This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Politics and the bugnut Christians

Politics and the bugnut Christians - Comments

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 1 by Neodarwinian

" Bugnut!!!! " I am stealing that word!

A rather good analysis if why we have to endure christers in our politics of late.

Sun, 02 Oct 2011 23:00:27 UTC | #877223

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 2 by Border Collie

I'm with Neo ... great new word.

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 01:10:13 UTC | #877251

alf1200's Avatar Comment 3 by alf1200

I prefer Godjobs

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 02:11:24 UTC | #877261

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 4 by the great teapot

I prefer arse holes.

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 06:31:27 UTC | #877294

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 5 by the great teapot

Oops that didn't come out quite the way I intended. For the record I have no preference for arse holes.

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 06:34:39 UTC | #877295

mysticjbyrd's Avatar Comment 6 by mysticjbyrd

I still cannot believe that anyone would be dumb enough to even consider electing Rick Perry as president. Any governor who claims the problems in his state are too complex for mere humans to solve(Many of which he caused), thus we should all get together and PRAY, is obviously not competent enough to be president.

What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

Here is a nice summary from AronRa,

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:00:58 UTC | #877300

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 7 by sunbeamforjeebus

I prefer fuckwit or wingnut!

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:31:12 UTC | #877332

SheilaC's Avatar Comment 8 by SheilaC

Let's just hope our politicians keep expanding the group of people they want to serve. Rather than embracing Christian as the magic word of politics, we can move on to the truly magical word: American. And maybe we can even go a step further and make the magic word "humanity."the magic word "humanity."

You know, I don't think that's going to happen. You can't be "in" unless other people are "out". And the more incompetent a politician is, the more s/he needs scapegoats.

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 10:34:25 UTC | #877333

ANTIcarrot's Avatar Comment 9 by ANTIcarrot

Except politicians don't need to embrace larger and larger groups of people. As long as they have more than 50% of the vote they win.

As long as they can believe they can engineer a situation where 55% of the turnout is christian and votes christian, they don't need to worry about the athiests.

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:31:54 UTC | #877350

PERSON's Avatar Comment 10 by PERSON

I think this is something a lot of freethinkers buy into, and probably shouldn't. There is no one Christianity, but many with different histories. The current coalition is a recent construct, and far from all-encompassing. The notion of "true" Christians is pretty nonsensical, too. If you have appropriate political clout, if you are caught you can just recant any act, be accepted back and carry on. And even taking their stated ideology at face value, all factions cherry pick based on their politics.

Comment 9 by ANTIcarrot

That doesn't quite work, because Christianity is the primary identity of a comparitively small (in many cases vicious, callous and anti-humanist) group. Most people have real morals, and accept Christian "morals" insofar those agrees with their own. Though their morals can be corrupted by identity-driven impulses, I think those are typically identities other than their Christian one, such as nationalism, latent racism, family and social ties, membership of a decent society, being a good person (something frequently condemned by fundies as insufficient and misguided), open-mindedness, political moderation or independence, self-sufficiency and so on. To reemphasise, these are how they think of themselves (which influences decisions they make and how they understand stories they are told), not how they actually act, necessarily.

Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:13:00 UTC | #877367