Would I have chastised you if Aemaeth was a Scientologist or polite Neo-Nazi? That's a very good question. Probably not. It depends.

I understand your disdain for the LDS. A long time ago I sublet some studio space to a recently converted Mormon, and had to endure the proselytizing every day. I agree, it's laughable at the least, and dangerous at the worst. But I put up with it because just prior to his conversion, his young son had died suddenly in his sleep, without any medical explanation. He had no real support from friends or family, and this was his "port in a storm" I guess. A Mormon must have knocked on his door at just the right (wrong) time. You would surely cite this as opportunistic and playing on the weak, and I wouldn't disagree. I think he shook it eventually and moved on to hard-core Ufology. Just as kooky, but I thought that was more interesting, at least.

I am as disgusted as you at the politicization of the church. Despite our recent victory in Connecticut, there's still a strong anti-gay sentiment brewing. We get robocalls about it all the time, somebody's trying to see if there is enough support for a referendum. I don't think my response was recorded though, since it was full of invective that couldn't be deciphered by the computer doing the calling.

I think you and I are probably politically and ideologically very similar. I can think of a few things we might not agree on, but for the most part I hazard the guess that we are like-minded. There's some contrast in how we go about it though. I think minds are fragile, and need to be opened carefully because otherwise they break or snap shut for good. You're angrier than that, I imagine in this case because of the Prop8 debacle. That's fine, I'm angry too.

But I'm still curious about where your morality comes from. It's not entirely natural, although you do see altruism in primates and some other mammals. You must have learned it from someone. Parents, teachers, television, sunday school. I am willing to bet that a majority of atheists come from loving and secure family settings, where kindness and decency and love feel like natural principals of the universe. Why would we need a god, we know what's right and how to look after one another. The trouble is, it's not true of everybody. For many people God is that stern but loving father they never had. That's the only reason I defend the religioulous. Don't take it for granted where your morality comes from, and give a moment's thought to others less fortunate is all I'm saying.

What a lovely chat. I wish we had beer and pot and a glowing fire.




In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
You can't blame me for breathing on a wilting violet. This was a dialog, not a monologue. If Aemaeth didn't want a discussion, then he shouldn't have responded to my video in the first place. He's no victim.

I wasn't trying to chase him off the site. I was just trying to seed some doubt and engage him in some frank conversation. I'd love nothing more than for him to come back and stand up for himself. He could bring his friends too if he likes. The more the merrier.

Again, I'm going to re-iterate that there is a double standard when it comes to religion. The religious are allowed to damn people to hell and decide which humans are allowed to be married, but point out some glaring problems within a faith and all of a sudden you become Darth Vader.

Inelegantly: fuck that

I honestly find Mormonism very troubling, from it's morally disgusting inception, to it's unbelievable mythology, to its history of discrimination and misogyny, to its recent foyer into politics. I see it as a negative force in the world and would like to seed some doubt among its followers.

Can I be tolerant and severely critical at the same time?

Here are some questions that culture tells me I shouldn't ask.

-Joseph Smith had 33 wives, some of them as young as 14, some of them were others men's wives. How does this square with Mormon views on morality? How can you follow the teachings of a despicable lech and then seek to limit the rights of gay people?

-Do Mormons really believe that God waited 1800 years and then revealed himself to some dude in rural Utah, whom he instructed to sex up dozens of women and girls?

-Is it possible that this entire religion started out as a sex cult?

-Do Mormons really believe that Native Americans are actually a lost Jewish tribe?

Does tolerance require my silence on these points?

Would you have chastised me if Aemaeth was a Scientologist, or a polite Neo-Nazi?

Does tolerance have limits?

I agree with him.

Christians have done similar things to me before. Once it was a "friend" who pulled this weird guilt-trip Jesus thing on me. A few times it was some new faces in my dive bar who were obviously proselytizing. Once it was a "non-religious" play at a Baptist church on Cape Cod, and sure as shit one of the guys pidgeon-holed me and told me how I needed to be saved.

On a related but different note, another friend of mine won't shut up about abortion, and it's gotten to the point where I'd rather avoid him than hang out with him, and he's like a brother to me.

They all have this strange need to force me to think like they do.

