JustDoIt, on 26 July 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:
I understand what you are saying. I was pointing out that RHETORIC and LIES obfuscate legitimate concerns. I will use Mr. Harris as a example. He has a legitimate issue with John McCain, but his inflammatory rhetoric totally obfuscated his issue.I understand your concerns with the Mormon Church. I could argue that Mitt Romney could fulfill his commitment to the church by being a good President. And of course we have another Mormon in the position of power Harry Reid.When it comes to Mormons I guess you could call me biased since I live in Mormon country and grew up with friends who are Mormon including one who was very high in the church being a member of the Quorum of 70.The church does a lot of good including their welfare system. In my neighborhood the elderly of all faiths do not have to worry about fall leaves because the Mormons go through the neighbor hood and clean up the leaves. And of course I let my Mormon neighbor farm my land. They have raised 12 kids and every morning when I get up the 4 kids still at home are already out there working.I know a person not by label but by what is in their heart.
I like everything you say here. I don't live near any Mormons, but I understand they are generally a kind, charitable group. They, generally, use their religious beliefs as a basis for actions that most of us would consider good. And I also agree that encouraging a 'good' society would be an excellent way for Romney (or any other Mormon) to fulfill his Church's requirements.This kind of falls apart in two ways:- Romney (and any other Mormon in politics) does plenty of things that would not really be considered generally good. Mostly because it's impossible, since high-level politicians have to decide on things like abortion, which won't be generally seen as good by a majority of people no matter what he does. So it falls down to personal politics and beliefs, which we can assume are in line with the Church's. Logically then, a strong religious figure in a political role will make decisions based on religious beliefs.- Everything you said applies to Muslims. I promise, even though the media and your neighbours tell you all brown people are terrorists. I promise that is true. There are violent Muslims too, who say they are acting in the name of their Quran, and the media will tell you that is because the Quran says to kill all infidels or some shit. Well, the Mormon Bible says plenty of awful things too if people followed them precisely, but most Mormons do not and act well.
Balloon guy, on 26 July 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:
Did they change the definitions of words last night? Cause fact doesn't mean what you are trying to mean.In fact, if you divide amount of violence by years in action, atheism is so far and away the most violent world view, that Islam would be classified a mild level of violence.Of course, killing people is what atheist are best at, that and sucking off the society Christians created, while never creating anything themselves ( except for the mass graves and better ways of killing the most people in a short period of time )Now those are actual facts, not revisionist silliness only believed by the sheep who can't figure out the Google!
You're hilariously wrong. Christians are, by an incredibly significant margin, the most violent group in history. It's only because Christians try to pretend that those who do violent things while identifying as Christians are not 'really' Christians because...well they did bad things. Whereas any (communist or otherwise) regime without a publicly-stated belief is assumed to be atheist. Even though, of course, atheism is not equal to not being religious, and that most of these situations involved atheism only to avoid any power high than the regimes, rather than basing their murders on atheist beliefs and the eradication of non-atheists.Hitler: Christian.
Long signatures are really annoying.