Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[onedomino]

Limbaugh, does indeed utilize the fine art of subtle humor/jokes........and it does rankle some folks, as they can't see it.

As far as someone needing to read the prior 237 posts on this topic. That's poppy-cock.....Most of the posts are just bantering back forth on off-topic themes.

Anyone can jump in at any time...........You need to exercise some "tolerance" onedomino. Let's be objective and not get emotional, now.

Sure you can jump in at any time and make remarks that indicate you have not read the thread, but what’s the point? His obvious drug observation about Limbaugh had already been made more than once in this tread. Why do we have to read it again because he did not bother to see that his post was redundant? Anyway, the reason I responded was to object to his opinion that Limbaugh was ironically funny. That is a perverse sense of what is funny. In no way was what Limbaugh did funny. Regarding MJ Fox, Limbaugh was mean spirited and uncivil, helping to drive moderate voters away from the Republicans. Funny? Hardly.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The vast majority of those that died under the Soviet system did so due to starvation due to crappy collective farming initiatives. Nothing to do with believing or not believing in a god. Actually, those murdered by the state were not done so due to a belief or non-belief in god. As I've said, no religion is innocent, including your precious Christianity.

You're so eager to attack religion that you're willing to step over (ala your insipid comments) the millions of dead bodies of people killed by godless communist governments in the quite recent 20th century.

So "rational" of you.

 

[jillian]

You're so eager to attack religion that you're willing to step over (ala your insipid comments) the millions of dead bodies of people killed by godless communist governments in the quite recent 20th century.

So "rational" of you.

Where did he say they weren't killed? He said they weren't killed becuse of their religious beliefs... which is true. You're confusing issues. Not surprising. And do show us where he attacked any religion.

You guys really have to get over yourselves.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Where did he say they weren't killed? He said they weren't killed becuse of their religious beliefs... which is true. You're confusing issues. Not surprising. And do show us where he attacked any religion.

You guys really have to get over yourselves.

Not confused at all...just not taking the bait. You do realize Dr. Grump is an atheist who thinks any reference to religion must be wiped from our government? And of course relgious beliefs would get in the way of embryonic stem cell research.....much like religious beliefs would have gotten in the way of the systemic murders in the USSR, etc. if religion had had a voice.

I'm tired of playing word games with atheists who only want to dismantle our existing American government to make it as pristine and empty of any reference to God as a communist government....knocking down our crosses, getting rid of Christmas, and erasing our heritage, not to mention barring the opinions of "religious extremists".

In America we have freedom of religion which means we can also express our religious beliefs IN our government....something which is NOT allowed in a communist government.
Recognize the difference.

 

[jillian]

Not confused at all...just not taking the bait. You do realize Dr. Grump is an atheist who thinks any reference to religion must be wiped from our government? And of course relgious beliefs would get in the way of embryonic stem cell research.....much like religious beliefs would have gotten in the way of the systemic murders in the USSR, etc. if religion had had a voice.

Being that Grump is my friend, I am fully aware of his beliefs. I am not an athiest but believe that government and religion do not mix. I am not the first to believe that. Thomas Jefferson and his bretheren were of the same belief. This same debate was pushed by religious zealots at the time of the founding of this country and they were soundly ignored by the Founding Fathers.

Again, I have religious beliefs and support stem cell research because it can potentitally save lives and cure disease at the expense of a few frozen embryos that will be used for nothing else.

Finally, and once again, religion was not the reason people were killed under Stalin.... that was a function of a totalitarian leader who killed people who did not support him. And you are confusing the issues.

I'm tired of playing word games with atheists who only want to dismantle our existing American government to make it as pristine and empty of any reference to God as a communist government....knocking down our crosses, getting rid of Christmas, and erasing our heritage, not to mention barring the opinions of "religious extremists".

How absurd. And what a bunch of garbage. No one has ever tried to keep Christians from worshipping. So that's a bunch of hooey. What you don't get to do is take this wonderfully secular country which allows us all to worship as we please and insert your Christian dogma in place of logic, science and freedom. We don't live in a theocracy, much as you would have it made one and much as you whine that it isn't. You want religion, go to Church. I'll take my government straight up, thank you very much. And I certainly don't want to live by your religious rules when I have my own.

In America we have freedom of religion which means we can also express our religious beliefs IN our government....something which is NOT allowed in a communist government.
Recognize the difference.

Actually, you don't get to have your government express your religious beliefs. Comparing secularism in government, which allows us all religious freedom, and not just a bunch of Christian zealots, with Communism is absurd and flies in the face of everything created by the founders and everything which makes this Country free for all of us to worship or not worship as we please.

 

[Dr Grump]

Being that Grump is my friend, I am fully aware of his beliefs. I am not an athiest but believe that government and religion do not mix. I am not the first to believe that. Thomas Jefferson and his bretheren were of the same belief. This same debate was pushed by religious zealots at the time of the founding of this country and they were soundly ignored by the Founding Fathers.

Again, I have religious beliefs and support stem cell research because it can potentitally save lives and cure disease at the expense of a few frozen embryos that will be used for nothing else.

Finally, and once again, religion was not the reason people were killed under Stalin.... that was a function of a totalitarian leader who killed people who did not support him. And you are confusing the issues.
How absurd. And what a bunch of garbage. No one has ever tried to keep Christians from worshipping. So that's a bunch of hooey. What you don't get to do is take this wonderfully secular country which allows us all to worship as we please and insert your Christian dogma in place of logic, science and freedom. We don't live in a theocracy, much as you would have it made one and much as you whine that it isn't. You want religion, go to Church. I'll take my government straight up, thank you very much. And I certainly don't want to live by your religious rules when I have my own.

Actually, you don't get to have your government express your religious beliefs. Comparing secularism in government, which allows us all religious freedom, and not just a bunch of Christian zealots, with Communism is absurd and flies in the face of everything created by the founders and everything which makes this Country free for all of us to worship or not worship as we please.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jillian again.

You do realise your post will fall on deaf ears and he will not address the meat and potatos...

 

[jillian]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jillian again.

You do realise your post will fall on deaf ears and he will not address the meat and potatos...

Why, thank you.

And. of course, I realize that. But it is interesting to watch him twist and turn.

 

[dilloduck]

No one has ever tried to keep Christians from worshipping.

Wanna re-think that claim?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Being that Grump is my friend, I am fully aware of his beliefs. I am not an athiest but believe that government and religion do not mix. I am not the first to believe that. Thomas Jefferson and his bretheren were of the same belief. This same debate was pushed by religious zealots at the time of the founding of this country and they were soundly ignored by the Founding Fathers.

Again, I have religious beliefs and support stem cell research because it can potentitally save lives and cure disease at the expense of a few frozen embryos that will be used for nothing else.

Finally, and once again, religion was not the reason people were killed under Stalin.... that was a function of a totalitarian leader who killed people who did not support him. And you are confusing the issues.



How absurd. And what a bunch of garbage. No one has ever tried to keep Christians from worshipping. So that's a bunch of hooey. What you don't get to do is take this wonderfully secular country which allows us all to worship as we please and insert your Christian dogma in place of logic, science and freedom. We don't live in a theocracy, much as you would have it made one and much as you whine that it isn't. You want religion, go to Church. I'll take my government straight up, thank you very much. And I certainly don't want to live by your religious rules when I have my own.



Actually, you don't get to have your government express your religious beliefs. Comparing secularism in government, which allows us all religious freedom, and not just a bunch of Christian zealots, with Communism is absurd and flies in the face of everything created by the founders and everything which makes this Country free for all of us to worship or not worship as we please.

Before you and Grump congratulate each other further on your fine "secular thinking", stop and actually think for a moment.....

do you see any religious concepts reflected in our laws today?
(here's some hints: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt honor thy father and mother, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc.) Is that not a mixing of religious beliefs and government? (I am not talking about establishing religion here!)

