We’re learning more about what Obama is actually going to do in office, and while there are some negatives, right now the positives outweigh them.
Let’s get the bad decisions out of the way first.
Rick Warren, professional homophobe, bigot, and smirking airhead, will be prominently promoted in the invocation at the inauguration. This is a symbolic slap to the face of rationalists and GLBT citizens of our country, and is not a good sign.
The man who will be the Interior Secretary, a position which should be concerned about conservation of the country’s natural resources and which has been typically filled with vultures and exploiters from industry by Republican presidents, is going to be more of the same: Ken Salazar, who will almost certainly promote mining and ranching interests.
Both of those are real disgraces, and it’s not as if Obama was boxed in or lacking alternatives. They’re also incomprehensible. Warren is a sneaky little creep who already got more respect than he deserves by hosting one of the presidential debates, and he’s also a guy who is anti-Democratic policies — you know he did not vote for Obama. So why throw him another bone? Salazar just sounds like a lazy choice, somebody who was picked to appease industry…but he’s not a steward of the environment.
The bads are awful, but I’ve got to say that his good decisions are very, very good.
The director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will be John Holdren of Harvard University, a professor of environmental policy who takes a hard line on global climate change — he was an advisor to Al Gore on the movie, An Inconvenient Truth.
Jane Lubchenko is a professor of marine biology at Oregon State University. She’ll be in charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, another key appointment in climate change policy.
Co-chairs of the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology will be Harold Varmus, who won a Nobel for his work on viral oncogenes, and Eric Lander, a very big name in genomics research.
Another Nobel laureate, Steven Chu, will be the Secretary of Energy. Chu has also been outspoken about climate change and is a strong promoter of alternative energy sources.
If these good people are actually listened to by the president, expect to see major improvements in energy policy and biology research, and some serious attention paid to carbon. This is, overall, a net plus for science and a real strike against anti-science in the White House, a huge change from the last 8 years. Salazar is troubling, some people are concerned that NASA will suffer, and sucking up to the odious Rick Warren still makes me wonder what atavistic social policies might be nestled in Obama’s mind, but there is some hope on the horizon, at least. Now if only he could do even better.
Joke. Maybe not a funny one, but it’s something else for you to accuse me of a propensity for physical violence. I’m not even the one who invited a gay man to go get killed in Saudi Arabia…
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 6:55 AM
“And this strange idea that seems to underlie some of the arguments made here – that the Obama victory has somehow defanged the religious right to the point that it can now be handed a symbolic branch with no real effects – is a dangerous one, IMO. We can’t ignore or dismiss them any more now than we could a couple of months ago. They are ruthless, they are organized, and they will continue to do everything in the power to contol the direction of the US and the world. They will take advantage of any opening or opportunity to advance.”
While I completely agree with the latter part, I must respectfully disagree with the first. No one, at least as far as I can tell, has said Obama’s victiory has defanged the bigoted religious nuts and that we can relax our vigilance against them. What I take issue with as espoused by Joel earlier is that Obama is talking out of 2 sides of his mouth and that Warren’s participation means Obama has betrayed the gay movement. And while I can see there has been some misunderstanding by both sides on this thread, I feel that PATG’s reaction to some posts, including mine, were unnecessarily personal without justification. At the same time I can see that he has tried to clarify his tone and engage to which I give him my complete my respect.
Agree,same here.
And it was totally unwarranted.
And I wont shut up here ever if some shitface thinks he can insult people that are by far their intellectual,moral and ethical superior.
So yeah,eat my socks.
I don’t think so. :)
?
Again, this is not how I read the exchange.
How about when the entire exchange was already over, new understandings were reached, everything was settled, and I’d already said to brokensoldier “thanks for that.”
Then might you shut up, clinteas?
@ pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:02 AM
Fair enough.
For this, and subsequent comments, thank you, SC. I knew I was quite able to think straight and communicate, even “with all the hate and rage” inside me, and it’s reassuring to know that I was clearly understood.
Apologies and thanks to brokensoldier and Wowbagger, and PZ.
Good bye, Pharyngula.
“I’m not even the one who invited a gay man to go get killed in Saudi Arabia…”- Guess who
SIWOTI
We said over and over that you should note that your life doesn’t suck comparitively, and thet you ought to be at least partially gratefull for the support of people on this site who- all of them- want equal rights for gays. But no, you want everyone to be the enemy so that you can continue to be the “victim” to endlessly feed your deep-seated rage and frustration, so that you have the energy to continually assume victimhood status.
A Herring Sandwich of psychological justification.
Empathy- yours is broken. Other people care, regardless of whether or not you take the time to notice.
Personally, i think Rick Warren is a complete tool in this case, a token gesture. Maybe pissing off fanatics like yourself was the aim? Meanwhile i think he will continue to ratify Gays’ Rights just to spite your venom, because he feels that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. And they do.
You however, do not. I can no longer accept you as any sort of spokesperson for the Gay community (or humanity for that matter)- the chip on your shoulder doesn’t exactly mesh with the idea of Progressivism (or even sanity).
By the by, which Congressman got your letter for supporting Gay Rights? What action are you doing to further your cause- besides piss off those that support your ideals?
It’s done eh? then ignore what i said.
YAWN
Mate,if anyone here shuts me up its going to be PZ,not you….
I noted you didnt have anything to say to this remark by John Morales.It doesnt surprise me.
This is your 319:
there was no insult present aside from the one you perceived.
Most unintentionally funny comment of the thread.
Once more into the breach! Never apologize! If those faggots refuse to understand that they’re not allowed to be offended by anything you say, just say it again and again until they fucking well understand.
And this one: You’re going to keep playing the insulted card no matter what
Oh of course, it’s just a “card,” because no one here could honestly be insulted, nor does anyone have the right to be.
I have no agenda or issue here at all mate,I was responding to your insulting offensive posts.
Posted by: pray away the gay | December 22, 2008 7:06 AM
” ‘Oh, the irony!’
Only if I were incapable of admitting my own mistakes, or denied that they reflected poorly upon me.
Still, go fuck yourself, just for good measure, shithead.”
And just when I thought when we might be returning to some some level of mutual civility…
Of course you just might be trying to be sarcastically funny like was, but unfortunately previous vitriol makes it virtually impossible to discern. Another problem is the lag time between comments and responses… it throws off a true perception of timing and someone is often responding to a post that has already been corrected or more clearly defined.
Left and thanked the ones who didnt call him out on his bullshit,a true heroes exit…Its ok,I can live with it….
patg wrote:
No problem. What I sincerely hope for now is that your fears and doubts about Obama prove to be unfounded, and that he steers the US out of the dark ages and away from the repressive right-wing religious idiots who’ve been calling the shots for far too long.
Yo clinteas, drop it. The Flame War is quite over. We don’t need a rehash. thank you.
And he did respond to John’s post that you mention, he said something to the effect of, “I’m an atheist, so i already knew about that.” And That Gays are way more brutalized. Both fair points.
Well, Twin-Skies @ #397 said:
Q_D’s comments suggested the same mindset, as did some others, IIRC, on the earlier thread in which this was discussed.
I didn’t involve myself in the discussion earlier because I don’t have any interest in the motives of, or the pressures and constraints upon, elected politicians. My only concern with elected regimes of elites is the space they allow for social movements to operate in bringing about change. Obama is not going to change anything; only people battling for their rights will. we shouldn’t let down our guard or stop fighting for a second.
I disagree.
clinteas wrote:
That’s hardly accurate. I called him on it a number of times, but that didn’t work, so I asked him (albeit somewhat politely) to tone it down. He did so, and then he made several posts – without abuse – where he explained himself. I got an idea of where he was coming from, even if I disagreed with his anger. But he’s an angry guy, with good reason by the sound of it. How often do atheists get tarred with the ‘angry’ brush for speaking out when, by our standards, we’re barely raising our voices (figuratively speaking)?
Abusing him back wasn’t achieving anything. Remember, he’s not a creationist religiotard; the rhetoric we use to deal with them isn’t going to work the same way.
*Retires*
rickrOll,
there was no flame war here,just some irate guy abusing everyone and spouting hateful nonsense.And I said as much.
Wowbagger,
I agree wholeheartedly with that,I know where he is coming from,even if he doesnt believe any non-gay person can.
But Im an unforgiving bastard I guess,so despite the fact that he was very angry,I still think he could have toned it down and practised some civilized discourse before his arguments were rejected because of the tone….
There should be a word for SIWOTI + too much alcohol btw LOL….
@SC OM
My take on Twin-Skies, Q_D, et all was that they were trying to make the point that Warren’s participation was fairly inconsequential relative to the agenda Obama will pursue in terms of gay rights. Whether one agrees with that or not does not mean they were saying that we can relax now that Obama is the next president.
“Obama is not going to change anything; only people battling for their rights will.”
In my opinion it those with power in the public arena do have the ability to mainstream change just as those like Warren have ability to block it. Having a president openly state that he completely supports gay rights and their right to live like any other American is important and helps to influence people… especially youth. It’s also a signal that bigotry will not be tolerated in the workplace and in public. And again, I completely agree we cannot let up for a second. The Myth of Sisyphus says it all: as soon as stop working to push the rock uphill, it immediately starts rolling back.
clinteas wrote:
That’s what made me stop and check my thinking – I’m not gay and so I can’t begin to understand what it’s like. Yes, I’m an atheist, but – as you well know – it’s not the same here in Australia as it is in the US. I’ve been on the receiving end of assorted low-level bigotry (mostly variations of anti-intellectual), but that wasn’t all that serious, and certainly not in comparison.
So I chose not to treat him like a closed-minded religidiot who chooses willful ignorance over the truth.
Too much alcohol? I guess you don’t have to be at work tomorrow morning – at least I hope you don’t. Which reminds me, it’s well past my bedtime. Nothing like SIWOTI to keep me from my much-needed sleep…
Obama won’t pursue any agenda in terms of gay rights unless he is pressured – consistently and strongly – to do so (and even then quite possibly not). Indeed, even more than I fear that people on the left think Obama’s election has defanged the right, I fear that it has genuinely defanged the left. I don’t think people should be making excuses for politicians when they do something that works against our rights or backing off on them because they seem to be supportive of our goals. On the contrary, I think the political space opened up by the Obama election should be entered and used to fight for our rights.
Accepting this for the sake of argument, you can’t have it only one way. What is Warren’s appearance a signal of? Why is Obama’s statement consequential but the Warren invocation not?
Wowbagger,
I did my duty over the weekend,and am currently enjoying brief respite before Christmas shifts…
Was following the thread and watching ” Mamma Mia”,and you just cant have Abba songs without getting drunk lol…
So nice we’re back to thread topic !
And my first thought about Warren’s call to do this speech was,why couldnt Obama have picked some black pastor from a social hotspot parish,who would have actually been able to send a message to believers and the under-represented at the same time?
Obama is not going to change anything – SC, OM
Elected politicians have power (the POTUS above all), elected politicians differ greatly in their views, intentions and alliances. On the most important issue of all, AGW, Obama shows every sign of acting very, very differently from Bush. Of course it won’t be enough, of course he has to be pressured, of course organisation from below is essential, of course no individual should have the power the POTUS wields, but if intended literally, your statement is simply false.
Indeed, even more than I fear that people on the left think Obama’s election has defanged the right, I fear that it has genuinely defanged the left.
I believe this point has already been made several hundred comments earlier, but it’s well worth scrutinising British political history since May 1997 for a warning of what might happen under Obama unless he’s savvy enough to make sure that it doesn’t. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown cozied up to the right pretty much from the moment it seemed highly likely that they’d win the 1997 election, tossing all sorts of juicy scraps to the likes of the Daily Mail and the Sun (the most aggressively right-wing tabloid newspapers) while assuming that they had the left in the bag already and could pretty much ignore them.
At the time, we accepted this as a necessary tactic to secure a desperately needed election (they’d been out of office for eighteen years), but they continued along near-identical lines while in office. And while it’s true that they’ve passed a great deal of genuinely progressive legislation that would have been unimaginable under their Conservative predecessors, they were also ridiculously timid: they had landslide majorities from 1997 thru 2005, and they have a pretty hefty one even now (bigger than Margaret Thatcher’s first term), but they’ve been governing as though they only just scraped in by the skin of their collective teeth and could be thrown out at any time.
The bitter irony is that they probably are going to lose the next election, at least as much for their cowardice as for any other reason. (Even Iraq didn’t prevent Tony Blair from romping home in 2005).
At the time, we accepted this as a necessary tactic to secure a desperately needed election – Svetogorsk
Speak for yourself – I voted Plaid Cymru/Green ;-)
Seriously, in Blair’s case at least this cosying up to the right represented his deepest convictions: he was and is a right-wing shit. Labour would have won in 1997 if led by a rabid wolverine.
Nick,
Please see my follow-up/clarification @ #520. My concern is that the points you and I both made – “Of course it won’t be enough, of course he has to be pressured, of course organisation from below is essential” – are being lost in the belief that now that someone to the left of other US elites (which isn’t saying much) on some issues is in office people should let a lot of things go and, I don’t know, give him a chance. (This alienation of political power is one of the many issues I have with electoral “democracy” more broadly, but that’s a rant for another occasion…) The irony of this is that Obama himself has pointed out that this is not how things will or should happen.
I was concerned when these kinds of arguments and excuses were made during the run-up to the election, but at that time people were saying “Oh, once these people are elected and in power, then they can get to work.” Then, when they get elected and behave similarly, it’s brushed aside for different reasons. I’m just saying we shouldn’t count on politicians for anything, and that even if they use their power in some ways to create positive change, that change will be eradicated when the right next comes to power (legally or illegally) if we are not organized, vigilant, and capable of defending ourselves and our rights. Allowing the election of “friendly” politicians to weaken us rather than using at an opportunity to gain strength is a huge mistake, as far as I’m concerned.
Speak for yourself – I voted Plaid Cymru/Green ;-)
I voted Lib Dem (tactical anti-Tory vote). I then moved to a rock-solid Tory seat and had great pleasure in voting Monster Raving Loony in 2001 and Legalise Cannabis Alliance in 2005, secure in the certainty that it would have no impact on either the local or national result whatsoever.
SC,
Agreed. I’d seen your #520, and on the Warren issue I completely agree with you – see my #240.
How is the election of someone who disagrees with my right to marriage due to his belief in God a step forward for gays?
How gracious of Obama to support us in spite of his good sense not to.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 8:26 AM
I can understand the apprehension and reluctance to believe an elected official, but what about Obama shows you that he will have to be pushed into advocating equality for gays and lesbians? I mean, there isn’t much more he could say or do to demonstrate that he is committed to both progress and an attempt to unify the disparate political groups in the country. And while the progress part of that is the most desirable, the unification part is more necessary in order to get to that progress. That is the only reason I suggested that the Warren invitation was both irrelevant to Obama’s support of the LGBT community and a politically smart move in terms of bringing voices together that haven’t been heard in the same forum for nearly a decade, especially one so central as an inauguration of a President.
If Obama’s invitation of Warren to give the invocation is really to be considered an insult coming from Obama, the problem is that there are too many groups that Warren fervently opposes for it to be a specific slight against the LGBT community (just to be clear, that assertion was not meant to marginalize anything Warren has said or done against gays and lesbians, but rather to point out that he has been just as vocal about his opposition to other groups and the rights they should or should not have).
To answer your question, I’d say the Warren invitation is not inconsequential, but I think it matters in a way different from what I perceive your take on it to be. It is important in that it is a move that shows the new administration will be open to all voices, but open equally, and – unlike in the majority of past administrations – no one group will enjoy a level of influence above anyone else (at least, to the greatest possible extent).
So it is not that the Warren pick wasn’t disgusting, repugnant, and insulting to some simply because of who the man is, but I believe the idea that Obama will listen to Warren on issues facing the LGBT community simply based on his invitation to say a prayer is jumping the gun a bit. As for why Obama’s statement is consequential, it is because it was an open statement by a President-elect expressing support for the LGBT community. If someone can show me where such an open, unequivocal statement has been made by a President or President-elect in the past, it would be a surprise to me.
In short, the statement by Obama was a direct show of support that he will be held to, and he knows that. His invitation to Warren will be a non-issue as soon as the invocation is done, and is not in any way a statement of support for Warren, his followers, or the policies and positions they espouse.
