Robertson and Bush...
-
Chris Austin wrote: BTW. ...I am just not convinced. That's the way they wanted it, for the truth to always be untold, so it will never be proven. Later,
JoeSoxThe problem is is I don't belive that there is a "they". Who are "they"? The best thing I have ever seen that has covered this is "The Ilumanatis Trilogy"...frickin hillarious. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
JoeSox wrote: It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? mo·ral·i·ty 1)The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2)A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3)Virtuous conduct. 4)A rule or lesson in moral conduct. Which definition of "morality" are you referring to? Then I can answer your question;) Later,
JoeSox -
Chris Austin wrote: Paul Watson wrote: So what do you believe on the matter then? I believe that it hasn't been proven. Damn Chris, you are taking tips from the politicians aren't you? ;) Guess many of us could learn from you in being able to admit we have no opinion on the matter when we do not know the facts.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
LOL!... My biggest conflict is that I want to belive in a consiparicy. But no one has been able to prove it to me. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
JoeSox wrote: It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Of course not. Faith requires Morality, but Morality doesn't require Faith. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if everyone did have Faith, but realistically it's not going to happen anytime soon...and I'd rather not have religion jammed down the throats of those who don't have Faith. It doesn't work. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
The problem is is I don't belive that there is a "they". Who are "they"? The best thing I have ever seen that has covered this is "The Ilumanatis Trilogy"...frickin hillarious. What Would Uncle Steve Do?. -Michael Martin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? mo·ral·i·ty 1)The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2)A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3)Virtuous conduct. 4)A rule or lesson in moral conduct. Which definition of "morality" are you referring to? Then I can answer your question;) Later,
JoeSoxLets go with number 1. It seems the most ambiguous. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
I don't think it is, nor should it be, but Pat Robertson is definitely on the far right of the Church. Personally, I find the idea of an extremist of any kind having the ear of government terrifying. The nearest equivalent to people like him in the UK is the Evangelical Alliance - and if they had their way I wouldn't be able to get treatment even if (as I am) I pay for it myself. Worse, I certainly wouldn't be allowed to join any Church, which is a horrible thing to do to a Christian. I regularly get emails from other Christians with gender dysphoria. It's bad enough to have to tell them now that they may well lose their Church, but if the EA had their way there'd be no hope whatsoever. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
The Unitarian-Universalists would likely not object to your memmbership. Not all protestant cristian organizations intitutionalize bigotry as part of their creed, just a radical few. I suspect you wouuld get a bit of flack from any Islamic congregation as well tho... :rose: Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when choosing your representatives....Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. " http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm[^] Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
I don't believe GWB has ever suggested state sponsorship of a specific religion... I have little problem with him being forthright enough not to hide his beliefs. Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
I have been told that Bush receives daily recomendations from Pat Robertson on how to execute god's plan. Here is a nice background article about Robertson and Bush. American Democracy is and has been in trouble for a while(if you believe that JFK was shot by one man, there is something wrong with you), I just wish the major of Americans would see it. http://www.detnet.com/wilke/robertson1.htm[^] Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
I think you have been reading that kind of tripe for far too long. It has appearently turned you into just as much a bigot as Pat Robertson, only at the other extreme. :suss: Some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could have thought of them - George Orwell
-
Lets go with number 1. It seems the most ambiguous. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
morality:The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. You can not separate this definition of morality from State. State is made up of people, people are humans, all humans have morality. This definition of morality implies morality has a sliding scale, good morality, bad morality, etc. You need some sort of morality to govern, good or bad. Religion is not needed to govern. What do you think?;P Later,
JoeSox -
Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when choosing your representatives....Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. " http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland5.htm[^] Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
JoeSox wrote: Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. The conclusion doesn't follow the facts. A president holding strong religious convictions in no way leads to "a state established religion", which is what seperation of church and state is all about. Note that you are quoting a man who was deeply religious, who was agreeing with the very men who helped to create our government, who were also deeply religious. Way too often in modern times do we misrepresent what our fore fathers said, through poor reasoning. William E. Kempf
-
Lets go with number 1. It seems the most ambiguous. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
