Sunday, May 03, 2009

Anti-religious bigotry of the MSM

In the AWARE (Association of Women for Action and Research) saga, which ended last night with the ouster of the (ex) new exco by the liberals and their supporters, a common method that is used to attack the ex new exco is that they are Christians fundamentalists. One such variant goes as follows:

The [newspapers] rightly give prominence to the AWARE saga BECAUSE the takeover of a secular NGO by the Christian fundamentalists... (Source, in comment)

Now, let us deconstruct that statement, and expose it for the anti-religious bigotry it espouses.

The AWARE saga started off because the Old Guard (and now new new exco) were voted out of office and replaced with a group of people who did not share their views on the promotion of lesbianism. In point of fact, the ex new exco decided to expose the old guard for the promotion of such sexual perversion. The liberal Mainstream Media (MSM), in a rare move decided to undertake investigative journalism on former president Josie Lau and her (ex) new exco, while some outraged liberals issued death threats to them.

The charge is made that the ex new exco were trying to mix religion into the secular sphere. The question is then asked: Did the ex new exco quote Scripture etc in their work? NO. So who was the one who brought up the topic of religion to begin with? It was the MSM and her liberal allies. So who was the one who is responsible for bringing in religion into the secular sphere, except the MSM and the liberals!

The sad fact of the matter is that one side has given to itself rights which it denies to the other. It is the liberals who have violated the secular clause, who have attacked and discriminated against Christians and Christianity. If the ex new exco were all Buddhists or all Muslims, can we state that there is a takeover by "Buddhist fundamentalists" or "Muslim fundamentalists"? Guess the outrage if the latter were to happen? Imagine the headlines: "Muslim fundamentalists take over secular NGO"? In fact, since the new new exco is pro-LGBT, why can't we broadcast this headline: "pro-LGBT fundamentalists take over secular NGO"?

The liberal hypocrites are on the march in Singapore. Unless we do something about it, this country will be lost. Singapore in her creed professes to believe in meritocracy "regardless of race, language, and religion". Judging by the anti-Christian hatred on display recently, perhaps a suggestion could be made to modify it into "regardless of race, language and sexual preferences, and most definitely with regards to religion".

68 comments:

BEAST FCD said...

Let me rephrase your statement here:

You want the "regardless of race, language or religion" pledge to apply when you go about bashing atheists, gays and lesbians alike.

I for sure will be the first one to criticize you, every step of the way. You can bet on that.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

It is pretty obvious that the fundamentalist right of Christianity has conspired together for this outrageous takeover.

Thank goodness people are smart enough to see through the chicanery. Cry all you want, Daniel. The people have spoken, and there ain't nothing you can do about it.

Ha Ha

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"If the ex new exco were all Buddhists or all Muslims, can we state that there is a takeover by "Buddhist fundamentalists" or "Muslim fundamentalists"?"

Again, you fail to see the problem here.

1. The Christian excos who took over were vague and ambiguous, evading questions about the nature of the take over.

2. The Christian excos' first step was to launch a veiled attack against lesbians, and subsequently against the old AWARE's sex education programs which neither promoted nor condemned homosexuality.

3. The nature of the take over was so sudden that the old exco had the right to call for a general vote. And the people have voiced out about the dubiousness of the new leadership.

It doesn't matter whether it is a Muslim or Buddhist organization. If your group is as shady and sinister as Al Capone and his gang, then it deserves to be taken down.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"The liberal hypocrites are on the march in Singapore. Unless we do something about it, this country will be lost."

Dude, I am a liberal living in Singapore for the better part of thirty years, and let me tell you Singapore is a conservative lot steeped in conservative thinking.

Conservatism rules here, from the everyday lives of folks right down to politics. Either you are simply whining about AWARE, or you have been sleeping through your life.

Beast FCD

Larro said...

What other reason or rationale would the "ex new exco" have for "exposing" the old guard for promoting "sexual perversion" other than a socio-political stance aligned with a religious doctrine or tenet?

I can't think of any other reason why lesbianism would be considered "sexually perverse", than for abiding by religious ideology.

Munchy said...

"You want the "regardless of race, language or religion" pledge to apply when you go about bashing atheists, gays and lesbians alike."

My impression is that Daniel is not so much criticizing all the homosexuals but rather the activists promoting the cause of homosexuals. There is a difference

In the same manner to some extent you can live with Christians in this world (even though you think they are idiots), but you really cant stand those 'bigoted' Christian fundamentalists.

Just my take on the situation here

Munchy said...

"I can't think of any other reason why lesbianism would be considered "sexually perverse", than for abiding by religious ideology."

hmm... i dont agree with evolution but i can try proposing an argument from there.

If the goal of any species in evolution is the propagation of one's genes (thus natural selection), engaging in lesbianism in no way serves the propagation of the genes of the individual in question. That in a sense might be considered a deviation from normal evolutionary (gene propagating) behavior..

You may not agree. But I am sure there could be some atheists who might agree with my proposition

BEAST FCD said...

"My impression is that Daniel is not so much criticizing all the homosexuals but rather the activists promoting the cause of homosexuals. There is a difference."

Again, this is a misconception fostered by liars from the religious right.

When the blacks were fighting for their rights against apartheid decades ago, they weren't fighting for the whites to accept black identities: They were, simply speaking, fighting for equal rights as human beings.

The Gay Movement is the same: Like most human rights movements, it doesn't seek to convert; rather, it is seeking for tolerance and acceptance.

Homophobia from religious sectors is real: Gays have been killed by religious zealots in the Middle East and even in democratic America for no other reason than they are gay, and gays are exempted and excluded from civil arrangements, such as marriages and in some countries, the right to adoption.

I have highlighted this issue on this blog many times, and it seems that Christians still don't get it.

And, by the way, I am not gay. I am simply an atheist and a liberal who cannot stand the hypocrisy of the Religious Rights: They want to persecute and claim to be victimized at the same time.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"If the goal of any species in evolution is the propagation of one's genes (thus natural selection), engaging in lesbianism in no way serves the propagation of the genes of the individual in question. That in a sense might be considered a deviation from normal evolutionary (gene propagating) behavior.."

It is curious that Christians who do not believe in evolution use the evolution model to argue for their cause. It is hypocrisy alright.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Actually, if you wish to survey the animal kingdom, bisexuality is common in many species of apes; females are apt to be mounted by males as they are to mount females.

Gay animals abound in the animal kingdom: Roy & Silo in the New York Zoo, for example, are classic examples of gay penguins.

Why gay animals, some may ask?

1. In some species, such as flamingos and penguins, gay couples often take upon themselves to father and nurse abandoned chicks or chicks whose parents have died, hence serving an evolutionary purpose to ensuring the survivability of the species.

2. Too much aggression between males caused by the lack of females can result in devastating circumstances. Gay and lesbian animals lessen the competition, and gives mating season a more amiable environment.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast:

I don't think we want to hear lies from the Liberal Lefties. A lot of blacks are outraged that the homo-fascists have taken over the civil rights movement to advance their perversion.

>I have highlighted this issue on this blog many times, and it seems that Christians still don't get it.

Simple, because what you are doing is parroting the lies of the Liberal left. We have no desire to believe such lies.

BEAST FCD said...

"A lot of blacks are outraged that the homo-fascists have taken over the civil rights movement to advance their perversion."

Like who?

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Larro:

>What other reason or rationale would the "ex new exco" have for "exposing" the old guard for promoting "sexual perversion" other than a socio-political stance aligned with a religious doctrine or tenet?


Are you saying that any value that happens to be aligned to "a religous doctrine of tene" is by default religious? Murder happens to be condemned by many if not all religions, so if a religious person says he is against murder, is that "a socio-political stance aligned with a religious doctrine or tenet"?

As for reason, I think it has been made clear by the "ex new exco" that their primary aim was not to bash gays but that AWARE was not supposed to support their agenda ie. be neutral wrt to the LGBT issue. Secondly, in terms of civil rights, the majority of Singapore citizens are not for LGBT, so AWARE shouldn't be promoting an agenda which is against the beliefs of the majority of society.

PuritanReformed said...

Beast:

Look at my blog-roll for the blog "Gay Christian Movement Watch" headed by black pastor DL Foster.

BEAST FCD said...

AWARE is an organization built on foundations to support women's rights, and that includes, amongst other things, lesbian rights.



Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Well, if Foster doesn't like it that's his problem.

I am sure the majority of the black community have no problems with gay activists.

Beast FCD

Larro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Larro said...

Beast: "I am sure the majority of the black community have no problems with gay activists."I think I'd have to disagree with you on this one Beast.

Larro said...

PuritanReformed said... "Are you saying that any value that happens to be aligned to "a religous doctrine of tene" is by default religious?"While speaking of lesbianism I must beg the question: How has homosexuality become considered "perverse" if not by virtue of those claiming so often by pointing to their scriptural texts to support said claim of perversion?

