patrick.net

anonymous says

The larger group was more interested in who came late, who wore what, who was sitting where, who put how much into the collection plate, who did or didn't go to communion

I remember all that, it's less frequent now, alas still happens. As a pastor once said, it's all part of growing up. Issues we care about or how we see them change over a lifetime. Been going to same church for a while, some folks come and go, some however stick around and build relationships with their community and god.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

This is exactly why people who are members of any religion should not be allowed to vote. We don't let the insane vote because they are mentally incapable of weighing important decisions. If someone talks to an imaginary voice and has severe delusions about reality, that person cannot make a rational decision in an election or referendum. Religion is one of the worst forms of mental illness no matter how socially acceptable or pervasive it is. If there is any form of mental illness that should prevent a person from voting, it's being religious

You are awesome. :)

Dan is brilliant, but most people in the world are religious, so saying that religious people shouldn't vote amounts to an argument against democracy and especially against majority rule. Such an argument has little chance of success regardless of validity, and besides, in autocratic countries the rulers tend also to be religious megalomaniacs and use religion as a tool to control and usually oppress. There was a time when many devoutly religious Americans avoided voting for the same reason they avoided medicine (just pray and whatever happens must be the will of whatever omnipotent deity the preacher purports to represent); it also saved preachers from having to explain why their chosen candidates lost. But, Republicans found they could make an unholy alliance with Pat Robertson etc, and explain losses by blaming them on Satan or whatever; religious faith is not defined by logic, it defies it. What I find most interesting about this thread and the Irish vote that inspired it is that 70% of Irish voters identify as Catholic, yet 60% decided to vote for their fellow citizens rather than obey the Vatican's child molesting laundry overseers. The Vatican's disappointing and ungracious reaction reminds me of Dan's thread about a "personal" deity being really an extension of the ego: the unmarried "celibate" Vatican clergy reacted as they would to being spurned romantically.

curious2 says

Dan's thread about a "personal" deity being really an extension of the ego: the unmarried "celibate" Vatican clergy reacted as they would to being spurned romantically.

Wow, yes, I think there's a lot to that.

curious2 says

Dan is brilliant, but most people in the world are religious, so saying that religious people shouldn't vote amounts to an argument against democracy and especially against majority rule. Such an argument has little chance of success regardless of validity, and besides, in autocratic countries the rulers tend also to be religious megalomaniacs and use religion as a tool to control and usually oppress.

Who are the megalomaniacs autocrats again?

"Brilliant" guys like Dan who are so full of hate and want to ban millions of people from engaging in the Democratic process for having "impure" personal spiritual beliefs?

Cause we all know it is impossible for self-righteous secular or atheists to use the awesome power of the State as a tool to control and oppress. That never happens!

curious2 says

You are awesome. :)

Dan is brilliant, but most people in the world are religious, so saying that religious people shouldn't vote amounts to an argument against democracy and especially against majority rule. Such an argument has little chance of success regardless of validity, and besides, in autocratic countries the rulers tend also to be religious megalomaniacs and use religion as a tool to control and usually oppress.

I don't think Dan meant it literally. He is just attacking religion for their beliefs. Felons cannot vote, children cannot vote. If we throw in the religious, then "quasi religions" like communism, capitalism, and environmentalists would not be able to vote. Almost no one would be able to vote, and we would end up in complete chaos.

Down with gays, incest, rape, and violence! Now, if anyone needs me, I'll be catching up on my Game of Thrones...

socal2 says

Cause we all know it is impossible for self-righteous secular or atheists to use the awesome power of the State as a tool to control and oppress. That never happens!

And religion never kisses the ass of the powerful, and shelters them after they kill multitudes, right Ante "Pablo Aranjos" Pavelic?

FortWayne says

There is such a thing as "sin". For if it wasn't, it wouldn't be against a law,

Following that logic, Sharia Law proves that women who show their face in public are sinning. When your logic leads to ridiculous conclusions, your logic is wrong.

Strategist says

I don't think Dan meant it literally.

I did.

We don't let people vote if they are too far mentally gone to grasp reality. As FortWayne constantly demonstrates, religion is such a great delusion that even when confronted with reality that contradicts their ridiculous beliefs, the religious simply ignore reality. If that kind of mental illness doesn't disqualify a person from voting, then no mental illness should.

curious2 says

most people in the world are religious, so saying that religious people shouldn't vote amounts to an argument against democracy and especially against majority rule

True. It is an argument against pure democracy and majority rule. However, I am happy to take that stance. Minority rights and individual rights trump majority rule by my values. Majority rule can be tyranny. One only needs to look at the history of slavery in our country to confirm that.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
- Benjamin Franklin

That said, our government is a republic, not a democracy. The last time a democracy existed on this planet was the ancient city-state of Rome. The first was the city-state of Athens, and that was the closest to a pure democracy there was, but even there a 51% vote could not enslave the other 49%.

Strategist says

He is just attacking religion for their beliefs.

No, I'm attacking their beliefs. If I were attacking them, I'd be a lot crueler.

Strategist says

Felons cannot vote, children cannot vote. If we throw in the religious, then "quasi religions" like communism, capitalism, and environmentalists would not be able to vote. Almost no one would be able to vote, and we would end up in complete chaos.

First, felons should be allowed to vote. There is no justifiable legal reason to prevent felons from voting. Doing so first degrades voting to a privilege rather than a right. Second, such a prohibition gives the state amble motive to criminalize multitudes of people in order to rig elections. This is exactly what the War on Drugs does. And a state that rigs elections by criminalizing groups of people is a state that will be highly corrupt just as ours is.

Second, those who are mentally dysfunctional to the point of being unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, on the other hand, are clearly incapable of making sound judgement regardless of opinions or values. Would you want someone voting who thinks we need to nuke France to get rid of all the dragons and vampires there? Why then would you want someone to vote who thinks that Israel being in the Middle East will bring Jesus back as stated in Revelations?

Third, children don't vote because they are not mentally ready for the task. For voting purposes, that makes them like the mentally ill. If you let a five-year-old pick his own name, he'll choose Super-spiderman hulk smash. Do you really want that mind making decisions about who should get the nuclear codes?

Fourth, environmentalism is a science, not a religion. I will concede that economics is religion to most people interest in it. However, it should be a science instead.

Fifth, right now less than half the population votes. Even if that were to drop to 5%, society would not collapse. In fact, if only the top 5% of the smartest and most compassionate Americans voted, just about every problem our country faces would be solved in 15 years.

Dan8267 says

Second, those who are mentally dysfunctional to the point of being unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, on the other hand, are clearly incapable of making sound judgement regardless of opinions or values. Would you want someone voting who thinks we need to nuke France to get rid of all the dragons and vampires there? Why then would you want someone to vote who thinks that Israel being in the Middle East will bring Jesus back as stated in Revelations?

You just eliminated 99% of the population from ever voting.
72 Virgins in heaven.
Flat earth.
Sun revolves around the earth.
Reincarnation.
Angels.
Big Foot.
Space Aliens.
Conspiracy theories.
Add to that who religious people would demand get banned from voting, because they believe the following are insane:
Gays.
Pro Choice:
Liberals.
Atheists.

FortWayne says

They can marry, for bible does not make marriage explicitly for having children. Here is the definition Dan. Marriage is a lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. It is ok to not have children as long as reason is purposeful, not sin. However homosexuality is deviant, shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent and hence not right for marriage, it would destroy the very pillars on which our society is built upon.

You sound like Gingrich or Limbaugh who said same sex marriage would desecrate the holy sanctity of their fourth or fifth marriage.

Strategist says

You just eliminated 99% of the population from ever voting.

Oh honey, you grossly overestimate the portion of people who believe in superstitions.

16% of 7 billion is 1.12 billion. More than enough to run the world.

Pew reports 7.1% of America's population is outright atheist or agnostic. Another 15.8% are "nothing in particular". Pew does not clarify what that means. It probably contains a mixture of
1. I believe in superstitions, but do not attend any religious events
2. I believe in some abstract concept of a god, but not any specific god.
3. I don't believe in any superstitions, but I'm not going to rock the boat.

