It was the former, and I apologize. Now can we please stay on topic?

 

 

 

On topic? This is a topic about politics & religion is it not? So this is on topic.

 

It's a topic about politics and religion, but it's being sidetracked by what we should call the president. If you think about it, he's not really the "leader" of anything. The president actually doesn't wield much power unless his decisions are ratified by the congress. My statement was intended to be a joke about how he speaks, not to spark an argument about any nicknames the president may have.

Very well, then the statement I stand by is this:

 

 

 

Anyone who uses/defends that 'nickname' is ignorant for either not considering its meaning or arrogant for believing it is true. To continue to use it regardless of whether you believe it or not is to believe that its meaning and implications are trivial, when they are not.

 

 

 

To accuse me of being uneducated is irresponsible; you know nothing of my age, background or areas of knowledge. I happen to be older than you and I am just as educated, if not moreso, only in different areas. Whats more, to relate level of education to such a matter is equally irresponsible; I think you'll find that american history isn't such a hot subject outside of america.

 

 

 

My statement was intended to be a joke about how he speaks, not to spark an argument about any nicknames the president may have.

 

 

 

It was the casual use of such a loaded phrase that I objected to.

I'm what they call a Transcendentalist. I basically believe that I make my own rules, and if there is a sort of paradise that we all go to when we die, I'll find my own way there.

 

 

 

I live in the southern United States, where religion is everything. I cannot tell you how many Christian churches are in my area, basically because there are so many, they're uncountable. If you are not Christian, everyone knows it, and they will try to convert you. I am not Christian. I do not believe that Jesus was the son of god. I do not believe that following Jesus' teachings is the only way to get into heaven. Therefore, people around here think they have a duty to god to convert me. They give me heat, they give my family heat, and I very much dislike it. The Christians around here have further convinced me that organized religion has done more bad for the world than good.

 

 

 

However, I do not think that all Christians are like the ones around here. I know that Jesus never taught his followers to harass those who don't believe the same as them. Do not get me wrong. I respect others' religions. If someone doesn't want me to cuss around them because they believe that god doesn't like cussing, I won't. If a friend wants me to go to church with them, I will. I enjoy listening to what religions say about life, and about the world, and the other people in it.

 

 

 

I simply think that we are here to make our own choices, and it doesn't pay to spend your whole life worrying about what's going to happen after you die. Nor does it pay to live your life the way a book tells you to. But, I do admire some people's faith in what they believe. Organized religion just isn't for me.

 

 

 

As far as politics go, I don't really care. I don't really agree with the Republicans' views on abortion, and homosexual marriage. I think people should be free to do what they want, but the last Democrat who ran for president really freaked me out. So, I don't really know what political group I fit under.

im libertarian. one step of government above anarchy. the absolute least amount needed.

 

 

 

religiously i am agnostic, in that i dont believe there is a god, but if there turned out to be one i wouldnt be all that suprised. still dont think the god/s would be anything like we could think of though.

Wow, this is getting fun already. It's a little past noon, so I need to go to bed. I'll respond to the latest posts (and any new ones if I have time) tomorrow. I also look forward to reading any responces the earlier posters have to the questions/comments I gave. Anyway, thanks everyone for your input!

Well, my post is offtopic, but I saw a post earlier and I see them everyday.

 

 

 

I hate how Europeans always think they are better then us and we are a bunch of dum*as*es who think they are all powerful, the majority of us don't. They act as if everything about is bad, we don't flame them for being from what I've seen, the European jerks they are. At least I don't see many posts saying how they have a horrible culture written by Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

Rose

You're saying that based on what you've seen, Europeans are 'jerks'? I don't think I even need to attempt to argue with you based on that line.

Anesthesia, all you do is bash how Americans live. I think you are a jerk.

 

 

 

You think we are all stupid, well we aren't. In fact, believe it or not, we are as smart as you are. I know it doesn't seem possible but its true.

Well, my post is offtopic, but I saw a post earlier and I see them everyday.

 

 

 

I hate how Europeans always think they are better then us and we are a bunch of dum*as*es who think they are all powerful, the majority of us don't. They act as if everything about is bad, we don't flame them for being from what I've seen, the European jerks they are. At least I don't see many posts saying how they have a horrible culture written by Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

Rose

 

 

 

Stereotypes exist about everyone, not just Americans. I've seen plenty of stereotypes about Europeans.

8.) The vast majority of American's dress sense

 

20.) American slang creeping into England

 

 

 

In Antrune's list of 54, in the top 20 are two things he thinks are wrong with us.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

I'm sorry wolfboy for posting on your thread, this is my last one.

Anesthesia, all you do is bash how Americans live. I think you are a jerk.

 

 

 

You think we are all stupid, well we aren't. In fact, believe it or not, we are as smart as you are. I know it doesn't seem possible but its true.

 

 

 

I am indeed a jerk, and proud of it. I also appreciate you telling me (inaccurately) what I think, what would I do without you...

 

 

 

However, I don't resort to namecalling because in England we grow out of that after primary school.

So now you are resorting to insulting my intelligence/knowledge? That's low.

 

:cry:

 

Anyone who uses/defends that 'nickname' is ignorant for either not considering its meaning or arrogant for believing it is true.

 

 

 

I don't understand it when you do stuff like that.

Do stuff like what? The quality of being educated differs greatly from that of considering what you say.

 

 

 

By his own admission the topic starter said he didn't consider its meaning, and to anyone 'on the other side' of such a phrase it can be offensive. If you don't consider the implications of what you say then to me you are ignorant - ignorant of the meaning of what is coming out of your mouth, you haven't bothered to think about what the words you are saying mean.

Do stuff like what? The quality of being educated differs greatly from that of considering what you say.

 

 

 

Actually, I said "uneducated" and you said "ignorant".

 

 

 

Lacking education or knowledge.

 

 

 

Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated

 

 

 

So what's the difference? No matter what they are "ignorant" of, you are "insulting intelligence/knowledge" just as much as I was.

So what's the difference? No matter what they are "ignorant" of, you are "insulting intelligence/knowledge" just as much as I was.

 

 

 

I used ignorant because I couldn't think of a better word for it. Are you just arguing about my choice of words now, or can you agree that not thinking about what you say does not equal being uneducated?

 

 

 

Edit: I've now found the sense in which I used the word, and discovered it is a UK term:

 

 

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD

 

2 UK INFORMAL not polite or respectful:

 

Ignorant lout!

 

 

 

To brashly state that your president is the leader of the free world is not polite or respectful to people from outside your country.

So what's the difference? No matter what they are "ignorant" of, you are "insulting intelligence/knowledge" just as much as I was.

 

 

 

I used ignorant because I couldn't think of a better word for it. Are you just arguing about my choice of words now, or can you agree that not thinking about what you say does not equal being uneducated?

 

 

 

Well you edited your post after I made mine. Clearly ignorant was the wrong word and my point is that your original post where you said someone was ignorant was written just as "insulting" as my post (the one you said was insulting). I don't really care if you used the right or wrong word. To me, your post makes sense form your side. But it's just as insulting as my post was (in my opinion, that's not at all) and so it was a cheap shot to try and call my post insulting.

See my post above for why I used the word.

 

 

 

Dictionary.com is an american source, and so wouldn't contain it. The reference I cited was from an English dictionary and so it did contain it.

 

 

 

If you don't want to scroll up, here it is again with some elaboration:

 

 

 

I've now found the sense in which I used the word, and discovered it is a UK term:

 

 

 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... &dict=CALD

 

2 UK INFORMAL not polite or respectful:

 

Ignorant lout!

 

 

 

To brashly state that your president is the leader of the free world is not polite or respectful to people from outside your country. When I accused him of being ignorant it was based on the facts of what he said (namely that Bush is not my president and I live in a free country) and it was neither polite nor respectful - whereas your (implied) accusation of my being uneducated was baseless - you know nothing about my level of education. I could be the world's most learned scholar on the subject of botany and not know about the history of your country or its slang - but would that make me uneducated?

See my post above for why I used the word.

 

 

 

Dictionary.com is an american source, and so wouldn't contain it. The reference I cited was from an English dictionary and so it did contain it.

 

 

 

Okay. I understand that. It's funny though, that the way they show the word in context is still insulting. The point about your post being as insulting as mine remains. Ignorant is no nicer a word than "uneducated."

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

 

 

To brashly state that your president is the leader of the free world is not polite or respectful to people from outside your country.

 

 

 

That's my whole point! By saying that nickname, we aren't brashly stating anything. Maybe at one point it meant that, but now it's a meaningless nickname. When someone calls my Grandfather "Red," they certainly aren'ty talking about the red hair he doesn't have. Using a dated and meaningless nickname is not "brashly stating" anything. It's just a meaningless nickname...

