If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   Republican Congressman walks out of Obama's prayer breakfast speech, offended that the President was quoting Jesus' teachings   (dailykos.com) divider line 336
    More: Asinine, President Obama, National Prayer Breakfasts, Sunday School, CBS Atlanta, major religions, Health Care, International, teachings, prayer breakfasts  
•       •       •

10273 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Feb 2012 at 1:04 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



336 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-05 02:08:08 PM  

BorgiaGinz: g4lt: Pilate

g4lt: Sock Ruh Tease: It's widely known that, if Republicans had existed 2000 years ago, they would be working for Pontius Pilate. I don't see the news here.

What do you mean "working for"? Pilate literally WAS a Republican, he even spoke in the name of the Republic, SPQR and all that.

No, he spoke in the name of Emperor Tiberius. The Republic had been overthrown a couple of generations earlier when Octavian defeated Marc Antony's fleet at the battle of Actium in 31 BC, and then assumed control over Rome and took the name Augustus. Tiberius succeeded Augustus in 14 AD and reigned when Jesus preached in Judea.




Yet Augustus and Tiberius as well as contemporary writers still spoke of "the Republic" wistfully as if it still existed. "Long live the Republic" and such, wink wink, nod nod. And kept the senatus around even though they were just a rubber stamp.

Similar to today, how politicians refer to the US Constitution as if it were still in force.
 
2012-02-05 02:09:26 PM  

GAT_00: Hey look at this, yet another Christian acting as I expect them to. To the rest of you Christians, the ones who always get so mad when I refer to the lot of you as worthless bigots who are a stain on society - I point out yet another example, we get at least one daily, that proves this is the reality of your religion. You have no value. Maybe it really is what you claim, that there are millions of you out there who are good people, but I see no good from you on a daily basis. I see people like these, people like the ones in Michele Bachmann's district who were proud, PROUD, they drove teenagers to suicide in the name of Jesus. You are responsible for these people, because you have not smacked them down.

This is the face of Christianity. Bigotry, child molestation, and simple hatred of anyone who doesn't conform exactly to their ideals. The entire world would be better off without the lot of you.


So the one example a day is real and the other people who call themselves Christians, the ones who are upset by that sort of behavior, they are not real Christians. No, only the bad ones are real.

/I am not a Christian, but logic is severely missing from your post.
 
2012-02-05 02:13:11 PM  

DrPainMD: Article? North wrote a series of books, totalling 10,000 pages, analyzing the bible from an economic perspective. Available for free (follow the links). What's hilarious is concluding that jesus was a communist because he said to pay taxes.


I suspect that although Gary North spent quite a bit of time poring over the Bible, he may have overlooked the central messages in the teachings of Jesus. Consider the time and effort that want into those commentaries and how those resources might have been otherwise employed. Gary North worships the economics of the free market, not Jesus.
 
2012-02-05 02:24:14 PM  

DeaH: GAT_00: Hey look at this, yet another Christian acting as I expect them to. To the rest of you Christians, the ones who always get so mad when I refer to the lot of you as worthless bigots who are a stain on society - I point out yet another example, we get at least one daily, that proves this is the reality of your religion. You have no value. Maybe it really is what you claim, that there are millions of you out there who are good people, but I see no good from you on a daily basis. I see people like these, people like the ones in Michele Bachmann's district who were proud, PROUD, they drove teenagers to suicide in the name of Jesus. You are responsible for these people, because you have not smacked them down.

This is the face of Christianity. Bigotry, child molestation, and simple hatred of anyone who doesn't conform exactly to their ideals. The entire world would be better off without the lot of you.

So the one example a day is real and the other people who call themselves Christians, the ones who are upset by that sort of behavior, they are not real Christians. No, only the bad ones are real.

/I am not a Christian, but logic is severely missing from your post.


If they were actually upset by what their fundie Christian neighbors said and did they would put forth way more energy to let us non religious people know the fundies are not what Christianity is all about but I see very little of that. your silence towards these "christians" is the reason we think all Christians are like this. I have never seen any church disavow any of the hate these "Fundie Christians" spew.
 
2012-02-05 02:26:07 PM  
I didn't mean your silence specifically but the Christians DeaH Sorry about that.
 
2012-02-05 02:38:57 PM  

DeaH: So the one example a day is real and the other people who call themselves Christians, the ones who are upset by that sort of behavior, they are not real Christians. No, only the bad ones are real.


I think people outside the community of Christians interpret the silence of most Christians in the face of the bigotry and hate spewed by what is hopefully a vocal minority as tacit approval.
 
2012-02-05 02:45:16 PM  

GAT_00: Hey look at this, yet another Christian acting as I expect them to. To the rest of you Christians, the ones who always get so mad when I refer to the lot of you as worthless bigots who are a stain on society - I point out yet another example, we get at least one daily, that proves this is the reality of your religion. You have no value. Maybe it really is what you claim, that there are millions of you out there who are good people, but I see no good from you on a daily basis. I see people like these, people like the ones in Michele Bachmann's district who were proud, PROUD, they drove teenagers to suicide in the name of Jesus. You are responsible for these people, because you have not smacked them down.

This is the face of Christianity. Bigotry, child molestation, and simple hatred of anyone who doesn't conform exactly to their ideals. The entire world would be better off without the lot of you.


Hey, STFU.

I'll agree that there are a lot of dickheads out there calling themselves Christian. Hell, I came here to laugh at one. But there are some very good Christians out there actively trying to undo what their church has done.

Applaud them. Don't tear them down.
 
2012-02-05 02:51:54 PM  

NeverDrunk23: How about you actually offer a real viable alternative.

I agree with your idea, but just saying 'pick another name' every time will not solve the problem. Who is a realistic alternative? Who is there as another name that could get people to vote for them? Who is this alternative name that can win?


Asking who is a realistic alternative is, likewise, not solving the problem. The Republicans and Democrats aren't going to do it for us; in fact, they're actively opposing anybody who could give us a real candidate. You want a viable alternative? Make one.
 
2012-02-05 02:56:18 PM  

DarnoKonrad: Lernaeus: Excuse me for interrupting the holier-than-thou-a-thon, but at what point did we gloss over the fact that the President of the United States of America talks to someone who isn't there, takes inspiration from the suicidal morality espoused by the make-believe child of that nonexistent entity, and makes a public spectacle of it?

Seriously, how insane is it we have yet ANOTHER religious wacko running the country?

As an atheist myself, I must say too many atheists default to this fallacious ad hominem. The merits of the ethical argument are independent of their origin.


When is an argument actually presented?
 
2012-02-05 03:15:19 PM  

CoffeeCup: DarnoKonrad: Lernaeus: Excuse me for interrupting the holier-than-thou-a-thon, but at what point did we gloss over the fact that the President of the United States of America talks to someone who isn't there, takes inspiration from the suicidal morality espoused by the make-believe child of that nonexistent entity, and makes a public spectacle of it?

Seriously, how insane is it we have yet ANOTHER religious wacko running the country?

As an atheist myself, I must say too many atheists default to this fallacious ad hominem. The merits of the ethical argument stance are independent of their origin.

When is an argument actually presented?



There, that's more correct.
 
2012-02-05 03:18:49 PM  

lokisbong: If they were actually upset by what their fundie Christian neighbors said and did they would put forth way more energy to let us non religious people know the fundies are not what Christianity is all about but I see very little of that. your silence towards these "christians" is the reason we think all Christians are like this. I have never seen any church disavow any of the hate these "Fundie Christians" spew.


I've seen some congregations and clergy speaking out, but it's far less than what I'd like to see, Unfortunately, this is how it often plays out:

"Bad" Christian: I hate gay people! Screw the safety net, I got mine! When's our next war?
"Good" Christian: *silence*
Random Poster on Fark: Christians hate gays and are only out for themselves.
"Good" Christian: *suddenly finding his voice* hey, wait just a second...

Instead of being ticked off at us, I wish they'd direct their anger toward the people giving them the reputation as bigoted selfish assholes. You know all those threads where moderate Republicans whine about how their party left them behind? This is how it happens, because the good ones won't lift a finger to stop the bad ones.
 
2012-02-05 03:21:46 PM  

The Why Not Guy: lokisbong: If they were actually upset by what their fundie Christian neighbors said and did they would put forth way more energy to let us non religious people know the fundies are not what Christianity is all about but I see very little of that. your silence towards these "christians" is the reason we think all Christians are like this. I have never seen any church disavow any of the hate these "Fundie Christians" spew.

I've seen some congregations and clergy speaking out, but it's far less than what I'd like to see, Unfortunately, this is how it often plays out:

"Bad" Christian: I hate gay people! Screw the safety net, I got mine! When's our next war?
"Good" Christian: *silence*
Random Poster on Fark: Christians hate gays and are only out for themselves.
"Good" Christian: *suddenly finding his voice* hey, wait just a second...

Instead of being ticked off at us, I wish they'd direct their anger toward the people giving them the reputation as bigoted selfish assholes. You know all those threads where moderate Republicans whine about how their party left them behind? This is how it happens, because the good ones won't lift a finger to stop the bad ones.


Gave this one a "smart" vote, I did.
 
2012-02-05 03:23:23 PM  
Republicans: "We want more christianity in government!"
Obama: "OK, here's a take on the gospels that seems to agree with my policies. Nice, huh?"
Republicans: "FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU"

The Founders™: "Right. NOW do you see what we did there?"
 
2012-02-05 03:25:59 PM  

Goodfella: Simply beautiful. Obama trolling the shiat out of the GOP once again. Their Obama Derangement Syndrome runs so strongly, that he can make the GOP come out against anything.

Obama is a guy who can make Republicans be against tax cuts and be against Jesus. Now did you ever think you'd see that?

And the GOP acting like they have a monopoly on Jesus and the military.


[i44.tinypic.com image 500x275]

"How dare Obama talk about Jesus, only Republicans get to use Jesus in politics, not Democrats!"

And the more he does this kind of thing, the more irrational and petty and spiteful they look.

[i44.tinypic.com image 254x198]

Barack Obama: master troll


Not only that, but look at this within the context of the Republican infighting. The Base is riled because Obama is black and that flies in the face of everything they believe. The Congress wants to pander to them, but realizes that their decades of division is now working against them. It's easy to push a rock and let it roll down a hill. Now the Republican Congress and various staffers think they have enough skill to push it while rolling. They really think that after years of training their base with dogwhistle racism that now, all of a sudden, the Base is going to respond to subtlety.

Obama is the best gift ever to the Democratic Party. It's one thing to plow through the racism and bullshiat obstructionism. But Obama knows how the game is played better than any Democrat in office right now. He knows how the racist mind thinks, and now he's just bending it to his will. He has all the power in the face of Republican hatred, and is now showing how to manipulate it to his own will.

