Althouse: "We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech."

May 27, 2015

"We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech."

"Because today, we've reached the point in our society where, if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.... After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech and there’s a real and present danger.”

Said Marco Rubio.

304 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 304 of 304

DKWalser said...: ...Businesses are already prevented from discriminating based on race or gender or age, etc. I don't believe in adding sexual orientation to that list, but if it is added it's not the ridiculous deathblow to liberty as being portrayed here. And lastly, anti-discrimination laws are wholly separate from SSM. You can have SSM without anti-discrimination laws.

Yes, you can have same sex marriage without anti-discrimination laws. We don't. In the context of what's actually happening in the here and now, it is more than just a little pedantic to insist that people not lump the two subjects together. It's in the context of SSM that gay activists are pushing the boundaries of what is covered by state anti-discrimination laws. Those laws are being used as a tool to punish people who disagree with SSM, so it's entirely reasonable for people to link the two in their minds.

I also understand that you don't see the big deal in merely expanding the reach of anti-discrimination laws to cover homosexuals. That says more about your lack of empathy or imagination than it does about whether such an expansion is a genuine threat to liberty. Very few people object to working with or for most of the categories of people who are part of one or more of the classes protected by anti-discrimination laws. They might object to a law that mandates a certain type of behavior (just as they'd mind some busybody telling them not to talk with their mouth full), or they might fear the laws will be abused, but they don't have any strong moral objections to working with and serving members of protected classes.

That's not the case with SSM. They're willing to work with and for gays in other contexts, they just don't want any part of their weddings. Similarly, some doctors and pharmacists willingly provide medical services to people who are "living in sin", but they draw the line in assisting a patient terminate unborn life. When Janet Reno was governor, Arizona tried to require pharmacists to provide the morning-after pill. Other states tried to require medical and nursing students' participation in abortions. Now they're coming after bakers and wedding photographers.

That may not seem like a big deal to you, but it does to me. I'd prefer my constitutional protections to come with as few exceptions as possible, thank you.; 5/27/15, 4:23 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jelink:

"I challenge you to tell us how "the national security deep state" has ever affected you or anyone you know personally, leading to social ostracism, criminal charges or the like, as opposed to the nation-wide campaigns to not just marginalize, but destroy people of faith who simply stand up for their principles."

The "know personally" criterion is a bit much, but let me take just one small example of someone I know of. Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old American who was blown to smithereens by his government despite not even being accused of doing anything wrong. I consider being killed a greater depredation of your liberty than being forced to sell a cake to two queers. If you want to expand the circle beyond American citizens, hundred of innocent Pakistani children have been killed in Obama's drone campaign. Are there families owed any justice?; 5/27/15, 4:24 PM
Michael K said...: "The US could easily have launched military operations against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan without having to attack the government in Kabul. Only then did the Taliban become something we had to worry about."

?????

What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't ?; 5/27/15, 4:25 PM
Michael K said...: " hundred of innocent Pakistani children have been killed in Obama's drone campaign. Are there families owed any justice?"

And the thousands killed by ISIS are what ?

Collateral damage or just mythological creatures ?

You are quite a trip.; 5/27/15, 4:27 PM
J. Farmer said...: @jelink:

p.s Do you know anyone personally who has been destroyed because of their opposition to SSM?

@Michael K:

"What do you know that the rest of the world doesn't ?"

That the Taliban did not need to turn over bin Laden. We could have simply ignored them and used air power to prevent their interferences. Regime change was always a stupid policy for Afghanistan. Also, much too much was made over this whole "base of operations" nonsense. Guys in turbans shooting kalashnikovs and climbing monkey bars were not why we got 9/11. The perpetrators entered this country perfectly legally on international flights and planned and executed a terrorist. Camps in Afghanistan had practically nothing to do with it. Al Qaeda at that time was actually a quite small organization.

If you don't believe intelligence agencies get things wrong or overhype threats, take a look at the last 50 years.; 5/27/15, 4:29 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Michael K:

"And the thousands killed by ISIS are what ?

Collateral damage or just mythological creatures ?"

What does that have to do with anything? It's completely irrelevant to the question that was asked to me and the meaning of my response. Horrible, horrific violence is occurring all the time. Take a look at central Africa.; 5/27/15, 4:30 PM
Jason said...: J.Farmer.

The US could easily have launched military operations against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan without having to attack the government in Kabul.

Christ on a crotch-rocket. Is there an adult on the other end of your account we can talk to? Put your mommy back on. Your dog. Anybody not as stupid as you, General.; 5/27/15, 4:31 PM
steve uhr said...: Watching Santorum's POTUS announcement .. Almost forgot what a jerk he is ... Makes Rubio look pretty darn good.; 5/27/15, 4:32 PM
J. Farmer said...: @DKWalser:

"I also understand that you don't see the big deal in merely expanding the reach of anti-discrimination laws to cover homosexuals. That says more about your lack of empathy or imagination than it does about whether such an expansion is a genuine threat to liberty."

No, you don't understand me. I don't support those laws and would be fine if none of them contained protections regarding sexual orientation or gender or race or age for that matter. SSM is a minor, trivial issue that is far out of proportion to the handwringing it receives on both sides of the aisle.; 5/27/15, 4:33 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Jason:

"Christ on a crotch-rocket. Is there an adult on the other end of your account we can talk to? Put your mommy back on. Your dog. Anybody not as stupid as you, General."

So in all of your mature, adult wisdom, tell me why I am wrong. Do you actually have the ability to make an argument or is smug sarcasm all you have to offer?; 5/27/15, 4:35 PM
Patrick Henry was right! said...: J. Farmer, what is the legal or logical basis for granting special legal protections to people who self identify as engaging in a particular sexual practice? Where are the special rights for heterosexual practices?????; 5/27/15, 4:42 PM
Jason said...: J.Farmer: So in all of your mature, adult wisdom, tell me why I am wrong. Do you actually have the ability to make an argument or is smug sarcasm all you have to offer?

Smug sarcasm, 21 years of commissioned service, MOSQ as a tank officer and an infantry officer, a Combat Infantry Badge, a year in combat in Ramadi, a Brigade Combat Battle Staff Training exercise a National Training Center rotation, experience working in every staff shop at either battalion or brigade level, four command assignments (three infantry companies, including two HHC commander tours and one military intelligence company command) and some time at a division rear operations center trying to plan and execute logistics at the Div/Corps level. I've also worked in command centers supporting exercises up to theater level, all of which was trying to manage the mountain of logistics and intelligence that makes a special forces pinprick possible.

Et vouz?; 5/27/15, 4:43 PM
steve uhr said...: Basil --Cite for me just one law that gives special legal protections to people who self identify as engaging in a particular sexual practice. Bet you can't.; 5/27/15, 4:45 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Basil:

I don't believe in "special" rights for anybody.

