[helene_t]

Lobowolf, on Mar 28 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

There is the whole "religious Judaism" v. "cultural Judaism" (or even the matrilineal "ethnic Judaism") thing. But I have a really hard time imagining what a Christian would be other than one who has a religious belief about eternal salvation through Jesus etc.

I haven't asked many of my christian friends and relative about the details of their belief, but for some it seems to be sufficient in order to call themselves "christians" just to celebrate christian holidays and maybe believe in a few of the things, at least allegorically, or just to be agnostic w.r.t. them.

A poll once (in the late 80s) showed that 20% of Danes believed in a life after death. My guess would be that a substantial part of those are either moslems or believe in some home-grown or new-age kind of reincanation. So it is probably safe to say that less than 15% of members of the lutheran church believe in salvation. How many of the members of the lutheran church call themselves "christians" I dunno, my guess would be between 60% and 90% but that is pure guesswork. There might have been some polls about it.

[Al_U_Card]

I am so glad that others were given this cross to bear (pun intended)

My parents told us that religion was a personal preference that was best decided after obtaining the age of majority along with the ability to process the implications without suffering the burden on shoulders unable to deal with it.

Being free of any given inclination meant being able to see everyone's point of view without prejudice. It also led to some interesting discussions.

[onoway]

I found this funny.. the nature of the thread and all..
" the yolk that restricts our freedom " in some cases also sustains and nourishes, true? The yoke only restricts... a Freudian slip? I suppose you could maintain it was infertile. I know you know english better than I do so couldn't resist

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

you are making, not for the first time, a logical fallacy (actually several)... whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

for example, the fact that you believe co2 to be causing global warming has no bearing on anything else you might believe or reaons, regardless of the ridiculousness of the co2 argument

Here's the thing Jimmy... the facts don't support you on this one.

I can point to any number of studies that show an extremely strong correlation between religious observance and conservative ideology.

If I know your religious beliefs and behaviors, I can predict your political affiliation with great degree of accuracy. I can can also (accurately) predict what you believe about a wide variety of other issues.

For example: You introduced the topic global warming. Here's a lovely little piece by the Pew Research center that illustrates just what I'm talking about:

http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deepe...-global-warming

You may claim that you're bucking the trend on global warming. In fact, you're just running with the rest of the evangelical herd...

I'm just HIGHLY amused that you're dumb enough to chose this as an example of your highly developed capability for independent logical thought.

Note: I readily admit that nothing in life is perfect.
Most any model has outliers.

I know that there are deeply religious Southern Baptists who none-the-less believe in anthropomorphic global warming.

However, examples like this are called outliers for a reason

[TimG]

hrothgar, on Mar 28 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

I wonder if your bridge clients know that you (subtlety) mock/deprecate their performance on these forums?

Subtly?

[Phil]

[quote name='hrothgar' date='Mar 28 2009, 07:17 AM'] This thread kind of reminds me of him. [/QUOTE]
I'd argue that there is a fundamental difference between confronting people openly and in their face and holding private little bitch sessions behind their back. [/QUOTE]
Private little bitch sessions?

Nah, my grandfather would take on anyone anywhere. If he were born 30 years later, he'd be an active blogger. He'd love things like the WC. Imagine how he would feel when he would he'd go out and see a rich black person. Boy this would make his blood boil. Get home and start pounding away on the keyboard about how much he hated dem niggahs.

The problem is that people like him (and you) completely forget that there is a completely different world view than the one he (and you) espouse. He (and you) are totally blinded by a sense of self-righteousness, but its really just deep seeded-hatred. How many christians (or frankly, any religious people) read BBF daily? How many get sickened by your rants? Do you know? Do you even care?

You hate religious people. It isn't enough for you to simply ignore them and chuckle with your like-minded buddies about how you view religion. These 'private little bitch sessions' (which you seem OK with) would be like my grandfather and his John Birch buds drinking a bud at the Tavern with the nightly topic being blacks and jews, especially after they've had one too many. Sure, what harm does it do? Just a couple of good old boys tippin' back a few shooting the breeze. All good fun, right?

