dagblog - Comments for "PENN JILLETTE & RELIGION & POLITICS"

Back in the day,

rmrd0000 — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 20:37:33 +0000

In reply to We all will come up with ways

Back in the day, Constitutional scholars argued that Civil Rights legislation was illegal because it superseded States' Rights. These Constitutional believers were placed in the trash bin of history. Goldwater's idea that private businesses could legally discriminate was over-ruled.

Santorum and Bachmann belong to a rigid belief system that is fading away. Jesus did not commit Blacks to permanent servitude. Wives should not be forced to stay with abusive husbands because "it is in the Bible."

There is a video clip of an 8 year-old with a lesbian mother telling Bachmann that his mother does not need fixing. Bachmann had no response. It is best for Ms. Bachmann to contend with her own sins rather than finding sinful behavior in others.

The Conservative church is out of step with contemporary views. The Constitution has changed because of social progress. The interpretation of the Bible has changed over time. Bachmann and Santorum have lost.

Will Robert Bork change his fundamentalist Constitutional views? No. Would the majority of Constitutional lawyers support Bork's view? No. Would a majority of Christians support the elimination of science from the school room? No. Bork, Santorum and Bachmann have all lost their battles.

Even within the GOP, once Santorum and Bachmann were exposed to the rank and file, their polling numbers stagnated. Religion could not garner a solid and steady lead for either "religious" candidate among a very religious GOP base. Major Conservative Christian groups cannot decide which GOP candidate is the best serves the groups' political interests. The problem in the GOP are voters unwilling to compromise with anyone who disagrees with the GOP's narrow views of how government should operate. Christianity is only a sideshow

We all will come up with ways

Richard Day — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:22:47 +0000

In reply to Coming from a slightly

We all will come up with ways to rationalize our sins.

True story.

Hell, Newt is attempting to use the nebulous concept of 'rebirth' to wash away all of his past sins. ha

I was just having problems understanding why you would not want your child properly educated in the disciplines of biology and chemistry.

And I now think I know an answer to this quandary.

Coming from a slightly

Verified Atheist — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:29:52 +0000

In reply to Christians are not the

Coming from a slightly different perspective, I see religion as an excuse people use to justify immoral acts and not the cause. If you strip away religion, people will simply come up with other excuses (see also Stalin et al.). Sure, some people will liken communism to a form of religion, but semantic games aside, my point stands.

Now I have to slow down

Richard Day — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:03:54 +0000

In reply to Christians are not the

Now I have to slow down here.

I was attempting to get to some inner truths that have eluded me for years.

But maybe you have touched on another one.

I watched some Iowan who is head of some Christian Fundamentalist Political something or other.

I would get or have gotten into a screaming match with this stoic prick.

But he represents what I am talking about.

Sane people do not 'believe' that some boat carried two of every species of land creature on this planet.

And yet they will say they do!

And these people vote.

And so my conclusion has to be that there are tens of millions of liars or insane folks voting.

I have changed my opinion on that.

These tens of millions cannot be insane because insanity is supposed to be related to some strong deviation from a 'normal standard'.

They cannot all be liars; that is idiotic.

So there must be another definition of 'belief' out there.

So suppose for a sec that there is no truth, no facts that are provable.

Now there are ten million if not tens of millions of Christians who do not believe in 'literal' translations or explanations of the Bible. To be sure.

Hitchens and Penn and others would blame a lot of wars and a lot of bloodshed on religion.

I am attempting to see the lure of a Santorum, phenomenalogically.

When you proffer a 'theory' like evolution to a 'believer', you are attacking their personage; their souls and their very existence.

And they are saying that if you teach evolution in our schools, you are stealing the very souls of their young and turning their children against them.

You are not going to convince these people other ways by 'rational' argument.

You cannot convince these people that there are provable truths out there concerning the morphology of the species.

2 x 2 = 4 might be a truth but as an axiom, this equation is general in nature.

If you show a believer the equation 2 x 2 x ten million lbs (the weight of a lot of land

based animals in 2700 BC) and attempt to demonstrate how impossible it would be to actually manufacture a boat that could carry that living mass for half a year, you have now crossed a line. You have now personally attacked the soul of that believer.

You can never convince some Muslim 'believer' that it is morally wrong to bandage oneself in bombs in order to destroy a thousand 'non-believers'.

Now I think Bachmann and Santorum are believers and not just manipulators.

Abortion is wrong; just as it is wrong for the government to provide food and lodging and education to one year old babies from Mexico.

I am not saying they are bat shit crazy like Penn any longer.

It is how they think.

Now Newt and Mitt and a host of others who proffer these contradictions are manipulators in my mind.

And they act this way in order to gather corporate monies.

What I am attempting to do (personally) is step back from this picture and realize that fifty million people will accept that all abortion is wrong and no government monies should be provided to feed, clothe, house or educate illegal aliens or the children of illegal aliens (be they six months of age or 60 years of age) and government should prevent any attempt by illegal aliens to fend for themselves.

And there is nothing you or I can do about that belief system.

Graphs and monographs and arithmetic and complicated studies in basic demographics or economics will never change these people's beliefs.

Jesus was a blond haired blue eyed will offer salvation to those who come to him and damn the rest of mankind to hell.

The 'hidden code' Penn speaks about, is language itself.

It all has to do with how one defines 'fact' and 'truth' and 'logic'.

It all depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is!

Christians are not the

rmrd0000 — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:53:04 +0000

In reply to PENN JILLETTE & RELIGION & POLITICS

Christians are not the problem, people are the problem. I would dread a Libertarian atheist Presidency in which corporations and the wealthy would be given even more free reign to dictate my life. You can kill off all the Christians, atheists will replace them as the biggest threat.

Black Christians formed the backbone in fighting against the white society that stood silent during the Jim Crow era. Black Christians are forming the backbone in trying to feed the hungry in black communities being ignored by others. Black Christians are forming the backbone in fighting against voter suppression being waged by the GOP.

Blacks have had the glorious experience of having the Bible used to tell us that black people were cursed to be slaves and the Constitution of the United States used to tell us that we were legally slaves. Both messages were driven by evil people. Some were Christians, others were atheists. Whether religious or not, they were able to profit from the slave trade.

Many non-black, non-Christians joined in the Civil rights marches. Many non-black Christians joined in the Civil Rights marches. It came down to what was in the heart of the individual, not whether or not the person was religious or not.

I'm sorry that your Catholic experience did not go well. There are black Christian scholars who are looking at the Scriptures with a different view than those of many scholars from the dominant culture. These previous (white) scholars had the unchallenged ability to interpret the Bible in the past. The idea that blacks were born to be slaves (Biblical "Christian" slavery) and "greed is good" (Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson) is being actively challenged.

The newer scholars demonstrate that the curse of Ham is a drunken rant by Noah, not an act of God. Paul tells slaves to take their freedom in Corinthians. Paul tells the Galatians that they are no longer slaves. This newer analysis questions accept tenants of the Bible. Womanist theologians are performing similar analysis on issues related to gender. Biblical interpretation is alive and well.

If you think Santorum and Bachmann would be different if they were atheists, you are sorely mistaken. Both would be the same rigid people with contempt for other people, just look at the behavior of the notorious atheist Karl Rove.

Spare me from the tyranny of atheists.

Whew! I tried to give this a

MrSmith1 — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:17:06 +0000

In reply to PENN JILLETTE & RELIGION & POLITICS

Whew! I tried to give this a 'quick read' while still at work, but it's way to dense with good stuff. It deserves a more thorough, focused read before I could even attempt to make a half-way decent comment. So, I'll get back to you when I've re-read this a few more times.