WoW he just moved up a level or two on my radar screen.
Correct words. And yet, it is also his buddies (and if memory serves, also him) who are in favor of cutting educational TV and radio. Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And NPR.
Yeah, we wouldn't want TOO much education to happen.
When he's not pandering, Huckabee is pretty sane for a preacher. Still nuts, but not as wild as certain other people who have shows on FNC. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on February 17, 2011, 11:26:59 PMpretty sane for a preacher. Still nuts,
Are you implying that being a minister makes one insane?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 18, 2011, 07:44:40 AM
Are you implying that being a minister makes one insane?
Or maybe that one has to be insane to be a minister. Chicken & egg.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 18, 2011, 07:49:49 AM
Or maybe that one has to be insane to be a minister. Chicken & egg.
I'd like Nate to provide some examples of Huck's insanity. I find him rational, engaging, and scary when it comes to numbers. I'd love to see a debate between him and the teleprompter, or President Obama for that matter. . .eh, whoever shows up.
Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public and opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure.
As Governor of Arkansas, he was roundly critized for creating state jobs for people who had given him personal gifts. One year, the gifts from 20 people were valued at twice his state salary. He once rebuked for claiming that $70,000 of furniture given to the state mansion was his. Inaugural funds were used to buy wardrobe for his wife. He was sanctioned five times by the state ethics commission for his ethical lapses.
In his ten years as governor, he raised gasoline taxes, raised the state sales tax three times, taxes on alcohol and tobacco four times and increased fees for all state functions even getting a driver's license (up 43%).
His administration paid $15,000 to settle a lawsuit because he tried to pressure a television station to fire a reporter who was critical of him.
I like him. I think he is funny and cool. I just don't want him in politics.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 18, 2011, 07:44:40 AM
Are you implying that being a minister makes one insane?
No, not implying, outright stating. If he were a minister of Scientology, I'm sure you'd agree.
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 09:40:37 AM
No, not implying, outright stating. If he were a minister of Scientology, I'm sure you'd agree.
No. I don't think any religion automatically classifies someone as insane. I thinks actions do.
I have several friends who are Muslim, Hindu, and Christian. My friend Subra worships an elephant. He is very sane, even brilliant at times.
Because you don't agree with the tenants of a particular religion, does not automatically make the practitioner a lesser person than you.
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 09:40:37 AM
No, not implying, outright stating. If he were a minister of Scientology, I'm sure you'd agree.
Doesn't necessarily make you insane though. It could just make you a liar or confidence man.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 18, 2011, 09:58:12 AM
Because you don't agree with the tenants of a particular religion, does not automatically make the practitioner a lesser person than you.
Insanity does not make a person lesser than another person. Some of the greatest thinkers and artists throughout history have been insane. Nor does insanity in one part of your life necessarily mean that you can't accomplish great things in other parts of your life where the insanity does not rule.
And I think you need to read more about Scientology. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 10:45:58 AM
Insanity does not make a person lesser than another person. Some of the greatest thinkers and artists throughout history have been insane. Nor does insanity in one part of your life necessarily mean that you can't accomplish great things in other parts of your life where the insanity does not rule.
And I think you need to read more about Scientology. ;)
Why are you talking about Scientology?
Anywho, I was just analyzing your statement "Huckabee is pretty sane for a preacher." I wanted you to confirm that you believe "preachers" to be insane, and you did. I then wanted to be sure you were applying this classification to other religions as well and you do. I am satisfied in confirming my assumptions.
This will come up again at another time.
You may continue to deflect with Scientology now.
I bring up Scientology because it is a religion that most everyone who is not a Scientologist can see is completely nutty and has exactly as much fact backing it up as Christianity or any other religion.
I think it's funny that people think that hearing voices isn't a hallmark of insanity as long as the person claiming to have heard voices is a Christian and the voice is claimed to be God's.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on February 18, 2011, 08:38:25 AM
Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public and opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure.
As Governor of Arkansas, he was roundly critized for creating state jobs for people who had given him personal gifts. One year, the gifts from 20 people were valued at twice his state salary. He once rebuked for claiming that $70,000 of furniture given to the state mansion was his. Inaugural funds were used to buy wardrobe for his wife. He was sanctioned five times by the state ethics commission for his ethical lapses.
