Prominent Democrat on Bronze Age Deity

An elephant gives a political answer to a religious question and heads explode, so in this thread we have a donkey proudly proclaiming his belief in angels, divine birth, resurrection, and he even goes on to say "The presidency has a funny way of making a person feel the need to pray." I'm curious to hear the responses but this is mainly a parody thread.

Is he on the science committee?

He doesn't seem to be elected to any public office and his main gig is as a con-man TV show host telling gullible idiots to send him money. Oh, and he is also a doomsday prepper who has repeatedly forecast the end of the world only to find out the world is still here.

In short, how is this guy a democrat and why does it matter what a private citizen who doesn't hold any office thinks?

Uh no, he is the President of the United States.

How incredibly non-partisan of you, Clyde.

This thread is off to a great start!

Oh I knew that was coming, how about the subject matter?

Being religious is not the problem, only wing nuts claim liberals as a group are collectively against religion, we do demand that public policy be based upon the best scientific understandings and visible, reproducible evidence.

Do you honestly not see the difference or are you just engaging in a giant circle jerk here?

^Golden.

As I said in the other thread, people aren't bothered by Christianity. Is Obama anti-science because of his religion? That's the issue, and I'm not surprised that Clyde doesn't get it.

A bit of tap-dancing and an insult?

Woo-hoo!

Again, this is mostly a parody thread, no need to be so serious, I've no interest in upsetting anyone.

The interesting part is whether or not anyone will recognize not only the merit of both sides but that there really is only one side divided by one party pretending to be two.

The thread is an insult. It assumes (as you usually do) that a criticism of somebody who happens to be a Republican is necessarily partisan. Then you set up a false equivalence as an effort to trap people in a contradiction where none exists. And you claim to be above partisanship. That's rich! As Bill Clinton might say, it takes real brass to make that claim.

I tell you what Clyde, go find an instance where one of us who criticized Rubio in the other thread went after Romney for his religion. I'm sure you'll find one or two, but you won't find it from most of us. Very few politicians in the U.S. don't loudly proclaim their Christianity. This has never been an issue and if you indeed don't see the difference between that and Rubio's rejection of science, then the insult fits.

Nobody's making you post, maybe you'd be better off just pos-repping like minded folk and moving on.

You son of bitch, you just shattered my irony-o-meter.

You're tipping your hand here bub, the tactic you're revealing isn't mine.

No, I'll tell you what gul, go indulge in a robust session of self massage, employ your largest toys and tools, enjoy a beer and relax.

You just can't get this type of mindless venom from elephants.

Yeah. This thread was started in manifest bad faith. It says a lot about Clyde and nothing about the subject matter of the thread. He deliberately pretends not to get it so he can play the part of a fake-moderate extreme partisan. He doesn't pull the trick off nearly as well as marathon did on the other side of the political spectrum; no one believes that Clyde isn't an extreme partisan.

Obviously people can be religious without being anti-science and rejecting the scientific method as a tool for modeling the world. People compartmentalize to one degree or another. Clyde knows this. Everybody knows this. It's a pathetic attempt at a troll to pretend not to know it.

Is there a way to thank another poster for unwittingly making your point for you without sounding smug?

Yep.

The level of butthurt displayed in this thread is golden. Thanks Clyde

I keep having to fix this stuff for you.

Don't forget this same donkey had to stop the donkey clan from removing god from their party platform. He's such a trouble maker.

Hate to sound greedy but would ConfederateSon mind posting again?

"How old do you think the Earth is?" is not a religious question.

Didn't see any prevaricating on the age of the Earth.

Mostly Nailed-Up-Zombie-Carpenter.

Vicarious redemption is a morally troubling thing to believe in, I'm glad you agree with the horror of it, Clyde.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention...after the election.
If only you had been faster.

Heh.

So nothing about the issue at hand?

Apologies. I should've given you credit for popularizing the "Bronze Age Deity" meme.

I don't have the slightest idea what you think the issue at hand is. Your post claims that this was it, and I adressed it.

The problem is not being religious or being Christian; there is no particular evidence for or against the basic tenets of Christianity. Nobody has proven the existence or nonexistence of God, nor the divinity or lack thereof of Jesus, and chances are nobody ever will.

Where I get leery is when a person in a position of power avows something that is demonstrably false, like the earth being 6,000 years old, in the face of all evidence. That suggests poor reasoning skills and a willingness to let dogma trump actual evaluation and evidence, which are not good traits in a leader.

Is this one of those "I'm against partisanship, but somehow the only people I call on it are Democrats, before I then turn around and do the exact same thing" moments?