And that defeats the argument that it is irrational... how, exactly?Axis Kast wrote:The benefits are irrespective of the source, fucktard. Plenty of people live in a manner rewarding to both themselves and the people around them while still claiming a fervent belief in that which is written in the Bible.Religion is intrinsically irrational, fucktard.
"Misunderestimated" Bush?
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
- Patrick Degan
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 14847
- Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
- Location: Orleanian in exile
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
My point is not to prove that it's rational, nitwit, but that it's not necessarily a negative.And that defeats the argument that it is irrational... how, exactly?
Wong continues to cry about how the stupid fundies rolled out to vote for no other reason than "Jesus said so!" He's presuming that the vast majority don't, in fact, actually have an idealized goal with practical ends in mind.
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Provided the people around them are not offending them by being gay, atheist, etc.Axis Kast wrote:The benefits are irrespective of the source, fucktard. Plenty of people live in a manner rewarding to both themselves and the people around them while still claiming a fervent belief in that which is written in the Bible.Religion is intrinsically irrational, fucktard.
Of course it's bigoted, dumb-shit. It doesn't change the fact that their motives are based on objective reality, while those of the Sky Pixie Followers are not. Not to mention the fact that people who express these opinions are an insignificant minority, so you are just wasting your breath trying to pretend that they are even REMOTELY comparable to the hordes of fundies in the United States.Because their calculations are not based on fact, idiot. When some Jewish voter tells me I have an obligation to vote Democrat regardless of the candidate or his stated policies, but just because some Democrats at some time were strong supporters of Israel, it’s an absolutely bankrupt argument. When some feminists argue that the Surgeon General must necessarily be a woman in order to facilitate their desires, that’s equally as bigoted as when some opponent of abortion opposes the practice because it is antithetical to the teachings of the Catholic Church.How is a union rep or feminist as "blind" as a religious fanatic? They're looking out for their material self-interest, moron. Not following the imagined wishes of a sky pixie.
No, they're ADDING an extra stake based on imaginary bullshit. I'm sick of the way you distort everything you read.So religious voters don’t really have a stake in the way the world works?Religious voters work on self-interest which is NON-material and which does NOT exist. If you're too fucking stupid to see the difference, that's not my problem.
No, I'm making the reasonable assertion (which you cannot refute) that their vision is based on irrational bullshit.You’re making the idiotic assertion that religious voters are some incomprehensible “other” who don’t seem to have their own set of reasons for seeking to install leadership that caters to a vision of the world they’ve consciously chosen to support, emulate, and reproduce. They may choose more conservative government because they think that is closest to what is in God’s Book – but that doesn’t mean they haven’t also – and earlier – made the decision that God’s Book sets out the life they want to lead in the first place.
Wrong. When brain death has been declared, the person is legally dead. The only time anyone is kept on life support after declaration of brain death is when the family goes berserk and harasses the hospital administration.The brain-dead can be kept on life support; there are huge legal complications in deciding to break off life support.That's for coma, not brain-death, you ignorant dipshit. Brain-death is the immediate precursor to legal declaration of complete death.
No we're not. You're trying to change the subject. I said that Bush pandered to a lot of ignorant religious fanatics, and you denied that religious fanaticism was a bad thing to pander to. Too bad you can't handle examples of your hypocrisy being pointed out to you, fucktard. Or would you say that Sharia law can be used for "positive good"?Red herring. We’re arguing whether people can extract positive good from religion and then vote based on their desires to produce that kind of society, not whether religion has been abused in the past.Oh right, so the Islamic religion makes Middle Eastern societies work better?
Yes. Too bad for your bullshit sophistic handwaving that it is not the only reason for a prohibition on murder, so your rebuttal is just as worthless as any other nonsensical thing you have ever posted on this board.So if the Bible were the only source of the argument: “Thou shalt not kill,” then it would be a bad policy to try and make the government implement? Interesting …Learn to read, dipshit. If it can ONLY be found in the Bible, with no other justification, then it cannot be enforced on anyone who doesn't believe in it. What part of this are you too goddamned stupid to understand?
Ah, so it's a solid rule and you simply dismiss a gigantic contradictory evidence spanning a significant fraction of the world's population as an "exception", eh?Only you would point to a broad generalization and claim that I was lying by not mentioning the exceptions everybody already knows about.But hey. We shouldn't expect any better than flat out lies anymore.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
te] Provided the people around them are not offending them by being gay, atheist, etc. [/quote]
Red herring. You’re telling me you’ve never met one person with deeply-seated religious values who accepts that others don’t share his or her lifestyle? That’s odd, considering there appear to be several here on this forum …
Second, labor is a huge voting bloc in the U.S. I’d say their goals are exclusionary and negative – and furthermore, a lot easier to control than the fundies, who will get their way by sheer nature of the current social fads in this country anyway.
When you commit an abortion, you are killing a being in the process of growth. And no, that’s not an argument against contraception, since we’ve already passed the stage of coincidental inception.
My pointing out that religion accommodates itself to the world around it is not evidence of advocacy for Sharia, either, moron. It’s evidence of support for the notion that people can draw positive lessons from the Bible irrespective of past distortion.
If the Bible was the only place that was printed, would it be therefore a bad or indefensible idea? You’re arguing that the Bible carries no positive lessons in and of itself. But that’s patently untrue. There is plenty that people can draw from the Bible and reconcile completely with your worldview.
Red herring. You’re telling me you’ve never met one person with deeply-seated religious values who accepts that others don’t share his or her lifestyle? That’s odd, considering there appear to be several here on this forum …
People who want to live in a more conservative society with greater emphasis on Biblical ideals and who then vote for politicians who claim to be able to help them do so don’t live in objective reality? I’d sure as hell say it turned out all right for them, in the end. Of course, if you’d rather live in denial, be my guest.Of course it's bigoted, dumb-shit. It doesn't change the fact that their motives are based on objective reality, while those of the Sky Pixie Followers are not. Not to mention the fact that people who express these opinions are an insignificant minority, so you are just wasting your breath trying to pretend that they are even REMOTELY comparable to the hordes of fundies in the United States.
Second, labor is a huge voting bloc in the U.S. I’d say their goals are exclusionary and negative – and furthermore, a lot easier to control than the fundies, who will get their way by sheer nature of the current social fads in this country anyway.
And I’m sick of the way you distort religious voters to suggest that their attempts to elect politicians who will enact laws or promote mores similar to those found in the Bible is a pie-in-the-sky idea, or that they are always a negative quantity.No, they're ADDING an extra stake based on imaginary bullshit. I'm sick of the way you distort everything you read.
Love is irrational, Wong. Faith is irrational. The irrational can be good. I’m not denying the first part of your argument; I’m denying the second.No, I'm making the reasonable assertion (which you cannot refute) that their vision is based on irrational bullshit.
… and thus proves their point that the individual in question is alive, not dead. Concession accepted, dumbshit.Wrong. When brain death has been declared, the person is legally dead. The only time anyone is kept on life support after declaration of brain death is when the family goes berserk and harasses the hospital administration.
When you commit an abortion, you are killing a being in the process of growth. And no, that’s not an argument against contraception, since we’ve already passed the stage of coincidental inception.
No; I said that just because people are religious doesn’t make them bad or stupid or even bigoted, which is the caveat you just love to add any time you broach the subject.No we're not. You're trying to change the subject. I said that Bush pandered to a lot of ignorant religious fanatics, and you denied that religious fanaticism was a bad thing to pander to. Too bad you can't handle examples of your hypocrisy being pointed out to you, fucktard. Or would you say that Sharia law can be used for "positive good"?
My pointing out that religion accommodates itself to the world around it is not evidence of advocacy for Sharia, either, moron. It’s evidence of support for the notion that people can draw positive lessons from the Bible irrespective of past distortion.
We already know that, dipshit. So answer the question at hand, or give up.Yes. Too bad for your bullshit sophistic handwaving that it is not the only reason for a prohibition on murder, so your rebuttal is just as worthless as any other nonsensical thing you have ever posted on this board.
If the Bible was the only place that was printed, would it be therefore a bad or indefensible idea? You’re arguing that the Bible carries no positive lessons in and of itself. But that’s patently untrue. There is plenty that people can draw from the Bible and reconcile completely with your worldview.
The point is, Wong, that the baby would come to term if not for the intervention of circumstances largely beyond the parents’ control, or conscious abuse.Ah, so it's a solid rule and you simply dismiss a gigantic contradictory evidence spanning a significant fraction of the world's population as an "exception", eh?
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Yes, and when given a chance, they vote to discriminate against these people, you deceitful little shitstain.Axis Kast wrote:Red herring. You’re telling me you’ve never met one person with deeply-seated religious values who accepts that others don’t share his or her lifestyle? That’s odd, considering there appear to be several here on this forum …Provided the people around them are not offending them by being gay, atheist, etc.
They do, but they don't realize it. They think this world is less real than the imaginary one they're about to enter. Kind of like the way Islamic fanatics look forward to the 72 virgins.People who want to live in a more conservative society with greater emphasis on Biblical ideals and who then vote for politicians who claim to be able to help them do so don’t live in objective reality?
How does this support your claim that rabid anti-abortion and homophobic religious beliefs are OK?Love is irrational, Wong. Faith is irrational. The irrational can be good. I’m not denying the first part of your argument; I’m denying the second.
You're an idiot. It proves that the hospital administration is sometimes afraid of foaming-at-the-mouth family members. But the person is legally dead.… and thus proves their point that the individual in question is alive, not dead. Concession accepted, dumbshit.Wrong. When brain death has been declared, the person is legally dead. The only time anyone is kept on life support after declaration of brain death is when the family goes berserk and harasses the hospital administration.
Already addressed. Try again.When you commit an abortion, you are killing a being in the process of growth. And no, that’s not an argument against contraception, since we’ve already passed the stage of coincidental inception.
The fact that people are religious makes them irrational. If they're doing something which is objectively bad but good based on their religion, it's still bad.No; I said that just because people are religious doesn’t make them bad or stupid or even bigoted, which is the caveat you just love to add any time you broach the subject.
Replace "Bible" with "Sharia Law" in that sentence and it's pretty much the same. Not my fault you're a flaming hypocriteMy pointing out that religion accommodates itself to the world around it is not evidence of advocacy for Sharia, either, moron. It’s evidence of support for the notion that people can draw positive lessons from the Bible irrespective of past distortion.
Yes. Deal with it.If the Bible was the only place that was printed, would it be therefore a bad or indefensible idea?
So what? Why does this mean it has rights now?The point is, Wong, that the baby would come to term if not for the intervention of circumstances largely beyond the parents’ control, or conscious abuse.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
You are over-generalizing; there are plenty of people who can reconcile personal religion and liberal values. Strong religious belief is not inherently a cause for bigotry.Yes, and when given a chance, they vote to discriminate against these people, you deceitful little shitstain.
And you’re going to help them realize it? “Lo, I have seen what you have not! You’re all very silly, because you vote for a future that won’t exist by electing a candidate who promises to put into effect many of the laws you’d like to see!”They do, but they don't realize it. They think this world is less real than the imaginary one they're about to enter. Kind of like the way Islamic fanatics look forward to the 72 virgins.
Woah. I didn’t say anything of the sort, you lying little snot. My arguments are quite clear:How does this support your claim that rabid anti-abortion and homophobic religious beliefs are OK?
1. Religion can be a positive good, and does not necessarily produce bigots who wish to impose their views on others.
2. Religion can provide positive values that have a practical application in the wider world, among all people.
3. Those who voted a “social values” ticket for Bush may not have been motivated by Biblical teachings at all.
If they’re legally dead, why the fuck is it a matter of legal dispute, jackass?You're an idiot. It proves that the hospital administration is sometimes afraid of foaming-at-the-mouth family members. But the person is legally dead.
Back-peddaling. I thought every byproduct of something irrational was negative. It’s certainly what you’ve been insisting until just now. I take it this is your concession, then?The fact that people are religious makes them irrational. If they're doing something which is objectively bad but good based on their religion, it's still bad.
I am unfamiliar with the aspects of Sharia Law. But then, that doesn’t at all invalidate my point that the Bible’s command, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” has value beyond a religious context, and that it’s probable that most people who are religious see that the command promotes a healthy society, rather than that it’s good simply because God said so.Replace "Bible" with "Sharia Law" in that sentence and it's pretty much the same. Not my fault you're a flaming hypocrite.
So then answer the question, dipshit: if the Bible was the only place somebody had written: “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” you would advocate murder?Yes. Deal with it.
Because it’s a future member of society in the active, ongoing process of birth.So what? Why does this mean it has rights now?
- The Original Nex
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: 2004-10-18 03:01pm
- Location: Boston, MA
Question: Is there any rational reason to ban gay marriage that does not come back to religion?
Question: If abortion is declared illegal, what is to be done to women who are raped are get pregnant. mothers who could not care for the child effectively, mothers who may die during the pregnancy/birth due to complications? I don't advocate the overuse of abortion (like teens using it to get out of a pregnancy), but it is necesary in some situations, abortion needs to only be a legal option in certain aforementioned situations.
Question: If abortion is declared illegal, what is to be done to women who are raped are get pregnant. mothers who could not care for the child effectively, mothers who may die during the pregnancy/birth due to complications? I don't advocate the overuse of abortion (like teens using it to get out of a pregnancy), but it is necesary in some situations, abortion needs to only be a legal option in certain aforementioned situations.
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
Rational? I don't think so.Question: Is there any rational reason to ban gay marriage that does not come back to religion?
Secular? Absolutely.
Consider that many people dislike the idea of gay marriage because it would allow homosexuals visible participation in society. Many irrational people are terrified of the prospect that somebody close to them could be a homosexual. In their opinion, banning gay marriage is one way of discouraging people from announcing their homosexuality and thus "complicating" things. Personally, I think that's spurious reasoning all around - but it's certainly not Biblical reasoning.
Is this directed at me? I support abortion rights.Question: If abortion is declared illegal, what is to be done to women who are raped are get pregnant. mothers who could not care for the child effectively, mothers who may die during the pregnancy/birth due to complications? I don't advocate the overuse of abortion (like teens using it to get out of a pregnancy), but it is necesary in some situations, abortion needs to only be a legal option in certain aforementioned situations.
- Illuminatus Primus
- All Seeing Eye
- Posts: 15774
- Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
- Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
- Contact:
Re: "Misunderestimated" Bush?
Maybe the wailing is an unfortunate realization that the electorate is largely completely ignorant idiots, many of which are mindless Christian fundamentalists.Augustus wrote:Isnt the wailing about 'fundies', 'red necks' and 'thuggery' really just an inability to come to terms with the social and political realities?
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
- Patrick Degan
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 14847
- Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
- Location: Orleanian in exile
Irrationalism is not necessarily negative, eh? This should be amusing.Axis Kast wrote:My point is not to prove that it's rational, nitwit, but that it's not necessarily a negative.And that defeats the argument that it is irrational... how, exactly?
Perhaps that's because just about every Bush voter who's explained in public his or her choice for the fiscally-irresponsible warmonger was predicated upon his moral values first if not solely in all considerations. Which means: denying gays equal protection under the law, the increased blurring of the line between church and state ("Faith-based Initiatives") and curtailing abortion in accordance to fundamentalist ideology. Two of these advance no practical end and the other strikes at a core constitutional concept.Wong continues to cry about how the stupid fundies rolled out to vote for no other reason than "Jesus said so!" He's presuming that the vast majority don't, in fact, actually have an idealized goal with practical ends in mind.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
- Patrick Degan
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 14847
- Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
- Location: Orleanian in exile
I smell an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy here. Tell ya what, let's play a little word-substitution game here, just for a minute:Axis Kast wrote:Rational? I don't think so.Question: Is there any rational reason to ban gay marriage that does not come back to religion?
Secular? Absolutely.
Consider that many people dislike the idea of gay marriage because it would allow homosexuals visible participation in society.
Consider that many people dislike the idea of interracial marriage because it would allow blacks visible participation in society. Many irrational people are terrified of the prospect that somebody close to them could be a black person. In their opinion, banning interracial marriage is one way of discouraging people from announcing their racial views and thus "complicating" things. Personally, I think that's spurious reasoning all around - but it's certainly not Biblical reasoning.
Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how you wish to slice it.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
Love is irrational. Faith is irrational. Neither are essentially negative ideas.Irrationalism is not necessarily negative, eh? This should be amusing.
No; twenty-five percent of all voters admitted that they chose which candidate to vote for based on what they identified as a comparison of "values."Perhaps that's because just about every Bush voter who's explained in public his or her choice for the fiscally-irresponsible warmonger was predicated upon his moral values first if not solely in all considerations.
Faith-based initiatives are eminently defensible from a practical standpoint, even accepting that there are constitutional questions involved. Remember that if the point of social assistance programs is to help the needy, co-opting places where people feel comfortable going for help in the first place is a sound strategy. As for abortion and gay rights, I've already pointed out that people can oppose them on secular grounds without invoking religion.Which means: denying gays equal protection under the law, the increased blurring of the line between church and state ("Faith-based Initiatives") and curtailing abortion in accordance to fundamentalist ideology. Two of these advance no practical end and the other strikes at a core constitutional concept.
What is your point? That it's stupid? Of course it's stupid. That's it's bigoted? Well, yes, it's certainly bigoted. But there's something it isn't: religious.I smell an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy here. Tell ya what, let's play a little word-substitution game here, just for a minute:
Consider that many people dislike the idea of interracial marriage because it would allow blacks visible participation in society. Many irrational people are terrified of the prospect that somebody close to them could be a black person. In their opinion, banning interracial marriage is one way of discouraging people from announcing their racial views and thus "complicating" things. Personally, I think that's spurious reasoning all around - but it's certainly not Biblical reasoning.
Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how you wish to slice it.
- Patrick Degan
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 14847
- Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
- Location: Orleanian in exile
Love and faith occupy a spectrum between rational and irrational; something you'd realise if you didn't have your head so far up your ass. Neither are comparable to belief in something patently unreal.Axis Kast wrote:Love is irrational. Faith is irrational. Neither are essentially negative ideas.Irrationalism is not necessarily negative, eh? This should be amusing.
Moving the Goalposts does not serve your argument. These are CNN's breakdown of statistics on the electorate in 2004. Note where it states the numbers on vote by religious affiliation and church attendance —with 80% citing moral values as their most imporant reason for voting the fiscally-irresponsible warmonger back into office.No; twenty-five percent of all voters admitted that they chose which candidate to vote for based on what they identified as a comparison of "values."Perhaps that's because just about every Bush voter who's explained in public his or her choice for the fiscally-irresponsible warmonger was predicated upon his moral values first if not solely in all considerations.
When it involves diverting money from existing governmental programmes in favour of faith-based programmes, it's starving agencies which offer access without regard to religious belief and reducing their effectiveness, which negates a practical end. Blurring church/state seperation endangers a fundamental principle upon which American democracy is based, which serves no practical end whatsoever and is corrosive to the aforementioned principle.Faith-based initiatives are eminently defensible from a practical standpoint, even accepting that there are constitutional questions involved. Remember that if the point of social assistance programs is to help the needy, co-opting places where people feel comfortable going for help in the first place is a sound strategy.Which means: denying gays equal protection under the law, the increased blurring of the line between church and state ("Faith-based Initiatives") and curtailing abortion in accordance to fundamentalist ideology. Two of these advance no practical end and the other strikes at a core constitutional concept.
Yes, by Appealing to Popularity as justification for prejudice.As for abortion and gay rights, I've already pointed out that people can oppose them on secular grounds without invoking religion.
Except the primary reason, if not the sole reason, for the overwhelming support for Bush's anti-gay marriage agenda is based exactly upon Biblical reasoning that homosexuality is "an abomination", therefore immoral. Secular reasons don't appeal to the authority of the Bible as a basis. Homosexuality isn't a threat to people who haven't had it drummed into their heads that it's evil.What is your point? That it's stupid? Of course it's stupid. That's it's bigoted? Well, yes, it's certainly bigoted. But there's something it isn't: religious.I smell an Appeal to Popularity Fallacy here. Tell ya what, let's play a little word-substitution game here, just for a minute:
Consider that many people dislike the idea of interracial marriage because it would allow blacks visible participation in society. Many irrational people are terrified of the prospect that somebody close to them could be a black person. In their opinion, banning interracial marriage is one way of discouraging people from announcing their racial views and thus "complicating" things. Personally, I think that's spurious reasoning all around - but it's certainly not Biblical reasoning.
Prejudice is prejudice, no matter how you wish to slice it.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
“A spectrum between rational and irrational?” So you’re admitting: love and faith can be irrational. But that doesn’t make them bad.Love and faith occupy a spectrum between rational and irrational; something you'd realise if you didn't have your head so far up your ass. Neither are comparable to belief in something patently unreal.
You fucking liar. Twenty-two percent of voters stated that the biggest issue of the election for them was moral values. And of those, approximately eight in ten voted for Bush. You’re so full of shit it’s funny.Moving the Goalposts does not serve your argument. These are CNN's breakdown of statistics on the electorate in 2004. Note where it states the numbers on vote by religious affiliation and church attendance —with 80% citing moral values as their most imporant reason for voting the fiscally-irresponsible warmonger back into office.
If they receive federal funds, they’re not permitted to discriminate in terms of recipients, dumbshit.When it involves diverting money from existing governmental programmes in favour of faith-based programmes, it's starving agencies which offer access without regard to religious belief and reducing their effectiveness, which negates a practical end. Blurring church/state seperation endangers a fundamental principle upon which American democracy is based, which serves no practical end whatsoever and is corrosive to the aforementioned principle.
Furthermore, even if they are wrong, it doesn’t mean that the reason they support it is because they themselves are religious.
You dishonest prick; I never for a moment suggested that prejudice was morally justifiable – only that it was explicable in terms beyond religion. You can go shove your strawmen up your ass.Yes, by Appealing to Popularity as justification for prejudice.
Prove it.Except the primary reason, if not the sole reason, for the overwhelming support for Bush's anti-gay marriage agenda is based exactly upon Biblical reasoning that homosexuality is "an abomination", therefore immoral.
Bullshit. Plenty of Americans are terrified of homosexuals because they’re uncomfortable with the possibility that they could become the object of homosexual desire, or they’re unwilling to so much as broach the possibility that they might have to deal with the stigma of a friend or loved one who is gay. It’s certainly wrong, and it’s clearly not right – but it isn’t bigotry based on religion, either.Secular reasons don't appeal to the authority of the Bible as a basis. Homosexuality isn't a threat to people who haven't had it drummed into their heads that it's evil.
- The Original Nex
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: 2004-10-18 03:01pm
- Location: Boston, MA
- Patrick Degan
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 14847
- Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
- Location: Orleanian in exile
I see I have to connect the fucking dots for you as always. Love is expressed toward a person or a favoured pet and therefore is an investment in something tangible. Faith is more nebulous and approaches increasing irrationality when invested in something unreal. The concept also has different connotations than religious belief.Axis Kast wrote:“A spectrum between rational and irrational?” So you’re admitting: love and faith can be irrational. But that doesn’t make them bad.Love and faith occupy a spectrum between rational and irrational; something you'd realise if you didn't have your head so far up your ass. Neither are comparable to belief in something patently unreal.
That's you, actually, but do rave on.You fucking liar.Moving the Goalposts does not serve your argument. These are CNN's breakdown of statistics on the electorate in 2004. Note where it states the numbers on vote by religious affiliation and church attendance —with 80% citing moral values as their most imporant reason for voting the fiscally-irresponsible warmonger back into office.
Twenty two percent of all voters, shitwit. Eighty percent of Bush voters —as per the data. Thank you for demonstrating again your idiocy and your stunning capacity to deny facts inconvenient to your threadbare arguments.Twenty-two percent of voters stated that the biggest issue of the election for them was moral values. And of those, approximately eight in ten voted for Bush. You’re so full of shit it’s funny.
There have already been documented cases of faith-based charities receiving federal funds requiring those who work for those operations to subscribe to the beliefs of the particular church, and you are evading the central point: the shifting of funds from non-sectarian operations to those with a religious basis which itself violates church/state seperation principles in law.If they receive federal funds, they’re not permitted to discriminate in terms of recipients, dumbshit.When it involves diverting money from existing governmental programmes in favour of faith-based programmes, it's starving agencies which offer access without regard to religious belief and reducing their effectiveness, which negates a practical end. Blurring church/state seperation endangers a fundamental principle upon which American democracy is based, which serves no practical end whatsoever and is corrosive to the aforementioned principle.
A non-answer which we'll list in the category of the many items you've simply pulled out of your ass in your time here at SDnet. It also ignores the specific reason why faith-based initiatives were crafted by the Bush White House: to blatantly cater to religious interests regardless of the possible damage to constitutional principles.Furthermore, even if they are wrong, it doesn’t mean that the reason they support it is because they themselves are religious.
I believe that's you again, but do rant on:You dishonest prick;Yes, by Appealing to Popularity as justification for prejudice.
And you can shove your evasions up your lying ass, moron —prejudice against homosexuality is a phenomenon of the Big Three monotheistic religions and the cultures formed by them.I never for a moment suggested that prejudice was morally justifiable – only that it was explicable in terms beyond religion. You can go shove your strawmen up your ass.
Ahem:Prove it.Except the primary reason, if not the sole reason, for the overwhelming support for Bush's anti-gay marriage agenda is based exactly upon Biblical reasoning that homosexuality is "an abomination", therefore immoral.
MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY: (Bush voters) —91% Religious Faith
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE: (Bush voters) —80% Moral Values
POLICY TOWARD SAME-SEX COUPLES: (Bush voters) —70% No Legal Recognition
I'm sorry you are too stupid to read what a data chart actually says. As well as what the Bible says about homosexuality:
Kindly demonstrate how biblical fundamentalists are not basing their views on homosexuality on what their sacred text is saying.KJV Revised Bible wrote:Lev.18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Lev.20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Rom.1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom.1:31-32 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
"Plenty of Americans" (nicely nebulous, BTW) who happen to have been told at one point in their lives or another, if not constantly, that homosexuality is evil and an abomination against God. A culture used to the existence of homosexuality as normal does not raise individuals who freak out at chimerical possibilities of being the object of desire. To wit:Bullshit. Plenty of Americans are terrified of homosexuals because they’re uncomfortable with the possibility that they could become the object of homosexual desire, or they’re unwilling to so much as broach the possibility that they might have to deal with the stigma of a friend or loved one who is gay. It’s certainly wrong, and it’s clearly not right – but it isn’t bigotry based on religion, either.Secular reasons don't appeal to the authority of the Bible as a basis. Homosexuality isn't a threat to people who haven't had it drummed into their heads that it's evil.
The "stigma" of friends of loved ones who are gay is also a product —directly or indirectly— of religiously-based prejudice and is again foreign to any culture in which homosexuality has existed compatibly alongside heterosexuaity.Wikipedia wrote:excerpt:
Modern Western homosexual identity as it is currently understood is largely a products of 19th century psychology as well as the years of post-Stonewall gay liberation. It may not be strictly correct to speak of "homosexuality" or "gayness" in terms of the identities of people in the past.
The earliest western documents concerning homosexual relationships come from Ancient Greece, where same-sex relationships were a societal norm, valued for their pedagogic benefits and as a means of population control. As Kenneth J. Dover points out, such relationships did not replace marriage between man and woman but occurred before and beside it. These relationships were typically pederastic, and it would be less common for a man to have a mature male mate (though some did): typically, a man would be the erastes (lover) to an adolescent eromenos (loved one). In this relationship, claims Dover, it was considered "improper" for the eromenos to feel desire, as that would not be masculine. Driven by desire and admiration, the erastes would devote himself unselfishly to providing all the education his eromenos required to thrive in society. In recent times, the research by Dover has been questioned in light of massive evidence of love poetry and paintings on ceramic vases, which suggest a more emotional connection than earlier researchers have liked to acknowledge.
Continuing the ancient tradition of male love in which Ganymede, cup-boy to the gods, symbolized the ideal boyfriend, Moslem writers in medieval Arab lands and in Persian wrote odes to the beautiful Christian wine boys who served them in the taverns and shared their beds at night. Among the Moslems the practice of pederasty was widespread, if not universal (as documented by Richard Burton, André Gide and many others), and has survived into modern times. It continues to surface despite efforts to keep it quiet, as it did after the American invasion of Afghanistan, when the same-sex love customs of Kandahar, in which adult men take on adolescent lovers, became widely known.
Cities in northern Italy, Florence and Venice in particular, were renowned for the widespread practice of same-sex love, engaged in by a majority of the male population and constructed along the classical pattern, as documented in recent studies by Michael Rocke and Guido Ruggiero.
In Asia same-sex love has been a central feature of everyday life, in China since at least 600 BCE, and in Japan for over one thousand years. Such relationships were typically pederastic and marked by differences in age and social position. However, the instances of same-sex affection and sexual interactions described in the Hong Lou Meng (Dream of the Red Chamber, or Story of the Stone) seem as familiar to observers in the present as do equivalent stories of romances between heterosexuals during the same period. For more information see Homosexuality in China and Homosexuality in Japan.
In many societies of Melanesia homosexuality is an integral part of the culture. In some tribes of Papua New Guinea, for example, it is considered a normal ritual responsibility for a boy to have a same-sex relationship as a part of his ascent into manhood. Many Melanesian societies, however, have become less tolerant of homosexuality since the introduction of Christianity by European missionaries.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
-
- Fucking Awesome
- Posts: 13834
- Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm
Uh, you're not saying that *all* Christians approve discrimination against gays, atheists, etc, right?Yes, and when given a chance, they vote to discriminate against these people, you deceitful little shitstain.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses
"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
Kast, you stupid cunt, do you know why my love for my wife is different from a fundie's faith in God? I can provide evidence that my wife exists, you fucking moron.
As for rabid anti-abortionism and homophobia having nothing to do with the Christian fundamentalist movement in America, just go right ahead and keep telling yourself that, TigerBoy. By your twisted illogic (in which anything which claims to have a secular justification must therefore have secular origins), creationism is secular too
As for rabid anti-abortionism and homophobia having nothing to do with the Christian fundamentalist movement in America, just go right ahead and keep telling yourself that, TigerBoy. By your twisted illogic (in which anything which claims to have a secular justification must therefore have secular origins), creationism is secular too
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
People can believe that there is a God, and that one should follow specific moral codes as outlined in the Bible, without necessarily discriminating against others. Your jump to ferociously batter all religious thought as negative and intolerant is evidence of your own bigotry.I see I have to connect the fucking dots for you as always. Love is expressed toward a person or a favoured pet and therefore is an investment in something tangible. Faith is more nebulous and approaches increasing irrationality when invested in something unreal. The concept also has different connotations than religious belief.
You fucking lunatic; if the original data splice is 22% of all voters, than the eighty-percent figure must be associated with that 22%.Twenty two percent of all voters, shitwit. Eighty percent of Bush voters —as per the data. Thank you for demonstrating again your idiocy and your stunning capacity to deny facts inconvenient to your threadbare arguments.
The failure of the system to function fairly doesn’t invalidate the fact that one can accept that faith-based charities are a good idea even without supporting a particular form of religious thought, moron.There have already been documented cases of faith-based charities receiving federal funds requiring those who work for those operations to subscribe to the beliefs of the particular church, and you are evading the central point: the shifting of funds from non-sectarian operations to those with a religious basis which itself violates church/state seperation principles in law.
Your point? Kerry pandered to union votes with promises of ending outsourcing. Politicians pander.A non-answer which we'll list in the category of the many items you've simply pulled out of your ass in your time here at SDnet. It also ignores the specific reason why faith-based initiatives were crafted by the Bush White House: to blatantly cater to religious interests regardless of the possible damage to constitutional principles.
Really? The ancient Egyptians strongly disapproved of homosexuality. They were hardly monotheistic.And you can shove your evasions up your lying ass, moron —prejudice against homosexuality is a phenomenon of the Big Three monotheistic religions and the cultures formed by them.
Strawman. We are not debating whether Biblical fundamentalists voted to ban homosexuality because of the Bible, and if you think we are, then that’s just more evidence of your own stupidity. We are debating whether many of Bush’s “morality” voters were necessarily fundamentalists.Kindly demonstrate how biblical fundamentalists are not basing their views on homosexuality on what their sacred text is saying.
Your fear of religion doesn’t make you a fundamentalist, nitwit. If secular voters fear to have homosexual contacts because they are concerned that members of society would strongly oppose it, that doesn’t make them religious bigots; it makes them stupid bigots.The "stigma" of friends of loved ones who are gay is also a product —directly or indirectly— of religiously-based prejudice and is again foreign to any culture in which homosexuality has existed compatibly alongside heterosexuaity.
Yes, he is, apparently.Uh, you're not saying that *all* Christians approve discrimination against gays, atheists, etc, right?
No, you blithering idiot. I’m pointing out that those who voted on morality issues needn’t necessarily have been fundamentalists, and that those who believe in God can be tollerant, despite your spurious claims to the contrary.As for rabid anti-abortionism and homophobia having nothing to do with the Christian fundamentalist movement in America, just go right ahead and keep telling yourself that, TigerBoy. By your twisted illogic (in which anything which claims to have a secular justification must therefore have secular origins), creationism is secular too.
- White Haven
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 6360
- Joined: 2004-05-17 03:14pm
- Location: The North Remembers, When It Can Be Bothered
I'm afraid I have to agree with the '80 percent of 22 percent' statistic, that's how I understood it at the time as well.
Back to the, yaknow, actual thread topic, the only thing I underestimated was the ability of far too many American barbers to make wool after giving people haircuts.
Back to the, yaknow, actual thread topic, the only thing I underestimated was the ability of far too many American barbers to make wool after giving people haircuts.
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
Fiction!: The Final War (Bolo/Lovecraft) (Ch 7 9/15/11), Living (D&D, Complete)
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
Fiction!: The Final War (Bolo/Lovecraft) (Ch 7 9/15/11), Living (D&D, Complete)
Thank you for demonstrating your inability to do basic arithmetic. 80% of 52% is 41%. 41% is not equal to 22%. Thank you, come again.Patrick Degan wrote:Twenty two percent of all voters, shitwit. Eighty percent of Bush voters —as per the data. Thank you for demonstrating again your idiocy and your stunning capacity to deny facts inconvenient to your threadbare arguments.Twenty-two percent of voters stated that the biggest issue of the election for them was moral values. And of those, approximately eight in ten voted for Bush. You’re so full of shit it’s funny.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
- Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
The fact that A is a characteristic of B is not disproved by showing that it is also a characteristic of C, you idiot.Axis of Evil wrote:Really? The ancient Egyptians strongly disapproved of homosexuality. They were hardly monotheistic.Patrick Degan wrote:And you can shove your evasions up your lying ass, moron —prejudice against homosexuality is a phenomenon of the Big Three monotheistic religions and the cultures formed by them.
Which they were. When an election is won by a couple of percent of voters, every single public protest against gay marriage is put on by religious groups, and something like a quarter of the population directly attributes their votes to the issue, it's not too fucking difficult to see that Bush won re-election on the issue unless you're a flaming imbecile.Axis of Evil wrote:We are debating whether many of Bush’s “morality” voters were necessarily fundamentalists.
Disproving a generalized statement by showing that it does not apply to 100% of the targeted group is nothing more than evasive sophistry. It's like pointing out that there were free blacks in America during the era of slavery and using that to disprove the fact that slavery was a black phenomenon.Axis of Evil wrote:No, you blithering idiot. I’m pointing out that those who voted on morality issues needn’t necessarily have been fundamentalists, and that those who believe in God can be tollerant, despite your spurious claims to the contrary.Darth Wong wrote:As for rabid anti-abortionism and homophobia having nothing to do with the Christian fundamentalist movement in America, just go right ahead and keep telling yourself that, TigerBoy. By your twisted illogic (in which anything which claims to have a secular justification must therefore have secular origins), creationism is secular too.
The subject of this thread is simple: did people underestimate George W. Bush, or overestimate the American public? Whether all or most rabid homophobes are fundamentalists or merely susceptible to fundamentalist propaganda is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the high homophobe voter turnout represents a sad statement on America. And no, Kast, wanting to write religious homophobic bigotry into the Constitution of a secular nation is not a good thing, you brain-damaged chimp.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
- SirNitram
- Rest in Peace, Black Mage
- Posts: 28367
- Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
- Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere
Yet the Greeks, Romans(PreChristianity), ancient Japanese, Native Americans, some groups of Aztecs, Aborigines, Celts, and some Germanic tribes all were fine with it. A few cultures even attached special honor to a homosexual relationship above a heterosexual one(See Japan, where a Samurai's male lover could more easily empathize with his 'Warrior spirit' than his weak wife). Of course, all this was destroyed by the banal crusade against everything Not Us lead by Christianity.Axis Kast wrote:Really? The ancient Egyptians strongly disapproved of homosexuality. They were hardly monotheistic.And you can shove your evasions up your lying ass, moron —prejudice against homosexuality is a phenomenon of the Big Three monotheistic religions and the cultures formed by them.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus
Debator Classification: Trollhunter
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus
Debator Classification: Trollhunter
-
- Vympel's Bitch
- Posts: 3893
- Joined: 2003-03-02 10:45am
- Location: Pretoria, South Africa
- Contact:
But, apparently, it is too difficult to stay on fucking topic, hm? Because we sure as shit aren’t arguing whether value votes were an issue. Oh no. What we are doing, however, is arguing whether all of those value votes come from T3E FUNDI3S!, as opposed to the guy down the street.Which they were. When an election is won by a couple of percent of voters, every single public protest against gay marriage is put on by religious groups, and something like a quarter of the population directly attributes their votes to the issue, it's not too fucking difficult to see that Bush won re-election on the issue unless you're a flaming imbecile.
Here you go again, putting your own spin on the statistics – which Deegan shamefully attempted to reshape for you already. Twenty-two percent of Americans voted “values.” Surely you’re not saying that two in ten of those (the ones who voted for Kerry) were the only secular voters among them. If you think that most secular voters in this nation aren’t rabidly conservative – or that they can’t be, independent of religion –, you’re wearing rose-colored glasses.Disproving a generalized statement by showing that it does not apply to 100% of the targeted group is nothing more than evasive sophistry. It's like pointing out that there were free blacks in America during the era of slavery and using that to disprove the fact that slavery was a black phenomenon.
You fucking son of a bitch. Nobody’s saying it’s not terrible. What we are saying is that it’s not just about religion.The subject of this thread is simple: did people underestimate George W. Bush, or overestimate the American public? Whether all or most rabid homophobes are fundamentalists or merely susceptible to fundamentalist propaganda is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the high homophobe voter turnout represents a sad statement on America. And no, Kast, wanting to write religious homophobic bigotry into the Constitution of a secular nation is not a good thing, you brain-damaged chimp.
Well, since Kast and Wong seem to be duking out nicely, I'll not jump into that firepit Instead...
Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend to have read any of the Bible, much less Leviticus, but that sure as shit reads to me like those are commandments for the priests and Levites (Dictionary.com says a Levite is "A member of the tribe of Levi but not descended from Aaron and, if male, chosen to assist the Temple priests"). In short, it warns against male-male priest interaction, not against male-male interaction between everyone. It's been misused and misunderstood to death by modern religious preachers and taken wholly out of context. If anything, it's a major proponent of booting priests out of the order for molesting children, as has happened recently (and throughout time, too).
In short, it's a sad situation of misunderstanding rather than a reason to discredit the Bible as a whole. Further, it's part of the Old Testament, which I have been led to believe is supposed to be exclusively a Jewish book, with the New Testament being the old part Christians are supposed to follow. I might be way off there, though. In any case, as I tried to demonstrate in my Ten Commandments thread, the Bible isn't as unreasonable as it may first seem when context and research are included in the reading of it (and mistranslations accounted for, like "virgin" Mary...that one still amuses me )
Actually, this is a misunderstanding, rather than a point of contention one might have with the Bible. Leviticus makes these instructions, true. But check this out.Patrick Degan wrote:I'm sorry you are too stupid to read what a data chart actually says. As well as what the Bible says about homosexuality:
<snip some quotes from Leviticus>
Kindly demonstrate how biblical fundamentalists are not basing their views on homosexuality on what their sacred text is saying.
Emphasis mine.Leviticus
The third book of the Pentateuch, so called because it treats of the offices, ministries, rites, and ceremonies of the priests and Levites.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend to have read any of the Bible, much less Leviticus, but that sure as shit reads to me like those are commandments for the priests and Levites (Dictionary.com says a Levite is "A member of the tribe of Levi but not descended from Aaron and, if male, chosen to assist the Temple priests"). In short, it warns against male-male priest interaction, not against male-male interaction between everyone. It's been misused and misunderstood to death by modern religious preachers and taken wholly out of context. If anything, it's a major proponent of booting priests out of the order for molesting children, as has happened recently (and throughout time, too).
In short, it's a sad situation of misunderstanding rather than a reason to discredit the Bible as a whole. Further, it's part of the Old Testament, which I have been led to believe is supposed to be exclusively a Jewish book, with the New Testament being the old part Christians are supposed to follow. I might be way off there, though. In any case, as I tried to demonstrate in my Ten Commandments thread, the Bible isn't as unreasonable as it may first seem when context and research are included in the reading of it (and mistranslations accounted for, like "virgin" Mary...that one still amuses me )
-Ryan McClure-
Scaper - Browncoat - Warsie (semi-movie purist) - Colonial - TNG/DS9-era Trekker - Hero || BOTM - Maniac || Antireligious naturalist
Scaper - Browncoat - Warsie (semi-movie purist) - Colonial - TNG/DS9-era Trekker - Hero || BOTM - Maniac || Antireligious naturalist