Ah. I completely agree. I said I hadn’t read the thread as closely as I usually do before commenting. Cut me some slack – I’m still recovering! :)
From your #240 (in case it hasn’t been answered):
Heehee. Matt Heath linked to Nisbet’s post on the earlier thread, noting astutely that (I’m paraphrasing) “Nisbet thinks it’s a good idea – a clear sign that it’s bad.” You should really check it out. It includes an amusingly lame video.
(Speaking of amusing, I got a laugh earlier thinking about how if truth machine and MAJeff had a love child it would look much like pray away the gay.)
OT, SC, have you heard from MAJeff recently? How close is he getting to defending?
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 9:27 AM
While I completely get what you’re saying, the plain – and some times sad – fact is that we have no choice but to count on politicians. We, by the nature of our system, have to depend on politicians to get things changed in our system, because they are the stewards of our government. And I don’t see how it helps us to view the election of arguably the most progressive President in recent history as anything but an auspicious opportunity. All of this discussion about how it weakens us to elect such politicians, and that it weakens us even further to show a modicum of restraint in criticizing him prior to him taking office, frankly confuses me.
In my humble opinion, what will hurt us more is our failure to rally behind someone who – for all the flaws he might have – is the best chance we have right now in pushing back against the neo-conservative gains of the past eight years. If we foster division among progressives in the name of “staying sharp” and elect the Democratic foils of the Republican politicians we’ve endured the past eight years, all we’ll be doing is giving the religious right the crack in the dam they need to drive their wedge back in and regain their previous levels of power and influence. If you’ll remember, Jimmy Carter, despite his sizable intelligence and coherent plans for recovery, was defeated by a candidate that was bankrolled by the religious right and who played upon the divisions among the left to win in a true-to-form landslide. The other big issue in that election, the hostage crisis (which was the right’s major objection point to Carter’s methods), was another area where the right engaged in double-speak. They blasted Carter for trying to engage the Iranians in negotiations, while at the very same time Reagan was making under-the-table deals and promises to the Iranians if they played ball with him and the Republicans. (And it was no surprise that after Reagan’s election, the hostages were released and it wasn’t too long before there was a scandal uncovered that showed Reagan’s administration’s secret dealings with the Iranians.)
If we want a replay of 1980 in four years, all we have to do is treat Obama exactly like the country, left and right alike, treated Carter during his term. I think a better route to take would be to give Obama time to show the nation what his agenda and policy positions will be, and then deliver judgement on their merits. Until then, we’re just guessing what his actions mean about what he might do in the future.
Everything about every politician shows that. Even if Obama were a gay man himself who had previously been a very strong and vocal advocate for gay rights (which he isn’t and hasn’t), the constraints he faces as an elected official – of which this pick is some evidence – make it such that he will not act meaningfully on this issue without pressure to do so.
First, I believe these two last goals to be mutually exclusive. Second, if there isn’t much more he can do to support gay rights, then he doesn’t really have the power in this area that some people are attributing to him and his effectiveness is mostly based on symbolic gestures, making the Warren invocation more consequential than you’re suggesting.
Bullshit. Would inviting a white supremacist to speak be more necessary to advancing racial justice than, y’know, advancing racial justice? I have zero interest in listening to the voices of the proto-fascist US religious right or engaging in discussion with them. They should be fought, hard, and marginalized. This idea that giving them and their ideas a global political stage will somehow marginalize or quiet them makes zero sense. It’s quite likely true that Obama is under or feels he’s under pressure to do so, but it will never advance gay rights or the rights of any other group the religious right is oppressing or seeks to oppress. And “unification” is meaningless to me – I don’t identify in national terms.
I haven’t made that argument. You’re missing the point, and also trying to have it both ways. It’s a signal, as you say, that these people and their bigoted views are not to be held – as they should be – in contempt, that they are voices worthy of inclusion in the debate on this issue.
So I’ll ask the question again: If a single statement is consequential, why is a single action not?
So? Seems like more reason for more people to be angry, not less.
QD ignoring the gay issue and then declaring it time to move the fuck on, in the context of a post where PZ brought up gay issues as important, is quite pertinent.
No, I *was* referring specifically to the invocation. Sorry if it was implied otherwise. I was comparing, in my mind, some religious prick giving an invocation to, for example, our national GDP reaching zero along with the federal funds rate.
C’mon, folks, it nearly Christmas! Peace on Earth and goodwill to men! And women. Especially the ladies. And dogs and cats. Find a kitten to pet. I promise you’ll feel better. Fa la la la la and all that rot.
He just left me a message the other day, but I haven’t gotten back to him yet. He sounded good. :) I’ll let you know when I talk to him.
No, I don’t think you do, quite frankly.
Gag. No. We have to fight – direct action outside the electoral system being a fundamentally effective means – to change things. This will put pressure on politicians, in addition to putting pressure on them directly. We should never count or depend on them to do anything on our behalf.
Whoop-de-doo.
I’ve already said that I view his election as a (relative) opportunity. The question is what we’re going to make of it.
Where was all of that discussion?
Why should people whose fundamental rights are being denied have to show any restraint in criticizing him?
(This has nothing at all to do with his personal flaws, but rather with the nature of electoral politics as a system.) You can rally behind anyone you like. My study of history has shown me that this has always been a fatal mistake, so you’ll understand if I don’t join you in your rallying. He is not the best chance we have in this fight: we are.
No, we’re commenting on and protesting what he’s doing in the present. I don’t get why you’re having such a difficult time understanding this.
SC? You been sick, darling? Hope you are better. Still fighting my own illnesses, the old immune system took a beating over the past year.
Been lurking and have truly enjoyed reading this entire thread. Much to think about, much to ponder about attitudes and assumptions. At times, it is easy to be objective about an issue, not realizing that that objectivity can be offensive to the people to whom the issue is a living pain.
Also, I was glad to see parts of the discussion move from rancor to civil again.
Happy High Primate
SC:
So, in your mind, there isn’t a damn thing Obama can to do change your mind about his chances for changing anything. The simple fact that we elected him makes him unworthy of our trust or confidence? I don’t see how this is even slightly productive or contributory in any way to the progress we need to make.
You believe progress and unity to be mutually exclusive? As in, you can’t have one with the other? That is a very nihilistic viewpoint, and does not mesh with our political system at all, because if you want to get anything positive done, you are forced to do so within the system, at least to some degree. And your assertion that I meant there wasn’t anything else he could do to support gay rights is deliberately misleading. I simply said there wasn’t much more he could have said already to demonstrate that he is an advocate of advancing the causes of the LGBT community. Of course there is much more he can actually do – the man hasn’t even been inaugurated yet.
Well, then I’d say you’re SOL. If you don’t want to pursue the path of national unity, you might want to think about why that is. If it is because the nation hasn’t done you any favors, I’d again point out that Obama offers quite an auspicious chance to change that. If you don’t identify nationally with anyone else in this country simply because you don’t believe the nation will ever be unified enough to do any good, you’re effectively arguing that it isn’t even worth trying to bring anyone together. Both of those are very pessimistic and disheartening arguments. The plain fact is that we are a nation, whether you identify nationally or not. We are going to have to fight these fights, because not being a nation is simply not an option on the table.
And to say that Obama’s invitation to Warren is just a step along the path towards including hate groups like the KKK or neo-nazis in governmental procedure is simply rehashing the ridiculous and tired argument that gay marriage will lead to things like incest or bestiality. To say that Warren’s invitation is a precursor to hate groups at the government table discounts the intelligence and political savvy of many, including Obama, because you’re assuming he doesn’t know where to stop when trying to engage dissident viewpoints, and I don’t believe that to be true.
Yes, you have, as have many other people on this thread, albeit indirectly. Your statements imply (and others’ statement come right and and say it) that by inviting Warren, he is at the very least legitimizing Warren’s positions, and possibly signaling that Obama is preparing to offer Warren some sort of position in his administration. If you’re not arguing that the invitation is a sign that Obama will lend his ear to Warren, then you’re arguing that it is simply the invitation for a prayer recitation that is a show of support for Warren by Obama – and if you’re making that case, you’re necessarily calling Obama a liar, as he has repeatedly and very recently stated his support for the LGBT community.
And yes, it is a signal that all voices will be heard. What it is not is a signal that all viewpoints and opinions will be accommodated, but rather will be viewed and judged on their merits according to the man we elected into the office. If a majority trusted him enough to elect him, it seems only logical that we’d trust him enough – at least initially, before he has the chance to prove us wrong – to intelligently execute his duties amid disparate viewpoints. His goal of being able to “disagree without being disagreeable” may not be achieved during his time in office, but anyone who says that it is not worth having as an operating principle is simply stuck in the past decade of politics, without the desire to budge from it.
Not my point at all. My point is that a stoic look at the situation should tell you that Obama is not trying to signal support for Warren or insult those groups Warren speaks out against, even though it does insult some. And plenty of people are angry – that isn’t the issue. The issue is that people are projecting predictions onto Obama’s intentions and plans because of this one invitation, despite all of the other statements he has made supporting LGBT rights and equality. It is the guilt by association argument, which is made without regard to the individual in question and their prior statements of both intent and support.
SC:
I agree, but without a President amenable to our ideas, we won’t get anywhere. Have you forgotten the past eight years already? The idea that politicians are irrelevant and always the enemy is both idealistic and counterproductive.
While you are commenting one one minor thing he has actually done, you’re also projecting what it means he will or will not do in the future, and using those predictions as evidence that we can’t and shouldn’t trust him or depend on him for positive action.
And the comprehension insults aren’t necessary – I don’t think either one of us is a troll deserving of such condescension.
Come on, Rick Warren isn’t a homophobe. He’s a biblical marriage proponent. I haven’t seen him do anything hateful or discriminatory to the homosexual community.
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 11:19 AM
You don’t have to be overtly nasty to be a homophobe, which Rick Warren definitely is, just in a polite voice. He advances the slippery slope argument with the best of them, and offers up no arguments other than those that are dictated by the bible and his closed-minded motivations.
He might not be the devil incarnate, but he’s damn sure a homophobe. And just so you know, defending him here is not that productive an exercise, considering he has so fully proven himself to be diametrically opposed to progressivism, science, and reason. (Unless you’re a poe, in which case, I guess I just wasted some energy…)
Facilis, which form of biblical marriage? There were many.
Quick correction – I checked facilis’s blog, and he’s no poe – he was actually defending Warren as not being a homophobe. Amazing.
Didn’t he assert that homosexuals aren’t really welcome within the community defined by his church? That’s not discriminatory?
@SC OM
“Obama won’t pursue any agenda in terms of gay rights unless he is pressured – consistently and strongly – to do so (and even then quite possibly not).”
– On what do you base this? If it is about marriage he has aleady made it quite clear that is not part of his agenda. And while I cannot prove that you will ultimately be proved wrong, there is no proof that your statement has any basis or merit.
“I don’t think people should be making excuses for politicians when they do something that works against our rights or backing off on them because they seem to be supportive of our goals.”
-I have not made any excuses and I really don’t see who did on this thread. Trying to understand why Obama included Warren is not making excuses.
“On the contrary, I think the political space opened up by the Obama election should be entered and used to fight for our rights.”
-We are in complete agreement on this although for some reason you seem not able to accept it.
“What is Warren’s appearance a signal of?”
-Warren appeared at the premier of an “An Inconsequential Truth” and “enthusiastically voiced support for reducing carbon emissions and expressed outrage over official neglect of the global warming issue… and vowed to do whatever he could to get the word out. And Warren delivered. Many credit his efforts with making global warming and environmental stewardship issues in young evangelical congregations across the country. Similarly, his own church’s work to ameliorate the suffering of HIV-positive Africans has drawn the support of many film celebrities…”
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause20-2008dec20,0,2838854.story?track=rss
Don’t you think there is value in nurturing that relationship relative to those issues? We need people on the right to support environmental issues so that we have a mandate to do something. Just because Warren is a bigot on homosexual issues does not mean we should reject his overtures on environmental and health issues. And given that Obama has clearly repeatedly stated, even as recent as Friday, that he strongly disagrees with Warren on homosexuality and abortion, I think it is perfectly clear what his appearance is about… and it is definitely not about oppressing homosexuals.
“Why is Obama’s statement consequential but the Warren invocation not?”
-He has appointed a high profile lesbian as a key advisor… is that not a signal and at least an initial proof of the intentions of his statement? He also has another religious figure speaking who supports gay rights and their right to marry… what does that signal? Above I addressed the Warren invocation.
I am a lifelong atheist and completely reject Warren’s religious arrogance and bigotry, but I do not reject his support of issues we have in common. And that, in my perception, is the same thing Obama is doing. It is no different than trying to work with the Chinese on the same issues even though they execute people for crimes against property. I abhor capital punishment but we can’t let that preclude communication and alliances on other important issues facing us and the rest of the world. Not speaking out and being clear about our positions is one thing, but acting like the wingnut right and demanding all or nothing is a recipe for disaster as proven by the past 8 years.
Posted by: Josh | December 22, 2008 11:29 AM
It’s no use, man. That dude is a confirmed religiot. Go to his blog and check for yourself what kinds of things he views to be undisputed facts — it’ll explain a lot.
Yes, facilis is a godbot. An ignorant, unthinking godbot. Have some fun with him.
mayhempix:
Very nicely put.
It’s no use, man. That dude is a confirmed religiot. Go to his blog and check for yourself what kinds of things he views to be undisputed facts — it’ll explain a lot.
*sigh*
I know, I know. I can’t ever seem to stop hoping that somewhere, in one of them, there will be a glimmer of reason.
*sigh*
Airborne…
Posted by: Joel | December 22, 2008 9:40 AM
“How is the election of someone who disagrees with my right to marriage due to his belief in God a step forward for gays?”
I was never aware that he said it was due to his belief in God. Can please show me conclusively when he stated exactly that?
If you disagree with the fact that he won’t support gay marriage (which I do support and vote against Prop 8) for politically expedient reasons, I can accept it. But it doesn’t mean I agree that makes Obama a religious bigot like Warren.
Josh:
I know the feeling – but I doubt the ones who come here to empty their intolerance banks will ever be so inclined. Usually we just get the godbotters, but occasionally there’s one open to discussion. The problem for them is that when someone shows up truly open to reason and discussion, they either don’t stick around long or are turned into something a little less preachy and absolute, thereby removing them from the ranks of the religiots. (That is a very rare occurrence, though, and you can chalk that up to the efficacy of religion’s ability to insulate the mind against rational argument.
PS: Was that ‘Airborne” comment meant the way my military mind thinks it was? ;)
Sigh. OK, I’ll try this again. Since this is starting to look like a rehash of the argument I had with truth machine a couple of months ago about Kay What’s-Her-Sniff, I’ll state again that for me this has nothing whatsoever to do with my views of Obama as a person or his personal strengths or weaknesses. It is in the nature of electoral systems in general, and an electoral system in a capitalist and imperialist context in particular, that politicians, particularly those at the top levels of government, cannot be relied upon to advance social justice absent strong and organized pressure from below. And changes that are created are only defended by organized movements of people. That the election of “progressive” politicians can lead these efforts to lapse at precisely the moment when they can be most effective is one of the supreme ironies of electoral systems, and a phenomenon capitalized upon by the forces of oppression.
I was speaking about a specific case. Progress in terms of gay rights is not compatible with “unity” with the religious right. Sometimes, no compromise is possible. This is one of those times. Your assertion that unity with the religious right is in fact more important at present in advancing gay rights than the direct fight for rights is ludicrous.
Who is “you”? If you is Obama, then I agree. Again, this is a problem. If you is a social-justice movement, then I disagree. Indeed, I think working within the system often zaps energy and resources that could be better spent working outside the system (which would, in many cases, have greater repurcussions within the system than would working within the system).
First, there’s plenty he could have done prior to now to demonstrate this support. But this was precisely my point: If all he can do at this point is make statements and symbolic gestures, then the Warren invitation should count as much as his statement.
I wonder if it’s because I’m an anarchist, as I’ve made clear here on probably hundreds of occasions.
There’s a difference between believing in bringing people together and believing in bringing them together around a national identity. I thoroughly believe in transnational organizing and identify strongly with others (especially, but not exclusively, anarchists) in Bolivia, South Africa, France, or anywhere else in the world who are fighting for social justice, freedom, and real democracy. I’m not about to let someone else tell me that I should seek unity with the religious right simply because I was born in the same country as them.
