View Single Post
Old December 14 2012, 07:21 PM   #211
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Why Not A Starfleet Ships Chaplain As A Main Character?

Longinus wrote: View Post
I said creationsist are either uneducated OR denying science. Both options were covered. There is not third one.
There is room for multiple theories in science. Adhering to a non-scientific belief in that respect need not prevent them from doing good work in any field other than astrophysics.

And examine actual policies of Reagan. especially economically he is left on Republican party of today. It seems that Republicans rather suicide the economy than raise taxes. Reagan raised taxes many times when it was needed. And while never particularly pro-choice, as a governot he signed a law helping women to get abortion. Tea party would have none of that. In any case, the claim that the Republican party has moved left seems to be factually incorrect.
1. Reagan made pragmatic deals with the democrats that they welshed on.
2. Raising taxes is not necessary to rescue the economy, and isn't going to raise enough to matter without spending cuts. Obama ius willing top go over the fiscal cliff because the media will sell the false idea that it's the republicans' fault.
3. I never said they moved left. They just aren't as far right as portrayed.

And really saying that Fox News leans left is like saying Klingons are a peace loving race. It is utterly bizarre claim; in fact easily the bizarrest claim you've made in this whole thread. I'd really like to know your standards for centrist media... If it seems to you that all media leans left, maybe it is just because your perception of reality is completely skewed?
Ever watch them? Or do you just accept what the other media and talking heads claim? There's the news portion, and then there's the infotainment section - Fox at least has a right and left guest on those segments. They've had leftist shows, as well. Can't say what they have on right now, haven't had cable in a while, and only bother watching once in a while, because I prefer to read.

Also how would a secular nation infringe people's rights to their religion? They can build temples (but not with government money), they can pray all they like and they can express their views freely. Pretty much all the examples ever on secularists or atheists limiting religious freedom are actually just examples of limiting the ability to force religious views on others or get them enshired and venerated by government institutions. It is funny how the sharia law is such a boogyman to the religious right, even though they are doing the exact same thing, truing to force their religious views on others by laws. That shit just have to stop.
Secular means religion isn't welcome. We're going that way, and it's been mostly suits to prevent people using the word christmas, have nativity scenes, roadside crosses, and the like. A suit recently demanded that all the crosses in a cemetary be replaced with secular markers. That's infringing on people's rights. Your claims that the 'religious right' is acting just like the "islamofascists" is hyperbole. Some on the fringe WANT to be able to do so, but there's just as many on the opposite extreme wanting to eliminate the right, as well.

Furthermore, your constant claims that other people's positions must be unexamined because they do not see wisdom of your words is rather unfortunate. You do not know me or Xhiandra, nor have you any idea how we are arrived to our current positions. I do not know how you're arrived to yours, and I am not starting to guess. Though with that Fox News one it must be quite a story.
You do not read with comprehension. I explained my philosophy of religion and morals, and gave background. You both took that as a direct, personal statement. Your mistake. I respect anyone's RIGHT to believe whatever, but unless they've done their growing up, don't take seriously their belief. Anyone, baptist or communist, who espouses the beliefs their parents instilled, hasn't come to those beliefs by their own effort, and should not expect their depth of belief to be respected, which is a wholly different thing than repsecting their actual belief. And that journey is part of growing up.

Xhiandra wrote: View Post
Darkwing, I was trying to outline your assumptions with light-hearted humour.
If you can't laugh, well, that's just sad.
It wasn't clear if it was supposed to be funny.

Let me be less subtle:
You don't know my age, yet presume to be older (and implicitely wiser).
I intended to show that the assumption I was religious just because I defended the right to those beliefs was false, and to give some idea of how long ago I came to my views. You added the other nuance yourself.

You don't know my country, yet presume it is filled with agit-prop (btw, I do not need to look it up to guess what it stands for); and agit-prop about US politics, no less!
The entire developed world is awash in propaganda, and more of it today is aimed at shaping opinions for political purposes than used to be tolerated in the once-supposedly objective media.

Do you really believe the rest of the world is constantly focused on you guys?
Did I ever say that?
Have you never left american soil?
I've been to much of this planet, and would be surprised if you've been to as many places.

You don't know how I arrive(d) to any conclusion, yet presume they emerge from teenage rebellion (though if I read you right, you apparently believe all convictions emerge from teenage rebellion); they do not.
Read above.

You accuse me of reading what isn't there, then, in the next breath, repeat the very implication you just denied, and with a heavier hand.

You presume to teach wisdom, but rely heavily on emotional appeals such as the one below.
Wisdom is emotional.

On the matter of US politics, I will concede that I didn't know of JFK's catholicism. I thought Obama was the first non-WASP; and that the P still stood.
But the point remains: no non-christian (and very few non-protestants) have the political capita to make it in your country.
Of course, the obstacles aren't institutionalised; but that's not the point, the point is that they couldn't make it, even though they're allowed to try.
For a while there, religion didn't matter. It came to matter again when the left tried to marginalize it, and many felt threatened, and became polarized in their defense of it. Left alone, they'd've slowly faded.

You're trying to paint the exceedingly dominant majority as suffering the joug of militant atheism; it's quite frankly FoxNewsish.
No. The US was founded by christians, as a christian nation, but the founders didn't want a theocracy - they expected most people to be christian of one stripe or another, but didn't want any particular sect to dominate. Over time, other faiths and atheism became acceptable, until christianity became somewhat less than the majority, and many religious elements came to mean little. Some people have tried to purge religion from public life, which has led to an unfortunate resurgence in the virulence of some believers. If "merry christmas" is threatening to those folks, they're insecure. If I'm wished "merry christmas", I smile and say the same. If I'm told "Jeeesus is the reason for the season", I smile and wish them a merry solstice and a happy Sir Isaac Newton's Birthday. If I'm told I'm going to hell because I'm not praying with them, I ask them if they even know the name their savior actually wore when he walked this planet. I tolerate their right to believe, as long as they tolerate me.

By the way, if FoxNews is a left-leaning organisation, then I suppose the media that actually try to be unbiased (BBC, The Times, Le Monde,...) are full-on anarcho-communists!
No, but ain't nobody trying to be objective anymore.

So, anyone that answers the thread's question negatively is a militant atheist?
But anyone answering it positively isn't a militant theist. Obviously not.
No double standard here.
You misunderstand. The vehemence is the reason. "I don't see it fitting because..." is one thing. "Absolutely NOT!" is another.
He cited canon? Yes. So did plenty of other people. Many many threads on these boards end up heavily citing canon. Why is it anathema in this particular case?
Are you impressed when some cites Paul? As opposed to giving an independent rationale for their opposition? And since Roddenberry's views changed between TOS and TNG, I don't feel obligated to accept the less-tolerant later views as the only acceptable position.
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