time to honor the full measure of sacrifice of our troops, and to prepare for the cost of their care.
That's why I've pledged to build a 21st century VA as President. It means no more red tape - it's time to give every service-member electronic copies of medical and service records upon discharge. It means no more shortfalls - we'll fully fund VA health care, and add more Vet Centers, particularly in rural areas. It means no more delays - we'll pass on-time budgets. It means no more means-testing - it's time to allow every veteran into the VA system. And it means we'll have a simple principle for veterans sleeping on our streets: zero tolerance. As President, I'll build on the work I started in the Senate and expand housing vouchers, and launch a new supportive services housing program to prevent at-risk veterans and their families from sliding into homelessness.
I'll also build on the work I did in the Senate to confront one of the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - PTSD. We have to understand that for far too many troops and their families, the war doesn't end when they come home. Just the other day our own government's top psychiatric researcher said that because of inadequate mental health care, the number of suicides among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan may actually exceed the number of combat deaths. Think about that. Think about how only half of the returning soldiers with PTSD receive the treatment they need. Think of how many we turn away - of how many we let fall through the cracks. We have to do better than this.
In the Senate, I've helped lead a bipartisan effort to stop the unfair practice of kicking out troops who suffer from them. And when I'm President, we'll enhance mental health screening and treatment at all levels: from enlistment, to deployment, to reentry into civilian life. We also need more mental health professionals, more training to recognize signs and to reject the stigma of seeking care. And we need to dramatically improve screening and treatment for the other signature injury of the war, Traumatic Brain Injury. That's why I passed measures in the Senate to increase screening for these injuries, and that's why I'll establish clearer standards of care as President.
We have called on our troops and their families for so much during these last years, but we haven't always issued that call responsibly. Yes, we need to restore twelve month Army deployments, but we also need to restore adequate training and time at home between those deployments. My wife, Michelle, met with Army spouses the other day in North Carolina who told her about the toll it takes to watch your loved one serve tour after tour of duty with little to no time off in between. And they told her something we all need to remember: "We don't just deploy our troops overseas, we deploy families." That's why we also need to provide more counseling and resources to help families cope with multiple tours.
And when our loved ones do come home, it is time for the United States of America to offer this generation of returning heroes the same thanks we offered that earlier, Greatest Generation - by giving every veteran the same opportunity that my grandfather had under the GI Bill.
There is no reason we shouldn't pass the 21st Century GI Bill that is being debated in Congress right now. It was introduced by my friend Senator Jim Webb, a Marine who served as Navy Secretary under President Ronald Reagan.. His plan has widespread support from Republicans and Democrats. It would provide every returning veteran with a real chance to afford a college education, and it would not harm retention.
I have great respect for John McCain's service to this country and I know he loves it dearly and honors those who serve. But he is one of the few Senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous. I couldn't disagree more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue the American Dream.
The brave Americans who fight today believe deeply in this country. And no matter how many you meet, or how many stories of heroism you hear, every encounter reminds that they are truly special. That through their service, they are living out the ideals that stir so many of us as Americas - pride, duty, and sacrifice.
Some of the most inspiring are those you meet at places like Walter Reed Army Medical Center. They are young men and women who may have lost a limb or even their ability to take care of themselves, but they will never lose the pride they feel for their country. They're not interested in self-pity, but yearn to move forward with their lives. And it's this classically American optimism that makes you realize the quality of person we have serving in the United States Armed Forces.
This, after all, is what led them to wear the uniform in the first place - their unwavering belief in the idea of America. The idea that no matter where you come from, or what you look like, or who your parents are, this is a place where anything is possible; where anyone can make it; where we look out for each other, and take care of each other; where we rise and fall as one nation - as one people. It's an idea that's worth fighting for - an idea for which so many Americans have given that last full measure of devotion.
I can still remember the day that we laid my grandfather to rest. In a cemetery lined with the graves of Americans who have sacrificed for our country, we heard the solemn notes of Taps and the crack of guns fired in salute; we watched as a folded flag was handed to my grandmother and my grandfather was laid to rest. It was a nation's final act of service and gratitude to Stanley Dunham - an America that stood by my grandfather when he took off the uniform, and never left his side.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. But I also like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him."
