Politics vs Religion : The Hypocrisy

[CT_Progressive]

Politics:
"The Republicans stand for everything bad in this world, and have screwed up the world. How can anyone still be a Republican!? They are all bad."

DU response:
"Yeah!"
"I agree!"
"Tell me about it!"


Religion:
"Religion promotes hatred of those not of the same faith, and causes war and strife all over the world. How can anyone still be religious? They are all bad."

DU response:
"Hey, not everyone that is religious believes in those teachings."
"You can't lump them all together, thats bigotry."
"I was never taught that in Sunday school."


Q: If being Republican is bad because of the actions of a few members of the Republican Party, how is it that being religious is not bad due to the actions of a few members of those religions?

Hypocrisy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. Who says Republicans are all bad?

:shrug:

[CT_Progressive]

3. Scroll to any page of DU.

Read just about any thread.

That is totally accepted speech here.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Hmmm

I'm not so sure.

[SharkSquid]

22. Have you ever read DU?

The response when I said my dad was a very fine man and a Rebublican, the response was about 40 different versions of:

"If you dad is so good, how can he possibly be a Republican"

[Cronus Protagonist]

68. I do

They're bad to the bone.

All of them.

We, however, here at DU always make room for the deluded masses whether Republican or Democratic leaning, so we can exclude all of them and that leaves us with the leadership and the people who know what they're doing. And they are all bad. Bad for the country at the very least.

[JeffR]

2. "a few members of the Republican Party"?

If that were all we were dealing with, you'd be correct. However...

[CT_Progressive]

5. There are millions of registered Republicans...

...but less than 300 that screwed up the country.

[JeffR]

7. Point taken

and I agree that those millions do not share equal responsibility for screwing the country up. But they sure have done a lot of enabling. And yes, I know, so have some Democrats, up to and including my essentially worthless congressman.

I'm not sure if I agree with your analogy, but it's an interesting one.

[Toots]

24. Bull, those three hundred would not be there to screw everything up without

those millions supporting their every move..Pretty much the same thing for Christianity. The best way for evil to exist is for good men to say nothing. If one does not speak up then their silence is taken as approval..It has always been this way..

[Hoof Hearted]

6. cherry-picking to support a narrow-minded view always results in a false argument.

Somehow I wonder if you will be able to appreciate how that applies to your own OP.

[Solon]

8. The Republican party is a semi-cohesive political party, with generally held principles...

whereas religion is an extremely broad term that covers everything from Deism to Fundamentalist Christianity or Islam. Some of these religions are polytheist, others atheistic, some pacifist, others violent, some believe in an exclusive theology, others don't. The fact is that you can't pigeonhole religion, so its blatantly unfair to compare it to a political party.

[CT_Progressive]

9. But I can easily compare any single religion just fine, and the analogy fits.

Christianity promotes killing those not of the faith. Period. Its in the bible in black and white.

The Pope will not alter the bible to remove those teachings.

Defend that.

[Solon]

11. Considering I'm not a Christian, I don't feel a need to defend that.

The problem I have with your OP is that you are basically asserting that all religions are exactly the same, when they aren't.

[theredpen]

13. Where did you get this crap?

Christianity promotes killing those not of the faith. Period.

Can you find a single line of Christian Scripture that actually says anything at all about killing unbelievers?

The Pope will not alter the bible to remove those teachings.

Defend that.

Do you have any understanding of this religion that you are talking about? The Pope has no authority to redact the Bible.

Have you ever considered... I dunno... reading a book?!

[CT_Progressive]

18. Deuteronomy (17:2-7) and (13:10) , Leviticus (24:16)

Deuteronomy
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die

Deuteronomy
13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Leviticus
24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.




Do you even fucking read the book your fucking sick religion is based on ?

Jesus fucking Christ.

[cgrindley]

29. In all seriousness (long post warning)

Only a very narrow stream of Christianity actually believes that the OT and the NT represent either the word of God or the actual history and sayings of Jesus. The world's one billion Catholics, for example, and although the laity might not understand or fully appreciate the situation, see the philosophies of the Church Fathers and Doctors as being valid expressions of their religion, and fully accede to the concept that the Bible is a human document.