@Jason:

Great resume. Now answer my question.; 5/27/15, 4:46 PM
Jason said...: No. You go learn something. I'm not your Kindergarten teacher.; 5/27/15, 4:50 PM
J. Farmer said...: Like I said, you can't be bothered to make an argument. No wonder you thrived in an institution that demands obedience to authority.; 5/27/15, 4:52 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "However, some fundamentalist Christian teaching can be kooky and/or stupid in all sorts of ways."

I belong to conservative Christian denomination. It is liturgical, not fundamentalist, but I believe that there are documents somewhere that say that my denomination believes that the Earth was created in six days. Ah, here it is:

The Synod has affirmed the belief, therefore, based on Scripture's account of creation in the book of Genesis and other clear passages of Scripture, that "God by the almighty power of His Word created all things in six days by a series of creative acts," that "Adam and Eve were real, historical human beings, the first two people in the world," and that "we must confess what St. Paul says in Romans 5:12" about the origin of sin through Adam as described in Genesis 3. The Synod has also, therefore, stated that it rejects "all those world views, philosophical theories, exegetical interpretations and other hypotheses which pervert these biblical teachings and thus obscure the Gospel".

In over a decade of church attendance I have never heard, in the course of services or in conversation with the minister, any allusion to God literally creating the world in six days. I think that idea of some fire and brimstone preacher instructing his flock that the Earth is only six thousand years old is a Hollywood myth.
All Christian denominations profess belief in things like the dead rising, and water turning into wine. Catholics are supposed to be more progressive than fundamentalist protestant denominations because they accept evolution, but they still believe that man -- and the world -- were created by the God of the Bible.
Why is it more objectionable to believe in an Earth that is six thousand years old than in the redeeming death and resurrection of Christ? Even Obama says he believes that the death and resurrection of Christ redeemed his sins.; 5/27/15, 4:55 PM
n.n said...: Pro-choice philosophy continues to take its toll on equality, justice, science, and liberty, with progressive exclusion, including: selective-child, selective-trans orientations and behaviors. The pro-choice religion means never having to admit your sanctimonious hypocrisy.

I wonder what the trans-heterosexuals will introduce next in order to cover their dysfunctional orientations and behaviors, and civil and human rights violations. Will they expand their narrow definition of equivalence to encompass other trans orientations and behaviors? Will they demand a progressive religious exception for unrestricted sacrificial rites?; 5/27/15, 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Eric:

"Take a look at my post (A response to your challenge) you failed to respond to. "

No, I have responded to those examples several times. New York has laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against certain groups of people.

Either you're dishonest or your dumb.

Your challenge was:

Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM?

The answer to your question was:

A couple was fined in New York $13,000.00 for refusing to host a gay wedding.

In order for your response to have merit, you'd have to say that couple could still be fined if SSM were illegal in New York.

You're wrong, but unwilling to admit it.

Which should tell everyone at Althouse that you're just a troll.; 5/27/15, 5:24 PM
Bricap said...: What is the definition of "mainstream Christian teaching?" Has it remained the same since the inception of Christianity? Is it not a faith that is open to discourse, amendment, and reinterpretation?; 5/27/15, 5:30 PM
Known Unknown said...: " what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? "

not be CEO of Mozilla?

I know that's kind of specific.; 5/27/15, 5:32 PM
n.n said...: Terry:

It requires an equal leap of faith to believe that science can be applied outside of a limited frame of reference in time and space. The unrestricted assumptions of uniformity and continuity, liberal indulgence in inference, and unqualified elevation of correlation, are characteristic of a quasi-science that predates the scientific method and has corrupted its function in the post-normal era.

That said, at least theists acknowledge their faith. I respect their integrity and abstention from corruption. Both evolutionary and divine creation are articles of faith or fantasy. That is not to say that either is necessarily false or true, but that the scientific method cannot be applied to either theory. Science is far more limited, intentionally, by design, than most people will acknowledge.

That said, it's telling that certain secular sects reject evolutionary principles while maintaining a sincere faith in evolutionary creationism. It's further telling, and revealing, that these same sects demand a State-established religion (i.e. Church) that is notably selective and exclusive. This "secular" Church is established by its principled denigration of individual dignity, debasement of human life, and consensus-based (i.e. social/political/executive agreement) scientific foundation.; 5/27/15, 5:39 PM
Jason said...: No wonder you thrived in an institution that demands obedience to authority.

Your ignorance is truly boundless.; 5/27/15, 5:39 PM
Katrina said...: "No wonder you thrived in an institution that demands obedience to authority."

Jason is a professor at Duke?; 5/27/15, 5:43 PM
Diamondhead said...: EMD, this may be splitting hairs, but is it fair to blame that on SSM rather than on the outraged mob of twitterers that pops up anytime someone expresses a heterodox opinion? These are the people who will enforce the self-censorship regime with the threat of social obliteration, boycotts, etc. But their power is generally illusory: you take it away when you stop caring what they think. As for the boycotts/job loss, I think there needs to be some semblance of organization on the right that will allow like-minded people to act in a concerted fashion when a company fires someone for expressing "wrong" opinions.; 5/27/15, 5:44 PM
Jason said...: But their power is generally illusory: you take it away when you stop caring what they think.

If they control your career, you don't have that luxury.

You also don't have that luxury when they resort to arson threats, bomb threats and death threats against you and your staff. All of which we have seen the gay mafia resort to just in the last couple of months.; 5/27/15, 5:49 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

In order for your response to have merit, you'd have to say that couple could still be fined if SSM were illegal in New York."

Which is exactly why my argument has merit. The relevant law was passed in 2002, 9 years before SSM was legal. The fact that you don't understand the particulars of the case is not my problem.; 5/27/15, 5:57 PM
chickelit said...: J. Farmer said...
Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? Nobody has a right to not be called names.

That's an easy one if you think about it. It's so easy that I'm not going to tell you the answer. Think about it before you answer back, please.; 5/27/15, 6:12 PM
cubanbob said...: MikeR said...
"Lets not forget why our troops are still in Germany-NATO, which really was intended to keep the Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in. With Putin strutting around and the Germans starting to stir just a little bit maybe its not a good idea to bug out now. As for Japan, same. With China getting a bit aggressive, little Kim's insanity and the overall neighborhood getting getting a little antsy now is not a good time to quit Japan either." Huh? Either let them defend themselves, or pay us the cost for defending them. Why do I have to pay to defend France from Germany? Where did this become the status quo, and why can't it be changed?
5/27/15, 12:24 PM"

Its not an ideal situation but the alternatives are far worse and if we bug out when things get out of control sooner or later we will get sucked back in and at a much, much higher cost. You don't cancel your homeowner's policy tomorrow because your house didn't burn down today.; 5/27/15, 6:17 PM
steve uhr said...: Chickelit -- assuming J.Farmer is not up to the task of refuting his own argument, are you going to answer his "so easy" question? I would also like to know the answer.

One possible answer -- Christians are unable to read the engagements/wedding notices in their local paper w/o seeing notices for same-sex couples. Is that sort of what you have in mind?

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for Basil to cite me a single law that "gives special legal protections to people who self identify as engaging in a particular sexual practice."; 5/27/15, 6:34 PM
chickelit said...: John said...

Anything less than a public expression that SSM is the best thing since sliced bread gets one called a hater.

In my opinion (10+ years of reading Althouse and eight or so commenting), I'd say that that's her personal opinion but it's not shared by a majority of her readers (vocal or not). Althouse is a place where people come to see the worst exemplars of both sides of debates and also to find the reasoned ones in between.; 5/27/15, 6:41 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: So otherwise inane and disregarded Jewish "commandments" become "mainstream Christianity" at what point? Upon Rubio's say-so?

How convenient.

Is homo stuff even mentioned in any of the Gospels?

Any other trivial strictures and biblical laws that he feels he's been put on earth to fulfill?; 5/27/15, 7:29 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Althouse is a place where people come to see the worst exemplars of both sides of debates and also to find the reasoned ones in between.

You never gave me a "reasoned" explanation for your opposition to SSM.; 5/27/15, 7:30 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Catholics are supposed to be more progressive than fundamentalist protestant denominations because they accept evolution, but they still believe that man -- and the world -- were created by the God of the Bible.

And are they also privy to the mechanistic blueprints for how He went about doing this?; 5/27/15, 7:33 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Why is it more objectionable to believe in an Earth that is six thousand years old than in the redeeming death and resurrection of Christ?

Probably because you would have to kill every geologist to do that.

Whereas the second part doesn't require any literal empiricism to accept.

Conservatives seem to have a lot of trouble with the concept of metaphor. I find it very troubling.

But I'm here to help. Imagine a novel you read at one time. Or even a story. Something that had a lot of impact on you. If you aren't a reader, imagine something you were told as a child. A fairy tale, perhaps. Or an intriguing bit of folklore.

If the impact on you is real, that's what matters. However, the idea that there needs to be any literal or historical truth to the story/novel/fairy tale/myth for that impact to be made is nonsense.

But that's what happens when you discard - as conservatives are wont to do - the idea of a life where the search for meaning is paramount.; 5/27/15, 7:40 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: n.n. -
I think it is far important to consider what it means to be a dependent being, created by God out love, than whatever narrative people read into rock formations.; 5/27/15, 7:41 PM
chickelit said...: You never gave me a "reasoned" explanation for your opposition to SSM.

I honestly don't recall you ever asking (you probably did) and I probably ignored you.

I think Christians want a simple word for a union which is blessed by God. Christians don't get to decide what's blessed by God. If you take the word marriage from Christians, you take that away, because the Tituses can go around sneering "I have what you have and you were stupid enough to cede it." Of course the militant atheists will say all religion is phony and man-made so why is it even an issue.

I've lost respect for you and and for Althouse regarding your inability/unwillingness to recognize any sort of uptick in gay vindictiveness. You've defended Dan Savage for crying out loud! Althouse is like "Of course I'm against the illegal threats" but one gets the distinct impression that you and she are applauding the vindictiveness.; 5/27/15, 7:49 PM
chickelit said...: @R&B If you haven't been reading rhhardin on these matters, you should.; 5/27/15, 7:51 PM
hombre said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/27/15, 7:57 PM
hombre said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/27/15, 7:59 PM
chickelit said...: @R&B: Unlike you (I don't "know" because you never reveal personal details but are always somehow endlessly curious about others' personal details), I have been on the receiving end of being in love and not being able to marry. I tried to marry my girlfriend in Europe was was endlessly "Kafka'd" out of doing so. Do you know what real people do who are in love in those situations do? They move on and find a venue that will allow them to do so. They don't dig in their heels and petulantely whine about "the State." They don't go around trying to ruin the business lives of people who don't bless them. They move on.

Move.On.

Somebody should start a PAC or something.; 5/27/15, 8:01 PM
hombre said...: Surely Rubio doesn't mean to suggest that the gay mafia/secular progressive coalition is bent on eradicating the First Amendment rights of Christians. Oh, say it isn't so!

As for me, I'm with Mark Steyn. When Islam with the help of said coalition displaces Christianity as the dominant religion in the US, I can grow a beard and add a wife or two as the Imams use their swords to demonstrate to the libertines the difference between Muslim and Christian doctrine.; 5/27/15, 8:04 PM
Gahrie said...: And are they also privy to the mechanistic blueprints for how He went about doing this?

Do you know of any animal that can recognize human produced blueprints for what they are, let alone read them?

What hubris for you to presume that we could even recognize God's blueprints, yet alone read them!; 5/27/15, 8:05 PM
chickelit said...: R&B asked: Is homo stuff even mentioned in any of the Gospels?

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
Matthew 5:17

I guess you're back to asking why people eat shrimp.; 5/27/15, 8:09 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I think Christians want a simple word for a union which is blessed by God. Christians don't get to decide what's blessed by God. If you take the word marriage from Christians, you take that away, because the Tituses can go around sneering "I have what you have and you were stupid enough to cede it." Of course the militant atheists will say all religion is phony and man-made so why is it even an issue.

If you think that people don't play a role in defining what a religion is and what it does then I guess humans don't figure into your concept of God's plan for them very much at all. It must have escaped you that all religions are led by people, and not by a deity.

I've lost respect for you...

Lol. Oh snap! There goes the growth in our relationship I've been longing for. Ever since you de-linked me for the most trivial of reasons and continue to find the most trivial reasons for disliking whatever it is about me at any given moment that you choose to dislike.

..and and for Althouse regarding your inability/unwillingness to recognize any sort of uptick in gay vindictiveness.

And look! You still come here all the time. Maybe you don't hate being exposed to or confronted with a different if challenging viewpoint as much as you pretend you do, after all.

You've defended Dan Savage for crying out loud!

We both did. He's good at what he does. What's not to defend?

Well, I saw you went on about that whole obscure "door handle" business lately. I told you the first time about the oligodynamic effect. I guess that didn't matter to you. Neither does the fact that Savage doesn't have HIV/AIDS, as you implied, nor the fact that it can't be spread by door handles, anyway. But if you're really that desperate for hating someone who simply gives reasonable and informed advice to an America as socially error-prone over its own ridiculous sexual repression as the one we live in as Savage does, then that'd be as good a reason as any.

Althouse is like "Of course I'm against the illegal threats" but one gets the distinct impression that you and she are applauding the vindictiveness.

You are pretending that legal terms mean things that they don't. Life is not always a cuddly teddy bear, Chickie. You are very selective and myopic about where you see vindictiveness and where you see an obvious defense of fundamental and obvious rights.; 5/27/15, 8:11 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
Matthew 5:17

I guess you're back to asking why people eat shrimp.

Well then? Why not?

Jews say there are 613 of those. They should probably know 'cause they wrote the thing.

Go put on a black hat, overcoat and fringy shawl and then I'll believe your selectivity about "fulfilling laws" has any rhyme or reason to it.; 5/27/15, 8:12 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: They don't dig in their heels and petulantely whine about "the State." …. They move on.

Lol.

You're a "conservative" and you expect me to believe this?

Can't be taken seriously.

The whole outrage to her other post was about not giving the state some power to promote one-way free-speech in only the direction most convenient to those complaining for it!

You have a really upside-down view of things like this sometimes.; 5/27/15, 8:16 PM
hombre said...: R&B: "... the idea of a life where the search for meaning is paramount."

What possible meaning can life have to a godless, soulless skinbag of chemicals?

Just askin'.; 5/27/15, 8:16 PM
jr565 said...: J farmer wrote:
Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? Nobody has a right to not be called names.

the fear is that very quickly christians will not be able to profess religious views lest some hold them accountable for hate speech. Nobody has a right not to be called names? Oh like gays and transgendered? But that would
Br hate speech. They will make sure of it.
And so you argue against your own point. Christians do t care if other people mock christians. They want to be able to express themselves.; 5/27/15, 8:19 PM
Paul Ciotti said...: J. Farmer said...

Quick question: what are Christians unable to do now as a result of SSM? Nobody has a right to not be called names.

The state has no business giving its blessing to a sexual practice which has resulted in more than 650,000 Americans dying from AIDS.; 5/27/15, 8:23 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: What possible meaning can life have to a godless, soulless skinbag of chemicals?

Just asking'.

One that actually enjoys interacting socially with its environment, including the other people in it, their ideas, needs, desires and thoughts. One that seeks to enhance its own understanding by learning of their sorrows, joys and travails.

It seems to escape you that all your ideas on "God" came from works written or spoken about by some of those other people, and the chemicals they provoked in your own "soulless skinbag".; 5/27/15, 8:23 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "One that actually enjoys interacting socially with its environment, including the other people in it, their ideas, needs, desires and thoughts. One that seeks to enhance its own understanding by learning of their sorrows, joys and travails."
Interesting. Do you think that is good? Why?; 5/27/15, 8:30 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Interesting. Do you think that is good? Why?

It's good because all life, on some level, seems to do this. Humans do more of it and enjoy more of it because they're more complex and therefore interact in more complex ways. That means there is potentially more to enjoy. Or more to become sad about. Or more to become indifferent about. The specific reaction is more a product of one's general or specific state of mind than anything else, probably.

As long as we enjoy life and the things in it that I described, then it's truism without need of proof to call it "good".

And hence, we come to one of the first parts of the bible that resonates as decent (or meaningful) literature. He saw all that, and it was good.

Whether we evolved chemicals to enjoy the lives we live or not is beside the point. The point is that we don't have much choice but to find something good in it - biologically or socially.

In this way, religion, biology and sociology all reinforce each other. So I never really understood the point of focusing on how the specifics of what the Deity in some longstanding cannon of literature supposedly said on it is somehow more important than what basic, experiential and/or universal meanings are obviously reinforced by it.; 5/27/15, 8:38 PM
rcocean said...: The obvious solution would be to get rid of "hate speech" - which has always been UnAmerican and IMO unconstitutional.

Problem solved.; 5/27/15, 8:51 PM
rcocean said...: By "get rid of" I mean stop the government from punishing people for speech based on the idea that its "Hate".

Unfortunately, many conservatives decided long ago to win brownie points with the Liberals and stupid moderates by endorsing the concept of "hate speech" and now it will come back to bite them.; 5/27/15, 8:53 PM
jr565 said...: "Nobody has a right not to be called names" shouldn't you be telling gays, women and transgendered that? I don't know too many Christians saying no one has a right to not be called names. Pout I know a lot of social justice warriors saying it would be a good idea of there were laws against it.
But only for their protected classes.; 5/27/15, 9:12 PM
steve uhr said...: Paul Ciotti -- I don't know the numbers but I'm sure many millions of heterosexuals have died from venereal diseases throughout history. So the solution is they should not be allowed to marry and commit to one person? Sounds logical to me.; 5/27/15, 9:15 PM
steve uhr said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/27/15, 9:15 PM
jr565 said...: Ritmo wrote:
"One that actually enjoys interacting socially with its environment, including the other people in it, their ideas, needs, desires and thoughts. One that seeks to enhance its own understanding by learning of their sorrows, joys and travails.
and If instead you were one who enjoyed raping and killing prostitutes and then burying them in your back yard, there too you would find the exact same amount of meaning.; 5/27/15, 9:16 PM
jr565 said...: "It's good because all life, on some level, seems to do this. Humans do more of it and enjoy more of it because they're more complex and therefore interact in more complex ways. That means there is potentially more to enjoy. Or more to become sad about. Or more to become indifferent about. The specific reaction is more a product of one's general or specific state of mind than anything else, probably.

As long as we enjoy life and the things in it that I described, then it's truism without need of proof to call it "good".

And hence, we come to one of the first parts of the bible that resonates as decent (or meaningful) literature. He saw all that, and it was good.

Ted buddy certainly enjoyed his life until he was caught by the police. Was it "good"?; 5/27/15, 9:18 PM
Browndog said...: Hint: "hate speech", as incorporated into criminal law was never intended to protect Christians...or Jews..ow white men....or anything else the left is at war with-

Hint: So called "conservatives" fall ever more into the trap of "hate speech" out of tit-for-tat

Hint: Everyone will regret the day it becomes judicially "precedent"...however some feel they'll be above it-circa France, 1789.; 5/27/15, 9:20 PM
jr565 said...: Steve use wrote:
Meanwhile I'm still waiting for Basil to cite me a single law that "gives special legal protections to people who self identify as engaging in a particular sexual practice."

there are no special legal protections for heterosexuals when it comes to marriage, since there are no restrictions on gays being able to marry members of the opposite sex.; 5/27/15, 9:21 PM
steve uhr said...: jr565 - I think we may be in agreement: There are no special legal protections for heterosexuals or homosexuals when it comes to marriage, since there are no restrictions on gays being able to marry members of the opposite sex and there are no restrictions on straights being able to marry members of the same sex.

Any problem with that?; 5/27/15, 9:27 PM
Michael K said...: "The perpetrators entered this country perfectly legally on international flights and planned and executed a terrorist. Camps in Afghanistan had practically nothing to do with it. Al Qaeda at that time was actually a quite small organization."

Thank god I was out to dinner when you vomited this stuff on this thread,

You are a legend in your own mind.

Who was the "terrorist" they executed or was that another brain fart ?

Who did the Africa bombings that are blamed on this "quite small organization ?"

It's OK. I don't expect you to answer.; 5/27/15, 9:27 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Well, R&B, I think that it is important that you wrote "One that actually enjoys interacting socially with its environment, including the other people in it, their ideas, needs, desires and thoughts. One that seeks to enhance its own understanding by learning of their sorrows, joys and travails."
All of these use the medium of language. Language, at least as far as human beings are concerned, is tied up with imagination. We can conceive of things that not only never existed, but never could exist. It is not difficult to see divinity in the human capacity for language, and a sign of the Fall in, perhaps, our inability to experience the world using anything other than language. "That of which we can not speak we must pass over in silence."; 5/27/15, 10:53 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I suppose you could see divinity in language. But all organisms communicate with each other. Bacteria even communicate with each other using chemical signals - such as "quorum sensing factors", that tell other bacteria where a favorable environment has been found. Chameleons convey various emotional states by the colors they change into. Our spoken/written language might be more complex in allowing the communication of many more factual and abstract ideas, but it's still just a form of communication. I think the most expansive way to redefine one's understanding of language and communication is to simply watch other vertebrate mammals interacting with each other. The majority of the cues by which they convey annoyance, pleasure, etc., can nearly perfectly be understood according to a close human approximate gesture or other non-verbal cue.

They say the majority of interpersonal communication is nonverbal.

Our different views of this derives, I believe, from an emphasis you're placing on abstract/factual communication, at the expense of emotional communication. This is not unexpected. The people most skilled at emotional communication - the politicians and artists - are among the most powerful and/or highly rewarded in society. They are communicating the things we find most important, perhaps because conveying emotional information adeptly and constructively is a rare talent. Even though it's much the sort of information that our vertebrate relatives convey to each other all the time.; 5/27/15, 11:39 PM
J. Farmer said...: Paul Ciotti@

"The state has no business giving its blessing to a sexual practice which has resulted in more than 650,000 Americans dying from AIDS."

What about lesbians?

@Michael K:

"Who was the "terrorist" they executed or was that another brain fart ?

Who did the Africa bombings that are blamed on this "quite small organization ?"

It's OK. I don't expect you to answer."

Actually, it was a typo. It should've read "executed a terrorist plot." That is, having a base of operations or camps in Afghanistan were really inconsequential to being able to plan and execute a plot like 9/11. The same is true with the bombings of the African embassies and the attack on the USS Cole. Obviously all resulted in tragic losses of life, but compared to attempting to stabilize and secure countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, the problem of Al Qaeda was vastly more containable and manageable. But the heavy handed, ham fisted intervention in the middle east the United States has been attempting for the last decade and a half has been a stupid waste of time. Libya is home to terrorists, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen. Are these problems manageable by means other than regime change and occupation? If so, the same thing could have been said about Iraq and Afghanistan.; 5/27/15, 11:57 PM
hombre said...: R&B: "So I never really understood the point of focusing on how the specifics of what the Deity in some longstanding cannon of literature supposedly said on it is somehow more important than what basic, experiential and/or universal meanings are obviously reinforced by it."

Obviously. Your worldview compels moral relativism. Consequently, you have no foundation from which to determine what is important and what is not. You just make it up as you go along, like a soda can fizzing. Chemicals, you know.; 5/28/15, 12:13 AM
chickelit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/28/15, 12:13 AM
chickelit said...: R&B wrote:
Well, I saw you went on about that whole obscure "door handle" business lately. I told you the first time about the oligodynamic effect. I guess that didn't matter to you. Neither does the fact that Savage doesn't have HIV/AIDS, as you implied, nor the fact that it can't be spread by door handles, anyway. But if you're really that desperate for hating someone who simply gives reasonable and informed advice to an America as socially error-prone over its own ridiculous sexual repression as the one we live in as Savage does, then that'd be as good a reason as any.

We'll never reconcile nor see eye-to-eye on bigot/criminal heroes like Savage. The whole thing reminds me of the Palin years when you blessed and vehemently defended Sullivan's treatment of her as appropriate. BTW, what is your erstwhile Oxfordian hero doing these days? Writing a memoir?; 5/28/15, 12:15 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Your worldview compels moral relativism. Consequently, you have no foundation from which to determine what is important and what is not. You just make it up as you go along, like a soda can fizzing. Chemicals, you know.

And you run on what, exactly? Oil cans? Electricity? Spirit farts?

The problem with decrepit assholes like yourself is you have no one to kill (legally) or persecute any longer over this blather over what God told whom to do what to whom. The tension in you builds and it pisses you off.

Rational people can determine ethics without pretending a need to reduce them to what the Spirit Daddy in the Sky said. But then, along with being irrational, you probably have daddy issues, also.

If you hate being a material being so much, there's a simple solution to that. Stand on the Big X at the next nuclear testing site and vaporize yourself! And don't forget to never see a doctor until that day comes. Get thyself a "faith healer", instead. Handle snakes. Whatever you want to do, no one the fuck cares! Just like they don't care about all the other psychopaths in the state ward who spit endless, babbling bible verses at the staff and at each other. And none of them discuss rational things or science, interestingly enough. I'm sure they have a similar fear of chemicals as you do.

But it's good to know that you're not in charge of your own mind. "God" is. Just like He was in charge of Manson's and Jim Jone's and David Koresh's minds. And the guy running the Heaven's Gate cult. They empathized deeply with that same problem of ungodliness that you're so distressed by.

But you're probably not even religious. Just a hypocritical blasphemer thinking he can tell everyone else what God wants of them. Including how many times a day or in one's life they need to pretend to know what He wants them to do.

Speaking of which, God just told me to that He wants you to fuck off.; 5/28/15, 12:30 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Obviously. Your worldview compels moral relativism.

Better moral relativism than moral arbitrariness.

You've just admitted that you're incapable of considering context.

Perhaps that works in Texas - where they have no problem executing the innocent, the mentally retarded and whomever else gets in the way of their sense of "foundation".

People with brains and rational morals prefer civilization, though.

Why did you remove "elle" from the beginning of your name, BTW? Not manly enough?

Try typing your next sentence without neurotransmitting chemicals. You'd have to replace your brain with a vaccuum, but I'm sure that's ok with a holy roller like yourself. It's all spirit, you know.; 5/28/15, 12:40 AM
hombre said...: R&B: "... Speaking of which, God just told me that He wants you to fuck off."

O-o-o. All that was a big nasty fizz, wasn't it?; 5/28/15, 12:41 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: If you truly believe your material brain, with all the chemicals in it, is not a crucial source of your thoughts, acts and morals, I highly urge you to remove it at once.; 5/28/15, 12:42 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Since hombre's obvious aim is just negative attention, it's important to state factually, calmly, that he's arguing for a pre-Phineas Gage understanding of neurology.

You know, hombre, that experiment is replicable. All you have to do is convince some railroad engineers to blow a spike through your brain, and see how it affects your personality, moral judgment and - you know, your "soul" - or whatever you call it.

Let your faith be your guide and go with it. Do not be intimidated. Remember, the spirit is forever. The material brain, with all its chemicals - a distraction. Relying on it - the road to evil.

Do not be afraid, "hombre" ("man", talk about unoriginality). Be like the prophets of old and perform your miracle. Show the heathen rationalists of modern America the importance of foregoing the material existence. All your followers will go along with you, and you might even win some converts.

It's what your heroes of "The Good Book" would have done. Don't admit to being a hypocrite. Be the true believer you want everyone to think that you really are and demonstrate your faith in the illusory nature of the material world - the world, in which, you don't really exist.

What are you waiting for?; 5/28/15, 12:49 AM
hombre said...: R&B, the Ritmo, Pompous Montanus sock puppet reverts to type.

Uncontrollable fizzing fizzes. You go, Ritmo. Get Texas!; 5/28/15, 12:50 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: For the self-appointed voice of God on Earth, you really aren't saying all that much.

This rebellion against the concept of "the brain" really needs your demonstration. Show us the faith.

Decapitate yourself and allow the dissection to proceed. Show us the little God-Angel-Spirit that lurks within your cabeza, "hombre".

Or are you too pompous to put your money where your mouth is?

This is why religion is in decline. Hypocritical, self-righteous idiot-turds like the Texan who can't even back up what he says, yet demands that others believe him.

Make a stand, Alamo Man. Show us the chemicals that either aren't in your head, or can be dispensed with.; 5/28/15, 12:56 AM
hombre said...: "... the illusory nature of the real world."

I think you're confusing Christians with Buddhists, but you go, Ritmo. Get Buddhists!; 5/28/15, 12:57 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Elle - I just heard from Your Friend upstairs again.

God says he never gave you permission to speak for Him.

He also says if your life was less empty, you'd be less condescending, irrational and demanding of everyone else's subservience to the way you misrepresent Him.

You really are this empty of a person, aren't you? Hateful of even the science of neurochemistry. Sad.; 5/28/15, 1:00 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: "... the illusory nature of the real world."

I think you're confusing Christians with Buddhists...

Then you're the Buddhist. You're the one that insists neurochemistry and biochemistry are wrong and lack explanatory power.

Take responsibility for what you say, Deepak Chopra. All that sneaky slithering around might work in a courtroom, but your power to suppress evidence, or even a coherent stance of your own, is greatly reduced in the free marketplace of ideas.; 5/28/15, 1:03 AM
Achilles said...: J. Farmer said...

@Jason:

"Christ on a crotch-rocket. Is there an adult on the other end of your account we can talk to? Put your mommy back on. Your dog. Anybody not as stupid as you, General."

So in all of your mature, adult wisdom, tell me why I am wrong. Do you actually have the ability to make an argument or is smug sarcasm all you have to offer?"

I already gave you a primer earlier in the thread:

"First off special forces wouldn't carry out that type of mission. It would be JSOC. Second they couldn't do it without the intel developed from other operations. Third you don't just helicopter into a country and helicopter out. Helicopters don't have that kind of range. They are also notoriously vulnerable targets. Fourth there is a term called freedom to move and maneuver. You don't get that with 45 guys in a few helicopters."

"J. Farmer said...
Like I said, you can't be bothered to make an argument. No wonder you thrived in an institution that demands obedience to authority."

It has already been determined that you lack even a basic understanding of what we do or how we accomplish our mission(s). You also lack respect which is only mirrored by your ignorance. You are a gay person who obviously gives Muslims more respect than the US military.

In the end I am proud of what I did and really I just want to be left alone. But when people like you say the shit you do we remember. On the one hand at the core you just don't want to admit your life and freedom were earned by others and it is your weakness. On the other I wont cry much when they bury you to your ribs and stone you to death since you obviously don't think it was worth the effort to protect you.; 5/28/15, 1:05 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: What would Texans know of science if Elle weren't here to retrofit the Scopes trial onto a biochemical format.

Here's some biochemistry that should be rejected for something more "godly" - there's too much oxygen in your system, Elle.

Jesus the Creator-God says you need to stop breathing. Those oxygen molecules are dangerously close the "chemicals" that those pesky scientific materialists are using to explain how life works. Prove them wrong.

The fact that you make yourself sound like a Buddhist and take issue with that just shows how many mutually confrontational and confused flavors of ignorance exist in your world - the world you prefer.; 5/28/15, 1:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Blogger J. Farmer said...
@Eric:

In order for your response to have merit, you'd have to say that couple could still be fined if SSM were illegal in New York."

Which is exactly why my argument has merit. The relevant law was passed in 2002, 9 years before SSM was legal. The fact that you don't understand the particulars of the case is not my problem.

The Lesbian couple could not have had a complain against the Giffords in 2002, what ceremony would they have asked them to perform?

It was only after gay sex marriage was approved that they were able to bring this suit and force them out of business.

It's cute that you keep trying to defend this hill you've already lost.; 5/28/15, 1:15 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I think you're confusing Christians with Buddhists...

So, it's the Christian view of things that requires you to reject biochemistry, then.

Got it.

Any other religious corrections of science your Christianity requires you to make today?

Make sure to leave no stone unturned in your fight, Elle. Science is a mighty prolific enterprise. Many spiritual falsehoods science creates that you'll no doubt be up to the task of correcting.

Get to it. Tell us where else science has transgressed upon your Christianity and what your more powerful theology tells us about why it's wrong.

Come out from under your rock and clarify. Get into the sunlight, Brave "HOMBRE".

Get out of the shadows. Show everyone what your mighty "Christian" science has shown to be more truthful and accurate.; 5/28/15, 1:15 AM
Anonymous said...: J. Farmer, please educate and read this link:

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/GiffordCommissionDecision.pdf

Notice the very first sentence:

Complainan*, a same sex couple, alieged that they were unlawfirliy discriminated against
when Respondents refused to ailow them to use their place of public accommodation to be
married.

A public accommodation to do what?!

That last word there is very important. Let's recall your challenge. Remember, it has nothing at all to do with gay sex marriage, right?

And yet right in the very first sentence, there it is. Marriage. Refused them a public accommodation to be married.

Just admit you're a troll not interested in the facts and move on.; 5/28/15, 1:20 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Good night, HOMEBRAY.

It looks as if you have no defense, tonight.

Perhaps Jesus the Creator-God will refill your mind receptacle with explanations for why biochemistry is wrong, tomorrow.