There is no doubt that we are a nation that is deeply proud of where we live. But it is now our generation's task to live in a way that Stanley Dunham lived; to live the way that those heroes at Walter Reed have lived; the way that all those men and women who put on this nation's uniform live each and every day. It is now our task to live so that America will be proud of us. That is true test of patriotism - the test that all of us must meet in the days and years to come. I have no doubt that this nation is up to the challenge. Thank you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
What really gets me about the Muslim claims is that my mouth's not capable of saying "He's not a Muslim!" and "Why would it even matter!?" at the same time. I feel like I should go with "not a Muslim" first, but then it feels like I'm agreeing with the part about being Muslim being a bad thing. And if I go the other way then it sounds like agreement that he is a Muslim.
Also, not that I've ever had any political plans, but man, it infuriates me that I could never become President because I'm not a Christian, let alone a Protestant. Fuck you and your lies, first grade teachers!
What really gets me about the Muslim claims is that my mouth's not capable of saying "He's not a Muslim!" and "Why would it even matter!?" at the same time. I feel like I should go with "not a Muslim" first, but then it feels like I'm agreeing with the part about being Muslim being a bad thing. And if I go the other way then it sounds like agreement that he is a Muslim.
Also, not that I've ever had any political plans, but man, it infuriates me that I could never become President because I'm not a Christian, let alone a Protestant. Fuck you and your lies, first grade teachers!
You're mostly OK as long as you're not gay, an atheist, or Muslim. Though by the time the old people die off and we're like 50/60 and all Presidential looking, the gay thing might not be such a big deal.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
What really gets me about the Muslim claims is that my mouth's not capable of saying "He's not a Muslim!" and "Why would it even matter!?" at the same time. I feel like I should go with "not a Muslim" first, but then it feels like I'm agreeing with the part about being Muslim being a bad thing. And if I go the other way then it sounds like agreement that he is a Muslim.
Also, not that I've ever had any political plans, but man, it infuriates me that I could never become President because I'm not a Christian, let alone a Protestant. Fuck you and your lies, first grade teachers!
Not everyone can be President, and people really need to stop spreading that rumour.
Hell, only 43 people have in more than 2 centuries. You'd have a better chance at being a fireman astronaut.
moniker on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Meanwhile, in Wake Forest, John McCain greeted 'West Virginia'. (Wake Forest is in NC.)
There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for "public use." But apparently that standard has been "evolving" too.
It was probably a Freudian slip. (I hope.)
But it was bad enough that the McCain website has altered their version of the video, cutting out the flip-flop of the Fifth Amendment's intention (you can still see the proper text in the transcript). Also, the flubbed intro is skipped over, though that's not an issue.
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Well, public propety does get currently taken and given to private individuals in order to develop things 'for the public interest'. In CA, that's getting contested--supposedly--on the June ballot with a couple of eminent domain propositions (both are flawed, but 98 is malicious in sneaking in the removal of rent control into the definition of 'taken', while 99 hardly does anything but clarify the letter of the law).
What really gets me about the Muslim claims is that my mouth's not capable of saying "He's not a Muslim!" and "Why would it even matter!?" at the same time. I feel like I should go with "not a Muslim" first, but then it feels like I'm agreeing with the part about being Muslim being a bad thing. And if I go the other way then it sounds like agreement that he is a Muslim.
Forget anti-Islam scare tactics, it would simply matter because he'd be clearly lying about his faith. So focus on how he's not actually a Muslim; you can make the "why shouldn't a Muslim have the opportunity to become President" argument another time.
Well, public propety does get currently taken and given to private individuals in order to develop things 'for the public interest'. In CA, that's getting contested--supposedly--on the June ballot with a couple of eminent domain propositions (both are flawed, but 98 is malicious in sneaking in the removal of rent control into the definition of 'taken', while 99 hardly does anything but clarify the letter of the law).
Does it even really matter whether or not I vote for or against 99?
