Immolate, desecrate, conflagrate, decapitate, detonate, ruinate, urinate, obliterate, annihilate, devastate, desolate, excommunicate, and finally, TERMINATE. Oh yeah, I'd inoculate that ass.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters."

I'll give him some credit, but also: Big Deal. He never would've come up with it on his own, and anyway, it's crap from both sides of the aisle. The 2nd Amendment already covers 'states of emergency'.

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

I agree with you. But conservatives failing to be conservative and liberals being liberals are still two different animals.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_invokes_rush_limbaugh_in.html

Here's the latest kerfuffle, Obama's campaign rearranging Rush Limbaugh's parodies to make him sound like a racist. Partisan? Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

I have said nothing here that indicates Obama's race factors into whether or not he supports hate crime legislation. It's more a left-wing thing, not a race thing. Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.


>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there. And yes, I like the idea of B-52s less than 10 minutes from Tehran.

"What is done" with the money, I think you already know, most of it will be pissed away by graft and corruption, bailouts, paying for ongoing failures like the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and yes, even Terror. I don't see why the Fire Chief of Speckville, Indiana needs a million-dollar APC to defend against terrorists.

There is nothing magical that happens when you give your money to the government. You and I know the value of a dollar, and I trust a dollar in the hands of the average citizen will go much farther than it will in a politician's budget. That's the essence of libertarianism. BTW, it's YOUR dollar!


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K? I'm not saying Obama shares all of Wright's wacky beliefs, but then if McCain said "Bless You" when David Duke sneezed, we both know the level of liberal hysteria that would ensue.

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/

Obama's relations to this organization.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

You recognize that it is a failing of the people to not know their candidate. Yes, I will blame the American people if Obama is elected, just as you will blame the other half if McCain is elected.

Yes, I have some assumptions about Obama, but they're based on the many quotes he's made as well as the considerable information about his background, his (in)experience, the company he keeps and his voting record (to the left of Ted Kennedy). I personally don't give a damn about his racial background; if he supported conservative principles with the same thin resume, I'd have a serious choice to make whether he would be better than McCain.

Thanks to all who responded. Yes MINK, you're the Master of Europe and I am at your mercy. You and I have written enough to make a book.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms. For many that alone is a key indicator of whether we're dealing with a potential tyrant.

"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters." [ref]

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And there's this:[snip]

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

This calls for a National Anthem Desecration Amendment. Where are those Republicans when you need them ?

there are more important things to worry about than pr0n.

Like rampant desecration of the constitution, and the Cap'n crunch.

By the way any one who watches porn or is an advocate against pr0n is a Nazi. (There I just godwin'ed it)

Hello

Peregrines are tremendously amazing, terrific, brave and mainly beautiful, both perched in flight.

However, the publication we see above by National Geographic is an absurde and erronious desecration of some soo pure and beautiful as are Mathematics and Phisics.

Actually, after the video we do not nothing about the experience... to start it should not be anything near of tyhe Peregrine if we want measure its air speed, otherwise for example the drag caused by the lure will pulled ahead the falcon and it get more speed; Worst if there are people falling below the falcon.

In my opinion, what increases the parasite drag in the Peregrine body, in such a way that the Peregrine terminal speed (150 or 200km/h) is well above theoretical values for 'ideal' falcons (about 500km/h), is the fact that the feathers of the falcon are not stable a such high speeds.

(!!!And still the question: What does the computer do?)


A.C.
Portugal

If this is 'winning', I'd hate to see what losing looks like. Complete desecration of the entire region? Oh, wait. That's what we have. I guess "losing" would be the destruction of the entire planet into a desolate nuclear wasteland. Something I'm sure "President" McCain would have no trouble arranging.

I live in the Islamic state of Kuwait, the second largest religious denomination here is Christians. In fact in most countries in the Middle East it is always the second largest religious block.

Some things good, others not as good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Kuwait

Muslims have no problem with Jews, they have a problem with Zionists, which is a totally different thing and relates to the continuous oppression of Palestinian people. There are many Jews who live in peace in that most feared state of Iran, something that dispels the common held misconception that Iran wants to 'wipe' Israel away. The differences are political not religious.

It would take a whole book to discuss either side of this argument; for this particular sift, the focus was on Muslims in the United States. Even from the above wiki link I see that once again, there is more religious freedom and tolerance in the US than elsewhere.

Islamic ways are not backward and are totally compatible with Democracy, which thrives in Kuwait, Turkey, Indonesia and other nations (I exclude most Middle East nations since they are monarchies, like that closest ally to the US called Saudi Arabia from where most of 9/11 hijackers hail).

