...what could go wrong there, right?
Well, one really gets the strong impression from watching the trailer below that Bill Maher never learned the very important lesson that being a smart-ass skeptic who thinks he knows it all, but doesn't, isn't actually a great formula for dealing with serious issues.
One also gets the impression that a good beating or two during adolescence - heck, even a darn good public shaming during his pubescent years - might have spared the world this trouble by imparting the aforementioned teaching. Alas, no such luck by all appearances:
P.S. I suppose, regrettably, this is not part of Democratic efforts to woo people of faith.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 23, 2008 07:20 PM | Email ThisLooks like it punctures some balloons.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 23, 2008 07:24 PMBtw, speaking of Democrat efforts to "woo people of faith", I've been wondering for awhile what it is about human cloning, gay marriage, and abortion (aka child-killing) that democrats think would attract the christian vote.
Posted by: Michele on July 23, 2008 07:29 PMIt is far too easy to find loons associated with any movement. Looks like Bill will be taking cheap shots at religion by focusing on the loons and extremists. He isn't going to convert people to his point of view, but he is gonna piss off a lot of genuine and sincerely religious people.
Challenging religious beliefs, or any core seriously held beliefs, should be done politely and thoughtfully. Not Bill's style. Bet it looses a ton of money, and helps energize the religious right wing base. Not a bad thing, I suppose, but probably not his intended goal.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on July 23, 2008 07:44 PMWill it generate much Hype?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 23, 2008 07:49 PMFeel free to tell me they are on the right track and that this really is a "serious" topic.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on July 23, 2008 08:29 PMSo what leftists prefer as an alternative getting religion is sucking the teet of Government from cradle to grave and not acknowledging authority which means no accountability and resulting in corruption. Beware of the unintended consequences ! Dysfunctional is the first word that comes to mind after viewing the trailer. Some parts are funny but shallow.
Posted by: KS on July 23, 2008 08:37 PMMarxism and totalitarianism are *not* the results of minimizing religion. Look at Franco's Spain, for example, for a government that relied heavily on the Church as a means of strict social control.
(Similarly, many libertarians that I know are atheists!)
Maher is overly combative in this movie, of course, and he's quite in your face about challenging religious faith. But what about his questions? Isn't the idea that unreasonable religious beliefs (of whatever form) motivate important public policy of concern to you?
Posted by: demo kid on July 23, 2008 09:18 PMYou are writing this on which blog? A blog run by whom? A blog featuring clowns and juvenile smart-ass remarks about pretty much every serious issue it deals with? What a marvelous sense of irony you have, Eric!
(I do agree that Maher won't persuade anyone with this movie. But it's entertainment.)
Posted by: Bruce on July 23, 2008 09:59 PMIf you'd like to point to any posts I've done with clowns and "juvenile smart-ass remarks" then be my guest (I think if you hunt you can find some a small smattering of the latter depending on your definitions). However, it's a group blog; contributors are responsible for their posts and theirs alone. You might want to keep that in mind.
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 23, 2008 10:07 PMWe've never, ever, executed an innocent person.
"Aborted children have not committed any crime."
Of course not. Only a human being can commit a crime. A gestating mass, which may or may not someday become human, cannot commit a crime. (It can, however, cause the death of its' hostess, which is why we keep abortion safe and legal, even into the late term.)
"Libs are reflexively against both the military and business..."
John Kerry, George Soros -- the list is endless! And look at all the combat zones G.W. Bush and Mr. Cheney fought in! And all the profits they made for their firms' investors!
"... but most people (religious and otherwise) are much more realistic about the importance of both."
Indeed, in how many gospel versus does Jesus preach the value of the dollar? Point proven!
Posted by: tensor on July 24, 2008 12:09 AMAll that glitters is indeed gold.
"Even in 1st trimester they have heads, arms, legs, feet, beating hearts, etc."
Day 1 is, by definition, in the first trimester. Care to qualify your statement?
"They're human, alright, but they may or may not be born, rather."
