McCain and Obama at Saddleback Church

theist
theist's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2008-04-21
User is offlineOffline
McCain and Obama at Saddleback Church

The first meeting of the two presidential canidates took place at a mega church last weekend. Leading the discussion was Pastor Rick Warren, author the Purpose Drive Life. I was just wondering, what is your opinion of this encounter? Just wondering what people around here may think about this meeting. Thanks for your thoughts.


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I personally did not see the

I personally did not see the discussion between the two candidates, but I find the venue suspect. Both parties are pandering for the same evanagelical voters so it makes sense to hold such a meeting in a megachurch. The dyanmics of the election are changing as the republicans have had their asses handed to them by the administartion currently in office. Yet the dems may not have the clout to attain the white house without reaching out to the right. I may have to see if the encounter is on the youtube before I could give an intelligent informed opinion.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The only winner was Rick

The only winner was Rick Warren. He got to collect some money and put himself out there as an "America's Pastor" wanna-be.

On the discussion itself - McCain likely had advance knowledge and Obama got sandbagged.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
I watched about half of it.

I watched about half of it. Obama came across fine with some pandering to the audience. McCain sounded uncomfortable and pandered to the audience. Was there a winner? I don't know, I did not get to watch the whole thing.

I think in interest of fair game, they both should do the same thing hosted by an atheist and make it a point that it is hosted by an atheist just like the point was made over and over again that it was at Saddleback church in Orange county hosted by Rev., Pastor, Father, author, millionare Warren.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I couldn't watch it because

I couldn't watch it because I wanted to throw a brick at my TV. Why do Christian voters think that the deserve a monopoly on what the religious views of any politician should be.

Again, the right to peaceably assemble may make this type of meeting "technically" legal, but morally from a Constitutional standpoint inconsistant.

The politicians have the right to decline such a meeting, so while they are not being physically forced, the voters are emotionally blackmailing them to attend.

The Constitution allows anyone to compete for public office to the highest level, but the politician still has to compete for votes. It stands to reason that if "No Religious Test" applies to an oath, shouldn''t voters be Constitutionally responsable in allowing the politician freedom of individual concious?

If Americans of Jefferson's time can make him President considering the skepticall things he said about religion, I think it is up to us now to educate the public on the importance of leaving a politicians personal religious views out of the issue of including or precluding them from public office.

Rick Warren nor any other Christian owns the Jesus rights to our political system and the only way non Christians OF ALL LABELS, not just atheists, will ever compete, is to get the word out.

And that message is simple; There has never been, nor ever will be a "non-Christians need not apply" sign on the White House or Capital Dome or Supreme Court doors"

The government and our political system is open to competition by all legal citizens who meet constitutional requirements, regardless of religious label or non-belief.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The

Brian37 wrote:

The Constitution allows anyone to compete for public office to the highest level, but the politician still has to compete for votes. It stands to reason that if "No Religious Test" applies to an oath, shouldn''t voters be Constitutionally responsable in allowing the politician freedom of individual concious?

Unfortunately for us, most Americans are oblivious to what the Constitution actually says. That's why we have to keep explaining that this is not a Christian nation. I think we need to replace "In god we trust" with "Ignorance is bliss".

Brian37 wrote:

If Americans of Jefferson's time can make him President considering the skepticall things he said about religion, I think it is up to us now to educate the public on the importance of leaving a politicians personal religious views out of the issue of including or precluding them from public office.

In Jeffersons day the electing of the President was reserved for the legislative branch which was made up of educated, enlightened thinkers; many of which had been familiar with Jefferson for years, effectively cutting out the ignorant masses that might have been swayed by this bullshit. Add to that that the only people being nominated were fathers of the revolution and your pool was pretty much limited to enlightened thinkers and deists.

Brian37 wrote:

Rick Warren nor any other Christian owns the Jesus rights to our political system and the only way non Christians OF ALL LABELS, not just atheists, will ever compete, is to get the word out.

And that message is simple; There has never been, nor ever will be a "non-Christians need not apply" sign on the White House or Capital Dome or Supreme Court doors"

The government and our political system is open to competition by all legal citizens who meet constitutional requirements, regardless of religious label or non-belief.

