Send in the clowns.
-
I missed that. Sounds like they're biased in the favour of the creationists! Even the caption on the photo is telling!! Mike Huckabee provided an eloquent explanation of his belief in creationism.
-
America, I weep for you. MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- During the first GOP presidential debate last month in California, three Republican candidates raised eyebrows by indicating they did not subscribe to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, a widely accepted scientific concept about the origins of life. CNN article[^]. This is sad for the U.S. Only post WWII were you the world's leader in science and scientific discovery. The amazing things you brought the world were fantastic - leading scientists flocked to your shores. And now? Now you are but a shadow of your former self.
Presumably this is sound-byte politics designed to attract the religious vote. Nonetheless it is worrying: the US appears to be lurching toward Christian fundamentalism. The US no longer looks like a country (from the outside) that upholds the clear division between church and state. You've seen what happens in countries run as religious states: is that really how you want the US to go; run by preachers whose first loyalty is not to the people and whose vision and direction are dictated by the bible?
-
America, I weep for you. MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- During the first GOP presidential debate last month in California, three Republican candidates raised eyebrows by indicating they did not subscribe to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, a widely accepted scientific concept about the origins of life. CNN article[^]. This is sad for the U.S. Only post WWII were you the world's leader in science and scientific discovery. The amazing things you brought the world were fantastic - leading scientists flocked to your shores. And now? Now you are but a shadow of your former self.
It seems to me as an outside (UK) observer that the church in the US has made an incredibly serious error associating itself with neo-conservative wing of the GOP and now that the inevitable backlash is starting it will come back to them in a big way. If any are left who continue to fall for the fake christian positions of some of these politicians then perhaps they simply had it coming. I weep for the state of the US, a once great, once democratic country full of lovely people mislead by evil b*****ds, but as I say I'm just a foreigner what do I know :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
It seems to me as an outside (UK) observer that the church in the US has made an incredibly serious error associating itself with neo-conservative wing of the GOP and now that the inevitable backlash is starting it will come back to them in a big way. If any are left who continue to fall for the fake christian positions of some of these politicians then perhaps they simply had it coming. I weep for the state of the US, a once great, once democratic country full of lovely people mislead by evil b*****ds, but as I say I'm just a foreigner what do I know :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
itself with neo-conservative wing of the GOP
Guiliani is the 'neoconservative' candidate this time round. He's pro choice. Never mind the fact that the Buccananite wing of the republican party is more overtly Christian (with the addition of some rather unpleasant antisemitism). You have a very superficial view of American right wing politics, unsurprising given the lens most Europeans see it through.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
once democratic country
Oh please. 6 years of Bush has destroyed democracy. Save me the histrionics.
-
Presumably this is sound-byte politics designed to attract the religious vote. Nonetheless it is worrying: the US appears to be lurching toward Christian fundamentalism. The US no longer looks like a country (from the outside) that upholds the clear division between church and state. You've seen what happens in countries run as religious states: is that really how you want the US to go; run by preachers whose first loyalty is not to the people and whose vision and direction are dictated by the bible?
digital man wrote:
Presumably this is sound-byte politics designed to attract the religious vote. Nonetheless it is worrying: the US appears to be lurching toward Christian fundamentalism. The US no longer looks like a country (from the outside) that upholds the clear division between church and state. You've seen what happens in countries run as religious states: is that really how you want the US to go; run by preachers whose first loyalty is not to the people and whose vision and direction are dictated by the bible?
Yes, this was kind of my entire point.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
It seems to me as an outside (UK) observer that the church in the US has made an incredibly serious error associating itself with neo-conservative wing of the GOP and now that the inevitable backlash is starting it will come back to them in a big way. If any are left who continue to fall for the fake christian positions of some of these politicians then perhaps they simply had it coming. I weep for the state of the US, a once great, once democratic country full of lovely people mislead by evil b*****ds, but as I say I'm just a foreigner what do I know :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
fake christian positions
Yeah, the problem is determining whose consensus dictates the definition of Christianity. If it's anything like the "bin Laden consensus" of Islam, well, that's just frightening.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
itself with neo-conservative wing of the GOP
Guiliani is the 'neoconservative' candidate this time round. He's pro choice. Never mind the fact that the Buccananite wing of the republican party is more overtly Christian (with the addition of some rather unpleasant antisemitism). You have a very superficial view of American right wing politics, unsurprising given the lens most Europeans see it through.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
once democratic country
Oh please. 6 years of Bush has destroyed democracy. Save me the histrionics.
