|
RagnarokAngel posted:My parents are hardcore republicans and they love JFK too. What is with that? They're convinced he was a "centrist" (Talking about American politics here not worldwide) who made real concessions for both sides. Things JFK did: -Had a top tax rate of 70% (he brought it down from 90%, but still that's double what we have right now) -Advocated for massively increasing spending for education and poverty programs -Said that although he's a Catholic, he wouldn't be taking orders from the Church -Advocated for universal health care -I could be wrong but I think medicare was his idea that LBJ was eventually able to implement If Obama is slightly to the left of Stalin for the things he's done, you can imagine where someone like Kennedy would (SHOULD) be placed.
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:-Said that although he's a Catholic, he wouldn't be taking orders from the Church Well as I understood it at the time this is something that conservatives approved of. Since most of America is protestant they were afraid Kennedy would become the Pope's puppet and the Pope would essentially be president of the US. This was of course ridiculous but a concern they actually had.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 11:28
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:My parents are hardcore republicans and they love JFK too. What is with that? They're convinced he was a "centrist" (Talking about American politics here not worldwide) who made real concessions for both sides. JFK did lower taxes (from about 90% to about 70% for the top tax bracket), so I think that puts him in the good graces of conservatives, and many people try to play his support for the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam War as him being a diehard Cold Warrior, but that really requires that they take history out of context. This came up in the crazy forwarded email thread in regards to this crazy right-winger link. I'll just post what I wrote in that thread. Bruce Leroy posted:Yeah, Kennedy ramped up the war in Vietnam, but that was based on the work already done by the Eisenhower Administration. The Kennedy Administration adopted many foreign policy plans of the previous administration, like the Bay of Pigs, as many of the same bureaucrats (especially those in the military and civilian intelligence agencies) who came up with these plans were still in power. LBJ ramped up the Vietnam War even further than JFK and there is pretty much no disputing his status as a "liberal" (e.g. the Great Society, pro-integration, etc.). So maybe, just maybe, ramping up the "fight against the communists" had less to do with actually being an anti-communist ideologue and more about enhancing American hegemony and influence abroad? Another part of JFK that seems to make him popular across much of the political spectrum is that he was president the last time the Boomers remember it being the "good old days." They likely weren't part of the struggles for equality and rights during that period (e.g. African Americans, feminists, gays and lesbians, etc.), it was before Vietnam got really bad, and many of them were likely children or young adolescents, so they idealize that period of time, especially due to all the mystique and idolization of the Kennedy years as "Camelot." Mr Interweb posted:Things JFK did: Bingo. I'd probably place Kennedy at about where Obama is on the political spectrum, center or slightly left on some issues (healthcare, religion, education, poverty, civil rights, etc.) and slightly conservative on some other issues (especially foreign policy). RagnarokAngel posted:Well as I understood it at the time this is something that conservatives approved of. Since most of America is protestant they were afraid Kennedy would become the Pope's puppet and the Pope would essentially be president of the US. This reminds me of my favorite recent phenomena. During the Republican primaries, prominent far right evangelicals like Bryan Fischer and Robert Jeffress were going on and on about how Romney shouldn't be president because he's a Mormon, but now that Romney is the presumptive nominee, they keep projecting onto everyone else and claim that it's the Obama and the Democrats who are going to make Romney's faith an issue during the full campaign. EDIT: Mr Interweb posted:I posted this in the Political Cartoons thread, but I think it may be more appropriate to post here: I've actually seen this several times over the past year and it floors me every time. Once I was responding to someone (I think in the comments to a Yahoo! article) who claimed that Obama was going to take everyone's guns away and I argued that Obama hadn't even articulated a position, let alone actually done anything, on gun rights during the presidential campaign or while in office. His retort was that this is the perfect evidence for why Obama is simply going to seize every last gun and repeal the 2nd Amendment using his liberal activist judges. I read another argument where a right winger was arguing that Obama is a Muslim and someone else was responding that Obama was clearly a Christian because he goes to church and has been doing so for decades and not only has he never really done anything that would indicate he's a Muslim, he's done things that are violations of Islamic law (e.g. not fasting during Ramadan, worshiping Jesus for decades, ). The right winger claimed that this is perfect evidence for why Obama is a secret Muslim plant who is going to use his second term to institute Sharia Law, as the perfect Muslim mole would be the one to act as counter to Islam as possible. The third version of this I've seen multiple times where someone claims Obama is a diehard left-wing commie-socialist and numerous other people list off the numerous conservative and/or non-leftist policies and decisions Obama's had over the past three years, only to receive the response that it's all a ploy for reelection and Obama is going to turn the country into a new communist autocracy next January.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
Binowru posted:The best thing about their "open-mindedness" test is how easily it can be turned around. They'd just claim that's Liberal Misuse of Conservative Ideas. Seriously. They've got a page on that somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 13:19
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:They'd just claim that's Liberal Misuse of Conservative Ideas. What's really hilarious about this is that openness is a quite rigorously studied personality trait to the point that it's part of the Big Five personality trait inventory. So, psychological science has actually already quantified this trait in a very precise and reliable fashion that it really doesn't need some kind of ideologically biased test created by conservapedians. I'm sure that Conservative and Andy Sclafly will just regard it as "liberal science claptrap" and claim that their Conservapedia questions are far more valid (even though they haven't actually done any research on it), but for anyone who wants to see how rational, adult scientists look at this same topic it's quite interesting psychometry.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 13:31
|
|
|
If anyone hasn't already, look up 'Liberal deceit'. Their understanding of the phrase must be seen to be believed.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
What the hell:quote:Christianity and Judaism teach that deceit is morally wrong,[2] but public schools do not. I love that the first part is sourced but the bit about public schools they just tack on at the end to attack public schools. I can just imagine Andy reading it and wringing his hands together, laughing, going "This will show them!"
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Sarion posted:What the hell: King David used a poo poo ton of sneakery, Moses slammed the Red Sea shut on the Egyptians who thought it was safe, most of the prophets won their battles with cunning and what can be called deception. Jewish heroes are constantly renown for their cunning and intellect overcoming a superior sized army, you loving hack.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:King David used a poo poo ton of sneakery, Moses slammed the Red Sea shut on the Egyptians who thought it was safe, most of the prophets won their battles with cunning and what can be called deception. It's not deceit if the victims are bad people though!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Obama and crazy people Goddamn, they sound like those people who are in every bad movie. "Are you a spy?" "No." "That's exactly what a spy would say!" You'd think supporting gay marriage would once and for all prove he's not a Muslim, but apparently not.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Goddamn, they sound like those people who are in every bad movie. If you've read your Freep, Muslims are allowed to lie about anything they want, as long as they get to kill Americans somewhere along the line. "Taqqiya", it might be called?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Goddamn, they sound like those people who are in every bad movie. There's no reason that supporting gay marriage would disprove one's faith in Islam. It's technically against Christian doctrine, too, but that doesn't mean Obama isn't a Christian. I'm sure there are liberal Muslims out there who support gay marriage wholeheartedly (but probably not openly if they live in the middle east). Not saying Obama's a Muslim or anything (as if it matters anyway), just pointing out that you don't have to agree with all of the core doctrine to be a believer in a certain faith, and just diverging from the orthodoxy on a specific thing doesn't mean you don't believe.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
prefect posted:If you've read your Freep, Muslims are allowed to lie about anything they want, as long as they get to kill Americans somewhere along the line. "Taqqiya", it might be called? Fun fact, that's also a concept in Jewish faith under a different name, and I think maybe Christianity? Basically it boils down to 'it's ok to lie for holy goals'.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Fun fact, that's also a concept in Jewish faith under a different name, and I think maybe Christianity? Basically it boils down to 'it's ok to lie for holy goals'. I think the Freepers would know about that if it were true, since they're all such good Christians. Check and mate. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
