In response to this post, where I called McCain a douche.
Whatever one might say about what this nation ought to be, the fact is that the nation was established as a Christian nation. To the Founding Fathers, this would have gone witout saying – and it is quite clearly the case from the language they used throughout documents of the period, including the Declaration of Independance.
It was also true, however, that by this time in history the hold of Christianity had been greatly weakened, especially amongst those that followed the ideas of the philosophes. The American intellectuals of the day were keen to find the hand of the Christian God in nature, and considered the pursuit of science and understanding religious truth as one and the same. Thus they considered the nature of God to be knowable by observation and personal reflection, and were so thoroughly disgusted by the European wars in the pursuit of one or another version of the Christian God’s word that they incorporated into the US Constitution an amendment making lawful the free expression of a person’s faith, whatsoever it may be.
McCain is not a “douche” for expressing a simple fact. Likewise, I suspect those who are so adamant about pressing home the freedoms of expression and religious choice as outlined in the first amendment would not be so nearly as enthusiastic in defending the freedoms expressed in the second – consider that just a hunch. Indeed, might I speculate that calling McCain a “douche” might have political rather than philosophical or ethical motivations.
-DrCruel
Mwaaaa… grammar! So rare on non-Pastafarian posts!
The only reason that Douche bag is winning is because he is Christian, and white. He is useing religion to gain a foothold in the election, and that is the lowest way to gain power out there. I’m Canadian so I shouldn’t realy care who wins, but if another “Bush” gets into office, it will very literaly be the end of the world as we know it.
The Founding Fathers would have been big enough men to admit the err of their ways. Surely they would, today, accept the incontrovertible evidence of His Noodliness’ existence and convert to Pastafarianism. I suggest you do the same, then you might be as boring.
What if we called him a prig? Would that be alright? How ’bout pandering shithead?
No DrCruel, my motivation, as I said in reply to Senator McDouche, was the United States Constitution. Specifically, the First Amendment, which protects your right to spew out whatever drivel you choose to defend said McDouche. And which, BTW, contains–and rightly so–no references to Christianity, Jesus, Moses, the Ten Commandments, the Old Testament, the New Testament, Noah’s Ark, loaves and fishes, salt pillars, killing giants with slings, or Charlton Heston for that matter. It is the product of the collective wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and remains one of the singular documents in the history of Western Civilization. It is the basis for the U.S.’ way of life, and it has worked remarkably well since its inception…unless, of course the Founding Fathers were wrong.
.
So how about it, DrCruel? Do YOU think that Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, and all the rest who you owe your freedom and livelihood to…were WRONG???
“On criteria for choosing a president:
“I think the #1 issue … the people should make a selection on the President of the United States is will the person carry on in the Judeo Christian tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind. “”
“McCain is not a “douche” for expressing a simple fact. Likewise, I suspect those who are so adamant about pressing home the freedoms of expression and religious choice as outlined in the first amendment would not be so nearly as enthusiastic in defending the freedoms expressed in the second – consider that just a hunch. Indeed, might I speculate that calling McCain a “douche” might have political rather than philosophical or ethical motivations.
-DrCruel ”
This is not a simple fact. It is spin. Speechwriters cloud opinion in tradition and simple fact in order to spin phrases. This opinion sounds scary to me. It says “vote christian” in a big loud voice. This opinion seems to imply favouritism contrary to some of those amendments. I’d want to investigate anyone’s motives for bringing religion into political debate. It’s completely inappropriate.
I am not sure how I missed the McCain-is-a-douche post. Like henderob and DrCruel, I also think McCain is a douche. Thanks for pointing it out!
“To the Founding Fathers, this would have gone witout saying – and it is quite clearly the case from the language they used throughout documents of the period, including the Declaration of Independance.”
LOL
It’s clearly the case that they went without saying it! They made one generic mention of the creator in the declaration, and didn’t mention is at all in the constitution.