>> ^RussianBeard:
I was actually tempted to downvote this. I've never felt that way about a video before tonight. This is a first. Listen, I'm a language student; I know how much time you have to spend memorizing all those arcane rules. But, people getting pissed about grammar irks me.
Also, I've heard a slightly different explanation of our use of apostrophes for possessives. I agree that it had to do with a contraction of an old form, but rather than a contraction of the possessive, it was an elision of part of an obsolete genitive case ending.
E.g.: "cartes wheel" eventually became "cart's wheel" as the use of inflected endings declined in English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe_(mark)#Possessive_apostrophe
One final thing: Considering I began typing this comment to show my disapproval for this video's rant, I feel that I may have nullified my own argument by going on and on like I have ended up doing. I apologize.


just don't apostrophize or proselytize.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheism, door to door, own medicine' to 'atheism, door to door, own medicine, evangelism, proselytizing' - edited by EDD

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mormons, evangelism, rant, salt n pepa' to 'john safran, mormons, evangelism, rant, salt n pepa, proselytizing' - edited by EDD

I don't really like giving my views on these topics -- everyone is so biased by ideologies that it's almost impossible to sift through attacks and just bullshit.

Over the past six months I've spent many late nights trying to figure out what is happening to the US, and how it's going to affect my life in Australia. Our government seems to be following suit (create money, bail out failing industries, announce huge budget deficits).

Isn't it time to ask the question - is it worth 'stimulating' an economy that seems to be fundamentally flawed?

We, in western countries, have lived in probably the most leveraged state in history. Not just banks, the entire society. We used this leverage to purchase and consume goods made abroad, and to fund a service sector economy that is crashing now.

Now all this money that can't be paid back has to be written off. It can't be paid back. The leverage that existed because of this capital is gone.

Paulson and Bernanke pulled off a deft maneuver with the original TARP package.

There would have been a complete collapse of the American economy if they didn't act. The elephant in the room is simple though - what actually is the American economy?

It's a consumer and service sector based economy. Very little real goods are actually produced. The US has run a trade deficit since 1975.

There isn't a viable economy to stimulate. Even the automotive industry, considered the pinnacle of American manufacturing, burns cash at rates that render it unable to compete in a global market.

I've only read 200 pages of the act so far, and it seems like (excluding the TARP packages) it is the biggest transference of wealth from taxpayers to whomever the government decides in all time. It's a quick fix that will keep the government in power thanks in part to keeping a lot of people employed... by the government. A new social contract will emerge as written by Rahm Emanuel in his book "The Plan".

The whole saga has shown the world -- or at least myself, just what I suspected about America all along. The 'values' that they proudly proselytize to the world don't mean a god damn thing when a real test shows up.

Sadly, the next two years will probably sound the death knell for capitalism in my life time.

Cliffs:

a) America's economy is fake and nothing can 'save' it, it needs to be reinvented
b) America is bankrupt and will eventually default on it's debt to the rest of the world
c) Primarily, the manipulation of the Fractional Reserve Banking system caused the problem

Thoughts?

PS. I apologize if this is a little all over the place, I'm writing it between meetings at work.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
There is no way a burka-clad fundamentalist Muslim woman would ever become a western school teacher, because the same dogma that forces her to cover her entire body in cloth also requires her to have a male escort when outside of the house. Are you telling me that this teacher had a male family member escort her through college, credentialing, student teaching, job interviews, hiring and ultimately 9 months a year of work? I'm calling BS on this one.
This sounds like the kind of thing you find on fringe political sites, chain emails and talk radio.
Same thing with the cross story. I've done a lot of teaching and seen plenty of people who wear crosses. Do you know how hard it is to fire a teacher? Even if some rogue principal decided to fire someone for wearing a cross, the Unions would file a huge lawsuit - which they would win - and the principal would be let go immediately, while the teacher in question would get a large settlement. Either there is more to this story (i.e. proselytizing on the clock, wearing a T-shirt that said 'Jesus Saves', having sex with students, etc) or this story is bullshit.
Maybe things are completely different where you live, but I doubt it. You are trying to paint the picture of some massively oppressive cultural phenomena, but struggling to even come up with small isolated examples, let alone some kind of powerful systemic force. In my opinion, you are getting worked up over nothing.


I'm certainly worked up now, after you speaking to me like i'm some sort of wack-job when all i tried to do was throw a few "other end of the spectrum" examples in to show how a subject can be counter-productive to that which it is trying to aid.

Fortunately for me, you're completely wrong on this one, they were fully covered by many different news sources across great britain. It's almost common knowledge over here to anyone who follows the news and current events. However, your opinion that i'm trying to paint some oppressive cultural phenomenon is erroneous. I've simply said that "political correctness can often be counter productive to racial harmony", and cited a few examples.

So, i'm sorry dude, but they're 100% true. Despite your defensive stance over this, i think you simply don't realise we're agreeing that people simply need to be nice to each other the world over and racial differences and racial struggles will be a thing of the past. I think you've firmly grasped the wrong end of the stick and you're not WANTING to see or hear anything that might impact on the stubborn ideas you have about political correctness. I think you've got it in your head that i'm a racist, or at least ignorant, and you're dead set on proving it even if it means ignoring half of what i say. I think you're the ignorant one.

