By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

 

Can a movement similar to fascism emerge in the US?

Yes 67 56.78%
 
No 21 17.80%
 
Not a "movement sim... 27 22.88%
 
Total:115
HappySqurriel on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:


Was Bush ever called a Muslim or was the country of his birth ever questioned?


Even many non-religious Liberals doubt Obama's Christianity, although they tend to favour the belief that he is non-religious.

John McCain's birthplace was questioned by lots of people, but he immediately provided adequate documentation to conclusively demonstrate that he was born on a military base which is considered American soil. George W. Bush had his education and military track record questioned constantly, Sarah Palin had the maternity of her children questioned, and most politicians who achieve any level of success are constantly pressed with ad-hominem attacks.

 

Now, aside from being supposedly "racist" what do you actually know about the values and beliefs of the Tea Party movement? Have you watched any of the unedited videos from their rallies or read the blog posts and articles of their members?

Attacking the Tea-Party as "Racist" falls along one of the more common lines of political defence because, in modern times, middle-class white people will do everything in their power to not appear to be a racist and if you can convince them that a group, movement or individual is racist they will actually avoid seaking out information about them. I expect that it has worked amazingly well with you, and you realistically have never learned anything about the Tea Party that has not been spoon-fed to you by someone who is opposed to them.



Around the Network
EdHieron on 22 July 2011
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

 

 

In regards to your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor and uneducated, I guess you didn't read the statistics that Happy Squirrel posted from USA Today that said that a combined 68% of Tea Party Members had only no college or some college.  It's not as if the Tea Party is in any way a bunch of Ph. D. folks.

As for your comment that the Tea Party is hardly poor, if you look at Happy Squirrel's statistics 55% of Tea Party members make over $50,000 a year which means that 45% of them don't.

And both of these statistics go along quite well with my contention that The Tea Party is made up by quite a few rich folks that don't want to pay any more of their money in taxes to really help out the lower classes in this country and that the group is made to look much bigger than it actually is by the amount of rather uneducated (68%) poor white people (79%) that have ingrained prejudices mainly stemming from The Bible and Conservative (70%) upbringings that bias them against Obama due to his skin color.

It certainly is a substantial argument because it's true.  Sorry if the truth bites you in the butt. 

its seems rather evident that your reading comprehension is low, but. those statistic prove that they are in line with the rest of the population.

and actually they have a higher percentage of black people than the regualr republican party.

and all you are saying is they have a 70% (number pulled out of your ass) Christian up bringing, meaning they are racist, using absolutely

no evidence to back it up. i could say liberals have a 80% non religious up bringing, ingraining racial and prejudious thoughts in them.

 

and you do know Christians give more to Charities than non-religous people do, right (4x more than others)

also conservatives give 30% more to charity, while earning 5% less on average than liberals. 

so stop shitting lies all over the place


Regarding your first sentence:  What you lack the brains to come up with an original insult, Sherlock?  How weak can you get, badgenome pulled that one first.

 

Also, the 70% isn't pulled out of my rear, Dummy.  It's based on the fact that in the past November elections 70% of the Christian votes went to Tea Party and Republican Candidates, so even though USA Today failed to provide the data on how many Tea Partiers are Evangelicals or Fundamentalists ( note 70% of American Christians fall into these two misguided groups) and due to the Tea Party's oft repeated mantra that they want to put God back in everything:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI (see the number of signs in this video about the Tea Party advocating that the nation return to its false Christian roots (they must be meaning Salem, Massachusetts as the Founding Fathers had other beliefs), then they're must be quite a bit of cross-over between the two groups.

 

Also, the charities that Christians mainly give to are their churches (which should not be tax deductable donations) and really shouldn't count as charitable donations seeing how many of those tax free dollars actually go into the upkeep of their churches and into their ministers pockets (which is a real sin that these kooks make far more money than legitimate school teachers)  ather than to any real charitable operations.

 

If you remove the donations that Conservatives make to churches from the number of dollars donated to legitimate charities, then they donate far less than any other group. 

i pointed out that time and time again you fail to be able to read graphs, and the you proceed to compliment me by calling me one of the greatest detectives in literature. so thank you.

also conservatives still give more usefull things, like blood (18% more), but that must be Church blood, they must keep that for them selves and have pastors dirnk during ancient egyption ceramonies, never reaching people in need, right. and actually if you exclude Church charities (which is absolutely rediculous) liberals only out give give conservatives by <3%.

also, there is a difference between giving offerings to the Church, like during a service (which a significant portion of that goes to charity anyway, for example, during any given church service my church gives 25% of donations to living water international), and giving to a Chirch sponsored Charity, which goes directly to things like giving clothes to the poor, food, shelter, furnature to needy, thats almost exclusively Church driven, in fact the catholic church, has given more than any of your liberal instititions could dream of.

and like a said liberals are less likely to give to things that will directly impact people like the poor, and instead give to muesums and universities


However, many times when churches give things to the poor, they also try to indoctrinate them into believing the gibberish that most of the church's followers believe in.  Isn't that correct?  So, in effect the churches are actually only giving in an attempt to create more followers for their religion which in turn will give more to prolong the existence of the church in the future?  And, in turn their propogating the ancient slave system that the church happens to be, so what they are actually doing is expanding the net for future attempts at fascism.

 

And actually giving to museums and universities is far more beneficial than in giving to churches because universities, unlike churches, have the ability to actually teach their students things of real importance and that might actually broaden their lives rather than entrapping them in the ancient slave system that the church happens to be.  That is certainly a much more selfless and charitable endeavor than giving to churches.

living water digs wells in predominately muslim regions, so....

evangalizing, how dare the Church atempt to save people's souls, lets all kill them. and fortunately if the poor reject their teachings, they still get soup and shelter. good luck having a different view than your proffesor and get a passing grade.

no matter how you try to spin it, conservatives still give astronomically more than liberals, and only a little little bit less if you exclude church charities (which is insane, as the services they provide benefit millions more people than thing liberals give to, how exactly does a musem help). liberals like giving other peoples money, while conservatives give their own (something Christian values intill in them), and make less


The world doesn't need Christian values.  It's past that stage in its evolution and has been for close to 160 years.  And, along with whatever good Christian values give to people it also teaches many people to do very petty things like hate gays or subjugate women.

Christianity teaches that all the world's ills will be cured by a dead and non existent God like Jesus.  And it really holds them back in many ways.  Why push for an improved healthcare system brought to you by a politician that seems a bit different that will bring you far better opportunities to receive proper medical treatments than the virtually worthless healthcare that one purchases from the company they work for when the world's about to end and Jesus supposedy will bring them Cadillacs and Mansions?

No donations to universities and scientific instiitutions that do real research into improvements in medicine and technology help far more people than donations to Christian churches ever do.



osamanobama on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

 

 

 

.

living water digs wells in predominately muslim regions, so....

evangalizing, how dare the Church atempt to save people's souls, lets all kill them. and fortunately if the poor reject their teachings, they still get soup and shelter. good luck having a different view than your proffesor and get a passing grade.

no matter how you try to spin it, conservatives still give astronomically more than liberals, and only a little little bit less if you exclude church charities (which is insane, as the services they provide benefit millions more people than thing liberals give to, how exactly does a musem help). liberals like giving other peoples money, while conservatives give their own (something Christian values intill in them), and make less


The world doesn't need Christian values.  It's past that stage in its evolution and has been for close to 160 years.  And, along with whatever good Christian values give to people it also teaches many people to do very petty things like hate gays or subjugate women.

 

Christianity teaches that all the world's ills will be cured by a dead and non existent God like Jesus.  And it really holds them back in many ways.  Why push for beneficial things like improvements to one's worthless healthcare purchased from the company you work for when the world's about to end and Jesus supposedy will bring you Cadillacs and Mansions?

 

No donations to universities and scientific instiitutions that do real research into improvements in medicine and technology help far more people than donations to Christian churches ever do.

again you still ignore the majority of the post.

and its very clear that you dont know what Christianity teaches because it teaches the exact opposite of that (the bolded)

also in no shape or form do Christian believe or tought that Jesus will bring mansions or cadallacs. but it does teach people that their body is their temple, and it must be taken care of, that means good healthcare.

furthermore, when i said universities, i should have been more specific, as liberals tend to give things to classes like "humanities" and classes that typicall has "studies" in their name. those close have little to nothing to do with research like curing disseases



EdHieron on 22 July 2011
HappySqurriel said:
EdHieron said:


Was Bush ever called a Muslim or was the country of his birth ever questioned?


Even many non-religious Liberals doubt Obama's Christianity, although they tend to favour the belief that he is non-religious.

John McCain's birthplace was questioned by lots of people, but he immediately provided adequate documentation to conclusively demonstrate that he was born on a military base which is considered American soil. George W. Bush had his education and military track record questioned constantly, Sarah Palin had the maternity of her children questioned, and most politicians who achieve any level of success are constantly pressed with ad-hominem attacks.

 

Now, aside from being supposedly "racist" what do you actually know about the values and beliefs of the Tea Party movement? Have you watched any of the unedited videos from their rallies or read the blog posts and articles of their members?

Attacking the Tea-Party as "Racist" falls along one of the more common lines of political defence because, in modern times, middle-class white people will do everything in their power to not appear to be a racist and if you can convince them that a group, movement or individual is racist they will actually avoid seaking out information about them. I expect that it has worked amazingly well with you, and you realistically have never learned anything about the Tea Party that has not been spoon-fed to you by someone who is opposed to them.


This is what I know about the Tea Party and primarily from my own study and psychological profiling of the group.  it's basically a tool for those that have a lot of money (wealthy Consevatives), yet don't want to do their part to help out the poorer citizens in this country escape from Obama's plan to tax the rich a bit more in order to make things better for the majority of the citizens in the US.

As I said in a prior post without the Tea Party these wealthy Conservatives would just look like a group of Rich and primarily Old White Men that are upset that Obama is going to tax them a bit more to help the lower classes have better lives.  With the Tea Party though these fellows look as if their numbers are far greater.

At least half of the Tea Party is lower class poor whites that are opposed to Obama for a variety of reasons (primarily his skin color, his perceived nationality (which was more or less nit picking), or his perceived religion).  And they do make the Tea Party appear larger than it is as a lobbying group, however, most of these people would certainly rebel under the right circumstances ie. if the Conservative Senators decided to cut the things that they breally need for their survival like Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid / Medicare, and  Food Stamps.



osamanobama on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:
HappySqurriel said:
EdHieron said:


Was Bush ever called a Muslim or was the country of his birth ever questioned?


Even many non-religious Liberals doubt Obama's Christianity, although they tend to favour the belief that he is non-religious.

John McCain's birthplace was questioned by lots of people, but he immediately provided adequate documentation to conclusively demonstrate that he was born on a military base which is considered American soil. George W. Bush had his education and military track record questioned constantly, Sarah Palin had the maternity of her children questioned, and most politicians who achieve any level of success are constantly pressed with ad-hominem attacks.

 

Now, aside from being supposedly "racist" what do you actually know about the values and beliefs of the Tea Party movement? Have you watched any of the unedited videos from their rallies or read the blog posts and articles of their members?

Attacking the Tea-Party as "Racist" falls along one of the more common lines of political defence because, in modern times, middle-class white people will do everything in their power to not appear to be a racist and if you can convince them that a group, movement or individual is racist they will actually avoid seaking out information about them. I expect that it has worked amazingly well with you, and you realistically have never learned anything about the Tea Party that has not been spoon-fed to you by someone who is opposed to them.


This is what I know about the Tea Party and primarily from my own study and psychological profiling of the group.  it's basically a tool for those that have a lot of money (wealthy Consevatives), yet don't want to do their part to help out the poorer citizens in this country escape from Obama's plan to tax the rich a bit more in order to make things better for the majority of the citizens in the US.

As I said in a prior post without the Tea Party these wealthy Conservatives would just look like a group of Rich and primarily Old White Men that are upset that Obama is going to tax them a bit more to help the lower classes have better lives.  With the Tea Party though these fellows look as if their numbers are far greater.

At least half of the Tea Party is lower class poor whites that are opposed to Obama for a variety of reasons (primarily his skin color, his perceived nationality (which was more or less nit picking), or his perceived religion).  And they do make the Tea Party appear larger than it is as a lobbying group, however, most of these people would certainly rebel under the right circumstances ie. if the Conservative Senators decided to cut the things that they breally need for their survival like Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid / Medicare, and  Food Stamps.

so in other words... things you pulled out of your ass (and msnbc's)



Around the Network
EdHieron on 22 July 2011
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:

 

 

 

.

living water digs wells in predominately muslim regions, so....

evangalizing, how dare the Church atempt to save people's souls, lets all kill them. and fortunately if the poor reject their teachings, they still get soup and shelter. good luck having a different view than your proffesor and get a passing grade.

no matter how you try to spin it, conservatives still give astronomically more than liberals, and only a little little bit less if you exclude church charities (which is insane, as the services they provide benefit millions more people than thing liberals give to, how exactly does a musem help). liberals like giving other peoples money, while conservatives give their own (something Christian values intill in them), and make less


The world doesn't need Christian values.  It's past that stage in its evolution and has been for close to 160 years.  And, along with whatever good Christian values give to people it also teaches many people to do very petty things like hate gays or subjugate women.

 

Christianity teaches that all the world's ills will be cured by a dead and non existent God like Jesus.  And it really holds them back in many ways.  Why push for beneficial things like improvements to one's worthless healthcare purchased from the company you work for when the world's about to end and Jesus supposedy will bring you Cadillacs and Mansions?

 

No donations to universities and scientific instiitutions that do real research into improvements in medicine and technology help far more people than donations to Christian churches ever do.

again you still ignore the majority of the post.

and its very clear that you dont know what Christianity teaches because it teaches the exact opposite of that (the bolded)

also in no shape or form do Christian believe or tought that Jesus will bring mansions or cadallacs. but it does teach people that their body is their temple, and it must be taken care of, that means good healthcare.

furthermore, when i said universities, i should have been more specific, as liberals tend to give things to classes like "humanities" and classes that typicall has "studies" in their name. those close have little to nothing to do with research like curing disseases


Christianity doesn't teach the exact opposite of the bolded.  Christianity teaches that the lifestyles of gays is displeasing to its God and that at the very least gays should be cured rather than allowed to live as they see fit, that people follow a different God that they're going to Hell, and The Bible certainly teaches that men are supposed to be the heads of their households and their wives are supposed to be their faithful and submissive helpmates.

Billy Graham, one of the most influential Christian Ministers in the history of the US said that in the afterlife Christians would be driving Cadillas on Streets of Gold.  And Fundamentalist Christians do tend to believe that we are living in the End Times when if they're faithful to The Bible and its teachings then Jesus will very much bring them all the celestial wonders they could ever dream up after a time of great catastrophe for everyone else.

In the era we live in, which happens to be long after much of The Bible was found to be very prejudicial and to basically endorse utter crap like stoning people that are different from others, classes in the humanities are very important as they do demonstrate to people how they should get along with others in the world they live in today ie. we should embrace and be tolerant  of the differences that people have rather than condemning them or trying to change their preferred sexual orientations



EdHieron on 22 July 2011
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
HappySqurriel said:
EdHieron said:


Was Bush ever called a Muslim or was the country of his birth ever questioned?


Even many non-religious Liberals doubt Obama's Christianity, although they tend to favour the belief that he is non-religious.

John McCain's birthplace was questioned by lots of people, but he immediately provided adequate documentation to conclusively demonstrate that he was born on a military base which is considered American soil. George W. Bush had his education and military track record questioned constantly, Sarah Palin had the maternity of her children questioned, and most politicians who achieve any level of success are constantly pressed with ad-hominem attacks.

 

Now, aside from being supposedly "racist" what do you actually know about the values and beliefs of the Tea Party movement? Have you watched any of the unedited videos from their rallies or read the blog posts and articles of their members?

Attacking the Tea-Party as "Racist" falls along one of the more common lines of political defence because, in modern times, middle-class white people will do everything in their power to not appear to be a racist and if you can convince them that a group, movement or individual is racist they will actually avoid seaking out information about them. I expect that it has worked amazingly well with you, and you realistically have never learned anything about the Tea Party that has not been spoon-fed to you by someone who is opposed to them.


This is what I know about the Tea Party and primarily from my own study and psychological profiling of the group.  it's basically a tool for those that have a lot of money (wealthy Consevatives), yet don't want to do their part to help out the poorer citizens in this country escape from Obama's plan to tax the rich a bit more in order to make things better for the majority of the citizens in the US.

As I said in a prior post without the Tea Party these wealthy Conservatives would just look like a group of Rich and primarily Old White Men that are upset that Obama is going to tax them a bit more to help the lower classes have better lives.  With the Tea Party though these fellows look as if their numbers are far greater.

At least half of the Tea Party is lower class poor whites that are opposed to Obama for a variety of reasons (primarily his skin color, his perceived nationality (which was more or less nit picking), or his perceived religion).  And they do make the Tea Party appear larger than it is as a lobbying group, however, most of these people would certainly rebel under the right circumstances ie. if the Conservative Senators decided to cut the things that they breally need for their survival like Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid / Medicare, and  Food Stamps.

so in other words... things you pulled out of your ass (and msnbc's)

 

No, they're not things I pulled out of my ass or if I did I'm entitled to as I have been a student of the human condition for many years.  I have degrees in English literature, Religion, History, Psychology, and I am a great Cold Reader of the Laveyean School.  And all of my scholarly endeavors applied to the Tea Party have led me to believe that it is exactly as I've described it to be (and I don't watch MSNBC if anything I watch far more Fox News and listen to people like Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage).



osamanobama on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:

again you still ignore the majority of the post.

and its very clear that you dont know what Christianity teaches because it teaches the exact opposite of that (the bolded)

also in no shape or form do Christian believe or tought that Jesus will bring mansions or cadallacs. but it does teach people that their body is their temple, and it must be taken care of, that means good healthcare.

furthermore, when i said universities, i should have been more specific, as liberals tend to give things to classes like "humanities" and classes that typicall has "studies" in their name. those close have little to nothing to do with research like curing disseases


Christianity doesn't teach the exact opposite of the bolded.  Christianity teaches that the lifestyles of gays is displeasing to its God and that at the very least gays should be cured rather than allowed to live as they see fit, that people follow a different God that they're going to Hell, and The Bible certainly teaches that men are supposed to be the heads of their households and their wives are supposed to be their faithful and submissive helpmates.

Billy Graham, one of the most influential Christian Ministers in the history of the US said that in the afterlife Christians would be driving Cadillas on Streets of Gold.  And Fundamentalist Christians do tend to believe that we are living in the End Times when if they're faithful to The Bible and its teachings then Jesus will very much bring them all the celestial wonders they could ever dream up after a time of great catastrophe for everyone else.

In the era we live in, which happens to be long after much of The Bible was found to be very prejudicial and to basically endorse utter crap like stoning people that are different from others, classes in the humanities are very important as they do demonstrate to people how they should get along with others in the world they live in today ie. we should embrace and be tolerant  of the differences that people have rather than condeming them or trying to change their preferred sexual orientations


yes it does teach the opposite. you said that the bible teaches people to hate gay people, thats patently false. and yes, the Bible teaches that unrepentant sinners will go to hell. and it also teaches free will, so if people feel like leading sinnfull lives, that s their proragative.

and yes the bible teaches that second part, so what? it also says for husband to love their wives sacrificially, honor your wife, as they are the weaker vessel (the pretense for what you said), and to submit to one another..

for the second paragraph, link? anyway that is a metaphore, you know a comparison, that does not use like or as, and since when does Billy Grahm speek for all Christians?

Does "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" ring a bell for you? and now your changing arguments about giving to universities (while ignoring that this is only a small part of what liberals give to). and if you were following the discussion early, you would see that Universities are the polar opposite of tollerant



osamanobama on 22 July 2011
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
HappySqurriel said:
EdHieron said:




This is what I know about the Tea Party and primarily from my own study and psychological profiling of the group.  it's basically a tool for those that have a lot of money (wealthy Consevatives), yet don't want to do their part to help out the poorer citizens in this country escape from Obama's plan to tax the rich a bit more in order to make things better for the majority of the citizens in the US.

As I said in a prior post without the Tea Party these wealthy Conservatives would just look like a group of Rich and primarily Old White Men that are upset that Obama is going to tax them a bit more to help the lower classes have better lives.  With the Tea Party though these fellows look as if their numbers are far greater.