PuritanReformed said... Murder happens to be condemned by many if not all religions, so if a religious person says he is against murder, is that "a socio-political stance aligned with a religious doctrine or tenet"?Here we can go on and on about what came first; the chicken or the egg? As in: What came first human morality or morality instructed by religion? I realize this question is moot when presented to the Christian as all morality is gifted/comes from just one source in Christian thinking.

Munchy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Munchy said...

"What came first human morality or morality instructed by religion?"

This is an interesting question. The source of Christian morality is the Creator God.

What then is an atheists source of morality? If there is no God to begin with, where does morality come from? For an atheist, morality from religion has then to be in essence some form of innate human morality since there is no God at all! (If this is the case, who are we to say that religious morality is a farce, the very fact that it is in existence justifies itself!)

But still I ask again, where does morality come from? Random chemical processes?

Munchy said...

"It is curious that Christians who do not believe in evolution use the evolution model to argue for their cause. It is hypocrisy alright."

thats ridiculous, i was merely offering a suggestion to Larro's statement. As a 'learned' person who cries foul about Christian use of context, you obviously dont put a lot of effort into applying what you claim to know

Besides, lets take Islam for e.g. I dont believe in Islam means I cant learn about it and discuss it with a muslim friend? Being Christian means I cant ever mention any other religion or way of thought? Means I have to be ignorant about the world around me? If I mention something apart from of Christianity I am hypocrite, and if I dont I am living in my own world and completely irrelevant?

PuritanReformed said...

Larro:

we are not discussing the merits or demerits of homosexuality here (of which I have addressed the issue elsewhere on my blog). What we are saying in the AWARE saga is that

1) A significant number of Singaporeans think that homosexuality is wrong
2) The pro-LGBT lobby have no right to impose their view of "morality" on others including impressionable children who do not share their views. I don't care if they call it "sexual education" or whatever; they have no right to impose their views, period.
3) Just because a person's morality is in-line with his religion's values does not mean that religious values are violating the secular sphere, in the same way as a religious person who argues against murder is violating the secular sphere. That is the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

BEAST FCD said...

"thats ridiculous, i was merely offering a suggestion to Larro's statement. As a 'learned' person who cries foul about Christian use of context, you obviously dont put a lot of effort into applying what you claim to know"

I will give you a benefit of doubt here; however, evolution does neither to vindicate nor disapprove homosexuality in moral terms. In nature, what ever works best survives, and even then this is not an absolute rule. To use evolution as a moral guage is an exercise in futility.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"What then is an atheists source of morality? If there is no God to begin with, where does morality come from?"

This is the sort of questions Christians field when they debate atheists, hoping to catch them offguard.

The truth is, herd animals have to abide by rules and regulations if they are ever going to cooperate.

In the animal kingdom, say, wolf packs, for example, there is always a hierarchy for feeding time: The lead wolf, usually male, feeds first, following a systematic chain of command. Same goes for mating rights, unless a foreign male challenges the existing male figure heads.

Like animals, man is a social creature. What you define as morals is actually a social code of conduct created by ancient tribal men, which slowly evolved into national laws as civilization progresses. There really isn't any god who invented morals. It simply fit and changed itself in accordance to our social needs and wants.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

1) "A significant number of Singaporeans think that homosexuality is wrong."

200 yrs ago, a significant number of Christians thought slavery was right. It didn't make slavery right.

2) The pro-LGBT lobby have no right to impose their view of "morality" on others including impressionable children who do not share their views. I don't care if they call it "sexual education" or whatever; they have no right to impose their views, period.

No one is imposing a morality issue on anyone. The aim of sex education is to teach kids to be comfortable with their sexual orientation, gay, lesbian or straight, as well as teaching kids how to protect themselves from unprotected sex and sexual harassment.

3) Just because a person's morality is in-line with his religion's values does not mean that religious values are violating the secular sphere, in the same way as a religious person who argues against murder is violating the secular sphere. That is the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Sure, but if a religious person wishes to impose his religious beliefs to the point of cultivating a certain group or groups of folks based on sexual orientation or creed, and wishes to bring his or her bigotry into secular government or an organization, then of course they deserve to be brought to task.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"If this is the case, who are we to say that religious morality is a farce, the very fact that it is in existence justifies itself!"

You might as well apply that to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Cosmic Teapot Cult in Malaysia.

Beast FCD

Munchy said...

The word morality implies a right and wrong, an ideal to be followed. (Such as for e.g. it is wrong for these pple to hijack an NGO)

A "social code of conduct" as you described has no right or wrong, but merely what works. (thats what evolution is, whatever works, there is no design in evolution, no right or wrong)

If that is the way thought processes occur in your head, sure. But I doubt so, we all think in terms of morality, what is right and wrong

Munchy said...