In any case, the percentage of naturalists, those who believe in nature rather than the supernatural, is trending upwards. Like in all trends, when it reaches critical mass, almost everyone will start calling themselves atheists and agnostics, even politicians. It's not a coincidence that every social advancement starts slowly, gradually builds up, and then suddenly takes over. Politicians and the American public are conformists and they follow popular opinion no matter what it is. Right now that makes people pretend that they believe in supernatural creatures. Eventually peer pressure will cause people to deny these supernatural entities. You can see that same effect happening right now in marriage equality and it was seen in the Civil Rights movement, the Woman's Suffrage movement, and the Progressive movement.

At Yale, a third of people are atheist or agnostic -- and agnostic is code for "I'm an atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to stand up for the truth and don't want to rock the boat in this superstitious batshit crazy country.". Generally, the more educated and informed are atheist and agnostic. So there is no dearth of talent and knowledge to draw from.

And the bottom line is that the general population doesn't give a rat's ass who's in charge as long as they are feed, have homes, have stable income, and can occasionally indulge in luxuries like new electronics and eating out.

Dan8267 says

First, felons should be allowed to vote. There is no justifiable legal reason to prevent felons from voting.

In Dan's twisted world, felons OK to vote, but not people who believe in God?

socal2 says

In Dan's twisted world, felons OK to vote, but not people who believe in God?

Give me one damn reason why felons should not be allowed to vote especially when something like possessing marijuana can make a person a felon.

I've given the reasons why people who have so little grasp on reality that they believe in a fictional sky daddy as a literal being should not get to vote. Such idiots get politicians to create laws based on absurd fictions like it's a sin for two gay to marry or rising sea levels can't be happening because god promised he'd never flood us again and made a rainbow to signify that. It makes sense that severe mental delusions would preclude someone from voting. It does not make sense to allow politicians to very selectively ban actions and selectively prosecute individuals for violating these bans in order to rig elections, and that's exactly what the War on Drugs does.

I can justify my statements. Can you justify yours?

P.S. Every founding father was a felon, guilty of terrorism, insurrection, and treason to the crown. Nice hypocrisy.

I think people who think other people shouldn't vote, shouldn't vote.

CaptainShuddup says

I think people who think other people shouldn't vote, shouldn't vote.

In that case, anyone who supports the current prohibition against felons voting, shouldn't vote.

Also, people who want to change the 14th amendment to remove birthright citizenship, shouldn't vote, because the consequences of removing citizenship would include removing voting rights.

CaptainShuddup says

I think people who think other people shouldn't vote, shouldn't vote.

So you think that no Republican should vote, as they are the ones
- responsible for using the War on Drugs to take away voting "rights"
- pushing for voter ID laws
- who have a history of voter suppression

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

You just eliminated 99% of the population from ever voting.

Oh honey, you grossly overestimate the portion of people who believe in superstitions.

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.
You just destroyed democracy.

Dan8267 says

P.S. Every founding father was a felon, guilty of terrorism, insurrection, and treason to the crown. Nice hypocrisy.

If they had sex with their slaves that would make them rapists.

Strategist says

If they had sex with their slaves that would make them rapists.

Jefferson did!

Strategist says

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.

That's a blatant Straw Man.

There's a huge difference between never disagreeing with a person and thinking the world is controlled by pixies and unicorns. Your god is no less ridiculous than a pixie. If thinking that armies of pixies are making the sun move up and down is a delusion, then so is thinking a god causes everything is.

When a child dies due to a preventable disease, people say it was god's plan. Now if they said a troll cast a spell on the child, we'd call them crazy. Both situations are equally crazy and both are equally harmful to rational policy making.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

P.S. Every founding father was a felon, guilty of terrorism, insurrection, and treason to the crown. Nice hypocrisy.

If they had sex with their slaves that would make them rapists.

They did, and they were. Slave rape was the norm in the American South. Do you really think that horny young men are not going to force women they own to perform sexual acts on them? And yet, the south didn't see the immorality of slavery. What bullshit.

Mike Huckabee generates exactly why religion is detrimental to democracy, self-government, and liberty. And Huckabee is a mainstream Republican, not their lunatic fringe. Yes, I'm aware it's hard to tell the difference between the mainstream and the lunatic fringe in the Republican Party.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/juRO1RSKgQs

https://www.youtube.com/embed/kmNjRX-ZCzA

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VB4dB-2oC78

Anyone that delusional should not have any say in policy making. Anyone who calls to have U.S. law be based on the Biblical law is NO different than one who wants to implement Sharia law in America.

And this is why we need to stop tolerating religion anymore. We're at a crossroads and Bronze Age religions are not compatible with freedom and 21st century life. Christianity is no more comparable with the welfare of society than Satanism is, as has been proved time and time again over the past two decades.

Dan8267 says

Mike Huckabee....

I think you mean Michelle.

Dan8267 says

stop tolerating religion....

The 1st Amendment remains part of the Bill of Rights, and should in my opinion remain there, but America succeeds partly because of its ability to pivot when necessary. During the cold war, America faced an officially atheist enemy, and drew on religious support "for god and country." 9/11 showed that America faced a new enemy, in the form of religious extremism (particularly Islam). To pivot successfully, America should emphasize the separation of church and state.

Alas for 8 years America endured an overtly very religious "Christian" President who launched what he called a "crusade" into Iraq after listening to "a higher father," even while claiming to "respect" Islam. Iraq has now an expressly religious Constitution, as most Muslim countries do, and that requires them to fight endlessly over which faction has the one "true" interpretation of Islam. The resulting conflict empowers the military industrial complex, which is the point, just as the point of Obamneycare is to empower the medical industrial complex. To the extent that both industrial complexes are principally American, we are "winning" like Charlie Sheen: on top of the world, but maybe not for much longer.

In my opinion, long term success requires what the founders would have called "liberal," in the sense of the Enlightenment, respecting that people have a right to live their own lives in accord with their own beliefs, allowing them a stake in a country where they may live peaceably in accord to what they consider most important, and reasoning together to see what we can agree on. As the founders recognized from European history (e.g. the 30 years war and the reformation), fighting about "my pixies are better than your pixies," or "my trolls are more dangerous than your trolls" tends to produce nothing but fighting, because there is no way to prove either side right other than fighting to the death until only one faction remains. (And then they will inevitably be subdivided further, wash rinse repeat.) If I don't see your pixies, or you don't see mine, then we should be able to set pixies aside and focus on what we can all see together. Alas the GOP refuses outright to reason together without wrapping themselves in religion, and alas America becomes increasingly polarized as a result; cult member Romnesia campaigned on a platform that invoked "God" 19 times, and prevailed 60/40 among weekly "Christian" churchgoers, but lost 70/30 among everyone else.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.

That's a blatant Straw Man.

Not at all. You are the quintessential Totalitarian Prog. I couldn't make better caricature.

You demonstrate your dangerous and Totalitarian tendencies virtually every day on this blog with the shit you write.

The ash heap of history is littered with fanatical Progs like you.

CaptainShuddup says

I think people who think other people shouldn't vote, shouldn't vote.

I can't get behind this, because it would exclude registered Republicans from voting.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.

That's a blatant Straw Man.

There's a huge difference between never disagreeing with a person and thinking the world is controlled by pixies and unicorns. Your god is no less ridiculous than a pixie. If thinking that armies of pixies are making the sun move up and down is a delusion, then so is thinking a god causes everything is.

When a child dies due to a preventable disease, people say it was god's plan. Now if they said a troll cast a spell on the child, we'd call them crazy. Both situations are equally crazy and both are equally harmful to rational policy making.

Dan thinks he is the only one allowed to vote, unless others who vote also agree with him.

anonymous says

socal2 says

All this drama for what - 2 percent of the population that are attracted to the opposite sex?

socal2 - Not sure if this was covered earlier - you mean to tell me only 2 percent of the population is straight? What the hell happened to California between last fall when I left and now? Talk about drama - and I missed it all...damn

Same Sex!

