Originally Posted By cmpaley <<CMPALEY so if I accept your theory of the republicans will you accept the concept that the reason Democrats defend illegal immigrants is because Democrats are criminals ?????>> Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated. (Bonus points for those who know the reference) There is a great difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties. The Repbulican Party is a top-down organization based on an authoritarian ideology. The Democratic Party is a coalition of many interest groups, some of which I oppose but some of which I support. As a Catholic, I have my fill of authoritarianism in the Church (a different kind, of course). If it weren't for some important issues, I'd probably vote Democratic all the time.
Originally Posted By LPFan22 ~~~Yeah thats the Disney side of me,I hope people here understand if you meet me at an LP meet I am a good person and I don't take most things in the world events things to heart.~~~ Me and hubby shared a table with you at the December (2009) LP Meet and we got along great!
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>That's a bigger fantasy than Voldemort, Darth Vader, or Lord of the Rings combined!<< Yeah CC. we all know you're an atheist.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Yeah CC. we all know you're an atheist.<< Wait ... WHAT? CC is an ATHIEST? Good Lord! I ... I just ... can't believe it! Link, please???????? ;-)
Originally Posted By dshyates <<<<<a href="http://rlv.zcache.com/militant_agnostic_bumper_sticker-p128589675540810131trl0_400.jpg" target="_blank">http://rlv.zcache.com/militant..._400.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By fkurucz ***>>Yeah CC. we all know you're an atheist.<< Wait ... WHAT? CC is an ATHIEST? Good Lord! I ... I just ... can't believe it! Link, please????????*** OK, perhaps I was out of line, but cmpaley was trying to explain how some Christians have a different view on Jesus's teachings regarding the poor than the Fundy's, are for his trouble he received an insult. I'm not a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Muslim, but if a member of one of those faiths were to explain their view on social justice I would hope to be polite enough to listen respectfully. Plus I might learn something in the process.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>OK, perhaps I was out of line,<< Please watch for the ;-) . ;-) Anyway, I concur 100% with your point (and was attempting, apparently unsuccessfully, to sarcastically express same). Christians and Athiests both can get a little carried away in asserting that their religious beliefs are more correct than yours, and it's particularly bad form to do so when a respectful belief comparison is the stated topic at hand. Sorry I haven't been participating in this very interesting topic (and how 'bout that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin!). I've been out of town with not much time and only intermittent internet availability.
Originally Posted By fkurucz We all know where you stand CC. We won't insult you for your beliefs. We would be very happy if you returned the favor.
Originally Posted By ecdc So here's a question along these same lines addressing the concept of legitimacy. Is it a legitimate perspective to consider belief in God or religion to be utter nonsense? People seem offended at this notion, and they play the Hurt Feelings card or the Outrage card instead of arguing the point. My response is to say, "Tell the non-believers why we're wrong. Tell us why religion is deserving of our respect and admiration, even if we don't believe it personally." I don't say that to justify personally attacking someone or deliberately being offensive. We try to respect differences of opinion in other areas of life; this ought to be one too. But if someone asks me what I believe, is it acceptable for me to say, "I think religious belief is akin to believing in the Loch Ness Monster?" If I really feel that way and I'm not trying to be offensive, is that a legitimate perspective?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think a lot of people's moral compass would go haywire without their religion telling them what they should or should not do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But if someone asks me what I believe, is it acceptable for me to say, "I think religious belief is akin to believing in the Loch Ness Monster?" If I really feel that way and I'm not trying to be offensive, is that a legitimate perspective?> Though I don't share your belief, I do think it's legitimate to say, if that's what you really believe. But at that point, it does make a difference how you say it. It's the difference between "Only an idiot would believe in that gobbledygook and fairy tales. You might as well believe in the Loch Ness Monster!" and "I see no objective evidence to indicate that God exists, but I know you're a believer and that's fine." Just as between religions there's a difference between, say, "Mohammad was a fraud and if you don't believe that Jesus is the son of God you will burn in Hell," and "I believe in Jesus, but I respect that you don't." Those are obviously extreme examples. Where it gets tricky is where there's a fine line between being honest and being offensive, and the flip side of taking comments as intended and taking offense.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance "We all know where you stand CC. We won't insult you for your beliefs. We would be very happy if you returned the favor." I wasn't aiming to be offensive. Sorry if you took offense. I was joking around and trying to lighten things up. Things get so heavy in here sometimes it's like people have no ability to take a joke. Lighten up.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It's the difference between "Only an idiot would believe in that gobbledygook and fairy tales. You might as well believe in the Loch Ness Monster!" and "I see no objective evidence to indicate that God exists, but I know you're a believer and that's fine." Exactly. It's like with Jonvn and others a while back. It's one thing to say you're a non-believer, but it's another thing to then take the big leap and say whether directly or indirectly "And I think you're a fool, idiot, person in need of therapy" for believing in God." Unless you're dealing with an extremist position, show a little respect for the other side of you will. It's such a personal thing with many people. Realize that. Matter of fact, if you have to ask if mentioning the Loch Ness monster is wrong, you already know it probably is. Look around. No good ever comes of it when done here.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I think a lot of people's moral compass would go haywire without their religion telling them what they should or should not do." Well, then they have pretty fragile moral compasses then, in my opinion. I don't mean that to cause offense, but I just don't think people have to find religion to tell them right from wrong.
Originally Posted By Labuda ^^^ That's exactly where my brain FIRST went when I read the above post by Dr. Hans, BUT then I realized that I think of the devout as sheeple.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Those are obviously extreme examples. Where it gets tricky is where there's a fine line between being honest and being offensive, and the flip side of taking comments as intended and taking offense.<< And I guess these are the times I'm more getting at. I agree with SPP that if you're trying to have a respectful conversation with strangers online about religion, then blustering in and announcing that anyone who believes in God is an idiot probably isn't your best approach. And it's just rude. But there sometimes does come a time when the conversation (as has happened around here occasionally) does go a bit deeper and I've found myself attempting to explain how I feel and I've gone to some analogies, that, on the one hand, I can see why they might be offensive, but on the other, they do strike me as an accurate reflection of how I feel - at least on some level. So on the issue of legitimacy then, forgive me for pressing the point. But is someone like Richard Dawkins, or Bill Maher legitimate in their views? Is there a place publicly for that kind of derision against religion? Obviously their outspokenness shouldn't be adopted by all. Even Sam Harris has acknowledged that he's glad all non-believers aren't like him. I guess what I'm getting at is it seems that non-believers, as a minority, are held to a higher standard of respect than believers. Unless you're Fred Phelps, most people give you a pass. Most religious sacred writing has some pretty brutal statements about non-believers of their faith. Far more offensive than what's written by Dawkins or Hitchens. Is this a double-standard or no?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Is there a place publicly for that kind of derision against religion? << It's everywhere. On the airwaves, in conversation, everywhere. Jesus is spoofed regularly in animated shows, in skits and so forth. Bill Maher has his own program where he can say pretty much anything he wants. A movie like "The Life of Brian" which curled the hair of many Christians back in the day is basically pretty respectful of Christ -- it's religion that gets mocked in that film, not Christ. >>I guess what I'm getting at is it seems that non-believers, as a minority, are held to a higher standard of respect than believers.<< You're probably right about that. You said it some time ago and the more I have thought about it, I get what you mean. But I'm not convinced that heated, over the top, insulting rhetoric is good for anyone in the long run. Look at the level of elevated anger over things real and imagined in politics today. Where is it leading? To a more fractured, split country than we've seen since the 1960s.
