TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:
The fact that you compare drug addiction to religious belief is truly quite astounding.
I think it says more than I ever could.
|
The only comparison I made is putting them both in the category of bad candidate.
One of the key reasons for the US to break away from Britin was religious freedom. If I was going to rate people on how religion influenced the choices they make in life, I would say Sarah is in the top 1%. Why is it a bad thing to not want someone in that demographic to lead a nation who's founding principle is separation of church and state?
When it comes time to make a choice on a law, I do not want my leader to look to God for the answer. I want them to look to the Constitution. Sorry if you find that offensive, or astounding.
if I was going to rate people on how religion influenced the choices they make in life, I would say Sarah is in the top 1%. Why is it a bad thing to not want someone in that demographic to lead a nation who's founding principle is separation of church and state?
When it comes time to make a choice on a law, I do not want my leader to look to God for the answer. I want them to look to the Constitution. Sorry if you find that offensive, or astounding.
|
The comparison seems pretty explicit quite honestly.
But the problem I have with what you're saying is that you show a profound lack of understanding of what religious people mean when they say they look to god for the answer. It's not "god was in my bedroom and told me to go to war" type of stuff like you make out to be. It is "what would jesus do?" type of stuff.
You take the most perverse view of their faith you can, even if you do recognise that not all religious people are this way, and condemn them for it.
As for your last sentence, I find your use of a false dichotomy (some might prefer false dilemma) to be tiresome. Do you even have a specific instance where Palin, or any religious presidential candidate has said he/she would put their religious faith before the constitution? Let alone an argument that would satisfy the idea that these two things must be mutually exclusive (which is required for the statement to have any logical consistency whatsoever)?
At this point I'm getting the sense that your intolerant view of religious politicians came before your rationalization of it.
|
Every political candidate I have voted for was religious, so I am no way intolerant of it.
Every member of my family is religious other then me (including my wife), and I am extremely tolerant of it.
What I am intolerant of, is religious radicalism. What your doing is the same thing as saying I am against someone who drinks a few times a month, because I speak out against an alcoholic.
Palin is a religious radical, and you are defending her point like she has the same views as all religious people, and that when I speak about her and how I feel she would conduct herself, that it's how I fell all christians would act.
That's not remotely true.
|
You've given no justification for why you believe she is any different from literally millions of other religious people in this country.
You are simply declaring her a religious radical and then moving on from there like it is established fact.