Now let me tell you something - my dad is not only a teacher but a head teacher, has been for 20 of 35 teaching years. Yes i know how tough it is to fire a teacher, i'm very very familiar with the ins and outs of the NUT as a result of such and ...... i won't go on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6066726.stm
There is the story about the woman wearing the burkha, if you're interested (you're not) in finding out more information (you're not) and getting to the root of the story (you're not) and you'll see that originally she was allowed to continue teaching until students complained again that they couldn't understand her. So please research a little more and deliver your apology post haste (i'll wait for it while i wait for hell to freeze over)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-418819/BA-cross-women-vows-compromise-92-cent-public-her.html
Regardless of the "do you know anything about teaching" (and my father sits here as i write this laughing at me being asked that question) debate, this woman was not a teacher and i never said she was. Go ahead and read it and research it if you like, but i warn you once again that it might encourage you to change your POV and i can see you get frosty when your POV is challenged.

Want another? A christian nurse asked an old lady (who was very ill) if she wanted her (the nurse) to pray for her recovery. The old lady said no, made a complaint, and the nurse has been suspended. That was in either today's or yesterday's newspaper.

Please, please, please do not speak in such an antagonistical manner to me when all i did was try to have a little chat and give you my opinion on political correctness. And at least have the common decency to listen to my opinion before slating it. And then, once you've done that, have a little search for subjects that you're about to summarily dismiss without consideration. And then, finally, get off your "i'm righteous i am" high horse and understand that there are people out there who aren't racist, aren't bigots, aren't xenophobes, but DO find political correctness insulting to their intelligence.

I am neither heavily for nor heavily against political correctness, i have stated my opinion and you have translated it to suit your over zealous righteous attitude. I am, however, heavily against having my polite friendly attitude replied to by haughty supercillious pomp, and that's why i'm more stern with this reply than with my previous.

I'm looking forward to see exactly which parts of this you ignored.

I find few things as stupid as someone getting offended by someone else's beliefs. It's one thing to be offended when someone does something intended to cause offense (spitting, certain gestures, mocking your mother's weight, etc), but totally ridiculous to get pissy because someone else thinks their beliefs are correct and worth sharing. Annoyed, sure, be annoyed; it's easy to annoy people without intent. But offended? Sorry, but if you're a person who finds proselytizing offense, then you are stupid and plainly very insecure.

I guess he's right. But then again, proselytizing is annoying.

I got a "one year bible" for Christmas from my parent's religious friend. I was just slightly amused by it. For some reason I think if I got her a atheist book for Christmas she would have been deeply offended.

Hmph. I know several churches full of people who need to see this. Penn is absolutely right. Proselytizing is important if that's what you believe, but notice that this good man proselytized with an attitude of respect and from a perspective of friendship. I've never known any Christian who does that, sadly.

heh heh - seems i touched a nerve

first of all, as mentioned previously, a marriage or civil union, etc, is a legally binding contract... which requires the consent of *all* parties - my caveat was merely restricting these contractual arrangements to those entities which can clearly express their consent

furthermore, careful reading and comprehension will show that i had no intention of evoking a "slippery slope" argument (pragmatically speaking)

from my point of view there is no downside, or rather downslope - inclusivity was my point, not exclusivity - thus mention of such an argument shows either a misunderstanding of the term, or a fallacious tendency to "pigeonhole" and dismiss any discussion that doesn't *solely* support the enfranchisement of gays -- i *do* support them fully, yet being an impatient sort, would rather more broadly interpret both the "love" and equal-rights issues in *any* (see above) legal union so as to save us all a bit of frustration and emotional distress further down the road

i would find it hypocritical to think that we, as an increasingly liberal society, cannot or will not consider the questions herein beyond the rights of gays

basically, i do not believe in the concept of "romantic love" - i do not think that science can qualify and/or quantify such an abstract emotion - thus i feel that unions between two or more individuals may as well be based on those situations through which we often misapply the term, namely: lust, passion, compassion, duty, honor and responsibility, etc

in the not so distant past, gays were far more stigmatized and discriminated against - as well they were sometimes prosecuted under archaic laws that, for the most part, have now been or are being struck down - *this* is precisely why we are now arguing for *further* gay rights -- consider how much more prejudiced we are as a society towards something like polygamy - or how much more prosecutorial scrutiny such practitioners face both now and in the past - this is certainly still the main deterrent towards such behavior, in the same manner (yet much more egregiously) as that suffered by gays in the past -- can we not look further forward and conjecture as to whether polygamous family units might become more commonplace and accepted if we were to decriminalize it, and perhaps even *reward* it with legal recognition?

i am not, nor do i plan to be a polygamist... but i do think that as our society evolves so too should our consideration of what is in the best interest of ourselves and of subsequent generations

put simply, i would like to see the word "marriage" used in two senses:

1. a *private* religious ceremony that should confer no additional legal rights or benefits, except satisfying your own *personal* family traditions and peace of mind

2. an arrangement recognized by the state which confers legal rights and benefits such as inheritance, health decisions, tax exemptions, childbearing and adoption, etc

in the latter case, and for the sake of the foundation of an ongoing civil society... the family, i would hope that whatever "familial" means produces the healthiest, best educated, and most well-adjusted *children* would be those legal unions that are recognized and rewarded by the state

the former should be private... and i mean that in the larger sense - no door-knocking, public proselytizing, or ad campaigns -- if we want religion kept out of our government and our *legal* lives... then we need to take a broader view, and that to me means taking a long look at the issues

let's look forward and really come up with a way of separating the two -- if you're like me (an agnostic cynic), then we might agree that what this all boils down to is money... we're all scrambling for a piece of the pie (make mine bigger than those folks', please) - so let's do that: let's reward those worth rewarding and tax those worth taxing -- are you providing a healthy and proactive environment for our next generation? reward! are you making more money than those around you? more tax! are the six of you using less energy than the couple next door? reward! are you living alone while owning and driving two cars? more tax! are you living a clean and healthy lifestyle? reward! are you a fat, lazy bastard wooing both heart disease and national healthcare? more tax! you get the picture

i hope this serves to help you understand my initial point better

In reply to this comment by joedirt:
In reply to this comment by mharvey42:
(Your equating Churchill with Hitler ultimate proof of that)

Do you know nothing of Churchill's words regarding the inferiority of Jews? You are completely clueless. Please start questioning your own beliefs when you are sooooo clueless.

His words regarding Jews are mixed: "Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world."

His words regarding Islam are unequivecal, and ring true through the years: "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
The River War, volume II pp. 248–50 (1899)

Churchill was a great man: a benefit to humanity. To equate him with Hitler robs you of your last shred of credibility.

I think the tags are right now, it's a comedy movie about religion. Very funny at times I thought.

The only point made that I could ruminate about is at the end when he states that when I take casual comfort in some belief in God, it comes at a terrible price. But I don't go to church, vote or make political contributions based on scripture, don't proselytize or persecute, and try not to let it color my opinions of others. So what harm am I doing by holding myself accountable to a greater power?

i watched the whole thing, why no examination of Buddhism?
Also now i have to research Horus and the apparent laundry list of similarities to Jesus.

one thought - Bill's position regarding god is:
I don't know. But i choose to disbelieve and proselytize that disbelief to others.

How is that position morally or intellectually superior to:

I don't know. But i choose to believe and proselytize that belief to others.

Bill just "knows" he's Right? I think he planned the whole thing so he could smoke dope in Amsterdam.

Yeah, you kinda do. However, I think that calling ALL religious people stupid and ignorant is stupid and ignorant, so I suppose I'm just as bad.

Now that we've made up, allow me to make you mad again. No, please don't get mad. I sincerely hope that the following doesn't offend. It is pretty didactic, so please forgive me.

I want to mention that Atheists do not earn respect by being unpleasant, aggressive, and self-satisfied. The most acceptable religious people, I think you would agree, are the type who believe in something and do good with it, who are well-informed and AT LEAST attempt to incorporate science and logic into their religion, who are tolerant of all other people, and who do not force their religion upon anyone who doesn't want it. Many Atheists I have encountered are just the opposite. They are intolerant of the beliefs of others and are more than happy to lump all religious people into one "stupid and ignorant" category. They are determined to enlighten the world. Most Atheists see a difference between pushing Atheism and proselytizing (ex. They would see a problem with door-to-door missionaries but not door-to-door Atheists) when there is really very little difference.

I believe that the best kind of Atheists realize that Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, not just a non-belief. They are tolerant of other beliefs, and they do not make broad, scathing generalizations about theists. I am religious, obviously, but I am probaly just as baffled and horrified by the goings-on of most Christian denominations as you are. But you will never catch me calling them all stupid and ignorant. Many or most are, yes, but not all. Have you ever bothered to discover religions who DO believe in evolution? Have you ever thought about the possibility that theism and logic could coexist? I'm not asking you to believe that they can, but never to have considered or thought about any of these possibilties...is kind of ignorant, isn't it? To stamp an "ignorant and stupid" label to every theist's forehead, especially around here, is exceedingly easy and doesn't require as much thinking for yourself as many seem to believe.

Just some food for thought. Please don't flame me.

>> ^mefa:
No hard feeling from me either. I see your point.
Though I have to say I actually wouldn't be slightly indignant if I read that. I would just think they were as stupid and ignorant as I think every religious person is and just ignore their opinion as it would hold no weight coming from a stupid person anyway.
Wow, I sound like an awful person. =/
>> ^thepinky: