U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws."
The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage. Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I don't know why, but that Harris bitch convinced me (again) that it is indead a bad idea to mix religion with government.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Openly you mean, since all people are guided by religious beliefs, whether they believe or not, so she's basicly right.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
The founding fathers of our country were mostly atheists. Washington was a deist actually. Dammit, this is one more point in the fourteen points of fascism!! FUCK!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You have an interesting relationship with history.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
As to what they actually believed, that's harder to determine, but most were nominally Christian.
This is a politician we're talking about. In general, they don't believe anything at all. They say what they have to say to whoever to get elected. On the other hand, if Harris is saying things she actually believes, well, good for her! An honest politician is a wonderful thing, even if what they say is distasteful.
I seriously doubt God cares much what the law is. He's interested in how you live, not in the US code.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...all people are guided by religious beliefs..."
Explain.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
This is a politician we're talking about. In general, they don't believe anything at all. They say what they have to say to whoever to get elected. On the other hand, if Harris is saying things she actually believes, well, good for her! An honest politician is a wonderful thing, even if what they say is distasteful.
I would have liked to invite you to Ontario during another distasteful time of Harris and see what you think. Also an honest politician but for all the wrong reasons.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
What bugs me is that so many of these nitwits seem to think that by making things like abortion or gay marriage illegal, it's somehow going to prevent women from terminating unplanned/unwanted pregnancies or gay couples from committing to each other and living together. Every religion has fundamentalist zealots. I was raised Christian, but people like Ms. Harris make me embarassed to say so. I mean, who the hell is she to say her invisible being in the sky is more real or better than someone else's?
This has pissed me off enough I think I'm going to dig out my old VHS dub of The Ruling Class. I could use some religio-political satire about now.
--Jonah
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
That is a fucking great movie.
(Not just because Peter O'Toole is such a sexy bitch, either. )
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
Regardless of what the founding fathers believed, every session of Congress is opened with prayer and, I believe, always has been.
Unless this has changed in recent years.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I mean, who the hell is she to say her invisible being in the sky is more real or better than someone else's?"
Holier than thou, obviously.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Openly you mean, since all people are guided by religious beliefs, whether they believe or not, so she's basicly right.
*munch* You're confusing "religion" with "world-view". Everyone base their decisions based on their view of reality, the universe and everything, that doesn't mean that they believe in a superhuman agency arranging that reality, which is what "religion" stands for.
I'd like to see how many people around the world actually believe in gods (not just paying lipservice or going on custom). That 90%-crap from "Contact" feels as trustworthy as the word "Parlay" means "discussing terms" in "Pirates of the Caribbean".
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It seems to me that the spread, or resurgence, or just plain tenacity of religion in this day and age, it has a lot to do, ironically, with too much knowledge. Why ironically? Because religion first started as as way of explaining the unexplainable, the incomprehensible, the scary. Well, now we can explain, and we comprehend a fair bit - but it's still scary. . .
So, religion hangs on in there. This is the Information Age, but little of it brings comfort. The worls hasn't gotten worse, we're just able to learn a whole lot more about how bad it really is. There was a charity ad that ran here a while back, it had celebrities clicking their fingers toi indocate every time a child died. General Vo Nguyen Giap once said (roughly, I forget the exact quote) "a hundred thousand people die every day - a human life means nothing." Richard Dawkins says "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die, because they are never going to be born. The number of people that could be here in my place outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. We are privileged to be alive, and we should make the most of our time on this world."
When you're faced with all that, who among us doesn't want there to be a purpose, a goal, a guiding light - fuck, anything that'll make sense of it all? I'm going to be thirty-six years old next week, but if I lie awake at night and think about this, the most basic instinct I feel is to run and climb in bed with my Mum. But I can't.
And it's not just about seeking out comfort and blissful ignorance; the really unpalatable truth about all the evil in the world is that just about anyone is capable of it. Religion makes it possible for you to say "Those people doing those horrible things, they may be of the same race, the same culture as me, but they don't believe like I do, they're sinners." And, even better, "They will get their comeuppance in the next world, while I will be rewarded."
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It's just too damn bad that the very structure of religion is what takes away the barriers against repeating said same evil.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:What bugs me is that so many of these nitwits seem to think that by making things like abortion or gay marriage illegal, it's somehow going to prevent women from terminating unplanned/unwanted pregnancies or gay couples from committing to each other and living together
Those are not equivalent topics. The legal recognition or lack thereof of gay marriage makes no difference whatever in how people live. The legal status of abortion does. Yes, some women would still find ways to have abortions illegally, but nobody can seriously argue that all, or even most, would. The numbers are just too big.
(And if anyone accuses me of saying anything other than exactly what I just said, as is par for these discussions, you will be ignored.)
quote:I mean, who the hell is she to say her invisible being in the sky is more real or better than someone else's?
Oh, goodness, can't express our belief in an absolute truth, now can we? That would just be horrible!
quote:Everyone base their decisions based on their view of reality, the universe and everything
As can be seen by...
quote:Because religion first started as as way of explaining the unexplainable, the incomprehensible, the scary.
quote:It's just too damn bad that the very structure of religion is what takes away the barriers against repeating said same evil.
You say that as if religion is the cause of most bad things in the world.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Religion is just like any other institution in that it is often twisted and made subject to the whims, desires, and at times outright malevolence of individuals. That is what begets "Crusades" or "Jihads".
The Bible says: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." James 1:27
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"You say that as if religion is the cause of most bad things in the world."
Oh, not the cause. More like a very aggressive catalyst.
"Religion is just like any other institution in that it is often twisted and made subject to the whims, desires, and at times outright malevolence of individuals."
You're absolutely right. Religion is just one of the easiest to twist.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega:
quote:I mean, who the hell is she to say her invisible being in the sky is more real or better than someone else's?
Oh, goodness, can't express our belief in an absolute truth, now can we? That would just be horrible!
Coming from the Canadian system, not if it could interfere with her potential role as a representative of her own constituents. If she believes so strongly that non-Christians are second-class citizens, then she can hardly be expected to represent them fairly, no?
Besides, one would hope that a public government figure would be held to a higher standard than that.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Lee: When I said I'd like to see the exact current global ratio of believers/non-believers (not to be confused with faithful/faithless) I differentiate between people thinking about life-as-we-know-it as their needs (food, safety, self-development and a social network) have been met, that is to say when they can bring their rational intellect to bear, and on the other hand that universal longing for structure and meaning that you're referring to. The latter is typical for mankind, yes, but it usually emerges when we have current needs or incentives for believing (having a dying loved one, being close to death yourself, doing jailtime or just feeling lonely or lost in general), things that a God or a sentient galaxy or noodly appendage could help/sympathize with.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
While I see Omega's point about honesty, any elected official is duty bound to uphold the seperation of powers. Besides- this is a last-ditch ploy.
Harris' campaign has been laughably in the toilet for months now: all of her senior campaign staff have literally walked out on her.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
The only time you see Jesus get aggressive/phycially violent is in dealing with the moneychangers at the gate to the temple. They were openly cheating the people who were coming to worship. Otherwise he displayed open compassion for sinners, and the outcast and condemnation only for the self-righteous religious bigots who ruled.
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" 1 John 4:20 That alone should strike fear in the hearts of those who preach bigotry and prejudice in the name of God.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Add to that that this holier-than-thou Christian Katherine Harris was (don't know if she still is) having an affair with her Governor Jeb Bush -- who was a married man. Good display of values there... Incidentally, she was the one overseeing the ballot recounts during the 2000 election's disputed results. Real unbiased, huh?
Oh, and Omega, "absolute truth"? Do not go there. Your opinion, your belief, are exactly that, and I have no problem with that. But I can guarantee that no one on this planet agrees with you 100%, even on matters of faith and doctrine. Not even if you had your very own clone. So your "absolute truth" is exactly one person's point-of-view. And if that's true, then that means the other six billion people on the planet are wrong and/or misguided. You may not even realise the ramifications of what you say, but the very concept of "absolute truth" is the very height of unmitigated arrogance.
But I'm going to be a good boy and not write an essay in rebuttal.
--Jonah
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:the very concept of "absolute truth" is the very height of unmitigated arrogance.
In that case, there's no point to ever discussing anything. I don't claim I have a monopoly on truth; THAT would be arrogant. But truth MUST exist, outside of all opinion, because the claim that it doesn't is self-contradictory. Even absolute relativists accept the principle of non-contradiction.
Get off your post-modern high horse.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
There has to be truth in any system or everything is only chaos. 1 + 1 = 2 is true in any number system except Base Two where it is 10. It is a different name, but the actual quantitative value is STILL |2|. You can name the value however you like, juxtapose it against an equivalent equation and the value is STILL |2|. Call it "Dos", "Zwei", "два", or "mbili" and the VALUE is STILL |2|. That is truth. Anything else is False or a Lie.
And as ALL politicians know, the BEST lie is the one closest to the truth.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
So I'm told, but what happens if truth is a lie?
Did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog...
By the way, I didn't post on my birthday last month, but the absolute value of my age is now |21|! Did I mention that Peter O'Toole is a sexy bitch? Bob Dylan has a new album out today! Woot!
[God can suck my dick...oh wait...no he can't...HE DOESN'T EXIST! PUT TH@T IN TEH PIPE @ND $MOKE 1t!!!!]
-MMoM Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
Um, just to present a counter-argument to the above, I suggest you do a little research into someone called Kurt Godel and his theories. You are quite welcome to scream at me that Mathematics and it's concept of 'proof' has nothing to do with philosophical truth, but the example of 1+1=2 has been mentioned and personally I think there is an equivalence. But I'm a engineer.
Anyway, essentially, Godel proved that you cannot prove 1+1=2. It is assumed as self-evident. While you have said it is true, how do you know it is true? There is no way to prove it within the current system of mathematics. You can add extra rules to maths to prove such a theorem, but then you have to go off and prove those in a never ending cycle... In the end, Mathemeticians assume a small number of 'axioms' such as 0+x=x, 1*x=x, etc. These are taken to be so basic that no-one can possibly argue with them.
But you can't prove them. And to me, if you can't prove something basic like 1+1=2, how can you 'prove' that God exists, inside our current realm of understanding? I'm alot more comfortable 'believing' that 1+1=2 than I am in a higher power, but as I said, I'm an engineer, and perhaps thinking about the subject too literally. Even if you disagree, I suggest you do some reading on Godel, if nothing else he was an interesting character.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
A bit mentally incomplete, though.
(PUN!)
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
How very droll...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You say that as if religion is the cause of most bad things in the world."
You say that as if religion isn't itself a member of that set.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Why should it be?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
An Architect, a Structural Engineer, and a Civil Engineer were debating about the nature of God. The Architect says "See how God created the human body with symmetry and gracefulness and functionality? God MUST be an Architect". The Structural Engineer says "See how the bones of the human body provide it with strength and yet flexibility of motion. God MUST be a Structural Engineer". There is a pause, then the Civil Engineer says" God is DEFINITELY a Civil Engineer......who else would run a waste disposal line through a perfectly good recreation area?"
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
This is heavier than a fat bitch's period. I'm out...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Lee's mention of that TV commercial reminded me of this art installation. (The first one, anyway. Following the link to it directly crashed Firefox.)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Link worked in mozilla (-firefox).
I need to explain that people are guided by their (religious) beliefs? Everyone is, (yes, I put religious in parenthese(sp?) this time) they form part of your character/personality.
How different would Omega be without his solid foundation in his religion? Having a foundation that is shakier could make him more witty or an addict or both. A person elected to a governing position will be guided by their beliefs, which I grant are ever changing, except for maybe the core values.
I guess in the way I am using 'religious values' you could put 'moral values'. While a believer and non believer may find murder wrong it comes from different value systems, as does the differing versions of what is acceptable and what is not between all groups/people.
Now we could go off on the tangent of the theories of personality and the dozen plus ways to measure and anylize it, but that would really be goofed up talking over all of that, since not even a decent number of the researches can choose one that works for everyone/all cases. So my answer has to be vague, as I can not hope to pick a theory when they can not either.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I guess in the way I am using 'religious values' you could put 'moral values'."
And the way you use "blue", one could say "green"? That was the whole point, wasn't it? You were claiming that everyone is guided by religious beliefs, but some people don't have them. If you change "religious beliefs" to something else, it changes your assertion completely.
[ August 30, 2006, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Everyone is guided by axiomatic beliefs, which are by definition inarguable. Your axiomatic belief that God doesn't exist is no better or worse, from a logical standpoint, than mine that He does, because logic can't be used against axioms in a vacuum. If you take all a person's axioms at once you might could show that the axioms themselves are contradictory. (And that's only if one of the axioms is non-contradiction.) One way of going about this is showing that, if you assume certain things about reality, one set of axioms is better than another if it matches reality and the other doesn't.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
And an infinite God would not fit in a finite universe, hence the axiom doesn't fit reality. Wait shit, I said I was done talking about this. NOW I'm done talking about this!!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Only because you've defined your terms so. God, by definition of a transcendent being, has no need to fit inside the universe.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Then how would he affect things *in* the universe? Aw crap I give up, I'll discuss, I'll discuss....
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Is there some reason He shouldn't be able to? It sounds like you're defining the universe to be a closed system. Not sure why that's necessary.
[ August 30, 2006, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Omega ]
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Just to nitpick, the universe is most likely finite but unbounded.
--Jonah
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Show me the "outside" of the space-time continuum, then we'll talk.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Show me the "outside" of the space-time continuum, then we'll talk.
Does Washington, D.C. count?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Sol, the two words are interchangeable, in some circles, while in others they are not, my circles have them interchangeable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Your circle should discover a dictionary.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Your axiomatic belief that God doesn't exist is no better or worse, from a logical standpoint, than mine that He does..."
Theoretically true. But, in actuality, would my lack of an axiomatic belief either way be better than your axiomatic belief?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
That wasn't directed at you, particularly. While I stand by my general point, I sit corrected as to the specifics. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
As usual, most of the points I raised get totally ignored. This is why I have to insult people, just to get some attention. Omega, you're a wanker. 8)
Seriously, though, I'm very interested in why people feel the need to have religion in the days when rationalism via science should mean such tendencies are on the decrease. A religious person will find that question redundant - they believe because they believe. But there are lots of religions in the world, most with tenets that contradict the others, they can't all be correct, so even if one religion is correct, that means that there are a helluva lotta people out there who don't have the true knowledge, but are simply deluded. That flash of insight, that feeling of being suffused with the holy spirit (or equivalent), that feeling of Godly presence - it's completely bogus, a shared self-delusion. Which brings me back to my question - why, then, do they believe at all?
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Why do people believe there are aliens out there? There is no empirical PROOF that any exist. Theoretically, the numbers alone imply their existence but it is still just theory. There was an agrument espoused earlier that you can't even prove 1 + 1 = 2. If, we can't even PROVE the most basic of mathematical equations, how can we prove ANYTHING? What or who's to say our very existence isn't a fevered delusion of some being we can't even imagine? Our knowledge is based for the most part on what we have been taught by others which in turn was taught to them. How do you prove that Magellan sailed around the world? Have you been on his ship? Have you seen artifacts from that journey? If you were not actually there and witnessed it, you are in fact having faith that that event occured. You are believing that the stories handed down from generation to generation are true. So why do you believe them? Because it is commonplace now that ships circle the globe?
Everyone has faith in something. Whether it is God, the Universe, their own intelligence, science, or the Jabberwock.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Are there actually any good numbers on whether religion (as measured by number of worshippers, maybe?) is actually getting stronger or weaker?
In arguments about intelligent design, you always hear about the growing power of religious conservatives. In arguments about the media bias, you always here about Christians claiming that they are under attack by secularization.
Does anyone actually have good numbers on what the actual trends are? Where in the US or elsewhere?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:I'm very interested in why people feel the need to have religion in the days when rationalism via science should mean such tendencies are on the decrease.
You assume rationalism and science are inherently opposed to religion. That viewpoint, on BOTH sides, is self-perpetuating and completely not helpful. Because of that, we get scientists attacking religion as if it's their job as scientists, and religious people attacking science because they perceive themselves to be under attack at all times, whether they actually are or not. Otherwise perfectly intelligent people become totally irrational, and nothing productive occurs.
quote:That flash of insight, that feeling of being suffused with the holy spirit (or equivalent), that feeling of Godly presence - it's completely bogus, a shared self-delusion. Which brings me back to my question - why, then, do they believe at all?
