I wasn't aware that the demographic that Fox plays to has the ability to send a text message.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who watched the debate on Fox had made up their mind about who won before the debate started.

I'm pretty sure that 10 minutes seemed like hours to the properly Hannitized. Some of them must have been trying from the minute that online ad came ou the day before announcing Grampy's victory.

Ol Hannity is upset that dick morris actually said Obama won the debate, so of course he's gonna promote a "statistic" that is slanted towards his audience. All 5 of the rightwingers who knew how to text message spent hours building up that 1000 "vote" total...

It was sometime last year that Bud Lite came out with a cell phone built into the can. If insannity EVER says something that is truthful and acurate I will let everyone know. I watch him every nite. It keeps my adrenaline elevated. Same with billybob o'really.

insannity is a charlatan con artist cretin low life P.O.S. Did I mention he is a liar?

"Worrierking" hath it that

I wasn't aware that the demographic that Fox plays to has the ability to send a text message.

Which brings to mind the flawed methodology behind The Literary Digest's 1936 Presidential Straw Poll, a classic example and warning from history on how flawed certain polling techniques can be--and how the result can backfire on those behind the polling in the first place. 

I find it remarkable that 16% of FOX viewers said Obama won the debate. That any FOX viewers would say Obama won the debate spells trouble for John McCain.

That would be like finding 16% of the people agreeing with Copernicus during his time. Only 3% of right wingers believe that the eath is not the center of the universe. Only 2% believe in evolution and only 1% believe in man made global warming. None of them believe in reality. I pulled these statistics out of my posterior orafice just like insannity did with his conclusion, so they must be right, right?

Well, here's something you don't have to pull from between your buttocks...Sarah Palin believes that donosaurs and humans co-existed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html

One of her ancestors was a Teradactyl hunter and also had a hatchery for them. He sold the eggs to tourists

Ironic, that Sarah Palin's running mate is a dinosaur...

I think a big part of the reason that liberals are perceived to be mocking people's faith is because of people like Palin who believe in this sort of thing.  Conservatives will say "that's her belief and she has a right to it", things of that nature.  That's all well and good.  But you can say the same thing for believing in leprechauns or unicorns.  That's their belief and they have a right to it.  The point is that it effectively disqualifies someone for public office, and so people like Palin deserve the mockery they get.

If you're going to be representing people, if you're going to be dealing with matters of objective reality, you sure as hell had better be able to recognize and respect objective reality.  The failure to do so is what defines a fundamentalist.  Science takes a backseat to faith.  Science becomes a tool of the devil, essentially, since it's used to fool people into not believing the absolute literal truth of the Bible.  How is it possible to weigh input and evaluate evidence with this mindset?

Again, if Palin wants her faith to trump matters of objective reality, that's her right.  But this should be something in the neighborhood of communism or anarchism, where it's a political impossibility to run for higher office under that banner.  Every single person who is honest, moderately intelligent and not a fundamentalist themselves should be able to say that Palin should not be in a position of power, or even a position of potential power.

Well said, Brab... I share your sentiments.  

I think a big part of the reason that liberals are perceived to be mocking people's faith is because of people like Palin who believe in this sort of thing.--Brabantio

>>>It's politically foolish to be seen to publicly mock the faith (Christianity) of a segment of the majority group, broadly speaking, in this country.

Conservatives will say "that's her belief and she has a right to it", things of that nature.  That's all well and good.  But you can say the same thing for believing in leprechauns or unicorns.  That's their belief and they have a right to it.  The point is that it effectively disqualifies someone for public office, and so people like Palin deserve the mockery they get.

>>>It's not the same because the majority group (Christians) of this country does not believe in those things which are cultural artifacts from another place and time.  The similarity of these beliefs in substance to a non-Christian fundamentalist misses the point.  Those things are not biblically based and so have no relevance to them.  They neither have to account for them (as they don't believe in them), or defend against them logically as there is no evidence of them ever having existed such as there is for dinosaurs.

If you're going to be representing people, if you're going to be dealing with matters of objective reality, you sure as hell had better be able to recognize and respect objective reality.

>>>"If you're going to be representing people" you have to first get the people's votes.  If the fundamentalists (and perhaps more important also a large portion of non-fundamentalist Christians who will feel insulted indirectly, especially when coming from an outsider, a non-Christian) ) sense a general hostility to their beliefs from a significant segment of a political party, you'll have a tougher time either getting their votes or keeping them neutral enough to stay home.

The failure to do so is what defines a fundamentalist.  Science takes a backseat to faith.

>>>Only when in conflict with their scripture.

Science becomes a tool of the devil, essentially, since it's used to fool people into not believing the absolute literal truth of the Bible.

>>>Not a tool of the Devil necessarily, but something which  occasionally discovers phenomena which conflict with the greater truth of their religion.

How is it possible to weigh input and evaluate evidence with this mindset?

>>>It's only the scientific findings which conflict with scripture where there's a problem.  There is not a general problem with science.

Again, if Palin wants her faith to trump matters of objective reality, that's her right.  But this should be something in the neighborhood of communism or anarchism, where it's a political impossibility to run for higher office under that banner.

>>>That would only be an applicable comparison in a non-Christian country, not here.  That's if one wishes to win, and not just make a self righteous point, lose, and feel good about ones'self while the least among us suffer for our arrogance at allowing an outlaw party to have four more years to give away the country to the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else.

Every single person who is honest, moderately intelligent and not a fundamentalist themselves should be able to say that Palin should not be in a position of power, or even a position of potential power.

>>>I'm not a fundamentalist and I say what I think.  And I say she should not be elected because she's of an anti-contitution, internationalist, militarist andcorrupt party.  But to deny her the moral right to hold office is the height of ignorance and arrogance as it is arithmetically her country more than it is the non-Christian's.

">>>It's politically foolish to be seen to publicly mock the faith (Christianity) of a segment of the majority group, broadly speaking, in this country."

Right, but this isn't about mocking Christianity.  It's about mocking extremism and irrationality.  That's why I said this is where that perception comes from, because conservatives will conflate these two things for their own purposes.

">>>It's not the same because the majority group (Christians) of this country does not believe in those things which are cultural artifacts from another place and time.  The similarity of these beliefs in substance to a non-Christian fundamentalist misses the point.  Those things are not biblically based and so have no relevance to them.  They neither have to account for them (as they don't believe in them), or defend against them logically as there is no evidence of them ever having existed such as there is for dinosaurs."

That made no sense at all.  It's the same because it's an irrational belief which flies in the face of every objective bit of information available.

">>>"If you're going to be representing people" you have to first get the people's votes.  If the fundamentalists (and perhaps more important also a large portion of non-fundamentalist Christians who will feel insulted indirectly, especially when coming from an outsider, a non-Christian) ) sense a general hostility to their beliefs from a significant segment of a political party, you'll have a tougher time either getting their votes or keeping them neutral enough to stay home."