Across the mammals, half of all conceptions fail to reach implantation -- no induced terminations necessary. If a god created our universe, then these outcomes are what that god intended. (Maybe a comedian should mock anyone who believes in such a 'murderous' -- or, at least, murderously wasteful -- deity.)
"Most who are killed aren't killed because of being a danger to their mother, as you well know."
Heck, most of the fertilized eggs don't even make it to the uterus.
"They are simply regarded as throwaway inconveniences."
Thus joining most of their fellow fertilized eggs.
"Many women are riddled with guilt afterward."
Especially if they are surrounded by loudly moralizing sadists, who harp constantly about the "sin" of abortion. Many other women feel profound relief, e.g. if the pregnancy resulted from rape. Why, it's almost like different women, in vastly different circumstances, will have different feelings! Who'da thunk it?
'If the baby were just a "mass", then everyone would be glad to get rid of him/her.'
Hardly. In sworn testimony before the United States Congress in 1995, women who'd had late-term abortions told their intensely personal stories. A wanted pregnancy had gone horribly wrong, leaving the woman with the unpleasant choice -- abortion, or stillbirth. One of these women held her aborted fetus afterwards, and gave it a burial. Does this sound "glad" to you?
'There would be no years of guilt and anguish, as many are living with.'
And calling them all baby-killers just does wonders for their healing. Locking them in jail for years would make them even happier, I'll bet. Best of all, we could have our government impose the same solution on all of these different women. Because government knows more about a woman's body than she does.
Posted by: tensor on July 24, 2008 12:58 AMMaher is most certainly a clown, but an angst ridden one at that.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 24, 2008 06:17 AMSeems we all get to define "human" in our own terms.
I do not include cold blooded killers as among the "human".
How about we just re-define the execution of cold blooded killers as "late term abortion"? Blobs of protoplasm terminated as useless.
Happy now?
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 24, 2008 07:26 AMAfter re-reading your posts, turns out I don't understand your positon on the death penalty.
You state that "we've never ever executed an innocent person".
I agree.
Does that mean that you support the death penalty for adult humans found guilty of murder? I do. And I don't have a problem with most abortions.
I think my positions are consistent. Maybe even with yours.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 24, 2008 07:38 AMSo does this mean that Republicans that have been married multiple times shouldn't be able to preach about family values?
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2008 10:25 AMWaht bothers me is that it's petty well proven that ol' Al has $kin in the game. A lot of $kin. So according to liberal morality measurements, Al's a greedy piker only out to fill the pockets of his and his friends -- just like that oil man in the white house who advocates drilling for our own resources or "going to war for oil".
If some Republican that's been married 3 or 12 times (take your pick) starts to run a marriage clinic that advocates 4 billion dollar happiness classes subsidized by Uncle Sam, then I might care.
Based upon the false promise of Maher's TV show "Politically Incorrect", I expect it will be a huge disappointment to everyone.
From what I can recall, the only "politically incorrect" opinion that Maher EVER expressed was that Vili Falau was NOT Mary Kaye LeTourneau's victim.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 24, 2008 12:40 PMOh gosh, you don't you think that's why it's called FAITH, do you?
The question I have for the non-believers is, what difference does it make to you what, if anything, others believe in? Why does it trouble you so? I know, I know, you're going to whine about relgion in the public arena, but that is a false whine because it was far more in the public eye long before todays Christians came along. Have you been to Europe? Have you been to historic America? Europe? Have you read anything of our early documents? The truth is you want us to bend to your will simply because it is your WILL. What you should be examining is why it is your will? What is it that the folks who influenced your will want? What's the angenda and WHY?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 24, 2008 12:47 PMThat's just fine... but if you're going to start saying that someone with a political opinion is hypocritical, it's only fair to point out that one viewpoint doesn't have the monopoly on not walking the walk.
@26: The question I have for the non-believers is, what difference does it make to you what, if anything, others believe in?
I don't care what you believe in, really... as long as you don't require that what YOU believe in is what EVERYONE should believe in, and that the government should back you up with that. The second that you get government to push religion, I lose my freedom to decide my own religious beliefs.
@27: People don't hold memorial services for "masses" as you describe the unborn.
Normal people don't, of course!
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2008 02:40 PMAnd where EXACTLY has that ever been required of you, or of anyone in The United States?
The second that you get government to push religion
Again, where EXACTLY has that ever happened The United States?
Cleaning up after those pet straw dogs sure can be messy, can't it? I bet you go through a lot of vacuum bags.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 24, 2008 02:55 PMGreat, I agree with you. So to be consistent, you also are with me that government should not be pushing the left's global warming beliefs--you know, cap and trade and the anti-carbon crusade? Because, like you say "The second that you get government to push religion, (you) lose (your) freedom to decide (your) own religious beliefs."
Posted by: Bill H on July 24, 2008 03:26 PM@30: Please. That's not even close and you know it. Extreme right-wingers claiming that environmentalism is "religion" doesn't make it so.
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2008 04:36 PMYou're wrong--it is directly comparable. The anthropogenic global warming religionists (are you one of them) base their ideas ONLY on faith as science is NOT it's basis.
Posted by: Bill H on July 24, 2008 05:04 PMNon-AGWers are treated as heretics and called "deniers", an obvious parallel to "Holocaust deniers". Think they should just be burned at the stake?
Posted by: Bill H on July 24, 2008 05:21 PMReligion is different. For one thing, by definition it's based on faith, not science. For another thing, it's specifically mentioned in the constitution. The constitution doesn't say that the government shall make no law regarding the environment!
Posted by: Bruce on July 24, 2008 05:52 PMSo you are just as outraged when they impose Islamic teachings, when they demand kids dress as Muslims and follow the rules of Islam to "learn" about that faith, right? Or is it just Christianity you object to?
If other religions are taught about as a form of cultural awareness then Christianity should be included. If my kids have to learn about Buddha, Gandhi, Wiccans and humanism then I expect them to exposed to Christ too.
A history of religion should be taught in schools as a fundamental part of the core curriculum. Without a fundamental understanding of religion, children miss out on some of the fundamental motivations of human history and human thought. Without an understanding of the power of Religious motivation, Charlemagne is just some guy that lead an army. Without an understanding of the Power of Religious Intolerance, the Inquisition just comes across as a period of Injustice. Without and understanding of the power Religious extremism, 9-11, becomes just another terrorist event. Without an Understanding of the power of religious consciousness, The Salvation Army is just the world's biggest garage sale. There is no other force of thought in the history of mankind that has so utterly shaped mankind as religion, and to keep a general understanding of religious history from children with the mantra of "separating" church and state is to misunderstand that there is a difference between religion and individualized faith. It is not my contention that we should teach the basics of any specific religious doctrine, but rather that we should offer objective education that highlights the impact of all Religions on society. Maybe if we understood the nature of religion as a whole, and its impact on humanity, we would be more apt to practice our individualized faiths with a modicum of restraint, grace, and tolerance. Maybe, the big picture will help us, as a society, to better see the whole playing field and to make decisions based on how they affect the whole.
To attempt to eliminate Christianity from world history or US history is absurd and a denial OF history
1620 the Mayflower Compact issigned "Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith . . . furtherance of the ends aforesaid." The Pilgrims taught their children the Bible and the Christian faith.
1690 First New England Primer is published. The Alphabet is taught using Bible verses for each letter, and has questions on Bible moral teachings. The Primer contains children's prayers, the Lords Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Shorter Catechism and questions on the Bible by Mr. Cotton. The New England Primer will be in wide use in American schools of all types public, private, home or parochial, for the next 200 years....
1787 Congress passes the Northwest Ordinance which is outlines requirements for governments of new territories so they can qualify for statehood. Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance directs the people of the territories to establish schools "to teach religion, morality, and knowledge." Nearly every state admitted to the Union after this has written in their State Constitution wording that the schools are to teach morality and religion and they all use the Bible as the bases for their teachings.
Of the first 108 colleges and universities founded in America, 106 where founded as Christian schools. Of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian.
1892 The American Teachers Union declare that schools should continue to teach morals from the Bible as schools are turned over to the various States from the Christian Churches. Prior to this many schools had been run by churches of various denominations. Many state Constitution's mandate the teaching of morals, religion and knowledge.
1900 Virtually all school text books published to date have contained Biblical references or teachings.
Those are FACTS, facts you are denying to the kids YOU are graduating stupid and illiterate under the guise of protecting them from God/faith/religion.
Ah, the essence of liberalism--anyone who doesn't agree with your warped views are heretics, deniers or "crackpots". You are either willfully ignorant or intentionally attempting to deceive.
The meme that all "deniers" are "tied to Exxon" or "crackpots" doesn't hold a thimbleful of water anymore. There are literally THOUSANDS of respected scientists who are not on board with this AGW farce. More are coming forward everyday--at least those who are no longer intimidated by the Stalinist tactics of the left.
I think you have proven my original point of this being the left's religion that is defended by calling the non-believers heretics, deniers and crackpots. Thanks for that.
Posted by: Bill H on July 24, 2008 08:12 PMAnd yes, calling you "deniers" is certainly accurate... you're not motivated by scientific examination! You're just denying something for the sake of denying it, because you have a vested interest in ensuring that things stay with the status quo.
@36: There's a difference between learning about a *culture*, and being forced to practice a religion. If students were learning that Allah was the only true god, then I'd be annoyed! But getting that bee in your bonnet about learning about culture is getting worked up over absolutely nothing. There is nothing wrong with learning about the role of faith, ALL faith, in world culture -- including Christianity. Good teachers would not shy away from that at all, and assuming that they would try to eliminate Christianity from world history is sheer paranoia. So stop assuming that you're some kind of victim.
@38: Indeed! And out of those thousands, there's even a small handful that have the expertise to evaluate climate data!
Seriously, you're cherry-picking your experts. Just because there's resistance to an idea in a field does not mean that certain thinking is automatically false. There are certainly questions to be asked, hypotheses to be tested, and so forth, but your proof is not based on consensus within a field... just griping by a minority.
I can't help but make the comparison to Isaac Hayes, the voice of "chef" on Comedy Central's 'South Park' who regaled in the mocking of most all established religions for 150 shows over ten years, then abruptly quit when they made fun of that other liberal Cult "Scientology" (Which Hayes just happened to be a memeber of)in one of their episodes.
Oh what a wicked web wee wiberals weave.
Stop jumping to conclusions, and start thinking for yourself instead of being a mere mouthpiece for bland far-right-wing talking points
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2008 08:41 PMSpoken like a true Global Warming Zeolot....
Posted by: Rick D. on July 24, 2008 08:47 PMIs this captain obvious speaking?
Last time I checked, most if not all experts have agreed that the earths climate has fluctuated wildly during its existence. Being narcissistic personalities by nature though, many liberals believe the world started and will indeed stop upon their departure from this very brief existence on the planet.
Can you say Hubris?
Posted by: Rick D. on July 24, 2008 09:11 PMdk- Climates of the world being un stable - what does that mean ? How do you bridge climate stability with Global warming ?
Liberalism and Socialism are also religions - with the absence of God. If you don't happen to buy this, then show me some credible evidence to the contrary.
Second, I'm not doubting that there are some people that *are* motivated by concepts related to guilt, sin, and so forth... environmentalists are just as subject to grand, personalized narratives as people that are talking about metaphysical topics. But to take their ideas about the anthropomorphization of nature, and use that to cast dispersions on the science? That's garbage.
How do you bridge climate stability with Global warming ?
Because it's climate change, and not exclusively warming. More rain, less rain, warmer, colder... it's less about the idea that we'll all be going to the beach in December (in the northern hemisphere), and more about the idea that different elements of climate that we may rely upon will change. Droughts and floods can have just as much of an impact, if not more of one, than hotter weather.
Liberalism and Socialism are also religions - with the absence of God.
According to that definition, then, being a conservative, libertarian, or communist falls under that same definition of being "religious". Of course, I've known atheists and (gasp!) faithful in all of those camps! So I guess that you can say that it is related to the "absence of God", since a belief in God is not required (or prohibited) for any of them.
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2008 10:01 PMRight.
So find me the link that shows those same kids that were forced to dress and act as Muslims AS PART OF THE CURICULUM followed that by a week long re-enactment of the path of Saul... or Christ... or were even allowed to acknowledge either.
Right.
Willful blindness.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 24, 2008 10:21 PMThe point is Bill Mahrer was the most racist, stereo-type baiting, cheap-joke-making, hackish comic I've ever heard. My wife and I walked out about 30 minutes in. It was really awful. And that trailer was more of the same.
What an ass.
Posted by: GovtMole on July 24, 2008 10:50 PMHmmm... as I recall, that didn't stop Bush from ascending to power! Nor did it seem to deter Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee from running or getting votes from loyal Republicans.
How do you square perjury to become a lawyer with being a constitutional lawyer?
This is BRILLIANT. Trying to get a toehold against Obama because he made a passing reference to drug use in his book (for which he was never convicted!), and had parking violations. Truly pathetic, and without merit to any rational person. When Cindy McCain never spent a day in jail for her drug abuse because of her husband's influence, and when our current president was actually arrested (and pled guilty!) for drunk driving, that smacks of rank hypocrisy.
Of course, thinking that McCain is well-suited to be commander-in-chief because he graduated at the bottom of his class and spent years festering in a cage in Vietnam doesn't sound that smart either, but conservatives keep repeating that mantra over and over again. And funny that you haven't answered MY question...
Not to mention his ignorance of the constitutional restrictions on Government, the equal protection clause, even the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Please. Your person opinion about these things is not the rule of law, no matter how much you wish it was. There can be debate about such things, but blowing him off because he doesn't share your viewpoint is idiotic.
Posted by: demo kid on July 24, 2008 11:25 PMAgreed...and by pointing out Maher's obvious hypocrisy in Mocking established religions of the world while adhering to a "Global Warming" belief system himself, I guess we are left to assume that Bill Maher has found the enemy, and it is he.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 25, 2008 05:14 AMBut then, that's exactly what I think the liberal humanists want.
***
for MICHELE:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70456
"I commend you to watch this 30-minute TV program to see just how much American culture has changed in 51 years."
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/sanger_margaret.html
***
Of course, thinking that McCain is well-suited to be commander-in-chief because he graduated at the bottom of his class and spent years festering in a cage in Vietnam doesn't sound that smart either,... but blowing him off because he doesn't share your viewpoint is idiotic.
Tell it to the American people:
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll is making headlines today for what it paradoxically says about the state of the 2008 contest and about the candidates themselves. The poll of registered voters gives Obama a six-point lead. (Polls of "likely voters" tend to be more accurate and conservative.) But on a number of key measurements, Senator McCain scores very well, highlighting, as the Wall Street Journal notes, voters' unease with Obama. For example:Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 25, 2008 12:10 PMAsked which candidate had better experience, respondents chose Senator McCain by 34-point margin, 53%-to-19%. This point is best highlighted by the fact that Senator McCain spent more time in a North Vietnamese POW camp than Barack Obama has spent in the United States Senate!
Asked which candidate would be a better commander-in-chief, respondents chose Senator McCain by a 28-point margin, 53%-to-25%.
Asked which candidate had strong leadership qualities, respondents chose Senator McCain by an 11-point margin, 42%-to-31%.
When asked which candidate was most consistent in standing up for his beliefs, voters chose Senator McCain by an eight-point margin, 38%-to-30%.
When asked which candidate was more honest and straightforward, voters again chose Senator McCain, 33%-to-29%.
When asked which candidate's values and background voters could most identify with, 58% of voters chose Senator McCain. This is a critical question because, above all else, voters want to be able to sleep at night knowing they can trust the president when the "phone rings at 3:00 in the morning."
The pollsters also asked this interesting question: "Who do you think would be the riskier choice for president?" By a 20-point margin, 55%-to-35%, voters said Barack Obama would a "riskier" choice for president.
Why are you whinging so much about this? Have I ever said to you that you *shouldn't* practice your faith, or forced you not to practice somehow? Heck, you can join Scientology for all I care! Just don't push your beliefs on me, either personally, or through the government.
"I commend you to watch this 30-minute TV program to see just how much American culture has changed in 51 years."
Again, pure rubbish. You're taking a straw man (or woman, in this case), and trying to tear down a belief based on statements that are both completely wrong and completely unrelated to the current issue.
Tell it to the American people
Cherry-picking your statistics, are we?
The simple fact is that neither one of these fellows is a perfect candidate, by any stretch of the imagination. I'll be the first one to admit that. But even then, the fact that a "maverick senator" with these qualifications is behind in the polls should be a strong statement for you. And you can pick apart polls all you want and make whatever conclusions you like, but voting in a 72-year-old fossil with a Cold War mentality is definitely not what America needs right now.
But you still didn't answer MY question. What about McCain's experience makes him a good candidate? What executive or organizational experience has he had? Does that time in a POW camp count somehow?
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2008 12:46 PMAnd where EXACTLY has that ever been required of you, or of anyone in The United States? Whre have I done that to you...or anyone?
Again, pure rubbish. You're taking a straw man (or woman, in this case), and trying to tear down a belief based on statements that are both completely wrong and completely unrelated to the current issue.
Is your name MICHELE? It was clearly directed to HER as it is a subject that particularly interests HER.
Cherry-picking your statistics, are we?
Do you read or just jerk your knee?
The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll is making headlines today for what it paradoxically says about the state of the 2008 contest and about the candidates themselves. The poll of registered voters gives Obama a six-point lead. (Polls of "likely voters" tend to be more accurate and conservative.) But on a number of key measurements, Senator McCain scores very well, highlighting, as the Wall Street Journal notes, voters' unease with Obama.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 25, 2008 12:57 PM
I repeat what I said earlier: Our history and heritage is a closely woven tapestry that is brightened by the rich colors of religion. Remove that and the fabric of what we are falls apart.
But then, that's exactly what I think the liberal humanists want.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 25, 2008 02:34 PMIf you're putting up the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, if you're forcing school prayer on children, if you're trying to change school policies to teach Creationism, if you're using tax dollars to finance displays of religion... you're forcing your beliefs on me. I want my children to learn "Intelligent Design" just about as much as I want them to be forced to keep the Sabbath on Saturdays or to fast during Ramadan.
And that isn't a call to remove religion completely. It is the idea that government has no place where the *practice* of religion is concerned... either to restrict it OR to promote it.
@54: religion is bullshit and bill is right.
That's going too far. Think what you like about religion, Phil, but being an ass isn't reasonable on either side.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2008 03:08 PMIf you're putting up the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, if you're forcing school prayer on children, if you're trying to change school policies to teach Creationism, if you're using tax dollars to finance displays of religion... you're forcing your beliefs on me.
News flash demo: all those things WERE the legal and accepted norm in the US until very recent history when the atheist humanists decided to have tantrum and hold a majority population hostage with their whining.
Do you know nothing of your American history?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 25, 2008 03:24 PMReligious expression is great, but again... I'm not paying the government to get involved with religion.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2008 03:52 PMIn fact, that's a case where I think you and I agree. Infringing on the rights of workers to express themselves in those ways should be against the law. Not only that, but the ACLU agrees with both of us on this matter. What France has done is going too far, and most liberals here know that.
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2008 06:07 PM'The second that you get government to push and participate in Husky-ism, I lose my freedom to decide my own mascot beliefs.'Enough! I am tired of my children being indoctrinated by Husky-ism when they open a newspaper or ride a bus, by their cheerleading teachers and their purple/gold decorations.
'When the government favors one mascot over another, that's stepping over the line!'...' that's compromising my rights ... (through educating my children about Huskies) as I see fit.'I have no choice in the public arena that is this city but to be forced to see it and deal with it on a daily basis. I demand this blatant Husky-ism stop. I almost feel compelled to support those evil, horrible huskies against my will, against my Cougar beliefs for fear of condemnation, ostracization and retaliation. Worship at the altar of your Husky-ism in the privacy of your own home, but stop forcing it on me.
'Husky expression is great, but again... I'm not paying the government of my state, my county, my city to get involved with Husky-ism'.
Seems to me that's exactly what you're saying. And I agree with you. I used to work for the DSHS down in Pierce County, and I used to CONSTANTLY feel oppressed and marginalized by the environmentalism symbols everywhere - from the "Stop Global Warming" bumper stickers on people's consoles, to the hybrids in the fleet parking lot, to the office "encouraging" me to use public transportation, to the edicts from my superiors that we had to implement "conservationist technology" and "recycling programs."
I'm not a follower of the cult of environmentalism. How do you think that made me feel, to have the State pushing their religious dogma on me? Hell, this one time, this proletyzing bastard actually came to my desk and tried to give me a copy of the environmentalist bible "Earth in the Balance."
I tried as calmly as possible to explain that I didn't subscribe to his particular brand of faith and that I didn't appreciate his attempts to convert me, but he kept pushing it. It even got to the point where I had to file a complaint for harassment because this zealot was ramming his faith down my throat. And the result of my complaint? "We regret to inform you that your position with the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services has been terminated." I was actually FIRED because I wouldn't subscribe to their religion that they had NO BUSINESS establishing in the first place!
AND THEN, when I went to the ACLU hoping to find some legal redress - they kicked me out! They told me that my claims were frivilous and that I did not have the right to be offended because people - who worked for the state - believe something different from me.
What kind of nonsense is that? I'm sorry - but State workers are NOT allowed to have individual thoughts and beliefs. Leave your dogma at home people, and just come to work to be the drone that you are.
Nobody - NOBODY - should be allowed to express themselves in any way whatsoever that might possibly offend anyone anywhere. You and I, we're on the exact same page you and me. Suppress individualism and personal beliefs. Unless you believe the same exact things I believe, you should not have any speech freedoms at all if you are in any way related to any part of the government.
I'm glad I finally found a kindred spirit demo kid. I think you and I could be friends. Unless you offend me somehow. In which case, I'll sue you.
Posted by: Rorschach on July 25, 2008 08:59 PMAgain, if you believe that there is a freedom to practice religion, the government has no role in meddling in that, whatever that may be. That includes pushing that on people, through whatever way you can think of: school-sponsored prayer, creationism, whatever. You can be a Quaker or a Scientologist, I can be a Wiccan or Catholic. Whatever. It's just not the government's job, and I'm amazed that people that decry a socialist state are so willing to get the government involved in telling people what to believe.
If you're talking about the Huskies, or global warming, or goats in Kathmandu, that's an issue of practical, real-world policy that does not directly involve religion. Disagree and debate about taxes, or social services, or whatever... I don't care. There are plenty of things that this government says and does that I don't like, either. Heck, at work there are plenty of things that people push on me that I don't like. But you have your faith, I have mine, and I don't expect either one to get any special favor from the government.
So stop being crybabies. It's like you're expecting religious welfare from the government! Are you actually so weak with your faith that you need some kind of acknowledgment from the state to keep on believing? Or does this persecution complex stem from somewhere else?
Posted by: demo kid on July 25, 2008 09:31 PMI'm amazed that people that decry a socialist state are so willing to get the government involved in telling people WHO TO CHEER FOR.
It's like you're expecting FAVORITE TEAM welfare from the government! Are you actually so weak with your CHEERLEADING that you need some kind of acknowledgment from the state to keep on CHEERING? But you have your TEAM (THE HORRIBLE PURPLE HUSKIES, I have mine (THE WONDERFUL COUGS), and I don't expect either one to get any special favor from the government.
Wait, explain to me again how the government has forcibly converted you into a religion you don't agree with. I must have missed that. They fired me for not being an environmentalist. How have you suffered for not subscribing to whatever religion you're claiming (without basis, by the way) they've established?
I'm amazed that people that decry a socialist state are so willing to get the government involved in telling people what to believe.
You know what's funny about this statement? The socialists don't seem to mind it when the government tries indoctrinate people with socialism (and environmentalism.) See: public schools, mass media, city planning, public transportation, Obama campaign.
If you're talking about the Huskies, or global warming, or goats in Kathmandu, that's an issue of practical, real-world policy that does not directly involve religion.
Uh, you do know that environmentalism IS a religion, right? All faith, no facts, but passing itself off as "knowing the truth" and making you follow its tenets by guilting and fearmongering you into submission and suspension of disbelief? That's the bread and butter of religion. And that's what environmentalists (AND socialists) have been doing for DECADES.
But you have your faith, I have mine, and I don't expect either one to get any special favor from the government.
Except socialism and environmentalism, right?
It's like you're expecting religious welfare from the government!
No... no, just expecting that people stop getting their panties in a twist everytime they see something they don't like that affects them in no way whatsoever.
Are you actually so weak with your faith that you need some kind of acknowledgment from the state to keep on believing? Or does this persecution complex stem from somewhere else?
Is this the part where you play armchair psychologist and I sit down and tell you about my relationship with my mother?
Hey slick, I got a newsflash for you. I'm not a religious person. And I can't speak for Ragnar - but if you had any education at all, you might recognize where his name comes from (AND mine.)
Defending religion does not equate into BEING religious. I have my beef with religion - but that doesn't mean I have to wet my pants everytime I see a bailiff holding a Bible or hear "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Get over the obvious bigotry you're trying to hide in pseudo-intellectualism, and leave the Christians alone.
Posted by: Rorschach on July 25, 2008 10:51 PMI thought this discussion was about Bill Maher's criticism of Religions while holding fast to his faith in the "church of global warming" hysteria.
What irony eh?
First of all, Ragnar, your comparison is idiotic, quite frankly. Stop your hysterics, and get back to me when the President says that he's going to war after a personal conversation with Ty Willingham.
As far as comparing religion to a position on global warming, that's bull. As I've been trying to say, I'm not really seeing how a point of view on climate change relates to "religion". By that definition, everything that you believe or have an opinion on can be considered "religion"! My great love for the Red Sox, for example, or my interest in stamp collecting.
Of course, I can (barely) agree with you when it comes to extreme forms of environmentalism. Taking on a "deep ecology" ethic, for example, where you believe that the environment is a sacred thing? Sure... there's no real way to tell that apart from a religion (albeit an unorganized one). But that all involves a definite opinion on how nature relates to metaphysics! Simply believing that climate change is occurring on the basis of the analysis of scientists doesn't fit that bill, nor are you going to incorporate that opinion into everything that you do.
And calling my position "bigotry" is garbage. The only thing that I'm asking is that the government stay out of religion. I couldn't give a crap about baliffs and Bibles, to tell you the truth, and to assume that I'm getting my "panties in a twist" over little quibbling things is unreasonable. I'm not exactly going to go to court to change the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it shouldn't really matter if "God" is in there or not. On the other hand, when people try to use the government to get their religious message across or push their religious opinion on me, that's not what the government is there for. Creationism and prayer should not be sanctioned by schools, and the government should not tax or regulate churches.
So if you really are "nonreligious", what's your problem with that statement?
Posted by: demo kid on July 26, 2008 03:40 PMwww.readwhatisee.com
Posted by: P Alfonso on July 28, 2008 08:47 AM