Lee, your entire post reduces to "I don't believe, why do you?" No answer I give will satisfy you. That's why your posts get ignored, you asshat. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Seriously, though, I'm very interested in why people feel the need to have religion in the days when rationalism via science should mean such tendencies are on the decrease.
Because most people don't understand science. It's strange & unusual to them & they get their science ideas from shit like The 6th day. And they get afeared of it. Better to believe in The All-Knowing Gonk who obviously has a plan, & that way they can NOt have to think for themselves, NOT understand what's around them, & thus continue in their perfect little haze of self-deluding euphoria.
Please note this statement is chock full of generalizations & is not directly aimed at anyone here or else that I know. Except maybe one really fucking HOT girl i used to work with at Champs.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
As far as inherently opposed goes, science only attacks religion in those instances where religion pretends to make a scientific claim ("the Earth is 6000 years old", "god exists fully outside the material universe yet can interact with it", etcetera). That's what science should do, otherwise there's no point to practising it.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
OK OK...Religion is not logical. That doesn't mean it can't be true. Logic cannot be 'all there is' ... because logically (hehehe) there is no such thing as absolute truth. Also, every few hundred or thousand years we have a major paradigm shift and come up with something new. Science overturned supersition; on a smaller scale, quantum mechanics overturned Newtonianism. But, it still allows Newton to be right, on a *limited scale.* What if the next thing we discover overturns science, but allows it to be a good approximation that we can use within the world we see? The same way Newton's laws are statistical approximations of quantum probabilities. And what if in this new framework of understanding, God makes sense too? I'm just saying, we don't *know* but you can't rule something out just because it doesn't fit with our current understanding. If we always did that we never would've gotten beyond fire.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Well, THEORETICALLY, if you extrapolate the decay of Earth's electromagnetic field backwards in time it would be too strong to allow life to exist at about 60 THOUSAND years ago.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Which 1) says NOTHING about the AGE of the PLANET and 2) blindly IGNORES the EMPIRICAL evidence that it VARIES in strength AND reverses itself PERIODICALLY, but I'm SURE that wasn't your POINT, was IT (man, I miss this style of writing)?
Daniel: You're right, we can't rule anything out. That's basically the problem of induction. We can only establish a measure of the likelihood that something is an accurate account of nature. The problem with god, though, is that we also can't design any experiments to test if he's even there or not. The discoveries that led to the development of quantum mechanics were all testable, but there will never be any paradigm shift within science that'll let us stick a probe up god's holy hole and gain a deep empirical understanding of him. "Knowledge" of god is always going to remain on the philosophical level.
[ August 31, 2006, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:As far as inherently opposed goes, science only attacks religion in those instances where religion pretends to make a scientific claim ("the Earth is 6000 years old", "god exists fully outside the material universe yet can interact with it", etcetera). That's what science should do, otherwise there's no point to practising it.
The claim that "god exists fully outside the material universe yet can interact with it" is not a scientific claim, as it does not involve observation or experiment.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The All-Knowing Gonk? :
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yes. That is, actually, PRECISELY who I meant.
I had a minor tiff with someone on LJ a few eeks back about how Gonk was the awesomest Star Wars character ever, even beating Han Solo.
And why NOT a Church of Gonk, dammit?!?
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Cartman: I kinda meant a paradigm shift in our *total* worldview, not in science. Something what would tip science itself on its ass. It's *possible*...or maybe I just love the Ancients too much Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Yes. That is, actually, PRECISELY who I meant.
I had a minor tiff with someone on LJ a few eeks back about how Gonk was the awesomest Star Wars character ever, even beating Han Solo.
And why NOT a Church of Gonk, dammit?!?
I don't know why I posted that. Seemed like a good idea at the time...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The Core. "We have to re-start, or reverse, the planet's magnetic field. Or something." That movie sucked.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well...yeah. What part of the trailer misled you into thinking it would not suck?
But I cant point fingers: I paid to see Aliens Vs. Predator.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Mercifully, I only had to watch it on TV.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
But I cant point fingers: I paid to see Aliens Vs. Predator.
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Just HOW MUCH tequila had you done?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I went with a woman that's a big Aliens fan. I had stupidly mentioned how great the comic book AVP had been and thus, not only did I spring for our tickets, I had to go into how completely they'd changed the premise into that pile of crap.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I didn't think The Core was a bad movie, surely not Academy Award material, but it's a decent waste of time.
I saw AVP in theatre's, but I didn't have to pay for my ticket, Haha. Wasn't really my cup of tea, but it was better than the alternative.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I went with a woman that's a big Aliens fan.
So did you get to show her your "Chest-Burster"?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No- it was just two people watching a truly awful movie.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
The only good thing about The Core was the music that played during the end credits.
Oh and Fuck Gonk, he's no R5-D4.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I think I know why The Core sucked. The TBG (Token Black Guy) died. Everyone knows never to kill the TBG!
Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :
I had an R5-D4 toy when I was a kid. It was magnificent. Wierdly though, I had no R2-D2.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Same Here.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Gonk is almighty. Gonk is merciful. Gonk is just. Gonk is all-loving. Gonk is all-knowing. Gonk is all-seeing. Gonk is the alpha and the omega. Gonk is magnanimous to his foes and generous to his friends. OBEY GONK!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Never!
I refuse to worship your false god! I declare jihad on Gonk!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Again, Gonk is magnanimous to his foes and generous to his friends.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I spit on Gonk, R5 is my lord and savior!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Ahhhh...R5ism. Yes, we know of that sect. Again, like Gonk himself, we Gonkians are still magnanimous.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's because Gonk only has one input socket.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I should've totally gone the Cerrano route with my comment.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Personally, I prefer a polytheistic approach of worshipping those little toaster droids.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah, but then you'll have someone make a TV show about how the pantheon of droids was really a computer virus useing them as hosts or something...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And they originally came from the planet Zeist!
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
Immortal truth is not subjective. Omega is right: there can be only one.
I really have no problem with elected officials having strong beliefs. I also think it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to completely compartmentalize the influence of those strong beliefs. Where I take issue is when those beliefs come directly into conflict with the precepts of our government. That the founding fathers were at least nominally Christian I think speaks volumes that they were able to set aside their personal beliefs and promise freedom of relgion in the offing of that Bill of Rights thingy.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
The smartest thing said so far: placing your job over religion.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
quote:I really have no problem with elected officials having strong beliefs. I also think it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to completely compartmentalize the influence of those strong beliefs. Where I take issue is when those beliefs come directly into conflict with the precepts of our government. That the founding fathers were at least nominally Christian I think speaks volumes that they were able to set aside their personal beliefs and promise freedom of relgion in the offing of that Bill of Rights thingy.
I think you have it backwards. Christianity's intended nature is that it pervades every aspect of your life. It can't be compartmentalized. You can't just say "I'm a Christian except when I'm acting as a government official." You have to be the government official God would want you to be, whatever that means, and Christianity does not advocate forcing anyone outside the faith to do anything. The founding fathers didn't put aside their faith in order to promise freedom of religion; their faith REQUIRED them to promise freedom of religion.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That may be your view of modern Christianity. But that's not exactly how it was typically practiced back then. Or, really, at any point in the first 1900 years or so of its existence.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega:
quote:I really have no problem with elected officials having strong beliefs. I also think it's unrealistic to expect them to be able to completely compartmentalize the influence of those strong beliefs. Where I take issue is when those beliefs come directly into conflict with the precepts of our government. That the founding fathers were at least nominally Christian I think speaks volumes that they were able to set aside their personal beliefs and promise freedom of relgion in the offing of that Bill of Rights thingy.
I think you have it backwards. Christianity's intended nature is that it pervades every aspect of your life. It can't be compartmentalized. You can't just say "I'm a Christian except when I'm acting as a government official." You have to be the government official God would want you to be, whatever that means, and Christianity does not advocate forcing anyone outside the faith to do anything. The founding fathers didn't put aside their faith in order to promise freedom of religion; their faith REQUIRED them to promise freedom of religion.
