• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Disturbing Picture of Rick Perry, and the Religious Right

Just asking and I observed you avatar and the Zodiac symbol if you will. You have that right and your argument appears to be strictly on Perry's religious views. Although currently the occupant in the white house has done more damage to our country than all presidents combined, is this along with his religious views a concern for you as well.
 
Just asking and I observed you avatar and the Zodiac symbol if you will.

It's an Anarchy symbol. It was created by Italian anarchists as a simplistic visual embodiment of Proudhon's maxim; 'Anarchy is order.'


I'm guessing this is a question. I don't get any sense Barack Obama is fanatically religious, or any kind of fundamentalist. I don't think he hears voices, I don't think he bases foreign policy decisions on the basis of scripture, and I'm fairly certain he believes in the Big Bang and evolution. So; no, his faith isn't much of a concern of mine. Although, I long for the day when our politicians no longer have to proclaim their devotion to ancient dogma in order to get elected.

As for the dig about having done 'more damage to our country than all presidents (sic) combined', that's just talking points, and, more importantly, irrelevent to the subject of this discussion.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a religious Christian and holding office. We need more practicing Christians in government.

I agree. I'm a born-again Christian and I've seen prayer answer unanswerable prayers in my own life. Where I would probably disagree is that being president does not equate with with exercising pastoral obligations. The president is required to lead all citizens, be they Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Jews, Atheists, Buddists, Hindus, Agnostics, etc. He should acknowledge his own personal convictions, but that does not mean to lead his own personal crusade from the bully-pulpit. His actions speak louder that any words he might share. I believe that this nation was founded on Christian principles but does not, and should not, consider the Christian Faith as it's operational religion. I would challenge any Christian look at the predominate attitudes that our at the core of our Christian belief's today. Are our priorities Christ-Like and comparable to those defined by the actions and words of Jesus Christ. Are we showing love to others, even those we do not like, understand, or whom we see as threats. Remember the words of Jesus Christ, Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV) 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Is the visceral rage that we see in this country toward Muslin's, Immigrant's, and others fulfilling that which Jesus Christ mandated for us. And what about the budget battle in this country. Yes, Christ expected us to be proper stewards of our finances. But he also left guidance as to our responsibilities for those around us. Matthew 25:35-40 New International Version (NIV) 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Has taking care of the less fortunate in our society become less of a priority than insuring that those of means continue to be protected. It seems to me that the wrong debate is taking place. First, decide what our priority is as a nation and then find a way to solve the problem. If Christianity is strong in your life, then each individual will have to decide for themselves what would Jesus do?
 

That was dishonest. Your reaction to religion has robbed you of reason to the point that you have made repeated false claims about religious belief. For example, your claim that religion is by definition irrational is demonstrably false. You have also made false claims about the % of religious people who believe that religious texts should be interpreted literally (you claimed it's higher than 90%) and that Nazism was based on christianity and that christianity was the root of anti-semitism
 
That was dishonest.

I had a feeling you were going to materialize the minute I spoke...

Your reaction to religion has robbed you of reason to the point that you have made repeated false claims about religious belief.

No, it hasn't, and no, I haven't.

For example, your claim that religion is by definition irrational is demonstrably false.

Religion is defined by 'faith. 'Faith' is certitude minus evidence.

You have also made false claims about the % of religious people who believe that religious texts should be interpreted literally (you claimed it's higher than 90%)

I claimed, quite accurarately, that the overwhelming majority of the faithful interpret at least some of their creeds literally. Not all Christians believe the Bible is entirely literally true, and historically accurate, many don't, but all of them believe at least some of it is. Otherwise; they wouldn't be Christians.

and that Nazism was based on christianity

No, I didn't.

and that christianity was the root of anti-semitism

I didn't say that, either. I said centuries of fulminating against the Jews by the Church had led to widespread anti-Semitism in European culture, which, unsurprisingly, repeatedly, resulted in discrimination, oppression, and violence.

Back to the subject at hand....
 
Here's one conservative's response to this silly "Dominionism":

In the case of Dominionism, paranoia is fed by a certain view of church-state relations -- a deep discomfort with any religious influence in politics.... ... It is a common argument among secular liberals that the application of any religiously informed moral reasoning in politics is a kind of soft theocracy. Dominionism is merely its local extension. ...secularists often assume their view is the definition of neutrality and thus deserves a privileged public place. The argument that religion is fundamentally illiberal thus provides an excuse to treat it illiberally. Pluralism is defined as the silencing of religious people. Thin charges of Dominionism are just another attempt to discredit opponents rather answer them -- in the same tradition as thin charges of Kenyan anti-colonialism. It is easier, after all, to allege a conspiracy than to engage an argument.

Tea Party Holy War - Michael Gerson - Townhall Conservative
 
Last edited:
Here's the crack whore's response to the silly name "crack whore".

"I smoke crack, yes, but I am not addicted to it. I can quit anytime I want to. I just don't want to quit right now. So what if I live in a cardboard box! It is because I want to live close to nature and living on the street I need some degree of protection. It's no crime having sex with strangers. I don't charge them for it, but usually they give me monetary gifts because they like me. Do I spend some of it on crack? Yes, but I'm not a whore."