In his ten years as governor, he raised gasoline taxes, raised the state sales tax three times, taxes on alcohol and tobacco four times and increased fees for all state functions even getting a driver's license (up 43%).
His administration paid $15,000 to settle a lawsuit because he tried to pressure a television station to fire a reporter who was critical of him.
I like him. I think he is funny and cool. I just don't want him in politics.
Are you talking about Huckabee or Clinton? I can't tell the difference ;)
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 01:06:32 PM
I bring up Scientology because it is a religion that most everyone who is not a Scientologist can see is completely nutty and has exactly as much fact backing it up as Christianity or any other religion.
I think it's funny that people think that hearing voices isn't a hallmark of insanity as long as the person claiming to have heard voices is a Christian and the voice is claimed to be God's.
Practice tolerance much?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2011, 01:50:11 PM
Practice tolerance much?
Not to be argumentative but from which perspective?
Surely you're not considering him intolerant of Christians when Christians are so tolerant of others.
My point is, if you're not a Christian, (per Christians) you are condemned to an eternity in Hell...unless you practice inclusionism. Inclusionism can't be right because it destroyed one of the largest churches in the USA and sent the practicing minister to Chicago to find more tolerant peoples.
So tolerance isn't exactly returned by all parties.
If that's not what you meant then excuse me.
Quoteif you're not a Christian, (per Christians) you are condemned to an eternity in Hell
They don't do the condemning, God does. So if you don't believe in God, you're off the hook! ;)
Some condemn those of faith as insane. In that case, he is doing the condemning. Christians view every sole as sacred. . .even Nates.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 18, 2011, 02:08:28 PM
They don't do the condemning, God does. So if you don't believe in God, you're off the hook! ;)
I disagree, it's the Christians doing the condemning. They're the only ones pushing that whole thing. God's never said a thing about it to me.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2011, 01:50:11 PM
Practice tolerance much?
Yes, actually. I have no problem with allowing people to practice their woo. Nor do I have a personal problem with people who can segregate woo from day-to-day reality. Tolerance does not mean refusing to see things that are in front of your face. It means allowing people to do/believe things no matter how stupid you think such things are.
Basically, I have as much tolerance for other people as they have for me. I don't generally bring up my extreme disdain for religion because I don't feel the need to talk about it when nobody asks. That's also part of tolerance. I wish the true believer Christians in my life could be so tolerant. (thankfully most I know are, but there are a few who wear it on their sleeve..)
Where I get intolerant is people trying to base law on woo or claiming that their brand of woo is some sort of universal morality. I don't claim my nonbelief should be legislated any more than their belief should be legislated.
Gaspar, I don't believe in a "soul" per se, as that implies some sort of consciousness separate from the physical mind. As I said before, people can be high functioning and still hold insane beliefs. (fantastical beliefs, if you're hung up on the use of the word insane)
Edited to add: After all, Einstein was kinda sorta a believer, yet he managed to come up with some of the most important discoveries of all time. Obviously believing in things that don't exist doesn't make it impossible to function in society.
Woo.
(http://awesomebmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/abe-vigoda-in-a-headress.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 02:18:06 PM
Gaspar, I don't believe in a "soul" per se, as that implies some sort of consciousness separate from the physical mind. As I said before, people can be high functioning and still hold insane beliefs. (fantastical beliefs, if you're hung up on the use of the word insane)
I'm cool with your insane beliefs as long as you're cool with mine! ;D
Quote from: Gaspar on February 18, 2011, 02:30:04 PM
I'm cool with your insane beliefs as long as you're cool with mine! ;D
You're more than welcome to believe whatever you need to to make it through the day. :D
Quote from: nathanm on February 18, 2011, 02:45:08 PM
You're more than welcome to believe whatever you need to to make it through the day. :D
I believe I will have another beer.
Quote from: Townsend on February 18, 2011, 01:56:46 PM
Not to be argumentative but from which perspective?
Surely you're not considering him intolerant of Christians when Christians are so tolerant of others.
My point is, if you're not a Christian, (per Christians) you are condemned to an eternity in Hell...unless you practice inclusionism. Inclusionism can't be right because it destroyed one of the largest churches in the USA and sent the practicing minister to Chicago to find more tolerant peoples.