The OT--in particular the Pentateuch, those first five books that used to be attributed to a Mosaic authorship--were the very human works of a at least four groups of competing philosophical schools separated by tremendous antipathy and, for that matter, geography. The JEDP authorial schools--split into what we'd call Southern and Northern Israel, divided into sources before and after the sack of Northern and, eventually, Southern Israel... pre to post exilic... it's all very complex and none of it can be trusted as being anything other than the word of one group of priests attempting to circumvent the political power of another group... nothing more than the defenders of David's reign taking on all comers. This Documentary Hypothesis is NOT a fringe belief, and its application to the study of the OT is endorsed by this Pope and the previous ones. It's not even a little controversial.

The text, for what it matters, wasn't even set until some semi-mythical council of Jemnia in the early years of the second century CE.

Take a look at this:



If the chart is confusing, good. It should be. The OT is a complex document, pretty much randomly pieced together out of a dizzying number of competing and mutually antagonistic traditions. EG is Job really just a descendant of the the Ugaritic epic of keret? is the song of songs really just a half assed collection of Persian love poems written from the context of an entirely different religion? what impact did the antecedents of manichaeism have on the refashioning of the Satan figure? does the term Elohim point to a distant, polytheistic past for Judaism? and so on. It's a fucked up situation and only an utter idiot would claim the types of authorship that utter idiots routinely claim.

I recommend Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible and Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed. Both are awesome books.

I teach the Bible. I used to do so at a world famous Divinity School. For all my silly blustering against religion, I actually know it pretty well. I'm a practicing high church Episcopalian (but only from a cultural perspective as I really am an atheist). I just dislike people who believe that it's really true as opposed to being periodically and metaphorically true. The stories are awesome, archetypal, true in the way that Jack and the Beanstalk is true. And the text has a fascinating history.

The NT presents the theological residue of a confrontation between several different schools of thought on the teachings of Jesus. Personally, I think that the kernel of truth is probably found in the Babylonian Talmud, that Christ lived about 100 years before his usual dates, raised a bit of a ruckus and was put to death for it. His legacy is that his teachings spread in the form of codified kerygma, collections of aphorisms, some stories (mostly made up) about his death, and some increasingly silly "signs" of his divinity. His followers split into antagonistic camps--the Thomas crowd who saw Christ as a sort of wise/fool Rabbi... the John crowd who saw Christ as part of God... the Markan author who didn't really know what he thought but suspected that Christ was the Messiah and so on... by the second century, there were dozens and dozens and dozens of texts floating around... lately, some of these have received some press.... the gospel of Judas, the gospel of Thomas... and so on. Most of these fringe texts were too much influenced by more eastern philosophies and so were quickly discarded by the fourth century AD (in my opinion, other than that first temptation in the wilderness, every single passage referring to Satan should have been cut as being clearly indicative of manichaeist textual pollution). But for Christ's sake... people were still seriously debating Arianism in the sixth century.

It's not like Christianity actually makes any logical sense even in its own intellectual confines.

A truly systematic theology is an impossibility. Theodicy is an insolvable mess. Eschatology is an absurd hodge podge of nonsense--only a crackhead would take Daniel seriously, let alone Revelations.

We know enough about the OT and NT to dissect them pretty well. Any religion that actually thinks that Leviticus 18:22 represents the word of God as dictated to Moses and not the ramblings of some Priest attempting to grab as much power as he could, is an idiot. The Pope, the Anglican Bishops, the Lutherans... all educated MDiv holding priests know this shit as the fact that it is.

It just makes me so frustrated.

There is a lot to like in the study of religion. It just sucks ass when people start to live their lives by it. Jesus, it's like living your life based on the teachings of Yossarian.

[CT_Progressive]

37. Thats all bullshit.

"Only a very narrow stream of Christianity actually believes that the OT and the NT represent either the word of God or the actual history and sayings of Jesus."

This is exactly what I wrote about in the OP.
You claim that the book in which your entire religion is based on can be selectively ignored at will.
Its identical to my KKK analogy.

All you did with your long post is re-iterate what I said in the OP.

As long as the CHRISTIAN BIBLE contains phrases which instruct people to "Kill others not of this faith", any member of that religion is a target.
Period.

