Ban Xtians from power?

Love this article from the BBC!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/n...nd/8446229.stm

Iris Robinson is an Irish politician and evangelical Christian.

She is an anti gay campaigner - very much the poster child and hero of Irish Evangelism. She has used/abused her public office to cite that gay sex is "an abomination". She beleives gays can be cured of their "perversion" by prayer! :roll:

Well, Iris was caught with her knickers down. With a 19 year old man. Worse, abused her office to missappropriate funds to help her young lover start a business.

As well as commiting the "sin" adultery in quite a spectacular fashion, and comitting the "sin" of stealing. And abusing the trust of everyone who voted for her. See decided that this was not enough and tried the "sin" of suicide also.

This is why evengelists and fundamentalists should not be allowed anywhere near power. As well as the hate and intollerance they spread - they are also hypocrites.

As a thelemite I actually approve of her decision to sleep with the 19 year old. If her husband was not getting it done to her satisfaction, then wrapping her legs around a younger man is some good solid full on hedonism. Its her sheer two facedness that makes me sick. Just like most evengelists, she feels a deep need to preach "morality" at people. By "morality" read bigotry, intollernace and other hate crimes.

It seems she survived her suicide attempt - good - she can wallow in her "shame" for the rest of her days like a good xtian should.


Question/Debate : What to do about the very religious in goverment? Should the very religious not be allowed power? Do we live in a Theocracy now?

My first instinct is to agree with you, and then that leads to "do not let racists or other bigots into office". But then my mind wanders over to the slippery slope, and how this bamd could lead to more restirction and discrimination. Religion is not a problem. It's those who buy into it too much that are the problem. The way I see it, relgion is more of a set of guidelines than rules, and I see value in studying christian metaphysics, and even following some if not many of the principles (golden rule, turn the other cheek, etc.), yet I would never call myself a christian. It's this false link with identity that I think is the problem.

And as far as being the 'word of god', that's also bullshit. Any explanation of the universe is going to have to be logically elegant. The bible is riddled with contradictions and therefore illogical, meaning that since it makes no god damn sense, it is likely a series of related stories and myths passed down over the ages - written by people - to try and come to terms and understand what it means to be human (just like every other fucking school of philosophy that exists). I mean, when was the last time you heard that a group of Transcendental Idealists sieged a building occupied by Objectivists? And seriously, I really fucking hope that it isnt the word of God, because if it is then that mother fucker has got to be schizophrenic or something.

Of course, this is just me ranting: I just kind of went on a tangent and somehow managed to put together these ideas that have been floating around in my mind for the past month. Even though they are dealing with the question of religion as a whole, and not the specific question of religion and politics, I'm leaving it in because I like it and I want others to see it. So, to get to the point:

I guess I'd say no, christians should not be banned from office. And I'm not even dealing with the slippery slope here. Banning them would be a form of religious discrimination, and that is unconstitutional in the United States. I dont know how it is in other countries but here it should not be allowed. The same goes for racists and bigots. Discrimination is unconstitutional. You have to trust in the people to make the right choice and hope then learn from the past. Gently educating others doesnt hurt either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evildoctor

As a thelemite I actually approve of her decision to sleep with the 19 year old. If her husband was not getting it done to her satisfaction, then wrapping her legs around a younger man is some good solid full on hedonism. Its her sheer two facedness that makes me sick. Just like most evengelists, she feels a deep need to preach "morality" at people. By "morality" read bigotry, intollernace and other hate crimes.

It seems she survived her suicide attempt - good - she can wallow in her "shame" for the rest of her days like a good xtian should.


Question/Debate : What to do about the very religious in goverment? Should the very religious not be allowed power? Do we live in a Theocracy now?

---

First I agree this person should be treated just like any politician who cheats, excluding Bill Clinton, and resign. I also agree that having morality as a part your platform and faith but doing something like that is pretty hypocritical.

With Christians you won't have to worry about a theocracy like Islamic countries. Politically, Christianity is really just a part of the socially conservative movement. If you like a one-party government, maybe you would want to get those people of faith out of office.

My big disagreement is assuming that because someone legitimately believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong and wants to help offer a cure for those people, that they're necessarily a dangerous bigot. Now the governments in African and middle eastern countries that want to throw homosexuals in fail or execute them, that's biogtry. No one has to be punished but they don't have to be imposing their lifestyle on the masses and cry foul if someone doesn't accept them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypnocella

First I agree this person should be treated just like any politician who cheats, excluding Bill Clinton, and resign. I also agree that having morality as a part your platform and faith but doing something like that is pretty hypocritical.