JoeSox wrote: Russell Morris wrote: Why is it a requirement that a president (or any political figure) be an atheist? It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. The conclusion doesn't follow the facts. A president holding strong religious convictions in no way leads to "a state established religion", which is what seperation of church and state is all about. Note that you are quoting a man who was deeply religious, who was agreeing with the very men who helped to create our government, who were also deeply religious. Way too often in modern times do we misrepresent what our fore fathers said, through poor reasoning. William E. Kempf
William E. Kempf wrote: The conclusion doesn't follow the facts I am having trouble understanding you comment. I must be me I think I am getting burned out on this thread X| :-D 1) I never stated the pres had to be atheist. I reply that religion separation is important(never quoting anyone). William E. Kempf wrote: Way too often in modern times do we misrepresent what our fore fathers said, through poor reasoning. what is good reasoning?:-D Later,
JoeSox -
Joshua Guy wrote: I feel much better about Bush being in office I'd rather have some guy getting a BJ then some guy making money off of his wars, while getting advice from Pat Robertson.:laugh: We should just elect Homer Simpson Later,
JoeSoxYou Sir are an idiot. I challenge you to back up the statement(s) either the profit taking from war or the advice of Pat Robertson. If you can - I apologize -if not I stand by the character assement I have already stated. And I know that I will not have to make an apology. Richard I must have liberty Withal, as large a charter as the wind, To blow on whom I please. As You Like It. Act ii. Sc. 7. William Shakespeare
-
Chris Austin wrote: Paul Watson wrote: So what do you believe on the matter then? I believe that it hasn't been proven. Damn Chris, you are taking tips from the politicians aren't you? ;) Guess many of us could learn from you in being able to admit we have no opinion on the matter when we do not know the facts.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
Paul Watson wrote: Guess many of us could learn from you in being able to admit we have no opinion on the matter when we do not know the facts. Opinions are not facts and should not be considered as such. You can form an opinion with out facts, with out all the facts, or with untruths - as long as you are willing to change that opinion as you knowledge increases. The problem comes in with the changing - so many are unwilling to do so. Richard I must have liberty Withal, as large a charter as the wind, To blow on whom I please. As You Like It. Act ii. Sc. 7. William Shakespeare
-
JoeSox wrote: It is important to keep Religion and State seperate. Is it important to keep morality and state seperate? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Are you saying that religion is equal to morality?
-
Of course not. Faith requires Morality, but Morality doesn't require Faith. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if everyone did have Faith, but realistically it's not going to happen anytime soon...and I'd rather not have religion jammed down the throats of those who don't have Faith. It doesn't work. Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
I have faith, it just doesn't involve religion :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
You Sir are an idiot. I challenge you to back up the statement(s) either the profit taking from war or the advice of Pat Robertson. If you can - I apologize -if not I stand by the character assement I have already stated. And I know that I will not have to make an apology. Richard I must have liberty Withal, as large a charter as the wind, To blow on whom I please. As You Like It. Act ii. Sc. 7. William Shakespeare
Richard Stringer wrote: You Sir are an idiot You are quick to judge;P Richard Stringer wrote: I challenge you to back up the statement(s) either the profit taking from war or the advice of Pat Robertson. I am not going to do this on CP. But you should start researching this yourself. Start with learning about George Bush's Grandfather and the family history (both side's of the story) and Follow the money trail. I really am getting burned out on this thread, sorry maybe oneday I'll get enough motivation to come up with a better response. Later,
JoeSoxLoad my Sig here.....
-
I have faith, it just doesn't involve religion :rose: The tigress is here :-D
:)
-
William E. Kempf wrote: The conclusion doesn't follow the facts I am having trouble understanding you comment. I must be me I think I am getting burned out on this thread X| :-D 1) I never stated the pres had to be atheist. I reply that religion separation is important(never quoting anyone). William E. Kempf wrote: Way too often in modern times do we misrepresent what our fore fathers said, through poor reasoning. what is good reasoning?:-D Later,
JoeSoxJoeSox wrote: I never stated the pres had to be atheist. I reply that religion separation is important(never quoting anyone). Yes, you did quote someone, and here it is again: "Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, when choosing your representatives....Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. " And I suppose it could be I who misunderstood you, but what reason is there to bring up seperation of church and state in this thread if you were not implying that Mr. Bush's religious beliefs were a violation of this? JoeSox wrote: what is good reasoning? Reasoning not based on logical fallacies. See http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/[^], in particular, http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/introtof.html[^]. Unless I totally misunderstand what you're trying to say in this thread, you're guilty of the fallacy "Affirmation of the Consequent" (http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/afthecon.html[^]). "When a president violates the rule of seperation of church from state, he has strong religious convictions" "George Bush has strong religious convictions" "Therefore he's violating the rule of seperation of church from state" (Note that the first quote above has its own set of logical fallacies.) William E. Kempf