Gingrich fears 'atheist country ... dominated by radical Islamists'

[NYcarbineer]

None of you liberal retards have any reading comprehension. Newts fear is a sociological theory that has been around for decades, I learned of it in college sociology class in the early 90's. A nation becomes secular (meaning religious influence is highly diminished, not extinct) and it ignores and underestimates a radical religious group, because in the society's view, no one could be that motivated by religion....because most of them aren't religious. That secular society then falls under the radical religion, because they didn't take it seriously.

I think he's right. I think retard atheists look at radical Islam as a joke. They underestimate it. In their minds, no one would be that crazy over a petty religion, not enough to go to war and kill innocents. So, they minimalize that and go on with their lives. Before you know it, it's too late.

So Newts question, I think, is this; Are we gonna take radical Islam seriously, or not?

So secular Turkey is more tolerant of radical Islamic fundamentalism than Iran is? Than Afghanistan under the Taliban was?

lololol

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No, he is making a valid point that libtards dont fathom, because their brains are eaten up with liberalism.

....And, tomorro....er, today.....he'll make a conflicting valid point.

What's YOUR point?????


​

 

[8537]

About 18.

But it's funny watching liberals mock a theory that has been in college sociology books for decades, like its some whacko idea Gingrich just made up on spot.

Oh well, can't expect you folks to have much of a research background outside of Al Gore movies and Commemorative Barack Obama Speeches CD's.

College textbooks?

Are these the same ones that say Evolution is a myth?

I can check. Furman Univ, 1989-1993, I can dig up the old sociology required texts if it were necessary.

And since you bring it up, yeah, some texts from my college did bring up the possibility that evolution is a myth. They pointed to the missing fossils of Darwins theory,

There are no "missing fossils" needed.

and many other inconsistencies, BUT also pointed out the strong case for it. You know....discussing both sides of issues. Furman encourages that. They spoke of early science showing that a creator was not only possibly, be almost likely. That science has grown stronger since the 90's also, btw. My favorite reading into that topic spoke of evolution as a vessel in which the creator pushes life's destiny. That evolution uses the knowledge planted in DNA to make things happen, but a creator programmed that DNA, like a hard drive.

We call that "Intelligent Design", and if it's taught in a science department - as opposed to a philosophy or sociology department - the professor is making shit up. There is zero scientific evidence supporting ID.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, it just dawned on me.

Newt is pointing out what he believes is the dangerous prospect of Americans taking religious freedom, as guaranteed by our Constitution, too seriously.

Newt is advocating for a Christian theocracy, or at least as close to a Christian theocracy as laws would allow,

in order to foster a social and political institutionalized hostility towards tolerance of non-Christian religions,

aka Islam.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You mean like the vaccuum we created in relatively secular Iraq with our little invasion for cash orchestrated by shrub and his corporate cronies, for the bilking of American taxpayers by the MIC? You know, how there are terrorists there now blowing up our soldiers because of our actions, where there were none before? Oopsie!

Was newtie quaking in his tighty whities over that one? My guess is no... Did you? My guess is also no. Did you drag out your old "college textbook" over that one? Hmm.

 

[edthecynic]

A tad, yes. Especially as he's speaking to radical christians.

Which radical Christians?

The radical Christians who follow the false profit Hagee, a practicing glutton who condemns all sin in others but insists he is "saved" and going to heaven.

 

[bucs90]

College textbooks?

Are these the same ones that say Evolution is a myth?

I can check. Furman Univ, 1989-1993, I can dig up the old sociology required texts if it were necessary.

And since you bring it up, yeah, some texts from my college did bring up the possibility that evolution is a myth. They pointed to the missing fossils of Darwins theory,

There are no "missing fossils" needed.

and many other inconsistencies, BUT also pointed out the strong case for it. You know....discussing both sides of issues. Furman encourages that. They spoke of early science showing that a creator was not only possibly, be almost likely. That science has grown stronger since the 90's also, btw. My favorite reading into that topic spoke of evolution as a vessel in which the creator pushes life's destiny. That evolution uses the knowledge planted in DNA to make things happen, but a creator programmed that DNA, like a hard drive.

We call that "Intelligent Design", and if it's taught in a science department - as opposed to a philosophy or sociology department - the professor is making shit up. There is zero scientific evidence supporting ID.

If you believe that, then your education has been very one sided. There is a mountain of science suggesting ID could be fact, independent of or along with evolution.

I'm not hard on either side of this issue, thus, I've had an open mind to read and consider all sides and ideas. Hard athetists or hard religious types refuse to acknowledge or even consider the opposing side. I have not, and there is a lot out there supporting both sides, and the more I read on it, the more I find that we know less about our origin with the more we learn about it.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

The radical Christians who follow the false profit Hagee, a practicing glutton who condemns all sin in others but insists he is "saved" and going to heaven.

Just like every other millionaire/billionaire "evangelical" megachurch douche... I'm not even going to begin on the hypocrisy of these morons vs. what they preach... I'd be here all day.

 

[bucs90]

Okay, it just dawned on me.

Newt is pointing out what he believes is the dangerous prospect of Americans taking religious freedom, as guaranteed by our Constitution, too seriously.

Newt is advocating for a Christian theocracy, or at least as close to a Christian theocracy as laws would allow,

in order to foster a social and political institutionalized hostility towards tolerance of non-Christian religions,

aka Islam.

Partly, yes, you're right. Thats the root of that theory. That a society takes religious freedom so seriously, that it erases religion from it's public arena almost completely. And 99% of it's people fall in line. But a 1% radical element can thrive, becuase they are free to, and the society is now secular enough that it wont be taken seriously.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But is it more ridiculous to vote for Newt while he says that stuff?

Or to vote for an unknown candidate who simply spews "Hope! Change! Bush is bad!"

Gee.....I guess we libtards made the CORRECT choice!!!





(.....And, you 'Baggers are STILL.....)

 

[bucs90]

The radical Christians who follow the false profit Hagee, a practicing glutton who condemns all sin in others but insists he is "saved" and going to heaven.

Just like every other millionaire/billionaire "evangelical" megachurch douche... I'm not even going to begin on the hypocrisy of these morons vs. what they preach... I'd be here all day.

I agree. They are crooked and corrupt a lot of times. Not all. But some. However, their members aren't "radical". They aren't beheading non-believers. They aren't stoning a woman to death for cheating on her baby-daddy.

BTW, our current president was dumb enough to spend 20 years in one of those mega churches, all the while having no clue what the preacher was saying.

 

[bucs90]

I'm not sure I'd support Newt or not. But I do know politics are mostly local. The national stuff is what we get caught up in, but the local stuff affects us more.

And until Newt makes a call for LOCAL police depts to lower their standards in the name of diversity, then I'll vote for him over Obama anyday.

Seriously. Obama/Holder actually called for that. Local police depts to LOWER standards in the name of diversity? As a former cop, I can say, the standards can't get too much lower for entrance to most academies. Obama is playing college experiment with our public safety. Bad results follow.

 

[8537]

I can check. Furman Univ, 1989-1993, I can dig up the old sociology required texts if it were necessary.

And since you bring it up, yeah, some texts from my college did bring up the possibility that evolution is a myth. They pointed to the missing fossils of Darwins theory,

There are no "missing fossils" needed.

and many other inconsistencies, BUT also pointed out the strong case for it. You know....discussing both sides of issues. Furman encourages that. They spoke of early science showing that a creator was not only possibly, be almost likely. That science has grown stronger since the 90's also, btw. My favorite reading into that topic spoke of evolution as a vessel in which the creator pushes life's destiny. That evolution uses the knowledge planted in DNA to make things happen, but a creator programmed that DNA, like a hard drive.

We call that "Intelligent Design", and if it's taught in a science department - as opposed to a philosophy or sociology department - the professor is making shit up. There is zero scientific evidence supporting ID.

If you believe that, then your education has been very one sided. There is a mountain of science suggesting ID could be fact, independent of or along with evolution.

Give us one "fact" that supports ID. Before you go all stupid - saying "evolution is too complex to have occurred randomly" is not evidence that ID is true.

I'm not hard on either side of this issue, thus, I've had an open mind to read and consider all sides and ideas. Hard athetists or hard religious types refuse to acknowledge or even consider the opposing side.

The problem is that evolution is a theory developed over 150 years and supported by a wide range of verified scientific inquiry. It is based in science.

ID is a religious response to the scientific facts of evolution. It is based in an inability to accept the science because said science contradicts one's core values. ID is faith, not fact.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I agree. They are crooked and corrupt a lot of times. Not all. But some. However, their members aren't "radical". They aren't beheading non-believers. They aren't stoning a woman to death for cheating on her baby-daddy.

No, they only applaud their followers that beat the shit out of people for who they love and deny them their human rights; and turn a blind eye (and silently applaud, I strongly suspect) when a doctor is killed for practicing medicine. Who are the atheists killing and harrassing? Are atheists picketing funerals and hurling insults at people on the street they do not "agree with"? Was it atheists who participated in the crusades? Were the atheists the ones rattling sabers to invade Iraq and buying "bullet hole" Iraq bumper stickers? No, they absolutely were not. That was your conservative xtians and they are NOT innocents.

They are just as bad as the radical islamists. Peroid.

 

[gekaap]

I don't know what's worse in this thread. The ignorantly blind atheist hatred, or the ignorantly blind Muslim hatred.

 

[bucs90]

There are no "missing fossils" needed.



We call that "Intelligent Design", and if it's taught in a science department - as opposed to a philosophy or sociology department - the professor is making shit up. There is zero scientific evidence supporting ID.

If you believe that, then your education has been very one sided. There is a mountain of science suggesting ID could be fact, independent of or along with evolution.

Give us one "fact" that supports ID. Before you go all stupid - saying "evolution is too complex to have occurred randomly" is not evidence that ID is true.

I'm not hard on either side of this issue, thus, I've had an open mind to read and consider all sides and ideas. Hard athetists or hard religious types refuse to acknowledge or even consider the opposing side.

The problem is that evolution is a theory developed over 150 years and supported by a wide range of verified scientific inquiry. It is based in science.

ID is a religious response to the scientific facts of evolution. It is based in an inability to accept the science because said science contradicts one's core values. ID is faith, not fact.

Not so in all cases. The sciene of evolution doesn't negate MY belief on creation, but supplements it. If there is a creator, and some sort of evolution obviously occurred, then that makes evolution a process of nature that was part of the larger creation. Thus, evolution then technically becomes part of a religious belief, right?

This book came out way after I graduated college, but it's one good one that sums up some of the science of creation: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310241448]Amazon.com: The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God (0025986241445): Lee Strobel: Books[/ame]

My belief is grounded more in the mathematic impossibility of our existence. The almost unfathomable circumstances that had to be in place for us to exist, and how each and every one of them, each nearly impossible, all fell into place to create an environment we could exist. Also the idea of energy never dying, only changing form. Well, if you cut a person open, you can't find the energy of emotion that powers an athlete through a game, or the energy of emotion that causes a betrayed husband to murder his wife. That emotion is energy that must go somewhere, right?

So, I'm not one to say evolution is false, only that it's part of a bigger picture that we are nowhere close to grasping. But I do 100% believe there is a human soul that does not end when we die. What happens I don't know. But I know it doesn't die. And I know that blowing ourselves up wont get me 72 virgins.

 

[bucs90]

I agree. They are crooked and corrupt a lot of times. Not all. But some. However, their members aren't "radical". They aren't beheading non-believers. They aren't stoning a woman to death for cheating on her baby-daddy.

No, they only applaud their followers that beat the shit out of people for who they love and deny them their human rights; and turn a blind eye (and silently applaud, I strongly suspect) when a doctor is killed for practicing medicine. Who are the atheists killing and harrassing? Are atheists picketing funerals and hurling insults at people on the street they do not "agree with"? Was it atheists who participated in the crusades? Were the atheists the ones rattling sabers to invade Iraq and buying "bullet hole" Iraq bumper stickers? No, they absolutely were not. That was your conservative xtians and they are NOT innocents.

They are just as bad as the radical islamists. Peroid.

When did murdering a child become "medicine"? "Medicine" heals, not kills.

 

[gekaap]

There is a mountain of science suggesting ID could be fact, independent of or along with evolution.

Show me the money.

 

[HUGGY]

Is there any doubt that the Christian Fundamentalists in the country are STUCK ON STUPID?????

Why do you guys keep falling for people like Palin and Trump and Gingrich? I want my party back ...you Bozo's just never get it and I'm tired of guys like Clinton and Obama walking all over your dumb asses.

 

[gekaap]

when did murdering a child become "medicine"? "medicine" heals, not kills.

So you evade the point to hide the fact that you support extremists killing innocent American citizens!!!!! Get the fuck out of my country, you're no longer welcome!!!! Somebody take his ass to Gitmo!!!!