This is why Westboro Baptist Church is a joke

[kandrathe]

I am pretty sure we have laws against disturbing funerals.

You'd think that "religious" people would show some respect for a sacred rite. Ergo, they are not religious people. They exercise their constitutional rights to be scumbags in the most egregious ways.

We are in much more trouble when hateful people can become president of a big country.....o wait....that already happened.

There you go, being all arrogant and euro-centric. He's not hateful, he's just from Texas.

This all comes back to my first ironic comment. We can all be really outraged because of a few of these retards, but at the same time we get guys leading the most powerful nation on earth (for now) that don't believe in evolution.....and act on that.

Interesting that you used the R word. Do you have an issue with mentally handicapped people? Some would find your insensitivity hateful.

Not believing in evolution, or even those not having your modern view of science do not automatically fall into the category of hateful. Even most of those who disagree with gay marriage are not outright hateful. However, the debate is not forwarded by one side demagoguing the other.

And, those who practice some form of spirituality are by and large not hateful. What you see and hear about in the news, on both sides are the intractable intolerant blowhards who want everyone to adopt their point of view. Take for example, the Amish communities that dot the Midwest, they fit your stereotype of ignorant zealot. Yet, all they want to do is to be left alone to practice their faith and leave the fallen world to the fallen.

In the big picture Phelps is a nobody that uses the fact that many Americans somewhat agree with him to keep spreading his hate without being arrested.

This is not true. From what I've seen, Phelps and his family have no supporters outside their family. They are an extreme minority, but they still have rights, and evidenced by the recent SCOTUS decision, our constitution gives them the right to express themselves, even when that expression is distasteful, and disgusting.

Of course if Fred had said he would favour a social healthcare system he would no already be doing 20 years in jail.

Because... we arrest people for what they think and say? If you are representative of the political mindset of Europe, then it is scarey. The way you describe your "solutions" throw up so many totalitarian warning bells in my mind.

Of course Phelps is not arrested...in many states gays are not even allowed to get married. I mean if 9/11 was a punishment of God because the US is to gay friendly I really wonder what will happen to Western Europe if we follow his logic.

There is no reasoning with the insane. Phelps twisted logic and hate is so far out there, he and his brood are just stark raving mad. We should ignore them and maybe they'd disappear into the obscurity they deserve.

The bulk of the resistance to gay marriage in the US has little to do with how people feel about homosexuality, but is more about what people think about marriage. We are a more religious society than Europe, and therefore, more people here still consider marriage a sacrament. They object to the secularization of it, and having the State mandate what it is. Even my extremely liberal State overwhelmingly passed a "Defense of marriage" Act in 1997.

We've discussed it a year or two ago, but many people I know are guilty of trivializing and making a mockery of the sacredness of marriage. My opinion is that we should excise any preference or mention of marriage from our laws. From the states perspective, any two people of legal age should be able to have a civil union. And, those who are religious, can observe the sacrament of marriage in their church. If a church allows a same sex couple to marry, then so be it. The observation of it is purely a religious position, and the state should not be involved with attempting to regulate religious things.

But, I fear there are too many people who like to tell other people what they can and cannot do, so it will be a struggle for the minority to get the equal treatment that they deserve.

[Jester]

You'd think that "religious" people would show some respect for a sacred rite. Ergo, they are not religious people.

This is a strange argument. You go from "you'd think that" to "Ergo" as if being respectful of other religions was some kind of definitional requirement of being religious. Even the most cursory glance at the history and practice of religion would tell you that tolerance is the exception, not the rule.

The bulk of the resistance to gay marriage in the US has little to do with how people feel about homosexuality...

Really, Kandrathe? Little to do with how they feel about homosexuality? About half of people say homosexuality is morally wrong. Almost 40% oppose even civil unions, where "marriage" is not involved. The "sacrament" of marriage aspect seems largely a fig leaf, to allow people to keep their opposition to change, while convincing themselves that they are not anti-gay.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You'd think that "religious" people would show some respect for a sacred rite. Ergo, they are not religious people.

This is a strange argument. You go from "you'd think that" to "Ergo" as if being respectful of other religions was some kind of definitional requirement of being religious. Even the most cursory glance at the history and practice of religion would tell you that tolerance is the exception, not the rule.

