or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What if a Democrat pushed hard on religion?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What if a Democrat pushed hard on religion? - Page 3

post #81 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

What, that Republican party ID has dropped like a rock? That's another one that I would put in the "everybody knows it" category. Here's one from Pew that shows Democrats at 50% and Repubs at 30%, here's another from Rasmussen that shows Republicans are at a 30%, which is in third place in party ID, behind Democrats with 36 and independents at 33%. (The Rasmussen poll doesn't include leaners like the Pew survey above.)

Yes, I know that. But can you show people have canceled/switched their voter registration down? The Party ID polls always vary widely.

Quote:

I'm on your side on the "Republicans are more Christian" thing, but this is where I disagree with you.

On abortion: Christianity, per se, has nothing at all to say about abortion. Some churches, in particular the Catholic church and evangelical churches, are opposed to abortion, but there's nothing whatsoever about it anywhere in the Bible, let alone from Jesus, and most churches are not anti-abortion (with the exception of the two mentioned above).

I agree, but the vast majority of official churc positions are on the side of pro-life. There is also a general value of life in all forms in Christianity. Of course, there is this little thing called "the first commandment" as well. ; )

On homosexuality: The Old Testament probably considers homosexuality a sin (though a lot of it is debatable), but it considers a ton of things that people do with regularity today to be sins. Paul in the New Testament also, but again, no Jesus. And you may be forgetting about a lot of churches, especially mainline protestant. The church I attend, a Presbyterian church, has performed gay unions, and a number of other churches in my (pretty conservative) neighborhood are quite outspoken about being pro-gay-rights, including Methodist, Episcopalian, and UCC/congregationalist. It's really only the evangelical/non-traditional churches that are anti-gay.[/quote]

Any church that is pro-gay is decidely not conservative. In fact, the Presbyterian Church you attend is likely Presbyterian USA, the decidedly more liberal variant of the same denomination. I am certainly aware of churches being pro-gay. But the majority of them are not.

Quote:
Humanism? Maybe you mean secular humanism, because if there's anything that Christianity is, or is supposed to be, it's humanistic.

I did mean secular humanism. Sorry.

Quote:

I don't really know what you're referring to with gender role reversal and Christianity. AFAIK, that's not a big deal with any church, unless you mean the Catholic church with its male-only priests.

With all respect, I think you're stereotyping "Christianity" as "evangelical Christianity" and forgetting about the huge mainstay of mainline protestant churches, not to mention black protestant churches.

1. I essentially mean feminism as opposed to traditional marriage gender roles. Conservative churches still support the notion of the man going out in the world and earning a living, and woman supporting him in the home, raising children, etc. I'm not saying I agree with that entirely, because I don't...but in general the more conservative the chruch, the more traditional the gender roles are. I can get into my own experiences and observations with this if you like.

2. Well, since I was raised Luthern an attended protestant churches most of life, no, I'm not. And most Christianity is evangelical. Evangelism is part of the doctrine of the vast majority of mainline protestant churches. Regardless, I'm speaking about the majority of Christians...Cathlolics, Protestants, what have you. There are certainly exceptions, but those exceptional "branches" if you will are considered to be liberal in their beleifs as compared to other, more traditional values churches.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

Apparently you and nick have exempt yourselves from the need to produce affirmative evidence of your assertions. I'll also refuse, on this point, because I don't even think people take this idea seriously (besides a few on this board). Who would use a scalpel as birth control instead of pills or latex? Besides the extreme emotional baggage that comes along with abortions. Its beyond absurd.

So again, all assertions must be proven. I see.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So again, all assertions must be proven. I see.

I got bored and found this. Approximately 49% of pregnancies are unintended. Almost half of these are terminated in abortion. 90% of women at risk of unplanned pregnancy, and have aborted, use contraception devices. 8% of women who've had an abortion never use condoms. A 43% decrease in abortions from 1994 to 2000 can be attributed to emergency contraception. Each year, 20% of women aged 15-44 have abortions; for about half of those, its their first. About 43% of women will have had an abortion by the time they are 45.

