When the fundies take over...

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2003-01-20 04:15am

Women have been oppressed for centuries and it was America who helped pioneer the way for womens rights, something that hasn't been done in many non-christian parts of the world

Actually that's false. America most certainly did not pioneer the way for womens' rights. Women had the right to vote in Sikh society for centuries before they were granted suffrage in the U.S.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-20 09:27am

Darth Wong wrote:
The Dark wrote:I've actually found most of the rank-and-file Mormons I know to be very tolerant.
Depends on what you mean by "tolerant". If I tell a Mormon that I'm an atheist who loves to fuck his wife up the ass and thinks that prostitution should be legalized, I think we might see some intolerance. And what if a guy like me tried to marry one of their daughters? Racial and religious tolerance in Utah? A lot of people are very good at pretending to be tolerant ... until the chips are down.

That is, as I'm sure Mike will agree, a very overarching rule of Christians in general. Falcon states that they are the most tolerant and nice folks you'd ever want to meet, but that tolerance only extends until you challenge their faith's tenets. Christians in North America seem nice only because there is NO OPPOSITION to their principles, and they're mostly used to being coddled, humoured, and supported publicly by government and press.

How do you think Americans would respond if, for example, the next President declared after being elected that, surprise, he was just kidding about being Christian, and so are all his staff members, and boo-hoo to all the voters who thought they were casting a vote for God. If that person and his administration did nothing but a damn fine job (I'm not saying they automatically would, but in this case, they do), does anyone think their lack of faith would be ignored in any public criticism?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-20 10:12am

How do you think Americans would respond if, for example, the next President declared after being elected that, surprise, he was just kidding about being Christian, and so are all his staff members, and boo-hoo to all the voters who thought they were casting a vote for God. If that person and his administration did nothing but a damn fine job (I'm not saying they automatically would, but in this case, they do), does anyone think their lack of faith would be ignored in any public criticism?

Well, they were lying just to get a vote, so the criticism is partially justified...

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-20 10:17am

HemlockGrey wrote:
How do you think Americans would respond if, for example, the next President declared after being elected that, surprise, he was just kidding about being Christian....
Well, they were lying just to get a vote, so the criticism is partially justified...

Yes, but Americans should know that they're not SUPPOSED to vote to elect a religious leader, they're electing a political leader. They are SUPPOSED to know that the government doesn't follow religious teachings, and the candidates aren't SUPPOSED to use their religious leanings as measure in their decisions. So is the criticism truly justified?

Change the scenario slightly. Say they never said anything committal about their faith during the campaign and got elected, and when asked at a later date by, say, an interest group, outed themselves as firm atheists. Do you think the criticism would any different?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-20 10:18am

Change the scenario slightly. Say they never said anything committal about their faith during the campaign and got elected, and when asked at a later date by, say, an interest group, outed themselves as firm atheists. Do you think the criticism would any different?

It would not be, but I suspect fewer would say such things- the majority of Christians are NOT slobbering fundies so some at least would realize that they shouldn't have been expecting much anyway.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-20 10:27am

HemlockGrey wrote:It would not be, but I suspect fewer would say such things- the majority of Christians are NOT slobbering fundies so some at least would realize that they shouldn't have been expecting much anyway.

The thing about this is, I don't think most Christians ARE slobbering fundies. But I DO think that even the moderates place a lot of weight on their leaders being 'men of the faith'. Would they elect a muslim president? I believe that what Mike said, and even (gasp) Falcon said is true: Even the most virulent Christians can be polite, nice folk, until you tread on the tenets of their faith, or aspects where they would rather be led by their faith.

Tosho · Post by **Tosho** » 2003-01-20 11:09am

Hmm... I'd escape to Mexico, somehow get to Moscow, get on a train to Vladiostic(sp?) get on a boat, and prepare to to become a U.S. refugee living in Japan.

P.S. hopefully Japan hasn't fallen.

Sayonara Amerika

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-01-20 11:23am

Hmm... I'd escape to Mexico, somehow get to Moscow, get on a train to Vladiostic(sp?) get on a boat, and prepare to to become a U.S. refugee living in Japan.

Fucking traitor! You're a Texan! Rally to the cause!