Creator-God is like that. Sometimes tired, despite all the omnipotence.

As someone who longs to be His Most Humble Servant, expecting anything more of you would also be wrong.

Creator-God will recharge those spirit particles (not "chemicals" - it's a lie to say chemicals explain how our bodies and minds function) by the morning, I'm sure.

Interesting how He works like that.; 5/28/15, 1:24 AM
Achilles said...: Is it me or is R&B just talking to himself? If we are talking about neurochemistry I am just going to say that someone will develop a direct dopamine injector fairly soon. If you think heroine is addictive get ready. There will be many dead people who literally forget to drink water.

Anyhow...

The biggest problem with this discussion is people are arguing over who gets to force the other group to live by their moral code using the government monopoly on force. I know I am just tilting at windmills here but the conservatives on this site should realize the futility of this endeavor. You are in the minority and that will never change. You are demographically doomed. There is nothing more certain than SSM will forever be supported by a majority of Americans forever.

Small government big church.

Please just say it a couple times. Think about it for 60 seconds before you go off mewling about foundations of the country and moral decay. For the love of god stop insisting the government should be making these decisions.; 5/28/15, 1:26 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Achilles:

"It has already been determined that you lack even a basic understanding of what we do or how we accomplish our mission(s). You also lack respect which is only mirrored by your ignorance. You are a gay person who obviously gives Muslims more respect than the US military.

On the one hand at the core you just don't want to admit your life and freedom were earned by others and it is your weakness. On the other I wont cry much when they bury you to your ribs and stone you to death since you obviously don't think it was worth the effort to protect you."

This is beyond absurd. I have confined my comments to very specific actions that the US has taken in reaction to 9/11. No, I do not believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq contributed to US security. I see no logical reason to believe that if not for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would be at greater threat for being stoned to deaths by Muslims. Your assertion that because I have a different opinion than you regarding strategy, I must be some kind Muslim-loving, America-hating ideologue is ridiculous. What compels you to incessantly and gratuitously insult my character?; 5/28/15, 3:56 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Eric:

"A public accommodation to do what?!

That last word there is very important. Let's recall your challenge. Remember, it has nothing at all to do with gay sex marriage, right?

And yet right in the very first sentence, there it is. Marriage. Refused them a public accommodation to be married.

Just admit you're a troll not interested in the facts and move on."

No, I am sorry but you are wrong and don't understand the history. The New York legislature passed in 2002, the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act. That law prohibited discrimination in, among other things, "housing, employment, public accommodation, education and credit." Contrary to your argument, long before marriage was ever a legal recognition, in what was not uncommon for gay couples to have "commitment ceremonies," "weddings," and "marriages." Of course the examples I have talked about over and over and that have been in the media (bakery, New York, etc.) are related to marriage. That's the reason they are even relevant in this discussion.

My point has always been straightforward. Private business had already been under the subject of laws that prevented them from discriminating against homosexuals. If, for example, a Christian homeowner chose not to rent her house to a same-sex couple, it makes no difference what the legal status of same-sex marriage is. Once the court decided to declare the property "public accommodation," the couple would have been prevented from denying access to homosexuals for any reason. If a group wanted to simply hold a gay pride parade or a purely ceremonial commitment ceremony, the couple would equally be compelled by the law to not deny them access on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

This is part of New York law that is completely separate from its marriage law. It is a product of the legislature and is subject to democratic forces. If the residents of New York made the decision to vote in representatives who believed in repealing the sexual orientation non-discrimination act, those bakers and banquet hall owners would be perfectly free to deny access on the basis of sexual orientation. The legislature could even do this while maintaining same-sex marriage. That has consistently been my point. These are two separate issues, and I believe that the reaction to these cases is alarmist and over-the-top. Same-sex marriage is legal in 37 states, and there have been a handful of cases in three states. There are a little less than 400,000 married same-sex couples in the US. 99.9% of them have gone off without a hitch and with no one's livelihood destroyed or religious sensibilities enflamed. I have said over and over that on the merits of the case, I am on your side. I believe that the baker had a right to refuse service as did the landowner in New York. I think those were all stupid, shitty, wrongheaded court cases that looked to me like ugly, entitled bullying. Nonetheless, I still find the reaction to it largely alarmist. Given the long list of stupid things that governments do, this one is relatively trivial in my opinion. You may consider it more important. That's fine. I am happy to have the argument. But this notion that someone who takes a different position than you is an enemy who must be accused of the most hateful, base motives is precisely the obnoxious tactic deployed by members of the left-wing SJW community.; 5/28/15, 3:56 AM
Rusty said...: R&B said,
"In this way, religion, biology and sociology all reinforce each other. So I never really understood the point of focusing on how the specifics of what the Deity in some longstanding cannon of literature supposedly said on it is somehow more important than what basic, experiential and/or universal meanings are obviously reinforced by it."

Because the specifics of that deity is why we're having this conversation in the first place instead of,"because god said so."; 5/28/15, 5:49 AM
sinz52 said...: The Bible is anti-gay.

Despite some heroic attempts to devise some contorted reinterpretations of it, the words themselves are clear: For a man to have sex with another man is a moral abomination, potentially punishable by death.

And by today's standards, that's not only bigoted, but horrible. (When was the last time that America executed someone for being gay?)

Religions come with a lot of baggage left over from tribal times. To live in a modern, democratic, pluralistic, society like America in the 21st century, they're going to have look past that stuff.

There's plenty of stuff in the Quran about violent jihad. I've read it. Modernist Muslims wanting to make a good life for themselves in America have learned to look past it.

The caste system is integral to Hinduism. But here in America, American Hindus are just going to have to flush that as well. We don't have castes here.; 5/28/15, 6:13 AM
damikesc said...: If somebody advocated holocaust denial and anti-semitism, and people reacted to him or her with anger, frustration, and ostracism, would you say that person had lost their fundamental liberty?

Doing so on, say, a college campus will get you support of the administration in most cases.; 5/28/15, 6:50 AM
sinz52 said...: "As an exercise, try to think of a way someone could oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (or ANY grounds) and not be considered a 'homophobe.'"

Simple.

State that it's your religious *duty* to oppose gay marriage, even though it's not necessarily your personal *choice*.

That is, your religion requires a lot of things from you, not all of which you understand. But to start cherry-picking those parts you fully understand and embrace while ignoring the rest weakens the entire religious doctrine.; 5/28/15, 7:03 AM
damikesc said...: But their power is generally illusory: you take it away when you stop caring what they think. As for the boycotts/job loss, I think there needs to be some semblance of organization on the right that will allow like-minded people to act in a concerted fashion when a company fires someone for expressing "wrong" opinions.

Companies need to be taught that people who whine on Twitter won't do anything as Twitter bitching is, literally, the least anybody can do. Also, yes, they need to be taught that giving in to these idiots isn't going to buy you peace...it'll simply show that you are the easiest of marks.