Fundamentalists shouldn't get votes, that's the point.  Non-fundamentalist Christians should recognize the difference between the two groups quite easily.

">>>Only when in conflict with their scripture."

And the Bible says the Earth is the center of the universe, should that be an alternate theory taught in science classes?  Or would you expect your political leaders to recognize science as its own viable entity?  Besides, how do you know how different people interpret the Bible?  Someone might believe that Israel is the Holy Land, which must be protected at all costs, therefore we have to nuke Iran.  It doesn't matter what advisors say, because the Bible holds the ultimate truth.

">>>Not a tool of the Devil necessarily, but something which  occasionally discovers phenomena which conflict with the greater truth of their religion."

So in that conflict, science should win.  As I said, faith trumping objective reality is not acceptable for people who are supposed to represent the masses.  If science isn't the truth, then what causes thousand upon thousands of people to reach the same erroneous and anti-Biblical conclusions?  It's accidental, or what?

">>>It's only the scientific findings which conflict with scripture where there's a problem.  There is not a general problem with science."

It doesn't restrict itself to science.  Look at the rape kit/abortion issue, that is Biblically-based.  The objective reality of a pregnancy resulting from rape is that many women will have a much more difficult time moving past what happened to them when they're forced to carry the rapist's child inside them.  Faith dictates that "thou shalt not kill", therefore the rape victim must be forced to give birth.  Faith should not trump objective reality.  The dinosaur issue is just an indicator of a mindset that is not acceptable when your actions affect everyone.

">>>That would only be an applicable comparison in a non-Christian country, not here.  That's if one wishes to win, and not just make a self righteous point, lose, and feel good about ones'self while the least among us suffer for our arrogance at allowing an outlaw party to have four more years to give away the country to the wealthiest at the expense of everyone else."

I'm liberal, and I wouldn't have a problem with criticism of a communist.  I don't have any allegiance to the generalized concept of "the left".  If it goes too far, it goes too far.  Let's say Palin was a snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues waiting-for-the-rapture nutcase.  Would your average Christian really take offense at the idea that such a person might not be suited for higher office?

">>>I'm not a fundamentalist and I say what I think.  And I say she should not be elected because she's of an anti-contitution, internationalist, militarist andcorrupt party.  But to deny her the moral right to hold office is the height of ignorance and arrogance as it is arithmetically her country more than it is the non-Christian's."

Her personal views and (lack of) knowledge are more important than the fact that she's a Republican.  It's sort of odd to bemoan the unfair treatment of all Christians because of criticism of extremist Christians, and then turn around and paint all Republicans with the same brush.

It's "arithmetically" her country more than mine?  That's not an "arrogant" thing to say?  I guess you believe that homophobes can't be criticized either, since it's a straight person's country more than a gay person's country, arithmetically speaking.  "Ah" you might say, "but not all straight people are homophobes".  Yes, and not all Christians dismiss objectivity for the sake of an old book.

I was really speaking in a theoretical sense, but I would think that Christians wouldn't jump to the defense of extremists just because they're extremist Christians.  If your logic-free reaction is indicative of Christianity, then obviously I'm giving you too much credit as a group and I will gladly concede the practical application of your point.

I'm beginning to think they're all a tad screwy in the head...the mayor of a South Carolina town admitted to forwarding an e-mail suggesting that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ because he was curious to see if there was Scripture to back up the assertion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/south-carolina-mayor-just_n_130156.html

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

 

***START READING HERE***

Right, but this isn't about mocking Christianity.  It's about mocking extremism and irrationality.  That's why I said this is where that perception comes from, because conservatives will conflate these two things for their own purposes.---Brabantio

“It’s about mocking extremism and irrationality.”---Brabantio 

>>>>> Religion is by its’ nature irrational.  It is beyond the rational.  It claims an understanding superior to that which comes from man’s mind alone, uninspired by God.

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

That's why I said this is where that perception comes from…---Brabantio

>>>>> Yet you in your next breath introduce a figure of fun in our society, the leprechaun, implicitly comparing belief in them with Christianity, in a small way adding to that “perception” which I see also as a perception, but a true one.

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

“Because conservatives will conflate these two things for their own purposes.”—Barbantio

>>>>>Yes, the GOP will use mockery of their electorates’ religion for their political purposes.  That’s why we should stick to the facts which are more than enough.  To do otherwise is to reinforce the biggest thing they have going for them, which is that people should vote for the GOP because they are under siege from “liberals” who don’t simply disagree with GOP policies but who are also hostile to them as a sort-of ethnic group.

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

[Eddy3957 (from my first comment for context):  "It's not the same because the majority group (Christians) of this country does not believe in those things which are cultural artifacts from another place and time.  The similarity of these beliefs in substance to a non-Christian fundamentalist misses the point.  Those things are not biblically based and so have no relevance to them.  They neither have to account for them (as they don't believe in them), or defend against them logically as there is no evidence of them ever having existed such as there is for dinosaurs."]

Barbantio: That made no sense at all.  It's the same because it's an irrational belief which flies in the face of every objective bit of information available.

Eddy3957: Elections are real.  People’s beliefs affect how they vote whether you or I or anyone else disagrees with those beliefs.  Do you wish to be correct and lose, or play the game and win?

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

Fundamentalists shouldn't get votes, that's the point.  Non-fundamentalist Christians should recognize the difference between the two groups quite easily.

>>>>>The idea of disenfranchising any group of American citizens is undemocratic and unconstitutional (as amended).  But this isn’t just any group of Americans, but rather one which considers themselves the real Americans in large part.  Your attitude, if taken by a significant enough percentage of Democrats, risks repercussions of a very serious nature which is beyond what I originally responded to you about---never mind the political damage it has done in the past and will continue to do.

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

And the Bible says the Earth is the center of the universe, should that be an alternate theory taught in science classes?  Or would you expect your political leaders to recognize science as its own viable entity?  Besides, how do you know how different people interpret the Bible?  Someone might believe that Israel is the Holy Land, which must be protected at all costs, therefore we have to nuke Iran.  It doesn't matter what advisors say, because the Bible holds the ultimate truth.

>>>>>We have pictures now which show the earth as not even the center of the solar system.  If they’re foolish enough to try to promulgate this idea it wouldn’t be believed by the students.  ……….……..    As far as destroying anything in the name of Christianity, they need to be respectfully reminded that the Old Testament is only a part of Christianity and that it’s trumped by the teachings of the New Testament for which the Old is largely context.

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

So in that conflict, science should win.  As I said, faith trumping objective reality is not acceptable for people who are supposed to represent the masses.  If science isn't the truth, then what causes thousand upon thousands of people to reach the same erroneous and anti-Biblical conclusions?  It's accidental, or what?

>>>>>There is little about faith that is objective.  I hope you don’t wish for only atheists or agnostics to be eligible for office. Again I ask the question “Do you want to play the game and win, or make a self righteous point and lose but feel superior to those in power?”  Some are in a position be able to afford such an indulgence, but many are not. The game is constricted and it demands comprises be made due to effectively having only two viable parties.  You parade when you have the numbers, not before.  Haven’t we lost enough already on the basis of anti-Democratic Party campaigning by the GOP and their minions?   When do we wise up and get street smart leadership?  We used to have it.

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

It doesn't restrict itself to science.  Look at the rape kit/abortion issue, that is Biblically-based.  The objective reality of a pregnancy resulting from rape is that many women will have a much more difficult time moving past what happened to them when they're forced to carry the rapist's child inside them.  Faith dictates that "thou shalt not kill", therefore the rape victim must be forced to give birth.  Faith should not trump objective reality.  The dinosaur issue is just an indicator of a mindset that is not acceptable when your actions affect everyone.

>>>>>The way to avoid  this particular problem is to gain power.  You don’t do that by denigrating people’s religion. Criticize their religiously based positions with which you oppose, but do it artfully and respectfully so as to not allow them to gain the sympathy of those among their coreligionists who also disagree with the fundamentalists’ religiously based positions.

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

I'm liberal, and I wouldn't have a problem with criticism of a communist.  I don't have any allegiance to the generalized concept of "the left".  If it goes too far, it goes too far.  Let's say Palin was a snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues waiting-for-the-rapture nutcase.  Would your average Christian really take offense at the idea that such a person might not be suited for higher office?

>>>>> Your comparison doesn’t apply as this is not a country full of believers in communism.  Those who are have the right to vote, but the communists’ vote is swamped by the Christians’ vote.   ……………………………………………………. ...........                 Let's say Palin was a snake-handling, speaking-in-tongues waiting-for-the-rapture nutcase.  Would your average Christian really take offense at the idea that such a person might not be suited for higher office?

>>>>>You make the extreme case but it’s a good question nonetheless.  How much the average non-fundamentalist Christian takes offense at derision of their anti-Darwin biblical-literalist co-religionists is key.  I say it’s a significant percentage of the electorate, at the subconscious level anyway.  Enough to tip a close election at the very least.

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

Her personal views and (lack of) knowledge are more important than the fact that she's a Republican.  It's sort of odd to bemoan the unfair treatment of all Christians because of criticism of extremist Christians, and then turn around and paint all Republicans with the same brush.

>>>>> I should perhaps have been less categorical with regards to the party as a whole as far as there are uninformed/misinformed Republicans voting against there own self interest.   ………………………  But that first bit, I disagree with.  The actions of the GOP office holders over the past say 30 years has demonstrated to me that their views are far more deleterious to the country than whatever might come from true fundamentalist Christians (not Dominionists hiding behind fundamentalist Christian beliefs, or profiteers appealing to whoever will help them gain or stay in power).  If it appears that Palin, for example, is or tends toward Dominionist ideology then she should be criticized for that, but in such a way as to not damn non-Dominionist fundamentalists as a group.  And I’m not saying that as a good liberal wanting to be tolerant.  My concern is political.

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

It's "arithmetically" her country more than mine?  That's not an "arrogant" thing to say?  I guess you believe that homophobes can't be criticized either, since it's a straight person's country more than a gay person's country, arithmetically speaking.  "Ah" you might say, "but not all straight people are homophobes".  Yes, and not all Christians dismiss objectivity for the sake of an old book.

>>>>>Christians dominate in number.  Elections are a matter of arithmetic.    Furthermore, I didn’t say “can’t be criticized” with regard to fundamentalist Christians.  Just that it’s politically unwise to publicly mock one of the segments of the majority religious group in this country.   ……………… And there you go again dismissing the bible as just an old book when it is the basis of the largest voting block’s religion in this country.

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

I was really speaking in a theoretical sense, but I would think that Christians wouldn't jump to the defense of extremists just because they're extremist Christians.  If your logic-free reaction is indicative of Christianity, then obviously I'm giving you too much credit as a group and I will gladly concede the practical application of your point.

>>>>>Elections are only partly about logic.  We use logic to try to inform ourselves as to what reality is.  But in the end we vote based on our feelings.  Religious beliefs are more based on feelings than logic.   ………………  There are too many non-Republicans who mix campaigning up with governance.  You campaign to get elected, not to offer the electorate a seminar on reality.  Once elected, you’re free to do the right thing.

Fundamentalists shouldn't get votes, that's the point.  Non-fundamentalist Christians should recognize the difference between the two groups quite easily---Barbantio

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

I think I misread you here.  I thought you meant to take away the vote from them.  I see you probably meant they shouldn't be voted for.

I probably meant fundamentalists shouldn't be voted for?

"The point is that it effectively disqualifies someone for public office, and so people like Palin deserve the mockery they get"

"If you're going to be representing people, if you're going to be dealing with matters of objective reality, you sure as hell had better be able to recognize and respect objective reality."

"But this should be something in the neighborhood of communism or anarchism, where it's a political impossibility to run for higher office under that banner.  Every single person who is honest, moderately intelligent and not a fundamentalist themselves should be able to say that Palin should not be in a position of power, or even a position of potential power."

That's all from the first post.  I have no idea how you could think I was talking about disenfranchising voters.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

That's all from the first post.  I have no idea how you could think I was talking about disenfranchising voters.—Brabantio

I took you up wrong on this particular point.  I did correct it upon reviewing my post as you see. By way of explanation, I was startled originally by the following comment as I wrongly interpreted it:

“Fundamentalists shouldn't get votes, that's the point”.---Brabantio (from previous posting)

Additionally I took the above comment in the context of the following two others regarding fundamentalists and the election process:

 “…it effectively disqualifies someone for public office…” (“it”referring to Palin’s views regarding dinosaurs)--Brabantio

“But this should be something in the neighborhood of communism or anarchism, where it's a political impossibility to run for higher office under that banner.”---Brabantio

I didn’t see the possible ambiguity until after posting.  On this point I should probably have replied to you with something like "you don't really mean that, do you?" 

I don't see how the "context" of those two quotes lead you to believe what you did, since both of them refer to candidates, not voters.  I appreciate your afterthoughts, I just think if you look back and read then there's no "probably" about it.

"Religion is by its’ nature irrational.  It is beyond the rational.  It claims an understanding superior to that which comes from man’s mind alone, uninspired by God."

There are Christians who are also scientists.  Are they irrational?  No, you can be religious and rational at the same time, by incorporating objective reality into your views.

"Yet you in your next breath introduce a figure of fun in our society, the leprechaun, implicitly comparing belief in them with Christianity, in a small way adding to that “perception” which I see also as a perception, but a true one."

Is belief in leprechauns mainstream?  Christianity is mainstream, so I'm certainly not making any such comparison.  Besides that, you're talking about two totally different things, a belief in past events versus a belief in current existence.

"Yes, the GOP will use mockery of their electorates’ religion for their political purposes.  That’s why we should stick to the facts which are more than enough..."

