No, Actually, It's that the Economy is Falling Apart

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

Probably because they can't name any way that atheists (you are forgetting some people, like agnostics, who make up around the same population) have suppressed religious people. Last I checked, the founding fathers were religious, and institutionalized secularism for this very reason. As it would be today, religious nuts think they have a mandate to stick their nose into other people's relationships and act like they are the the ones who get to judge the validity of two loving people. Of course they should expect a backlash.

No I base that on science and evolution. Hence why human males cannot reproduce with males and so forth.

By that rationale - any sex that doesn't serve a practical purpose (i.e. produce children) should be frowned upon.

Civilization puts us above the level of animals - hence sex is no longer strictly about reproduction. And modern governments don't espouse eugenics. In other words - Modern marriage is not defined by the ability to produce offspring.

YES!

Precisely because you have religious-toned politicians that think they can impose their religiously-endowed beliefs upon others that do not share them. These politicians do not govern by decree although some think they do. They legislate.

Which is quite literally, quite contrary to what the constitution of the land states.

NO! There is nothing in the Constitution for banning actions which may have public policy implications simply because religious individuals speak for or against an issue. That violates freedom of speech, press and assembly. That why they are in the 1st Amendment. If the government forces you into a church, that would be unconstitutional because it's clearly promoting religion using the state as enforcer. Blue laws on alcohol sales may have their origins in religious belief but they serve secular purposes as well.

Lawmakers can try and pass laws but they can overturned by the courts if there is no secular merit behind the law so your argument that any religious element backing a law is unconstitutional.

Multicultural education is just reverse racism masquerading as education.

Baaaaaahahahahaha. I just could not help but laugh. I'd say your sentence is masquerading as racism. Multicultural education as reverse racism, hahahaha. Yes, because as you well know, understanding other cultures and races is reverse racism, since we should only teach about white things. Agreed!

In practice, multicultural education means kids have learn about how bad Western Civilization is and how great even the most inconsequential contribution by any minority is. Were you educated in the U.S.? It's always been ok to teach about other cultures in history but most of the original black, hispanic and women studies programs were created to cater to political pressure and not to advance education.

Poverty alone explains little. Most of East Asia was dirt poor but education and business orientation changed things for the better. The reality is Africans (like everyone else) are largely responsible for their own lot and blaming racism for everything achieves nothing.

Yeah, it sure was their own fault white people dragged their ### to another country and enslaved them. Their inability to die or defend themselves properly before coming here must mean it was their fault.

Did you ever take a history class before? A lot of the slave trade came from black Africans selling black Africans. Blaming everything on the Atlantic slave trade is moronic when the former slaves in America did far better than any the slave traders in Africa. Do know anything about international development either? Blaming whitey isn't the route to development. I also used East Asia as a modern comparison to show poverty can be overcome.

Try the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Also, it was with clear intent, as outlined by Jefferson, that secularism is what the first amendment had in mind for religion, and freedom of expression in religious terms, but not state sanctioned.

I already went over that, thanks.

Some did sure - but its a far cry to go from that to painting slavery as a positive development in the lives of those people.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[alienlovechild 75]

Probably because they can't name any way that atheists (you are forgetting some people, like agnostics, who make up around the same population) have suppressed religious people.

SRVT, even you couldn't possibly be that stupid.

The Nazis and Communists were officially atheists and put religious people to death for their views. Revolutionary France, Republican Spain, Saddam's Iraq. . .I'm sure there are more.

If you had your way, I'm quite sure you'd back a variety of laws to put religious people back in their place because you don't even recognize it happened in history.

[alienlovechild 75]

Some did sure - but its a far cry to go from that to painting slavery as a positive development in the lives of those people.

I don't think slavery was supposed to be a positive experience for the slaves. Black Americans weren't happy about slavery but very few are willing to go back to Africa permanently. Even Muhammad Ali said something about him being glad his ancestors got on that boat. They suffered but later generations eventually prospered.

[IAMX 3,055]

Probably because they can't name any way that atheists (you are forgetting some people, like agnostics, who make up around the same population) have suppressed religious people.

SRVT, even you couldn't possibly be that stupid.

The Nazis and Communists were officially atheists and put religious people to death for their views. Revolutionary France, Republican Spain, Saddam's Iraq. . .I'm sure there are more.

If you had your way, I'm quite sure you'd back a variety of laws to put religious people back in their place because you don't even recognize it happened in history.

Hi, this is not Germany, or France, or Spain, or Iraq. This discussion is about the United States.

I will repeat, probably because they can't name a way that atheists (or agnostics) have suppressed religious people.

