@SDGundamX

I don't know where you get your info from, but Dawkins, as well as most atheists (myself included) are absolutely FOR teaching children about religion. The operative word, as you yourself seem to understand (as you use it in your argument) is "about". Compare:

"Son, there is an all-powerful man in space that will torture you forever if you don't do what his book says, and reward you if you do."

"Son, some people believe that there is... . Other people believe... None of their supernatural claims are supported by evidence, btw."

See the difference?

As for studies, I don't know if there are any (I would personally love to see the correlation of strong religious beliefs and the propensity to adhere to conspiracy theories for example), but one need no studies to understand that believing in the supernatural truth claims of religion demands a divorce from rational and evidence-based knowledge.

What does religious belief bring to the table then? Don't say morals/ethics: half of what they teach is horrible, and the other half have no basis in the religious beliefs, but can be explained scientifically. You may say religion is a vehicule for moral teachings, but it's an outdated and superfluous one at best, a counterproductive one at worst. Most of the times it boils down to waiving a supernatural stick and carrot (as all good tyrants do) instead of having people learn to think for themselves.

The only "original" thing religious belief brings is supernatural truth claims, which are at best meaningless speculation ("God gives life meaning", whatever that means), at worst irrational and dangerous ("the AntiChrist will rise when the temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt, bringing the end of the world").

No one is arguing against meditation or introspection btw. If you feel like talking to imaginary friends in order to do so, fine. Just don't force vulnerable kids to believe your imaginary friends actually exist.

As for Bahai being an example of a harmless religion, pick again. Sure, their doctrine is a little more "peace and love" than most of its monotheistic brothers, but homosexuality/"adultery" are still forbidden, and you're still taught to believe in and pray to an invisible sky-daddy, with all the irrational logical fallacies that go with it, and their inevitable clash with science and critical thinking.

Ignoring your blatant and ignorant mischaracterization of the bible for a moment, perhaps you don't realize the role the 10 commandments has played in our legal system. Not withstanding that every single one of those commandments were once laws of this nation, it has also profoundly influenced the legal system as a whole. Some quotes:

Delware supreme court:

Long before Lord Hale declared that Christianity was a part of the laws of England, the Court of Kings Bench, 34 Eliz. in Ratcliff's case, 3 Coke Rep. 40, b. had gone so far as to declare that "in almost all cases, the common law was grounded on the law of God, which it was said was causa causans," and the court cited the 27th chapter of Numbers, to show that their judgment on a common law principle in regard to the law of inheritance, was founded on God's revelation of that law to Moses.
State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. 553 at 561 (1837)

John Adams

"It pleased God to deliver on Mount Sinai a compendium of His holy law and to write it with His own hand on durable tables of stone. This law, which is commonly called the Ten Commandments or Decalogue, . . . is immutable and universally obligatory. . . . [and] was incorporated in the judicial law."

John Quincy Adams

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."

Chief Justice John Jay

The moral, or natural law, was given by the sovereign of the universe to all mankind."

Jusice James Wilson

"As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the Holy Scriptures, it has been called revealed law. As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it has been denominated the law of nations. But it should always be remembered that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source; it is the law of God. . . . What we do, indeed, must be founded on what He has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of His. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law as discovered by reason and moral sense forms an essential part of both. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form part of the law of nature, are of the same origin and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually."

Alexander Hamilton

"The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”"

Justice Joseph Story

"I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations." (emphasis added)
>> ^shuac:
Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.

>> ^shuac:

Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.


Your argument is a little lazy don't you think?

How exactly do you figure slavery, rape and genocide are OK when following a list of values demanding that you not steal, murder or commit adultery? I think it takes some rather impressive abuse of language and meanings to claim slavery, rape and genocide are cool while theft, adultery and murder are not.

>> ^shuac:

Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.
If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?
Here they are. Get ready.
1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.
A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.


Damn. I covet my neighbours ass pretty hard. Guess i'm going to hell.

Actually, the first ten commandments (out of a total of 623) were written by the jews and later co-opted by christians.

If they were authored by god (the way many people claim), you'd think they'd be the greatest top-ten list ever created anywhere at any time, greater than any writer living or dead. You'd think that, wouldn't you?

Here they are. Get ready.

1. I am the lord god, you shall have no other god before me.
2. Thou shalt not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above (so much for religious art & sculpture)
3. Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy (ignored by more christians than probably any other commandment)
5. Honor thy father and mother (apparently regardless of whether they're worthy of honor)
6. Thou shalt not murder (except when god does it or commands it)
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (also ignored by many christians)
8. Thou shalt not steal (like, say, evangelical preachers?)
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, his field, his manservant or his maidservant, his wife, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor's.

