|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2011 : 03:16:39
|
I have really grown weary of this skank. She showed up at Rolling Thunder and I consider that an insult to all wartime service members, alive, dead and especally the missing. Bujt that's not what I'm here to talk about. This is:
Sarah Palin And The 'Fire In Her Belly' Is About Installing Theocratic Government In America
By Susie Madrak
Sarah Jones at PoliticusUSA points out that Sarah Palin uses terms that sound vaguely religious but have very specific meanings to the dangerous cult of Dominionists (her use of the term "Restoration" for her bus tour is a good example):
I’ve been saying for a while now that the mainstream media doesn’t “get” Sarah Palin. Last week, when the astute Lawrence O’Donnell equated her with Trump, I understood his reasoning, but disagreed with the premise. Sarah Palin isn’t Donald Trump, and when she speaks of a “fire in her belly” she’s not using that term politically, but religiously. She means she has a fire of God in her belly to lead the country to Jesus. She means she is anointed to lead us.
She has a fire in her belly alright, but it’s not the fire of politics as the pundits know it.
Leah Burton, of “God’s Own Party” made the following Fire in the Belly video:
|
There follows the vid, then:
And it’s not just Sarah Palin. As Leah explains, “She is joined by many who share her biblical “call to service in the name of Jesus Christ” such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and a whole host of frightening – albeit not as recognizable – theocratic politicians who are aggressively working to re-write our Constitution and anchor it in Old Testament Mosaic Law.”
The Dominionist politicians might use words that remind you of your own church, or your friends’ churches, but these are not mainline Christians. They seek Dominion over the government, and indeed over what they term the “seven mountains” of culture. Their goal is to return it to the earth to Jesus, and the US to biblical law.
[...] Welcome to the new game of politics, where religion plays the role the founders sought to protect us from, a state sponsored religion or an official state religion. The next time you laugh at Sarah Palin because you think she’s dumb, remember that it isn’t that she doesn’t believe in science, it’s that she doesn’t CARE about science. It is irrelevant to her, because the sooner the planet explodes, the sooner Jesus comes back. And when you’re done laughing at her, realize that there are many more, less charismatic Sarah Palins out there, like Governor Scott Walker, whose ability to inflict harm via his beliefs is quite real. And some of them will run for President as moderate Republicans.
|
Shoulda seen this coming, and some of us did, sorta, anyway, when she had the African witch exorcist at her church in Wassila. History is filled with "Palins" and too often they have come into power. They all have something in common; they care nothing for the people they "lead" beyond their church and by extension themselves, can get out of them.
Example: Palin played McCain like a leaky accordion. Does anyone know for sure if she ever gave the expensive wardrobe his campaign bought her for the campaign trail?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2011 : 06:47:14 [Permalink]
|
| Even if the article is right about the intentions of Palin and her ilk, how realistic is the possibility of a politician or even a group of politicians succeeding in so drastically changing the Constitution and getting such crazy theocratic laws enforced? To me, worrying about this is sort of worrying about a bogeyman, and that always distracts from things worth worrying about because they are real problems right now (like inadequate health care for so many Americans, the lack of enough jobs that pay a livable wage, the decline of our public schools, production going overseas, skyrocketing cost of higher education, shrinking middle class, etc.) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/31/2011 06:47:58 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/31/2011 : 09:49:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Even if the article is right about the intentions of Palin and her ilk, how realistic is the possibility of a politician or even a group of politicians succeeding in so drastically changing the Constitution and getting such crazy theocratic laws enforced? To me, worrying about this is sort of worrying about a bogeyman, and that always distracts from things worth worrying about because they are real problems right now (like inadequate health care for so many Americans, the lack of enough jobs that pay a livable wage, the decline of our public schools, production going overseas, skyrocketing cost of higher education, shrinking middle class, etc.)