With Christians you won't have to worry about a theocracy like Islamic countries. Politically, Christianity is really just a part of the socially conservative movement. If you like a one-party government, maybe you would want to get those people of faith out of office.

My big disagreement is assuming that because someone legitimately believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong and wants to help offer a cure for those people, that they're necessarily a dangerous bigot. Now the governments in African and middle eastern countries that want to throw homosexuals in fail or execute them, that's biogtry. No one has to be punished but they don't have to be imposing their lifestyle on the masses and cry foul if someone doesn't accept them.

---

Yes, this post is a reasonable example of hypocrisy, thank you.

But what should we do about it?

A fascist theocracy, as Frank Zappa so eloquently put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypnocella

With Christians you won't have to worry about a theocracy like Islamic countries.

---

Only because the church was kicked out of power a couple of centuries ago...


On topic - people's religion shouldn't be a problem so long as they don't turn it into with their job as politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Yes, this post is a reasonable example of hypocrisy, thank you.

But what should we do about it?

---

Explain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypnocella

Explain?

---

Sure, let's deconstruct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypnocella

First I agree this person should be treated just like any politician who cheats, excluding Bill Clinton, and resign. I also agree that having morality as a part your platform and faith but doing something like that is pretty hypocritical.

---

Let's set aside Mark Sanford (R-SC), Larry Craig (R-ID), Mark Foley (R-FL), Ted Haggard (R-Jesusland et al) and pals, and look at the broader stage of world leaders: SEX SCANDALS HAPPEN. If you weren't elected on a platform of puritanical inquisition, humans on earth don't see sexual dalliances between consenting adults as that big a deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypnocella

With Christians you won't have to worry about a theocracy like Islamic countries. Politically, Christianity is really just a part of the socially conservative movement. If you like a one-party government, maybe you would want to get those people of faith out of office.

---

Apparently your understanding of Christianity, its roots and doctrines, derives entirely from talk-radio after 1992. Here's a primer: the majority of people in this country are Christian; the majority of officeholders in both major parties are certainly Christian. Christian faith is still a de facto requirement for public office throughout most of this nation. Those who fight for secularity in government are, primarily, Christians. Christianity is by no means identical with conservative politics. As a simple factor of history, most liberals in this country are Christian, as are most conservatives. Christian fundamentalists, like any fundamentalists, are perfectly capable of demanding their will be imposed on others if they feel they have the influence to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypnocella

My big disagreement is assuming that because someone legitimately believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong and wants to help offer a cure for those people, that they're necessarily a dangerous bigot. Now the governments in African and middle eastern countries that want to throw homosexuals in fail or execute them, that's biogtry. No one has to be punished but they don't have to be imposing their lifestyle on the masses and cry foul if someone doesn't accept them.

---

Someone who believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong has a poor understanding of both nature and ethics. It's neither beyond belief nor very far in our past that those whose identity defies the status quo could be persecuted and killed for qualities which pose no threat to society at large, but only to the political power of the dominant demographic. In some parts of this country, those conditions remain, in defiance of the rule of law. Not being able to get away with summary execution doesn't excuse you from the charge of bigotry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Let's set aside Mark Sanford (R-SC), Larry Craig (R-ID), Mark Foley (R-FL), Ted Haggard (R-Jesusland et al) and pals, and look at the broader stage of world leaders: SEX SCANDALS HAPPEN. If you weren't elected on a platform of puritanical inquisition, humans on earth don't see sexual dalliances between consenting adults as that big a deal.

---

We do hold our officials to higher standards, and really we should, a failure in one aspect of morality could lead to others, not what we want men and women of power to do.

Quote:

---

Apparently your understanding of Christianity, its roots and doctrines, derives entirely from talk-radio after 1992. Here's a primer: the majority of people in this country are Christian; the majority of officeholders in both major parties are certainly Christian. Christian faith is still a de facto requirement for public office throughout most of this nation. Those who fight for secularity in government are, primarily, Christians. Christianity is by no means identical with conservative politics. As a simple factor of history, most liberals in this country are Christian, as are most conservatives. Christian fundamentalists, like any fundamentalists, are perfectly capable of demanding their will be imposed on others if they feel they have the influence to do so.

