Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, substantive, despite your unwillingness to acknowledge that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Sorry but your perspective is the one grounded in fantasy.
On the contrary, yours is, and mine is grounded in rejection of that fantasy. For you to even raise the specter of fantasy is quite ill-advised, since you have repeatedly demonstrated that your beliefs and values are specifically grounded in one specific ancient mythology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Even non-believers here chimed in that atheists are going too far with this latest stunt.
They're entitled to their opinion and they've generally acknowledge that reasonable people disagree about it.
You haven't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
But you don't care about the fallout as long your religion of secularism gets it way every time.
My religion isn't secularism. This is yet another piece of evidence of the abject lack of respect you have for others - you cannot even manage to grant them the respect necessary to acknowledge their actual religious perspective. Instead, you seem incapable of viewing the religious beliefs of others from any lens other than that of your own religion, and from that lens everything "other" is categorically wrong. That kind of behavior, refusing to acknowledge the reality of other people's religions because it ruins your corrupt narrative, is intolerably reprehensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Slavery and racism are often used interchangeably as crutches to prop up your side as being the more moral position.
Again, slavery is different from racism, neither are crutches, and you're still vainly trying to deflect attention away from the indefensible nature of what you support with such inane diversions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I don't see Christians outraged over Joyce Myer.
Yet there was a time not too long ago when that would be an anathema for Christians like you. You keep trying to dodge the point: Traditions are not good forever. They're typically reflections of the limitations our humanity's capability to respect the "other", something which your own advocacy suffers from like a disease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Stoning? Newflash, Jesus fullfilled the OT convenant. Those laws don't apply anymore.
And Jesus thereby ratified ongoing revelation, not "Jeff's vacuous attempt to freeze things the way he wants them".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
What disregard?
I don't think you're evil, Jeff, so if you were ready and capable of recognizing it I am sure you wouldn't commit it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I have said on this very thread that I would have no problem with other religious texts existing in a hotel room.
Which is non-sequitur - yet another attempt to dodge a substantive condemnation of that for which you advocate with an inane diversion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I fail to see how ...
That's the problem. Typical refusal to acknowledge that any human experience exists except that which you personally experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teilhard
I oppose the missionary zealot "New Atheists" …
Okay so go email them. They aren't here in this thread.
Your biased phrasing and non-sequitur is designed to obscure the fact that the government can acknowledge theism without establishing a religion and certainly without implying that non-theists don't count. Non-theists have a God and it is whatever you wish to call Nature or material reality. They see that as the God responsible for their existence and the existence of everything else.. Theists have many versions of the same God responsible for their existence and the existence of everything else. Such anti-God vitriol seems entirely abreactive born of noxious religious experience. In short, you DO seem to seek the eradication of ANY mention of God or acknowledgment of God by the government in the public square. But the government is constrained to acknowledge and allow the free expression of religion, which inherently involves acknowledging God. Since your non-theistic God is the same as my theistic one (The Source of everything), and since the specifics are ineffable and essentially remain unknown, I can see no other basis than abreaction for your insistence on prohibiting government from acknowledging this ineffable and unknown God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
The fact that you don't get people to do things the way that would fit your idea of the Christian privilege you feel you deserve doesn't constitute a nullification of other people's rights. The only pretending going on is on your part, in your unwillingness to admit the Establishment Clause issue. Regardless, it isn't up to you whether equal access is "easily" accomplished. There are myriad examples proving that it is practically never "easily" accomplished.
Earlier in the thread I posted a link outlining why that's the case, highlighting the fact that unjust Christian privilege in the United States has fostered far more haters willing and inclined to inflict disproportionate damage on that which represents other religions. People who run businesses and state institutions know that they're going to have to deal with the deviant behavior even if you choose to blind yourself to its disproportionate impact. I bet you would blame the victim for the disproportionate impact, disclaiming the state's responsibility to provide the security measures necessary to ensure that there be no more Qur'ans destroyed than Christian Bibles destroyed, and therefore refuse to acknowledge the cost to the state from providing equal access, beyond having to deal with myriad groups all seeking to place their own materials.
Silly feigned ignorance is a game Dominionists use to inure themselves from the rational repudiation of the childish excuses they put forward for getting their own way. If they could get away with it, they'd claim that it isn't the state's responsibility to spend a dime more to protect mosques as compared to Christian churches, or for that matter, to protect Muslims from hate crimes as compared to protecting Christians from hate crimes. That's the kind of rationalization games Dominionists engage in.
Your motivation is quite clear: Rationalize unjust Christian privilege in any way possible. This time, the powers that be didn't let the corruption you favor prevail, and instead took the appropriate action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Y'gotta love how fundamentalists work to defend unjust Christian privilege from both sides: Some denying the relevance of the Establishment Clause for the aspects of the matter for which it is relevant, while others deny the relevance of the Free Exercise Clause for the aspects of the matter for which it is relevant.
Sigh:: It is clear you will insist on painting me with the same brush as the fundies who provide the grist for your misapplication of the establishment clause. Your campaign against God seems to demand it. I agree that their motivations are suspect, but I disagree that the problem is an establishment clause one. The distinction I am drawing seems too difficult for you or you are totally preoccupied with broadly misapplying the establishment clause to care.
We really should take the matter of whether respect is innate or earned to another thread. The matter of this thread is a conflict with regard to the distribution and maintenance of Gideon Bibles in a state-run lodging. I believe both sides of that conflict are each split about whether respect is innate or earned.
I confess that I do have little to no respect for the vituperative antics of the zealot missionary "New Atheist" guys …
(Prof. Dr. Michael Ruse, himself a professed "atheist," agrees with me that "the 'New Atheists' are a bloody disaster" …)
And I have no respect for fundamentalist Christians.
I used to, but they have well and truly earned my disrespect. However, those who are feeble-minded and/or spiritually damaged by their upbringing have my pity, in place of disgust and disdain.
We really should take the matter of whether respect is innate or earned to another thread. The matter of this thread is a conflict with regard to the distribution and maintenance of Gideon Bibles in a state-run lodging. I believe both sides of that conflict are each split about whether respect is innate or earned.
ALL human beings must be respected for their humanity …
The position/recognition that all human beings have "certain inalienable rights" endowed by The Creator is a CENTRAL feature of our society and guv'mint …
Sigh:: It is clear you will insist on painting me with the same brush as the fundies who provide the grist for your misapplication of the establishment clause. Your campaign against God seems to demand it. I agree that their motivations are suspect, but I disagree that the problem is an establishment clause one. The distinction I am drawing seems too difficult for you or you are totally preoccupied with broadly misapplying the establishment clause to care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
I preach about God. So the rest of your nonsense is as readily ignored as you saw fit to ignore the reality of my religious perspective.
My championing of the acknowledgment of God by government has nothing to do with any specific religion. It is simply that an acknowledgment of God is NOT an establishment of religion and does NOT promote any specific religion. By pretending that the Bibles are an establishment clause issue you dilute the prohibition by misapplying it too broadly. It aids and abets those who actually DO seek to eradicate God from the public square.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