|
They already have at least two members of SCOTUS (pubic hair man and Alito), maybe three or four depending on how Scalia and Roberts actually fall out in this. We know jack shit about that guy (Roberts) really. So while I tend to agree that it's probably a non issue, it is still something to be wary of.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2011 : 10:56:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Even if the article is right about the intentions of Palin and her ilk, how realistic is the possibility of a politician or even a group of politicians succeeding in so drastically changing the Constitution and getting such crazy theocratic laws enforced? To me, worrying about this is sort of worrying about a bogeyman, and that always distracts from things worth worrying about because they are real problems right now (like inadequate health care for so many Americans, the lack of enough jobs that pay a livable wage, the decline of our public schools, production going overseas, skyrocketing cost of higher education, shrinking middle class, etc.)
|
True Marf, these miserable cretins are unlikely to change anything about the Constitution but, see, they don't know that. To them, it's only a "goddamned piece of paper" to edit or even erase as they see fit. There is a great deal of peripheral damage they could do trying it. Such things as creation bullshit in the schools comes to mind, as does women's issues such as birth control.
Also, there is the interpretation of that hallowed document to consider. And at the same time, it must be remembered that we have a mostly corrupt Supreme Court as well as a House of Representatives of the same stripe. And our current Senate also fails to impress.
Ugly, eh?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2011 : 11:33:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Even if the article is right about the intentions of Palin and her ilk, how realistic is the possibility of a politician or even a group of politicians succeeding in so drastically changing the Constitution and getting such crazy theocratic laws enforced? To me, worrying about this is sort of worrying about a bogeyman... |
As I said recently, one doesn't need to change the Constitution to get crazy, theocratic laws passed. And in fact, they need to be enforced (or be so egregious as to be obviously harmful before enforcement) before anyone can sue to have them judged unconstitutional. If this is done often enough, groups like the ACLU or Americans United will simply run out of money for legal action, and so that will be left to uncoordinated and possibly inexperienced individuals and lawyers.
Heck, one of the first things the Dominionists would do is strip the judiciary of the power of review, anyway. It's not like the Supreme Court has a police or military force with which to enforce its rulings. They can deem as unconstitutional as many laws as they want, a Dominionist President and Dominionist Congress could simply de-fund the entire Judicial Branch of the government, and then point to already-existing laws against the government accepting volunteer work as a justification to arrest any judge who tries to work without pay. Or heck, just have the lot of them arrested on bogus charges of sedition, and then say that the lack of sitting judges prevents any of the arrested from even getting an arraignment.
There are all sorts of ways to ignore the Constitution once one has power. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2011 : 12:57:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Even if the article is right about the intentions of Palin and her ilk, how realistic is the possibility of a politician or even a group of politicians succeeding in so drastically changing the Constitution and getting such crazy theocratic laws enforced? To me, worrying about this is sort of worrying about a bogeyman, and that always distracts from things worth worrying about because they are real problems right now (like inadequate health care for so many Americans, the lack of enough jobs that pay a livable wage, the decline of our public schools, production going overseas, skyrocketing cost of higher education, shrinking middle class, etc.)
|
Even if you think their goals are unattainable, you should consider how much damage they can do just by trying to achieve their aims.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2011 : 16:37:03 [Permalink]
|
| I am still not convinced. Look at how much money and man-power and wicked-smart strategy the Mormons had to spend just to barely pass Prop 8, and now it is all being undone by judges. I don't like everything Penn Gillette says, but one thing he said on Bill Maher's show that really stayed with me was that you have to push a lie, but you don't need to push the truth because by virtue of it being truth it will ultimately prevail. It's not that I don't think the religious right has had victories and will have more in the future. But their victories tend to be heavily fought for, and are often lost later when challenged. Overwhelmingly self-identifying Christians and Christian communities have adopted more humanistic values to the point where many people falsely think that Western humanist values stem from Christianity. In the larger picture of history, I believe that the religious right today will be seen by future generations as a reaction to the spread of modern values that began with the Western Enlightenment and a pathetic last ditch effort to turn back the clock to some romanticized past that never existed. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2011 : 20:18:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I am still not convinced. Look at how much money and man-power and wicked-smart strategy the Mormons had to spend just to barely pass Prop 8, and now it is all being undone by judges. I don't like everything Penn Gillette says, but one thing he said on Bill Maher's show that really stayed with me was that you have to push a lie, but you don't need to push the truth because by virtue of it being truth it will ultimately prevail. It's not that I don't think the religious right has had victories and will have more in the future. But their victories tend to be heavily fought for, and are often lost later when challenged. Overwhelmingly self-identifying Christians and Christian communities have adopted more humanistic values to the point where many people falsely think that Western humanist values stem from Christianity. In the larger picture of history, I believe that the religious right today will be seen by future generations as a reaction to the spread of modern values that began with the Western Enlightenment and a pathetic last ditch effort to turn back the clock to some romanticized past that never existed.