Not at all. I’m fighting for a path of action that I see as effective in the long run and against one that I see as self-defeating. Just because I don’t agree with your approach doesn’t mean I have no hope for change.
Your idea of fighting this fight is to show respect for the religious right, or to condone such shows of respect. My fight is against them.
Not in the short term, I agree. But resisting efforts to coopt oppositional views by claiming some need for “national unity” is important to me.
WTF? That’s not what I said. I was making a comparison. I wasn’t saying it’s a step along any path, but the equivalent (or approaching it – it’s not a perfect analogy) of inviting a bigot in some other area. What do you see as fundamentally different?
He clearly doesn’t, since where to stop engaging ignorant, hateful bigots is with treating their views with open contempt and not giving them a national political stage. That’s what I’m criticizing him for, FFS.
Of course he is, if only symbolically.
OK, I don’t even know what to say to that. You’ll find that nowhere in my posts.
And the views of bigots merit inclusion in the inaugural ceremony. Other than that, your statement is essentially meaningless.
This goal is an absurd platitude, and none of the movements that made Obama’s ascension to power possible operated on such a stupid principle when they were dealing with oppressors. If I’m “stuck” in anything it’s knowledge of the political history of several countries over a far longer span than a decade.
I’ve already answered both of these points. For me, this isn’t about his personal motives. Nor is it about predicting the future. It is about standing up in the present.
Hi, sweetie! Yes, but only for a few days, and I’m much improved today. Sorry to hear you’ve not been well. Sending you healthy vibes. :)
I completely agree. I said I hadn’t read the thread as closely as I usually do before commenting. Cut me some slack – I’m still recovering! :) – SC
The reference to my earlier comment wasn’t intended to be reproachful – just informative! As a matter of fact, I think Obama’s course will be far more determined by external events than any recent POTUS: the economy is bound to be his short-term priority, and I expect things on that front to get very difficult in 2009.
mayhempix:
He has said that concerning his personal beliefs, which he makes no bones about expressing, would prevent him from agreeing personally to gay marraige, yet that doesn’t prevent him from recognizing that everyone should have an equal right to marry under the law. That is the crux of his argument, in that he believes religion to be a personal entity, rather than an entity that should wield political power over social issues. I think people are conflating his personal beliefs with his opinions on what should be national policy.
He has made it clear that his personal objections do not color his political opinions on equality, but that hasn’t stopped his detractors from pointing out hypocrisy that just isn’t there when you take an impartial look at what the man has said.
Even though I disagree with religion, I do not hold anything against someone who chooses to worship in their personal life. To do so would be bigotry akin to the religious kind against atheism. I might think they are miring themselves in a belief system of archaic superstition, and are possibly worse off intellectually for it, but the very foundation of our nation is that they are completely free to believe in such things, as long as their beliefs don’t impinge upon the rights of those who do not. Where the problem comes in – and where the serious and vociferous objections should come in – is when he allows his personal religious beliefs to control his policy decisions. Since he has made it clear he does not intend to let that happen, I believe we should allow him to either prove himself right or prove himself to be a typical politician before we prematurely tag him as the latter. An invitation to a ceremony to give a customary prayer – even though I think it shouldn’t be there in the first place – has no bearing on his policy decisions.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | December 22, 2008 11:34 AM
“Very nicely put.”
Thanks. I can only aspire to be as clear and eloquent as you are…
“… it is a signal that all voices will be heard. What it is not is a signal that all viewpoints and opinions will be accommodated, but rather will be viewed and judged on their merits according to the man we elected into the office.”
This is exactly the point I think others either miss or dismiss.
I’m also disappointed in the inference of others that somehow our positions can be likened or linked to Nisbett. This is not about the PR tactics of framing. This is about finding consensus on common goals to produce results, not grooming a turd to look and smell like a rose.
Well, it isn’t true that we won’t get anywhere, but an Obama administration, as I’ve said here at least twice, is clearly more conducive to organizing and activism. Of course, this is only if we fucking recognize the need to organize and be active rather than rallying behind or putting our faith in some political figure.
Have you forgotten my earlier comments on this thread already?
I’m starting to feel like patg. You could at least make an effort to appreciate what I’m saying before misrepresenting it.
I don’t know how many times or in how many ways I can say that this is not my argument.
Whatever, brokensoldier. You don’t seem to be comprehending what I’m saying.
This is not about the PR tactics of framing. This is about finding consensus on common goals to produce results, not grooming a turd to look and smell like a rose.
But Obama has invited a turd to give the invocation at his inauguration. Aren’t we entitled to complain about the smell?
@ brokensoldier OM
“He has said that concerning his personal beliefs, which he makes no bones about expressing, would prevent him from agreeing personally to gay marraige, yet that doesn’t prevent him from recognizing that everyone should have an equal right to marry under the law.”
That I did understand. Where I wasn’t clear in my response to Joel is that I wasn’t aware Obama has stated he would oppose gay marriage when and where it has officially been legalized or the attempts to do so based on his religious belief. I did not see Obama campaigning for gay marriage in CA, but at the same time I didn’t see him supporting Prop 8 to repeal it.
Josh: I know the feeling – but I doubt the ones who come here to empty their intolerance banks will ever be so inclined. Usually we just get the godbotters, but occasionally there’s one open to discussion. The problem for them is that when someone shows up truly open to reason and discussion, they either don’t stick around long or are turned into something a little less preachy and absolute, thereby removing them from the ranks of the religiots. (That is a very rare occurrence, though, and you can chalk that up to the efficacy of religion’s ability to insulate the mind against rational argument.
Agreed. We had an ID proponent named Jim on here about a year ago, and it was darkly amusing to watch the fires of reason spark, start to light, start to light, start to light, and then get blown back to warm twigs by years of indoctrination.
PS: Was that ‘Airborne” comment meant the way my military mind thinks it was? ;).
All the way, my brother.
@Nick Gotts
“Aren’t we entitled to complain about the smell?”
Of course you are, but it is Warren that smells, not Obama in this case. By all means throw shoes at Warren. I would be tempted to join in… he certainly deserves it for his bigotry.
;^ )
I’ve dealt with this is my earlier comments (with which this perhaps crossed). It’s a structural and not a personalized argument.
Really. I don’t have the time to go through all of the comments now to pick some out, but do you really believe no one has, on this thread or the earlier one?
Huh?
Well, I meant with regard specifically to LGBT issues. But while we’re on the subject, what policies do you think he and other evangelicals support in Africa that have led and continue to lead to the suffering of HIV-positive Africans to begin with? Global gag rule, perhaps? Other restrictions on reproductive rights?
What if he were a racial bigot? And how does not inviting him to speak at the inauguration due to his bigotry equal rejecting overtures on various issues?
Well, as several people here have pointed out, that’s very easy to say if you’re not gay.
So if he gives other signals the Warren decision should be ignored?
I am not the US government, nor do I identify with it. I support working with people in social-justice and environmental movements in China. I support fighting against the authoritarian Chinese government.
Show me where I’m doing either of these things. I’m a radical – I believe radical change is both desirable and necessary. I also have an educated lack of trust in politicians or electoral action in creating positive change, and I’m promoting alternative courses of action. I’ve “demanded” nothing from anyone, and I don’t appreciate the comparison to the “wingnut right.” And I didn’t see a lot of demands being made in the past eight years.
The digs against Salazar stem from Center for Biological Diversity director, Kiernan Suckling, who has already had a judgment against the Center for “false, unfair, libelous and defamatory statements.” So articles that mine him for quotes make me skeptical. (He’s got a MA in philosophy – but he’s often quoted as an expert in the Endangered Species Act. Fred Cheever is an expert. Suckling is a hobbiest.)
Raúl Grijalva is the guy Suckling was backing for the Interior nod. He has a BA in Sociology, and a long career as school board member, and Pima County supervisor. Additionally, he was the Assistant Dean for Hispanic Student Affairs at U Arizona. He was elected in 2000 as a Congressman in a newly created district that was a heavily Democratic, majority-Hispanic district. That he, as a Hispanic-Democrat, was elected and re-elected there – not a big shocker. His voting record can be as liberal as he wants – he has no centrist base to consider when casting votes. (I like him for his long public service record, 98% voting alignment with the ACLU, and strong stances on environmental protection.) But, unlike Suckling – I don’t think he’s the ideal person for the Interior position. He just doesn’t have a lot of environmental-specific credentials on his resume. (Thin, like FEMA-director Michael D. Brown).
I don’t think Obama’s choice was a “bad” one on Salazar. Salazar worked as a water and environmental lawyer for 12 years, was Director of Colorado’s Department of Natural Resources, implemented a program to teach environmental education in public schools, was Colorado AG, has gone toes with Focus on the Family over judicial appointments. He took over a Republican Senate seat, fighting for it against Pete Coors for a narrow victory. Salazar, unlike Griljalva, is in a rather centrist state – big grouping of red-state mojo with a blue Denver+Boulder center. Salazar also understands the very complicated enviro statutes – RCRA, CERCLA, CAA, CWA, ESA – the complex regs from BLM, EPA – and has braved the wonky prior appropriation water rights in Colorado. He has a fairly chunky curriculum vitae. Not all of it is pro-environment to the detriment of development. It’s a mix of balancing issues. Which is what the interior secretary is supposed to do. http://capwiz.com/lcv/bio/keyvotes/?id=31624&congress=1102&lvl=C This is his voting record this year. 100% pro-environmental actions. 73% is his lowest. His record doesn’t speak as to kowtowing to ranching/oil interests. (Grijavla’s is sitting at 85% this year on environmenal issues – and he has no worries about getting reelected in his district.)
Right then – don’t necessarily thrust Salazar as Interior Sec. (even though I disagree with him on some big issues – wiretapping, Gonzo, Gail Norton) into the negative category. I think he’ll be fairly decent as interior secretary – and his conservative-based votes in the Senate (which we don’t need)- will be eliminated.
What if Warren had said the same things about Jews that he has about gay people?
mayhempix,
I think Obama has said this on a number of different occasions and in different ways.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
SC:
But this discussion is not an exercise in general electorate and social theory – it is a discussion of what Obama’s decision to invite Warren actually means. And to suggest, even in a general sense, that we cannot depend on those we elect to administer our government is an idealistic, revolutionary concept that is quite valuable in motivating people into action, but holds little value in actually accomplishing the goals we set for social change.
(Since you’re insisting on continuing with the obvious patronization, it’s my turn.) Sigh – I’ll try this again. I know what you were trying to say, but your idea that we’ll have to get rid of the religious right completely before attaining true equality for gays and lesbians is simply implausible. There is no way we’re going to get rid of such a large constituency in our electorate, nor should we. What we should do is engage those individuals within that movement who align with our views on some issues, even though they completely oppose our views on others. Somewhere in the process, we need to make the effort to change their minds just enough to get the laws changed to reflect what our society should be, and shutting them out completely will be absolutely counterproductive to that effort.
Just to preempt another of your smug dismissals, I (whether you want to admit it or not) completely understand your stance, and even agree with it in large part, but my point is that it is not a practical position to take when trying to effect actual change in our system, which is what we seriously need right now.
I used “you” there in a general sense, so it meant both Obama and the electorate in general. I think you’re missing the fact that I recognize that there are necessary roles to be played outside the system, but those on their own are inadequate to get the things done that we need done. To think that purely external effort can effect beneficial change in our government ignores the fact that our government is the very entity that has the power to change our founding document and the pursuant laws that dictate our national social policies. Examples abound that show when a populace acts against their government, rather than trying to effect change from within it, that nation is not long for this world, and at the very least experiences a severe drop in prosperity. This is largely due to the fact that governments will resist any effort to remove them from the scene, and what you end up with is either a successful coup or a failed revolution. Both situations result in many, many dead humans and a barely functioning government at best.
This is the same “soaring rhetoric, yet no real action” argument made first by Hilary Clinton, then even more fervently by the Republicans against him. How many times can I say it – he hasn’t taken office yet. So there is necessarily nothing he can do until January 20th to set his agenda in motion, so any criticisms about his lack of real action will be irrelevant until after then. And taking the Warren invitation as an insult, without allowing him the benefit of the doubt that he will be intelligent and progressive enough to ensure that Warren’s ultra-conservative views do not hold sway in his administration, is being a bit closed-minded, in my opinion. I understand that Warren’s appearance disgusts and insults a great deal of people, but I think that it is also a calculated move to try to prevent the mistakes of the last Republican administration in shutting out dissident voices, no matter how unpopular they may be.
Then your mind is made up about a great deal of people in this country, and leaves no room for their possible change of course in the face of polite, intelligent discourse brought on by universal inclusion in the political process. While it may be true that the ultra-conservative leaders of the religious right will likely never embody that change, they are only the leaders for the moment. Just as our off-the-rails country can change both leadership and direction, I believe that religious groups in this country can do the same thing. You don’t seem to be open to that possibility, which simply mirrors their opinions of us.
It’s amazing that you denied saying Warren’s invitation was a “step along the path,” yet in your response admitted that you think that the invitation is roughly equivalent to having the Grand Wizard of the KKK at the table. That is purely unjustified equivocation, because this is how I see the two as fundamentally different. Warren is not at any policy negotiation table, he is not an advisor, and he is not involved in any form of governmental administration. He is a religious figure who has been asked to deliver a prayer at a ceremonial event. Nothing more, nothing less. The two are clearly different, and saying that the two are equivalent is even worse than saying one will necessarily lead to the other.
Your desire to completely ignore viewpoints you consider unworthy is unsettling. The President of our nation is required to at least listen to all of the citizens within it, even though he may fervently disagree with them, as Obama does with Warren over LGBT rights and abortion. But in order to reduce resistance to the progressive agenda, you have to bring them closer to the process (whether doing so is palatable to you or not), and there is no better way to do so than to extend an invitation to deliver a meaningless prayer at a ceremonial event – as opposed to appointing them to high governmental office in the interest of diversity of opinion. In my mind, he put Warren in a harmless slot, yet achieved what he wanted in bringing him and his followers a little more into the fold.
I don’t know how you confuse a five minute prayer with a pulpit fropm which to issue a political manifesto. It would be naive to think that Obama will not have approval authority over what will be said, and I doubt he’ll allow any morally repugnant statements denigrating the individuals Warren looks down upon so much. You’re acting like Warren is getting an open mic to vent his hate, when all he is actually getting is a menial task to deliver something that will be forgotten soon after it is completed.
So, in your view, it is absurd to hope for civility in our national political discourse. There is absolutely nowhere you can go – in a forward direction, at least – when you’re operating off that basic assumption. It seems as if you’re saying that the only way we will get the change we need is to simply expel the religious right from having any representation in our government. I hope that I don’t need to point out how implausible that is, not to mention being just as discriminatory as those who think this country won’t be complete until all the gays, lesbians, and atheists are out of it.
And on a side note, knowledge of the political histories of multiple countries is definitely useful and informative, but it does little to elevate your ability to predict how Obama will act above that of all the rest of us, because the election of a minority to the highest office is something that not even other democracies have done previously, which should tell you that there is something going on in this country that is at least a little unprecedented in that political history you’re fluent in.
But you’re basing your present stance upon these assumptions about his intentions that are simply unfounded at this point. There is no way to separate your opinions on what his future actions will be – based on his invitation to Warren – from your present stance, and I was merely making the point that those assumptions aren’t strong enough yet to support the idea that he isn’t going to fight for what is right. And you can’t separate your overall opposition to in-system operation from the reality of our political system. Objecting to the specific invitation of Warren necessarily means that you’re not simply objecting on a level of general principle, but rather for specific reasons relating to what Warren stands for and what you think his invitation means for our near future.
In short, I don’t think we’re too far from each other, because I share a lot of your views in the realm of what should be. But when it comes down to playing with the hand we have been dealt, such concerns are impractical. We need someone who can strike a balance between both in order to move us in the right direction.
I’m really enjoying all this discussion about Obama’s *science policy appointments*. Sheesh. Some of you dudes sure do like to bloviate.
Anyway, I’m completely delighted that both of the co-chairs of Obama’s science advisory council are biologists — and not just any biologists, but Varmus and Lander quality. So *suck it, physicists*. (Kidding!)
SC:
Jesus, SC, no one is saying that it isn’t an insult to gay people. What we’re saying is that Warren’s views are insulting to a wide range of people, and that his invitation to deliver the invocation may turn out to have political positives that allow us to make much-needed progress in bringing the people of this country together, whether you believe that to be necessary or not.
Warren also has some choice words for why groups other than gays should not be included in our national society, and I’m sure members of those other groups believe that the insult to them is just as sizable as the insult you feel. It isn’t a matter of disagreement over whether it is an insult, it is a matter of perspective and pragmatism.
PS: Pretending that no one in the world is capable of empathy with the struggle the LGBT community continues to face is getting old, and quite frankly, annoying. True, I may not feel it personally to the level you do, but insinuating that it is easy for me to dismiss your concerns just because I don’t share your identity is both dismissive and narrow-minded.
Steven Sullivan,
If you read the post, despite the title it begins with PZ’s views on the invitation to Warren. However, I do think that the discussion of Warren is pretty much exhausted, and I am delighted by Obama’s choice of Chu, Holdren and Lubchenko – three top scientists who are also very strong on the urgent need for action to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. I have no doubt, however, that Obama will come under immense pressure not to do anything that will “harm American competitiveness”, “jeopardise economic recovery” etc. – I hope these three will be able to stand against this pressure, and to do so, they will need the strongest possible pressure from below.
@ SC OM
” ‘it is perfectly clear what his appearance is about… and it is definitely not about oppressing homosexuals.’
Well, as several people here have pointed out, that’s very easy to say if you’re not gay.”
– That still doesn’t mean what I stated is not true.
I find it interesting in that I usually agree with your comments and also greatly appreciate and can relate to your wonderfully punny sense of humor. My comment about the “wingnut right” was not meant personally as a direct reference to you and I sincerely apologize if it came across that way. That is why I put in a separate paragraph after the rest of my replies to your comments. It was meant to be a more general comment about the ideological all or nothing mindset that destroys effective communication and the ability to work effectively towards common goals.
“And I didn’t see a lot of demands being made in the past eight years.”
– I think you misunderstood the intention of my statement. It was in reference to the all or nothing demands of the wingnut right about abortion gay rights, etc and was not about the Dems’ or the left’s response to the Bush government.
-I too see myself as a radical, though not as a particular type of anarchist like yourself in that I believe that change must come from both within the system as well as from without and that governments and institutions have vital and necessary roles.
And finally you once claimed you “loathed” me. I took that as a humorous response to the fact I said it was hot down here while you were experiencing a cold winter. I still hope that is the case.
Salud.
Yeah they just get an actual cabinet member. Sucks to be them, huh?
Bob Ostertag on Rick Warren, gay marriage, and politics:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/why-gay-marriage-is-the-w_b_152717.html
Yes.
Diagoras (@#561): Thanks for that; it makes me feel a little better.
@Joel
Please see my clarification in post #557.
To reiterate an important point, it’s not that gays should not feel insulted by Warren’s inclusion, it is that Obama does not mean he stands with Warren against homosexuality and agrees with Warren’s bigoted views. And as I have stated previously I personally wish he had not invited Warren, however I can understand why he did.
I also think that the semantics about term “marriage” get in the way of a resolution of this discriminatory situation. Part of me thinks that maybe we should just let the idiots have the word marriage as a religious term and let “civil union” be the universal term for a formal bonding sanctioned legally by the state. I am “married” but have absolutely no problem in it being called a civil union since we were not married in a religious ceremony. Why would any gay person want to get married by a religious institution that rejects them anyways?
But please understand that I still prefer that any couple… gay, transgendered, mutlti-racial, whatever… be allowed to get married in way way shape or form they want and see fit.
SC, regardless of your incessant insistence to the contrary, I have repeatedly said that I understand your points. But for someone who perceives me as unable to comprehend your statements, you’re awfully prone to ignore mine.
All of my arguments have been pointed at the fact that we have a chance to change things with this new administration coming in, largely because we are in a state of crisis in many areas, in addition to the fact that our incoming President is far more progressive than the one that is leaving. But every time I advance a point to that effect, you say that I’m not understanding your point. Exactly how do you view this coming administration – with hope, or with indifference? Do you think that Obama will make strides to advance our cause, or do you think that he is necessarily ineffective because he is a politician? You can’t separate the ‘overall principle’ argument from the individual in this situation – either you think he’ll be helpful, or you think he won’t. I’m not debating the value of action outside the political system, or the inherent ineffectiveness within it – I’m simply saying that this situation we find ourselves in right now, even considering the Warren invitation, is decidedly better than any we have been in throughout recent history concerning the possibility for advancing universal rights and freedoms. I have been trying to get at what exactly you think about this, but maybe I’ve been going at it wrong.
DOI people are the ones I have to deal with most in my current job. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Reclamation, National Park Service, BLM, Geological Survey, Minerals Management. We have a 6000 mile of transmission system, not to mention storage fields. So – kinda important to have the right people in the job – rather than the shoddy management over the last eight years. Trust me – anything is an improvement over Norton and Kempthorne. And someone who can navigate the holy-shit complicated of the water rights in Colorado – which has the headwaters of 7 major rivers – is a fairly decent person to put in charge.
Interior is a minefield of competing interests, no doubt. As a sometimes-ecologist, my main concern is the integrity of the Endangered Species Act, so I consider Suckling and the CBD to be on my side. They have put up a pretty impressive fight against the corporate shills that have been in charge for the last 8 years, and I think they’ll play an important role in keeping the next Administration honest when it comes to biodiversity issues (I’m pretty happy about Lubchenco at NOAA for the same reason). But the rhetoric gets a little over the top.
Where I wasn’t clear in my response to Joel is that I wasn’t aware Obama has stated he would oppose gay marriage when and where it has officially been legalized or the attempts to do so based on his religious belief. I did not see Obama campaigning for gay marriage in CA, but at the same time I didn’t see him supporting Prop 8 to repeal it.
Repeating my previous link: http://erlc.com/article/clinton-obama-other-dems-favor-repealing-part-of-doma
And Obama on Prop 8 specifically:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
Yes to google and to correcting ignorance and misrepresentation.
SC:
This is the point of yours that I specifically disagree with, because it posits that no politicians can be relied upon to be self-motivated enough or able to bring about change. And if your main argument here is that he’ll need pressure on all issues exactly because of your view above, then there is no reason to single out the LGBT issue and criticize him for not supporting it, because his selection of Warren was not an admission of support for Warren’s views.
And even granting that politicians aren’t motivated without activism and pressure from the populace, was Obama’s massive small donor base and similarly massive volunteer force not proof that we’re at least moving in that direction? I don’t see anything in the last election that says our society is lazy in its activism for change these days.
The reason I kept bringing it back to Obama, even though I understood your arguments were structurally based, was the plain fact that this is a discussion that turned into a referendum on Obama’s LGBT positions due to his invitation to Warren – not because I was unable to comprehend your statements.
First, you don’t get to define what a discussion is about. Second, when I entered it it seemd primarily about the most appropriate or effective response to this action – not its “meaning.” This is simply your trying once again to suggest that I’m making some claims about Obama’s motives or intentions, which I’m not. Third, if we’re talking about action in an electoral system, our judgments should be formed and statements made within a broader sociohistorical understanding and framework. Otherwise, any claims about what is really effective are nothing but idiosyncratic opinions based on nothing.
OH NOEZ! Not revolutionary! What part of anarchist do you not understand?
To be called idealistic numerous times by someone who volunteered to serve in the military of a nation-state that has engaged in aggressive and criminal military actions for more than a century, willingly participated in a criminal war, declared that he was proud of having done so, was screwed over by his government when most in need and called upon people here for action on his behalf (I immediately sent your information on to organizations that I thought could be of assistance), and after all of this criticizes others for not exhibiting sufficient faith in politicians or government is really a bit fucking much. If more people had been more critical, more outspoken, more demanding, and more active outside and inside the system for the past 8 years, perhaps you wouldn’t have had to suffer as you have. Obama’s election means some things have changed. It is naive to overestimate how much.
Argument by assertion.
No, you still don’t!
This is not my idea. What a stupid strawman.
Again.
I’m just seeing if I have this straight: So we should recognize the validity of the views of even fascists or white supremacists in the conversation and give them public recognition if they, what, think AIDS is bad and believe in the reality of global warming?
Fighting against them does not equal shutting them out. I will try to convince people who show evidence that they can be convinced. People who are promoting oppression should be fought.
Argument by assertion.
I don’t agree with this, but even assuming I did, this is a strawman version of my argument. I was arguing against the position that people should tone down their criticism or relax in terms of oppositional activism because a “progressive” has been elected to the presidency.
Again, what part of anarchist do you not understand?
First, all direct action is not revolutionary. Second, it’s everything I can do not to reply to this snarkily.
You need to study more history.
This has become crazy, bs. It wasn’t a criticism of his lack of action – it was a response to your “What more could he have done…?” and your suggestion that the Warren invitation was inconsequential because it’s merely a symbolic gesture. At this moment, it’s as consequential as any other statement or gesture.
It can be an insult and a symbolic recognition of abhorrent views without portending anything to come.
And if they’re treated with official respect, and few speak out, future leaders will look a lot like them.
I said nothing about involvement in the administration. I’ve still seen no argument made for how this differs from inviting someone who had said similar things about other racial groups.
I’m not ignoring them. I’m recognizing the power of these people and their organizations in a way your high-school-civics-class version of politics doesn’t.
And you’re wrong. This won’t reduce resistance to the “progressive agenda,” and they’re already in the fucking fold. They wield a great deal of power in this country.
Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that. But it isn’t a menial task in the sense that it lacks symbolic import.
It’s absurd to champion civility at the expense of genuine struggle, or to see it as always possible or appropriate (as some people did with regard to the shoe incident).
Well, the only way we’ll get the change we need is to expel the government from any representation in government. :) In the meantime, the religious right as the religious right shouldn’t have any representation in government. As Obama said in that earlier speech, arguments about public policy should be formulated in secular terms or should carry no weight. He’s said and done several things since that make him look rather like a hypocrite.
There’s a difference between fighting and seeking to marginalize political beliefs and views, and those who hold them to the extent that they’re oppressing others, and seeking to eradicate people.
That’s a bit silly. And have you not heard of South Africa? Bolivia?
No, it doesn’t.
No one’s going to move us anywhere. We can only move ourselves and get them to climb aboard.
(By the way, speaking of symbolic gestures, did anyone else note that Lori L. Brown mentioned in the MN Atheists broadcast yesterday that the Secular Coalition is having trouble finding a congressperson to sponsor an act recognizing the 200th Darwin celebration? Wow.)
OK. I’m sure when the page refreshes I’ll find plenty I’ll want to respond to, but I do have to get back to grading for at least a few hours. Sorry to bail.
@ I’ll second that
Thank you for the timely, informative and supportive links and posts.
Wow indeed; that’s really fucked up.
Um, dude, I’m not gay. I am, however, a woman, and offended by his views on abortion, now that I’ve learned of them (not that I’m surprised – it just hasn’t been the focus of the discussion).
Again: straight girl here. What’s grown old as far as I’m concerned is this insistence on framing what this action is “about” for other people and dismissing their legitimate objections with glib remarks about self-pity and inconsequentiality. I don’t know what it’s like to be a wounded veteran, but if you were protesting a parallel situation related to yourself, I would seek to understand where you were coming from and recognize your ability to understand the situation rather than accusing you of trying to play some identity card.
mayhempix:
OK. Maybe I was being too sensitive. :)
OK – I misunderstood that one, too. :)
Claro.
Claro.
@I’ll second that,
I guess if you want to take Obama at his word, which ever word it happens to be this week, that works. My experience with people who believe something because God tells them is they are not likely to be committed to a cause that runs counter to their chosen beleif system.
Within the same paragraph you quoted, Obama expresses support for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, yet even before he’s gotten into office he’s begun managing the expectations concerning it’s repeal. Word is now it will not be looked at until at least 2010, and some say not during his first term.
If Don’t Ask Don’t Tell are too touchy a subject to address now, where do you think DOMA and equality are going to stand?
SC:
And I truly appreciate that.
Though I respect you and your opinions, I won’t be responding anymore after this, as you don’t seem to recognize that I am not trying to insult you, but rather simply trying to explain my position. If I insulted you by calling your ideas idealistic, I’m sorry. There was no malice there, simply a descriptive that I think describes the idea that we cannot – as a matter of principle – trust politicians to take the course we as a populace believe needs to be taken.
As for my military service, it was not idealistic to choose to serve – it was realistic. I did not have any flighty ideas about saving the world, but rather I felt a sense of obligation to do my part. Whether or not you find that silly, I don’t care. Second, I needed help getting out of my situation then, and the military provided that chance. You don’t have a clue concerning my motivations behind joining, but I’d have thought you would have given me more credit than to assume I joined for idealistic reasons, given that we’ve talked about this before.
And I did not “willingly” participate in a criminal war. I was required to do so, against my will, because the civilian government gave the President the authorization to order me to do so. Again, this is something that has been repeatedly addressed in posts in the past that I know you read and were a part of, so I don’t know why you’re advancing such statements now.
And nowhere did I criticize anyone for “not having sufficient faith” in Obama. I simply said that I was holding out judgement until he actually makes policy decisions that will outline what his agenda will be, and that I thought it would be smart for more people to do the same. That was a misrepresentation of my comments on your part, though I don’t know if it was unintentional or deliberate.
Right, and the fight we’re in right now is to reduce the religious right’s disproportionate level of influence, along with trying to get that community to replace their bigoted and closed-minded leaders with individuals more amenable to the progressive viewpoint. Simply listening to them does not mean that they will retain their political clout as a result.
Those two countries have elected individuals to their highest office that would be considered a minority in this country, but not in their own. That’s what I meant. Bolivia has never elected a non-hispanic head of state, and since the fall of apartheid, South Africa has not elected a non-black President.
I don’t disagree totally, I just don’t believe that there are no politicians that do not genuinely want to change things – upward pressure may be necessary on the whole, but in my view there are politicians out there who don’t require that we tell them what they need to do before they can begin to fight for what’s right.
@ #575 Sven
CBD’s lawyers are a kickass team. No doubt about that. They’re experts. And I’m certainly for transparency and accountability in government. Suckling is an artist of semantics, and twisting words, though. So he triggers my have-to-look-up-and-actually-see-what-person-actually-said button of skeptic-mojo. If he does that for everyone – I view that as a good thing, because I like people to be better informed. (I’m not sure that it does, though) (And I’m a word-twister, myself, so I can appreciate him on that level. He’s very good at defending his position.) I just don’t happen to believe that Salazar is a bad choice in light of his considerable experience, and the competing interests involved in the DOI, nor do I believe the person Suckling set forth was a great choice.
But, we’ll see how Salazar runs the place – and I’ll be glad CBD is there, poking and prodding the DOI to weigh environmental impact carefully in making their decisions. I just prefer to get my analysis on the issues from sources like this : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=960124 – to the things Suckling utters to the AP. (Truth is a complete defense to defamation – so I’d like him to sling more of that, and less with the rhetoric. Truth is potent and damning enough.)
I’m not saying it doesn’t ever happen. I’m saying that due to the structural characteristics of the system it can’t be relied upon to happen, and that the election of seemingly friendly politicians should never be cause to let down our guard or to be less active or outspoken. Similarly, while we may find stories in the MSM that don’t support elite interests, given the structure of the MSM we can’t count on this. We need to develop alternative media and at the same time view critically any information coming from MSM sources.
Must…tear…self…away…from…thread…
My argument is indeed not at all issue-specific (though the amount of pressure necessary is I’m sure not perfectly even across issues). I entered an ongoing discussion about the LGBT issue; I didn’t single it out.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Sorry, I didn’t realize. I assumed you were, and was obviously wrong. I apologize. I did not dismiss anyone’s objections – I think you may be confusing my comments with someone else’s. That was part of the misunderstanding between PATG and myself. I simply said that though the Warren pick was disgusting, there may be a political positive to it that will outweigh the negative we’re feeling about it right now.
And though it is not a complete understanding, I have made a great deal of effort, both on and off this board, to understand the areas of this debate that I do not have any first-hand experience with. And I never made any reference to an ‘identity card’ being played – the only reference I made anywhere close to that was to say that I thought some people on this thread were looking for insult where there was none (I think I phrased it as ‘the insulted card’, and later apologized for it after realizing it was taken as an affront), and I didn’t include you in that group. Quite the contrary, I wouldn’t deign to insult your intelligence. (FWIW, you’re one of the few commenters here that I search the threads for.)
All in all, I have never presumed to tell anyone what they should think or feel, and I never told anyone they should not feel insulted – only that I don’t believe Obama meant it as a slight to the LGBT community. I simply related my own thoughts and feelings, and why I think they’re justified.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 3:03 PM
There’s nothing there I don’t agree with – I guess my whole point was that even though I agree that we – as a general rule – shouldn’t rest on our laurels after electing a decent candidate, I don’t think that in our current situation we are doing that. I’ve actually be really surprised at the level of involvement in the past few months.
And that’s where I confused your comments with the ongoing discussion – mine were limited to that issue while yours were not. My mistake.
I know – I’m beginning to think its futile to try…
That seems a bit pouty, and I never said I thought you were trying to insult me, so I don’t know what that’s all about.
You didn’t insult me. I simply think you were wrong, and that it is your position that is idealistic.
Given that we’ve talked about this before, and I’ve read your conversations with others on this subject, I do have a clue. (And the bit about doing your part is indicative of idealism.)
That statement on my part was overreaching (and more than a little mean). I retract the “willingly” and the general sense of that remark. As for the rest, it’s definitely not a conversation I want to have now. We can continue to agree to disagree.
I don’t think so. You presumed to tell others who are more personally affected the meaning and significance of the act, and chastised them for not showing the restraint you believe is necessary under the circumstances, lecturing them on how they should wait for him to do his thing.
We’re not talking about “simply listening to them.” We’re talking about a specific decision. To claim that the selection of Warren will in any way contribute to achieving the two goals you’re talking about is simply contrary to reason. “I want to reduce their influence and get them to replace the more bigoted leaders, so I’ll recognize one of the more bigoted leaders in an inaugural ceremony.”
Actually, a minority is a group distinguished by physical or cultural characteristics and subordinated. It’s not about numbers or percentages. Black people in South Africa are a minority. And Evo Morales is indigenous.
Idealist. :)
*touched* Likewise.
OK. Part of the problem may be that some others were suggesting the things that you’ve been attributing to me (the assumptions about Obama’s intent or what it means for his future policies), so when I entered the discussion we were already kind of talking across each other.
That tends to happen when someone (me, I mean) gets so intent on trying to explain a point that bits of critical info sometimes fly right by.
And not to belabor a point you don’t want to discuss, but I will say that I am fully aware that I was a part of a criminal war. That is one of the things that made me try to focus on the good I could do, of which we did some – though it was not enough, in my opinion, to make up for the pain those people are going through. And even though I probably would have still made the choice to serve back then (’97), these recent events have made me firm in the decision to try my best to discourage my children (whenever they may come) or any of my friends or family in joining, at least right now. The other thing that eats at me is that I gave up a portion of my health, but I have nothing I can point to to make it worth it. I can try to center on the development and interaction we tried to make happen, or the infrastructure we built, but nothing really makes it worth it.
You got me on that one. But I think that is one area that isn’t pure idealism, because there are those types of politicians out there, even if they’re not the ones drawing the most attention.
This 2006 data is the most recent census-type info I could find (the last census was 2001), and it lists “African” (black) at 79.5% of SA’s population, and “Coloured” (mixed-race) at 8.9%, while the percentage of whites in SA was 9.2%.
http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022006.pdf
Hispanic was the wrong word to use concerning Bolivia, too. All I meant was that Morales is not considered a minority in Bolivia, though his status as the first indigenous President in almost 500 years is similarly historic in my mind.
[Quick correction – I checked facilis’s blog, and he’s no poe – he was actually defending Warren as not being a homophobe. Amazing.]
I haven’t heard much about Warren but I checked wikipedia and he seems like a nice person. I mean he wants “to fight international poverty and disease expanding educational opportunities for the marginalized, and caring for the environment.”
I’m glad Obama’s associated with him. I wouldn’t mind if he was my pastor (He’s probaly better than J. Wright) .I’m sure you might disagree with his views on the definition of marriage but that’s no reason to say he’s a homophobe.
[Facilis, which form of biblical marriage?]
The kind Jesus was talking about when he said “a man and a woman shall become one flesh”.
But you (like around 15% of my students on the midterm) missed the definition of minority. Wikipedia is actually decent on this, but for their initial focus on voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group
Again, it’s not a numerical question. There are many cases in which minorities have constituted or constitute the largest group in terms of numbers.
[Go to his blog and check for yourself what kinds of things he views to be undisputed facts ]
I was careful to cite Phd New testament scholars and historians like N.T. Wright and Gary Habermas when I talked about whether the facts were disputed. Is there some kind of error you would like to point out?
“He’s a biblical marriage proponent. ”
Good for him. Now could we just leave the biblical marriage for biblical people?
I though biblical marriage meant plural wives and many concubines. Which is why I asked. And guess what, that is still in the bible. So biblical marriage must include polygamy. You don’t get to pick and chose. All is correct, or none is correct.
[I though biblical marriage meant plural wives and many concubines. ]
That was only a couple richer people like Solomon. And a few early figures like Abraham and Isaac.God did say that he permitted some people things because their hearts were hard(for example God hated divorce but permitted it). I’m opposed to polygamy though.
Are you opposed to it? And why?
Point taken. The only one I was trying to make was that Obama’s election was unique in that the numerical majority of the country does not share his ethnic or racial identity.
Not good enough. All the bible is good or nothing about it makes sense. Make your pick, and quit lying, equivocating, and godbotting.
Yikes, I just checked back on this thread after about a day and I gotta say: What a clusterfuck! Any time someone says this place is an echo chamber I’m linking here. Are people not having a Happy Monkey?
QD, you seem to have a knack for unintentionally starting flame wars (no pun intended). Use this power for good! Go over to Rapture Ready or Ray Comfort’s blog and start some trouble.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 22, 2008 4:55 PM
I seriously doubt he’ll do any of those, which is why it is useless to engage him. For someone so obviously conservative, the notion that he hadn’t heard much of Rick Warren (especially considering all the publicity around the Saddleback Presidential Forum) is just dishonest.
The conservative giveaway was the jab at Jeremiah Wright, and his insistence on not recognizing Warren – in light of his outspoken belief that homosexuals should not be allowed to enjoy the same rights as the rest of us – as a homophobe is the concern troll tell.
He’s here to sound polite, not listen, and annoy the piss out of whomever he can get to respond.
With regards to polygamy, I am not opposed to it in and of itself. I believe that consenting adults should be able to enter whatever living arrangements/resource sharing/sexual intercourse that they think they can handle. I am opposed to polygamy as it is typically practiced in various Christian sects; i.e., where a few alpha males essentially force underage girls into their harems.
facilis,
OT, but I like to hear your response to this.
2 Kings 2
Was it right for God to send 2 bears to kill 42 children for simply mocking Elisha for being bald?
God simply wanted to reward the bears for years of prayer and devotion ;)
the election of a minority to the highest office is something that not even other democracies have done previously – brokenSoldier
A lot depends on how you define “minority”!
Actually, a minority is a group distinguished by physical or cultural characteristics and subordinated. It’s not about numbers or percentages. Black people in South Africa are a minority. – SC, OM
That’s a strange use of “minority”, that I haven’t come across before, and one bound to be misunderstood. “Oppressed group” is surely clearer. Either way, you’re right about Bolivia, since indigenes are an oppressed numerical majority, but prior to Morales, all elected leaders have been from the white numerical minority! Similarly in Venezuela, most of the population are mestizos, but Chavez is the first mestizo to be elected President. Ditto, I think, Correa in Ecuador. In none of these countries, of course, does the description “Hispanic”, used by brokenSoldier, make any sense at all. In Guyana, Cheddi Jagan was a member of the largest numerical minority (East Indian Guyanese) – no group forms a numerical majority – which also has a history of oppression. The current President, Sam Hinds, is a member of the smaller Afro-Guyanese minority, also with a history of oppression. In the UK (but in pre-Democratic times), Disraeli was a member of the Jewish ethnic minority, although a baptised Christian. Benito Juárez in Mexico, again before full democracy (women had no votes) was a full-blooded Zapotec – a minority member in all possible senses. Jean Chrétien was a member of the Francophone minority in Canada. Manmohan Singh is a member of the Sikh minority in India (but was appointed to his post after the last election by the leader of Congress, the Italian-born Sonia Gandhi. De Valera was a member of the Protestant minority in the Irish Free State (now the Republic of Ireland). Bruno Kreisky was a member of the Jewish minority in Austria (astonishing, considering the breadth and depth of antisemitism there).
Of course if we go with SC’s definition, anywhere that has elected a woman counts!
I could go on, but I’ll leave it there – once I started, I kept thinking of other possible examples!
Those are some interesting rationalisations, facilis. Funny how the judeo-christian god seems to favour the preferences of rich people. I wonder why that would be? Couldn’t have anything to do with generous donations to the church, would it? I’ve always found it strange that god needs money.
So, you’re against divorce? You must spend a lot of time arguing with fundamentalist christians, amongst whom divorce rates are higher than other groups.
brokenSoldier,
I posted my#608 (which took some time to put together using google) before reading your #593.
brokensoldier, OM
You’re right, of course, but I really enjoy mocking godbots. Maybe if I goad him right he will say something to cause PZ to ban him.
By the way, good to see you back posting on a regular basis, even if may only be for a few days. Hope things are going better for you these days.
SC OM
“Claro”
Buenisimo.
Merkel is both a woman and a former citizen of the GDR, does that count? :-p
Well, if we’re being technical about it, the majority of Bolivia’s population doesn’t share Morales’ ethnic/racial identity. But I think the larger point for me is that even politicians from oppressed groups or who have themselves struggled and suffered for human rights and social justice can’t be relied upon to create positive change. Even Morales
and I’ll post this recent piece by him:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/112765/bolivian_president_evo_morales:_20_ways_to_save_mother_earth_and_prevent_environmental_disaster/
doesn’t escape this judgment. This is not in any way to suggest that there aren’t politicians of the past and present whom I admire and respect greatly or whose sacrifices I recognize. I oppose the system, and recognize what I see as its fundamental flaws. This doesn’t mean I view all politicians throughout time as enemies or incapable of doing anything good.
Well, I’m not. My friend who offered me a ride home is leaving tomorrow morning, and since I’ve been sick there’s no way I’ll be able to finish grading and get everything together by then (no, not even if I tore myself away from here completely, in case anyone’s wondering). So I’ll be stuck here, probably alone, for the holidays(?) rather than with my family and friends.
*wallows momentarily*
*laughs at herself*
*gets over it*
1 Jesus died by crucifixion
2 The tomb was empty
3 Jesus’ disciples were disheartened after he was dead.However they had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had physically risen from the dead and appeared to them. They were so convinced they suffered and some were martyred for their belief.
Show any historical evidence for any of that, though given your abysmal spelling I’ll bet you’ll just appeal to the bible.
[For someone so obviously conservative,]
I’m not really conservative. I tend to side with the conservatives on issues like abortion and gay marriage though.
[ the notion that he hadn’t heard much of Rick Warren (especially considering all the publicity around the Saddleback Presidential Forum) is just dishonest.]
I can honestly say the first time i heard of Warren was when my dad bought his book and then when the gay people attacked a Saddleback church.I honestly haven’t listened to him much.
[The conservative giveaway was the jab at Jeremiah Wright,]
During the elections (here in Texas) they ran a bunch of attack ads featuring Wright’s “preaching”. He’s a very angry guy.
@Wowbagger
So, you’re against divorce? You must spend a lot of time arguing with fundamentalist christians, amongst whom divorce rates are higher than other groups.
I go with what Jesus said. The only permissible reason for divorce is adultery
No, that’s the standard sociological definition of minority, found in the text I use as well as others. It’s only bound to be misunderstood by those who use sociological terminology imprecisely. Heck, it’s the one given by Wikipedia in the link I provided.
It isn’t my definition, man. I didn’t want to open that particular can of worms, but that’s arguably true.
“During the elections (here in Texas) they ran a bunch of attack ads featuring Wright’s “preaching”. He’s a very angry guy.”
Do you not think that black people in this country have legitimate reasons to be angry?
It’s only bound to be misunderstood by those who use sociological terminology imprecisely. – SC, OM
Or those who aren’t sociologists (which is the vast, er, majority ;-) ). AFAIK, they didn’t invent the word.
Nerd of Redhead,
Ficilis has to pick and choose which bits of the bible he follows. Anyone who actually followed all of the rules in the bible would be locked up.
Christians don’t get their morals from the bible. They use the bible as an excuse for their immorality.
facilis,
As Kel, says, your description of 1-3 of your “Facts” in the “counter-challenge” as such is either dishonest or ignorant and self-deceiving. Why, therefore, should we believe you when you say you are “not a conservative”, especially given your homophobia and misogyny?
No, but it was developed as a term meaning something about racial/ethnic identity and group subordination within sociology. I do agree that it can be misunderstood (more reason for people to take sociology! :)), though, so that remark was a bit dumb. Nonetheless, my original comment with the definition was in response to brokensoldier’s remark about how the election of Obama, a minority member, is somehow a special case to which my political notions don’t apply. The contention that the election of Mandela is not a good comparative case because black people constitute(d) the numerical majority of SA’s population really shows why a sociological and not numerical meaning is what we need to preserve here.
The contention that the election of Mandela is not a good comparative case because black people constitute(d) the numerical majority of SA’s population really shows why a sociological and not numerical meaning is what we need to preserve here. – SC
True as far as its sociopolitical significance is concerned, but once democracy was achieved in South Africa, it was a pretty safe bet that a black President would be elected, because blacks constitute such a large numerical majority. Obama is a member of a minority in both senses, and I’d say this means there is no close parallel for his election – the nearest is Kreisky. Kennedy would be the closest US parallel – I forgot him earlier.
I never meant to imply that your notions did not apply to Obama’s election – I was only trying to point out (obviously slightly incompetently) that Obama’s election was an insiringly unique occurrence, even if it is not totally without similar precedent.
I told you, I’m not a climatologist. (I’m a computer scientist for the record) This is why I’m not arguing against the findings of climatologists, because they have studied this problem extensively and I have not. The same goes for biology, for chemistry, for physics, for history and for whatever other discipline out there I’m not qualified in. All I can ever really do is echo the sentiments of experts, those who actually are qualified.
kpss@626 – WTF?
Malcolm, reading the bible and seeing all the contradictions in black and white is enough to turn a teen to atheism. Been there, done that. Ficilis is just showing himself to be liar. Historical Jebus didn’t exist, so quoting him is like quoting the wind. But he has to decide which end of the bible he believes, since he can’t believe it all without freezing his mind. Even Jebus contradicts himself, all forgiving one minute then smiting the next.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 22, 2008 5:27 PM
Gotcha – the only way we differ, I think, is that though I don’t always agree with the system, it still seems to me to be the best way to get done what needs to get done. But you’re right in the fact that in our current political climate, it is going to take a watershed of citizen involvement to change course. But I do think this last election was a good start, and I think we’re a lot closer on certain issues than we have ever been.
Unfortunately, that makes two of us! :( I’ve stocked up on movies, so it shouldn’t be a big deal.
Why the fuck are you quoting me?
Except bs’s point seemed to be that due to these unique circumstances he was more likely to act in a way that would confound my structural argument about politicians. My argument is not that Obama’s election can’t be seen as novel in any sense, but that it shouldn’t be seen as exceptional in terms of the broader structural argument I’m making (indeed, much less so than others). I’m open to counterarguments, but to be honest I’d say that the chance of convincing me that I should put my trust in Obama when I don’t even put my trust in Morales is virtually nil. Obama’s election may be historic, but it hasn’t turned the world upside down.
Oh good, we’ve got a godbotherer to play with instead of an angry gay and a climate change denying libertarian.
So why shouldn’t gays be allowed to marry? Is it because:
* God thinks what they do in bed is icky?
* If gays can marry, then dogs will be marrying fire hydrants?
* Other?
The Redhead and I were discussing what would happen to our 30+years of marriage if her gay cousin could marry his partner of 15+ years. The results are shown below:
(*crickets chirping*)
That’s fair, but I don’t trust him unconditionally, and surely never would. Instead, my trust in his judgement is based upon the things that he has written, the legislation he has authored and co-authored, and the fact that he was able to maintain a two-year campaign with hardly a hitch while also maintaining a fair, even tone and without resorting to the kinds of attacks that McCain and Palin made almost daily.
I would say that it can both be seen as exceptional while also being held to skeptical standards of accomplishment once he gets into office. True, I do enjoy taking a minute to realize we got one right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m blinded by optimism. I believe it’s possible to harbor both optimism and skepticism at once.
@Kel
Ypu can read the other posts on my blog where I defend those facts. You can also pick up any book by NT Wright or Gary Habermas if you want to go more in depth.
I know. I’d say jokingly that if I wanted to sit around agreeing with everyone I’d go to an anarchist blog, but we’re not exactly known for our easy agreement. I think I’d rather argue with Piltdown than an anarchoprimitivist.
I just want to make sure it continues to be seen as a start – or better, an opportunity – and not an occasion to leave it to the leaders.
Sadly, that’s not saying much. And a lot of time and energy will yet again have to be spent merely trying to regain ground that had been won earlier and that was lost over the past several years and continuing to fight against further encroachments.
I don’t even have food. Too bad we’re not in the same area. :)
Wow, those names are impressive. A new testament scholar and an apologist… I’m convinced.
[As Kel, says, your description of 1-3 of your “Facts” in the “counter-challenge” as such is either dishonest or ignorant and self-deceiving.]
So I suppose the vast majority of New testament researchers are also ignorant and self-deceiving.Me and my scholarly research ….
[Why, therefore, should we believe you when you say you are “not a conservative”, especially given your homophobia and misogyny?]
I’m not homophobic. I’ve never met a homosexual but I’m sure they’re normal people like you and me. I don’t hate women either. Why are you throwing out all these ad homs?
Posted by: facilis | December 22, 2008 7:16 PM
Ahhh, the more you try to stay away, the more you get pulled in…
facilis, you may have made the attempt, but your defense is little more than a minestrone stew of argument from authority, appeal to the supernatural, and circular reasoning. And perusing historical speculation from theologians is not much more productive at all. So I’m sure if Kel wanted to waste some time, there’d be far more preferable ways to do it. You’re not fooling anyone here – they’re simply having fun with you.
Really? How old are you and where the hell do you live?
Facilis, how much evidence for Jesus comes from outside the bible?
It’s not an ad hominem attack when you’ve demonstrated the fact that you don’t believe those classes of humans should enjoy the same rights as you do. Again, you don’t have to be overtly nasty to be a bigot. You can be polite all you want about it, it just makes you a polite bigot. And homophobe.
You’re “sure they’re normal people”? You don’t have to meet a certain kind of human to know that they’re just like you and me in that department. Be careful, your homophobia is showing.
The one thing I know about Obama is that he is throughly decent. His original senate opponent, who was a moderate republican, was going through a bitter divorce with his soon to be ex actress wife, and it came out that he took is wife to some sex clubs. Most of the state went eh? OK, that was with his wife, no harm, no foul. The rightwingnuts went wild. Eventually caused the guy, who was running neck to neck with Obama, to pull out, and brought in Alan Keyes to be the “pure conservative republican” candidate. Obama won with >60% of the vote. (That pretty much destroyed the reputation of right wing republicans in Illinois.) And Obama never made any bad comments about his early opponent, even when he might have scored political points by doing so. So I’m going to give him a break until I see what he and his administration really does.
Yep, that’s just it. You know there’s going to be nothing of substance there, there isn’t a single artefact ever discovered that Jesus ever owned or even touched. There’s not a single piece of evidence that Jesus ever existed. You’d think that believers who saw Jesus as God on earth would have been clamouring to preserve every little piece of God they could, that they would have preserved every piece of information.
Instead what do we have? A collection of “eyewitness accounts” written by people who never met Jesus, the founding of the religion my someone who Jesus “revealed himself” to, and those alone are meant to be enough to convince others that a man defied all known laws of physics? Where’s the cave Jesus was buried in? Where’s the pieces of cross? Where’s the lance of longinus? Where’s the historical record of his crucifixion?
There’s simply no evidence for who people claim Jesus to be, for a god in man’s flesh, his appearance made little impact on the nearby world.
For me, it’s not a matter of either, but of continuing to act (including openly criticizing politicians who do things I believe are contrary to justice or rights or freedom), hoping and in some cases expecting that the seemingly-friendlier politicians will respond supportively or at least not turn around and oppose us along the way and that the hostile ones won’t respond violently (less optimistic about this last). So for me it’s not “about” them, the politicians, but about us. Frustrating – I can see the differences in our general perspectives visually, as a diagram, but unfortunately can’t recreate that here in the comments.
[Malcolm, reading the bible and seeing all the contradictions in black and white is enough to turn a teen to atheism. Been there, done that.]
I guess I think differently from you. Either it’s all true or its not? That’s a big false dichotomy
[Ficilis is just showing himself to be liar. ]
Yep me and all those New testament schlars are lying
I’ve never met a homosexual
*boggle*
Where do you live? Iran? Slappy Ahmadinejad said they don’t have any there when he did his standup routine at Columbia University a while back. A so-so act, and I thought the joke about the airline food on the WTC planes was in poor taste.
but I’m sure they’re normal people like you and me.
Gee, are you sure? C’mon, you’re kidding, right? Don’t make me come over there.
Facilis wrote:
Willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty – which they are guilty of – isn’t the same thing as lying.
I think facilis inadvertently hit the nail on the head there. His is an appeal to the honesty of those who wrote on the subject. The story of Jesus is one of physics defying miracles, incredulous tales that would be otherwise absurd if not for the fact they are systematically indoctrinated through dogma. Yet facilis is putting all his eggs into the basket that the people who wrote the stories were being entirely honest, as if being honest and believing something with great conviction is a good measure of truth. I know plenty of people who say they’ve seen a ghost…
But I can’t control it! :-( I’m like Thomas Covenant with the Wild Magic in the Steven R. Donaldson books. It has a mind of its own! Haaalp!
What are those? Religious blogs? I can’t read those. They make my neurons get all wonky. The stoopid hurts, and not in a good way like when Mistress takes the whip and-[REST OF POST CENSORED BY FCC PROTECTRON MONITOR]
Nerd of Redhead wrote:
Not quite. Obama’s opponent, Jack Ryan, had a bitter divorce from his wife, Jeri Ryan (who played 7 of 9 in Star Trek: Voyager). Their divorce papers were sealed. The Chicago Tribune and a Chicago TV station sued to have the papers released. Illinois GOP Chair Judy Baar Topinka asked Ryan if there was anything in the papers which would cause embarrassment. Ryan told her “no.” When the papers were unsealed, the story about Ryan taking his wife to sex clubs became public. Topinka said that Ryan had lied to her. The State Republican Committee “suggested” that Ryan withdraw from the race, which he did.
In short, it wasn’t the sex clubs that did Ryan in, it was lying to his own party that caused his downfall.
I think our difference lies in the fact that my personal emphasis is on the effective use of the system, while your emphasis lies with the effective use of the voice directing that system. Close?
(Perhaps repeating points made above after post #300 or so; if so, I apologise)
A few months ago I heard Chris Hedges speak more or less on the topic of “American Fascism” — his talk was based on his book with that title. He didn’t mention Rick Warren during the talk, but was asked what he thought of Warren during the following Q&A. Hos response (paraphrased): “Rick Warren is a prime exponent of the gospel of prosperity.”
I was dismayed when I learned about Warren’s being invited to deliver the invocation at the inauguration. As the bumper sticker puts it, I’m straight but not narrow, although I was born, was educated for 18 years, and now live about an hour down the road from Ken Ham’s museum. My university library keeps “losing” books by Hitchens, Sam Harris, and others with comparable viewpoints. “American Fascism” hasn’t been lost yet though. I read it over this past weekend. I recommend it to all Pharyngula readers.
I’d prefer to have an inauguration with no invocation at all (Hedges would disagree with me on this point), but that clearly is not politically possible.
Forgot to say: brokenSoldier, I’m glad to see that you’re back!
Erhhhhhhh………
no. :) Perhaps a map is more like it. “The system” is not the key structuring feature of my map. I see history as a the history of social movements, operating within and across various institutional contexts. So, I imagine your global map to show a series of more-or-less bounded sub-national and national entities, with, I don’t know, “action arrows” pointing towards institutional political centers (and all eventually, in the case of the US, to DC). Mine’s a lot messier. While of course I don’t deny the existence of the formal US political structure, my arrows point in a number of directions, sometimes intersecting with these institutional centers and sometimes not, sometimes crossing formal national boundaries or intersecting with international organizations and sometimes not. My anchor points, the sources and locations of action, aren’t formal political actors or institutions, but social-movement groups and organizations (and the movements in general, though they’re harder to pin down). Not sure if this will make any sense to anyone or not…
the chance of convincing me that I should put my trust in Obama when I don’t even put my trust in Morales is virtually nil. Obama’s election may be historic, but it hasn’t turned the world upside down. Agreed! Though the Great Crash of 2008 has at least knocked it sideways!
I suppose the vast majority of New testament researchers are also ignorant and self-deceiving. – facilis
Well certainly many are, since like N.T. Wright they start with the conclusion they want to reach and work backwards. Others, however, including Christians, and ex-Christians who have looked at the evidence honestly and thereby lost their faith, do not believe the “empty tomb” claim – John Dominic Crossan and Hector Avalos for example. So as I say, pretending your 1-3 are agreed facts is either dishonest or ignorant. Of course even if they were, the claim of resurrection would still be garbage. We know religions can start from the most ludicrous and dishonest beginnings – look at Mormonism and Scientology for example. And of course doctrinally orthodox Christianity is necessarily false: nothing could possibly be “wholly God and wholly man” as the Nicene creed has it.
Looks like the dust has settled since my last comment. To be honest I’m surprised that PZ didn’t have to come out brandishing his admin stick.
John Morales said:
Yes, and what harm did a quick copy and paste by myself do? Oh noes I took up a quarter of the scrollbar length, whatever will people do except scroll down? It’s not like the previous 364 comments were that productive, with most consisting of GWIAS’s trolling and responses to that trolling or a flame war of PTGA versus everyone. Obviously the troll didn’t want to objectively look at the evidence on real climate, same as it didn’t want to look at the evidence from the IPCC, so I provided some evidence for AGW which was undigested by bloggers and IPCC people so that he/she can interpret the evidence themselves. Not my fault if all they now want to do is post “blah blah blah” repeatedly and not listen.
Enshoku said:
Okay so the Gandhi+Hitler thing equaling zero was a bit of an exaggeration (but they are the first two people I could think of who lie at opposite ends of my moral compass). But my point was that Lowery+Warren=0 is true. People here and elsewhere have been irate about the “appointment” of Warren, because they say that having Warren give the invocation “panders to ‘anti-LGBT’ views”. But by EXACTLY the same logic, having Lowery at the ceremony, panders to ‘pro-LGBT’ views. So which is it then? Obama is both simultaneously supporting LGBT hatred and love? No of course not. The views of these two men are mutually exclusive, and therefore it can’t say anything about Obama’s position on LGBT rights. In fact the only thing it can say for certain about this is that Obama wants “to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable”. Of course, there may be a particular issue that Obama is looking for Warren to provide the evangelical right’s support, and this issue is obviously not LGBT rights, because of Lowery. Wat is it then? Well, as mayhempix said, it is global warming and environmentalism. Warren is a supporter of that, and if he can get the evangelical people focused on that instead of LGBT rights, then that’s great. (Also, the fact that I reckon that Obama is a shrewd politician (i.e. he knows what pawns to play and when), makes me suspect that Warren is partly a diversion to get news of Blagojevich out of the headlines for a week until Obama’s team releases details of all the conversations. This stops discussion in some channels of Obama somehow being involved in the scandal (which of course he wasn’t, but he doesn’t want to chance is name to be linked with scandal too much). Perhaps anyway. But the environmentalism is the main thing anyway).
Unless the murderer was known as Gabriel Gray? :P
Joel said:
No you didn’t. Least not for long enough anyway. That was not my point at all. I said that Obama “doesn’t need to pander to the LGBT community in his inauguration. They are already on board.” They are already on board! And why? Because he supports their views! They wouldn’t be on board if he didn’t support their views. You say “because we have no place to go”. True, but you make it sound like you have been pigeonholed to support Obama. Far from it. Obama supports LGBT rights! And obviously he has to “concern himself” with LGBT people when he’s in office (else he would be a liar), but getting some guy to do a prayer at his inauguration has nothing to do with that!
Olbermann wasn’t backing Obama up on that fact that he supports LGBT equality, he was making the point that it is “just about a first” for an American President (okay in-waiting) to come out and say that. And I wasn’t quoting Olbermann because it makes it true, I quoted Olbermann because it would be intellectually dishonest of me to claim that I came up with that point when I had heard it on Countdown. It is a first for a President, so I don’t know what the LGBT community have to worry about from Obama.
And? That was Olbermann’s point, that Obama is the first in his position to advocate LGBT equality. Appointing 150 gay men and women does not make Clinton an advocate. As I’ll second that said, Obama “favors repeal of DOMA, elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, passage of ENDA, and more”. That is a lot more than appointing 150 gay men/women (and Obama’s administration hasn’t appointed that many people in total yet I suspect). Besides, how can (in your view) the naming of Warren for the invocation be a sign that the administration will be anti-gay, but Clinton’s 150 actual appointments meant nothing? Because Clinton actually did the whole “don’t ask, don’t tell” thing, so it mattered not how many gay people Clinton appointed, his policies were what mattered. So just perhaps you could accept the fact that who Obama names to give the invocation at his inauguration doesn’t matter, and therefore, just perhaps, Obama might do some good for LGBT rights?
Also Joel, why have you responded to my comments to Greg both here and on Greg’s blog, but with slightly different comments?
Whatever the reason, I shall respond here:
How in any way is he pissing on you? Fucking Lowery, remember?
And HE DOES support equality for you guys, and his actions are in sync with his rhetoric. Goodness gracious me, Warren gets to give a little prayer at the ceremony, and automatically Obama is anti-gay! Hows about Obama be given a chance to actually get past January 20th so he can actually do some “actions”. Give the guy a fucking chance. All he can do at the moment is say things like, “It is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans.” And as others have said, he wants to repeal anti-gay legislation. How much more pro-gay can he be (without actually “coming out”), when he isn’t the President yet?
Joel later said:
Well this is mighty stupid. You don’t trust what Obama says, but you trust the “word” of someone who thinks they can predict Obama’s administration 4 years in the future?
Quiet_Desperation said:
Lol, very clever. Remind me never to mix matter and antimatter.
Round Earth is a Scam said:
Oh good god, either in reality or in parody, a flat-earther!
But this raises an important question. Do flat-earthers believe in global warming? Because FEs say that the world is flat and surrounded by a wall of ice. Do they believe this ice is melting? Or do they believe AGW is a hoax perpetrated by the same people who have “blinded the world” into believing the world is round i.e. every scientist, politician, soldier, sailor, astronaut etc etc?
Svetogorsk said:
The comparisons between Obama and Blair are false. Obama, in his campaign, has always expressed left of centre views for the most part. Blair (and Labour) expressed pro-capitalist from 1994, when Blair first proposed changing Clause 4 of Labour’s constitution. The bit that said they were a socialist party and wanted to nationalize lots of things. He created New Labour, a centre-right party in effect.
Most people actually voted Labour because they wanted a change from the Tories, most didnt notice that they were on the right (i.e. wrong) side of the centre ground of politics. As Nick Gotts said, Labour would’ve easily won the 1997 election, new or old.
They aren’t going to lose because of cowardice or for being too timid. Where on Earth has this come from? Iraq, 10p tax, 42 days, Afghanistan, the last pre-budget report, Shoot-to-kill policy over terrorist “suspects”, tuition fees, part-privatization of the Post Office being considered, etc etc. These are not the policies of a “timid” government.
No, Labour are going to lose for they same reason they won in 1997: people want change. And why? Because most people read the Daily Mail and the Sun, and so get all this garbage bombarded at them of “stealth taxes”, “stalinist”, “‘uman rights”, “loony left”, “econuts”, “‘elf n’ safety gone mad” (which as QI just showed yesterday, is a load of bull), “EU bureaucrats”, “Metric martyrs” etc etc, which is all fictitious and utterly utterly ridiculous. Of course Kent is not a part of France now you moronic tabloids (that story really was produced!). The drumbeat of scumbag Richard Littlejohn has swayed enough people (it didn’t have quite enough in 2005). Don’t get me wrong, Labour haven’t been a good government, but they haven’t been a bad one either. But it’s now the perennial time when people change between Labour and the Tories. I never understand why people don’t vote Lib Dem (that’s what I’ll be doing when I get my first chance to vote – I’m a Brit). People always go: “I don’t like Labour anymore, I’m gonna vote Tory instead as an anti-Labour vote” (or vice-versa). Why? Why not Lib Dem? The very things DM readers complain about (so-called “authoritarianism”) will be less under the Lib Dems than the Tories, since the Tories are basically an unevangelical, moderated version of the Republican party in the US. They may stay out of your way in business, but not in your private lives.
Nick Gotts said:
Hmm, Blair wasn’t “right-wing”, he was and still is to the left of the Republican party (party of Lincoln my arse!), and also the Tories. I would say more centre-right. As Svetogorsk has pointed out, he has done progressive things, such as the minimum wage, women’s and LGBT rights improved, (some) environmentalism, to name a few. But Labour’s favouritism of the city (and Rupert Murdoch) and reluctance to crack down on tax havens (I hope Obama presses Brown on those), refusal to renationalize anything, and privatization of some things, shows the right wing policies of them. These are basically the same policies followed since Reagan in America too, and are at the root cause of the world’s economical troubles now. So on the economy, Labour have been more right wing than not. On social issues, they have been about centre. So I reckon centre-right is a fair position to put them.
Steven Sullivan:
Actually I reckon 80% of the above discussion is either trolling or flame warring. I think I think we are entitled to the other 20% to discuss “Prospects for science policy” which is what the blog post is about.
You are aware that the physicist Steven Chu will be the Secretary of Energy? *Gloats* (I’m a physics undergrad). :P
But anyway back to the original discussion: please guys do remember poor old forgotten Lowery. PZ should really have mentioned him in the original post.
SC, OM said:
Well Obama has no need (or desire probably) to invite fascists or white supremacists. Even if these fascists or white supremacists haven’t done anything illegal, it doesn’t matter if there is one available who supports action against global warming and happens to be a preacher. Why not? Because fascists or white supremacists are not a large part of the electorate that Obama would need on board to stop global warming. Seriously, how many fascists or white supremacists do you know? The fascists or white supremacists that have somehow managed to keep themselves on the right side of the law aren’t a huge movement in America. The US isn’t the Weimar Republic, you know.
But unfortunately, the Christian evangelical right is a large movement in the US, so if Democrats want liberal policies enacted and to be popular among the population too, then something has to be done about them. There are two ways of going about this. Either you marginalize them (which isn’t easy, can anger other religious people, and could easily get a Republican elected in 4 years time on the back of an “Obama is antichristian or antireligious” campaign, and we could have another Reagan on our hands) or you CHANGE them. Which is what Obama could well be attempting by making Warren the voice of the Christian right, and thus the Christian right more focused on environmentalism than social issues. Obama is trying to change them, it seems. I thought you Americans voted for Obama because he promised to bring change? What happened to “Change We Need”?
SC, OM then said:
I haven’t come across this definition before. Interesting. If we then say that minority group=subordinate group (like Wikipedia does), then surely black people in South Africa constitute a majority group under this definition too?
Kel said:
Not true. Most historians agree that someone called Jesus (or Joshua) probably existed at the time, and that he was a “charismatic” preacher. Even Richard Dawkins says this much.
What I saw was the neocons were not happy that a moderate republican had won the primary, and were looking for any excuse to remove Ryan and replace him with a “true conservative”, even if doing so caused them to lose the general election (which was still close). Never mind the true conservatives lost the primary. They lost the general election by a much bigger margin than they figured. So it did damage the neocons statewide at the end of the day. Oberweiss, a primary mover in removing Ryan, can’t even win the congressional district that belonged to Hastert, a Speaker of the House, because he is too conservative.
[Well certainly many are, since like N.T. Wright they start with the conclusion they want to reach and work backwards.]
Some do otherwise. Look at scholars like Pinchas Lapide.
[John Dominic Crossan]
John Dominic Crossan believes all 5 facts except for the empty tomb. Well not exactly. He thinks that there was a tomb but the tomb was empty because Jesus’ body wa thrown to the dogs and people mistook the empty tomb for Jesus’ tomb.
[Hector Avalos for example.]
Has Hector Avalos published any work on New testament history?
[So as I say, pretending your 1-3 are agreed facts is either dishonest or ignorant.]
J.D. Crossan is probaly dishonest too. (I believe I quted him on saying fact #1 was indisputable)
[Of course even if they were, the claim of resurrection would still be garbage.]
Find a better explaination of the facts and we can talk.
[ And of course doctrinally orthodox Christianity is necessarily false: nothing could possibly be “wholly God and wholly man” as the Nicene creed has it.]
Please demonstrate this.
[It’s not an ad hominem attack when you’ve demonstrated the fact that you don’t believe those classes of humans should enjoy the same rights as you do.]
Please demonstrate this. Look up the American bill of roghts and tell me exactly what rights in there I denied to homosexual and women.
Facilis, please demonstrate some physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin. After all, no deity implies no holy book and/or dogma. You have avoided doing so to date.
[Facilis, please demonstrate some physical evidence]
Must all evidence be physical?
Only if you don’t want to be considered delusional. After all, then all the evidence just exists between your ears, and no where else.
This is a scientific blog, and science is physical evidence based. So show your evidence or shut up about god and prayer.
To an extent – if you are making the claim that your god can interact on the physical plane (i.e. our universe) then there would be physical evidence, yes. If your god cannot or does not then it has no capacity to have impact on our lives and can be ignored.
From today’s Democracy Now! – “Max Blumenthal on ‘Rick Warren’s Double Life'”:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/23/max_blumenthal_on_rick_warrens_double
“insidiously” – an apt adverb
Posted by: Facilis | December 23, 2008
Must all evidence be physical?
I offer stuff that I pulled out my ass that is now spilling out of my head. Metaphorically.
Postulating temporarily for the sake of argument that God exists:
God is alleged to be infinite.
Man is definitely finite.
Finite and infinite are contradictory attributes.
Since they are contradictory attributes, it is not possible that something can be simultaneously finite and infinite.
Thus, nothing could possibly be “wholly God and wholly man”.
QED.
And if they were, and had the power and influence the religious right does in the US, a parallel situation would be acceptable to you. Wow.
This is precisely my point. They are already in the fucking fold. They are so in the fucking fold they’re stitched-in fucking pleats. We need to get them out.
Right. Because this invitation is really going to make these people and groups who have been dedicated to oppression throughout their entire existence back off on those issues. Utter foolishness. Utter, utter foolishness.
Sure. Watch the above interview. “Fighting the culture wars with a velvet glove” is a good description. They’re not softening; nor are they being domesticated. And their agenda hasn’t changed one iota.
If he is, he’s being extremely foolish (as I stated above, this whole line of thinking runs counter to reason). In the process, he’s aiding the cause of oppression.
@Nerd of Redhead
Are you asserting “all assertions must be supported by physical evidence”?
if so Please provide evidence for this assertion.
I’ve seen transcendental and ontological arguments for God that are not based on physical evidence. Are they invalid because they do not rely on physical evidence? If so please demonstrate it.
Science also relies on basic philosophical principles like logical and mathematical concepts and induction.
Hey! Who would have thought that? The arrow will never hit the target. Let us skip the physical proof.
The “They” in those sentences refers to the religious right in the US.
This is rather vague. Which of his attributes is necessarily infinite?
Which of man’s attributes is necessarily finite
Concerning Rick Warren, sounds like a man will will accept me for who and what I am. I think he is such a “reasonable” fellow.
Facilis, you are just a liar and bullshitter until you present physical evidence. Either god doesn’t involve himself with the real world. If that is the case, god or no god give the same results, and Occam’s razor says no god. Or he can effect the real world, in which case there will be physical evidence of his divine presence. If god can effect things but doesn’t effect the real world because he doesn’t give a shit about humans, we are back to the first case.
Show your evidence, or go away as just a godbotter.
Er, all of them – according to standard christian theology. Omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent is the usual way of describing it. How can something be all-seeing, everywhere at once and all-powerful if it’s not infinite?
Most of them. How about vision? How far away from that vision poster in a doctor’s surgery can you be before you can’t read what’s on it? If you can’t answer ‘infinity’ then it’s finite.
Oh, and I’m glad you’ve got the hang of blockquotes.
facilis,
Was it right for God to send 2 bears to kill 42 children because they made fun of the fact that His prophet was bald ( 2 Kings 2, 22-25, look at comment #607 for exact quote)?
Interesting. Do you deny that God is infinite in existence, i.e., eternal? Do you deny that God is infinite in knowledge and power, at least inasmuch as those attributes don’t contradict each other?
If so, your conception of God is very different from most people’s.
Er, all of them?
From my bible commentary here, it says the Hebrew word can also mean “young man” and is not always a little child.(The same word is used to describe Joseph when he is in his 20’s.)
But yes. Those men were mocking God’s holy prophet and it was right for God to punish them
Why does an omnipotent, omnipresent being need a prophet? Shouldn’t he be able to communicate directly with people? Also, is that the type of being you wish to worship? That imaginary deity is one sick dude.
Incredible how an infinitely strong creature is so easily insulted. It is so thin skinned that it has to kill people that say a cross word to it’s surrogate.
Your deity sounds like a petty tyrant. And you are a kiss ass.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch | December 24, 2008 4:18 PM
Not to mention that such an omniscient being wouldn’t know that he created children in a manner that nearly universally results in them being fairly boisterous and ornery until taught by their elders how to behave in a socially acceptable manner. Curious that he would simply kill them instead of refining the “design.”
facilis,
I don’t know Hebrew so I wouldn’t argue whether it was “children” or “young men” (maybe Owlmirror can help). Even if it was “young men” that’s still incredibly horrible. They weren’t just killed, they were mauled by bears! Just for making fun of someone for being bald!
Thanks for answering my question and showing true Christian love.
Okay so the Gandhi+Hitler thing equaling zero was a bit of an exaggeration (but they are the first two people I could think of who lie at opposite ends of my moral compass). – Alex Deam
This reminds me of a sketch in the 1960s British TV comedy series “Not Only… But Also”, which was written by and starred Peter Cook and Dudley Moore: a cricket match between Good (captained by Gandhi) and Evil (captained by Hitler). The sketch climaxed with Gandhi staging a sit-down protest in the middle of the pitch – the strip between the wickets, along which the bowler bowls to the batsman – at which Hitler “called for the heavy roller” (the captain of either side can ask for the pitch to be flattened using a large and very heavy metal cylinder), and Gandhi ended up paper-thin.
In real life, Gandhi was rather naive about Hitler, writing him friendly letters in the run-up to WW2, and calling on Indians to practice non-violent resistance if he invaded India.
facilis wrote:
Which in itself is fine – well, apart from being monstrous that is – except that we atheists are told that your god is kind and loving and, above all, infinitely just. Sending 2 bears to kill anyone is most certainly not the act of a being who is kind, loving and infinitely just. It’s the act of an insecure, petty, character-deficient prick.
It’s the contradiction we have problems with – I, personally, would not worship or revere your god even if you could make Nerd happy and provide some of the much-needed evidence; my reaction to such a vile creature would a combination of fear and hatred.
What it also says is that the christians responsible for the versions of the bible where it does describe the victims of your god’s injustice as children are also monsters, since – if your translation is correct – they felt that it would have been right and good for your god to have killed 42 children under such circumstances.
facilis #681
Your god is a sadistic bully. The more I heard and read about the Abrahamic god, the more he’s shown to have the maturity of a spoiled five year old.
And of course doctrinally orthodox Christianity is necessarily false: nothing could possibly be “wholly God and wholly man” as the Nicene creed has it. Facilis
The Christian god is said to be omnipotent. Human beings are limited in power. Hence nothing can be both “wholly God” and “wholly man”, since nothing can be both omnipotent and limited in power. Similarly with regard to divine omniscience and limited human knowledge; and divine omnipresence and circumscribed human spatial location. Rather simple really.
“[It’s not an ad hominem attack when you’ve demonstrated the fact that you don’t believe those classes of humans should enjoy the same rights as you do.]
Please demonstrate this. Look up the American bill of roghts and tell me exactly what rights in there I denied to homosexual and women.”
Way to shift the goalposts. We’re not talking the Bill of Rights. The operative words here are “enjoy the same rights as you do.” Although if we add the Declaration of Independence to the discussion, we can point “pursuit of happiness”.
Sorry, just demonstrated my human lack of omniscience by leaving out Facilis’s request that the italicised statement in #689 (which was mine) be supported.
Your Hebrew commentary sucks, then, because the text itself reads “נְעָרִים קְטַנִּים”, ne’arim kitanim, little youths. And the word used of those that the bears killed is “יְלָדִים”, “yiladim“, which always means “children”, never “young men”.
Fixed that for you.
Finally we get a sense of how you define morality — and it is exactly as ugly and relativistic as Hitler’s: You agree that it is “good” to slaughter children for the “crime” of saying “Rise, baldy!”
They always say that atheism will lead to immorality, but here we have atheists abhorring 42 people (possibly children) being killed by bears and a Christian saying it was alright because they were mocking someone for being bald.
Those men were mocking God’s holy prophet and it was right for God to punish them
See Facilis suck up to the Alpha Bully.
And it would have been good, good for them to have been wished into the cornfield.
So, let me get this straight. One day, some old bald theistic misanthropist is teased by a gang of little kids, and he curses them using his most scary mumbo-jumbo, at which point, Facilis, standing metaphorically on the sidelines, commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and assumes that because two she-bears start slaughtering the children, after the old fuck started babbling a load of bile at the little kids, the she-bears went on the rampage because the old geezer could swear to the right imaginary sky fairy. Facilis commences to applaud and cheer and pray that he stays on God’s good side.
What a sick, odious little fuckwit is our little Facilis. My seven year old has more moral sense than Facilis does and, unlike Facilis, can reason his way out of a paper bag.
John Dominic Crossan believes all 5 facts except for the empty tomb. Facilis
So, as I said, he doesn’t believe your claim that 1-5 (actually only 1-3 matter here) are facts. Stop quibbling.
Has Hector Avalos published any work on New testament history? – Facilis
Yes:http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/01/pages-from-dr-hector-avalos-book-end-of.html
Supposing for a moment your 1-3 were facts, several variations on a more likely alternative explanation than resurrection are evident.
1) Jesus’ body was removed by the Roman authorities, who were angered that a convicted criminal should be buried with honour. The empty tomb, combined with hallucinations on the part of some of his followers (hallucinations of the dead person are by no means unusual in the aftermath of a death), then gave rise to his cult.
2) Jesus’ body was removed by the Jewish sanhedrin, for similar reasons. The empty tomb, combined with hallucinations on the part of some of his followers, then gave rise to his cult.
3) Jesus’ body was removed by grave-robbers motivated by the hope of gain: since he was reportedly wrapped, they may have thought valuables could be concealed under the wrappings. The empty tomb, combined with hallucinations on the part of some of his followers, then gave rise to his cult.
4) Jesus’ body was taken from the tomb by scavangers. The empty tomb, combined with hallucinations on the part of some of his followers, then gave rise to his cult.
Blair wasn’t “right-wing”, he was and still is to the left of the Republican party (party of Lincoln my arse!), and also the Tories. I would say more centre-right. As Svetogorsk has pointed out, he has done progressive things, such as the minimum wage, women’s and LGBT rights improved, (some) environmentalism, to name a few. Alex Deam
He is certainly far to the right of the Tory Party of my youth in economic matters. With regard to environmentalism, he’s blethered, but done fuck-all. Many right-wingers (i.e. “libertarians”) support women’s and LGBT rights: the left/right division is fundamentally about the attitude to economic inequality, and Blair loves it.
I don’t vote Lib Dem, incidentally, because they are yet another bunch of right-wingers. Now I’m in Scotland, I vote SNP if the Greens aren’t standing (and now the SSP have imploded), in hopes of breaking up the UK. (As a result of unusual political circumstances, the Scottish Parliament is elected by a pretty democratic system, and the whole political spectrum is considerably to the left of that in England.)
@696,
Another possibility occurs to me. Actually, it’s one that has occurred to many people, but it’s only just occurred to me that it is (just about) compatible with Facilis’s claims 1-3:
Jesus was still alive when taken down from his cross, and was quickly removed from the scene, either by some of his followers, or perhaps by members of his family who were not followers, but wanted to save his life. (It’s worth noting that he was supposedly only crucified for 3 hours, far less than was usually required to kill the victim unless their legs were broken, which his reportedly were not.) A mock burial was performed, with a living person being wrapped up and put in the tomb, then later released while Jesus was hidden and nursed, but later died of his wounds – and hence “died by crucifixion” in the sense that he died of the wounds caused by his crucifixion.
Are you [Nerd of Redhead] asserting “all assertions must be supported by physical evidence”?
if so Please provide evidence for this assertion. – Facilis
Myself I think Nerd overdoes the “physical evidence” bit, but there is no inconsistency in saying that all factual assertions about the world should be supported by physical evidence but not supporting this with physical evidence, since it is clearly a methodological principle, not a factual assertion about the world.
A moral question which occurs to me: would it be right for Facilis to be torn to pieces by bears as punishment for his disgusting immorality in attempting to justify his god’s child-murders? While it would clearly be poetic justice, I would personally vote “no”, being opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances.
(Please note: I’m not suggesting that we take any steps to bring this about, even if the majority of Pharyngulites decide he does.)
And one last thing about the bears from me, facilis. In that story, God did not punish those children, he killed them. There is a HUGE difference. Punishment is intended to influence future behavior, but those children in your bible had no chance to amend their behavior, because they were dead. Some benevolent, loving god you have there…
Sounds like the description of the Passover Plot by Hugh J. Schonfield (1965).
Nick,
Re your post 700, I feel that facilis should be mauled by bears but not killed by them. A few weeks recovering in a hospital bed might give him time to consider the morality of a sadistic, bullying deity killing children because they were rude.
Nerd@702,
I haven’t seen it, but I’ve heard of it (couldn’t think of the title). I think D.H.Lawrence had a similar idea in his short story “The Man Who Died”, but his Jesus survived. There’s actually a supposed “tomb of Jesus” in Kashmir.
‘Tis Himself@703,
Hmm… I see the attraction, but the problem lies in the training of the bears. Maybe he could be mauled by weasels instead?
Oh, I’d pay to see that. Not that facilis himself is all that deserving of a mauling, except for ironic purposes – he’s just unthinking cut-and-paste believer with a love of the argument from authority – but because I just like the idea of it.
I can probably think of some posters more deserving – one incoherent dribbler ‘from Canada’ comes to mind…
Wow, you’re a pretty fucked up person.
Let’s try this game. Jesus was a homosexual, him and peter were performing violent sodomy. Scared that his secret would get out, he instead went on a crusade to shake up Judaism. He was really executed because he was a faggot, not because he was disobeying Jewish law. That Jesus really loved the cock, the lord and messiah of the universe was really a self-hating homosexual. But it’s too be expected, it was a very intolerant society back then.
If Jesus comes again, it’ll be over a gay man’s face in a scat porn film.
“Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals … except the weasel.” – Homer Simpson
Actually, I thought facilis would weasel out and simply not answer my question about the 42 children being killed. Or perhaps argue something about it being Old Testament or saying say that should just be taken metaphorically. I didn’t think he/she was deluded enough to actually defend it. I guess I was wrong.
I can probably think of some posters more deserving [of a mauling by weasels] – one incoherent dribbler ‘from Canada’ comes to mind. – Wowbagger
Agreed! My concern in such an eventuality would be solely for the weasels.
BTW, I was probably unconsciously paying tribute to Frank Zappa.
I didn’t say they agree that he existed, I said there was no physical evidence for the existence of Jesus. No artefacts, no records, the earliest documents are the letters of Paul who never met Jesus. Then the gospel of Mark was ~40 years after the alleged date, then the other gospels followed, then there’s records of early Christian activity around 60 years after the fact.
I find it extremely surprising that not a single piece of evidence remains of the man god. Ever seen Life Of Brain? Shit, they kept his holy sandal ;)
Must have missed closing the blockquote in 711.
The Passover Plot was later made into a movie. I read the book (still have it somewhere), and it was part of my transformation into an atheist. The fact that something like the resurrection could be staged using the tools/medicines available at the time was an eye opener. That started my road to skepticism.
I don’t doubt the middle earth scholars when they say that Frodo had the ring bitten off his finger by Gollum who fell into the fiery pit of Mt Doom, I just doubt that the third age of middle earth was a genuine historical account.
Nerd of Redhead@712,
I’ll have to get hold of it – sounds interesting. The only full-length Jesus-fiction I’ve read (not counting the gospels, which I’ve never read right through) is Robert Graves’ King Jesus, in which Jesus is the rightful king of the Jews by ancient (matrilineal) Jewish law, and also grandson of Herod the Great. Can’t remember much more than that, so I don’t think it can have been as good as his I, Claudius and Claudius the God. There’s also an SF short story about time travel (title and author escape me) in which time-tourists go back to view the crucifixion, and turn out to make up the entire crowd shouting for him to be crucified (suspiciously Christian, that one sounds).
I don’t doubt the middle earth scholars when they say that Frodo had the ring bitten off his finger by Gollum who fell into the fiery pit of Mt Doom, I just doubt that the third age of middle earth was a genuine historical account. – Kel
You have been deceived by Sauron! Repent!
Sauron couldn’t have deceived me, he was destroyed at the end of the third age.
I saw it with my very eyes. In fact I’ve got a DVD showing it. I suppose that next you’ll say that Legolas didn’t kill a mamuk at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. I got that on DVD as well.
We seess what you did there, yesss we doesss… sssneaking in contrafactual assssumptionssss….
*Ahem.*
I would vote “no” on bears (or weasels) for facilis, but I think they ought to be held in store as a threat for the inevitable rhetorical failures.
“So you say God isn’t infinite? It’s bears for you! Bring on the bears!”
Well it’s Christmas, and I for one am not going to call Tolkien a liar. Look at the writing he created, it’s all too improbable and complex for him to have just made it up. The only tenable conclusion we can draw is Middle Earth is very real and we are descendants of elves mating with hobbits who took to the shores of the grey havens.
Tolkien is definitely more believable than the bible. The bad guys are bad. The good guys are good. And the good guys don’t kill 42 kids for a simple insult. Gandalf would give them a bad case of the itch rather than kill them.
Lemme know if you change your mind on this, Nick, because I know where to get you some bears if you want.
Problem is, they’re Asian black bears, not grizzlies, so they’d probably just ignore him if he wasn’t already covered with ants. You’d have to festoon him with bacon to ensure their attention, although experience shows that method doesn’t always work, either.
Well since what are considered rights varies from state to state I figured we would just go for the constitution which all states follow so as to avoid confusion.
Doesn’t the declaration say something about all men being created by God? Do you believe that? Jus curious.
As to the questions on the incarnation, I’ve kind of fell behind. I was looking for a good article I could link to.
Anyway, God can put self-imposed limitations on some of his attribute without ceasing to be God. A boxer can be tied up so he can’t punch anyone,but still be a boxer. In the same way jesus imposed limitations on his divine nature while still being wholly God.
Facilis, Missing the point per SOP for the religiously insane. You haven’t shown god to exist, so quit talking about something that only exists between your deluded ears. Now, prove god exists with physical evidence, then show the bible was divinely inspired by god and written by men. You have a lot of work to do before you make any other arguments. Bringing up irrelevancies simply says you have irrelevant arguments.
DOH! That should be ……and not written by men…..
One of the most fascinating things on this blog is to see christians squirm,duck and wriggle when confronted with facts and reality,to uphold the fantasy world they have created for themselves,and this there is a great example.
The same word kitanim is used to describe Rachel in relation to Leah in Genesis. It does not happen to support your case
What about places like Daniel 1 where it is used to describe Daniel and the other people who left Jerusalem (My bible translates it as “youths”).
Again these men were insulting God’s holy prophet.It isn’t just some normal guy.
You can read more on it here
http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.html#2kin223
Just curious. Do you believe in objective moral truths?
Do you believe in objective moral truths?
objective – adj. – not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
subjective – adj. – existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
(bold mine for emphasis)
Sure, I do. But you don’t, if you take your morality from your religion. Religiously-based morality is – by its very nature – subjective morality, because you’re living by a moral code defined not by reason or independent analysis, but instead by rote and edict from a central authority that has been defined and constantly revised by the entirely speculative (i.e. wholly a product of thinking, as there is no independent corroborating evidence of any kind other than the written word and passed down stories) field of theology.
Check a dictionary the next time you want to ask a smug question like that.
God can put self-imposed limitations on some of his attribute without ceasing to be God. A boxer can be tied up so he can’t punch anyone,but still be a boxer. In the same way jesus imposed limitations on his divine nature while still being wholly God. – Facilis
This is essentialist hooey: if he didn’t have God’s powers, he wasn’t “wholly God”, and saying otherwise doesn’t make it so. (Reminds me of Abraham Lincoln’s question: “How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?” The answer is, of course, four: calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it one.) If “God” can’t end any self-imposed limitations on his powers at any time, he’s not “God” – or are you saying God could place limitations on his powers that he couldn’t then remove – in clear contradiction to his supposed omnipotence?
Second, “God” is supposed to be eternally unchanging. This is incompatible with temporary restrictions on his powers.
Third, did Jesus know his relation to God (whatever that was)? If he did, clearly he wasn’t “wholly man”. If he didn’t, clearly he wasn’t wholly God, as he lacked full self-knowledge.
See, Facilis, your religion really is utter crap. If you can’t wean yourself off religion altogether, convert to Islam: at least it’s consistently monotheistic.
Well, dah! It is a different can of worms if those she-bears were ripping teen aged and young men as opposed to children. The main thing is this, those who wear mauled were big ole meanies who said nasty things to a surrogate.
But at least they were not tortured!
One thing’s for sure,Janine is in a weird mood tonite LOL…..
Again these men were insulting God’s holy prophet.It isn’t just some normal guy. – Facilis
You are utterly disgusting, and you worship a sadistic, tyrannical, pathologically jealous bully. I’m sure that’s what you are too. My deepest sympathies to anyone you have power over.
#723 – Facilis – That is the stupidest excuse for gawd I’ve ever read. You deserve some sort of damned fool award for that.
Just because it is night for you does not mean it is for me. Right now I am getting in the right frame of mind so I can get through a few hours with my family.
Good night OZ and Happy Monkey.
Let me specify , by objective I mean something not subject to bias or opinion or majority rule.
Good to hear that. Now please account for this objective standard where it comes from(if it does not come from human interpretations or opinions) and why we have an obligation to follow it and why it is significant.
I am not arguing for religion -based morality. Of course there are false religions. I understand that God’s holy nature is the ultimate standard of morality by which human actions are judged. He makes his nature known to use through revelation and other mechanisms like natural law .
It’s not a smug quesion. The large majority of atheists I’ve met do not believe in any kind of objective moral truths. I’m glad to see you’re different.
So what? Did they beat Elisha up? Did they throw stones at him? Did they offer to kill him? No, they were rude to him. So not only was your god a sadistic bully, but his boy Elisha was a whiny prick. “LORD, they’re being mean to me, time to do some smiting. Teach those meanies not to be snotty with me. Amen.”
The large majority of atheists I’ve met do not believe in any kind of objective moral truths.
Because sometimes I murder people just because I feel like it.
I understand that God’s holy nature is the ultimate standard of morality by which human actions are judged
His “holy nature” as a pathologically jealous (and proud of it), tyrannical, sadistic, megalomaniac, genocidal piece of shit as recorded in the bible, you mean?
Your circle of atheists is how large? Three? Even four? The vast majority of atheists I’ve met, and I strongly suspect I know a whole lot more than you do, are objective moralists. But as a subjective moralist yourself, you possibly have trouble recognizing objective morality in others.
Logically speaking, he could do no such thing.
Your analogy sucks. Although it’s interesting that the first example that leaps into your mind is a pugilist…
Nope. Contradiction.
=================
I’m sorry, but you’re being disingenuous, which is to say, deliberately stupid.
Rachel was Leah’s little sister.
Oh, and you’re also fucking up on your Hebrew again. The word “kitanim” is the masculine plural; the actual word in Gen 29:16 is the feminine singular, which is “kitanah”.
Watch out! There’s bears coming! They’re going to eat your disingenuous ass up!
It still means “children”.
Does it surprise you that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is more merciful than God; sparing the children of the people he conquered?
Fixed that for you.
Fuck God and fuck God’s holy prophet.
I see no bears here.
You obviously don’t.
Look, you bear-bait: You are saying that you believe that it is good for the strong to hurt the weak. Is that an objective moral truth; that might makes right?
Which religion is false?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 25, 2008
Which religion is false?
Just get on your knees and ask, it will be revealed to you. Or natural law will come by and slap you upside the head.
Oh you are a minx today Janine!
Oh!
I…. I…. My feelings are hurt! You are so going to get it!
Wait.
Angels we have heard on high
Singing “There’s pie in the sky,
that will be yours by-and-by
O, but not until you die.”
There you are Satan.
You slacker! You sent no hellfire my way. I’ve asked you twice. Damn yourself.
Satan,
In Joe Hill’s original, the line I quoted is the last from the chorus:
“You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.”
Scans better than yours.
Alas, it’s God who controls the purse strings for the primordial heat, and He’s a skinflint.
You’ll have about as much luck as Pons and Fleischmann.
Ah, but can the original be sung as a carol parody? I don’t think so.
I am trying to come up with a flowery Latin phrase for the chorus, perhaps one that translates to “It’s a scam”, or something similar, but I am blocked.
Thou shalt not try to fool me Satan.
I’m still trying to guess who god is…. another clue god?
I shot a man in Vegas, just to watch him die.
You’re doing a lot of tapdancing, facilis – unfortunately (for you) I’m going to ask you to add in another step.
What I’d like to know is this: how can you rationalise the common description of your god as ‘kind, loving and infinitely just’ when he sent the bears to kill the taunters – children or otherwise?
Note my lack of the term ‘moral’. Focus on the three I did use – ‘kind’, ‘loving’ and (most significantly’) infinitely just’.
I think God and Satan might be the same person.
@facilis
Again, I’m not qualified to argue about Hebrew. However, even if they were young men it’s still horrible to kill 42 of them for merely mocking someone.
Yes. Do YOU have objective moral truths or is simply anything that God does good? If God were to burn to death 250 people for offering incenses is that good?
Morality isn’t objective, it’s provisional. It’s a social construct that determines our pattern of behaviour. And why do we follow it? Because not following it is an act of isolation from the group. Doing something that your social group considers immoral has wider consequences. So at the very basic social level, we adhere to the communal standard where possible because the rewards that stem from adhering and the punishment for breaking it make it an unfavourable option in most cases.
There are no objective moral truths, it’s misrepresenting the nature of morality and misrepresenting human nature to claim their is. The more universal traits can be better explained through game theory over repeated interactions than they can with a single metaphysical giver of truths.
Facilis weaselled,
If you aren’t arguing for religion based morality, what does this mean?
And if you really believe this, does that mean that it is ok to kill all bullies? How about ones picking on the Pope?
And given that Rachel didn’t become fertile for well over seven years after Jacob first met her, she may have been little indeed….
I do not kill – not because anyone commands me not to, but rather because I’d prefer no one kill me. I do not steal – not because anyone commands me not to, but rather because I’d prefer no one steal my belongings. I could go on, but I don’t enjoy needless redundancy. I agree with Kel above, in that objective is a less adequate word than provisional, but in basing morality on the impartial analysis of cause and effect in society, it ceases to be subjective, as religious morality clearly is.
Regardless of what you took that statement to mean, it was not that there are no false religions. It was instead an observation that you take your morality from your religion, and I agree with you that there are false religions. Although, I go one religion further than you do in that statement. Just as I am an atheist concerning the gods of religion, you’re an atheist with respect to Baal, Anu, Thor, Mithras, and any other non-Christian deity.
And you cannot logically argue in the same breath that you’re not arguing for religion-based morality while also stating definitively that “God’s holy nature is the ultimate standard of reality. Unless you like directly contradicting yourself, that is.
“ultimate standard of morality” — not reality