Coral Ridge Ministries surveyed their membership, asking them to rank the greatest dangers to America’s spiritual health. Top of the list is the ACLU; second are the homosexuals; third is abortion. Evolution doesn’t show up until #7, and atheists are #9. This is a very disappointing showing, people! You’re all going to have to get more militant, starting right now.
Still, when you look at the actual numbers, it’s not all that bad. 82% of the deluded followers of D. James Kennedy’s wacky ministry think atheists are “very dangerous”. I think there was a general trend of getting twitterpated about a whole bunch of secular stuff, and we all landed in a big heap near the top of their fears.
Also, “colleges and universities” ranked very highly. This isn’t surprising, and fear of education explains a lot.
The country’s spiritual health? Can someone please remind me of the difference between the spiritual and the imaginary again?
I wonder if Kenny will show up on this thread to offer his OPINION about the evil ACLU and its role in the slippery slope towards killing all Christians.
Actually, in all seriousness, this just highlights one of the key personality components of the authoritarian follower: fear. According to the research of Bob Altemeyer, high scores on his “Dangerous world” scale (which measures levels of anxiety about vague and abstract threats from the outside world) correlate strongly with scores on his “Right-wing authoritarian” scale. Notice how barely one respondent in 50 considers even a single one of those things “Not very dangerous”.
These people live in fear of, well, just about everything.
The ACLU is number 1?
Homosexuality number 2?
It didn’t occur to them stupidity could be the greatest threat?
I’m a threat to America’s spiritual health? Why didn’t anybody tell me?!?
Question 5: How confident do you feel in defending important aspects of the Christian faith–such as why you believe the Bible or cultural truth like the sanctity of human life?
22% felt only “Somewhat” confident that they could defend the sanctity of human life…
6. If Christians don’t take action, how likely is it that the federal government will pass a law making it a “hate crime” for pastors and others to speak out against homosexuality and religions like Islam–as other countries have done?
78% “Very”
Ummm… so it’s OK for Christian pastors to preach hate? Or is it only Ok as long as they are only preaching hate about gays and Muslims?
16. How important is it that schools teach evolution as a theory rather than a fact–and include evidence for Intelligent Design?
83% Critical
*sigh*
I went and looked at the survey. No indication of how many people participated. Some other interesting questions:
Religious Freedom Issues
6. If Christians don’t take action, how likely is it that the federal government will pass a law making it a “hate crime” for pastors and others to speak out against homosexuality and religions like Islam–as other countries have done?
[78] Very [10] Somewhat [4] Not very [8] Undecided
Education Issues
16. How important is it that schools teach evolution as a theory rather than a fact–and include evidence for Intelligent Design?
[83] Critical [9] Important [1] Not important [7]Undecided
George
Awesome. As a gay ACLU member and academic, I’d like to say I’m just doing my part to bring this nation to its knees, where it can do what it’s supposed to.
“atheists are ‘very dangerous'”
I can very dangerous if you get between me and my grub.
I find it a little bizarre that preventing gay marriage is more important to these people than banning abortion. If you truly think that abortion (92% “very important” that we preventing gay marriage compared to 80% “critical” that we ban abortion). If they truly believe that abortion is murder (I don’t, but these people claim to), shouldn’t preventing murder be higher up on their list than regulating who can and cannot marry? They also seem to think that making sure our schools teach ID (83% “critical”) and making sure they teach “a balanced view of American history that includes our religious and moral heritage” (88% “critical”) are both more important than preventing “murder.”
I see two possibilities: either they don’t really think abortion is murder (at least not on the same level as real-person murder), or their moral priorities are so out of whack that they actually think that a loving union between two members of the same sex is worse than murder.
Any American who doesn’t like the ACLU is an utterly ignorant moron and instantly loses any respect I might have for them.
(And yes, I realize “American” is a synonym for “utterly ignorant moron” in most places on the planet these days.)
If a person considers the ACLU an enemy, then that person is an enemy of civil liberties, an enemy of the principles which are the foundation the United States Constitution, and of the liberties which it was designed to protect, and in short, an enemy of the U.S., and an enemy of mine.
But mostly, that person is an idiot.
And I worked so hard to become a feminazi. So disappointed not to be on the list.
Will do our tentacled overlord! *seething at the mouth*
Wha… Wait!! Where’s that Internet poll again?!?
:)
It didn’t occur to them stupidity could be the greatest threat?
think about that for a second.
yeah.
The list closely reflects the targets of their propaganda over the past ten years or so. They’ve long spent an enormous amount of time complaining about the ACLU – much more than most Christian groups, in my estimation – and the list shows that too.
The problem is, you guys don’t have a prayer.
But…you can get one here! http://www.coralridge.org/pray.asp
At least cults and false religion (#8) ranks higher than atheists. It’s too bad the irony of that response is lost on them.
To be entirely fair, the ACLU has on a number of occasions fought for the right of conservative religious people to speak their piece, and nothing damages their standing in the community more than people hearing what they have to say.
Damn, of all my attributes I only reach #2. Can I count under #1 if I consider the ACLU a wonderful organization but am not technically a financial supporter or lawyer?
Actually with the recent California ruling, I’m surprised that gays didn’t leap to #1. I guess the demons running the ACLU are just too horrible for them to forget about. I can’t really think of anything atheists could do as a group which would make them more of a threat…since most atheist activists tend to work through the ACLU, for gay rights, and for good public education. So I suppose atheism ranks pretty high if you include all of those categories…but evil atheists in specific are only scary enough for #9.
I find it a little bizarre that preventing gay marriage is more important to these people than banning abortion.
It makes perfect sense if you consider it in terms of current hotbutton issues being pushed by the republican side of politics at the moment in order to energize their consistent (over the last 30 years or so) voting base.
much more important to push the issue of homosexuality as a hotbutton issue to motivate the fundies to support McCain.
why?
McCain has publicly supported legislation in his own state to limit “marriage” to hetero-marriage only (saw the commercial just a couple of days ago).
OTOH, he actually has a long history of supporting pro-choice legislation (has made several statements in the past against supporting anti-abortion legislation).
combine that with the impetus given by the recent CA court decision (where they can swiftboat the judges as “activist”)
and clearly you might find it easy to conclude why that topic rides so high on the list.
seriously, it’s politics.
I doubt their propaganda has that much to do with it. If you gave a similar survey but replaced those issues with things like “jobs going overseas”, “high oil prices”, “illegal immigration”, you’d probably get much the same results. These people are just packed chock-full of generalized fear, and their pre-programmed triggers for it are truly legion.
I have to admit I have watched more than a few of Coral Ridge’s TV broadcasts. DJK and his preaching style were fascinating to me. I don’t think anyone has ever done sarcasm as well as he did it. A really strange bird, if you ask me.
Anyway, one of the things I noticed when watching the broadcasts was that the people in the audience seem to be mostly in their sixties or older. Maybe that goes a long way toward explaining Coral Ridge.
DaveL, #3: I agree completely. I don’t have any links or references on hand to the sort of studies you mentioned, but I talk to a lot of IDist variety Christians on a semi-regular basis, in various fora, and one thing that actually staggers me every time is how they’re either angry about or afraid of almost everything. I actually let my frustration out at one of them once and apologised for it afterwards (I prefer not to be rude to people’s faces, it keeps conversations civil, but this place is a good venue for steaming), but still… I don’t know about the rest of you; I can’t help but feel kind of sorry (not in a piteous or patronising way, mind you) for somebody who thinks the sky is falling.
I believe we were talking about the new legal spiff in Britain about the creation of humanised animal embryos and cells for research, and the loyal opposition went on a tirade about how it was sickening and horrific, and how, in our heart of hearts, we all know this stuff is deeply evil, but that since we’ve given “Truth” the old heave-ho, we’re joyfully embracing every kind of insanity and passing off our guilt because of it. What a strange way to view a complex social, ethical, and philosophical situation.
I wonder if most people are as existentially laid back as I am, or if it’s more common to experience this sort of “nightmare reality”. I do suppose it’s we who are so upset about what we believe ignorance and irrationality are doing (or are going to do) to our culture, though I suspect there’s somewhat more evidential merit to our consternation than there is to the idea that homosexuality is, as far as civilisation is concerned, the equivalent of liquid hot magma.
Just out of curiosity, what exactly is “Pro-homosexual indoctrination”?
It sounds like we won’t let just anyone be gay; you need to have formal indoctrination.
What are the certification fees for that one?
@#19 Ichthyic —
You mean the self-proclaimed moral majority chooses its “values” based on politics and not actual morality?
Shocking.
I still wonder if most of these people actually think that abortion is murder, though. Based on these results, I’m kind of doubting it…
You mean the self-proclaimed moral majority chooses its “values” based on politics and not actual morality?
simply put, yeah.
not so shocking though, given how credulous the majority of the fundies are, right?
…in fact, I’ve long been of the opinion that the Disinformation Institute’s primary function is political in nature, and they just utilize fundie credulousness in order to manipulate the rubes.
they are just a “think tank” devoted to formulating and pushing hotbutton issues in order to keep the political base engaged and motivated.
They just focus on the specifically anti-science front.
It’s a living.
I’ve always been happy to argue the evidence that supports/rejects this OPINION*, btw.
*did i get that right?
Oh, it’s not that they’re much more credulous than anybody else, it’s just that they’re highly specific about what they lend their credulity to. I suspect it’s a cultural thing – trust the people you’ve been raised to consider authorities over all others, regardless of qualifications. Anyone remember that Lewis Black joke about “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter“? Now that’s misplaced scepticism.
I agree very much that, at heart, religion in America is anti-scholar, anti-intellectual, anti-cosmopolitan. That extends to religions which consider themselves “scholarly”.
I think we need to argue Religion Does Harm, not only to those who harbor it, but their having and acting on it does harm to the body politic, and to the decisions that people make.
BTW, don’t you know secularism is bad for moral health? ;-)
it’s just that they’re highly specific about what they lend their credulity to. I suspect it’s a cultural thing – trust the people you’ve been raised to consider authorities over all others, regardless of qualifications.
agreed; that’s more precise (though I still think there is room for argument about the overall level of credulity as well), and supported by the research as well (I’m sure you’ve seen the link to the Science article I keep posting).
I just assumed the implication was obvious as to which concepts the fundies were credulous to when stating that the DI was the one feeding them.
Wow, they have covered all forms of schooling, k-12 + everything else, whata bunch of loons
@#25 Ichthyic —
When I said “shocking,” I was being sarcastic. No, it’s not shocking at all. Just a bit sad.
@#26 Ichthyic —
I’d guess that you’re right, but there are probably True Believers™ mixed in at the DI as well. Makes it easier to propagate a lie if at least some of your front-men believe it’s the truth….
I see courts and Congress is on there. What about that third one? What about the f@#$%ing executive branch? Not surprised they didn’t include it.
Whenever I run into them, I’ve always asked the nutty Christians who bark about the evils of the ACLU why they hate them so much, and not once have I received a coherent answer built around logic and reason. Most just seem to grumble that the ACLU is responsible for letting Satan into our “gubmint.”
It’s actually gotten to be fun, and I wish I had a video camera. These idiots desperately need to be recorded and exploited.
I’m surprised the ‘respondents’ were capable of making responses to a multiple choice survey – especially given the length of some of the questions ;)
I seem to notice that all of the ‘hot’ answers were (A) — implying (!) a really badly designed survey, since that would simply instill ‘pick A column’ bias.
/snark
Chortling at #17. Masterful, Qrazy Qat!
I like this question:
7. How important is it to protect public displays of Christian expression, such as the Ten Commandments, from restrictions by groups like the ACLU?
91% Very 3% Somewhat 0% Not very 6% Undecided
Here’s a a good idea for how they should publicly express their Christianity, taken straight from the Good Book: they shouldn’t:
I think we need to argue Religion Does Harm
I would agree if we modify it to: religion CAN do harm. Most xian sects do seem to create a necessity for a greater or lesser degree of compartmentalization, and as such, it would seem that the most productive long-term strategy would be to limit its influence.
OTOH, there is a long road ahead, and I have recognized that tactically, it HAS worked to a limited extent to placate the moderates and “frame” the issue as if NOMA were valid*.
On this site, I don’t think it’s a productive use of resources or time to debate the value of embracing the moderates from a tactical standpoint. I’ve always felt this site, PZ himself, and Dawkins, were focused on the long term strategy, and pushing the discussion frame ever outward and onward. I think this is why I spend more time here now than on places like the ‘Thumb; I find myself much more interested in how we get to the endpoint where religion is little more than a fun thing to do on Sunday (for those that like that kind of thing).
I think Panda’s Thumb has become an excellent place to debate the merits of localized tactical strategies, including embracing the moderate xians in support in order to help derail creationist legislation, for those more interested from that perspective. (frankly, I get rather sick of all the religious addenda that get attached to various arguments there, and haven’t been interested in anything Thomas Aquinas – he get cited there frequently – has had to say since I was about 18 ).
*according to the people who were there, a kind of “NOMA” approach worked well to derail the “teach the controversy” approach in Ohio a few months back.
We actually covered religious fundamentalism in Pol Sci this week…
It doesn’t surprise me one bit, they don’t trust a single thing that isn’t based on the bible and they tend to shoot themselves in the foot.
Ekzept: did you see on that article, where repealing the laws reduces going to church, but not “other charitable activities”?
I guess going to church keeps you out of the way of people with functioning brains, but still, I wouldn’t count it as charitable…
@#39 wazza —
It goes beyond this, even…they don’t trust a single thing that isn’t based on the bible, as interpreted by their religious authority figures. Which means you get super-literal interpretations of some parts (eg, first Genesis creation myth), ignorance of other parts (most of the OT), dogmatic belief in things not even relating to the bible but important to the politicoreligious leaders (apparently, Jesus was a global warming denialist), etc. That’s why it’s so easy for the religious right, disco institute, etc, to manipulate these people — they will believe whatever those trusted authorities claim in the name of True Christianity%trade;, even if its in direct and obvious conflict with little things like reality.
but there are probably True Believers™ mixed in at the DI as well. Makes it easier to propagate a lie if at least some of your front-men believe it’s the truth….
oh, no doubt.
but as we have seen (previous thread), even the intelligent are susceptible to credulousness, provided it is tuned to their particular ‘wavelength’.
I have little doubt that many working at the Disco Institute have rationalized the work as supportive of whatever fantasies they hold dear. it’s just that they also rationalize that an entire political party entirely supports those same fantasies, even when presented with the fact that if one looks at exactly how much “fundie legislation” has been passed by the republicans over the last 30 years, it amounts to even less than token support.
In fact, it’s this general level of insanity (the overwhelming support for a party that really hasn’t directly EVER supported legislatively the agenda of the fundies on paper), that has worried me far more than the obvious political machinations themselves.
Politicians manipulating voters to their advantage?
I can understand that.
Voters who, if they wanted to, can clearly see that those same politicians have really never made good on their promises, but who will still support them to the death?
No comprendo.
It’s like shooting yourself in the foot, then voting for the guy who says he wants to make ammunition cheaper.
I just can’t fully wrap my head around that kind of lunacy, and it’s a lunacy that’s all too common in this country.
…even my own father, whose military benefits and retirement benefits were both cut by various republican administrations, is somehow convinced he still must vote republican.
even though I documented, on paper, all the foibles of the current administration that directly impact his quality of life negatively, even though I actually got him to say the words: “worst president ever” after the end of his FIRST term… he still plans to vote McCain, and voted for Bush twice.
when asked why, I just get mumbling or a blank stare in response, or “I don’t trust liberals”.
*shrug*
what’s to do in the face of such insanity?
And I put much of the blame on the shoulders of the Neocons, who around 35 years ago decided on a political course of action of lies, misinformation, and spin that resulted in the republican party being beholden to the nutters for the foreseeable future, and I think has contributed much to the resultant levels of general insanity.
I’d say it was that realization, that people would still vote for rethuglicans REGARDLESS of the massive amount of evidence indicating it was not in their best personal interests to do so, that most convinced me that my future (and that of any family I might pick up along the way) lies elsewhere.
seriously. How does one combat that other than waiting several generations for the nutters to die off and sense to return?
It seems like one person voted against Jesus in every one of those questions. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was you, “Professor” Mayers (if indeed that is your real name). It’s typical of atheists and liberals to try to infiltrate decent segments of society then carry out their anti-God agendas.
It’s persecution against the moral majority of Americans, pure and simple. Your kind will do anything they can to take away our freedom of speech. Are sites like this even legal? If they are, they certainly shouldn’t be.
That church may be a little liberal, but they were right about the dangers of colleges. There’s only one text book you need in life, and that’s the Holy Bible! You may think it’s too late to repent, but it’s not. As long as you can draw breath, it’s not too late! You’ll be surprised by how much more fulfilling life can be once you don’t have to worry about the dangers of God-angering science!
I call POE! (but pretty poor poe)
just to clarify — such a fundie, but NO CAPITALS AND NO RUN ONS and USING PUNCTUATION! (and no spelling mistakes!)
@#41 Ichthyic —
By trying to stop them from indoctrinating the next generation into the same nuttery.
Seriously, otherwise where’s the guarantee that sense ever will return?
It’s definitely a Poe — she links to landoverbaptist in her posted by.
I thought it was quite good, actually (except the notable lack of grammar/spelling/caps errors)…I especially liked the “persecution against the moral majority” bit.
By trying to stop them from indoctrinating the next generation into the same nuttery.
play it out.
how?
will you legislate religion?
will you legislate parental influence or peer influence?
the only thing I could see to do was push for the best secondary level education possible.
even pushing as hard as possible, with everyone who sees the problem involved (and there really aren’t that many of us), it will still take several generations.
am I missing something?
where’s the guarantee that sense ever will return?
who told you there were any guarantees?
meh, it’s just the 20 years that separate us talking, most likely.
stay positive. You likely will see things my generation missed.
…The 2nd biggest threat to them is gays? Damn they really don’t have a lot of imagination.
I mean, they could’ve put lots of cool things in that list. Like… I dunno… Space invaders! Now THAT’s a threat. Or better yet. Gay Atheist Liberal space invaders.
Oh and I love the “Cults and false religion” ones. As if their little delusional belief was better than anyone else’s.
Well…a good list of common evils (what the hell is homosexual indoctrination? Is that people trying to force kids to be gay, or just telling them it’s not okay to spit on gay people in the street?) but they’re missing a few methinks…
– Immigants (particularly ones that don’t speek propa inglis);
– Gubmint;
– Those damn liberals…you know the ones…who want kids to have sex in schools and try to ban the boyscouts as a hate group;
– Gun control advocates (nothing damages America’s spirtuality than a person trying to take away your “right” to carry an Armalite AR-15 semi-automatic gas-powered assault rifle);
– Wikipedia;
– Catholics;
– The producers of the Golden Compass (what…it was a book before it was a movie? What’s a “boook”? )
Oh and I forgot to add… The space invaders? They’re not just gay. They’re lesbians. They have a VAGINA. Now you really have to be scared.
ya, ya, ya. it’s like humans don’t want to look into the mirror. almost 7 billion living on the planet of the apes. biodiversity decreasing by a percent per year. the future is so fucking bright. be glad you lived when you did.
I mean, they could’ve put lots of cool things in that list. Like… I dunno… Space invaders!
or bears!
C’mon! “Atheism” as a spiritual threat only managed to tie with “Other cults and religions.” As a member of another cult or religion (Lutheran), I’m disappointed that we couldn’t beat out the atheists.
@#10 SteveC
I’m not an American, so I’ve always wondered if it makes sense from the inside, but Americans hating the ACLU has always seemed absurd to me; here’s an institution that has dedicated itself to nothing other than your protection against abuse, defending you against those who would remove your rights and imprison you unlawfully and in return they ask…nothing at all. Exactly how can you object to that?
I’ve read that Coral Ridge is losing members and money. Partly since Kennedy went back home to hell for a while.
That might not be the whole story though. Dobson’s organizations are also rumored to be losing members and contributions.
Could be the mess that the fundies and Bush spent 7 years making. $4.00/gallon gas, rising food prices, piles of bodies in Iraq, some of them Americans.
I wonder if these things are additive? For instance I’m an atheist, work at a public university, and I’m an ACLU member. Doesn’t that make me more dangerous than a terrorist? Maybe someone could work out a scoring system we could use on our blogs, with terrorists as units of dangerousnosity.
It’s hard to believe they really hate terrorism all that much, though. After all, the occasional terrorist attack brings so many frightened people to their doorsteps.
You’re not an Amurican? Then you’re on the list, too, Buddy.
Partly since Kennedy went back home to hell for a while.
wait… you mean there’s a chance he’ll be back?
ack!
quick, someone put him on a terrorist watch-list!
@#42:
Your kind will do anything they can to take away our freedom of speech. Are sites like this even legal? If they are, they certainly shouldn’t be.
Holy crap, the irony…
“I’m disappointed that we couldn’t beat out the atheists.”
… you can’t when jesus and his dad, not to mention his spiritual advisor the holy ghost can’t do email.
“I’m disappointed that we couldn’t beat out the atheists.”
… you can’t when jesus and his dad, not to mention his spiritual advisor the holy ghost can’t do email.
I find this sad, even though I live in another country. How can anyone with the barest shred of decency admit to being against science, learning, personal freedoms and protecting people from oppression?
Mindboggling is a word that often comes to mind when I visit this site and read what the newest batshit loonery is.
What has to happen to the US before these people realise the error of their ways? Oh yeah, I forgot – they’re going to raptured up before that happens.
Sheesh.
Holy crap, the irony…
don’t freak, it’s just one of the landover baptist regulars having some fun.
visit the site.
it’s all parody.
@#42:
Your kind will do anything they can to take away our freedom of speech. Are sites like this even legal? If they are, they certainly shouldn’t be.
Holy crap, the irony…
it really is amazing that any dumbfuck, who thinks that he isn’t brainwashed, finds it impossible to think clearly.
I remember watching James Kennedy (who is dead thank goodness) on TV lying about Darwin, and the gullible sheep listening to him just sat there like zombies, believing everything he said.
I wonder if these things are additive?
I say they’re multiplicative, just because it’s more fun that way.
Crazy… homosexuals will ruin spiritual health before atheists…? Crazy, crazy…
I think the BIBLE should be #1, and PREACHERS should be #2.
~Dan
http://jazzsick.wordpress.com/
@#64
Check out the website of the poster. It’s a parody.
I wonder if these things are additive?
I say they’re multiplicative, just because it’s more fun that way.
Posted by: Carlie | May 22, 2008 11:37 PM
“things aren’t more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think.” m. l. jorae 1998
I’m an militant atheist homosexual who supports the ACLU and abortion rights, and is in college.
I must be the devil.
I must be the devil.
’bout time you showed up.
I sold my soul for a porsche when I was 15.
I still haven’t gotten it yet, and am really sick of the endless runaround I keep getting from your service dept.
fork it over, damnit!
Woo Hoo, *chants* I’m #2, I’m #2, I’m #2.
@#47 Ichthyic —
No, that’s probably all that can be done, though perhaps we could start at primary education (never to early to begin to develop critical thinking skills)…my point was just that even though our possible actions are very limited, it still involves more than waiting for a few generations…it takes active effort combined with waiting. (Like I’m really one to talk…all the “changing the world” I’ve done could sum up neatly to about zero.)
Somewhat tangentially related, I sometimes wish there were some way to more actively combat the “atheists have no morals” delusion, but I don’t suppose there is…no matter how moral a non-Christian acts, they can just attribute it to the “character of Jesus present in the world” or the “Christian influence on Western ‘secular’ society” or some such nonsense. Maybe teach philosophical foundations of ethics in schools? I don’t know….
I have a hope for the best, prepare for the worst mentality. It works, most of the time.
@#71 Ichthyic —
Don’t you mean pitchfork it over?
“and the zombies listening to him just sat there.”
Fixed it for you.
They must have had the air conditioning set too high. Zombies aren’t real active at colder temperatures.
@#54:
I don’t know, but the common objections to the ACLU are that they defend the free speech rights of Nazis, communists, etc.
Essentially, they defend unpopular speech — that is, free speech, which is most often unjustly quashed when it is unpopular.
If speech is to be free, then unpopular speech must be free too, or else the “freedom” is illusory. This “subtlety” is apparently lost on some people, who seemingly cannot fathom the notion that defending the rights of people they strongly disagree with might be a good thing, even though those rights are the very same ones they themselves enjoy, and want protected for themselves.
It is as if their brain’s capacity for abstraction has been exceeded by one level or something.
…and I don’t think you ever will. Ichthyic, I think you’ve been had.
LOL! :-)
@33,
Just wait until a democrat is elected President, the executive branch will top the list in no time!
I think you’ve been had.
you mean to imply Ellen DeGeneres is the devil?
(link goes to news about DeGeneres marrying again)
No, that’s probably all that can be done
well, to be sure blogs like this and Dawkins’ do seem to be starting to have some effect.
hard to tell whether it will be significant long term yet.
At the very least, the internet has become a place (for better AND worse), to rapidly and easily gain access to relevant information, and that does help to crystallize positions.
It sounds positively creepy, but controlling access to information on the internet might be the next great battlefront.
Etha Williams said:
Yeah, the second one. See, while abortion is murder, at least the innocent soul of the murdered fetus gets into Heaven. Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of god, and anyone who dabbles in gay sex is risking their immortal soul–obviously a much more serious proposition. If gays are allowed to push their agenda on society unchallenged, thousands of souls could be at risk.
At least, I’m guessing that’s the logic. I wouldn’t discount “never thought about the issues very clearly” as a likely candidate either.
See, while abortion is murder, at least the innocent soul of the murdered fetus gets into Heaven.
I keep forgetting; IIRC, the catholics have recently had a change of heart on the matter (before, those “souls” went to limbo).
is there actually a consistent fundie protestant position on that one?
I wouldn’t discount “never thought about the issues very clearly” as a likely candidate either.
there’s no need to discount it; in fact, take it as a given regarding every issue on the “hitlist”.
Yes, atheists are dangerous. Remember that according to Debbie Schlussel we are all just muslim terrorists waiting to happen. (I’m not going to link to that nutjob’s article on this, it was covered here at the beginning of Feb. 2007)
No… I mean to say that Ellen got what you were promised. ;-)
There. Fixed.
@#80 Ichthyic —
Indeed.
I do often wonder how much good (or harm) the internet does. It seems it’s more likely to (in the words of the above linked article) “reach…people with compelling evidences [sic] that support their convictions” than to cause people to change their minds…OTOH, if people’s minds aren’t already completely made up, the open access to all sides could be a positive.
Huh, I can’t seem to find anything on their list about the dangers of divorce to the spiritual health of America.
Crap. I guess we “evangelical nihilists” are going to have to try to improve our framing so we can look more intimidating.
@#82 Ichthyic —
Yes and no. The Pope just released a document (“The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized”) saying that it is ok for catholics to believe that unbaptized babies may go to heaven rather than limbo; he didn’t endorse this view, but called on the faithful to have faith about the matter:
(From the Limbo wikipedia article.)
I doubt there’s a totally consistent fundie position on this one, but a lot of them believe in the “age of accountability” (somewhere around puberty), before which all children, presumably including the unborn, will go to heaven automatically…IIRC this is the view advocated in the horrible Left Behind series.
Indeed.
from that link:
LOL
…which version?
I do often wonder how much good (or harm) the internet does.
It speeds things up, basically.
Overall, having been there from when it was just a bunch of campus network servers to the grand “enterprise” it is now (and that really only took about 10 years), I rather think the instant access to information is a good thing. Just like with any tool or resource, it takes time to learn how to use it correctly. unfortunately, the implications and effects of misuse will be all the grander.
Just like with every major technological improvement that has come before.
We will have to work hard to make sure that internet access to information remains free of obstruction. If China is setting the example for the future, it looks pretty bleak.
@#89 Ichthyic —
Time, and also the desire to learn how to use it correctly…which unfortunately isn’t a universal goal in internet users by any stretch of the imagination.. The willfully ignorant are called willfully ignorant for a reason, after all.
Please, stop right there.
The US –> McCain presidency –> theocracy nightmares are bad enough…..
Has there been any serious attempts to pass such legislation in the States, though? I keep hearing about net neutrality issues, but nothing ever seems to come over it.
That truely makes good christian sense. If we had more gay marriage we’d need less abortions – naw! Atheists running around saying there is no gawd are far worse than someone killing the next sweet baby Jesus – nooo!
Not tithing – now thats the real danger! Whew, almost got confused. Glooow-ry!
Has there been any serious attempts to pass such legislation in the States, though?
yes.
check out the DMCA sometime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
major efforts to consolidate internet infrastructure owners, combined with federal stamps of approval for every merger proposed so far (not even a token thrust at antitrust issues) suggest there is considerable interest in controlling how the internet works.
BTW, US companies (namely Cisco) are the ones that made the technology to control routers available to the Chinese, and sold them the routers to boot.
there are dozens of articles that have been published following the various attempts at information control over the last 10 years, like this one:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/19/net_censorship_hits_all_time/
It might sound like a bit of paranoia, but it’s only logical that any interested entity, corporate or government, would want a hand in controlling information access.
another thing to look at is the massive amount of general media conglomeration that has occurred over the last 20 years as well.
http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1294
there’s a lot of analyses on that issue, but that one’s from my old undergrad alma mater.
I keep hearing about net neutrality issues, but nothing ever seems to come over it.
yeah, that’s the scary thing, actually. There really IS a lot going on, but we rarely hear about it from any of the major media sources.
shocker.
http://www.savetheinternet.com
btw, on the Cisco selling China technology and routers thing…
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=5928
Gack. What a list. Why don’t they call it the “We’re afraid of EVERYTHING” list?
Olorin @ #53: “C’mon! “Atheism” as a spiritual threat only managed to tie with “Other cults and religions.” As a member of another cult or religion (Lutheran), I’m disappointed that we couldn’t beat out the atheists.”
Olorin, you’re just not analyzing the data properly. You (Lutheran) and I (liberal Methodist) might also fall into the “Apathetic and/or uninformed Christian” category, at 79%.
In fact, we moderate and liberal Christians comprise the entire 79%.
The Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., fall into the “Cults and false religions” category, at 82%.
But I’m sure that some large portion of those responding in this category also included us here, instead of in the Apathetic Christian slot. (If you doubt it, I’ve got three words for you . . . John Shelby Spong).
You see, we’re represented in both categories, and so it stands to reason that our total exceeds that of the atheists, who only had 82% and who can’t be included in any other category.
We can only know for sure by doing a follow-up study at Coral Ridge.
The idea makes me want to take a bath. In bleach.
I’ve always wondered how that works, Ichthyic. I’ve been critical of Mao’s government right here, on this blog. So, do these Chinese “workers” now block this blog?
I work on internet programming for a living. I don’t know how they’ll treat this page when I say, “Mao killed tens of millions when he instituted the Great Leap Forward.” Is that it? Is this page now not accessible in China?
Ichthyic @ 82: “is there actually a consistent fundie protestant position on that one [infants going to heaven]?”
No. I attended a funeral a few years ago for a baby who died at 12 months, following a persistent vegetative state. The entire “message” (homily or preaching portion) of the funeral consisted of a prolonged argument about whether or not this child was in heaven. The kid was a vegetable, for Pete’s sake. He couldn’t have sinned if he’d tried.
This was in the largest Baptist church in a university town in East Texas.
The answer, you’ll be relieved to know (for the parents’ sake), was a qualified “YES”. I think. The preacher was so incoherent it was hard to tell.
So, do these Chinese “workers” now block this blog?
I have no way to know, without someone from a blocked area actually sending me an email.
It’s not like they could post here and tell us the site is being blocked.
;)
I work on internet programming for a living. I don’t know how they’ll treat this page when I say, “Mao killed tens of millions when he instituted the Great Leap Forward.” Is that it? Is this page now not accessible in China?
Well, the technology itself is sophisticated enough to simply remove the offending page where the objectionable content appears, and let the rest through. Which is even more insidious, since they can say: “See? we aren’t blocking this site.” while anyone who didn’t know better would be missing various objectionable chunks of it.
Whether or not it is set up to do so in that exact fashion at this point, I’m not sure about.
I have heard independent horror stories about censorship of sites from many Chinese posters (who commonly move back and forth between China and the US), but none have ever detailed how the system actually operates, to the best of my knowledge.
…btw, the only semi-complete study on the issue of Chinese internet censorship I’ve ever looked at is the one cited in that article I linked to from Yale.
this one:
http://opennet.net/studies/china
you can decide for yourself if the testing methods used are sound. I have a bit of experience in the area (was an IT manager once upon a time) and they seem so to me.
…finally, the conclusions from that study:
Ok, that’s enough to paint a picture.
I sometimes have evil thoughts.
I’m not going to tell my worst thoughts, some of which are truly nasty, but I did have an idea that is both evil and amusing, so here it is:
Stealth deprogramming.
Send out mailings to fundamentalist churches, preferably those with large percentages of young people. The mailings will offer a free seminar in “Countering Atheists and Darwinists”, or something similarly worded.
The seminars should be pitched as being important to “Know thy Enemy”.
Then fill the seminar with the best and most eloquent analysis and deconstructions of religion out there, and a summary of basic science and the philosophy thereof. Precede each segment or portion with “Now, here’s another one that they like to use”, or similar. Conclude each segment with “And we’ll get to the truly killer counterarguments in the 2nd half of this seminar.”
(you can see where this is going, right?)
At the end of the first half, regardless of whether it’s a half day or a full day or whatever, smile and say “Wow, that’s pretty intense stuff there. OK, we’re going to take a break. Think very hard over each of these atheist arguments, and pray for the souls of the sorts of minds that could come up with them. As I said, we’ll crush them all in the second half of the seminar.”
Then, of course, drive away and never come back.
Heh.
Then, of course, drive away and never come back.
unfortunately, deprogramming requires followup, or the original sources of influence will re-initialize the cult belief structures.
;)
still, I’d be curious what the results would be. Oddly enough, a friend and coworker of mine and I were at one time drawing up pamphlets that would look just like the Jehova’s Witness ones, but be based on evolution instead. We would go door to door with them as “Darwin’s witnesses”. We actually made a basic pamphlet, but lost interest when the business we both worked at folded (neither of us had any time to do anything but look for more work after that).
I just love these two together:
Religious Freedom Issues
6. If Christians don’t take action, how likely is it that the federal government will pass a law making it a “hate crime” for pastors and others to speak out against homosexuality and religions like Islam–as other countries have done?
[78] Very [10] Somewhat [4] Not very [8] Undecided
7. How important is it to protect public displays of Christian expression, such as the Ten Commandments, from restrictions by groups like the ACLU?
[91] Very [3] Somewhat [0] Not very [6] Undecided
but if the federal government tried to pass such a law, the ACLU would be first in line to fight it, acting to protect the “pastors and others”. That’s why I pay dues to the ACLU.
How about a slogan? This one might resonate in the U.S.
“I get my morality from the constitution. Where do you get yours? – American Atheists”
I renewed my ACLU membership today, and it felt real good.
Wait, I have a better one….
“Whose conscience are you listening to? – An Atheist”
Damn. I’ve been an ACLU member for decades, but I never thought about getting a bumper sticker. Something catchy, like “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”
It needs its own phobia name then.
Fear of books is bibliophobia, but the people in the US who hate and fear education will generally claim to like the Bible. If there were to be an arabic-derived islamic-equivalent name instead, it would probably have been something like koranophobia (obviously not with that same ending though!).
Fear of learning is sophophobia and is the obvious match. Yet it’s somewhat inappropriate given the way learning isn’t the same now as it was back then. Sophistry is the bad stuff and thus it’s entirely rational to dislike it. There ought to be a more modern form.
It’s probably mostly a subset of the fear of anything new though – and there are a lot of names for that, eg kainophobia. However, it’s less specific than fear of complex scientific terminology, hellenologophobia, and more advanced than fear of school, scolionophobia or didaskaleinophobia.
Perhaps there needs to be further research in order to find out what the most feared elements of “colleges and universities” actually are. I doubt the campus buildings are the scary part.
I would rank the ACLU #1 and then make a distinction for militant Atheists as #2 and our communist liberal friends as #3. I think California needs to apologize to Russia.
Makes perfect sense.
I dunno, SEF… the Hunter Building would make a wicked haunted house…
If we give it a greek name, that would be too learned, and they’ll never listen to us.
I’m not sure if NZ has an ACLU equivalent. I guess the public takes care of that. When the Destiny Church marched against gay marriage (picture 3000 people from troubled homes in black t-shirts, fists in the air, chanting “Enough is enough”), they got twice the number of ordinary citizens marching the other way.
As for rationalist slogans… “God didn’t write the Constitution”
Oh, hey, Kenny!
I don’t see what you’re getting at, but it’s nice to know you’d put us right up there…
But where would you put homosexuals?
They are not afraid of education. They are afraid of a religion that has been shoved into education right through the back door. Secular humanism is a religion and it doesn’t matter what anyone here thinks. That is just arguing semantics. It is what it is.
There is a reason why I took Computer Science courses and not biology. :)
I have lived in the biggest cities out there. New York City, Los Angeles, and I live north of San Francisco now.
I turn 40 late this year and I have seen things go down the tubes. I didn’t have any school shottings when I went to public high school back in 1984-1987.
The liberals in their attempt to push for their so called “progress” they have made our society worse IN MY OPINION. (Just so you kids can’t say that I LIED).
That is why people who are religious are not going to take that garbage anymore.
I mean in Los Angeles a lot of the kids are allowed to graduate without being able to read or write. Do some internet research and you will see what I mean. (I have seen the studies but I am again not going to try to find it and spend hours looking for it and posting it for you because you are too lazy to find it).
>Oh, hey, Kenny!
>
>I don’t see what you’re getting at, but it’s nice to know >you’d put us right up there…
>
>But where would you put homosexuals?
It’s all the same to me. Not the people themselves the but the organizations that put this lovely agenda on my TV. Like tonight, you have to get that lesbian kiss on TV. The writers are full of liberal agenda. That’s their job.
Progression at all costs. It doesn’t have to make sense and it doesn’t have to have a limit. Just do whatever you feel like. That is where it is leading. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with total progression is a hate filled person.
Sorry, just filling in the rest of it.
K, Kenny, first thing, when we ask you to find something for us, it’s because you know which area to look and we don’t. Special knowledge and stuff.
Secondly, from my position, as a 19 year old, I like where we are. I don’t regard sexual liberation as a bad thing. Society is moving online, and if you don’t see the good stuff anymore, that’s because none of your friends are on MSN or Facebook.
School shootings… I bet guns were harder to get hold of in those days. Even so, there were atrocities. We studied one during the war, where a farmer went mad and killed nine people, and the home guard hunted him down. They just weren’t media frenzies at the time.
And Kenny, why are they so afraid of this “religion”? Yes, I personally believe it’s not a religion, it’s what you get before you apply the sick, twisted overlay you call religion. But I’m not going to argue semantics with you :).
Surely their faith is strong enough to survive any assaults? Surely the love of god is more tempting than any ephemeral passion? Surely the evidence that god has made is important to understanding his creation?
Carl Sagan said it best:
“In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.”
And that is why you should have studied biology, little man.
…what?
Yeah, Kenny… you know why they’re pushing the “liberal agenda”?
because the conservative agenda doesn’t sell. People don’t seem to want it on prime time.
And, if you actually studied the “liberal agenda”, and the evidence for it, without dismissing it out of hand, you’d see that it was carefully thought out. We’ve been working on it and gradually refining it for the last three hundred years, working for heaven on earth. And we’d love to have you guys join in. Think about it. If everyone’s happy, there’s no barrier to loving your neighbour, is there? Liberal christians see that and stick with the side that’s working for good. You guys, on the other hand, draw a false line and say “We’re on this side, you’re on that side, we’re going to heaven, you’re not”. You could be working with us, but instead you fight and kill and wreck peoples’ lives for no reason but that you’re scared, and you want to share that with other people.
>but if the federal government tried to pass such a law,
>the ACLU would be first in line to fight it, acting to
>protect the “pastors and others”. That’s why I pay dues to
>the ACLU.
WELL IN MY OPINION THAT USED TO BE THE CASE BUT IN MY OPINION THAT IS NO LONGER TRUE. YES, I DID SAY IN MY OPINION AND I AM TYPING IN UCASE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ON HERE CAN’T READ. NOW THEY JUST SEEM TO BE A LIBERAL ORGANIZATION. EVERYTIME I SEE THEM FIGHT, IT IS AGAINST CHRISTIANITY AND NOT FOR IT.
Sorry for the caps but thats because nobody can read anything I write and they skip over what I put down.
You have a point there Kenny…
On May 20, 1970, the New York Times reported that 50 percent of the American population over the age of 25 were functional illiterates. The census bureau in 1968 estimated that in 1968, half the population over 25 had less than a 12th grade education. This is the generation in which PZ Meyers comes from (maybe he’s a bit older…lol), now you know why the public school system needs vast improvements.
The standards of the past are higher than the standards nowadays. Learning about culture is more important than the basic 3’s (reading, writing and math). Granted, now all public schools have poor results, some do in fact have some success. Just like not all private schools are good, some have poor results. But many more have better results…
Kenny, I can read it, I’m trying to argue you point-for-point but some of your arguments are just too stupid to need refutation.
Kenny, maybe the ACLU is fighting christians these days because christians are the only ones breaching others’ rights. Christian has been redefined from love to hate, and that means you breach peoples’ rights, and that means ACLU will fight you.
Ok, atheists, take heart, we are actually better than #9 on the list. Let us do the fundie math, shall we? Right, atheists get 82 but so did cults and false religion. We have all heard from Kenny and J that we are cults, and I have often been told I am not really an atheist, just misguided. Therefore, we add 82 to 82 and get 164% = atheists at the top of the list. If you want to stretch, we can also include the 79 from apathetic and uniformed xtians, because we would be xtians if we only read the bible and listented. And that gives us a count of…hang on, need to take off my shoes…243%. Wow, impressive…go atheists!!!
Ciao
Michael! Focus!
The war’s out there, man!
the war’s out there!
First we push the liberal agenda, THEN we get education back on track, mmmkay?
Sounds to me like an excellent advert for the ACLU!
If you want to really annoy the religious nuts, then you know who to give your money to.
>Kenny, maybe the ACLU is fighting christians these days
>because christians are the only ones breaching others’
>rights. Christian has been redefined from love to hate,
>and that means you breach peoples’ rights, and that means
>ACLU will fight you.
Well why do they even need to fight at all. I mean you haven’t heard to be fair to all other’s rights? If I put a religious symbol up can’t others do the same?
Religious rights should be able to be expressed no matter what the religion is.
Why is it that if I put a cross on my email that it is so offensive? When did we become so intolerant of other’s beliefs?
You’d have to cite the specific incident for me to believe the ACLU sued someone for putting a cross on his email…
generally they go against government establishment of religion, like putting the symbols of one religion in front of a court or, yes, on an official government email. Private citizens are fine, though.
Kenny:
Check out this list of cases:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
Notably, the ACLU is defending the Westboro Baptist Church protests. This supports the notion that they defend all free speech even the unpopular or outright disgusting.
>You could be working with us, but instead you fight and
>kill and wreck peoples’ lives for no reason but that
>you’re scared, and you want to share that with other
>people.
I don’t kill or try to wreck anyone’s lives. I am not scared of anything like that. I just see what is really happening and I tell it like it really is.
>Notably, the ACLU is defending the Westboro Baptist Church
>protests. This supports the notion that they defend all
>free speech even the unpopular or outright disgusting.
I read the list but where are the ones that protest against religion. Those are the ones that I read all the time.
Just to highlight this point, the Anti-Christian ACLU:
* defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show
* argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg
* defended the free exercise and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of Las Vegas.
* filed a lawsuit defending the right of a Christian who wished to exercise both religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: “Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don’t Shop There”
Kenny:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
Have a link to a page of cases where the ACLU has defended religious freedom, of course, you will probably find some way to deny it or claim that it isn’t enough. Unfortunately, enough for you means the rest of us just giving up and letting you lot have your theocracy where you would have total control over all of us. Assuming you let us non believers live without trying to force us to become believers that is, as was standard practise for a long time for xians.
A few times on other threads I have had a dig at you for your stupidity in posts and later slightly regretted it when on reading more of your posts thought you were just an adolescent who didn’t know any better. However, in this thread I learn that you are over 40 and realise that unfortunately, you probably are well past any chance of recovery. I pity you and this world full of fear of the different you appear to live in.
Kenny, you hate and wreck and destroy just by being religious. Teaching your children religion is, in my eyes, a form of child abuse. This is JUST MY OPINION.
Gary re #21,
Just curious, do you have any idea how old Richard Dawkins is?
William, sorry for the repeat link, I was typing while you were posting :) Though like I suggested in my post, I see Kenny is still not seeing it. I really have to wonder if Kenny has some kind of problem, perhaps being educationally subnormal. Not that there is anything wrong with that as such, but it would explain his inability to read and understand the link we gave him. Either that, or his brain just automatically switches off whenever it is asked to read something that may make him think he is wrong about something. Then again, in Kenny’s world, if the ACLU mainly defended freedom religion but on one occasion defended someone against the encroachment of religion, that would negate everything they had done when fighting for freedom of religion.
Hey Kenny,
Any chance you could explain why you don’t believe in any of these 2850 other deities? http://www.godchecker.com/
Now tell us again why yours is THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD.
Hmmm seems like the ACLU is gonna have it’s work cut out for it though.
No fair, JeffreyD, you can’t have “False religions and cults” OR “Apathetic and/or uninformed Christians.”
Olorin called dibs on the “False religions” in post 53, and I claimed “Apathetic Christians” in post 96.
Just to be nice, I’ll split “False religions” with you ’cause you played the Kenny card to get it. But not down the middle, mind. That’s fair; we both know you don’t REALLY have any religious mojo going on. But I’m feeling generous, so you can have 30 of those percentage points.
That makes the final score
79 + 52 = 131 for apostate Christians
and
82 + 30 = 112 for atheists
Hot damn! We win!
Kenny said:
But Kenny, you were the one who said you only had read about the ACLU protesting against religious encroachment. Now that we give you a long list of examples in which the ACLU has fought to defend religious freedom you ask us to show you lists of the opposite. If they are the ones you read all the time, then it should certainly be easier for you to give us the links for such cases. After all, they are the ones you yourself say you are aware of. Or are you just making shit up as you go along or simply parroting what some other fundie has told you.
BTW, No one here has ever denied that the ACLU does defend against religion encroaching in areas the Constitution says it doesn’t belong. The main reason for that is that religion, or rather those who practise it, are constantly trying to push religion into areas it doesn’t belong, such as IDiotism in the science classroom. If various xian cults (all religion is a cult to me) didn’t try to force their agenda on all, non believers included, then us and the ACLU would just get on with our lives. Until then, we need the ACLU, actually so do the religious as the is freedom for and from religion.
Imagine if in the future, your Constitution didn’t give you freedom to be a xian or not a xian and say, for example, the muslims became a majority. First thing they decide to do is to make Islam the state religion on the road to turning it into a muslim theocracy. A bit like how today’s fundies would love to turn the US into a fundie xian theocracy, the ultimate goal of the Dishonesty Institute BTW. How do you think you would feel them, without the protection for the freedom for and from religion the Constitution gives individuals. All the ACLU does is to try an ensure that the freedoms granted in the Constitution apply to all. But, truth be told, you don’t really want freedom for all, only for your in-group.
Leigh, re your #135 – HERETIC! I plan to get the ACLU to ban you from this blog!!! (Laughing)
OK, time to clean the coffee off my screen, you think I would learn by now not to drink and read. I concede your math skills, so I will just make things up. Atheists win because the giant purple bats told me we are the biggest threat, by at least 200%. You cannot argue with that, it is revealed knowledge and thus not subject to debate in any form or fora.
A chuckling ciao
Leigh: with logic and maths like that I must admit that you apostate xians are obviously more dangerous than us poor atheists. It comes to something when other xians are regarded as more dangerous than the amoral/immoral (take your pick, I’m easy :)) godless, what is the world coming to, the rapture must be just round the corner for the ‘real’ xians :)
And for Pharyngulites, you may want one of these to replace your Darwin fish.
http://www.godchecker.com/gotw/012_holy_snail.php
I would rank the ACLU #1 and then make a distinction for militant Atheists as #2 and our communist liberal friends as #3. I think California needs to apologize to Russia.
Makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Kenny | May 23, 2008 5:09 AM
Oh, good, the worthless parody fuckwit is back.
Kenny,
[sarcasm]It is MY OPINION that Kenny has sexual relations with underaged dead goats. This is just MY OPINION.[/sarcasm]
Kenny, you need to actually justify your statements. You are not entitled to YOUR OPINION.
There is no difference between “fact” and “opinion”. These are merely attempts to approximate reality expressed with different levels of confidence. Either can be bullshit, and either can be a lie.
CRM is located in Ft Lauderdale. DJ Kennedy passed away last year. I think that he was one of the first guys to put together the whole TV-radio-megachurch model. It was all DJ all the time. The scale of CRM is a magnitude smaller than the new crop of supersized ministries (it has a very 1960’s feel). He was on the radio all the time and they still run his sermons on TV in reruns. The guy was absolutely relentless on these few issues. I bet they are fading quick, the area around the church is super expensive. The gay-guy house fixer-flipper neighborhoods are encrouching.
The ACLU is dangerous when it starts talking about tobacco:
ACLU: The ACLU believes that the breadth of the prohibition on tobacco advertisements far exceeds constitutional boundaries, and, if enacted, will most likely fail to withstand constitutional challenge. Moreover, we believe the enactment of the proposed tobacco advertising restrictions would drastically curtail commercial speech and could have a chilling effect on the right of the public and businesses to engage in free speech about controversial subjects. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent for regulating a broad range of advertisements for other products or services that are perceived as unsuitable for children or are otherwise controversial. The ACLU, therefore, urges extreme caution when considering any legislative enactment or regulatory scheme that provides authority for government suppression of truthful, non-misleading consumer information about lawful products.
Boo and hiss.
Kenny…
YOU GABBLING LIMPET!
I put that in caps, because it’s obvious you can’t read.
You still won’t admit that you were wrong about the ACLU, or incorporate into your knowledge base the FACT that they’ve taken many, many cases – a hundred, or more – in which they’ve defended freedom of religious expression.
The FACT, Kenny. The FACT. This is not about OPINION. It is about FACT.
If you can’t admit this, then you’re a dishonest coward.
By now, unfortunately, you’ve proven than you can’t admit it. You’ve been given many, many opportunities to respond to this challenge and have discarded them all. I conclude that you are, in fact, a dishonest coward, sorely lacking in the those two ingredients essential to the makeup of a man of integrity.
It’s semi-literate ideologues like you who are dragging this country down. Are you ashamed yet? You should be.
Kseniya: <3
but he’ll never be ashamed. He’s doing the lord’s work.
I support a scoring system whereby each of us gets a certain number of units of evil (PZs?) based on which groups we’re in. So, for example, I am a gay, liberal atheist with a college education, and I’ve written letters to my congresscritters in support of ACLU issues.
So I get, let’s see… carry the one… 1.42 kiloPZs.
I think. My calculator broke.
PZ, of course, gets infinity PZs.
The greatest threat to the spiritual health of an individual, a family, a community, a nation, or a world is religious fundamentalism. That’s my opinion, of course.
Joel @ #4:
For these nuts, stupidity is a sacrament.
I ate an opinion raw, once. It made my eyes water.
;)
Does anyone else find it interesting that they equate “spirituality” with “christianity”? (Or maybe someone has, but I’m not going to read 149 responses before work.)
So evolution is #7 but atheism is only #9? But I thought the danger of evolution was that it led to atheism.(?)
I’m late to this thread, but that about put me on my knees from laughing hysterically.
its knees, where it can do what it’s supposed to.
works for me… |-P
ON it’s knees! ON it’s knees!
damn – I really should preview before posting
I wish you would. Some of us around here expect commenting perfection.
/self deprecating sarcasm off
Your OPINION means shit without anything backing it up.
On the plus side, Coral Ridge Pres has a magnificent 6-division Ruffati organ.
Hey, I’m a pro-choice homosexual atheist. I must be, like, number -15 on their list.
Damnitt, I missed a kenny appearance.
Actually, Kenny, there’s been a profound increase in school shootings since the Republicans gained control of the Federal Government.
In the thirty years prior to 1995, when the GOP took majority control over both houses of Congress, there were 13 noteable school shootings in the USA, causing approximately 58 fatalities.
That’s .43 shootings and 1.9 fatalities per year.
Of those shootings, 4 shootings (25 fatalities) occurred during Democratic presidencies (covering 10 years), while 9 shootings (33 fatalities) occurred during the Republican presidencies (covering 20 years).
Over the next twelve years, up to the point where the Dems regained control of the House in 2007, there were 26 noteable school shootings, resulting in 75 fatalities.
That’s 2.2 shootings and 6.3 fatalities per year.
Of those 26, 12 shootings, totalling 40 fatalities, occurred during the Clinton administration. That’s 2 shootings and 6.7 fatalities per year.
The remaining 14 occurred since G. W. Bush took office, and resulted in 35 fatalities. That’s 2.3 shootings and 5.8 fatalities per year.
Since 2007, there have been 8 shootings totalling 46 fatalities. That’s roughly 5.3 shootings and 30.7 fatalities per year.
I think I got the arithmetic right, but my eyes are still kinda blearly, so who knows? :-)
Ok then. To summarize:
During Democratic Presidencies:
Republican Presidencies:
Democratic Congress:
Republican Congress:
What does this tell us?
Why, nothing, of course. It shows some correlation between school shootings and a Republican-controlled Congress, but tells us nothing about causation. Anyway, the rate of increase is more significant than the raw numbers or the yearly averages, and it’s clear that the rate has increased dramatically since the GOP took over the Congress, but again, what does that prove? Nothing.
Of course, shallow intellects like Kenny’s are quick to pin these things on “liberals”, because that’s what they’ve been brainwashed to do.
“The ACLU only defends liberals and atheists.” Demonstrably false.
“School shootings have increased due to liberal influences on our country.” Completely unsupported; evidence suggests otherwise, given the very obvious swing to the Right taken by the USA over the last quarter-century.
Liberal progress like gay marriage rights (in two, count’em two of fifty states – be afraid, be very afraid) are the exception, not the rule, to the general direction the country has taken. (Would you believe that I saw something on the web the other day describing Jimmy Carter as an “ultra-left-wing liberal President”? Need I say more?)
Anyone with any “common sense” (heh heh) knows that the social forces driving the increase in school shootings are far too complex to pin on any one thing, but of course it’s convenient to pin it on the group you abhor. May as well just call ’em Nazis and be done with it – right, Ben Stein?
JeffreyD, I just yesterday finished re-reading The God Delusion, so I’m fully immunized against your giant-purple-bat woo. Too bad for you.
I’m going to calculate my units of evil:
The ACLU and similar groups………….check……..900 PZs
(I give money to Texas Freedom
Network, MoveOn, the DNC, the
ACLU, People for the American
Way, Habitat for Humanity,
NARAL, Americans United for
the Separation of Church and
State, and the NCSE)
Pro-homosexual indoctrination…………check……..200 PZs
(I’m a member of the Human Rights
Campaign)
Abortion (I’m pro-choice)………………..check……..200 PZs
Darwinism/evolution………………………check……..100 PZs
Apathetic/uninformed Christians……….check…….1000 PZs
Colleges and Universities)………………..check……..400 PZs
(100 for a BS, 300 for an
MS, 700 for a PhD)
Not a Republican………………………….check……..200 PZs
(they forgot this one)
SO . . . .
Looks like I score 3.0 MPZs
I think this should be a logarithmic scale — clearly someone who scores in 5 categories is MUCH more than 5 times as evil. I also suggest:
1 MPZ for being atheist
1 MPZ for being gay/lesbian/bi/trans
3 MPZ for having a PhD in biology
4 MPZ for writing a book supporting atheism
3 MPZ for writing a blog supporting atheism
3 MPZ for writing a blog supporting evolution
and turn down the random apostrophiser :-)
“its”: possessive
“it’s”: contraction
SteveM: unless you grew up in the UK where it’s is the possessive! ;)
Man – that really caused me all sorts of grief in presentations. I had a major US grammar Nazi for a boss back in the day!
having said that… it still causes me grief! (I’m trying to learn amuhrikin but I ain’t no native!)
tony
I just had a follow-up notion to my #102…
Rather than a seminar, perhaps a free DVD. Again, the first part would be packed with careful and clear arguments against religion and for science, couched in the language of “Well, this is the sort of thing non-believers say.”
At first, I thought that perhaps the second part would be just a blank screen, or a test pattern, or static. But then I realized: Introduce the second part as follows: “Who are we mere mortals to speak for the mighty, awesome, all-powerful, and all-knowing God? Rather, and instead, we invite and pray for God to speak for himself, here before us. Please, O God, refute these atheist arguments!”
And then just leave the camera running, for the same amount of time as the first part. And then close with “Thank you, God!”. And that’s the end.
THEN YOUR OPINION IS BIASED, BIGOTED, FALSE, AND WRONG.
HTH!
Speaking of opinions… Judges write “opinions”. But y’know, first they hear all of the evidence and arguments, on both sides of the issue. They don’t just reject one side out of hand.
Whereas fundamentalists ignore any evidence and arguments against what they have convinced themselves of.
Good job living up to the stereotype of deliberate ignorance, there.
SteveM: unless you grew up in the UK where it’s is the possessive! ;)
Sorry, did not know that! No more apostrophe-nazi for me!
I haven’t read all the comments, and am getting into this pretty late, but I’m pretty sure I took this particular survey. I signed up to receive all of Coral Ridge Ministry’s free pamphlets and materials–including the classic diatribe against the “Satanic” Shriners–and now receive all of their mass emails and surveys. I, of course, take all of their surveys and answer them with my honest opinion. Some of the questions have so much shit packed into them that I find offensive , and such limited responses, that I find myself staring blankly at them wondering which response best reflects my desired answer. I ranked cults and false religions as my greatest fear. I encourage individuals to sign up for any of these organizations’ free mailings. They often come with postage paid return envelopes for sending donations. There’s very little I can do to stop these assholes, but I can add to their costs and recycle whatever hate-filled screed they’re willing to send me for free–no tree deserves to be put to service in such a shameful, offensive cause. Plus, most of the stuff I get is so strange it makes me wonder how some individuals’ perceptions of reality could be so skewed.
Are you guys scientists? Geez. Here’s how to calculate a threat level….
Say you’re a gay ACLU supporter. For being gay you’re 95% evil, 5% not evil….but, your ACLU support means 96% of your 5% is still evil….thats a total of 99.8% evil.
So, PZ is 82% evil for atheism, 85% for pro evolution, making him a total of 97.3 % right there. I’m not going to keep going on all his other fine attributes, but he’s ahead of a mere ACLU supporter with nothing else to recommend them!
Speaking as a UK person myself: no, “it’s” isn’t the possessive.
#124: “When did we become so intolerant of other’s beliefs?”
When? For me it was when some Muslim assholes murdered 3,000 people on 9/11/2001. Later I noticed Christian assholes were constantly trying to stick their stupidity into our governments and schools. If the suicide bombings ever end, and if the Christian morons learn how to keep their insanity in their churches, I will be happy to ignore them.
When did we become so intolerant of other’s beliefs?
Says the asswipe complaining about lesbians on television.
SEF@171: Mea culpa. It’s true. it’s my own fault. I suffer greatly from apostrophoritis – it’s a debilitating disease with no known cure.
Kenny, I admire your courage in the face of these monkey-worshipping wingnuts. These days if any member of the Christian majority of this nation tries to speak up in favor of Jesus, we’re immediately persecuted by the leftist loons. Don’t let their Satanic “facts” or “logic” dissuade you from the excellent job you’re doing witnessing the Good News. We’ve got faith on our side and laws that are as valid today as they were at the beginning of time 6000 years ago! PRAISE! If it were up to Mayers and his cronies, we’d all be marrying our same-sex ape “cousins”.
God bless you, Kenny, and keep up the good work.
No. Wrong.
This might be helpful in understanding where these nuts at Coral Ridge and their Dominionist friends at Focus on the Family are coming from.
Now, most of us have seen or heard about a “biblical worldview”, but I don’t think most pharyngulites really know what that entails.
Here, in a nutshell, is what Dominionists consider a “biblical worldview”-
A biblical worldview is defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views.
Those views are that:
– Jesus Christ lived a sinless life
– God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today
– Salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned
– Satan is real
– A Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people
– The Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.
Now, the good news is that based on a 2003 survey done by the Barma Group, only 4% of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of their decision-making.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=154
The bad news is that this 4% wants to impose their “biblical worldview” on the rest of us.
From the study –
“Adults with a biblical worldview possessed radically different views on morality, held divergent religious beliefs, and demonstrated vastly different lifestyle choices.
People’s views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview. Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively); 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%); 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%); 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%); and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview).”
You can see this in the results of the Coral Ridge survey, as these people concentate their thoughts on sin and fear, rather than the positive moral teachings of Jesus.
Somebody get me a drink!
Mrs. Mary M. Whitford.
I want you to have my monkey baby.
“When did we become so intolerant of other’s beliefs?”
Since we decided that whilst tolerance was a thing worth making great efforts to promote, there was a problem with those espousing intolerance.
strange that the threats to “spiritual” health are each important to the material health of individuals. Why is it that one persons spiritual health is threatened by anothers material health?
re: Apostrophe in “it’s”. I get it. I. Was. Wrong.
re175
I didn’t know this was a pro Dubya blog!
It’s (very) old news, but speaking of Internet censorship —
Harun Yahya (aka Adnan Oktar, aka That Crazy Turkish Creationist) got all of wordpress .
I should really use preview.
Here is the link.
@#167 Owlmirror —
You mean those liberal activist judges who routinely violate the WILL OF THE PEOPLE? Lest we forget, 81% of respondents said courts were “very” dangerous to the spiritual health of America…
Wowbagger @ #62:
Your error is in the unfounded assumption that the Christianist nutcases possess the barest shred of human decency.
Paul Brown @ #54:
You have to realize, most of the people objecting are batshit insane. They’ve been brainwashed with all sorts of ridiculous lies about the ACLU, how they exist only to destroy christianity or some such bullshit. When these nuts are shown vast amounts of actual evidence of the ACLU defending christians, they deny it ever happened or concoct ever more insane conspiracy theories. These people do not live in the real world. Kenny, in this very thread, is a prime example.
SteveC @ #76:
Of course, not all the ACLU haters are motivated entirely by insanity. The leaders, who spread the lies, are often quite aware that the ACLU exists to prevent unjust restrictions on unpoplular speech. And that’s their problem. They want unjust restrictions on unpopular speech, as long as it’s someone else’s. Any talk of “freedom” from these wannabe dictators is just a doublethink smokescreen.
How about 6.66 hectoPZs?
How about 6.66 hectoPZs?
How about hectorPZs, named for Hector Avalos?
Kenny @ #118:
And do you have the slightest shred of evidence to back up this “OPINION” fo yours? Of course not, you never have, and you never will. In fact, you’ve been proven wrong multiple times, but you won’t admit it. That’s called LYING Kenny. I seem to recall that being a big no-no in that precious book of yours.
Oh, how cute, the nutcase who’s been repeatedly proven wrong on this very issue but willfully ignores the evidence is insulting everyone else’s intelligence. What a wonderful illustration of projection, Kenny.
Oh, noes, teh dam libruls is destroying Amurika!111!eleventyone!!!
Kenny, do you even have the slightest fucking idea what “liberal” means, aside from the pile of strawmen stuffed into your hollow head by right-wing nutjobs?
Really, what is it with your insane hatred of all things “liberal”? I know it’s standard for right-wing nutjobs, but what has to be wrong with your brain to actually believe that anyone not mindlessly obedient to the farthest-right fringe of the Republican party is the devil?
Then you obviously haven’t looked very hard, asshat.
You’ve made claims about the ACLU that are patently false. When informed that you were wrong, you fled in terror, never daring to admit your error. Screaming that it’s your OPINION doesn’t absolve you of responsibility to tell the truth. Isn’t your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
Then there’s your psychotic fantasy of a vast gay conspiracy to exterminate christians. I’m not sure whether to attribute that to projecting your own desire to murder gay people, or some kind of twisted expression of your own repressed homosexuality. In any case, you’re obviously insane, and you haven’t the slightest fucking idea what you’re talking about.
These are not mutually exclusive, of course.
I’m sure that something very sad and very painful is going on inside his head.
I wonder if his problem has something to with his atheist brother-in-law? Perhaps he feels an attraction, which makes Kenny feel depressed and suicidal, which is why he comes here to accuse atheists of wanting to kill Christians who say negative things about homosexuality?
Upon finding out that we’re such a clear and present danger to the religious, anybody else have a desire to re-enact the bar scene from Seagal’s Out for Justice?
I never got to be a big, scary, formidable foe before (except for the time I was mistakenly arrested at 17 with a really bad-ass charge. But that’s another story.)
“Anybody seen Jesus? I’m gonna keep comin’ back here until somebody remembers seein’ Jesus!”
Hey Kenny, you big fuckin’ mameluke, you. Boo! I’m gonna getcha!
@#118 Kenny —
Out of all of Kenny’s moronic statements, this has to be one of my favorites…the idiocy of thinking that writing in all caps will make people less likely to skip over what one writes is truly astounding.
>That’s called LYING Kenny. I seem to recall that being a
>big no-no in that precious book of yours.
>Then you obviously haven’t looked very hard, asshat.
>Oh, how cute, the nutcase
>I’m not sure whether to attribute that to projecting your
>own desire to murder gay people, or some kind of twisted
>expression of your own repressed homosexuality. In any
>case, you’re obviously insane, and you haven’t the >slightest fucking idea what you’re talking about.
Why don’t you come back and act like a human being and then I can respond. I am not going to respond to your post if all you can do is insult people. I take it you are probably in your twenties and you need to learn some social skills. Don’t worry it will get better I promise.
Why don’t you come back and act like a human being and then I can respond. I am not going to respond to your post if all you can do is insult people.
Kenny, the Christian thing to do would be to ignore he insults and respond to the valid points made in between. The dishonest thing to do is to focus on the insults and ignore the valid points. Seems you’ve made your choice.
Yes, Steve, that’s the choice Kenny always makes.
Let me try this again:
What about the ACLU, Kenny? Can you admit you were wrong, and that the ACLU *does* defend freedom of religious expression, and not just the concerns of “atheists and liberals” as you mistakenly claimed?
Kenny, if you don’t want to be called a liar, then quit lying.
If you don’t want to be called a nutcase, stop babbling paranoid delusional conspiracy theories.
If you don’t like having your ignorance pointed out, you can try some actual learning.
But you won’t. You’ve been given plenty of evidence that you’re wrong, but you never even acknowledge it. You are obviously delusional, anyone who reads your idiotic posts can see that clearly.
If you don’t want to be ridiculed, then stop making yourself such an attractive target.
If you have anything worthwhile to say, stop whining about how teh dam libruls is conspiring to have you murdered and actually say something worthwhile. Judging from every post of yours I’ve ever seen, you are not capable of doing this. Until you show some sign of a thought process, something other than parrotting long-debunked bullshit, you aren’t worthy of anything more than ridicule and derision.
It’s not my fault that your every post is filled with delusional fantasies, unsupported assertions, and outright lies.
Kseniya @ #195:
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and predict a “no”. He’s never showed any interest in the truth before, why would he now?
PZ, I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/2008ENDOFResults.htm
The other answers- and questions themselves- reveal the extent of the fantasy world these people live in. It’s laughable.
Kenny, what about the correlation between the ascendency of Republican control in Congress, and the sharp increase in school shootings? Do you have an informed opinion about that? Or just the usual gabbling-limpet rap?
What about the obvious long-term national shift to the Right, despite the constant Rightest pity-pot whining about alleged liberal media bias and the so-called liberal agenda? How do you explain that?
Do you think a liberal media would go out of its way to paint the ACLU as a vindictively anti-religious organization as a way of fooling people like you into believing that the ACLU only defends atheist and liberal concerns? What possible motivation would a liberal media have for turning the majority of Americans against an organization that, according to you, serves the very same interests of the media? What’s you informed opinion about that? Do you have one? Remember, I said informed opinion. Informed.
What about public broadcasting? Are you aware that NPR does not display a liberal slant? Forget about what you’ve heard, it’s not true. NPR is middle-of-the-road, perhaps even slightly to the right, particularly during the modern era of GOP rule. If it seems liberal to you in comparison to other media outlets, that means all the other media outlets are right-of-center.
Comprende, amigo? Liberal media bias is something of a myth. (Well, I can see that you enjoy myths, so maybe I’m pursuing the wrong angle, here.)
Do you have any facts to contradict my claims, or are you just going to hem and haw and bitch and moan about how difficult it is to be part of the ruling majority, while accomplishing little beyond exposing your own ignorance and intellectual vapidity?
Am I being impolite? Oh – I’m sorry! Don’t forget, I’m the one who defended you against charges of “bold-faced lying” on the ACLU point, and I assured your accusers that you were simply mistaken. And yet you’ve ignored every single one of my attempts to discuss this with you. Was that polite?
While I would like to commend you on your unbiased view of race relations and the Obama candidacy, and would like to point out that amidst my admittedly aggressive criticisms of your lack of response on the ACLU question I did go out of my way to characterize you as “a gentle soul who means well”, let’s also not overlook the fact that in your very first comment on this blog, you stated that atheists had no morals. Was that polite?
Have you apologized for that empty accusation? Have you apologized for any of the insulting nonsense you’ve spouted off, here? Have you admitted a single error, or exhibited even the slightest inclination or ability to learn something new?
Well?
Question:
Is everybody still enjoying monkey Kenny?
really?
I suppose it’s good to always have at least one regular nutter around as a representative example of what xianity can do to your brain.
sure does seem an awful waste of a thread though.
could we set some “monkey Kenny rules”, maybe?
like, if he posts in a thread, nobody responds until after 200 posts, or until 24 hours have passed, whichever comes first?
that way, any other actually topical discussions won’t be interrupted by the temptation to poke sticks at the monkey.
I’m game for a discussion of rules, Ichthyic. With Kenny yarbling in one thread, Mike trying to pretend he isn’t a creobot in another, it’s hard to have a conversation that isn’t derailed by one of these assholes.
I’m game for a discussion of rules, Ichthyic
any suggestions?
any suggestions?
Someone please kill Kenny. Cartman? George Clooney? Someone?
As either a rightwing fuckwit or a parody rightwing fuckwit, he’s a complete asshole.
I still skip reading the Kennygasms directly, but I do read the responses to him. You people, especially Kseniya, have far more patience than I have. While a lot of insults flow his way, I also see kindness and gentleness, openness and willingness to share information and ideas, a genuine desire to reach out to a fellow human who is obviously troubled. It is almost like you all have ethics or morals or something, although Kenny and others have assured us that cannot be true of atheists and their ilk. Personally, I think Mother Teresa would have slapped Kenny by this time, and St. Francis would have held him while she did.
Ciao y’all, shrimp and grits calling my name
How about this:
1. After the first Kennypost on a thread, the first person to post “Kenny, you gabbling limpet!” gets 10 points.
2. Anyone attempting to prod The Kenny into admitting his misstatement about the ACLU loses 5 points per attempt.
3. Anyone who refrains from engaging him at all gets 2 points per Kennyreferenceless comment.
Whoever has the most points at midnight on New Year’s Eve, Morris Standard Time, wins a Cartman baseball cap and the undying admiration of the rest of us.
1. After the first Kennypost on a thread, the first person to post “Kenny, you gabbling limpet!” gets 10 points.
only if that is ALL the post says.
2. Anyone attempting to prod The Kenny into admitting his misstatement about the ACLU loses 5 points per attempt.
agreed.
3. Anyone who refrains from engaging him at all gets 2 points per Kennyreferenceless comment.
per thread? does it count more if Kenny directly addresses the person who is ignoring him?
Whoever has the most points at midnight on New Year’s Eve, Morris Standard Time, wins a Cartman baseball cap and the undying admiration of the rest of us.
oh, I think just the baseball cap would be sufficient.
turn it into a game? why not.
here, let me add to the rules:
4. 2 pts. for each creatively used Cartman quote in response to a post from Kenny. For full points, has to be relevant to something Kenny said in the post being referred to, otherwise, 1 point only.
example of a 1 point Cartman quote:
“Kenny’s family is so poor that yesterday, they had to put their cardboard box up for a second mortgage.”
However, that would bump up to 2 points if something Kenny said actually involved issues of economic vs. social condition.
I’m have a vague suspicion that “Mike” is actually a morph of “Kenny”. Something about the dyslexia and defensiveness, and the obsession with fringe science…
I’m a lot more confident that “Kenny” is a morph of “Planet Killer”. They are both obsessed with NDEs and the destruction of the world…
Well, maybe they both go to the same church.
I’m kind of new here and don’t seem to have made a good impression on the other thread where I posted, but I hope I can present a more reasoned and articulate opposition (to the prevailing liberal viewpoint in this forum) than “Kenny” has so far achieved.
First of all, I am not a huge fan of the ACLU. Don’t get me wrong – I passionately support civil liberties and free speech, and I do applaud the fact that they defend everyone’s right to freedom of expression (even repugnant organizations such as the Westboro “Baptist Church”). But in recent years I think they have gone too far in many respects.
For instance, the ACLU originally opposed the introduction of Megan’s Law (requiring law enforcement authorities to make public the name and address of registered sex offenders). They even intervened in a New Jersey legal case, arguing that a New Jersey law requiring convicted child molesters to live a certain distance away from schools was unconstitutional. Surely all of us – liberal and conservative, religious and secular, etc. – can agree that pedophilia is a horrific thing and that children need to be protected from it? I’m all for civil liberties, but when someone is convicted of molesting children, they do forfeit some of their rights, having committed a virtually unforgivable crime against society.
I also don’t like their blanket anti-capital punishment stance. Personally I think there are classes of criminal who deserve the death penalty. I do agree with them that the current “Death Row” procedures, and the flawed methods of execution used, are needlessly inhumane and inefficient; but I don’t see that as an argument for ending the death penalty altogether.
As you have probably surmised, I am a conservative. I just wanted to make clear that we conservatives are not simply reactionary idiots, as some of you seem to think, and that I do have rational justifications for my right-of-center beliefs.
btw, as an alternative to a hat, I might suggest this, which can be placed on any article of clothing:
http://www.stylinonline.com/pasouthparkcartmancop.html
“You will respect my authoritah!”
we’re busy discussing the rules of “The Kenny” right now, Walton.
come back a little later, when you can interrupt a different discussion.
lol
scrolling for cartman products, I ran across this:
http://www.localnovelty.com/cartman-mini-bong.html
a Cartman bong!
“Hippies.They’re everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.”
So you’d rather discuss how to bait a troll than have a reasoned discussion? :-)
In seriousness, I do want to show that there is a rational debate to be had on this issue. I also felt that my comments were sufficiently relevant to the general topic of the thread.
So you’d rather discuss how to bait a troll than have a reasoned discussion? :-)
no, we’d rather discuss how to curtail nutters infesting these threads to begin with by making fun of them, and setting some rules for doing so. Frankly, i don’t even think Kenny actually IS trolling. Are you?
like I said, you should come back later. It’s your timing that’s bad, not your topic relevance.
Re 175 Mrs. Mary M. Whitford
Don’t you get it? You’re just one of us hairless apes.
Why don’t you do some research on Bonobo sexuality or something. Or better yet go have some real good sex with another hairless ape, male, female or a couple at a time, just do it.
Mary had a little chimp
It’s fur was brown as muck
And every where that Mary went
Another chimp she’d fuck!
Go do it Mary baby, let yourself loose! Go ape shit!
@#208 Walton —
I don’t agree 100% with every particular stance the ACLU has taken (though I do agree with its capital punishment stance), but I think the principles it stands for are good ones. That’s actually part of why I am a member — the best way to shape the specific views of an organization whose general mission you agree with is to be part of it.
Re 175 Mrs. Mary M. Whitford
Fernando–she’s a parody. Her website is a well-known parody site of wingnuts.
Walton’s a conservative: translation–no one else’s life matters.
Walton, there’s a big difference between “conservative” and “wingnut”. Unfortunately, what we get here (in what I believe is a grossly high misproportion relative to the general population) are instances of the latter.
FWIW, you made a pretty good impression on me over on that other thread.
One last Kenny comment for the moment. (Kenny, pay attention.) This sort of thing drives me batty. First he posts this:
A few comments later, he posts this:
Leapin’ Lazarus, Kenny! If you’ve read the list of cases in defense of freedom of religious expression, then you’ve been to the ACLU site. Now, where do you think you might find a list of other cases they’ve taken?
O_o
Holy crumbling shortcake!
I see we’re playing “Short Attention Span Theater”.
whatever.
carry on.
@#218 Ichthyic —
Isn’t that sort of the definition of the internet?
Uh, maybe.
I think it’s more of a case of me being in LIFO mode. ;-)
I think we should also have a Kenny Index for Kenny’s activity on a thread.
Just the act of making a post — 1 point.
MY OPINION — 2 points if in response to a question about the ACLU, 5 points if unprovoked.
NDE — 5 points
“It is what it is” — 5 points
Using the Bible to “prove” the Bible — 10 points
Homosexuality — 12 points
Richard Dawkins — 15 points
His atheist brother-in-law — 20 points
“Just google it” (or similar) — 25 points
Shroud of Turin — 30 points.
And so on.
MAJeff, Thanks for the tip, I would normally have noticed that and even thought it might be the case but I had just gotten off the phone with my ex wife. As usual it made me a bit grumpier and less clear thinking. My bad!
Tks, Cheers
MAJeff, Thanks for the tip, I would normally have noticed that and even thought it might be the case but I had just gotten off the phone with my ex wife. As usual it made me a bit grumpier and less clear thinking. My bad!
Tks, Cheers
No problem. I’m sort of moving toward the opinion that parody trolls should be lined up against a wall….
