Forums | MacLife

soulcrusher wrote:

resedit wrote:

Saying someone shouldn't be president because they take their religion very seriously is also bigotry, btw.

Disagreed.

A person with the lack of education and understanding of the world to believe in a virgin giving birth is not qualified for any job that requires the exercise of the intellect, including being president.

A person that is naive and ignorant enough to be convinced that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, disregarding the vast amount of evidence stating the contrary is not qualified to be president.

If he can be convinced to believe in all this nonsense by such weak arguments (e.g. "because this random book says so") then what can he not be convinced to do? Doesn't a fool like this fit the perfect profile for a "puppet president"?

A person that is dishonest to the degree to lie to himself and his children on very obvious truths is not qualified to be president.

It is desirable to have a critical, smart, capable and honest intellectual in charge of the US. This is not what Huckabee is.

I have to disagree with you, but it's mostly a matter of semantics. 

The way resedit put it, "Saying someone shouldn't be president because they take their religion very seriously," is accurately describing bigotry.  That's tantamount to saying "I'd never vote for a Christian."  Or "I'd never vote for a Zoroastrian."

On the other hand, saying, "A person that is naive and ignorant enough to be convinced that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, disregarding the vast amount of evidence stating the contrary is not qualified to be president," is not bigotry; it's a valid personal analysis on the candidate's grasp of reality. 

Potato, potahto?  Perhaps.  I think there's enough of a difference to matter.

Tallgeese wrote:

jerwin wrote:

A scientist goes where the evidence leads her. If the experimental evidence contradicts a political or religious belief, than so be it.

Yes, and in theory communism works.

Too bad that there has never been a system at the point where Marx said that the move to Communism would work.  Can't base dismissal of Marxism on the Soviet Union, China, or any other "communist" state to date.

Warin wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

jerwin wrote:

A scientist goes where the evidence leads her. If the experimental evidence contradicts a political or religious belief, than so be it.

Yes, and in theory communism works.

Too bad that there has never been a system at the point where Marx said that the move to Communism would work.  Can't base dismissal of Marxism on the Soviet Union, China, or any other "communist" state to date.

Actually, human nature totally renders it invalid from the start.

soulcrusher wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

So your argument is that religious people shouldn't be allowed to hold jobs? All jobs require the excercise of the intellect including flipping burgers.

I think it is clear what I meant by an intellectual job. Flipping burgers is fine. The christians that make and serve my food seem to be okay at it.

Isaac Newton is generally regarded as a profound intellect and one who had some small impact on the sciences. And here's what he had to say:
""The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."
Sounds like he's invoking something along the lines of intelligent design.

That quote doesn't tell you much. A deist and many others that don't believe in miracles (including the virgin birth) would make a statement like that.
In any case, anyone that has studied the history of science knows the truth about Newton. He was an arian.
I cannot blame him for it. As moron points out, his knowledge of the Universe was quite limited.

What a retard that Isaac Newton was. Johannes Kepler was a lutheran, Robert Boyle was a christian, Gregor Mendel was a monk. None of these are scientific lightweights and yet were able to become eminent despite their brain damage due to religious belief.

I dislike this fallacious argument of appealing to the authority of some early scientists.

Hey, to be topical -  tomorrow is Martin Luther  King day. Considering he was a baptist minister, I'd imagine he probably had some beliefs in the virgin birth and Jesus being the son of god, that are probably closer to Huckabee's ideas than say Albert Camus's existensialism. To be plain, he believed in things that Christians believe in.
And coincidentally, he used his religious beliefs  and principles, and invoked God and the bible to push for civil rights  legislation. Based in large part on his advocacy, which was steeped in religious imagery and invocations of god and christian morality, numerous legislation was passed like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.
The I Have a Dream Speech alone references the Bible any number of times, and his appeal to what is right was right out of the gospels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream

I'd be hard pressed to say that King wasn't good for much beyond flipping burgers, or that he was an idiot, not worthy of any consideration, becuase of his belief in the bible and its principles and authority. Or that the world is worse off for him pushing his religious morality onto the countries stage.
BUt that is what he was doing.

everlong205 wrote:

Hey, to be topical -  tomorrow is Martin Luther  King day. Considering he was a baptist minister, I'd imagine he probably had some beliefs in the virgin birth and Jesus being the son of god, that are probably closer to Huckabee's ideas than say Albert Camus's existensialism. To be plain, he believed in things that Christians believe in.
And coincidentally, he used his religious beliefs  and principles, and invoked God and the bible to push for civil rights  legislation. Based in large part on his advocacy, which was steeped in religious imagery and invocations of god and christian morality, numerous legislation was passed like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.

Pilgrimage to nonviolence Martin Luther King Jr.

Last edited by jerwin (2008-01-20 5:10 pm)

IIRC, part of the problem is that marriage was never explicitly defined as one man and one woman under the law.

everlong205 wrote:

MLK is actually in interesting case, because most libs view civil rights passage as integral to their core. It''s must be kind of jarring, then, that the most eloquent spokesman on the subject was someone coming from the Church as it were.  The same church that is so evil and close minded and bigoted according to soul crusher.