At least half of the Tea Party is lower class poor whites that are opposed to Obama for a variety of reasons (primarily his skin color, his perceived nationality (which was more or less nit picking), or his perceived religion).  And they do make the Tea Party appear larger than it is as a lobbying group, however, most of these people would certainly rebel under the right circumstances ie. if the Conservative Senators decided to cut the things that they breally need for their survival like Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid / Medicare, and  Food Stamps.

so in other words... things you pulled out of your ass (and msnbc's)

 

No, they're not things I pulled out of my ass or if I did I'm entitled to as I have been a student of the human condition for many years.  I have degrees in English literature, Religion, History, Psychology, and I am a great Cold Reader of the Laveyean School.  And all of my scholarly endeavors applied to the Tea Party have led me to believe that it is exactly as I've described it to be (and I don't watch MSNBC if anything I watch far more Fox News and listen to people like Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage).

so you base your belief off your ideology regardless of facts



EdHieron on 22 July 2011
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:
osamanobama said:
EdHieron said:

again you still ignore the majority of the post.

and its very clear that you dont know what Christianity teaches because it teaches the exact opposite of that (the bolded)

also in no shape or form do Christian believe or tought that Jesus will bring mansions or cadallacs. but it does teach people that their body is their temple, and it must be taken care of, that means good healthcare.

furthermore, when i said universities, i should have been more specific, as liberals tend to give things to classes like "humanities" and classes that typicall has "studies" in their name. those close have little to nothing to do with research like curing disseases


Christianity doesn't teach the exact opposite of the bolded.  Christianity teaches that the lifestyles of gays is displeasing to its God and that at the very least gays should be cured rather than allowed to live as they see fit, that people follow a different God that they're going to Hell, and The Bible certainly teaches that men are supposed to be the heads of their households and their wives are supposed to be their faithful and submissive helpmates.

Billy Graham, one of the most influential Christian Ministers in the history of the US said that in the afterlife Christians would be driving Cadillas on Streets of Gold.  And Fundamentalist Christians do tend to believe that we are living in the End Times when if they're faithful to The Bible and its teachings then Jesus will very much bring them all the celestial wonders they could ever dream up after a time of great catastrophe for everyone else.

In the era we live in, which happens to be long after much of The Bible was found to be very prejudicial and to basically endorse utter crap like stoning people that are different from others, classes in the humanities are very important as they do demonstrate to people how they should get along with others in the world they live in today ie. we should embrace and be tolerant  of the differences that people have rather than condeming them or trying to change their preferred sexual orientations


yes it does teach the opposite. you said that the bible teaches people to hate gay people, thats patently false. and yes, the Bible teaches that unrepentant sinners will go to hell. and it also teaches free will, so if people feel like leading sinnfull lives, that s their proragative.

and yes the bible teaches that second part, so what? it also says for husband to love their wives sacrificially, honor your wife, as they are the weaker vessel (the pretense for what you said), and to submit to one another..

for the second paragraph, link? anyway that is a metaphore, you know a comparison, that does not use like or as, and since when does Billy Grahm speek for all Christians?

Does "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" ring a bell for you? and now your changing arguments about giving to universities (while ignoring that this is only a small part of what liberals give to). and if you were following the discussion early, you would see that Universities are the polar opposite of tollerant


So you're saying this individuals feelings towards gays http://www.kevincraig.us/homophobia.htm have nothing to do with any of the passages in the Bible like the ones about Soddom and Gomorrah or the ones that patently call for the stoning of homosexuals?

There are no sinful lives because, just like Yahweh, sin doesn't exist.

I don't really have time to look up the exact Billy Graham quote ( I think I read it quoted in Maxim many years ago); however, Fundamentalist Christians certainly expect they will get good things in the afterlife and that nonbelievers won't:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onM2f_CsdKM .  Yet there is no evidence for an afterlife.  And chaining oneself down to a dogma that has no evidence to support its claims is very much making a slave of yourself.

Universities are very tolerant.  It's true they might not be so tolerant of Christian beliefs, but you know, that's mainly because of the fact that except for a handful of passages in The Bible like the one you quote above Christian beliefs are complete and utter bs.