Are Atheists the most intolerent group of all?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: piasabird
When people seeking power and justification for their deeds use religion as an excuse for what they do, they are only making an excuse. That does not mean that religion is bad or good. Most people I have met have some good in them. Religion and religious groups are not any better or worse than say the AFLCIO or some other civic goup or non-profit group. Look at Katrina and guess which groups did the most good? It was not the ACLU and it was not some do-good athiest group. What good have athiest ever done for this country?

Wow. :roll:

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daniel49
100% plz prove to me hitler and amin were anywhere near to 1%.

One could easily say the argument is just as strong that they were completely Godless men.

Hitler was born and raised Christian and said he believed in it. Then he did things in God's name. How is that not 100% proof that he was a thiest. So what if he isn't a good thiest, he still was a thiest.

I believe is an action verb not a passive noun.

If Hitler Believed the bible, he would have practiced its teachings...plz show me where Jesus said gas all the jews and take over the world.
The word christian literaly means christ like.
In no wild stretch of the imagination was Hitler either christ like or following the teachings of the scriptures.
If anything the bible teachs that God will bless those that bless Isreal and curse those that don't.
I hate to break it to you, but he didn't bless to many jews.
Hitler was a madman.

There many NAZI's who believe and practiced Christianty in the heart of the NAZI regime. You just don't realize the level of anti-jewish feelings in Germany at the time that allowed for many people of faith to follow or ignore the plans of the NAZI regime. If you ask all these people they'll tell you that they are persons of faith.

 

[ntdz]

Athiests aren't tolerent at all. They look down upon people of religion...

Someone mentioned Hitler above as an athiest...he wasn't an athiest, but Stalin was.

 

[sumyungai]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Athiests aren't tolerent at all. They look down upon people of religion...

Someone mentioned Hitler above as an athiest...he wasn't an athiest, but Stalin was.

You base that off of? I could very well say religious people aren't tolerant at all. They look down upon people of athiesm.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Athiests aren't tolerent at all. They look down upon people of religion...

An ignorant generalization

 

[lyssword]

atheists worship their smuggness, because they think their ideology is superior to everyone else's. There is no scientific proof of that, its just something i heard/read somewhere.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: lyssword
atheists worship their smuggness, because they think their ideology is superior to everyone else's. There is no scientific proof of that, its just something i heard/read somewhere.

... he said, smugly, arrogantly believing everything he hears, "somewhere." :roll:

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49
[ ... ]
There are a lot of Christ haters in this forum that like to paint with very broad brushes.

Christ haters? Really? I guess I've missed that. What I see are a lot of people who (1) are disgusted with the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed Christians who are greedy, judgmental, hateful towards others, and generally acting in ways completely contrary to Christ's teachings, and/or (2) insist on shoving their faith down others' throats. From my perspective, I have no problem at all with people who quietly celebrate their faith. I don't agree with them, but I don't have to. If it works for them, that's cool. What I can't stand, however, is the self-righteous zealots who swing their perverse religious dogma as a club to attack others. That applies to both Islamic and Christian zealots.

Jesus had a wonderful message of love and tolerance and generosity. It's a pity so many of his most outspoken followers reject it.

Really, I haven't seen any of that. Guess we both better keep our eyes open wider.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Christians claim to believe in honesty, yet here you are denying that you've seen any examples of (1) and (2). Given that complaints about Christian hypocrisy and about evangelicals imposing their beliefs on America are so pervasive, one can only conclude you are lying. Shameful.

I suppose I could repeat the same thing to you. Maybe you would be happier if they were just shoved in some corner somewhere and didn't take a part or interest in anything concerning this country. And when others try to restrict thier religious freedom they should just suck it up and not have opinions.

Originally of course we were talking about the forum. You just suddenly launched it to the nation about "seeing things"
My comment was appropriate in that I was suggesting perhaps it should be something we are both more aware of towards the other side.
Your response makes you sound very intolerent to any opinion other then yours.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Evander
Most intolerant? No way. Most intolerated? It would seem:
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/28/2006) -- American?s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn?t extend to those who don?t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota?s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ?sharing their vision of American society.? Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Full article in google cache:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Vt...distrusted+minority&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Ah good we are agreeing then that atheism is in a sense a religion of its own.
what was your thought on the linked article in op?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Evander
Most intolerant? No way. Most intolerated? It would seem:
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/28/2006) -- American?s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn?t extend to those who don?t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota?s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ?sharing their vision of American society.? Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Full article in google cache:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Vt...distrusted+minority&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Ah good we are agreeing then that atheism is in a sense a religion of its own.
what was your thought on the linked article in op?

negative

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Frackal
Being an aethiest is still a leap of faith of sorts. Claiming to believe that God does NOT exist is still a leap of faith into a realm that is not knowable.

To say "I don't know" is IMO the only truly accurate statement

Its not a leap faith for a blindingly simple reason. There is no evidence (ie: no reason) to believe that any supernatural being exists! Furthermore, there will never be evidence that one exists because it is "supernatural". Another example would be that I didn't "know" that the armageddon wasn't going to happen on 6/6/06, however I was positively certain (and justifiably so) that it was not.

Sorry partner, you say you knew for sure but unless you are omnipotent, you do not.

Even scientifically (I'm tired but) I think one would have to prove God false, which is not possible as it is untestable

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Humans are always looking to pass off the blame and have someone else take the fall for them, along with making little cliques to look down on one another, along with control the masses for a fews power, thus religions are born.

dude you forgot to log out and log back in as moonbeam

 

[Praxis1452]

wow this thread is useless... Generalizations never work. I'm atheist. Don't like it. Go die. But do I care if someone else believes something? not at all. Believe in bestiality for all I care. But when you try to push it onto me I'll kick your arse anytime.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
wow this thread is useless... Generalizations never work. I'm atheist. Don't like it. Go die. But do I care if someone else believes something? not at all. Believe in bestiality for all I care. But when you try to push it onto me I'll kick your arse anytime.

Generalizations never work...agreed
I'm atheist. Don't like it. Go die......doesn't bother me
But do I care if someone else believes something? not at all.......Cool
Believe in bestiality for all I care. But when you try to push it onto me I'll kick your arse anytime.[/quote]...........such a stand would not be in keeping with my faith and in fact I would oppose it on a local, state,national level. I think however if someone does try to push it upon you there are perhaps better ways to solve it then kicking thier arse.

 

[oslama]

Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

In the modern era, the only "religion" that engages in any appreciable amount of slaughter of infidels is Islam, and even the muslims have a LONG way to go before they can match up with the atheists in terms of sheer number of corpses.

Actually, the christians have killed and enslaved more people than all of these guys. The genocide of all the civilizations and tribes of North and South America. Thats just the Western Hemisphere, not to mention the millions killed and enslaved in Africa. Then, theres the colonization and rule over the remenant of Persia/Turkey, Asia and Africa. These guys did not destroy whole civilizations, cultures and other religions.

Atleast with muslims are open about their hatred and will tell it to your face. The christians on the other hand are more insedious.

Hitler would not have been defeated without Stalin. Mao unified the chinese people against Japan. Ho Chi Minh drove out the French (christians) and the Americans (christians) out of Vietnam.

If it were not for Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and to a certain degree Hitler, the world would be under the control of a few Eurpoean countries and the american sphere.

Idi, Pol and Kim were just pawns/puppets in the Cold War.

Here a count of people killed by the Christians.

30 million N and S America (genocide in N America)
60 million in Africa (4 million died on the way to the new world)
10 million in the Middle East & South and Central Asia
10 million in Australia (genocide of the Abroganise)
10 million in South East Asia & Pacific Rim (genocide in the micronesia and polynesia)
05 million in East Asia (china, korea, japan)

125 million in about 400 - 500 yrs, ALL IN THE NAME OF JESUS. so let me see who should be on the list first could it be.....................

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What good have athiest ever done for this country?

It begs the question, how many atheist are scientists?

 

[kage69]

Ah good we are agreeing then that atheism is in a sense a religion of its own.

Funny, I haven't seen anyone here agree with you yet. In fact, pretty much everyone is probably wondering what kind of person you are to espouse these beliefs yet remain so intellectually dishonest. Atheism isn't a religion; that your insecurities and bias make you percieve it as one is of little consequence.

Good link btw Evander, it lines up quite well with what I've noticed. Made me think of the time I was asked to leave a roommate's Thanksgiving family dinner he had invited me to. His immediate family didn't take kindly to me not being a card carrying member of the Jesus Club (made the mistake of answering 'No' when asked if I had made it to a service that day - it went down hill from there).
Don't get me started on the marriage aspect of it either; both my wife and I had family members who didn't attend our wedding due to it not being held in a church or for it not being conducted by a pastor.

Yeeeep, good ol christian love and acceptance, folks.... :disgust:

 

[LumbergTech]

some so called atheists have made up a religion of their own sort of, but i wouldnt say that atheism as a whole is a religion..although there are some shared principles amongst quite a few atheists..that sort of goes with being a human being that we might agree on some things

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49
[ ... ]
There are a lot of Christ haters in this forum that like to paint with very broad brushes.

Christ haters? Really? I guess I've missed that. What I see are a lot of people who (1) are disgusted with the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed Christians who are greedy, judgmental, hateful towards others, and generally acting in ways completely contrary to Christ's teachings, and/or (2) insist on shoving their faith down others' throats. From my perspective, I have no problem at all with people who quietly celebrate their faith. I don't agree with them, but I don't have to. If it works for them, that's cool. What I can't stand, however, is the self-righteous zealots who swing their perverse religious dogma as a club to attack others. That applies to both Islamic and Christian zealots.

Jesus had a wonderful message of love and tolerance and generosity. It's a pity so many of his most outspoken followers reject it.

Really, I haven't seen any of that. Guess we both better keep our eyes open wider.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Christians claim to believe in honesty, yet here you are denying that you've seen any examples of (1) and (2). Given that complaints about Christian hypocrisy and about evangelicals imposing their beliefs on America are so pervasive, one can only conclude you are lying. Shameful.

I suppose I could repeat the same thing to you. Maybe you would be happier if they were just shoved in some corner somewhere and didn't take a part or interest in anything concerning this country. And when others try to restrict thier religious freedom they should just suck it up and not have opinions.

I suppose you could, if you are sufficiently dishonest. As far as your two straw men are concerned, that's just more dishonesty. The issue is not participation, it's imposition. I'd also love to hear your spin on how there's any significant effort to restrict your religious freedom. I suspect what you're really talking about are a few, highly-publicized challenges to maintaining the separation of church and state, e.g, banning Nativities on public property. While you might be surprised to find I disagree with most such actions as petty and pointless, I do recognize they are Constitutionally sound and perhaps necessary to preempt a slide down a slippery slope. Nonetheless, I personally would prefer to see the Nativity/etc. opponents focus their efforts on more substantive issues. See my .sig.

Originally of course we were talking about the forum. You just suddenly launched it to the nation about "seeing things"
My comment was appropriate in that I was suggesting perhaps it should be something we are both more aware of towards the other side.
Your response makes you sound very intolerent to any opinion other then yours.

You claimed there are "a lot of Christ haters" in P&N. I believe your claim is preposterous -- empty whining by someone who wants to divert attention from the real, valid complaints about the behavior of certain "Christian" extremists. (Christianity could be a great force for good were it not so badly perverted by some of its self-proclaimed believers.) If you really believed truth is on your side, you could have presented examples supporting your claim. You did not. You chose instead to respond dishonestly, and I called you on it.

You are close re. my intolerance though. I don't have a problem with differing opinions ... if they are well-reasoned and supported by fact. I am not very tolerant of ignorance and evasion, however. For example, I have no respect for people who make ignorant claims they cannot support, then turn to evasion and misdirection rather than simply, honestly conceding their mistakes. I am also extremely intolerant of hypocrisy and dishonesty. I have an old-fashioned conviction that honesty and integrity are fundamental to one's character. It's one of the reasons I have so little respect for GWBush.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Athiests aren't tolerent at all. They look down upon people of religion...

Someone mentioned Hitler above as an athiest...he wasn't an athiest, but Stalin was.

That is a crock, stalin was a powermongering totalitarian, he didnt get into religion as it was competition to him being a god, in a country with no room for any gods but himself, he worshipped himself and power.

Religion is just another control tool he had no room for in his philosophy of domination of peoples hearts and minds and his demand of total allegiance. That is not an atheism, it is totalitarianism of the spiritual lives of others, anyhow stalin did allow the church back during ww2.

Swapping out a god in the sky for a living one is still a religion, not atheism.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49
[ ... ]
There are a lot of Christ haters in this forum that like to paint with very broad brushes.

Christ haters? Really? I guess I've missed that. What I see are a lot of people who (1) are disgusted with the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed Christians who are greedy, judgmental, hateful towards others, and generally acting in ways completely contrary to Christ's teachings, and/or (2) insist on shoving their faith down others' throats. From my perspective, I have no problem at all with people who quietly celebrate their faith. I don't agree with them, but I don't have to. If it works for them, that's cool. What I can't stand, however, is the self-righteous zealots who swing their perverse religious dogma as a club to attack others. That applies to both Islamic and Christian zealots.

Jesus had a wonderful message of love and tolerance and generosity. It's a pity so many of his most outspoken followers reject it.

Really, I haven't seen any of that. Guess we both better keep our eyes open wider.

See, that's what I'm talking about. Christians claim to believe in honesty, yet here you are denying that you've seen any examples of (1) and (2). Given that complaints about Christian hypocrisy and about evangelicals imposing their beliefs on America are so pervasive, one can only conclude you are lying. Shameful.

I suppose I could repeat the same thing to you. Maybe you would be happier if they were just shoved in some corner somewhere and didn't take a part or interest in anything concerning this country. And when others try to restrict thier religious freedom they should just suck it up and not have opinions.

I suppose you could, if you are sufficiently dishonest. As far as your two straw men are concerned, that's just more dishonesty. The issue is not participation, it's imposition. I'd also love to hear your spin on how there's any significant effort to restrict your religious freedom. I suspect what you're really talking about are a few, highly-publicized challenges to maintaining the separation of church and state, e.g, banning Nativities on public property. While you might be surprised to find I disagree with most such actions as petty and pointless, I do recognize they are Constitutionally sound and perhaps necessary to preempt a slide down a slippery slope. Nonetheless, I personally would prefer to see the Nativity/etc. opponents focus their efforts on more substantive issues. See my .sig.

Originally of course we were talking about the forum. You just suddenly launched it to the nation about "seeing things"
My comment was appropriate in that I was suggesting perhaps it should be something we are both more aware of towards the other side.

Your response makes you sound very intolerent to any opinion other then yours.

You claimed there are "a lot of Christ haters" in P&N. I believe your claim is preposterous -- empty whining by someone who wants to divert attention from the real, valid complaints about the behavior of certain "Christian" extremists. (Christianity could be a great force for good were it not so badly perverted by some of its self-proclaimed believers.) If you really believed truth is on your side, you could have presented examples supporting your claim. You did not. You chose instead to respond dishonestly, and I called you on it.

You are close re. my intolerance though. I don't have a problem with differing opinions ... if they are well-reasoned and supported by fact. I am not very tolerant of ignorance and evasion, however. For example, I have no respect for people who make ignorant claims they cannot support, then turn to evasion and misdirection rather than simply, honestly conceding their mistakes. I am also extremely intolerant of hypocrisy and dishonesty. I have an old-fashioned conviction that honesty and integrity are fundamental to one's character. It's one of the reasons I have so little respect for GWBush.

You claimed there are "a lot of Christ haters" in P&N. I believe your claim is preposterous -- empty whining by someone who wants to divert attention from the real, valid complaints about the behavior of certain "Christian" extremists. (Christianity could be a great force for good were it not so badly perverted by some of its self-proclaimed believers.) XYou did not. You chose instead to respond dishonestly, and I called you on it.

Boy you caught me there:roll:




If you really believed truth is on your side, you could have presented examples supporting your claim. You did not. You chose instead to respond dishonestly, and I called you on it.

Steeple's example of Christian terrorists at it again!! is an excellent example of it.
What you have is a man who was thouroughly bothered by the murdering of unborn children. He responded in an inappropriate and illegal way and he will legally pay the price for it. Nothing less nothing more. Steeples title suggests masses of Christian Jihadists terrorizing the land.
Such events seldom happen but when they do they are dealt with and rightly so.
I have probably attended over 100 different types of churches in my life and I have never heard this taught from the pulpit as something Christians shoud do.
But I am sure you will feel this is just more whining..your posts haven't shown much objectivity yet.
I suppose you could, if you are sufficiently dishonest. As far as your two straw men are concerned, that's just more dishonesty
In your opinion.


While you might be surprised to find I disagree with most such actions as petty and pointless
Yes, I would be, you are correct


I do recognize they are Constitutionally sound and perhaps necessary to preempt a slide down a slippery slope

Another opinion, which you certainly are entitled to as am I. And of course mine would be 180 degrees in opposition to that.

Now does either of our opinions mean that one is forcing the otheres down someone throat? Of course not, but I am sure some would say it does.


I have an old-fashioned conviction that honesty and integrity are fundamental to one's character. It's one of the reasons I have so little respect for GWBush.[/quote]

Desireable traits, take off the blinders though there are liars on both sides

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: ntdz
Athiests aren't tolerent at all. They look down upon people of religion...

Someone mentioned Hitler above as an athiest...he wasn't an athiest, but Stalin was.

That is a crock, stalin was a powermongering totalitarian, he didnt get into religion as it was competition to him being a god, in a country with no room for any gods but himself, he worshipped himself and power.

Religion is just another control tool he had no room for in his philosophy of domination of peoples hearts and minds and his demand of total allegiance. That is not an atheism, it is totalitarianism of the spiritual lives of others, anyhow stalin did allow the church back during ww2.

Swapping out a god in the sky for a living one is still a religion, not atheism.

I don't know why poeple can't actually see something that simple. They must be so enamoured with rules, hierarchies and authority that the thought of someone disliking these things is too alien to comprehend.

 

[Forsythe]

One of the dumbest question ever asked in P&N.

 

[ericlp]

What do your expect from this OP, Go figure!

This isn't even news. This thread should be locked. Go discuss your own religion at church... We don't care how you feel about another faith. If you don't like it. Booo Hoo!

Just stirring the pot as usual. My religion is better then yours. Blah..Blah...Blah..... What a waste of time and bandwidth!

Troll of the forums award this one....

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I suppose you could, if you are sufficiently dishonest. As far as your two straw men are concerned, that's just more dishonesty. The issue is not participation, it's imposition. I'd also love to hear your spin on how there's any significant effort to restrict your religious freedom. I suspect what you're really talking about are a few, highly-publicized challenges to maintaining the separation of church and state, e.g, banning Nativities on public property. While you might be surprised to find I disagree with most such actions as petty and pointless, I do recognize they are Constitutionally sound and perhaps necessary to preempt a slide down a slippery slope. Nonetheless, I personally would prefer to see the Nativity/etc. opponents focus their efforts on more substantive issues. See my .sig.

[ ... ]

You claimed there are "a lot of Christ haters" in P&N. I believe your claim is preposterous -- empty whining by someone who wants to divert attention from the real, valid complaints about the behavior of certain "Christian" extremists. (Christianity could be a great force for good were it not so badly perverted by some of its self-proclaimed believers.) If you really believed truth is on your side, you could have presented examples supporting your claim. You did not. You chose instead to respond dishonestly, and I called you on it.

You are close re. my intolerance though. I don't have a problem with differing opinions ... if they are well-reasoned and supported by fact. I am not very tolerant of ignorance and evasion, however. For example, I have no respect for people who make ignorant claims they cannot support, then turn to evasion and misdirection rather than simply, honestly conceding their mistakes. I am also extremely intolerant of hypocrisy and dishonesty. I have an old-fashioned conviction that honesty and integrity are fundamental to one's character. It's one of the reasons I have so little respect for GWBush.

You claimed there are "a lot of Christ haters" in P&N. I believe your claim is preposterous -- empty whining by someone who wants to divert attention from the real, valid complaints about the behavior of certain "Christian" extremists. (Christianity could be a great force for good were it not so badly perverted by some of its self-proclaimed believers.) XYou did not. You chose instead to respond dishonestly, and I called you on it.

Boy you caught me there:roll:



If you really believed truth is on your side, you could have presented examples supporting your claim. You did not. You chose instead to respond dishonestly, and I called you on it.

Steeple's example of Christian terrorists at it again!! is an excellent example of it.
What you have is a man who was thouroughly bothered by the murdering of unborn children. He responded in an inappropriate and illegal way and he will legally pay the price for it. Nothing less nothing more. Steeples title suggests masses of Christian Jihadists terrorizing the land.
Such events seldom happen but when they do they are dealt with and rightly so.
I have probably attended over 100 different types of churches in my life and I have never heard this taught from the pulpit as something Christians shoud do.
But I am sure you will feel this is just more whining..your posts haven't shown much objectivity yet.

This is where you totally miss the point. You might be able to use this as an example of Steeple's disdain for Christians. I'll let him address that if he cares to. It simply does NOT in any way suggest a hatred for Christ, however. It just doesn't. You claimed a lot of people in P&N hate Christ, not that they dislike Christians. There's a world of difference between the two.

In the words of Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I suppose you could, if you are sufficiently dishonest. As far as your two straw men are concerned, that's just more dishonesty
In your opinion.

Yet you declined to offer examples supporting your claim that someone is trying to restrict your religious freedoms vs. maintaining a proper separation of church and state as I believe. Oh well.

While you might be surprised to find I disagree with most such actions as petty and pointless
Yes, I would be, you are correct


I do recognize they are Constitutionally sound and perhaps necessary to preempt a slide down a slippery slope

Another opinion, which you certainly are entitled to as am I. And of course mine would be 180 degrees in opposition to that.

Now does either of our opinions mean that one is forcing the otheres down someone throat? Of course not, but I am sure some would say it does.

Nor did I suggest such things constitute forcing one's faith down others' throats. In fact, I suggested the contrary when I referred to such examples as petty and pointless. I'm talking about far more insidious and damaging impostion of religious dogma, for example abortion, gay marriage, abstinence-only education (very irresponsible and counter-productive), intelligent design and other attacks on science, censorship, etc. Those are cases where religious zealots are trying to impose their views on all of America, and even other parts of the world with abortion.

That is what I object to. You are welcome to believe whatever you want. Just don't restrict my rights based on your beliefs. If you don't believe in abortions, that's cool, don't have one. As it happens, I don't like abortions either, but I accept the fact that I do NOT have the right to impose that belief on others. Similarly, when I don't like what I see on TV, I take responsibility for myself and change the channel. I don't lobby the FCC to impose my idiosyncrasies on everyone else.

I have an old-fashioned conviction that honesty and integrity are fundamental to one's character. It's one of the reasons I have so little respect for GWBush.

Desireable traits, take off the blinders though there are liars on both sides

Kindly show me where I suggested otherwise. While I find Bush especially and malignantly dishonest, I've repeatedly expressed my disgust with politicians in general.