AstroProdigy

PLANNING to vote Republican. That doesn't mean this is actually how it's going to happen. Keep in mind Evangelicals are very disillusioned by the corruption they see in Republicans. Also keep in mind a remainder of that could just not vote at all. Guliani is the frontrunner and his main opponent is a Mormon, so it doesn't seem to them like their interests will be served, but if a conservative Christian who talks about opposing gay marriage and abortion comes along they will come in quite a large percentage to vote for Republicans over Democrats.

From my experience on other forums this is classic conservative forum debating. Then again it's also classic debating for any illogical side so there you go. Bak you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you can compromise with the party of Jesus. Logic is just naturally not a part of it. Anyway this IS called "The Great Faith Debate," but it seems to have turned into a debate about American politics.

NO TJ I relate the way you jump in to insult me on a bad sentence instead of asking in a decent way and make that the entirety of your post to a failure in your argument. NBV I'm glad you included the quote about families making $83,000 a year being able to get coverage in your post because you turned an otherwise very reasonable post into a propaganda piece. It turns out $83,000 is the highest amount of possible income that would be eligible for coverage and this is only applicable to New York with the most expensive city in the country to live in. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to live in Manhattan? $83,000 makes you rich in Alabama, but in New York City it gets you in pretty bad shape. Just owning an apartment will cost you almost a million dollars now and don't get me started on renting one. What does this all mean? It means that what Bush totes as wasteful spending is actually just GOP spinning and I actually have looked into the matter further to know this seeing how you seem to think I haven't questioned anything from this bill. It also won't raise taxes on working Americans unless you consider CEO's working Americans because those are the people Democrats are looking to roll back the Bush tax cuts from (only if a Democrat takes the presidency because otherwise a veto is ensured). I find this very reasonable as a way to pay for health care for kids considering these people already get the wonders of tax write offs to pay a smaller percentage of their income than average Joe does to the government. I also think Bush and the GOP get to talk as if they care about fiscal scrutiny now because they only talk about it when it comes to helping the poor like say spending 35 billion dollars over the next 5 years, but when 450 billion dollars are spent on the military each year and 190 billion is going to be spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year then that's little cost. There's also the massive pork spending during GOP control of Congress to worry about. If Republicans want to truly go back to the original intent of their party of fiscal responsibility they need to do it everywhere instead of just where only those poor and working class people they don't care two ASSS about anyway suffer. As for illegal immigrants being able to get something out of it this would probably be little and considering how crucial they are to our economy and how little they will ever see from the money they pay into our government who really cares? For the matter of extending government coverage to children who already have private coverage that is a legitimate claim so if instead of trying to turn a bipartisan bill into something it's not using political spinning they pushed to change this it probably would have. Then again I don't know much about this part of the issue and I've had trouble finding information about it that doesn't come from sound bytes of Bush or someone working for Bush. You can also make the argument that Democrats are using this issue as a political tool and to that I'd say to an extent they are. However, this is politics and the entire time Democrats didn't play the Republicans' game they've been battered for it. Republicans have been heavily playing politics to erode on the Democrats for a while now so if Democrats do it once in a while with already compromising bills then so be it.

Wow TJ the one thing I find from conservatives in a debate is when they utterly fail they revert to trying to make a joke from posts instead of debating them. Congratulations on failing. I was in a rush when I wrote that so let me clarify: Congress being ineffectual has nothing to do with asking too many questions. It's because of pretty solid minority opposition on the Republican side in Congress combined with a guaranteed veto make things ineffectual. Republicans will even reject health care for poor kids which shows just how little they're interested in compromise.

It's sexual tension.

Because Congress being ineffectual is because they ask too many questions not solid Republican opposition to anything they do even health care for poor kids. If you don't question everything people will find a way to sneak things through. You shouldn't overly question everything, but you need to give everything a second look if you want an uncorrupted government. Ultimately there will never be people who will be pure as politicians and we shouldn't expect it to be so. Ultimately the people need to watch what the government does and question that government because otherwise the government will take part in as much corruption as they're allowed. I don't think it's possible to have a liberal regime in the US. The extreme left is just too small compared to the extreme right and because of that only times of severe crisis (the way the Great Depression provided Roosevelt's progressive programs) could possibly do it. It works to the right too. Bush has only been able to do a lot of the stuff he's done because of the crisis brought about by 9/11.