So tolerance isn't exactly returned by all parties.
If that's not what you meant then excuse me.
That's a very broad stroke. IMO, it's a small percentage of Christians who hold such extreme and intolerant beliefs.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2011, 03:04:57 PM
That's a very broad stroke. IMO, it's a small percentage of Christians who hold such extreme and intolerant beliefs.
Wow, now let's flip that around about Muslims. Wait, that can't be right, can it? Unless you belong to the party of tea.
Edit: All I'm saying with this, is that in some cases, we practice a little bit of 'double standards' when it comes to the major religions. The minorities of each religion are the kooks, it just seems, to me anyway, that Christians are more quick to generalize the entire religion of Islam as extremists.
Quote from: Hoss on February 18, 2011, 03:13:20 PM
Wow, now let's flip that around about Muslims. Wait, that can't be right, can it? Unless you belong to the party of tea.
Edit: All I'm saying with this, is that in some cases, we practice a little bit of 'double standards' when it comes to the major religions. The minorities of each religion are the kooks, it just seems, to me anyway, that Christians are more quick to generalize the entire religion of Islam as extremists.
Tolerance rarely gets coverage on the news, it's not sexy and it doesn't sell advertising. If all someone has to go on when it comes to Islam in the Middle East is what they see on the news, they will assume all Muslims are out burning American flags and calling Christians infidels.
Aside from tolerance there's also the issue of respect, but that's another kettle of fish.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 18, 2011, 03:03:42 PM
I believe I will have another beer.
Amen!
Can I get a hallelujah?
If this is inappropriate for this thread, blame the Marshall's:
(http://static02.mediaite.com/geekosystem/uploads/2011/02/food-goes-in.jpeg)
Hoss,
It's because "We" are always the good guys and "They" are always the bad guys.
No matter which other religion it is.
QuoteYes, actually. I have no problem with allowing people to practice their woo. Nor do I have a personal problem with people who can segregate woo from day-to-day reality. Tolerance does not mean refusing to see things that are in front of your face. It means allowing people to do/believe things no matter how stupid you think such things are.
If you are so tolerant, then why do you insist on calling everything against your beliefs stupid? I am a Christian, and do not consider my beliefs to be stupid, or myself insane. I have a number of friends who are not Christian, and I have never once thought of them to be stupid or insane. Just because someone's beliefs go against yours, it does not certify them as insane.
Quote from: ZYX on February 22, 2011, 10:18:50 PM
If you are so tolerant, then why do you insist on calling everything against your beliefs stupid? I am a Christian, and do not consider my beliefs to be stupid, or myself insane. I have a number of friends who are not Christian, and I have never once thought of them to be stupid or insane. Just because someone's beliefs go against yours, it does not certify them as insane.
But he's free to think that they're stupid or insane, as long as he doesn't keep those people he thinks are that way from practicing their brand of religion. Christians, as a rule of thumb, look down on any religion that doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. That's why I left the church long ago to become more of an agnostic theist.
Thinking someone's religion is stupid isn't intolerance, it's opinion. Intolerance is saying something like: 'if you're a Muslim you cannot build this building here'. BIG difference.
Quote from: ZYX on February 22, 2011, 10:18:50 PM
I am a Christian, and do not consider my beliefs to be stupid, or myself insane.
I don't know you so just as a point of discussion, if you are/were insane would you recognize it? I think the odds are against it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 23, 2011, 08:02:41 AM
I don't know you so just as a point of discussion, if you are/were insane would you recognize it? I think the odds are against it.
I'm insane and I recognize it. :D
I use standards of sanity established by others.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 23, 2011, 09:15:27 AM
I'm insane and I recognize it. :D
I use standards of sanity established by others.
Looking for hair on your knuckles?
Quote from: Hoss on February 23, 2011, 12:07:27 AM
But he's free to think that they're stupid or insane, as long as he doesn't keep those people he thinks are that way from practicing their brand of religion. Some Christians, as a rule of thumb, look down on any religion that doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. That's why I left the church long ago to become more of an agnostic theist.
Thinking someone's religion is stupid isn't intolerance, it's opinion. Intolerance is saying something like: 'if you're a Muslim you cannot build this building here'. BIG difference.
