Thread: Who will you vote for? UPDATED

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

If Colbert were running, though, I would probably have to think long and hard about switching my vote, though.

EDIT: And to imply that the US is a "secular country" is to say that the US is an "atheistic country", or at least an "agnostic country." By that standard I would have to disagree. It is as religiously diverse as any other country in the world, if not more so.

Hmm, maybe I'm just arguing semantics here, but to state(not imply, I'm saying what our Founding Fathers said) that the US is a Secular country is stating that religion has no basis in governing the country(Treaty of Tripoli, as DO mentioned). I'm not saying that the US is now atheist because of it we're just not Christian, or any other religion, for that matter. People can hold their individual beliefs and can make governmental decisions based off of them; but a theocracy -as Huckabee wants us to be- is unconstitutional and downright ignorant.

Originally Posted by PatienceMarie

And Elis D, calm your panties. My pastor or my parents? Good one.

I'm not even discussing anything else in public, but I'd be glad to discuss it through PM DL .

People get offended too easily over someone elses beliefs. Sorry for stateing MY PERSONAL OPINION.

Sorry sweetie, I'm not a cross dresser And I realize the pastor/parent thing was a little harsh, that(US is A Christian Nation) is just a line I got from mine a lot.

The offer will be open indefinitely.

And I didn't get offended, I just wanted to give you the *there is no way to say this without sounding like an asshole* truth.

Sorry Xox. It was hard to tell who you were addressing.

Well, wasup, I could take the time to address each of your points, but I think you covered pretty much every grievance others have with him that I don't. I believe that for a number of people, those are very legitimate concerns, but I simply don't want to get sucked into a roundabout conversation where I eventually stop posting because a compromise or solution can not be reached. I'm not a debater by nature.

In parting, I pose this question: How would voting for a non-Christian be different than voting for a Christian? Instead of having someone who supports the words "In God We Trust" on money, we'd have someone who says that teaching Creation (aka. intelligent design) in schools is wrong or useless. Somebody's beliefs are going to get stepped on. My vote is to ensure it's not me.

EDIT: Oh, and Huckabee pulled out of the Republican nomination. I'm surprised someone didn't rush here to mention it (I'm still voting for him in the Oregon primary.... Stupid state, taking so long to vote.)

Originally Posted by Taosaur

What is it about Obama that conflicts with your beliefs? Is he the wrong denomination? To all appearances he's a much more involved Christian than Hillary. Of all the candidates, he seems to have the most simultaneously sincere and sophisticated religious life, though I'd rather a non-Christian could take the highest office in this country.

P.S.--I voted for Obama today.

Do you really think I would talk about it HERE? Hell nahhh. Too many people that hate/really dislike anything with a Christian view.

It has nothing to do with his race though. Since he really isn't a race.... he is more like....a mix....

You can PM me though

Originally Posted by Xox

Good, you admit it.

I admitted from the GET go. That's what you seemed to have missed.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

Sorry sweetie, I'm not a cross dresser And I realize the pastor/parent thing was a little harsh, that(US is A Christian Nation) is just a line I got from mine a lot.

The offer will be open indefinitely.

And I didn't get offended, I just wanted to give you the *there is no way to say this without sounding like an asshole* truth.

No I probably got it from my mom more than anybody in this world. My dad never talks to me about it, even though his father was a pastor, and my grandparents who were pastors never lectured me of religion nor do I believe in church, but my mom was kind of looney.... no one ever listened to her anyways.

Too bad . I like crossdressers.

-patience

But still, Ame, what is your answer to some essential questions...
- Is the preservation of life essential? If yes, then why oppose stem cells, which could save millions? If you are against it because it kills the stem cell, are you against masturbation, sodomy, condoms, and birth control? Are you against blowing your nose? You don't want to kill bacteria. All life is God's creation, right?
- Do gays deserve rights?
- Is it a good idea to teach intelligent design in schools? If so, shouldn't we teach the belief system of the flying spaghetti monster? It is absolutely as supported as intelligent design.

Furthermore, you misunderstand the concept of a secular president. A secular president is not the same thing as "anti-religious." Secular simply means religion will not play a part. It does not mean there will be hostility toward religion, though. There is a big difference between simply not having religion play a part in decisions, which is generally rather neutral overall in offending people and having a Christian leader. Your vote is not to ensure your beliefs won't be stepped on. Indeed, a secular president would not oppress Christians, they would simply not make Christian policies. That is hardly stepping on anybody's beliefs. Rather, your vote is to ensure that everybody else's beliefs are stepped on.

