Questions for those who don't believe in God

[musicman]

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.

The more I read your argument, the more persuasive it becomes. In the increasingly likely event that a serious challenge is mounted against Roe, I imagine the language will read very similarly to yours.

Perhaps you'd like to plead the case for repeal?

 

[MissileMan]

What about where ACTUAL jurisdiction exists?

Perhaps you can give me some examples where a person has "ACTUAL" jurisdiction over another person's spiritual well-being. I'm not talking about a parent/child scenario either.

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?

Binding, yes. Correct is another matter. I think the states are going to have a hard time avoiding the recognition of gay civil unions for too long. The refusal could have serious ramifications on interstate recognition of marriages.

 

[musicman]

Perhaps you can give me some examples where a person has "ACTUAL" jurisdiction over another person's spiritual well-being. I'm not talking about a parent/child scenario either.

Ah - we've had a communication breakdown, for which I take full blame. My point is that the "if you don't like it, don't go/watch/participate" mindset can indeed force people to endure conditions they might perceive as harmful to their spiritual well-being - and that, as self-governing residents of a town/state, or as customers voting with their input/choices/dollars, they most certainly DO enjoy jurisdiction in these matters. Sorry about the mix-up.

Binding, yes. Correct is another matter. I think the states are going to have a hard time avoiding the recognition of gay civil unions for too long. The refusal could have serious ramifications on interstate recognition of marriages.

We shall certainly see.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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

I was tired. You were just making a slippery slope argument on the american side, to equate american conservatives to the taliban.

 

[jAZ]

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:



...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?

Look the point of my post is not to generalize all or even most Christians/Conservatives as "elitist oligarchs, accustomed to controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

I was very clear and explicit about this limitation of my statements when I said: "I'm not saying that all christians feel this way."

My point is that these people exist on both spectrums, they seek to "control all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed". I've listed many examples of actual actions by moral/religious conservatives trying to control the thoughts, words, deeds of their community as much as any liberal "PC police" do the same.

My point isn't to demonize an entire collection of people based upon an extreme minority of them who's views are radical. My point is that RWavenger's claims that liberals as a whole and liberals alone wish to "control all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

That belief is convenient if you wish to reenforce your pre-established, my-team-rules-your-team-sucks mentality... but it doesn't hold up to any sort of honest, self-critical review.

 

[jAZ]

I was tired. You were just making a slippery slope argument on the american side, to equate american conservatives to the taliban.

You really seem to struggle with comprehension.

I am NOT arguing a slippery slope argument here. This is more of you making up things I didn't say so that you have ANYTHING to rebut.

Once again (I posted this in the post above)... In fact the following is a cut/paste.

The point of my post is not to generalize all or even most Christians/Conservatives as "elitist oligarchs, accustomed to controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

I was very clear and explicit about this limitation of my statements when I said: "I'm not saying that all Christians feel this way."

My point is that these people exist on both spectrums, they seek to "control all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed". I've listed many examples of actual actions by moral/religious conservatives trying to control the thoughts, words, deeds of their community as much as any liberal "PC police" do the same.

My point isn't to daemonize an entire collection of people based upon an extreme minority of them who's views are radical. My point is that RWavenger's claims that liberals as a whole and liberals alone wish to "control all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed" is patently false.

That belief is convenient if you wish to reinforce your pre-established, my-team-rules-your-team-sucks mentality... but it doesn't hold up to any sort of honest, self-critical review.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You really seem to struggle with comprehension.

I am NOT arguing a slippery slope argument here. This is more of you making up things I didn't say so that you have ANYTHING to rebut.

Once again (I posted this in the post above)... In fact the following is a cut/paste.

The point of my post is not to generalize all or even most Christians/Conservatives as "elitist oligarchs, accustomed to controlling all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed".

I was very clear and explicit about this limitation of my statements when I said: "I'm not saying that all Christians feel this way."

My point is that these people exist on both spectrums, they seek to "control all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed". I've listed many examples of actual actions by moral/religious conservatives trying to control the thoughts, words, deeds of their community as much as any liberal "PC police" do the same.