There is NO MIDDLE GROUND. Either you support killing people of other religions, or you QUIT the religion that preaches that.
You CANNOT remain a Christian (or Muslim, etc.) yet try to DENY what your religion STANDS FOR IN ITS OFFICIAL TEXT.

[SharkSquid]

39. CT, St paul is pretty clear on how Christians are to treat those passages

in the OT. tHE talmud provides some good guidance on that as well. Seems you need to do some readin :)

[theredpen]

40. Christians... now Muslims... but somehow never mentions the JEWS who wrote these Scriptures. n/t

[CT_Progressive]

43. Oh, you can include Judaism too.

I *DID* say all religion in my OP.

Christian Bible says it.
Jewish Torah says it.
Muslim Koran says it.

All 3 are despicable and a threat to the world until such time as they remove those teachings from their holy books.

IT IS NOT RIGHT TO TEACH WORSHIPERS TO KILL PEOPLE NOT OF THE FAITH.
HOW CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND THIS?

[cgrindley]

48. We all pretty much agree with you... but I think that calling the OT and NT

Holy books is stretching the theological truth of the matter somewhat more than is useful.

[theredpen]

54. You don't understand any of these religions

So many you shouldn't call the adherent "fucking sick"

I *DID* say all religion in my OP.

Christian Bible says it.
Jewish Torah says it.
Muslim Koran says it.

Um, those people with the pentacle icons? I'm pretty sure they're Wiccan or some form of pagan. That's a religion, too, as are Buddhism, Hinduism and even Scientology. "All religion" is not covered in your little list.

IT IS NOT RIGHT TO TEACH WORSHIPERS TO KILL PEOPLE NOT OF THE FAITH.
HOW CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND THIS?

Of course I comprehend that. My religion doesn't teach that. If it did, I wouldn't follow it. You seem insistent on re-writing 2000 years of Christian theology to support your antisemitic pet theory. Good luck with that.

[cgrindley]

47. I like the Jews... they're much oppressed

and I doubt that any Jew honestly thinks that women ought to fuck off while they're menstruating or that gay people ought to be put to death...

Actually... yeah...

I challenge you to find me an honest to god Rabbi who says the crazy shit about gay people or abortion that we hear from Christians.

[theredpen]

51. I'll take that challenge

I challenge you to find me an honest to god Rabbi who says the crazy shit about gay people or abortion that we hear from Christians.

Here are three:

http://www.jewsforlife.org/Jewish-leaders.cfm

There's plenty more where that came from but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. That's why Jesus invented Google, you know. :)

[cgrindley]

57. I stand corrected

that's some crazy shit.

[Dorian Gray]

53. Have you been to the Hasiddic Community?

They tend to follow the more dogmatic rules from the OT.

[cgrindley]

46. It's not my religion, I'm an atheist

I just like to go to Episcopal High Church Services...

and, yes, the NT and OT can be ignored at will by most mainline Protestant and Catholic theologians.

I don't support religion even a little. Like I said... I just like the services. It's part of my cultural past. It doesn't mean anything other than that.

[theredpen]

45. I disagree with your editorial slant, but excellent info

I think that it is certainly possible to have a systematic theology, but you bring up some very important information.

Most importantly, it's difficult to understand how Christianity rose to prominence unless you understand the mindset of Hellenized Judea.

The stories are awesome, archetypal, true in the way that Jack and the Beanstalk is true.

The people 2000 years ago didn't need for their mythology to be literally true to find them "spiritually true." When people get caught up in literalism, I imagine some yahoo listening to a Zen koan and going, "Wait, what teacher? What student? Did that really happen or is it just a story?"

Sheesh.

Thanks for the detailed post.

[theredpen]

30. Those are NOT Christian Scriptures.... so you think the JEWS are "fucking sick"

I asked for CHRISTIAN scriptures. You quoted me Jewish law from the Tanak. None of those rules apply to Gentiles. None of them.

You have a problem with JEWS. You are an anti-Semite who is too much of a coward to take on the people you really have a beef with so you come after Christians. These laws never applied to non-Jews — still don't apply to non-Jews — so you should take it up with the REAL "fucking sick religion": Judaism.

While you're busy taking your demented little crusade to the JEWS, why don't you call them on the carpet for the book of Joshua? That book advocated GENOCIDE. Killing unbelievers is small potatoes.

So here's my challenge to you: if you REALY believe that these quotes are from a "fucking sick religion" then go into the JEWISH groups on DU and take them to task for their "fucking sick religion" and don't forget to excoriate them for the GENOCIDAL dictates in the book of Joshua. I DARE YOU. Go ahead, speak your supposed truth to JEWS.

Oh yeah, and whatever you do, don't fall for any explanations about how Judaism changed in the Second Temple period and that under Rabbinical Judaism, these edicts are unenforceable for all practical purposes. You've got those JEWS on record, in "black and white". Go get 'em, CT_Regressive. In case you're having some trouble, here's the links:

Israel/Palestine Forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=124

Since the book of Joshua calls for the Palestinians in the "promised land" to be EXTERMINATED, I'm sure you have plenty to say to the JEWS who take an interest in this subject. Don't neglect to call them all "fucking sick" early and often. You might want to make some sort of keyboard macro that inserts "fucking sick" randomly into sentences for extra effect.

Here's the Jewish Group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=316

Remember, their religion is "fucking sick" so don't hold back your fury against the JEWS. It's good timing, too, because those evil JEWS are just finishing up their violent and war-inducing Chanukkah holiday this evening. (What a bunch of "fucking sick" people! Ending their day at sunset when SCIENCE has decided that days end at midnight! The nerve!)

I know you're going to be pretty busy telling the JEWS what a bunch of psychopaths they are, but if you get a chance, maybe you could find a citation — just one — from the CHRISTIAN Scriptures that advocates killing of unbelievers. Just ONE "fucking sick" quote would do.

Or get therapy. That might help, too.

[CT_Progressive]

33. Those passages are in the CHRISTIAN BIBLE.

How much more fucking clear do I have to be ?

[theredpen]

49. Those passages do not apply to Gentiles

How much more clear does the freakin' BOOK have to be? Seriously. The only laws in the "Old Testament" that apply to non-Jews are the seven Noahide laws. BTW, anyone who follows these laws is a "righteous Gentile" so there goes your pet theory about the JEWS being required to kill unbelievers.

The Tanak is NOT a Christian document. It exists in its unedited entirety because it is an offense to change even a letter of it. Torah scrolls are carefully copied letter-by-letter to ensure that the portions of the Jewish Scripture officially designated as the "word of G-d" are not altered (that's why a Torah scroll is so freakin' valuable -- it's all labor cost).

You have a problem with the Jewish religion, which is practice by the Jewish people. Take your hate to them. I gave you the links.

[CT_Progressive]

60. Sorry, your claim is 100% certified bullshit.

Its in the Christian Bible.
The CHRISTIAN BIBLE.

I don't give a rats ass which other books its in.
I don't give a rats ass who follows it and who ignores it.
I don't give a rats ass about the history of the writing, and how hard it is to reproduce.

All I give a rat's ass about is that the physical TEXT is PRESENT, and Christians are TAUGHT it. Clearly, YOU were taught it, because you understand all about it. Yet, you chose, of YOUR OWN FREE WILL, to ignore it. Yay. I don't CARE that millions of Christians IGNORE the command to kill those not of their faith. I ONLY care that the command is THERE in the FIRST PLACE. WHY IS IT THERE? "History" is NOT a SUFFICIENT ANSWER. That is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Tradition" (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html).

Saying "That is the way its always been" is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT.

Having that text there is WRONG.
Not removing it is WRONG.
Remaining a member of that religion is WRONG.

All this is self evident when talking about the Republican Party (re: "How can they still be republicans after everything the republican party has done!?"), but somehow its "totally different" when talking about religion?

HYPOCRISY.

[theredpen]

62. I don't care if the mods delete this: You're a loony

All I give a rat's ass about is that the physical TEXT is PRESENT, and Christians are TAUGHT it. Clearly, YOU were taught it, because you understand all about it.

I read it. That doesn't mean I was taught it as truth. I also read Mein Kampf and I'm not a Nazi. I read the pre-Emancipation version of the Constitution and I don't believe in slavery.

The fact is that the passages you cite are explicitly only applicable to Jews. The same text you cite says that in "black and white." It's like claiming that American law dictates that we should shut down the highway system because it doesn't meet the health codes required of food preparation facilities. "IT SAYS RIGHT HERE THAT YOU MUST CLEAN ALL SURFACES WITH A DETERGENT SOLUTION!!!!!" Yeah, not highways, but if you want to pull things out of context, you can prove pretty much whatever nutty Jew-hating point you have.

"History" is NOT a SUFFICIENT ANSWER. That is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Tradition"

Well big surprise that you don't even understand basic logic. The topic under discussion is a religious tradition. It isn't an "appeal to tradition" when the subject is a tradition, doofus.

HYPOCRISY.

ALL CAPS! YOU WIN! THIS IS HUGH! I"M SERIES!!!1!!1!!

[cgrindley]

34. Wow, that's a little crazy

Yeah... Leviticus 18:22 *is* fucking sick. Anyone who believes in that particular line of scripture is a moron.

PS I find your take on Christianity to be pretty amusing.

[theredpen]

50. People misunderstand Leviticus in a lot of ways

A lot of the commands to execute people were — and are — unenforceable under Jewish law. The death sentences were not literal or absolute, but an illustration of how seriously the community had to take certain transgressions.

A modern analogy might be the torture issue. I don't torture, or support torture. Neither do you, or (I hope) does anyone on DU. Nevertheless, our artificial tribe, America, is torturing, and morally, we're not off the hook for that. We have to speak out, sign petitions, write out congressmen. I have it somewhat easy, as my Representative has a stellar voting record on Republican war-mongering issues, but I still write my asshole Senators and I still sign petitions etc. etc. — even though I don't personally contribute to this country's torture regime.

"PS I find your take on Christianity to be pretty amusing."

I hope in a good way. ;)

[fizzgig]

16. can you explain to me how the pope can edit the bible?

even if he could, it couldn't be enforced outside the catholic church

[theredpen]

59. He takes a lunch meeting with L. Ron Hubbard, the Dalai Lama and Joseph Smith

[Thothmes]

19. In the Bible

Which chapter and verse of the New Testament call for killing those not of the faith. I must have missed that one in Sunday School and been asleep during the Sermon in the regular service.

[CT_Progressive]

20. Notice how you convienently pretend the Bible doesn't contain the Old Testament.

This is exactly what I wrote about in the OP re: KKK.

[SharkSquid]

26. The Gospel is to supercede the law

St Paul was pretty clear on what you could do with all of the old Jewish laws.

[Bishop Rook]

66. Jesus was pretty clear about it too

In Matthew 5:17-20--

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

[Marrah_G]

27. SHAME ON YOU !

Personal attacks are against the rules. That was a disgusting and nasty comment made to someone who said nothing to deserve such a slam.

Shame on you !

[CT_Progressive]

28. I fixed it.

[gatorboy]

31. Why'd you fix it?

Leave it so everyone can witness what a wonderful progressive you are. :eyes:

[CT_Progressive]

32. It says essentially the exact same thing, without the sarcasm.

The way I wrote it at first lost a lot in translation due to it being text.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thothmes]

36. No, because you reference was to Chrisitanity

Didnt convienently pretend the bible doesnt contain the old testament. From what I was taught, Christianity, is based on the New Testement, not the old.
You still have not answered my question. You have only avoided it.

[CT_Progressive]

41. You cant pretend the Old Testament doesnt exist, pal.

It does.
AND ITS STILL PRINTED IN THE BOOK YOU USE AS THE BASIS OF YOUR RELIGION.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

Either you accept the Old Testament, or you need to quit Christianity.
There is no middle ground.

[theredpen]

52. It's not how its written, it's how it's read

You are quoting out of context and ignoring contrary information.

There are words for that, but I'm trying not to post anything that's a blatant "personal attack," so I'll let you figure out what they are.

[theredpen]

58. "There is no middle ground."

Spoken like a true liberal. :eyes:

Yesiree, there's nothing at all extremist and desperate about someone who enters into a "discussion" with a declaration of "no middle ground."

[Thothmes]

63. I know that it exists

Who elected you supreme pontiff. That you should say I need to quit chrisitianity. Sounds like the old testament is the only book of the bible that you understand. OBTW you still have not answered my originial question.