...of course, companies that don't care what Twitter mouth breathers think, like Protein World, get governments of the Western World attacking them ANYWAYS, but that isn't happening in the US.

Yet.

So otherwise inane and disregarded Jewish "commandments" become "mainstream Christianity" at what point?

The Christian Church has never disregarded the 10 Commandments. I'm not sure you're really up to the task of discussing Christian theology.; 5/28/15, 7:29 AM
Known Unknown said...: EMD, this may be splitting hairs, but is it fair to blame that on SSM rather than on the outraged mob of twitterers that pops up anytime someone expresses a heterodox opinion?

Can you have one without the other? Is it possible? The problem is that your outraged mob aren't just an organic offspring of Brendan Eich's donation habits or personal beliefs. They're a concerted effort by activism — largely homosexual activism to reduce a man's entire life to one act. It's hypocrisy of the highest order.

I support SSM. My ideal would be as has been suggested that government get out of the marriage business altogether. But that's not likely to happen in my lifetime, if ever.; 5/28/15, 8:37 AM
hombre said...: Achilles: "Is it me, or is R&B just talking to himself?"

Ritmo is talking to his straw men - unintelligibly. This often happens late in the evening after someone calls him on his shit.; 5/28/15, 8:49 AM
hombre said...: sinz52 (6:13): " ... potentially punishable by death. And by today's standards ...."

Surely you have an acquaintance who can explain the significance of the New Testament to you. Here's a hint: "Let him that is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7; 5/28/15, 9:02 AM
Swifty Quick said...: This of course was all prophesized in the Bible. Christans, true Christians, know this.; 5/28/15, 12:20 PM
RonF said...: As far as the left figures, that's not a bug, that's a feature.; 5/28/15, 1:42 PM
J. Farmer said...: @EMD:

" The problem is that your outraged mob aren't just an organic offspring of Brendan Eich's donation habits or personal beliefs. They're a concerted effort by activism — largely homosexual activism to reduce a man's entire life to one act. It's hypocrisy of the highest order. "

I agree that the hounding of Eich was excessive, bullying, and unhelpful to the cause of SSM. But I don't think it's right to say that SSM and this kind of intolerance are inexorably linked. Mostly because this phenomenon exists across a wide array of social and political causes. The methods that ultimately led to Eich choosing to resign, petitions and calls for boycotts, are standard tools in democratic societies, and it occurs all over the political spectrum. Rick Sanchez goes on a radio show and sarcastically makes the point that Jews are not an oppressed minority in this country, and he lost his job. Don Imus called some members of a female basketball team "nappy headed hoes" and he lost his job. Look at the public outrage and backlash that resulted from a middle-aged pop star showing one of her partially exposed nipples for approximately two seconds during a Super Bowl halftime show.; 5/28/15, 3:19 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Ritmo is talking to his straw men - unintelligibly. This often happens late in the evening after someone calls him on his shit.

The unintelligent are in no position to determine what is unintelligible.

LIsten, your game is obvious. You want to force people to believe unprovable things because you think they need to be controlled in order to be civilized or moral.

You do this because you fear freedom - for others.

You yourself probably are not even a deist or theist. But you believe that a great number of other people, whom you undoubtedly find to be beneath you, must be made to believe made-up premises about supreme beings, or else they will somehow be a threat to you.

It's about your need to control and feel superior to others. Like most educated conservative bible thumpers, you don't actually believe the things you say others must believe. You're simply an insincere proselytizer for the cause of preventing "your lessers" from embracing what scares you most: rational thought. Especially in the minds of those you think you're supposed to be better than.

Now fuck off and tell me which part of that you weren't able to read or understand. Yes, I get that, as an advocate for the religion of forced irrationality, you might be in advanced state of voluntary stupidity.

But swirl your head around a few times. See if you can't get those "chemicals" in your brain moving. See if you can't actually fire up a neuron or two, and explain why you're afraid of reason, either in general - or when exercised by people who have no use for you and your crappy ideas.

Or deny the charge and explain why it doesn't fit you to a "t".

But don't take the idiotic coward's way out and whine about being incapable of even understanding what anyone could accuse you of, and what I'm accusing you of. That's just weak.

I don't have time to translate everything you read into the language of the lazy.; 5/28/15, 11:17 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: If we are talking about neurochemistry I am just going to say that someone will develop a direct dopamine injector fairly soon. If you think heroine is addictive get ready. There will be many dead people who literally forget to drink water.

"hombre" was the one making the claim that biochemistry is not godly enough to explain how people should function and understand their moral obligations.

The scenario you describe, even if it were to come about (and it sounds like it won't), does nothing to bolster his nonsensical bullshit claim that people must acknowledge the particular sort of "GOD" he endorses to prevent themselves from being… well, apparently to prevent themselves from being biochemists - or to at least prevent themselves from becoming knowledgeable of biochemistry. Because that would make them inherently immoral, or so he says.

Since he's gotten desperate enough to deny that he claimed as much, I think he knows that his underlying purpose for making that claim is clear: It's his need to make people feel controlled in the way that he thinks only a literalist/fundamentalist God-centered religion will do. He's actually paranoid enough to demand that they embrace his own hostility toward biochemistry's explanations for human thought and behavior, as well. He states that it's imperative to believe in a literalist God that makes biochemistry (and probably all science) irrelevant. And he demands that unless you do the same, then you are to be dismissed as morally aberrant.

I am not tired, but it's not likely that he's too tired to read. It is, however, likely that he hides his true intentions when seeking to make others agree with his inane demands when it comes to social issues.; 5/28/15, 11:37 PM
Gahrie said...: But I don't think it's right to say that SSM and this kind of intolerance are inexorably linked.

Perhaps not inexorably, but definitely currently.

Mostly because this phenomenon exists across a wide array of social and political causes.

...on the Left.; 5/29/15, 12:27 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Gahrie:

"Perhaps not inexorably, but definitely currently."

The fact that a certain group of people exist who take a hateful, intolerant stand against ideological opponents has nothing to do with whether or not certain policies those people support are good ideas or not. There are, after all, people who disagree with SSM because they actually are hateful bigots. But it would not be appropriate of me to assume that all SSM opponents are hateful bigots anymore than to blame all SSM advocates for the bigots on their side.

"...on the Left."

Right. Try being anti-war in late 2002/early 2003 and see what kind of fair-minded, tolerant reception you received from people on the right. If social conservatives try to boycott television programming they consider indecent or offensive and attempt to get advertisers to pull support or pressure networks to not carry programming, are they guilty of intolerant hatred? BIll Donahue has made an entire cottage industry of threatening protests and boycotts against anyone who is unfairly critical of the Roman Catholic Church in his opinion.; 5/29/15, 11:10 AM