It’s disturbing enough that they are hiring people who seem to approve of such plans, though, isn’t it?
Taking the moral high ground means never having to say you’re wrong. Such is the basis of liberal hysteria.
Is it just me, or is this a pretty silly discussion that revolves around what was essentially an imprecise throw away line by John Mace? 
-XT
No goal post was moved. It was specifically claimed by Condescending Robot that both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann literally plan to murder all the gay people in America. That is quite a staggering claim, and I think it should be defended with a cite.
At the very least, he should have to write “I will not misuse the word ‘literally’ anymore” 100 times on the blackboard.
He’s probably referring back to the OP. No goal posts were moved. It’s not my fault that most of what was described as “the Republican Platform” was actually a cartoonish strawman, not an honest attempt to hit the main points of that platform.
A failed attempt at tu qupque.
Wording is everything and can easily sway one’s neutral opinion to something more biased. There was this Republican speaker who spoke at my high school years ago. He talked about the future of the economy, especially the future of the social security program, and scared us to wit’s end. He was a fine, persuasive speaker, but the words he used made us (or really me) that social security was bad and was going to fail in a couple of years when the baby boomers would retire. He seemed as if he wanted us to choose our own retirement plans, emphasizing strongly on choice. For me, I felt that choice was exactly what I needed. Now, your wording comes along and changes my opinion again. Judging by your wording, you seem to support social security. My opinion is lost, for I do not know who is correct and who is wrong. On this particular social issue regarding social security, I am going to say “Errr… I support the option to choose social security or some other retirement savings account or both.”
You know, I feel that this Republican platform is WAY too conservative. Creationism in public schools? I read in the New York Times that teaching creationism in public schools is already made illegal, but some Biology teachers do it anyway, as if they believe that an Intelligent Designer created every lifeform. Such a “theory” can destroy the sciences! :eek: It’s a pity why can’t some people find a way to reconcile faith with reason. Does faith and reason have to contradict each other? 
Yes, they are opposites. Faith is the rejection of reason, reason is the rejection of faith.
Do you say accept eating da…
Wait, WHAT? :eek::eek::eek::eek:
I would prefer that you say that they can exist simultaneously. :rolleyes:
In my opinion, science gives us reason and practicality; religion gives us faith, trust, morality. They work together like a charm! Saint Thomas Aquinas, I believe, reconciled the Bible with the Ptolemaic cosmological model of the universe. It’s a great progress, considering that people don’t have to believe that the earth is flat and on pillars. Now, all we have to do is try to reconcile the Bible with current scientific teachings. That would put an end to this pointless controversy of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. 
I will admit that I do not know the heart of Bachmann or Paul and cannot say with certainty what their own plans are regarding the lives of gay people. Will anyone step up with respect to my cited claims and agree that Ron Paul has not only accepted but bragged about the endorsement of a pastor who wishes to make being gay subject to the death penalty, and that Michelle Bachmann has hired, to her staff, at least one veteran of the successful campaign to write and introduce to the legislature a law mandating the death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda? And furthermore, that, in and of itself, regardless of what either candidate may personally believe, these willing associations are abhorrent and enough to disqualify either from being considered for political office by any moral person?
That’s nonsense. Faith is believing in something when you have to reason to.
Religion doesn’t give us morality. Do you stone people for working on the weekend? Do you kill those with mixed fabrics in their clothes? Do you put to death brides who aren’t virgins? Religion layers a false, and often stupid morality over our natural one.
There is no controversy between evolution and intelligent design. All of the evidence is for evolution.
All of it. Everything. Choosing to believe in intelligent design, is choosing to ignore the evidence and raise ignorance in its place.
First of all, when I said “morality”, I didn’t mean it as you had put it. :rolleyes: I meant that religion can provide a moral code; however, you do not have to follow this religion and follow this moral code. There is such a thing called atheistic morality.
Second of all, when I said “controversy”, I didn’t mean it in a sense of a valid debate. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design is NOT a valid debate, because all the evidence supports evolution. The definition of a controversy simply means a dispute between or among opposing sides (in this case, the opposing side for evolutionary theory is the strange unwillingness to accept it). Controversy does not necessarily connote a valid debate. Reread my earlier post of this thread.
Only by intense compartmentalization. Faith corrupts the ability to reason, and reason destroys faith; only by remaining segregated can they “co-exist”.
Religion corrupts and negates morality, it doesn’t give morality. The first step towards genuine moral behavior is to reject or sideline religion. Religion does give faith; that’s one of its major flaws since faith is a bad thing; not a good one as you are assuming. And there’s plenty of trust - as opposed to faith - in science; people have learned to trust the products of science because they have such a history of working. People who get on a plane are trusting that it will work as all the other planes have before it.
Since the Bible is a collection of garbage, the only way to do that is to reject most of it.
Of course. You should separate church and state. Church for private life. State for public life.
I would not say that the Bible is a collection of garbage. I am pretty sure it is possible to interpret it in an atheistic manner or purely historical manner.
An atheist may wonder, “Why did the authors write this part? What were they thinking? How do I interpret it in a secular, humanistic sense?”
Can you quote the part where Ron Paul bragged about this guy’s endorsement?
But more to the point… This thread is about how the Republican Platform, if enacted, would supposedly destroy the US. Ron Paul is a fringe GOP candidate, whose views are not reflective of the GOP platform. That platform is anti-gay, for sure, but it does not advocate the death penalty for homosexuals even if there are some loony religious fanatics who do.
Or ideally, simply eliminate religion entirely.
Once you throw out the impossibilities and errors, it really isn’t the Bible anymore.
“They made it up” is the obvious conclusion for much of it.
I am no expert biblical hermeneutic. I am also no Christian and am not a member of a church. However, I do find that biblical texts are interesting in a historical and literary sense. Anyway, this is my interpretation:
After removing the god aspect of it, I think it means that one should be kind to others. Be kind to friends. Be kind to strangers. Be kind to foreigners and enemies. Even when others try to kill you or dislike you, assume good faith of them, because everybody has some human dignity. Everybody has value and worth. Now, if you hate people because they are different from you in some way (different religious beliefs and et cetera), then the best you can do is tolerate them. Tolerance, I think, is love for humanity.
OK. You may argue that the authors have made all that crap up. But please consider my interpretation. Is tolerance a value or not? Should Catholics tolerate Protestants/Jews/Muslims and vice versa, or become selfish and attempt to nearly kill each other simply for their differences? Is tolerance what the authors want the readers to do?
I’ll call bullshit on that.
Most conservatives do not fight against birth control, nor do they take part in “slut shaming”, whatever that is. You’re taking the actions of a few lunatic religious whackos and painting them with a really big brush across all conservatives.
Or depending on what parts you read, you can interpret as supporting slavery, the subjugation of women, hatred for homosexuals, and as a mandate for killing everyone not exactly like you. Why not base your behavior on some philosophy that doesn’t have so much baggage left over from Bronze Age barbarians?
Tolerance is the result of the rejection the power, importance & authority of religion. Especially Christianity with its “anyone who disagrees will burn forever” worldview. Anyone who actually takes such a religion seriously is going to try to kill or convert everyone else.