The ONE qst. that should be asked of every GOP candidate

[nat4900]

Voltaire famously wrote "I may not agree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

You of the Khmer Rouge hold the inverse view; "You don't approve of what is said, so will fight to the death to silence it."

First of all, Voltaire NEVER stated your quote.....the citation was stated about him.....But that's a minor point.....

What you "high-and-mighty----sometime Christian" morons fail to understand is that the O/P was NOT anti-Christian.....and as I've stated at least twice, it was anti-hypocrites.......Find a grown-up to explain it to you and get off your fucking high horse....you don't belong on it.

 

[Boss]

....morons fail to understand is that the O/P was NOT anti-Christian.....

Sorry, but when someone opens with the argument that we should ask candidates if they believe in creationism or evolution as a means to determine who is qualified... then insinuate that only those who believe in 'facts of science' have any sort of rationale and those who believe in creationism are "insane"... it sounds to me like you are being very Anti-Christian.

You never addressed my point that creationism and evolution are completely unrelated things and both could be true... they could also both be false. Evolution only involves things that already originated from something or somewhere. Creationism is dealing with the origin of life. Abiogenesis is a collection of various theories regarding origin through inorganic transformation but there has never been anything conclusively proven to suggest these theories have merit. They have no more foundation in actual science than creationism.

Interestingly enough, while most abiogenic theories have been debunked, the strongest candidate is a theory that early earth clay deposits held crucial amino acids which reacted with moisture and energy such as lightning to create the first living organisms. What is fascinating is found in the Scripture of Genesis where God created man by spitting into the dust. Moisture in the clay... spit in the dust?

 

[Nosmo King]

someone who champions creationism

What the hell does THAT mean?

Champion? You mean they aren't allowed to defend their Christian belief that God created us? Why?

I'm a Christian and I don't believe in Genesis. Imposing creationism is the topic. Defend it all you like. But that defense does not lend a shred of truth to it.

Are Christians supposed to be in lockstep on this? It is a matter of believing in a myth or abandoning all other tenets of faith. It's ridiculous to assume that, to qualify as a true Christian one must give up rationality.

 

[The Rabbi]

Every culture has a creation myth. Why should the myth laid out in Genesis be so exceptional? It is just as false as every other cultural explanation, meritless and false.

So what?

Why do you of the Khmer Rouge seek to make it a litmus test for holding office?

Well, we know the answer - bigotry.

In the final analysis Democrats are the biggest bigots, racists, and haters in the world. When conservatives dont like homosexual activists, they comment about them. When homosexual activists dont like conservatives they hound them, picket them, and try to get them fired and marginalized.

LOL, I know, that's harsh to laugh at someone ^^^ so out of touch with reality.

Do you actually need examples to agree with me? Or would it even matter?

 

[Boss]

someone who champions creationism

What the hell does THAT mean?

Champion? You mean they aren't allowed to defend their Christian belief that God created us? Why?

I'm a Christian and I don't believe in Genesis. Imposing creationism is the topic. Defend it all you like. But that defense does not lend a shred of truth to it.

Are Christians supposed to be in lockstep on this? It is a matter of believing in a myth or abandoning all other tenets of faith. It's ridiculous to assume that, to qualify as a true Christian one must give up rationality.

We exist.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, this is a fact.... We exist.

We can speculate on why or how it came to be, but basic logic says that if we exist we must have been created by something. We understand enough of our universe to know that we couldn't have always existed. The planet and atmosphere had to be formed, etc. So we come back to the question of our existing... why and how?

Were humans created? They had to be! There is no other logical way they can exist. What created them? That's the question. And we come to two diametrically opposed arguments and opinions on that. However... both opinions could be right, wrong, partially-right, partially-wrong, or a combination of both or neither. We do not KNOW! We will never KNOW!

Whatever we choose to believe becomes a matter of FAITH not SCIENCE.

 

[nat4900]

Whatever we choose to believe becomes a matter of FAITH not SCIENCE.

For this thread's purpose, the above is the WRONG argument...No one is telling you or anyone else NOT to have faith.....believe what you choose, must or are forced to.....BUT do not bring that faith into the arena of governance, otherwise every two-bit Imam who incites some fellow idiot to strap a chest bomb and calls the act, the path of true faith, is not a whole of a lot unlike you,

 

[Wry Catcher]

More like good old fashioned common sense. Someone with ossified thinking should not be leading the Free World.

You view bigotry as "good old fashioned common sense?"

democrats, democrats never change...