prefect posted:If you've read your Freep, Muslims are allowed to lie about anything they want, as long as they get to kill Americans somewhere along the line. "Taqqiya", it might be called? Yeah, it's taqqiya, which in reality is a Shi'a doctrine allowing adherents to lie in those circumstances where it'll save them from persecution and/or violence. Freepers, and their close cousins here on Conservapedia, of course ignore all but the most superficial understanding of the concept, and use it to justify their hatred of Muslims and also their belief that Obama is one. Whenever he does/says something sympathetic to Islam, it's proof he's a secret Muslim. Whenever he does/says something antithetical to Islam or in violation of proper Muslim behavior, it's proof that he's an extra double secret Muslim because taqqiya. Glitterbomber posted:Fun fact, that's also a concept in Jewish faith under a different name, and I think maybe Christianity? Basically it boils down to 'it's ok to lie for holy goals'. Don't know about Judaism, but I've heard more than once in Christian doctrine that there's some sort of non-trivial difference between lying and breaking covenant, where the former is occasionally justifiable but the latter never is. Don't know if it has any formal title or not. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 18:53 on May 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Of course this is entirely misunderstood, and is actually a perfectly valid ideal, which is that it's ok to hide your beliefs if being open with them would cause you harm. While of course Islam and Christianity both advocate martyrdom, Islam does argue that in places where dying to protect your faith is not possible, lying about your faith to protect your life is definitely permissable. Historical examples include Muslims in spain during the reconquista, Muslims living in newly christian lands of spain were permitted to hide their muslim faith to stop christians killing them, because their death would not protect their religion, and therefore living, by any means is correct. I think most people who have a belief they're willing to die for, would argue theres times where it's better to stay silent.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
Bill O'Riley is GENIUS posted:There's no reason that supporting gay marriage would disprove one's faith in Islam. It's technically against Christian doctrine, too, but that doesn't mean Obama isn't a Christian. I'm sure there are liberal Muslims out there who support gay marriage wholeheartedly (but probably not openly if they live in the middle east). You're right, of course, but you have to remember the people who accuse the president of being a secret Muslim aren't accusing him of being a peaceful moderate. They're the one saying he is a radical Muslim extremist who is going to institute Sharia law and make Christianity illegal. That’s not the kind of Muslim that would back gay marriage. Of course that would mean asking for logic and consistency is their paranoid conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^ That's just how insidious his plan is. He'll weaken are country's armed forces by infecting it with the gay, then his secret musselman compatriots will sweep in and crush them to institute Sharia law because our defenses will be too busy screwing each other. quote:JFK did lower taxes (from about 90% to about 70% for the top tax bracket), so I think that puts him in the good graces of conservatives, and many people try to play his support for the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam War as him being a diehard Cold Warrior, but that really requires that they take history out of context. Yes and no. You can be a pretty serious Cold Warrior without advocating open nuclear warfare, and Kennedy was largely unsympathetic to communism. That doesn't make him a moron who was jumping on the red button, but if your focus was on 'enhancing American hegemony and influence abroad' you drat well were a Cold Warrior if it was after about 1947 and before 1991. JFK was also initially fairly unsympathetic to the Civil Rights movement, although he came around. A lot of Kennedy's mystique is projection, and he didn't exactly pack in a lot of great legislative accomplishments to his name that people can reflect on. It's not surprising that both conservatives and liberals would think of him as a role model, but they're just grabbing different aspects of his record to look at.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Fun fact, that's also a concept in Jewish faith under a different name, and I think maybe Christianity? Basically it boils down to 'it's ok to lie for holy goals'. I seem to remember that this was a fairly broad thing in Judaism. Except for a very few exceptions (such as committing murder) jews are generally allowed to break religious tenets when it's a matter of life or death. So for example it'd be entirely okay to drive to a hospital on a sabbath if you had an accident. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 23:06 on May 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I seem to remember that this was a fairly broad thing in Judaism. Except for a very few exceptions (such as comitting murder) jews are generally allowed to break religious tenets when it's a matter of life or death. So for example it'd be entirely okay to drive to hospital on a sabbath if you had an accident. My orthodox Jewish upbringing also A-OKayed breaking the law if it meant saving life, although I don't recall if there was any specific appeal to any part of the oral tradition. But I would bet millions of dollars that at least 5 generations of rebbis have thoroughly discussed the issue, and that another 10 generations then made commentaries about the discussion. You know how conservapedia lambasts contributors for making too many (read: any) citations? I can't imagine something that could collectively more scandalize the rebbis as much as that one tendency. I'm sure you all have read this article, but I haven't surfed conservapedia in forever. I decided to start big, with the article on Mitt Romney which begins as following: Conservapedia posted:Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is a RINO, former governor of Massachusetts and a successful U.S. businessman, currently the presumptive presumptive Republican nominee for the Presidential Election 2012. Conservapedia posted:He unashamedly admits creating RomneyCare, which is a complete disaster and forces everyone to buy health insurance and has resulted in long delays for obtaining medical services, such as an ordinary physical, in that state. Ted Kennedy and other liberals supported the bill and probably wrote key parts of it.  (no citations for anything quoted above of course)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
quote:He unashamedly admits creating RomneyCare, which is a complete disaster and forces everyone to buy health insurance and has resulted in long delays for obtaining medical services, such as an ordinary physical, in that state. Ted Kennedy and other liberals supported the bill and probably wrote key parts of it. "He sucks. His bill sucks. Probably he got some assholes to write it, I don't loving know. gently caress off." -An Encyclopedia
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Yehudis Basya posted:Such nuanced research! US Senators write state laws, thats how it works right?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Romneycare: such a complete disaster that literally no one in the state has tried to overturn or get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
I genuinely can't tell if Conservapedia likes or dislikes Romney. Sure you've got the stuff that Yehudis Basya posted, but they also bold the fact that Romney apparently led Obama by seven points in a poll (the enemy of my enemy, perhaps?). And the page on the Church of Latter-Day Saints says this:Conservapedia posted:This authentic American-founded religious group has contributed greatly to the United States. As just one example, they have devoted millions of man hours to humanitarian efforts around the globe. Looks like a possible rift between Conservapedia editors.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
I live in Massachusetts and no ones ever really criticized the health care system. Granted we have more doctors per capita than any other state but I haven't ever had problems seeing a doctor.Binowru posted:I genuinely can't tell if Conservapedia likes or dislikes Romney. Sure you've got the stuff that Yehudis Basya posted, but they also bold the fact that Romney apparently led Obama by seven points in a poll (the enemy of my enemy, perhaps?). And the page on the Church of Latter-Day Saints says this: I think they're like most of the GOP, don't know what to think about this. They don't want a dirty mormon who was governor of the most liberal state in the union, but they know NOT voting means the socialist obummer wins. So I think they'll end up voting for him through gritted teeth.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
On Barack Obama:conservapedia posted:Barack Hussein Obama II, also known by the alias Barry Soetoro during his time in Indonesia[2] (born August 4, 1961, reportedly in Hawaii) was elected the 44th President -- and probably the first Muslim President[3] -- of the United States. The article on homosexuality is really long, especially compared to topics about entire scientific disciplines (physical chemistry and inorganic chemistry-these unshockingly include zero insights in the fields). I mean, these people are obsessed with disparaging gay people. I won't be the first to say it, nor the last: conservapedians doth protest to much.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I seem to remember that this was a fairly broad thing in Judaism. Except for a very few exceptions (such as comitting murder) jews are generally allowed to break religious tenets when it's a matter of life or death. So for example it'd be entirely okay to drive to hospital on a sabbath if you had an accident. Yep, much like in Islam most Jewish laws are under the umbrella of 'ok this is important, but if it's life or death or would be pointless suicide to adhere to this law, God understands that it's more important for his devoted to live on and spread the faith.' Basically shock of shocks, the three Abrahamic faiths who were cultivated in the same region and share a same history share many traditions. It's ok though, those Muslim traditions are inherently the evil versions because
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:I've actually seen this several times over the past year and it floors me every time. Which also reminds me, I thought communists by definition couldn't be religious, because the whole concept is supposed to have some roots in "godlessness"? Oh, and I don't think I mentioned one of the other best parts of my conservation. This person was worried that Obamacare, being a "statist" solution with seemingly noble goals would eventually turn the country into a "Stalinist" dictatorship. After pointing out that this seems like a strange concern, considering that the Right advocated things like indefinite detention, torture, black sites, etc. He then tired to babble something about freedom not being free and that Obamacare would get us to such a dicatatorship faster. In other words, a center-right UHC plan would lead us to some totalitarian dictatorship, but things ACTUALLY generally associated with dictatorships WOULDN'T. You can't make this poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:You can't make this poo poo up. Well you can, but with Conservapedia and Freerepublic around doing so is sadly unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Well you can, but with Conservapedia and Freerepublic around doing so is sadly unnecessary. Also reminds me of one of the huge differences between the left and right. The left complains about things that happen. The right complains about things they THINK MAY happen.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Also reminds me of one of the huge differences between the left and right. The left complains about things that happen. The right complains about things they THINK MAY happen. Freepers are like those people who get mad at you for something you did in one of their dreams.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
In honor of the recent release of Diablo 3, I thought you guys might appreicate this: http://www.conservapedia.com/Baal Seemingly nothing out of the ordinary until you get to the VERY last line wherein: Baal is also a demon in the PC game Diablo. He is a boss and features in the expansion to Diablo 2 most prominently. Because of this, He has gained somewhat of a cult following in the past few years. So apparently a old video game is responsible for a cult of Demon worshipers. Oh this site
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
I wonder if that's a troll. It seems too obvious a play on the colloquial meaning of "cult following".
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I mean, how the hell is it possible for someone's mind to process things like that? To acknowledge something is true while simultaneously ignoring it? So many cartoons posted here of such mind boggling weird things like Obama some how showing deference to Al Qaeda, despite killing their top guy. Cartoons about homeless people riding the subway being considered "elitist". Obama being simultaneously an atheist and a muslim (and at times, a radical Christian). I mean, holy poo poo. My god! I wonder if my (atheist) conservative acquaintances thought the same thing, when I fretted openly about Bush's ties to the evangelical right, and about Santorum and Romney being crazy fundies. Their argument has always been that Obama's Totalitarian Communist Nanny State Regime is much more plausible and within much closer reach than my Fascist Fundagelical Nightmare, and I argue exactly the opposite. I'm afraid of living in a world where the government tells me who I can gently caress; who or what I can pray to; what I can say, watch, or read; and that teaches my hypothetical kids that the planet is 6,000 years old. My conservative friends tell me I'm being hysterical and silly, because that'll never happen, and because what's actually worse is living in a world where the government tells you what you can or can't buy, and taxes you out the yin-yang to support useless people and worthless programs. And, round n' round we go. In my defense, though, Bush said plenty in favor of born-again Christianity, while Obama has yet to wax poetic about Che Guevara, or quote from Mao's Little Red Book.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
For fun, I decided to see what Conservapedia had on Shi'a IslamShiite posted:The Shiites (or Shi'ites or Shia) is one of two major branches of Islam. A schism in Islam occurred in A.D. 660, almost 30 years after the death of Muhammad. The Sunnis, the largest group, disagreed with the Shiites over who should take over the caliphate or leadership of the nascent Islamic community. Those supporting the Prophet's son-in-law, Ali, were called the shi at Ali or "party of Ali" from which the name originates. Shiites comprise about one tenth of all Muslims and are the majority faith in Iran and Iraq. Surprisingly civil, and brief. The general "Islam" article is also quite tame compared to most of the stuff you see on Conservapedia, with a lot of taxt taken up trying to explain that not all Muslims believe the terrible things they list . It's weird that they demonize Obama so much for it, but seem kind of wary about tarring the religion itself. I did find this, though: http://www.conservapedia.com/Ethnic_Groups_Gallery AcidRonin posted:In honor of the recent release of Diablo 3, I thought you guys might appreicate this: Ba'al hatred is hilarious, because the name literally just means Lord. The word was used all over the Middle-East and Asia Minor, even by the Hebrews. You know the "el" at the end of a lot of names, particularity archangels? That's the shortened form of Bel, which was the Semitic word for "Master". It's in the Hebrew text in the Torah as such. Actual biblical scholars would know that it was specific deities who were being called "Bel" that the Hebrews considered demons, like Ba'al Zebul ("Lord of the High Place") which they change to Ba'al Zebub ("Lord of the Flies") as a pun to make denigrate their enemies' god. The depiction in Diablo has nothing at all to do with any actual ancient Mesopotamian gods, yet somehow it is responsible for reviving religions that have been dead for at least a millennium.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:I wonder if my (atheist) conservative acquaintances thought the same thing, when I fretted openly about Bush's ties to the evangelical right, and about Santorum and Romney being crazy fundies. No defense necessary, because as I mentioned previously, the fear isn't from trying to figure out this amazingly complex and elaborate code that the conservatives have. That's not necessary because they're loving shouting it from the rooftops! And why is it a sure thing that Obama is the left wing Manchurian candidate that they've been claiming? Cause he once read an economics book in college that happened to have a chapter on Karl Marx. Oh, and he used the phrase "social justice" in a speech at some point. Well poo poo, case loving closed! Speaking of right wing atheists, I'm still positively amazed that such people can exist that believe in the conspiracy theories and the like. Perhaps I'm giving atheists in general too much credit, but it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that someone who presumably is what they are because they seem to be the types who like seeing EVIDENCE and PROOF and things like that. And yet, I've had actual contact with people who are just as open to take things solely on faith as is the average Bible thumper. I realize I'm sorta painting with a broad brush, but you guys get what I mean, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Speaking of right wing atheists, I'm still positively amazed that such people can exist that believe in the conspiracy theories and the like. Perhaps I'm giving atheists in general too much credit, but it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the idea that someone who presumably is what they are because they seem to be the types who like seeing EVIDENCE and PROOF and things like that. And yet, I've had actual contact with people who are just as open to take things solely on faith as is the average Bible thumper. Most atheists came to be so because they are the type to demand evidence, and the most publicly outspoken atheists spend a lot of time emphasizing the importance of evidence, so it seems to be a general characteristic of the group. But being atheist only requires that you lack a belief in god(s). Strictly speaking, an atheist could believe in faeries, UFOs, voodoo and Celtic runes. I can imagine parents who, whenever the issue of God came up, just said "we don't believe in that, let's talk about something else". If the parents don't explain their reasons for being atheist, and the child isn't encouraged to question why they are atheist, then you can end up with the same kind of brainless fundamentalist that religious households produce.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:I did find this, though:
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 11:46
|
|
|
If you'll indulge me some  for a second, you're not Historically, those who chose to hide their religion instead of choosing death or exile were looked down upon. The Spanish Inquisition is the best example. Most Spanish Jews chose exile. The ones who stayed to profess Christianity while secretly keeping Judaism were considered "weak" for having chosen the comfortable option. Christians weren't too kind to them either, so they ended up with the worst of both worlds. Sorry, back to your regularly scheduled Conservapedia now. jojoinnit fucked around with this message at 13:10 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
jojoinnit posted:If you'll indulge me some Wait, so "eating pork" is something that you should have to die before doing? 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2012 13:03
|
|