Fundies with Political Power - Heaven Help Us

Thor 2

Philosopher
Thor 2
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
7,174
Location
Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Why we must keep the religiously devout out of office.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...nge-is-harmless-because-god-promises-us-good/


God is likely very pro-carbon since the coal, oil, gas, and water power He gave us took His humans out of their caves and huts, transforming their meager camping-out-all-the-time existence into the miracle of modern prosperity. Carbon fuels have introduced us, via electricity, to the joys of cooking, heating, air conditioning, dishwashers, microwaves, flat screen TVs, computers, and car road trips, to name just a few.

But I don’t think God is in favor of the “renewable energy” of wind and solar because turbines and solar collectors are murder machines for the precious birds that God wants us to protect. Millions of them have been sliced and diced by the turbines and scorched to death by solar panels. Big problem, greenies. Plus they need carbon fuel back-up.

To believe global warming will destroy the planet you have to believe that God placed a carbon poison pill in His creation that would lead to human prosperity and then to human annihilation. But God promises us good, not malevolence. So we answer: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” Psalm 24:1 And we’re good with that.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nice to have a God who is100% aligned with your ideology. Imagine how hard it would be if it was the other way around.
 
Argumemnon said:
Wait a second. Believing in global warming means believing that god put ill stuff on the earth? He DID put ill stuff on earth. All the time. Why can't these idiots keep their story straight?
Click to expand...

Yup.

God promised that he would never destroy the Earth again, therefore global warming that might do lots of environmental damage can't happen - because.
 
Border Reiver said:
Yup.

God promised that he would never destroy the Earth again, therefore global warming that might do lots of environmental damage can't happen - because.
Click to expand...


The pact was to never flood the Earth again.

So... caps melting, levels rising? Can't happen. Fake news.

Checkmate Atheists. :D
 
Thor 2 said:
Why we must keep the religiously devout out of office.
Click to expand...

There is no indication how the author of the linked article has political power.

As far as "we must keep the religiously devout out of office," do you recommend that we start small with, say the Jews, or just make a clean sweep like Lenin/Stalin did?

Walk us through this?
 
The Big Dog said:
There is no indication how the author of the linked article has political power.

As far as "we must keep the religiously devout out of office," do you recommend that we start small with, say the Jews, or just make a clean sweep like Lenin/Stalin did?

Walk us through this?
Click to expand...

Democracy.
 
The Big Dog said:
There is no indication how the author of the linked article has political power.
Click to expand...

No, but fundies with political power and/or ambition litter the landscape, i.e. the US's pitiable Republican leadership among others. The article's thesis stands regardless of the writer's personal standing.
 
Peregrinus said:
No, but fundies with political power and/or ambition litter the landscape, i.e. the US's pitiable Republican leadership among others. The article's thesis stands regardless of the writer's personal standing.
Click to expand...
Meh, its like saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to hold power because commies are atheists.


Dave Rogers said:
How exactly do solar panels scorch birds to death?

Dave
Click to expand...
Probably talking about the plants that produce electricity by using mirrors to heat water. They do actually kill birds. Of course the writer doesn't say that, he/she says solar panels which is pretty ignorant.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
Meh, its like saying atheists shouldn't be allowed to hold power because commies are atheists.
.
Click to expand...
No, it's not like that.

He's not saying fundies shouldn't hold power because Republicans are fundies, which would be the equivalent of what you're saying.

He's saying fundies shouldn't hold office because they're anti-science and irrational and some Republican leaders are fundies.
 
Spindrift said:
No, it's not like that.

He's not saying fundies shouldn't hold power because Republicans are fundies, which would be the equivalent of what you're saying.

He's saying fundies shouldn't hold office because they're anti-science and irrational and some Republican leaders are fundies.
Click to expand...
Then using an example that is extreme even by fundie standards.
 
I'm concerned that some of the religiously devout might slip under the radar, as such i would like to make a modest proposal that the religiously devout wear identifying insignia, like say, yellow stars for Jews, yellow crosses for christian and so on, which can be enforced by a group wearing a simple but readily identifiable uniform, say brown shirts?
 
The Big Dog said:
I'm concerned that some of the religiously devout might slip under the radar, as such i would like to make a modest proposal that the religiously devout wear identifying insignia, like say, yellow stars for Jews, yellow crosses for christian and so on, which can be enforced by a group wearing a simple but readily identifiable uniform, say brown shirts?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Another Christian playing the aggrieved martyr. You guys got that down pat. Never mind the fact it's almost impossible to be elected in the US if you're an atheist. So much so that while 2 atheists were major party nominees for President they both pretended to believe in the Holy Babble.
 
Last edited:
Thor 2 said:
Why we must keep the religiously devout out of office.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
Yeah. Another Christian playing the aggrieved martyr. You guys got that down pat. Never mind the fact it's almost impossible to be elected in the US if you're an atheist. So much so that while 2 atheists were major party nominees for President yet both of them pretended to believe in the Holy Babble.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just going with the OP's suggestion.

protip: I also mentioned devout Jews and Muslims. Jews get yellow stars and muslims get yellow crescents.
 
The Big Dog said:
Hey, I'm just going with the OP's suggestion.

protip: I also mentioned devout Jews and Muslims. Jews get yellow stars and muslims get yellow crescents.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but my bet is you're not really concerned with them.
 
The Big Dog said:
I'm concerned that some of the religiously devout might slip under the radar, as such i would like to make a modest proposal that the religiously devout wear identifying insignia, like say, yellow stars for Jews, yellow crosses for christian and so on, which can be enforced by a group wearing a simple but readily identifiable uniform, say brown shirts?
Click to expand...

Not necessary. The under the radar ones are irrelevant. If they don't take any action, no one cares.
 
acbytesla said:
Yeah, but my bet is you're not really concerned with them.
Click to expand...

Your bet? "k.

What we have established is that many in this thread see no problem with disenfranchising the "religiously devout."

Now what we need is a League of Militant Atheists to carry through on this suggestion
 
The Big Dog said:
Now what we need is a League of Militant Atheists to carry through on this suggestion
Click to expand...

You guys go first. You seem ready to do the heavy lifting. Mosque protests, muslim bans, muslim shootings . . . ****, jew-baiting white nationalists have the president's ear. Next up for the fundies: catholics.

Ooops.
 
The Big Dog said:
Are you suggesting some sort of test to weed out potential candidates at an early age then?
Click to expand...

Do the same as the place which refuse to allow atheist to have an office : ask them. See Arkansas for example.

I assume if you find the idea abhorent of weeding out religious person out of office, then you will reciprocally find Arkansas (and other state(s)) equally abhorrent.

(ETA I am well aware they are not enforced since the supreme court decision of 1961. Fact is they WERE implemented until then and are still on the book technically- so yes if there is a religious category which can claim persecussion in the US, it ain't christian)
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
You guys go first. You seem ready to do the heavy lifting. Mosque protests, muslim bans, muslim shootings . . . ****, jew-baiting white nationalists have the president's ear. Next up for the fundies: catholics.

Ooops.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we could concentrate the religious in single compounds or camps so we can be that the devout religious have no political power.

Curious that people are professing concern over the treatment of Jews and Muslims, when you are suggesting that we keep the religiously devout out of office, you can't do things by half measure.

Seems to be that "Mosque protests" and "jew baiting" are small beer compared to keep the religiously devout Jews and Muslims out of office.
 
The Big Dog said:
Your bet? "k.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's a good one.

The Big Dog said:
What we have established is that many in this thread see no problem with disenfranchising the "religiously devout."
Click to expand...
I guess you don't get that the point was more about stupid policy that was attributed as part of God's plan?

If you think the Earth is 10,000 years old, want Intelligent Design to be taught, think that evolution is just a theory or that man doesn't have to take care of the planet because of the second coming, then no, I don't want you to have political power. That I hear Fundies spout such ignorant nonsense, I don't think they should wield power either.


The Big Dog said:
Now what we need is a League of Militant Atheists to carry through on this suggestion
Click to expand...
If you mean opposing their election, I say 'Amen'. But no to yours.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Do the same as the place which refuse to allow atheist to have an office : ask them. See Arkansas for example.

I assume if you find the idea abhorent of weeding out religious person out of office, then you will reciprocally find Arkansas (and other state(s)) equally abhorrent.

(ETA I am well aware they are not enforced since the supreme court decision of 1961. Fact is they WERE implemented until then and are still on the book technically- so yes if there is a religious category which can claim persecussion in the US, it ain't christian)
Click to expand...

You have not made clear whether you find the suggestion in the OP, "we must keep the religiously devout out of office" abhorrent. Perhaps before changing the subject you should do that?

Having a basic understanding of the First Amendment, I don't have the slightest concern about at all about the unenforceable provisions on the books, although you bring up a decent point that we are going to have to go right ahead and modify that pesky free exercise clause in the first amendment in order to achieve the Atheist paradise of keeping the religiously devout out of office.
 
The Big Dog said:
Perhaps we could concentrate the religious in single compounds or camps so we can be that the devout religious have no political power.
Click to expand...
Nah, just keep a wall of separation between superstition and legislation

Curious that people are professing concern over the treatment of Jews and Muslims, when you are suggesting that we keep the religiously devout out of office, you can't do things by half measure.
Click to expand...
I think you folks are well on your way to full measures. First, keep the muslims out, then kick them out.