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

You are a very confused individual. Not all conservatives are even religious. Many liberals are, you can't seem to focus on details. Science doesn't have the answer for life or the universe, why pretend that it does?

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

 

[nat4900]

I am really rather surprised as to why this thread has both gone on for so long, and also surprised at the lack of reasoning by most of the right wingers who contributed to the thread.

Look folks, we deride the crazed suicide bomber...yet, he is certainly acting on "faith", is he not?
It is not anti-Christian to choose not to believe in the theory of creationism...which is strictly based on faith....nor would it be a wise choice to make for a leader who opts for decision making guidance based on faith.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

someone who champions creationism

What the hell does THAT mean?

Champion? You mean they aren't allowed to defend their Christian belief that God created us? Why?

I'm a Christian and I don't believe in Genesis. Imposing creationism is the topic. Defend it all you like. But that defense does not lend a shred of truth to it.

Are Christians supposed to be in lockstep on this? It is a matter of believing in a myth or abandoning all other tenets of faith. It's ridiculous to assume that, to qualify as a true Christian one must give up rationality.

It's just as ridiculous to imply that anyone who believes in creationism would not make a better president than someone who does not.

What you choose to believe is between you and whatever God you worship (provided he or she really exists).

If a president pushes creationism onto other...shame on him.

If a president pushes anti-creationism onto others...just as much shame to him too.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am really rather surprised as to why this thread has both gone on for so long, and also surprised at the lack of reasoning by most of the right wingers who contributed to the thread.

Look folks, we deride the crazed suicide bomber...yet, he is certainly acting on "faith", is he not?
It is not anti-Christian to choose not to believe in the theory of creationism...which is strictly based on faith....nor would it be a wise choice to make for a leader who opts for decision making guidance based on faith.

Just how in the hell is this supposed to follow ?

Just because someone believes in the bible and believes in the creation as described in the Old Testament does not....

REPEATING.....DOES NOT

automatically relegate him to decision making based on faith (as in the bible).

BTW: All leaders put their faith in something and often that faith is misplaced. Maybe you should ask them who they have faith in....Eric Holder ????

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The intent of the O/P was actually rather simple......I, for one, do NOT trust a potential leader to base his or her opinions and judgment on religious doctrines because such doctrines (based on dubious scriptures) do not offer sound REASONING.

In the same way we castigate and deride a crazed terrorist for killing others in the name of some religious scripture, we cannot trust our own prospective leaders to base decisions and pass judgment on any other foundation but substantiated facts.

What substantial facts would that be......?

Reports that countries have weapons of mass destruction.

That got us a long way....into some big messes.

Reports that mortgage lending was just fine.....

BTW: The checks and balances of the system would seem to imply that you'd have to put that question to everyone who runs for the House or Senate.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If I were debating....and the moderator asked that question...I'd tell them to shove it.

Religious tests for holding public office has always been forbidden. It's nobody's business.

These people come to the primaries with history. You can have a smart Christian or a moron of an athiest (or the other way round). History of the candidate matters and positions on key issues.

 

[Wyatt earp]

More like good old fashioned common sense. Someone with ossified thinking should not be leading the Free World.

You view bigotry as "good old fashioned common sense?"

democrats, democrats never change...

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

You are a very confused individual. Not all conservatives are even religious. Many liberals are, you can't seem to focus on details. Science doesn't have the answer for life or the universe, why pretend that it does?

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

According to the man made global warming cult "the science is setteled"

"the debate is over"

That's faith.

 

[Boss]

Whatever we choose to believe becomes a matter of FAITH not SCIENCE.

For this thread's purpose, the above is the WRONG argument...No one is telling you or anyone else NOT to have faith.....believe what you choose, must or are forced to.....BUT do not bring that faith into the arena of governance, otherwise every two-bit Imam who incites some fellow idiot to strap a chest bomb and calls the act, the path of true faith, is not a whole of a lot unlike you,

How do you not bring your faith into the decisions you make? I mean, all due respect to your colorful explanation of what happens when we act based on our faith... isn't that what everyone does and is expected to do in a rational world? Seems to me you bring YOUR faith that God didn't create us... Others bring THEIR faith that it's okay for gay people to marry... We are all driven by our faith or beliefs in an inseparable way... are we to ignore our beliefs and convictions or maybe do the opposite of what our beliefs tell us is right?

