Oh here we go. . . So since I’m this “angry” person you don’t have to argue logicaly with me, right? You have found a pigeonhole for me that saves you the trouble, yes? Why not just call me a “nigger” or a “fag” or something similar? It amounts to the same thing – placing someone with whom you disagree into a nice little category of person with whom ALL right thinking people do not wish to be associated.
Ho hum.
Well, you are a coward. (See, I can do it too!)
“This day is called the Feast of Crispian,” --Henry V
You have yet to post something that isn’t confrontational, abusive, or a straw man, in this and in other threads you’ve visited. Want to be taken seriously? Try discussing it, rather than prosecuting it.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
Let me guess. You can’t stand any criticism against any Christian because you consider any such criticism to be criticism of you. Get a clue. Saying that some Christians ignore their Scriptures is not the same as saying that all Christians do so.
Just who is “we”? This is the first time such sentiments have been expressed in this thread. Is it possible that you are [gasp] attacking a straw man?
[/quote]
Why are athiests so dogmatic and intolerant? Why do you lose your freaking minds whenever you hear the word “God”? Why do you at once resort to flinging bigoted, hateful epithets like “bigot” and “hatemonger”?
[/quote]
What does God have to do with it? puffington is complaining about bigots that happen to believe in God, not everyone that believes in God. Why did you lose your sanity (assuming you ever had it) as soon as you saw criticism against specific Christians (not Christianity in general)? Are you so enamored of your religion that you must defend everything that its members do?
First of all, while there are Christians that just want the opportunity to pray, there are plenty that want mandatory school prayer. Second of all, if you had actually paid attention to weirddave’s statement, you would have noticed that he said “mandatory time in school for no prayer”, not “mandatory no prayer”. Mandatory time for prayer is exactly what you are saying that Christians want, so you have no basis for criticism (as if you need one).
Again, just who is “we”?
[sarcasm]Oh, wellll then. If Norman Mailer said it, it must be true.[/sarcasm]
Obviously you didn’t realize that Ben was using sarcasm to point out that while you are claiming to be “just chating [sic]”, you are also attacking other posters in a very rude, and decidedly non-chatting manner. Normally, when people are be “just chating [sic]”, they don’t refer to each other as “damn hippie” and imply that other posters are unemployed. I guess such indirect methods as the one Ben employed are simply to complex for your mind to grasp.
Oh, and since you seem to be soooo interested in misspellings, here are a few corrections:
“chating” should “chatting” (or “cheating”; I’m not quite sure)
“athiests” should be “atheists”
“agrument” should be “argument”
oh, and “fact” in your 02-13-2000 04:24 PM post should be “opinion”
tracer posted:
How so? The link you gave concludes with the statement
Back to the OP:
I really don’t understand how the religion of the Founding Fathers is at all relevant. Here’s an analogy. I’m an atheist. Suppose a social group invites me to join them. I notice that everyone in the group is Christian, and I mention to them that this makes me apprehensive. They assure me that they don’t have any problem with atheism. So I join, pay a bunch of membership dues, etc. Then I notice that I’m not invited to any of their get-togethers, and every time I try to go one of their parties I’m asked to leave. I complain about this treatment, and they say “This is a Christian group. It was founded on Christian ideas, and we don’t appreciate your bringing your atheists ideas into our lives.”
I think that all reasonable people would agree that these people are assholes; promising to be tolerant, taking someone’s money, and then not being tolerant is impolite to say the least. So what right does this country have to promise to be tolerant, take my money, and then turn around and say “Oh, well, this country was founded on Christian principles”. Is lying a Christian principle? Is theft? The Constitution clearly states that no preference to any religion will be given. To go back on that is dishonest.
hansel: D’OH! You simulposted with me and beat me to the punch. I have GOT to get DSL.
The Ryan: Ah. Some of the wording in that article I posted a link to was a bit ambiguous. I didn’t realize the Senate and President had in fact ratified Article XI. Of course, the paragraph before the one you quoted mentions that a new Treaty of Tripoli was signed in 1806 which did not contain the quotation. The article I posted a link to was in fact directed against the notion that George Washington said the U.S. wasn’t founded on Xtian principles; I guess if you weren’t paying attention, it’d pretty easy to confuse the words of an early U.S. treaty with the words of an early U.S. statesman.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
So. I’m “angry” and I’m a “troll”? Well, thank you very much. . .
And Ryan, tell me again what it is people normally do when they “are be ‘chating’”(sic)? Is that ebonics?
And I only joined the forum today which means exactly what? That I am intruding on a private club where you have to pay your dues before you can be taken seriously? Bite me internet geeks! It isn’t the size of your post count that matters, it’s how you use it.
I am no more “angry” than any of you. I am no more abusive than any of you. The problem some of you have is that I disagree with you, and so my “anger” is unacceptable while yours is zeal or social consciousness.
As for the “get a job hippie” remark, this was what is known as a “joke”. A self-deprecating joke at that – for it indicated that I was well aware that I would be slurred as a right-wing bigot, and so wanted to give the dumber readers of my post an easy target for their sarcasm. Obviously it worked.
Wow! You guys REALLY don’t like hearing the word “God” do you? And you aren’t fond of being called bigots either, are you? That is YOUR word, right?
You know, I have always felt that “The Straight Dope” while entertaining, takes itself a bit too seriously. Whoever it is who writes the column seems to fluctuate between the premise that this is all good clean fun and at the end of the day just a newspaper column, and the premise that it is Holy Writ and only “trolls” dare question it.
The regular attendees here on TSD message board seem to have the same attitude. We are all just bored people hoping to kill a little time by chating/arguing on an electronic bulliten board. What is said here is of no lasting consequence whatsoever.
So I injected a little spirt into the discussion and now some of you squeal like stuck pigs about how rude I am?
You now what your mistake is, Lionel? You’re not credible.
The debates here get very involved without the help of "agent provocateur"s. People get bothered, people get intense, people get hurt, all while sincerely arguing a position and trying to come to a more reasoned grasp of their ideas.
It took, what, less than 14 posts for the regulars here to label you a troll? If you wanted to liven up the debate, you should’ve been able to last much longer. You wanted a response. You got it.
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.
The very first thing you do when you enter this thread, rather than argue the point someone tries to make, but attack someone on something inconsequential. And when someone calls you up on it you wrap yourself up in the flag of your own self rightousness and martyrdom.
Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start.
I’m going to assume that you actually read the rest of puffington’s post which is about how some people want to create a false theocracy so they can discriminate against whomever they wish. However you don’t make any statement about that.
No, you want to call him a homophobe. That is not a good way to start debates, make friends, or even a good impression. Even when someone gives a reason as to why the disclamer was included:
Rather than let go of the attack, you continue with it and make a specious ‘straw-man’ argument. Since when do gay-rights activists want you “agree with everything he says…and give him everything he wants at taxpayer expense”?
Just to clarify, you were the one who elavated this red herring, not puffington. Exactly what whould this discussion gain by blowing the point out of all proportion?
Is up down in your bizarro world? I just wish I remembered that Kurt Vonnegurt passage, that would be so perfect for this situation. Ah well, I do remember another quote, ironically the christians coined it. I’m sure you’re familiar with it.
“Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
Is this how you are taught to debate? Apparantly so.
And sadly, you’re squandering your posts. Rather than to use it to discuss the issue critically, you felt it be best to use your posts to insult everybody under the sun.
No, actually you never mentioned that you disagreed. All you did is say “Lookie, puffington is a homophobe. Lookie at the hypocrite.” If you disagree, and think that the United States is a Christian theocracy, why didn’t you say so? If all you had done was tell us that and why, this debate would have been much more beneficial.
Great, just what we need another easy target.
So, when you’re bored, you log-on to the internet and call strangers, bigoted. And you wonder why some people don’t think you’re nice. Wow, this is rich.
Does anyone remember a 1970’s cartoon called “here comes the grump”?
when I see a troll’s post (yes Lionel, I said Troll, because thats how you are acting, its not that I have any incessant need to pigeon-hole anybody) I hereby swear to sing that theme tune before responding.
J
Krusty Opinionated told me to use American Swear words. so I will.
Dear, dear, dear, I did get under your skin didn’t I?
I enter this topic and find the FIRST entry, the keynote, is a bigoted rant by some fool who thinks that a single passage in some obscure treaty is enough to nullify the fact that the USA is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. His language is blunt, coarse, and silly. He is apparently unaware that atheism is one of those quaint nineteenth-century ideas that seemed to make sense at the time but didn’t pan out – like marxism. He calls faith “your damn religion” and ends his epistle with an obscene and bogus quote the purpose of which is to slurr his imagined enemies with guilt by association. And I am in the wrong when I call a fool a fool? This is what you are saying?
As for calling him a “homophobe” – never! That isn’t my word. I don’t use it.
But I’ll tell ya, when I found that absolutely GORGEOUS plum right in the middle of his rant – “lest you get any ideas” – well gosh a mighty, spank my ass and call me a bitch! It had to be commented on. I just had to point it out to Mr.Sensitive heterosexual liberal. Oh he is such a caring soul! He hates those horrid hatemongers with hot and heavy hatred he does! Just don’t get any ideas. . . He’s straight as apple pie himself. Let’s not have any misunderstandings here.
Too too lovely. I laugh. I laugh long and loud.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
A big loud Christian conservative belly laugh. Feels so good. . .
“This day is called the Feast of Crispian,” --Henry V
Well, George Washington wasn’t mentioned in this thread. puffington’s point was that the US Sentate, a body endowed with the authority to make declarations regarding the nature of our Union, declared said Union to not have been founded on Christianity, and said declaration occured so soon after the founding of our Union that it is reasonable to consider it an accurate reflection of our Founding Fathers’ attitudes.
Do you truly believe that? Or are you trolling for a response?
Like it or not, pally, there are a heckuva lot of people who don’t believe in God. And almost all of them weren’t alive in the 19th century. What’s your point?
I think it was pretty well established that puffington was merely establishing that he was not a homosexual to preclude any hardcore thumpers from deriding his “obvious gay agenda.” Reasonable, AFAIC. This wasn’t supposed to be a gay v. straight issue. (For that matter, what’s your beef with homosexuals, hmmm?)
-andros- But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
-Henry V