It is that way of thinking that has prevented gays from getting married and allowed institutions like the FCC to curtail our freedoms like freedom of speech. Some Senators and Representatives feel that their faith tells them to commit these acts which impose on the rights of others.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
The very basis of law itself was founded on the tenets of religion. If you want to remove religion then you have to question the very basis of the laws we have. At that point, who decides what is "moral", "ethical", or "right"? The majority? Puh-lease, you can't even get the majority to simply turn out and vote. I had a relative whose major complaint against a crooked local politician was that HE himself wasn't the one in office raking it in. A select jury? Yeah, like the one that couldn't convict O.J. with DNA evidence. I remember a local news station asking the public what they thought and this one idiot stated that she believed O.J. couldn't be guilty because he had such a nice smile and seemed so nice in his commercials. Is that the moral insight needed to establish law? The very concept of law is that justice be administered when a law is broken. Punishment for transgression. Sounds religious to me.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Um...laws have been around before religion. Take a look around you at ecology.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Take a look at the U.S.S.R.- no religion, but despite having a shoddy governmental structure and most people living comparitivly difficult lives, morals still remain. One less thing to fight over, really. The simple notion of live and let live did not start with religion and are not dependant on it.
Personal beliefs aside, the "Great Experiment" that is the United States (and it's greatest strength) is the governmental protections of personal freedoms from a ruling class imposing their religous beliefs on the masses and the exchange in ideals that diversity brings.
Regarding Ms. Psycho Katherine Harris- here's some of what is being said of her -from Associated Press:
quote:Harris Looks Like Primary Winner
By BRENDAN FARRINGTON Associated Press Writer Posted September 4 2006, 6:13 PM EDT
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Disaster may not be too strong a word for Rep. Katherine Harris' Senate campaign.
Her makeup and formfitting clothes are mocked on national TV. Her flirty interview style embarrasses her campaign handlers. Staffers keep quitting in despair.
She's been linked to a shady defense contractor, caught in fibs and scolded for telling voters that non-Christian politicians "legislate sin."
Yet, on the strength of her name recognition, Harris is expected to win Florida's GOP Senate nomination on Tuesday, to the chagrin of many Republicans.
"This campaign will go down in history as one of the most disastrous ever run in the United States," declares Jim Dornan, who helped launch Harris' bid as her campaign manager. He left three months later, unable to work with her.
"I don't think anybody can envision any campaign being conducted in as poor a fashion as this one's been conducted," said Darryl Paulson, a University of South Florida political science professor.
Her campaign shrugs off such criticism.
"Our entire campaign team is looking forward, not backward," said spokeswoman Jennifer Marks. "We're energized and we're excited."
Republicans in Washington and Florida tried to recruit someone notable to enter the primary against Harris, from Florida House Speaker Allan Bense to former congressman and political talk show host Joe Scarborough.
Those efforts failed. So Harris is expected to walk away with the nomination against three political unknowns who got in the GOP primary on the last day of qualifying.
That would leave Republicans -- who want to oust first-term Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in November -- to hope that Harris can rebuild a campaign that has been wobbly from day one.
She kicked off her campaign in August last year with rallies in Sarasota and Polk County, where an enthusiastic hometown crowd waved signs and cheered. Her speeches went off without a hitch. Then came a live national TV appearance on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes."
That interview set the tone for the rest of the campaign.
Harris stood at an angle reminiscent of a beauty queen, with a smile to match. She repeatedly told hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes that she was "excited" about the campaign, but she didn't have much of substance to say. At times she appeared to be flirting with Hannity.
As her campaign manager at the time, Dornan said he was "mortified."
"She doesn't interview, she flirts. And it's offensive to professional women and it's embarrassing," he said.
That appearance marked the return to late-night mockery of Harris, who was the butt of jokes about her makeup during the 2000 presidential recount, when, as Florida's secretary of state she declared George W. Bush the winner. Despite the ribbing, she became a conservative hero, and that fame propelled her into a House seat in 2003.
She was again a running gag on late-night comedy shows, as well as political blogs such as Wonkette.
What followed were details of her relationship with Mitchell Wade, a defense contractor who pleaded guilty to bribing another congressman. Wade admitted giving Harris $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions. Harris also attended two lavish dinners with Wade, including one that cost $2,800.
Harris had sought a $10 million federal appropriation so Wade's company, MZM Inc., could build a counterintelligence facility in her Sarasota district; the House rejected the proposal.
Her advisers told her to get out of the race, that she couldn't win. Instead, she did another odd interview with Hannity to say she would spend $10 million of her own money to stay in.
Soon after, all her key staff left. They described a candidate who wouldn't take advice, threw tantrums and bawled. The replacements she hired left after three months.
