Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 497943)

Part of me thinks that Christian leaders who know this is horseshit really have a responsibility to speak out against it. The person who wrote this isn't going to listen to you and me. Anyone who is disaffected, looking to Christianity, and at risk of being drawn to this sort of racist, bigoted, divisive and sick thinking -- such a person is only likely to be saved (not "SAVED" in the Jesus sense, but saved as in kept from being radicalized in this way) - by Christian leaders with the balls to step up and push back against this.

But part of me thinks that I should ask what color car she drives.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 497948)

I'm good with electing an adherent of one of those religions as well. I don't think we've had one since the early days of the Republic.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 497946)

This person is straight programmed. She is dimwitted silly putty. Whoever was in the room at the right moment molded her into someone who blindly follows whatever is said at her mega church and Fox News. If she grew up on the lower east side, she'd be a burnt out bongo drummer chaining herself to a tree in the latest local illegal community garden plot sold to a developer.

So, yeah. You're right. Christian leaders should fix her, but that shit ain't gonna happen. They need to be able to push that "cash out" button whenever they need a new G4.

TM

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 497950)

I do, but I don't think we've had one who is willing to admit it.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 497959)

That's what a lot of people say about Obama, y'know.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 497961)

He's one of the people I had in mind. Along with Clinton. Perhaps H.W. Bush. Nixon.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 497962)

On Obama you're crazy.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 497964)

The good news: less crying.

The bad news: almost certainly going to be worse than the old one.

The question: will he (certainly a he, right?) let them go sufficiently crazy that it will overcome the GOPs gerrymandering advantage? Is there a level of crazy with that outcome?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 497963)

Okay. I'm sure that Obama doesn't think of himself as an atheist. Like any thinking human, I doubt he's terribly far from being agnostic, if at all.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 497966)

Now, now. Fundamentalist atheists are probably the most annoying and dangerous of all the fundies.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 497967)

Annoying, sure. Dangerous? Richard Dawkins has a heck of a long way to go to prove himself as dangerous as your typical faith. (yeah, I know, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot)

But I didn't say he was atheist. I said he's probably not terribly far from being agnostic. As in he'd at least be comfortable saying (privately), "yeah, I don't really know whether there's a god, but I choose to believe anyway."

Anyway, I don't really get the sense that faith and worship are particularly important to him. Which is a compliment.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 497968)

So Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were no big deal?

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 497973)

If you think atheism was their defining feature, you are most definitely a blackberry mojito.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 497974)

Also, I am finding myself contemplating the day when President Clinton appoints Obama as Chief Justice.