Misquestioning the wrong things? It's this discouragement of questioning that lets people hide things. Everyone should be questioned. You forget that liberal doesn't necessarily mean forever changing as there is a point that satisfies more moderate liberals that is actually mostly achieved in certain countries. As you know our country tilts towards the right so why not have it tilt away from the right? Tilting it more to the right is what's been the problem ever since the Reagan years.

I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. I'm a patriot. Am I a patriot yet? Here let me try again... Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. Support the troops. How about now? Being a patriot in America is having a careful eye on the actions of all authority and making sure that authority doesn't try to destroy the precious freedoms provided to us by the cons!@#$%^&*ution. You also need to educate yourself so corrupt politicians can't trick you and support helping your fellow countrymen if you want to call yourself a patriot. George Washington was adamantly opposed to getting entangled in pointless foreign wars. Immigrants coming to America and living the American dream is also a fundamental part of our country. Oops conservatives fail with these. I was making the point that both statements are ridiculous. How many Christians think atheists have no place here or at least subconsciously comply with that belief though?

That wouldn't stop most Christians. Technically up until the mid 1800s there was a law that homosexuality was punishable by death. This was along with the cons!@#$%^&*ution. Obviously people who hold the bible above the cons!@#$%^&*ution will play mind games to try to give the bible superiority over the cons!@#$%^&*ution. An example of this is the office of faith based initiatives that gives funding to Christian groups and uses the money to encourage conversions. This is a blatantly uncons!@#$%^&*utional act, but most Christians don't care because the bible means more to them than the cons!@#$%^&*ution anyway. For that I'd say most Christians or at the very least a large proportion of them (conservatives mostly) are unpatriotic and a threat to America. I guess Christians just don't belong in America and if they want to stay they should become atheists. Sound insane? Then why does it sound normal to so many Christians when "Christians" and "atheists" are switched? Hypocrites much?

Great argument.

lol, I mean just lol. And I see his point when it comes to gays using a christian ceremony. I mean !@#$%^&* its been pushed so hard that we are not allowed to have a christmas tree in a decent amount of public places, because that might offend non christians, but its ok to hold a ceremony mocked after the christian ceremony, which implicitly denies the action going on? If you're going to defend a public display mocking one religion, we should be allowed to publically mock every religion without consequence. But as you see that is the wonderful double standard in our country. If a white christian heterosexual male, did something to mock a gay, a woman, an ethnicity or religion, that would be an instant hate crime, and completely untolerable. But if you are any of the forementioned you can do what ever you want because its in your "civil rights" to do so. It's all bull!@#$%^&*. Don't look at me I think homosexuals should be free to have a Christian marriage (as long as they can get a priest from one of the more progressive denominations to do it) AND Christians should be free to put up Christmas trees. It depends where you are, though. In Alabama you find yourself in trouble if you try to show atheism, but in massachusetts you find yourself in trouble if you try to show Christianity. When it comes to religion I think you should be free to mock whatever it is considering it is something people are free to follow anyway. With regards to sexuality, gender, or ethnicity, however you cannot choose. I personally think everyone should lighten up, but then again I am a white, heterosexual male and am willing to admit I never end up on the receiving end of this and thus have no idea what it's like.

At least update the clan list I've been on l33t soldiers for 12 days now and I'm still listed on Sound's newb clan.

TJ: When I say Christians I don't mean ALL Christians I mean the power players and a majority of the more devout. There's also the fact that most Christian religious denominations in the US encourage this. Isn't that their right like anyone else? Are we in Saudi Arabia? If we are then I give this one to you. If not then why is religion suddenly holy and any criticism not allowed? What happened to democracy? Are gay people not afforded the same rights as everyone?

Where do I say all Christians hate gays? All I'm saying is that Christians hide their gay hating using the bible as legitimate. You can't debate the bible in politics so it creates an impenetrable defense for an otherwise shockingly weak and hateful argument. That's what makes this dangerous. There's also the fact that people will follow along with gay hating if they think the bible is telling them to (which religious leaders and politicians tell them it does). Also, while a conservative democrat isn't necessarily an oxymoron a religious atheist is and for a lot of the political stances conservatives have that's exactly what would be required.

Can't argue with what NBV just said here but I had to jump in for this part. Things like Miranda laws and better lawyers aren't what cause crime to skyrocket. Where did you get your facts? Also crime rates in the cities are much more than those in rural areas because oh I don't know A LOT MORE PEOPLE IN THE CITIES THAN IN THE FARMS!? What's the solution Aileron? As the tough drug laws have shown simply making punishments harsher doesn't do jack !@#$%^&* other than overfill the jails.

I'm sorry to say, but that is a very close minded idea. That would be like stating that you cannot have a liberal republican, or a conservative democrat. Case in point how does it equal having a split personality if you say support guns, are pro life, support gay marriage, and support pulling every american troop out of iraq tomorrow? How do abortion and gay marriage contradict each other? Ect. I thought there was a reason why we all think different... A liberal republican is one who could easily be a democrat and a conservative democrat is someone who could easily be a republican. It also could mean someone who's liberal on social issues, but conservative on economic issues or conservative on social issues, but liberal on economic issues. Economic and social issues are very different from each so that this belief that the two are intertwined are completely false. Now let me repeat myself. People tend to take similar stances on similar issues as a matter of personal stability. My mother also supports abortion rights, but opposes gay marriage. Then again she is religious and if I told her I didn't believe in a Christian God she'd have a heart attack. It's not that she follows religion with issues like abortion rights, but excuses gay hating with religion as do most Christians who oppose gay marriage. I admit there are a large percentage of Christians who really have no idea why they oppose gay marriage and would have trouble holding any sort of debate on that, but for the ones who know why they oppose it this tends to be a bigoted belief which they use the bible to justify as they could have used to justify slavery 2 centuries ago. Gay people contribute nothing to society? Well then I guess your mom is a hateful person. That being said at least she can't shield her hatred with some book and pretend it's legitimate because of religious freedom the way Christians do.

You know a lot of people like this? Well then you are unique because people tend to clump their beliefs together. Normally people don't have a lot of widely contradictory views because that would mean they have a split personality disorder. May I ask why your mom is 100% against gay marriage? The fact is that an atheist has to come out and say they hate gay people because unlike Christians they can't use the Bible to hide their bigotry. What would make them sellouts is if they started using the bible as their shield. That way we can all ignore them as bigots on those issues whereas we can't with Christians because they cling to the Bible as their shield and then tell you to "let them have their religious beliefs" so despite the fact that they're logically hateful on homosexuals you can't call them on it because of the bull!@#$%^&* "religious freedom" excuse. That's what makes all of this so much more dangerous. Don't forget that atheists naturally are opposed to creationist theories and think banning evolutionary teaching from schools is disgusting. If you know lots of atheists that disagree with that well then they're not really atheists are they?

The thing is astro, you couldn't be more wrong. It's not "we are christians, ugh now we gonna live by what the bible says, be just like jesus, need to agree with the morals the bible says." Rather, its "Looking at things logically, i believe the bible to be true, its morals seem good to me, I want to abide be them." You keep saying non-christians just live by what they think are good morals because they think its the right thing to do, thats the exact same with us. Christianity is with the exception of conversions that mostly happen with poor, uneducated people is pushed on toddlers by conditioning them from very early on because they have no ability to reason whether it is true and then later on in life when they can reason mostly start with the premise "Christianity is true" and work from there rather than allow for free reason. For me it took years to be able to throw off my parents' conditioning and become an agnostic. I can tell you it was a miserable experience realizing people probably die and that's it and there's probably no higher purpose other than what we make of it. I could easily see how some people are too weak to be willing to realize how impossible Christianity is and accept the unknown. What you seem to ignore is the fact that while agnostics and atheists are forced to have morals based on empathy since they don't believe in a watching deity Christians do so because of this deity. This philosophy causes this empathy development to be stunted due to the lack of need and thus Christian morality tends to be more about rigid scripture and less about logic. That's what makes it so dangerous. This is easy to manipulate and someone like Bush can come in and say he's a man of God and people like you will follow him simply because you think he's sincerely Christian. Sever to be fair you can justify anything with the thousands of pages of often conflicting scripture. The way you find a line in the bible opposing gay marriage you find one supporting slavery and you find lots supporting sexism. The groups that reject a literal interpretation or one manipulated for personal hatred are fine, but those are in the minority in the US and when they try to be progressive they are bitterly opposed by the rest.