You're probably right on the superficial view but it is important enough that I'm keen to understand. After all the same people run your country and ours right. I'm glad for the sake of the christians that's there's some ground between them and the group currently in office, maybe the backlash won't be as bad as some fear. I don't know Buccanan, though I've obviously heard of him. When you say antisemitism do you mean the actual irrational racial hatred stuff or simply not being a zionist? :confused: As for democracy I wasn't aware that GW Bush had ever suffered from it. I thought it was extinct well before his time, at least in regard to presidential elections ;) It certainly is in the UK where we have two dominant political parties who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same cabal and have the same policies. The media puts on a good show of playing up the fake diffences but few people take any notice or bother to vote anymore. The last UK government got in with the support of 22% of the electorate :wtf:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
fake christian positions
Yeah, the problem is determining whose consensus dictates the definition of Christianity. If it's anything like the "bin Laden consensus" of Islam, well, that's just frightening.
"The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim." -Gustave Le Bon
Yeah, I agree that's always a problem but I was thinking more of the, satanists quoting the scriptures, kind of fakeness. When the church is suckered into giving even apparant or tacit support to that kind of eveil there is bound to be big trouble on the way.:(
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You're probably right on the superficial view but it is important enough that I'm keen to understand. After all the same people run your country and ours right. I'm glad for the sake of the christians that's there's some ground between them and the group currently in office, maybe the backlash won't be as bad as some fear. I don't know Buccanan, though I've obviously heard of him. When you say antisemitism do you mean the actual irrational racial hatred stuff or simply not being a zionist? :confused: As for democracy I wasn't aware that GW Bush had ever suffered from it. I thought it was extinct well before his time, at least in regard to presidential elections ;) It certainly is in the UK where we have two dominant political parties who are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same cabal and have the same policies. The media puts on a good show of playing up the fake diffences but few people take any notice or bother to vote anymore. The last UK government got in with the support of 22% of the electorate :wtf:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
your country
I'm a Brit. Though being a vaguely libertarian type I am rather more comfortable in the American political spectrum than within the increasingly narrow confines of UK politics. There's really nowhere to go on the right in UK politics either; we are governed by the ability of politicians to pre-empt popular opinion and therefore deliver policy in piecemeal, without the overt ideological posturing of earlier generations. That said, the new labour government has been broadly of the left, at least in terms of steadily increasing public spending and statism. Blair's interventionist foreign policy had been successful (and inline with the patriotic socialist tradition of the labour party - see Micheal Foot's position on the Falklands) until our current mess in Iraq too.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
hen you say antisemitism do you mean the actual irrational racial hatred stuff or simply not being a zionist?
Funnily enough, there's quite a bit of cross over.. In Pat's case, mainly B with a healthy dose of A by insinuation.
-
Presumably this is sound-byte politics designed to attract the religious vote. Nonetheless it is worrying: the US appears to be lurching toward Christian fundamentalism. The US no longer looks like a country (from the outside) that upholds the clear division between church and state. You've seen what happens in countries run as religious states: is that really how you want the US to go; run by preachers whose first loyalty is not to the people and whose vision and direction are dictated by the bible?
digital man wrote:
the US appears to be lurching toward Christian fundamentalism. The US no longer looks like a country (from the outside) that upholds the clear division between church and state.
:laugh:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
It seems to me as an outside (UK) observer that the church in the US has made an incredibly serious error associating itself with neo-conservative wing of the GOP and now that the inevitable backlash is starting it will come back to them in a big way. If any are left who continue to fall for the fake christian positions of some of these politicians then perhaps they simply had it coming. I weep for the state of the US, a once great, once democratic country full of lovely people mislead by evil b*****ds, but as I say I'm just a foreigner what do I know :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
the church in the US has made an incredibly serious error associating itself with neo-conservative wing of the GOP
That is the inevitable backlash.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
America, I weep for you. MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- During the first GOP presidential debate last month in California, three Republican candidates raised eyebrows by indicating they did not subscribe to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, a widely accepted scientific concept about the origins of life. CNN article[^]. This is sad for the U.S. Only post WWII were you the world's leader in science and scientific discovery. The amazing things you brought the world were fantastic - leading scientists flocked to your shores. And now? Now you are but a shadow of your former self.