You can "stick to the facts" and say that man did not co-exist with dinosaurs, right?  Pointing out objective reality would indeed highlight someone's lack of respect for objective reality, which is exactly what I'm advocating.

"Elections are real.  People’s beliefs affect how they vote whether you or I or anyone else disagrees with those beliefs.  Do you wish to be correct and lose, or play the game and win?"

I have no idea how this comment is relevant to what preceded it.

"We have pictures now which show the earth as not even the center of the solar system.  If they’re foolish enough to try to promulgate this idea it wouldn’t be believed by the students.  ……….……..    As far as destroying anything in the name of Christianity, they need to be respectfully reminded that the Old Testament is only a part of Christianity and that it’s trumped by the teachings of the New Testament for which the Old is largely context."

Whether students believe it or not wasn't the question.  If faith trumps science, then introducing the geocentric model would sure seem like a good idea, right?  And who is going to correct a fundamentalist regarding their Biblical views?  Do you expect they'll consider logic and act appropriately?

"There is little about faith that is objective.  I hope you don’t wish for only atheists or agnostics to be eligible for office. Again I ask the question “Do you want to play the game and win, or make a self righteous point and lose but feel superior to those in power?”..."

Holy crap.  People can be objective and Christian at the same time.  When I was six I had already concluded that the Bible was not literally true, even though I didn't yet know what the word "literally" meant.  At that early stage I would not be confused by any conflict between the Bible and objective reality, because the Bible would lose.  And yet, I believed in the "greater truth" as you said.  Obviously I'm not trying to disqualify anyone of faith from public office, and everything I've ever said on this board should make that abundantly clear.

I think these issues need to be addressed.  If you don't do that, then Republicans can run any whackjob they like without fear of criticism.  And in any situation where you are going to have a problem no matter what you do, you might as well be honest and get your point out there.

"The way to avoid  this particular problem is to gain power.  You don’t do that by denigrating people’s religion. Criticize their religiously based positions with which you oppose, but do it artfully and respectfully so as to not allow them to gain the sympathy of those among their coreligionists who also disagree with the fundamentalists’ religiously based positions."

Who the hell has sympathy with people who want to force rape victims to give birth because of their own personal religious views?  That's atrocious, and clearly a cause for righteous indignation.  How is pointing that out in no uncertain terms going to allow anyone to sway people who disagree with them on it?  You keep acting as if I'm expecting people to criticize someone because they're Christian.  I don't know how it can be made more clear that it's about extremism, not the broader faith.

"Your comparison doesn’t apply as this is not a country full of believers in communism.  Those who are have the right to vote, but the communists’ vote is swamped by the Christians’ vote."

Communists is to Democrat as Fundamentalist is to Christian.  You're taking the number of the extreme and comparing it to the number of the mainstream.

"You make the extreme case but it’s a good question nonetheless.  How much the average non-fundamentalist Christian takes offense at derision of their anti-Darwin biblical-literalist co-religionists is key.  I say it’s a significant percentage of the electorate, at the subconscious level anyway.  Enough to tip a close election at the very least."

So what on earth do you propose if such a person was propped up as a candidate?  If you ignore it, you validate it.  If you point out the extremism, you trip the subconscious reaction of enough Christians to tip the election.

"The actions of the GOP office holders over the past say 30 years has demonstrated to me that their views are far more deleterious to the country than whatever might come from true fundamentalist Christians...

So a fundamentalist is less dangerous in office than a moderate Republican like Chuck Hagel?

"Christians dominate in number.  Elections are a matter of arithmetic.    Furthermore, I didn’t say “can’t be criticized” with regard to fundamentalist Christians.  Just that it’s politically unwise to publicly mock one of the segments of the majority religious group in this country.   ……………… And there you go again dismissing the bible as just an old book when it is the basis of the largest voting block’s religion in this country."

Fine, so homophobes shouldn't be criticized, since they're part of an arithmetically advantaged group.  The point seems to remain.  As for the Bible, it's a question of priorities.  Believing in the faith and understanding the morals is one thing.  Not caring about what a rape victim is going through because of what the Bible says is quite another.  You can believe that it contains a greater truth, but it doesn't have a priority over other people, particularly when they're people you've been elected to serve.

"Elections are only partly about logic.  We use logic to try to inform ourselves as to what reality is.  But in the end we vote based on our feelings.  Religious beliefs are more based on feelings than logic.   ………………  There are too many non-Republicans who mix campaigning up with governance.  You campaign to get elected, not to offer the electorate a seminar on reality.  Once elected, you’re free to do the right thing."

You can offer a seminar on reality when there's a just cause for doing so.  If we were talking about running against Christians in general, of course that would be absurd.  But when someone is out of the mainstream, then pointing that out is useful in getting elected.  It's a valid concern for the electorate.

Answer this directly, please, since this was and is my point;

Fundamentalists should not be elected to higher office because an absence of respect for objective reality makes for poor policy and is harmful to society.  Why is it ignorant and arrogant to say that?  Thank you in advance.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

There are Christians who are also scientists.  Are they irrational?  No, you can be religious and rational at the same time, by incorporating objective reality into your views.

>>>>> When that Christian who is a scientist is engaging in religiosity I submit he’s being irrational by definition.  When engaging in science he’s being rational by definition.  The fundamentalist does the same thing, engaging in irrational religious thought at times, and rational thought at other times (in situations not superseded by scripture) But neither can do both at the same time.

Is belief in leprechauns mainstream?  Christianity is mainstream, so I'm certainly not making any such comparison.  Besides that, you're talking about two totally different things, a belief in past events versus a belief in current existence.

>>>>>Indeed you did make the comparison.  But I recognize your change in view.  Review what you said in your original comment which I took exception to:  Conservatives will say "that's her belief and she has a right to it", things of that nature.  That's all well and good.  But you can say the same thing for believing in leprechauns or unicorns.   Further, it is the fact that belief in leprechauns is so out of the main stream which made the comment particularly offensive.

You can "stick to the facts" and say that man did not co-exist with dinosaurs, right?  Pointing out objective reality would indeed highlight someone's lack of respect for objective reality, which is exactly what I'm advocating.

>>>>>By “sticking to the facts”, I was referring to the politicians’ record in office and the partys’ general record.   I specifically did not mean by “facts” anything to do with the oddities of their religion which all religions have if you examine them.

I have no idea how this comment is relevant to what preceded it.

>>>>>[Eddy3957 (from my first comment for context):  "It's not the same because the majority group (Christians) of this country does not believe in those things which are cultural artifacts from another place and time.  The similarity of these beliefs in substance to a non-Christian fundamentalist misses the point.  Those things are not biblically based and so have no relevance to them.  They neither have to account for them (as they don't believe in them), or defend against them logically as there is no evidence of them ever having existed such as there is for dinosaurs."]

Barbantio: That made no sense at all.  It's the same because it's an irrational belief which flies in the face of every objective bit of information available.