It's a beautiful thing to witness. The Republicans won't just lose power, they will lose their whole little system of arrogant bigotry and ignorance simply because fighting Obama will require them to transcend their bias. And Republicans simply don't have the brainpower to do it.
 
2012-02-05 03:27:59 PM  

The Why Not Guy: You know all those threads where moderate Republicans whine about how their party left them behind? This is how it happens, because the good ones won't lift a finger to stop the bad ones.


I want to clarify something about this comment. I know very well that it's easy for me to sit on my high horse and say "well, you should speak up" but it's a lot harder to actually do it. I have a co-worker who belonged to a conservative congregation, and when he decided to speak out on a variety of issues that had been bothering him for a while, he suffered real consequences for it. He had to find a new church.

But if I was a member of a group that played as big a role in my life as church does in the lives of Christians, and there was a group of people giving that group a bad reputation, you can bet your ass I'd speak up. If your church and your faith are precious to you, they're worth defending. You do it already from random Farkers. Now do it from the people actually doing the damage.
 
2012-02-05 03:28:32 PM  

The Why Not Guy: lokisbong: If they were actually upset by what their fundie Christian neighbors said and did they would put forth way more energy to let us non religious people know the fundies are not what Christianity is all about but I see very little of that. your silence towards these "christians" is the reason we think all Christians are like this. I have never seen any church disavow any of the hate these "Fundie Christians" spew.

I've seen some congregations and clergy speaking out, but it's far less than what I'd like to see, Unfortunately, this is how it often plays out:

"Bad" Christian: I hate gay people! Screw the safety net, I got mine! When's our next war?
"Good" Christian: *silence*
Random Poster on Fark: Christians hate gays and are only out for themselves.
"Good" Christian: *suddenly finding his voice* hey, wait just a second...

Instead of being ticked off at us, I wish they'd direct their anger toward the people giving them the reputation as bigoted selfish assholes. You know all those threads where moderate Republicans whine about how their party left them behind? This is how it happens, because the good ones won't lift a finger to stop the bad ones.


This is the best point ever. At some point, the Good Christians have to come out and say 'this is not us.' Because right now, due to media influence, American Christians are those Bad Christians. There needs to be a serious schism here because it will not benefit the Good Christians to keep on taking this shiat while suffering from the consequences. Their inability to call out the rotten apples is sinking them as well.
 
2012-02-05 03:30:16 PM  

The Why Not Guy: The Why Not Guy: You know all those threads where moderate Republicans whine about how their party left them behind? This is how it happens, because the good ones won't lift a finger to stop the bad ones.

I want to clarify something about this comment. I know very well that it's easy for me to sit on my high horse and say "well, you should speak up" but it's a lot harder to actually do it. I have a co-worker who belonged to a conservative congregation, and when he decided to speak out on a variety of issues that had been bothering him for a while, he suffered real consequences for it. He had to find a new church.

But if I was a member of a group that played as big a role in my life as church does in the lives of Christians, and there was a group of people giving that group a bad reputation, you can bet your ass I'd speak up. If your church and your faith are precious to you, they're worth defending. You do it already from random Farkers. Now do it from the people actually doing the damage.


And to be fair, if you're already in a situation where you're embarrassed by your church, you're already leaving it. It's just a matter of time. Why those certain Americans feel the need not to associate with anybody not from their religion is already suspect, honestly. If you're that insular, you can only lose people and not gain anything.
 
2012-02-05 03:31:26 PM  

DarnoKonrad: CoffeeCup: DarnoKonrad: Lernaeus: Excuse me for interrupting the holier-than-thou-a-thon, but at what point did we gloss over the fact that the President of the United States of America talks to someone who isn't there, takes inspiration from the suicidal morality espoused by the make-believe child of that nonexistent entity, and makes a public spectacle of it?

Seriously, how insane is it we have yet ANOTHER religious wacko running the country?

As an atheist myself, I must say too many atheists default to this fallacious ad hominem. The merits of the ethical argument stance are independent of their origin.

When is an argument actually presented?


There, that's more correct.


If the claim is that these people communicated with a being who was able to give them a set of rules for ethical behavior. The problem is that when one makes a claim about a personal observance it isn't an ad hominem fallacy to bring up facts about them that might indicate they are either mistaken or lying. I'm sorry to keep harping on this.
 
2012-02-05 03:43:31 PM  

CoffeeCup: If the claim is that these people communicated with a being who was able to give them a set of rules for ethical behavior. The problem is that when one makes a claim about a personal observance it isn't an ad hominem fallacy to bring up facts about them that might indicate they are either mistaken or lying. I'm sorry to keep harping on this.



Yes, it is an ad hominem, a textbook case of it -- as it doesn't address the merits of the ethical stance independent of the personal motivations of the messenger.

Forget the President's example, I'm not in the mood to talk about progressive taxation and equity and shiat. Let's just say he's talking about murder. There are both religious and secular reasons for it's prohibition -- there are even religious and secular reasons for allowing murder; so you can't just dismiss the ethical implications on the motivations of the messenger.

Besides, honest people do bad shiat too -- atrocities can happen under magnanimous intentions.
 
