Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Why is it that so-called 'values voters' care more about gay marriage and evolution than protecting the weak and helping the poor?   (churchandstate.org.uk) divider line 132
    More: Interesting, Christian Fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalism, culture wars, Ken Ham, biblical literalism, interpretation of the Bible, Return of Christ, taxpayer-funded  
•       •       •

2658 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Apr 2013 at 11:08 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-15 12:52:47 PM  

desertgeek: Because "values voters" only value their own self. They really should be called "fark you, I got mine" voters.


They think that they're worshiping God, but God isn't real so they're just worshipping themselves.
 
2013-04-15 01:02:12 PM  

CorporatePerson: desertgeek: Because "values voters" only value their own self. They really should be called "fark you, I got mine" voters.

They think that they're worshiping God, but God isn't real so they're just worshipping themselves.


i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-15 01:02:30 PM  
Helping the poor requires expending $ or effort. What fun is that when sanctimonious moralizing is easy and free?
 
2013-04-15 01:14:45 PM  

cloakandbadger: Helping the poor requires expending $ or effort. What fun is that when sanctimonious moralizing is easy and free?


Hey, those megachurches don't build themselves!
 
2013-04-15 01:21:31 PM  

Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: What have you done for Haiti?

Donated to the Red Cross Haiti fund. I didn't even try to convince people trying to put their country back together to change religion or pity them enough, or think so lowly of them that I would go there, flaunting my opulent lifestyle among their poverty, and personally give out things that I deem they need to make their lives better according to my personal views.


This, this, 10000 times this.

It isn't charity work when missionaries go to these places, they aren't doing out of true compassion.  It's marketing.  They're doing it to advance the interests of their religion and increase it's power over others.
 
2013-04-15 01:24:39 PM  

Tailgunner Joe: That hasn't been my observation out here in the real world.

I do a dozen or so hours a month at 2 different food banks, nary a lefty in the lot of volunteers, I am probably the only heathen around. I have met some real decent people, are they bible thumpers?....absolutely, but at least they walk the walk.


Absolute opposite here.  I volunteer 3 days/month at one that would fall apart if none of the "lefties" showed up.  I always get a kick out of the "Father -----  Center" being staffed by gays, pagans, and gay pagans.

I could well believe that conservatives donate more monetarily, but without the liberals none of it would actually get anywhere near the people who need it.   They would actually have to rub shoulders with the poors and most of them I know could never tolerate that.
 
2013-04-15 01:28:48 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: If people that have a religion are taking over the country, why aren't they represented more in the mainstream media, or Hollywood? I've heard lately there's some money to made in those two industries, so yeah?


The fact the products that the religiously-motivated have produced to date suck monkey balls might have a little something to do with that.

Go ahead, find me the religiously-motivated and themed media product that has found favor in the free market.

(I can think of a few, actually.  Godspell, for one.)

But in general, their track record at producing consumer-acceptable product is abysmal.

It's not that they're being blacklisted, it's that their product generally sucks.
 
2013-04-15 01:29:48 PM  

verbaltoxin: Ever watch "The Life of Brian?"


I do private shows only....
 
2013-04-15 01:30:30 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: UberDave: Because the poor are nothing more than low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worms!!  Hanging's too good for them!  Burning's too good for them!  They should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!!!

In that order?


2.bp.blogspot.com

Yes.
 
2013-04-15 01:33:40 PM  

Zeno-25: I_C_Weener: Epoch_Zero: I_C_Weener: What have you done for Haiti?

Donated to the Red Cross Haiti fund. I didn't even try to convince people trying to put their country back together to change religion or pity them enough, or think so lowly of them that I would go there, flaunting my opulent lifestyle among their poverty, and personally give out things that I deem they need to make their lives better according to my personal views.

So, a one time donation gives you the ability to critique what some churches are doing quarterly.  A once and forget it donation.  Good for you.  They probably don't need any more help on an ongoing basis.

I salute you and your ability to complain about those who are willing to continue helping.

A single can of food is worth more than a thousand Bibles.


"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God"   (That's from memory, so I probably misquoted it.)

Anyway, canned bread is disgusting.

Give whatever it is within your ability and judgement to give.  Don't begrudge somebody who gave, but is less committed to the cause than you.  Don't disparage those who have apparently drank the Kool-Aid and are waaay more committed than you - their worldview and motivations are different than you, and maybe they're not all fools and attention whores.

Disclaimer: I both gave some money and went to Haiti on a medical mission trip.  If anybody is interested in doing the same, check out Project Medishare. They're based in a hospital now, but when I was there it was a tent hospital on the grounds of the Toussaint Louverture International Airport.  (They moved into the building a week after I left there).  The worst part was the frustration and dismay when faced with the sheer magnitude of human misery, of which we could only alleviate a tiny fraction.  It's so infuriating to see people who went to Haiti and gushed about what a positive experience it was.   Example  Well, I guess they're trying to help, in their own way.
 
2013-04-15 01:39:50 PM  

jcooli09: It isn't charity work when missionaries go to these places, they aren't doing out of true compassion. It's marketing. They're doing it to advance the interests of their religion and increase it's power over others.


Having met numerous young adults who have done missionary work (particularly those who did it because it was expected of them rather than their desire), many of them despise the people they are supposed to help (which makes them feel good about how much better they are) and see their presence at a mission as a shining example that the poor misguided "clients" should emulate.
 
2013-04-15 01:46:24 PM  
Because overpopulating (anti birth control, anti abortion) and salting the earth (fracking, anti envrionmental policies) with superstitious (anti evolution, prayer in public schools) stupid (anti science, anti funding of education) consumers (pro big business) is their ultimate goal.
 
2013-04-15 02:09:43 PM  
Why is homosexuality considered so much more grave a sin than not helping the poor? When Christ talked about people going to hell, he almost exclusively named two groups - nonbelievers and those who refused to help the poor and the downtrodden. Not once did he mention someone going to hell for any sex-related sin. In fact, the only sex-related sin he ever talked about was adultery, and it was in the context of when you could get divorced.

Oh yeah, that reminds me: Christ said the only licit divorce is when one spouse cheats on the other. Any other kind of divorce means both are guilty of sin. How many divorced Christians do you know who complain about homosexuality? Exactly.

/ not a Christian
// not religious at all
/// likes to study religion
 
2013-04-15 02:24:58 PM  
It's bigotry, prejudice, hatred and racism guiding values voters, not religion.  Religion is just their smokescreen.
 
2013-04-15 02:31:36 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Why is homosexuality considered so much more grave a sin than not helping the poor? When Christ talked about people going to hell, he almost exclusively named two groups - nonbelievers and those who refused to help the poor and the downtrodden. Not once did he mention someone going to hell for any sex-related sin. In fact, the only sex-related sin he ever talked about was adultery, and it was in the context of when you could get divorced.

Oh yeah, that reminds me: Christ said the only licit divorce is when one spouse cheats on the other. Any other kind of divorce means both are guilty of sin. How many divorced Christians do you know who complain about homosexuality? Exactly.

/ not a Christian
// not religious at all
/// likes to study religion


To address your first point: fundies would argue Jesus never said anything about homosexuality because it is so blatantly obvious it's a sin that He did not deem it necessary to even condemn it.  That's why He also never said anything about sacrificing babies to Baal - of *course* you wouldn't do that, there's no need to comment on that.  The arguments against enforcing Levitical law in 21st century America from both Christian and secular perspectives are already widely known, and so I won't bother to go over all that here.