That last one, imo, is the most important. A huge and considerable portion of the eligible population will have an abortion, if its available. Combine that with the fact that only 10% of women use abortions over contraception; and 8% never use other contraception.


It seems to me that your contention was right; this part anyway, "There are those that believe abortion is a perfectly acceptable method of birth control." 10% of women who abort did not use a condom. ~40% of women will have an abortion before they are 45; so, whats that, 4% of US women will abort instead of using contraception. Not representative of the population. Not representative of the party. But, ultimately, ~40% of women will abort; thats a considerable part of the country that finds abortion acceptable, at least selfishly. That could make a chunk of the party/left, assuming they are all dems/libs. It is my suspicion, based on the 43% decline in abortions between 94 and 00, that less and less women will resort to abortions, favoring earlier methods like emergency contraception. I think most dems and libs prefer earlier methods of contraception, like condoms or morning after pill, over abortion; i'm not sure if i can find a stat on that.

The page did not make much mention of men's attitudes toward abortion.
post #84 of 137
yawn .........
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #85 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

I got bored and found this. Approximately 49% of pregnancies are unintended. Almost half of these are terminated in abortion. 90% of women at risk of unplanned pregnancy, and have aborted, use contraception devices. 8% of women who've had an abortion never use condoms. A 43% decrease in abortions from 1994 to 2000 can be attributed to emergency contraception. Each year, 20% of women aged 15-44 have abortions; for about half of those, its their first. About 43% of women will have had an abortion by the time they are 45.

That last one, imo, is the most important. A huge and considerable portion of the eligible population will have an abortion, if its available. Combine that with the fact that only 10% of women use abortions over contraception; and 8% never use other contraception.


It seems to me that your contention was right; this part anyway, "There are those that believe abortion is a perfectly acceptable method of birth control." 10% of women who abort did not use a condom. ~40% of women will have an abortion before they are 45; so, whats that, 4% of US women will abort instead of using contraception. Not representative of the population. Not representative of the party. But, ultimately, ~40% of women will abort; thats a considerable part of the country that finds abortion acceptable, at least selfishly. That could make a chunk of the party/left, assuming they are all dems/libs. It is my suspicion, based on the 43% decline in abortions between 94 and 00, that less and less women will resort to abortions, favoring earlier methods like emergency contraception. I think most dems and libs prefer earlier methods of contraception, like condoms or morning after pill, over abortion; i'm not sure if i can find a stat on that.

The page did not make much mention of men's attitudes toward abortion.

Great research there. Thanks. Keep in mind I'm not saying pro-abortion attitudes are the majority in the Dem party. I'm saying it's a significant number. There have been those here who believe my assertion is wrong...that no one is actually pro-abortion as it were. Obviously the assertion as I stated is correct.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #86 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Great research there. Thanks. Keep in mind I'm not saying pro-abortion attitudes are the majority in the Dem party. I'm saying it's a significant number. There have been those here who believe my assertion is wrong...that no one is actually pro-abortion as it were. Obviously the assertion as I stated is correct.

Define significant.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #87 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes except for your view would pretty much ignore the entire 20th century.

Nick

And you ignore everything up until the 20th century. There was no doubt a lot of death at the hands of atheistic totalitarian governments in the last century. But let's not forget about Hitler, who was arguably the worst of the bunch, but doesn't fit that pattern. And let's also not forget the totalitarian religious regimes that exist today, primarily in the Islamic world.
post #88 of 137
I think where you and I would differ on that view is not that I am ignoring those governments, but see them as a stage of development. We moved from monarchy-empires to nation-states. A king using the church to enforce his ruling clan and ethnicity is not democracy and I think you are confusing the two.

How can you possibly suggest that a monarch using a church as one of many tools of manipulation is the same thing as freedom of religion and democracy?

The fact that such "states" exist today in the Islamic world simply shows that they have not progressed at the same rate as the west and although we assign state names to them, they really are nothing more than empires run by a king, often with religion being used by that king and his fellow ethnic clans to either enforce rules or help divide opposition. In those instances religion isn't even about belief, but is simply another tool of the monarch.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #89 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, I know that. But can you show people have canceled/switched their voter registration down? The Party ID polls always vary widely.



