11400[Death To Religion] Re: A Strategy of 'Subversive Rationalization' for a post-Ab
- Apr 6, 2008--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
>It's still close enough for Obama to lose.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bestonnet_00"
> > Him or another Clinton (and probably the loser between those two
> > being the vice president).
> We'll see, but I think it is 99% probable to be Obama, and about
> impossible that the loser would be the VP candidate.
> > I suspect not. He is religious to be sure but he does seem toHe doesn't actually seem to be racist to me (though he probably will
> > realise that religion should be kept out of government and that
> > laws should not be made unless they serve a secular purpose.
> Not so much that he is religious, which it might not even be, but
> rather his racial prejudice plus his (and his wife's) basic
> anti-Americanism due to whitey. He brings up the slavery and
> marginality past and connects this with the black Christian
> religion. Not directly to government, but indirectly in perspective
> and emphasis.
support affirmative action) nor does he seem anti-American.
> > Hard to say, he's attempt at becoming presidential candidate inThe situation in Iraq is probably unsalvageable thanks to the
> > 2000 was destroyed because he didn't pander to the nut cases but
> > he sure seems to be doing a lot of pandering to them now. Should
> > he get in it'll probably be just like another term of Bush.
> Not even a possibility. But just which part of Bush do you think?
> Yes to conservative, free market economy, strong military, finish
> the Iraq war and get out while keeping a military force stationed
> there as in S. Korea and Germany.
incompetence of the Bush administration (the peace may have been
winnable had competent people been in charge of it).
But what I basically meant by that was that Bush not being as
religious as some of the idiots who voted for him would have liked
tended to give the religious right only half-measures instead of
exactly what they wanted (e.g. banning federal funds from being used
for stem cell research but otherwise not banning it when they wanted
it banned outright).
And almost 50% of the global defence spending with about 16% of the
global economy is really not sustainable.
> > There is also Congress which should become majority democrat.Not the senate (at least not strictly).
> Is now, probably will continue.
> > That's the big one that we need to see corrected (though IIt'd require a lot of oversight although it might make it easier to
> > wouldn't have a problem with religious organisations which provide
> > charity that isn't intended to convert people nor restricted to
> > only their members getting tax exemptions) although there are
> > others that I'd like to do away with (about the only one I'd keep
> > would be exemptions from voting).
> There is no practical way to distinguish those, and too
> controversial to do that.
get the necessary legislation passed (and the oversight would probably
mostly be following up complaints, assuming anyone could be bothered
to make them). Then again, the religious bodies could always just
donate to secular charities and get a tax write-off that way, just
like any other business.
> Simply, all business entities should pay taxes. All businessMuch of the reason businesses give to charity is for the tax-breaks
> entities do contribute to charity to some extent.
they get out of it.
> Generally churches don't contribute much outside their ownAgree. Secular charities tend to be more efficient as well.
> organizations, and on the whole less than secular contributions
> (government and business entities).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>