Election Day in the US

[americantrotter]

I already voted. I did my best. Hopefully the rest of the country will come through too.

[blurred]

Are you going to keep us up-to-date then, AT? I love a good election night special - will be tuning in to CNN or BBC News later on to see what's going on

[americantrotter]

I could, but it will be past your bedtime. Polls wont close until 7 or 8PM on the East Coast. Predictions are that the Democrats take bake the House of Representatives and that the Senate is held by a more slim majority by the Republicans. I will be glued to the TV after 9, so I may post my thoughts here.

[blurred]

What time do they usually start to call the individual states/races? Don't forget that I'm quite the insomniac so I'll be up to our wee small hours anyway!

[americantrotter]

It depends, but by 10PM they have a good idea for most of the races, but the close ones can go past midnight!

[Bruce Rioja]

I already voted. I did my best. Hopefully the rest of the country will come through too.

Glad you brought this up, AT. On the lunchtime news over here there was a story about how the campaigning's been going, and the bit that really got me sat up was this bit where some or other candidate, backed by his entire banner waving, claxon sounding band of acolytes was addressing a church congregation and was basically saying that a vote for him would be a vote for the benefit of the areas old folk and that the assembled would thereby be doing their Christian duty!!!!
Now as I'm sure you've heard me say before, the two words that when put together can make me believe absolutely fecking anything are "In America", and I'm not religious either, but surely this is beyond the pale, even for you lot no?

[communistworkethic]

America is a place of contradictions. A nation founded as a secular state with no allegiance to God is now "One nation under God" and their money is issued under the premise that "In God We Trust". Of all the elected people in the 2 houses not one is a declared atheist. Out of over 500, not one. Even by the law of averages one must be. But to admit it would make you unelectable. Religious groups hold tremendous poltical power not because they are necessarily large in number but because they are organised. Even George Bush Snr declared that he would not consider an athiest to be a citizen of the US and worthy of the same rights as a Christian as they are "One nation under God".

Now lets just surplant err "Negro" for "athiest" and see how that view sits. Religious bigotry is acceptable in US society, in fact in almost every society not just the US. There are numerous cases being fought in the US on the basis of "religious freedom", you can wear a t-shirt that says, "gays deserve aids, blacks are sinners, the holocaust is a myth" if you claim it's religious belief. You can't get away with it under Freedom of Speech as this does not allow hatred but "Religious Freedom" does.

Strange world.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

America is a place of contradictions. A nation founded as a secular state with no allegiance to God is now "One nation under God" and their money is issued under the premise that "In God We Trust". Of all the elected people in the 2 houses not one is a declared atheist. Out of over 500, not one. Even by the law of averages one must be. But to admit it would make you unelectable. Religious groups hold tremendous poltical power not because they are necessarily large in number but because they are organised. Even George Bush Snr declared that he would not consider an athiest to be a citizen of the US and worthy of the same rights as a Christian as they are "One nation under God".

Now lets just surplant err "Negro" for "athiest" and see how that view sits. Religious bigotry is acceptable in US society, in fact in almost every society not just the US. There are numerous cases being fought in the US on the basis of "religious freedom", you can wear a t-shirt that says, "gays deserve aids, blacks are sinners, the holocaust is a myth" if you claim it's religious belief. You can't get away with it under Freedom of Speech as this does not allow hatred but "Religious Freedom" does.

Strange world.

Cracking post Commie.

I could rant all day on this subject matter, but posting pictures of Lucy Pinder is a less time-consuming and more pleasing diversion.

[americantrotter]

Commie is basically right. We're not perfect, but we arent stuck with Blair either.

[americantrotter]

I already voted. I did my best. Hopefully the rest of the country will come through too.

Glad you brought this up, AT. On the lunchtime news over here there was a story about how the campaigning's been going, and the bit that really got me sat up was this bit where some or other candidate, backed by his entire banner waving, claxon sounding band of acolytes was addressing a church congregation and was basically saying that a vote for him would be a vote for the benefit of the areas old folk and that the assembled would thereby be doing their Christian duty!!!!
Now as I'm sure you've heard me say before, the two words that when put together can make me believe absolutely fecking anything are "In America", and I'm not religious either, but surely this is beyond the pale, even for you lot no?

Sadly no, as Commie has pointed out Religion is a big deal here. Odd that we have no state church and have politics dominated by Religion. The very nation we revolted against has a state religion and has little problems with political interference from the church.

[Montreal Wanderer]

America is a place of contradictions. A nation founded as a secular state with no allegiance to God is now "One nation under God" and their money is issued under the premise that "In God We Trust". Of all the elected people in the 2 houses not one is a declared atheist. Out of over 500, not one. Even by the law of averages one must be. But to admit it would make you unelectable. Religious groups hold tremendous poltical power not because they are necessarily large in number but because they are organised. Even George Bush Snr declared that he would not consider an athiest to be a citizen of the US and worthy of the same rights as a Christian as they are "One nation under God".

Now lets just surplant err "Negro" for "athiest" and see how that view sits. Religious bigotry is acceptable in US society, in fact in almost every society not just the US. There are numerous cases being fought in the US on the basis of "religious freedom", you can wear a t-shirt that says, "gays deserve aids, blacks are sinners, the holocaust is a myth" if you claim it's religious belief. You can't get away with it under Freedom of Speech as this does not allow hatred but "Religious Freedom" does.

Strange world.

'One nation under God' is from the pledge of allegiance. Requiring children to recite it in school was declared unconstitutional in 1943 (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), and this was even before 'under God' was added to it in the 1950s. So this is not really a constiturtional document. The Declaration of Independence mentions God en passant. However, I would agree the fact (I assume you are correct) that an atheist is unelectable is a frightening thought.

[a1]

some folk would rather have slightly religious pricks in government than these overtly atheist "religion is wrong !!!1111!!!! , there is no god , i am better than you" arseholes that think theyre better than everybody and what they think is right , which is what they accuse religious types off , hypocrite style ..

i'm reminded slightly of the theme of that film "The Last Supper" and those university prisoner / jailer experiments of the 70's ...

atheism is a religion just the same as owt else ..
agnostic is were youre not bothered anywhichway about it ...

[americantrotter]

Very true a1. Although I'd take an uppity atheist over these fools right now.

Plus we have the same PC nonsense with Christmas and such anyways. We get the worst of both worlds.

[Montreal Wanderer]

atheism is a religion just the same as owt else ..
agnostic is were youre not bothered anywhichway about it ...

I thought an agnostic was someone who simply didn't know whether or not God existed - s/he could be extremely bothered by the lack of real evidence.

[communistworkethic]

some folk would rather have slightly religious pricks in government than these overtly atheist "religion is wrong !!!1111!!!! , there is no god , i am better than you" arseholes that think theyre better than everybody and what they think is right , which is what they accuse religious types off , hypocrite style ..

i'm reminded slightly of the theme of that film "The Last Supper" and those university prisoner / jailer experiments of the 70's ...

atheism is a religion just the same as owt else ..
agnostic is were youre not bothered anywhichway about it ...

actually you're assumptions about athiests are quite wrong. Those who take the matter seriously and actually think about the issue fully do not say religion is wrong just fundamentally flawed in it's premise and that it carries far too much weight in a society that is supposed to developed.

atheism is not a religion it is a disbeliefm in a supernatural supreme being at work in the universe.

and you're view agnosticism is incorrect as their lack of commitment to take a view, it is more that they will not or cannot decide, that does not mean apathy.

the a-theistic rejects all gods and takes the approach points to inconsistencies and flaws in the God Hypothesis and to the position that while it is almost impossible to prove God does not exist that the probability of his/her/its existence is so tremedously slight so as to make it not just improbable but albeit impossible. It's not saying it's a superior view at all, it's not the one claiming an eternal life if you obey it, it mere seeks to point out that the views espoused under religion carry a weight beyond logic purely on the premise of faith and several thousand years of tinkering to texts written by bronze age men.

I'll use this example - I believe there is a pink chocolate teapot containing golden pixies and hobbits orbiting the earth but it's too small to be picked up by the human eye, telescopes and other scanning equipment, so it's pretty much impossible to prove I'm wrong. Now if I go out publicly and declare this as my belief people would think I'm mad. But why is my suggestion any madder than saying a supreme and sensient being created the universe and when he feels like it interferes with it and made a woman give birth without losing her virginity?


to expand this...
Russell's teapot was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, to refute the idea that the onus lies somehow upon the sceptic to disprove the unfalsifiable claims of religion. In an article entitled Is There a God?, commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.




recommended reading.....

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Bruce Rioja]

atheism is a religion just the same as owt else ..
agnostic is were youre not bothered anywhichway about it ...

I thought an agnostic was someone who simply didn't know whether or not God existed - s/he could be extremely bothered by the lack of real evidence.

I'm agnostic - exactly as per Monty's description.

[50sQuiff]

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

www.dailykos.com

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/ ... ion_stolen

[Daxter]

so is the sun of barbra bush going to win?

[Montreal Wanderer]

so is the sun of barbra bush going to win?

[a1]

actually you're assumptions about athiests are quite wrong. Those who take the matter seriously and actually think about the issue fully do not say religion is wrong just fundamentally flawed in it's premise and that it carries far too much weight in a society that is supposed to developed.

atheism is not a religion it is a disbeliefm in a supernatural supreme being at work in the universe.

and you're view agnosticism is incorrect as their lack of commitment to take a view, it is more that they will not or cannot decide, that does not mean apathy.

the a-theistic rejects all gods and takes the approach points to inconsistencies and flaws in the God Hypothesis and to the position that while it is almost impossible to prove God does not exist that the probability of his/her/its existence is so tremedously slight so as to make it not just improbable but albeit impossible. It's not saying it's a superior view at all, it's not the one claiming an eternal life if you obey it, it mere seeks to point out that the views espoused under religion carry a weight beyond logic purely on the premise of faith and several thousand years of tinkering to texts written by bronze age men.

I'll use this example - I believe there is a pink chocolate teapot containing golden pixies and hobbits orbiting the earth but it's too small to be picked up by the human eye, telescopes and other scanning equipment, so it's pretty much impossible to prove I'm wrong. Now if I go out publicly and declare this as my belief people would think I'm mad. But why is my suggestion any madder than saying a supreme and sensient being created the universe and when he feels like it interferes with it and made a woman give birth without losing her virginity?

yes i know about russells teapot , fsm , ipu and all those other "anti prove" theories that mirror the unfalsifiable (?) aspects of religion... but the "big bang" aspect of quantum theory is equaly on the same shakey ground, "what was before?" "we dont know, but we think nothing" .. WTF ?

the virginmary theory could be true because salamanders , some lizards , some fish , bees , etc can give 'birth' to offspring without 'sex' . Parthenogenesis its called .. if lizards evolve into birds that evolve into mammals (i dont think thats true but it could be, theoretically) then theoretically the ability to have virgin births could be retained (like how hens have teeth infrequently). the odds would be massive , but possible ..

I am not saying religion is right (its a big bag of cock , imo) but it cant and people who follow it cant be as worse at doing [something] as someone or something that doesnt believe it (religion, in this case) ..
Else thats saying a non religous person or non religous system ways of doing things are 'better' and its made even better just because religion isnt clouding their view , what if the non religious person believes in communism or fascism or something else 'worse' instead and that clouds their view , even though they too think theyre right?..

wars start over communisim and fascism.. possibly because of the way they go about implimenting the system into 'societity' (is comunisims have an uprising ? and fascisms kill all non-honkies?) and they were non relegious (i think comunism banned relegion proper , and facism was some form of quasi-christian only type one).. thats fecked too .. i dont want to 'be' anything..

i dont know where this is going.. you seem to not like (possibly hate) religion through various things ,
me, i dont care that much coz i know that something else *could* be worse ..

eg,

george bush might be a dick , but i'd rather it was him than some atolyah komanyi/adolf/stalin type

and if he's fecking off those types (sucide bombers , meally mouth do nowts , aytollahs, adolfs, other bastards that'd kill me ) then by deduction he must be doing sumert right..

see? like that..