I agree, but the vast majority of official churc positions are on the side of pro-life. There is also a general value of life in all forms in Christianity. Of course, there is this little thing called "the first commandment" as well. ; )

On homosexuality: The Old Testament probably considers homosexuality a sin (though a lot of it is debatable), but it considers a ton of things that people do with regularity today to be sins. Paul in the New Testament also, but again, no Jesus. And you may be forgetting about a lot of churches, especially mainline protestant. The church I attend, a Presbyterian church, has performed gay unions, and a number of other churches in my (pretty conservative) neighborhood are quite outspoken about being pro-gay-rights, including Methodist, Episcopalian, and UCC/congregationalist. It's really only the evangelical/non-traditional churches that are anti-gay.

Any church that is pro-gay is decidely not conservative. In fact, the Presbyterian Church you attend is likely Presbyterian USA, the decidedly more liberal variant of the same denomination. I am certainly aware of churches being pro-gay. But the majority of them are not.



I did mean secular humanism. Sorry.



1. I essentially mean feminism as opposed to traditional marriage gender roles. Conservative churches still support the notion of the man going out in the world and earning a living, and woman supporting him in the home, raising children, etc. I'm not saying I agree with that entirely, because I don't...but in general the more conservative the chruch, the more traditional the gender roles are. I can get into my own experiences and observations with this if you like.

2. Well, since I was raised Luthern an attended protestant churches most of life, no, I'm not. And most Christianity is evangelical. Evangelism is part of the doctrine of the vast majority of mainline protestant churches. Regardless, I'm speaking about the majority of Christians...Cathlolics, Protestants, what have you. There are certainly exceptions, but those exceptional "branches" if you will are considered to be liberal in their beleifs as compared to other, more traditional values churches.

Let's get back to the basic point, your claim that Christianity is fundamentally inconsistent with liberalism. I don't disagree that more people today equate Christianity with political conservatism - the simple fact that church attendees are more likely to vote Republican shows that.

But in my view, the basic message of Jesus is compassion for the underclass/outcasts, radical peace and love for one's enemies, and a "do unto others..." philosophy. I think anyone who has studied Jesus' portrayal in the Bible would agree with that.

On the other hand, a good portion of political conservatism is, IMO, in direct contradiction to these fundamental teachings. The "let's pass laws against gays" stuff. The anti-immigrant business. The "keep my tax money out of the hands of the poor" philosophy. The whole preemptive war thing. That's a fairly significant chunk of conservatism right there. Even if you don't agree with the way I've phrased those ideas, it's hard to deny where conservatives come down on the issues of gay rights and immigration and taxes and anti-poverty programs and the like. I really don't see how conservatism can reconcile these things with fundamental Christianity.
post #90 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I think where you and I would differ on that view is not that I am ignoring those governments, but see them as a stage of development. We moved from monarchy-empires to nation-states. A king using the church to enforce his ruling clan and ethnicity is not democracy and I think you are confusing the two.

How can you possibly suggest that a monarch using a church as one of many tools of manipulation is the same thing as freedom of religion and democracy?

The fact that such "states" exist today in the Islamic world simply shows that they have not progressed at the same rate as the west and although we assign state names to them, they really are nothing more than empires run by a king, often with religion being used by that king and his fellow ethnic clans to either enforce rules or help divide opposition. In those instances religion isn't even about belief, but is simply another tool of the monarch.

Nick

You are both wrong.

Religious freedom can and cannot exist in a secular state. Religious freedom can and cannot exist in a religious state (although, religious freedom is much much rarer in Religious states). As religious freedom is one indicator of a liberal society, this suggests that there isn't a correlation between the secularism or religiousity of the state and the relative liberalism of that society.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #91 of 137
hardeehar, how do you reconcile this
Quote:
religious freedom is much much rarer in Religious states

and this
Quote:
there isn't a correlation between the secularism or religiousity of the state and the relative liberalism of that society

?
post #92 of 137
It isn't exclusive and it isn't constant. There is nothing inherent about a religious state that requires that it put the kabash on other religions. What we have seen is that historically, periods of religious tolerance appear and disappear much more frequently within religious states than in secular states. All this means is that it is far easier to change a tendency of tolerance in a religious state than in a secular state, most likely due to the mob rule mentality that defines the state religion as normal and all others as false or heretical.