Hilger on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Yes, it does, because these two propositions have mouthbreather clauses. If they both pass, the one with more 'yes' votes wins, and 99 (a strict definition of intention) will override 98's most egregious sneakiness (trying to redefine the act of renting property as having your property 'taken').
Posts
So separation of church and state, it's all just the bollocks of a hypocrite of a president rather than being a proper legal doctrine huh.
Just yesterday I punted a baby b/c no one told me I shouldn't.
If I'd had a nuke handy, I probably would have nuked that baby.
The 'AINT'?
Baby probably deserved it.
Not many people in the US actually want a theocracy, but the same people who are more than willing to agree that separation of church and state is a good idea also feel a bit uncomfortable thinking about a person with an unknown moral code becoming president. When the candidate is a Christian, those people can just shut off and say "hey, he likes Jesus that means he's probably a good egg."
There's not time in the race for an atheist to address these people and describe their moral code with enough clarity.
These AINT the sunnis you are looking for
NNID: Hakkekage
o_O
"... The Advanced Institute of Nuclear Terrorism... what? Why are you looking at me like that?"
There is still a lot of suspicion of atheists and other secular types among some of the faithful, but what we've seen lately is that while they were obsessing over Mooslims and polygamists and renegade denominations, the number of people who self-identify as "non-religious" doubled. I'm not sure if this will mean a softening of social views of the non-religious, or if it means a brewing crusade once they wake up to the fact.
Speaking seriously, I think that those on the fringe will become more shrill, which will drive off the more mainstream Christians, which will further infuriate the fringe, and so on. It'll be like the greenhouse effect, but with Jesus-fish instead of carbon.
Counter-example: Sweden. Highest percentage of non-believers in the world and they don't have nearly the problem with fundamentalism that we do.
I think there's probably something to Jeff's theory, though I don't think it really works over long time periods. One thing that's certainly true is that churches are able to leverage having a lot of mild believers to a lot more power than having a small cadre of intense believers.
Religion is basically non existent in that country. Even people who are technically Christian never go to church. The year I lived there I never went to church, nor knew a single person who did. Thats what good old state religion gets you.
As for Jeff, what about the Greak Awakenings? they kinda refute your theory.
It's understandable. God DOES like big round numbers. They just forgot that God uses a base 7 counting system.
There are more disappointments than awakenings.
It wasn't all that serious a theory, but to the extent it was, I was mostly talking about recent and current events. Like, past decade or so.
I sent them an email asking how they reconcile this with their earlier claim that Obama is a bad choice because all the Islamic terrorist groups, notably Hamas, think he's the bee's knees.
I agree with this, and I think it's an easy to observe effect in the US.
Hopefully it boils over and the shrill, gay-hating Christian Right becomes so hopelessly irrelevant to mainstream America that people stop listening.
They're just pretending to favour Obama over McCain so that the terrorist loving liberal Democrats will vote for him. Afterall, an endorsement by Hamas is better than the New York Times to those latte sipping America hating libruls. Then as soon as he gets inaugurated, bam! They go all infidel silent treatment on him.
It's kinda long, so I'm spoilering it.
He's up 7 on Clinton, for reference, but who cares.
When Clinton drops out, are we going to see dramatic and exciting spikes?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Also, not that I've ever had any political plans, but man, it infuriates me that I could never become President because I'm not a Christian, let alone a Protestant. Fuck you and your lies, first grade teachers!
You're mostly OK as long as you're not gay, an atheist, or Muslim. Though by the time the old people die off and we're like 50/60 and all Presidential looking, the gay thing might not be such a big deal.
Not everyone can be President, and people really need to stop spreading that rumour.
Hell, only 43 people have in more than 2 centuries. You'd have a better chance at being a fireman astronaut.
He also flubbed a minor detail...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2FZgWAiivU
It was probably a Freudian slip. (I hope.)
But it was bad enough that the McCain website has altered their version of the video, cutting out the flip-flop of the Fifth Amendment's intention (you can still see the proper text in the transcript). Also, the flubbed intro is skipped over, though that's not an issue.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Man, he hasn't even been campaigning that hard in comparison to Obama and Clinton. He should be more well rested and on his toes than this.
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla