Secular progressive moral agenda...
-
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
social ostricism
Like it or not (and blame the government or not), attitudes towards homosexuals have changed drastically over the last 4 decades. And of course there is no necessary difference between the application of religious and secular morality. The real differentiating axis as so often is authoritarian / libertarian, not theist / atheist.
-
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views.
No. "It is inappropriate for him to be representing us given the disparity between his views and ours," Stern said. He was "banished" because he was a representative of an organisation and expressed views that with at odds with the views of the organisation he represented. It doesn't matter what kind of organisation, with that kind of polarity of views it would have happened regardless. For example, if I represented a christian church and I was interviewed on a radio programme and I said that that christ was not the son of god then I would expect to be banished from representing the church. My views would have been outside of the mainstream of modern christian views.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
The NBA is a private organization and should be allowed to do what it wants with its members. The same action would doubtless be taken had there been racist remarks, and it makes me happy that gay bashing is now getting some of the same treatment.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views.
No. "It is inappropriate for him to be representing us given the disparity between his views and ours," Stern said. He was "banished" because he was a representative of an organisation and expressed views that with at odds with the views of the organisation he represented. It doesn't matter what kind of organisation, with that kind of polarity of views it would have happened regardless. For example, if I represented a christian church and I was interviewed on a radio programme and I said that that christ was not the son of god then I would expect to be banished from representing the church. My views would have been outside of the mainstream of modern christian views.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
For example, if I represented a christian church and I was interviewed on a radio programme and I said that that christ was not the son of god then I would expect to be banished from representing the church. My views would have been outside of the mainstream of modern christian views.
Except in the Church of England where you would have been promoted.:-D
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
For example, if I represented a christian church and I was interviewed on a radio programme and I said that that christ was not the son of god then I would expect to be banished from representing the church. My views would have been outside of the mainstream of modern christian views.
Except in the Church of England where you would have been promoted.:-D
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.Pete O`Hanlon wrote:
Except in the Church of England where you would have been promoted
I read recently about an ex-Bishop somewhere that describes himself as a "recovering Christian".
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
Pete O`Hanlon wrote:
Except in the Church of England where you would have been promoted
I read recently about an ex-Bishop somewhere that describes himself as a "recovering Christian".
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Sounds like he attends Theologians Anonymous.:)
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
He wasn't expressing disapproval or unease (which is fine), but hatred (quote: "I hate gays"). That's no different or more or less acceptable than (for example) "I hate blacks" or "I hate rednecks" as far as I'm concerned. In that context, he got what he deserved. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
-
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The guy is banished
Banished by whom? By the representative of a corporation. Damn those secular progressive corporations forcing their moral agenda on their own employees! Next thing you know, they'll be allowing women, blacks, rednecks, and gays equal opportunities to work for them! How leftist of them! OMG, and look at this: the guy later apologized for his statements: "I want to apologize for my comments yesterday regarding gays," Hardaway's statement said. "My comments were offensive and I regret making them. I'm sorry to anyone I have offended." That leftist brainwashing machine sure acts quickly. :rolleyes:
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The guy is banished
Banished by whom? By the representative of a corporation. Damn those secular progressive corporations forcing their moral agenda on their own employees! Next thing you know, they'll be allowing women, blacks, rednecks, and gays equal opportunities to work for them! How leftist of them! OMG, and look at this: the guy later apologized for his statements: "I want to apologize for my comments yesterday regarding gays," Hardaway's statement said. "My comments were offensive and I regret making them. I'm sorry to anyone I have offended." That leftist brainwashing machine sure acts quickly. :rolleyes:
But if that same corporation had banned him for being gay, would you be as comfortable with it? Of course not. As long as the corporations are promoting your (and the states) moral agenda, you are perfectly comfortable with it. You and all the others here who have responded in kind are absolutely no different from religious true believers who would similarly enforce their agenda upon society if they were also so empowered.
Al Beback wrote:
OMG, and look at this: the guy later apologized for his statements: "I want to apologize for my comments yesterday regarding gays," Hardaway's statement said. "My comments were offensive and I regret making them. I'm sorry to anyone I have offended."
Begging for forgiveness from the secular priesthood? How very penitent of him.
Al Beback wrote:
That leftist brainwashing machine sure acts quickly.
