Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

No, I also said you were wrong about experiencing hostility, that it isn't hostility to refuse to give in to your every whim. The great problem for you is that the label contains neither exaggeration nor inaccuracy. You exhibit fanaticism and paranoia in nearly every post. You're right, everyone else is wrong, we hate you and persecute you because you're right, we'd better change our ways, and if we don't heed this warning then we're going to hell. Thank you Mrs. God. Can we expect a declaration of Christian Jihad on us sometime soon?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

It's a curse, not a prophecy, being as how it's called the Curse of Ham and all.--Percy

It's not a command, recommendation or suggestion because it's a curse, the Curse of Ham.But this is just another example of you using one error to distract from another. It makes little difference whether the Curse of Ham is a curse or a prophecy or both, it is still a significant part of the foundation used by Christianity to justify slavery.--Percy

Well, this goes back to my comment about fundamentalists lacking the shame and embarrassment gene. To embrace fanaticism and paranoia just adds further weight to the possibility that you're a major nutcase. You're somehow managing to miss the point over and over and over again. The mention of jihad was to illustrate how you're just like fundamentalists of all stripes around the world, embracing the conceit that truth travels from your mouth to God's ear. You're overly emotional investment in this discussion is reflected in the many times you've condemned us all hell.It is this same conceit that leads you to believe that you are in sole possession of God's law, putting you above all other laws, including the First Amendment apparently.--Percy

Rereading my Message 748 and your Message 744 that I replied to, I didn't twist anything. I said, "Fundamentalists the world over bark that those in disagreement are misusing religious texts," and you replied with a perfect example of a fundamentalist (namely, you) doing exactly that. What could be more ironic? Really? You didn't state one view of the First Amendment in Message 709 yesterday around 6 PM (my time), and then completely change that view a few hours later? You obviously did, didn't you.Could you please make a greater effort to stop denying saying things that you have obviously said? Or at least have the sanity to go back and edit your messages first so they no longer say what they very plainly said? It would be dishonest, but at least it wouldn't be crazy.--Percy

Faith, you're completely missing the point. Of course we all disagree with a Biblical defense of slavery today. The point is that in the past the Bible has been interpreted as supporting slavery, which seemed to surprise you. Apparently having the era prior to the Civil War in mind you stated that it was Christians who opposed slavery, listing Newton and Wilberforce, but it was also Christians who defended slavery, like James Henly Thornwell. It was the schism between northern and southern Baptists that drove the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention.Here's a webpage of Christian justifications for slavery: Why Christians Should Support SlaveryThe main point that you're missing is that the First Amendment protects all religions, including fundamentalist Christianity, from discrimination and persecution because government can neither favor nor disfavor any religion.--Percy

You're pleading guilty to being fanatical and paranoid, and now apparently to being a major nutcase. Do you expect people to fail to note that someone acting like a crazy person is acting like a crazy person? Then do what you just failed to do, explain how your fundamentalism is different from fundamentalism of different stripes. In spirit, not in detail. Naturally you don't bow towards Mecca, but those aren't the kind of differences that matter. Fundamentalism is a state of mind, one that doesn't brook disagreement or rational argument. For fundamentalists it is belief that counts. That's you plural, fundamental Christianity in general, not you personally. It would make no sense to accuse you personally of a First Amendment violation. You were the one who embraced the label when I used it while countering your claim that the US government has become hostile toward Christians. I explained that 73% of the country is Christian, that you're actually referring to a small sub-sect of Christianity, and that the government has not, in fact, become hostile toward you (that's you plural again).If you don't like the label then stop embracing it and start making sense. If you have rational reasons why Ken Ham should be allowed to engage in discriminatory hiring practices that go beyond, "I think he has good reasons," then please let us know.--Percy

Sloppy? My dear, don't flatter yourself. Your errors extend far beyond mere sloppiness. If you feel the need to lash out you might at least strive to do so accurately. I didn't twist anything you said, I only referred to things you actually said, and if I actually misread you then I apologize and request that you explain again. The original point was that you missed the irony of responding to a message pointing out that fundamentalists worldwide claim their religious texts are misused by claiming that your religious text is being misuesd (in this case about slavery).--Percy

I made some on-topic comments in the message you're replying to, and you've not touched on them at all. Has the irony escaped you of leaving questions answered while complaining that you don't want to leave too much unanswered.--Percy

Subbie explained this to you already. Why does this have to be explained again? Couldn't you at least acknowledge that what you're saying has already been rebutted, then add something more to discussion instead of just repeating your original position yet again?Anyway, repeating the rebuttal, baking is a business, not a religion. There are no First Amendment protections for bakers. Bakers are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of religious conviction. This protects everyone, including fundamentalist Christians. It doesn't matter whether you're a Christian baker or an Islamic baker or a Hindu baker or a Buddhist baker, you cannot discriminate on the basis of religious conviction. Actually, you cannot discriminate, period. Whether you're being sloppy or are just confused, you're very wrong. The bakers' First Amendment rights could not possibly have been violated. Did you perhaps mean their civil rights? No one's blind to it. What happened happened, but you want to acknowledge only half the story. The full story is that the bakers expressed intolerant anti-gay sentiments and experienced backlash for it, which I hope was prosecuted for those actions that were illegal. But you're not being consistent again. It's okay for the bakers to express messages of intolerance and hatred because the Bible says its okay, but when anyone else objects to the intolerance and hatred then it's not okay, it's hatred for fundamentalist Christians.In other words, you're saying your (the plural your) hatred is okay, other people's not so much.--Percy

You can embrace the label, or your can complain about the label, but you cannot in any rational way do both. You're making precisely the mistake I cautioned you not to make. Yes, some branches of fundamentalist Islam advocate murder. And some branches of fundamentalist Christians advocate murder, like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-abortion killings. But those are the kinds of specifics I cautioned you to avoid.What's unique about the fundamentalist mindset isn't the specific beliefs, but the raw focus on belief at the expense of almost all else. If you wouldn't keep changing your mind then this wouldn't be so difficult. First you think our interpretation of the First Amendment is bollix, then you don't. First you embrace a label, then you complain about it, then you embrace it again. Who can keep track in all your confusion? You certainly don't.--Percy

Sure you did, though usually indirectly or you soften it with euphemisms, for example this from your Message 1943 in the Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? thread: Or this from Message 1888 in the same thread: Or this from Message 1782: Or this from Message 1775: Or this from Message 1551: Or this from Message 1351: I was hoping to find where you said you hoped judgment day would come soon so that we wouldn't have to wait long to see how wrong we were, but I didn't come across it.--Percy

Where in the Bible does God tell Israel to abandon slavery?God never does, of course, but that's a side issue. The unanswered question is what legitimate reasons, specifically, does Ken Ham have for seeking an exception to First Amendment principles regarding separation of church and state.--Percy