I’ll try again with respect to the above two quotes.  People believe in the Bible as the word of God including the miracles described in it.  I respect those people even though I don’t share that literal belief system.  I want to them vote for my candidates or at least not get worked up enough to go vote.

Whether students believe it or not wasn't the question.  If faith trumps science, then introducing the geocentric model would sure seem like a good idea, right?  And who is going to correct a fundamentalist regarding their Biblical views?  Do you expect they'll consider logic and act appropriately?

>>>>>Introducing a geocentric model would needlessly serve to make them look more foolish than they may appear already to many.  So it would not be in their interests to do so.  It is easily disproved.  On the other hand, the evolutionary theory first forwarded by Darwin is still only a theory.  I believe the theory personally but it’s not as plain as showing photographs taken from the moon of the Earth orbiting the Sun. 

Holy crap.  People can be objective and Christian at the same time.  When I was six I had already concluded that the Bible was not literally true, even though I didn't yet know what the word "literally" meant.  At that early stage I would not be confused by any conflict between the Bible and objective reality, because the Bible would lose.  And yet, I believed in the "greater truth" as you said.  Obviously I'm not trying to disqualify anyone of faith from public office, and everything I've ever said on this board should make that abundantly clear.

>>>>>>My response is to quote from your original comment:

…it effectively disqualifies someone for public office…” (“it”referring to Palin’s views regarding dinosaurs)--Brabantio

“But this should be something in the neighborhood of communism or anarchism, where it's a political impossibility to run for higher office under that banner.”---Brabantio

I think these issues need to be addressed.  If you don't do that, then Republicans can run any whackjob they like without fear of criticism.  And in any situation where you are going to have a problem no matter what you do, you might as well be honest and get your point out there.

>>>>>One man’s whackjob is another man’s salt of the Earth.  They can run any whackjob and we can criticize and vote against them.   The point I’m making is about the way we criticize.

Who the hell has sympathy with people who want to force rape victims to give birth because of their own personal religious views?  That's atrocious, and clearly a cause for righteous indignation.  How is pointing that out in no uncertain terms going to allow anyone to sway people who disagree with them on it?  You keep acting as if I'm expecting people to criticize someone because they're Christian.  I don't know how it can be made more clear that it's about extremism, not the broader faith.

>>>>>It can’t be made clearer to YOU obviously.  However the electoral process involves all kinds of people with all kinds of different sensibilities.  I’m saying there is a significant percentage of others who will interpret attacks on a segment of their religion as an attack on them, especially when coming from someone outside the religion.

Communists is to Democrat as Fundamentalist is to Christian.  You're taking the number of the extreme and comparing it to the number of the mainstream.

>>>>>Yes I am doing that.  Scale matters in elections.

So what on earth do you propose if such a person was propped up as a candidate?  If you ignore it, you validate it.  If you point out the extremism, you trip the subconscious reaction of enough Christians to tip the election.

>>>>>You let others know about their peculiar beliefs in such a way as to not offend the sensibilities of non-fundamentalist Christians.  That is respectfully.

So a fundamentalist is less dangerous in office than a moderate Republican like Chuck Hagel?

No. But Hagel’s the rare exception to the GOP rule.

Fine, so homophobes shouldn't be criticized, since they're part of an arithmetically advantaged group.  The point seems to remain.

>>>>>Your comparison does not apply.  Homophobia is not a religion.  And there are homophobes in all religions and different groups, not just fundamentalists.

  As for the Bible, it's a question of priorities.  Believing in the faith and understanding the morals is one thing.  Not caring about what a rape victim is going through because of what the Bible says is quite another.  You can believe that it contains a greater truth, but it doesn't have a priority over other people, particularly when they're people you've been elected to serve.

>>>>>I’m making a political point, not a moral one.  Get the above message out there by all means if you wish, but do so in a manner that will actually help your (our) side win.

You can offer a seminar on reality when there's a just cause for doing so.  If we were talking about running against Christians in general, of course that would be absurd.  But when someone is out of the mainstream, then pointing that out is useful in getting elected.  It's a valid concern for the electorate.

>>>>>I agree it is a concern.  But there is a right way to get the message out that will help your candidate and party win, and there’s a way that will turn more against you than for you.  Again, elections are about arithmetic.

Answer this directly, please, since this was and is my point;

Fundamentalists should not be elected to higher office because an absence of respect for objective reality makes for poor policy and is harmful to society.  Why is it ignorant and arrogant to say that?  Thank you in advance.

>>>>>The original back and forth was:

Every single person who is honest, moderately intelligent and not a fundamentalist themselves should be able to say that Palin should not be in a position of power, or even a position of potential power.----Brabantio

I'm not a fundamentalist and I say what I think.  And I say she should not be elected because she's of an anti-contitution, internationalist, militarist andcorrupt party.  But to deny her the moral right to hold office is the height of ignorance and arrogance as it is arithmetically her country more than it is the non-Christian's.---Eddy3957

>>>>>It is not for any individual to deny a significant segment of American Christians the moral right to run for office.  To say otherwise is to be ignorant of the demographics. There are more Christians than non-Christians.  It’s especially ignorant for the non-Christian’s to talk this way.   The result would be significant net lost votes if a significant portion of our side takes this attitude and publically expresses it.  In our system, whoever runs, runs, and then we vote.  We have parties which as a group decide who’s acceptable but we don’t have a single dominant established elite deciding in advance which ones are not acceptable.  You can try to influence the Republican Party if you like, but the elitism you describe is un-American and arrogant.

"When that Christian who is a scientist is engaging in religiosity I submit he’s being irrational by definition.  When engaging in science he’s being rational by definition.  The fundamentalist does the same thing, engaging in irrational religious thought at times, and rational thought at other times (in situations not superseded by scripture) But neither can do both at the same time."

I'm talking about a general frame of mind, not specific moments of religious contemplation.  The whole point is that there's no way of knowing when this separation is going to take place with a fundamentalist, while you know what to expect with mainstream Christians.

"Indeed you did make the comparison.  But I recognize your change in view.  Review what you said in your original comment which I took exception to:  Conservatives will say "that's her belief and she has a right to it", things of that nature.  That's all well and good.  But you can say the same thing for believing in leprechauns or unicorns.   Further, it is the fact that belief in leprechauns is so out of the main stream which made the comment particularly offensive."

Um, if it's out of the mainstream, then I'm not comparing it to mainstream Christianity.  I was clearly talking about fundamentalist views.  The context was man/dinosaur co-existence, remember?

"By “sticking to the facts”, I was referring to the politicians’ record in office and the partys’ general record.   I specifically did not mean by “facts” anything to do with the oddities of their religion which all religions have if you examine them."

This isn't "if you examine them", this is a belief that stands out as extreme.  It's not like one is digging for something to criticize.

"I’ll try again with respect to the above two quotes.  People believe in the Bible as the word of God including the miracles described in it.  I respect those people even though I don’t share that literal belief system.  I want to them vote for my candidates or at least not get worked up enough to go vote."