The problem is the next day when a black applies at my grandfather's aircraft maintenance facililty who gets turned down for a job. Or Mr. Cohen who applies at that bank for a business loan who gets turned down because of poor references.

I wonder what your 'private little bitch sessions' consist of. Maybe its chardonnay or pinot noir (or reefer ) instead of Bud. Maybe its an art gallery or an alumni gathering or (gasp) a bridge club. The topic might be start out as Sarah Palin but can easily decay into jokes about the virgin mary.

And the next day, I'm quite sure there are manifestations. Perhaps your prof buddy reads a term paper about abortion in the Political Ethics he's teaching. Now matter how well written, he just can't find a way to give this idiot an A, because, well, he's an idiot.

Rascism is rascism. Intolerance is intolerance. You have no right to call anyone 'cracker' or a 'git', nor call them stupid or ignorant. You are no different than my grandfather or that bank manager.

If someone starts a thread about ID, then go ahead, flame away. Be my guest.

You started this thread about Noah's Ark. It is no different any street bully going out and picking a fight with someone of a different color.

[hrothgar]

Quote

Nah, my grandfather would take on anyone anywhere. If he were born 30 years later, he'd be an active blogger. He'd love things like the WC. Imagine how he would feel when he would he'd go out and see a rich black person. Boy this would make his blood boil. Get home and start pounding away on the keyboard about how much he hated dem niggahs.

The problem is that people like him (and you) completely forget that there is a completely different world view than the one he (and you) espouse. He (and you) are totally blinded by a sense of self-righteousness, but its really just deep seeded-hatred. How many christians (or frankly, any religious people) read BBF daily? How many get sickened by your rants? Do you know? Do you even care?

You hate religious people. It isn't enough for you to simply ignore them and chuckle with your like-minded buddies about how you view religion. These 'private little bitch sessions' (which you seem OK with) would be like my grandfather and his John Birch buds drinking a bud at the Tavern with the nightly topic being blacks and jews, especially after they've had one too many. Sure, what harm does it do? Just a couple of good old boys tippin' back a few shooting the breeze. All good fun, right?

The problem is the next day when a black applies at my grandfather's aircraft maintenance facililty who gets turned down for a job. Or Mr. Cohen who applies at that bank for a business loan who gets turned down because of poor references.

I wonder what your 'private little bitch sessions' consist of. Maybe its chardonnay or pinot noir (or reefer  ) instead of Bud. Maybe its an art gallery or an alumni gathering or (gasp) a bridge club. The topic might be start out as Sarah Palin but can easily decay into jokes about the virgin mary.

And the next day, I'm quite sure there are manifestations. Perhaps your prof buddy reads a term paper in the Political Ethics he's teaching about abortion. Now matter how well written, he just can't find a way to give this idiot an A, because, well, he's an idiot.

Rascism is rascism. Intolerance is intolerance. You have no right to call anyone 'cracker' or a 'git', nor call them stupid or ignorant. You are no different than my grandfather or that bank manager.

If someone starts a thread about ID, then go ahead, flame away. Be my guest.

You started this thread about Noah's Ark. It is no different any street bully going out and picking a fight with someone of a different color.

In my postings, I try fairly hard to differentiate between fundamentalists and "religion" in general.

I readily admit, I find religion kind of silly. I wish that we, as a society, were able to outgrow it. (Religion strikes me as more trouble than its worth) However, I certainly don't feel that I have a visceral hatred for it.

I'd also ask whether or not you can point to many threads where I go out of my way to bash Buddhists, Sufis, Unitarians, Quakers, you name it.

There are (obviously) any number of threads where I bash fundamentalists of one stripe or another. I'm pretty ecumenical about this... I can point to threads where I express my contempt for

Fundamentalist Christians
Fundamentalist Muslims
Fundamentalist Jews
Fundamentalists Hindus
Fundamentalist Mormons
Scientologists (in general)
I might have even pissed on Shinto's at one point or another (hard to recall)

I make no bones about my beliefs on this topic. I consider religious fundamentalists down right dangerous. I don't have much use for libertarians, conservatives, and the like.