Her credibility came into question when none of nine promised elected officials showed up at a campaign event in an Orlando airport hanger. The crowd was also dismal, and she said a tree fell on the hanger where the event was originally scheduled and people must not have known where to go. But it turned out that story was made up.
She recently called separation of church and state "a lie," and angered Jews and others by saying, "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."
Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush said Harris couldn't win. Ditto Republican Party of Florida Chairman Carol Jean Jordan.
But Marks, Harris' spokeswoman, says the candidate is being greeted by "a tremendous wave of support" as she travels the state, focusing on issues instead of the controversies. Campaigning on Monday in the heart of Miami's Little Havana district, Harris spoke Spanish with the help of a press aide and drank cafe con leche.
Restaurateur Reinaldo Romo, who got a hug and a sticker from Harris, said, "She can always count on my vote. She's very truthful, and she's a very nice lady."
There are some beyond Florida's borders wishing her well, too.
"On a very personal level, I would be thrilled if she won election to the Senate," said Alex Pareene, editor of the cheeky political Web site Wonkette. "It would make my job easier for the next six years. Mean-spirited or not, I am rooting for her all the way."
Sadly, the GOP could not come up with anyone to beat her for the party's nomination...while I soubt she'll win the Senate campaign, people morons tend to vote for whatever name they've heard the most often... (shudder)
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
In my experience, once a conversation like this takes the laws of physics v. laws of states fork, the participants are talking at such cross purposes that little that's meaningful is left to be said.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I'll remember that one next time my homework is late. 8)
Posted by bX (Member # 419) on :
1400 quatloos on this topic/thread not being finished.
Before launching into a diatribe that no one will bother to read, I would point out maybe the irony/futility of fighting fundamentalism with fundamentalism.
So I do sort of get the question of scale problem regarding God's Law and secular Law. It's just that whereas the people who live here in the USofA have more or less agreed to live by US law, they have a multitude of different ideas regarding God's Law and which god(s) or goddess(es) may be applicable/silly. Which is to say that separating Church and State is a good idea so long as you believe that people having different beliefs and/or values than your own is A) OK or even B) a pretty cool idea.
I'll submit a flimsily pertinent scenario which won't win me any points or convince anyone, but maybe amuses:
quote:I am a vegetarian. I have been for coming up on 16 years. I'm not one of the people who make you feel shit for having a burger, but if you asked me about it and genuinely wanted to know, I would tell you that I happen to believe that the world would probably be a better place if people ate certainly less and possibly even no meat. I think the meat industry is corrupt, offensive and more or less a direct affront to all the things that otherwise make humanity special and beautiful. (Before you start flinging your vitriol, I am stating my personal beliefs, which is, precisely the point I'm getting to.)
So I worked as a runner at a post-production house up in the city. Part of this job was ordering food for the producers/directors/editors. And sometimes they ordered meat. Often, even. They liked meat. I guess so do a lot of people. Now I could have changed all their orders to salads or potatoes or whatever, but I understood that even though I held these personal beliefs about meat, that what I agreed to do as part of my job was to order meat dishes. And so I did it. For a while. (Actually the job sort of sucked otherwise and the opportunities to play with their neato toys were far fewer than I'd been promised and anyway I quit)
And so we're clear, I have approximately ZERO interest in debating vegetarianism or the ethics of animal politics here. I'm just using this as an example of a fervent personal belief that could interfere in one's capacity to do one's job and that it's each persons personal choice about whether or not their beliefs will let them do that job. Which is to say that if a person's personal beliefs (no matter how celestial or sacrosanct their origin) interfere in their capacity to do that job, then maybe they should have a different job.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(It is perhaps of some small interest that while God is invoked in the Declaration of Independence with some frequency, He is notably absent from the Constitution.)
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
It was the Free-Masons.... Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
What would bX need with a quote-oneself?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: (It is perhaps of some small interest that while God is invoked in the Declaration of Independence with some frequency, He is notably absent from the Constitution.)
Because the Declaration was a public ralling point, while the Constution was the far tougher chore of making a doctrine by which free men could live without their government taking advantage of them.
Freedom from religous persectution was a big topic back then...it was possibly the only time in out nation's history that an aithest could have become President.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