If it walks like a duck, it doesn't matter if it is Dominionism or a crack whore, it's a duck.

A rose by any other name...

They can call Dominionism whatever the hell they want to call it, it is what it is. I will never, ever, never vote for a Dominionist or people who hang out with Dominionists.
 
Religion is defined by 'faith. 'Faith' is certitude minus evidence.

No, faith is belief without proof. Militant atheists have trouble distinguising between evidence and proof. It's a symptom of their irrationality

Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com



Conflating "Christians" with "the faithful" is another symptom of the militant atheists irrationality.

But it is what you claimed, but if you want to backtrack, fine. Please post proof that "the overwhelming majority of the faithful interpret at least some of their RELIGIOUS TEXTS literally" (I changed creed to religious texts because it makes no sense to "interpret" a creed. We were talking about religious texts because you had quoted from the Bible to make a point about christians)

And please post proof that "all of them (ie christians) believe at least some of it (ie The Bible) is (ie literally true) "
 
tell that to the folks who condemned Obama due to Rev. Wright.
Marxist theology versus Christianity? One has been the cause of abject misery for many. I am no Christian but I prefer the Christian God to the Marxist god.
 
No, faith is belief without proof. Militant atheists have trouble distinguising between evidence and proof. It's a symptom of their irrationality

Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com

Proof is not necessary. There is no proof of dark matter, but there is compelling evidence. Most Scientists, even most proponents of dark matter, will make an effort to point this out, and virtually all of them would change their minds if proof to the contrary was presented. This is the opposite of how faith works.

Conflating "Christians" with "the faithful" is another symptom of the militant atheists irrationality.

Christianity and Islam, collectively, make up roughly 65% of the worlds' faithful, which constitutes a clear majority.


It isn't backtracking. Believing at least some of the Bible is literally true is the definition of being a Christian. At the very least one must accept the divinity of Christ, that is the bare minimum to qualify as a Christian.

This is not the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss this further, we can relocate to another venue, where we can argue for as long as I feel like it, because, clearly, you cannot be reasoned with, on this subject. However, I'm sure this futile pursuit will continue, albiet in a more appropriater venue.
 

This is why I think of you as dishonest. In an earlier post, you claimed that faith is belief without proof. Now you're all "Proof is not necessary" with no acknowledgement that what you said earlier was wrong.

Religion is defined by 'faith. 'Faith' is certitude minus evidence.

And as far as certitude goes, take a look at this
Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve : NPR

But enough derailing this thread. We'll talk later in some other thread
 
Perry signs pledge backing gay marriage ban

Gov. Rick Perry on Friday became the latest Republican presidential candidate to sign a pledge to support an amendment to the Constitution that would outlaw gay marriage. His pledge came a month after he voiced support for the right of states to decide for themselves about gay marriage and other social issues.

The National Organization for Marriage pledge states that, if elected, Perry will send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He also pledged to appoint U.S. Supreme Court judges and federal judges who will "reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into the Constitution."

Perry signs pledge backing gay marriage ban - Houston Chronicle

:roll:
 

Hopefully, Perry's ex-gay lovers will get upset over this and tell all.
 
Marxist theology versus Christianity? One has been the cause of abject misery for many. I am no Christian but I prefer the Christian God to the Marxist god.

Yes, because as we know, Christianity has caused no misery at all in the world. I think it's probably a tossup as to which has been responsible for more misery.
 
Yes, because as we know, Christianity has caused no misery at all in the world. I think it's probably a tossup as to which has been responsible for more misery.

Let's see, in the century or so since Marx gave us his theory Marxist governments have killed many millions of their own citizens. Toss-up? Only for the stupid.
 
My wikileaks thread was moved for the second time. And look at these religious side track discussions, honestly!

Michele Bachman isn't qualified to manage a K-mart much less a country ... what a non-starter the GOP nomination news stories are! :roll:
 
Let's see, in the century or so since Marx gave us his theory Marxist governments have killed many millions of their own citizens. Toss-up? Only for the stupid.

I don't dispute the brutality and oppression of the USSR, or the PRC, etc., but if you apply the same criteria, just in terms of the bodycount, 'Capitalism' has a substantially higher death toll. More people died under 'Capitalism' in India than in every 'Communist' nation, combined, over a period of about 35 years. So, you can keep repeating this bogus meme, no doubt you will, but be aware that there's no substance to it, whatsoever.

Back to the religious wackos...
 

LOL. Sheer stupidity.
 
What an idiot. Seriously anyone who thinks the solution to our problems is prayer does not deserve to hold office.

Are you trying to say that Perry asking people to pray for rain in Texas to put out the wildfires was not an adequate substitute for cutting firefighters funding by 75%? Whatever gave you that idea?
 
Last edited:
LOL. Sheer stupidity.

No, it's a fact.

Let's take the Black Book of Communism, which you seem to be regurgitating. The big figure of 'Communist' atrocities in that book is 100 million. Fine. Let's accept that as gospel. One of the chief examples pointed to in that book is Mao's famine between 58-61, to which the authors atrribute some 40 million deaths, nearly half of the sum total. Ok. If we apply the exact same standard; at least 100 million died in India under Capitalism, between 47-79, with thousands more since. That's just a 32-year-period, in just one country. You're entitled to your opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…