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.
Of course, any idiot knows that the intent of declaring “all men are created equal” is more at “all men should be treated equally”. Well, I guess not ANY idiot.
I guess I don’t see Obama as particularly white hating — in what he’s said, done, or otherwise. And well, his mother’s white. And he’s half white. Or half black. Depends on your prejudices, eh? Sort of a glass half full, glass half empty thing, only which is which depends on which prejudice you have.
And anyone who feels the need to try to determine which label is more appropriate at all might consider what labels might apply to them.
As for the original topic, if a politician were going out of his way to pander to athiests, he’d be just as “bad”, right? It’s not who you pander to in politics — you pander to anyone, everyone who might influence your chances of winning. It’s whether your policies and initiatives serve everyone that matters.
That’s what sets Bush apart, right? He wants to punish some in favor of those he panders. I don’t see Obama — or Clinton for that matter — suggesting that should happen, so why lump them into that group?
Can anyone explain to me why phreedm quote mined two things I said-one about Huckabee and one about Obama and linked them to hypocrisy? I haven’t even commented on this thread yet. O.o
I just got home from a pleasant evening out with friends and found the phreek calling me a hypocrite. Or he’s calling Dave one, but that doesn’t make sense either, since Dave didn’t say what I did, and I didn’t say what Dave did.
Comment from: Ren
Nice try Ren…try again. You’ve obviously missed the point also…
I see you didn’t actually read the California Constitution but took information from a 3rd party…
Yep…great DD.
Comment from: Cynic
You have chosen not to see it…
Look up Obama’s comments about raising the Capital Gains tax…
Fair enough Karen. I did group it together…
My apologies…
Poor, poor rich people.
phreedm
OK. Apology accepted. Thanks.
The “missing the point” phrase is usually used by folks that have trouble making one.
It’s a bit like the phrase “Well frankly”. What usual follows is anything but frank.
phreedumb:
YAAFM, phreedumb, YAAFM. Your own words:
So, let’s see how it looks with a few minor alterations:
Or, if you’ve somehow limited it only to the issue of marriage, here’s an alternative:
Ofcourse, we’re “missing the point” because the “point” you’re agruing is a set of morals currently contested in the change of today’s zeitgeist, whereas the slavery or racial discrimination has long since been “morally dumped” with the majority of christian “God given” Bible morals, and you have to at least give lip service to that.
It’s all perfectly reasonable. Hell, even the most depraved must keep up the charade of morality. So, don’t worry, you’re in good company of your co-religionists.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Mike_Gravel
OK…Let me spell it out for those who are incapable of intelligent thought…
We are discussing “rights”…period.
Slavery isn’t a “right”…
Weak…very weak.
Concerning the Obama pandering to christians. I really hate defending Obama, but you have to realize that there are individuals out there that still think Obama is really a muslim. An ad like this was needed to show those individuals that he is a christian, imo to mainly just prove he is not a muslim.
As to the Homesexual marige topic, I’ve always found it funny that the issues is considered a rights issue. First off groups do not have rights, individuals do. Secondly everyone in this country has the same right, to marry someone from the opposite sex. A straight can’t marry another man , just as a gay man could not. Nobody has the right to marry someone you love only to marry the opposite sex, if you happen to love that individual than great.
That being said I still feel gay marriage being illegal is asinine.
Tell me why it would be wrong for the California Supreme Court to rule that age restrictions on marriage are unconstitutional?
Why is it wrong for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl? It wouldn’t matter that the majority of the state voted for age limitations to marriage. Four individuals could overturn the law as unconstitutional…
Shut up, thumpers.
Apparently someone on this blog doesn’t realize the folly of equating homosexualiity with pedophilia.
I’d rather have a gay person watch over my children (if I had some) than a jeebus freak.
Go CA! I applaud the CA supreme court.
Oh yeah, Obama is just trying to get votes. Unfortunately Jeebus freaks vote too.
phred,
Why are you being so fucking dense? 13 year old = not old enough for consent = can’t enter into a legal contract. If you wish to debate that particular age, do it & quit pu$$y footing around.
I’ve knocked down the rest of your bullshit already, 4 or 5 times. They’re called unenumerated rights. Why, oh why can’t you frigging understand?
Comment from: Charlie
great point romulusnr…will there ever be no enemies….
the only thing that really devides us are dumb ideas….and phreedm certainly has many of those….
05/15/08 @ 18:12
You had to do it, Charlie, didn’t you?
Much like Voldemort in the Harry Potter books, it appears that invoking this name in an atheist blog’s comments section causes this accursed individual to instantly know that you’ve referred to it. and then it flits over to that blog’s comments section to pollute the discourse with its’ own special brand of religiously insane hypocrisy.
Isn’t it funny how this troll looks at the results of the homophobic referendum, and completely ignores the state legislature trying to enact the will of the people by passing bills (that were vetoed by the Gropenfuhrer) legalizing same-sex marriage in Cally-Fornia? And then it bleats about hypocrisy in others while ignoring the mote in its’ beady little eyes? Then again, it seems to be pretty good in ignoring calls to provide some factual basis in reality for the occult superstitionist fables it endlessly carps about around here.
Suck it, jeebus phreak!
Comment from: mxracer652
I’ve knocked down the rest of your bullshit already, 4 or 5 times. They’re called unenumerated rights. Why, oh why can’t you frigging understand?
This troll appears to be willfully, spitefully, and hypocritically ignorant.
To quote a Big Book of Christian Fairy Tales:
This has been another edition of ridiculously easy answers to rhetorical questions about the religiously insane
I see the usual suspect has derailed the thread… with his own brand of ignorance…
Must have spent all night quote-mining old comment threads on the site… just to cry “hypocricy [sic]!”…
Sad, when you think about it… what an empty life he must lead…
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.