Gimme a break, Kimstu. I’m still at work. I actually get nicer with the drink.
As far as the non-religious guerrilla groups, they’re not speaking at the pundit, getting elected for their bigoted religious spew, and they aren’t 46% of a population who ALSO think a god wrote our Constitution and use it like a bible-- pick your own determination of it and sell it as true.
We just heard about the other fucktard in VA rallying against non-Christian prayers being lower to be spoken at government meetings. He’s no different than DeLayLay. My point is, a prosperous society HAS no religion. And if it’s still allowed, like our non-god written constitution says, we’d be more than prosperous.
You’re right, they do not do those things. On the other hand, they massacre unarmed villagers, rob, rape and kidnap. Religious belief is far from the only cause of people committing evil acts.
I don’t understand that. Some of the most prosperous societies in the world still have officially established state churches, with their monarchs officially designated as the head of the national church: e.g., Denmark, Norway, etc.
And some of the least religious societies in the world (e.g., China, with an official government policy of atheism and a population that’s about one-half confirmed atheist) are not very prosperous at all.
I think it’s truer to say that a free society has no official religion. That writes off the fucknuttery of zealots like Tom DeLay while respecting the right of individuals to hold whatever personal beliefs they see fit.
The United States has no official religion either. But the zealots eased by the fucknuttery get elected to our government after speaking at the pulpit. And the VA crusader (Galloway??) says “prayer” means only “Christian prayer” due to the Supreme Fucktard Kennedy-- this doesn’t respect “the right of individuals to hold whatever personal beliefs they see fit.”
My compliments. That post was brilliant in both cogency and succinctness, and I can easily imagine bookmarking it, in the event that I find a need to ask you at some future time for permission to use it elsewhere.
That said, would not “vacillate” be a more suitable word than “prevaricate” in that first sentence?
I dare say the pommy dopers will have more to say than me on the matter, but those places with an official religion seem to care less.
If kiwiland is anything like pommyland in that regard (and I think it is) people really don’t give a fuck about religion (yet the monarch founded a religion)
Would somebody in New Zealand politics to come out with that sort of fucknuttery, he would be sacked and booted out of representative office post haste
Thanks. By my guest. As to prevaricate/vacillate probably the former is more suited to some, and the latter more suited to others. Using the technique knowingly is prevarication, using it unconsciously is perhaps mere vacillation.
Exactly. We’re talking about the people who insisted on the most literal interpretation for things like “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.” and “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.” and “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Of course, to be fair, I wouldn’t want to pull DeLay’s remarks out of their context either. Here was what he said, “I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government. We stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.” Perhaps DeLay was attempting to clarify remarks he made last October: “Jesus died for our freedom. And Jesus destroyed Satan so that we could be free and that is manifested in what is called the Constitution of the United States. God created this nation and God created the Constitution; it is written on biblical principles.”
[Quote=Knorf]
Of course, to be fair, I wouldn’t want to pull DeLay’s remarks out of their context either. Here was what he said, “I think we got off the track when we allowed our government to become a secular government. We stopped realizing that God created this nation, that he wrote the Constitution, that it’s based on biblical principles.”
[/Quote]
We didn’t “allow” our government to become secular, for fuck’s sake. That particular quality was baked in.
I wish someone had told me that Jesus destroyed Satan. Would explain why those rituals never worked. There’s not a black cat left within a mile of my house, and the neighbors were getting suspicious. And getting rid of the sacrifice leftover? You got any idea how long it takes to get rid of a dead black cat with a garbage disposal? Ever try to explain all that hair to the guy who comes to fix it?
Since neither democracy nor republics are ever mentioned in the Bible, I think God wants the US to be an absolute monarchy (doesn’t the word “kingdom” show up a whole lot?)
Well, according to the Bible, the Israelites ruled a vast empire with a sprawling capital. Rather than a bunch of raggedy-ass goatherds wandering aimlessly over a sere and desolate landscape, with most of their history about getting conquered.
No. Dictionaries have over the past 20 or so years incorporated into their definitions of the word literally (which are drawn from current popular usage, have always been drawn from current popular usage and will always be drawn from current popular usage) a sense where the word is used as an intensifier in the same way as very, really, actually, truly and a number of other words are used.
I completely agree that such oppressive and bigoted fucknuttery should be firmly slapped down not only judicially and legislatively but also in public discourse, in the name of constitutionally mandated religious liberty.
However, I don’t think that fulminating about disallowing religion altogether helps that cause in any way.