What does this have to do with comparing lephrechans to man/dinosaur co-existence?  The point that it's a belief that flies in the face of objective reality stands.  There is nothing to say that miracles didn't happen in Biblical times, since it can't be objectively proven or disproven.

"Introducing a geocentric model would needlessly serve to make them look more foolish than they may appear already to many.  So it would not be in their interests to do so.  It is easily disproved.  On the other hand, the evolutionary theory first forwarded by Darwin is still only a theory.  I believe the theory personally but it’s not as plain as showing photographs taken from the moon of the Earth orbiting the Sun."

It's also foolish to forward the theory that man and dinosaurs co-existed, because it's easily disproven.

"One man’s whackjob is another man’s salt of the Earth.  They can run any whackjob and we can criticize and vote against them.   The point I’m making is about the way we criticize."

Meaning what?  How should that criticism be phrased to avoid hurting the feelings of mainstream Christians?  I don't know what you're going to say that I've discounted as a possibility.

"It can’t be made clearer to YOU obviously.  However the electoral process involves all kinds of people with all kinds of different sensibilities.  I’m saying there is a significant percentage of others who will interpret attacks on a segment of their religion as an attack on them, especially when coming from someone outside the religion."

Answer the questions.  Why shouldn't one point out the atrocity of forcing a rape victim to give birth?  What mainstream Christians have sympathy with this?

"Yes I am doing that.  Scale matters in elections."

Then you refer to Democrats, not Communists.  Don't tell me that my comparison doesn't work and then confuse the different elements of it.

"You let others know about their peculiar beliefs in such a way as to not offend the sensibilities of non-fundamentalist Christians.  That is respectfully."

And Republicans will still act as if it's the general faith being criticized.

"No. But Hagel’s the rare exception to the GOP rule."

Then how do you disagree with what I said?

"Your comparison does not apply.  Homophobia is not a religion.  And there are homophobes in all religions and different groups, not just fundamentalists."

I didn't say anything about homophobes among fundamentalists.  It's a belief and an attitude that's a subset of a much larger group, just like fundamentalism.

"I’m making a political point, not a moral one.  Get the above message out there by all means if you wish, but do so in a manner that will actually help your (our) side win."

I don't care about your political point.  It's not relevant to the concept that these people shouldn't hold higher office.

"I agree it is a concern.  But there is a right way to get the message out that will help your candidate and party win, and there’s a way that will turn more against you than for you.  Again, elections are about arithmetic."

You really do seem to be imagining some argument I never made.

"It is not for any individual to deny a significant segment of American Christians the moral right to run for office.  To say otherwise is to be ignorant of the demographics. There are more Christians than non-Christians.  It’s especially ignorant for the non-Christian’s to talk this way.   The result would be significant net lost votes if a significant portion of our side takes this attitude and publically expresses it.  In our system, whoever runs, runs, and then we vote.  We have parties which as a group decide who’s acceptable but we don’t have a single dominant established elite deciding in advance which ones are not acceptable.  You can try to influence the Republican Party if you like, but the elitism you describe is un-American and arrogant."

This is really one of the most elaborate dodges of a point that I've seen on this board, and that's really saying something.  I'm making a theoretical point about who should and who should not be in high public service.  I'm not talking about going out and yelling "yer a stoopid Christian" all over the media.  These people should not be in positions of power, period.  People should not vote for them because everyone (including Christians) should realize that extremists shouldn't be in office.  If you don't disagree with these easy-to-understand sentiments, then they aren't ignorant or arrogant in nature.  Right?

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

“I'm talking about a general frame of mind, not specific moments of religious contemplation.  The whole point is that there's no way of knowing when this separation is going to take place with a fundamentalist, while you know what to expect with mainstream Christians.”

>>>>>Actually you would know better what to expect from the fundamentalist.  The Christian fundamentalist are, in theory, bound by scripture and so would be more predictable than other Christians.  But they are like anyone else also bound by the Constitution when elected.

“Um, if it's out of the mainstream, then I'm not comparing it to mainstream Christianity.  I was clearly talking about fundamentalist views.  The context was man/dinosaur co-existence, remember?”

 

>>>>>But you did in fact compare her stated belief in man/dinosaur coexistence to the belief in leprechauns. Review once more what you said in your original comment which I took exception to:  Conservatives will say "that's her belief and she has a right to it", things of that nature.  That's all well and good.  But you can say the same thing for believing in leprechauns or unicorns.   Further, it is the fact that belief in leprechauns is so out of the main stream which made the comment particularly offensive.  You say her brand of Christianity is not mainstream, but Christianity as a whole is very mainstream.  There are those non-fundamentalists who will feel offended at seeing her denigrated for her religious beliefs.  Most American Christians’ have forbearers who thought the same way as today’s fundamentalists as far as the bible being the literal word of God.

“This isn't "if you examine them", this is a belief that stands out as extreme.  It's not like one is digging for something to criticize.”

>>>>>I submit Christ’s rising from the dead could be classified as an extreme belief.  And the Immaculate Conception.  These are two mainstream Christian beliefs.

“What does this have to do with comparing lephrechans to man/dinosaur co-existence?  The point that it's a belief that flies in the face of objective reality stands.  There is nothing to say that miracles didn't happen in Biblical times, since it can't be objectively proven or disproven.”

>>>>>By that standard there’s nothing to say that leprechauns didn't exist long ago, since it can't be objectively proven or disproved. 

“It's also foolish to forward the theory that man and dinosaurs co-existed, because it's easily disproven.”

 

>>>>>I agree with that.  But I have sympathy for their stated position as Darwin really threw a monkey wrench into Christianity generally.

Answer the questions.  Why shouldn't one point out the atrocity of forcing a rape victim to give birth?  What mainstream Christians have sympathy with this?

 

>>>>>I think it’s fine to point out that a PARTICULAR CANDIDATE (who happens to be a fundamentalist Christian) has a stand you disagree with.  However you hurt us when you try to get fundamentalists as a group declared as somehow morally ineligible to run.  That’s for the political parties and their processes and the electorate at large to decide.  There are non-fundamentalist Christians who’ll wonder if perhaps the attacks on individual fundamentalist public figures are not an attempt to damage the credibility of all Christianity with the voter, with the fundamentalists as the easy first target, the wedge into a process of eventual effective disqualification of any practicing Christian from running for public office.

And Republicans will still act as if it's the general faith being criticized.

>>>>>They are scoundrels, we agree.  But their act is less convincing without the truth behind it.

"No. But Hagel’s the rare exception to the GOP rule."---E………………..Then how do you disagree with what I said?—B

>>>>> I disagreed with what you said because you asked about an anomalous fairly normal person.  I was referring to the Delay’s and Bush’s and Gingrich’s etc. type Republican—the typical type of Republican around today.

I don't care about your political point.  It's not relevant to the concept that these people shouldn't hold higher office.

>>>>>By not caring about the politics of it you increase the likelihood of getting exactly the opposite of what you want.