---

A majority of people are nominally Christian, identifying themselves with one of the mainstream churches. As we can see from bishops denying certain politicians communion, that makes sense. Most liberals in this country are trying to make it some kind of crime to express one's faith even so much as an article expressimg faith in the office or courtroom, under the guise of political correctness, they wish to control more of our lives. They want as far as to replace Christianity with a state religion, atheism. Not every liberal maybe, but the far left definitely. The far left is far, far more powerful than the far right. The far left is very organized, has infiltrated our schools, our media, the democratic party where they are so driven by agenda they ignore the common man.

Quote:

---

Someone who believes from their heart that homosexuality is unnatural and wrong has a poor understanding of both nature and ethics. It's neither beyond belief nor very far in our past that those whose identity defies the status quo could be persecuted and killed for qualities which pose no threat to society at large, but only to the political power of the dominant demographic. In some parts of this country, those conditions remain, in defiance of the rule of law. Not being able to get away with summary execution doesn't excuse you from the charge of bigotry.

---

Or they simply have a different belief on the subject than you, and mean it without any virulent hate speeches. if wanting to see someone change for the better or at least offer them that service is bigotry than that's one huge stretch of that word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evildoctor

It seems she survived her suicide attempt - good - she can wallow in her "shame" for the rest of her days like a good xtian should.

---

This gentleman's statment is by far the most bigoted thing said on this thread. A virulent hate speech.

Pretty much like what the others said. If you banned Christians from power, you'd have to ban everyone with religious beliefs of any kind from power and only atheists would be allowed to run for public office.

Faith by itself is not a bad thing. It's when decisions are made (involving our country) as a direct result of "convening with ones respective deities" that I have a problem with.

As long as the political/legal doctrine which separated church and state remains intact and enforced, I don't think there'll be much of anything to worry about.

Well, why would one religious politician be so frightening? Unless democracy is lost! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, why would one religious politician be so frightening? Unless democracy is lost! :eek:

---

No worries. All the Christians I know have a thing about ruling with an iron fist. Of course, laws would be properly enforced at last. Gay marriage would be probably be ended, and some out of order things would finally be put back in order.

That's pretty much it. Horrifying, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypnocella

This gentleman's statment is by far the most bigoted thing said on this thread. A virulent hate speech.

---

Actually, he was pointing out how her shame was caused by her own beliefs. Christians bring suffering on themselves by calling their actions sin. I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, why would one religious politician be so frightening? Unless democracy is lost! :eek:

---

The frightening thing is that almost all our politicians are religious. We've never had an atheist president. But this should be expected considering the number of religious people in the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

No worries. All the Christians I know have a thing about ruling with an iron fist. Of course, laws would be properly enforced at last. Gay marriage would be probably be ended, and some out of order things would finally be put back in order.

That's pretty much it. Horrifying, huh?

---

Kind of like communist China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Kind of like communist China.

---

Or even North Korea :3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

The frightening thing is that almost all our politicians are religious. We've never had an atheist president. But this should be expected considering the number of religious people in the country.

---

I recently found out that Nick Clegg, who is the leader of the Liberal Democrats, which is one of the three major parties in England, is an atheist. Which was kinda cool. he's apparently the first major party leader to ever come out as atheistic.

Instead of banning religious people from power, I'd rather just ban stupid and irrational people from power. Well, ideally democracy would work at weeding out such people and prevent them from getting such positions in the first place, but that's just wishful thinking.

When I google 'Xtian' I get Christina Aguilera, but as far as I know she
doesn't fill one of the higher political positions, but I could be wrong.

So an xtian is just a christian? Or an extreme christian? Or political christian?

Anyway, I agree, instead of banning christians, just sort out the irrational idiots.

Yeah, that threw me too, but think about it...

Xmas = Christmas

Xtina = Christina


Therefore

Xtians = Christians

I think the people who need to be banned from power are the Xtremists.

uhh, that damned logic :D it just makes sense. Thanks :D

Wait... unless Xtians actually MEANS extreme christians, in which case I agree with the OP!! Of course this applies to any extremists, not just christians. But I have no problem whatsoever with christians in general, or any religious denomination, as long as they aren't trying to push their agenda onto others.

What's your definition of "Xtremist"? (properly spelled, Extremist.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

What's your definition of "Xtremist"? (properly spelled, Extremist.)