Meh, back then at least part of the Christian community was interested in doing good. That era passed 30 years ago or more.
Now it's all about keeping the Christian boot firmly planted on the necks of non-believers.
Surely you wouldn't suggest MLK would have anything to do with the hatred and brutality of the Christian right.

Pariah wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

MLK is actually in interesting case, because most libs view civil rights passage as integral to their core. It''s must be kind of jarring, then, that the most eloquent spokesman on the subject was someone coming from the Church as it were.  The same church that is so evil and close minded and bigoted according to soul crusher.

Meh, back then at least part of the Christian community was interested in doing good. That era passed 30 years ago or more.
Now it's all about keeping the Christian boot firmly planted on the necks of non-believers.
Surely you wouldn't suggest MLK would have anything to do with the hatred and brutality of the Christian right.

So your argument is that for the past 30 years the christian community is no longer interested in doing good and are nothing but jack booted thugs.

And what hatred and "brutality"' are you referring  to?

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-01-20 7:31 pm)

jerwin wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

So your argument is that for the past 30 years the christian community is no longer interested in doing good and are nothing but jack booted thugs.

I thought that the purges were well documented.

Read Martin Luther King's theological papers. He's not a fundamentalist. He's not a liberal. He is, in fact, an existentialist.

I never said he was a fundamentalist. He is, however,  a christian pastor and his ethics are derived from his faith.

everlong205 wrote:

A country can,and does, regulate its various institutions, and as I stated, the mere act of defining things means that those things that fall outside of the definition will necessarily be excluded.

We know what happens, but you're defending it...correct?  Do you admit that traditions have rightfully fallen by the wayside throughout our history, for good reason?

You keep arguing about 'tradition,' but what makes you any different that those that have rejected equality (or a change of "definition") in the past, for the same reasons? 

If the simple ability for others to marry who once could not will somehow diminish your own marriage in your eyes....how great could that marriage be to begin with?

It's just such a disingenuous argument, considering how heterosexual marriage is so often treated in this country (without the angry protests).

robco wrote:

IIRC, MLK borrowed the idea of non-vilent resistance from Ghandi, who was most definitely not Christian. He also spoke highly of science. He was nothing like the whackjobs that litter the TV today.

Cmon. Are you suggsting no christian since MLK speaks highly of science? What science, anyway? Do animal rights activists support animal testing? That''s science.Would it be fair of me to say animal rights activists are against all science, and not merely against animal testing?

As for non violence resistance, yes MLK adopted it as a tactic. There is also a non violent tradition in Christianity too(remember, turn the other cheek) but of course, he draws from many traditions. He was a deep, and very intelligent and forceful guy. My point only was, if you are going to discount peoples arguments simply because they are christians and suggest that they are incapable of contributing to the debate because any utterance is simply forcing their religion on you, you would discount people like MLK who was after all a preacher in the christian faith. My point, was not that Huckabee was right, only that the argument against discounting people of faith simply because they are people of faith, was wrong. Subscribing to the notion that christians are non science believing fascists while comforting is a bit of a strawman.

everlong205 wrote:

As for non violence resistance, yes MLK adopted it as a tactic. There is also a non violent tradition in Christianity too(remember, turn the other cheek) but of course, he draws from many traditions.

Martin Luther King wrote:

Now a lot of people are confused at this point. They ask me from time to time: "What in the world do you mean when you talk about love or opponent?" Somebody said to me after lecture the other day: "I can go along with tactical nonviolence and I think you are right this is the best tactical nonviolence and I think you are right that it is the best tactic and the best technique. But when you start talking about this "love" stuff you lose me."
Well this "love stuff" stands at the center of nonviolence. The highest expression of non injury is love and I think many people misunderstand love at this point. They think that when you talk about "love" you are talking about sentimental, affectionate emotion and I would be the first to say that this is absurd; it is nonsense to urge oppressed people to love their oppressors in an affectionate sense. This is very difficult and almost impossible.

So when I try to explain what I mean by this"love stuff" I turn to a Greek language. It has a word agape.

Now agape is more than aesthetical or romantic love. Agape is more than a friendship. Agape is understanding, creative, redemptive, good-will for all men. It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing to return. Theologians would say that it is love of God operating in the human heart. When an individual rises to love on this level, he loves everyman not because his way appeals to him, but he loves every man because God loves him. He rises to the point of loving the person who does the evil deed that person does.
This is always a goal and it is beautiful to have a method of struggle where it is a possible to do this, for we are coming to see now that hate is dangerous. It is injurious to the hater as it is to the hated. It is a wonderful thing to have a method of struggle where it is possible to rise to the level of love and yet stand up with determination against the unjust and evil system. You come to the point of hating segregation and standing up against it, with all your might and yet maintaining an understanding love for the person who is misguided.

The meaning of nonviolence
It's more than a tactic. It's one of King's core philosophies.

So the Huckabee/King comparisons are simplistic to the point of nonsense.

Last edited by jerwin (2008-01-20 9:37 pm)