The spacing above is wrong.  It visually mismatches the quotes and my responses.  I don't know what happened as I made sure to have this correct in the window before posting it.  I'll try to repost an cleare version.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

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

***IDENTICAL TO ABOVE POST IN WORDING, BUT HOPEFULLY ALTERED TO CORRECT  QUOTE/REESPONSE  SPACING***

 

 

 

 

'I'm talking about a general frame of mind, not specific moments of religious contemplation.  The whole point is that there's no way of knowing when this separation is going to take place with a fundamentalist, while you know what to expect with mainstream Christians.”

>>>>>Actually you would know better what to expect from the fundamentalist.  The Christian fundamentalist are, in theory, bound by scripture and so would be more predictable than other Christians.  But they are like anyone else and also bound by the Constitution when elected.

“Um, if it's out of the mainstream, then I'm not comparing it to mainstream Christianity.  I was clearly talking about fundamentalist views.  The context was man/dinosaur co-existence, remember?”

 

>>>>>But you did in fact compare her stateded belief in man/dinosaur coexistence to the belief in leprechauns. Review once more what you said in your original comment which I took exception to:  Conservatives will say "that's her belief and she has a right to it", things of that nature.  That's all well and good.  But you can say the same thing for believing in leprechauns or unicorns.   Further, it is the fact that belief in leprechauns is so out of the main stream which made the comment particularly offensive.  You say her brand of Christianity is not mainstream, but Christianity as a whole is very mainstream.  There are those non-fundamentalists who will feel offended at seeing her denigrated for her religious beliefs.  Most American Christians’ have forbearers who thought the same way as today’s fundamentalists as far as the bible being the literal word of God.

“This isn't "if you examine them", this is a belief that stands out as extreme.  It's not like one is digging for something to criticize.”

 

>>>>>I submit that Christ’s rising from the dead could be classified as an extreme belief.  And the Immaculate Conception.  These are two mainstream Christian beliefs.

“What does this have to do with comparing lephrechans to man/dinosaur co-existence?  The point that it's a belief that flies in the face of objective reality stands.  There is nothing to say that miracles didn't happen in Biblical times, since it can't be objectively proven or disproven.”

 

>>>>>By that standard there’s nothing to say that leprechauns didn't exist long ago, since it can't be objectively proven or disproved. 

“It's also foolish to forward the theory that man and dinosaurs co-existed, because it's easily disproven.”

 

>>>>>I agree with that.  But I have sympathy for their stated position as Darwin really threw a monkey wrench into Christianity generally.

 

 

 

"Answer the questions.  Why shouldn't one point out the atrocity of forcing a rape victim to give birth?  What mainstream Christians have sympathy with this?"

 

>>>>>I think it’s fine to point out that a PARTICULAR CANDIDATE (who happens to be a fundamentalist Christian) has a stand you disagree with.  However you hurt us when you try to get fundamentalists as a group declared as somehow morally ineligible to run.  That’s for the political parties and their processes and the electorate at large to decide.  There are non-fundamentalist Christians who’ll wonder if perhaps the attacks on individual fundamentalist public figures are not an attempt to damage the credibility of all Christianity with the voter, with the fundamentalists as the easy first target, the wedge into a process of eventual effective disqualification of any practicing Christian from running for public office.

"And Republicans will still act as if it's the general faith being criticized."

>>>>>They are scoundrels, we agree.  But their act is less convincing without the truth behind it.

"No. But Hagel’s the rare exception to the GOP rule."---E………………..Then how do you disagree with what I said?—B

>>>>> I disagreed with what you said because you asked about an anomalous fairly normal person.  I was referring to the Delay’s and Bush’s and Gingrich’s etc. type Republican—the typical type of Republican around today.

I don't care about your political point.  It's not relevant to the concept that these people shouldn't hold higher office.

>>>>>By not caring about the politics of it you increase the likelihood of getting exactly the opposite of what you want.

 

It didn't work.  You'll have to match the first itaisized quote to the response under it, and continue. The italicized quotes are from Brabantio and the non italicized type is from Eddy3957.

"Actually you would know better what to expect from the fundamentalist.  The Christian fundamentalist are, in theory, bound by scripture and so would be more predictable than other Christians.  But they are like anyone else and also bound by the Constitution when elected."

In theory I have no idea how anyone is going to interpret the scriptures, so I have no idea what to expect from such a person.  The Constitution has nothing to do with it, as I've explained to the likes of Tommy and Wesley before.  There are any number of things that can be done that are constitutional that are disastrous.  Look at the issues of abortion, stem-cell research, Israel, gay rights, euthanasia, separation of church and state and the Supreme Court in general.  All of those things can be severely affected without violating the Constitution.

"But you did in fact compare her stateded belief in man/dinosaur coexistence to the belief in leprechauns...You say her brand of Christianity is not mainstream, but Christianity as a whole is very mainstream.  There are those non-fundamentalists who will feel offended at seeing her denigrated for her religious beliefs.  Most American Christians’ have forbearers who thought the same way as today’s fundamentalists as far as the bible being the literal word of God."

You have officially lost your mind.  Let's go back and review.

You:"Yet you in your next breath introduce a figure of fun in our society, the leprechaun, implicitly comparing belief in them with Christianity..."

Me:"Is belief in leprechauns mainstream?  Christianity is mainstream, so I'm certainly not making any such comparison."

You:"Indeed you did make the comparison."

Me:"Um, if it's out of the mainstream, then I'm not comparing it to mainstream Christianity.  I was clearly talking about fundamentalist views.  The context was man/dinosaur co-existence, remember?"

So now, after you say I was implying something insulting about mainstream Christianity, you come around to informing me that I did in fact do exactly what I was telling you all along.  Brilliant work.

Yes, Christianity is mainstream as a whole.  I've said this several times, at least two instances of which are put in bold above.  That's exactly why those mainstream Christians should shun the fundamentalists as viable candidates.

Let me sum up your outrage, just for my own amusement.  You don't really have much sympathy with Palin's view about dinosaurs, right?  It's ridiculous.  It flies in the face of everything we know, and pointing that out doesn't seem to violate your personal belief system.  Instead, you are offended on behalf of other Christians who will be irrationally offended by what I'm saying, if they ever were to actually know what I'm saying on this particular message board, or if someone were to theoretically dare to publicly compare one bizarre belief to another bizarre belief.  Get the smelling salts, indeed.  How could I possibly have been so callous and crude?

"I submit that Christ’s rising from the dead could be classified as an extreme belief.  And the Immaculate Conception.  These are two mainstream Christian beliefs."

Again, we have no way of knowing what happened there.  If there's a God, those things are entirely possible.  This is wildly different from a denial of scientific evidence.

"By that standard there’s nothing to say that leprechauns didn't exist long ago, since it can't be objectively proven or disproved."

Right, but I never said anything about leprechauns in the past.  When you say "believe in leprechauns" that means current existence.