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-20 01:40pm

I wouldn't leave the country, but I might cross the border to Canada (I live in Washington State) if push comes to shove. I'd assist in front-line operations by attacking enemy networks.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 01:45pm

Lagmonster wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
How do you think Americans would respond if, for example, the next President declared after being elected that, surprise, he was just kidding about being Christian....
Well, they were lying just to get a vote, so the criticism is partially justified...
Yes, but Americans should know that they're not SUPPOSED to vote to elect a religious leader, they're electing a political leader. They are SUPPOSED to know that the government doesn't follow religious teachings, and the candidates aren't SUPPOSED to use their religious leanings as measure in their decisions. So is the criticism truly justified?

Change the scenario slightly. Say they never said anything committal about their faith during the campaign and got elected, and when asked at a later date by, say, an interest group, outed themselves as firm atheists. Do you think the criticism would any different?

Americans can use any reason or even no reason when elected representatives. If you want to go into the ballot box and vote with your eyes closed you can, thats your right. It doesn't matter how many people in government are religious, just so long as they govern the nation according to the Constitution and to the law. Thats what matters, not someones personal beliefs.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-01-20 01:49pm

Falcon wrote:Americans can use any reason or even no reason when elected representatives. If you want to go into the ballot box and vote with your eyes closed you can, thats your right. It doesn't matter how many people in government are religious, just so long as they govern the nation according to the Constitution and to the law. Thats what matters, not someones personal beliefs.

Your statement contradicts itself: the voters should not be voting for someone based on his religion if the only thing that matters is that he governs the nation "according to the Constitution and to the law". They should be voting for him based on his grasp of the Constitution and the law and his stated willingness to abide by both (something that Shrubby and Asscroft have shown little of).

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 02:00pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
Falcon wrote:Americans can use any reason or even no reason when elected representatives. If you want to go into the ballot box and vote with your eyes closed you can, thats your right. It doesn't matter how many people in government are religious, just so long as they govern the nation according to the Constitution and to the law. Thats what matters, not someones personal beliefs.
Your statement contradicts itself: the voters should not be voting for someone based on his religion if the only thing that matters is that he governs the nation "according to the Constitution and to the law". They should be voting for him based on his grasp of the Constitution and the law and his stated willingness to abide by both (something that Shrubby and Asscroft have shown little of).

How does my statement contradict itself when the two main pieces of it hold no baring on each other. Fact # 1: Americans can vote for a representative based on whatever reasons they care to, or no reason at all. Fact # 2: It is required that elected officials govern according to law and the Constitution.

You can be religious and govern according to the Constitution. You can govern according to the Constitution and not be religious.

President Bush and Mr. Ashcroft have been somewhat disappointing in their fulfillment of their Constitutional duties, but much less so than the previous administration and much less than any alternative administration would have been. Until a better alternative comes along, Mr. Bush & Co. will have to do.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-01-20 02:08pm

Falcon wrote:How does my statement contradict itself when the two main pieces of it hold no baring on each other. Fact # 1: Americans can vote for a representative based on whatever reasons they care to, or no reason at all. Fact # 2: It is required that elected officials govern according to law and the Constitution.

Yes, American can vote for the wrong reasons if they want to. They have that right. It doesn't change the fact that those reasons are wrong. Stop trying to pretend that any form of criticism represents the hammer waiting to fall on individual rights.

You can be religious and govern according to the Constitution. You can govern according to the Constitution and not be religious.

Tell that to the 51% of Americans in the 1999 Gallup poll who said they would refuse to vote for any atheist president, regardless of his competence.

President Bush and Mr. Ashcroft have been somewhat disappointing in their fulfillment of their Constitutional duties, but much less so than the previous administration and much less than any alternative administration would have been. Until a better alternative comes along, Mr. Bush & Co. will have to do.

"Somewhat disappointing?"

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-20 02:17pm

Falcon wrote:
Lagmonster wrote:Yes, but Americans should know that they're not SUPPOSED to vote to elect a religious leader, they're electing a political leader. They are SUPPOSED to know that the government doesn't follow religious teachings, and the candidates aren't SUPPOSED to use their religious leanings as measure in their decisions. So is the criticism truly justified?
Americans can use any reason or even no reason when elected representatives. If you want to go into the ballot box and vote with your eyes closed you can, thats your right. It doesn't matter how many people in government are religious, just so long as they govern the nation according to the Constitution and to the law. Thats what matters, not someones personal beliefs.