Name them. I'd love to see you name anything around the territory of atheist/agnostic suppression upon religion. If you want to debate in this country the overbearing suppression and the source of it, you will find it entirely from religious white men. Not atheists. Not black people. Not arabs.

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

Probably because they can't name any way that atheists (you are forgetting some people, like agnostics, who make up around the same population) have suppressed religious people. Last I checked, the founding fathers were religious, and institutionalized secularism for this very reason. As it would be today, religious nuts think they have a mandate to stick their nose into other people's relationships and act like they are the the ones who get to judge the validity of two loving people. Of course they should expect a backlash.

No I base that on science and evolution. Hence why human males cannot reproduce with males and so forth.

Can you provide me a part of the evolutionary theory where they suggest gays cannot get married? If you don't find it, it's likely because you made it up.

If you want to quote science, you might also consider that homosexuality happens in nature. Animals don't just suddenly decide to be gay.

Being well sourced (I checked them myself, as I don't just believe Wiki entries that don't involve multiple sources):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_be...animals#Mammals

So like religion, you're picking and choosing your bias, and how you want to apply it. Don't bring nature and science into your nonsense.

Edited September 8, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some did sure - but its a far cry to go from that to painting slavery as a positive development in the lives of those people.

I don't think slavery was supposed to be a positive experience for the slaves. Black Americans weren't happy about slavery but very few are willing to go back to Africa permanently. Even Muhammad Ali said something about him being glad his ancestors got on that boat. They suffered but later generations eventually prospered.

Well if it was a choice between being killed at home by rival tribes - it probably made sense to stay, even if they did have to suffer horrific institutional racism at the hands of the white majority.

Of course when you're dealing with several generations of slaves it becomes difficult for the descendants to establish a connection with your ancestors homeland, if they even had the capacity to return at all.

[Heracles 417]

Can you provide me a part of the evolutionary theory where they suggest gays cannot get married? If you don't find it, it's likely because you made it up.

If you want to quote science, you might also consider that homosexuality happens in nature. Animals don't just suddenly decide to be gay.

Being well sourced (I checked them myself, as I don't just believe Wiki entries that don't involve multiple sources):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_be...animals#Mammals

So like religion, you're picking and choosing your bias, and how you want to apply it. Don't bring nature and science into your nonsense.

You are starting to sound like a clone of #6. The dribble king.

You are sitting here and stating that a tradition between man and woman practiced by humans for thousands of years should simply be modified to suit the post 80's gay revolution because people like you see fit. Anyone gay should be free to do as they please. I am not judging them. Just don't go walking all over others traditions and beliefs.

[HAL 9000 96]

I though you didn't want to use VJ or OT to act as representation for US society or international societies for that matter. You said this is not representative of the population as a whole. Your own logic comes to bite you in the #######.

You guys always ask for proof so the proof is here alone on VJ.

Its not how stupid and closed minded religious people are. Its how stupid and closed minded people are that want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Deal with it mate.

I agree. Like the many atheists who waste more time, even when compared to religious fanatics, trying to push their views.

'Proof' that fits a deluded vision of what is a point of view hardly qualifies any classification. Specially when you contradict yourself with your own brand of logic.

Again... you are not really able to differentiate between imposition and challenging an imposition... so we'll leave it at that. Do you really feel that threatened with people that have different beliefs having the same rights as everyone else?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Can you provide me a part of the evolutionary theory where they suggest gays cannot get married? If you don't find it, it's likely because you made it up.

If you want to quote science, you might also consider that homosexuality happens in nature. Animals don't just suddenly decide to be gay.

Being well sourced (I checked them myself, as I don't just believe Wiki entries that don't involve multiple sources):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_be...animals#Mammals

So like religion, you're picking and choosing your bias, and how you want to apply it. Don't bring nature and science into your nonsense.

You are starting to sound like a clone of #6. The dribble king.

You are sitting here and stating that a tradition between man and woman practiced by humans for thousands of years should simply be modified to suit the post 80's gay revolution because people like you see fit. Anyone gay should be free to do as they please. I am not judging them. Just don't go walking all over others traditions and beliefs.

A centuries-old tradition isn't "law" - laws being a thing defined by whatever civilizations are in ascendance at a given time. And not forgetting of course that homosexuality has been around since the year dot.

Its here to stay...

Edited September 8, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Heracles 417]

Some did sure - but its a far cry to go from that to painting slavery as a positive development in the lives of those people.

I don't think slavery was supposed to be a positive experience for the slaves. Black Americans weren't happy about slavery but very few are willing to go back to Africa permanently. Even Muhammad Ali said something about him being glad his ancestors got on that boat. They suffered but later generations eventually prospered.

Well if it was a choice between being killed at home by rival tribes - it probably made sense to stay, even if they did have to suffer horrific institutional racism at the hands of the white majority.

Of course when you're dealing with several generations of slaves it becomes difficult for the descendants to establish a connection with your ancestors homeland, if they even had the capacity to return at all.

I'll put it another way. Considering most African Americans are about 5 or 6 generations off from being in Africa, I am sure we could trace back the roots of quite a number of people. I would love to see where their distance cousins and family members are living and their situations. While it is all good and dandy to talk about how bad slavery and segregation is, which absolutely no one is denying. Yet I would also love to see where and what conditions the majority of people would be living in. If people like Obama, Oprah, Will Smith, Mohamed Ali, Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, Al Shaprton, ancestors had not been brought to America. This is only the only true test which would prove whether this worked out better for them or worse for them.

That is, if the slave trade had never happened and they had all stayed in Africa. For one thing, I know America would be a completely different country. Probably more of a UK, Canada, Australia / Europe.

[HAL 9000 96]

OK...

YES!

Precisely because you have religious-toned politicians that think they can impose their religiously-endowed beliefs upon others that do not share them. These politicians do not govern by decree although some think they do. They legislate.

Which is quite literally, quite contrary to what the constitution of the land states.

NO! There is nothing in the Constitution for banning actions which may have public policy implications simply because religious individuals speak for or against an issue. That violates freedom of speech, press and assembly. That why they are in the 1st Amendment. If the government forces you into a church, that would be unconstitutional because it's clearly promoting religion using the state as enforcer. Blue laws on alcohol sales may have their origins in religious belief but they serve secular purposes as well.

Right... so legislation is NOT encoded in the Constitution. I think a trip back to your Civics courses would be in effect a necessity. Specially when the constitutionality of the definition of certain laws precisely discriminate based on belief, etc. The government may not be forcing anyone into anything- but they certainly have tried to stipulate legislation that forces funding along lines of faith instead of along secular lines. Which is a modern way of imposing doctrine over the population and IS a violation of the principle alluded to the First Amendment. Blue laws/ Red laws. Who's discriminating and dividing now?

Lawmakers can try and pass laws but they can overturned by the courts if there is no secular merit behind the law so your argument that any religious element backing a law is unconstitutional.

And indeed many of the laws are overturned along those lines. Hence some people's labeling of these judges as 'activist judges' that seem to strike a nerve with some politicians out there willing to serve segments of their constituencies over the diversity of the population.

Multicultural education is just reverse racism masquerading as education.

Baaaaaahahahahaha. I just could not help but laugh. I'd say your sentence is masquerading as racism. Multicultural education as reverse racism, hahahaha. Yes, because as you well know, understanding other cultures and races is reverse racism, since we should only teach about white things. Agreed!

In practice, multicultural education means kids have learn about how bad Western Civilization is and how great even the most inconsequential contribution by any minority is. Were you educated in the U.S.? It's always been ok to teach about other cultures in history but most of the original black, hispanic and women studies programs were created to cater to political pressure and not to advance education.

So say you along your particular experience with these programs. Which I am sure is quite extensive beyond what right-wing bloggers state.

Poverty alone explains little. Most of East Asia was dirt poor but education and business orientation changed things for the better. The reality is Africans (like everyone else) are largely responsible for their own lot and blaming racism for everything achieves nothing.

Yeah, it sure was their own fault white people dragged their ### to another country and enslaved them. Their inability to die or defend themselves properly before coming here must mean it was their fault.

Did you ever take a history class before? A lot of the slave trade came from black Africans selling black Africans. Blaming everything on the Atlantic slave trade is moronic when the former slaves in America did far better than any the slave traders in Africa. Do know anything about international development either? Blaming whitey isn't the route to development. I also used East Asia as a modern comparison to show poverty can be overcome.

Try the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Also, it was with clear intent, as outlined by Jefferson, that secularism is what the first amendment had in mind for religion, and freedom of expression in religious terms, but not state sanctioned.

I already went over that, thanks.

Not covered very well, I'm afraid.

When using the OT section of VJ as an example alone, there have been quite a few threads, let alone posts, from people with atheist views forcing their views onto others. I am yet to see one thread by someone religious created on the basis of stating how stupid atheists are let alone forcing their beliefs onto others.

Probably because they can't name any way that atheists (you are forgetting some people, like agnostics, who make up around the same population) have suppressed religious people. Last I checked, the founding fathers were religious, and institutionalized secularism for this very reason. As it would be today, religious nuts think they have a mandate to stick their nose into other people's relationships and act like they are the the ones who get to judge the validity of two loving people. Of course they should expect a backlash.