By and large, I think most Christians are quite tolerant and accepting of other's spiritual life or lack thereof, but like anything else, it's the most vocal minority which seems to set the tone for everyone else whether it's religion or politics.
Nobody is talking about religious
rights here, it's about tolerance or intolerance.
Referring to other's spirituality as "woo" shows a high level of arrogance and indifference to the beliefs of others. It also shows a certain level of disrespect. Essentially he's saying: "I'm too smart for religion, those who practice it are stupid, or at least not as intelligent as I am." What even remotely indicates respect or tolerance in that line of thinking?
If I started referring to Islam as "A$$" from now on, I'm quite certain other posters on here would see it as disrespectful, intolerant, and indifferent to the beliefs of those who practice Islam.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2011, 10:22:43 AM
By and large, I think most Christians are quite tolerant and accepting of other's spiritual life or lack thereof, but like anything else, it's the most vocal minority which seems to set the tone for everyone else whether it's religion or politics.
Nobody is talking about religious rights here, it's about tolerance or intolerance.
Referring to other's spirituality as "woo" shows a high level of arrogance and indifference to the beliefs of others. It also shows a certain level of disrespect. Essentially he's saying: "I'm too smart for religion, those who practice it are stupid, or at least not as intelligent as I am." What even remotely indicates respect or tolerance in that line of thinking?
If I started referring to Islam as "A$$" from now on, I'm quite certain other posters on here would see it as disrespectful, intolerant, and indifferent to the beliefs of those who practice Islam.
ALOT of Christians I know belittle any of the other religions. As a matter of fact, most of the relatives I have that are fairly devout Christians say things that baffle me as it regards to religions such as Buddhism, Islam and the like. So while you may say SOME Christians, my experience (sofar) is that the majority of those in my inner circle do this. I'm not saying the majority overall does it, but ones I'm in contact with do. It's all relative.
Quote from: Hoss on February 23, 2011, 10:35:12 AM
ALOT of Christians I know belittle any of the other religions. As a matter of fact, most of the relatives I have that are fairly devout Christians say things that baffle me as it regards to religions such as Buddhism, Islam and the like. So while you may say SOME Christians, my experience (sofar) is that the majority of those in my inner circle do this. I'm not saying the majority overall does it, but ones I'm in contact with do. It's all relative.
Sadly, same here.
They refuse to learn more about other faiths/lack of faith and live in their chosen bubble.
It breeds fear and misunderstanding.
And I appreciate you both making an honest appraisal of you identifying that with people within your own sphere of influence. In your guys case, if it's family members it's pretty hard to disassociate with them. I've got a small family so I'm not close to anyone who thinks or says crap like that.
I grew up in the Episcopal Church and went until mid high school. After high school I experimented with Pentecostal and very charismatic churches because the traditional mass of the EC bored the crap out of me and was uninspiring. While I was energized with the charismatic services at the new churches I was trying, I quickly became aware of the back-biting and hypocrisy. It made no sense to me how my grandparents who were very moral and giving people yet weren't church-goers nor did they ever make a mention about faith around me would burn in Hell if they'd have never said the "sinner's prayer". The cult of personality which surrounds mega pastors also disturbed me as well as the constant begging and guilting for cash. The seeds of my disdain for organized religion were planted then, only it took another 20 or so years until I quit going all together.
My spiritual life is personal to me and I don't wear it on my sleeve, I don't try to influence others with it, but I do seem to be in the company of a lot of people who have similar views. I also choose to avoid people who do wear it on their sleeve and who preach intolerance and exclusion.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2011, 10:22:43 AM
By and large, I think most Christians are quite tolerant and accepting of other's spiritual life or lack thereof, but like anything else, it's the most vocal minority which seems to set the tone for everyone else whether it's religion or politics.
Nobody is talking about religious rights here, it's about tolerance or intolerance.
Referring to other's spirituality as "woo" shows a high level of arrogance and indifference to the beliefs of others. It also shows a certain level of disrespect. Essentially he's saying: "I'm too smart for religion, those who practice it are stupid, or at least not as intelligent as I am." What even remotely indicates respect or tolerance in that line of thinking?
If I started referring to Islam as "A$$" from now on, I'm quite certain other posters on here would see it as disrespectful, intolerant, and indifferent to the beliefs of those who practice Islam.
