That’s nice and all, but it’s nowhere near good enough.
You have an unquestoned right to hold such views as you choose on the underlying issues. You have no more right to sit in judgment over me than I do over you – akways subject to the caveat that one’s views work no injury to another. Indeed, it appears that you have inadvertently become what you most decry in others.
Pissing off Polycarp means you could probably get rejected by your own imaginary friend.
I’'ve got to stop following this train wreck.
Did someone say differently? I certainly didn’t.
But I did want to point out that the charge that homophobia is an inherent condition of Christianity is bogus given that more than half of self identified Christians find homosexuality morally acceptable or irrelevant to morality. Official doctrine of each church varies, but it’s important to note that it isn’t remotely the single determinant for attitudes regarding sexual behavior.
So if you want to say Christians are no less intolerant than non Christians, I don’t think any rational person’s going to argue against you. But if you’re blaming the existence of bias on any particular religion, the data does not seem to support the claim.
And once again we see the double standard; an atheist argues his position on the Internet, that’s just the same as passing laws to force religion on others or attacking people or waging wars in the name of religion.
If I thought that Der Trihs would bother reading what I actually wrote, as opposed to what he wants to accuse me of having said, I’d refute the post above. The rest of you, please reference my posts #253 aqnd #262 – especially the caveat in the latter.
Then what was the point of bringing up other religions and countries at all?
Evidently your “caveat” doesn’t apply to me, since you equated me to what i “most decry in others”, in other words people causing harm in the name of religion. What harm have I done? I haven’t so much as punched someone since I was a child.
What I see here is you and other enthusiastically comparing me to the worst religion has to offer…because I say mean things about religion on a message board. And you won’t “refute” what I said because it’s true, so you retreat to accusing me of not reading what you say. And you “nobly” declare that you “have no more right to sit in judgment over me than I do over you”, then you judge me in your very next post.
Perhaps if you read past the first paragraph in the post you just quoted, you’d be able to see my answer to that question. Or you could pretend I said what I didn’t say and didn’t say what I said. Seems to be a popular argumentative mode lately.
Do you get off on feeling persecuted or something like that?
To me, that’s the key: So long as “one’s views work no injury to another.”
Once that is given, I don’t mind a bit if someone believes in…well…pretty near anything. If someone belongs to a religion that forbids the eating of pork, well, their loss. Me, I love a good dish of bacon. If they get so aggressive in their religion that they forbid others from eating pork, then we’ve got a problem.
Different religious views can (and by rights ought to) be as respected as different philosophical views. I’m a liberal, the next guy might be a conservative. These viewpoints are personal and subjective, and might easily be as irrational as any religious viewpoint.
Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to hold religious beliefs.
It also must necessarily include the freedom of others to hold other religious beliefs.
Dickhead I am not saying you can’t hold those views, if you bother to read anything you will see that people have said time and time again you are wrong but hey that’s your bag you carry it. Deal with it mate, WTF we are not comparing you to anything of the sort.
God judges your intentions and humans judge the actions that is what I have said. Humans will always make calls to protect society.
I don’t think that you will get any argument from the majority of religious people on any of your points.
Nit-picking I’ll note that Clinton, Nixon and Truman proposed health care reform packages, saw them go down in flames, and lost support accordingly. Nobody likes a loser: from the point of view of political self interest, pursing HCR is risky at best. So kudos to Obama and Pelosi and Clinton and Nixon and Truman. I agree though that this is a matter of acting when the political stars aligned. I don’t blame the Catholic Bishops for not pushing hard enough for HCR during the lull days. I blame them for opposing HCR when the chips were down-- while simultaneously not raising concerns about private insurance policies that had identical language. The Man Who Almost Killed Health Care Reform – Mother Jones What happened to the seamless garment? That said, I should concede that the Catholic nuns and hospitals didn’t make the same bizarre argument and indeed supported HCR.
Christianity played a big part in abolishing slavery during the 1800s and advancing Civil Rights in the 1900s. I’ll opine the support that Southern Baptists lent to conservative views of the time didn’t really match up.
Furthermore, at the Federal level, the direct effects of Fundamentalist Christians have been relatively small-bore. When a Republican is elected President, he withdraws funding from contraception services from Planned Parenthood International. Stem cell research was blunted and there was a media storm regarding Terri Schiavo. The extension of human rights for homosexuals is slowed down – though frankly let’s not pretend that opposition to gay marriage is solely or even mostly centered on self-identified Evangelicals. Poll data shows that. Compare all that to the Iraq War, the Savings and Loan Crisis, the Financial Crisis of 2007 caused by relaxed regulation and the hollowing out of American industry as a result of attacks on national savings (i.e. tax cuts - google twin deficits for the macroeconomic argument). I’m not belittling the importance of welcoming open homosexuals into the American Endeavor. I’m saying that opposition to that goal is driven more by polling and polling trends and that the remaining direct effects of conservative Christian pressures are marginal. Indirect effects are another matter – that’s where you can locate the litany.
Alas, it’s the tiny minority of rotters that make life difficult. There are still an awful lot of people who do not agree with the concept of the separation of church and state, and my beef (or pork) is with these guys.
(Even worse, in some cases, I don’t think they are in the minority, but in the majority. The issue of hilltop crosses, the slogan on our coinage, the late-added term in the pledge of allegiance, even the idea of forbidding gays to marry, seem to have majority support among U.S. Christians.)
I think it’s actually a matter of the vast majority just not giving a crap if there are hilltop crosses, “In God We Trust”, or “Under God”. The problem is that because the vast majority don’t give a crap about those things, when people do try to get rid of them THOSE PEOPLE look like the mean-spirited ones, if only because “It’s always been this way and who is it hurting, anyway?”
And even though I’m a thorough-going atheist myself, I’m within the boundaries of the “Who cares?” camp on a lot of these “hot-button” issues…yeah, they have symbolic significance and may, on a strict reading by the SCOTUS, be unconstitutional, but I prefer to save up my public goodwill to use on things that actually have significant effects on society and ME, like teaching Creationism or ID in schools alongside evolution or fighting the push to ban marriage equality or pushing back on the Republican War on Women, rather than things that do irritate me but don’t really harm me, like hilltop crosses, “IGWT”, “Under God” etc…
My quote was your first paragraph. Or are you referring to an earlier post?
I didn’t say you said anything, I asked you to explain why you said what you did.
How meta :rolleyes:
Now that Easter’s over I have a cross I can get you cheap, slightly used.
MrDibble, are you having real difficulty parsing my posts, or is it easier to pretend only the selected parts you decide to quote exist? If you’re just stupid, I’ll be patient, but if you’re deliberately dishonest, I’ll disengage now. Because when someone responds to “read past the first paragraph” with “My quote was your first paragraph”, it’s one or the other.
What? Climb your nearest hill and put it there! 