NRO Editors: Legislating Immorality
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
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.
-
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
Synaptrik wrote:
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....
I would only be buttressing Stan's argument if he had one. He doesn't because he's not consistent. The unspoken issue surrounding the 85% is that the 85% self-identify as Christian. That's the irony that also invalidates his argument.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
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....
I would only be buttressing Stan's argument if he had one. He doesn't because he's not consistent. The unspoken issue surrounding the 85% is that the 85% self-identify as Christian. That's the irony that also invalidates his argument.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The unspoken issue surrounding the 85% is that the 85% self-identify as Christian.
But there is no choice for "Christian, but I don't go to church cause all that crap is not what I think God is about."
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
Synaptrik wrote:
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.
That really depends on whether you accept that cave paintings do indeed represent religious art. It also depends on how you define civilization. It also leads to the question of how diverse groups of unassociated people developed similar religious ideologies that were able to bring them together.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
The unspoken issue surrounding the 85% is that the 85% self-identify as Christian.
But there is no choice for "Christian, but I don't go to church cause all that crap is not what I think God is about."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But there is no choice for "Christian, but I don't go to church cause all that crap is not what I think God is about."
Exactly. But they declare "Christian" anyways.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
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.
That really depends on whether you accept that cave paintings do indeed represent religious art. It also depends on how you define civilization. It also leads to the question of how diverse groups of unassociated people developed similar religious ideologies that were able to bring them together.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That really depends on whether you accept that cave paintings do indeed represent religious art.
Paint a picture of a bison = spear a bison Paint a picture of Betty = **** a Betty. Whether or not it's religion, Betty can show you the way to heaven. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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:
and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam
And we know so much of your thinking is based on that unforgettable shore leave in San Francisco. :laugh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
That really depends on whether you accept that cave paintings do indeed represent religious art.
Paint a picture of a bison = spear a bison Paint a picture of Betty = **** a Betty. Whether or not it's religion, Betty can show you the way to heaven. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
:laugh: Yeah, I suppose!
-
Oakman wrote:
But there is no choice for "Christian, but I don't go to church cause all that crap is not what I think God is about."
Exactly. But they declare "Christian" anyways.
-
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
-
Sorry, what's the 'mind' again? I forgot what your definition was.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
- Tolerance is important, without it we become a judgemental, corrupt society, layered by how much of mainstream dogma we approve. 2) It is mine alone, and not logically indefensible. Where do you think hatred comes from?
Sorry, Dave, but all you are doing is creating a new moral imperative called 'tolerance' which encompasses exclusively a pre-determined set of behaviors which you think we should be tolerant of. It is no different than any form of judgementatlism baseed upon any other kind of moral imperative. You have achieved nothing. It is simply a new bunch of people telling another bunch of people that they suck. You simply through throw about emotionally charged accusations such as 'hatred' and 'weakness' to make your own moral imperative sound somehow superior to others. Oh, and btw, I think it is laughable for you to claim that the statement is 'yours alone'. Is it a bizarre conincidence that that same statmeent is repeated by every liberal on the planet? Come on, fess up, where did you get it from?
Dalek Dave wrote:
Er, where were you during the History Lesson? Slavery, has been with us for 1000s's of years. It is even approved of in that bible thing. Antisemitism has been in Europe for 1000's of years too. The first use of the word Holocaust was when the Jews were banished from Britain in the 1300's. South Africa's Apartheid System? yes very tolerant, or do you agree with all these?
As long as you have civilization, you are going to have one group of people telling some other group of people how they are going to behave, otherwise your civilization will degrade into anarchy. We have always been tolerant of those things we are told we are supposed to be tolerant of.
Dalek Dave wrote:
- I can argue my views logically without resorting to 'Moral Argument' or dogmatic obedience.
As a matter of fact, you can't. No more so than any other moral absolutist.
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 10:01 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sorry, Dave, but all you are doing is creating a new moral imperative called 'tolerance' which encompasses exclusively a pre-determined set of behaviors which you think we should be tolerant of.
And for that matter, they've twisted the meaning of 'tolerance.' 'Tolerance' does *not* mean approval, much less the applauding that the toleristas demand. 'Tolerance' is very much a stance of disapproval.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because it is being promoted as moral imperative which we must all be tolerant of. Why does it bother you that some people are bothered by same sex relationships? Is there some kind of new age orthodoxy that we are now all required to acknowledge?
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Remind me again why I need to be tolerant of your precious, precious Christianity, Stan?
Simple: because you don't have the balls to act on your hatred of Christianity.
Ilíon wrote:
Simple: because you don't have the balls to act on your hatred of Christianity.
Speaking of balls, we still haven't heard where heroic, patriotic, big-balled Ilion served his country and with which branch of the service?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
and yes, Jon, I know, I was in the Navy during Vietnam
And we know so much of your thinking is based on that unforgettable shore leave in San Francisco. :laugh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
But they declare "Christian" anyways.
Maybe because the application form for job/credit/mortgage/etc or the Census asks you to tick a box.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Maybe because the application form for job/credit/mortgage/etc asks you to tick a box.
I'd better go apply for a job or a loan. I'm going to be rich. :rolleyes:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
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.
73Zeppelin wrote:
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.
Honestly, I don't even understand what I'm saying that gets you people so upset. I am simply describing the world I have spent most of my life living in, things that were taken for granted as completely normal, things I was taught in school as being the way everything was supposed to be, and its like I'm describing a trip to Auschwitz to you. Sorry, but I don't think that I'm the extremist in this exchange. And I refuse to accept that there was some other, completely different, theory of centrally controlled societies that somehow silently coexisted all these years which was indistinquisable from socialism but was actually something completely different. I think that what has you guys really upset is that we are all supposed to be playing this little game where we educated people just pretend that the emperor is actually wearing clothes. When someone points out that he doesn't, there is hell to pay.
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's a group of people looking for fair and equal treatment.
No, in fact, they are not. They are totalitarian assholes who are trying to fundamentally change human society. We could give them every single goddamned thing they are asking for and tomorrow morning they would be back out in the streets demanding whatever item is next on their list. And you would be just as pissed off at anyone who had the audacity to question the legitimacy of that item. All they have to do is somehow pick a fight with a Christian, and you on on board with what ever the hell it is they want to do. Their agenda is not sexual liberation, it is control of society altogether.
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.