Besides contradicting yourself, you've painted a portrait defending irresponsible government. Democracy works because people feel that their say is important. Fine. So that means that it is the responsibility of the people to choose a government that does what is in the best interest of the people. The minute people elect their government purely by blindly poking buttons or whatever, they've demolished the whole value of democracy. 'Rights' be damned. You do not have the right to obliterate the principles of citizen responsibility just because you are a lazy asshole. You may not LIKE the choices, but you have a god-damned responsibility to understand the options and make at least a choice of the lesser evil.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 02:22pm

Lagmonster wrote:
Falcon wrote:
Lagmonster wrote:Yes, but Americans should know that they're not SUPPOSED to vote to elect a religious leader, they're electing a political leader. They are SUPPOSED to know that the government doesn't follow religious teachings, and the candidates aren't SUPPOSED to use their religious leanings as measure in their decisions. So is the criticism truly justified?
Americans can use any reason or even no reason when elected representatives. If you want to go into the ballot box and vote with your eyes closed you can, thats your right. It doesn't matter how many people in government are religious, just so long as they govern the nation according to the Constitution and to the law. Thats what matters, not someones personal beliefs.
Besides contradicting yourself, you've painted a portrait defending irresponsible government. Democracy works because people feel that their say is important. Fine. So that means that it is the responsibility of the people to choose a government that does what is in the best interest of the people. The minute people elect their government purely by blindly poking buttons or whatever, they've demolished the whole value of democracy. 'Rights' be damned. You do not have the right to obliterate the principles of citizen responsibility just because you are a lazy asshole. You may not LIKE the choices, but you have a god-damned responsibility to understand the options and make at least a choice of the lesser evil.

The reason we have the Constitution is to prevent an ill informed public from elected ill informed people to do poor jobs governing. Democracy was never the point of America. Our Representative Republic was set up so that stupid people wouldn't be able to easily destroy their own freedoms, and glady it has worked pretty well. I'm not defending irresponsible voting, but I acknowledge that people have the right to vote irresponsibly.

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-01-20 02:44pm

I acknowledge that people have the right to vote irresponsibly.

WTF? Since when does the Constitution say anything about voting irresponsibly? A democracy is for responsible voters!

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 02:48pm

jaeger115 wrote:
I acknowledge that people have the right to vote irresponsibly.
WTF? Since when does the Constitution say anything about voting irresponsibly? A democracy is for responsible voters!

The Constitution doesn't say anything about voting responsibly either

Obviously there is no way to make sure that only those who should vote do vote, unless of course you'd like to bring back poll taxes, tests, and land requirements?

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-01-20 02:51pm

Actually, a mental competence test wouldn't be a bad idea. A few simple questions on current events, the ability to add and subtract and multiply small numbers, etc. would go a long way toward reducing the idiot vote. Nothing overly exclusive, but frankly, people who can't figure out 8+6=14 shouldn't be voting.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2003-01-20 02:59pm

Falcon wrote:
jaeger115 wrote:
I acknowledge that people have the right to vote irresponsibly.
WTF? Since when does the Constitution say anything about voting irresponsibly? A democracy is for responsible voters!
The Constitution doesn't say anything about voting responsibly either Obviously there is no way to make sure that only those who should vote do vote, unless of course you'd like to bring back poll taxes, tests, and land requirements?

You're being an idiot. Land requirements and poll taxes and evern swearing that you'll vote intelligently has no bearing at all on whether people do. And voting RANDOMLY, as you mention, also COMPLETELY dodges the ORIGINAL point!!!

The fact remains that if you are voting for an AMERICAN government based on your religious preference, you are going AGAINST the intentions of the founding fathers, whose purpose was to remove God from governmental decisions, and that bloody well includes the voting process. I'm going to type this slowly, so you can follow me: You can be Charlie Church, but when you are in that booth, God does not come with you. At that point, you are subject the law of separation of church and government, because YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT, for that one decision. You can vote with a coin flip if you want to be a jerk, but you do NOT have the right to bring religion into it.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 03:56pm

Lagmonster wrote: but you do NOT have the right to bring religion into it.

See, thats where you are completely wrong. The Constitution forbids government from making laws establishing religion. Me using my faith as one of the reasons as to why I vote like I vote is not contrary to that. A politian professing his faith is not contrary to that. The goal of the founding fathers was to protect all religions from government, not purge religion from the people who make up government and society.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-01-20 03:58pm

Falcon wrote:
Lagmonster wrote:but you do NOT have the right to bring religion into it.
See, thats where you are completely wrong. The Constitution forbids government from making laws establishing religion. Me using my faith as one of the reasons as to why I vote like I vote is not contrary to that. A politian professing his faith is not contrary to that. The goal of the founding fathers was to protect all religions from government, not purge religion from the people who make up government and society.