|
I think you are missing the point. Look at the turmoil, anger, fear, and hate that the prop8 crap stirred up in CA. That is damage. Who cares if judges come along later and overturns it, because if you were gay and married the people in CA just fucked you over.
Then look at all the states where anti-gay laws passed without much effort or fuss.
And the gay marriage thing is just one. Abortion rights, schools and creationism and revisionist history (TX anyone?), and so on. They are out there breaking stuff right now.
While I agree with Pen to an extent, I have to take issue with the idea that you don't have to defend the truth. Just look at human history to see why. Truth must be actively promoted and defended or it gets pushed aside for whatever the next person wants to use to manipulate people. If truth just naturally wins out, how can you explain the capacity for delusional thinking humans have? Truth doesn't win out by itself, it gets trampled by tribalism and deference to authority figures who have their own agenda.
It is wishful thinking to think that the truth will just magically defeat human delusional thinking all on its own.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2011 : 22:31:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
And it’s not just Sarah Palin. As Leah explains, “She is joined by many who share her biblical “call to service in the name of Jesus Christ” such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and a whole host of frightening – albeit not as recognizable – theocratic politicians who are aggressively working to re-write our Constitution and anchor it in Old Testament Mosaic Law.” |
Notice how Romney isn't included? After what I've been reading I noticed. It seems this evangelical writer, Warren Smith, believes Romney isn't one of God's warriors because Romney beliefs are "false" as he said it and adds "Anything false is dangerous. Falsehood leads to danger." What?? What kind of thought's are these coming for a theist who believe another theist's God is false which is Jesus but not his Jesus? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Ha All these suckers are dangerous.
This evangelical writer Warren Smith, reportedly made a stir with his article about Romney. After reading another article which interviews him on the article, I find what he say's arrogant if not true or threatening if is true. Specifically things like,
| Evangelicals are actively involved and believe that active involvement in politics is an important part of the expression of our faith; part of being “salt” and “light” in the culture. |
| Can a Republican presidential nominee win the presidency without the active enthusiastic support of the religious right? I think the answer to that question is no. |
My point being this article is also shining a light on the same issue, the involvement of Evangelicals and their work to push their religious views to be followed by all people. Any candidate evangelicals vote for and wins, will pay tribute to them. Tribute that will effect Americas citizen, Christian strident Evangelical or not, the same as other citizens governed by the Taliban, by trying to change society to be held to their particular flavor of Religious beliefs and judgement. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 05/31/2011 22:34:04 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 05:53:04 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: I think you are missing the point. Look at the turmoil, anger, fear, and hate that the prop8 crap stirred up in CA. That is damage. Who cares if judges come along later and overturns it, because if you were gay and married the people in CA just fucked you over.
Then look at all the states where anti-gay laws passed without much effort or fuss.
And the gay marriage thing is just one. Abortion rights, schools and creationism and revisionist history (TX anyone?), and so on. They are out there breaking stuff right now.
While I agree with Pen to an extent, I have to take issue with the idea that you don't have to defend the truth. Just look at human history to see why. Truth must be actively promoted and defended or it gets pushed aside for whatever the next person wants to use to manipulate people. If truth just naturally wins out, how can you explain the capacity for delusional thinking humans have? Truth doesn't win out by itself, it gets trampled by tribalism and deference to authority figures who have their own agenda.
It is wishful thinking to think that the truth will just magically defeat human delusional thinking all on its own. |
No, I'm not missing the point, and I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I never denied that they do damage. As I said, they had had victories and will have more. But I see it all as relatively minor (that is, relative to what they want to achieve) and battles won in a war that they are overwhelmingly losing. And when I talk about not needing to push the truth, I hardly mean that the truth " will just magically defeat human delusional thinking all on its own." Obviously what Penn means is that truth is by its nature more persuasive and convincing, and thus it will always have people passionately fighting on its side. So it isn't the truth "magically" doing the work by itself (yes, it would be delusional to think that, but nobody thinks that.) The work is being done by the inevitable people who love truth. Even if those people are in the minority, more of them will crop up because truth can be independently discovered over and over again, while lies have to be made up and then spread by the party that makes them up. So lies do take a lot more work to spread, and certainly that can be achieved, but lies can never completely defeat truth. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 06:02:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
If this is done often enough, groups like the ACLU or Americans United will simply run out of money for legal action,... |
Running out of money might take longer than you think. I'm certain that many lawyers would pool their resources and work pro bono to fight this sort of shit, and many members of the public would donate whatever funds are needed to keep going as long as possible.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 08:57:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dude wrote: I think you are missing the point. Look at the turmoil, anger, fear, and hate that the prop8 crap stirred up in CA. That is damage. Who cares if judges come along later and overturns it, because if you were gay and married the people in CA just fucked you over.
Then look at all the states where anti-gay laws passed without much effort or fuss.
And the gay marriage thing is just one. Abortion rights, schools and creationism and revisionist history (TX anyone?), and so on. They are out there breaking stuff right now.
While I agree with Pen to an extent, I have to take issue with the idea that you don't have to defend the truth. Just look at human history to see why. Truth must be actively promoted and defended or it gets pushed aside for whatever the next person wants to use to manipulate people. If truth just naturally wins out, how can you explain the capacity for delusional thinking humans have? Truth doesn't win out by itself, it gets trampled by tribalism and deference to authority figures who have their own agenda.
It is wishful thinking to think that the truth will just magically defeat human delusional thinking all on its own. |
No, I'm not missing the point, and I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I never denied that they do damage. As I said, they had had victories and will have more. But I see it all as relatively minor (that is, relative to what they want to achieve) and battles won in a war that they are overwhelmingly losing. And when I talk about not needing to push the truth, I hardly mean that the truth " will just magically defeat human delusional thinking all on its own." Obviously what Penn means is that truth is by its nature more persuasive and convincing, and thus it will always have people passionately fighting on its side. So it isn't the truth "magically" doing the work by itself (yes, it would be delusional to think that, but nobody thinks that.) The work is being done by the inevitable people who love truth. Even if those people are in the minority, more of them will crop up because truth can be independently discovered over and over again, while lies have to be made up and then spread by the party that makes them up. So lies do take a lot more work to spread, and certainly that can be achieved, but lies can never completely defeat truth.
|
Penn Jillette's position is that you don't have to defend the truth because it is the truth.
But really, not only do we have to defend it, we have to vigorously promote it. Human beings are not rational (none of us, zero percent) thinkers when it comes to abstract or complex data sets. We have to train ourselves to get to this point. Sure, we are almost all rational when it comes to something like "the stove is hot, don't put your hand on it", but not for things like evolution and climate science. Just look at the hundreds of surveys done showing what people in the US think on those topics over the last 10 years. Both of those are settled science, both have near unanimous consensus in the scientific communities that study them. Both of those issues are defended and vigorously promoted by those on the side of the evidence, yet they are not widely accepted by the public.
Now imagine the public view if those issues were not defended by the people on the side of the evidence. How would the truth be doing if that were the case? Sometimes the truth doesn't even win out when it has tens of thousands of ardent defenders.
It is naive to think this kind of thing is nothing to worry about.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 06/01/2011 08:58:39 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/01/2011 : 11:13:46 [Permalink]
|
Sarah Palin is a flirt who has taken the role of the coquette to unprecedented heights. She was flirting her ass off the very first time she got on stage with McCain and has continued on to this day. Now she is taking it to a whole, new level. From Wonkette:
Here is something about the media: Reality TV star Sarah Palin feels they are not working hard enough. She will not be the kind of “conventional politician” who gives out schedules and press availabilities and makes everything so easy on lazy reporters with deadlines. No, she will be like Carmen Sandiego and everyone will be required to do some “investigative work” to figure out where she will go next on her vacation tour to snap crappy pictures for her SarahPAC blog.
Palin did manage to grant a scheduled interview with Greta Van Susteren for Fox News, in which she declared she will not schedule interviews for anyone else:
“No, I want them to have to do a little bit of work on a tour like this and that would include not necessarily telling them beforehand where every stop is going to be, you know, if they — we’ll do a stop, we’ll do a lot of OTRs, off the records, we’ll meet a lot of great Americans and then I’ll write about that at the end of the day and it’s not about me, it’s not a publicity-seeking tour, it’s about highlighting the great things about America and the media can figure out where we’re going if they do their investigative work or they’re going to keep, kind of as you put it, going crazy trying to figure out what we’re doing here.”
|
Were I a reporter, I would be howling with rage at my editor, demanding to be taken off this crazy bitch and on to something more productive, like maybe a Bigfoot sighting or somedamnthing, and were I that editor, I would happily oblige. She just ain’t worth the hassle.
But I am neither a reporter nor an editor on the political scene, and have no say in the matter. The bright side of it is that if the media can’t find her, we’ll have to put up with less nonsense.
But I’ll put forth the gambit that she won’t be hard to find at all.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 12:17:43 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Penn Jillette's position is that you don't have to defend the truth because it is the truth. |
You obviously interpret him differently than I did. And frankly I think my interpretation is better supported considering that Penn devotes much of his career to defending truth.
| Now imagine the public view if those issues were not defended by the people on the side of the evidence. |
I guess I have to repeat myself. Let me cut and paste from my own last post: "truth is by its nature more persuasive and convincing, and thus it will always have people passionately fighting on its side."
So quit fucking acting as if I'm advocating that nobody defend truth. The POINT of my posts in this thread have been that I'm not worried about us losing the war with the religious right. If you want to disagree with that, fine, but don't fucking put words in my mouth. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 12:21:45 [Permalink]
|
filthy wrote: | Were I a reporter, I would be howling with rage at my editor, demanding to be taken off this crazy bitch and on to something more productive, like maybe a Bigfoot sighting or somedamnthing, and were I that editor, I would happily oblige. She just ain’t worth the hassle. |
The Daily Show did a great bit at the beginning of their show yesterday about Palin's tour and evasiveness with the media and about the question of whether she is running for President. You can watch it on Hulu or the Daily Show's website. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 16:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dude wrote: | Penn Jillette's position is that you don't have to defend the truth because it is the truth. |
You obviously interpret him differently than I did. And frankly I think my interpretation is better supported considering that Penn devotes much of his career to defending truth.
| Now imagine the public view if those issues were not defended by the people on the side of the evidence. |
I guess I have to repeat myself. Let me cut and paste from my own last post: "truth is by its nature more persuasive and convincing, and thus it will always have people passionately fighting on its side."
So quit fucking acting as if I'm advocating that nobody defend truth. The POINT of my posts in this thread have been that I'm not worried about us losing the war with the religious right. If you want to disagree with that, fine, but don't fucking put words in my mouth.
|
I had to stop myself from answering back with, "What the hell, why do you keep insisting that the truth doesn't need defending?!" Then misquoting you to make my point. Because I'm totally here just to put words into your mouth, but now that you're on to me I can't do it anymore!
Seriously, calm down.
Penn is the one I'm after on this point, not you. I thought I made that clear. When he was discussing the creationism v evolution thing with Maher he absolutely said that evolution didn't need defending (at all) because it's the truth, and the truth will win in the end. Its an odd thing for him to have said given that he spends a lot of his time advocating for truth on other issues.
Also, to counter your point that we need not worry about losing this fight with the religitards, I pointed out that two issues (climate science and evolution) that have broad scientific consensus but are sitting at that 50/50 (or worse) point in the public view.
Those illustrate both of my points, that there is a real danger posed by the tea party and other religious conservatives, the outcome is less certain than you think, and that without vigorous defense the truth can be easily trampled into the mud.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Palin: an insight
