News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

[turbo]

Thank god.

Thank dog! Some of us creatures aren't all that judgmental.

 

[OmCheeto]

I placed post-modern, too.

me three.

I think Dawkins is right on his assessment. I could never vote for any of the current crop of Republicans because I hold very liberal social values AND I think the Republican party thinks it's better to be simple than smart. When they change those two things, I'll take another look at them.

I don't really know that much about Dawkins nor Perry, but if the things I've read in this thread are true, then I have to side with Dawkins.

Oh and they have to accept my atheism, too .

No! You must accept a god into your heart! Otherwise you are doomed!
How about Pastafarianism? I don't think they have many rules.
And being a member of a religion increases the number of swear phrases at your disposal by at least a factor of 10.

Just imagine the following scene with no religious references:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5R_pS0h5Qk
I don't think "Poopity..., poop..., poop..., poop..." would have been quite as dramatic.

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/white-house-christmas-decor-featuring-mao-zedong-comes/

Yeah, the Christmas decor thing is hilarious, although I'm not sure they meant it to be. Hedda Lettuce? Obama on Mount Rushmore?

 

[ThomasT]

Again, I think the longer this debate lasts with Perry, Bachman, Santorum, and Palin - the less anyone will care that Romney is a Mormon - IMO - this helps Romney.

This makes sense to me. But my guess is that it only pertains to people riding the fence. I doubt that the base that Perry is appealing, and appeals, to will be able to set aside the fact that Romney is a Morman.

 

[turbo]

Guess what, folks? Romney is a Mormon multi-millionaire! Just like Obama's mixed-race background, it will be really hard to miss, especially when his primary opponents bring it up over and over again, and the Koch machine piles on with unlimited ad-buys, thanks to the Bush-stacked SCOTUS. We need some adults in DC, from the administration, right through Congress, and SCOTUS. Most of all, we need to be freed of the influence of lobbyists that rob "we the people" of our most basic representation in favor of "we the rich".

 

[ThomasT]

Guess what, folks? Romney is a Mormon multi-millionaire! Just like Obama's mixed-race background, it will be really hard to miss, especially when his primary opponents bring it up over and over again, and the Koch machine piles on with unlimited ad-buys, thanks to the Bush-stacked SCOTUS. We need some adults in DC, from the administration, right through Congress, and SCOTUS. Most of all, we need to be freed of the influence of lobbyists that rob "we the people" of our most basic representation in favor of "we the rich".

Nice sentiments, which I basically agree with, but things have always been run by the rich and for the rich even though most of society isn't made up of the rich. I don't think it can be any other way as long as the vast majority of the population has little interest and takes no active part in the process except for maybe voting once in a while. As long as people pretty much only consider and vote for democrats or republicans, then the status quo won't change.

My main concern, wrt the topic of this thread, is that we don't get another fanatical apostle of Christ in the White House.

 

[OmCheeto]

Guess what, folks? Romney is a Mormon multi-millionaire! Just like Obama's mixed-race background, it will be really hard to miss, especially when his primary opponents bring it up over and over again, and the Koch machine piles on with unlimited ad-buys, thanks to the Bush-stacked SCOTUS. We need some adults in DC, from the administration, right through Congress, and SCOTUS. Most of all, we need to be freed of the influence of lobbyists that rob "we the people" of our most basic representation in favor of "we the rich".

You forgot Norquist, and his contractual minions!

I pledge allegiance to Grover Norquist, and to whatever for which he stands, one man, unelected, with liberty, and justice, for those of us who are more equal than others.

The http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/072911-federalpledgesigners.pdf" that makes me seethe...

 

[turbo]

You forgot Norquist, and his contractual minions!

The http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/072911-federalpledgesigners.pdf" that makes me seethe...

At what point do we get Dems and Republicans signing pledges never to cut spending that is demanded by the controllers of both parties? It is ridiculous to pledge to NEVER increase revenue, and it is just as ridiculous to NEVER increase spending. The dancing and posing of both parties sickens me. Right now, the GOP holds the House and keeps the Congress in gridlock, I will not be one bit happier if the Democrats regain control (stranglehold). We need a functional government populated by rational humans. Can that ever happen again, absent a revolution of some sort? I don't mean an armed insurrection, but perhaps a refusal of citizens to cast party-line ballots or even to cast a vote in elections where the choice is between really bad and really bad, but with disclaimer?

Should there be a regulation forbidding party-line voting via checkbox? That should weed a quite a few of the idiots. I have a hard time equating the "right to vote" with the "necessity to vote" because so many people are driven by party and are not sufficiently informed.

 

[Evo]

I always thought that a person shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone unless they could succesfully answer a short questionaire about the candidate. I mean, you should know certain things about someone you're voting for, right?

 

[Chronos]

A few basic questions remain
1. Is the human contribution to CO2 levels significant relative to natural contributions?
2. Is the economy better or worse compared to 2008?
3. Is hypocracy and duplicity the 'new deal' solution for the 21st century?
4. Will the US run out of paper to print enough money before becoming a third world economy?

 

[Containment]

Yeah and they should also have to own land right evo :)

I really honestly don't care what the religious beliefs of the person who gets into office are as long as they realize that is just their personal beliefs and this is a country of 300 million not a nation of one. I would much rather have a christian in office that is fine with other people believing stuff like alien gods are here right now then an atheist who is not ok with someone else believing in a god.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think there's a fine line for the Left and media to walk between challenging a candidates view of evolution and crossing over to become the far left (extreme) anti-God Party a la Bill Maher. I seriously doubt President Obama would ever want to run as the anti-God candidate.

For me, if a person wants to take a leap of faith and believe that God has simply tricked all the scientists, that doesn't bother me so much. It is at least a faith based on a classic philosophical argument. That is quite a different thing than teaching faith as fact or as being on par with science. In short, I'm not bothered by a person who understands that they are making a leap of faith. What scares the hell out of me are the people who don't know the difference. Even as a ten-year-old Catholic school kid, I understood that I was making a leap of faith. Indeed, faith is the most elementary concept in religion.

This is what Obama was speaking to in the video above.

When the right wing scoffs at Obama's flowery speaches, I can only shake my head in disbelief and disgust. Indeed his words have depth and are of great significance today. Flowers, no. As we saw in his Egypt speech: Wise and significant, timely and targeted, profound and fundamental, yes.

Again, I think the longer this debate lasts with Perry, Bachman, Santorum, and Palin - the less anyone will care that Romney is a Mormon - IMO - this helps Romney.

Good! But I never have been worried about these players - Perry through Palin - in the general election. What concerns me is that the Republican base has been driven so far to the right. Romney could pose a challenge to Obama, but I'm not sure he could be nominated by the GOP. He's too moderate. And in my view, he's not a moderate! He's a pretty typical big-business conservative.

As Reagan once said, their right hand doesn't know what their extreme right hand is doing.

 

[BobG]

I always thought that a person shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone unless they could succesfully answer a short questionaire about the candidate. I mean, you should know certain things about someone you're voting for, right?

Or at least take the party affiliations off of the ballots, which is a more realistic possibility. If a voter didn't even know a candidate's name before walking in the voting booth, then they shouldn't be voting for them.

Nebraska does this for their state senate elections and many other offices, as well. Party affiliation doesn't appear on the ballots until you reach state offices, such as governor, etc, and for federal offices, such as US Senator, US Represenatitive, US President, etc.

Nebraska's state senate runs on a non-partisan basis, as well (no majority/minority leaders, etc) and senate leaders are chosen by secret ballot, further reducing the impact of party organizations.

 

[WhoWee]

Guess what, folks? Romney is a Mormon multi-millionaire!

Is he as wealthy as John Kerry? Doesn't President Obama remind us about twice per month that he too is a millionaire?

 

[WhoWee]

Good! But I never have been worried about these players - Perry through Palin - in the general election. What concerns me is that the Republican base has been driven so far to the right. Romney could pose a challenge to Obama, but I'm not sure he could be nominated by the GOP. He's too moderate. And in my view, he's not a moderate! He's a pretty typical big-business conservative.

As Reagan once said, their right hand doesn't know what their extreme right hand is doing.

I'm quite certain (in my state - rules prob vary elsewhere) there will be moderate Dems and Independents voting for Romney in the primaries.

 

[OmCheeto]

Is he as wealthy as John Kerry? Doesn't President Obama remind us about twice per month that he too is a millionaire?

The difference being of course, that Obama points to himself, and claims he can afford to pay more taxes, while Perry and Romney, don't.

Om's Sunday bible interpretation::
It is written: Matthew 22:21" ...Render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God"
What is not written; "Screw Caesar, keep your tax money. And that thing about the eye of the needle? I was just kidding. Now let's go party. Wine and pizza are on me."

 

[turbo]

Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens.

I just read that Chris Christie is claiming that the storm damage to NJ will cost billions "if not tens of billions" of dollars. Does anybody else sense a plea for money from that dreadful federal government?

 

[WhoWee]

Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens.

I just read that Chris Christie is claiming that the storm damage to NJ will cost billions "if not tens of billions" of dollars. Does anybody else sense a plea for money from that dreadful federal government?

What do you recommend they do?

 

[turbo]

What do you recommend they do?

If taxation is "theft" and they hate the federal government, wouldn't it be reasonable to let them solve their states' own problems without burdening the rest of the US taxpayers?

 

[WhoWee]

If taxation is "theft" and they hate the federal government, wouldn't it be reasonable to let them solve their states' own problems without burdening the rest of the US taxpayers?

Do the (legal) citizens of Texas and New Jersey not pay taxes? Perhaps you'd prefer the Maine tax payers assume the responsibility for housing, feeding, and medical care of illegals?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Do the (legal) citizens of Texas and New Jersey not pay taxes? Perhaps you'd prefer the Maine tax payers assume the responsibility for housing, feeding, and medical care of illegals?

Aren't you just making the point that all of this big government fear mongering is silly? As you have noted, the Federal Government plays an important role. While the proper size of the Fed government is a legitimate point of debate, the tea party would have us believe it's the spawn of satan. We've had members here who all but want to abolish the Fed.

 

[mege]

Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens.

I just read that Chris Christie is claiming that the storm damage to NJ will cost billions "if not tens of billions" of dollars. Does anybody else sense a plea for money from that dreadful federal government?

It's not the acceptance of money that's the devil, but the availability of it. Many states have adopted policies expecting government assistance, so when it becomes less available - they're stuck, creating a situation where a dependence is formed.

IMO, that's the real crux of the situation and the 'anti government' money arguement. What's the last substantive government program which has been discontinued (and not just renamed)?

Lets say that a poker buy in is $20. You get $30 total worth of chips if you put an extra $10 in. All you've done is up the ante, and you'd be at a disadvantage if you didn't put that extra $10 in. This is similar to the choice states make, many states don't want to up the ante, but they're forced to because of the available 'extra buy in'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's not the acceptance of money that's the devil, but the availability of it. Many states have adopted policies expecting government assistance, so when it becomes less available - they're stuck, creating a situation where a dependence is formed.

IMO, that's the real crux of the situation and the 'anti government' money arguement. What's the last substantive government program which has been discontinued (and not just renamed)?

Lets say that a poker buy in is $20. You get $30 total worth of chips if you put an extra $10 in. All you've done is up the ante, and you'd be at a disadvantage if you didn't put that extra $10 in. This is similar to the choice states make, many states don't want to up the ante, but they're forced to because of the available 'extra buy in'.

And what about those times when the scope of the problem exceeds the capacity of the State to handle it. You are completely ignoring the issue of size.

Is the illegal immigrant problem just a Texas problem, or is it a US problem? We engage in load sharing when the problem is of national concern.

 

[ThomasT]

The body of our laws has its roots in religious beliefs. We may have freedom of religion but in a sense we have a state deity mentioned in the founding documents and pictured on our coins (for the first 150 years). The alternative is the existence of an objective moral order. But to be objective it must be agreed upon. Ayn Rand? Karl Marx? No agreement in sight.

Ok. Let's say that the roots are the ten commandments, ostensibly written by God on stone tablets and given to Moses. But, in the interest of parsimony, let's suppose that what really happened was that Moses observed a lot of turmoil in the camps. Things were getting out of hand. Moses wanted to straighten things out, but he didn't have the manpower. So he goes up the mountain for a couple weeks, carves these ten basic laws (that he and his lieutenants had hashed out in discussing the behavioral problems that were contributing to the inner turmoil of the rather large group of people following him) on the tablets. Comes back down when he's finished and starts taking names and kicking butts -- under the authority of the ten commandments, which the people, being a particulary superstitious lot and anyway they were afraid of Moses and his cohorts, believe were dictated by God (can't argue with supernatural authority) -- and order is restored.

Fast forward to now. At least half of the US population isn't particularly religious. My guess is that a decidedly minority percentage of our elected officials are actually religious. I would say that most of the laws in effect today are not based on religious beliefs of the lawmakers, but rather on some conception of societal control, just as with the simplified Moses scenario. It isn't a decidedly religious or moral order, at least as far as the lawmakers are concerned. Yet there's order, for the most part, and for most of the time. People, whether religious or not, seem to agree that wanton stealing, killing, and a general disregard for the law would breed the sort of chaos that nobody wants.

There are still laws that are obviously based on religious beliefs, like the Sunday 'blue' laws. But there seems to be a general trend away from making more such laws, and I suspect that our body of laws will be increasingly less rooted in and justified by religious beliefs -- provided we don't elect people like Perry.

 

[ThomasT]

I really honestly don't care what the religious beliefs of the person who gets into office are as long as they realize that is just their personal beliefs and this is a country of 300 million not a nation of one.

Most politicians, at least most of those outside the 'bible belt', are of this sort I think. They go to church and say they're Christians, or at least say they believe in God, because of the view that a certain percentage of their constituencies would regard an avowed non-Christian or atheist disfavorably -- and I suspect that most of them don't evaluate prospective policies wrt Christian principles per se or in theistic terms.

But this thread is about the Rick Perrys in our society -- fundamentalist Christians who are necessarily also evangelicals and who place their Christian beliefs above all else. For them, their religion isn't just a personal belief system. It's the truth wrt to which all people should live and all societies should be ordered.

I would much rather have a christian in office that is fine with other people believing stuff like alien gods are here right now then an atheist who is not ok with someone else believing in a god.

Why? Christianity is a set of propositions. Rationality, along with the scientific method, is a method of inquiry and inference. If Christianity is evaluated rationally, then we see that its propositions, its basic tenets, are either physically meaningless and therefore absurdly ambiguous, or, where they involve meaningful historical statements these statements must, for the most part, be taken on faith because there's no particular or compelling evidence for their truth.

It's not just that people who choose to believe in Christian propositions are somewhat contemptible in their willful ignorance, given modern resources, for choosing to believe in physically meaningless propositions, or, where the propositions are physically meaningful, for doing so wrt no evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary -- but that, in positions of power, and in ignoring the centuries of development of modern rational methods of inquiry, they represent those who would have humanity step backward to a much less enlightened time when arguments against church doctrine were punishable by imprisonment, torture and death.

Christianity, especially wrt fundamentalists like Perry, isn't just ignorant it's dangerous. No rational, critically thinking adult should want a person of Perry's ilk in a position of power, or proposing to children that, eg., creationism and intelligent design are theories comparable to and competing with the theory of evolution.

Anyway, wrt your statement, I doubt very much that Perry "is fine with other people believing stuff like alien gods are here right now".

 

[WhoWee]

Aren't you just making the point that all of this big government fear mongering is silly? As you have noted, the Federal Government plays an important role. While the proper size of the Fed government is a legitimate point of debate, the tea party would have us believe it's the spawn of satan. We've had members here who all but want to abolish the Fed.

I'm responding to a specific comment made by turbo "Republican governors like Perry are quick to bash the federal government until they want money. Perry now claims that the feds owe TX some $350M to reimburse the state for incarcerating illegal aliens."

Accordingly, what are southern border states expected to do if the federal Government doesn't secure the border? The federal Government has initiated legal action against other states that have tried to deal with the issue. You can't expect these people to be over-run, tell them the need to bare the cost and not expect a push-back.

Again, perhaps all of the southern border states should pass out one-way bus tickets to Maine?

 

[daveb]

What was he wrong about? The state doesn't mandate the teaching of creationism by it self specifically (which as the article states is against the establishment clause), but it says that other theories, besides evolution, are evaluated. Creationism, intelligent design, etc could be taught side by side at the teacher's discression.

Because creationism is not a theory, that's what's wrong about it. It cannot be tested, it makes no predictions. I suppose one could use it as a lesson in the difference between theory and speculation, but to teach both as alternate theories is absolutely wrong from a scientific standpoint, let alone from an establishment clause perspective.

 

[daveb]

Separation of church and state doesn't mean God or Creator can't be mentioned anywhere, it just means no laws based off of religion can be pushed onto the American people nor can the government stop people from practicising whatever religion they want.

SCOTUS has consistently (AFAIK) ruled that any governmental policy which is seen as supporting or endorsing any religion is counter to the Establishment Clause. It's ironic that this ruling, by its very nature, can be viewed in a certain perspective, which is the perspective of many who support such things as posting of the 10 Commandments, as prohibiting the free exercise. I do not share that perspective, but I understand it.

 

[daveb]

In view of your opinion of pandering to absurd points of view I don't suppose you could ever vote for someone who had a Mao Tse Tung or an Adolph Hitler ornament on his Christmas Tree?

WOOHOO! Godwin's Law surfaces!

 

[Ryumast3r]

In view of your opinion of pandering to absurd points of view I don't suppose you could ever vote for someone who had a Mao Tse Tung or an Adolph Hitler ornament on his Christmas Tree?

Seeing as how my friend owns a copy of Mein Kompf and the Communist Manifesto for purely academic reasons, I could totally see myself not caring whether or not they had a statue of our dear communist leader or our dear fascist Lord (Though I share an opinion much the same as the original person responded to in this post that extreme views are not really beneficial and that pandering to the extreme left would be just as bad as pandering to the extreme right). In fact, while I was in China I was going to buy a Mao Tse Tung bust made of bronze simply because they're so cheap and in practically every household... my friends also bought red books.

Articles in a house (or on a christmas tree) don't necessarily reflect the person's opinions on politics, and should be treated as just what they are: Things.