This is why I think we need to up the standards for who gets to vote. People who are easily swayed and defend their positions with a littany of fallacies or can't offer a defence at all, should not be allowed to voice their opinion with a ballot. They can make their case outside the polling stations and appeal to those who can vote (I'm all for free speech), but if you can't mount an effective argument for your position you shouldn't be allowed to force it on everyone else.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:This is why I

nutxaq wrote:

This is why I think we need to up the standards for who gets to vote. People who are easily swayed and defend their positions with a littany of fallacies or can't offer a defence at all, should not be allowed to voice their opinion with a ballot. They can make their case outside the polling stations and appeal to those who can vote (I'm all for free speech), but if you can't mount an effective argument for your position you shouldn't be allowed to force it on everyone else.

 

YES I’m for a democratic meritocracy Laughing out loud. You can not understand basic logic or find a fallacy citizen ? You have no voting rights , because you are mentally retarded and go for the “If you vote for me Santa gives you candy” argument.

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:YES I’m for a

Quote:
YES I’m for a democratic meritocracy Laughing out loud.

Scary, scary, scary.

Quote:
You can not understand basic logic or find a fallacy citizen ? You have no voting rights , because you are mentally retarded and go for the “If you vote for me Santa gives you candy” argument.

You don't know our lord and savior, Jesus Christ?  You have no basis for morality, and are deluded by the so called laws of science.  You have no place in a Christian nation.

Take your pick.  They're both terrifying scenarios.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:YES

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
YES I’m for a democratic meritocracy Laughing out loud.

Scary, scary, scary.

Quote:
You can not understand basic logic or find a fallacy citizen ? You have no voting rights , because you are mentally retarded and go for the “If you vote for me Santa gives you candy” argument.

You don't know our lord and savior, Jesus Christ?  You have no basis for morality, and are deluded by the so called laws of science.  You have no place in a Christian nation.

Take your pick.  They're both terrifying scenarios.

 

Actually no you simply need to complete  a simple test if you understand logic not if you believe in it or accept it.

Besides I have no problem with theocracies theists are retarded and have difficulties understanding the concept of  coning them , I simply answer “Yes and I’m a pastor bow before me sinner”. Theocracies are so easy to control for a atheist everyone is mentally crippled and blind in them.

 

In both cases I have to answer to stuff that I don’t need to believe and can simply go on acting. However if you are mentally crippled you are not able to ad 2 + 2 or find a logical fallacy. However if you are intelligent you will have no difficulties manipulating theists.

There is the difference between a meritocracy and a theocracy in the first rule thus who are most capable and skilled (logic) and in the second thus who can remember arbitrary rules.

 

BTW how do theists know that they pastors don’t con them ? I can do it so how do they determine that their pastors really believe in their shit ?

 

PS: Remember our republics (democracy is not a functional system only a category of working systems that can be categorized for “the majority rules” ) incorporate some of my ideas a brain dead person or a mental retard can not vote. So why not extend this to math and logic  you know some politician can simply control a idiot making up statistics that if you add them up they are impossible (fox news 150% after adding up the percentages ) or presenting logical fallacies. So after we realize that our republics incorporate this concept in some extend is it still so scary for you ?

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
There is a voting age

There is a voting age requirement. Why?  I am coming to think voting should be a requirement by law in some way, and that some test of competency, like a drivers license need be mandatory, but this does gets fuzzy and could get scary. But shit, look at the fucking scary past. Please try something new, because the old needs updating.

   What would the thinking founding fathers do, "AMMEND" is what they would do, I say .... Go for change. Why fear and apathetic complacency? Be Revolution, and "eat the rich" now ....

Umm, spend like half our blood, sweat and tears, MONEY, on a military for WHO ??? The rich fucks is who .... WHY??? I guess a real United Nations and Peace Corps won't do? Yeah fuck universal health care for all but the rich.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

   ETC 

     


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:Brian37

nutxaq wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The Constitution allows anyone to compete for public office to the highest level, but the politician still has to compete for votes. It stands to reason that if "No Religious Test" applies to an oath, shouldn''t voters be Constitutionally responsable in allowing the politician freedom of individual concious?

Unfortunately for us, most Americans are oblivious to what the Constitution actually says. That's why we have to keep explaining that this is not a Christian nation. I think we need to replace "In god we trust" with "Ignorance is bliss".

Brian37 wrote:

If Americans of Jefferson's time can make him President considering the skepticall things he said about religion, I think it is up to us now to educate the public on the importance of leaving a politicians personal religious views out of the issue of including or precluding them from public office.

In Jeffersons day the electing of the President was reserved for the legislative branch which was made up of educated, enlightened thinkers; many of which had been familiar with Jefferson for years, effectively cutting out the ignorant masses that might have been swayed by this bullshit. Add to that that the only people being nominated were fathers of the revolution and your pool was pretty much limited to enlightened thinkers and deists.

Brian37 wrote:

Rick Warren nor any other Christian owns the Jesus rights to our political system and the only way non Christians OF ALL LABELS, not just atheists, will ever compete, is to get the word out.

And that message is simple; There has never been, nor ever will be a "non-Christians need not apply" sign on the White House or Capital Dome or Supreme Court doors"

The government and our political system is open to competition by all legal citizens who meet constitutional requirements, regardless of religious label or non-belief.

This is why I think we need to up the standards for who gets to vote. People who are easily swayed and defend their positions with a littany of fallacies or can't offer a defence at all, should not be allowed to voice their opinion with a ballot. They can make their case outside the polling stations and appeal to those who can vote (I'm all for free speech), but if you can't mount an effective argument for your position you shouldn't be allowed to force it on everyone else.

So the way to fight ignorance is through oppression? No thanks. Let the morons vote, but it is up to us to compete with them and to educate the public.

I would rather this country go down by it's own stupidity than to try to force a utopia on them. Just as it was irrational for this country to once deny atheists the ability to testify in court (which was a widely held belief for a long time in this country).

Success on our part as atheists cannot come through the oppression of others but through the same free market they use.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:[So the way to

Brian37 wrote:

[So the way to fight ignorance is through oppression? No thanks. Let the morons vote, but it is up to us to compete with them and to educate the public.

I would rather this country go down by it's own stupidity than to try to force a utopia on them. Just as it was irrational for this country to once deny atheists the ability to testify in court (which was a widely held belief for a long time in this country).

Success on our part as atheists cannot come through the oppression of others but through the same free market they use.

 

Brian can you give your arguments without logical fallacies (appeal to emotion)

However its not irrational actually its very logical to force people that way :

 

1)If the voters can identify logical fallacies a completely nonsensical argument can be identified.

 

2)If nonsensical arguments can be identified the possibility of getting someone retarded (A: ” vote for me because I’m a true American !” B: ”Isn’t this a no true Scotsman fallacy ?” B: “Aren’t there other issues that are more important that your feeling  of being in a geographic location ?” ) in office is minimal.

 

3)If a country elects no idiots that talk non stop logical fallacies the efficiency gets enhanced because the possibility of the country going ruled via morons is reduced.

You can name it instilling a antiviral software to prevent invoking random phrases to manipulate the voters. Its objectively measurable just like a antiviral software if the system is not susceptible to external commands its save from the risk of being taken over.

 

If this possible hole in the system is fixed the question remains why not force them this way ? Can you present any rational objective evidence why ?

 

Appealing to dislike_of_oppression/emotion/dislike_of_force is irrational “O isn’t it so terrible that we oppress people who are invested with deadly diseases in quarantines and suppress their freedom Sad  Oppression is not something bad oppression is simply oppression you reading something else to this sounds like a appeal to prosecution and is irrational my friend.

 

O and the question remains is it so terrible that we don’t  give mental retards the right to vote ? And why not apply your thinking to other areas is it so terrible that we demand a person to have a drivers license because he is going to crash if he doesn’t understand the rules of the road ?

 

 

PS: what you prefer is not a logical argument nether is it logical its meaningless and needs to be ignored because it’s a error of logic “I prefer that the earth is flat , therefore the earth is flat” your personal preferences are no equal to the validity or the truthfulness of something.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think it's a good idea. I

I think it's a good idea. I bet if this were the case there'd be almost no republicans in office.