View topic - U.S. Presidential 2012 • Redscape

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

24 Oct 2011, 8:09 am

Ricky said:

(Other than Huntsman they all disavow evolution, I beleive. Which isn't exactly, definitively, a statement of religious belief. But to all intents and purposes serves to be...)

I've already posted links that show Romney has not disavowed evolution.

It's all a bit ironic, since you can actually look up that "belief".

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

24 Oct 2011, 11:01 am

Doctor Fate wrote:It's a matter of degree. I am predicting the NYT, WaPo, and other media will go after Mormonism in a way like we've never seen the religion of a candidate examined.

Before we get there, Romney (and to a lesser extent, Huntsman) have to go before some of the more anti-Mormon sections of the Republican Party. I think as a result, any mud thrown that doesn't stick will still be deflected. Once it's out there and Romney has addressed it, it will lose it's potency.

Frankly, I think the issue of Kennedy's Catholicism was a pretty big issue at the time, and that blew over, being pretty much neutralised before the run-in campaign.

This is funny to me. As an aside, read this recent "scientific" discovery from the WaPo. Now, that stands up to "modern scrutiny!"

Umm, what part of this theory do you not like? I suspect that it will (and already has) passed through more hoops of rational challenge than most religious texts. We know that comets and asteroids are often largely made up of water, and that they would have been far more common in the early solar system than they are today (on account of how loads of them will have ended up smashing into planets and/or each other, or falling into the Sun).

It's not even that new of a theory. But you put scientific into scare-quotes because...?

Feel free to post in the philosophy section. There are huge differences between what Smith produced and Scripture, but to the scoffer asteroids bringing water to Earth billions of years ago makes sense--so what if it can't be tested, verified, etc.?

Not all 'scoffers' of the Christian bible believe in the scientific theories about the origins of Earth in a solar system. But I still would love to see you explain to us what it is that doesn't 'make sense' about them.

Or is this just you 'respecting the views of others' by suggested they are ridiculous and fraudulent?

Because the President has done a pretty poor job and his only means to be re-elected is to throw every attack he can at his opponent. Obama will hope the totality of the attacks will make Romney look worse than him.

If they do,. I expect it will be like 2004, not Obama, but people doing it 'for him' by proxy.

Sad times.

Was it not ever thus?

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

24 Oct 2011, 11:44 am

Ray

I've already posted links that show Romney has not disavowed evolution.

Yes you had...I was trying to remember who raised their hand in the debate survey as I had to leave the office...
Isn't it a little ironic that both of the candidates who did not disavow evolution are mormon?

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

24 Oct 2011, 12:12 pm

Here's an NPR summary of the Republican candidates views on evolution.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/07/140071973 ... nd-science

I believe you are also slandering Gingrich and possibly Cain.

: Neal Anderth; Truck Series Driver (Pro II); Posts: 897; Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

24 Oct 2011, 1:41 pm

Speaking of evolution we got a chuckle out of our tour of the Oregon Caves National Monument last weekend. We were told that their estimate for the formations in the cave was 1,000 years for each inch of thickness. Then at the end of the tour there's a long exit pathway that was simply drilled through the rock. They pointed out that it was already trying to heal itself and had developed a 1/2" of thickness since the 1930s. :cool:

Obviously that's neither here nor there, but the Redscaper in me always enjoys noticing inconsistencies.

(BTW, if you are touring the area on holiday, I'd recommend staying at the park's lodge. They used redwood bark for the siding and the whole thing blends into its surroundings.)

Last edited by Neal Anderth on 24 Oct 2011, 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

24 Oct 2011, 1:43 pm

There is, of course, a difference between not disavowing evolution, and explicitly supporting it. Perhaps that is ricky's confusion, but it appears more likely to be a case of assumption trumping evidence. Ricky, you do yourself a disservice when you jump to make assertions without basic fact checking. That's a common enough failure that can be forgiven as long as it's admitted to, but to continue digging...

The whole religious angle to the US political debate is still confusing to me. You have a country where church and state are supposed to be separate, and yet the personal and religious beliefs of candidates are treated as if they will impose them on everyone. The idea is that they can't.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

24 Oct 2011, 1:58 pm

Neal Anderth wrote:Speaking of evolution we got a chuckle out of our tour of the Oregon Caves National Monument last weekend. We were told that their estimate for the formations in the cave was 1,000 years for each inch of thickness. Then at the end of the tour there's a long exit pathway that was simply drilled through the rock. They pointed out that it was already trying to heal itself and had developed a 1/2" of thickness since the 1930s.

Obviously that's neither here nor there, but the Redscaper in me always enjoys noticing inconsistencies.

They could easily be different processes, Neal.

The caves are in marble. Marble is formed under pressure and time and heat from sedimentary rocks made of carbonate (such as limestone), which results in them being crystalised. The sediment itself takes a long time to form, being laid down over many hundreds of generations of living things.

The caves themselves are quicker to form, as they are created through the action of water eroding and seeping through cracks/other embedded rocks in the marble. As it's a carbonate, even crystalline, if the water is acidic, it can react with the marble and dissolve it, as well as eroding it through friction. The resulting solution will tend to move downwards, as liquids do, but if the water evaporates, it will leave a layer of crystals and other carbonates. This will be a quicker process than the original formation of the marble.

So, it's not an inconsistency, it's two different process acting in different ways upon different types of rock. But I'm sure you researched this, Neal.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

25 Oct 2011, 10:17 am

I like what Prager has to say about these issues.

I know some liberals and atheists like to pretend that belief in any god makes one irrational. I think Prager is on target:

But what real-life problem is caused by people who believe otherwise? Does it affect any of their important behaviors in life? Do they not take their children to doctors? Do they oppose medical research? Do they reject scientific discoveries that affect our lives? No. Not at all. Are there no evangelical or ultra-orthodox Jewish doctors? Of course there are, and apparently they are very comfortable learning and practicing science.

Compared to the many irrational beliefs of secular, leftist intellectuals -- good and evil exist even though there is no God; male and female are interchangeable; international institutions are the hope of mankind -- evangelical irrational beliefs are utterly benign.

And in regards to same-sex marriage, why is the normative Christian and Jewish belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman anti-science and anti-intellectual? What we have here is the usual left-wing tactic of smearing opponents. If you disagree with race-based affirmative action, you are a racist. If you disagree with the ever-expanding welfare state, you lack compassion. If you disagree with redefining marriage in the most radical way ever attempted in history, you are a hater.

No wonder the left developed the foolish and destructive self-esteem movement -- no one has anywhere near the self-esteem leftists have. They are certain that they are better human beings in every way than those who have the temerity to oppose them.

We are not hiring a theologian-in-chief. If we were, we would live in a theocracy. There has been no President in our history who has imposed his religious beliefs on the nation. Oh, they may have torqued a regulation or two, but every President does that. Not one of them has instituted or sought to institute a national religion.

So, what does it matter what the President believes about something that cannot be imposed on the rest of us?

I think Obama's religion is immaterial. I oppose him because he is a boorish leftist, not because he is a non-orthodox Christian. I support Romney, even though I think his religious beliefs are closer to Scientology than to Christianity (now Scientology is a "religion" I might discriminate against, but that's for another day).

Btw, Huntsman is still (politically) dead. And, talk about having no chance! How can he be a serious candidate when Chris Matthews practically kissed him?

Matthews is probably not "the blazing middle." :uhoh:

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

25 Oct 2011, 11:14 am

Doctor Fate wrote:I like what Prager has to say about these issues.

Because his argument is basically a string of straw men liberals are wrong, therefore, he's right?

I know some liberals and atheists like to pretend that belief in any god makes one irrational

I think it's more like the other way around - that tendency to irrationality is probably highly correlated to belief in gods. But it's not an absolute.

Prager wrote:Compared to the many irrational beliefs of secular, leftist intellectuals -- good and evil exist even though there is no God;

How is this irrational? Why is God necessary for the existence of good and evil? This is the bit that worries me about the absolutist position of some people who like to attack atheism. The idea that without God and his rules, we will necessarily be amoral creatures. I sincerelly hope that people who think like that never lose their faith.

We are not hiring a theologian-in-chief. If we were, we would live in a theocracy. There has been no President in our history who has imposed his religious beliefs on the nation. Oh, they may have torqued a regulation or two, but every President does that. Not one of them has instituted or sought to institute a national religion.

So, what does it matter what the President believes about something that cannot be imposed on the rest of us?

I think Obama's religion is immaterial. I oppose him because he is a boorish leftist, not because he is a non-orthodox Christian.

Do you seriously want someone to search back to the stuff you said when the Wright sermons became an issue? You have changed!

But I agree that the religion of a candidate should be immaterial. As long as that candidate does not make their religion a political matter. So, Obama and Romney have pretty much not done much to shove their particular religious beliefs into the limelight, and as such their faith is not much of an issue.

