These two men are really something. Why is it we can’t get normal people who have reasonable ideas into politics or talking about politics? I honestly think it’s because of religion. I think religion clouds the judgement of people and makes them feel as if they are literally doing “God’s work” by being bigots and haters. If we were to take religion out of politics and govern by doing what’s right we’d be better off.
It’s nice to know you think religious people aren’t normal. It’s funny how any particular background or belief is respected and honored, unless it is in any way religion-based and then should dare not be spoken in public. So Pat Robertson is a kook — he’s not governing anything. Exactly what judgement do you think is being clouded in goverment today by too much religion?
Oh for crying out loud. Forgot, you truly believe that the religious right isn’t bringing harm to our political scene? Besides, anon didn’t say they were “not normal” (although I will). What he said is “Why is it we can’t get normal people WHO HAVE REASONABLE IDEAS”. . . He is questioning their reasoning ability. All of us should – and many of us do – honor and respect reasonable, sensible backgrounds and beliefs that differ from ours. The key words here are “reasonable and sensible.” Neither of these descriptions can be used to describe Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh. They are both purveyors of hate and neither bears the slightest resemblance to a true Christian, a faith to which both claim to subscribe. And you are right, Pat Robertson is a kook, but he isn’t governing anything. Nor is Rush Limbaugh governing anything; but both of them exert plenty of influence on the misinformed and/or factually uniformed people who cast ballots to elect those who do govern. And these folks are casting their ballots based on religious beliefs and nonsense that comes from these two cohorts of malice.
Ok fine, so you don’t think religious people are normal or have reasonable ideas. That’s your partisan position. It’s also insulting and alienates a good majority of the nation. I wish some of the progessives you vote for would say openly that is what they believe because they would likely not win another election (although Obama somehow managed to win after saying “bitter people cling to religion”, but only had the guts to say it in front of limousine liberals in San Fransicso).
How condescending of liberals like you to think that anyone who doesn’t agree with the “acceptable” position in your mind must be a rube with nonsensical ideas. So it’s nonsense for me to vote on something with a religious perspective in mind, but it’s okay for you to believe socialism will work because you believe it is so. How about the religious left that believes government is god/answer to all our problems? How about liberals who advocate for abortion, even though SCIENCE, not religion, can plainly tell us it’s wrong.
But please, INFORM me because I am just a mininformed ignorant voter, because there could be no other explanation for not supporting your liberal agenda, right?
I see you were not able to provide any specific examples about how religion is clouding government policies today.
By the way, so Pat Robertson believes in an ancient curse, how is that spewing hate? Maybe I didn’t see all of his comments. I don’t think Rush claims to be particularly religious. How about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, don’t they claim to subscribe to Christianity? It doesn’t seem to stop them any.
It appears that you have really gone off the rails here, Forgot. Where did I say or imply that I “don’t think religious people are normal or have reasonable ideas”? Your response is so filled with irrelevant comments that I fear civil discourse with you is impossible. I asked if “you truly believe that the religious right isn’t bringing harm to our political scene?” That is a simple yes or no question. Apparently you think no. I definitely think yes.
The remainder of your tirade was unwarranted. I stated my opinion of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, which was where this all began. You don’t agree with my opinion. Fine, I can live with that. But what gave you license to assign opinions to me that I haven’t expressed? How did you draw these conclusions? Certainly not from anything I said. Yet you couldn’t resist attacking “liberals like me” . . . There was nothing in my response that suggested that I believe that ANYONE “who doesn’t agree with [my] opinions must be a rube with nonsensical ideas”. (But I am beginning to see you in that light – not because you don’t agree with me, but because of the irrelevance of your tirade.)
In closing, if you can’t see for yourself how hateful Pat Robertson’s ancient curse comment was then I am shoveling sand against an incoming tide and I have other more important matters to attend to.
One final word: I am under no obligation to defend Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Your entire post implied and outright said how you feel about religious people… “anon didn’t say they were ‘not normal’ (although I will)” and “casting their ballots based on religious beliefs and nonsense.”
No, I don’t really see the harm that religious folks bring to politics. What harm can you cite? Do you think atheists bring harm to politics? Muslims? Animal rights activists? Union members? Isn’t there room for all those views in politics?
The conclusions I drew were based on your statements. You WERE condescending in making very clear someone with an opinion based on their religious values can’t possibly be “reasonable” as you define it. Apparently my citing examples proved to you to be irrelevant. You do not feel obligated to defend Rev. Jackson or Rev. Sharpton, yet you seem to malign everyone on the right who is religious because of Pat Robertson and Rush (the latter I would not call part of the “religious right” but you must be a daily listener of his show and know more than I do).
I was not defending Robertson, I was sincerely asking if all he said was this curse business, so what? Did he say that today’s residents of Haiti do not deserve help because of it? Or was that him trying to explain WHY it came about? I don’t know and I don’t really care either way, but I would find the latter far more offensive than the former. I mean, if someone said my ancestors were cursed, that really has no bearing on me.
Forgot, let me say this to you very carefully: I don’t agree with you ‘that my entire post implied and outright said how I feel about religious people’. Here, allow me to draw you a picture; my comment: “anon didn’t say they were ‘not normal’ (although I will)” was in reference to Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, not religious people; and certainly not ALL religious people. And my comment: “casting their ballots based on religious beliefs and nonsense.” Please refer to the original post so that you can read the ENTIRE sentence, then let’s see if you can figure out who I am referring to. (A hint: it doesn’t refer to ALL religious people.)
Next point: you see no harm brought to politics by religious people. You do know that is an OPINION, don’t you? That is YOUR opinion, but I don’t share your opinion. In my opinion, there has been plenty of political harm brought to bear because of religious beliefs. That is NOT saying that I think ALL religious people have brought harm or that all are uninformed. (But I do think many are.)
I will exert no further effort by citing specific examples. As I said earlier, I have other matters to attend to. I am finished with this exercise in futility since it appears that you are having difficulty comprehending what I am saying. This may very well be due to a deep-seated inability on your part to accept views or beliefs that differ from your own. In other words, I think you are transferring your own feelings of intolerance to me.
G’night . . .
Final word: Muslim IS a religion.
You are right about one thing: this is an exercise in futility. You “will exert no further effort by citing specific examples” — because you can’t!
In one breath you say that I misunderstood you and that you don’t think all religious people have brought harm to politics, and then in parantheses end up saying that you do in fact think MANY of them do just that.
I have no inability to accept other beliefs. Can you accept that religious beliefs can have a place in politics? You appear to be the intolerant one, not me.
And, final word, Muslim is not a religion. Isam is a religion and I never said it wasn’t. I was merely citing examples of different viewpoints that all have a place in politics. And besides, I didn’t think you would consider Islam to be part of your perceived “religious right.”
*that should say ISLAM (forgot the L, but I meant no disrespect)
I also used atheism as an example, and I would consider that a religion in itself too.
Muslims are to Islam as Catholics are to Christianity.
I thought you had other matters to attend to. Remember? No time to cite examples to back up your opinions.
Muslims are to Islam as Catholics are to Christianity.
Not quite – didn’t do so well on the analogies part of the SAT, did you?
Hint – all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.
These two men are really something. Why is it we can’t get normal people who have reasonable ideas into politics or talking about politics? I honestly think it’s because of religion. I think religion clouds the judgement of people and makes them feel as if they are literally doing “God’s work” by being bigots and haters. If we were to take religion out of politics and govern by doing what’s right we’d be better off.
It’s nice to know you think religious people aren’t normal. It’s funny how any particular background or belief is respected and honored, unless it is in any way religion-based and then should dare not be spoken in public. So Pat Robertson is a kook — he’s not governing anything. Exactly what judgement do you think is being clouded in goverment today by too much religion?
Oh for crying out loud. Forgot, you truly believe that the religious right isn’t bringing harm to our political scene? Besides, anon didn’t say they were “not normal” (although I will). What he said is “Why is it we can’t get normal people WHO HAVE REASONABLE IDEAS”. . . He is questioning their reasoning ability. All of us should – and many of us do – honor and respect reasonable, sensible backgrounds and beliefs that differ from ours. The key words here are “reasonable and sensible.” Neither of these descriptions can be used to describe Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh. They are both purveyors of hate and neither bears the slightest resemblance to a true Christian, a faith to which both claim to subscribe. And you are right, Pat Robertson is a kook, but he isn’t governing anything. Nor is Rush Limbaugh governing anything; but both of them exert plenty of influence on the misinformed and/or factually uniformed people who cast ballots to elect those who do govern. And these folks are casting their ballots based on religious beliefs and nonsense that comes from these two cohorts of malice.
Ok fine, so you don’t think religious people are normal or have reasonable ideas. That’s your partisan position. It’s also insulting and alienates a good majority of the nation. I wish some of the progessives you vote for would say openly that is what they believe because they would likely not win another election (although Obama somehow managed to win after saying “bitter people cling to religion”, but only had the guts to say it in front of limousine liberals in San Fransicso).
How condescending of liberals like you to think that anyone who doesn’t agree with the “acceptable” position in your mind must be a rube with nonsensical ideas. So it’s nonsense for me to vote on something with a religious perspective in mind, but it’s okay for you to believe socialism will work because you believe it is so. How about the religious left that believes government is god/answer to all our problems? How about liberals who advocate for abortion, even though SCIENCE, not religion, can plainly tell us it’s wrong.
But please, INFORM me because I am just a mininformed ignorant voter, because there could be no other explanation for not supporting your liberal agenda, right?