Originally Posted by wasup

But still, Ame, what is your answer to some essential questions...
- Is the preservation of life essential? If yes, then why oppose stem cells, which could save millions? If you are against it because it kills the stem cell, are you against masturbation, sodomy, condoms, and birth control? Are you against blowing your nose? You don't want to kill bacteria. All life is God's creation, right?
- Do gays deserve rights?
- Is it a good idea to teach intelligent design in schools? If so, shouldn't we teach the belief system of the flying spaghetti monster? It is absolutely as supported as intelligent design.

I'll PM you.

Furthermore, you misunderstand the concept of a secular president. A secular president is not the same thing as "anti-religious." Secular simply means religion will not play a part. It does not mean there will be hostility toward religion, though. There is a big difference between simply not having religion play a part in decisions, which is generally rather neutral overall in offending people and having a Christian leader. Your vote is not to ensure your beliefs won't be stepped on. Indeed, a secular president would not oppress Christians, they would simply not make Christian policies. That is hardly stepping on anybody's beliefs. Rather, your vote is to ensure that everybody else's beliefs are stepped on.

The general trend in this country - and you'll probably disagree - is either to either be a Christian or be against Christianity. I've seen the persecution of Christians growing, either through conscious effort, foolish ignorance, or apathy. I am not (using the words of the great Kaniaz) an "OMG Offended!!!" but I can't help but see "political correctness" slowly encroaching on my ability to worship the God in whom I believe and do what I can to try and improve this country and this world in the way I feel is best.

And when you say "Secular simply means religion will not play a part," you're saying that religion will not influence society. It sounds like atheism to me.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

In parting, I pose this question: How would voting for a non-Christian be different than voting for a Christian?

If I ever get the opportunity, I'll tell you all about it.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

Instead of having someone who supports the words "In God We Trust" on money, we'd have someone who says that teaching Creation (aka. intelligent design) in schools is wrong or useless. Somebody's beliefs are going to get stepped on. My vote is to ensure it's not me.

My vote is to ensure that we move forward in a way that does the most to increase everyone's freedom and quality of life. That's everyone in the world. Does that trample on your beliefs?

Originally Posted by PatienceMarie

Too bad . I like crossdressers.

I guess you didn't see the wink?

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

I'll PM you.



The general trend in this country - and you'll probably disagree - is either to either be a Christian or be against Christianity. I've seen the persecution of Christians growing, either through conscious effort, foolish ignorance, or apathy. I am not (using the words of the great Kaniaz) an "OMG Offended!!!" but I can't help but see "political correctness" slowly encroaching on my ability to worship the God in whom I believe and do what I can to try and improve this country and this world in the way I feel is best.

"Political correctness" does not enroach on your ability to worship, it simply gives others the freedom NOT to worship. Giving others the freedom to be free from religion doesn't keep you from participating in your own religion. Perhaps it is an opportunity loss (for example, don't have the opportunity to mass pray in school), but there is a huge difference in not forcing people to pray in school and not ALLOWING people to pray in school. What a secular president is going for here is not forcing people to participate in religion. As I said, that does not keep you from participating in your own religion, does it?

And when you say "Secular simply means religion will not play a part," you're saying that religion will not influence society. It sounds like atheism to me.

Well, my point here is the difference between "active atheism" and "passive atheism." If it was active atheism, it would go about oppressing theists. Passive atheism is simply removing religious influence from government. Oppressing theists would, as you said, take away their right to worship. Not teaching (mandatory) religion classes in public schools, removing "in god we trust," allowing gays to marry, and allowing stem cell research (or disallowing entirely independent from religion) is passive atheism. It hardly affects your ability to worship. For the most part, I would say that it actually supports your religion. The ultimate goal of a (secular) nation is to foster tolerance (allow gay marriage, not forcing people to abide by Christian values) and to preserve life (stem cell research). Sounds pretty good to me as an atheist and from a Christian point of view. I understand why you wouldn't want things like the PROHIBITION of religious education and such, but that is not the goal. It is simply freeing others from religious influences.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

The general trend in this country - and you'll probably disagree - is either to either be a Christian or be against Christianity.

Ignoring for the moment all the "sorta Christian"s with a distrust of organized religion, the polarization of many people for and against Christianity has a lot to do with the blatant, politically motivated, us-against-them rhetoric coming from Evangelical leaders, and the willingness of congregations to parrot their talking points even when they're unethical positions or deliberate lies. The actions undertaken publicly in the name of Christianity strike many Americans as rather un-Christian. Half the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to protect religious institutions from the taint of politics, of which American Evangelism presently reeks.

