You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.




>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.
No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.
Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.
Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?
As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,
Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.

your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.
And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223
Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?
How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?
So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?
I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.
Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.
Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.

>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56.

No, it is about 43 percent, which still reflects the religious convinction of the signers. I believe all them except three were acknowledged to be practicing Christians.

Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country.

Ahh, another far-leftie who hates America..what a surprise. How about we parachute you into North Korea and see how you do there?

As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness,

Red shift quantization indicates that the Milky Way is at the center of the Universe.



your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants.

And also built western civilization. Maybe you could take some time off from burning American flags and educate yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass?

How can you be so oblivious that you actually believe Universes just happen by themselves? How is it that you failed to notice the design inherent in every little thing? Why do you love sin and hate the truth?

So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man?

I experience the presence of God in my life at all times, which is due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That alone confirms every word Jesus said is true. Jesus and the Father are separate people, but one God..have you ever read the bible? Perhaps if you educated yourself instead of mindlessly repeating stupid atheist memes and arguing from your own ignorance as to what is in it, we could have an intelligent discussion about it.

Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.

Do you not see the mania of your antitheism? Now you decry the founders because of their belief in God as being stupid and worthless, even though they were men of valor and obvious intellect who were willing to sacrifice their lives for the principles of freedom, and personal liberty. Obviously their deeply held faith in God was a positive contribution to their character and drive, and the founding principles of this nation, yet, you dismiss them all as morons, even as you enjoy the freedoms they made possible. Talk about twisted. They gave it all to God, and what we have today is through Gods blessing. As Frank Turek says, you have to sit in Gods lap to slap His face.

BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity.

Neither does scoffing and mocking substitute for reason or substance.


>> ^rottenseed:
I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.
BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

I'm no mathematician, I'm only studying to be one...but 24 isn't even half of 56. Oh and also, thanks for your blinded view of the world...of course you only see this shit-hole country. As far as the rest of this planet, that sits at the tip of an arm in our spiraling galaxy in a vast sea of nothingness, your shit religion only preoccupies a third of its inhabitants. Your view of the world is so fucking skewed. How do you live through life spinning the truth into your twisted deluded bullshit factory you call a brain. For fuck's sake. You really think this entire fucking universe was created for YOUR dumbass? So that you can come and argue with people about some guy you've never fucking met that apparently did something you never fucking saw who was both the son and the same as some magical sky man? Are you a fucking adult? Are you a grown human being with actual ability to reason. What the fuck does it matter what some dummies thought 200 years ago? The majority of them were just as stupid as 80% of the US is now.

BTW, the tenacity of belief and the volume of those that believe in those beliefs NEVER qualifies as substantial evidence for its validity. >> ^shinyblurry:

This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

>> ^Diogenes:

you, sir, are full of dumb>> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

you, sir, are full of dumb>> ^shinyblurry:
This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.
Newsweek
Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document
12/27/82
>> ^Diogenes:
well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

This country was founded by Christians, and judeo-christian principles. 24 out of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence had seminary degrees, and some of them were ministers. The first meeting of the constitutional congress opened with a 3 hour prayer and a bible study. The reason we have "checks and balances" is because the founders knew all men are sinners and can't be trusted with power. James Madison got the idea for our three branches of government from Isaiah 33:22. This idea that this country has ever been secular in any sense is ridiculous. While some presidents may have been pandering, we are a Christian nation, and that is why we elect Christian leaders. Around 80 percent of us self-identify as Christian, and around 90 percent profess a belief in a higher power. Only around 13 percent of the country believes in darwinian evolution without any divine intervention, which is the reason why we won't have any atheists in the office anytime soon.

Newsweek

Now historians are discovering that the bible, perhaps even more than the constitution, is our founding document

12/27/82

>> ^Diogenes:

well, as the link infers... probably right from the start
i just find it difficult to agree with penn in that the umbrella term 'christian' began to flourish in the 1970s, and because of some sort of 'planning'
i mean, we know simply from the etymology of the word that it was used long, long ago... at first disparagingly by non-christians, and then embraced a few hundred years later as different assemblies used it to self identify
i think those who run for office are canny by nature, and it's probably second nature for them to understand that to garner more votes, they must present an inclusive image, rather than divisive

this is all about rallying the base. So take consolation in that. Of course they all raise their hand. Once it comes down to the general election, They'll change their tune.