It is the relative ease at switching that is the major difference between secularism and religiousity as a foundation of a state. In other words, with a perception of God as leading the way, man will be more flighty in his actions than if he concieves that another flawed man is leading him.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #93 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Let's get back to the basic point, your claim that Christianity is fundamentally inconsistent with liberalism. I don't disagree that more people today equate Christianity with political conservatism - the simple fact that church attendees are more likely to vote Republican shows that.

But in my view, the basic message of Jesus is compassion for the underclass/outcasts, radical peace and love for one's enemies, and a "do unto others..." philosophy. I think anyone who has studied Jesus' portrayal in the Bible would agree with that.

On the other hand, a good portion of political conservatism is, IMO, in direct contradiction to these fundamental teachings. The "let's pass laws against gays" stuff. The anti-immigrant business. The "keep my tax money out of the hands of the poor" philosophy. The whole preemptive war thing. That's a fairly significant chunk of conservatism right there. Even if you don't agree with the way I've phrased those ideas, it's hard to deny where conservatives come down on the issues of gay rights and immigration and taxes and anti-poverty programs and the like. I really don't see how conservatism can reconcile these things with fundamental Christianity.

I see your point in part. That said, I don't agree with how you've phrased those "ideas" at all. It's pretty clear that devout Christians oppose homesexual rights on mostly biblical grounds. It's clear that despite any contradictions that can be pointed out, the overwhelming message in the bible is that homosexuality is a sin (I happen not to agree with that, but whatever...).

I also object to the term "anti-immigrant." I don't know many conservatives who are truly "anti-immigrant." I know many who are anti-illegal immigrant. Some are anti-Mexican Pride Celebration and anti-multi-culturalism. That's not being anti-immigrant. Most conservatives I know are very pro-immigrant...they just want the Mexican border controlled.

Finally we come to preemptive war. That's really deceptive, I think. The US engaged in many "unprovoked" military actions over the years. Liberals tend to run around screaming how "unprecedented" Iraq war. It really wasn't. This is another area where I think most conservatives favor a case by case approach. In the case of Iran, they might support it. In the case of NK, they may not. I think what you're taking issue with is the supposed belief of the "neocons" (and I quote that because I feel the term has grossly exaggerated importance), which don't represent conservatism per se, even if such a philsophy exists en masse.

Finally, I disagree with your characterization of conservative fiscal policy and personal spending habits. A recent study actually shower conservatives more generous/charitable than liberals. Were you aware of this? Moreover, it's long been my position that conservatives want to eliminate poverty just as much as everyone else. They just disagree on how to do it. Clearly "more money for the poor" hasn't worked. In fact there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that since the War on Poverty began, we've hit the point of diminishing returns in that realm. Conservatives favor market solutions and personal responsibility. I fail to see how those ideas are inconsistent with biblical teachings.

The part I agree with is "treating one's enemy well" and caring for masses, etc. You have a point there. But in total, liberalism contradicts more of basic Christian teachings, which is perhaps one reason why church attendees are predominantly Republican, as you said.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #94 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But in total, liberalism contradicts more of basic Christian teachings

Er, um, why?
post #95 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Er, um, why?

Shawn,

He won't answer that question; he is unable to do so.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #96 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Shawn,

He won't answer that question; he is unable to do so.

Uh, I just did. For about 17 posts. Don't be an asshole.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #97 of 137
[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #98 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Uh, I just did. For about 17 posts. Don't be an asshole.

No, you haven't. You just keep claiming that it is true, but have never put forward any evidence besides the church goers argument -- which itself has been refuted owing to the fact that participating in organized religion isn't exclusively necessary for a person to believe in 'Christian' ideals (whatever those are, and as if they are different than Jewish ideals, etc. or even secular ideals)...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #99 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

No, you haven't. You just keep claiming that it is true, but have never put forward any evidence besides the church goers argument -- which itself has been refuted owing to the fact that participating in organized religion isn't exclusively necessary for a person to believe in 'Christian' ideals (whatever those are, and as if they are different than Jewish ideals, etc. or even secular ideals)...