My point isn't to daemonize an entire collection of people based upon an extreme minority of them who's views are radical. My point is that RWavenger's claims that liberals as a whole and liberals alone wish to "control all aspects of society in thought, word, and deed" is patently false.

That belief is convenient if you wish to reinforce your pre-established, my-team-rules-your-team-sucks mentality... but it doesn't hold up to any sort of honest, self-critical review.

You are correct to a point. However, on the right side of the spectrum, it takes one who is truly FAR RIGHT to want that kind of control. However, on the left side, you dont have to turn the dial very far to find those who support liberal concepts that control Americans beyond reasonablness.
I will say, I think many, many of the Dems who support those "controlling" policies dont even know it, or figure, well its better than those evil Repubs being in power, as they are brainwashed into believing by the Dems and liberal MSM.

 

[jAZ]

You are correct to a point. However, on the right side of the spectrum, it takes one who is truly FAR RIGHT to want that kind of control. However, on the left side, you dont have to turn the dial very far to find those who support liberal concepts that control Americans beyond reasonablness.
I will say, I think many, many of the Dems who support those "controlling" policies dont even know it, or figure, well its better than those evil Repubs being in power, as they are brainwashed into believing by the Dems and liberal MSM.

You were doing well right up until the end where you fell back into "attack the Dems" mode.

As to the meat of your post (basically that Libs are worse or more widespread than Cons), I'd say that's pretty well provably false.

Conservatives and religious organizations are constantly trying to enact LAWS banning thought, words and deeds. You will find hundreds of puritanically restrictive morality based legislation on the books (can't buy beer on Sunday, dry Counties, book banning in public liberaries, banning explict lyrics as obscene, banning pornography, banning anal intercourse, banning.

You can't even really marginalize the conservative side of this debate as trivial or minor. This is an article from James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group organizing political action right now to maintain all of these morality laws that restrict the deeds of consenting adults.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0032319.cfm

You will find no such attempt an enacting laws banning (for example) the KKK from organizing or sharing their thoughts on StormFront or whatever the website dejour is for such people.

(I bring the KKK into this not to suggest that anyone here is racist, but race issues is a major part of the whole "PC" debate.)

In fact the ACLU appealed the KKK's right to Adopt-a-highway in Missouri back in 2000. There is no more liberal pariah than the ACLU and there is no greater opportunity to for liberals to stand by and allow or actively conduct a "PC-police" effort than this case in point.

My point is this... conservative PC police have had tremendous success in restricting thought, words and deed though enacting laws. Liberals have had tremendous success in winning "the hearts and minds" of people by convincing them that it's in their best interest to conduct themselves in a PC way.

If conservatives (specifically religious/moral conservatives) were to take a similar action and focus their efforts at stopping porn on a "hearts and minds" you might be able to argue that conservatives are no worse (and maybe better). But as long as they are out there using the stick (laws) to enact their beliefs rather than the carrot (hearts and minds), you would be wrong.

In any case, no one can at this time accurately assert that the only ones pushing for a return to any form of dark ages are liberals. That's just patently false.

 

[Gunny]

You were doing well right up until the end where you fell back into "attack the Dems" mode.

As to the meat of your post (basically that Dems are worse or more widespread than Libs), I'd say that's pretty well provably false.



Conservatives and religious organizations are constantly trying to enact LAWS banning thought, words and deeds. You will find hundreds of puritanically restrictive morality based legislation on the books (can't buy beer on Sunday, dry Counties, book banning in public liberaries, banning explict lyrics as obscene, banning pornography, banning anal intercourse, banning.

Liberals and anti-religious organizations are constantly trying to enact laws banning thought words and deeds. The left is just as control-hungry and right-wing extremists, and want to shove their agenda down everyone's throats every bit as much.

Your examples of mostly-forgotten, archaic, 19th century laws as representative of conservatism is laughable.

You can't even really marginalize the conservative side of this debate as trivial or minor. This is an article from James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group organizing political action right now to maintain all of these morality laws that restrict the deeds of consenting adults.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0032319.cfm

Well, yeah, he speaks for ALL conservatives.