I have written off friends because of their political beliefs. It was just too frustrating to be around them.

In a similar vein, I refuse to do business with companies that give disproportionate political donations to Republicans or Conservative cause or practice what consider to be poor labor policies. (Walmart, Dominos, Home Depot, ... It's a pretty long list)

Moreover, I agree: In the abstract, my behavior is no difference from that of your grandfather and the bank manager. The main differences are

1. I'm a private citizen. I have considerably more flexibility in my actions than does a bank manager. Case in point, a few years back, I pulled all my money out of Bank of America. Two days later, folks from the Bank called me up and asked me when I wasn't doing business with them any more. I get to go and say "I don't do business with companies that donate lots of money to Republicans. If the corporation changes its behavior, I might consider doing business with all y'all once again". In contrast, I don't think that the Bank Manager gets to tell Mr Cohen "I'm not doing business with you because you're a Jew"

2. I am VERY open about my opinions. Hard to spend much time around me and not know what I think about these issues. (Indeed, as I recall the one of your key critiques is that I am too open about these sorts of things... I'm making the poor oppressed Christians feel unwelcome... Someone might feed them to the lions)

3. The specific groups that I target

My "defense", such that it is, is to point out that there is a nasty little political war going on in this country. Religious fundamentalists decided that they wanted to enter the fray and try to shove their convictions down my throat, screw up the school systems that my friends and family attend, and piss all over my air and water.

The "foot soldiers" of the lunatic fringe of the Republican party don't get to go and complain that folks treat them differently...

Blowback's a bitch.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Mar 28 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 04:08 PM, said:

you are making, not for the first time, a logical fallacy (actually several)... whether or not i believe that noah's ark occurred in the way the bible describes it, and for the reasons given in the bible, has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning abilities or my opinions of other matters

for example, the fact that you believe co2 to be causing global warming has no bearing on anything else you might believe or reaons, regardless of the ridiculousness of the co2 argument

I'm just HIGHLY amused that you're dumb enough to chose this as an example of your highly developed capability for independent logical thought.

i left my quote up so that it is clear what i said and that you continue your fallacious manner of argumentation... this time you use a red herring to set up a straw man argument... that you have the arrogance to call anyone else dumb is a mystery

[Winstonm]

Quote

there is a nasty little political war going on in this country....The "foot soldiers" of the lunatic fringe of the Republican party....

I find it stunning that there are those who do not recognize or acknowledge this "political war", which is glaringly obvious to me. I also find it odd that those whom Richard describes as "Republican party foot solders" are led by ideological zealots who hold them in total disdain and only condone the foot soldiers' own beliefs in order to appear allied and thus their appararent belief system is nothing more than a method of control.

I suggest it important to understand how Leo Strauss influenced the modern neoconservative movement and exactly how the neoconservative processes work to defend an ideology in the face of conflicting evidence.

[helene_t]

Hanif Kureishi says in an interview: [after you die] you dissolve into the minds of others, and you haunt them until they are tired of you, and even after.

http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7895604.stm

[helene_t]

mikeh, on Mar 27 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

One of these days, I will learn to stop typing after making (or thinking I have made) my main point..

I don't think you will

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Mar 28 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

Quote

there is a nasty little political war going on in this country....The "foot soldiers" of the lunatic fringe of the Republican party....

I find it stunning that there are those who do not recognize or acknowledge this "political war", which is glaringly obvious to me. I also find it odd that those whom Richard describes as "Republican party foot solders" are led by ideological zealots who hold them in total disdain and only condone the foot soldiers' own beliefs in order to appear allied and thus their appararent belief system is nothing more than a method of control.

I suggest it important to understand how Leo Strauss influenced the modern neoconservative movement and exactly how the neoconservative processes work to defend an ideology in the face of conflicting evidence.

It's fine that people get great comfort from accepting religious myths like Noah's ark, virgin births, resurrections from the dead, the golden fleece, and so on, as real. But it's not fine for people to impose their religious beliefs on others through law.

Yes, there truly is a political war being waged in the US, and the republicans do indeed use the ignorant and superstitious as footsoldiers in that war. The object of the political war is to increase the disparity between the rich and poor by weakening and marginalizing the middle class. The republican footsoldiers are simply dupes.

It seems that you consider the Obama administration indistinguishable in many ways from the one it replaced. I expect Obama to defend the US against the republicans in this political war. Are you skeptical about that too?

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 28 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

Quote

there is a nasty little political war going on in this country....The "foot soldiers" of the lunatic fringe of the Republican party....

I find it stunning that there are those who do not recognize or acknowledge this "political war", which is glaringly obvious to me. I also find it odd that those whom Richard describes as "Republican party foot solders" are led by ideological zealots who hold them in total disdain and only condone the foot soldiers' own beliefs in order to appear allied and thus their appararent belief system is nothing more than a method of control.

I suggest it important to understand how Leo Strauss influenced the modern neoconservative movement and exactly how the neoconservative processes work to defend an ideology in the face of conflicting evidence.

It's fine that people get great comfort from accepting religious myths like Noah's ark, virgin births, resurrections from the dead, the golden fleece, and so on, as real. But it's not fine for people to impose their religious beliefs on others through law.

Yes, there truly is a political war being waged in the US, and the republicans do indeed use the ignorant and superstitious as footsoldiers in that war. The object of the political war is to increase the disparity between the rich and poor by weakening and marginalizing the middle class. The republican footsoldiers are simply dupes.

It seems that you consider the Obama administration indistinguishable in many ways from the one it replaced. I expect Obama to defend the US against the republicans in this political war. Are you skeptical about that too?

Isn't it astounding that Republicans accuse Obama of starting some sort of class-war by wanting to raise taxes on "rich" people?

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

But it's not fine for people to impose their religious beliefs on others through law.

I think it depends what you mean by "beliefs." Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals. I don't see a substantive difference between murder's being illegal because atheists and/or agnostics thinking it's "wrong" (or "undesirable" on a utilitarian basis), and its being legal because Christians believe it's wrong because of the Biblical commandment. We vote our morality, whether it's from the Bible, a philosophical text, or just the Golden Rule. The source of one's moral beliefs doesn't disqualify him or her from political participation.

[TimG]

Lobowolf, on Mar 29 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

But it's not fine for people to impose their religious beliefs on others through law.

I think it depends what you mean by "beliefs." Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals. I don't see a substantive difference between murder's being illegal because atheists and/or agnostics thinking it's "wrong" (or "undesirable" on a utilitarian basis), and its being legal because Christians believe it's wrong because of the Biblical commandment. We vote our morality, whether it's from the Bible, a philosophical text, or just the Golden Rule. The source of one's moral beliefs doesn't disqualify him or her from political participation.

If a majority of Americans believed that working on the Sabbath was immoral, you'd be OK with laws that make it illegal to work on Sundays?

[PassedOut]

jdonn, on Mar 29 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

Isn't it astounding that Republicans accuse Obama of starting some sort of class-war by wanting to raise taxes on "rich" people?

Astounding and obnoxious. They learned to use 1984 double-speak, and now do it all the time.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It seems that you consider the Obama administration indistinguishable in many ways from the one it replaced. I expect Obama to defend the US against the republicans in this political war. Are you skeptical about that too?

I am of the opinion that the corruption of our country is absolute and irreversable - a sad state of affairs to leave to my progeny. I believe it totally impossible for a high-ranking official to be elected from a grassroots movement, that all are managed to a degree by the various moneyed lobbys. This is no less true of the current President, I am certain.

I blame this breakdown most on changes in the press. It is simply too difficult and time-consuming for most citizens to weave together the various sources that attempt to present and understand unmanipulated data when the bulk of the press simply repeats the propaganda it is sent.

A classic example of this illusion of truth is the Social Security propganda that came from the Reagan cabal in 1983. I bet not 1 in a 1000 US citizens have a clue as to condition of the SS funds in 1983 when Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan issued dire warnings how SS would run out of money and so payroll taxes had to be increased then to pay that future burden - when all that really happened was that the increases were used to fund the Reagan tax cuts for business and the wealthy. SS itself was not in dire straights at all - however, as a result of the Reagan tax cuts, the deficit in the general budget was enormous.

This type of SS payroll tax proposed by the Presidential committee hits hardest the middleclass and lower incomces. The committee who came up with this plan was headed by Alan Greenspan, later named Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

At the time of this conference/commitee, SS was not in any threat of imminent collapse, yet both political parties agreed to the proposed hike and gave themselves 8 additional years (from 1964 until 1992) to use (rob) the increases in payroll taxes to reduce the deficit in the general fund. (After 1992, they still did it but it was officially illegal to do, so the law was simply ignored.)

So to recap, Alan Greenspan's influence helped shape a payroll tax increase on middleclass and lower income Americans that was used not to bolster the SS fund as claimed but was instead used to subsidize the tax reductions for businesses and the wealthy that were critical to Reagan's agenda.

It was one of the greatest transferences of wealth ever to occur - from the poor to the wealthy - yet the illusion is still observed that Reagan and Greenspan were legendary enemies of higher taxes.

[PassedOut]

TimG, on Mar 29 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

If a majority of Americans believed that working on the Sabbath was immoral, you'd be OK with laws that make it illegal to work on Sundays?

Don't you mean Saturdays?

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on Mar 28 2009, 12:27 PM, said:

There are (obviously) any number of threads where I bash fundamentalists of one stripe or another.  I'm pretty ecumenical about this...  I can point to threads where I express my contempt for

Fundamentalist Christians
Fundamentalist Muslims
Fundamentalist Jews
Fundamentalists Hindus
Fundamentalist Mormons
Scientologists (in general)
I might have even pissed on Shinto's at one point or another (hard to recall)

I make no bones about my beliefs on this topic.  I consider religious fundamentalists down right dangerous.  I don't have much use for libertarians, conservatives, and the like.

I think Richard confuses Fundamentalists with fanatics and zealots.

[Lobowolf]

TimG, on Mar 29 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 29 2009, 12:11 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 29 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

But it's not fine for people to impose their religious beliefs on others through law.

I think it depends what you mean by "beliefs." Certainly, beliefs themselves shouldn't be imposed on people; but laws based on those beliefs are a different thing. Laws are based on people's moral ideals. I don't see a substantive difference between murder's being illegal because atheists and/or agnostics thinking it's "wrong" (or "undesirable" on a utilitarian basis), and its being legal because Christians believe it's wrong because of the Biblical commandment. We vote our morality, whether it's from the Bible, a philosophical text, or just the Golden Rule. The source of one's moral beliefs doesn't disqualify him or her from political participation.

If a majority of Americans believed that working on the Sabbath was immoral, you'd be OK with laws that make it illegal to work on Sundays?

What do you mean by "ok with"? There are all sorts of laws I'm not "ok with" in the sense that I strongly disagree with them; on the other hand, I'm "ok with" them in the sense that I support the process by which laws come into existence, even those I disgree with. That certainly includes constitutionality checks, btw. I'm certainly very much "ok with" the First Amendment, including both it's freedom OF and FROM religion.

I believe it's the broader point that's important, though. You very frequently hear the catch phrase "You can't legislate morality." Of course you can. And of course you should. You're legislating morality when you set a tax structure by which money taken from a subset of people is used to fund education. Or public housing. Or the military. Other than First Amendment constraints on the establishment of religion, there's no difference in principle between supporting the leglisation of morality that derives from a religious belief, and supporting the legislation of morality that doesn't.