Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
36 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,231 Year: 22,267/19,786 Month: 830/1,834 Week: 330/500 Day: 29/64 Hour: 4/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment.
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 245 (548671)
02-28-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
02-28-2010 10:00 PM


Re: Majority & Minority
Taz writes:

Ok, so now we know Buzsaw would have supported slavery, segregation, women's non-right to vote, etc. Good to know.

Like you, I've never had the opportunity to vote against slavery. Given the opportunity I would most assuredly vote against it. See Taz, just because I report what history attests to, that at one time or another nearly all nations have practiced slavery does not mean that I advocate it. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Taz writes:

Buzsaw writes:

So what if it's a religious conviction, so long as the majority goes along for whatever reason?

Let me try to be as clear as I can on this.
The only way we can ensure that EVERYONE has the freedom to worship or not worship anyway they want is for the state to be completely neutral on the issue. This means that the elected officials must stay neutral at all times.

Of course not. The exercising of religion cannot be forbidden by law of Congress, but local elected officials can and do regulate relative to the wishes of their constituents. That has always been the way it works. Thus, for example some OT Levitical practices, some Muslim practices and some pagan practices would most likely be forbidden by law.

Taz writes:

I know you have a hard time sympathizing and empathizing for the minority.......

That's nonsense, Taz. I and other Christians have been on the side of the minority relative to many things on many occasions that an opposing majority has done. A good example is the last national elections and a lot of stuff that has happened since as a result.

Edited by Buzsaw, : fix quotes


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 02-28-2010 10:00 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 02-28-2010 11:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 21 by DC85, posted 03-01-2010 12:39 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1634 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 17 of 245 (548672)
02-28-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
02-28-2010 11:07 PM


Re: Poor Babes
Buzsaw writes:

Like you, I've never had the opportunity to vote against slavery. Given the opportunity I would most assuredly vote against it. See Taz, just because I report what history attests to, that at one time or another nearly all nations have practiced slavery does not mean that I advocate it. How many times do I have to explain this to you?


But that's not the point, is it. The point is you seem to advocate the idea that popular vote = the American way = right. Slavery was popularly supported. So was segregation. So were the concentration camps.

In other words, because you want to impose your christian beliefs on to the rest of us so much that you are defending a ridiculous position.

Of course not. The exercising of religion cannot be forbidden by law of Congress, but local elected officials can and do regulate relative to the wishes of their constituents. That has always been the way it works. Thus, for example some OT Levitical practices, some Muslim practices and some pagan practices would most likely be forbidden by law.

Haha, you seem to have trouble avoiding logical fallacies. Ever heard of argument from tradition?

That's nonsense, Taz. I and other Christians have been on the side of the minority relative to many things on many occasions that an opposing majority has done. A good example is the last national elections and a lot of stuff that has happened since as a result.

Nonsense. The fact that ALL candidates had to repeat a kazilion times they were christians should be telling enough that you can't get elected in this country unless you're christian. In every national election, candidates repeat till their throats bleed that they are men of faith... in the christian god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2010 11:07 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 18 of 245 (548674)
02-28-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
02-28-2010 10:43 PM


Re: Poor Babes
I would certainly work harder to have reps of a different mindset elected.

Why? I thought:

Buzsaw writes:

So what if it's a religious conviction,

religious conviction doesn't matter? You judge someone by their religious conviction, only when it differs from that of your own?


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2010 10:43 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2030
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 19 of 245 (548676)
02-28-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
02-28-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Poor Babes
So what if it's a religious conviction, so long as the majority goes along for whatever reason?

So your position is:
Fuck the constitution. If enough people vote to put the darkies back in chains and stop women from voting then thats what should happen.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2010 9:07 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 20 of 245 (548679)
03-01-2010 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
02-28-2010 10:43 PM


Re: Poor Babes
Buz, what you don't seem to realize is that no matter now many folks vote your way the constitution forbids you to impost a theocracy, or any of your pet religious beliefs, on the rest of us.

Check out the Lemon test. The actions of government must have a secular purpose.

We are products of the Enlightenment, and we've left the Dark Ages behind. (Of course, the shamans will sneak back in any crack, given half a chance.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2010 10:43 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-01-2010 12:49 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 03-01-2010 9:06 PM Coyote has responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 107 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 21 of 245 (548685)
03-01-2010 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Buzsaw
02-28-2010 11:07 PM


Re: Majority & Minority
been on the side of the minority relative to many things on many occasions that an opposing majority
As a Christian? I would need an example of this. Of course many Christians have this bizarre psychotic idea that Christianity is under attack when they're the ones doing the attacking and bullying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2010 11:07 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2853 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 22 of 245 (548686)
03-01-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Coyote
03-01-2010 12:10 AM


Re: Poor Babes
Coyote writes:

Check out the Lemon test. The actions of government must have a secular purpose.

Exactly. I have yet to see someone put forth a convincing arguement supported by evidence and not religious conviction that my preference in the personal plumbing of my partner(s) has anything to do with my ability to drive a bus, say, or teach high school or translate Arabic for the military. Moreover, how is it that it's wrong for someone to beat the crap out of me unless it's because they disapprove of my taste in men and/or women? Then somehow it's okay.

There is no valid rationale for laws that exclude homosexuals from the rights that non-homosexuals enjoy that is not based on religious conviction. And while I agree to an extent with Buz that lawmakers can propose legislation for any reason that enters their befuddled, rodent-like minds, the legislation that they produce can not have a a result that is clearly unconstitutional. They can't legislate religious doctrine. And there's a reason that they're called inalienable rights. That means that they're not up for a vote.

Sorry, Coyote, I ended up going off on Buz and his ilk in a reply to your post. I'm agreeing with you.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2010 12:10 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by hooah212002, posted 03-01-2010 12:55 AM ZenMonkey has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 23 of 245 (548687)
03-01-2010 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ZenMonkey
03-01-2010 12:49 AM


Re: Poor Babes
And while I agree to an extent with Buz that lawmakers can propose legislation for any reason that enters their befuddled, rodent-like minds, the legislation that they produce can not have a a result that is clearly unconstitutional. They can't legislate religious doctrine.

Right. I agree....to an extent. However, when the basis for these decisions is warped (take my OP for a prime example) then the outcome is just as warped. There should be no room for religion in government. Not only because it is archaic, but because what one religion thinks is right is hardly ever in line with what any other group thinks is right.....even in the same religion (look at the "Is jesus god" thread). So how can we ensure they are acting in the best interests of their constituants if their judgement is clouded by their given religious doctrine?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-01-2010 12:49 AM ZenMonkey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-01-2010 1:44 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2853 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 24 of 245 (548694)
03-01-2010 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by hooah212002
03-01-2010 12:55 AM


Re: Poor Babes
Right. Insofar as they base their fucked-up legislation on fucked-up beliefs, then yes, the results will be ... you guessed it ... pretty fucked-up.


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by hooah212002, posted 03-01-2010 12:55 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 25 of 245 (548705)
03-01-2010 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hooah212002
02-27-2010 9:25 PM


It is shocking to think that this man is a legislator and this stupid to be using obscure bible passages as a means of anecdotal medical advice, and to be repealing laws based on such an infringement of the 1st Amendment.

But then, it is Virginia, home to some of the wackiest bible thumpers you've ever seen.

Show me where an atheist has don harm in the name of the FSM, or in the name of atheism.

I would tread lightly if I were you. There are whacko's on your side of the fence too.

As for how many atrocities have been committed under the pretense of some religion, it pales in comparison to the numbers murdered by despots seeking a religion-free utopian society in the last 100 years alone.

My advice to you is not to turn this in to an "Us versus Them" thing. That would only further perpetuate ignorance.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hooah212002, posted 02-27-2010 9:25 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by hooah212002, posted 03-01-2010 5:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 03-01-2010 11:31 AM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2010 4:36 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 03-01-2010 7:24 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 26 of 245 (548707)
03-01-2010 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2010 5:28 AM


My advice to you is not to turn this in to an "Us versus Them" thing. That would only further perpetuate ignorance.

I intend no such thing. I only said that (which I pointed out) because Buz accused me of only pointing out christians doing wrong.

hooah212002 in the OP writes:

And, as a retort to what Buz said to me in my other thread:


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."

-Carl Sagan


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2010 5:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 27 of 245 (548708)
03-01-2010 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
02-28-2010 9:07 PM


Re: Poor Babes
The American way has always been to get up the votes to determine policy.

No, as this is descriptive of Direct Democracy (i.e. Mob Rule) which runs counter to a Democratic Republic, which is what the United States is founded upon.

There are certain "inalienable rights" that NO one can vote away. See, democracy is great until people can be persuaded to take away other people's rights. Majority rule, sounds fair right? Not always. Suppose you lived in a Muslim country which now, by popular vote, decided to round up all the Christians and execute them. Does their majority opinion outweigh the right for your life, persons, and property to be intact? I would hope not.

And let us not forget that everything Hitler was able to accomplish was perfectly legal and he had the backing of the majority opinion in Germany. Should we then assume Hitler and his Brown Shirts were righteous because it had an air of sophistication, an air of legality, an air of open debate?

If things were left to a Direct Democracy, the people on this forum would have voted for your execution long ago. I trust you can see why the founding fathers were so utterly opposed to a direct democracy and chose instead a republic.

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." -- John Adams

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin

So what if it's a religious conviction, so long as the majority goes along for whatever reason?

Because that's not how it works in a republic. Religious neutrality is the only way religion can ever be rightfully protected by the government, think about it. Otherwise you have one religion (which is set up in the government) working to subvert all other competing religions.

Suppose a bunch of Muslims started getting elected. Slowly you watch Christendom become more and more outlawed, but the People voted on it. Would you be so forgiving? No, because it should be your inalienable right to practice Christianity freely.

The Founding Fathers saw to it that certain things are beyond debate, like inalienable rights bestowed by your Creator. Stop trying to infringe upon the very people who were trying to protect your freedoms.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2010 9:07 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 28 of 245 (548736)
03-01-2010 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2010 5:28 AM


As for how many atrocities have been committed under the pretense of some religion, it pales in comparison to the numbers murdered by despots seeking a religion-free utopian society in the last 100 years alone.

I really, really despise your insipid mindless middle nonsense.

There have been two major anti-religion despotic regimes - Communist Russia and China. It is very true that both of these regimes have committed vast atrocities and crimes against humanity, including mass purges of their own citizenry.

However, the purges were not on the order of "kill all the religious people." It was not a purge of the faithful. Instead, it was a political purge. Anyone who was not loyal to the Party was a target - this included religious leaders and pious citizens who would not acknowledge teh Party as their highest loyalty, true. But it also included anyone else who did so for any other reason as well.

Stalin wasn't out to kill Christians like some Roman emperor throwing them to the lions. He was killing off anyone loyal to the opposition, in any form that might take. It's not even clear that Stalin himself was an Atheist, as he had some strong ties to Orthodoxy.

To identify this as some sort of purge to create a religion-free society is grossly dishonest, as it paints atheism as the cause when any honest glance at history shows that atheism itslef was a means to an end in this case, while actual religious purges are themselves the sought after end.

And to suggest that anti-religion mass murders have been worse than religiously-motivated purges is blatantly stupid.

The Holocaust was religiously motivated, and there is frankly no way to argue otherwise if you read even just a few excerpts from Mein Kampf (a stomach turning exercise, but then, nobody ever claimed history was pretty).

The Inquisition was quite obviously religiously motivated. There is no possible way to contest this.

The Salem Witch Trials were the same.

The Crusades were religiously motivated. September 11th was both religiously and politically motivated. American slavery and the genocide of the Native Americans were religiously justified, if not realistically religiously motivated.

It's true that there are "whackos" of every political and religious (and irreligious) persuasion. Sociopathic behavior is rooted in the individual, and the rest is just the trappings.