A pretty unimpressive list, I must say. Nothing about slavery or rape or genocide here...but then, what would the rest of the bible actually contain if not for slavery, rape, and genocide? Number ten is my personal favorite because it's probably the first prohibition against a particular brand of thought. Thoughtcrime, as George Orwell would've put it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I believe NY state is actually one of those states where adultery is still a crime, is it not?


Correct, though it's a law that's hardly ever enforced.

Section 255.17 of NYS penal law:
"A person is guilty of adultery when he engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse. Adultery is a class B misdemeanor."

So technically Cenk is absolutely wrong when he repeatedly says no laws were broken.

You know--I'm not sure. Anyone from NY know?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I believe NY state is actually one of those states where adultery is still a crime, is it not?

I believe NY state is actually one of those states where adultery is still a crime, is it not?

I agree that it is a private matter and nobody's business.

However, when you approach public servants and involve them in your quest to "win" in a divorce settlement, then you have lost your right to "this is private."

Bad behavior on O'Reilly's part, and nothing new.


>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^bareboards2:
O'Reilly seems to be confusing An Officer and a Gentleman with the cops. Adultery is unbecoming to an officer and could be grounds for loss of rank.
And this is coming from Mr Loofah.
What a hypocrite.

I disagree. As Cenk points out, he's not the one committing adultery and besides, it's no one else's business except for the people directly involved. It's not like two people who are in love, one of them in a marriage that's down the tubes, will wait until a costly divorce has been finalised. I'm not saying this is the case here, but we don't know and shouldn't judge someone else's private business

>> ^bareboards2:

O'Reilly seems to be confusing An Officer and a Gentleman with the cops. Adultery is unbecoming to an officer and could be grounds for loss of rank.
And this is coming from Mr Loofah.
What a hypocrite.


I disagree. As Cenk points out, he's not the one committing adultery and besides, it's no one else's business except for the people directly involved. It's not like two people who are in love, one of them in a marriage that's down the tubes, will wait until a costly divorce has been finalised. I'm not saying this is the case here, but we don't know and shouldn't judge someone else's private business

O'Reilly seems to be confusing An Officer and a Gentleman with the cops. Adultery is unbecoming to an officer and could be grounds for loss of rank.

And this is coming from Mr Loofah.

What a hypocrite.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't have said Wrroonngg so quickly--but you presume that your readings about Rome are more extensive than mine.

Nero, Caligula and many later Emperors are examples of the human psyche let loose. Psychopaths with no restrictions on their behavior.

The Roman Republic lasted for almost 500 years--during which time--homosexuality was looked on as a vice and shameful behavior. Emperor Augustus imposed strict modesty and morality edicts--including homosexual activities--which didn't apply to him. So even in the later, Empire Era, Rome was hardly be considered, "one big, gay death machine."

"Marcus Aurelius was straight at least..." This one gave me a laugh.


The Love Letters of Emperor Marcus Aurelius and Marcus Cornelius Fronto
Excerpts from My Dear Boy: Gay Love Letters through the Centuries (1998), Edited by Rictor Norton

From Marcus Cornelliius Fronto to Marcus Aurelius

Your lover, too, as they say, composes some amatory writings about you in the hope of enticing you with this bait, if with no other, and attracting you to himself and catching you; but such things are a disgrace and an insult and a sort of licentious cry, the outcome of stinging lust, such as those of wild beasts and fed cattle, that from sexual desire bellow or neigh or low or howl. Like to these are the lyrics of lovers. If, therefore, you submit yourself to your lover to enjoy where and when he pleases, awaiting neither time that is fitting nor leisure nor privacy, then, like a beast in the frenzy of desire, will he make straight for you and be eager to go to it not the least ashamed. . . .

"But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something..."

The role of prostitution in other societies varies--ours is not the only moral way. And the actions of the Christian church are--during most of it's history--atrocious. I thought you were talking about early Rome with it's outright destruction and pillage.

"You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their 'laws.'"