Unlike Perry (mass revival meeting just before he declares?) and some others, who don't just affirm that they have a faith, they claim that God has bid them to run for the Presidency. That does make it an issue.

You are not electing a theologian in chief, and so it's a little jarring that some candidates appear to think that they need to act as if they are.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

25 Oct 2011, 11:43 am

As for Cain being ahead of Obame in head-to-head polls, this is incorrect in the plural as far as I can see.

In one poll Cain lead by 41-38, the one Steve referred us to. However, we have all heard the saying “One swallow does not a summer make”, I assume?

In other contemporary polls, and in a more recent one by the same organisation as Steve's reference (Rasmussen), Obama leads, usually by 6% or more. Even at the time the RCP average would have seen Cain behind. In contrast, Romney is usually either slightly behind or level with Obama. I cannot find any other poll of Obama v Cain that puts Cain ahead or even level, not on RCP or on this 'polling report' site

One poll can easily be a rogue, or an outlier .The accuracy of polls of about 1000 people is +-3% for with a confidence of 95%, so would expect to see maybe 1 poll in 20 out by more than that for each answer. If this poll were sill within this margin, it could still be mis-representing an Obama lead of 3 points.

So, I think it’s only safe to say that at present Obama is behind ‘Generic Republican’, but ahead of all current candidates bar perhaps Romney, who is within the margin of error but doesn't appear to be ahead.

: Sassenach; Emissary; Posts: 3405; Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

25 Oct 2011, 12:06 pm

Because his argument is basically a string of straw men

Indeed. I'd go so far as to say it's the worst article I've had the misfortune to read in a very long time, and I regularly read the Guardian....

Seriously, I've never seen so many strawmen and so much spurious bullshit tinged with outright lies in one place.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

25 Oct 2011, 12:20 pm

Sassenach wrote:
Because his argument is basically a string of straw men

Indeed. I'd go so far as to say it's the worst article I've had the misfortune to read in a very long time, and I regularly read the Guardian....

Church!

Seriously, I've never seen so many strawmen and so much spurious bullshit tinged with outright lies in one place.

1 year and a few days to go. Prepare for many, many more such articles. And prepare for them to be referred to breathlessly as the most incisive thing since that kid spoke up about the Emperor's new clothes...

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

25 Oct 2011, 2:52 pm

Does it affect any of their important behaviors in life?

If it didn't what good would their religion be?

Do they not take their children to doctors?

Yes, but not for vaccinations against cervical cancer...Or measles...or...

Do they oppose medical research?

Like Stem Cell research?

Do they reject scientific discoveries that affect our lives?

Like Climate Change?
(None of the above to be taken seriously...)
The problem with this line of argumentation, besides all the straw men ...is that there i[u]s[/u] a very distinct difference between people who hold fundamental religious beliefs and other people of traditional churches or without faith affiliations...
The expression of those attitudes is displayed constantly in positions on countless issues.
When and if a candidate makes his religious beliefs important to his resume when campaigning it should become scrutinized. But if not, should be a private matter. Except and unless something in the belief sytem might reasonably change the way the person handles existential questions.
Would you be comfortable with a person who thinks they live in end times with their hands on the nuclear football?

But going back to whether or not Mormonism will be used as a weapon against Romney.... If he gets the nomination, he'll probably have faced the worst during the primaries... Partly because for a signifiant amount of the Republican base religion is vital. But for Dems or Independents not so much or many...

Thats why, after an intial kerfuffle you only found Rev. Wright on right wing blogs...

: freeman2; Dignitary; Posts: 1573; Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

25 Oct 2011, 4:35 pm

I think the electorate has a right to know a candidate's religious beliefs. Does a certain politician believes in the literal truth in the bible? Do they think we are in the end times? Is their support for Israel related to religious beliefs about the end times. Are their beliefs regarding abortion, gay rights, evolution, climate change, vouchers, home schooling, separation of church and state, etc. etc. due to a reasoned analysis and subject to change or compromise or are based on religious beliefs that cannot be questioned?

And, frankly, I would never vote for a Mormon for president, if his/her religious beliefs are strongly held If someone subscribes to that clearly made-up religion I don't want them running our country. Clearly, there are enough people that would not vote for an atheist president that makes it impossible for an atheist to become president. Separation of church and state prevents anyone from imposing their religion on other religions if they are elected; said amendment does not imply that a cadidate's religious beliefs are not relevant.

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7462; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

25 Oct 2011, 4:57 pm

Wow Freeman2, you agree with Dennis Prager. Good job!

588 posts • Page 23 of 40 • 1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 ... 40

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

U.S. Presidential 2012