I is canadian so i get to watch the election while laughing at the silly amerks

In the spirit of the topic...

(And this is why I steer clear of anything resembling extended discussion.)

I disagree with you, but any response I try to write doesn't come out the way I want it to. By having a "secular" leader, yes, my religious rights are called into question.

To me, you either hold to your beliefs or you don't. If you claim to be a Christian and say it's okay for two men or two women to marry, you've gone against Christianity. If you're a Muslim and say you don't have to fast during Ramadan, you've gone against Islam. To ask someone to tolerate something that they believe is wrong is, in my opinion, asking too much.

I am not going to "disown" someone because their views are different than mine. I have friends that are gay, athiests, emo, liberal, economists, etc. and I love them to death. But if they believe something that I don't agree with, I won't compromise what I hold to be true in order to accomidate them.

EDIT: I'm done.

I understand why you wouldn't want to do something yourself, but not wanting to tolerate someone else's beliefs, especially when they have absolutely no effect on you? Hasn't history taught us anything of this?

Secondly, what's wrong with debating? Progress would never come if people never communicated. It is not like this isn't a good discussion. As long as it is a respectful and civilized discussion and real issues are being talked about, debates are good. Not simply for the sake of being right or wrong, but to explore and learn more about your own beliefs as well as those of others, question your own beliefs (this is a good thing, by the way), CONFIRM your own beliefs as well as solidifying your opinions (I have found that I think I have no opinion on something, but after debating it I realize I have a very clear opinion and it helps me develop my own thoughts). It is a good thought exercise for both parties. Communication is always a good thing, I don't understand why you don't want to do it. I understand that many do not like to debate because questioning their own beliefs too much makes them insecure, and when they come to a point where they see a belief of theirs that they don't actually believe in, and then cognitive dissonance sets in and they wish to stop participating. But it is best not to resist such change, as it can help one develop as a person.

Originally Posted by Amethyst Star

(And this is why I steer clear of anything resembling extended discussion.)

I disagree with you, but any response I try to write doesn't come out the way I want it to. By having a "secular" leader, yes, my religious rights are called into question.

To me, you either hold to your beliefs or you don't. If you claim to be a Christian and say it's okay for two men or two women to marry, you've gone against Christianity. If you're a Muslim and say you don't have to fast during Ramadan, you've gone against Islam. To ask someone to tolerate something that they believe is wrong is, in my opinion, asking too much.

I am not going to "disown" someone because their views are different than mine. I have friends that are gay, athiests, emo, liberal, economists, etc. and I love them to death. But if they believe something that I don't agree with, I won't compromise what I hold to be true in order to accomidate them.

EDIT: I'm done.

You can have your beliefs and run your own life, household, and property the way you want to, but that does not mean you have to push the government into other people's houses over victimless activity. I have major issues with Christianity, but I don't believe in trying to take away your right to practice Christianity on you own time and on your own property.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

I guess you didn't see the wink?

Oh la la tres chic magnific!!

-patience

ron paul

Originally Posted by PatienceMarie

Oh la la tres chic magnific!!

-patience

Oui oui, mon cherie.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

Oui oui, mon cherie.

Actually its "ma chérie" dude. If the person you were talking to was a guy you would say "Mon" but im pretty sure the person your talking to is a girl so its "Ma"

I know you dont care lol i just like being a know it all and anyway this could save you an embarrasing situation with a french lady some day . That type of thing could get you laughed at in real life.

Originally Posted by PatienceMarie

I admitted from the GET go. That's what you seemed to have missed.

Indeed, I don't debate with those who boldly say they're wrong and biased. Case closed.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Actually its "ma chérie" dude. If the person you were talking to was a guy you would say "Mon" but im pretty sure the person your talking to is a girl so its "Ma"

I know you dont care lol i just like being a know it all and anyway this could save you an embarrasing situation with a french lady some day . That type of thing could get you laughed at in real life.

Hehe, I noticed that too! /me feels smart

lol, I don't even really know what it means... "Oh yes my love" or something.

Does anyone know whose currently in the democratic lead?

It's still Obama, but only by alittle.

Fucking hell obama better get his stuff together...oh and btw...right now...Hilary Clinton is is about 40 minutes away from me...-.-

Obama for the lose.