@#103 Ichthyic —
Unfortunately, probably just stronger profession of belief, a la cognitive dissonance.
Yes, this comment from the K-toad is easily one of the dumbest things he’s crapped on us here. And that is saying a lot.
Of all the trolls recently here he ranks up on the dumbfuck-o-meter in measurements rarely seen. The kansas troll would be up there with him, but it is just a drive by fecal artist.
Okay, so…
8 posts + 1 unprovoked “OPINION” + 1 “it is what it is” + 1 “just google it” + 1 homosexuality + 1 provoked “OPINION” = 57 Kenny points
Not as bad as I’d expected, actually.
Not as bad as I’d expected, actually.
see? only two drinks if we go with 20/drink.
;)
you have to be careful not to bounce to too many threads, though.
I would give the ACLU credit for the fact that they have, over many decades, defended a huge variety of cases relating to religious and political expression. I do believe that even morally repugnant groups (such as the Westboro so-called “Baptist Church”, NAMBLA and the American Nazi Party) do have a right (within reason) to express their views, provided they don’t infringe on the rights of others. (Though I do strongly support banning the Westboro nutcases from protesting at military funerals. It’s disrespectful and upsetting to the deceased’s family.) I would also acknowledge that “Kenny” is wrong, and that the ACLU have defended numerous religious groups in the past.
But I think they go too far, even on the topic of religion. As regards the First Amendment, they support a very wide-ranging interpretation of the “establishment clause” which, inter alia, prohibits schools and publicly-owned shopping malls from putting up Nativity scenes. This is just pedantry – a Nativity scene is hardly a harbinger of theocracy – and is also, IMO, not in accord with the purpose for which the framers of the Constitution intended the First Amendment. They intended it to prevent the establishment of a national church, and to protect different religious beliefs from state-sponsored discrimination and persecution; they didn’t intend religion to be eliminated totally from public life. Similarly, I think they were, originally, entirely right to oppose obligatory school prayer, and the courts were entirely right to prevent such practices; but is there anything very wrong with allowing optional non-denominational prayer to take place on school property if the students wish it?
MAJeff wrote Walton’s a conservative: translation–no one else’s life matters. This is highly unfair, and I feel I have to explain why.
I am a conservative for a variety of reasons. Firstly, I believe that the free market works. History – particularly the long-term success of the reforms of Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK – demonstrates that an entrepreneurial economy is the best way to deliver prosperity. Government control, while necessary for some things, is inherently inefficient and should be avoided wherever possible. This doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the poor and downtrodden in society; but I believe the best way to help them is to give them the means with which to help themselves, through a strong and prosperous economy.
Secondly, I believe in an interventionist (what some would label “neoconservative”) foreign policy. In the modern world, we can’t stick our heads in the sand; we need to be prepared to locate threats to our security and to eliminate them, using military force if necessary. Don’t get me wrong: I think that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was poorly planned and misconceived. The Bush administration seemed to be labouring under the delusion that eliminating Saddam would magically transform Iraq into a stable democracy, and they clearly haven’t planned for the aftermath. However, I also think it’s clear that the troop surge is working, and that pulling out of Iraq (as Hillary and Obama want to do) would be a disaster, allowing the Iranian-backed Shi’a militias to expand their power and become a bigger threat to the stability of the Middle East. I support McCain’s policy of staying in Iraq until the job is done. I also think this is the right thing as regards the Iraqi people; by invading Iraq in the first place, we’ve undertaken a responsibility to them and we can’t abandon them now.
Thirdly – and this is really going to piss off a lot of people on this forum, but that can’t be helped – I am a conservative because I oppose abortion. Not for knee-jerk religious reasons, but for secular ones. I don’t see any rational justification for arguing that a fetus in the womb is not a human being. It is a distinct entity from its mother, and though the medical evidence is ambivalent, it is thought by many people that a fetus can feel pain from a relatively early stage in the pregnancy. I also think that partial-birth abortion is utterly barbaric; it’s one step away from post-birth infanticide.
Sorry to post this lengthy partisan screed which is, I know, rather off-topic. But I felt it necessary to respond to MAJeff’s claim that “no one else’s life matters” to me and to other conservatives. That simply isn’t true.
The problem with non-denominational prayer is, of course, that it never stays non-denominational.
If the Air Force Academy hierachy, not to mention various Navy and VA folks, can’t get this one right . . . and they sure haven’t so far . . . how on earth do you expect high-schoolers to do it? Have you ever seriously considered how HARD it is to do a non-denominational prayer? Just try to craft one up if you don’t believe me.
Besides, if you’re praying at all you’ve already marginalized any atheists and freethinkers in the bunch. Let’s face it, these kids have enough on their plates trying to swim against the current as it is.
Kids can pray in school all they want. They just can’t do it over the PA system.
“I am a conservative for a variety of reasons.”
Me too, but unfortunately the Republican party has been taken over by religious assholes who want to make America a theocracy.
“I also think this is the right thing as regards the Iraqi people; by invading Iraq in the first place, we’ve undertaken a responsibility to them and we can’t abandon them now.”
I don’t think they would mind too much if an invading army left their country.
“I support McCain’s policy of staying in Iraq until the job is done.”
How do you know when it’s done? When they have only one suicide bombing a week? Fuck Iraq. Every one of them is a religious idiot. I could care less if everyone in that country dropped dead. How much more money and lives should we waste on somebody else’s religious civil war? I say pull out now and enjoy watching those Muslim morons kill each other.
BobC writes: Fuck Iraq. Every one of them is a religious idiot. I could care less if everyone in that country dropped dead. How much more money and lives should we waste on somebody else’s religious civil war? I say pull out now and enjoy watching those Muslim morons kill each other.
I’m sorry, I simply cannot agree with sentiments like that. If you truly believe that we should “enjoy watching those Muslim morons kill each other”, and that the lives of human beings in Iraq simply don’t matter, then there is no point in my arguing with you, since you clearly don’t believe in basic moral standards and the sanctity of human life.
Even if you don’t believe that America and Britain, as powerful nations, have a moral responsibility to the rest of the world, it’s also in our own interests to stay in Iraq; if we were to pull out now and let Iraq disintegrate, it would become an even bigger breeding-ground for terrorists. Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, the Iranian-backed Shi’a militias would take over large parts of the country -therefore giving Iran more power, and beefing up one of the biggest threats to our national security. Islamic terrorism won’t go away if we ignore it, or if we cave to some of their demands.
As a side point, I would also note that if a right-wing commentator started talking about “Muslim morons” and arguing that we should enjoy watching them kill each other, the liberals on this forum would be up in arms. (As indeed most liberals were when Ann Coulter referred to Muslims as “ragheads” and “camel jockeys”. Unpleasant as that was, at least she didn’t assert that their lives were worthless.) I just love the double standards here.
“I just love the double standards here.”
I just love that you didn’t wait a single post between him saying that and you yelling at all those durn librul hip’krites for not attacking him for his moronic racism. Perhaps a little over keen to assume things about “liberals”, methinks. You don’t write Mallard Filmore by any chance, do you?
And what militias are these?
Iran’s closest allies in Iraq are the “Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council” and its militia the Badr Brigades. These were actually created in Iran during the Saddam years. The SIIC is already at the heart of government, one of the two dominant parties of the governing United Iraqi Alliance list. The Badr Brigades infect the army and police from top to bottom. Yet more were brought in after the fighting with the Mehdi Army in Basra.
Iran’s second closest allies are the Da’wa Party, from which PM al-Maliki comes. They were in exile during the Saddam years, many of them in Iran.
With this government, why the fuck would Iran want to destabilise it?
The Sadr movement and its Mehdi Army militia are Iraqi nationalist. It remained in Iraq during the Saddam years as others fled. The Bushies keep implying it is an Iranian outfit: this is utter bullshit. Those Iranian-supplied weapons they were using weren’t.
But I felt it necessary to respond to MAJeff’s claim that “no one else’s life matters” to me and to other conservatives. That simply isn’t true.
Women’s lives certainly don’t matter. Neither do queers. Or innocent people being bombed. Or working folks suffering under inhuman working conditions…..
And when you proclaim yourself a neoconservative, just admit you’re an imperialist.
Reply to MAJeff (#235, #236).
Women’s lives certainly don’t matter. Neither do queers. Or innocent people being bombed. Or working folks suffering under inhuman working conditions….. – Erm, what?
Firstly, I am not familiar with any mainstream conservative who argues that women’s lives don’t matter. FWIW, I’m not one of these “a woman’s place is in the home”-type misogynists. Nor are most conservatives. I’m not sure what you’re referring to here.
Secondly, yes, we do care about “innocent people being bombed”. But we also acknowledge that, in the real world, bombing is sometimes necessary to win a war and to destroy a greater evil. Are you arguing that we shouldn’t have bombed the Germans and the Japanese in WWII? As J.S. Mill said, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing worth a war is worse.” Or Robert Heinlein: “Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion ‘violence never solves anything’ is wishful thinking at its worst. People who forget that always pay…They pay with their lives and their freedom.” Bombing should never be done gratuitously, but sometimes it is necessary to end tyranny and oppression.
Thirdly, we do care about “working folks”. But we don’t think that socialist legislation is the best way to help them. Rather, the free market is the best way to increase the prosperity of working people. It takes a long time, but it does work. Look at the story of East Asian countries such as Taiwan and South Korea. A few generations ago they industrialised; many manufacturing jobs, working in miserable conditions for low pay, were created. But these jobs gave the people a chance to work themselves out of poverty; they brought money into the country, and created an economic occupation other than subsistence farming. The extra money in the economy allowed education and development to grow, and gave the next generation a better chance. Today, Taiwan and South Korea are successful industrialised countries – and China and Thailand, inter alia, are going the same way. The free market works – and in the long run it works for everyone, not just the rich.
And when you proclaim yourself a neoconservative, just admit you’re an imperialist. – I reject the term “imperialist”. Do I want to bring back the British Empire and colonise Third World nations? No, of course not.
But I fully admit to being what some people would term a “cultural imperialist”, because I do believe that the values of democracy, humanitarianism and liberty – what some people wrongly term “Western values” – are universally, objectively correct moral norms. They are not culturally relative. The way that the Taliban oppressed its people, or Saddam Hussein, or the North Korean communist government, or Iran, are all morally wrong, and our way of running a country (flawed as it may be) is morally superior. For all its failings, the Karzai government we have established in Afghanistan is a thousand times better than the Taliban, and I for one am proud that our troops have achieved that.
Since we overthrew the Taliban, women in Afghanistan are now able to become educated, have careers of their own, and enjoy basic civil and political rights as independent persons. I find it ironic that you (and most of the left) talk about “women’s rights” all the time, yet you don’t recognise this achievement. Do women in Afghanistan not matter as much as women in the West? Is the oppression of a foreign populace – and yes, there is an objective definition of “oppression” – not a justifiable reason to go to war?
Let’s see, anti-choice=anti-woman.
Intervening in societies in such a way as to make sure we get their resources (erm Iraq) is imperialism. And the women of Afghanistan are free?
Market fundamentalists are fools. Particularly when it comes to the rights of working people.
I write a lengthy post justifying why I believe what I believe, and you respond with a few trite, pithy slogans. However, I’ll do my best to respond to them.
Let’s see, anti-choice=anti-woman. – Hardly. Abortion is a very difficult issue. I personally feel that a fetus is a human being – on what logical basis can you argue that it isn’t a person until it’s born? – and would point out that medical evidence, though ambiguous, suggests that a fetus may be able to feel pain from a relatively early stage in the pregnancy. Whether you agree with that or not, however, I don’t think it’s fair on any level to label pro-lifers as “anti-woman”. We are motivated by a desire to protect the lives of unborn children, not a desire to oppress women. Furthermore, most pro-lifers (myself included) are in favour of allowing abortion where the woman’s life is directly threatened by the process of childbirth. So on what basis do you characterise me as “anti-woman”?
Intervening in societies in such a way as to make sure we get their resources (erm Iraq) is imperialism. – Firstly, it’s highly debatable that a desire for “resources” was a motivating factor behind the Iraq war. However, even if you subscribe to the leftist theory that Bush and Cheney went into Iraq in order to enrich Halliburton (which I certainly do not believe), there were also positive, moral, non-“imperialist” justifications for the war – namely, overthrowing one of the world’s most brutal and sadistic dictators. As I’ve said above, I don’t think the invasion of Iraq was a brilliant plan; if anything, it’s further destabilised the Middle East. But I certainly don’t view it as “imperialist”.
And the women of Afghanistan are free? – Freer than they were under the Taliban, yes. Can you seriously deny that?
Market fundamentalists are fools. Particularly when it comes to the rights of working people. – On what basis do you assert this? You’ve chosen to ignore my argument above, citing the examples of Taiwan and South Korea, for why the free market actually does work and creates prosperity for all. I’m not a “market fundamentalist”, because such a concept doesn’t exist; the free market is not a religious belief. I believe in it because it works.
I’m not a “market fundamentalist”, because such a concept doesn’t exist; the free market is not a religious belief.
That’s funny. Very funny.
Here we go. Let’s talk abortion–and sexual politics more broadly. You seem to be someone who favors freedom. We’ll start from that point. Within this perspective, the state needs a good reason to make something illegal. Within the American context, for example, in Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court ruled that moral disapproval of a group of people is not a good enough reason to exclude them from the political process. (And that’s what Colorado voters attempted to do. Oh Noes, overturning the will of the people–a will which explicitly excluded a group from “the people”–how dare the Court actually move the bar and make an unpopular decision?) Additionally, if we look at Lawrence, the Court said that same moral disapproval wasn’t a good enough reason to deprive people of the freedom to make choices in their sexual lives. OK, that’s part of the American context dealing with freedom and sexuality. Other decisions (Griswold, Roe, Eisenstadt have said that such decisions as whether or not to have children is the right of the individual to make).
You are seeking to intervene in the right of that individual to make that choice. You are seeking to have the state intervene. The onus is on you, not me, to give a reason why the procedure should be banned. You say you can see no reason not to treat a blastocyst or fetus as a person. Well, the onus is on you to say why it is a person, keeping in mind that person is a legal category. Why is a non-autonomous, non-individuated, completely dependent blob of cells equivalent to a person, to a human being (not human biological material). It’s on you, not me, to make a case for taking away women’s moral autonomy and freedom. (And in case you hadn’t noticed, trying to treat women as non-autonomous moral agents is an anti-woman stance).
It’s also anti-woman because prolifers are pretty damn blase about the women who will DIE from back-street abortions.
I’ve also noticed that conservatives want government lean and unobtrusive until the topic turns to sex; then they want to be all up in everybody else’s business.
Spiritual health.
I HATE the notion of spiritual health. I hate how it was part of the 5 branches of ‘wellness & wellbeing’ in my high school’s definition of health. By that point, I had been a knowing athiest for a few years and I really disliked that health could be measured by whether I believe in something. They threw in shit like ‘meditation’ and ‘communing with nature’ so it wouldn’t look completely Christian, but I wasn’t fooled.
But it didn’t surprise me. I’m a graduate from a Cobb County School. Yes, the Cobb County that had the Evolution warning stickers on the textbooks.
To MAJeff (supra, #241). I entirely disagree.
In the end, the only legitimate question regarding abortion is whether a fetus, before its emergence from the womb, is a human being – and if not, at what point it becomes a human being. If it is not a human being but merely a group of cells, then abortion is nothing more than a surgical procedure and is entirely acceptable. If it is a human being, then it is not justifiable, under most moral standards, to kill it (unless the life of the mother is directly endangered).
But I can’t see any coherent distinction which can be used to justify the viewpoint that a fetus is not a human being. How does a fetus midway through pregnancy differ from a living baby? Yes, admittedly one can draw the distinction that a fetus cannot survive independently. But neither can many premature babies who require life support, nor can many terminally ill people. Is it acceptable to kill them? If not, what is the factor which, in your view, differentiates a fetus from a baby?
“Women’s moral autonomy and freedom” have little to do with it. If abortion is the killing of a human being, then performing it without necessity is murder. Just as a woman’s “moral autonomy and freedom” does not extend to the right to murder her living child, so it does not extend to the right to kill a fetus, unless the fetus is not a person.
To Leigh at #243. You say: I’ve also noticed that conservatives want government lean and unobtrusive until the topic turns to sex; then they want to be all up in everybody else’s business.
This is undoubtedly a legitimate critique of some conservatives, but it does not reflect my approach. I have no desire to be “all up in everybody else’s business” when it comes to sex. I genuinely don’t think that people’s private, consensual homosexual behavior should be a political issue, for instance, and I am in favour of same-sex civil partnerships. People’s sex lives are their own business, provided they don’t infringe the rights of others. This is an orthodox libertarian view, and is perfectly normal on the political right, at least in my experience.
But I don’t see abortion as a sexual issue. I see it as an ethical issue relating to the killing of a human being, as I outlined above.
Walton,
“If it is not a human being but merely a group of cells…”
Are those truly the only two possibilities in your mind? You are uneducated about the physiology of any organism other than that of a “normal” human?
Along with your previous comment, “a fetus may be able to feel pain from relatively early point in pregnancy”…
These two points you express in supporting that there be no induced abortions seem to be oxymoronic to one another.
Is it that your concern is about:
– a fetus’ ability to feel pain
or
– that an embryo or fetus was the result of a 46 chromosome human male & a 46 chromosome human female were the parents of the embryo is worthy of consideration (but the result of any other mating is comparable to just a ball of cells regardless of its ability to feel pain)
???
If the latter, then bringing up any reference to the ability to feel pain before birth is specious. Literally.
unless the fetus is not a person.
The fetus is not a person.
To cyan (#247): I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say. Please clarify.
To MAJeff (#248): So, on what basis do you differentiate a fetus from a living baby? Why is a baby a human being while a fetus is not? What is the precise factor which separates them?
I’m also not sure why everyone is so eager to argue about abortion, rather than economics or foreign policy.
A blastocyst is not a person. An embryo is not a person. I state this categorically because neither has a brain, and therefore cannot have a consciousness.
The earliest stage at which a fetus could possibly have a consciousness is, I understand, after the fourth month. I am therefore completely comfortable with elective abortion in the first trimester. I point out, as a Christian, that apparently God shares my view, since a very high percentage of pregnancies terminate naturally during this same stage.
After that, things get a little more tricky. I certainly object to a purely elective abortion after viability, now understood to be at about 22 weeks. It seems to me that a human consciousness undoubtedly exists at that point in a healthy fetus. Ah, but there’s the rub. If the fetus is not healthy and suffers defects that would end its life soon after birth without intervention, I think the decision should be the woman’s.
In any case, medical decisions are best left in the hands of doctors and their patients. Since I do not believe we are in a situation where late-term abortions are being performed wantonly, I don’t think specific legislation such as a ban on partial birth abortion does real good, and in fact have the potential to do real harm to pregnant women.
(Leigh, #250) A blastocyst is not a person. An embryo is not a person. I state this categorically because neither has a brain, and therefore cannot have a consciousness. – I agree. Indeed, I agree with most of what you say above, and I’m glad you recognise that there are ethical problems with abortions performed after the point of viability. Personally I don’t endorse elective abortions even in the first trimester – because we really don’t know the specific point at which a fetus develops a “human consciousness” and whether this coincides with the point of viability – but I do think you make a fair point and I respect your view on the matter.
It’s a pity that the national discourse about abortion doesn’t take place at this level.
We could indeed craft suitable compromise legislation if it were possible to look beyond the polarized and mutally antagonistic positions held at the extreme right and left.
Alas, I fear that the political powers that be are more invested in fanning the flames rather than reaching a solution. It makes it so much easier to herd the electorate, after all, when you can blind us to substantive problems while waving red flags at us.
OT but…
Leigh, I kinda stalled on the BeliefNet thing… I gave it a try, but didn’t have the energy to face an even more dense battery of anti-evo and anti-atheist canardists than we get here. What with school and work, I didn’t have the energy to branch out into another blog. However, I’m still considering posting that “xeniasaura” comment that you thought might be appropriate for the “origins” threads over there. What do you think?
Kseniya, I have appreciated your presence over there. As you probably noticed, I myself haven’t been very active for a while. OncomingTrain is so erudite and writes so well that I don’t have much to add except, “yay Train.” Many good posters over there, though worthy opponents are (as here) rather scarce. I have a bone to pick with Geologist that I may take up, and I need to slap Teilhard upside the head. (sigh) so much to post, so little time.
I still think that your “xeniasaura” post would be worthwhile; if you launch it, I think you can count on Blu and a few others to field the comments if you’re too busy.
We’ve talked periodically about doing an FAQ to have as a hive mind to capture some of the really excellent work that’s been done there over time. I would like to take that project on eventually; it would be a good general reference. I had thought of including your post in that.
The difference between that forum and this is that, while a few posters over there are professional scientists, the majority are educated lay people. The comments are therefore easier for the general audience to understand and more focused on pedagogy than this site is.
Walton —
I am honestly curious: how do you reconcile your belief in the immorality of taking human life wrt abortion with your belief that capital punishment is in some cases justified? At what point is a human life no longer covered under “sanctity of life”? And how are we — with our limited, flawed methods of collecting and interpreting evidence — able to judge that?
To Etha Williams (supra #255).
Abortion is entirely different from capital punishment. In an abortion, the fetus (assuming that it is a human being, which we have been discussing above) is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing against society. This is indisputable. A person sentenced to death, on the other hand, has generally done something to merit that sentence.
It’s self-evident that the sanctity of human life is not absolute. It is acceptable to kill someone in a war, or in self-defence, or in some cases out of absolute necessity to save the life of another. As I said earlier, I would allow abortion (as would many pro-lifers) where the mother’s life is directly endangered by childbirth, since the mother’s life is no less valuable than that of the fetus. But I believe that elective abortion is wrong.
Whether the death penalty is justified is certainly a legitimate point of contention, however, and I do not lightly dismiss the arguments against it. You raise a very good point when you say And how are we — with our limited, flawed methods of collecting and interpreting evidence — able to judge that? The major problem with the death penalty is the possibility of executing an innocent person due to a miscarriage of justice; but I will say that with modern forensic evidence, this is becoming far less of a frequent possibility. Furthermore, the principle of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is at the core of the criminal justice system, ought ideally to avoid that.
@#256 Walton —
The issue for me is how one can decide what level of wrongdoing merits a death sentence. Not even all charges of murder are judged to merit such a sentence; how can we decide when someone’s crime is heinous enough to deserve that? Over time and across cultures, the varieties of crimes judged to merit the death penalty has changed drastically, and looking at other cultures’ laws (past and present), we see punishments that we find barbaric — yet those cultures saw it as just. This might be argued about many punishments, but taking a life is a final, irreversible act, and I don’t think any of us are capable of being judges of when that is just, even with the help of the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt.”
In a just war, though, you are fighting because the consequences of the alternative (not fighting) are worse. Eg, in WWII, the consequences of not fighting Nazi Germany would have been the continuation of the holocaust, the conquest of sovereign nations and the spread of fascism, etc. In the case of self defense, you are responding to violence committed against your person after you have been left with no viable alternatives. (This also applies to defensive wars.)
I don’t see this being the case at all with capital punishment. There are viable alternatives — life imprisonment — which seem to be just as effective (possibly more effective) for preventing murder. It’s difficult to compare statistics across countries wrt whether capital punishment is an effective deterrent, since there are so many confounding cultural factors, but I have yet to see convincing evidence that capital punishment is a significantly more effective deterrent than life imprisonment.
This gets at the problem I see with trying to place relative values on life — some might argue, for various reasons, that the fetus’ life is more valuable than the mother’s. They might say, for example, that the mother has already had time to live out her life, whereas the fetus hasn’t; or that the mother has probably done some bad things (by the time we get to child-bearing age, it’s hard not to have screwed up a few times), whereas the fetus is completely innocent.
(BTW, wrt abortion, I’m with Leigh @#250, though I wouldn’t object to a ban on late-term abortions, provided the law was crafted with the advisement of doctors who were knowledgeable about issues of fetal development, maternal health, etc.)
Etha is right. Abortion and capital punishment are profoundly different, but not entirely different.
“Generally”? You betray yourself, Walton.
Kseniya #258: I said “generally” to make it clear that I acknowledge that innocent people have been executed in the past, due to the poorer standards of evidence which prevailed in the pre-forensic era. However, this still differentiates it from abortion, where the fetus, by its intrinsic nature, cannot have committed any deliberate wrong against society or against society’s moral norms.
Etha Williams #257.
I won’t try and address in detail all your arguments against the death penalty – both because I don’t have the time to write a lengthy response, and also because it isn’t the main focus of what I was trying to argue.
Rather, I was simply explaining the reason why I do consider it morally consistent to oppose abortion but support the death penalty. Because I am of the opinion, based on the arguments I’ve highlighted above, that a fetus is a human being, I believe it is wrong to take the fetus’ life without just cause (“just cause” being defined as a cause which would be sufficient to justify taking the life of any human being). It is common ground that the fetus is innocent; it cannot, by definition, have committed any moral wrongdoing. On the other hand, a convicted prisoner has, in theory at least, committed some intentional moral wrong against the standards of society. Thus, there is a very clear moral distinction between abortion and the death penalty. The arguments of social policy for and against the death penalty, while certainly a worthwhile debate to have, are to some extent tangential; one does not need to support the death penalty in order to recognise that it is fundamentally different from, and not comparable to, abortion.
Walton:
Yes, I understand that, and I apologize for not fleshing out my comment accordingly, but you haven’t expressed an opinion on whether or not the execution of innocents by way of capital punishment is or is not a tolerable by-product of the imperfect justice system.
I still contend that the distinction is not absolute. In either case, society has deemed that the death of an organism, one which possesses human DNA and has not committed a capital crime, is acceptable. Why, in your mind, is one acceptable while the other is not? Your stance suggests that you adhere, perhaps without realizing it, to the view that (for better or worse) spawned the pro-choice catch-phrase, “Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception and ends at birth.” It’s probable that I’ve misjudged your view on this, but you haven’t said otherwise, which is why I brought it up.
I acknowledge that this is a side issue to Etha’s argument about the necessarily arbitrary nature of the death penalty, but it’s not one we should ignore completely.