2012-02-05 03:59:50 PM  

Ablejack:
Yet He explicitly and often refers to himself as a King. King of Kings in fact, and He claims to derive that title from His lineage. I have no reason not to take Him at His Word and believe politically He is a totalitarian genealogical autocrat. Which makes sense to me as it was the style of the time. But of course others may think He was just lying. He was after all convicted of this very crime by His peers.


You seem to be confused. Jesus never calls himself King. People call him "King of the Jews" as an insult. Stop watching the Mel Gibson movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus,_King_of_the_Jews
 
2012-02-05 04:03:47 PM  

randomjsa: Obama: Jesus would have been appalled to the highest degree to hear some of the things prominent people in my church said and would be saddened by the things it supported but I'm going to stand up here and pretend otherwise.

Yes, I would have walked out too, even as revolting as the Christian belief system is, the church Obama went to for 20 years twisted it in to a hateful message of racism and anti-Americanism.


Not at all. The church he went to showed the hypocrisy of the message of conservative Americans in government, and the treatment of darker skinned citizens. The church ironically had people who truly followed the messages in the Bible, not playing lip service to them just to enrich yourself like Republicans have done.
 
2012-02-05 04:04:14 PM  

DarnoKonrad: CoffeeCup: If the claim is that these people communicated with a being who was able to give them a set of rules for ethical behavior. The problem is that when one makes a claim about a personal observance it isn't an ad hominem fallacy to bring up facts about them that might indicate they are either mistaken or lying. I'm sorry to keep harping on this.


Yes, it is an ad hominem, a textbook case of it -- as it doesn't address the merits of the ethical stance independent of the personal motivations of the messenger.

Forget the President's example, I'm not in the mood to talk about progressive taxation and equity and shiat. Let's just say he's talking about murder. There are both religious and secular reasons for it's prohibition -- there are even religious and secular reasons for allowing murder; so you can't just dismiss the ethical implications on the motivations of the messenger.

Besides, honest people do bad shiat too -- atrocities can happen under magnanimous intentions.


Saying that the stance is wrong is an entirely different than saying it isn't justified by the evidence given.

An ad hominem is an informal fallacy. As an informal fallacy it has exceptions, one of those is in the cases where someone has claimed to observe something. Saying "I don't believe your account of a robbery because you're a liar" isn't fallacious. The robbery may have occurred that way, but saying that it's justified by the testimony of a liar doesn't make any sense. Otherwise I could make any possible, yet unverifiable, claim with impunity.

If someone later makes an actual argument, then sure the argument is immune from it's source. Personal testimony on the other hand is only as trustworthy as it's source. If the source is unreliable then of course you need some other form of evidence.
 
2012-02-05 04:10:33 PM  

CoffeeCup: DarnoKonrad: CoffeeCup: DarnoKonrad: Lernaeus: Excuse me for interrupting the holier-than-thou-a-thon, but at what point did we gloss over the fact that the President of the United States of America talks to someone who isn't there, takes inspiration from the suicidal morality espoused by the make-believe child of that nonexistent entity, and makes a public spectacle of it?

Seriously, how insane is it we have yet ANOTHER religious wacko running the country?

As an atheist myself, I must say too many atheists default to this fallacious ad hominem. The merits of the ethical argument stance are independent of their origin.

When is an argument actually presented?


There, that's more correct.

If the claim is that these people communicated with a being who was able to give them a set of rules for ethical behavior. The problem is that when one makes a claim about a personal observance it isn't an ad hominem fallacy to bring up facts about them that might indicate they are either mistaken or lying. I'm sorry to keep harping on this.


Ethical statements aren't "personal observances" in the sense you are talking about. The statement "you're a convicted perjurer" is certainly relevant to whether or not a person's statement on a disputed question of empirical fact should be trusted. The statement "you're a convicted perjurer" is utterly irrelevant to whether or not, when the same perjurer says "perjury is wrong," the statement "perjury is wrong" is true or false. It's an ethical claim, not a factual claim.

Charles Manson says "murder is wrong," it's still wrong.

Bill Clinton says "I didn't have sex with that woman," and, well, maybe you should discount his testimony on the issue, and rely on other evidence instead.
 
2012-02-05 04:14:55 PM  

bugontherug: Charles Manson says "murder is wrong," it's still wrong.


But what if you're both wrong?
 
2012-02-05 04:27:41 PM  

bugontherug: CoffeeCup: DarnoKonrad: CoffeeCup: DarnoKonrad: Lernaeus: Excuse me for interrupting the holier-than-thou-a-thon, but at what point did we gloss over the fact that the President of the United States of America talks to someone who isn't there, takes inspiration from the suicidal morality espoused by the make-believe child of that nonexistent entity, and makes a public spectacle of it?

Seriously, how insane is it we have yet ANOTHER religious wacko running the country?

As an atheist myself, I must say too many atheists default to this fallacious ad hominem. The merits of the ethical argument stance are independent of their origin.

When is an argument actually presented?


There, that's more correct.

If the claim is that these people communicated with a being who was able to give them a set of rules for ethical behavior. The problem is that when one makes a claim about a personal observance it isn't an ad hominem fallacy to bring up facts about them that might indicate they are either mistaken or lying. I'm sorry to keep harping on this.

Ethical statements aren't "personal observances" in the sense you are talking about. The statement "you're a convicted perjurer" is certainly relevant to whether or not a person's statement on a disputed question of empirical fact should be trusted. The statement "you're a convicted perjurer" is utterly irrelevant to whether or not, when the same perjurer says "perjury is wrong," the statement "perjury is wrong" is true or false. It's an ethical claim, not a factual claim.