My reading is that it ain't so much the denomination (christian, muslim, hindu, etc) but belief vs nonbelief.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2011, 01:03:37 PM
And I appreciate you both making an honest appraisal of you identifying that with people within your own sphere of influence. In your guys case, if it's family members it's pretty hard to disassociate with them. I've got a small family so I'm not close to anyone who thinks or says crap like that.
I've gotten away from most of the painful aquaintances over the years. The family members like that? I keep my distance or make them aware of how I feel quickly.
I'd never experienced any of this kind of thing until I moved to Oklahoma. Of course that was during the Reagan years and the enormous rise of the Religious Right and Falwell.
I moved to BA and experienced all sorts of crazy from the people that filled the halls of Rhema and ORU at the time. They were energized in those days. First impressions of those kinds leave an incredibly bad taste.
I've moved on but anytime a decision is made in government due to a faith, it makes me cringe.
Red,
Better on the knuckle than the palm...
Since the thread is about Huckabee - or was - here is something that is related to the RWRE he so meagerly represents. As noted in another area, the old saying is "To Democrats, low wages are the problem. To Republicans, low wages are the answer."
It truly IS a case of redistribution of wealth in this country. And of course, the RWRE wants you to believe it is the poor who are sucking up all the money and bleeding the country dry. I have submitted with actual legitimate analysis how that isn't exactly true. But hey, here is an outside source with some more reality.
We have been and continue to experience the biggest redistribution of wealth in the history of the world. Kind of like the Roman empire in its final throes. Think we can avoid the same fate? I hope so....it looks very grim.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110223/ts_yblog_thelookout/separate-but-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap
Yeah,...looks to me like the top 1% needs a little extra help.
Don't you DARE tax the top 1%! All hell will break loose..
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2011, 01:03:37 PM
And I appreciate you both making an honest appraisal of you identifying that with people within your own sphere of influence. In your guys case, if it's family members it's pretty hard to disassociate with them. I've got a small family so I'm not close to anyone who thinks or says crap like that.
I grew up in the Episcopal Church and went until mid high school. After high school I experimented with Pentecostal and very charismatic churches because the traditional mass of the EC bored the crap out of me and was uninspiring. While I was energized with the charismatic services at the new churches I was trying, I quickly became aware of the back-biting and hypocrisy. It made no sense to me how my grandparents who were very moral and giving people yet weren't church-goers nor did they ever make a mention about faith around me would burn in Hell if they'd have never said the "sinner's prayer". The cult of personality which surrounds mega pastors also disturbed me as well as the constant begging and guilting for cash. The seeds of my disdain for organized religion were planted then, only it took another 20 or so years until I quit going all together.
My spiritual life is personal to me and I don't wear it on my sleeve, I don't try to influence others with it, but I do seem to be in the company of a lot of people who have similar views. I also choose to avoid people who do wear it on their sleeve and who preach intolerance and exclusion.
I have found that Christians tend to fall into one of two categories, the missionaries, and the beleivers. The missionaries are the ones who think it is their place to convert every non-Christian into their fold (most of my family falls into this group), where as the beleivers simply beleive their way is the right way. Yes, there are some that fall into neither, but these are far and few between. It seems that the missionaries are the ones that tolerance never crosses their mind and look down on any other religion, or lack there of, with contempt. The believers tend to be the more tolerant ones, but most don't have discussions on religion with these types. That is because they aren't out trying to recruit everyone, so there is no real need to discuss it. However, a large portion of these will still look a little sideways at anyone that says they are from a more Eastern religion (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism ect.), and a LOT sideways at those who are of the smaller religious movements (scientology, Paganism, Wiccan ect.) or are athiest.
Personally, in an effort to help others understand my religious standing I have decided I am going to create my own religion, defining it and naming it as I choose. So since the majority think that everyone should have a label for their personal beliefs, I am now on a quest to name my theological standings. In the end, this should prove to be interesting at the very least.
Quote from: ZYX on February 22, 2011, 10:18:50 PM
Just because someone's beliefs go against yours, it does not certify them as insane.
