2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

For some completely off based "Christian" comments to this, check out this link:

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?p=643437

Edit: OK, no this is a site for racist bigots who masquerade as Christians - View at your own risk.

2nd Edit: OK now I'm confused...
The Landover Baptist Church is a fictional[1] Baptist church based in the fictional town of Freehold, Iowa. The Landover Baptist web site and its associated Landoverbaptist.net Forum are a satire of fundamentalist Christianity and the Religious Right in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church

... I just don't know if it's members know it's fictional!

*promote

The religious right will fight for the first amendment nonstop, unless you're not christian that is...

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Not in the US, at least in my experience. Religious schools here tend to want to cherrypick education so as not to conflict with the Bible. Remember, here the "elites" are portrayed as arrogant and un-American by the religious right. "Real Americans" have mediocre educations, love God and work a blue-collar job.
>> ^RedSky:
Aren't religious schools more likely to be snobbish/elitist private schools than are public schools of meeting those standards? That's certainly the case here and might help explain those numbers.

I don't know what religious schools you're talking about, but that is absolutely the opposite of how Catholic schools tend to be run.


That's exactly how my step-sister's Catholic school was run. That's also one of the reasons she was pulled out and sent to public school

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Not in the US, at least in my experience. Religious schools here tend to want to cherrypick education so as not to conflict with the Bible. Remember, here the "elites" are portrayed as arrogant and un-American by the religious right. "Real Americans" have mediocre educations, love God and work a blue-collar job.
>> ^RedSky:
Aren't religious schools more likely to be snobbish/elitist private schools than are public schools of meeting those standards? That's certainly the case here and might help explain those numbers.


I don't know what religious schools you're talking about, but that is absolutely the opposite of how Catholic schools tend to be run.

Not in the US, at least in my experience. Religious schools here tend to want to cherrypick education so as not to conflict with the Bible. Remember, here the "elites" are portrayed as arrogant and un-American by the religious right. "Real Americans" have mediocre educations, love God and work a blue-collar job.

>> ^RedSky:

Aren't religious schools more likely to be snobbish/elitist private schools than are public schools of meeting those standards? That's certainly the case here and might help explain those numbers.

Alright, I'll explain.

Ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973 (that's the legal case that basically ratified women's right to choose here in the States), the religious right has worked itself into a froth. Each year they get more frothy than the last and now, they have a chance to pass SOME kind of legislation, ANY kind of legislation that pushes their agenda forward.

At the same time, marijuana legalization appears imminent, culminating in a very near-future ballot initiative in California. I believe that occurs this coming November, if I'm not mistaken?

So...given the zero sum nature of politics, it would not be unheard of for the powers that be to covertly murmur amongst each other that if we pass marijuana legalization, then we'll ban abortion too, just for balance: if the liberals get something (legal pot) then the conservatives must also get something (more babies because there aren't nearly enough of them).

What's my justification for such a wild claim? Nothing more than my bitter cynicism about how politics work. What tells me it works this way? All of recorded history tells me.

So this poll is asking you which you value more: legal weed or legal abortions? Because I really do not think we can have both. That simple, really.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Totally agree that "preemptive self-defense" is some hardcore Orwellian bullshit. Amazing how much of the religious Right get behind the idea. Jesus said turn the other cheek, not "stab that guy in the belly because he looks like he might hurt me".
>> ^SDGundamX:

Well, I thought he was suggesting in the video that initiating violence is wrong but defending yourself is okay. Very few pacifists are absolute pacifists in that they believe no violence should ever be done--not even in self-defense.
The response that most people have to the idea of pacifism (as seen in the posts for this vid) is that sometimes violence is justified. Maybe sometimes, like in immediate self-defense, it is. The problem I have with that standpoint though is that in practice often people are far to quick to resort to violence and to use extremely flaky logic to justify their actions. Take the invasion of Iraq: that was couched as a defensive action. In order to protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack, the U.S. would make a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.
I suppose that personally I feel that violence is only justified in extreme cases. And, when violence is justified, it should never be glorified because invariably, resorting to violence is going to sow the seeds of future violence. World War II is generally seen as a "justified war" from the viewpoint of Americans, for instance, but that war inadvertently planted the seeds of the Cold War, the Middle East conflict, and Vietnam conflict even as it was stamping out the flames of Fascism in Europe.
What is really important is stopping that cycle of violence--eradicating the roots of violence so that people don't ever feel the need to use violence to get what they want. To that end, I can get behind the idea expressed in the beginning of this vid that we should strive to create a world in which we don't initiate violence but still be free to defend ourselves if attacked. That's a start at the very least.
>> ^dannym3141:
You're right. My pacifist sister talks about great tragedies performed by people and said "they should have stopped him before all the killing and war began!" - but if you ask her how to stop a person who doesn't want to listen to kind words, she has no answer. A fully pacifist world might be ok, but if one single person decided not to be, you're boned.

First of all, I doubt the claim can be verified that taxes reduce consumption. I would challenge you to find any study that supports taxes have slowed smoking adoption among teens rather than increasing dissemination of health facts of smoking, or it just going out of style.

But that is a more technocratic argument. Why is the government singling out smokers, why not people who don't take an afternoon jog? Surly the government should encourage jogging with fines right? Jogging is healthy, not jogging is not, so why not tax not jogging? That is what it means to live in a free society, or in this case, not live in one.

Sin taxes are not taxes at all, but fines. Fines for expressing freedoms are immoral and reprehensible and have no place in a free society. That is why I raise the moral argument. To manipulate government imposed fines to enforce moral agendas is no better than any other form of tyranny of majority will. If that be the case, there is no defense against religious right coming to power and demanding a fine for people who don't pray, after all, that affects their spiritual health.

You assume that just because it relates to better health then it is ok for the government to get involved in, but health isn't the governments job, it's yours and mine. If I don't want to jog, and I want to smoke, you have no right to fine me. That is what it is, it isn't a tax, its a fine. Taxes are something we all pay for mutual benefit, like cops, roads, schools, ect. A tax on a substance to provide a dis-insensitive is legislating morality, and shouldn't be tolerated in any form. I don't argue against the objective however, just the means. I find smoking pretty gross, and would teach my kids to stay away from it as my parents taught me, but legislation is just wrong.

In America, we have ways of handling environmental damage through the courts. And I think there is something to be said about redefining laws to take into consideration property rights of air and water run off. Local communities that are affected by the consequences of local pollution are in a better place to demand reparations than arbitrary taxes that the local affections will never see. That is the real crime. These EPA taxes go to Washington and never come back to the communities they were extracted from, its highway robbery.

On the whole your arguments are completely flat, make no sense at all and simply serve to show that you have no real understanding of the subject. ( you see, name calling isn't very nice or constructive)

Oh, I guess they're not - from MSNBC:

Sect declared non-Muslims
Ahmadis are a minority Muslim sect founded in the late 19th century. Their beliefs include that Jesus Christ survived the crucifixion and died in Kashmir. Some also believe that prophets have come after Mohammad, the founder of Islam, but that he retains his primacy.

Pakistan is the only Muslim state to have declared Ahmadis non-Muslims. Its 4 million-odd members have seen their religious rights in overwhelmingly Muslim Pakistan curtailed by law.

@NetRunner. Propetarians. I like that.

Actually I think most Democrat arguments against Libertarianism come at property rights, therefore it takes up most of the conversation. When I speak with Republicans, it tends to be centered around life (death penalty) and individual liberty (war on drugs) and immigration.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what you mean by privately owned public spaces. That sounds like a lot of doublespeak. Sure, you have to pay property taxes so there's the argument that you never truly own your land, but if you purchase land to build a company on it, it's not technically public. It's private. Like your home.

If some racist asshole wants to buy land and open a racist grocery store, then so be it. I doubt you'd find many people visiting that shop, because this isn't 1950s Alabama.

It's his property, he can do with it as he pleases pretty much. If he wants to open a "blacks only" grocery store, it wouldn't be fair for the white guy next door to stop him. You're wrong if you think you have a right to dictate what goes on in private spaces when no one is being aggressed against.

Let me ask you this. If the religious right was the majority and they voted in representatives that said all homes and businesses must have a copy of the Holy Bible on their coffee table in the living room, would you approve?

@SDGundamX

I definitely see your point, and yes, I did read your entire post

I'd like to reply in more detail, but I'd rather reply than forget about it completely.

So, look at it this way. If religion has a "true purpose" as you say, then that means you are agreeing that there are fundamental moral truths that exist outside of human nature. You are making the argument that it's better for everyone when humans are a little less human. Mr. Harris is taking that a step further and saying that it's a lot better if we use science as a guide because science can be found to be wrong based on evidence whereas religion, by nature, is very rigid.

IMO he's advocating the same type of rules-based society, but advocating a more flexible evidence-based version, which would (in a situation where good information is as ubiquitous as possible) be more resistant to the types of psychopathic people who tend to take advantage of these systems as you pointed out (taliban, religious right, etc). I agree with you in general that some of these newer atheist advocates like Dawkins and Harris are a little whacky because they seem to be just as ideological as the religious people they want to displace. But, I think Harris is on to something here, regardless of other things he's talked about before.

I like the Jedi mind trick he does on them at the very end of the video.

In the US, firearm ownership is supposed to be a right. If something is a right, how can it ever be illegal?

One day soon some free speech will be outlawed... it starts with hate speech.

One day soon your religious rights will be regulated... it starts with the same sex marriages being outlawed.

One day soon your right to free press will be infringed... it starts with the outlawing of cameras.

One day soon your protection from quartered troops in your home will be abolished... it starts with the Patriot Act.

One day soon your right to due process will be done away with... it also starts with the Patriot Act.

One day soon your right to protection from cruel punishment will be replaced with routine "advanced interrogation techniques"... another one that starts with the Patriot Act.

well I never seen this before I sent the pm. Your idiocy amazed me, not only do you glide right by the point of the message you seem to take it and mold it into your own little war. Ignore is a word I was taught in school as well; and your fuckin on it. your full of such shit, one thread your defending someones religious right and here your condemning a countries cuisine preference. I wonder if you look in the mirror and realize what type of jackass you present yourself to be.

*promote this stupid religious right fox news bullshit of a faux party.