[CanadianJeff]

xerxes wrote:

Les-R wrote:

My grandfolks regularly watch pastor Hagee's show and I peek-in on occasion, what's this about him being a radical bigot? I know he's an evangelical fundimentalist kookbar, but a radical bigot?

Hagee thinks Catholics are following a fallen religion and that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

Um sounds to me like this guy doesn't realize that the Proestant religion was born out of a movement in the Catholic faith. Basically some people got very tired of the church at the time charging for it's services and were against the idea of "salvation for gold" so they broke off and formed their own faith free of any charges for services.

At least that was the motivation at the time. Frankly though I find it funny you think the idea of a former Nazi gone pope that frequently makes statements that kind of go against what's in the bible (believe me I've had so many Christian friends of mine rant at me about how stupid this man is sometimes and what passages he goes against for hours I kid you not hours!. Amazingly I try and feign interest in religious politics so they can get it out yet somehow I've forgetten the big issue at steak) somehow not a possiblity of an anti-christ if there is such a thing.

I'm not of any faith (and by that I mean I believe in spirituality but think that I'll hold my belief in until someone comes up with hard proof they have the right "idea" about death and life with their religion.) but I can clearly see their basis of argument and frankly they have a point. Heck the pope even looks evil to me which I find funny as heck. Just go a google imagine search and tell me that the man looks non evil to you.

edit: Ah ha found it. The issue in question was the pope changing the 7 deadly sins with a whole "new" list or rather "revised" list being published by the vatican. The charge agianst the pope is that changing the word of god for one's own context and publishing it as the truth is just plain out wrong. They argue that you can't change what the bible says even if you are the pope. So basically they argue this is a man who will change the word of god for his own will. Here's an article I found pretaining to such.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 517050.ece

[Calbeck]

WBenson wrote:

I would be more concerned about McCain saying that he was "proud" to accept the endorsement of radical bigot minister John Hagee than anything he's said about his captors. I certainly wouldn't be proud to associate with someone who thinks that the death of a thousand people is an appropriate response for a "sin."

Ah, you mean like Obama's pastor did? -:roll:

When people have to trot out a person's PASTOR as a reason not to vote for them, that's bottom-of-the-barrel time.

[CanadianJeff]

Oh man I can't go back and edit my former post and it looks like a mess even to me despite the fact all my points I wanted to post are in there.

Sorry it's such a mess.

[Psudo]

The article you linked to, Jeff, mentions that the seven deadly sins were originally coined by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century rather than by the Bible directly. As such, he's revising Papal degrees, which seems entirely fitting with his role as Pope. Sure, it's controversial to overturn 1400+ years of tradition, but not on par with rewriting the Bible. (Trust me on that.)

Here's the new deadly sins from the article:
1) ruining the environment
2) carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments
3) allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos
4) taking or dealing drugs
5) social injustice (causing poverty or restricting wealth to a few individuals)
6) abortion
7) pedophilia

There's a lot of good reasoning there, which I can recognize without being Catholic or recognizing the Pope as God's mortal representative. Some might be controversial, but they don't seem like things the anti-Christ would call on mankind to avoid.

[Les-R]

All well and good, but given the nature of the Original deadly sins couldn't the new ones be considered facets of the old ones? Pedophilia -> Lust for example?

[CanadianJeff]

Your quite right Psudo. Frankly like I said I'm not even of the faith so the whole "anti-christ" then is a bit of crock to me as you have yet to even prove their is a christ let alone an anti-christ.

anyway I agree with you. I'm just saying the way that some people see it any change to religious tradition goes against god. Under that argument his history plus these changes to tradition are justification to view him as an enemy of god.

Just trying to say that however inaccurate it is I do see their point of view of the pope as an "anti-christ".

[Arctic_Menace]

Um, guys?

What, exactly, does any of this have to do with Hillary Clinton's "botched coronation"?

[WBenson]

Calbeck wrote:

Ah, you mean like Obama's pastor did? -:roll:

Did he? I heard a lot of clips of Wright, but I never heard him advocate the death of people for not doing what his sky friend told him.

Calbeck wrote:

When people have to trot out a person's PASTOR as a reason not to vote for them, that's bottom-of-the-barrel time.

I agree.

[Harminder]

From what i can tell happened Hillary was the front runner but Obama with enthusiasm was able to propel him self as a front runner.
You know have two front runners fighting it out, it seems that Hillary enjoys the most support from Large cities while Obama enjoys large support from rural areas.
Both sides are on the attack but Obama is just managing to keep ahead of the poll's.
It's tough to say who's going to win but there is one thing i can say.
The next presidential race can go any way.

[CanadianJeff]

Not really. The thing is the Republicans know they can't afford to take Iraq into the 2008 election and here they are stuck doing just that.

McCain was beaten in 2000 by Bush of all people he's really not a strong candidate for mobilizing the republican base to vote on election day. Obama on the other hand has a fairly wide margin of public popularity.

I hate to link to the NYT of all things for this but it was the first article that popped up out of my mind of the few I've read.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... opularity/

McCain has his own base rallying against him which has hurt him just as much as Obama and Clinton having to duke it out. Both parties are for the moment in a bit of a self destruct mode. JJ made a comic earlier about buyers remorse with Dion. The same could easily be said of the Republicans and McCain. Frankly as bad as McCain is to them the alternatives are much much worse. Or at least the public felt they were and in politics at the end of the day it's what the public thinks that sets the actions.

This election IMO is already called for the democrats. It's just a matter of how many votes the Republican party is going to keep to set themselves up going into 2012 which they will likely win having plenty of time to recover from Bush and have a bit more ammo to use with the public.

[Harminder]

True but you are forgetting one area of support that McCain has, that is if the democrats leader can-not unite the party, 1/3 are rumored in polls would be willing to vote for McCain, that is his trump card.
The question is who's Trump card will win, democrats Iraq card or McCains democrats not winner presidential candidate card.
That is why i think this race is close.

[CanadianJeff]

I don't think you have to worry about democratic mobilization too much here.

Obama has both the odds and the numbers in his favor and the charisma to match.
Honestly the numbers of both public opinon and attitude have already spoken.

It's over.

[Psudo]

It's pretty unlikely that nothing will change in this election before November. Even if your analysis is correct and Obama is the clear leader now, there are still 6 months worth of surprises left before you can call the election safely.

[Pitchfork]

Psudo wrote:

Even if your analysis is correct and Obama is the clear leader now, there are still 6 months worth of surprises left before you can call the election safely.

And supposedly Hillary has some mud to sling at Barack between the April 16th debate and the April 22nd primary in Pennsylvania.

[Calbeck]

WBenson wrote:

Calbeck wrote:

Ah, you mean like Obama's pastor did? -:roll:

Did he? I heard a lot of clips of Wright, but I never heard him advocate the death of people for not doing what his sky friend told him.

No, Wright just tied the bombing of Hiroshima to the attack on the WTC, saying America's "chickens had come home to roost". Last I heard, no one connected to any of the terrorists of 9/11 cared beans about Hiroshima. He's also called for God to damn the country as payback for racial injustice. Essentially he's the left-wing version of Pat Robertson.

A kook, but not something I'm going to blame Obama for, any more than I'll blame McCain for his ties to that other wacky preacher. When they start suggesting America's schoolkids start drinking Kool-Aid with "special supplements", I'll be concerned.