---

Spoiler for spoiler:

People like you. No, really, total fanatical fundamentalists who have been brainwashed and are too ignorant to think for themselves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Spoiler for spoiler:

People like you. No, really, total fanatical fundamentalists who have been brainwashed and are too ignorant to think for themselves

---

And what have I done to earn the title of extremist? Furthermore, what have I done to make you think that I don't think? I find the latter notion unfathomable. I think your rather biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

And what have I done to earn the title of extremist? Furthermore, what have I done to make you think that I don't think? I find the latter notion unfathomable. I think your rather biased.

---

Go read all your posts without conviction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Go read all your posts without conviction.

---

I've read all my posts, and come to a conclusion:

You don't have a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

I've read all my posts, and come to a conclusion:

You don't have a reason.

---

I'm filled with sadness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I'm filled with sadness.

---

Because you have no reason to believe that which you would like to believe about me. :nodyes:

I don't know if I'd call you an extremist, but I'd definetly call you a fundimentalist. You said it yourself that you take the whole bible literally. I define extremist's as people who are willing to use violence, or think that violence should be used against "bad" people.

We can't really do anything about the christian stranglehold on power in the west until we get rid of the 2 party system. As long as we've got people voting democrat and republican only we can't really get anyone in office who doesn't go along with their ideals, and being religious is an ideal that both of those parties hold.

The other soure of stagnance is the masses. Most people in this country(assuming your from america) are religious, and they want people who have similar beliefs in office. They want people who have the same labels as they do in office, because people who use the same labels have the same values, right? Wrong. And that's why our political process is all fucked up.

People want to think that change is going on, while the reality is more of the same. Just a new coat a paint, don't worry about fixing the machine. Everything is under control.

Vote non-dual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonedape

I'd definetly call you a fundimentalist.

---

So would I.

Quote:

---

I define extremist's as people who are willing to use violence, or think that violence should be used against "bad" people.

---

Well that isn't even Biblically sound.

Quote:

---

Christian stranglehold on power in the west

---

Are you kidding me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

No worries. All the Christians I know have a thing about ruling with an iron fist. Of course, laws would be properly enforced at last. Gay marriage would be probably be ended, and some out of order things would finally be put back in order.

That's pretty much it. Horrifying, huh?

---

I have so damn many issues with this post...

First, does it not disturb you that every xtian you know wants to rule with an iron fist and stuff their FAITH and UNPROVEN BELIEFS down people's throats? I have some serious issues with this...as I do with school prayer and established religion.

Second, the bit with the laws: what the hell? No, the laws would not be properly enforced any more with xtians in power than with atheists in power. Your claim is unfounded.

Third, gay marriage and other "out of order" things (I'm assuming this would include things like premarital sex) are only "out of order" to YOU. Who died and made you king? Who are you to tell me what to do in the privacy of my own home? I'm not hurting anyone, so stfu. Legislated morality ALWAYS fails. No exceptions. It ALWAYS FAILS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

And what have I done to earn the title of extremist? Furthermore, what have I done to make you think that I don't think? I find the latter notion unfathomable. I think your rather biased.

---

The latter notion is dead-on-balls accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Are you kidding me?

---

No, it's true. Literally, if I were to ever run for office, no matter my credentials, experience, or platform, I have about a 2% chance of being elected, solely for the fact that I'm an atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

does it not disturb you that every xtian you know wants to rule with an iron fist and stuff their FAITH and UNPROVEN BELIEFS down people's throats?

---

It would disturb me, but that's not what I meant. I meant they have a "thing". As in, it doesn't settle right with them. They don't like humans ruling with iron fists, nor would they wish to. My point was, the Christians I know aren't communists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

the laws would not be properly enforced any more with xtians in power than with atheists in power. Your claim is unfounded.

---

If any Chrsitians I know of had any say in the matter, they sure would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

are only "out of order" to YOU.

---

Out of order to anyone with a sound mind. Men with men, woman with woman. Unatural and repulsive. I generally try to be agreeable with people, and not make a big issue out of their perversions, but homosexuality and lesbianism is sick and disgusting. Unnatural, and vile. Beyond disturbing.

How far would you take it?

"What do you mean I can't eat snake mucus? That's only sick to you! Not to me. I'm not hurting anybody!"

Quote:

---

The latter notion is dead-on-balls accurate.

---

Oh well. I suppose if you never demonstrate how, I shall have to simply except that? The more you hesitate to present your reasoning, the less I find myself an extremist.

Quote:

---

I have about a 2% chance of being elected, solely for the fact that I'm an atheist.