[CT_Progressive]

64. I did answer it - I called it bullshit, which it is.

You arbitrarily limited the bible to only the New Testament. I called you on it. Bullshit question answered.

Also, I said in the original OP that its hypocrisy to claim that Republicans should quit their party due to the actions of some of their party (which gets a free pass on DU), yet when someone says the exact same thing about religion, people (like you) come to defend religion.

[Thothmes]

67. hypocrisy

In the Sunday school I attended, we only used the new testament. Which incidentally is the last contact I have had with any organized religion other than weddings or funerals. I guess some christian groups also rely on the old testament. You still did not answer my question. As far as your original OP. I do not believe that Republicans should leave the Republican party because of the actions of some of their party. Nor do I believe that Democrats should leave the the Democratic party because of actions of some Democrats.

[SharkSquid]

25. They are all about killing gay folk too

Leviticus. Pretty clear to me :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Religions are a very broad subject, but I take issue with one point.

There is no such thing as an atheistic religion. That is the most oxy, or moronic, of all oxymorons.

[Solon]

12. Buddhism doesn't require a belief in deities...

Some branches of it do have deities, or, at least, supernatural entities, but its not required to be a member of the religion itself.

[SharkSquid]

23. Note that the "generally held principles" of the Republican movement

Are not those held by most Republicans.

Do you think Ronald Regan would invade Iraq?

[Solon]

61. No, because they were allies at the time, he invaded other nations instead, and traded with two...

enemies in the bargain. Not to mention a whole lot of other shit that was most likely illegal.

[theredpen]

14. Look at the platform

Jesus had one prime directive, "Love others as you love yourself." You'll find this sentiment — or a version of it — at the core of most major religions.

The Republican party has a more elaborate platform, and it is filled with explicit hate and divisiveness. You have to distort most faith traditions to produce the kind of malicious force that would support an unjust war like Iraq. The Republican platform is mendacious right out of the box — no assembly required.

There is no comparison.

Furthermore, there hasn't been a "religious war" in centuries, so I don't know what "war and strife" you are laying at the feet of religion (more fantasy, I suppose).

[nightrider767]

15. Republicans or Christians...

I'm surprised you haven't realized on your own that anytime you build an argument generalizing large groups of loosely connected people you will always make yourself look bad.

ALways.

Archie Bunkers tried for years, and was never able to convince anyone.

[defendandprotect]

17. Republican policies are intended to make $ for the few --- by any means!!

And people aren't suggestin that members of churches are "bad" --- they may question their
intelligence --- but not their morals.

What people are saying is that churches -- the hierarchy --- does evil things --- even now.

However, I would also say that all organized patriarchal religions are harmful and I don't
understand, for instance, why any female would support them?

[mmonk]

21. The only problem I have with your post is the use of "few"

in regards to the republicans.

[mwb970]

70. If it were "a few" Republicans that were bad, it would be OK.

But it's not "a few". It's nowhere near "a few". There are LOTS of them! Do I have to list Foley, Craig, Rove, Libby, Safavian, Ney, Noe, Cunningham, cheney, Macaca, Gonzales, etc., etc., etc., etc., forming a gigantic heap of Republican crap with bush waaay up on top smirking at us all, like the little white doodle on top of old chickensh*t?

"A few"? Get a grip. There are "a few" bad Democrats. There are many, many, many bad Republicans.

[TCJ70]

35. Maybe because there is only one republican party...

...and hundreds of religions?

[spoony]

42. That's only hypocrisy if both those are equally true

which they are not. Your opinion is not shared by all, and is by no means fact.

For one thing, there is one Republican party in power. Its members vote on the direction of that party.

Religions have thousands of subdivisions.

I am, frankly, not surprised that you couldn't figure this out.

[NashVegas]

55. Demographics: The Reality

Not everyone who agree with you on one thing is going to agree with you on everything.

"Politics makes strange bedfellows."

Indeed.

[bryant69]

56. Alternatively maybe not all republicans are the same

But yeah, that's crazy talk.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[B Calm]

65. but.. isn't Jesus and the Devil brothers?

[Perry Logan]

69. At DU, it's more like "The Democrats stand for everything bad in this world."