Hot Coffee Too Hot? - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2005, 04:10 PM   #121
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


So, it really boils down to the perceived religious connection to legislation?

And, that some religious beliefs are unacceptable because they are deemed prejudicial?


perceived?

yes, when religious beliefs trample on the rights of individuals in this country -- who have committed no crimes -- to pursue their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then they are unacceptable to legislate especially when their source is a religious document and is not based in quantifiable secular knowledge.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 07:10 PM   #122
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
yes, when religious beliefs trample on the rights of individuals in this country -- who have committed no crimes -- to pursue their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then they are unacceptable to legislate especially when their source is a religious document and is not based in quantifiable secular knowledge.
Sounds like a call to disenfranchise the religious voter.

And what exactly is "quantifiable secular knowledge"?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 09:23 PM   #123
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Sounds like a call to disenfranchise the religious voter.

And what exactly is "quantifiable secular knowledge"?
You get a constitutional provision to protect against your discrimination, while in most states, gay people can get fired for just being themselves.

I hate it when the dominant hegemony tries to see itself as the permanent victim. It's more pathetic than anything.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 09:36 PM   #124
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


You get a constitutional provision to protect against your discrimination, while in most states, gay people can get fired for just being themselves.

I hate it when the dominant hegemony tries to see itself as the permanent victim. It's more pathetic than anything.

Melon
Yet we'll bitch about race rules on college campuses...

We need to find some consistencies, don't you think...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 07:03 AM   #125
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Sounds like a call to disenfranchise the religious voter.

And what exactly is "quantifiable secular knowledge"?

hardly. that's laughably alarmist, and plays perfectly into your newly revealed victim mentality. i had no idea the religious in this country were so afflicted. but it suppose it's true. maybe one day, when the walls that separate church and state are finally broken down, a Christian can be elected president of the United States.

oh wait ...

so, what you're effectively saying, is that my right not to be discriminated against in, say, employment as a gay person is somehow tantamount to religious discrimination? a disenfranchisement of a religious voter?

quantifiable secular knowledge -- a good example would be abstinence-only programs. we know, for a fact, that they don't work, that they contain faulty science, that they actually endanger the lives of teens, and that the only reason for their FEDERALLY FUNDED existence is a pandering by the Bush administration to "faith-based initiatives." essentially, a highly subjective view on sexuality and morality that is drawn from a highly subjective reading of the Bible has been endorsed by the government. any local schoolboard can teach their children whatever they damn well please. just not with my tax dollars.


it would be great if you started to offer something other than rhetorical questions. enough with the Socratic method.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 08:40 AM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
so, what you're effectively saying, is that my right not to be discriminated against in, say, employment as a gay person is somehow tantamount to religious discrimination? a disenfranchisement of a religious voter?
No, you are effectively saying that there should be no religious influence in the political process, whether by elected official or voter. That is significantly different than our current structure. I guess that 2004 poll showing a percentage of voters influenced by "moral reasons" gave rise to the idea of "taliban" in this country.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 08:47 AM   #127
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


No, you are effectively saying that there should be no religious influence in the political process, whether by elected official or voter. That is significantly different than our current structure. I guess that 2004 poll showing a percentage of voters influenced by "moral reasons" gave rise to the idea of "taliban" in this country.


no. you misunderstand.

religious influence should not be a part of legislation. religious documents cannot be referred to as pieces of evidence to support legislation. i am talking about the legislative process, not the political. again, look at the example of federally funded "abstinence-only education" -- it ignores science for the endorsement of a particular worldview.

though i do think it's in bad taste to continually reference God and to end things with "God bless the United States" -- as if God hasn't blessed this country enough already. i wish we'd take a cue from our friends in the UK. to me, it all sounds tacky. but that's an opinion.

voters can choose whomever they wish by whatever criteria they wish. obviously. nowhere have i said that people shouldn't vote on the basis of religious criteria. the difference is legislating on the basis of specific religious criteria.

and the American Taliban -- again, you're using the phrase, i've really only been defending the "Christianist" label, though i understand where Melon is coming from with this -- has always been around (think Moral Majority). the difference, this time, is that they themselves believe they won Bush the election in 2004 and are now looking for payback in the form of religiously oriented legislation. of course, they use code words and buzz words, but the intent is all the same and laid bare, again, by that website Melon posted.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 10:11 AM   #128
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
No, you are effectively saying that there should be no religious influence in the political process, whether by elected official or voter. That is significantly different than our current structure. I guess that 2004 poll showing a percentage of voters influenced by "moral reasons" gave rise to the idea of "taliban" in this country.
It is immoral for "religious voters" to use their rule to discriminate against any minority. Period.

We keep on tellling the Shi'ites not to legislate their personal theology onto the Sunnis and the Kurds, but look what we do in return? We're hypocrites, and I'm tired of these extremists hijacking Christianity and, by proxy, America.

"The global struggle against extremism," or whatever the catch phrase of the day is, should start at home, or otherwise we are completely and morally bankrupt in the eyes of the rest of the world. Iranian students were once apt to note that while the U.S. preaches secularism to Iran, they do not practice that at home. The people of the Middle East are not blind.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 10:57 AM   #129
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,269
Local Time: 10:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
religious influence should not be a part of legislation. religious documents cannot be referred to as pieces of evidence to support legislation.
And I believe this kind of thinking would apply to any religion, not just the Christian one. We're just talking about Christianity right now because that's the one that's having the most influence at this time. But I would imagine Irvine would also apply this thought process to any other religion as well, would I be right in thinking that, Irvine?

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 07-28-2005, 11:57 AM   #130
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


And I believe this kind of thinking would apply to any religion, not just the Christian one. We're just talking about Christianity right now because that's the one that's having the most influence at this time. But I would imagine Irvine would also apply this thought process to any other religion as well, would I be right in thinking that, Irvine?

Angela

yes, absolutely.

the problem isn't Christianity, it's religion.

secularism. it's the only way we can keep diversity of religion.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 02:51 PM   #131
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

secularism. it's the only way we can keep diversity of religion.
We've never had the degree of secularism you are after. Yet, we have freedom and diversity of religion - far better than many countries.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 02:53 PM   #132
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


We've never had the degree of secularism you are after. Yet, we have freedom and diversity of religion - far better than many countries.


could you define the degree of secularism i am after?

you read so much into my statements, and then make great leaps in logic, yet say so little. it makes for a frustrating conversation.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 02:59 PM   #133
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:56 PM
I'm only using your statements:

Quote:
religious influence should not be a part of legislation
Quote:
the problem isn't Christianity, it's religion.

secularism. it's the only way we can keep diversity of religion
Sorry it is frustrating. This would go much better face to face. Perhaps one day we will get the chance.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 03:02 PM   #134
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Sorry it is frustrating. This would go much better face to face. Perhaps one day we will get the chance.


let's leave it at that, then.

this is too complex a topic for such a forum.

__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com