Indeed.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
He wasn't expressing disapproval or unease (which is fine), but hatred (quote: "I hate gays"). That's no different or more or less acceptable than (for example) "I hate blacks" or "I hate rednecks" as far as I'm concerned. In that context, he got what he deserved. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Anna :rose: Linting the day away :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "If mushy peas are the food of the devil, the stotty cake is the frisbee of God"
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
but hatred
So? You get to define for people about which emotions are appropriate?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
But if that same corporation had banned him for being gay, would you be as comfortable with it? Of course not. As long as the corporations are promoting your (and the states) moral agenda, you are perfectly comfortable with it. You and all the others here who have responded in kind are absolutely no different from religious true believers who would similarly enforce their agenda upon society if they were also so empowered.
Al Beback wrote:
OMG, and look at this: the guy later apologized for his statements: "I want to apologize for my comments yesterday regarding gays," Hardaway's statement said. "My comments were offensive and I regret making them. I'm sorry to anyone I have offended."
Begging for forgiveness from the secular priesthood? How very penitent of him.
Al Beback wrote:
That leftist brainwashing machine sure acts quickly.
Indeed.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
enforce their agenda upon society if they were also so
You're absolutely right. Society has always imposed certain behavioral norms on its members. And here we have two competing views: the "secularists" who preach love and tolerance of your fellow man and the "religious true believers" who preach intolerance and hate. I think I'll stick with the "secularists".
-
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
It's business, pure and simple. I don't agree with Hardaway's comments, and likewise don't care that he made them. He just looks like an idiot, is all. The public; however, does make a big deal over this kind of expression. The same public to whom the NBA is using Hardaway to represent their product. If the public or media would ignore this kind of speech, the NBA wouldn't have thought twice about it either and Hardaway would still be a rep. It's just capitalism, man. ;)
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peart -
People often ask about what is meant by having a 'secular progressive moral agenda' forced upon our society. Here [^] is a perfect example of what it means. The guy is banished for expressing opinions outside the main stream of modern, secular, moral views. There is absolutely no difference between this kind of social ostricism and what we would have if our society had, in fact, been taken over by a religious orthodoxy of some kind and gay people were banned for their views. It is exactly the same kind of social phenomenon and proof that humanity can never really escape religious-like behavior regardless of how far we push actual religion out of our lives. It is always there.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Don't you realize that it is evil to hate, and verbalize that hate unless: you hate: global climate change nuance deniers George Bush Tony Blair Those damned evil anti-illegal immigrant Minutemen Conservatives homophobes Republicans Christians Taxes (because taxes are good for everyone) Howard oops - I believe it is okay to hate Thatcher too. oops - honesty is not good either. -- modified at 10:42 Friday 16th February, 2007 -- modified at 10:44 Friday 16th February, 2007
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote:
but hatred
So? You get to define for people about which emotions are appropriate?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
So? You get to define for people about which emotions are appropriate?
If you want to keep the moral high ground, then hatred is never appropriate.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before. -
Stan Shannon wrote:
So? You get to define for people about which emotions are appropriate?
If you want to keep the moral high ground, then hatred is never appropriate.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
If you want to keep the moral high ground
He has no idea what that is.
"Christianity is not about tolerance"
Stan Shannon in the Soap BoxChristianity is about getting into heavan, and nothing else.
Stan Shannon in the SoapboxThats because you're a f****ing leftist idiot.
Stan Shannon in the SoapboxAnd you worthless bastards are proud of that. You assholes just suck.
Stan Shannon in the SoapboxBeing classy is for losers.
Stan Shannon in the Soapboxa coalition of hispanics, blacks, and white leftists.
Stan Shannon in the Soapboxled mike
-
Don't you realize that it is evil to hate, and verbalize that hate unless: you hate: global climate change nuance deniers George Bush Tony Blair Those damned evil anti-illegal immigrant Minutemen Conservatives homophobes Republicans Christians Taxes (because taxes are good for everyone) Howard oops - I believe it is okay to hate Thatcher too. oops - honesty is not good either. -- modified at 10:42 Friday 16th February, 2007 -- modified at 10:44 Friday 16th February, 2007
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Don't you realize that it is evil to hate, and verbalize that hate unless: you hate: global climate change nuance deniers George Bush Tony Blair Those damned evil anti-illegal immigrant Minutemen Conservatives homophobes Republicans Christians Taxes (because taxes are good for everyone) Howard oops - I believe it is okay to hate Thatcher too. oops - honesty is not good either. -- modified at 10:42 Friday 16th February, 2007 -- modified at 10:44 Friday 16th February, 2007
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Of course, as sanctioned by our moral overlords.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So? You get to define for people about which emotions are appropriate?
If you want to keep the moral high ground, then hatred is never appropriate.
the last thing I want to see is some pasty-faced geek with skin so pale that it's almost translucent trying to bump parts with a partner - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.Pete O`Hanlon wrote:
If you want to keep the moral high ground
My point precisely.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about