Just like the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, maybe we should also get rid of our laws on murder and theft?! After all, they're based in religious dogma... :shocked1:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The vast majority of those that died under the Soviet system did so due to starvation due to crappy collective farming initiatives. Nothing to do with believing or not believing in a god. Actually, those murdered by the state were not done so due to a belief or non-belief in god. As I've said, no religion is innocent, including your precious Christianity.

WRONG AGAIN!

The VAST majority were MURDERED by Stalin, who was an atheist. His atheist beliefs defined his values, of which his values allowed him to justify murdering tens of millions of his own people. The first in history to do so.

He murdered them because he was paranoid.

And to top it off, you are going to see when its all said and done, when all the info comes out, Mao Tzi Tung is going to top him, murdering in the name of the State.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Being that Grump is my friend, I am fully aware of his beliefs. I am not an athiest but believe that government and religion do not mix. I am not the first to believe that. Thomas Jefferson and his bretheren were of the same belief. This same debate was pushed by religious zealots at the time of the founding of this country and they were soundly ignored by the Founding Fathers. .

TOTAL BULLSHIT.

When Jefferson referred to the seperation, it was ONLY in reference to not allowing the govt to influence religion, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

You either simply spout the talking head points of the anti Christian crowd, or you ignore much of what was written so that your predetermined agenda can continue to flourish in that deep well of patheticism, called your brain.

FACT IS, THE FOUNDING FATHERS BELONGED TO, SUPPORTED AND PASSED LAWS IN STATES THAT ESTABLISHED STATE RELIGIONS. HOW DOES THAT COMPORT WITH "SOUNDLY IGNORED"?

 

[Dr Grump]

WRONG AGAIN!

The VAST majority were MURDERED by Stalin, who was an atheist. His atheist beliefs defined his values, of which his values allowed him to justify murdering tens of millions of his own people. The first in history to do so.

He murdered them because he was paranoid.

And to top it off, you are going to see when its all said and done, when all the info comes out, Mao Tzi Tung is going to top him, murdering in the name of the State.

Well at least you got something right...Stalin was paranoid.
I don't think his lack of a belief in god had anything to do with what he did anymore than Torquemada's belief in god had anything to do with what he did. Not believing in a god doesn't make the man. The man makes the man...get it yet?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well at least you got something right...Stalin was paranoid.
I don't think his lack of a belief in god had anything to do with what he did anymore than Torquemada's belief in god had anything to do with what he did. Not believing in a god doesn't make the man. The man makes the man...get it yet?

So, in other words, no matter what, only God believing people can be held responsable for murdering millions of people?

Just a clue,,,lack of belief in God has a HUGE effect on how you will form your values.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So, in other words, no matter what, only God believing people can be held responsable for murdering millions of people?

Just a clue,,,lack of belief in God has a HUGE effect on how you will form your values.

....or lack of values....:dev1:

 

[jillian]

And once again, the radical religious right proves that they think only people who share their worldview have morality.....

And once again reinforce my opinion that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near governmental policy.... same as radical muslims.

I'm in the company of real conservatives on this one:

Even in the early 1980s, [Barry] Goldwater was wary of the growing influence of the religious right, taking to the floor of the Senate in 1981 to decry "the religious factions that ... are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent ... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' ... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'"

http://www.nysun.com/article/30647

 

[dilloduck]

And once again, the radical religious right proves that they think only people who share their worldview have morality.....

And once again reinforce my opinion that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near governmental policy.... same as radical muslims.

I'm in the company of real conservatives on this one:



http://www.nysun.com/article/30647

What would a secular America look like ? Can you give me a few specific examples of what would be changed?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

And once again, the radical religious right proves that they think only people who share their worldview have morality.....

And once again reinforce my opinion that they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near governmental policy.... same as radical muslims.

I'm in the company of real conservatives on this one:

http://www.nysun.com/article/30647

Not really. Conservative means retaining the tried and true old ways - which means our established laws which were originally based on good Christian morals and common sense. Goldwater is not really a social conservative when it comes to social issues such as homosexuality. I'd say he's more of a libertarian in that regard.

Ordinary Christians like me are the "radical religious right"???? That's a laugh. Well, I suppose your goal is to get rid of all Christians in politics so then the 1% who are atheists could rule the country their way, right? Or what??? You continually avoid answering our questions regarding your ethics or how America should look.

However, you're not really an atheist are you? And I don't believe you're Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or any other "religion". So what are your ethics? Oh, that's right, you can't say....so I guess you're from the lapsed religious crowd that just does whatever you feeeeeeeel like....

The Secularist motto to live by: If it feels good, do it!:wank:

 

[jillian]

Not really. Conservative means retaining the tried and true old ways - which means our established laws which were originally based on good Christian morals and common sense. Goldwater is not really a social conservative when it comes to social issues such as homosexuality. I'd say he's more of a libertarian in that regard.

Funny... he felt he was a true conservative and so did everyone else. He believed in small government and balanced budgets. He wasn't pro-small government except when it comes to others' bedrooms

I love when the radical religious right tries to pretend that the Founding Fathers set up a "christian" country. I guess you believe in fairy tales, huh?

The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

Fundamentalist Christians are currently working overtime to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on "biblical principles," but history simply does not support their view. The men mentioned above and others who were instrumental in the founding of our nation were in no sense Bible-believing Christians. Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes" (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371). In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816).

Jefferson was just as suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is "the inspired word of God." He rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated all miracles attributed to Jesus and ended with his burial. The Jeffersonian gospel account contained no resurrection, a twist to the life of Jesus that was considered scandalous to Christians but perfectly sensible to Jefferson's Deistic mind. In a letter to John Adams, he wrote, "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise" (August 15, 1820). In saying this, Jefferson was merely expressing the widely held Deistic view of his time, which rejected the mysticism of the Bible and relied on natural law and human reason to explain why the world is as it is. Writing to Adams again, Jefferson said, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823). These were hardly the words of a devout Bible-believer.

Jefferson didn't just reject the Christian belief that the Bible was "the inspired word of God"; he rejected the Christian system too. In Notes on the State of Virginia, he said of this religion, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33). Anyone today who would make a statement like this or others we have quoted from Jefferson's writings would be instantly branded an infidel, yet modern Bible fundamentalists are frantically trying to cast Jefferson in the mold of a Bible believing Christian. They do so, of course, because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of our nation to leave him out if Bible fundamentalists hope to sell their "Christian-nation" claim to the public. Hence, they try to rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on "biblical principles." The irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson's time knew where he stood on "biblical principles," and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency. Saul K. Padover's biography related the bitterness of the opposition that the clergy mounted against Jefferson in the campaign of 1800

The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the "in fidel" from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson (Jefferson A Great American's Life and Ideas, Mentor Books, 1964, p.116).

William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister in New York City, made perhaps the most violent of all attacks on Jefferson's character, all of it based on religious matters. In a pamphlet entitled Serious Considerations on the Election of a President, Linn "accused Jefferson of the heinous crimes of not believing in divine revelation and of a design to destroy religion and `introduce immorality'" (Padover, p. 116). He referred to Jefferson as a "true infidel" and insisted that "(a)n infidel like Jefferson could not, should not, be elected" (Padover, p. 117). He concluded the pamphlet with this appeal for "Christians to defeat the `infidel' from Virginia"

Will you, then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence... vote for Mr. Jefferson?... As to myself, were Mr. Jefferson connected with me by the nearest ties of blood, and did I owe him a thousand obligations, I would not, and could not vote for him. No; sooner than stretch forth my hand to place him at the head of the nation "Let mine arms fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone" (quoted by Padover, p. 117).

Why would contemporary clergymen have so vigorously opposed Jefferson's election if he were as devoutly Christian as modern preachers claim? The answer is that Jefferson was not a Christian, and the preachers of his day knew that he wasn't.

In the heat of the campaign Jefferson wrote a letter to Benjamin Rush in which he angrily commented on the clerical efforts to assassinate his personal character "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." That statement has been inscribed on Jefferson's monument in Washington. Most people who read it no doubt think that Jefferson was referring to political tyrants like the King of England, but in reality, he was referring to the fundamentalist clergymen of his day.