73Zeppelin wrote:
America, I weep for you.
Good. Must mean we are doing something right.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
America, I weep for you.
Good. Must mean we are doing something right.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Must mean we are doing something right.
Well, if you consider sliding rapidly downhill the "right thing to do", then yes, you are on the right track.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
your country
I'm a Brit. Though being a vaguely libertarian type I am rather more comfortable in the American political spectrum than within the increasingly narrow confines of UK politics. There's really nowhere to go on the right in UK politics either; we are governed by the ability of politicians to pre-empt popular opinion and therefore deliver policy in piecemeal, without the overt ideological posturing of earlier generations. That said, the new labour government has been broadly of the left, at least in terms of steadily increasing public spending and statism. Blair's interventionist foreign policy had been successful (and inline with the patriotic socialist tradition of the labour party - see Micheal Foot's position on the Falklands) until our current mess in Iraq too.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
hen you say antisemitism do you mean the actual irrational racial hatred stuff or simply not being a zionist?
Funnily enough, there's quite a bit of cross over.. In Pat's case, mainly B with a healthy dose of A by insinuation.
Didn't realize you were a fellow Brit :-O You're right about the public opinion management killing genuine political debate. I wouldn't say there was nowhere to go on the right rather that left and right are out of date concepts, maintained by the media in order to create a false dichotomy. The real division is between national democracy and global corporate hegemony. Unfortunatly despite your well stated defense of Blair's government (probably the best I've read), he's remained steadfastly in the global corporate hegemony camp the Conservatives have been in for decades. The Lib Dems are no better so I joined UKIP :cool: I suppose you could consider me a prosemitic antizionist :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Must mean we are doing something right.
Well, if you consider sliding rapidly downhill the "right thing to do", then yes, you are on the right track.
If the fact that we still have sufficient social freedom to sustain different world views means we are going down hill, I'll be happy to find the bottom. You can have the pointy little top.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
the church in the US has made an incredibly serious error associating itself with neo-conservative wing of the GOP
That is the inevitable backlash.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
:confused: Can you clarify?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
If the fact that we still have sufficient social freedom to sustain different world views means we are going down hill, I'll be happy to find the bottom. You can have the pointy little top.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
we still have sufficient social freedom to sustain different world views
Oh, which world views would be those? One Christian god to rule us all? Or perhaps spreading the concept of "freedom" as Giuliani suggests in the thread I posted above? Or the freedom to teach idiotic ideas like creationism as science in your schools? But it's your country - if you vote in favour of being a nation of idiots and the laughing stock of the world then by all means, don't let me stop you...please proceed, but allow me to make fun of you at your expense.
-
:confused: Can you clarify?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
The so-called right-wing christian support of the republicans was a backlash against the left's overt and crushing secular assault against the traditional and deeply rooted christian traditions of American society. What is going on is not a shift towards fundamentalism, it is a reaction to an attempt to take us in the direction of European socialism. We Americans understand that separation of church and state depends upon the existence of both.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
we still have sufficient social freedom to sustain different world views
Oh, which world views would be those? One Christian god to rule us all? Or perhaps spreading the concept of "freedom" as Giuliani suggests in the thread I posted above? Or the freedom to teach idiotic ideas like creationism as science in your schools? But it's your country - if you vote in favour of being a nation of idiots and the laughing stock of the world then by all means, don't let me stop you...please proceed, but allow me to make fun of you at your expense.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Or perhaps spreading the concept of "freedom" as Giuliani suggests in the thread I posted above?
I agree completely with Giuliani (although he probably could have phrased the concept more eloquently - what he was trying to say is that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin).
73Zeppelin wrote:
please proceed, but allow me to make fun of you at your expense.
Fine with me. We'll see who gets the last laugh.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about