Last go round the Republicans brought forth a Mormon
Now we've got a 7th Day Adventist in Ben Carson
Seriously the Republican Party is looking nuttier than a jar of Crunchy Style Jiff
What's next a Scientologist..?





Ivytalk wrote:And the Donks favor making things as difficult as possible for any religious believers of any stripe, unless you happen to be a Muslin. In that case, you're practically in a Constitutionally protected class.

Ivytalk wrote:And the Donks favor making things as difficult as possible for any religious believers of any stripe, unless you happen to be a Muslin. In that case, you're practically in a Constitutionally protected class.



Dear Chizzy,Chizzang wrote:WTF..?
Last go round the Republicans brought forth a Mormon
Now we've got a 7th Day Adventist in Ben Carson
![]()
Seriously the Republican Party is looking nuttier than a jar of Crunchy Style Jiff
What's next a Scientologist..?

Wow -- "Musselmen." Shades of the Barbary pirates.houndawg wrote:Ivytalk wrote:And the Donks favor making things as difficult as possible for any religious believers of any stripe, unless you happen to be a Muslin. In that case, you're practically in a Constitutionally protected class.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen...... by Jove I think you're right!

Ivytalk wrote:Wow -- "Musselmen." Shades of the Barbary pirates.houndawg wrote:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen...... by Jove I think you're right!


Attaboy, andy!andy7171 wrote:And the lunatic atheists, feminists, environmentals and homos rule the Democrats.
Ho-hum.

Hillary is ruled by corporate America, dummy.andy7171 wrote:And the lunatic atheists, feminists, environmentals and homos rule the Democrats.
Ho-hum.

So when is Bernie going to go after Her Entitledness on that very point?kalm wrote:Hillary is ruled by corporate America, dummy.andy7171 wrote:And the lunatic atheists, feminists, environmentals and homos rule the Democrats.
Ho-hum.
Oh...wait...

andy7171 wrote:And the lunatic atheists, feminists, environmentals and homos rule the Democrats.
Ho-hum.

Way too uppity if you ask me. dback is Hillary's AZ press agent.Chizzang wrote:andy7171 wrote:And the lunatic atheists, feminists, environmentals and homos rule the Democrats.
Ho-hum.
Mostly just the Homo's as I understand it...

Their hatred of anything Christian has them aligned somehow with defending the Muslins. Which is very very odd.Chizzang wrote:andy7171 wrote:And the lunatic atheists, feminists, environmentals and homos rule the Democrats.
Ho-hum.
Mostly just the Homo's as I understand it...

That statement from the Treaty of Tripoli is not some great Statement about the nature of the United States. It's something placed into a treaty at the time because it was advantageous to do so. As you can read at https://w3nws.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/ ... -say-this/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you can find another United States treaty that began with this:As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen......
That's invoking Christianity. Acting as though a Statement from one treaty in which some diplomat responsible for writing the treaty wrote something to make Muslims happy is some kind of definitive confirmation that Christianity was not involved in the genesis of the United States is absurd. It's done all the time. You see that quote all over the place. But it's ridiculous.In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.


But the government still isn't supposed to establish a state religion, right?JohnStOnge wrote:That statement from the Treaty of Tripoli is not some great Statement about the nature of the United States. It's something placed into a treaty at the time because it was advantageous to do so. As you can read at https://w3nws.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/ ... -say-this/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you can find another United States treaty that began with this:As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen......
That's invoking Christianity. Acting as though a Statement from one treaty in which some diplomat responsible for writing the treaty wrote something to make Muslims happy is some kind of definitive confirmation that Christianity was not involved in the genesis of the United States is absurd. It's done all the time. You see that quote all over the place. But it's ridiculous.In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.



Seriously, what's nut ball about secular humanism? I've never met one but it would seemJohnStOnge wrote:None of the religions mentioned are more "nut ball" than Secular Humanism. And that's what the Democratic Party is tied to.


That was written in 1783.JohnStOnge wrote:you can find another United States treaty that began with this:
In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

CID1990 wrote:I like how we're in a debate (started by clitz no less) over how over a wide range of belief systems- all based on blind faith- can have differing degrees of nutballishness
I see nothing any more or less wacky about the followers of Brigham Young, the belief that women should be shrouded, the Pope is god's personal dude, or that Jesus got up and walked around after being nailed up like a playbill.
I'm not sure what I prefer... someone unafraid to defend their blind faith, or someone like Bill Clinton who falsely parades it "this is between me, my family, and our God"
I like Carson's honesty
I doubt his ability to muck things up any more than a Clinton, a Trump or an Obama

ah ok I get itChizzang wrote:CID1990 wrote:I like how we're in a debate (started by clitz no less) over how over a wide range of belief systems- all based on blind faith- can have differing degrees of nutballishness
I see nothing any more or less wacky about the followers of Brigham Young, the belief that women should be shrouded, the Pope is god's personal dude, or that Jesus got up and walked around after being nailed up like a playbill.
I'm not sure what I prefer... someone unafraid to defend their blind faith, or someone like Bill Clinton who falsely parades it "this is between me, my family, and our God"
I like Carson's honesty
I doubt his ability to muck things up any more than a Clinton, a Trump or an Obama
Holy underwear..!!!
I gotta get me some
The argument is simple Cha Chi so try to follow along
Ancient religions - such as Catholicism - are shrouded in mystery
as well as having a long history of being handed down from generation to generation
Mormonism - for example - is NOT at all shrouded in mystery
Virtually every single aspect if its history and creation are known
from the convicted swindler who created it to the make-it-up-as we-go along rule book
Any adult who actually believes in Mormonism is by default exposing an element of STUPIDITY
in the same way any adult who gets suckered into a Ponzi Scheme
Yes you can be a smart guy and get suckered
But due diligence is a minimum requirement for one to be truly considered "Smart"
7th Day Adventists and Mormons require a level of personal delusion
and a true lack of insight that I will not dismiss and lump in with Catholics
Particularly these days as the Catholic Church is showing remarkable insight and judgment