---

I wonder why. :shakehead:

Oh, I'm going to have a field day with this post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

It would disturb me, but that's not what I meant. I meant they have a "thing". As in, it doesn't settle right with them. They don't like humans ruling with iron fists, nor would they wish to. My point was, the Christians I know aren't communists.

---

Fantastic, then.

Quote:

---

If any Chrsitians I know of had any say in the matter, they sure would.

---

Unlikely. They still have to wade through all the bureaucratic bullcrap to get there, and there is no guarantee that the money they spend will be used efficiently. I mean, you may have a crackdown on crime, but along with that, there would likely be a larger scope of what "crime" is defined as. The two cancel, and you're left with greater legislated morality and the same level of crime, if not more. Remember Prohibition? What you're proposing is the same thing...and we all remember what an epic fail prohibition was.

Quote:

---

Out of order to anyone with a sound mind. Men with men, woman with woman. Unatural and repulsive. I generally try to be agreeable with people, and not make a big issue out of their perversions, but homosexuality and lesbianism is sick and disgusting. Unnatural, and vile. Beyond disturbing.

How far would you take it?

"What do you mean I can't eat snake mucus? That's only sick to you! Not to me. I'm not hurting anybody!"

---

It is only unnatural to YOU. It is only repulsive to YOU. It is only sick and disgusting...TO YOU. Why aren't you getting this? It's a damn good thing you aren't in any sort of power...I'd be the first one fleeing to Canada. You are clearly uneducated on the manner, and your personal biases and bigotry are getting the better of your rational judgment.

Who the fuck cares if you're eating snake mucus? As long as the mucus taken didn't harm the snake, and it isn't being force-fed to anyone, who gives a rat's ass? And who the fuck are you to come into my house and tell me what I can and can't eat? Are you going to outlaw peanut butter next? :shakehead2:

Quote:

---

Oh well. I suppose if you never demonstrate how, I shall have to simply except that? The more you hesitate to present your reasoning, the less I find myself an extremist.

---

Read your last post. Ponder it. Ponder where you're posting, and to which audience you are appealing to. Capiche?

Quote:

---

I wonder why. :shakehead:

---

Because xtians have this country in a stranglehold.

Hey guys.... I read something recently that said Liberals and Conservatives will never see eye to eye (well DUHHH!) because essentially they have different brain structures. And keep in mind, fundamentalists tend to be conservatives. This might all be somewhat overgeneralizing, but to me it seems to fit. I'll paste in a bit of the artcle:

Quote:

---

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

---

This is just a section of an article posted here.


So, this might explain why the two sides just can't see eye to eye on anything and never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Unlikely.

---

Man, I wasn't discussing politics. I meant if they had power over the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

You are clearly uneducated on the manner, and your personal biases and bigotry are getting the better of your rational judgment.

---

Nevermind. I won't get anywhere with an attitude like that. No reasoning would appeal to you. I mean, it would be fun and engaging to discuss the logic behind both approaches to the issue, but, you'll just dismiss me as naive on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Are you going to outlaw peanut butter next?

---

Heh. I like the comparison between peanut butter and snake mucus. Thanks. I don't think I'll be eating a PB&J for a long time to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario92

Capiche?

---

Nope. Still don't get why you call me an extremist.

...that was a field day?

To clarify Noogah I personally think you're an extremist because of some things you've said. primarily you literally believe everything in the Bible, which is absurd in it's own right, secondly because you choose to worship the God of the Bible, even though you believe it all, thirdly because you've shown yourself as homophobic, sexist, xenophobic and borderline racist because of your religion. Also you're still practically a child, so you haven't yet matured quite enough to see a problem with half of this stuff.

The hope is you'll grow out of it, as I'd imagine most people do, but if not, you can quite clearly be classed an extremist, particularly if you follow everything the Bible tells you to do, which I sincerely hope not.

In before semi sarcastic response from you, I don't care. That's why i think you're an extremist, because that's what you've said in previous posts. I think that constitutes extremism and i don't want you to bicker with me about that, that's just the way it is.

I'm filled with sadness because you're such a sad little boy, and I can honestly see you not growing out of this. Which is sad, by anyone's estimations.

Quote:

---

Out of order to anyone with a sound mind. Men with men, woman with woman. Unatural and repulsive. I generally try to be agreeable with people, and not make a big issue out of their perversions, but homosexuality and lesbianism is sick and disgusting. Unnatural, and vile. Beyond disturbing.

How far would you take it?

---

Ironically it is natural; it occurs in nature. But don't let that small detail halt you from being a self-righteous bigot.

