Church Bunnies For City Council?
I started wondering about this the other day: Would someone's affiliation with a church disqualify them from my support in a city council race? I think so, although I'm not sure I have good reason. First of all, being a "church bunny" denotes to me a lack of judgment and leading their life based on superstition. Not something we need in government. So, nope, church bunnies go to the end of the line.
One that comes to mnd is former Eureka Church boy, Mike Newman- rightfully trounced in his re- eeEction bid for Eureka council. Expecially so after seeing his shameless election Facebook page that spoke of nothing but church. Nice guy, but clearly out of touch with the people of Eureka.
Besides, if anything, we need to get the churhes out of Eureka, not bring them further into it. We needfewer church bunnies here. Not less.
Church activity should be a disqulifier, if anything as it shows the person bases their life on superstition, which is what church is. We need less of that, not more.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:42 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
wine is good, wine is bad, eat your wheat and starch.
eggs are good, eggs are bad, eat your wheat and starch.
science is the truth, the way and the life.
those who believe otherwise or in other entity's are fools who will believe in anything, even fairies in the sky.
science is the master of the universe. science brought us eugenics, agent orange, atomic boms, gmo, flouridated drinking water, std vaccines for newborns, .. nobody survives without science. nuclear dude, nuclear.
"Church bunnies". I have never heard of that description. Any relation to Dust bunnies?
I swear to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. so help me science.
Wait...what?
Church bunnies? They're everywhere. I'll explain later.
If having an imaginary friend helps a person through life I don't see the harm. Look at Frank Yeager and extraordinary man, I would not think of not voting for him because he's a church bunny.
It's a slippery slope that church thing.
In one hand every citizen in the country has a right to privately practice their religion or publicly display their freedom of speech on behalf of their religion of choice or critique or whatever......
But when it comes to governance, can we really expect impartiality with regard to the separation of church and state as set forth by the United States Constitution as well as set forth by the state constitutions......
Personally, HOJ is not very supportive of religious followers in public office and as such never votes for religious followers as best HOJ can assess..... And when the voters do through happenstance elect someone who has ties to religion, that means the level of scrutiny must increase to ensure that proper checks and balances are applied to somebody who's already impartial as it relates to political issues for which religion may intertwine.......
Most notable is this notion that people who go to church are somehow better in life and thus deserving to lead the public......it is the ole, "look the part and play the part".😎
And then there are those who really don't care because they accept everything as amazing and beyond the comprehension of the Mortal human brain in the fold of it all that which we do not understand as a species.
impartial as it relates to political issues for which religion may intertwine.......
"Supposed to be partial as it relates..........."
without church bunny's there would be no constitution of the united states
Well written, Rick. As with everything there's good and bad, lumping one group together and labeling them unfit to serve when as a whole they are good people. One such group springs to mind.......Libertarians.
Very astute observation, spot on, Rick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RITUV-F3zAw
Rick misses that the vast majority of our founding fathers were deists ('religious rationalists'), which is the 18th century equivalent of atheism.
You could also point out that the vast majority of scientists throughout history were religious. It's not a point in favor of anything, other than explaining culture. Religion has had its high points, but overall had slowed the advancement of society.
As has been said many times... take your favorite holy book. If you destroyed every copy of that book, a thousand years from now, it would not exist. If you destroyed every textbook about science, all of its 'teachings' would come back, with precision, because it's verifiably true.
“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared – the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”
Vast majority???? Pleeeeaaaasssse.
The Govt became the church when they created the FCC. The FCC is the epitome of govt becoming a church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhTnTX1Sisg&feature=youtu.be
Probably true, just like hipocrisy.
One lump counterpoint eh?
Which lumps again have ruined this country if not the same lumps that claim creationist cronyism as their means to appear as good folks.......pweeze, religious fucks are the single group in control of governance.....and this self proclaimed group set it all up millenia ago.......pweeze ......religious folks are the least partial folks in politics, indisputible......irrefutable!!!
HOJ, the 501c3 churches are govt ran churches. They are under the Govt's thumb, & must adhere to govt's rules or lose their tax exemptions.
The churches who are not 501c3 are still free spirited and true to their own beliefs that make up their particular denomination.
Concluding that all churches are bad or that all churches are good, is not conductive to liberty or to sanity.
The 501c3 churches are govt. The fcc is govt. Most of the news media are govt.
When a Libertarian cannot discern the differences, and makes a collective statement, that Libertarian is not a true libertarian at the moment.
We all have a lot to learn on this journey we call life. It's up to each of us to refrain from groupie thought.
Some libertarians are not that at all, but instead are govt moles, uncovering the dastardly free spirits among them, for fema camp round up time.
Robots are us.
Fred, why do you cull?
Post a Comment
<< Home