QM has some real issues with America, and his hatred is so severe he's resulted to childish name-calling, and incitement.

QM will never understand the difference between Bush/McSame's love for Falwell, Pat Robertson and other right-wing-war-mongers who've not only given these two "spiritual guidance" but also have had private meetings at the White House discussing whether to invade Iraq or not.

But QM and people like him, will continue to grasp at the retarded strawmen they build, screaming things like "socialism", or "reverse discrimination", when all that most Americans want out of our next POTUS is maybe some fucking honesty for once, to help end the chaotic nightmare clusterfuck that is Iraq, and to prevent our economy from sinking further into the toilet. (I'm sure he'll blame all of this on the Democrats somehow, because he and his buddies will never take responsibility for one ounce of the nightmare they've unleashed on the rest of us)

But this is all QM and his friends have now. Some weak-ass video of a completely irrelevant person who said some bad words. This is what they've come to, screaming and harking like a bunch of wounded parrots, while allowing their heros (Bush and the VRWC) to rape our treasury, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and destroy our constitution.

I can see why Wright pushes buttons, but he's the least absurd of the three. Just because Americans are uncomfortable discussing race does not make this worse then MCcain showing support for Falwell, or Clinton's campaign claiming that the electoral college has been taken over by a stealth affirmative action program.

I think you're confusing "discomfort" with "sick-to-death" of discussions of race. America has spent 5.4 trillion dollars fighting a "War on poverty" the past 40 years. Black Americans, a mere 13% of the population, have been disproportionately high recipients of these dignity-robbing handouts. They have also been offered more second-chances, breaks, excuses for failure and opportunities than any other minority on earth. Group after ethnic group, including Caribbean Blacks, who arrive in America and were never taught Victimhood 101 are up and running in 2 generations. What a difference a little optimism and effort makes.

If Wright's words disturb you I must assume that you live in a very white washed world. Many people think as he does, and they are, by and large, correct in their assessment of the race/class disparity in America.

Many people at one time also thought the earth was flat; they were wrong too. Wright is a crackpot but it doesn't matter, he's not serving up rationality. There's no way to disprove nutball conspiracy theories and one-dimensional rants. He has his audience and, one must assume, wealth; that a would-be President shares his marxist philosophy is the cause for alarm.

People that follow "leaders" who say "You are a powerless pawn and victim" may very well be born followers. At the very least, they can switch channels and follow people who say, "You can make it."

All the candidates have problems:

Ferraro, a member of Clinton's campaign, claims Hillary is beat down by the (black)man.

MCcain does commencement at "America should be a theocracy" Liberty University.

Obama's Pastor says rich white people are in control of America.

I can see why Wright pushes buttons, but he's the least absurd of the three. Just because Americans are uncomfortable discussing race does not make this worse then MCcain showing support for Falwell, or Clinton's campaign claiming that the electoral college has been taken over by a stealth affirmative action program.

If Wright words disturb you I must assume that you live in a very white washed world. Many people think as he does, and they are, by and large, correct in their assessment of the race/class disparity in America.

This is really fucking stupid.

It's like attacking George Bush's candidacy because of what Jerry Falwell said.

I love how the right is acting like they found a prostitute dead in Obama's house. Desperation is written all over this.

You want to talk about controversial pastor talk? Try these on for size:

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

"Good Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."

"The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior."

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped [9/11] happen.'"

Jerry Falwell spewed all this ridiculous bullshit for years. McCain had spoken out against Falwell but reconciled when it was to his political advantage. So now which do you think is the more blameworthy candidate?

"If you gave him an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox." -Christopher Hitchens, on the day Falwell died.

*ban

In reply to this comment by adena:
BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE BUY PORN, BUY BIZINICHI'S MOTHER ! ONLINE

I agree with you about science, and I fear what may lie ahead of us as multi-nationals start co-opting science. My point was that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

In reply to this comment by dag:
If you want to tell me about the atrocities of religion - you're preaching to the choir (so to speak).

I'm just saying that in the short time that science has been a dominant driving force in the world - lets say since the industrial revolution - there has been some pretty nasty things done in the name of "science".


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Have you read the Bible Dag?

(It's actually a pretty good read from a literary standpoint, although you might want to skip the endless begats section in Numbers)

Off the top of my head Passover, Noah's Ark and Armageddon are acts so cruel as to make Hitler blush. God was no stranger to genocide and eugenics.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Sure, but arguably his most "evil" idea - eugenics and the inferiority of Jews was propped up by bad science - not religion.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

If you want to tell me about the atrocities of religion - you're preaching to the choir (so to speak).

I'm just saying that in the short time that science has been a dominant driving force in the world - lets say since the industrial revolution - there has been some pretty nasty things done in the name of "science".


In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Have you read the Bible Dag?

(It's actually a pretty good read from a literary standpoint, although you might want to skip the endless begats section in Numbers)

Off the top of my head Passover, Noah's Ark and Armageddon are acts so cruel as to make Hitler blush. God was no stranger to genocide and eugenics.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Sure, but arguably his most "evil" idea - eugenics and the inferiority of Jews was propped up by bad science - not religion.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

Have you read the Bible Dag?

(It's actually a pretty good read from a literary standpoint, although you might want to skip the endless begats section in Numbers)

Off the top of my head Passover, Noah's Ark and Armageddon are acts so cruel as to make Hitler blush. God was no stranger to genocide and eugenics.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Sure, but arguably his most "evil" idea - eugenics and the inferiority of Jews was propped up by bad science - not religion.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Non-hypothetical answer. I dont know enough about the beliefs of Scientology to judge whether anyone is or is not a Scientologist. I truly dont know if belief in Xenu is sufficient to be considered a "Scientologist".

I do believe I know enough about Christianity to have opinions about that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hypothetical question: If I believe in Xenu, but ignore the teachings of Scientology, am I a Scientologist?

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Many Christians would disagree, and state that its not "belief in" but rather "belief in Christ as their personal savior". That distinction is important. They might well say that the Devil believes in God/Christ, but that he/she/it is not a "Christian". Satanists may well believe in the existence of God Christ and the whole Judeo/Christian theology/philosophy to various extents, but i would imagine they would strongly disagree that they considered Christ to be their personal savior. Rather, I'd imagine that that idea was a fundamental part of what they were rejecting in embracing satan.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Believing in Christ is the sole requirement for being a Christian. It's not a value judgment. Satanists are Christians too, albeit very ignorant ones.


In reply to this comment by Thylan:
"Was Christian" ? or, "Thought of himself as Christian" ?

An insane man can think he is sane. It doesn't make him so. This is because sane has a definition that goes beyond a persons individual opinion.

If you do not feel "Christian" has that same kind of independently identifiable quality (and you may not) then you might feel that there is no distinction between "Thought of" and "Was". However, if you do think there is a distinction, do you feel Hitler "Was" or simply "Thought of himself as"?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

Non-hypothetical answer. I dont know enough about the beliefs of Scientology to judge whether anyone is or is not a Scientologist. I truly dont know if belief in Xenu is sufficient to be considered a "Scientologist".

I do believe I know enough about Christianity to have opinions about that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hypothetical question: If I believe in Xenu, but ignore the teachings of Scientology, am I a Scientologist?

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Many Christians would disagree, and state that its not "belief in" but rather "belief in Christ as their personal savior". That distinction is important. They might well say that the Devil believes in God/Christ, but that he/she/it is not a "Christian". Satanists may well believe in the existence of God Christ and the whole Judeo/Christian theology/philosophy to various extents, but i would imagine they would strongly disagree that they considered Christ to be their personal savior. Rather, I'd imagine that that idea was a fundamental part of what they were rejecting in embracing satan.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Believing in Christ is the sole requirement for being a Christian. It's not a value judgment. Satanists are Christians too, albeit very ignorant ones.


In reply to this comment by Thylan:
"Was Christian" ? or, "Thought of himself as Christian" ?

An insane man can think he is sane. It doesn't make him so. This is because sane has a definition that goes beyond a persons individual opinion.

If you do not feel "Christian" has that same kind of independently identifiable quality (and you may not) then you might feel that there is no distinction between "Thought of" and "Was". However, if you do think there is a distinction, do you feel Hitler "Was" or simply "Thought of himself as"?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, but arguably his most "evil" idea - eugenics and the inferiority of Jews was propped up by bad science - not religion.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

Hypothetical question: If I believe in Xenu, but ignore the teachings of Scientology, am I a Scientologist?

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Many Christians would disagree, and state that its not "belief in" but rather "belief in Christ as their personal savior". That distinction is important. They might well say that the Devil believes in God/Christ, but that he/she/it is not a "Christian". Satanists may well believe in the existence of God Christ and the whole Judeo/Christian theology/philosophy to various extents, but i would imagine they would strongly disagree that they considered Christ to be their personal savior. Rather, I'd imagine that that idea was a fundamental part of what they were rejecting in embracing satan.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Believing in Christ is the sole requirement for being a Christian. It's not a value judgment. Satanists are Christians too, albeit very ignorant ones.


In reply to this comment by Thylan:
"Was Christian" ? or, "Thought of himself as Christian" ?

An insane man can think he is sane. It doesn't make him so. This is because sane has a definition that goes beyond a persons individual opinion.

If you do not feel "Christian" has that same kind of independently identifiable quality (and you may not) then you might feel that there is no distinction between "Thought of" and "Was". However, if you do think there is a distinction, do you feel Hitler "Was" or simply "Thought of himself as"?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.

Many Christians would disagree, and state that its not "belief in" but rather "belief in Christ as their personal savior". That distinction is important. They might well say that the Devil believes in God/Christ, but that he/she/it is not a "Christian". Satanists may well believe in the existence of God Christ and the whole Judeo/Christian theology/philosophy to various extents, but i would imagine they would strongly disagree that they considered Christ to be their personal savior. Rather, I'd imagine that that idea was a fundamental part of what they were rejecting in embracing satan.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Believing in Christ is the sole requirement for being a Christian. It's not a value judgment. Satanists are Christians too, albeit very ignorant ones.


In reply to this comment by Thylan:
"Was Christian" ? or, "Thought of himself as Christian" ?

An insane man can think he is sane. It doesn't make him so. This is because sane has a definition that goes beyond a persons individual opinion.

If you do not feel "Christian" has that same kind of independently identifiable quality (and you may not) then you might feel that there is no distinction between "Thought of" and "Was". However, if you do think there is a distinction, do you feel Hitler "Was" or simply "Thought of himself as"?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Hitler was Christian.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Although I espouse most of Dawkin's beliefs. I find him to be a little too shrill, angry and close-minded to be a very good foil to the Fundies. There is a great critique of Dawkin's latest anti-religious book "The God Delusion" in this month's Harper's.


The point in the critique that really struck me is that science has been at least as evil
in the "man's inumanity to man" field as religion. the reviewer brings up the holocaust and the Nazi's scienceof Eugenics as an example.

Granted, it is "bad science" but it's still science in the same sense that bad religion is still religion. The review makes
this point quite nicely.