After Jefferson became president, he did not compromise his beliefs. As president, he refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations, a fact that Justice Souter referred to in his concurring opinion with the majority in Lee vs. Weisman, the recent supreme-court decision that ruled prayers at graduation ceremonies unconstitutional. Early in his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Ordinary Christians like me are the "radical religious right"????

Luckily you aren't an "ordinary Christian". You're a zealot. Normal Christians do not say insane things like "if Roe v Wade is repealed rapes will go down because women will have to be more responsible"

That's a laugh. Well, I suppose your goal is to get rid of all Christians in politics so then the 1% who are atheists could rule the country their way, right? Or what???

I love you whining zealots who respond to the rest of us who don't want you creating a theocracy with "whhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... you hate Christians"... whaaaaaaaaaa...whaaaaaaaaaaaaa.... freaking whaaaaaaaaaaaa:baby:

You know that isn't what I said at all. Yet you persist in repeating that little paranoid fantasy of yours.

You continually avoid answering our questions regarding your ethics or how America should look.

I've been very clear about what I believe. I am pro existing life. Pro science. Pro education. Pro live and let live.... Pro governing my own behavior and not allowing a crackpot extremist to try to do it for me. I'm pro the Constitution and against violating its letter AND spirit. Pro being able to practice religion in one's house of worship and one's home but not in the governmental arena... where it is only allowed to interfere in theocracies. Again... we don't live in one and I'll cast any ballot I have to to keep you guys from making it one.

However, you're not really an atheist are you?

I've repeatedly made it clear that I'm not an athiest. That would be Grump. I'm a believer but not in what you believe.

And I don't believe you're Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or any other "religion".

I don't really care what you believe.

So what are your ethics? Oh, that's right, you can't say....so I guess you're from the lapsed religious crowd that just does whatever you feeeeeeeel like....

The Secularist motto to live by: If it feels good, do it!:wank:

Yup... typical extremist response... "you're not a fundie Christian so you must be an amoral Christian-hating athiest".

What a crock.

 

[Dr Grump]

Luckily you aren't an "ordinary Christian". You're a zealot. Normal Christians do not say insane things like "if Roe v Wade is repealed rapes will go down because women will have to be more responsible"

I love you whining zealots who respond to the rest of us who don't want you creating a theocracy with "whhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... you hate Christians"... whaaaaaaaaaa...whaaaaaaaaaaaaa.... freaking whaaaaaaaaaaaa:baby:

You know that isn't what I said at all. Yet you persist in repeating that little paranoid fantasy of yours.

I've been very clear about what I believe. I am pro existing life. Pro science. Pro education. Pro live and let live.... Pro governing my own behavior and not allowing a crackpot extremist to try to do it for me. I'm pro the Constitution and against violating its letter AND spirit. Pro being able to practice religion in one's house of worship and one's home but not in the governmental arena... where it is only allowed to interfere in theocracies. Again... we don't live in one and I'll cast any ballot I have to to keep you guys from making it one.

I've repeatedly made it clear that I'm not an athiest. That would be Grump. I'm a believer but not in what you believe.

I don't really care what you believe.

Yup... typical extremist response... "you're not a fundie Christian so you must be an amoral Christian-hating athiest".

What a crock.

Dollars to donuts he won't get it.

BTW, I really don't consider myself an athiest. I have no belief system whatsoever, or if what I do believe in has a name, I dunno what it is. When I think of athiests I think of that nutty woman from Texas who got whacked...(I think her son did, too)...

 

[jillian]

Dollars to donuts he won't get it.

BTW, I really don't consider myself an athiest. I have no belief system whatsoever, or if what I do believe in has a name, I dunno what it is. When I think of athiests I think of that nutty woman from Texas who got whacked...(I think her son did, too)...

Of course he won't get it!

lol re the woman from Texas. Sounds like you might accept the "possibility" that something else is out there... maybe one little glimmer?