Congressman wants to use the Qur'an when sworn in

[Walsingham]

You're clearly confused. That would be Welshmen. And before anyone complains I should point out that Meta's already observed an Englishman can't swear in at all.

[J.E. Sawyer]

What would/does an atheist swear on?

Atheists are among the least trusted minorities in the country; I'd be very surprised to see any get elected at all.

[Jorian Drake]

What would/does an atheist swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Their word of honour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But then what would a Scotsman swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

atheists

[Walsingham]

In my experience Scotsmen just swear on and on.

[tarna]

Atheists are among the least trusted minorities in the country; I'd be very surprised to see any get elected at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:D

[Walsingham]

Ironic that the exact inverse is true here in the UK. Joe Public hate the religious.

[Colrom]

What would/does an atheist swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Atheists are among the least trusted minorities in the country; I'd be very surprised to see any get elected at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

In general people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters. In the US, this pretty much eliminates folks who are forthright about being atheist. But liar atheists who pretend effectively to be religious are no problem.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Colrom

[metadigital]

What would/does an atheist swear on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Atheists are among the least trusted minorities in the country; I'd be very surprised to see any get elected at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In general people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters. In the US, this pretty much eliminates folks who are forthright about being atheist. But liar atheists who pretend effectively to be religious are no problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

WTF?

 

What makes you say that?

[Diamond]

I think he means politicians who try to appeal to the audience by pretending to be deeply religious.

[metadigital]

Yeah, nut I still don't understand why he states "In general people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters."

 

Why do people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters?

 

Y'see, why I picked this up is because it's another attempt to paint people who don't subscribe to colrom's dogma as "misguided". Obviously people must want to vote for good liars, because they can't be voting for any REAL policies.

[Colrom]

Yeah, nut I still don't understand why he states "In general people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters."

 

Why do people tend to support those they think lie most effectively about important matters?

 

Y'see, why I picked this up is because it's another attempt to paint people who don't subscribe to colrom's dogma as "misguided". Obviously people must want to vote for good liars, because they can't be voting for any REAL policies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is actually the result of a psychological study.

 

I will try to find it for you.

 

Results about the agressiveness of prefered canididates are interesting too - but more situational - and from a different study.

 

I suggest you not go about attacking me.

[metadigital]

wait what

[Colrom]

Try this: (One of the studies I was remembering. There is a more recent one.)

 

The same psychological skills that give leaders great self-control in times of crisis also make them skilful liars.

 

'The most convincing liars were the same people who emerged as the leaders of the group'

 

Caroline Keating of Colgate University asked a group of adults and children to drink a sweet-or bitter-tasting beverage and then tell an assistant that it tasted good. Among both adult males and children, Keating found that the most convincing liars were the same people who emerged as the leaders of the group during a staged 'crisis', or in the case of children, in play groups. Her work is not meant to show that leaders lie their way to the top, says Keating, but it does suggest that it is no accident that a former actor is regarded as one of the most persuasive leaders of the 20th century.

 

In addition to lying persuasively, looking middle-aged and male will also advance your leadership career. As in nearly all primates, an important element of a leader's persuasive powers lies in the basic physiology of his or her face. In one recent study by Allan Mazur of Syracuse University and sociologist Ulrich Mueller, for instance, college students were asked to rank the 'dominance' of more than 300 pictures from the yearbook of the 1950 graduating class at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. In nearly every instance, those cadets who went on to become generals were those who were judged to have the most dominant-looking faces. Research by Keating reveals that around the world, the facial features that are most associated with leadership - thin lips, eyes that are small in proportion to the face and receding hairlines - are also judged to be the most attractive in males but not in females.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Extract from an article in the US News & World Report (November 2nd '92) monitored for the Institute by Roger Knights.

[metadigital]

That's correlation, not causation.

The same psychological skills that give leaders great self-control in times of crisis also make them skilful liars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to improve your reading comprehension.

[Colrom]

That's correlation, not causation.

The same psychological skills that give leaders great self-control in times of crisis also make them skilful liars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to improve your reading comprehension.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:angry:

 

The writer is correctly limiting her conclusions to the what that particular study can show.

 

There are other studies that indicate that ability to be deceptive is actually considered an asset for leaders in many cases - and is a selection criteria of their followers.

 

I suppose I could dig that correlation up too.

 

But so could you.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Colrom

[alanschu]

I think he means politicians who try to appeal to the audience by pretending to be deeply religious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Then he probably should have said that, rather than supporting people that lie the most effectively.

 

 

Lets see what the public opinion of these liars are like if it gets exposed that they aren't deeply religious.

[Shadowstrider]

In my experience Scotsmen just swear on and on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

HA CHA CHA CHA!

 

As a person of partially Scottish descent, I applaud this!

[metadigital]

That's correlation, not causation.

The same psychological skills that give leaders great self-control in times of crisis also make them skilful liars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to improve your reading comprehension.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:angry:

 

The writer is correctly limiting her conclusions to the what that particular study can show.

 

There are other studies that indicate that ability to be deceptive is actually considered an asset for leaders in many cases - and is a selection criteria of their followers.

 

I suppose I could dig that correlation up too.

 

But so could you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr colrom, I am pointing out your inductive fallacy, namely you are making an faulty generalisation (more specifically a syllogism).

 

Get as angry as you like, but I am just arguing logically with what you provide.

 

You made a (fantastically) rash statement. I called you on it. You provided research that doesn't support your claim, so I have to conclude you:

• didn't find any to support your case, or
  
• didn't know it didn't support your case.
  

If the former you are being disingenuous.

 

I took the liberty of assuming the the latter, thus I was pointing out the fallacy.

 

It's YOUR proposition. When you put forward the evidence for it, according to scientific method, we have to try to disprove it. If we disprove it, then it is false. (The reason we try to disprove a statement, rather than prove it, is to prevent the confirmation bias.)

 

Try to divorce your frustration from the subject(s), so that we might discuss them without the intrusion of negative emotions.

 

If you don't want to prove your rash statements, then don't make them.

[Mortis Nai]

There is nothing in the basic tenants of Christianity or Islam that promotes violence in any way.  You can't find a passage in the Qu'ran that says it's alright to kill non-believers.  The Bible is the same way.  They are good books, and they are about living a good life.  The lessons within the pages are about charity, prayer, and faith.

 

The problem with religions in general has to do with leadership.  Both Christianity and Islam have had leaders that call for violence in the name of their religion.  When you actually compare the religions side by side, it's amazing how similiar they are and how similiar their struggles have been.  Everyone acts like Christianity is so peaceful, but in actuality it's just had more time to work out its differences.  Islam is a younger gospel, but the violence between Shi'ites and Sunni's is very reminiscent of violence between Protestants and Catholics.  It lasted for hundreds of years in Europe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have obviously never read the Qu'ran... every other page begins and ends with "God is great, love god, fear god, kill the infidels."

 

Try reading a book before touting your opinion on it.

 

Just because you "Have a copy" does not mean you have read the damn thing... just look at the Bible, Number one best seller and least read.

 

**** if the German people had bothered to read everyones favorate table book during 1940 perhaps there would be tens of millions more people still alive.

Edited December 31, 2006 by Mortis Nai

[Hurlshort]

There is nothing in the basic tenants of Christianity or Islam that promotes violence in any way.  You can't find a passage in the Qu'ran that says it's alright to kill non-believers.  The Bible is the same way.  They are good books, and they are about living a good life.  The lessons within the pages are about charity, prayer, and faith.

 

The problem with religions in general has to do with leadership.  Both Christianity and Islam have had leaders that call for violence in the name of their religion.  When you actually compare the religions side by side, it's amazing how similiar they are and how similiar their struggles have been.  Everyone acts like Christianity is so peaceful, but in actuality it's just had more time to work out its differences.  Islam is a younger gospel, but the violence between Shi'ites and Sunni's is very reminiscent of violence between Protestants and Catholics.  It lasted for hundreds of years in Europe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You have obviously never read the Qu'ran... every other page begins and ends with "God is great, love god, fear god, kill the infidels."

 

Try reading a book before touting your opinion on it.

 

Just because you "Have a copy" does not mean you have read the damn thing... just look at the Bible, Number one best seller and least read.

 

**** if the German people had bothered to read everyones favorate table book during 1940 perhaps there would be tens of millions more people still alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uh...I have an english translation of the Qu'ran right in front of me. Please feel free to direct me to the "kill infidels" section, as I can't seem to find it. During the Umayyad and Abbasid Dynasties, Christians and Hebrews were allowed to practice their religion freely in cities like Damascus and Baghdad. It was a Christian king that actually sheltered persecuted Muslims after the long trek out of Mecca into current day Ethiopia.

 

So forgive me if I doubt your "kill infidels" proclamation. I don't consider Muhammad a violent man, but he did seek to turn Mecca away from polytheism and that led to conflict. Again, if you can point me to the passage in the Qu'ran about killing infidels, I'll concede the argument and you will win the internet.

[thepixiesrock]

But I've already won the internet, and I won't let anyone take it away from me!

 

 

 

Mmmmmeeeeeeuuuuuuhhhhhh!

[thepixiesrock]

Wait, if you read that post you owe me money. I don't post for the fun of it you know.

[thepixiesrock]

Wait, that one too!

[thepixiesrock]

lol, you guys owe me lots of money now.

[Blank]

What'd you say, Pixies? I didn't read any of that.