I meant same sex! Thanks, I'll fix.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

What you are saying is ......Only those who agree with me should be allowed to vote.

That's a blatant Straw Man.

Not at all.

Oh honey, in order for it not to be a Straw Man, I would have to actually take the stated position that no one who disagrees with me on anything can vote. I don't take that position. Therefore, it's a Straw Man and you're a dumb ass.

FortWayne says

Dan thinks he is the only one allowed to vote, unless others who vote also agree with him.

Again, this is a Straw Man and a blatant lie. Those who make Straw Man arguments do so because they have no counter-arguments to their opponent's actual argument. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Dan thinks he is the only one allowed to vote, unless others who vote also agree with him.

Again, this is a Straw Man and a blatant lie. Those who make Straw Man arguments do so because they have no counter-arguments to their opponent's actual argument. In other words, you don't have a leg to stand on.

That is what your arguments indicate. Except for the felons. Most felons are not atheists, what if they vote to behead you.

curious2 says

The 1st Amendment remains part of the Bill of Rights, and should in my opinion remain there

The part about freedom of speech should remain. But why protect or even allow religion? The founding fathers put that in the Constitution because they thought it would prevent religious wars like that of the Catholics vs the Protestants in England that happened in recent history from their perspective. But we are fighting religious wars right now.

Also, no other delusion is given special protection. If I think I'm Napoleon and this is France, that won't stop me from being arrested if I storm the White House and demand allegiance from everyone or if I try to gather an army to invade Russia. No person is given any privileges because he has some delusion except when that delusion is called a religion.

However, we don't have any real freedom of religion in this country anyway. Even Christian beliefs that are inconvenient for the state are not allowed to be practiced. A Christian who was truly following the teachings of Christ could never pay any income taxes if any of those taxes goes to war. That violates the fifth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". Even indirectly killing by supporting financially or in any other way is a violation of this commandment. Therefore no true Christian could serve in the military even as a conscientious objector. Yet, this belief has never stopped the draft.

And for non-Christian religions, there is even less pretense of respecting the right to practice aspects of them. Some religions forbid being photographed. Does this stop the police from taking mugshots or prevent the recording of such people with security cameras? Does religious doctrine about modesty prevent the use of rape scanners and body frisks from being done at the airport? What about religions that use mind altering drugs to reach a state of enlightenment? The government may make acceptation to alcohol laws for Christians, but it's not going to make exceptions to marijuana laws for other religions. And don't forget about all those orgies with 15-year-old girls held by ancient religions of Rome and Greece. Think our government would tolerate that?

Our country only protects a very narrow set of religious practices that the state is comfortable with. That's not real freedom of religion. So going a step further and removing all legal protections and privileges of those religions is simply creating an equal playing field.

And I'd start with the tax code and make all these religions pay 200 years of back-taxes plus fines and interest.

Strategist says

That is what your arguments indicate.

No it doesn't. And saying a horse is a banana does not make the horse a banana.

Strategist says

Most felons are not atheists, what if they vote to behead you.

As I've said many times, the rights of individuals trump majority rule.

And if that's the best argument you have against felons being allowed to vote, you have no argument.

Dan8267 says

At Yale, a third of people are atheist or agnostic -- and agnostic is code for "I'm an atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to stand up for the truth....

Dan, I've been trying to find the original source for the linked study, and haven't been able to so far. Your link goes ironically to a Christianist website; its home page says, "Illegal discrimination against Christians on public university campuses is pervasive and must be confronted." The specific article you linked claims agnosticism and atheism are rare at Yale college and over-represented in the law school; the number "a third of people" refers only to Yale Law students not all people at Yale.

In general, studies of aptitude and religion tend to report that atheism correlates positively with intelligence and atheists tend to have the highest IQ of any religious or non-religious identification, while agnostics tend to rank somewhere around second. There can be overlap as there are individual exceptions to every rule, and certainly there are many religious people who score very highly. I think what you call cowardice is rather a question of perspective. If you grow up being always the smartest person in every room, then you develop a level of confidence or even arrogance. If you grow up ranking second or third, and you notice that people smarter than you tend to disagree about something, then you develop a sense of uncertainty about it, and a respect for people of differing opinions as to things people can't see - whether pixies, trolls, or string theory.

curious2 says

In general, studies of aptitude and religion tend to report that atheism correlates positively with intelligence and atheists tend to have the highest IQ of any religious or non-religious identification, while agnostics tend to rank somewhere around second.

An agnostic is "An atheist without balls"
Question for you: More and more people are becoming atheists. Is it IQ, or is it education? Or....does education elevate your IQ?

Dan8267 says

And don't forget about all those orgies with 15-year-old girls held by ancient religions of Rome and Greece.

Herodotus, Book I:199

Every woman of the country must sit down in the precincts of Aphrodite once in her life and have commerce with a man who is a stranger: and many women who do not deign to mingle with the rest, because they are made arrogant by wealth, drive to the temple with pairs of horses in covered carriages, and so take their place, and a large number of attendants follow after them; but the greater number do thus,--in the sacred enclosure of Aphrodite sit great numbers of women with a wreath of cord about their heads; some come and others go; and there are passages in straight lines going between the women in every direction, through which the strangers pass by and make their choice. Here when a woman takes her seat she does not depart again to her house until one of the strangers has thrown a silver coin into her lap and has had commerce with her outside the temple, and after throwing it he must say these words only: "I demand thee in the name of the goddess Mylitta": now Mylitta is the name given by the Assyrians to Aphrodite: and the silver coin may be of any value; whatever it is she will not refuse it, for that is not lawful for her, seeing that this coin is made sacred by the act: and she follows the man who has first thrown and does not reject any: and after that she departs to her house, having acquitted herself of her duty to the goddess, nor will you be able thenceforth to give any gift so great as to win her. So then as many as have attained to beauty and stature are speedily released, but those of them who are unshapely remain there much time, not being able to fulfil the law; for some of them remain even as much as three or four years: and in some parts of Cyprus too there is a custom similar to this.

Fucking Constantine, that Clown-wig wearing bastard, Ending an Ancient and Proud Tradition.

The emperor’s next care was to kindle, as it were, a brilliant torch, by the light of which he directed his imperial gaze around, to see if any hidden vestiges of error might still exist. And as the keen-sighted eagle in its heavenward flight is able to descry from its lofty height the most distant objects on the earth, so did he, while residing in the imperial palace of his own fair city, discover as from a watch-tower a hidden and fatal snare of souls in the province of Phœnicia. This was a grove and temple, not situated in the midst of any city, nor in any public place, as for splendor of effect is generally the case, but apart from the beaten and frequented road, at Aphaca, on part of the summit of Mount Lebanon, and dedicated to the foul demon known by the name of Venus. It was a school of wickedness for all the votaries of impurity, and such as destroyed their bodies with effeminacy. Here men undeserving of the name forgot the dignity of their sex, and propitiated the demon by their effeminate conduct; here too unlawful commerce of women and adulterous intercourse, with other horrible and infamous practices, were perpetrated in this temple as in a place beyond the scope and restraint of law. Meantime these evils remained unchecked by the presence of any observer, since no one of fair character ventured to visit such scenes. These proceedings, however, could not escape the vigilance of our august emperor, who, having himself inspected them with characteristic forethought, and judging that such a temple was unfit for the light of heaven, gave orders that the building with its offerings should be utterly destroyed. Accordingly, in obedience to the imperial command, these engines of an impure superstition were immediately abolished, and the hand of military force was made instrumental in purging the place. And now those who had heretofore lived without restraint learned self-control through the emperor’s threat of punishment, as likewise those superstitious Gentiles wise in their own conceit, who now obtained experimental proof of their own folly.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iii.lv.html

curious2 says

refers only to Yale Law students not all people at Yale

Yeah, that's what I meant to say. I worded it bad. I was trying to make the point that there are certainly enough agnostics and atheists who are qualified to manage or run government in contrast to the assertion that there would be no one left to vote on issues or candidates.

There is a reference to a religious affiliation survey done in Oct 2011 on the charts.