I'm looking at the history of the US. Much of Europe's issues with religion had more to do with dictates of various monarchies, and the Holy Roman Empire.

The bulk of the resistance to gay marriage in the US has little to do with how people feel about homosexuality...

Really, Kandrathe? Little to do with how they feel about homosexuality? About half of people say homosexuality is morally wrong. Almost 40% oppose even civil unions, where "marriage" is not involved. The "sacrament" of marriage aspect seems largely a fig leaf, to allow people to keep their opposition to change, while convincing themselves that they are not anti-gay.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1994/poll-su...g-marriage

More like 58% say homosexuality should be accepted, and 33% say it should be discouraged with 8% don't know, or undecided. However, in the 58% group, only 45% favor same-sex unions. I think the attitude of that 13% would be described as ambivalent to what people do in their relationships, but are more concerned for changing what marriage means.

Regarding the federal DOMA,

On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society. - President William J. Clinton

[Jester]

I'm looking at the history of the US. Much of Europe's issues with religion had more to do with dictates of various monarchies, and the Holy Roman Empire.

So, because religious people in the US are respectful, and Fred Phelps is not respectful (and is in the US), therefore he's not religious?

This is a weird argument. Wouldn't it make more sense to say he's religious in a way which is outdated, extreme, or foreign to the US? Rather than trying to construct an argument about how a fire-and-brimstone pastor is not religious?

(Of course, that wouldn't manage the "no true scotsman" implication...)

More like 58% say homosexuality should be accepted, and 33% say it should be discouraged with 8% don't know, or undecided. However, in the 58% group, only 45% favor same-sex unions. I think the attitude of that 13% would be described as ambivalent to what people do in their relationships, but are more concerned for changing what marriage means.

So, we've gone from "the bulk" of the opposition to gay marriage being mostly concerned about "marriage" rather than "gay," to it being less than a third of the opposition?

I would say that means "the bulk" is from people who are just anti-gay, and only a middling minority are concerned about the niceties of exactly what "marriage" means. (As if we had some kind of consistent definition about *that* either.)

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So, because religious people in the US are respectful, and Fred Phelps is not respectful (and is in the US), therefore he's not religious?

This is a weird argument. Wouldn't it make more sense to say he's religious in a way which is outdated, extreme, or foreign to the US? Rather than trying to construct an argument about how a fire-and-brimstone pastor is not religious?

(Of course, that wouldn't manage the "no true scotsman" implication...)

I mean other than that he doesn't follow the fundamentals of Christian theology... Maybe he religiously remembers to hate every day, but he isn't following any "religious" teaching that I know of.

More like 58% say homosexuality should be accepted, and 33% say it should be discouraged with 8% don't know, or undecided. However, in the 58% group, only 45% favor same-sex unions. I think the attitude of that 13% would be described as ambivalent to what people do in their relationships, but are more concerned for changing what marriage means.

So, we've gone from "the bulk" of the opposition to gay marriage being mostly concerned about "marriage" rather than "gay," to it being less than a third of the opposition?

I would say that means "the bulk" is from people who are just anti-gay, and only a middling minority are concerned about the niceties of exactly what "marriage" means. (As if we had some kind of consistent definition about *that* either.)

I don't think we can narrowly read the statistics that way. Just because someone thinks homosexuality is "wrong", wouldn't mean they automatically oppose homosexuality existing in the society. It's a convenient tactic to just lump together and discount everyone who disagrees as a bigot, but again, it is usually an obvious tactic of demagoguery.

It's a slim step away from "If you're not for us, you are against us."

[Jester]

I don't think we can narrowly read the statistics that way. Just because someone thinks homosexuality is "wrong", wouldn't mean they automatically oppose homosexuality existing in the society. It's a convenient tactic to just lump together and discount everyone who disagrees as a bigot, but again, it is usually an obvious tactic of demagoguery.

It's a slim step away from "If you're not for us, you are against us."

And making mealymouthed apologies for outright bigotry is a step away from what?

I mean other than that he doesn't follow the fundamentals of Christian theology... Maybe he religiously remembers to hate every day, but he isn't following any "religious" teaching that I know of.

More of the usual - anyone whose Christianity doesn't line up with yours, isn't a Christian. No true scotsman.

Phelps can give you chapter and verse for pretty much all of his completely mad beliefs. It's all there in the Bible. He just takes it more literally than most - although, come to think of it, wandering around yelling inappropriately at people and disrupting their religious rituals by telling people they're going to go to hell... that reminds me of someone.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

And making mealymouthed apologies for outright bigotry is a step away from what?

Right... You want to go there?

There is no difference between eppie's outright expressed hatred of all things religious, or your mealy mouthed defense of his bigotry.

Or, maybe, people have complex opinions and cannot just be conveniently labeled by him, or you.

I abhor bigotry in *all* its forms. Oh, yes, there is intolerance expressed by those who claim to be "religious", and also in equal amounts by those who are a-religious. But, DON'T confuse me with someone who condones bigotry.

Phelps can give you chapter and verse for pretty much all of his completely mad beliefs. It's all there in the Bible. He just takes it more literally than most - although, come to think of it, wandering around yelling inappropriately at people and disrupting their religious rituals by telling people they're going to go to hell...

If he were the true representative, Phelps would be leading the movement and pastor of a mega-church. Instead, he can hardly keep his own children and grandchildren in tow. Save your innuendo about what you think Christ was like...

[Zarathustra]

Either everyone missed it, or no one is commenting on it because it's so blatantly obvious. That twitter message was sent from an iphone. Steve Jobs is a fag-enabler and we'll cheer about his death, but man this iphone is pretty sweet!

I caught it, and it's beautiful. Thanks for posting the pic, though. I've got it stashed away for later use.

[Jester]

Right... You want to go there?

I didn't start this.

There is no difference between eppie's outright expressed hatred of all things religious, or your mealy mouthed defense of his bigotry.

I haven't mentioned Eppie.

Or, maybe, people have complex opinions and cannot just be conveniently labeled by him, or you.

But they can by you? You have no problem telling me what "the bulk" of people believe, so long as it's positive (so long as they're from your in-group)? Sauce for the goose, amigo.

I abhor bigotry in *all* its forms. Oh, yes, there is intolerance expressed by those who claim to be "religious", and also in equal amounts by those who are a-religious. But, DON'T confuse me with someone who condones bigotry.

If you want to make insulting insinuations about me, simply because I can read a poll without whitewashing it, you're going to get it thrown back at you. If you don't like it, don't start it.

If he were the true representative, Phelps would be leading the movement and pastor of a mega-church. Instead, he can hardly keep his own children and grandchildren in tow.

Tell me, what is exactly the threshold number of followers required to be Christian? Or even generically religious? I would have thought zero.

Save your innuendo about what you think Christ was like...

There is what purports to be his biography in four parts, that circulates widely. It's all in there, clear as day.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I didn't start this.

Neither did I. But, I was offended by your implications of my defense of bigots.

I haven't mentioned Eppie.

You're defending his position for him.

Or, maybe, people have complex opinions and cannot just be conveniently labeled by him, or you.

I'm not labeling anyone, I'm leaving room for a multitude of reasons including your assumption, and those are both positive and negative.

Sauce for the goose, amigo.

No, just hurtful allegations.

If you don't like it, don't start it.

Or, we could discuss it like mature adults.

Tell me, what is exactly the threshold number of followers required to be Christian? Or even generically religious? I would have thought zero.

He doesn't claim to be an outraged follower, he is the pastor and grand leader of his twisted sect. It is "Westboro Baptist Church" that lends credibility, otherwise it would just be the ravings of an old crackpot and his deluded children. But, they are in no way associated with any Baptist organization, and they are only a church in that it allows them tax exempt status and use their outrageous behavior to act out the worst behavior of humanity, to rampage through the society and earn a living from the being a freak show.

Save your innuendo about what you think Christ was like...

And, how many times in his 33 years did he go make any trouble at the temple? Once. And, that one time has a clear explanation. It was an act to express his outrage at the blasphemy of moneychangers, and animal dung filling the holy temple.

It in no way resembles what Fred Phelps does. In fact, he was surrounded and sought out the dregs of society, rather than associate with the ascetics, or the pharisees. I think the modern equivalent of how they ministered then is more this guy.

Here a good understanding of my impression of what a Christian is...