No I base that on science and evolution. Hence why human males cannot reproduce with males and so forth.

Species genetics are not coded in the law. Belief is.

Edited September 8, 2008 by maviwaro

[Heracles 417]

'Proof' that fits a deluded vision of what is a point of view hardly qualifies any classification. Specially when you contradict yourself with your own brand of logic.

Again... you are not really able to differentiate between imposition and challenging an imposition... so we'll leave it at that. Do you really feel that threatened with people that have different beliefs having the same rights as everyone else?

This must be a taste of Chicago style politics they all talk about. What is good for the goose is clearly not acceptable for the gander.

Atheists pushing their views = Acceptable

Christians pushing their views = Bad

[HAL 9000 96]

Some did sure - but its a far cry to go from that to painting slavery as a positive development in the lives of those people.

I don't think slavery was supposed to be a positive experience for the slaves. Black Americans weren't happy about slavery but very few are willing to go back to Africa permanently. Even Muhammad Ali said something about him being glad his ancestors got on that boat. They suffered but later generations eventually prospered.

Because they fought for those rights. Same thing with other groups that undergo discrimination. Now... if only social structures would reflect this so-called equal access to advancement opportunities...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some did sure - but its a far cry to go from that to painting slavery as a positive development in the lives of those people.

I don't think slavery was supposed to be a positive experience for the slaves. Black Americans weren't happy about slavery but very few are willing to go back to Africa permanently. Even Muhammad Ali said something about him being glad his ancestors got on that boat. They suffered but later generations eventually prospered.

Well if it was a choice between being killed at home by rival tribes - it probably made sense to stay, even if they did have to suffer horrific institutional racism at the hands of the white majority.

Of course when you're dealing with several generations of slaves it becomes difficult for the descendants to establish a connection with your ancestors homeland, if they even had the capacity to return at all.

I'll put it another way. Considering most African Americans are about 5 or 6 generations off from being in Africa, I am sure we could trace back the roots of quite a number of people. I would love to see where their distance cousins and family members are living and their situations. While it is all good and dandy to talk about how bad slavery and segregation is, which absolutely no one is denying. Yet I would also love to see where and what conditions the majority of people would be living in. If people like Obama, Oprah, Will Smith, Mohamed Ali, Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, Al Shaprton, ancestors had not been brought to America. This is only the only true test which would prove whether this worked out better for them or worse for them.

That is, if the slave trade had never happened and they had all stayed in Africa. For one thing, I know America would be a completely different country. Probably more of a UK, Canada, Australia / Europe.

Genealogy requires historical records to establish familial connection. I could be wrong - but I'd be very surprised if the slave trade kept the sort of detailed records that, say, Ellis Island does.

[IAMX 3,055]

You are sitting here and stating that a tradition between man and woman practiced by humans for thousands of years should simply be modified to suit the post 80's gay revolution because people like you see fit. Anyone gay should be free to do as they please. I am not judging them. Just don't go walking all over others traditions and beliefs.

So I guess the evolutionary theory doesn't support it. Wups. Your bad. Nor can you point out suppression in this country performed by atheists/agnostics upon religious people.

And guess what, for "thousands of years" trials were not the norm either. It was death by mob.

Tradition of repression is no excuse for continuation. Like the trial issue, some of us have "evolved" our lines of thinking, and especially in legal terms, understand in a government using a Constitution that advocates secularism has no place having religious people dictate to gays they cannot get married. That's the only rationale behind it, as your evolution bit actually benefits gays to show how natural it is to be gay, and how they cannot help being gay. Scientifically, both stand perfectly well on their own feet.

If I have to choose between rights of people and walking over beliefs, or respecting beliefs which walk all over people's rights, I choose rights over beliefs. This constitution does too, thankfully. Unfortunately, there are people with an agenda, like President Dumbass, who want to institute bigotry into the Constitution. More religious asshattery.

Edited September 8, 2008 by SRVT

[HAL 9000 96]

Some did sure - but its a far cry to go from that to painting slavery as a positive development in the lives of those people.

I don't think slavery was supposed to be a positive experience for the slaves. Black Americans weren't happy about slavery but very few are willing to go back to Africa permanently. Even Muhammad Ali said something about him being glad his ancestors got on that boat. They suffered but later generations eventually prospered.

Well if it was a choice between being killed at home by rival tribes - it probably made sense to stay, even if they did have to suffer horrific institutional racism at the hands of the white majority.

Of course when you're dealing with several generations of slaves it becomes difficult for the descendants to establish a connection with your ancestors homeland, if they even had the capacity to return at all.

Exactly. They created an identity right where their ancestors were taken to. An identity partially defined by many things native to them... and a great many more by the servitude forced upon them.