To clarify: living as Muslim is possible most anywhere, but Sharia law as interpreted appears incompatible with Western republics.

The reasoning that Muslims are burning up Europe is a fallacious lie, that problem has to do with how Europeans are dealing with immigrants rather then a specific religious block...

In the age of Poisonous Correctness, it's very difficult for power-seekers to villify any group except the largest or most successful. The evidence leans more to the argument of Muslim non-assmilation than resistance on the part of the majority, who have the option of curtailing immigration.

To terrorists the Islamic religion is but a political tool of mobilization, whose teachings they mangle into their own belief of killing westerners, its a desecration for nowhere in the Koran is it allowed to kill civilians, commit terrorist acts or wage a guerrilla war. The highest ruling in the Koran is to seek peace over confrontation and war.

A hopeful argument, but if a few dozen terrorists killed thousands in the name of Christ, the worldwide condemnation from Christian majorities would be swift and loud. There is no equivalent singular voice from the world's one billion + Muslims.

This is in response to QM,

I live in the Islamic state of Kuwait, the second largest religious denomination here is Christians. In fact in most countries in the Middle East it is always the second largest religious block.

Muslims have no problem with Jews, they have a problem with Zionists, which is a totally different thing and relates to the continuous oppression of Palestinian people. There are many Jews who live in peace in that most feared state of Iran, something that dispels the common held misconception that Iran wants to 'wipe' Israel away. The differences are political not religious.

Islamic ways are not backward and are totally compatible with Democracy, which thrives in Kuwait, Turkey, Indonesia and other nations (I exclude most Middle East nations since they are monarchies, like that closest ally to the US called Saudi Arabia from where most of 9/11 hijackers hail).

The reasoning that Muslims are burning up Europe is a fallacious lie, that problem has to do with how Europeans are dealing with immigrants rather then a specific religious block. In France the lashings out are because the French discriminate against the Algerians and those not of their ilk. Hundreds of thousands live in peace in countries like the US, Canada, UK, Netherlands, Sweden and others. But its too often political opportunistic to blame the immigrants arriving, and fear monger about Muslim threat in order to gain political power. This is the same way many dictators assume emergency powers in countless times across history.

To terrorists the Islamic religion is but a political tool of mobilization, whose teachings they mangle into their own belief of killing westerners, its a desecration for nowhere in the Koran is it allowed to kill civilians, commit terrorist acts or wage a guerrilla war. The highest ruling in the Koran is to seek peace over confrontation and war.

Gorgon, Thinking about politiancs and pandering, I've never seen Ron Paul pander when speaking, which makes me respect him that much more. I've never seen him attack another candidate. If politicians were more like him I think people would not be so politically polarized in this country. Again, he is the only religious candidate I would trust in office not to set policy according to his personal religious beliefs.

I don't think that "all" christians do not think that mormons are not christians. I think most people (christians) don't know enough about what the mormon religion claims (asserts) to know or form a viewpoint. As most religions there is a lot of personal subjectiveness when talking about religion. It seems to me only fundamentalist have a problem with mormon theology.

that text above was from a christian site (which i linked to) I'm sorry if i did not make it clear enough that those were their specific views.

I think it can be summed up as this (from a christian viewpoint)

how would you feel if one day someone all of a sudden added religious books onto biblical scripture, that changed much of the philosophy of the christian faith and even went as far as to say that the bible has been corrupted and that the new books were now the "true" word of god.

I imagine that has a lot of fundies/christians pretty pissed off (when they find out that and more...)

I found a really great outline of some of the other arguements that christians bring up (link at the bottom). I found this really interesting as I had not heard some of the specifics beforehand.

A Brief Description of LDS Doctrine and Teachings

What follows are a few key points of distinctive doctrines taught by the LDS Church, but by no means an exhaustive list of LDS teachings. These in particular are given to demonstrate how it differs from that of biblical Christianity. It should be noted that the LDS Church frequently uses terminology similar to that of biblical Christianity in communicating its doctrines, but often with drastically different meanings or connotations. This tends to obscure the fundamental differences in doctrine to the casual observer. (For a more detailed and authoritative look at LDS doctrine, we recommend you check out their online publication of Gospel Principles , which is available in the .pdf format; Adobe Acrobat Reader is required.)

The LDS Church is the only true church.
This teaching is generally not publically promoted in modern times, nevertheless, the internal teachings state that the other denominations are "abominations" to God, and that the LDS Church is the only true church that bears the "restored" gospel of Jesus Christ. In recent years, however, many within the LDS Church have taken active measures to appear more palatable to traditional Christianity. Many of the doctrines which set it apart from biblical Christianity have been downplayed (though not recanted). Nevertheless, because of the gross differences between LDS doctrine and orthodox Christian doctrine, and because of aberrant LDS teachings that depart from the biblical standard, Christendom in general does not recognize the LDS Church as another Christian denomination. These distinctives, however, are becoming blurred by a growing "ecumenical" attitude at an alarming rate; due in part to a general lack of education or agreement on Mormon distinctives, or for that matter, a lack of education or agreement on Christian distinctives.

The LDS view of the nature of humanity.
The LDS Church teaches that all humans existed prior to life on earth as the "spirit children" of the Heavenly Father (and his wife/wives) in heaven, and that our earthly birth came about when our spirit willingly chose to inhabit a physical body on earth.

The LDS view of the nature of God.
LDS theology states that God (or more commonly referred to as "Heavenly Father") is an exalted and glorified man, that he has a physical (albeit immortal) body. It is also taught that qualifying Mormons can also become gods, just like the Heavenly Father, in the next life, and produce spirit offspring (presumably to populate another earth.). The doctrine of the Trinity as accepted by Biblical Christianity is rejected by LDS theology. The LDS Church teaches that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are "spirit children" of God, and that Jesus is unique in that he is also the fleshly son of God (conceived by a physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary). It is also taught that Lucifer, or Satan, is also one of the Heavenly Father's spirit-children, making him a "spirit brother" Jesus.

The LDS view of the fall of humanity.
The LDS Church teaches that Adam and Eve were the first "spirit children" to inhabit physical bodies on earth. Their temptation by Satan to eat the forbidden fruit and subsequent fall is characterized as part of God's plan, using the premise that had they not done so, then they would not be able to reproduce, and thereby provide physical bodies for other spirit children. It is also the teaching of the LDS Church that unless a spirit child inhabits a physical body, he cannot be elevated to godhood in the next life.

The LDS view of scripture.
The LDS Church accepts the Book of Mormon as their primary scripture and the inspired Word of God, supplemented by the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible is accepted as the Word of God only insofar as it has been translated correctly. However, the qualifier attached to the Bible substantiates a belief that the Bible has been significantly corrupted over the centuries, and is therefore not entirely reliable as the Word of God.

The LDS view of revelation and prophecy.
Generally speaking, prophecy is seen as progressive and changeable. New revelations are not uncommon throughout their history, and critics will point out that many of these revelations tend to be revelations of convenience in order to accommodate a particular circumstance or situation. A case in point is the revelation that allowing of African-Americans to enter the priesthood (which had been prohibited until the 1970s). Other prophecies, such as Joseph Smith's claims about what will be found on the moon, have remained (and are likely to remain) unfulfilled.

The LDS view of salvation and the afterlife.
Salvation in LDS terms refers simply to the resurrection (return to life), which has been provided to all men via the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It differs from the biblical Christian view, which is that salvation is a rescue from God's punishment for sin, and the right to live eternally in God's presence. The afterlife is also viewed differently. The LDS teachings concerning the afterlife involve three levels of glory, and one is assigned to a greater or lesser level of heaven, according to one's performance on Earth. The highest level, the "Celestial" heaven, is reserved only for those who have met all the requirements of the LDS Church, including, among other things, temple marriage, and strict obedience to the commands. The LDS also teaches what is called "The Outer Darkness," which would be roughly equivalent to hell, a place of torment reserved for those who reject the gospel (as presented by the LDS Church). This is in contrast to the Biblical description of the afterlife, in which anyone who embraces the unmerited salvation of Jesus Christ will be blessed eternally in God's presence, and those who reject it will be eternally condemned in hell.

Additional Comments.
Anyone who delves into Mormon doctrine, thought, and teaching quickly realizes that it is not a simple matter. A systematic theology can hardly be said to exist in Mormonism. It is convoluted, and often contradictory. Many LDS theologians and apologists have undertaken a systematic approach to defining the doctrines and theology of the Church (a notable example being Bruce R. McConkie, author of Mormon Doctrine). The LDS Church as an organization rarely gives any official endorsement of church theologians or apologists, although unofficially, as in the case of McConkie, they may be considered authorities by the general Mormon public. In addition, Church leadership are quick to skirt the more esoteric aspects of their doctrine, particularly those doctrines which are most blasphemous to Christians. For example, when asked about the man-becoming-God doctrine on a Larry King Live interview, LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley evaded the question, and hinted that it was an anachronism that was generally not taught anymore. However, comments made by President Hinckley during LDS church conventions clearly indicate that this doctrine is alive and well in the internal structure of the LDS Church.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

A Brief Description of LDS Practices and Lifestyle Distinctives

LDS values.
The LDS Church is often praised by outsiders for their promotion of traditional family values and morality. Emphasis is placed on family and community support, patriotism, chastity, and respect for civil law. Politically LDS members (as a rule) tend to be conservative.

