She is stating the obvious, and it absolutely needs to be said. WTF does it mean that both could be so true?

This marks the third time that this anchor from cnn has stood out to me.
First she PWND Tucker Bounds on Palin's accomplishments.
Then she called out the McCain campaign for saying that the media was sexist.
and now this. This lady is awesome.

She hits the nail right on the head. Good for her! We need much, much, more of this progressive reporting in the news.

Unfortunately, it matters because, as she alluded to, many Americans equate "Muslim" with "terrorist" in our post-9/11 world.

Ignorant? Yes.

However, what this boils down to, and what the larger issue is, is asking this question:
"Does religion play too big of a part in politics?"

I would unequivocally say "yes", but that is my own humble opinion...

>> ^zombieater:
She hits the nail right on the head. Good for her! We need much, much, more of this progressive reporting in the news.
Unfortunately, it matters because, as she alluded to, many Americans equate "Muslim" with "terrorist" in our post-9/11 world.
Ignorant? Yes.
However, what this boils down to, and what the larger issue is, is asking this question:
"Does religion play too big of a part in politics?"
I would unequivocally say "yes", but that is my own humble opinion...


Religion contributes to core beliefs which in turn have a profound effect upon one's political beliefs. So religion could have an effect on politics? Imagine! And then we should make religion play less a part, and thereby remove any convictions a person has. Wait, no...

No maam, he's not an arab, he's decent...

What?

^so by that standard, anyone who is not religious, has no convictions?????

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion"
--Arthur C. Clarke

There's been a study done disproving any positive link between religiosity and societal health - in fact, there is a negative correlation:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

>> ^Kymbos:
There's been a study done disproving any positive link between religiosity and societal health - in fact, there is a negative correlation:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html


That's the study I was looking for! Thanks, Kymbos.

Actually being Muslim is a pretty big factor. Even moderate Muslims tend to follow their scripture more literally than Christians. Both religions are bad but Islam is realistically worse for a modern society. If you say or think otherwise you are being ignorant.

Christianity nowadays means mostly that you could be against abortion and MAYBE feel that everybody should be kind to eachother. Islam however still has more political and social influence in many socities and abortion may not be one of the bigger issues about women's rights...

Uhm doesn't the constitution say that an Arab cannot become president? Or anyone who isn't born American for that matter. That's why Arnold can't become president unless the constitution changes.

>> ^zombieater:
>> ^Kymbos:
There's been a study done disproving any positive link between religiosity and societal health - in fact, there is a negative correlation:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

That's the study I was looking for! Thanks, Kymbos.


Yes, thanks Kymbos. After looking at those charts, it has only re-enforced my desire to move to Japan. Lowest percentage of people who take the bible literally, highest percentage of people who accept human evolution.

I love how even the Irish attend mass more than Americans, yet more of them accept human evolution, and fewer of them "absolutely believe in god." Hehe, Catholics never fail to amaze me...

>> ^cybrbeast:
Uhm doesn't the constitution say that an Arab cannot become president? Or anyone who isn't born American for that matter. That's why Arnold can't become president unless the constitution changes.


The Constitution states that only natural born citizens may seek the Presidency. A person can be of Arab lineage, and be born in the states, too, ya know.

We can't tolerate this kind of ignorance.... but if your running for president you SURE can pander to it!....

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:

Religion contributes to core beliefs which in turn have a profound effect upon one's political beliefs. So religion could have an effect on politics? Imagine! And then we should make religion play less a part, and thereby remove any convictions a person has. Wait, no...


You said (and I agree) that religion contributes to one's core beliefs. This not only suggests that other elements contribute to core beliefs, it makes it a certainty. So, in your scenario, are you also removing all the other things that contribute to one's core beliefs?

Then you say by making religion play less of a part, suddenly ALL convictions vanish.

Did you think this through before you typed it out? If so, then your cognitive ability is suspect. Sorry.

Or are you a troll? If so, then mission accomplished.

I would like to know which it is, though. Or maybe a combination of the two? Or maybe you didn't think it through?

Talk to me, Captain.

>> ^Januari:
We can't tolerate this kind of ignorance.... but if you're running for president you SURE can pander to it!....


Fixed that for you.

Well said, dear. Good to hear.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:

Religion contributes to core beliefs which in turn have a profound effect upon one's political beliefs. So religion could have an effect on politics? Imagine! And then we should make religion play less a part, and thereby remove any convictions a person has. Wait, no...


Right. Religion contributes to core beliefs. Belief as in "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something" despite whether that something represents reality. It can be against a nation's best interest if a leader's decisions are based on values that come from an archaic text.

If you want to "improve" your own life based on the teachings of Jesus or Muhammad that's fine, but don't pretend the bible or koran is a guide on how to run a nation.