In some sense, I myself find the idea of homosexuality to be disgusting, in that when I imagine two men kissing, or having sex, it's something I can honestly say I do not want to watch, and I do find the concept repulsing at some level. The difference however, is I feel no need to label it as "disgusting" in a moral sense; my comment above is not a moral judgement but just my personal preference. And providing I don't have to see such behaviour, I couldn't give a damn what people do in the privacy of their homes*

*My opinion on this also applies to public affection in general regardless of orientation and/or gender; get a room!

The same with many other lifestyles and other aspects of humanity that do not personally appeal to me. But that's the difference between us. I don't have the sheer arrogance to think that my preferences constitute moral actions. Nor do I automatically label stuff I dislike as perverted.

Conversely you are incapable of distinguishing between morality and your own preferences and biases, and have the staggering arrogance where not only do you seem to believe the two are related, but that you implicitly believe (in your snake mucus comment) that stuff you find disgusting should be banned.

Quote:

---

"What do you mean I can't eat snake mucus? That's only sick to you! Not to me. I'm not hurting anybody!"

---

And if someone wants to do that, providing they're not hurting anyone else or anything else, how is it any of your business? What you don't realise is it's none of your fucking business whatsoever. None. Nil. Zilch. It doesn't concern you in the slightest and if you are concerned then you have some serious fucking problem. And if you judge it to be immoral and want to ban it, because you mistakenly equivalate "weird" or "not to my personal tastes" with "immoral" you also have some serious issues.

This is a textbook example of one of the problems with religion. It gives certain people the excuse to try and enforce their personal opinions and prejudices under the guise of morality. It gives some the illusion that their feelings are special and that they have the right to know what people do in private, and the right to force their opinions down other peoples' throats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Nevermind. I won't get anywhere with an attitude like that. No reasoning would appeal to you. I mean, it would be fun and engaging to discuss the logic behind both approaches to the issue, but, you'll just dismiss me as naive on the matter.

---

That's not reasoning. That's pure intolerance. That's like saying "When I am in power I'll take away the rights of christians because I don't like them". I don't understand how some people can be so self centred. Ok I can, because everybody was there one day, but at 13 or whatever, one could be expected to grow up mentally enough to see that the golden rule "do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you" has some moral value, or at least as a guideline for living in a society. Not to mention the fact that it's in the bible.

If Noogah actually means what he said about homosexuals etc. then there's a high probability that he's a hypocrite, because most people wouldn't like to be treated the way he wants to treat anything that he himself doesn't approve of. I doubt he would be happy if his rights were taken away just because it's different from some norm.

So it's nothing to do with naivety. It just shows how moral you are, or at least whether or not you have developed any empathic concern for your fellow human being whatsoever (= Love thy neighbour, do unto others...).

That's one thing. The totally different one is your view of how disgust and perception in general have any influence on the natural/objective existence of things. Homosexuality is natural and your opinion on the matter is as good as any other in changing that reality. Saying it's vile, disgusting is just your way of seeing it. Somebody else sees it as love. Nobody is going to win, because everybody is right and has the right to decide what he thinks about anything. Having an opinion is far from making it law though.

Sorry folks for neglecting my own thread. Been a bit busy the last day or two.

xtian is indeed an abbreviated way of writing "christian" just like xmas. I thought this was common practice - it is on most of the forums I belong to anyway.

Noogah - you are an extremist and a fundamentalist. You beleive every last word in the bible is true. That the world is only 5 or 6 thousand years old and that you are going to be teleported magically to heaven sometime soon, even though these beliefs fly in the face of science, reason and common sense. Even the xtian leader of my home country (england) does not beleive the whole bible is true - the archbishop of cantebury beleives much of the old testament to be creation myths from a primitive people and should not be taken literally by modern xtians.

I agree with Mario, Carousel, Bonsay and everyone else. You are exactly the type of person I made this thread about. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes has absolutely nothing to do with you or indeed anyone else. If you find someone elses sexual preferences "vile and disgusting" then these are your own small minded and bigoted hangups. LOL - not to mention you are a child younger than my 14 year old daughter and I doubt you have even lain with a woman yet. My daughter at 13 still thought boys and sex was "icky" - therefore you have to understand how pathetic and childish you sound passing moral judgement on others.

