E.W. Jackson: Democratic Party is 'anti-God'

[cbayer]

http://burke.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/ew-jackson-democratic-party-is-antigod

More "extreme" statements from Virginia's GOP candidate for lieutenant governor in 2013 election has officials from both parties up in arms.

Posted by William Callahan (Editor) , August 05, 2013 at 02:36 PM



E.W. Jackson celebrates his nomination for lieutenant governor at the Virginia Republican Convention in Richmond.

E.W. Jackson, Virginia’s Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, is drawing criticism for saying the Democratic Party is “anti-God” — and Christians should disassociate from it.

“I believe that the Democrat Party has become an anti-God party, I think it’s an anti-life party, I think it’s an anti-family party,” Jackson said last week in a radio interview, according to Salon. “And these are all things I think Christians hold to very dearly.” (Listen to audio of the exchange here.)

Jackson, a pastor and attorney from Chesapeake, VA, has repeatedly turned heads for rhetoric that critics have called anti-gay and "hateful."

And Democrats hosting a media call Monday afternoon were quick to join the party, calling on Jackson to apologize to Virginia Democrats who might have taken offense at the remarks.

more at link

[rug]

1. Imbecile.

[tanyev]

2. Anti-theocracy, and proud of it.

[Deep13]

3. if only nt

[cbayer]

4. You wish the democratic party was anti-god?

What on earth do you mean by that?

[Deep13]

6. pro-secular. nt

[cbayer]

9. Pro-secular does not equal anti-god. Not even close.

[trotsky]

10. Why are you forcing your definitions on others?

I don't think anyone is required to use the labels you've defined.

[demwing]

18. No one is forcing any thing

But the poster is correct, and I am proof.

I am pro-secular, and believe in God.

Words mean things.

[trotsky]

19. Some people don't like it when definitions are applied to them.

Certain individuals, for instance, bristle at the word "atheist" to describe themselves even though they lack belief in gods.

When those same individuals turn around and insist that others adhere to the definitions they've chosen for another word, it's a bit of a double standard.

[cbayer]

20. And you are not alone.

Many are both theists and secularists. They address completely different issues.

[Deep13]

11. That's only because god isn't real. nt

[cbayer]

12. Regardless of whether god is real or not, they are not the same thing.

And if god is not real, why would you say that you wish the democratic party was anti-god?

Perhaps that is not what you meant.

[Deep13]

13. I told you what I meant. nt

[cbayer]

14. I'm still not understanding it, though.

If you are suggesting that the democratic party resist theocracy and promote secular causes like separation issues, that's one thing. But that's not anti-god.

If you are suggesting that the democratic party be anti-theist, that's quite another. That's going to go over really, really well with the black and latino base (sarcasm).

[trotsky]

15. Perhaps you should accept that you can't understand it.

You are trying to force your narrative on Deep13, someone who sees the world differently than you do.

Stop doing that.

[Heddi]

16. Hey Deep13!

[demwing]

17. Nice of you to share your opinion

The majority of people in the Democratic Party, in the United States, and in the world disagree.

[Deep13]

21. Anytime.

I follow the evidence, not the consensus.

[demwing]

22. In a Democracy

consensus matters.

You write the word as if it were something foul that you spit out of your mouth...

[trotsky]

23. There was a time when consensus said that homosexuality was wrong.

Or that blacks were an inferior race.

[demwing]

24. I never said consensus mattered most -

only that it mattered.

In our democracy, minority rights are protected from majority opinion by our civil laws, but are laws are written by legislators that are elected with a majority of voters. Consensus matters.

If you want to change law, develop a consensus that the laws must be changed.

Equal protection under the law should never be subject to a vote, but sometimes it takes a vote (or MANY votes) to get traction on an issue.

Are you really saying that my belief in God affects you the same way that homophobia affects a homosexual, or the same way racism affects African Americans?

[trotsky]

25. Glad you clarified.

Seemed like you were doing your own spitting.

Are you really saying that my belief in God affects you the same way that homophobia affects a homosexual, or the same way racism affects African Americans?

Interesting you bring that up, since belief in god is used to justify homophobia and racism. And by declaring religious beliefs special and beyond analysis, we make it harder to confront and overcome that.

[demwing]

26. And Democracy is used as an excuse for Republicans

should we then give up on Democracy?

BTW - religion and a belief in God are really two different things.

[trotsky]

27. How do you get from allowing rational analysis and critique of religion...

to "giving up" on it? I think I nearly got whiplash from that shift.

Are you saying that allowing the same analysis of religion that we apply to all other topics would result in its destruction?

[Neoma]

28. That's an eggshell question...

Dunno about who you're talking to, but I'd say it varies on the situation at hand or the person who is prosthelytizing in either a very forward or sly way. While you might not be the aggressor, you can remind people of horrible "Christians" without realizing. I know my own triggers enough to sort of avoid them, but a lot of times that's not enough.

[Deep13]

29. No, facts are what they are regardless of what people believe.

There is no democracy in science. Evolution, for instance, will always be real regardless of who fails to accept it.

[cbayer]

30. Well, see, there's the rub. Evolution may undergo some relatively profound

changes if something new is discovered that would demand a rethinking of it.

Science is fluid and not rigid. Good scientists are always questioning their assumptions and re-examining previous hypothesis.

While I think evolution will never be honestly challenged by something like creationism, it may be challenged. And those that would close the door to that are not good scientists.

[trotsky]

32. It is clear that you have still not read this Asimov essay, cbayer.

It's short. It's to the point. Understanding its contents would help keep you from making the logical errors you do in these kinds of threads.

Please, just read it. This isn't a trap - it will help you.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

[cbayer]

33. Then again, perhaps it would help you

Last edited Thu Aug 8, 2013, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts

[trotsky]

41. At last!

Keep reading, you'll get the point!

[Deep13]

36. Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.

First, I'm not a scientist. Second, when was the last time your church really debated whether or not god is real? When have they confronted the obvious immorality of Christian teachings? Specifically, any god that would make humans and then blame those humans for the way He made them, is a psychopath. Anyway, there were no Adam and Eve. We evolved from preexisting species, not an original pair of humans. Adding to that, murdering (sort of) an innocent man does not redeem us, it makes us more guilty. Well, it would if we had anything to do with it.

When will the religious people of the world really examine the evidence, subject to outside peer review, for or against the existence of god? Frankly, it would not take long. When religious institutions give a good faith and rigorous effort to route out the fraud in their holy holy books and confront the contradictions, cruelties, and impossibilities in their own belief systems, then you can lecture secularists on rigid thinking. Until then, physicians heal thyselves.

Evolution has survived rigorous testing. Whether from the fossils, the strata, the DNA evidence, similar living species, direct observation of chances over generations, geographic distribution, psychological, sociological: evolution by natural selection explains it all. It didn't always, because we did not know as much about the natural world as we do now. So, while in principal evolution may be challenged like any other idea, in practice it would be like challenging an aircraft carrier to a battle from a rowboat. Changes in DNA are random--no outside planning--and the environment acts as editor to reject unusable changes. So what is left for God? And if the answer is "nothing" (and it is) then in what way is He god?

[cbayer]

39. My church? I don't have a church.

There are churches where discussions about god and christian teachings are discussed in depth. What are the basic immoralities of christian teachings? Your description of a god is only one way of looking at it and if you conclude that god is a psychopath, that is your conclusion and yours alone. Many people see stories like Adam and Eve as metaphors and don't read the bible literally.

There is no evidence for or against the existence of a god or gods. There is no way to rigorously study this. It's a circular argument and outside the realm of proof or disproof.

BTW, one can be both a religionist and a secularist. They are very different things.

I'm not advocating for challenging evolution. I think it is well established, independently verified and easily replicated by science. But, new data may arise that changes our understanding of it. Darwin was right, but he wasn't necessarily absolutely right or the final word on the matter.

I'm also not advocating for god. I don't know if a god exists and I don't care.

I do, however, advocate for those that use their beliefs or lack of beliefs to achieve things for which I also advocate - social justice, civil liberties, caring for the most marginalized, etc.

I know you said you were done, so don't feel that you need to respond to this.

It's been nice talking with you.

[demwing]

31. But there is a Democracy (oh ok, a Republic) in America

so what's your point?

That there is no God?

The majority of people in this country disagree, deal with it.

Why does that matter? Because the Democratic Party is not stupid, and will not go "anti-God" and piss off the majority of voters.

If you can't see that simple fact, then don't bother talking to me about how irrational you believe theists are.

[Deep13]

34. What's yours?

Frankly, if you think we live in a representative democracy, you have not been paying attention. And again, we can all decide that there is no gravity, even vote on it, but if you jump off a building, you're still going splat on the pavement.

Right now America is convinced that global warming is no big deal, flu vaccine can make you sick, most people are middle class, astrology is real, poor people are hoarding money, Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, and that there is a god. Where has it gotten us?

Sorry if you are offended, but I have no tolerance for self-righteous delusions.

[cbayer]

35. America is convinced of these things?

Again, you really need to provide some data to substantiate that claim. While there are groups that believe some of the things you list, you certainly can't generalize that to "America".

What are self-righteous delusions? Any belief in gods? Any belief in something spiritual?

BTW, evolution would rapidly take care of the issue of people not believing in gravity, lol.

[Deep13]

37. No I don't. We're done here. nt

[cbayer]

38. No problem. I've enjoyed talking with you.

[hrmjustin]

5. I can't wait to see this guy in a debate.

[cbayer]

8. I know. Should be a great source of entertainment.

[trotsky]

7. Funny thing is, the same sentiment has been expressed on DU against Republicans.

They are anti-Christian, anti-Jesus, etc.

[MellowDem]

40. Which god?

The one from the Bible? Let us hope so, that guy is a tyrannical genocidal maniac.