You will find no such attempt an enacting laws banning (for example) the KKK from organizing or sharing their thoughts on StormFront or whatever the website dejour is for such people.

(I bring the KKK into this not to suggest that anyone here is racist, but race issues is a major part of the whole "PC" debate.)

Only because the PC make it part of the debate.

In fact the ACLU appealed the KKK's right to Adopt-a-highway in Missouri back in 2000. There is no more liberal pariah than the ACLU and there is no greater opportunity to for liberals to stand by and allow or actively conduct a "PC-police" effort than this case in point.

My point is this... conservative PC police have had tremendous success in restricting thought, words and deed though enacting laws. Liberals have had tremendous success in winning "the hearts and minds" of people by convincing them that it's in their best interest to conduct themselves in a PC way.

LMAO. One can only assume you actually believe THAT. Liberals have done so well they hold the Presidency, control of Congress, and are the majority in the US Supreme Court. Obviously your "tremendous success" is not reflected by the voters.

If conservatives (specifically religious/moral conservatives) were to take a similar action and focus their efforts at stopping porn on a "hearts and minds" you might be able to argue that conservatives are no worse (and maybe better). But as long as they are out there using the stick (laws) to enact their beliefs rather than the carrot (hearts and minds), you would be wrong.

In any case, no one can at this time accurately assert that the only ones pushing for a return to any form of dark ages are liberals. That's just patently false.

I agree. What liberals want is a not a return to anything as remote as the "Dark Ages" ..... they just want to return to the late 1960s early-1970s when liberal dissent and trash-talking the Nation, and destroying the morality that defines who and what we are reached it's high-water mark. Ahhh... the good old days.

 

[jAZ]

Well, yeah, he speaks for ALL conservatives.

If you are going to ignore what I've said previously and just insert whatever the hell comment you want me to have said so that you can attack it... I'm not going to waste my time responding to each of your comments. Re-read what I've posted here and get back to me once you've finished with your strawman.

 

[musicman]

As to the meat of your post (basically that Libs are worse or more widespread than Cons), I'd say that's pretty well provably false.

So, prove it.

Conservatives and religious organizations are constantly trying to enact LAWS banning thought, words and deeds.

You mean, trying to create a safe, moral and decent society - using that oppressive, unfair weapon - representative government? Those BASTARDS!

My point is this... conservative PC police

Well, in the first place, let's stop trying to dilute, obscure, and generalize the term "politically correct". It's meaning is actually quite specific: it defines - and unmasks - the liberal, his insidious, America-hating agenda, and his rabid intolerance for any viewpoint other than the "correct" one; that is to say - his own. It is in the left's interest to try to neutralize this damning term; they even went so far as to title a ridiculous, politically correct talk-show, hosted by a good little politically correct talking head, "Politically Incorrect".

Liberals are positively Orwellian in their rape of language; they either lie outright (conservative judges are the REAL judicial activists - if you define activism as the willingness to overturn precedent), or manufacture terminology out of whole cloth (case in point: the ludicrous, agenda-driven non-word, "homophobia").

have had tremendous success in restricting thought, words and deed though enacting laws.

There it is again - that wicked, unfair practice, "self-government".

Liberals have had tremendous success in winning "the hearts and minds" of people by convincing them that it's in their best interest to conduct themselves in a PC way.

Of course, being able to circumvent the Constitution, and enact their social agenda by judicial fiat, has been helpful, too.

 

[archangel]

If you are going to ignore what I've said previously and just insert whatever the hell comment you want me to have said so that you can attack it... I'm not going to waste my time responding to each of your comments. Re-read what I've posted here and get back to me once you've finished with your strawman.

sure am glad I took the time to read over many of your posts before forming a opinion...PC= 'Primate Culture'..."if it feels good, do it" mentality! And your use of the (PC?) word "Strawman" humm...I can only assume your favorite movie is "Wizard of Oz" Down the yellow brick road ya go! :cof:

 

[Annie]

If you are going to ignore what I've said previously and just insert whatever the hell comment you want me to have said so that you can attack it... I'm not going to waste my time responding to each of your comments. Re-read what I've posted here and get back to me once you've finished with your strawman.