Actually, it goes both ways: the purpose was to protect religion from government and also to protect government from religion. That's what Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" means.

As for your rights, you are confusing moral rights (which Lagmonster is obviously talking about) and legal rights: you don't have the moral right to fuck around with your vote, even if you do have the legal right to do so.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 04:06pm

AdmiralKanos wrote:
Falcon wrote:
Lagmonster wrote:but you do NOT have the right to bring religion into it.
See, thats where you are completely wrong. The Constitution forbids government from making laws establishing religion. Me using my faith as one of the reasons as to why I vote like I vote is not contrary to that. A politian professing his faith is not contrary to that. The goal of the founding fathers was to protect all religions from government, not purge religion from the people who make up government and society.
Actually, it goes both ways: the purpose was to protect religion from government and also to protect government from religion. That's what Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation" means.

As for your rights, you are confusing moral rights (which Lagmonster is obviously talking about) and legal rights: you don't have the moral right to fuck around with your vote, even if you do have the legal right to do so.

The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" How do you get 'protect government from religion' from that? This is a simple case of anti-religion nazis spinning one quote by Thomas Jefferson to suit their own twisted goal, the eradication of religion. No law prohibiting religion means that every American, elected or not is protected from Congressional interfearance in their religion.

Morals are highly subjective from person to person, lets stick to whats legal...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 04:11pm

Falcon wrote:The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" How do you get 'protect government from religion' from that?

Insinuation of religious beliefs into government inherently prohibits the exercise of competing religious beliefs, for the simple reason that money is being taken from people (regardless of their own beliefs) through tax and put into an organization which is actively promoting one religion. Don't be a fucking idiot.

Like all Christian intolerant bigots, you always assume that religion = Christianity.

This is a simple case of anti-religion nazis spinning one quote by Thomas Jefferson to suit their own twisted goal, the eradication of religion.

Fuck off, asshole. I'm suck of your bullshit strawman that by trying to keep religion out of government, we're "Nazis" who want to "eradicate" all religion from all of society. Go shove your fucking strawman up your intolerant ass, dipshit.

No law prohibiting religion means that every American, elected or not is protected from Congressional interfearance in their religion.

Telling you that you can't abuse your position to promote your religion with taxpayer money is NOT interference in your personal beliefs. You have the right to have your beliefs, but when you are acting in your capacity as a government employee, you are not permitted to use that position for personal gain or the promotion of your belief system. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

Morals are highly subjective from person to person, lets stick to whats legal...

Try taking your own advice, asshole. I'm sick of your strawman distortions and willful ignorance.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2003-01-20 04:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Falcon wrote:The Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" How do you get 'protect government from religion' from that?

Insinuation of religious beliefs into government inherently prohibits the exercise of competing religious beliefs, for the simple reason that money is being taken from people (regardless of their own beliefs) through tax and put into an organization which is actively promoting one religion. Don't be a fucking idiot.

Like all Christian intolerant bigots, you always assume that religion = Christianity.
[/quote]

Someone with strong faith can still govern without using the government to favor one particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution and the courts are there to ensure it.

This is a simple case of anti-religion nazis spinning one quote by Thomas Jefferson to suit their own twisted goal, the eradication of religion.

Fuck off, asshole. I'm suck of your bullshit strawman that by trying to keep religion out of government, we're "Nazis" who want to "eradicate" all religion from all of society. Go shove your fucking strawman up your intolerant ass, dipshit.

The last desperate ravings...

No law prohibiting religion means that every American, elected or not is protected from Congressional interfearance in their religion.

Telling you that you can't abuse your position to promote your religion with taxpayer money is NOT interference in your personal beliefs. You have the right to have your beliefs, but when you are acting in your capacity as a government employee, you are not permitted to use that position for personal gain or the promotion of your belief system. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

A Congressman talking about his religion does not equate to 'Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion'

Morals are highly subjective from person to person, lets stick to whats legal...

Try taking your own advice, asshole. I'm sick of your strawman distortions and willful ignorance.

You're sick of someone actually pointing out the truth to you?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-20 04:26pm

Notice how Falcon smugly restated his opinion without actually dealing with any of my points.

Concession accepted.