"I think it’s fine to point out that a PARTICULAR CANDIDATE (who happens to be a fundamentalist Christian) has a stand you disagree with.  However you hurt us when you try to get fundamentalists as a group declared as somehow morally ineligible to run.  That’s for the political parties and their processes and the electorate at large to decide..."

I'm not saying that it's my decision over the electorates.  I'm saying that's how it should be, without any regard to any sort of application of that principle whatsoever.  This is why I'm saying that I don't care about the political argument, because it's irrelevant to my theoretical argument.  If it's not possible to say anything about any religious stance at all without serious repercussions, then it's not possible.  It has precisely nothing, zip, zilch, nada, and nil to do with the point that people who don't respect objective reality have no rightful place in higher public office.  If someone holds ridiculous views, they shouldn't be elected.  Fundamentalists hold ridiculous views as a whole and pretty much by definition.  Therefore they shouldn't be elected.  People should be able to figure that out without having it stated so explicitly and taking any risk of collateral Christian damage.

"They are scoundrels, we agree.  But their act is less convincing without the truth behind it."

What truth?  Criticizing extremism is not criticizing religion.

"I disagreed with what you said because you asked about an anomalous fairly normal person.  I was referring to the Delay’s and Bush’s and Gingrich’s etc. type Republican—the typical type of Republican around today."

This is what I said:"Her personal views and (lack of) knowledge are more important than the fact that she's a Republican."  So you disagreed based on the personal definition of "Republican" as "Delay/Bush/Gingrich".  I get it, but that really is the sort of thing you have to be careful about.  What we should be striving for is a civil system with reasonable Republicans in charge of their party.  If you suggest that Republicans are just bad all around, you give them no motivation to fix themselves.  And then the atmosphere we have now just keeps perpetuating itself.

"By not caring about the politics of it you increase the likelihood of getting exactly the opposite of what you want."

I'm really not convinced that's true.  I honestly think you can respond to a comment about dinosaurs and man co-existing with something like "is she serious?" or "does this woman have any understanding of science at all?", comments that say nothing about religion but make clear just how outrageous her view is, and Christians won't be offended by that.  But again, even if it were true, it doesn't make what I said ignorant, arrogant or elitist, because I wasn't really trying to apply my theoretical point to any practical political end, which is the angle you've been fixated on.

On that note, I'll take your abandonment of your idiocy about "ignorance and arrogance" as a retraction of that particular glob of knee-jerk spittle.  You let me know if you really want to take it up again.

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

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

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

You have been less than honest in this conversation.  Your last post is particularly deceptive and unresponsive.  You’ve gotten progressively worse as the quotes/comments moved further away from the original essence of the argument.  You of course know the background of my responses but rather than even try to refute my actual point, you very often have pretended to respond to something you must know I didn’t say or which was not my meaning.  

  

I stand by every point I’ve made here, aside from my misreading of your desire to disenfranchise fundamentalists.

"You have been less than honest in this conversation."

Examples for this charge, please?

"Your last post is particularly deceptive and unresponsive."

I'd like to know what's deceptive, and I provided relevant responses to everything you wrote.

"You’ve gotten progressively worse as the quotes/comments moved further away from the original essence of the argument."

My argument has remained the same.  You're the one who took issue with my post, and I've explained it fully and consistently throughout.

"You of course know the background of my responses but rather than even try to refute my actual point, you very often have pretended to respond to something you must know I didn’t say or which was not my meaning."

I would seem to know the background of your responses better than you do, considering your full turnaround on my "offensive" leprechaun comparison.

By all means, if I'm not addressing what you've said, show me how and where and I'll gladly fix the situation.  I eagerly await the opportunity.

I sort of skipped over this part because I thought your previously noted confusion had been corrected on this:

Obviously I'm not trying to disqualify anyone of faith from public office, and everything I've ever said on this board should make that abundantly clear.

>>>>>>My response is to quote from your original comment:

…it effectively disqualifies someone for public office…” (“it”referring to Palin’s views regarding dinosaurs)--Brabantio

“But this should be something in the neighborhood of communism or anarchism, where it's a political impossibility to run for higher office under that banner.”---Brabantio

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

Your quote of mine didn't italicize the word "anyone", which was important.  What that means is that I'm not saying that anyone having faith should be disqualified from office, just those that are extremists.  The context really should have made that clear, but I should have said "everyone" since you seem prone to confusion when someone dares to talk about religious extremism.

"What that means is that I'm not saying that anyone having faith should be disqualified from office, just those that are extremists."--B (bolding added by E) 

>>>>>No one should be diquailfied from holding office who meets the current legal requirements.

I'm not talking legal disqualification, I'm talking practically.  Atheists are effectively disqualified from the Presidency, where people will say "you can run, but you won't win".  That's the way it should be for religious extremists.  This isn't a radical position to have.

It has been revealed by the POW Insider Group that most of the texterized participants voted for McCain because they found out that his captors, when he was a POW, did not give him access to the internet or a blackberry. The POW Insider has also discovered that another 10,000 would have voted for McCain but the rotary dial phone at the Broken Trailer Park General Store wouldn't allow anyone to text. Obviously, as reported by Fox News, a liberal dirty trick.

Heard he had a little dust up with little Dickie Morris over who won the debate.

Did they list any reason? Like "McCain was more of a great American" or "Obama was more of a Commie Muslim"?

Hannity thought Obama merely showed book learing and failed to connect with the population. Dickie failed to support these talking points and thought Obama had won the debate, though Dickie is still voting for McClam he say.

Its on todays Crooks and Liars

Now that I know that McCain is the correct answer, I will be sure to answer correctly in the next few debates.  I always get an endorphin rush when I get an answer right.

They need a poll that caters to their enormous geezer demographic, though.  If you can call in American Idol votes, why can't you call in this?

Way to GO, Sean!  Who signs your checks: Karl or John?  Has Murdoch given power of attorney to the Republican Party?

as if fox viewers actually had to even see the debate?  they could have taken it a half hour before.

FWIW, other FOX polls also show that FOX viewers are of the opinion that John McCain won the second and third Presidential debates by a resounding margin...and that Sarah Palin kicked Joe Biden's butt, next Thursday.  ;>)

Can anyone really believe a FOX News text message poll? Of course McCain will win, all the right wing nuts watch that network.

I wasn't aware that the Jitterbug allowed for text messaging. 

Jawill, I was not familiar with the Jitterbug. I like the "simple 'yes' and 'no' buttons" instead of confusing icons.The one-touch "Tow" and "911" features are pretty cool too..

The great thing about the Jitterbug and it's service is that for exaclty no extra features, the per minute price of their plans are higher than any other carrier.

So they expect geezers to pay extra, just for the big buttons. I guess I shouldn't ridicule the old folks, I'm only a year or two away from needing big buttons myself.

You should ask about one with a "delete" button, in case your shouting tube is on the fritz. I should start thinking about it too, only 9 years til I can get that sweet senior discount at Sizzler.