You cannot even understand why we see you as such a huge hypocrite! I dispise your religion - but approve of some of its basic messages - such as treating everybody with love and respect. As I remember your religion is supposed to teach tollerance, that you should not judge others least you be judged yourself. Read what you said in a previous post (quoted below) - and tell us exactly how this is not the judgemental, insulting and ignorant ranting of a closed minded juvenile fundamentalist hate mongerer:

Quote:

---

Out of order to anyone with a sound mind. Men with men, woman with woman. Unatural and repulsive. I generally try to be agreeable with people, and not make a big issue out of their perversions, but homosexuality and lesbianism is sick and disgusting. Unnatural, and vile. Beyond disturbing.

---

BTW - is it it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic and laughable that a young earth creationist gets to use the term "out of order to anyone with a sound mind"??

Noogah - You are a text book example of someone who applies their religion selectively - just like Iris - and therefore just as big of a hypocrite.

Just like Iris you do damage to your own faith - your extreme views do more to turn off moderate beleivers than any aetheist ever could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Ironically it is natural; it occurs in nature. But don't let that small detail halt you from being a self-righteous bigot.

Conversely you are incapable of distinguishing between morality and your own preferences and biases, and have the staggering arrogance where not only do you seem to believe the two are related, but that you implicitly believe (in your snake mucus comment) that stuff you find disgusting should be banned.


And if someone wants to do that, providing they're not hurting anyone else or anything else, how is it any of your business? What you don't realise is it's none of your fucking business whatsoever. None. Nil. Zilch. It doesn't concern you in the slightest and if you are concerned then you have some serious fucking problem. And if you judge it to be immoral and want to ban it, because you mistakenly equivalate "weird" or "not to my personal tastes" with "immoral" you also have some serious issues.

This is a textbook example of one of the problems with religion. It gives certain people the excuse to try and enforce their personal opinions and prejudices under the guise of morality. It gives some the illusion that their feelings are special and that they have the right to know what people do in private, and the right to force their opinions down other peoples' throats.

---

Everything photolysis said!

Read it again Noogah - those of us who are sane and rational would describe the post above as "sound minded". Quite the opposite of what you posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Hey guys.... I read something recently that said Liberals and Conservatives will never see eye to eye (well DUHHH!) because essentially they have different brain structures. And keep in mind, fundamentalists tend to be conservatives. This might all be somewhat overgeneralizing, but to me it seems to fit. I'll paste in a bit of the artcle:





This is just a section of an article posted here.


So, this might explain why the two sides just can't see eye to eye on anything and never will.

---

Hunh...so conservatism IS a mental disease. What do you know? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evildoctor

Noogah - you are an extremist and a fundamentalist. You beleive every last word in the bible is true. That the world is only 5 or 6 thousand years old and that you are going to be teleported magically to heaven sometime soon, even though these beliefs fly in the face of science, reason and common sense. Even the xtian leader of my home country (england) does not beleive the whole bible is true - the archbishop of cantebury beleives much of the old testament to be creation myths from a primitive people and should not be taken literally by modern xtians.

---

This. Seriously bro, grow up. How long are you going to literally believe a book of fairy tales? Jesus taught in parables. Literally believing the bible and tossing aside logic and common sense is exactly why faith can be such a destructive force; you deny evidence to preserve belief. You cannot seriously say to me that you have looked at the astounding evidence for the big bang and conclude that it is a crock and that God made the world seven days in any objective manner. You need to take a good, long look at your faith. If still you conclude that the bible is to be taken 100% literally, then there is no hope for you. You will never grow up, you will never mature, and you will remain a hypocrite for the rest of your days.

Quote:

---

I agree with Mario, Carousel, Bonsay and everyone else. You are exactly the type of person I made this thread about. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes has absolutely nothing to do with you or indeed anyone else. If you find someone elses sexual preferences "vile and disgusting" then these are your own small minded and bigoted hangups. LOL - not to mention you are a child younger than my 14 year old daughter and I doubt you have even lain with a woman yet. My daughter at 13 still thought boys and sex was "icky" - therefore you have to understand how pathetic and childish you sound passing moral judgement on others.

---

Thank you, thank you, and thank you. Funny...my sister uses the word "icky" to refer to guys and sex, too. She's 15, by the way. ;)

Quote:

---

You cannot even understand why we see you as such a huge hypocrite! I dispise your religion - but approve of some of its basic messages - such as treating everybody with love and respect. As I remember your religion is supposed to teach tollerance, that you should not judge others least you be judged yourself. Read what you said in a previous post (quoted below) - and tell us exactly how this is not the judgemental, insulting and ignorant ranting of a closed minded juvenile fundamentalist hate mongerer:

---

Well-spoken. I agree with this statement. One thing; it should be common sense to treat people with tolerance and respect, and to not pass judgment. Religion in this area seems rather unnecessary...and in Noogah's case, is proving to be a destructive force.

