BEAR on 19/10/2008 at 16:22
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I won't lie this is one of the stupidest things i've ever heard. It only follows that if you're going to pay to fix someone's mistake for them you would do so only while taking measures to ensure that it wouldn't happen again. Would you rather we didn't give aids assistance? because that's the only other reasonable alternative I see...or trying something else which is probably a good ideas since it's not working. But that sure as hell isn't an example of trying to further and agenda.
Yeah, don't bother saying why or anything. The reason that offering aid only when they accept an abstinence only policy is stupid is because its retarded to expect people not to fuck, as proven by the fact that aids continues to spread. The governments refusal to offer aid along with condoms and sex education is pretty blatant to me, and represents an ideology that comes right out of the conservative christian playbook, because they have to please their constituents like everyone else.
edit: I just realized that this thing you said hardly makes sense either. You quoted my whole block of text, condemn it as being ignorant and then attack (rather weakly I might add) only a small part of what I said. What exactly do you dispute? It might have been a rant and very well might have been off topic but I don't see you refuting really anything I've said. Of course offering no aid isn't an alternative, offering USEFUL aid is an alternative, like giving them shitloads of condoms and trying to get them to use it rather than expecting them not to fuck. If a uptight conservative christian bitch like Palin can't keep her 17 year old daughter from getting knocked up why would you expect an entire continent to be able to "just say no".
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I really must, bask in this ignorance one last time before reminding you that as much as it may shock christian conservatives, there ARE christian democrats. I will go as far to say that most republicans I know arn't religious and never have been. I still have no fucking clue where that stereotype came from anyway!
Yeah, no shit. Its a big fucking country. The thing is, there are practically no Christian democrats like republican Christians. I think it has more to do with their culture than their religion, but I find the contradictions brought about by that pretty telling. They are really republicans but they just happen to go to church, rather than the other way around, which is sad.
Wait, what the fuck am I talking about. You didn't actually qualify your "bask in this ignorance" statement after that and instead said something that had nothing to do with what I said. And here I thought I was going to correct you but I'm not sure you even disagree with me. Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote, maybe you should read it one more time (or 10, whatever it takes).
Do you think those people are not Christians or not? Have you seen interviews with them? What I said still stands and good fucking luck disputing it, because whether you like my conclusion or not they are Christians, and I know those type of people very well. This has nothing to do with whether there are christian democrats, as the christian factor is not the defining one in who these people are. They are ignorant rednecks at heart, and that defines who they are, its just ironic to know they all go to church on Sunday and don't see anything ironic with their irrational hatred of someone they don't even know.
demagogue on 19/10/2008 at 16:48
Yeah the Bible belt the line of staunch Republican/Christian states from North Dakota to Texas, though I've always heard the black-sheep cities (like Austin) called the "holes" instead of rhinestones (guess it's a matter of perspective).
By the way, look at the political map for (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1896) 1896. It always interests me how much of an almost a perfect color swap there's been, and the story behind that ...
People don't really talk about political genealogy like they used to, some of that's just because politics, like religion itself, or at least "talking about politics and religion", has become so post-modern ... broken up, watered down, and detached from place and history. But there's still a lot to be said for the old genealogical way of looking at it. For one thing, it helps one think a little more critically in trying to make a "simple" connection like Christian = Republican.
The bible belt's roots in the Rep party go back to McKinley 1900 (and then Teddy Roosevelt solidifying it) splitting the US politically West-East (as opposed to traditional North-South) and making the west its jewel, whereas the Deep South's "roots" are as recent as Nixon's 1972 Southern strategy leveraging the tension against civil rights ... very different narratives and genealogy, and you can feel that when you travel to them.
By the way, this way of thinking also makes me think that it's totally fair game to ask where Obama is coming from. He's not "African American" in the political genealogy sense (no one in his family was African American or had anything to do with their long-standing issues), although it's something he's co-opted; he's not bible-belt; he is shades of the Chicago machine, but that's also problematic. He may be our first truly post-modern president, "place-less" & "history-less", but that means something more than is getting argued about critically.
DDL on 20/10/2008 at 09:37
Out of curiosity (and hopefully not to derail stuff too much, coz this makes great reading), how does the argument hold up if you replace "war in iraq" with "death penalty"?
Coz while the bible may have comprehensive justifications for killing in war (god knows, there's a ton of killing in that book), deliberately choosing to end someones life and all that is..well, about as premeditated as it gets. Sure, you could argue that they're a 'bad person', but it's still state-sanctioned premeditated murder, really.
Or at least, that's the way I view it.
jay pettitt on 20/10/2008 at 11:19
I'd be very surprised if the old books didn't green light all sorts of killing, including for punishment. I'm fairly sure 'thou shalt not kill' refers to very limited and quite specific definitions of 'thou', 'not' and 'kill'.
Clearly there may be legitimate ethical considerations regarding capital punishment that you might find the Bible doesn't address to your satisfaction. I gave up trying to argue with the Bible a long time ago (circular arguments ahoy!!!) and am now just content in the knowledge that it is increasingly redundant as a guide to life, the universe or anything. These days there are simply better, more rigorous and more reliable places to go looking. Despite the prominence of Christianity in the US and in American politics, the Bible probably gets surprisingly little look-in when it comes to forming policy and whatnot - probably less than here in the UK for example. I think the link between conservative christians and republican politics is more often than not cynical rather than moral or ethical, with perhaps a bit of fear that liberal politics will eat away at the Church's assumed moral authority. Which may be about as clear as mud; the upshot is that I don't think that using the bible to try to invalidate somebody's views is a useful exercise.
---
Also, Colin Powell for the win \o/
Starrfall on 20/10/2008 at 15:50
It's nice to see him call this out:
Quote:
"I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said. Such things as 'Well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.' Well the correct answer is 'He is not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer is 'No. That's not America.' Is there something wrong with some 7-year old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she can be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
Gryzemuis on 20/10/2008 at 16:34
Colin Powell's endorsement seems to be the nail in the coffin.
I don't know about you guys, but from this side of the pond it looks like the fight is over, and Obama has won. The elections themselves in November will be a formality. There is no doubt Obama will win. Congratulations to the american people. After 2 mistakes (2000 and 2004) you finally learned to do the right thing.
jay pettitt on 20/10/2008 at 18:20
Jinxed :mad::mad::mad:
BEAR on 20/10/2008 at 18:44
Quote Posted by Starrfall
It's nice to see him call this out:
I'm glad he said this. The sad thing is
only he could have said this. Coming from the democrats it would have just been more inflammatory to the republican base and would have cost more probably that it was worth.
Its a shame that Powell has been so poorly served by his party of late, he is an honorable man.