Charles Manson says "murder is wrong," it's still wrong.

Bill Clinton says "I didn't have sex with that woman," and, well, maybe you should discount his testimony on the issue, and rely on other evidence instead.


What I'm saying is that these witnesses claim that a being of some great morality personally gave them rules to follow. I don't think that their testimony justifies the position that those rules are correct. Saying that the rules are wrong isn't the same as saying the justification for calling those rules ethical is questionable at best.
 
2012-02-05 04:28:26 PM  

bugontherug: Charles Manson says "murder is wrong," it's still wrong.


Right. But try this: some random, seemingly normal guy says, "murder is wrong because Charles Manson says it's wrong." Are you going to accept the premise based on the supplied argument?

That's an easy one because we're all well familiar with countless quite convincing arguments as to why murder is wrong. However, suppose the proposition is instead, "it's wrong to wear orange-colored clothing on a Monday." Now, strictly hypothetically speaking, there could conceivably be some argument that would convince the majority of society that wearing orange on Monday is unethical: it's deceptive because of some other putative expectation relating to Mondays or orange, it admits some speculative hazard to public safety for some reason, etc. etc. But for something like this that's not as clear-cut as murder, there would probably have to be a damn good argument behind it -- just as, certainly, there are several damn good arguments as to why killing people is bad which have nothing to do with an appeal to authority.

Would you accept that wearing orange on Monday is unethical because (and ONLY because) Charles Manson is on record as having said so? I'd hope not. Depending on your opinion of Charles Manson it might change your disposition towards the premise in one way or the other, but "so and so said so" is rarely sufficient cause to accept even a subjective thesis.

Unless, of course, you accept that so and so is the progeny of the Almighty.
 
2012-02-05 04:35:25 PM  

intelligent comment below: You seem to be confused. Jesus never calls himself King. People call him "King of the Jews" as an insult.


I think I've just understood the Budweiser slogan.
 
2012-02-05 04:36:54 PM  

PsiChick: GAT_00: Hey look at this, yet another Christian acting as I expect them to. To the rest of you Christians, the ones who always get so mad when I refer to the lot of you as worthless bigots who are a stain on society - I point out yet another example, we get at least one daily, that proves this is the reality of your religion. You have no value. Maybe it really is what you claim, that there are millions of you out there who are good people, but I see no good from you on a daily basis. I see people like these, people like the ones in Michele Bachmann's district who were proud, PROUD, they drove teenagers to suicide in the name of Jesus. You are responsible for these people, because you have not smacked them down.

This is the face of Christianity. Bigotry, child molestation, and simple hatred of anyone who doesn't conform exactly to their ideals. The entire world would be better off without the lot of you.

Hey, STFU.

I'll agree that there are a lot of dickheads out there calling themselves Christian. Hell, I came here to laugh at one. But there are some very good Christians out there actively trying to undo what their church has done.

Applaud them. Don't tear them down.


Nope. If you are a Christian and you want to preserve your dignity YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for shutting up the fundies. If your church isn't on TV supporting the marchers at Pride events, if it's not sending members to political events and getting itself in the news for bravely and loudly standing up against the fundamentalists' influence over politics, then you are exactly the same as them. A lot of people bought the argument for a long time that we were supposed to just ignore all the fundies because there are lots of decent Christians, but the thing is it's getting worse and worse and the supposedly decent Christians which are supposedly out there in large numbers aren't doing a single thing about it. So we aren't giving ANY Christians the benefit of the doubt anymore. There's just not enough evidence that it's deserved. Don't like that? The responsibility is yours to fix it.
 
2012-02-05 04:46:23 PM  

bugontherug: Harry_Seldon: Max Weber: The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

There's nothing fatally inconsistent between the use of government resources to assist the needy, and capitalism. In particular because "capitalism" is not defined, as the Randian libertarians would have you believe, as a market wholly unregulated in any way whatsoever. Capitalism is defined, rather, by private ownership of the means of production.



The only point I was really trying to make was Max Weber, a century previous, makes some interesting hypotheses about the particular success of Western civilization capitalism, and it's roots in the protestant work ethic. Of course, you might ask why Europe moved beyond this type of thing. Part of it was survival following centuries of war. Part of it was shipping all the religious phanatiques off to the New World.
 
2012-02-05 04:46:58 PM  

CoffeeCup: Saying that the stance is wrong is an entirely different than saying it isn't justified by the evidence given.


Yea, but that's not really what's going on here. What happened was Obama made an ethical judgment, and the poster replied "you know what? Fark religion, how about that!"

That isn't an argument about evidence or rationale.
 
2012-02-05 04:52:19 PM  

Harry_Seldon:
The only point I was really trying to make was Max Weber, a century previous, makes some interesting hypotheses about the particular success of Western civilization capitalism, and it's roots in the protestant work ethic. Of course, you might ask why Europe moved beyond this type of thing. Part of it was survival following centuries of war. Part of it was shipping all the religious phanatiques off to the New World.



I'd say socially democratic Europe stuck with it, and we're the ones who moved beyond it Modern free market neoliberalism is amoral -- while 'christian socialism' is still relevant in Europe.
 
2012-02-05 04:55:57 PM  

Harry_Seldon: bugontherug: Harry_Seldon: Max Weber: The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

There's nothing fatally inconsistent between the use of government resources to assist the needy, and capitalism. In particular because "capitalism" is not defined, as the Randian libertarians would have you believe, as a market wholly unregulated in any way whatsoever. Capitalism is defined, rather, by private ownership of the means of production.



The only point I was really trying to make was Max Weber, a century previous, makes some interesting hypotheses about the particular success of Western civilization capitalism, and it's roots in the protestant work ethic. Of course, you might ask why Europe moved beyond this type of thing. Part of it was survival following centuries of war. Part of it was shipping all the religious phanatiques off to the New World.


I originally started that post with "I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here," but I edited that line out. Just didn't seem necessary.
 
2012-02-05 04:56:39 PM  

timmmmah!: PsiChick: GAT_00: Hey look at this, yet another Christian acting as I expect them to. To the rest of you Christians, the ones who always get so mad when I refer to the lot of you as worthless bigots who are a stain on society - I point out yet another example, we get at least one daily, that proves this is the reality of your religion. You have no value. Maybe it really is what you claim, that there are millions of you out there who are good people, but I see no good from you on a daily basis. I see people like these, people like the ones in Michele Bachmann's district who were proud, PROUD, they drove teenagers to suicide in the name of Jesus. You are responsible for these people, because you have not smacked them down.

This is the face of Christianity. Bigotry, child molestation, and simple hatred of anyone who doesn't conform exactly to their ideals. The entire world would be better off without the lot of you.

Hey, STFU.

I'll agree that there are a lot of dickheads out there calling themselves Christian. Hell, I came here to laugh at one. But there are some very good Christians out there actively trying to undo what their church has done.

Applaud them. Don't tear them down.

Nope. If you are a Christian and you want to preserve your dignity YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for shutting up the fundies. If your church isn't on TV supporting the marchers at Pride events, if it's not sending members to political events and getting itself in the news for bravely and loudly standing up against the fundamentalists' influence over politics, then you are exactly the same as them. A lot of people bought the argument for a long time that we were supposed to just ignore all the fundies because there are lots of decent Christians, but the thing is it's getting worse and worse and the supposedly decent Christians which are supposedly out there in large numbers aren't doing a single thing about it. So we aren't giving ANY Christians the benefit of the doubt anymore. There's ...


And when a church tries to do this, and their television ads promoting tolerance and acceptance are banned from television for being too controversial?

There's kinda only so much they can do.
 
2012-02-05 04:57:36 PM  

thamike: bugontherug: Charles Manson says "murder is wrong," it's still wrong.

But what if you're both wrong?


Gave this one a funny vote.
 
2012-02-05 04:59:33 PM  

DarnoKonrad: CoffeeCup: Saying that the stance is wrong is an entirely different than saying it isn't justified by the evidence given.

Yea, but that's not really what's going on here. What happened was Obama made an ethical judgment, and the poster replied "you know what? Fark religion, how about that!"

That isn't an argument about evidence or rationale.


Yeah, he went a bit nuts there. I guess I just wanted to make sure the ad hominem claim isn't used against people criticizing personal testimony. It got a little out of hand.
 
2012-02-05 05:05:55 PM  

CoffeeCup: What I'm saying is that these witnesses claim that a being of some great morality personally gave them rules to follow. I don't think that their testimony justifies the position that those rules are correct. Saying that the rules are wrong isn't the same as saying the justification for calling those rules ethical is questionable at best.


Curse of the Goth Kids: bugontherug: Charles Manson says "murder is wrong," it's still wrong.

Right. But try this: some random, seemingly normal guy says, "murder is wrong because Charles Manson says it's wrong." Are you going to accept the premise based on the supplied argument?

That's an easy one because we're all well familiar with countless quite convincing arguments as to why murder is wrong. However, suppose the proposition is instead, "it's wrong to wear orange-colored clothing on a Monday." Now, strictly hypothetically speaking, there could conceivably be some argument that would convince the majority of society that wearing orange on Monday is unethical: it's deceptive because of some other putative expectation relating to Mondays or orange, it admits some speculative hazard to public safety for some reason, etc. etc. But for something like this that's not as clear-cut as murder, there would probably have to be a damn good argument behind it -- just as, certainly, there are several damn good arguments as to why killing people is bad which have nothing to do with an appeal to authority.

Would you accept that wearing orange on Monday is unethical because (and ONLY because) Charles Manson is on record as having said so? I'd hope not. Depending on your opinion of Charles Manson it might change your disposition towards the premise in one way or the other, but "so and so said so" is rarely sufficient cause to accept even a subjective thesis.

Unless, of course, you accept that so and so is the progeny of the Almighty.


I think I see your point. That's hard for me to see, because I don't usually accept "authority" rationales for raw ethical assertions. Authority can tell me whether something is legal or illegal, and authority can tell me what particular persons, interests or groups say is right or wrong. But when I weigh actual right or wrong, I try to look mainly at utilitarian outcomes. I.e., to me the question of whether wearing orange on Monday is right or wrong is based mainly on assessment of benefits and harms.

As long as we don't delve into the realm of "Because that guy over there said 'murder is wrong because Charles Manson said murder is wrong,' murder is not wrong, because Charles Manson just has no grounds to speak on the issue," I think I'm okay with what you're saying.
 
2012-02-05 05:11:33 PM  

CoffeeCup: DarnoKonrad: CoffeeCup: Saying that the stance is wrong is an entirely different than saying it isn't justified by the evidence given.

Yea, but that's not really what's going on here. What happened was Obama made an ethical judgment, and the poster replied "you know what? Fark religion, how about that!"

That isn't an argument about evidence or rationale.

Yeah, he went a bit nuts there. I guess I just wanted to make sure the ad hominem claim isn't used against people criticizing personal testimony. It got a little out of hand.



Oh I agree. If the poster had put forward some ethical argument for rationalized selfishness (for example, as it's popular with some libertarian atheists) to counter Obama's religious declarative , I would have vehemently disagreed, but I wouldn't have charged him with merely attacking the messenger.
 
2012-02-05 05:17:03 PM  
It's because he took the bible quotes completely out of context. Jesus was not talking about money. That is what is annoying as hell about it. Not to mention someone USING Jesus which is my main problem with the GOP. So yeah. NO
 
2012-02-05 05:21:30 PM  

timmmmah!: Smelly McUgly: skepticultist: Phocas: How exactly would you recommend we "smack them down"?


Well, GAT is outraged by every Christian ever, to be fair.



No, he's outraged at every Christian living in America in 2012. Very big difference. Christianity in America in 2012 is something to be ashamed of. Don't like it? Change it. If the majority of Christians the rest of us bump into in our daily lives were decent people who supported the idea of treating others as you'd like to be treated yourself, then the reputation of Christianity in America wouldn't be so horrible.


OK, fair enough. Like you apparently do, he thinks that every Christian in the United States believes in prosperity That is completely untrue, but I understand why he would say something like that.

But honestly, I don't care what people think of Christianity in the sense that there will always be people who dislike any ideology for both completely fair and unfair reasons. Many of you have a lot of fair reasons to hate many things done in this country under the name of Christianity. I won't argue that at all. You have a right to believe that and a fair point.

God-is-a-Taco:

Also, something of a tangent:
I have trouble respecting these "liberal, pro-gay rights, pro-choice" Christians/Muslims/etc when they say they're "not like the majority". They just ignore a different part of their rulebook. Religion does not evolve. They're as much "true Christians" as this joker of a congressman.


Religion always evolves. Everything always evolves! Viewpoints evolve, modes of thought evolve, societies evolve, cultures evolve, creatures evolve.

I'm not sure what you define as a "true Christian" because honestly, religious scholars disagree on single words that are used in biblical writings, much less the churches and their political decisions on which books are part of The Bible, etc. If you mean that it is impossible to believe in the Christian definition of God AND reject the ideas that wearing polyester, eating bacon, or shunning gay people (amongst like a billion other rules), I'm going to politely disagree and leave it at that.
 
2012-02-05 05:26:40 PM  

timmmmah!: PsiChick: GAT_00: Hey look at this, yet another Christian acting as I expect them to. To the rest of you Christians, the ones who always get so mad when I refer to the lot of you as worthless bigots who are a stain on society - I point out yet another example, we get at least one daily, that proves this is the reality of your religion. You have no value. Maybe it really is what you claim, that there are millions of you out there who are good people, but I see no good from you on a daily basis. I see people like these, people like the ones in Michele Bachmann's district who were proud, PROUD, they drove teenagers to suicide in the name of Jesus. You are responsible for these people, because you have not smacked them down.

This is the face of Christianity. Bigotry, child molestation, and simple hatred of anyone who doesn't conform exactly to their ideals. The entire world would be better off without the lot of you.

Hey, STFU.

I'll agree that there are a lot of dickheads out there calling themselves Christian. Hell, I came here to laugh at one. But there are some very good Christians out there actively trying to undo what their church has done.

Applaud them. Don't tear them down.

Nope. If you are a Christian and you want to preserve your dignity YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for shutting up the fundies. If your church isn't on TV supporting the marchers at Pride events, if it's not sending members to political events and getting itself in the news for bravely and loudly standing up against the fundamentalists' influence over politics, then you are exactly the same as them. A lot of people bought the argument for a long time that we were supposed to just ignore all the fundies because there are lots of decent Christians, but the thing is it's getting worse and worse and the supposedly decent Christians which are supposedly out there in large numbers aren't doing a single thing about it. So we aren't giving ANY Christians the benefit of the doubt anymore. There's ...


That's how I felt about white people when I was in sixth grade. I got past it.
 
2012-02-05 06:01:17 PM  

Shaggy_C: It is poor taste to use the prayer breakfast as an opportunity to campaign for your re-election. That being said, the prayer breakfast is a contrived, cynical, possibly unconstitutional event that shouldn't even happen in the first place.


Why, its almost as if he's using the opportunity to push an agenda from a "bully pulpit". Who ever heard of a President doing such a thing, its clearly in bad taste and not something that's a well established tradition
 
2012-02-05 06:16:48 PM  

bugontherug: I've seen some congregations and clergy speaking out, but it's far less than what I'd like to see, Unfortunately, this is how it often plays out:

"Bad" Christian: I hate gay people! Screw the safety net, I got mine! When's our next war?
"Good" Christian: *silence*


If you replace *silence* with *puts on National Prayer Breakfast specifically calling out the Gospels' support for social justice,* you'd have a more accurate representation of what's happening in the article.

Hey, I want more non-Right Wing Christians to stand up too, but the Republican dominance of religion in public life didn't just happen by itself, you know. The Fundamentalists have been building this network literally for decades, funded by the best think tanks and social engineering money can buy. Don't confuse the lack of a national megaphone for *silence*, especially when not forcing your spiritual beliefs on the public sphere is part of what defines a non-asshole Christian.
 
2012-02-05 06:36:03 PM  

bugontherug: CoffeeCup: What I'm saying is that these witnesses claim that a being of some great morality personally gave them rules to follow. I don't think that their testimony justifies the position that those rules are correct. Saying that the rules are wrong isn't the same as saying the justification for calling those rules ethical is questionable at best.

Curse of the Goth Kids: bugontherug: Charles Manson says "murder is wrong," it's still wrong.

Right. But try this: some random, seemingly normal guy says, "murder is wrong because Charles Manson says it's wrong." Are you going to accept the premise based on the supplied argument?

That's an easy one because we're all well familiar with countless quite convincing arguments as to why murder is wrong. However, suppose the proposition is instead, "it's wrong to wear orange-colored clothing on a Monday." Now, strictly hypothetically speaking, there could conceivably be some argument that would convince the majority of society that wearing orange on Monday is unethical: it's deceptive because of some other putative expectation relating to Mondays or orange, it admits some speculative hazard to public safety for some reason, etc. etc. But for something like this that's not as clear-cut as murder, there would probably have to be a damn good argument behind it -- just as, certainly, there are several damn good arguments as to why killing people is bad which have nothing to do with an appeal to authority.

Would you accept that wearing orange on Monday is unethical because (and ONLY because) Charles Manson is on record as having said so? I'd hope not. Depending on your opinion of Charles Manson it might change your disposition towards the premise in one way or the other, but "so and so said so" is rarely sufficient cause to accept even a subjective thesis.

Unless, of course, you accept that so and so is the progeny of the Almighty.

I think I see your point. That's hard for me to see, because I don't usually accept "authority" r ...


Yeah it's kind of an interesting though experiment to consider the implications of having an actual "absolute moral authority". If that authority never speaks to you directly, are you obligated to follow the rules passed down to people it supposedly has spoken to? What if you can't even verify that they ever spoke to it in the first place? How would you ever prove that the authority is what it claimed to be?

It opens up a lot of strange possibilities.
 
2012-02-05 06:41:36 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Phocas: How exactly would you recommend we "smack them down"? That pesky First Amendment won't allow us to censor or jail them.

That is part of the issue. The sooner we repeal the First Amendment, the sooner we can deal with the liberal problem. I will be discussing this in further detail in the foreword for Obama and His Magic Time Machine: The Shocking Facts.


+eleventy, you just made my day.

(But shouldn't you have already been able to write, publish, sell and profit from that book ten years ago, since you have the shocking facts?)
 
2012-02-05 06:44:53 PM  

ThistleChaser: Obviously Obama is a closet atheist.

See how funny it is when your own bullshiat is used against you Christians/Republicans?

Obama is the best troll ever.

 
2012-02-05 06:54:00 PM  

DarnoKonrad: CoffeeCup: DarnoKonrad: CoffeeCup: Saying that the stance is wrong is an entirely different than saying it isn't justified by the evidence given.

Yea, but that's not really what's going on here. What happened was Obama made an ethical judgment, and the poster replied "you know what? Fark religion, how about that!"

That isn't an argument about evidence or rationale.

Yeah, he went a bit nuts there. I guess I just wanted to make sure the ad hominem claim isn't used against people criticizing personal testimony. It got a little out of hand.


Oh I agree. If the poster had put forward some ethical argument for rationalized selfishness (for example, as it's popular with some libertarian atheists) to counter Obama's religious declarative , I would have vehemently disagreed, but I wouldn't have charged him with merely attacking the messenger.


I was actually about to agree with you that it was an ad hominem, but after thinking it through and pooping out that big WoT up there I came to this conclusion:

If the premise being attacked is, "it's right that [those who have more should give more back]," then "effing fundie!" is indeed a fallacious ad hominem as a response.

However, if the premise being attacked is, "[it's right that those who have more should give back] because Jesus sez," then "effing fundie!" is an admissible if somewhat rude riposte.


Anyway, I like separation of church and state. :)
 
2012-02-05 07:05:11 PM  

Kittypie070: I think it's time for you to STFU and leave, boy


for when you say "why'd he do that?" ... now you know
 
2012-02-05 07:40:07 PM  

s1ugg0: But hope everyone someday is lucky enough to find a place where at least for an hour a week turn your back on all the hate and bigotry in this world.


I call this place "my home".
 
2012-02-05 08:05:46 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Hey, I want more non-Right Wing Christians to stand up too, but the Republican dominance of religion in public life didn't just happen by itself, you know. The Fundamentalists have been building this network literally for decades,.


It doesn't really help your case if they've been building this dominance of religion in public life for decades, and in all that time none of the "good" Christians lifted a finger to try and stop it.
 
2012-02-05 08:42:52 PM  

The Why Not Guy: Hickory-smoked: Hey, I want more non-Right Wing Christians to stand up too, but the Republican dominance of religion in public life didn't just happen by itself, you know. The Fundamentalists have been building this network literally for decades,.

It doesn't really help your case if they've been building this dominance of religion in public life for decades, and in all that time none of the "good" Christians lifted a finger to try and stop it.


Just to repeat myself: Don't confuse the lack of a national megaphone for *silence*, especially when not forcing your spiritual beliefs on the public sphere is part of what defines a non-asshole Christian.
 
Displayed 50 of 336 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report