One of the many reasons John McCain lost is because he doubled down on the whole "The fundamentals of our economy are strong" nonsense.

Sucking Grover's cock may win you the GOP nod, but that won't win you the general.

Bill Maher said it best, GOP primaries are all about who is the biggest wife-fucker, anti-tax, pro-Christian Nation pundit.

Democratic primaries are not immune to this mentality either.

I won't deny the other two examples. I said already Obama isn't a hardcore progressive. I wouldn't even label him on a scale as progressive. Those are examples of where he isn't. If that's the indictment, no one is disagreeing with you.

Dude, how are you not getting this. Obama hasn't justified a single policy with Christianity. This guy sited directly his warped Christian beliefs in his manifesto. It's pretty clear as day the difference. Obama refutes the notion of the US as a "Christian Nation", etc. He's ridiculed by the Religious Right in fact for this. Isn't this pretty obvious?

Yes, it is accepted as collateral damage. Thank you for making my point. Were the attacks launched with the purpose of killing these civilians? NO! Was it the intention of Osama bin Laden to kill as many civilians as possible in the 9/11 attacks on purpose? YES! THAT is the difference. If Obama could conduct these attacks without killing innocent civilians, he'd do it in a heartbeat. If bin Laden could have killed 1 million American civilians instead of the number he did, he'd do it in a heartbeat. That's the difference. You're assuming that because civilian deaths occur, that how many people are killed in collateral damage never influences decision making. That's simply not true. You'll rarely ever achieve objectives without accepting some collateral damage, unfortunately. This is unfortunately part of being the President.

So we're gonna terrorize the population of Libya why exactly?! What would that possibly achieve in and of itself? That's utterly ridiculous.

It's against international law how exactly to be intervening in Libya? It was approved by the UN Security Council. Are you speaking to military strategy? So you're saying we should just put ground troops in there and go door to door, which will cause even higher casualties and more terrorizing of the civilian population? I don't pretend to know all the difficulties the military is facing when coming up with the best plan to achieve objectives.

It's silly to believe part of why we're in Libya is to help establish a democratic gov't there? Look, I was a big critic of the second Iraq war, but I don't doubt for a second part of why the Bush administration wanted to go in was to establish democracy in the region. It was a stated goal. You can call it silly all you want, but it is even within the US's self interests to have as Libya be a democracy. Why wouldn't we want them to be democratic?!

It is progressive to intervene in a country to help protect human rights. Schools of geopolitical realism would have determined intervening in Libya to not benefit the US enough to justify involvement. Again, I'm not suggesting the entire reason we went in was to help the Libyan people. There are many reasons why. But one of them was to help the Libyan people. I fully accept there were geopolitical calculations as well. All of those things have to contribute to the decision making.

Was it progressive to partner with Stalin to defeat Hitler? If no, then FDR wasn't a progressive?! We did it because Hitler was a bigger threat than Stalin at the time. Once Hitler was out of the equation, we became enemies of Stalin. To think you can just make international policy based exclusively on progressive ideas is fantasy.

On this site, I've defended progressivism when under attack from people who think progressivism is Communist, doesn't work, blah blah blah. Progressivism, like other ideologies, provides a lot of answers and ideas to solving problems, but it is also imperfect, just like every other ideology.

So Obama isn't progressive in the slightest?

Are the following progressive in nature?

Ending "don't ask, don't tell."
Advocating raising taxes on the rich
Increasing availability of Medicaid
Preventing health insurance companies denying based on pre-existing conditions

He's a moderate. Yes, I fully accept you could give a big long list of things that aren't progressive he's done, too. He's a moderate, who leans left. That's why I get really irritated when QM and WP call him a socialist or communist because it's simply not true.

LOL. No, you're a racist if you actually intend to put one race over another, etc. If I joke about a friend of mine who can't dance and call him 'white', that's not racist. I don't believe that all white people suck at dancing. I'm sorry that's hard for you to understand. Plus, you also just contradicted yourself. Since he makes jokes about men, women, blacks, whites, I like him because he makes fun of people that I dislike? I have nothing against men, women, blacks, whites, etc. He's funny, and he's often insightful, even though I fundamentally disagree with him frequently. Did you not catch that I criticized him for characterizing all religious people as sexist?

BTW, I've laughed my butt off at Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi jokes. It's what grown ups are capable of doing - cognitive dissonance. I can fundamentally disagree with the point of the joke and still find the humor in it.

About Christians treating women with respect, it's sexist if you believe that women are delicate little flowers who must be treated with respect at all times, because their dainty little ears can't take but so much. Even if you don't beat them, cuss at them, etc., that's still sexist! If a women is supposed to always do as the husband says, that's sexist. Period. End of story. If you expect the wife to clean the house, cook the meals, etc. simply because she's the female of the couple, that's sexist.

Finally, Maher only takes shots at those least likely to fire back?! So taking shots at organized religion doesn't get immediate responses?! Taking shots at Palin doesn't get immediate responses?! Do you not pay attention at all?! I fundamentally disagree with Maher about organized religion, but I definitely would not call him a coward. He speaks his mind even when he knows he's gonna get blasted for saying it.

Your post, sir, is an example of what ideologues of your ilk do - fundamentally alter reality to fit your beliefs.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

If you actually think he's a a sexist, you need your head examined. Does he make stereotypical jokes about women? Yes. Blacks? Yes. Men? Yes. Whites? Yes. He's not a racist, and he's not a sexist.
I see - so people who makes jokes about other races aren't racists. Unless - of course - you disagree with them politically. Then everything they say is racist, right? Maher is a racist. He is a sexist. He is a bigot. He openly mocks the disabled. He insults children. But since he confines his bigotry to people YOU dislike (such a Palin) then that cleanses him of his sin, doesn't it? What a bunch of typical liberal hypocrisy. If someone on the right 'joked' about Hillary Clinton deserving to be raped would that be funny? How about if they said that Nancy Pelosi's kids were a bunch of inbred retards?
The reason he's going after Palin and Bachmann is because they're up in the GOP polls, and they have TERRIBLE ideas.
You're half right. Up in polls, but not terrible ideas. That is a matter of personal opinion. I say Obama and the Democrats have terrible ideas, but I don't go around joking about how their children are inbred retards, or how they should be gay-raped like Maher and his supposedly 'progressive' guests do.
And I'm sorry, but those who take the bible that literally are sexists. "Make me a sandwich" is just as sexist as "Make me a sandwich, because god said so". Get mad all you want, but he's right on that.
I have never met this particular breed of mysoginist Christian cat that Maher and his ilk serve up as a strawman to represent all the religious world. Such a person may exist somewhere, but they are such an infinitesimally tiny fraction of Christianity that they really may as well not exist in the context that is being used here. The vast majority of the Christian world treats women with respect, and even reverance. There are other religions that are far more likely to treat women like dirt. And yet - strangely - Maher gives those kinds of religions a pass and continually harps on the one religion that is LEAST likely to manifest the behavior he supposedly purports to condemn.
But of course - he doesn't REALLY condemn that sort of mysoginy as long as it is applied to people he hates like Palin or Bachman. What a total wart of a man.
Nevermind historically what they did. They're doing it now. Period.
No they're not. Not so much in the Christian world anyway. The type of mysoginy you speak of is confined to a tiny minority of out there cults and branches on the fringe end of Judeo-Christianity. As I said - the real culprits are elsewhither. And yet I find it telling that Maher, his fans, and most other neolib don't care jack that women are mistreated all over the planet in non-Christian nations.
No - like most neolibs, Maher and his ilk dare not raise a critical voice where it is REALLY needed. Instead they will only take shots at the least offensive targets that they know are unlikely to shoot back. Hypocrites AND cowards. Typical of liberalism and leftism as a whole, really.

If you actually think he's a a sexist, you need your head examined. Does he make stereotypical jokes about women? Yes. Blacks? Yes. Men? Yes. Whites? Yes. He's not a racist, and he's not a sexist.

I see - so people who makes jokes about other races aren't racists. Unless - of course - you disagree with them politically. Then everything they say is racist, right? Maher is a racist. He is a sexist. He is a bigot. He openly mocks the disabled. He insults children. But since he confines his bigotry to people YOU dislike (such a Palin) then that cleanses him of his sin, doesn't it? What a bunch of typical liberal hypocrisy. If someone on the right 'joked' about Hillary Clinton deserving to be raped would that be funny? How about if they said that Nancy Pelosi's kids were a bunch of inbred retards?

The reason he's going after Palin and Bachmann is because they're up in the GOP polls, and they have TERRIBLE ideas.

You're half right. Up in polls, but not terrible ideas. That is a matter of personal opinion. I say Obama and the Democrats have terrible ideas, but I don't go around joking about how their children are inbred retards, or how they should be gay-raped like Maher and his supposedly 'progressive' guests do.

And I'm sorry, but those who take the bible that literally are sexists. "Make me a sandwich" is just as sexist as "Make me a sandwich, because god said so". Get mad all you want, but he's right on that.

I have never met this particular breed of mysoginist Christian cat that Maher and his ilk serve up as a strawman to represent all the religious world. Such a person may exist somewhere, but they are such an infinitesimally tiny fraction of Christianity that they really may as well not exist in the context that is being used here. The vast majority of the Christian world treats women with respect, and even reverance. There are other religions that are far more likely to treat women like dirt. And yet - strangely - Maher gives those kinds of religions a pass and continually harps on the one religion that is LEAST likely to manifest the behavior he supposedly purports to condemn.

But of course - he doesn't REALLY condemn that sort of mysoginy as long as it is applied to people he hates like Palin or Bachman. What a total wart of a man.

Nevermind historically what they did. They're doing it now. Period.

No they're not. Not so much in the Christian world anyway. The type of mysoginy you speak of is confined to a tiny minority of out there cults and branches on the fringe end of Judeo-Christianity. As I said - the real culprits are elsewhither. And yet I find it telling that Maher, his fans, and most other neolib don't care jack that women are mistreated all over the planet in non-Christian nations.

No - like most neolibs, Maher and his ilk dare not raise a critical voice where it is REALLY needed. Instead they will only take shots at the least offensive targets that they know are unlikely to shoot back. Hypocrites AND cowards. Typical of liberalism and leftism as a whole, really.

There are far more mistruths in this interview.

He (I believe in part 3) that he has never had to submit a retraction of anything he has said. This is blatantly false. Though it's no longer on his website, for years he did have an article on Wallbuilders apologizing for his use of supposed quotes from the Founders for which no source could be found--quotes in some of his earliest books.

He claims that John Adams seriously meant to say that the Holy Spirit was a necessary foundation for just government in a letter to Benjamin Rush. He even invites people to go on his website and view the original in its entirety. If you go there and read it for yourself, you will clearly see that, as John Stewart averred, the statement is clearly ironic. Immediately after describing a view that says all legitimate government must be blessed by the Holy Spirit, Adams decries this view in the strongest terms as deceptive and inspiring awful fanaticism.

Barton claims that the Unitarians did not reject the trinity until 1839. This is also blatantly false. It was in 1839 that the Unitarians came together as a formal body. Before then, the Unitarians were largely a disorganized religious movement. But the rejection of the Trinity by the Unitarians occurred well before the Revolution. The preaching of the unity of God, as opposed to the Trinity of God, preceded its adoption by a formal body.

Barton notes that the Treaty of Tripoli as held in the State department archives indeed does not have an Article 11. But he falsely claims that the original did not have this article. But we know for a fact that the Treaty as signed by the President, and as published in numerous newspaper throughout the country, did indeed contain this article. It was not until later that it was somehow removed from the State department archives--perhaps by someone embarrassed by its statement that the US is NOT a Christian nation.

Barton's characterization of the text of the treaty is also incorrect. Read the text of the article itself. It very clearly states, with no caveats, that the United States government is "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The following clauses do add focus and weight to the statement, making it clear that the intent of including this passage was indeed to clarify that the government of the US has not enmity toward Islam. But these clarifying statements do not change the broad qualifier "in any sense."

In nearly every case in this interview, when Barton makes a declarative statement about history, the history he presents is either false or misleading.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Only if they show some sign they are trying to learn. Otherwise they deserve to be mocked.


@MaxWilder But when has mocking ever been a successful tool for social change? Take Sarah Palin as just one example. She's mocked publicly on pretty much a daily basis yet you don't see her changing her opinions, do you? What you do see is people rallying to defend her from the "lib-tard smear campaign." And from there it just degenerates into name-calling and and rhetoric and there's no real dialogue about any issue. I don't think mocking help matters at all and in most cases just makes it worse.

@AnimalsForCrackers

I'd ask kindly that you respond what I write and not whatever "hidden meaning" you think my message has--there is none. I write as clearly as possible but if there is some ambiguity about what I wrote, how about you just ask me my opinion rather than make off-the-wall accusations and assumptions? Also, I'll ask once again (you'll remember from the last thread we had a discussion in), could you put an @ in front of my name when you respond to my posts so I get an email that tells me you're commenting about me and I can reply (thanks for the heads-up @bmacs27)?

MLK never insulted or condescended towards those he opposed. He advocated dialogue to promote change, not name-calling. He inspired people to find their commonalities, not focus on their differences. He did organize people to change the status quo and he did it without the need to be "militaristic" in any sense of the word.

I agree with you that secularists would be a great replacement name for atheists who believe the things you talked about (people should be free to practice religion, but it shouldn't invade politics or religion). But that's not what Harris and the rest have been talking about recently--as I demonstrated by doing you the courtesy a less-than-5-minute Google search and finding those three quotes/talks and pointing out what Harris said in this video clip.

Given the ease with which I found those it should be no problem for you to do me the same courtesy and send me links showing the three gentlemen expressing the views you claim to be their true position (there is in fact one video here on the Sift from Dawkins giving an interview in the UK--sorry, can't seem to find it in the search at the moment--from about 4 years ago where he puts out such a stance, but more recent comments seem to indicate that he's moved away from tolerance and more towards open hostility).

On a side note, what exactly is "religion" doing to "your country" (I'm guessing the US)? Are the Jains destroying the separation of church and state? How about those Quakers, can you imagine the damage their doing? And let's not even get started talking about the Buddhists. You accused me of not using words accurately, but I get the sense you're not using the word "religion" accurately. I think (feel free to clarify) that when you say religion what you really mean is fundamentalist Christians who believe the US in a "Christian nation" are ruining the USA. And that's fine, if you believe that, but let's not confuse a very vocal minority of religious believers with "religion."

Why don't I rail against religion? Because my position is that religion is not the problem (as I think I've told you in other threads). I've said repeatedly that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil and that the challenge for religions in the 21st century is going to be to try to change themselves so that they maximize the good and minimize the potential for evil. Are bad things done in the name of religion? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't de facto make religion bad, though. But I will absolutely criticize specific actions which I think are wrong, like I did on this other vid--I'm an equal opportunity critic.

You perceive religion as a threat, apparently. I don't. That's the difference between us. I'm happy to hear your views on why you think it is a threat. I'd be even happier if you listened to mine on why I don't think it is without getting either hostile or emotional.

Reminds me of Stephen Colbert's take on helping the poor

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we got have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

I plan on memorizing the last line of this clip. Then when the topic comes up about social services for the poor and the unemployed, ask, "Do you believe we are a Christian nation?" If they answer yes, after going on about the lazy poor, I can then just quote Colbert.

A perfect rebuttal because it is perfectly true.