A whole country was BI? Wow--just wow.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@Boise_Lib
Now now, don't say I am wrong quiet yet. I just read up on Rome and have the advantage here (I read like fucking two days’ worth...)
Nero was more than gay (He married a man as his husband and a man as his wife...see slit in lieu of vagina,) and Caligula (Who was fucking a man while in the arena in front of everyone, then had that man beheaded during climax) was bi and Tiberius (Who was fucking Caligula after murdering his family) was bi and the typical soldier, and...wait, yeah, there were many more. Basically, 14 out of 15 were gay or gay-ish at least. By that I mean some were open, some closed. Commodus? Yeah, gay...
(Most were simply bi just to have a son btw. Otherwise it would have been just man on man.)
The whole conflict with homosexuality came in later--after the Roman Catholic Church gained power... Now, that's not saying it wasn't against the law in the early days--but that's the same as adultery, yet then orgies were common even though they were illegal... let's pretend the law doesn't matter here---because it didn't...
Marcus Aurelius was straight at least...
And yes, this was the early Rome, when it was brutal, but then that's what I was talking about when I said the world hated them. Later, yes, later they began to hate homosexual behavior. But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something...
You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their "laws."
@shuac I meant the crimes of Rome itself, not homosexuals. It's kind of hard to forgive a nation that captured and enslaved your city and then raped your male children with abandon.
@hpqp
I don't think homosexuality is girly, but that's their reasoning... Sad, so sad because it is not true.

@Boise_Lib

Now now, don't say I am wrong quiet yet. I just read up on Rome and have the advantage here (I read like fucking two days’ worth...)

Nero was more than gay (He married a man as his husband and a man as his wife...see slit in lieu of vagina,) and Caligula (Who was fucking a man while in the arena in front of everyone, then had that man beheaded during climax) was bi and Tiberius (Who was fucking Caligula after murdering his family) was bi and the typical soldier, and...wait, yeah, there were many more. Basically, 14 out of 15 were gay or gay-ish at least. By that I mean some were open, some closed. Commodus? Yeah, gay...

(Most were simply bi just to have a son btw. Otherwise it would have been just man on man.)

The whole conflict with homosexuality came in later--after the Roman Catholic Church gained power... Now, that's not saying it wasn't against the law in the early days--but that's the same as adultery, yet then orgies were common even though they were illegal... let's pretend the law doesn't matter here---because it didn't...

Marcus Aurelius was straight at least...

And yes, this was the early Rome, when it was brutal, but then that's what I was talking about when I said the world hated them. Later, yes, later they began to hate homosexual behavior. But then they went through the phase where prostitutes could fuck any man they wanted, even while wed and in plain sight, and the Christian empress would have the man executed if he said something...

You get the point. Rome was confused but definitely bi with a leaning more towards homosexuality--despite their "laws."

@shuac I meant the crimes of Rome itself, not homosexuals. It's kind of hard to forgive a nation that captured and enslaved your city and then raped your male children with abandon.

@hpqp
I don't think homosexuality is girly, but that's their reasoning... Sad, so sad because it is not true.

I upvoted your comment before reading the last paragraph, so let me rephrase it to something I would agree with (although I believe we share the same sentiment):

The social construct of "the sanctity of marriage" stems from its origins as a commercial/social (and sometimes political) contract which was not to be broken*. When/where it was no longer considered acceptable to marry off one's daughter/sister as property, religion invented the notion of "spiritual contract". "Adultery" is the oh-so terrible "sin" of having sex outside of that contract, and is really only reprehensible when it consists of lying and risking the transmission of STDs to an unknowing partner. Spousal abuse has always existed, but has been "protected" by the "sanctity of marriage"; it's their private relationship after all (and she's his property).
A happy and loving home is far more important than the gender of the parents.



*speaking of which, the Bible Mr FrothyFecalMix keeps defending as the pillar of marital morality commands a "you break it you buy it" approach to rape, literally (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
>> ^Trancecoach:

Santorum's philosophy here seems to be, "If you don't like the message, attack the messenger."
The APA didn't just decide to "support" gay marriage. They performed the studies (which this student was citing) that found that the children of homosexual couples are no less happy or well-adjusted (or prone to homosexuality) than the children of heterosexual couples.
And, by the bye, the "sanctity" of marriage was destroyed many many years ago with the rise of divorce, adultery, and spousal abuse. A happy and loving home is far more important than the gender of the parents.

Santorum's philosophy here seems to be, "If you don't like the message, attack the messenger."

The APA didn't just decide to "support" gay marriage. They performed the studies (which this student was citing) that found that the children of homosexual couples are no less happy or well-adjusted (or prone to homosexuality) than the children of heterosexual couples.

And, by the bye, the "sanctity" of marriage was destroyed many many years ago with the rise of divorce, adultery, and spousal abuse. A happy and loving home is far more important than the gender of the parents.