Quote:

---

BTW - is it it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic and laughable that a young earth creationist gets to use the term "out of order to anyone with a sound mind"??

---

I chuckled at first, then just realized how utterly pathetic it all is.

Quote:

---

Noogah - You are a text book example of someone who applies their religion selectively - just like Iris - and therefore just as big of a hypocrite.

Just like Iris you do damage to your own faith - your extreme views do more to turn off moderate beleivers than any aetheist ever could.

---

Noogah is the kind of religious person I take issue with. If someone wants to get up and go to Church every Sunday, pray before every meal, and believe that a God exists, I could care less; it's when these people insist that they are right and start trying to stuff crap down people's throats that I take issue. That is an infringement of civil liberties and civil rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Out of order to anyone with a sound mind. Men with men, woman with woman. Unatural and repulsive. I generally try to be agreeable with people, and not make a big issue out of their perversions, but homosexuality and lesbianism is sick and disgusting. Unnatural, and vile. Beyond disturbing.

---

Homosexuality is natural and not vile. For someone who says they respect scientific evidence, here it is, as I have provided before, and how you have ignored before:
+ http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...08#post1250408

I hope you will not be ignorant and closed-minded as before. You have gotten smarter over time, havn't you? You are not such a hypocrite as before, are you?

Quote:

---

How far would you take it?

"What do you mean I can't eat snake mucus? That's only sick to you! Not to me. I'm not hurting anybody!"

---

What about hurtful beliefs? How about someone like Charles Manson who's beliefs got others to kill and be killed?

How about the belief that if I kill my children, they will go to heaven, so I ought to do it?

How about the belief that I ought to go to war for God in order to absolve my sins?

How about respect for womens rights?

How about respect for childrens freedom?

Christian religion is opposed to this. To argue otherwise is to argue for your ignorance to Christianities indoctrination of women, children, history, and philosophical divine justice.

Quote:

---

Oh well. I suppose if you never demonstrate how, I shall have to simply except that? The more you hesitate to present your reasoning, the less I find myself an extremist.

I wonder why. :shakehead:

---

You are an extremist in this one simple characteristic:

Closed-minded pretentiousness

Your arrogance is only compounded by your ignorant antagonism. Have some respect for your peers and idealists by actually conversing with them on a insightful level rather than neglectful.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Well that isn't even Biblically sound.

---

laughoutloudoutloudoutloudoutloud!

but seriously, fuck this shit, let's only elect full-blooded, culturally native americans to office - they're the only ones who deserve it.
(but of course that won't happen)

oh, i'm referring to my country of course. i'm basically saying i want a reversal of everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noogah

Out of order to anyone with a sound mind. Men with men, woman with woman. Unatural and repulsive. I generally try to be agreeable with people, and not make a big issue out of their perversions, but homosexuality and lesbianism is sick and disgusting. Unnatural, and vile. Beyond disturbing.

---

I feel really sorry for you. Whoever has tarnished your beliefs in this way has done a grave injustice.

I'm just going to throw in a comment on the article :P

We in Northern Ireland LOVE this story. At least, the younger, more open-minded generation who were lucky enough not to have become mired in local politics! For your amusement, I enclose a related video: Mrs. Robinson (Peter is her husband btw) No word of a lie, I had to visit my old school last week, and some kids mistook me for the guy she was bangin'. :lol:

The idea of any person of extreme religiosity (is that a word?) in power troubles me. Unfortunately the UK looks to be going that way after the next general election in 5/6 months. I read yesterday that David Cameron (leader of the Conservative party- which is nearly a cert to win due to how badly the current party fucked up) plans to facilitate a massive "boom" in "faith schools". The worst thing is, taxpayer's money will fund the whole thing, top to bottom. Since churches are "not for profit" organisations, they can legally apply for money from the government to build and operate these schools, including teachers' salaries. (Read more on Cameron's plan here)

What's more, if a small degree of the school's funding is voluntary, ie, paid by parents, they are legally allowed to ignore the standard national curriculum and teach whatever the hell they like! Overview of faith schools- I would draw your attention to the sections on "Government Funding" and "Curriculum", which is near the bottom.

When Tony Blair was in power, he pushed faith schools, and now David Cameron wants even more? I despair.