Anyone else think the moving background is confusing?
I feel it´s very annoying to have huge graphics moving so quickly in a close up shot. Plus they even move her into the picture by panning the camera after the graphic dissapears in the beginning. Doesn´t look good at all I think.

But I guess visuals aren´t the main point of this clip

Candidates can be judged on their convictions and beliefs without slapping a [Catholic | Anglican | Mormon | Protestant | Muslim | Jewish | Hindu | atheist] label on them. In fact, it might do voters a ton of good to investigate a candidates convictions and beliefs rather than just checking to see if the candidate is in the same category as them.

The primary reason it would matter if Barak Obama was a Muslim is that he denies being a Muslim. That is to say - if it turned out he was Muslim, then he'd have been lying about it. (Full disclosure: my political leanings are fairly conservative, and I agree with the Republican platform on a majority of issues. I believe Barak Obama when he says he's a Christian and I get irritated with coworkers who can't seem to rise above the conspiracy theories that suggest otherwise.) I'm aware that this isn't really the nature of the argument though, so on to my next point:

The other reason is that there are fundamental differences in the belief systems of the major religions. If a voter disagrees with the moral or ethical tenets of a given religion, then they're likely to disagree fundamentally on certain issues with a candidate who subscribes to that religion. (I also acknowledge that there are fundamental similarities, too, but a sedan isn't a truck just because they both have four wheels, cupholders and run on internal combustion.)

From a practical standpoint, what a candidate does is more important than who he is, so the argument can be made that policy and platform are more important than character or background, but it can't be disputed that what a person does is influenced by what they believe.

ignorant people distinguish themselves from cynics or bigots, but i'm not blowing the secret of how to tell who is what. No cheating off your neighbor on this one, either.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
Religion contributes to core beliefs which in turn have a profound effect upon one's political beliefs. So religion could have an effect on politics? Imagine! And then we should make religion play less a part, and thereby remove any convictions a person has. Wait, no...

You said (and I agree) that religion contributes to one's core beliefs. This not only suggests that other elements contribute to core beliefs, it makes it a certainty. So, in your scenario, are you also removing all the other things that contribute to one's core beliefs?
Then you say by making religion play less of a part, suddenly ALL convictions vanish.
Did you think this through before you typed it out? If so, then your cognitive ability is suspect. Sorry.
Or are you a troll? If so, then mission accomplished.
I would like to know which it is, though. Or maybe a combination of the two? Or maybe you didn't think it through?
Talk to me, Captain.


Yes, your cognitive ability is assuredly suspect. There, your wish has now been granted, but I regret to inform you that you do not have two more. Thank you, come again.

>> ^Kagenin:
>> ^zombieater:
>> ^Kymbos:
There's been a study done disproving any positive link between religiosity and societal health - in fact, there is a negative correlation:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

That's the study I was looking for! Thanks, Kymbos.




if you look hard enough you can find any study you want. Just try not to read the methodology, it might weaken your confidence in the conclusion.



Yes, thanks Kymbos. After looking at those charts, it has only re-enforced my desire to move to Japan. Lowest percentage of people who take the bible literally, highest percentage of people who accept human evolution.


How's the suicide rate? How's freedom of the press?

http://www.jref.com/society/japan_world_ranking.shtml

damn, i can never understand people who believe selectively in statistics.

>> ^MINK:

damn, i can never understand people who believe selectively in statistics.


Do you have similar trouble understanding how people believe selectively in bible passages?

Anyone here who says that "moderate Muslims follow their religion more closely" than "moderate Christians", seriously needs to pull their head out of their ass and look around at the hatred being spread by American Christians towards Muslims. Granted, there is a lot of hatred going both ways, which is why everyone should consider eliminating this ridiculous belief in mythical sky fairies and the inane scribbling of iron age schizophrenics.

Apparently it was a big fking deal to the left that Mitt Romney was a Mormon.

So this sift is declared null and void.

^ Actually, it was no fucking deal to us. We just were worried about how your rabid evangelicals would respond to a Mormon.

Worried is probably the wrong word.

Excited is probably a better one.

>> ^blackjackshellac:
Anyone here who says that "moderate Muslims follow their religion more closely" than "moderate Christians", seriously needs to pull their head out of their ass and look around at the hatred being spread by American Christians towards Muslims. Granted, there is a lot of hatred going both ways, which is why everyone should consider eliminating this ridiculous belief in mythical sky fairies and the inane scribbling of iron age schizophrenics.


Hatered != following bible.

>> ^blackjackshellac:
Anyone here who says that "moderate Muslims follow their religion more closely" than "moderate Christians", seriously needs to pull their head out of their ass and look around at the hatred being spread by American Christians towards Muslims. Granted, there is a lot of hatred going both ways, which is why everyone should consider eliminating this ridiculous belief in mythical sky fairies and the inane scribbling of iron age schizophrenics.


So much ignorant atheist hate, so little time...

*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by burdturgler.