Seems to be that "Mosque protests" and "jew baiting" are small beer compared to keep the religiously devout Jews and Muslims out of office.
Click to expand...
Small beer becomes big beer:
http://www.startribune.com/man-who-shot-somalis-found-guilty/422030673/
 
The Big Dog said:
You have not made clear whether you find the suggestion in the OP, "we must keep the religiously devout out of office" abhorrent. Perhaps before changing the subject you should do that?

Having a basic understanding of the First Amendment, I don't have the slightest concern about at all about the unenforceable provisions on the books, although you bring up a decent point that we are going to have to go right ahead and modify that pesky free exercise clause in the first amendment in order to achieve the Atheist paradise of keeping the religiously devout out of office.
Click to expand...

Me ? I am from a secular state and while there are still some undue inluence (like religious school,or former resistance to gay mariage) religion is pretty much out of politic. Having a huge proportion of voter which are not christian and would challenge influence helps a lot too And rightfully so. And guess what ? At least we are all free from each other religion in parliement, school, and business. So no pharmacist allowed to refuse contraception for example.

So now you. Your turn. You avoided answering that up to recentely the persecution was from christian toward minorities,or other religious classes.

You godwin the thread but the reality is that the jack booted thug which imposed theur religion on other, so far were only christian in the usa. A bit of secularism would bring freedom tothe usa. Freedom to the other religious classes. Freedom FROM christian...

But i guess that losing power over others is frightening to the US christian...
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
So now you. Your turn. You avoided answering that up to recentely the persecution was from christian toward minorities,or other religious classes.
Click to expand...

It was a yes or no, you totally ducked it. I'll put you down as a "no." You don't find it abhorrent

I did answer the totally off topic question, friend, I said I had zero concern about completely unenforceable requirements like that and would not hesitate to assert that First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause to assert that they are unenforceable.

What does tickle me about this thread? The feigned concern about Jews Muslims and other "religious classes" when the entire premise of the thread is to "keep the religiously devout out of office."

Save the derail and the silly crocodile tears over "Christian" "persecution" of other religions in a thread advocating keeping devout religious of all stripes out of political office.
 
The Big Dog said:
It was a yes or no, you totally ducked it. I'll put you down as a "no." You don't find it abhorrent

I did answer the totally off topic question, friend, I said I had zero concern about completely unenforceable requirements like that and would not hesitate to assert that First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause to assert that they are unenforceable.

What does tickle me about this thread? The feigned concern about Jews Muslims and other "religious classes" when the entire premise of the thread is to "keep the religiously devout out of office."

Save the derail and the silly crocodile tears over "Christian" "persecution" of other religions in a thread advocating keeping devout religious of all stripes out of political office.
Click to expand...

No, as usual you miss the point. It's about keeping the NUTJOBS out of office. The Jews and the Muslims is a red herring spouted by you.

As I pointed out in my earlier post

acbytesla said:
If you think the Earth is 10,000 years old, want Intelligent Design to be taught, think that evolution is just a theory or that man doesn't have to take care of the planet because of the second coming, then no, I don't want you to have political power.
Click to expand...
BTW, if you think Allah ascended to the heavens on a winged horse and the moon is made out of cheese I don't want you to hold office either.
 
acbytesla said:
No, as usual you miss the point. It's about keeping the NUTJOBS out of office. The Jews and the Muslims is a red herring spouted by you. As I pointed out in my earlier post

BTW, if you think Allah ascended to the heavens on a winged horse and the moon is made out of cheese I don't want you to hold office either.
Click to expand...

I guess the Jew/Muslim thing was not a red herring, huh?

Of course it wasn't
 
It's hard to believe that somebody could be that stupid, but somehow bringing the Big "G." into it makes stupid not just possible, it's predictable.
 
The Big Dog said:
I guess the Jew/Muslim thing was not a red herring, huh?

Of course it wasn't
Click to expand...

No its wasn't. Nobody was feigning concern for Muslims only pointing out that YOU don't care about followers of those other religions.

I'd rather people use their brains. Something happens to fundamentalist adherents to religion. They are more concerned about their book than they are the facts. I've seen PhD Christians who will side with the book over testable science and facts.

I don't care if people hold those fantasies for themselves but when they want to infect the body politic with them then I have a serious objection. I have a much bigger problem with Muslims than I do Christians. Fundie Muslims want sharia. At least Christians can point to 'Give unto Caesar' .

Is that clear? Or do you think there is something else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom