Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Obey_Matthew_6_6 · 06-10-2003, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally belched by Falwell
FALWELL: ... filibustering every judge that the president has put up.

I saw that segment, and immediately e-mailed the show to point out that the Senate had confirmed over 100 of the Shrub's nominees, and filibustered barely a handful, and that Falwell should get his information correct before opening his mouth. (Subsequent C-Span coverage of the hearings on raping the confirmation process gave the numbers as 126/2.)

I also mentioned that I gave the show a pass on having the blowhard on to begin with, only because he was specifically mentioned by Mr. Dershowitz in his book.

Quote:

From Matthews

MATTHEWS: I want to point out that Jerry Falwell is on this program because he is playing defense, he was personally singled out, in fact, in a starring role in the book.

Otherwise, the buffoon isn't deserving of any airplay.

vash_the_stampede · 06-13-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy
Which, to Falwell, is worse: an outright atheist, or a believer with doubts?

Is Falwell aware that a great many people, possibly a majority, cannot give a simple "yes or no" answer to the question, "Do you believe?"

By the way, I have had many, many coversations with Christian fundies. Unquestioning belief is the only thing that matters to them, because anything less gets you sent to the big barbecue. You can be a total hypocrite as long as you have unquestioning belief. Questions are baaad (insert sheep noises here).

Shake · 06-19-2003, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by themistocles
BTW, I love Hardball, certainly the best political punditry show.

Dershowitz shouldn't have answered the question of what his faith is. If you want to discuss American political history, a fundie will inevitably ask you what you believe, and this is precisely the point: it doesn't matter what you believe.

Being an atheist, fundie, or somewhere in between doesn't change objective history, and is merely a red herring for discussion. As a matter of fact, maybe less so than those discussing it, but you might argue that the religious convictions (or lack thereof, where appropriate) of the founding fathers is something of a nonissue, insofar as it affects or doesn't affect their opinion on how government should run.

:notworthy Exactly!

Speaking of red herrings:

Quote:

MATTHEWS: Why do you think the Constitution was even more secular in its writing than the Declaration of Independence? The Constitution makes no reference to God.
FALWELL: Well, it does at the end. It says in the year of our Lord, 1787, and that�s used frequently...

as a red herring by people like you, Jerry, grabbing desperately at the straw of, "in the year of our Lord." Maybe we should edit the Constitution so that it ends, "...in 1787, Common Era."

Arken · 06-19-2003, 01:25 PM

Someone needs to introduce Falwell to Article XI of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli...

Quote:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...796t.htm#art11

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.