Which strawman are you referring to? For a newbie, you are awfully quick with the all encompassing words...

 

[jAZ]

Which strawman are you referring to? For a newbie, you are awfully quick with the all encompassing words...

The strawman that I quoted and posted this in response to. GunnyL said with a dose of sarcasm that James Dobson's Focus on the Family "speaks for ALL conservatives". The comment was presented as a rebuttle and was to suggest that I ever said that Dobson represents "ALL conservatives" (I didn't) and by extension that my overarching point (some/many religious conservatives are trying to control thought, word, deed and this is not a "liberal" activity) is somehow invalid.

I have said repeatedly that my overarching point is not applicable to "ALL conservatives"... nor does it need to be. It is a strawman to sarcastically say that Dobson "speaks for ALL conservatives". I never said or even implied such a thing. In fact I explicitly said that's not the case.

 

[jAZ]

So, prove it.

Why did you chop out my "proof" (really evidence)? I'm not reposting it because you wanted to remove it. See "Dobson" and the link that you removed in your quote of me.

You mean, trying to create a safe, moral and decent society - using that oppressive, unfair weapon - representative government? Those BASTARDS!

Yeah, by doing so by controlling thoughts, words and deeds.

Look, as much as you want to change the subject, I'm not letting you. The point I am debating (for the n-teenth time) is the assertion that liberals and only liberals are trying to create an oligarchy where they control thought, word and deed (through any PC efforts).

That you willingly (though tacitly) admit that conservatives are in fact trying to control thought, word and deed though legislation... but that it's justified in your mind because it is for a good purpose... Tells me that you

1) agree isn't not just liberals doing this kind of thing
2) in some cases it's ok to do such a thing

I can agree with both of those things. That narrows our discussion one of what reasons make such legislation acceptable. You might agree with banning anal sex between two consenting people. I might think that's foolish. This is where the honest disucssion/debate exists.

Running around saying things like what RWavenger did distracts from any real discussion of the issues that seperate different factions in our country. It's nothing more than rah-rah, my-team-rules-your's-suck-ass rhetoric.

 

[Annie]

The strawman that I quoted and posted this in response to. GunnyL said with a dose of sarcasm that James Dobson's Focus on the Family "speaks for ALL conservatives". The comment was presented as a rebuttle and was to suggest that I ever said that Dobson represents "ALL conservatives" (I didn't) and by extension that my overarching point (some/many religious conservatives are trying to control thought, word, deed and this is not a "liberal" activity) is somehow invalid.

I have said repeatedly that my overarching point is not applicable to "ALL conservatives"... nor does it need to be. It is a strawman to sarcastically say that Dobson "speaks for ALL conservatives". I never said or even implied such a thing. In fact I explicitly said that's not the case.

Ok, I've gone back through the 12th and not found the Gunny post you must be referring to. Now I see MM is referencing, will you please be good enough to give me the link to the post you are speaking of?

 

[jAZ]

(case in point: the ludicrous, agenda-driven non-word, "homophobia").

Just for your edification... homophobia literally means "fear of sameness". It is not a non-word. It's a latin word.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Just for your edification... homophobia literally means "fear of sameness". It is not a non-word. It's a latin word.

When a word is repeatedly used in a culture to criticize and malign people, and to put them on the defensive, one can no longer fall back on its literal meaning for some sort of justification.

Also, I know it is the typical condescending liberal view that conservatives are dumb, but I don't think people here really need to rely on you for their edification.

 

[Said1]

I know it is the typical condescending liberal view that conservatives are dumb, but I don't think people here really need to rely on you for their edification.

Yah. That's what sigs are for.

 

[Annie]

Yah. That's what sigs are for.

LOL! Yeah, some of us could bury him with credentials, at the same time, more of us could bury him with truth! Yeah, Arch and RWA included!