Thread: Ban Xtians from power?

Love this article from the BBC!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/n...nd/8446229.stm

Iris Robinson is an Irish politician and evangelical Christian.

She is an anti gay campaigner - very much the poster child and hero of Irish Evangelism. She has used/abused her public office to cite that gay sex is "an abomination". She beleives gays can be cured of their "perversion" by prayer!

Well, Iris was caught with her knickers down. With a 19 year old man. Worse, abused her office to missappropriate funds to help her young lover start a business.

As well as commiting the "sin" adultery in quite a spectacular fashion, and comitting the "sin" of stealing. And abusing the trust of everyone who voted for her. See decided that this was not enough and tried the "sin" of suicide also.

This is why evengelists and fundamentalists should not be allowed anywhere near power. As well as the hate and intollerance they spread - they are also hypocrites.

As a thelemite I actually approve of her decision to sleep with the 19 year old. If her husband was not getting it done to her satisfaction, then wrapping her legs around a younger man is some good solid full on hedonism. Its her sheer two facedness that makes me sick. Just like most evengelists, she feels a deep need to preach "morality" at people. By "morality" read bigotry, intollernace and other hate crimes.

It seems she survived her suicide attempt - good - she can wallow in her "shame" for the rest of her days like a good xtian should.


Question/Debate : What to do about the very religious in goverment? Should the very religious not be allowed power? Do we live in a Theocracy now?

My first instinct is to agree with you, and then that leads to "do not let racists or other bigots into office". But then my mind wanders over to the slippery slope, and how this bamd could lead to more restirction and discrimination. Religion is not a problem. It's those who buy into it too much that are the problem. The way I see it, relgion is more of a set of guidelines than rules, and I see value in studying christian metaphysics, and even following some if not many of the principles (golden rule, turn the other cheek, etc.), yet I would never call myself a christian. It's this false link with identity that I think is the problem.

And as far as being the 'word of god', that's also bullshit. Any explanation of the universe is going to have to be logically elegant. The bible is riddled with contradictions and therefore illogical, meaning that since it makes no god damn sense, it is likely a series of related stories and myths passed down over the ages - written by people - to try and come to terms and understand what it means to be human (just like every other fucking school of philosophy that exists). I mean, when was the last time you heard that a group of Transcendental Idealists sieged a building occupied by Objectivists? And seriously, I really fucking hope that it isnt the word of God, because if it is then that mother fucker has got to be schizophrenic or something.

Of course, this is just me ranting: I just kind of went on a tangent and somehow managed to put together these ideas that have been floating around in my mind for the past month. Even though they are dealing with the question of religion as a whole, and not the specific question of religion and politics, I'm leaving it in because I like it and I want others to see it. So, to get to the point:

I guess I'd say no, christians should not be banned from office. And I'm not even dealing with the slippery slope here. Banning them would be a form of religious discrimination, and that is unconstitutional in the United States. I dont know how it is in other countries but here it should not be allowed. The same goes for racists and bigots. Discrimination is unconstitutional. You have to trust in the people to make the right choice and hope then learn from the past. Gently educating others doesnt hurt either.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

As a thelemite I actually approve of her decision to sleep with the 19 year old. If her husband was not getting it done to her satisfaction, then wrapping her legs around a younger man is some good solid full on hedonism. Its her sheer two facedness that makes me sick. Just like most evengelists, she feels a deep need to preach "morality" at people. By "morality" read bigotry, intollernace and other hate crimes.

It seems she survived her suicide attempt - good - she can wallow in her "shame" for the rest of her days like a good xtian should.


Question/Debate : What to do about the very religious in goverment? Should the very religious not be allowed power? Do we live in a Theocracy now?

First I agree this person should be treated just like any politician who cheats, excluding Bill Clinton, and resign. I also agree that having morality as a part your platform and faith but doing something like that is pretty hypocritical.

With Christians you won't have to worry about a theocracy like Islamic countries. Politically, Christianity is really just a part of the socially conservative movement. If you like a one-party government, maybe you would want to get those people of faith out of office.

My big disagreement is assuming that because someone legitimately believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong and wants to help offer a cure for those people, that they're necessarily a dangerous bigot. Now the governments in African and middle eastern countries that want to throw homosexuals in fail or execute them, that's biogtry. No one has to be punished but they don't have to be imposing their lifestyle on the masses and cry foul if someone doesn't accept them.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

First I agree this person should be treated just like any politician who cheats, excluding Bill Clinton, and resign. I also agree that having morality as a part your platform and faith but doing something like that is pretty hypocritical.

With Christians you won't have to worry about a theocracy like Islamic countries. Politically, Christianity is really just a part of the socially conservative movement. If you like a one-party government, maybe you would want to get those people of faith out of office.

My big disagreement is assuming that because someone legitimately believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong and wants to help offer a cure for those people, that they're necessarily a dangerous bigot. Now the governments in African and middle eastern countries that want to throw homosexuals in fail or execute them, that's biogtry. No one has to be punished but they don't have to be imposing their lifestyle on the masses and cry foul if someone doesn't accept them.

Yes, this post is a reasonable example of hypocrisy, thank you.

But what should we do about it?

A fascist theocracy, as Frank Zappa so eloquently put it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Yes, this post is a reasonable example of hypocrisy, thank you.

But what should we do about it?

Explain?

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Explain?

Sure, let's deconstruct.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

First I agree this person should be treated just like any politician who cheats, excluding Bill Clinton, and resign. I also agree that having morality as a part your platform and faith but doing something like that is pretty hypocritical.

Let's set aside Mark Sanford (R-SC), Larry Craig (R-ID), Mark Foley (R-FL), Ted Haggard (R-Jesusland et al) and pals, and look at the broader stage of world leaders: SEX SCANDALS HAPPEN. If you weren't elected on a platform of puritanical inquisition, humans on earth don't see sexual dalliances between consenting adults as that big a deal.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

With Christians you won't have to worry about a theocracy like Islamic countries. Politically, Christianity is really just a part of the socially conservative movement. If you like a one-party government, maybe you would want to get those people of faith out of office.

Apparently your understanding of Christianity, its roots and doctrines, derives entirely from talk-radio after 1992. Here's a primer: the majority of people in this country are Christian; the majority of officeholders in both major parties are certainly Christian. Christian faith is still a de facto requirement for public office throughout most of this nation. Those who fight for secularity in government are, primarily, Christians. Christianity is by no means identical with conservative politics. As a simple factor of history, most liberals in this country are Christian, as are most conservatives. Christian fundamentalists, like any fundamentalists, are perfectly capable of demanding their will be imposed on others if they feel they have the influence to do so.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

My big disagreement is assuming that because someone legitimately believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong and wants to help offer a cure for those people, that they're necessarily a dangerous bigot. Now the governments in African and middle eastern countries that want to throw homosexuals in fail or execute them, that's biogtry. No one has to be punished but they don't have to be imposing their lifestyle on the masses and cry foul if someone doesn't accept them.

Someone who believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong has a poor understanding of both nature and ethics. It's neither beyond belief nor very far in our past that those whose identity defies the status quo could be persecuted and killed for qualities which pose no threat to society at large, but only to the political power of the dominant demographic. In some parts of this country, those conditions remain, in defiance of the rule of law. Not being able to get away with summary execution doesn't excuse you from the charge of bigotry.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

With Christians you won't have to worry about a theocracy like Islamic countries.

Only because the church was kicked out of power a couple of centuries ago...


On topic - people's religion shouldn't be a problem so long as they don't turn it into with their job as politicians.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Let's set aside Mark Sanford (R-SC), Larry Craig (R-ID), Mark Foley (R-FL), Ted Haggard (R-Jesusland et al) and pals, and look at the broader stage of world leaders: SEX SCANDALS HAPPEN. If you weren't elected on a platform of puritanical inquisition, humans on earth don't see sexual dalliances between consenting adults as that big a deal.

We do hold our officials to higher standards, and really we should, a failure in one aspect of morality could lead to others, not what we want men and women of power to do.

Apparently your understanding of Christianity, its roots and doctrines, derives entirely from talk-radio after 1992. Here's a primer: the majority of people in this country are Christian; the majority of officeholders in both major parties are certainly Christian. Christian faith is still a de facto requirement for public office throughout most of this nation. Those who fight for secularity in government are, primarily, Christians. Christianity is by no means identical with conservative politics. As a simple factor of history, most liberals in this country are Christian, as are most conservatives. Christian fundamentalists, like any fundamentalists, are perfectly capable of demanding their will be imposed on others if they feel they have the influence to do so.

A majority of people are nominally Christian, identifying themselves with one of the mainstream churches. As we can see from bishops denying certain politicians communion, that makes sense. Most liberals in this country are trying to make it some kind of crime to express one's faith even so much as an article expressimg faith in the office or courtroom, under the guise of political correctness, they wish to control more of our lives. They want as far as to replace Christianity with a state religion, atheism. Not every liberal maybe, but the far left definitely. The far left is far, far more powerful than the far right. The far left is very organized, has infiltrated our schools, our media, the democratic party where they are so driven by agenda they ignore the common man.

Someone who believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong has a poor understanding of both nature and ethics. It's neither beyond belief nor very far in our past that those whose identity defies the status quo could be persecuted and killed for qualities which pose no threat to society at large, but only to the political power of the dominant demographic. In some parts of this country, those conditions remain, in defiance of the rule of law. Not being able to get away with summary execution doesn't excuse you from the charge of bigotry.

Or they simply have a different belief on the subject than you, and mean it without any virulent hate speeches. if wanting to see someone change for the better or at least offer them that service is bigotry than that's one huge stretch of that word.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

It seems she survived her suicide attempt - good - she can wallow in her "shame" for the rest of her days like a good xtian should.

This gentleman's statment is by far the most bigoted thing said on this thread. A virulent hate speech.

Pretty much like what the others said. If you banned Christians from power, you'd have to ban everyone with religious beliefs of any kind from power and only atheists would be allowed to run for public office.

Faith by itself is not a bad thing. It's when decisions are made (involving our country) as a direct result of "convening with ones respective deities" that I have a problem with.

As long as the political/legal doctrine which separated church and state remains intact and enforced, I don't think there'll be much of anything to worry about.

Well, why would one religious politician be so frightening? Unless democracy is lost!

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, why would one religious politician be so frightening? Unless democracy is lost!

No worries. All the Christians I know have a thing about ruling with an iron fist. Of course, laws would be properly enforced at last. Gay marriage would be probably be ended, and some out of order things would finally be put back in order.

That's pretty much it. Horrifying, huh?

Originally Posted by Noogah

No worries. All the Christians I know have a thing about ruling with an iron fist. Of course, laws would be properly enforced at last. Gay marriage would be probably be ended, and some out of order things would finally be put back in order.

That's pretty much it. Horrifying, huh?

Kind of like communist China.

Originally Posted by hypnocella

This gentleman's statment is by far the most bigoted thing said on this thread. A virulent hate speech.

Actually, he was pointing out how her shame was caused by her own beliefs. Christians bring suffering on themselves by calling their actions sin. I think.

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, why would one religious politician be so frightening? Unless democracy is lost!

The frightening thing is that almost all our politicians are religious. We've never had an atheist president. But this should be expected considering the number of religious people in the country.

Originally Posted by stonedape

The frightening thing is that almost all our politicians are religious. We've never had an atheist president. But this should be expected considering the number of religious people in the country.

I recently found out that Nick Clegg, who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats, which is one of the three major parties in England, is an atheist. Which was kinda cool. he's apparently the first major party leader to ever come out as atheistic.

Instead of banning religious people from power, I'd rather just ban stupid and irrational people from power. Well, ideally democracy would work at weeding out such people and prevent them from getting such positions in the first place, but that's just wishful thinking.

When I google 'Xtian' I get Christina Aguilera, but as far as I know she
doesn't fill one of the higher political positions, but I could be wrong.

So an xtian is just a christian? Or an extreme christian? Or political christian?

Anyway, I agree, instead of banning christians, just sort out the irrational idiots.