Looking for SOMETHING positive

Zooey wrote:

And so I find that we have descended and degenerated, from some far ancestor (some microscopic atom wandering at its pleasure between the mighty horizons of a drop of water perchance) insect by insect, animal by animal, reptile by reptile, down the long highway of smirchless innocence, till we have reached the bottom stage of development–nameable as the Human Being. Below us–nothing. Nothing but the Frenchman.

ja.

now i’m going to crawl into a hole for the next four years.

Billy_T wrote:

Killory. Why didn’t I think of that?

It’s short for Killory Robbem.

— X — wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

and you don’t think trump did that too?

Do I think Trump labeled Clinton a racist or xenophobe or rapist or islamophobe in an attempt to scare voters into disavowing her as a candidate? No. But he did label her as corrupt and a crook. Both of which are far more rooted in truth than Trump being any of the aforementioned.

Well, you and I disagree about that. I think Clinton is a standard issue politician, with the usual problems telling the truth, and the usual close ties to donors. Contrary to the way Trump and the right portrayed her, she isn’t unique, or a super-villain with great powers or exceptionally evil. She’s run of the mill.

Trump, OTOH, is unique in our history. I’ve been following politics too closely for my own good for a long time, and I’ve never seen anyone lie as often, and with such viciousness. It’s not close. Well, at least not since George Wallace. And his words and deeds so obviously point to all the things we’ve been talking about, I’m actually quite shocked that anyone would try to deny it.

If his supporters want to make the argument that they accept that he is or says those things, but they still like him for his economic ideas, I can see that, though I’d still say he’s conned them. But to try to spin his comments and his deeds, when it comes to race, immigration, women, etc. etc.? That just defies all logic.

Billy_T wrote:

Beyond that, we live in a secular society. No one should be allowed to force their religion on others

But we should go ahead and force the removal of religion from all things America, because … ? That’s hypocritical. As I stated earlier, I’m not a Christian, but I am a huge believer in peaceful religion being the catalyst for healing the social & racial divides. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Spiritualism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shivism, Wicca… Why is it more acceptable to strip all of that away from people because a *minority* of the Nation is secular? What does secularism promote in terms of (in its purest forms) peace? It’s nothing more than a disguise for a militant anti-religious philosophy, and a movement to destroy the very fabric that holds communities and families together.

I’m not sure I want to debate the virtues of religion, though. That’s another one of those rabbit holes.

Billy_T wrote:

Well, you and I disagree about that.

You and I disagree about a great many things, apparently. But to quote the interrupting manic Tim Kaine, “We’re just having fun up here.”

Billy_T wrote:

Contrary to the way Trump and the right portrayed her, she isn’t unique, or a super-villain with great powers or exceptionally evil. She’s run of the mill.

Oh Billy. Just follow the trails.

Billy_T wrote:

If his supporters want to make the argument that they accept that he is or says those things, but they still like him for his economic ideas, I can see that, though I’d still say he’s conned them. But to try to spin his comments and his deeds, when it comes to race, immigration, women, etc. etc.? That just defies all logic.

On the contrary. It’s rather easy to unspin something that’s already been deceptively spun.

BTW, if you have trouble quoting me when I use multiple quotes like this, just highlight what you want to respond to – and while it’s highlighted – hit the quote button. It will only carry that snippet to the text area. I don’t know if you already knew that or not. I’m just trying to be a Helpy Helperton.

Billy_T wrote:

He called her the devil. Now, that may be a compliment to some folks. It was for Mick Jagger, if memory serves.

;>)

Ha.

Though, I doubt people were duped into actually believing she was Lucifer incarnate.

X,

You mentioned you lean toward libertarian. “Secularism” is libertarian. It’s basically “We can swing our fist all around as, as much as we like. But our freedom to do so stops when it comes up to someone else’s nose.”

That’s all. Believe whatever you want. Hold any faith you desire. You just don’t get to punch someone in the face with it.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Billy_T.

Billy_T wrote:

What does secularism promote? The peaceful coexistence of all faiths and the acceptance of that some people won’t have one. The only way to preserve and protect actual “religious freedom” is to prevent any one religion from dominated the public square. Since there are literally millions of places to worship in America, and anyone can worship inside their own heads, it’s pretty obvious that the best way to accommodate our diversity is to keep at least one place free of religious domination. No one is asking for any more than that. Just to keep a Switzerland free and clear so everyone is welcome and there is no pressure to conform to the dominate faith.

Is that so much to ask?

I know what it claims to promote. But if it’s so pro-coexistence, as you claim, then why are the vast majority of the posts on secular message boards anti-religious? The main purpose is to attack religion in general, and to hunt down and destroy any instances of the mixing of church and state. As you said to me earlier, you could care less about that monument in North Carolina, and I agree it was a stupid thing to attack, but how do you reconcile that with claims of tolerance and coexistence? Maybe Secularists should just start building tons of churches, reap the benefits of the same tax incentives, and start their own peaceful movement. As opposed to waging war against religion itself.

