View Single Post
Old December 12 2012, 11:15 PM   #207
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Why Not A Starfleet Ships Chaplain As A Main Character?

Longinus wrote: View Post
They're not necessarily stupid. Being a well educated creationist (and ID is creationism) requires some really etraordinary mental gymnastics. Some people use their intelligence to come up explanations why the evidence do not actually mean what it seems to mean.
Which, again, does not preclude them working in science fields.
Atheists who dare publicly say that there is no God or question the prelevance of religion in government institutions are labelled militant. Religious people can push their views all they like and it is considered to be perfectly normal. Religious need to start attacking abortion clinics to be considered militant.
Um, no. Atheists who live their life like anyone else are not militant. Those who ask people not to pray near them are pushy. Militant atheists make a scene about it. Religious folks who quietly live their lives are labeled pushy if they refer to their religion, and those who make a point of asking others to not offend their religion are considered militant. Your view of religious people is quite askew to reality.
Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years.
...
I must have misread...
Fox is slightly left of center, the rest of the media is farther left, and even the republicans have been sliding left for years.
No, you really said that.
I really do not know what to say. Your detachment from reality is just too owerwhelming at this point. Where is the centre then? I assume somewhere around Emperor Palpatine.
By the standards of today's Republican party Reagan could never get through primaries. He would be considered to be far too much on the left.
I really recommend that you try to realign yourself with the reality.
You actually believe that, or was it said with malice aforethought? You're quite out of touch.

Xhiandra wrote: View Post
Maybe I missed it, but neither Longinus nor I called them uneducated, hillbillies or stupid.
An intelligent, knowledgeable individual can fall for brainwashing.
Longinus certainly called them uneducated, and claimed they were not able to fill Starfleet positions due to their lack.
As for Tom Cruise, I'd sooner accuse him of lacking integrity than intelligence.Scientology uses celebs as walking, talking ads and pampers them; he needs not even believe in their precepts to have an interest in joining.That is, if I cared about celebs' private lives.
You actually put more effort into scientology than I felt necessary.
You really think that militant atheist is an oxymoron?
It be.
It's a shock term only in use in the US (and, sadly, the very US-influenced internet) to label atheists abhorrent.
All "militant" atheists do is refuse to be second-class citizens.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. Not all atheists are militant. But some are indeed militant. That applies to any ism. Your denial won't change reality.
Firstly, I have no belief (at least no religious one).Secondly, I resent the implication that I never examined the religious question, or that my lack of belief in deities is me trying to shock mommy and daddy.For someone who claims open-mindedness, you don't demonstrate much.
That's your failure to listen, combined with seeing what you WANT to see and taking general talk as personal. Part of growing up and becoming an adult is forging one's own identity. That usually starts by rejecting what your parents teach. Sometimes this is followed by returning to the fold, sometimes by going even farther afield, and, in the best case, by actually thinking seriously about it and developing a set of beliefs. So open your mind, read without prejudice, and think about it. Maybe you'll see that open-mindedness does NOT consist of spewing politically correct pablum and insulting anyone not on your side of the spectrum.
I've no idea what "agit-prop" is. Sounds like a pharmaceutical name. New form of Ibuprofen?
Look it up.
Anyway, you don't know what my country is (though you should have a good idea of the continent), I never volunteered that info. I assure you, our political parties run the gamut: we've got left-wingers, right-wingers, far-left and far-right mainstream parties and your repubs would sit right at home with our far-right and democrats with the democratic right.
Don't much care where you live. If I haven't been there yet, then I hope to visit it one day. But before you go on about the political parties, try the Pournelle Political Axis.
I don't recall volunteering my age, but if that's true, then please remember to drink enough water in the summer.
And don't be afraid, those children on their skateboards are quite harmless.
Coffee has all the water I need, and skateboards don't bother me.

[QUOTE]And hopefully, one day, you guys will get there. It'll take time, probably a few centuries, but I trust you guys to get there eventually. Let's just hope it doesn't take you as long as it took us and that your crusades soon come to an end as the world pays a heavy toll for your country's adolescent flirt with theocracy and imperialism. See, we only had swords, you guys sadly possess stronger toys.
We've fallen back a bit, but we'll get back to where we were eventually. Only a militant atheist and terminal liberal could see us as theocratic and imperialist.
Mild as it may be, it's symptomatic. And one would be intrigued to see the result of the converse: what if your money loudly proclaimed "there is no god"? Do you not think furore would ensue? I guarantee you, it would.
Noise, yes. Not much else.

Secularism is the center of that pendulum or yours, not one of its extremes!
In the example of the money; no inscription either way is the perfect middlepoint.
No, not secularism. Tolerance for any belief, so long as it doesn't act inappropriately. Building a mosque at ground zero doesn't meet that test, and shouldn't be an issue. Suicide bombings and lynchings, though, are certainly grounds for not tolerating the behavior of adherents to a creed. Strict secularism would disenfranchise too many of their right to practice their faith. I may mock them when they try to preach to me, but I defend their right to believe, and to proselytize, so long as they respect my right to say "Not interested".
As for the money, again, demanding the change pushes people in ways they don't like, and they react, making the pendulum move. Quietly omitting the inscription when authorizing a new design allows it to fade with less notice and less motion. It's also not a big enough deal to me to bother worrying about. It reassured a few people when it was enacted; it reassures some people now to see it, and is not offensive enough to justify changing. There's more pressing issues, like trying to deal with politicians inciting class envy and trite media phrases like 'fiscal cliff'.

I must've missed all those non-christian US presidents. Or even non-protestant.In fact, I seem to recall quite a few hateful objections to your current president on the wrong assumption that he was a muslim!
JFK was catholic, and we nearly elected a mormon. But even so, there's no litmus test. Any faith can be president, if you connect well enough with the voters. There's no constitutional requirement that any office holder or bureaucrat must belong to a given sect and uphold it, as has happened in the past on your continent, and as is current practice in some countries.
I also must've dreamt the double standard of labelling any outspoken atheist (and presumably Asatru, buddhist, Mythos cultist, satanist, jew, scientologist, muslim, etc) militant while allowing freedom of proselytism for the christians.
You did. I explained it above. Add vegetarians, animal rights activists, environmentalists, oil company spokesmen, salesmen - especially salesmen! - and so on ad infinitum. They can all proselytize. They can all be reasonable, aggressive, or militant. And there are plenty of us who don't care what your ism is, so long as we can interrupt your speil to say "No thanks" and walk away.

Which is fine, but a lot of folks are fairly vitriolic on the issue, which precludes understanding and hardens attitudes against them. I see this in your's and Longinus' assumptions that a chaplain is a bad idea.
Expressing contrary opinion to yours about an hypothetical scenario on discussion board is being vitriolic?
Are you deliberately misunderstanding? Longinus especially seems to react to the idea of religion and to chaplains in Trek in much the same way that religous people do to gay's demands for equality: Shields up! Start citing scripture and verse (or episode and season, in this case) to justify saying "nononononono!" Think about it.
__________________
If you donít drink the kool-aid, youíre a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote