Metal Reviews

Yes, regulation is obviously needed. Extensive deregulation was the biggest factor in this Fannie and Freddie bullshit. We agree there. That's not what you said in your previous post though. You said that anyone who thinks lower taxes are a good thing lacks intelligence, so I responded to that specifically.

As for your religious/delusions/whatever point, I don't see how that should even be a factor. Has there ever been a non-Christian President in the US? I guess I might not understand what you're getting at. Are you railing against Christianity in general or did Palin or McCain make a quote that I missed?

I know there has never been a non-christian president, but we have now seen 8 years of a representative of the fringe minority of fundies, who nevertheless exert enormous influence over the country. I'm not sure about McCain yet, but Palin is definetely 100% fundamentalist. And that is as dangerous as theocratic Iran, where the people in power truly believe that they will go to heaven if they die while killing infidels.
People with such strong delusions should not be let into positions of political power, especially not that of the American presidency, if there is any possibility their actions and decisions might be in some way influenced by their beliefs. If McCain/Palin want to outlaw abortion (which they do, even in case of rape), I'm convinced that is a product of their religious views.

Oh, sheesh, not abortion again. I said it a few pages back, and I'll say it again. Roe v Wade is not getting overturned, won't happen. Even if it did, McCain supports abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, and risk to the mother's life, as seen here.

Abortion was just an example. The main problem is with them having religious beliefs that will affect and influence their actions and decisions.

I understand your point, but I still think you're concocting a problem where there isn't one. Save for vetoing a stem cell research bill, I can't think of anything George Bush did that could be tied to his religious beliefs. Don't get me wrong, the guy's a shitty president, but the mistakes he's made can be more attributed to his greed than his religion, at least in my opinion.

Another thing, do you not think Obama and Biden's actions will be swayed by their religious beliefs? They're both Christians as well. For example, they against both against legalizing gay marriage, as are McCain/Palin. This stance is surely due to their religious beliefs.

i sort of agree with Fridge that i wouldn't elect someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old (although i haven't heard any of the candidates say this); that goes beyond Christianity, which i don't necessarily have a problem with, and into the realms of magical thinking

i've also heard good arguments that Roe v Wade should be attacked that have nothing to do with abortion, but instead to do with judges being supposed to interpret the law, not make it.

I don't really see the big deal with somebody believing in YEC, personally. There's certainly a lot of scientific evidence against it, but I think people like Palin (provided they believe in a 6000 year Earth) are aware of this, and they're sticking with their beliefs not out of stupidity but out of staunch loyalty towards what's in the Bible. That actually takes some balls in today's society.

IMO, it's impossible for religion and politics to not collide. Your religious beliefs are basically the central hub of your life philosophy. Logically, your life philosophy is going to impact your stance on issues like Abortion and Stem Cell Research. Of course, there are many factors that contribute to political views (your environment, your socio-economic status, etc). But religious beliefs are important in such cases.

The problem with fundamentalists like Palin taking office, similar to Bush, is that she believes the 'end times' are imminent. Do you really want someone making military and foreign policies with the goal of fulfilling Revelations? Then when she says things how she agrees with Cheney and that VPs need more power and duties. And yes Sarah Palin said that she wants creationism taught in school ("teach the contreversy" style).

The earth being 6,000 years old is absolutely fucking stupid. Scientific evidence in countless ways has proven things here on Earth are older than 6,000 years old. I'm currently reading a book written by a former fundamentalist pastor who I befriended which explains how evolution fits in the bible. So no the bible doesn't conflict with science if you just learn to read it in its context. Fundamentalism doesn't take gusto; it requires a person to ignore rationality. Why would god deceive people with science?

Having religious beliefs influence your personal views is acceptable except when people try to empress those religious beliefs on others.

reading the Bible, or any other religious text, in it's context just makes me think of people thousands of years ago who didn't know how to explain anything about the universe so they came up with some cool mythology. (i'm not trying to offend anyone, just being honest.) so if someone thinks the Earth was 6,000 years old i don't worry about them being stupid, i worry about them being insane. like imagine if someone believed in the Greek gods; that's roughly my reaction. talking to religious people, even non-fundamentalist ones, just completely boggles my mind

Which is how it should be read. How could Joshua stop the sun from moving in the sky if the sun doesn't move around the earth? The old testament claims the world is flat, floating on water and that the sky is a metal cover held up by pillars. Obviously, this is all just a primitive cosmology which doesn't take away from some of the moral teachings. Some comments on women, slaves or children would've been acceptable then but not now because our world has changed. What religious people should be taking from the religion is the message of love, peace and compassion which the Republican party seems to be the antithesis of.

But Obama realizes that the seperation of Church and State is very important, and that he has no right to impose his religious ideas or to act certain ways because of them. This seems to me to be common among the democratic party, the fact that even though they may privately be Christian, they realize that religion has no place in the White House.

I don't think things like Biblical Creation should be completely discarded, though. That was probably the best explanation we had at the time for the Earth's creation (certainly better than what the Ancient Greeks, Ancient Egyptians, etc. came up with). And I see it, at the very least, as the fundamental basis for future developments in our understanding of the Earth and mankind's creation (Evolution, Big Bang - which, for a little trivia, was originally proposed by a Catholic priest, etc.). It's also debatable whether Biblical Creation was ever really supposed to be taken literally to begin with (the "Seven Days", for example, were probably intended to mean "Seven Eras" rather than "Seven Human Days" - which makes recent theories like Evolution much less anti-Biblical). Some things, particularly in the Old Testament, are probably more literal than others. Creation, to me, is to be seen as allegory.

Now, whether you believe God intervened with Big Bang, Evolution, etc. is a matter of personal faith. But I certainly think Biblical Creation deserves its due for at least giving us a great figurative account on the Earth's creation.

By the way, Frigid, I think I know which book you're talking about. Is it Thank God For Evolution? I haven't read it, but I've heard a lot of good things about it. And I saw its author interviewed on I believe Fox News a couple months ago.

But as far as I can see, the only reason we make this judgment is because Judeo-Christian religions have superseded all others in the past 1,700 years. There's nothing in the book of Genesis that makes it more probable or a better explanation than Lord Vishnu being washed ashore in the sea of nothingness, being awoken by the sound of Om, and commanding Brahma to create the world. Similarly, I don't see how its a better explanation than the one in Hesiod's Theogony. Living in the west, we're just hardwired to be more accepting of the monotheistic creation story than those of other religions.



I completely agree that the Bible has shaped our society in many positive ways. I do disagree that most of the old testament is meant to be taken as allegory (though of course, everyone is welcome to believe)- I don't see why, examining the old testament in the context it was written (10th-6th century Judaic society) would need to make the jump from seven days to seven epochs, as we in modern societies with our theories of evolution would like it to. The problem with the old testament in general, I think (and I'm sorry if I offend anyone here) is that it is a 2,500 year old document that people continually try to apply to the modern world- which as anyone whose studied ancient history knows, doesn't work. All sorts of laws and stories that would have made perfect sense to most people in a ritualistic, ancient, warlike society don't fit into our modern world view, so we have to ignore lots and allegorize more for any of it to make sense to us.





This I definitely agree with. The creation account is fascinating and should be studied, and due to its importance in our culture should be known by just about everybody (whereas, say, Hesiod's theogony should probably only be studied by people who have an interest in Greek mythology). But there is supposed to be a separation between church and state, and I don't like that Sarah Palin not only exclusively believes the biblical creation story, but that she believes it literally, unlike you, Seinfeld. Religion is fine in political leaders, but when those leaders are fundamentalists and let their religious beliefs guide their policies in the most important country in the world, then I do have a problem.

Book? What book? I don't know anything about it. What's the position, an attempt to reconcile scripture with evolution?

http://www.trinitychicago.org/index.php ... view&id=20

Where has McCain or Palin stated they would "bring the church into the White House"?


Obama's spiritual mentor / pastor is no less of a nutcase than the other's, so why the different standpoint?

I am already paying taxes through the teeth; the nerve of some child that most likely lives with his parents to state that "anybody for less taxes is a moron", or whatever you said.
It is always amusing seeing some 17 year old kid that thinks he knows his ass from his elbow.
Do you even have a job?

Wait, I meant to address that to Traptunderice. Sorry Frigid.

Because Obama, even if Jeremiah Wright might be a dick, realizes that his politics must be seperate from his religion, an attitude that is not shared by the republicans, who firmly believe it is their god-given right to impose their fundamentalism on their country.

My age does not mean I can't possibly know anything about economics.

Again, where has McCain stated or acted in a manner which you describe?

And you age means you don't know shit about the real world.
Once you break away from mommies tit, you will see what I am taliking about.
You are in a band?
Mommy and Daady still buy everything for you?

You have no idea how many bills need to be paid just to live.
Housing, food and clothing ain't free.
Get a job, try to raise kids, put them through school, pay for medical, dental and auto insurance and somehow try to save for your own retirement, then get back to me about taxes, mkay?

No. That's not the book.

@V: If any politician straight up said "i want to bring church into the white house" I hope that Americans would pull out all support for them.

Back to reality, though, in 2000, McCain called people like Robertson and Falwell the 'agents of intolerance' (http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/02/29/bush.2.t_9.php). Now in 2008, he sought Hagee's endorsement (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html). I hope that is self explanatory. Saying 9/11 is due to lesbians and atheists is bad in 2000. In 2008, it is alright to say Katrina was caused by fags in nola. So now McCain seems to be willing to allow the religious right and Bush aides to influence his campaign so who's to say that he won't try to have the controversy taught or veto stem cell research.

Palin want the controversy taught, spoke and attended at a Pentecostal church. This article pretty well explains how pentecostals feel that god uses them to do his work (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94332540).

Obama, like Frigid said, seems to be able to divide church from politics and emphasizes the separation between church and state. Beyond that, though, when comparing Wright to Hagee, Hagee is 10,000x scarier than Wright. Forty years ago, Wright's message would've been dead-on that whites are holding back blacks but since when did faggots and atheists cause natural disasters? How the fuck can Hagee compare Islam to Nazism?

On taxes:
I know how much living costs, I've lived on my own with my girlfriend for the past two years. If either of us gets sick we can't afford to see a doctor. Together we have $13,000 a year worth of college which isn't being paid by loans or grants. If people that make over $250,000 a year have to be taxed more to enable people worse off than we are to see doctors or go to college, I think it is fucking worth it.

I have to disagree here. I find the Biblical Creation story to be much more logical and sensible than the mythological tales you just described. Because it's a very straight-to-the-point, no-nonsense account with a human/personal explanation of the origins of man. God created the Earth, and that was that. How he created it is, of course, left up to scientific discovery (while why he created it is left up to personal faith). It's a lot more open and less rigid than Greek/Egyptian/etc. accounts on Creation.



You're definitely correct about people trying to reconcile Biblical Creation and more modern theories like Evolution. But bear in mind that even before "Darwin's dangerous discovery", scholars were questioning the literal accuracy of Biblical Creation. A lot of what's in the Old Testament is based on Jewish Scripture. We don't really know what the people who wrote such scriptures had in mind when they were writing them. We know the "what", but we don't really know the "why." I'm not necessarily saying that they wrote was false (in fact, I'm sure most of the OT is true), but I don't know if their motivations were really as straightforward as you might think. I also think the events in the OT (particularly the supernatural ones) were probably a lot more complex than the Bible makes them seem.



I definitely see what your saying. But like I said before, I don't think it's possible for your religious beliefs to not have at least some kind of impact on your political views (again, they're usually what your whole life philosophy is based on). But I agree that people should try to keep religion out of politics as much as possible. I'm pro-life, but that doesn't mean I think it would be smart to bomb abortion clinics (or do what my church just did and hold a prayer rally in front of one). While you should stand up for what you believe in, you can't force people to share your views. Which is why, particularly when dealing with the president (ie. "the guy running the country"), religion is such a sticky issue.