LDS restrictions.
The LDS Church prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco, and "hot drinks" which in practice is coffee and tea (and caffeine in general). This restriction is also known as the "Word of Wisdom." LDS members are generally "Sunday Sabbatarians," that is, Sundays are considered to be holy days and not to be desecrated by working, entertainment, or other types of non-religious activities. The degree of strictness may vary.

LDS requirements.
The members of the LDS Church are expected to faithfully attend church (in some cases attendance is taken and absence is noted); they are expected to pay a strict 10% tithe of their income; young men are expected to serve two years on a "mission," the location and logistics of which are determined by the Church.

LDS structure & hierarchy.
The LDS Church is organized by wards (individual congregations) and stakes (groups of wards in a particular area, often using a common meeting or "stake" house). A member is assigned to a ward based on where he/she lives in a community. Each ward has a leader known as a bishop. The stake is led by a stake president. (No women are allowed in the priesthood or bishopric of the LDS Church, or in any of the higher church government positions, however certain societies within the church are led by women.) The LDS church does not have "pastors" or "ministers" in the sense that most Christians would think of them. Nearly all the leadership of the LDS Church is done on a volunteer basis, i.e., they are not paid clergy members. This is a fact that many Mormons take as a point of pride over most traditional Christian churches, which further substantiates the belief among them that the non-LDS churches are corrupt. However, higher positions of leadership within the LDS Church are not only paid, but paid extremely well.

Sunday church services generally consist of a time of singing hymns, sometimes a sacramental meal, and sharing of "testimonies" by the ward members (each member is encouraged to participate in the giving of testimonies, which affirm their faith in the LDS Church). There is no "preaching" in the sense that traditional Christianity thinks of it, but individual members and/or leaders may be called on to share or teach during church services. Children and youth are taught scriptures and LDS principles in separate classes.

LDS temples.
The LDS temples are a focal point of the LDS religion. Temples are where the religious rituals, most of them very secretive, take place. People are baptized, "sealed", and married, in the temple ceremonies. LDS members also practice "Baptism of the Dead" where deceased individuals are baptized by proxy in order to secure membership in the Church for them. Access to the temples are restricted to those who have been deemed worthy by their church leaders, and have been given a "temple recommend." Worthiness is generally determined by the bishop or stake president based on overall lifestyle, being up-to-date on tithing and other requirements of the Church.

LDS missions & missionaries.
Young men, generally out of high school, are expected to serve two years on a mission. While this is not an official requirement for advancement in the church, it is generally an unwritten expectation. Latest estimates are that only about one-third of young LDS men actually go on missions. The mission place is determined by the Church with little or no input on the part of the would-be missionary or his family, though the family must incur much of the expenses related to the mission. The location may be in North America or anywhere in the world. They are sent out in pairs, wearing black suits and white shirts, and their objective is to teach others (often door-to-door) about the Church and to encourage people to embrace the Book of Mormon and join the LDS Church. While on a mission, the missionaries are often subject to certain restrictions, which include limited contact with their families. While most missionaries are men, unmarried women are also allowed to go on a mission, if they so choose. Sometimes couples will serve together on missions, typically after retirement.

http://www.mormonchallenge.com/mormonism.htm

Qruel: one other thing to keep in mind about the widely varying beliefs of mormons (like any religion)

Today, there are many schism organizations who regard themselves as a part of the Latter Day Saint movement, though in most cases they do not acknowledge the other branches as valid and regard their own tradition as the only correct and authorized version of Smith's church. Most of these organizations are small. The vast majority of Latter Day Saints belong to the largest denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which reports 13 million members worldwide. The second-largest denomination is the more ecumenical Community of Christ, which reports over 250,000 members. The third largest is The Church of Jesus Christ, with fewer than 20,000 adherents.(that was from wiki)

Took me a while to notice your comment; I'm not on the sift as often as I used to be.

Of course I think killing all theists would be a good thing. They trespass on humanity's world, breathing our air, consuming our resources and inflicting their miserable little ideas on their betters. How dare they? Honestly, how dare you?

Einstein. Seems like you're accusing him of deism rather than theism, an impression I don't quite get from the article you linked. Nevertheless deism, while reprehensible, is nowhere near the systematic abandonment and desecration of everything good in the world that is the crime of theism.

You don't have to look very hard at those dictionary pages to find the approximate definitions I'm using:

Human -
2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals. [i.e. reason]
Reason -
4. sound judgment; good sense.
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
7a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument. [wholly foreign concepts to the theist]

Condemning people on their beliefs. This is such an important issue; there can be no other criteria for judgement. If the world learns nothing else this century, it must be that.
This monstrous idea has taken hold in our society that people should be allowed to think whatever they want without judgement or consequence, that crime is a function of mere mechanical action rather than the mind. What a person thinks and believes is everything they are; if a person's beliefs are unjustifiable they are a criminal.

I don't debate theists on religion itself because my side already won the argument, hundreds of years ago. You people just haven't caught up yet.

In reply to this comment by SilentPoet:
You must be kidding me.
You make it sound like you think killing all theists would be a good thing.

Tell you what, lets look at Albert Einstein. I believe he was human. Would you disagree?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views

He may not have believed in a personal God, but he did believe there was a God.

Anyhow, I found some other links you may find interesting.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

You know, I looked it over and not one thing in all those definitions would lead me to believe that theists have a lesser amount of reason or are less of a human being.

Listen, I don't know what kind of person you are, but to consider a human being to be anything less than that simply because of his or her beliefs seems incredibly wrong to me.

When one group is no longer considered human, atrocities tend to happen.

On a lighter note, I tend to think that some theist beliefs aren't all that void of reason. Would you care to argue?

There's nutjob atheists (a higher percentage of atheists than Christians believe in ghosts) and there's nutjob Christians. He's a nutjob Christian. Desecrating a sacred ritual (as most religious funeral service is) is blasphemous, and not something most Christians would do, even if we disagreed with the beliefs of the person in question.

The first amendment, by the by, doesn't guarantee you the right to disrupt a private ceremony.

"This story wouldn't have been a hint of a blip in 1955 - much less in 1850."

Neither would a witch burning story. Do we still burn witches? Do we? Do we still believe in witch burning?

Did they have the internet in 1955? Eh?

What about the Nuremburg trials? What about the Geneva convention? Are neither of those progress enough for America? Luther King? Malcom X?

Jim Morrison?
Mark Twain?

What about a man on the moon? What about showing human beings their planet from space for the first time in the history of mankind?


All of these things are the birthright of every American and they are being desecrated in broad daylight by the very same people who brought you the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Why do some people *still* not see it?

Some of the statements made in the video and the comments are classic anti-atheist bigotry.

The Jewish woman mentions the "obnoxious Michael Newdow" who went to the supreme court to protect his child's right to not be forced to adhere to someone else's religion. I wish it didn't have to be such a big deal, but that's how the system works. The supreme court is the only court with the authority to rule on cases of Constitutionality. You can bet these pricks would be showing up at court houses by the bus load if their children were required to say "one nation under Satan" in school.

Now I don't care if students say the pledge in school; I don't even care if they say "under god" in school; so long as they aren't forced to say it. We were sent to the principal's office in my elementary school if we didn't say the pledge. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to see that's ILLEGAL in a publicly-funded school.

This country exists because people who were forced to practice religion they did not believe fled their homes and founded it. As an American, is there anything more profane, more anti-American, than the desecration of the foremost ideal that our country is based on?

The fat little Jew then goes on to state that Europe is becoming Islamist and that the US isn't because Christians are strong and Atheists are weak. This is fucked up on so many levels. First, I've never heard anything about Europe becoming Islamic, but I'll assume that's true for the sake of argument. My first question is, why is that a bad thing? Sounds like intolerance to me. The rest of her statement... I don't even know what to say about it... it almost sounds like a threat. Perhaps she'd like to see a new Crusades. While Atheists may be the smallest of minorities, I think she's mistaken in thinking that all Judeo-Christians would support an extremist movement against us. Of the few theists I know, most of them are pretty disallusioned from the organized religions they were raised under. They'd stand up for what's right whether it had God's stamp of approval on it or not.

@cybrbeast: Your explanation of your beliefs would mark you as an Agnostic, not an Atheist. They are often lumped together, but they are quite different. An Atheist believes there is no God or Gods. An Agnostic believes that it's impossible to prove one way or another and, based upon that observation, makes no claim either way.

Before falling in love with this guy, you might take a moment and find out a bit about who he is and how he got elected. Specifically, he was head of ES&S - the voting machine company. And he was elected in an election that used those specific machines. And won by a large margin. And the results didn't match the exit polls.

Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition
Rated 0% by NARAL
• Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada.
• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
• Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
• Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
• Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
• Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.
• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
• Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy.
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy.
• Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations.
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.