I am sick and tired of degenerate PUNKS telling me to keep my mouth shut when it comes to my beliefs. That I somehow don't have the Constitutional rights to express my beliefs or have a say in my government. That I somehow have to choose between my right to religious freedom or my right to petition for redress of grievances... because somehow, I am not entitled to BOTH!

We established a country in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to establish Theocracy! It cannot be done without rewriting the entire Constitution. At the same time, it also guarantees YOU the right to have whatever religious belief you please, or no belief at all... and for ME to have the same.... and this has absolutely no bearing on our qualifications, ability or requirements to hold public office, judge cases or create laws.

 

[Iceweasel]

More like good old fashioned common sense. Someone with ossified thinking should not be leading the Free World.

You view bigotry as "good old fashioned common sense?"

democrats, democrats never change...

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

You are a very confused individual. Not all conservatives are even religious. Many liberals are, you can't seem to focus on details. Science doesn't have the answer for life or the universe, why pretend that it does?

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

Wow, that's deep. Who was arguing the point? You answered a question that wasn't asked and ignored the one that was.

 

[The Rabbi]

More like good old fashioned common sense. Someone with ossified thinking should not be leading the Free World.

You view bigotry as "good old fashioned common sense?"

democrats, democrats never change...

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

You are a very confused individual. Not all conservatives are even religious. Many liberals are, you can't seem to focus on details. Science doesn't have the answer for life or the universe, why pretend that it does?

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

You need to tell that to people like Nosmo, who claim religion is fairly tales and science is truth.

 

[Nosmo King]

More like good old fashioned common sense. Someone with ossified thinking should not be leading the Free World.

You view bigotry as "good old fashioned common sense?"

democrats, democrats never change...

What amazes me is the tacit endorsement for an anti-science President. But, then again, Conservatives hate science.

Why? Because science refutes Conservative values. Science tells us that the myth laid out in Genesis is wrong. Mankind did not magically appear fully formed like a potted geranium. Science tells us that mankind can and does screw up the environment, in spite of what the energy companies tell you. Science tells us that vaccines prevent diseases and should be administered to children to stem the tide of epidemics.

So why put someone who disdains science in charge of the government? To appease the other anti-science morons?

You are a very confused individual. Not all conservatives are even religious. Many liberals are, you can't seem to focus on details. Science doesn't have the answer for life or the universe, why pretend that it does?

Who on the right is opposed to vaccines?

Science doesn't claim to have truths, science and scientists are continually testing theories and laws; religion has faith.

You need to tell that to people like Nosmo, who claim religion is fairly tales and science is truth.

The thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not.

 

[Nosmo King]

someone who champions creationism

What the hell does THAT mean?

Champion? You mean they aren't allowed to defend their Christian belief that God created us? Why?

I'm a Christian and I don't believe in Genesis. Imposing creationism is the topic. Defend it all you like. But that defense does not lend a shred of truth to it.

Are Christians supposed to be in lockstep on this? It is a matter of believing in a myth or abandoning all other tenets of faith. It's ridiculous to assume that, to qualify as a true Christian one must give up rationality.

We exist.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, this is a fact.... We exist.

We can speculate on why or how it came to be, but basic logic says that if we exist we must have been created by something. We understand enough of our universe to know that we couldn't have always existed. The planet and atmosphere had to be formed, etc. So we come back to the question of our existing... why and how?

Were humans created? They had to be! There is no other logical way they can exist. What created them? That's the question. And we come to two diametrically opposed arguments and opinions on that. However... both opinions could be right, wrong, partially-right, partially-wrong, or a combination of both or neither. We do not KNOW! We will never KNOW!

Whatever we choose to believe becomes a matter of FAITH not SCIENCE.

Were we created fully formed or did we evolve from lower life forms as the paleological evidence suggests? Are the musings of a Bronze Age philosopher , or is the fossil record correct?

Should we give up on questions about the origin of the species because those questions are just too hard, or should we use the massive brain pan we are endowed with to search for a better, more complete explanation of the natural world?

A president who throws up his or her hands and gives up on answers would be an irresponsible president at best, a tragic figure to hold such a post at least.

 

[TooTall]

Look right wingers, if you want a president who believes in the "Rapture", you're certainly entitled to that level of stupidity....For my part, I'd rather have leadership of just a bit higher caliber.

Do you have any relatives that are monkeys?

 

[TooTall]

Look right wingers, if you want a president who believes in the "Rapture", you're certainly entitled to that level of stupidity....For my part, I'd rather have leadership of just a bit higher caliber.

Obama says he is a Christian and I don't know of any Presidents that have said they weren't. Do you?