 

 

 

And my claim was NOT baseless. Understanding the very simple history of America once being considered the free world is the education I was speaking about (I specified that). Not knowing that simple history to udnerstand where the DATED and NOW MEANINGLESS nickname comes form, is uneducated about the nickname. If you are offended by it, then I can assume you are uneducated about the subject.

 

 

 

EDIT AGAIN: I made it clear I was talking about the history and context of the nickname. I wasn't referring to being uneducated about everything. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough.

By your very own dictionary.com:

 

 

 

brash1 Audio pronunciation of "brash" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brsh)

 

adj. brashÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷er, brashÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷est

 

 

 

1.

 

1. Hasty and unthinking; impetuous.

 

2. Rash.

 

2. Lacking in sensitivity or tact.

 

 

 

It was hasty and unthinking of him to say it without thinking it could annoy someone who wasn't from his country and/or didn't know the history of the phrase (basically most people outside the US).

 

 

 

Take 100 English people and call Bush the "leader of the free world" in front of them and I guarantee you that you'll have 95 black eyes.

 

 

 

On the subject of 'uneducated', perhaps our dialects have served to antagonise the other once again:

 

 

 

 

uneducated Show phonetics

 

adjective

 

having received little or no education

 

 

 

I'll readily agree that I know little on american history, but to say someone is not educated (at least here) means they have received no education in general.

By your very own dictionary.com:

 

 

 

brash1 Audio pronunciation of "brash" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brsh)

 

adj. brashÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷er, brashÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷est

 

 

 

1.

 

1. Hasty and unthinking; impetuous.

 

2. Rash.

 

2. Lacking in sensitivity or tact.

 

 

 

It was hasty and unthinking of him to say it without thinking it could annoy someone who wasn't from his country and/or didn't know the history of the phrase (basically most people outside the US).

 

 

 

Take 100 English people and call Bush the "leader of the free world" in front of them and I guarantee you that you'll have 95 black eyes.

 

 

 

On the subject of 'uneducated', perhaps our dialects have served to antagonise the other once again:

 

 

 

 

uneducated Show phonetics

 

adjective

 

having received little or no education

 

 

 

I'll readily agree that I know little on american history, but to say someone is not educated (at least here) means they have received no education in general.

 

 

 

http://www.perfect.co.uk/2005/11/the-leader-of-the-free-world

 

 

 

That's the first UK website I found that referenced Bush as "the leader of the free world." I still think you're reading way too into the nickname... and that it is possible our dialects are confusing us. :P

I'm a follower of Christ.

 

Interesting choice of words. Most people would have said "I'm a Christian." Was it intentional?

 

 

 

Yes. It most certainly was.

 

 

 

I lean right although some of Bush's stuff I disagree with.

 

What stuff? The war?

 

 

 

Not really the war...more like signing the real ID act and some foreign policy.

 

 

 

I am conservative almost teetering on civil libertarian if it weren't for the Bible condoning some things.

 

Such as...?

 

 

 

Homosexuality, abortion, forced tolerance which really isn't tolerance at all.

 

 

 

I am anti-homosexuality, for while one's genetics may cause you to have certain tendencies, you have a choice. It is wrong and God will never give you something you can't handle.

 

This is also a good point. Even when you don't have a choice, you still have a choice. Dr. Dobson (Focus on the Family) said that it's not a sin to have feelings or desires for the same gender, but it is a sin to act on them. (Paraphrased)

 

 

 

It's an inclination but not forced. That's just what people say to be politically correct, which I also disagree with.

 

 

 

I hate this impression of post-modern beliefs on kids in public schools. I disagree with the forced form of tolerance we preach today. I disagree with the post-modern view of truth and relativism.

 

I disagree with you here. I think tolerance is important. I think that different theological views (including Christian, but by no means limited to it) should be taught in public schools.

 

 

 

I mean tolerance as in "You have to accept my beliefs because I'm different and you shouldn't judge." It'd be nice if Christianity was on equal footing as other religions and even atheism. How about even close?

 

 

 

I am disappointed with the Christian church today

 

So am I. I love the message of Christ, but the message of today's Christians seems far different. With exceptions, of course.

and wish people would start having an actual life change instead of finding more rules to follow.

 

One could have such a change in other religions as well. Buddhism, for example, with it's search for enlightenment can lead to some very positive life changes.

I wish Christians would actually talk to God and hear His voice.

 

Me, too, but not just Christians. I wish that followers of all religions would spend more time praying/speaking/meditating with their deity of choice.

I wish Christians would fall in love with Christ. I pray I do more every day. I wish they would love Him with all of their heart, mind, soul, and strength.

 

Again, I agree, but again I think it should be all religions. To quote Serendipity "It doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith.

I am eagerly awaiting the day of Christ's return.

 

Until that day comes, may you have a long and happy life. Thanks for sharing your views!

 

 

 

1. How well do you know the message of Christ?

 

2. Life change-something few Christians actually have. I call them hypocrites, which is why I call myself a Christ-follower instead of a Christian.

 

3. Jesus said that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That's pretty exclusive. OK, I correct myself, it's REALLY exclusive.

 

 

 

Your turn lol.

anastesia, the writer clearly intended it to mean "the leader of america", and you cannot change the meaning of his true statement. unless wolfboy says "i meant it to mean the leader of all the free people in the world" you cannot change his opinion by interpreting it a different way.

I support the president because, if you smacked any other president besides washington and lincoln into his place during these events, they would preform just as poorly.

 

That's a very good point. Although Lincoln was not the genius history's made him out to be. He was actually a very poor leader, and would probably have been forgotten if not for the war and the asassination.

 

 

 

I disagree with all of that. :D First, President Bush did get a challenge. September 11th and all that is challenging stuff. However, I would say almost every other American president would have done a better job in his position. It's not really an argument I'm interested in pursuing, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

 

 

Second, Lincoln was one of the single most extraordinary men America has been lucky enough to elect. For his cabinet, he deliberately selected several people that he regularly disagreed with. For most Presidents, this would be an unworkable situation. But by force of character, intelligence, and charisma, he unified his office and then the nation. There are other examples of his genius that I could provide if you want, but I'm getting off-topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, cool topic. I am fairly liberal, but I consider myself an independent. I'm not with or against any political party. BTW, I'm American, so when I argue politics, assume I'm arguing American politics.

 

 

 

As for religion, I have to say I'm pretty much an atheist. I don't practice atheism or anything; I just don't believe that there is a God. This does not make me a better or worse person than a devout religious man.

 

 

 

Since the title of this thread is "Politics and Religion," I think it mandatory that someone bring up the issue of seperation of church and state. So, allow me to be the first to voice my opinion:

 

 

 

I believe that the seperation of church and state is one of the fundamental and vital principles of democracy. As an abstract principle, it is easy to defend. Government must be seperate from religion or else we will end up with laws that force us to believe something we don't want to. This violates our freedom of religion - obviously unthinkable. Most people agree with me to this point.

 

 

 

So, democracy demands seperation of church and state. Therefore, using religious justification for political arguments is not acceptable in democracy.

 

 

 

For example, if you are talking about banning gay marriage, you need a better reason than "because God condemns homosexuality." If you ban homosexual marriage because the Christian God says homosexuality is wrong, then you are in effect enforcing a religious belief on the entire country. I am not Christian; I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong; my freedom cannot be restricted by the Christian God, therefore you cannot ban gay marriage just because God says its wrong.

 

 

 

You can still ban gay marriage, you just need good enough secular (non-religious) reasons. Maybe you think that homosexual couples damage society somehow. Maybe they're more prone to crime, or they can't raise healthy children. Those would be good reasons to ban homosexual marriage. They're not true, but hypothetically, they could be good reasons.

 

 

 

This principle of complete seperation of church and state applies to all political arguments. I don't care if you are in favor of the death penalty or not, so long as you don't justify your opinion with the Bible or God. Making laws with religious justification is a violation of my Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

 

 

 

There's my opinion. Argue if you want, I have a fair amount of free time at the moment. :D

=D> I completely agree with you, Scruffy. I hate people bringing religion into a political debate.

By keeping religion out, you are in essence advocating atheism or secular humanism. Because you clearly do not believe religion to be worthwhile in the political arena.

 

 

 

The only "open" way is to let anyone's religion be tolerated in public circles. But then again, you get the politician's religious viewpoints into the political arena. Thus, to be equal, you must have both involved intimately.

 

 

 

By the way, the American system is to let anyone's religion have equal footing. They didn't want to be like the church of england with a government's church telling you how to worship God. The whole idea of "separation of church and state" stems from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Anabaptists who were being persecuted for not being a part of the religion which most of the state was involved in.