Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11403Re: [Death To Religion] Re: A Strategy of 'Subversive Rationalization' for a post-Ab

Expand Messages
  • Richard Godwin
    Apr 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The human brain would have to get much bigger, like such a big head as to
      preempt natural childbirth, until the woman adapts (a problem mentioned by
      some evolutionists): big enough to have the capability of limiting the
      control of emotions (need, desire, fear, wishful thinking) over cognition.

      Socialism is not a religion. Reminds me of the prominent theologian
      defining religion to be broad enough, but so broad as to elicit the response
      of a reporter: "and that would include the IRS?"

      We wouldn't have been saddled with Bush is the Dems had a reasonably viable
      candidate. Gore?--uks. Kerry?--worse uks.

      Racist is one of those very ambiguous words. I think Obama and his wife
      have just alligned themselves with the black perspective that they still are
      considered inferior to whitey and still are under a kind of bondage, albeit
      it not slavery. Maybe he could have Sharpton or Jesse for VP. Farakon
      (sp?) wouldn't fly.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Tim " <timothydj@...>
      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 8:08 PM
      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: A Strategy of 'Subversive Rationalization'
      for a post-Ab

      > Obama probably will be the offering for the Dems. He is for sure a
      > racist that has very little to offer except the ability to spend
      > money like he's mad at it and line of marxist rethoric that,
      > typically, makes no sense at all. He offers less hope than the
      > Lottery. He might make a good, smooth talkin' Secetary of State if he
      > didn't have such a disdain for everything American.
      > He would accomplish as much as the do-nothing Dems in the do-nothing
      > Congress. Sadly, this is a time when we could use a little leadership
      > but there's little chanch of that.
      > I'm mixed about religion in politics. It's a great tool for keeping
      > the sheep in line but sometimes the sheep want me to jump over the
      > cliff with them. Religion might be with us forever- humans might need
      > it to replace whatever we lost in the way of instincts when our
      > brains got big.
      > Isn't socialism just another religion?
      > Tim
      > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@...>
      > wrote:
      >> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@>
      > wrote:
      >> >
      >> > ==(they do look set to kick the Republicans out of power at their
      >> > next election and have a populous that is fed up with the
      >> > theocrats).
      >> >
      >> > I suspect you would be proven wrong. Undoubtedly Obama will be
      > the
      >> > Democrat candidate.
      >> Him or another Clinton (and probably the loser between those two
      > being
      >> the vice president).
      >> > Judging by his spiritual advisor, I suspect he, leader of the
      >> > Democratics, will then be the theocrats,
      >> I suspect not. He is religious to be sure but he does seem to
      > realise
      >> that religion should be kept out of government and that laws should
      >> not be made unless they serve a secular purpose.
      >> > while McCain does not favor religion, although he does use all
      >> > sources for election support, such as the Evangelicals who are a
      >> > very large voting group.
      >> Hard to say, he's attempt at becoming presidential candidate in 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.
      >> There is also Congress which should become majority democrat.
      >> > The special privilege I have for a long time hoped to be corrected
      >> > is the tax exempt status for the all sorts of religious
      >> > organization. Churches should pay taxes just like the rest of
      > us.
      >> > After all it is a well-established fact they are businesses in the
      >> > common definition of money makers.
      >> That's the big one that we need to see corrected (though I 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).
      > ------------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic