Questions for those who don't believe in God

[rtwngAvngr]

Did you notice I didn't disagree with that point?

I agree with the notion that there is a idealism/practicality gap that exists between the logical extreme of liberalism and the logical extreme of conservativism.

YYou'd be well served to stop trying to tell me what I think, and just read what I write. You might not be so bogged down in these bogus assertions you seem to be prone to making.

But I'm inside your mind.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Oh jaz 1mg, what are the illogical extremes of conservatism to which you refer?

 

[jAZ]

Let's talk about it. The dark ages were charaterized by elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed, like libs seek to do.

Your personal agenda is clouding your observation skills. You make such an assertion and ignore any conflicting data. You just assert that such a period = liberalism and seem to base the entire belief on a sense of PC=bad.

In the process you forget that in modern society the same language ("elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed") perfectly describes the most conservative of religous conservatives - both in the US and in the Arab world. That you see such behavior as "liberalism" shows very clearly how your political-world view is based on a set of preconceived notions, rather than logical conclusion after considering *all* the evidence.

 

[jAZ]

But I'm inside your mind.

Your arrogance is your failing. You aren't inside my mind.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your arrogance is your failing. You aren't inside my mind.

My failing? I'm whipping your butt, mr. man.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your personal agenda is clouding your observation skills. You make such an assertion and ignore any conflicting data. You just assert that such a period = liberalism and seem to base the entire belief on a sense of PC=bad.

In the process you forget that in modern society the same language ("elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed") perfectly describes the most conservative of religous conservatives - both in the US and in the Arab world. That you see such behavior as "liberalism" shows very clearly how your political-world view is based on a set of preconceived notions, rather than logical conclusion after considering *all* the evidence.

Not at all. PC is bad. And the charges that christians want a theocracy are bogus. Yes some of them want abortion to be illegal just like murder is, as crazy as it seems to you, but that's not theocracy. So you've created a strawman to justify your moral relativism and equation of American conservatives with the True Theocrats of the mideast. Consider yourself dissed and dismissed. NEXT! Two snaps in a cross.

 

[jAZ]

Consider yourself dissed and dismissed. NEXT! Two snaps in a cross.

I think it was the great philospher somesuchposter who once told me to "grow up". If you have to start cheerleading your own posts, you've already lost.

Not at all. PC is bad. And the charges that christians want a theocracy are bogus. Yes some of them want abortion to be illegal just like murder is, as crazy as it seems to you, but that's not theocracy. So you've created a strawman to justify your moral relativism and equation of American conservatives with the True Theocrats of the mideast.

The only strawman here is your assertion that somehow I'm saying that

1) all christians want theocracy... once again you are wrong; I'm not saying that.
2) being against abortion = theocracy; I'm not saying that either.
3) being christian and being against abortion is the only example of a modern religious conservative "controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

Just stop with this bogus practice of pretending I'm saying something so that you have anything to criticize. There's plenty of room to disagree with me when you are actually correctly restating my views. So far, you've failed on nearly every single post.

Now, back to the point... you said :

"elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed"...

The most conservative religous conservatives in american society fit this description about as well as the most PC liberals that you are imagining.

Porn... banned.
Gay marriage... banned.
Anal sex... banned.
Drugs... banned.
Drinking... banned.

Let's get reasonable here. I'm not saying that all christians feel this way. You however seem to be saying that all liberals (and only liberals) are PC-fiends who seek to control "all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

There are certain examples where that is true, but there are just as many examples of such being true of radical conservatives as well.

 

[jAZ]

My failing? I'm whipping your butt, mr. man.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think it was the great philospher somesuchposter who once told me to "grow up". If you have to start cheerleading your own posts, you've already lost.

The only strawman here is your assertion that somehow I'm saying that

1) all christians want theocracy... once again you are wrong; I'm not saying that.
2) being against abortion = theocracy; I'm not saying that either.
3) being christian and being against abortion is the only example of a modern religious conservative "controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

Just stop with this bogus practice of pretending I'm saying something so that you have anything to criticize. There's plenty of room to disagree with me when you are actually correctly restating my views. So far, you've failed on nearly every single post.

Now, back to the point... you said :

"elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed"...

The most conservative religous conservatives in american society fit this description about as well as the most PC liberals that you are imagining.

Porn... banned.
Gay marriage... banned.
Anal sex... banned.
Drugs... banned.
Drinking... banned.

Let's get reasonable here. I'm not saying that all christians feel this way. You however seem to be saying that all liberals (and only liberals) are PC-fiends who seek to control "all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

There are certain examples where that is true, but there are just as many examples of such being true of radical conservatives as well.

I disagree.

 

[jAZ]

I disagree.

I wouldn't go any further that saying just this either. The less you assert the less you have to defend, right?

 

[musicman]

"elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed"...

The most conservative religous conservatives in american society fit this description about as well as the most PC liberals that you are imagining.

The most conservative conservatives, religious or otherwise, fit nothing of the kind. Elitist oligarchs, accustomed to controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed - through an out-of-control judiciary - are watching in horror as America slips through their fingers. The PC liberals - whom I am certainly NOT imagining - are aghast that the conservative movement is about to drag this nation back in to the dark ages of - shudder - REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT! According to this long-forgotten principle, people - some of whom have never even been to college - who wanted to see:

Porn... banned.
Gay marriage... banned.
Anal sex... banned.
Drugs... banned.
Drinking... banned.

...could enact laws to precisely that effect, through their duly elected representatives, and live exactly that way within their own communities!

God, isn't that a horrifying thought?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That sounds like a perfect definition of religion if I've ever heard one.

Maybe in days gone by, but the libs have sufficiently taken over that role.

They are easily the most bigoted, intolerant, uncompassionate, hateful, controlling and hypocritical crowd in existence, cept terrorists.

Oh, did I mention narrow minded and illogical?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Your personal agenda is clouding your observation skills. You make such an assertion and ignore any conflicting data. You just assert that such a period = liberalism and seem to base the entire belief on a sense of PC=bad.

In the process you forget that in modern society the same language ("elitist oligarchs controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed") perfectly describes the most conservative of religous conservatives - both in the US and in the Arab world. That you see such behavior as "liberalism" shows very clearly how your political-world view is based on a set of preconceived notions, rather than logical conclusion after considering *all* the evidence.

I too, would consider that definition to fit liberals.

 

[MissileMan]

and live exactly that way within their own communities!

Those who wish can live exactly that way in their communities, and it doesn't require any legislation. Don't like porn; don't watch it. Don't like to drink; don't go to a bar. It doesn't take rocket science to avoid these things. You want the government to filter out everything you find objectionable. There's a slim possibility of some local laws being passed, but don't hold your breath for an amendment to the COTUS to enforce Christian morality.

 

[musicman]

Those who wish can live exactly that way in their communities, and it doesn't require any legislation. Don't like porn; don't watch it. Don't like to drink; don't go to a bar.

What's wrong with that equation working the other way? Like porn? Like bars? Go to a town whose electorate doesn't object to these things.

You want the government to filter out everything you find objectionable.

You're missing the point. When self-government works as designed, my neighbors and I ARE the bloody government.

There's a slim possibility of some local laws being passed, but don't hold your breath for an amendment to the COTUS to enforce Christian morality.

Not looking for one. I'd settle for the kind of strict adherence to the COTUS that protects my neighbors and me from the enforcement of SECULAR morality.

 

[musicman]

I'd settle for the kind of strict adherence to the COTUS that protects my neighbors and me from the enforcement of SECULAR morality.

...or - excepting the rule of civilized law - the enforcement of ANYONE'S morality but ours.

 

[MissileMan]

What's wrong with that equation working the other way? Like porn? Like bars? Go to a town whose electorate doesn't object to these things.

I would say, based on the income figures of the porn and alcohol industries, that those opposed are in the minority. But hey, if you can get those kinds of laws passed in your town, I'm sure there will be a flow of people in both directions. Let me know how it works out for you.

You're missing the point. When self-government works as designed, my neighbors and I ARE the bloody government.

But then again, so are the drinkers and porn watchers.

Not looking for one. I'd settle for the kind of strict adherence to the COTUS that protects my neighbors and me from the enforcement of SECULAR morality.

I think you mean Liberal morality. Secular isn't a dirty word, though plenty of folks have tried to paint those of us who believe in a separation of church and state as "un-American".

 

[musicman]

But then again, so are the drinkers and porn watchers.

I don't have a problem with that. What I do find hard to take is the "if you don't like porn, don't watch it; if you don't drink/gamble/enjoy the company of prostitutes, don't go in to the places where those activities take place" excuse. What about people who believe in the damaging residual effects of these things? Are they bigots for not sitting down and shutting up while the rot stinks up their communities? Are they wrong for seeking some protection for their children against what is spewed out over the airwaves? Are they tyrannical for voting to keep what they perceive as danger out of their towns?

I think you mean Liberal morality. Secular isn't a dirty word, though plenty of folks have tried to paint those of us who believe in a separation of church and state as "un-American".

"Secularism", in its purely American political sense, has come to mean "enforced secularism, to the hostile exclusion of any and all other viewpoints - particularly Christianity". Hence, the mantra, "separation of church and state", along with the underlying perversion of that principle's intent. It works hand in hand with liberal world socialism.

 

[MissileMan]

I don't have a problem with that. What I do find hard to take is the "if you don't like porn, don't watch it; if you don't drink/gamble/enjoy the company of prostitutes, don't go in to the places where those activities take place" excuse. What about people who believe in the damaging residual effects of these things?

They are exactly who I'm talking about that have the choice to opt out of those activities. Noone is forcing them to participate in any activity that they might feel endangers their spiritual well-being. The complaining is based purely on the presumed jurisdiction over everyone else's.

Are they bigots for not sitting down and shutting up while the rot stinks up their communities? Are they wrong for seeking some protection for their children against what is spewed out over the airwaves? Are they tyrannical for voting to keep what they perceive as danger out of their towns?

There are laws that cover public decency. If people are behaving within the law, then the complainers have no choice but to attempt to change the law. Once they fail in that endeavor, they can accept that the majority has a different moral outlook or move.

 

[musicman]

They are exactly who I'm talking about that have the choice to opt out of those activities. Noone is forcing them to participate in any activity that they might feel endangers their spiritual well-being. The complaining is based purely on the presumed jurisdiction over everyone else's.

What about where ACTUAL jurisdiction exists?

There are laws that cover public decency. If people are behaving within the law, then the complainers have no choice but to attempt to change the law. Once they fail in that endeavor, they can accept that the majority has a different moral outlook or move.

I am greatly relieved to hear you say that. You'll agree, then, that state referenda prohibiting - say, gay marriage, are legally, jurisdictionally correct and binding?