The one thing which can be said about Rmoney is the only thing he stands for is himself. He's flipped on everything he did as governor to get himself the nomination, now he's flipping again to get himself the Presidency.Ty wrote:
I'm confused, I thought his whole thing was that he would cut taxes for everyone.
Um... No. It was to remove religion from government. Go study US history again and the founding fathers, particularly their look on religion. Seperating church and state works both ways warmongWar Man wrote:
The intent of separation of church and state was to protect religion from the government, not government from religion.AussieReaper wrote:
Smartest thing you've ever said.War Man wrote:
Religious beliefs should be a secondary issue.
But it shouldn't be an issue at all. Separation and all that...
FixedCybargs wrote:
Um... No. It was to remove religion from government. Go study US history, the founding fathers, particularly their look on religion. Seperating church and state works both ways warmongWar Man wrote:
The intent of separation of church and state was to protect religion from the government, not government from religion.AussieReaper wrote:
Smartest thing you've ever said.
But it shouldn't be an issue at all. Separation and all that...
Actually, that doctrine was installed because they didn't want the new government creating another Anglican church. The Methodists in Virginia were treated like second class by the dominant church and all members of the colony were forced to tithe the Anglican church regardless of their beliefs. It's an extension of freedom of religion.Cybargs wrote:
Um... No. It was to remove religion from government. Go study US history again and the founding fathers, particularly their look on religion. Seperating church and state works both ways warmongWar Man wrote:
The intent of separation of church and state was to protect religion from the government, not government from religion.AussieReaper wrote:
Smartest thing you've ever said.
But it shouldn't be an issue at all. Separation and all that...
soviet union had government completely free of religion. just saying.Jay wrote:
How you can have a government free from religion is beyond me.
Did it make the people better/wiser/smarter/happier? Doubtful.Shahter wrote:
soviet union had government completely free of religion. just saying.Jay wrote:
How you can have a government free from religion is beyond me.
Of course it did. They made huge advances in space travel. First cosmonaut was put into space by the soviet union.Jay wrote:
Did it make the people better/wiser/smarter/happier? Doubtful.Shahter wrote:
soviet union had government completely free of religion. just saying.Jay wrote:
How you can have a government free from religion is beyond me.
absolutely.Jay wrote:
Did it make the people better/wiser/smarter/happier?Shahter wrote:
soviet union had government completely free of religion. just saying.Jay wrote:
How you can have a government free from religion is beyond me.
soviet union took care of the governed a lot better than so called "democracies" in many ways. and yes, that included "beliefs" too.I was referring to government in a democracy anyway. Autocracies don't have to reflect the beliefs of the governed.
Ignorance is bliss.Jay wrote:
I dunno, in my experience religious people tend to be happier.
Same as all the Dawkins wannabes tbf.Jaekus wrote:
But they read it in a book and were told not to question it so it must be true!
I'm not trolling. I honestly believe that militant atheism is just as preachy and offputting as fundamentalist believers. Shitting on others and acting superior because they don't share your belief system is tolerable to you? I don't believe religion has a place in the science classroom, but outside of that environment people can live and believe however they want.Jaekus wrote:
Lame troll is lame.Jay wrote:
Same as all the Dawkins wannabes tbf.Jaekus wrote:
But they read it in a book and were told not to question it so it must be true!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2 … e-to-lose/Back in 1968, Alabama Governor George Wallace thundered that “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats.” Wallace’s famous quote sprung to mind last night as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama squared off in their second debate.
Surely there were differences between them, but to watch the debate was to see two candidates vying to say who would cut taxes the least for top earners, who would “crack down” most on China, and who believed the most in an “all of the above” energy strategy. Neither said much of import, if at all, each candidate won certain segments, but the impossible to escape conclusion was just how unimpressive both candidates were.
It was like two beginners playing tennis with each other, neither able to hit the ball over the net. Both deserve to lose.
happiness cannot be defined or measured. and atheism, while it doesn't automatically make anyone intelligent, certainly provides for a world view more open for intelligent interpretation than any religion out there - if nothing else, an atheist or other "non-believer" has a lot less dogmatic bullshit to deal with.Jay wrote:
I dunno, in my experience religious people tend to be happier. I've also known brilliant people that still maintained a belief in god, even if they tended to reject religious dogma. I'm not a believer but I find those that automatically conflate atheism with intelligence to be as dumb as those that think they are superior for cheering on a certain sports team. Rah rah atheism, we're the best etc.
Most of northern Europe and Scandinavian countries aren't that religious either.Shahter wrote:
happiness cannot be defined or measured. and atheism, while it doesn't automatically make anyone intelligent, certainly provides for a world view more open for intelligent interpretation than any religion out there - if nothing else, an atheist or other "non-believer" has a lot less dogmatic bullshit to deal with.Jay wrote:
I dunno, in my experience religious people tend to be happier. I've also known brilliant people that still maintained a belief in god, even if they tended to reject religious dogma. I'm not a believer but I find those that automatically conflate atheism with intelligence to be as dumb as those that think they are superior for cheering on a certain sports team. Rah rah atheism, we're the best etc.
anyway, it's a discussion for another topic. i was simply pointing out the fact that religion is not required for modern state or government to be effective or reflective of population's needs and beliefs.
not anymore, maybe not, but that has no general historical precedent. northern europe was responsible for the great schism and the reformation, don't forget. also scandinavian countries, whilst not even historically christian, had a very strong pantheist/pagan belief system. russia itself has a very strong agrarian mystical tradition that is still arguably a huge part of the (peasant) culture today. i would hardly say these are non-religious places. official statistics for traditional faiths such as catholicism in scandinavian countries like denmark is actually very high; a large proportion of the population go through the rite of confirmation. so methinks you're talking out of your ass a little bit with that dumb, vague generalisation. northern europe is no less religious than southern europe - in fact, we're more serious and austere about it, if anything.Cybargs wrote:
Most of northern Europe and Scandinavian countries aren't that religious either.Shahter wrote:
happiness cannot be defined or measured. and atheism, while it doesn't automatically make anyone intelligent, certainly provides for a world view more open for intelligent interpretation than any religion out there - if nothing else, an atheist or other "non-believer" has a lot less dogmatic bullshit to deal with.Jay wrote:
I dunno, in my experience religious people tend to be happier. I've also known brilliant people that still maintained a belief in god, even if they tended to reject religious dogma. I'm not a believer but I find those that automatically conflate atheism with intelligence to be as dumb as those that think they are superior for cheering on a certain sports team. Rah rah atheism, we're the best etc.
anyway, it's a discussion for another topic. i was simply pointing out the fact that religion is not required for modern state or government to be effective or reflective of population's needs and beliefs.
Last edited by aynrandroolz (2012-10-17 09:36:10)
Jon Stewart wrote:
Do you know how hard it is to make volunteering at a homeless shelter look like a negative thing?
Last edited by 13urnzz (2012-10-17 09:54:37)
looks like they're singing a love songunnamednewbie13 wrote:
