That would be your problem right there, bud. If you don’t know the basis for a position, don’t try to push it. I’ll help you out, though. They base their position on the fact that Jesus said people should take care of widows and orphans and the poor. The rich are expected to help the less fortunate and much is expected of them. Jesus never advocated the govenment redistributing income. Jesus expected His followers to help because it was the right thing to do and out of love for God. Along with that, He expected people to take responsibility for themselves if they were able. He advocated morality, which leaves him out of the socialist party. It’s that morality thing that gives libs trouble in using Jesus to further their positions. They want all the benefits without the responsibility. I’m no socialist, but I happen to believe in limited government assistance to people who are going through difficult times. I support govt assistance for people who will never be able to care for themselves. I support these things because our society is so large and so deviant that those who are able cannot be counted upon to take care of those in need. Know what you are talking about before you suggest a “reality check” or call names, bud. ;)

Well, well, well choco that’s quite a load of drivel you managed to spew there, bud. Some days I almost believe that you are sincere and you actually think you are a tolerant, caring human being. Then you post again. Your words say you aren’t anti-Christian, only anti-hypocrite. Have ya checked your screen name lately? Do you think only religious hypocrites would find that offensive? You don’t need to answer that, because we all know you chose it to be offensive to Christians in general. To say otherwise would be; dare I say it? Hypocritical. I believe anyone can be hypocritcal and most everyone is at some point. What I find amusing is the how venomous libs are in pointing out the hypocrisy of others but will never acknowledge it in themselves. If you care to check my previous posts, you will find that I freely acknowledge that I am a fallible person. Yet, SOME libs here get quite perturbed when I point out their hypocrisy and call me arrogant and self important to deflect any criticism of themselves.
You should really refrain from trying to pigeonhole the characteristics of someone you of whom you have little knowledge. Jesus is not a socialist. Jesus didn’t advocate the government taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. Jesus told us to follow his example and voluntarily help the poor and feed the hungry. Jesus also advocated personal responsibility. Jesus also advocated morality, but we know where that discussion would lead us. Just because I point out the hypocrisy of libs doesn’t mean I support everything Bush does or that I oppose helping the poor. You need to believe that I am ultra conservative to make it ok for you to spew your filth. That’s fine, bud, I can take it. Just as long as we all know where we stand. ;)

Just like all those little dead Iraqi children are out of your sight and out of your mind. You’ve got the conscience of a serial killer, bud, and that’s not something any devent person is proud of.

Ah, another brilliant observation from the shining cinder of right wing intellect that is Bigfwat.

Bigfwat, you are aware that a gay-free country is definitely a right wing fantasy right?

You’re aware his implicit condemnation of homosexuality by saying none existed in his country is an idealogical stance very similar to those people this country who lamented the legalization of gay sex, right? Perchance, what political party did most of the people lamenting the legalizing of gay sex in the united states come from? Any ideas?

You idiots have much, much more in common with these middle eastern religious wackos than you would ever dare to admit. You know what the english translation for Allah is right?

> My understanding was that other
>people in the detention center beat him up.

Cite?

> My point is there are no comments
> containing the typical anti religious bigotry
> when those religious leaders are singing your song.

Uhm, I think, Upright Cleft, your feeble mind isnt able to distinguish between “anti-religious” and “anti-hipocracy”….. when religious people are hipocrites, they will be attacked for thier hipocracy, not purely for their religious beliefs.

For instance, wailing and gnashing your teeth about the fate of embryos in a petri dish, or a braindead vegetable, while endorsing the often horribly painful and emotionally traumtizing killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people on a war based wholly on lies, is hipocritical.

How any person who claims to follow the word of jesus can support a heartless killer like george bush is so inconceivably hipocritical it shocks the conscience of the thinking man.

Similarly, religions like catholicism, which allegedely seeks to alleviate suffering, would rather watch hundreds of thousdands, if not millions, of people die of disease and overpopulation than talk about birth control. This, again, is pure hipocracy, and it is that hipocritical stance which many people attack.

So my question to you is this….do you beleive religious people can ever be hipocritical, and if so, is a person condemning that hipocracy necessarily condemning the religion itself?

Jesus was, if anything, a socialist…. the people who think jesus would be pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-big business, and anti-welfare are deeply, deeply deluded about christs message, and frankly, ghandhi said it best…
“I like your christ.. but I do not like your christians.. they are so unlike christ….”..

truer words were never spoken..

Comment by Vendetta

You make it sound like everybody here eats babies and worships satan. Can you back up your claim with quotes from more than two posters?

Comment by TheToonGuy — September 24, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

For examples of “typical anit-religious bigotry, visit any thread that mentions religion or a religious leader. Good luck finding two lefties that say anything positive about religion.
——

The Pope is to support the Global Warming movement? Does he actually believe there is a religious and moral basis for protecting the Earth???
Comment by Mugsy — September 24, 2007 @ 11:09 am

The Pope probably believes, like most Christians, that we are to be good stewards of all that God created. That doesn’t mean that we should follow every crackpot that comes along with a “save the environment sign.” We should make reasonable efforts to minimize the damage we do to the earth. ;)

Comment by Vendetta

You make it sound like everybody here eats babies and worships satan. Can you back up your claim with quotes from more than two posters?

Comment by TheToonGuy — September 24, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

For examples of “typical anit-religious bigotry, visit any thre

Vitter earmarks funds for religious group
Nonprofit supports creationist education
Sunday, September 23, 2007

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1190529501310280.xml&coll=1

“WASHINGTON — Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties…. “

On a Re-read, I missed something the first time. These 3 were under trial for planting evidence. We have the following system:

* did they pick up the munitions. Shoot them, they’re a terrorist
* did they leave the munitiions. Shoot them and plant evidence. They’re in Iraq, they must be terrorists.

Can anyone figure out why a law abiding Iraqi on the government side would possibly pick up a detonator ? Its not like there is any sort of violence that they might want to defend themselves against or anything.

After 9/11 we cheered those in the plane who took action instead of sitting passively by. It became a mantra of homeland security to step in and take action rather than passively waiting for the police to come. Yet we want the Iraqis to sit by passively while they are in even more danger and in an environment where the police aren’t handling it.

[...]
And so, here’s what MoveOn’s Eli Pariser had to say today. In effect, he’s trying to move away from the controversy, while saying the organization stands by its message:

[...]
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/moveon-to-pay-full-times-ad-rate/?hp

Comment by Krazny — September 24, 2007 @ 11:12 am

Eh — people like Vendetta can’t understand that we “loony lefties” tend to think for ourselves and therefore don’t always have the same opinion.

The truth is that there are good ideas and bad ideas, no matter who voices them. Global warming awareness is a good idea, and if you agree, you will likely support others who agree — whether it’s Al Gore or Pope Benedict XVI. This does not necessarily mean that one would agree with these men on every other issue.

Escalation of the war in Iraq is a bad idea, and I disagree with John McCain on this issue, even though I agree with him on the issues of torture and campaign finance reform.

It’s a pity that dittoheads who only know how to march in lockstep with others don’t understand this concept. They can only label it “hypocrisy”.

We used to follow that. That fine line of not declaring war and not having POW’s is the loophole that created Gitmo. Enemy combatants is a vague label that skirts our laws.

What is there to fear by trying these prisoners in a court of law. Let them face the “charges” against them and if found guilty then great. If not then we need to take a harder look at Gitmo and the procedures it follows.

That is why we won’t be trying them anytime soon.

They (Bush administration) fears the US laws.

Comment by Mugsy — September 24, 2007 @ 11:09 am

That might register a 1 or 2 on the Richter scale. Do they have a seismology department at Liberty U?