Oh, here we go again. I've presented several anecdotal pieces of evidence, and arguments that prop up my assertion. Meanwhile, you and others have decided it's false and haven't been able to show why. It's a piece of common wisdom or conventional wisdom that you and yours have challenged with no supporting facts. We've already been through this.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #100 of 137
It isn't f-ing common wisdom.

Only you and Nick seem to think it is true. I wonder why that is.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #101 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

It isn't f-ing common wisdom.

Only you and Nick seem to think it is true. I wonder why that is.


Tell ya what. Take 100 people off the street and ask them the question. See what happens. It's common wisdom.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #102 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh, here we go again. I've presented several anecdotal pieces of evidence, and arguments that prop up my assertion. Meanwhile, you and others have decided it's false and haven't been able to show why. It's a piece of common wisdom or conventional wisdom that you and yours have challenged with no supporting facts. We've already been through this.

What you and Nick have mostly done is carry on about how disingenuous and wrong and blatantly dishonest and sort of crazy it is to question this bit of "conventional wisdom".

Then we get further carrying on and eye rolling about how asking for supporting evidence for this particular assertion is some kind of pointless exercise in pedantry, amounting to demanding "proof" for "everything".

That's followed by declaring that, in fact, it is the responsibility of the people questioning what you are insisting is "conventional wisdom" to prove it is not true.

Now we've entered the decadent phase of the thread, where you can claim we've been "all through this" and that the odd anecdotal bit, frequent repeating of the original assertion, and casting aspirations on the motivations of the skeptical amount to all the "proof" anyone should ever need, case closed.

Given how overtly true this idea is, you'd think it would be trivial to just go ahead and post some supporting evidence.

But somehow that keeps never happening. Why?

Did you know that, often, "conventional wisdom" is wrong? Did you know that getting testy about the idea of questioning "conventional wisdom" is not a very good place to start, if you care about knowing what's true? Did you know that acting like people who do question "conventional wisdom" are just being dicks or playing games is totally fucked up?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #103 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

I got bored and found this. Approximately 49% of pregnancies are unintended. Almost half of these are terminated in abortion. 90% of women at risk of unplanned pregnancy, and have aborted, use contraception devices. 8% of women who've had an abortion never use condoms. A 43% decrease in abortions from 1994 to 2000 can be attributed to emergency contraception. Each year, 20% of women aged 15-44 have abortions; for about half of those, its their first. About 43% of women will have had an abortion by the time they are 45.

That last one, imo, is the most important. A huge and considerable portion of the eligible population will have an abortion, if its available. Combine that with the fact that only 10% of women use abortions over contraception; and 8% never use other contraception.


It seems to me that your contention was right; this part anyway, "There are those that believe abortion is a perfectly acceptable method of birth control." 10% of women who abort did not use a condom. ~40% of women will have an abortion before they are 45; so, whats that, 4% of US women will abort instead of using contraception. Not representative of the population. Not representative of the party. But, ultimately, ~40% of women will abort; thats a considerable part of the country that finds abortion acceptable, at least selfishly. That could make a chunk of the party/left, assuming they are all dems/libs. It is my suspicion, based on the 43% decline in abortions between 94 and 00, that less and less women will resort to abortions, favoring earlier methods like emergency contraception. I think most dems and libs prefer earlier methods of contraception, like condoms or morning after pill, over abortion; i'm not sure if i can find a stat on that.

The page did not make much mention of men's attitudes toward abortion.


Here is the link to the original research that some of your stats come from.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html

I haven't had time to read more than the abstract, but it looks like it contains some additional info.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #104 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Tell ya what. Take 100 people off the street and ask them the question. See what happens. It's common wisdom.

Even if that were the case, it doesn't make it true.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #105 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Even if that were the case, it doesn't make it true.

Sorta depends which street, doesn't it.

On some streets, doing that would "prove" that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #106 of 137
Hmmm... ACLU, AUSCS, Planned Parenthood... seems like a liberal Democrat donor list to me...

