Catholic Bishop thinks voting Demorat will send you to hell

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3262
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Catholic Bishop thinks voting Demorat will send you to hell

http://www.examiner.com/article/catholic-bishop-claims-democrats-support-evil-will-go-to-hell

Catholic Bishop claims Democrats support evil, will go to hell

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10528
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Religion shouldn't be

Religion shouldn't be allowed to interfere with politics.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Religion

Vastet wrote:
Religion shouldn't be allowed to interfere with politics.

I wish it could be set up that way, but in evolution and in human psychology you will always have humans with irrational beliefs. Evolution's goal isn't about always fact finding, it's only goal is to get to the point of reproduction.

The only pragmatic thing one can do in an open socieity is to prevent monopolies of power,. "No religious test" only means that common law is not ripped out of any holy book. But it is impractical to try to prevent a religious person from running for office, anymore than we would like it when they put laws on paper preventing us from holding office or sitting on a jury or even being a notary public.

We are a diverse species and most people in the world hold some sort of delusion. The best you can do in such pluralism is keep a watch on it and a leash on it to prevent a fascist monopoly. But you will never get rid of it.

Religion will always try to interfere with politics. But we can at the same time use our own voices to counter their attempts. More often than not long term, progress wins and neutrality grows.

We went from a society that would never ellect a Catholic, much less a black man, to having JFK and Obama president. We also have Jews a couple Muslims and an atheist in our Congress. If we as atheist don't like being excluded from politics, STRICTLY from a human rights standpoint, if we want our right to compete, others have that human right too.

But laws themselves should not be ripped out of any holy book, no. Politicicians are humans and are intitled to their own personal claims. But we are also intitled not to vote for them, and or call them out when we think any claim they make on any subject is bad.

When you say "religion should not interfere with politics" you ARE reflecting Jefferson's wall. But when a theist reads that here at an atheist website what they wrongfully see is "you want to oppress me".

So I always try to make myself clear. Everyone is intitled to make any claim they want on any subject, and those who hold another position are intitled to comment in countering something they dissagree with. And we all have one government to live under and neither side would want absolute power to occure either way.

Blue laws are a perfect example of religion interfering with politics, but the good thing is when the objectors got enough mass and appealed to their own local officials and or to national leaders or the Supreme Court, laws like that eventually get struck down.

It is not up to us to oppress them, they are going to think stupidly that anyway. It is up to us to compete with the same open market they utilize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10528
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No, there is a difference

No, there is a difference between free speech/no religious test and the blatant religious support of one party combined with the demonisation of the other. It should be criminal.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
But you can find another

But you can find another bishop that says God lets you to heaven for supporting government payments to the poor and he sends you to hell for cutting them off. So even within the Catholic church you can pick your morality and God of convenience.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3262
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:But you can find

EXC wrote:

But you can find another bishop that says God lets you to heaven for supporting government payments to the poor and he sends you to hell for cutting them off. So even within the Catholic church you can pick your morality and God of convenience.

Spot on again.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10528
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That should be equally

That should be equally criminal. Neither religion nor commerce should ever have a part in the political process on any level.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:No, there is a

Vastet wrote:
No, there is a difference between free speech/no religious test and the blatant religious support of one party combined with the demonisation of the other. It should be criminal.

Vaset, there isn't much I dissagree with you on. But as ideal as this solution may sound it is too simplistic.

You cannot change the fact of evolution in that it will ALWAYS produce flawed humans with flawed perceptions thus producing irrational claims. Evolution's goal isn't about fact finding, but merely about getting to the point of reproduction. Our species has had, and will always have a range of people with diverse delusions and irrational claims. It should not infect politics, certainly that is worthy of keeping an eye on. BUT HOW you do that is important. It is not as simple as making everthing illegal.

The Pope is not only a forgien entity, he isn't even an Italian politician, but a dictator of a few block span of a speck of a nation which ammounts to nothing but an archaic museum to the history of credulity and he is merely the president of a comic book club.

The good thing the founders set up PREVENTS whatever attempts any religion may make, and often do, to mix politics and religion, WHICH THEY DO. But it is the insistance of freedom of speech and the first Amendment to allow US the tool to combat the attempts of erroding that concept.

You don't fight facsism with fascism, you fight the absurd to keep it at bay to insure no form of fascism can take hold. But you wont stop evolution from producing deluded people. You can only work on keeping it at arms length.

"That should be illegal", I am quite sure theist feel the same way about atheists, and once you get into that pissing contest you set yourself up to potentially hand a loaded weapon to a government who may not always agree with what you have to say.

Mixing politics and religion is dangerous, but there will always be attempts at doing such. So all you can do is use your own voice to counter it.

I was quite proud of the founders a few years back when this same jackass said we shouldn't vote for Kerry, even republicans who normally try to interject their form of dogmatism were saying "hey you don't live here you have no say".

My point is WE have the tools to combat pulpit politics but it is up to us to use them. Black and white "banning" is too simplistic a solution in a pluralistic society.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jefferson made it clear in

Jefferson made it clear in his letters to the Baptists that his intent on the issue of "speration of church and state" was NOT a ban on religion, but an insistence on neutrality on that issue. He basically said that laws are not going to be ripped out of a holy book, but solely be based on the consent of the governed. He wasn't telling them they had no voice, but they had no monopoly and government could not play favorites. Jefferson's "wall" was not a ban, but a strict inforcement of neutrality. The only way that is done is the attitude of letting it all in, or agreeing to keep the venue neutral, THAT was merely a pragmatic stand in Jeffersons recognition that people were going to believe what they want but in doing so they could not make a political monopoly out of it.

As much as it says "no religious test" in the oath of office, that is not banning an ellected official from swearing on a holy book, just merely saying it cannot be manditory. It is why we have Jews and a couple Muslims and an atheist in our congress.

I think if Jefferson were alive today he'd agree more with the likes of you and us in "who needs it", especially with his "Virginia religious freedom act" which became Madison's prototype for the First Amendment. But there is a pragmatism he conveyed back then in the idea that human beings are going to do what they do and you can only keep a check on it by keeping an eye on it.

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10528
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"It should not infect

"It should not infect politics, certainly that is worthy of keeping an eye on. BUT HOW you do that is important. It is not as simple as making everthing illegal."

Ridiculous. I'm not saying everything should be illegal, I'm saying that religious and commercial influence in any election or vote should be illegal, AND IT SHOULD BE. It is one of the greatest flaws with democracy that it is not. Because there is no democracy as long as religion or corporate interests get to tell the majority how to vote. If you want to live under a religious or commercial dictatorship, have fun. I don't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"It should not

Vastet wrote:
"It should not infect politics, certainly that is worthy of keeping an eye on. BUT HOW you do that is important. It is not as simple as making everthing illegal." Ridiculous. I'm not saying everything should be illegal, I'm saying that religious and commercial influence in any election or vote should be illegal, AND IT SHOULD BE. It is one of the greatest flaws with democracy that it is not. Because there is no democracy as long as religion or corporate interests get to tell the majority how to vote. If you want to live under a religious or commercial dictatorship, have fun. I don't.
W

What "should be" and what actually is on the ground in real life are two completely different things.

People are going to group in all sorts of self intrest clubs that clammor for political influance, and atheists do it too. I don't see how you can say " you have a voice but you don't have a voice both at the same time".

I do see how you can say "you have a voice, but you cannot have a monopoly". So what they see when you say "religious and commercial influence influance" on ellections.

Here is what they see "HE WANTS TO END THE FREE MARKET HE IS A STALIN FASCIST"

I know that is not what you mean. So what would you do to give everyone a voice and uphold Jeffersons wall at the same time? I think he struck the only balance in a pluralistic society that you can do. No monopolies, no abuse of power, the right to dissent and challenge the powers that be.

Saudi Arabia is both a theocratic and commercial monopoly and abuse of power. I don't want that either. But I don't see how you prevent people from even trying to make the attempt to influance politics, that is what voting is itself. I also dont see how you prevent atheists or muslims or libertarians or liberals from the "right to peacably assemble".

It is in human nature no mater what the agenda is to seek resources and power, and monoploies are  a dictatorship yes. But mere grouping in particispation is not.

There  is no such thing as a utopia. In a perfect world you'd be right, but we don't live in a perfect world.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vaset I am not sure what you

Vaset I am not sure what you vision would be a better model for democracy. Voting by itself does not constitute a democracy. If that were the case segregation and women not voting would still exist because of popular belief at the time they existed.

Now I do agree that there IS far to much money and religion involved in politics. But that does not make voting by itself the cure. You still need with voting a way to protect tyranny of the majority and protection of dissent.

I don't want one man one vote being the absolute power being an atheist. Voting is only one tool and can become mob rule by vote and just as much a dictatorship as money or religion. The only thing you can do is protect dissent and insist on anti monopolies and challenge abuse of power.