Among us you will find uneducated persons, craftsmen, and old women, who, if they are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth. They do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbors as themselves. (A Plea for the Christians 11) -- Athenagoras, A.D. 177

[Jester]

Neither did I. But, I was offended by your implications of my defense of bigots.

You're telling me that people who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, are folk of complex opinions who not only don't deserve to be "lumped" together as bigots for their (self-expressed!) bigotry. Not only are you telling me this, but you're telling me that saying so is "an obvious tactic of demagoguery" and that I'm pretty much in the same category as Dubya? You started it.

I'll stand by my characterization. It doesn't matter if their opinions are complex; people can have complex, bigoted opinions. It doesn't matter if they don't support the worst discrimination; people can be mildly bigoted.

You're defending his position for him.

I haven't defended anything he said. I've attacked your position for a series of absurd statements. When I have something to say about Eppie's argument, I'll say so.

I'm not labeling anyone, I'm leaving room for a multitude of reasons including your assumption, and those are both positive and negative.

You're misrepresenting peoples' opinions, which is no better.

Or, we could discuss it like mature adults.

Anytime. Just, if you want to accuse me of demagoguery, do it directly, don't throw it in passive phrases, and don't expect me not to respond in kind.

And, how many times in his 33 years did he go make any trouble at the temple? Once. And, that one time has a clear explanation. It was an act to express his outrage at the blasphemy of moneychangers, and animal dung filling the holy temple. It in no way resembles what Fred Phelps does. In fact, he was surrounded and sought out the dregs of society, rather than associate with the ascetics, or the pharisees.

Jesus came to the temple, the holiest place in the Jewish religion, during Passover, their holiest celebration, and started a fight with people who apparently were just there to perform currency exchange for pilgrims, and sell animals for sacrifice - which is entirely in line with their traditional faith. Where's the respect there? We only hear he did it once in the text, although it is hardly a thorough account, but it certainly isn't the only time he is depicted as berating or starting fights with other religious figures. Jesus associated with the Pharisees and Sadducees all the time. Specifically, to tell them that they were hypocrites and sinners, and that they were all going to burn in hell, unless they abandoned their ways and followed him instead. He came with an absolutist message of salvation and damnation, a division between the righteous and the wicked. He led a small sect of devoted fanatics, not a broad mainstream denomination.

Phelps also seeks out the "dregs of society," as you so delicately put it. He's actually gotten awards for his defense of black people in court, in a time and place that discriminated heavily against them. Pointless to isolate the handful of good things, and ignore the overall context of a raving madman? I agree - but we have to apply it equally.

I despise Fred Phelps. He is the worst kind of fanatical lunatic and self-important cult leader. But, were the man alive today, doing and saying exactly what it says in the Bible (proper nouns suitably updated)? I'm pretty sure I'd think approximately the same of Jesus.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You're telling me that people who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, are folk of complex opinions who not only don't deserve to be "lumped" together as bigots for their (self-expressed!) bigotry. Not only are you telling me this, but you're telling me that saying so is "an obvious tactic of demagoguery" and that I'm pretty much in the same category as Dubya? You started it.

I'm not black. I'm not a woman. I'm not a homosexual. I'm not a Texan. I can empathize with the conditions of those who are, and with those who are denied equal rights protection. The law should be oblivious and applied to everyone equally. It is not, but I don't automatically assume those who stand in the way of what I deem to be fair and equal treatment are hateful, or bigoted. That is what I called demagoguery, not you. I was arguing against the eppie position.

It reminds me of the Juan Williams fear of Muslims brew-ha-ha. Is he a bigot because he expresses his mental reservations? No, he is honest. Had it been 1965, and 3rd world guerrilla's in camo boarded the plane, there would be a similar moment of concern. We live in a society where the daily glaring social problem on our media and by government actions are defined as Islamic extremism, and so naturally people have some reservations. But, in a PC world we can't have honest discussions with being branded as this or that. Bigot. Racist. Homophobe. Whatever.

That is why I offered the example of Bill Clinton, who is obviously not against homosexuals, but it was him, in fact, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act while he was president. You can check into it as I have, since he was called on it many times. His reasoning is complex, and much of what he did he claims after the fact, to have been defensive. Underlying the argument is an undercurrent of political position, where on the one side claims for equal rights and fair treatment of minorities, and on the other, the outright destruction of societal norms, traditions, and institutions.

But, were the man alive today, doing and saying exactly what it says in the Bible (proper nouns suitably updated)? I'm pretty sure I'd think approximately the same of Jesus.

We're not going to make any progress on this. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I see his work as redemptive, and you see it as absolute and condemning.

[Jester]

That is why I offered the example of Bill Clinton, who is obviously not against homosexuals, but it was him, in fact, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act while he was president. You can check into it as I have, since he was called on it many times. His reasoning is complex, and much of what he did he claims after the fact, to have been defensive. Underlying the argument is an undercurrent of political position, where on the one side claims for equal rights and fair treatment of minorities, and on the other, the outright destruction of societal norms, traditions, and institutions.

Societal norms, traditions, and institutions do not have human rights. To be opposed to them might be good or bad, but it isn't bigoted. To be opposed to peoples' rights, simply on the basis of some arbitrary fact about them (gender, race, sexuality), to say that they should not enjoy the freedoms enjoyed by others entirely on that basis, is bigoted, and is so regardless of the reasons. I have no doubt many a person opposed to miscegenation, or supportive of Jim Crow, could claim "I am obviously not against blacks" while simultaneously opposing their full equality under the law. I have no doubt many a person who opposed women's suffrage and against equal pay for equal work claimed they were "obviously not against women." The claims do not matter to me - I call them like I see them.

Case in point: Bill Clinton. When he says: "I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position." ... he is being a bigot. (And, I suspect, a coward.) If he has since come to disavow that position, I can only be glad, but if it's half as weasely as the rest of his opinions, then I can only assume it is what it appears to be: politics. And there have been times when all sorts of bigotry, racism, sexism, religious discrimination, and so on have been politically expedient.

I see his work as redemptive, and you see it as absolute and condemning.

No doubt, progress on this topic is impossible. I will merely point out that the redemption he offers is entirely a function of his claim to divinity.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Societal norms, traditions, and institutions do not have human rights. To be opposed to them might be good or bad, but it isn't bigoted. To be opposed to peoples' rights, simply on the basis of some arbitrary fact about them (gender, race, sexuality), to say that they should not enjoy the freedoms enjoyed by others entirely on that basis, is bigoted, and is so regardless of the reasons.

Well, you know my position. If somehow politicians could get to dismantling the centuries of commingling "marriage" with law, then I would support them in that effort. I support the rights of people to practice their faith without interference by the government when those practices don't trample other basic rights. People don't have the right to marriage. It is a religious sacrament, bestowed by a clergy member of a church. When the state gets involved, what it does is a legal process. So, where the difficulty lies is in confusing the state thing with the religious thing. Everybody has the right to the state thing, and it would be less of an issue if they just called it "Civil Union" for everyone. But, I think there is a political goal by some on the left too, which is to tear down religion, tradition, and social norms. So both sides will struggle until everyone is covered in mud, and no one is happy with the outcome.

Case in point: Bill Clinton.

Well, it was hardly him alone. A litany of prominent democrats voted 'yea' to get it to his desk. And... you notice how prominently it is featured in our debates now. Not. It might resurface as a political ping-pong ball during election season to fire up the base, but it will likely get buried again once the kerfuffle settles.

[Jester]

Societal norms, traditions, and institutions do not have human rights. To be opposed to them might be good or bad, but it isn't bigoted. To be opposed to peoples' rights, simply on the basis of some arbitrary fact about them (gender, race, sexuality), to say that they should not enjoy the freedoms enjoyed by others entirely on that basis, is bigoted, and is so regardless of the reasons.

Well, you know my position. If somehow politicians could get to dismantling the centuries of commingling "marriage" with law, then I would support them in that effort. I support the rights of people to practice their faith without interference by the government when those practices don't trample other basic rights. People don't have the right to marriage. It is a religious sacrament, bestowed by a clergy member of a church. When the state gets involved, what it does is a legal process. So, where the difficulty lies is in confusing the state thing with the religious thing. Everybody has the right to the state thing, and it would be less of an issue if they just called it "Civil Union" for everyone. But, I think there is a political goal by some on the left too, which is to tear down religion, tradition, and social norms. So both sides will struggle until everyone is covered in mud, and no one is happy with the outcome.

I agree that the first-best solution is simply to remove government from the marriage business altogether. There is no reason for the state to be involved at all.

However, if we are to live in a second-best world, where marriages are recognized (or not!) by the government, then it is hopeless to try and maintain that "People don't have a right to marriage." Of course they do. Tremendous legal and economic rights flow from marriages. Tax exemptions. The right not to incriminate each other. Benefits of all kinds, flowing from this *legal* institution. And to deny it to gays who, in all other meaningful respects are in the same situation, who demand these rights as strenuously as Douglass once demanded the rights of slaves, as Pankhurst once demanded the rights of women? Bigotry, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig.

I think your view of the left is an absurd caricature - few if any people want to "tear down religion, tradition, and social norms" for the heck of it. What they do is question the value of our inherited norms, and ask if we could improve them. Slavery was once a tradition, indeed, a religious tradition. Should we have kept it? Do we describe Lincoln as a man who "tore down tradition?" I would think not. He presided over a colossal struggle, that didn't just "leave both sides covered in mud," but cost hundreds of thousands of lives and nearly tore the United States to pieces. Still, seems worth it, to me. Some things, you fight for.

Well, it was hardly him alone. A litany of prominent democrats voted 'yea' to get it to his desk. And... you notice how prominently it is featured in our debates now. Not. It might resurface as a political ping-pong ball during election season to fire up the base, but it will likely get buried again once the kerfuffle settles.

A litany of prominent Democrats and practically every last Republican.* But yes: these people are bigots. That he was very, very far from being alone just tells you how pervasive anti-gay bigotry was at the time - it is better now, but not good, not by a long shot.

Now, if there was a prominent Republican candidate who endorsed gays' right to marry? Or even offered a moderately gay-friendly platform? Now that would be news.

-Jester

*a quick scan shows: Every last Republican senator, and all Republican congressmen bar one - Steve Gunderson, for fairly obvious reasons - voted yea or abstained.

[eppie]

There is no difference between eppie's outright expressed hatred of all things religious, or your mealy mouthed defense of his bigotry.

Excuse me???

Maybe my outright expressed disapproval of all many things religious....but that is not what you said.

I express my concern about the hypocrisy of many (most) religious people. People that make a big fuss about Phelps, but at the same time support Bush (how did you know I was talking about him by the way? ) when he says that the US is chosen and supported by God go to war are hypocritical...there is no other word for it. And I personally for sure know that Bush' action have had a far bigger negative influence on my life than Phelps' action have.

[eppie]

I think your view of the left is an absurd caricature - few if any people want to "tear down religion, tradition, and social norms" for the heck of it. What they do is question the value of our inherited norms, and ask if we could improve them. Slavery was once a tradition, indeed, a religious tradition. Should we have kept it? Do we describe Lincoln as a man who "tore down tradition?" I would think not. He presided over a colossal struggle, that didn't just "leave both sides covered in mud," but cost hundreds of thousands of lives and nearly tore the United States to pieces. Still, seems worth it, to me. Some things, you fight for.

Indeed well said. Kandrathe should not forget that religion is still 'the norm' while atheism is on a world scale just a small group. True, among the higher educated bunch (such as here on the lounge) chances are you find more people that question religion than you would find in your normal everyday life, but still in terms of world power, religion is still the norm.

I think there are not many countries where a religious person would be treated badly because he is religious (at least when it is the right religion). Instead, there are many countries where being an atheist is not really appreciated. I know you don't agree with me on the situation in the US, but I know many european countries where atheists can speak out freely without it having consequences for e.g. getting a good job.

[kandrathe]

I think your view of the left is an absurd caricature - few if any people want to "tear down religion, tradition, and social norms" for the heck of it. What they do is question the value of our inherited norms, and ask if we could improve them. Slavery was once a tradition, indeed, a religious tradition. Should we have kept it? Do we describe Lincoln as a man who "tore down tradition?" I would think not. He presided over a colossal struggle, that didn't just "leave both sides covered in mud," but cost hundreds of thousands of lives and nearly tore the United States to pieces. Still, seems worth it, to me. Some things, you fight for.

