http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaonFaith.pdfI sat in a hotel bar last night watching their big TV screen, when the news pops up with Senator Obama “going Christian”. A brochure with the Senator standing in front of a huge cross, touting “Faith and Morals” was plastered on the screen, and I felt the bile in my belly begin to boil.TRUE: In the above-listed PDF he gives sturdy lip-service to the separation of church and state, which is more than I can say for any other candidate (HILLARY!).I just can’t stomach when politicians literally promote prejudice by linking religion and morality. I feel offended at a deep and profound level when they unflinchingly throw secular people to the side and push their Jesus down everyone’s throat.To be clear, I’m not complaining that he is a Christian, or that he SAYS he’s a Christian, but when he USES Christianity and the LIE that morality and religion are linked JUST to get elected, I feel betrayed. Yes. That’s the word.
Since this thread has gone off topic here is a bit of other news that made me happy today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_run_cas_pistorius;_ylt=AoYGqTp6QAy.xFWCE2qx6USs0NUE
That’s not what the bible says.
And…
If we are TRULY a Christian Nation, then slavery is, in fact, a right given by our creator. Our creator… that IS where our rights come from, right? Not the Constitution?
Rusty-
Talk about hypocrisy- the religious freaks are up in arms about this recent gay marriage ruling in CA, but why are they (most) against things like slavery, incest, polygamy and murder, when their so-called good book approves (and even teaches) of these things?
Could you imagine how truly awful this world would be if we went back to biblical law?
We don’t have to imagine — we have the middle east.
and Pat Robertson
What gets me is that jesus spoke out against adultery and divorce but never once mentions homosexuality yet American xians dont have an organised campaign to outlaw premarital sex or divorce. Their desired application of scriptural law just isn’t consistent.
Alex
It is difficult to make the claim that Jesus actually spoke about something because it is difficult to make the case that he actually existed. If you are referring to the story book character in the Buybull, well OK then.
phreedumb:
Take your head out of your Biblical ass (and, no, I don’t mean the donkey).
You’ll hardly find any basis for differential treatment of slavery and marriage in any human rights document. Even worse, you’ll hardly find any basis for differential treatment of marriage and racial marriage. Because, what, all of them claim equal treatment under the law for all.
Hell, let’s try it, for a demonstration?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
-Everyone has the right to live, have liberty, and security of person.
-All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
So, you tell me how you can read, for instance, this document and say that it forbids slavery, but doesn’t forbid discrimination when it comes to civil marriages?
Yeah, I know your and other death-cults (read: religions) are opposed to same-sex marriages, but who gives a damn about them? The rights given in marriage aren’t given by the church but by the civil state.
phreedumb again:
Same reason why it’s “wrong” for a 13 year old to drive, buy alcohol, form a binding contract, get a full time job or form a company (or any of the myriad other things associated with attaining adulthood).
If this is still not good enough of an answer, then I have to direct you to the wall left of you. Try asking it for clarification, I bet you two will have an intelectual discussion.
Rusty Shackleford:
Meh, let him. I mean, derailing a thread isn’t the worst thing that can happen. Been there, done that, still no scars. In this case, what’s the worst that can happen? We won’t discuss a politician’s choice of target audience? Boo-hoo. I mean, really, what is the difference in a politicial pandering to theists, atheists, football (mind you, european kind
) fans, movie fans, jews, homosexuals or foot fet1shists (or, indeed, magic-undewear wearing people)? It’s his chosen target audience that he aims at for help in winning, and as long as we can see the point is in pandering I hardly see a cause for alarm. Sure, if Obama, or any other politician (here’s lookin’ at you, Huck and Romney) associates with a given group based on his own non-pandering beliefs, that would be a case for concern. So the first question we have to ask is wether Obama’s pandering or is he sitting firmly in the Jesus Camp (pun intended)?
As for phreedumb’s quote-mining, let him. We all know we can field better arguments then him even without the age-old theistic tradition of quote-mining, so why bother? Let him quote-mine for hours, assemble a reply in 20 minutes, and let him resume quote-mining for hours more. It’s a win-win situation.
Alexatheist:
Wow, this really is “a good thing”(tm). On a personal level, it’s a practical argument to the position that I’ve held for as long as I can remember: that various different competition criteria is nothing but plain old discrimination. Again, on a personal level, I know of a female football (soccer, for you yanks
) player that could easily compete with the best of male footballers. Yet, she’s limited to a female league, where she wins the MVPs regularly, but it feels like stealing candy from a baby (according to her own comment).
I do think that discrimination in sport, wether based on physical disability, sex or any other non-performing criteria, is nothing but the plain old discrimination. I think that athletes should either have the option to compete in the better performing category, or have the whole thing redone into one category, and let the performance be the only criteria.
alexatheist:
Actually, this could be reworded without even once mentioning Jeebus or other mythical creatures. I mean, all you have to do is sum up the people active in the campaign to stop same-sex marriage and compare it with people active in the campaign to make adultery and divorce illegal.
Wait, what? There’s no such campaign? Oh, well, that about says is all about the “sanctity of marriage”, doesn’t it?
The US should held elections at the nearest hospital for mental disorders and instead of the electoral college, should have professional doctors determining who is less crazy.
Gods and goblins.. what a joke.
Comment from: mxracer652
Hmmm…how many ways are there to be blind?
Tell me…what unenumerated rights are we discussing?
buy tramadol…
an interesting take on a fun topic….
acai berry…
once again i outdid myself…
online pharmacy…
kinda makes you wonder….
Vibrators…
an interesting take on a fun subject….