Quote from: ZalmoxisSo the fact they use money to set up churches is a... danger? :raise:

Not that they do it, the way they do it. And its not that they use money, its the fact that they MAKE millions upon millions of dollars off the third world doing it.

Its interesting, someone did their homework over here the day before yesterday when the local anarcho-marxists marched through the streets of Montevideo in protest against the Bush visit.  They were mostly pacific, with the exception of two businesses that they utterly trashed: the first was McDonalds, the second was the "Dios Es Amor" (God is Love) evangelical church.  Some of my friends were totally confused about that one, on account that the Dios Es Amor church seems to be a Brazilian-based church with Brazilian pastors (they have a late-night TV program on local television, and there's a lot of laughs gained by the Uruguayan populace making fun of their pastors speaking spanish in awful brazilian portuguese accents).

But these guys had clearly read up on their literature, and realized that "Dios Es Amor" are actually a satellite church who's money ultimately ends up in the coffers of a southern US evangelical megaorganization.

These parasites are slowly milking billions of dollars off the third world.   These aren't the old victorian missionaries in the mud hut trying to save the native's souls. These are a multinational corporation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: ZalmoxisWhat? Are you willfully blind, trolling, or stupid? Read your own quotes and rethink your statement.

Is this really where you guys are going to make your last stand? With: "Pat didn't say that non-christians shouldn't vote, he just said they shouldn't be allowed to hold public offices of any kind..."

Oh yeah, that's much better.  :rolleyes:

I mean fuck, you can kind of deduce from there that if he thinks non-christians aren't morally fit to hold public office, they obviously aren't morally fit to decide who should occupy said offices...

RPGPundit

Quote from: ZalmoxisHow are they a danger? Because they are 1. Republican and 2. Christian?

They're a fdanger in that they believe a "higher power" dictates how things are to be without regard to the wishes of the people, which is what should run things in a democratic republic.

Quote from: Dominus NoxThey're a fdanger in that they believe a "higher power" dictates how things are to be without regard to the wishes of the people, which is what should run things in a democratic republic.

What if "the people", in sufficient numbers, believe that? Isn't that an inherent danger of Democracy? Or should we only live by the will of certain people?

Quote from: RPGPunditIs this really where you guys are going to make your last stand? With: "Pat didn't say that non-christians shouldn't vote, he just said they shouldn't be allowed to hold public offices of any kind..."

Oh yeah, that's much better.  :rolleyes:

I mean fuck, you can kind of deduce from there that if he thinks non-christians aren't morally fit to hold public office, they obviously aren't morally fit to decide who should occupy said offices...

RPGPundit

Pat said, in his opinion, that Christians and Jews are better choices to run government than people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

Quote from: ZalmoxisPat said, in his opinion, that Christians and Jews are better choices to run government than people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

Because, obviously, people who think the end of the world is coming and genocide is perfectly excusable with 'divine mandate' are great choices for political leadership and long term vision.

Quote from: GRIMBecause, obviously, people who think the end of the world is coming and genocide is perfectly excusable with 'divine mandate' are great choices for political leadership and long term vision.

That might be your opinion but I disagree.

Quote from: ZalmoxisThat might be your opinion but I disagree.

With what? That apocalypse cults are good rulers? That's snark. That christians are all fundimentally part of said apocalypse cults? Clearly they arn't. That the people in charge are catering to the minority of apocalypse cults because they tacitly agree, and thus they make poor rulers? This is nuanced, do you disagree this is the case, or do you disagree that this being the case, they'd make poor rulers? There's more, but this is a key sticking point in the discussion where it's easy to talk at cross-purposes.

Grim was being a smartass so I threw it right back at him.

Quote from: ZalmoxisGrim was being a smartass so I threw it right back at him.

That's fine, and all, but I personally don't understand what it means. Like, what's the point of that statement?

Grim made an obviously sarcastic and moronic statement. Zalmoxis ignored the sarcasm and attributed the idiocy directly to Grim.

Quote from: James McMurrayGrim made an obviously sarcastic and moronic statement. Zalmoxis ignored the sarcasm and attributed the idiocy directly to Grim.

Sarcastic yes, moronic no.
Does nobody aside from critics actually read these people's scripture?

Quote from: GRIMSarcastic yes, moronic no.
Does nobody aside from critics actually read these people's scripture?

Nope, not even most Christians read their own scriptures.

Quote from: James McMurrayNope, not even most Christians read their own scriptures.

I find its usually best to read the small print before you sign up to something.

How many EULAs have you read?