Any government system you set up is run by humans and since humans are flawed no matter what you set up can become corrupt and abusive, even to becoming mob rule by vote.

I am for voting as a guide, but not an absolute, anymore than I am for money equals power, or religious pecking orders. I have as much interest in protecting the rights of the rich and religious as I do myself and it is because I value my own freedom that I don't make any one aspect of a society the final arbitor.

Our concept of government(not talking about in actual practice) but in concept, is one of oversight, advise and consent but defaulting more to the right to dissent and protection of. Voting does not always protect the rights of the minority otherwise NC wouldn't have banned gay marriage. Long term it is a losing battle for them because the ground has been broken elsewhere and long term we do have a tendency as a country to progress forward, even if slow at times.

In a pure democracy voting would set in stone all rules. And far too many people think Supreme court rulings are final. No even in that case future courts can and have overturned prior courts.

So the motif, at least in our Constitutional concepts is that the only ban there is is one long term in that there are no absolutes and no absolute power and no right to a monopoly. Even when you vote for a politician they do not have to vote for what you put them in office for. But the good thing is that if they don't you have the oportunity to vote them out in the next cycle.

It is also why we have the right to impeach those ellected.

I think you are caught up in the moment of "things don't look so good right now". I agree but I also don't think we are beyond any reversing. Even with all the money the Dicksucker views have pumped in, Obama is ahead in all the swing states that count. So if voting is what matters to you, and it does to me too, the key is to outnumber them and we do.

Bullies are easily defeated by numbers.

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10528
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"What "should be" and what

"What "should be" and what actually is on the ground in real life are two completely different things."

So we fix it.

"People are going to group in all sorts of self intrest clubs that clammor for political influance, and atheists do it too. I don't see how you can say " you have a voice but you don't have a voice both at the same time"."

There's a difference ya know. Limiting the speech on not-people does not infringe on the free speech of people. Groups are not people, and neither are religions or corporations.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10528
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
" Even with all the money

" Even with all the money the Dicksucker views have pumped in, Obama is ahead in all the swing states that count. So if voting is what matters to you, and it does to me too, the key is to outnumber them and we do."

Obama has also spent more time and money. Your logic is faulty here.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13526
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:" Even with all

Vastet wrote:
" Even with all the money the Dicksucker views have pumped in, Obama is ahead in all the swing states that count. So if voting is what matters to you, and it does to me too, the key is to outnumber them and we do." Obama has also spent more time and money. Your logic is faulty here.

Well, when your mom feeds you lead paint chips and calls them cornflakes like my mom did, then your logic can be as faulty as mine.

Not sure about Obama outspending Romney. I do agree that money does not have to win and I do agree that the middle class and poor outnumber the uber rich. So in that context, I agree we can do something about it. But still not understanding how you can stop "the right to peacably assemble", if groups are not people(which I agree). But as atheists we do the same thing. We group, we collect money, and we do try to affect politics.

So without denying the free speech of anyone, instead of complaining about our current climate in the west, what would you propose that would satisfy our evolutionary reality that we all flock to like minded people, and keep facism at bay? I only see anti monopoly concepts being a leash, not bans. I think all outright bans do is piss off the outsider(of any group).

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10528
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I literally don't get how

I literally don't get how you don't see the difference between an individuals free speech and a groups. There is no correlation at all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4419
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
 http://www.opensecrets.org/

 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

 

Obama has raised $432 million and spent $345 million, Romney has raised $279 million and spent $228 million. The idea that republicans raise more money and spend more on elections is a complete myth. Usually the fundraising is really close between the two parties. The most notable exception was Obama completely blowing Mccain out of the water spending $730 million to Mccain's $333 million.

 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2375
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Situational

Beyond Saving wrote:

 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/

 

Obama has raised $432 million and spent $345 million, Romney has raised $279 million and spent $228 million. The idea that republicans raise more money and spend more on elections is a complete myth. Usually the fundraising is really close between the two parties. The most notable exception was Obama completely blowing Mccain out of the water spending $730 million to Mccain's $333 million.

 

 

 

                Obama's situation through the primary season was  NO compitition, any and all Democratic moneys went into his war chest. While Romney's situation was compitition against sometimes 10 rivals; ergo Republican moneys went up to 10 different directions. I'm willing to bet that TOTAL fundraising will see Republicans out spend Democrats.

 

 

    

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?