Of course, they have motivation, and feel justified to do what they do. But, they don't think about the consequences of their actions, or what replaces that thing once it's destroyed. Like much of what occurs, it is self interested, and it is short sighted. This is why the axiom on history repeating itself exists.

Indeed well said. Kandrathe should not forget that religion is still 'the norm' while atheism is on a world scale just a small group. True, among the higher educated bunch (such as here on the lounge) chances are you find more people that question religion than you would find in your normal everyday life, but still in terms of world power, religion is still the norm.

I think there are not many countries where a religious person would be treated badly because he is religious (at least when it is the right religion). Instead, there are many countries where being an atheist is not really appreciated. I know you don't agree with me on the situation in the US, but I know many European countries where atheists can speak out freely without it having consequences for e.g. getting a good job.

And, I do know that belief in some form spirituality is the norm. I understand, and I agree that the minority is due respect for their opinion, however, the manner of the struggle(from all sides) as I see it, is that they don't want different views to coexist, but only to tear down the opponent and get what they want at any cost.

Where our society usually errors is in encoding into law, which carries the force of the state, restrictions and conditions on people based on the beliefs of the lawmakers. Meat is a waste, so we'll mandate vegetarianism. Global warming is a problem, so we'll restrict the amount of fuel you can consume. We believe in God, so we'll ban liquor sales on Sunday. There is no God, so we'll prevent people from praying in public. And... What you end up with is a never ending battle to dominate the legislature and executive so that once in a while you can repeal all the other guys restrictions, and impose your own. Everyone needs healthcare! Repeal Obamacare! Cut the deficit! More stimulus!

Jester's example of slavery is actually a great example. The struggle escalated into a bloody civil war, with incredible waste and destruction, and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Afterwards, slavery was technically outlawed, but for decades the southern democrats imposed a series of restrictions that reimplemented most of it as laws (Jim Crow). While free (and for many that is pretty important - the whole liberty or death thing), their living conditions were worse than what they had under slavery. That injustice was slowly torn down over 100 years by the courts, as the supreme court upheld the rights of the minority, and peoples attitudes towards black people finally changed. In many ways one could argue that Lincoln was short sighted, and foolish in bringing the issue to such a conflict. Other republicans, such as Charles Sumner, worked hard to attempt to implement civil rights for blacks as early as 1875. In the long run, while the North won the war of domination over the South, it didn't change the minds of the majority of southern people, or their law makers.

My approach is not the civil war. It is to engage people in dialogue, and attempt to change their attitudes (which is where justice and coexistence really need to go in the first place). So I fight to cut government and the reams of unnecessary law, and attempt to get people to be reasonable and coexist peacefully without depending on legalism. For example, the proposed law against feeding the deer in my neighborhood. In lieu of creating an unenforceable law, I opted to go door to door and discuss the issue with many of the people in my neighborhood. Not feeding the wild animals is a pretty easy sell.

[Jester]

In the long run, while the North won the war of domination over the South, it didn't change the minds of the majority of southern people, or their law makers.

That's simply not true. While discrimination is alive and well in the South (and not just in the South), both the laws and popular opinion are far more liberal than they were in the 1950s, let alone the 1900s or 1850s. Nobody except fringe lunatics are suggesting returning to an era of slavery, or even segregation.

You can argue that the change did not come from the civil war, although I think that's a difficult case to argue. But you can't argue that the change didn't happen, because it obviously did.

My approach is not the civil war. It is to engage people in dialogue, and attempt to change their attitudes (which is where justice and coexistence really need to go in the first place).

They did try that. Anti-slavery advocates had been at work for well over a century by the 1860s. Compromise rather than confrontation was the order of the day throughout the 1850s. But when it became clear that the South could not abide a union that eroded their traditional norms and institutions, that is to say, slavery, they declared independence.

There is no God, so we'll prevent people from praying in public.

Nobody has ever seriously challenged the right to public prayer. The objections are about state power, not individual rights: one must not invoke religion when cloaked, however loosely, in the mantle of state authority. By conflating the two, you're generating a strawman of intolerant atheists.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

I don't think creationism should be allowed to be taught in schools, does that make me an intolerant atheist? If so, oh well. Keep that shit in the church or at home.

You can't prevent people from praying in public though, as that is akin to preventing freedom of thought which is not only wrong, but impossible.