Church and state should be separated. Just not in the "overtly hostile-to-Christians-only" way that the left would have.
We can create Muslim prayer rooms at airports and hotels but some kids cannot pray to Christ at school? Huh?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #107 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Hmmm... ACLU, AUSCS, Planned Parenthood... seems like a liberal Democrat donor list to me...

Church and state should be separated. Just not in the "overtly hostile-to-Christians-only" way that the left would have.
We can create Muslim prayer rooms at airports and hotels but some kids cannot pray to Christ at school? Huh?

What Christian children aren't allowed to pray (in private) at school?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #108 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

What Christian children aren't allowed to pray (in private) at school?

Or, conversely, which members of the airport using public are being obliged to face Mecca?

Are they making announcements over the PA that everyone should pause for a moment to praise Allah?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #109 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Hmmm... ACLU, AUSCS, Planned Parenthood... seems like a liberal Democrat donor list to me...

Church and state should be separated. Just not in the "overtly hostile-to-non-christians-only" way that the right would have.
We can create Muslim prayer rooms at private airports and private hotels but some kids cannot pray to Christ at public schools? Huh?

TFTFY!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #110 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

What you and Nick have mostly done is carry on about how disingenuous and wrong and blatantly dishonest and sort of crazy it is to question this bit of "conventional wisdom".

Then we get further carrying on and eye rolling about how asking for supporting evidence for this particular assertion is some kind of pointless exercise in pedantry, amounting to demanding "proof" for "everything".

That's followed by declaring that, in fact, it is the responsibility of the people questioning what you are insisting is "conventional wisdom" to prove it is not true.

Now we've entered the decadent phase of the thread, where you can claim we've been "all through this" and that the odd anecdotal bit, frequent repeating of the original assertion, and casting aspirations on the motivations of the skeptical amount to all the "proof" anyone should ever need, case closed.

Given how overtly true this idea is, you'd think it would be trivial to just go ahead and post some supporting evidence.

But somehow that keeps never happening. Why?

Did you know that, often, "conventional wisdom" is wrong? Did you know that getting testy about the idea of questioning "conventional wisdom" is not a very good place to start, if you care about knowing what's true? Did you know that acting like people who do question "conventional wisdom" are just being dicks or playing games is totally fucked up?

What's truly ironic is that you're still at it. You're still not arguing the point, only around it. You're attacking trump and me, while ignoring the argument itself. I can easily flip it back on you: If it's so easy to disprove, then do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Even if that were the case, it doesn't make it true.

But it makes it more likely to be true than not.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #111 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What's truly ironic is that you're still at it. You're still not arguing the point, only around it. You're attacking trump and me, while ignoring the argument itself. I can easily flip it back on you: If it's so easy to disprove, then do so.

Well, to use a phrase near and dear to your heart, that's not how it works, and you know it.

You made an affirmative assertion. It struck me as possibly not true, so I asked for some evidence.

Not a shred forthcoming, so I have to assume you didn't find any. Which suggests that maybe your idea isn't, in fact, true.

Just saying "Is so" and "yeah, well you prove it isn't true" over and over again is the shabbiest kind of evasion.

Oh, and claiming that I'm "not arguing the point but dancing around it", while you continue to flatly refuse to buttress your assertion with evidence?

You are the most intellectually dishonest person in the history of the universe, and you know it.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #112 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Well, to use a phrase near and dear to your heart, that's not how it works, and you know it.

You made an affirmative assertion. It struck me as possibly not true, so I asked for some evidence.

Not a shred forthcoming, so I have to assume you didn't find any. Which suggests that maybe your idea isn't, in fact, true.

Just saying "Is so" and "yeah, well you prove it isn't true" over and over again is the shabbiest kind of evasion.

Oh, and claiming that I'm "not arguing the point but dancing around it", while you continue to flatly refuse to buttress your assertion with evidence?

You are the most intellectually dishonest person in the history of the universe, and you know it.


First, that is how it works. It's exactly how it works. It's not an assertion that is necessarily provable with data points. I'm making a point about liberal beliefs and Christianity, and atheism within liberal circles.

To the extent that it is possible to prove, there has been data presented on the political affiliations of church goers. I have also attempted to make a reasonable case based on common beliefs in liberalism and biblical teachings. This where it's difficult to use data points. Comparing biblical teachings versus commonly held liberal positions is the only way to discuss the issue as far as I can tell. That, and comparing personal experiences. For example, I've never met an atheist conservative, but that's just me. All the atheists and agnostics I've met are liberals. But again, that's just me.

At the same time though, those of you who doubt my assertion have offered no evidence yourself. Some have offered anecdotal arguments, to which I've responded. So let's boil it down. On one side we have a piece of conventional wisdom, backed with limited hard data and various anecdotal/personal references. On the other, we have those of you screaming that the assertion is not true, and then challenging "us" to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Except that's not the standard. The only standard that matters is which is more likely. Taking an objective look at the evidence of this "case," it's clear my argument would be more convincing to most reasonable, educated persons.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #113 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But it makes it more likely to be true than not.

Doubtful. Most people in areas where people actually walk more than just between their cars and the strip mall aren't republican/conservative. FYI, we have a metric assload of churches (and temples and mosques, etc) in the city, in case you didn't know. I'm willing to bet that I could go anywhere within a 10 mile radius of my house and most people in any group of 100 people I find will say they disagree with your views, and not just about Christianity.
post #114 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

First, that is how it works. It's exactly how it works. It's not an assertion that is necessarily provable with data points. I'm making a point about liberal beliefs and Christianity, and atheism within liberal circles.

To the extent that it is possible to prove, there has been data presented on the political affiliations of church goers. I have also attempted to make a reasonable case based on common beliefs in liberalism and biblical teachings. This where it's difficult to use data points. Comparing biblical teachings versus commonly held liberal positions is the only way to discuss the issue as far as I can tell. That, and comparing personal experiences. For example, I've never met an atheist conservative, but that's just me. All the atheists and agnostics I've met are liberals. But again, that's just me.

At the same time though, those of you who doubt my assertion have offered no evidence yourself. Some have offered anecdotal arguments, to which I've responded. So let's boil it down. On one side we have a piece of conventional wisdom, backed with limited hard data and various anecdotal/personal references. On the other, we have those of you screaming that the assertion is not true, and then challenging "us" to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Except that's not the standard. The only standard that matters is which is more likely. Taking an objective look at the evidence of this "case," it's clear my argument would be more convincing to most reasonable, educated persons.

What does going to a christian Sunday service have anything to do with Christ's teachings?

Do I need to prove christian hypocrisy by posting factual data on divorce rates based on faith?

From MY experiences, so called "christians" are by far the biggest hypocrites of ANY demographic!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #115 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But it makes it more likely to be true than not.

Really? Do you honestly believe that? I am asking this seriously. The percent of people who believe all sorts of fallacies (see any recent poll) doesn't deter you from this view?

Wow.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #116 of 137
post #117 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

TFTFY!

Airports are generally owned by government. Thanks.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #118 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Airports are generally owned by government. Thanks.

Really? I never even considered that possibility!

But you did make a claim;

Quote:
We can create Muslim prayer rooms at airports ...

Who exactly are "We?"

Which airports?

Major airport hubs?

International airports?

I'd expect a SCOTUS court case if what you say is even vaguely true.

I suppose all the airport's concessions are owned by the municipal public entities?

You know it just might be accommodation of a daily religious practice, and that while traveling, that it would be nice to know in which direction they would need to be facing!

Care to back your claim up with some FACTS?

That these so called "Muslim" prayer rooms are publicly funded, and that all other faiths are excluded from practicing their faiths while inside airports?

TYVM!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #119 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Care to back your claim up with some FACTS?

Yea, you have a TON of credibiility in THAT area... TYVFM,YFI!

Sources? For you? Pfft. Not going to waste my time. Look it up yourself. Its in the MSM.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #120 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Yea, you have a TON of credibiility in THAT area... TYVFM,YFI!

Sources? For you? Pfft. Not going to waste my time. Look it up yourself. Its in the MSM.

Yeah, I already did! AKA "nondenominational meditation rooms" NOT "Muslim prayer rooms."

DOH, so you're wrong again, so what else is new!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What if a Democrat pushed hard on religion?