You also have to remember that Jesus railed against the respected religious authorities of the day.  What outraged people at the time was not His saying that nonbelievers were going to Hell, but that persons who followed the letter of religious law but not the intent were unrighteous.  "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.  You tithe with mint, dill, and cumin, but neglect justice, mercy, and faithfulness.  You are like whitewashed tombs which appear beautiful and clean on the outside, but contain uncleanness and dead men's bones."   Sound applicable to the religious leaders of today?  Hmmmm

To address your second point, Jesus actually stated that NO divorce is OK in the eyes of God.  He stated that Moses made a concession to mankind's sinful nature.  Jesus stated, however, that anyone who divorces and remarries is also guilty of adultery in the eyes of God.  Disciples: "WAT?!  If that's true, why bother getting married at all?"  Jesus: *dons eyeglasses* "Yep. Deal with it."   Matthew 19
 
2013-04-15 02:32:51 PM  
My former mother-in-law was a vicious, selfish, thieving drunk, but she went to church every morning and sang her lungs out. Apparently she believed that going to church wiped her slate clean each day, so she could continue to be an awful person. And I'm certain she's not the only one.

Shortly after her daughter and I split, she was struck blind. I was sorely tempted to call her and ask if it was a message from God.
 
2013-04-15 02:33:31 PM  
The serious answer is because it's easy to hate and hard to love. It's easy to point your finger at someone doing something against your religion and hate them. It's hard to give that person a hug and help them stand back up.
 
2013-04-15 02:51:05 PM  

reklamfox: CorporatePerson: desertgeek: Because "values voters" only value their own self. They really should be called "fark you, I got mine" voters.

They think that they're worshiping God, but God isn't real so they're just worshipping themselves.

[i47.tinypic.com image 524x640]


While I may agree that man worships himself as a reflex, I believe most religions try to overcome that.
Judaism / Islam (Abrahamic religions) for instance have a ban on idol worship to avoid the Greek obsession with the perfect body.
Buddhism teaches one to overcome their bodies desires and achieve a separation of body and soul.

The starting point of religion is the human being, because that is who is the worshiper.
Yet, if all that is left in a religion is to worship a human being, then it has lost its worth as worship-able.
 
2013-04-15 02:59:03 PM  

NostroZ: Judaism / Islam (Abrahamic religions) for instance have a ban on idol worship to avoid the Greek obsession with the perfect body.


whut

Jews had that ban long before Remus and Romulus went for a walk. Nominally, it's to avoid situations like the one presented in the OT, where the people are so distressed that Moe went AWOL that they built a microphone to god (form of: golden calf; shape of: blasphemy).

The lesson is that you don't need an intermediary to talk to god, not that the human body is perfection.
 
2013-04-15 03:16:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: NostroZ: Judaism / Islam (Abrahamic religions) for instance have a ban on idol worship to avoid the Greek obsession with the perfect body.

whut

Jews had that ban long before Remus and Romulus went for a walk. Nominally, it's to avoid situations like the one presented in the OT, where the people are so distressed that Moe went AWOL that they built a microphone to god (form of: golden calf; shape of: blasphemy).

The lesson is that you don't need an intermediary to talk to god, not that the human body is perfection.


LOLWUT

The Greeks and their idolization of the human form predate the Abrahamic religions by more than 1,000 years.
 
2013-04-15 03:40:45 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: The Greeks and their idolization of the human form predate the Abrahamic religions by more than 1,000 years.


Depends on whose tradition you hew to. Assuming the Bible sprung into being sometime in the second millenium BC (~3500 years ago), that would put it roughly contemporaneously in the Minoan/Mycinean periods. (I don't know how that stacks with Hellenic culture. Were they all body-worshippy then, too?)

Whatever. Even if my timeline's off, the stated (and contextual) reasons have nothing to do with the human form, and everything to do with access to prayer/worship. Making the argument that the only reason the Jews put it in there was to piss off the Greeks requires LOTS of proof.
 
2013-04-15 04:17:06 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: The Greeks and their idolization of the human form predate the Abrahamic religions by more than 1,000 years.

Depends on whose tradition you hew to. Assuming the Bible sprung into being sometime in the second millenium BC (~3500 years ago), that would put it roughly contemporaneously in the Minoan/Mycinean periods. (I don't know how that stacks with Hellenic culture. Were they all body-worshippy then, too?)

Whatever. Even if my timeline's off, the stated (and contextual) reasons have nothing to do with the human form, and everything to do with access to prayer/worship. Making the argument that the only reason the Jews put it in there was to piss off the Greeks requires LOTS of proof.


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

bonumpublicum.files.wordpress.com

/I know, chronologic mismatch
//This thread already makes no sense
 
2013-04-15 05:42:07 PM  
Article is a good response to those who attack Dawkins et al for being too aggressive.

Fundies are fighting a (declared) war against society, and they are making the world a worse place.

IMHO they need to be challenged at every opportunity.
 
2013-04-15 05:48:20 PM  
Because they've all been tricked by Saklas, the Blind God, into worshiping him. A movie villain once quipped: "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist."

Nuh uh.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he's God. He's got his hooks so deep into the human psyche that the holy books of the world's top three religions all describe as their deities psychopathic tyrants who demand of worshipers blind obedience on the threat of brutal retaliation for non-compliance--and adherents to those religions think those gods are the zenith of good.
 
2013-04-15 06:08:11 PM  
Conditioned from birth to obey the Zionist media propaganda machine, they can't help themselves.
 
2013-04-15 06:29:51 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: Conditioned from birth to obey the Zionist media propaganda machine, they can't help themselves.


uhh, Wut?
 
2013-04-15 07:37:57 PM  
imageshack.us

It's a power thing. They think by saying God hates X then their ridiculous counter claims become valid.
 
2013-04-15 07:54:34 PM  
"Protecting the weak and helping the poor " are not sexy, hip issues and require significant effort to effect.
 
2013-04-15 09:21:43 PM  

UberDave: Because the poor are nothing more than low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worms!!  Hanging's too good for them!  Burning's too good for them!  They should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!!!


imageshack.us
STERRRRRNNNN!
 
2013-04-16 06:22:06 AM  
Oh look, I yet again have to explain to a lib that there are more ways to help the poor and the weak than going thru the government....
 
2013-04-16 06:41:04 AM  

giftedmadness: Oh look, I yet again have to explain to a lib that there are more ways to help the poor and the weak than going thru the government....


Prove it.

Social security was started because it was necessary. Once it is no longer necessary, we can get rid of it.
 
2013-04-16 01:28:20 PM  
I'm sorry. You misheard.

They're not "values" voters. They're "value" voters.

They are voting to save themselves money, not to support public welfare, health, security or morality. Helping the sick, poor, needy, etc. is costly. It's really cheap for them to rant about how gays are destroying their marriages unless their ex-wives show up and demand their alimony and child support payments while they still have beer money in their pockets. Or your pockets.

This is why the word "conservative", originally meaning tight-fisted, cheap, miserly, is identified with "value" voters, while everybody else is a "liberal", which means a person who is giving, generous and free-spending for a good purpose. You will find that many "conservatives" are social liberals, which is to say, Good Christians, Good Jews, Good Muslims, etc. They want the Government to help. They want to help. They want you to help. Somebody, not necessarily the most needy, but somebody.

Fear them. They are far more dangerous than free thinkers, radicals, or socialists. They've been known to vote for tax increases to pay for schools, hospitals, libraries, roads, and other socially useful things. They don't mind paying high taxes any more than Ned Flanders does. Some people just don't like to work, God bless 'em, says Flanders. These do-gooders are the natural enemy of elites and middle or working class fiscal conservatives alike, not to mention being the exact opposite of fundamentalist Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. They don't care what it costs if it needs to be done. If it needs to be done, chances are that they, Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, moderate or radical, will do it and then ask for government support when they find they can't do it all.
 
Displayed 32 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report