But some philosophies do lend themselves to work as motivations or jsutifications of abhorrent behavior more than others. Atheism isn't even a philosophy in and of itself - it's simply an absence of any belief in deities. It's rather difficult to jump from "there are no gods" to "we should kill all the Jews."

Christianity, however, has been used to justify all manner of atrocities - including killing Jews, who after all killed Jesus remember, or taking blacks as slaves, because after all they were the seed of Ham, or destroying Native American cultures, since they're just filthy heathens anyway, or shunning the use of condoms in the middle of the African AIDS epidemic...

I don't think I need to go into detail about Islam, given many of that religion's worst atrocities have been committed recently enough for us to remember the headlines.

Perhaps I should touch on the barbarism required by the native Aztec religion? Or should I mention the suffering caused by traditional Hindu beliefs?

My advice to you is not to turn this in to an "Us versus Them" thing. That would only further perpetuate ignorance.

Indeed. You've already perpetuated more than enough on your own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2010 5:28 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-01-2010 7:35 PM Rahvin has responded
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-02-2010 9:30 AM Rahvin has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6890
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 29 of 245 (548765)
03-01-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2010 5:28 AM


WTF?
it pales in comparison to the numbers murdered by despots seeking a religion-free utopian society in the last 100 years alone.

Please explain your understanding of the Soviet regime under Stalin and the Communist regime under Mao.

These guys were totalitarian thugs, they were not attempting to make a utopian society. Unless maybe they thought that their ideal for them was a utopia. They were not specifically seeking a religion-free society. They were trying to eliminate any other potential rivals. That religion was one of their potential rivals does mean that they were more against it than anything else. They destroyed any organizations not controlled by themselves. For example, trade unions, independent media, independent universities.

You make it sound like their main motive was destroying religion. Not anywhere close. Read some history on the subjects.

BTW, I sure hope you were trying to include Hitler in you list.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2010 5:28 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-02-2010 10:34 AM Theodoric has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1634 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(2)
Message 30 of 245 (548782)
03-01-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2010 5:28 AM


First of all, I really hate the fact that I work during the day and when I came home at night I find that people already said what I wanted to say.

Hyroglyphx writes:

I would tread lightly if I were you. There are whacko's on your side of the fence too.

As for how many atrocities have been committed under the pretense of some religion, it pales in comparison to the numbers murdered by despots seeking a religion-free utopian society in the last 100 years alone.

My advice to you is not to turn this in to an "Us versus Them" thing. That would only further perpetuate ignorance.


Normally, I would expect someone like buzsaw to say this nonsense, not someone like you.

Being someone who has a love affair for history, it really ticks me off whenever someone repeats this nonsense!

Those dictators initiated their purges for political reasons, not because of some atheistic doctrine.

The regimes that they molded their governments into were based directly on past theocracies.

First, they proclaimed themselves to have a monopoly on truth. Everything they said was somehow (divinely) inspired, although they didn't directly say this.

They then indoctrinated the school children to view them as religious icons. I have a friend who grew up in Vietnam. He told me that when he was in grade school there the children were made to recite the communist pledge (pray) to a picture of Ho Chi Minh. School children in Soviet Russia also (prayed) to a picture of Stalin and Lenin. School children in China also (prayed) to a picture of Mao. Sound familiar?

And when they began to feel threatened by some political group or persons, they began their purges... you know, sort of like the inquisitions and the salem witch trials.

But that's not all, they arranged it so that even after their deaths school children still (prayed) to their pictures.

Ask any North Korean if you ever get a chance. Every one of them will tell you THE LEADER is father to ALL and will protect them against ALL enemies and ALL weapons, including nuclear bombs. (I loosely quoted that from an actual interview of North Koreans I once saw.)

The communists claimed religion was the opium of the masses. What they managed to fool everyone was that they in turn created new religions of their own.

They had nothing to do with atheism or human reason. To claim so shows the kind of naive thinking found in either school children or republicans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2010 5:28 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-02-2010 11:13 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019