Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:19 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I don't believe its appropriate or moral to judge others. Another thing the bible teaches.
I'm not judging anyone. I'm making a moral judgment of whether an action is moral or immoral. I'm not sending anyone to hell.
  #102  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:20 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Really?

Okay. A name is an inherited immutable characteristic.

Sexual intercourse is a voluntary action (excepting cases of coercion).
Nah, you can change your name. People do it all the time. Ask Puff Daddy, or P. Diddy, or Puffy, or whatever he goes by now.

Sex is something the human body is driven to do. It's biological. It also does not harm you in any way how others choose to handle that if both participants are willing. What if someone told you who you could or could not have sex with. You'd be ok with that?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 02-08-2019 at 04:22 PM.
  #103  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:23 PM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I'm not judging anyone. I'm making a moral judgment of whether an action is moral or immoral. I'm not sending anyone to hell.
I personally look at it as who is harmed?

Who? Certainly not you. So why judge what others choose to do in their own homes. It has zero effect on you.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #104  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:34 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,636
Religion isn't a free pass to get away with anything you want. We aren't discriminating against the Sikh when we don't allow knives on planes. We aren't discriminating against Jews or Muslims by serving pork at schools and government buildings (and I say that as someone who, while not religious, doesn't eat pork for cultural reasons). And we aren't discriminating against Christians by taking a stand against bigotry, on the court or elsewhere.

Religion is no excuse for bigotry, and a Christian using his faith as an excuse to mistreat homosexuals should be just as inexcusable as a murderer claiming he was only killing for Quetzlcoatl.
  #105  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:35 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Sex is something the human body is driven to do.
Do you do everything your body is driven to do? Would it be prudent or moral for you to do so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
It's biological.
Two men/two women are incapable of procreating, so the biology argument works against gay sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
What if someone told you who you could or could not have sex with. You'd be ok with that?
Yes. My wife tells me I may only have sex with her.
  #106  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:36 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I personally look at it as who is harmed?

Who? Certainly not you. So why judge what others choose to do in their own homes. It has zero effect on you.
Good for you. I'm not advocating legal punishment for gay sex.
  #107  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:38 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
And we aren't discriminating against Christians by taking a stand against bigotry, on the court or elsewhere.

Religion is no excuse for bigotry, and a Christian using his faith as an excuse to mistreat homosexuals should be just as inexcusable as a murderer claiming he was only killing for Quetzlcoatl.
Making a moral judgment re: human sexuality is not the same thing as bigotry.

Making a moral judgment re: human sexuality is not the same thing as mistreating homosexuals.
  #108  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:40 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,669
I came here for a discussion about Dostoevsky and Booker perhaps concealing truth for the sake of humanity. I leave disappointed.
  #109  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:50 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Making a moral judgment re: human sexuality is not the same thing as bigotry.
Your son/daughter/sister/brother -- choose whichever is most applicable-- comes out as gay and introduces you to their new, same sex fiance. How do you feel about this?

Quote:
Making a moral judgment re: human sexuality is not the same thing as mistreating homosexuals.
Maybe not. Preventing gay couples from filing joint tax returns, counting as next of kin, adopting a child, and a million and one other things you do to gay people because of your "moral judgement" IS mistreating them.
  #110  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:54 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Maybe not. Preventing gay couples from filing joint tax returns, counting as next of kin, adopting a child, and a million and one other things you do to gay people because of your "moral judgement" IS mistreating them.
I'm not doing any of those things to anyone.
  #111  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:56 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I'm not doing any of those things to anyone.
But you're against gay marriage.
  #112  
Old 02-08-2019, 04:59 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
What's disturbing is that merely believing that gay sex is immoral is considered a "reprehensible belief" by those in power, especially considering that nearly everybody in the Christianized world believed that until roughly yesterday.
Why the hell would I care whether most folks believed that? Isn't that a perfect argumentam ad populum or whatever?

In any case, while you may think you've successfully dodged the question, you haven't. What do you think about World Church of the Creator? Should their beliefs be respected, yes or no? If no, why not?
  #113  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:02 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
But you're against gay marriage.
One can't be for or against something that doesn't exist.
  #114  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:03 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
In any case, while you may think you've successfully dodged the question, you haven't. What do you think about World Church of the Creator? Should their beliefs be respected, yes or no? If no, why not?
I've never heard of the World Church of the Creator.
  #115  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:03 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
What's disturbing is that merely believing that gay sex is immoral is considered a "reprehensible belief" by those in power, especially considering that nearly everybody in the Christianized world believed that until roughly yesterday.
Y'know, if all you did was believe that, and those beliefs never turned into actions, that wouldn't be a problem. But... the belief is wrong. There is no moral element to consensual gay sex. There is no reasonable argument to be made for a moral element to consensual gay sex. And up until recently, we were throwing people in cages for it. Like, less than a decade ago. That's fucking immoral. The belief that there's something wrong with gay sex is just a belief... up until it gets turned into action. Say, by a justice on a court making a ruling that harms someone based on that belief. Hence why it might be generally a good idea to keep justices who hold such beliefs off the court.

Look, it took until 1995 for the majority of Americans to be okay with mixed-race marriages. All that meant was that for most of American history, the vast majority of people held a dangerously wrong belief, and often did horribly immoral things based on that belief. That you're just now cottoning on to the fact that there is nothing wrong with gay sex (and, yeah, there isn't) really speaks volumes to how poorly your religion has taught you. I'm sympathetic, I really am.
  #116  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:08 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I've never heard of the World Church of the Creator.
Their positions have been explained at length in the thread; please answer the question.
  #117  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:12 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Y'know, if all you did was believe that, and those beliefs never turned into actions, that wouldn't be a problem. But... the belief is wrong. There is no moral element to consensual gay sex. There is no reasonable argument to be made for a moral element to consensual gay sex. And up until recently, we were throwing people in cages for it. Like, less than a decade ago. That's fucking immoral. The belief that there's something wrong with gay sex is just a belief... up until it gets turned into action. Say, by a justice on a court making a ruling that harms someone based on that belief. Hence why it might be generally a good idea to keep justices who hold such beliefs off the court.

Look, it took until 1995 for the majority of Americans to be okay with mixed-race marriages. All that meant was that for most of American history, the vast majority of people held a dangerously wrong belief, and often did horribly immoral things based on that belief. That you're just now cottoning on to the fact that there is nothing wrong with gay sex (and, yeah, there isn't) really speaks volumes to how poorly your religion has taught you. I'm sympathetic, I really am.
Looking past your blithe dismissal of multiple millennia of philosophical and moral development re: human sexuality....

Your example from Louisiana looks to me more like a prostitution sting; but regardless, I am not advocating the state punishing anyone for consensual sexual activity, including prostitution.
  #118  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:12 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I've never heard of the World Church of the Creator.
FFS, dude, I've mentioned them like three times in this thread. Have you just not been reading along?

Here you go. Read up. They've been granted constitutional protections because of their religions.

Then come back and answer the freakin question.
  #119  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:15 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Making a moral judgment re: human sexuality is not the same thing as mistreating homosexuals.
Does driving queer people to suicide count as "mistreating?" Because there's a strong link between religious belief and suicidal ideation among queer youth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
One can't be for or against something that doesn't exist.
Setting aside the brain-bending insanity of saying SSM "doesn't exist," how do you square that statement with the billion plus Hindus in the world avidly worshiping a pantheon of deities that you and I both think don't exist?
  #120  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:18 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
LOL, okay I read the wiki. Seems like a fake religion to me, but should they be respected?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "respect". Should they be punished civilly or criminally based on their alleged beliefs? No.

Are they entitled to my respect? No.
  #121  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:18 PM
Babale Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
One can't be for or against something that doesn't exist.
Nah, too obvious.
  #122  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:21 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
It certainly could be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Setting aside the brain-bending insanity of saying SSM "doesn't exist,"
Who gets to define "marriage"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
how do you square that statement with the billion plus Hindus in the world avidly worshiping a pantheon of deities that you and I both think don't exist?
How do you know they don't exist? I wouldn't go so far as to make that claim.

Last edited by EscAlaMike; 02-08-2019 at 05:22 PM.
  #123  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
One can't be for or against something that doesn't exist.
This is just hateful nonsense, and the kind of thing that makes folks like me think that your particular brand is Christianity is a hateful and profoundly immoral philosophy.

There are plenty of loving families with children led by very admirable gay couples (recognized as married by the law and most of society) who are wonderful citizens and parents. It's hateful and disgusting that you're willing to proclaim publicly, when those children might hear or read your words, that their parents' marriage doesn't exist. Are you sure that's the type of person you want to be, spreading hate to children about their families?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #124  
Old 02-08-2019, 05:53 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is just hateful nonsense, and the kind of thing that makes folks like me think that your particular brand is Christianity is a hateful and profoundly immoral philosophy.

There are plenty of loving families with children led by very admirable gay couples (recognized as married by the law and most of society) who are wonderful citizens and parents. It's hateful and disgusting that you're willing to proclaim publicly, when those children might hear or read your words, that their parents' marriage doesn't exist. Are you sure that's the type of person you want to be, spreading hate to children about their families?
It's unfortunate that you feel that way, as "my brand of Christianity" is neither hateful nor immoral, but actually teaches the exact opposite, love and virtue. I also find your repeated use of the word "hate/hateful" strange.

Who gets to define "marriage"?
  #125  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:25 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
It's unfortunate that you feel that way, as "my brand of Christianity" is neither hateful nor immoral, but actually teaches the exact opposite, love and virtue. I also find your repeated use of the word "hate/hateful" strange.
You and I appear to have fundamentally incompatible understanding of the concepts of love and virtue. Certainly, nothing you've posted here demonstrates either of those qualities.

Quote:
Who gets to define "marriage"?
Anyone is free to define their own relationship as a "marriage" if they want, but the only definition that actually matters - that is, the one that conveys tangible rights and obligations - would be the government. Outside that strictly legal context, I don't think anyone is in a place to tell someone else that their marriage doesn't exist. I certainly don't think they can do that out of one side of their mouth, and then claim that they honor or respect that person out of the other.
  #126  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:27 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
It's unfortunate that you feel that way, as "my brand of Christianity" is neither hateful nor immoral, but actually teaches the exact opposite, love and virtue. I also find your repeated use of the word "hate/hateful" strange.
You are apparently incapable or unwilling to empathize with the children of married gay couples. If you were capable of this, you would be horrified to publicly proclaim such a hateful thing where they might hear or read it. Try to imagine how you'd feel as a child if someone said their philosophy was "love and virtue", but told you that your parents' relationship is not a legitimate marriage, and thus that your family is not a legitimate family.

The white supremacist Christians of your state through the first half of the 20th century would have insisted just as strongly as you do that they only taught "love and virtue". But they were teaching hate -- they were just unaware of the hatefulness of their own teachings. How do you know that you're not falling into the same trap?

Quote:
Who gets to define "marriage"?
Like all human-created words and concepts, humans. If many or most humans believe that "marriage" can encompass gay relationships, then the word and concept of marriage can encompass gay relationships. That's how language works.
  #127  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:28 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss KarlGauss is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 7,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
LOL, okay I read the wiki. Seems like a fake religion to me, but should they be respected?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "respect". Should they be punished civilly or criminally based on their alleged beliefs? No.

Are they entitled to my respect? No.
So, they can slaughter you with impunity, then?
  #128  
Old 02-08-2019, 06:50 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 7,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
...
The issue is "what is marriage?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Yeah, so... what is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
A topic for another thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
This is a question you posed in this thread, not another one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
It was a statement. The question was rhetorical in order to state the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
...
Who gets to define "marriage"?
Rhetorical again, this time?

Last edited by bobot; 02-08-2019 at 06:50 PM.
  #129  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:06 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
It's unfortunate that you feel that way, as "my brand of Christianity" is neither hateful nor immoral, but actually teaches the exact opposite, love and virtue. I also find your repeated use of the word "hate/hateful" strange.

Who gets to define "marriage"?
So you claim to get to define the morality of your religion and also define marriage based on the morality of your religion.

That's very convenient.

It's also why you can't win this argument. Morality doesn't come from religion. Religious people certainly like to believe it can, and historically love to impose those beliefs on others. Historically, those others tend to rebel against religious beliefs as soon as they have the power to do so.

That power is evident now. Your stated morality has been tossed into the trash heap of history, along with the belief in other bigoted hatefulness that your religion loudly proclaimed, like the inferiority of people with black skin and the impossibility of marrying such a person, the fact that women were helpless servants of males, and that Jews were evil, you know, just because. On any logical basis, your religion's beliefs that gays aren't equal to straights, that they cannot marry one another, and that procreation can only happen by sexual intercourse between a man and a woman are just more "truths" that must be fought with all the vigor that your earlier "truths" were fought.

Note: it has been and will continue to be. Your side thoroughly lost this bigoted nonsense. You should stop being concerned about it and instead be concerned about coming up with equally creative arguments to justify all the other bigoted hatereds your religion promulgates that will be fought in the same way in the future.
  #130  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:31 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Adhering to a moral code ≠ having a personal prejudice.
It does if "moral code" is just a dog-whistle term for personal prejudice, and has nothing whatsoever to do with actual, supportable morality. In this case, in fact, it's objectively the opposite of morality: it's the belief that gay people are not entitled to full equal treatment and all human rights just exactly like the rest of us, both under the law and under social custom and mores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Believing that gay sex is immoral is not prejudice against gay people.

Prejudice against gay people would be believing that they should be treated differently from straight people under the law.
That's funny, because for many decades the belief "that gay sex is immoral" also made it illegal in many states (and currently in many countries, some of which like to kill gays, though the US only preferred to jail them). And gay marriage itself was illegal in many more, including some states that felt so strongly about it that they felt even laws banning it weren't enough, and just for extra effect they passed state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. This only ended when the US Supreme Court finally stepped in, but in many states and among the worst of the religious zealots, the old bigotries remain.

Your OP and subsequent arguments are just nonsensical obfuscations.
  #131  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:33 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Looking past your blithe dismissal of multiple millennia of philosophical and moral development re: human sexuality....
It's not blithe. It's carefully thought through, and it's a major reason why various Christian organizations are losing membership and sway - people are making that same calculus and realizing, "hang on, this is bullshit". Because it is. There is no case to be made that gay sex is immoral. Reject religious concerns, and there is literally nothing to go on. You cannot make a principled, meaningful case

Quote:
Your example from Louisiana looks to me more like a prostitution sting; but regardless, I am not advocating the state punishing anyone for consensual sexual activity, including prostitution.
Good for you! Do you understand the link between your views and the views of the cops who pulled this move? Or the parents of the Anoka-Hennepin school district (or any number of other bigots that make the lives of LGBT kids around them a living hell)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
LOL, okay I read the wiki. Seems like a fake religion to me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Nah, too obvious.
You said it, man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Who gets to define "marriage"?
In the context of legal marriage? The state. If I can go down to the county office, get my marriage certified just like anyone else, and gain the benefits that come with that, and if your church decides to keep its silliness to itself, you could define marriage as "any occasion involving the exchange of at least one washing machine" and it wouldn't bother me. Of course, the problem is that it doesn't keep its silliness to itself, and insists again and again that the government kowtow to its definition of marriage.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 02-08-2019 at 07:33 PM.
  #132  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:34 PM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 37,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
though the US only preferred to jail them
Officially, at least. Extrajudicial murders of gay men/lesbians/transpeople are still winked at far too often...the "gay panic" defense and its variants STILL lead to acquittals.
  #133  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:42 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Who gets to define "marriage"?
Marriage is both a religious institution for many (but certainly not for all) and more importantly, a very strong and foundational social institution. When talking about gay marriage, the social definitions and ramifications are the most pertinent. No one is trying to force any particular churches or religious practitioners to perform gay marriages, although increasingly, many are doing so. The important thing is social recognition and social acceptance of SSM, including the full legal rights of marriage under the law in matters like property rights and taxes, but also in the culture of social acceptance. Because otherwise, gay people are being demeaned as second-class citizens not entitled to all the same human rights and social rights and privileges as the rest of us. That's plain bigotry.
  #134  
Old 02-08-2019, 07:52 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Good for you! Do you understand the link between your views and the views of the cops who pulled this move? Or the parents of the Anoka-Hennepin school district (or any number of other bigots that make the lives of LGBT kids around them a living hell)?
I really hope EscAlaMike reads both those links, and, in particular, the response in the second one, as that's pretty much tailor made for him.
  #135  
Old 02-08-2019, 08:09 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
LOL, okay I read the wiki. Seems like a fake religion to me, but should they be respected?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "respect". Should they be punished civilly or criminally based on their alleged beliefs? No.

Are they entitled to my respect? No.
"LOL," are you for real?

I already laid out what I mean by "respect." Let's say it comes out that--Secretary of Defense might not be realistic, but chief of police in a small town sure is--let's say it comes out that a candidate for Chief of Police is a member of the World Church of the Creator. Let's say that in his off-hours he's been seen, as WCotC members have been, wearing a shirt that idolizes a racist serial murderer.

My question isn't whether it's wise for the city council to ask him, "Do you believe that nonwhite people should be exterminated in a racial war?"

My question is whether you think such a question would be an unconstitutional religious test for office.
  #136  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:34 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,287
EscAlaMike, you are not making a moral judgement. You are making an immoral judgement. The judgement you are making is wrong, hurtful, and hateful. I do not know how you justify to yourself making such hateful judgements while claiming to be motivated by love.
  #137  
Old 02-08-2019, 11:40 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I do not know how you justify to yourself making such hateful judgements while claiming to be motivated by love.
But really, who gets to define "love"?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017