I see you were not able to provide any specific examples about how religion is clouding government policies today.
By the way, so Pat Robertson believes in an ancient curse, how is that spewing hate? Maybe I didn’t see all of his comments. I don’t think Rush claims to be particularly religious. How about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, don’t they claim to subscribe to Christianity? It doesn’t seem to stop them any.
It appears that you have really gone off the rails here, Forgot. Where did I say or imply that I “don’t think religious people are normal or have reasonable ideas”? Your response is so filled with irrelevant comments that I fear civil discourse with you is impossible. I asked if “you truly believe that the religious right isn’t bringing harm to our political scene?” That is a simple yes or no question. Apparently you think no. I definitely think yes.
The remainder of your tirade was unwarranted. I stated my opinion of Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, which was where this all began. You don’t agree with my opinion. Fine, I can live with that. But what gave you license to assign opinions to me that I haven’t expressed? How did you draw these conclusions? Certainly not from anything I said. Yet you couldn’t resist attacking “liberals like me” . . . There was nothing in my response that suggested that I believe that ANYONE “who doesn’t agree with [my] opinions must be a rube with nonsensical ideas”. (But I am beginning to see you in that light – not because you don’t agree with me, but because of the irrelevance of your tirade.)
In closing, if you can’t see for yourself how hateful Pat Robertson’s ancient curse comment was then I am shoveling sand against an incoming tide and I have other more important matters to attend to.
One final word: I am under no obligation to defend Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Your entire post implied and outright said how you feel about religious people… “anon didn’t say they were ‘not normal’ (although I will)” and “casting their ballots based on religious beliefs and nonsense.”
No, I don’t really see the harm that religious folks bring to politics. What harm can you cite? Do you think atheists bring harm to politics? Muslims? Animal rights activists? Union members? Isn’t there room for all those views in politics?
The conclusions I drew were based on your statements. You WERE condescending in making very clear someone with an opinion based on their religious values can’t possibly be “reasonable” as you define it. Apparently my citing examples proved to you to be irrelevant. You do not feel obligated to defend Rev. Jackson or Rev. Sharpton, yet you seem to malign everyone on the right who is religious because of Pat Robertson and Rush (the latter I would not call part of the “religious right” but you must be a daily listener of his show and know more than I do).
I was not defending Robertson, I was sincerely asking if all he said was this curse business, so what? Did he say that today’s residents of Haiti do not deserve help because of it? Or was that him trying to explain WHY it came about? I don’t know and I don’t really care either way, but I would find the latter far more offensive than the former. I mean, if someone said my ancestors were cursed, that really has no bearing on me.
Forgot, let me say this to you very carefully: I don’t agree with you ‘that my entire post implied and outright said how I feel about religious people’. Here, allow me to draw you a picture; my comment: “anon didn’t say they were ‘not normal’ (although I will)” was in reference to Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, not religious people; and certainly not ALL religious people. And my comment: “casting their ballots based on religious beliefs and nonsense.” Please refer to the original post so that you can read the ENTIRE sentence, then let’s see if you can figure out who I am referring to. (A hint: it doesn’t refer to ALL religious people.)
Next point: you see no harm brought to politics by religious people. You do know that is an OPINION, don’t you? That is YOUR opinion, but I don’t share your opinion. In my opinion, there has been plenty of political harm brought to bear because of religious beliefs. That is NOT saying that I think ALL religious people have brought harm or that all are uninformed. (But I do think many are.)
I will exert no further effort by citing specific examples. As I said earlier, I have other matters to attend to. I am finished with this exercise in futility since it appears that you are having difficulty comprehending what I am saying. This may very well be due to a deep-seated inability on your part to accept views or beliefs that differ from your own. In other words, I think you are transferring your own feelings of intolerance to me.
G’night . . .
Final word: Muslim IS a religion.
You are right about one thing: this is an exercise in futility. You “will exert no further effort by citing specific examples” — because you can’t!
In one breath you say that I misunderstood you and that you don’t think all religious people have brought harm to politics, and then in parantheses end up saying that you do in fact think MANY of them do just that.
I have no inability to accept other beliefs. Can you accept that religious beliefs can have a place in politics? You appear to be the intolerant one, not me.
And, final word, Muslim is not a religion. Isam is a religion and I never said it wasn’t. I was merely citing examples of different viewpoints that all have a place in politics. And besides, I didn’t think you would consider Islam to be part of your perceived “religious right.”
*that should say ISLAM (forgot the L, but I meant no disrespect)
I also used atheism as an example, and I would consider that a religion in itself too.
Muslims are to Islam as Catholics are to Christianity.
I thought you had other matters to attend to. Remember? No time to cite examples to back up your opinions.
Not quite – didn’t do so well on the analogies part of the SAT, did you?
Hint – all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.