I nominate Jeff Bridges as High Priest.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

He called her the devil. Now, that may be a compliment to some folks. It was for Mick Jagger, if memory serves.

;>)

Ha.

Though, I doubt people were duped into actually believing she was Lucifer incarnate.

Not so fast.

Billy_T wrote:

You mentioned you lean toward libertarian.

Only on issues with which I agree. I don’t label myself. I remember you guys had some sort of test on this board to determine your political views, and I took it. Your dots were all either bottom-left or top-right. I took that same test, answered all the questions truthfully as it related to how I felt about any given issue, and my dot was almost square in the middle. I embrace a bunch of different views and mix them up to form the awesomeness that is me. As it relates to religion, I don’t even think you can define me. I’m anti-organized religion, but I’m okay with the overlapping of church and state provided the intent is peace, honoring he fallen, and promoting a message of love. If it’s used to promote intolerance of other religious groups, then I’m not for it. And I’m certainly not in favor of it being the battering ram of war. Which, unfortunately, has been the case for generations across this planet. Just be pure, people. Try to be pure.

bnw wrote:

The Swiss mandate a full auto weapon in every household. I knew Billy T was short for Billy The Kid!

Actually, the Swiss have much tougher gun control laws than we do:

The right’s deeply misleading new gun-control meme: America should be more like… Switzerland?

Excerpt:

Let’s take a look at what’s actually likely to be going on in that picture. Switzerland’s high rate of gun ownership is tied to the fact that it does not have a standing army so virtually every male citizen is conscripted into the militia where they receive comprehensive weapons training. Since they are a militia, they keep their government issued weapons (without ammunition) at home. Therefore, many of the guns in Swiss homes were issued to them by the government and most Swiss gun owners are highly trained in gun safety. This is in contrast to many untrained American yahoos who hang around Starbucks with loaded AR-15s leaning dangerously against the table top while they sip their mocha frappucino.

When Swiss militia members complete their service they are allowed to keep their weapon once they’ve been approved for an acquisition permit and can prove they have justification for having it. Private ownership of guns, along with ammunition, is also allowed under an acquisition permit with certain restrictions, including against those with criminal records and history of addiction and psychiatric problems. And with a law worthy of Orwell’s worst nightmare, every gun in Switzerland is registered by the government.

Billy_T wrote:

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

What does secularism promote? The peaceful coexistence of all faiths and the acceptance that some people won’t have one. The only way to preserve and protect actual “religious freedom” is to prevent any one religion from dominating the public square.

Since there are literally millions of places to worship in America, and anyone can worship inside their own heads, it’s pretty obvious that the best way to accommodate our diversity is to keep at least one place free of religious domination. No one is asking for any more than that. Just to keep a Switzerland-like space free and clear so everyone is welcome and there is no pressure to conform to the dominant faith.

Is that so much to ask?

I know what it claims to promote. But if it’s so pro-coexistence, as you claim, then why are the vast majority of the posts on secular message boards anti-religious? The main purpose is to attack religion in general, and to hunt down and destroy any instances of the mixing of church and state. As you said to me earlier, you could care less about that monument in North Carolina, and I agree it was a stupid thing to attack, but how do you reconcile that with claims of tolerance and coexistence? Maybe Secularists should just start building tons of churches, reap the benefits of the same tax incentives, and start their own peaceful movement. As opposed to waging war against religion itself.

I nominate Jeff Bridges as High Priest.

Well, you have me at a major disadvantage here. I’ve never spent any time on “secular message boards,” so I can’t answer that. But it’s been my experience that my fellow “secular humanists” don’t share that mission. We do think it’s wrong and patently un-Constitutional for the government to merge with religion in any way. But we’re not given to “hunt down and destroy” tactics. With all due respect, Dude, I think you’re engaging in a bit of nutpicking there.

I just don’t see the problem you describe as existing to any significant degree, and I think the power of the Church is waaaay too strong in America. I do see that as a major imposition on our freedoms and liberties, and the “religious right” seeks a great deal more of that. Pence is an obvious example.

Oh please what a bunch of BS. Churches participation in politics have been severely curtailed via the 501(c)(3) tax code.

PA Ram wrote:

bnw wrote:

He was given no chance to win by the pundits and almost every poll. So yes I don’t doubt that it cost him votes from supporters who listened to the negative barrage against him and stayed home. Which is why the MSM relentlessly hammered him for 17 months. That is the “airtight, unbreakable reality”. Okey dokey?

Uh huh. And what did the Orange Trump fairy do after he slayed the big ol’ nasty Media Monster?

Tell us more, grandpa!

Great stories!

This story has just begun. Your homophobia directed at President-Elect Trump is noted.

Oh wow, he really didn’t ask that, did he?

Agamemnon wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>Politics is Religion. imo</span>

————–
Well i dunno. If
you mean both cause posters to argue and insult one another, then yes.

But religion is about fairy stories and politics is about
genocide, inequality, power-distribution, etc.

I voted for Merlin Olsen, btw,
so don’t blame me.

w
v