And yes we think we shoudl try to emulate Jesus, but that doesn't mean that we don't see the truth in every other reason for being moral. You say "I try to be moral because its the right ting to do and because I consider the repercussions." I'm really no different, I think its the right thing to do, and part of that rightness, in my opinion, is because it is emulating Jesus. And you make emulating Jesus out to be this burdensome duty. It's not like religion is forced on me and it's a weight to emulate him. I want to. If you believe someone was perfect and sinless and the son of god, why not want to be like him? Just like you said earlier, "If I admire someone, I try to emulate that person." That's exactly what us christians are doing, and your mocking us for it and calling it a flaw.

Great just come in and don't read anything and make an outrageous claim and leave forever.

Again you are dancing around what you're really getting at. If his stances are identical to the ones in the Bible you will support an atheist. However, last time I checked atheists don't base their decisions on the bible therefore it's impossible. There are two different kinds of morals here. One is the no brainers like don't kill or steal. The other is the Christian morals like no sex before marriage, no abortion, no gay marriage, and the like. I know you don't want to admit it to yourself that you'd never vote for an atheist, but you really need to peel back the layers in your stances here. The better you know yourself the stronger you are as a person. Like I said there are many morals that are in the bible, but don't make real sense to atheists. How logical can you be when you are forced to consider a book full of crazy stories as the most basic truth in your life. You want to ignore the fact that to really try to be closer to Jesus you have to try to emulate him and thus get into heaven, yet for the purpose of not admitting this similarity you have with Catholics and admitting the need to do good things for Christians tends to be on a "God's watching basis" you deny it. Let's have a little lesson shall we. If I admire someone, I try to emulate that person. That's why people expect sports stars to be good role models because kids will emulate them. The same goes with Jesus. If you really love Jesus then you have to emulate him or otherwise your love is false. I try to be moral because it's the right thing to do and because I consider the repercussions, but Christians are taught to do it because 1) Jesus did it so you should too and 2) If you don't truly love Jesus and thus try to be like him then you don't have true faith and to !@#$%^&* you go. Sorry If I'm knocking down some of the basic tenets of your beliefs here and I'm sure you won't even bother to seriously read it, but there you go. If you really believe what you're writing here then you really aren't a good Christian.

So you need someone with Christian values, but you WOULD support an atheist as long as he has Christian values? See it now? You'd never support an atheist because for them to have the values you prefer they'd have to become Christian! Faith in Jesus means wanting to be closer to him and being a good person is how you do it. If you don't help others then you don't REALLY have faith either. Who's to say someone can't make up his faith in order to get the votes of a naive Christian right? Why else do you think every politician talks about their faith in hopes of getting this group that ignores bad policy as long as the candidate has faith? I agree with Sever. It seems to me Christians have trouble with being good wholeheartedly because from day 1 they've been raised to do it solely because someone's watching. Imagine if something happened to rock the Christian world's faith in God. What would happen then? Would there be m!@#$%^&* chaos? Face it you need secularists to keep the world stable. Without it Christians and Muslims would be committing m!@#$%^&* genocides on each other.

So being a Christian automatically makes you moral and if you're atheist you have to prove morality? An atheist would not likely be willing to allow the teaching of creationism and the like in schools so I guess you're making it impossible for an atheist to get your vote, but without actually saying it. Christians always have good morals, after all. Again you make the argument that atheists can't be trusted, but in a sneaky way. I find atheists and agnostics tend to be even more moral than Christians because they discover morality for themselves instead of only doing it half !@#$%^&*ed because they think God is watching. I don't know about you, but being a good person just for the sake of being a good person and thinking of how your actions affect others seems a lot more sincere than being a good person for fear of eternal !@#$%^&*ation. Don't bull!@#$%^&* me that the Bible doesn't say you need to be a good person to get into Heaven and you just need faith because that's the biggest scam I've ever seen when it comes to Protestants twisting the Bible for their own ends.

Who are you voting for and why? I know you were too young to vote for Bush, but I bet you would have. Don't deny it now that he's unpopular either. Would you vote for an atheist? I want you to be honest with this one. Take your time and think about it. No point to lie on a forum.

You also vote to impose your religious beliefs on us and even go as far as to deny the separation of church and state and claim America is only for Christians. That belief is shared by a surprisingly large percentage of Christians here and much of the rest are simply complacent with it. Having your own beliefs is fine, but in case you haven't noticed Bush was elected almost entirely by practicing Christians and the things he does are to the great detriment of my freedoms. If you want to act like you no longer impose your beliefs on us then stop voting for people who say all their decisions come from their faith. That's pretty telling right there.