I'm sure you're perfectly healthy in other parts of your life, but you have a magical thinking problem. There's nothing terribly wrong with that, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm calling a spade a spade. Tolerance doesn't mean
liking things other people do or
agreeing with it. If a person only tolerates that which they agree with, they are in fact quite
intolerant.
You'll note I don't spend a lot of time here (or anywhere else, for that matter) talking about my beliefs on religion. That's because I think people should have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. I was only writing about it because someone asked.
In response to Conan, I'll ask a question: Given that most people are perfectly willing to shake their heads in disbelief at other examples of people believing things with no evidence or contrary to all evidence (say 9/11 truthers or UFO true believers), why is it so disrespectful to hold the same opinion about someone's spiritual beliefs? Isn't being dismissive of nonbelief equally as disrepectful in that frame of argument?
FWIW, I don't think I'm better than religious people, certainly less than a Baptist thinks they're better than an Anglican or whatever. I do think it's healthier to hold views that are subject to being proven or disproven, but that's a value judgement everybody gets to make for themselves.
Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2011, 09:39:47 PM
I'm sure you're perfectly healthy in other parts of your life, but you have a magical thinking problem. There's nothing terribly wrong with that, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm calling a spade a spade. Tolerance doesn't mean liking things other people do or agreeing with it. If a person only tolerates that which they agree with, they are in fact quite intolerant.
You'll note I don't spend a lot of time here (or anywhere else, for that matter) talking about my beliefs on religion. That's because I think people should have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. I was only writing about it because someone asked.
In response to Conan, I'll ask a question: Given that most people are perfectly willing to shake their heads in disbelief at other examples of people believing things with no evidence or contrary to all evidence (say 9/11 truthers or UFO true believers), why is it so disrespectful to hold the same opinion about someone's spiritual beliefs? Isn't being dismissive of nonbelief equally as disrepectful in that frame of argument?
FWIW, I don't think I'm better than religious people, certainly less than a Baptist thinks they're better than an Anglican or whatever. I do think it's healthier to hold views that are subject to being proven or disproven, but that's a value judgement everybody gets to make for themselves.
Very well put. Your position is defined. There is no need for you to continue to define it.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 24, 2011, 05:34:34 AM
Very well put. Your position is defined. There is no need for you to continue to define it.
That coincides with 2000 years of religion for many people I know.
If you're not taught how to argue well enough for your faith's POV then tell the person to stop talking. If he/she doesn't stop talking then you just say "that's why it's called a faith.".
Quote from: nathanm on February 23, 2011, 09:39:47 PM
In response to Conan, I'll ask a question: Given that most people are perfectly willing to shake their heads in disbelief at other examples of people believing things with no evidence or contrary to all evidence (say 9/11 truthers or UFO true believers), why is it so disrespectful to hold the same opinion about someone's spiritual beliefs? Isn't being dismissive of nonbelief equally as disrepectful in that frame of argument?
FWIW, I don't think I'm better than religious people, certainly less than a Baptist thinks they're better than an Anglican or whatever. I do think it's healthier to hold views that are subject to being proven or disproven, but that's a value judgement everybody gets to make for themselves.
It's called faith. There's a big difference between truthers, little green men, and the spiritual world.
There have been things which have happened in my life for which coincidence would have been absolutely impossible for so many events to align to wind up with a certain outcome. It's also impossible for me to look in the mirror in the morning or at various parts of nature and truly believe all of this is even remotely possible simply from a chain of genetic mutations and random geological gyrations.
For most people who have faith in some sort of higher power, they've also had some sort of affirmation or proof which has led them to the beliefs they have. You simply don't see it that way, you have a more analytical and scientific approach, apparently. However saying things like "You have a magical thinking problem" is incredibly arrogant and intolerant.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 24, 2011, 10:33:19 AM
For most people who have faith in some sort of higher power, they've also had some sort of affirmation or proof which has led them to the beliefs they have.
What a believer accepts as "Proof", a polite non-believer will call Faith. This invariably leads to a "discussion" on "Proof vs. Faith".
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 24, 2011, 10:45:09 AM
What a believer accepts as "Proof", a polite non-believer will call Faith. This invariably leads to a "discussion" on "Proof vs. Faith".
Which is perfectly fine and good so long as everyone respects the other's standing even if it doesn't make sense to them. When people start thinking their own understanding is superior and other's is inferior, that's where bigotry and intolerance begins.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 24, 2011, 10:33:19 AM
For most people who have faith in some sort of higher power, they've also had some sort of affirmation or proof which has led them to the beliefs they have.
Well, I now know at least one person who has an observation backing their faith. In all my years in church as a kid, the best people could point to was "the Lord speaking to [them]"..
Also, I have yet to meet a person of faith who doesn't think that their understanding of the world is superior to mine. That's fine with me, so long as they tolerate my having my view as I tolerate their having theirs. Most do, a few insist on praying for me, which I find rather arrogant (to borrow your word).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_huckabee_obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_huckabee_obama)
QuoteWASHINGTON – Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee suggested in a radio interview that President Barack Obama's childhood in Kenya shaped his worldview — even though Obama did not visit Kenya until he was in his 20s.
The potential Republican presidential candidate told New York radio station WOR on Monday that Obama's youth led him to resent the West, which he said explains why, in Huckabee's view, Obama's foreign policy differs so greatly from that of his predecessors.
"One thing that I do know is his having grown up in Kenya, his view of the Brits, for example, (is) very different than the average American," Huckabee said, pointing to Obama's decision in 2009 to remove a bust of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office.
He failed to note that Obama replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln, and moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.
"The bust of Winston Churchill, a great insult to the British," Huckabee said. "But then if you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather . he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather."
Any chance the conservative talking heads are not correcting him and just spewing the garbage coming from Huck?
And his side:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110302/pl_yblog_theticket/huckabee-slams-sensationalized-coverage-of-radio-interview (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110302/pl_yblog_theticket/huckabee-slams-sensationalized-coverage-of-radio-interview)
Huckabee slams 'sensationalized' coverage of comments on Obama, Kenya
QuoteI'm not surprised the NY Times chose to sensationalize this story. In fact, the New York Times, the AP, and other news organizations ran with the "sensationalized story" despite being specifically told by [WOR radio host] Steve Malzberg himself that they were incorrect in their assessment of the sound bite. You just can't help but laugh when my simple slip of the tongue, becomes a huge story - and a certain Presidential candidate claiming to visit all 57 states, gets widely ignored.
That must be part of the initiation.
So there you go.
Quote from: nathanm on February 24, 2011, 12:28:42 PM
Also, I have yet to meet a person of faith who doesn't think that their understanding of the world is superior to mine.
You mortals crack me up.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 23, 2011, 01:03:37 PM
I grew up in the Episcopal Church and went until mid high school. After high school I experimented with Pentecostal and very charismatic churches because the traditional mass of the EC bored the crap out of me and was uninspiring. While I was energized with the charismatic services at the new churches I was trying, I quickly became aware of the back-biting and hypocrisy. It made no sense to me how my grandparents who were very moral and giving people yet weren't church-goers nor did they ever make a mention about faith around me would burn in Hell if they'd have never said the "sinner's prayer". The cult of personality which surrounds mega pastors also disturbed me as well as the constant begging and guilting for cash. The seeds of my disdain for organized religion were planted then, only it took another 20 or so years until I quit going all together.
My spiritual life is personal to me and I don't wear it on my sleeve, I don't try to influence others with it, but I do seem to be in the company of a lot of people who have similar views. I also choose to avoid people who do wear it on their sleeve and who preach intolerance and exclusion.
With beliefs like that, you must really feel an outcast being so conservative! There is no one there with religious beliefs like you.
Insight; thanks for that! (Yes, I am being serious. No, I am not being sarcastic.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 03, 2011, 07:24:43 PM
There is no one there with religious beliefs like you.
Don't be so sure.
Red,
You agnostic/anti-religion, too?? Wow, this is unbelievable. Two conservatives with that belief system??
Neither of you fit into the proclaimed belief structure of the RWRE.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 04, 2011, 02:01:21 PM
Red,
You agnostic/anti-religion, too?? Wow, this is unbelievable. Two conservatives with that belief system??
Neither of you fit into the proclaimed belief structure of the RWRE.
Might have something to do with your mistaken belief that everyone to the right of Nancy Pelosi is RWRE. You are old enough to remember before the religious zealots hijacked the Republican party. There are more of us than you think. We just don't get the press.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 04, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
Might have something to do with your mistaken belief that everyone to the right of Nancy Pelosi is RWRE. You are old enough to remember before the religious zealots hijacked the Republican party. There are more of us than you think. We just don't get the press.
Or the votes, sadly.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 04, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
You are old enough to remember before the religious zealots hijacked the Republican party.
Why did fiscal conservatives and a party best known for personal responsibility and small government allow the religious right take over their party?
Quote from: we vs us on March 04, 2011, 02:52:09 PM
Or the votes, sadly.
But I cannot fix what's wrong by running away. Unfortunately, when given the usual offeings of the Democratic Party vs. the Republican Party, I am usually forced to put up with the religious wackos on the right as the lesser of two disasters. (My opinion, I sure your results will vary.)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 04, 2011, 02:53:15 PM
Why did fiscal conservatives and a party best known for personal responsibility and small government allow the religious right take over their party?
I wish I knew. Probably an unholy alliance to beat the left's ideology.
Edit: Also along the lines of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7358501n#ixzz1FfX2qWIT (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7358501n#ixzz1FfX2qWIT)
QuoteFormer Republican presidential candidate and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has criticized recent Oscar-winner Natalie Portman for being pregnant and unmarried.
The need for ratings has gotten to him.
Red,
Yeah, I remember. I was a huge supporter of Gerald Ford. One of the biggest mistakes this country made was not electing him for his own term. Stupid. He vetoed more spending bills than any President in history. In just a couple years. Can't beat that at all.
Oklahoma had a chance to get rid of one of the worst a while back by voting for Rice, but we went with Inhofe again.
RM said the Republicans are "known" for personal responsibility and small government. Well, that is certainly ignoring the last 31 years of history, where the Republicans have put the Democrats to shame by their spending and big government approach. Took about 200 years to get to $900 billion in debt. Then 20 to get to 11 trillion. And now just another 4 (or maybe 8?) to get to 15+ trillion, trying to fix the economic catastrophe of the previous 8.
Well, it should make for interesting times.
And while everyone digests that, here is the next big catastrophe unfolding. Every once in a while, when a small number of people get 'all' the money, it becomes like a big monopoly game, and everything comes unraveled. Economy develops the financial equivalent of vapor lock. Looks like we may be getting close. Maybe about Dec 21, 2012??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110223/ts_yblog_thelookout/separate-but-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap
Lots of noise in RWRE circles about how 'bad' it is when people can vote themselves benefits - well, I have to agree. When those 1%'ers buy Congress and get them to pass the laws for their benefit, well, it has gotten bad. But that's what re-distribution of wealth is all about.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2011, 09:36:16 PM
Oklahoma had a chance to get rid of one of the worst a while back by voting for Rice, but we went with Inhofe again.
Think what you want, I just couldn't vote for Rice over Inhofe.
He could have been just a 'place holder' until the next election, but it would have gotten rid of Inhofe!
Like we have a chance to get rid of Tim Harris and Kurt Glassco every time, but we still keep keeping 'em. All three cases of the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2011, 10:03:15 PM
He could have been just a 'place holder' until the next election, but it would have gotten rid of Inhofe!
Like we have a chance to get rid of Tim Harris and Kurt Glassco every time, but we still keep keeping 'em. All three cases of the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!
You don't understand.... I thought Inhofe was a better choice than Rice. I don't expect you to agree. There are evidently enough Oklahomans that like Inhofe to keep him in the Senate.
Evidently.
How sad is that?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2011, 10:17:00 PM
Evidently.
How sad is that?
Depends on your position.
You and I obviously disagree on that.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 18, 2011, 08:01:08 AM
I'd like Nate to provide some examples of Huck's insanity. I find him rational, engaging, and scary when it comes to numbers. I'd love to see a debate between him and the teleprompter, or President Obama for that matter. . .eh, whoever shows up.
More Gaspar lunacy regarding a president who is more intelligent and thoughtful than any of the rightwing chattering class nutjobs on this forum.... the only way Huck the healthcare hypocrit wins a debate with Obama is if FOX NEWS asks all the questions. Besides, I thought Huck was gonna kiss Michelle with tongue after she appeared on his show a few months ago......
Only in Huck's dreams. No one will kiss a face like his.