NRO Editors: Legislating Immorality
-
I hate to jump into the middle of an discussion but the "will of the people" isn't a very good argument. We elect politicians whom we entrust to make the best decisions for their constituents/ area of governance. If the will of the people was law, we would live in a 100% democracy where every law was done by popular vote. But we in fact in the US have a democratic republic. Now for social precedence, if the will of the people were law, there never would have been desegregation of the schools or the allowance of mixed racial marriages among others.
kumpm wrote:
hate to jump into the middle of an discussion but the "will of the people" isn't a very good argument. We elect politicians whom we entrust to make the best decisions for their constituents/ area of governance. If the will of the people was law, we would live in a 100% democracy where every law was done by popular vote. But we in fact in the US have a democratic republic.
Actually, that isn't true. We live in a constitutional Republic. One of the most important characterisitics of the original design, the defining characteristic in fact, was that those powers not specifically given to the federal government by the constitution belonged to the states and to the people - collectively.
kumpm wrote:
if the will of the people were law, there never would have been desegregation of the schools or the allowance of mixed racial marriages among others.
Not true at all. In fact, if the original government had worked the way the current government does, it would have been virtually impossible to change any of the original social 'precedence'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Have I ever said you did? I think it would be wise if you were, but as a conservative, I believe the only thing you are required to be tolerant of is the will of the people in freely deciding upon the formulation of the rules and standards that define their civilization.
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the fuck's your problem?
modified on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:12 AM
73Zeppelin wrote:
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the f***'s your problem?
My problem is that the other side refuses to respect the will of the people.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Excellent. Now, since homosexuals (and some of their heterosexual supporters) aren't tolerant of the definition of marriage - and they reflect a portion of the will of the people - what the f***'s your problem?
My problem is that the other side refuses to respect the will of the people.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
My problem is that the other side refuses to respect the will of the people
That's nothing more than an offhand dismissal. As I pointed out, that argument is invalid. They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
-
He's a little frustrating because he does present opposing views. On one hand he condemns Dave for exhibiting some kind of "Marxist tolerance" for the idea that homosexuals should be allowed to be married and it's okay for him (Stan) to be intolerant of that. On his other hand, he claims that anybody should be allowed to be intolerant. He then goes on to say that society should be tolerant of things that reflect "the will of the people". Clearly homosexuals (and their supporters) are intolerant of the definition of marriage. Clearly they reflect some aspect of the "will of the people". However, that's not an acceptable form of intolerance, since it conflicts with Stan's view of an ideal (Christian) society. Doesn't quite jive with his condemnation of Dave, does it? Basically what Stan is trying to say is that intolerance is allowed as long as that intolerance is directed towards an opinion/ideal that conflicts with his ideal vision of society.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Basically what Stan is trying to say is that intolerance is allowed as long as that intolerance is directed towards an opinion/ideal that conflicts with his ideal vision of society.
Absolutely. Any opinion is allowed to be voiced anywhere, any time - as long as it doesn't conflict with his. He is Mr. Political Correctness.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Basically what Stan is trying to say is that intolerance is allowed as long as that intolerance is directed towards an opinion/ideal that conflicts with his ideal vision of society.
Absolutely. Any opinion is allowed to be voiced anywhere, any time - as long as it doesn't conflict with his. He is Mr. Political Correctness.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
You can have that car painted any colour you like, as long as it's black.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
My problem is that the other side refuses to respect the will of the people
That's nothing more than an offhand dismissal. As I pointed out, that argument is invalid. They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
73Zeppelin wrote:
They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
Thats bullshit, in fact it is the point in the debate where you guys just start throwing out crap that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You are just characterizeing what I said in terms of your own preconcieved opinions. I happen to believe that homosexuality should largely be legal. I agree completely that what two consenting adults do in private is their own business. I am as 'liberal' on the actual issue as any of you people are. Your probelm is that you are so steeped in the dogma of the left that you refuse to accept a deeper truth. The will of the people is ascertained by means of democratic processes. Those processes in a Jeffersonian democracy are supposed to either be worked out at the local level of government or they are suppoesd to be written into the constitution itself in some unequivocal way. The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
NRO Editors: Legislating Immorality[^]
... To date, 30 states have voted on initiatives addressing same-sex marriage, and in every state traditional marriage has come out on top. But somehow the fact that Mormons got involved during the latest statewide referendum constitutes a bridge too far? In truth, Mormons are a target of convenience in the opening salvo of what is sure to be a full-scale assault on much of America’s religious infrastructure, which gay activists perceive as a barrier to their aspirations. Among religious groups, Mormons are not the biggest obstacle to same-sex marriage — not by a long shot. But they are an easy target. Anti-Mormon bigotry is unfortunately common, and gay-rights activists are cynically exploiting that fact. There are no websites dedicated to “outing” Catholics who supported Proposition 8, even though Catholic voters heavily outnumber Mormons. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not remarkably strident in its beliefs on the subject. So far, no gay-rights activist has had the brass to burn a Qu’ran on the doorstep of a militant mosque where — forget marriage! — imams advocate the stoning of homosexuals. Churches oppose same-sex marriage in part because it represents an implicit threat to freedom of conscience and belief. California already had one of the broadest civil-unions laws in the country. There was little in the way of government-sanctioned privileges that a state-issued marriage license would confer. But the drive for same-sex marriage is in practice about legislating moral conformity — demanding that everybody recognize homosexual relationships in the same way, regardless of their own beliefs. Freedom of conscience, or diversity of belief, is the last thing the homosexual lobby will tolerate: In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn’t previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announ
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
Thats bullshit, in fact it is the point in the debate where you guys just start throwing out crap that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You are just characterizeing what I said in terms of your own preconcieved opinions. I happen to believe that homosexuality should largely be legal. I agree completely that what two consenting adults do in private is their own business. I am as 'liberal' on the actual issue as any of you people are. Your probelm is that you are so steeped in the dogma of the left that you refuse to accept a deeper truth. The will of the people is ascertained by means of democratic processes. Those processes in a Jeffersonian democracy are supposed to either be worked out at the local level of government or they are suppoesd to be written into the constitution itself in some unequivocal way. The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am as 'liberal' on the actual issue as any of you people are
Stan Shannon wrote:
I happen to believe that homosexuality should largely be legal.
As a proud homophobe myself who has come out of the closet, I believe I was born that way.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I agree completely that what two consenting adults do in private is their own business.
a bunch of over paid sex deviants in Washington D.C. I made references which may have led some to believe that I am homophobic. I referred to homosexuality as a sexual perversion. Well, I believe it is a sexual perversion. . . .I would also say that if I publicly proclaim pride in my particular variety of sexual perversion I remain conviced that men become 'gay' for one reason - to have as much sex as they can, without having women there to restrain the natural male inclination to have multiple sexual partners. It is going to take a lot more than the media's unrelenting efforts to make homosexuality more paletable to convince me otherwise.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
There cannot possibly be a God - it would never allow one such as Troy to live while others who are a positive influence in the world suffer and die arbitrarily and irrelevantly.
Of course would allow Troy to live. So far he's served well as an example of bad behavior. I'd say he's done more in that regard than most people. Never underestimate the usefulness of the useless. And to the never ending of association that God doesn't care because we are allowed the freedom to suffer.... it really is all up to us. And that truly would be the greatest gift if you bypass your prejudice and examine it closely. And before you retort defensively I've neither endorsed nor denied any religious or evolutionary belief. Only analyzed the concept that if there is a God and he Cares he must prevent suffering. Which is illogical, as then we would be merely puppets. Or Muppets if you prefer.
This statement is false
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
They are a demographic of the people with supporters that are also the people. They therefore represent an aspect of the will of the people. What they don't happen to represent is your will. That's your problem.
Thats bullshit, in fact it is the point in the debate where you guys just start throwing out crap that has nothing to do with anything I've said. You are just characterizeing what I said in terms of your own preconcieved opinions. I happen to believe that homosexuality should largely be legal. I agree completely that what two consenting adults do in private is their own business. I am as 'liberal' on the actual issue as any of you people are. Your probelm is that you are so steeped in the dogma of the left that you refuse to accept a deeper truth. The will of the people is ascertained by means of democratic processes. Those processes in a Jeffersonian democracy are supposed to either be worked out at the local level of government or they are suppoesd to be written into the constitution itself in some unequivocal way. The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism. But let me guess - the slaves demanding emancipation were waging "leftist jihad" too, right? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit you write? I also noticed you couldn't resist throwing in a few lines of your Christian Aplogetics (TM). So while I'm pissed off and we're on that topic, I'm going to have a go at it as well. Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't part of the Jesus Bargain. Hell, it was thought that the end of the world was coming during his time. He was supposed to be the Messiah - guess what? You don't crucify the Messiah because if he's the Messiah, he can't be crucified. So, presumably, when he died, a tonne of people wer
-
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism. But let me guess - the slaves demanding emancipation were waging "leftist jihad" too, right? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit you write? I also noticed you couldn't resist throwing in a few lines of your Christian Aplogetics (TM). So while I'm pissed off and we're on that topic, I'm going to have a go at it as well. Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't part of the Jesus Bargain. Hell, it was thought that the end of the world was coming during his time. He was supposed to be the Messiah - guess what? You don't crucify the Messiah because if he's the Messiah, he can't be crucified. So, presumably, when he died, a tonne of people wer
73Zeppelin wrote:
You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist.
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise :confused:). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is. ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I am as 'liberal' on the actual issue as any of you people are
Stan Shannon wrote:
I happen to believe that homosexuality should largely be legal.
As a proud homophobe myself who has come out of the closet, I believe I was born that way.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I agree completely that what two consenting adults do in private is their own business.
a bunch of over paid sex deviants in Washington D.C. I made references which may have led some to believe that I am homophobic. I referred to homosexuality as a sexual perversion. Well, I believe it is a sexual perversion. . . .I would also say that if I publicly proclaim pride in my particular variety of sexual perversion I remain conviced that men become 'gay' for one reason - to have as much sex as they can, without having women there to restrain the natural male inclination to have multiple sexual partners. It is going to take a lot more than the media's unrelenting efforts to make homosexuality more paletable to convince me otherwise.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Jon, I believe that a man and a women having oral or anal sex are sexual perverts. And, yes, I freely admit that I am personally homophobic, and I claim as much right to be homophobic as others do to be homosexual. So, you can post as many of comments as you like. Those arguments are meant to challange the entire notion that one point of view is any more valid than the other. That does not mean that I am opposed to the concept that people should be free to be intimate with other adults in any way they please. What I am opposed to is the notion that homosexuality or any other given form of human sexual perversion should be given any greater inherent degree of legal protection to the traditional views of normal sexual behavior. But even with that, I maintain that such battles should be fought at the local level.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist.
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise :confused:). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is. ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Oakman wrote:
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise ). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is.
That is quite clear. I am reaching the limits of my patience, however. I always forget wrath and lust. My parents didn't believe in indoctrination, so I didn't go to Sunday school. I had to Google 'em.
-
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism. But let me guess - the slaves demanding emancipation were waging "leftist jihad" too, right? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit you write? I also noticed you couldn't resist throwing in a few lines of your Christian Aplogetics (TM). So while I'm pissed off and we're on that topic, I'm going to have a go at it as well. Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't part of the Jesus Bargain. Hell, it was thought that the end of the world was coming during his time. He was supposed to be the Messiah - guess what? You don't crucify the Messiah because if he's the Messiah, he can't be crucified. So, presumably, when he died, a tonne of people wer
73Zeppelin wrote:
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Well, what are you than? Why do you have an issue with a society being governed in accordance with christian principles if that is the will of the people? That seems to disturb you at a very deep level. I claim that such entrenched antipathy towards religion derives exclusively from a leftist world view. You might have issues with leftist economic theory, but I see no indication that you reject the social doctrine of the left.
73Zeppelin wrote:
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism.
Hey, if this is a revolution, I'm fine with that. At least in a revolution, I get to shoot back. But this isn't a revolution, it is a grand social coup. If any church did the same thing to the gay community that the gay community is doing to churches the federal goverment would have called out the Army to protect them. Any time these people want a stand up fight, I'm all for it (and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't par
-
I think the foundation of religion is civilization. The thing about religion is that it requires a body of followers. Arguably, the first religions emerged when people started banding together for mutual protection and cooperation to enhance survival. Let's face it, humans don't last long in small isolated groups. What better for the cohesive glue of a group of people than a common religion. Of course, you have to have a group first - 100 different people don't all invent a particular "God" contemporaneously. As a results, it's much more logical to claim that great civilizations invent "great" religions. And thus the foundation of all religions is civilization.
While that's a nice intellectual analysis it isn't backed by history. History seems to show that religion preceded civilization. Unless you are saying that prehistoric peoples in caves was civilization. More likely that religion is used to assemble those groups in ancient times to keep them together. Serving as the glue you suggest. But I would wager that fire was the first religion upon discovery of it. That and the sun. Of course, I'm not saying that its a requirement.
This statement is false
-
Oakman wrote:
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Oakman wrote:
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise ). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is.
That is quite clear. I am reaching the limits of my patience, however. I always forget wrath and lust. My parents didn't believe in indoctrination, so I didn't go to Sunday school. I had to Google 'em.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I always forget wrath and lust
Did you know that Lust is a late-comer to the list? Originally its place in the list was occupied by "Extravagance." I suspect that disappeared about the time Kings and Cardinals began wear ermine-trimmed robes with golden buttons and silk linings. It was easier to hide their mistresses than their clothes.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I am reaching the limits of my patience, however
Interesting that I felt that way about a week ago. I realised that there was no conversation going on. Stan sees any interaction here (except, I guess, with Ilion who he rushes to defend) as a storming of his ideological castle to be fought off by any means possible. His response to your post (presently immediately following this one) demonstrates that as well as if it had been a response to a request.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
While that's a nice intellectual analysis it isn't backed by history. History seems to show that religion preceded civilization. Unless you are saying that prehistoric peoples in caves was civilization. More likely that religion is used to assemble those groups in ancient times to keep them together. Serving as the glue you suggest. But I would wager that fire was the first religion upon discovery of it. That and the sun. Of course, I'm not saying that its a requirement.
This statement is false
History shows a 100% correlation between civilization and religion. If one wants a scientific consensus on the issue, there it is. Religion clearly lends stability to human societies which allows them to become ever larger and more complex.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The homosexual community is currently waging a leftist jihad to overturn the will of the people as expressed by means of the nation's actual democratic processess. They are invading churches, demonizing churches, they are physically attacking people, they are boycotting businesses. In short they are behaving with precisely the intolerance conservatives are blamed for but actually never do.
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism. But let me guess - the slaves demanding emancipation were waging "leftist jihad" too, right? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit you write? I also noticed you couldn't resist throwing in a few lines of your Christian Aplogetics (TM). So while I'm pissed off and we're on that topic, I'm going to have a go at it as well. Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't part of the Jesus Bargain. Hell, it was thought that the end of the world was coming during his time. He was supposed to be the Messiah - guess what? You don't crucify the Messiah because if he's the Messiah, he can't be crucified. So, presumably, when he died, a tonne of people wer
73Zeppelin wrote:
that's laughable is that more than 85% of population of the U.S. buys into it hook, line and sinker.
Wow. What an endorsement of the will of the people. You are actually buttressing Stan's argument here. Clearly by this statistic the US is a Christian Nation. And if truly democratic....
This statement is false
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist.
That's why I've given up trying to argue with him. Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything. Not necessarily the same answer from time to time, but the answer that gives him what he thinks is the moral highground (which he claims to despise :confused:). Whatever you say, unless it is agreement, is prima facie proof that you are a leftist, Marxist, etc. etc. ad nauseam. He is more like Adnan than Adnan is. And almost as much like Ilion is Ilion is. ;)
73Zeppelin wrote:
the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
Did you have to look 'em up or are they preprinted on your ToDo list?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Stan is a closed system with an aswer for everything.
No, Jon. I am merely presenting a valid world view which you are uncomfortable with. My views are consitent, logical and well grounded in history. Your's are not. Here is a list of my unforgivable sins: 1)Christianity is an important facet of western civilization. 2)Jeffersonian democracy was intentionally designed to be expressed primarily through local political bodies. 3)There is no such thing as a 'right to do what ever you please as long as you are not harming others'. 4)There is no such thing as being endowed by your creator with a right to (a)Use a telephone, (b) have an abortion (c) stick your penis where ever you please. oh, and 5) Defending the legal processes of our federal government, the commander in chiefs role in particular. If anything, I present the widest range of possible points of view of anyone on this forum.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:49 PM
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If anyone has preconceived opinions here, it's you. For the zillionth time, I'm not a leftist - that's simply your stupid and naive characterization of me. You've got this silly black and white view that anyone who is not of the same opinion as you is automatically a leftist. That's got to be one of the most ridiculous mischaracterizations I've ever seen and, to be honest, it's starting to piss me off because, not only is it a badly formed opinion, it's just plain dumb. I have, in fact, done more to advance free-market capitalism than you could ever hope to achieve in two lifetimes which makes me less of a Marxist than you. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not guilty of it's being indoctrinated - either by the church or by your so-called "Marxists". I wish I could say the same about you.
Well, what are you than? Why do you have an issue with a society being governed in accordance with christian principles if that is the will of the people? That seems to disturb you at a very deep level. I claim that such entrenched antipathy towards religion derives exclusively from a leftist world view. You might have issues with leftist economic theory, but I see no indication that you reject the social doctrine of the left.
73Zeppelin wrote:
But that's your ideal society, Stan! It's what you rave about on here all the time. For wasn't it the intolerance with British rule that made the U.S. the country it is today? Wasn't it the founding fathers of the U.S. who rose up against what they didn't like? Do the words "Boston Tea Party" mean anything to you? That's why you got pissed off with me, because I pointed out your contradiction. You just try to hide that fact by dressing it up with accusations of Marxism.
Hey, if this is a revolution, I'm fine with that. At least in a revolution, I get to shoot back. But this isn't a revolution, it is a grand social coup. If any church did the same thing to the gay community that the gay community is doing to churches the federal goverment would have called out the Army to protect them. Any time these people want a stand up fight, I'm all for it (and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam).
73Zeppelin wrote:
Oh the churches, whoa is me. Boo hoo hoo. If you even understood your precious Christian ideology, it would be quite clear to you that churches and the papacy weren't par
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, what are you than? Why do you have an issue with a society being governed in accordance with christian principles if that is the will of the people? That seems to disturb you at a very deep level. I claim that such entrenched antipathy towards religion derives exclusively from a leftist world view. You might have issues with leftist economic theory, but I see no indication that you reject the social doctrine of the left.
You need characterization, don't you? Maybe I'm neither Marxist nor Right. Maybe I'm something else that isn't so easily defined. I have a problem with Christian ideology, because I don't need morals foisted upon me. Particularly a set of morals based on falsehoods. I don't need to be patronized, Stan. I'm quite capable of making my own set of decisions without having to rely on some questionable historical text that's only held in high regard as the result of some kind of misplaced tradition. I'm not who I am because I'm an idiot.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Hey, if this is a revolution, I'm fine with that. At least in a revolution, I get to shoot back. But this isn't a revolution, it is a grand social coup. If any church did the same thing to the gay community that the gay community is doing to churches the federal goverment would have called out the Army to protect them. Any time these people want a stand up fight, I'm all for it (and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam).
It's neither a social coup nor a revolution. It's a group of people looking for fair and equal treatment.