"You might as well apply that to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Cosmic Teapot Cult in Malaysia."

Yes, that illustrates just how incompatible the concepts of atheism and morality are with each other

As you even said it yourself "evolution does neither to vindicate nor disapprove homosexuality in moral terms. In nature, what ever works best survives, and even then this is not an absolute rule. To use evolution as a moral guage is an exercise in futility."

(NB your atheism necessitates and is accompanied by evolution)

PuritanReformed said...

Marn Chi:

The worst problem for the atheist is that he has no defence against the rise of another Hitler. What if the majority of people like in Hitler's time decide that a certain action (ie killing all Jews) is morally right?

If that is not bad enough, Beast has decided to espouse subjectivism as his meta-ethical theory. There is simply no way subjectivism can answer that charge, which is why sophisicated atheists have rejected subjectivism as a valid meta-ethical theory, leaving that particular theory to the juveniles run-of-the-mill atheists.

BEAST FCD said...

"A "social code of conduct" as you described has no right or wrong, but merely what works. (thats what evolution is, whatever works, there is no design in evolution, no right or wrong)

If that is the way thought processes occur in your head, sure. But I doubt so, we all think in terms of morality, what is right and wrong"

"Right & Wrong" are values humans associate with actions and deeds, and both are intrinsically relative.

A Muslim for example, will tell you that eating pork is a heinous act, while a non muslim will have no qualms munching down his pork. The same goes for a soldier who kills an enemy combatant and is not blamed for the crime of murder.

If you wish to know my views about morals, email me at soul_686@yahoo.com and I will show you some of the links to a series of articles I wrote about morality and ethics. I won't post it here because someone will inevitably delete the link.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

>I won't post it here because someone will inevitably delete the link.

LOL! Are you so dense that the rules cannot be understood? Find a post on the topic of morals/ethics, or wait for one, and you can post your link there, and I wouldn't delete it. (This does not really count but I can still accept it here.) Just make sure you use the post as a reference (ie write something else other than a commemnt with a link), instead of just link-spamming.

BEAST FCD said...

"LOL! Are you so dense that the rules cannot be understood? "

I give two hoots about your rules. As a liberal I have little respect for rules which inhibit free speech.

And, if I am dense, then surely you fare worst. You lost your debate against me and have nothing to back up your silly prejudices.

Yes, go ahead, delete this. You are so damn bloody predictable.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"The worst problem for the atheist is that he has no defence against the rise of another Hitler. What if the majority of people like in Hitler's time decide that a certain action (ie killing all Jews) is morally right?"

I can't speak of the other atheists, but I have no problems with Hitler at all.

Hitler was Catholic, was raised Catholic and anti semitic, and really wasn't ever ex communicated by the Church.

If anything else Hitler is an embarrassment for Christians, not atheists.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"If that is not bad enough, Beast has decided to espouse subjectivism as his meta-ethical theory. There is simply no way subjectivism can answer that charge, which is why sophisicated atheists have rejected subjectivism as a valid meta-ethical theory, leaving that particular theory to the juveniles run-of-the-mill atheists."

I am assuming you are talking about relative morality here, which is exactly what morality is in reality. I'd go one better however, ethics.

Juveniles and run the mill atheists? You might want to check out what Dawkins has to say about morality. He gives a deeper insight into this issue without invoking God in his book, "The God Delusion".

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Oh please, stop your sanctimonious nonsense. Hitler was an occultist who believed in Social Darwinism, persecuting Christians who refuse to compromise their faith like Niemoller and Bonhoeffer. And just FYI, Catholics are not Christians. Get your facts right first!

Dawkins is a joke! The atheist Michael Ruse, no friend of Christians, sees holes in his arguments so large that an elephant can pass through. In the brief blurb on Amazon.com for Alistair McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion:

'The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and
the McGraths show why.'

I can find very interesting quotes by Ruse against Dawkins, but the primary sources are in journals of which I don't feel like paying to read them.

Lastly, it is revealing that you have a total contempt for the rule of law. And since you are so excited about free speech, go prove it to me by wacking Islam in the public, then tell the governmnt it should be respecting your free speech, or you are a hypocrite and a coward!

BEAST FCD said...

1. "Oh please, stop your sanctimonious nonsense. Hitler was an occultist who believed in Social Darwinism, persecuting Christians who refuse to compromise their faith like Niemoller and Bonhoeffer. And just FYI, Catholics are not Christians. Get your facts right first!"

Sanctimonious eh? Who compiled the 66 books you are holding now which you call the bible? Yet, the bishops from the Vatican did.

2. Dawkins is a joke! The atheist Michael Ruse, no friend of Christians, sees holes in his arguments so large that an elephant can pass through. In the brief blurb on Amazon.com for Alistair McGrath's book The Dawkins Delusion:

'The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and
the McGraths show why.'

I can find very interesting quotes by Ruse against Dawkins, but the primary sources are in journals of which I don't feel like paying to read them."

Funny thing is, every Christian who claims Dawkins is a joke are a joke unto themselves, including you. In every university he has lectured in, Dawkins was well respected and well received even by Christians.

3. Lastly, it is revealing that you have a total contempt for the rule of law. And since you are so excited about free speech, go prove it to me by wacking Islam in the public, then tell the governmnt it should be respecting your free speech, or you are a hypocrite and a coward!

Erm, no, mate, I totally respect secular law. As for Islam, I have done my critiques on my blog. As for criticizing religion in real life, I do that only when I meet ignoranamouses like, you know who.

Beast FCD

Larro said...

In a broader context this issue lies within the realm of "separation of church and state". I'm unfamiliar with the laws in Singapore regarding secularism but here in the States it's spelled out quite plainly in our Constitution that the State shall not endorse any religion.

And as far as AWARE is concerned I'll assume that it is a non-profit political action organization promoting gender equality.

AWARE in and of itself is not party to the government per se but appears on the face to be a secular organization.

Daniel, do you put stock in the separation of church and state? Do you believe that religious ideology should not enter into the political sphere?

What do you base your objections on the basic human rights that gays deserve as equal treatment under the State (if true)? Your religious faith?

PuritanReformed said...

Beast:

1) The Vatican did not even exist when the Canon was recognized, neither did the Roman church. You know next to nothing about church history, I can see.

2) Is that all you can do, hurl insults? Face it, you are an amateur. The homosexuality debate has shown that you do not even know what you are talking about - just a lot of hot air.

3) From somebody who does not even understand Hume's is-ought fallacy, you sure show yourself to be an ignoramus. Note your errant spelling (LOL!), another revealing indicator. (It is NOT spelled "ignoranamouses")

PuritanReformed said...

Larro:

Note that it says "separation of Church and State", not religion and state. There is no way religion can be separated from state, for there is absolutely no one who has no view and no vested interest on religious issues. Atheists have a vested interest in imposing their view on what is proper regarding religious matters (ie what they think is religious have to go), so there are no neutral parties here. True neutrality = anarchy, for any choosing one position over another is de facto a philosophical-religious position.

If religious ideology has to go from the political sphere, then humanism (secular or otherwise) has to go too. Just because the humanists refuse to call their beliefs a religion does not mean it is not one. Secular humanism is an atheistic religion, but it is still a religion. (Having a God or gods/godesses is not a requirement for being a religion; Buddhism has no god). Secular Humanism has its own creed (check out the Humanist Manifestoes), its own "clergy" (scientists and social scientists) etc etc.

>What do you base your objections on the basic human rights that gays deserve as equal treatment under the State (if true)?

Whoever said that gays do not have equal rights and treatment? They have the same right to marry a patner of the opposite gender as all other citizens! They are forbidden to marry a person of the same gender, as are all other citizens. Normal citizens do not have the right to redefine marriage, so why should gays be given that right which is legitimately denied to others?

BEAST FCD said...

Ah, Daniel. Insults, insults, and more insults. Signs that you, Daniel, are losing the battle......again.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Note the first council of Nicaea was the first coordinated effort by the Church to standardize biblical material.

2. The fact is, Daniel, you Christians lost in this round, so there really isn't much to debate about. And really, your arguments are full of rubbish. Without the bible, you have absolutely nothing to stand on.

3. Ok, I mispelled ignoramus. My typo sucks. Fair enough. But if that's the only thing you can hurl at me then your arguments are pretty pathetic.

Stop the ad hominems and debate the points, or admit defeat......again. LOL!

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"separation of Church and State", not religion and state.

It is the same thing. Church represents religion. The Constitution of the United States of America is clear on that too: No govt office should be granted based on religious tests.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"Atheists have a vested interest in imposing their view on what is proper regarding religious matters (ie what they think is religious have to go), so there are no neutral parties here. True neutrality = anarchy, for any choosing one position over another is de facto a philosophical-religious position."

This is an outright lie fostered again by the Christian right.

Neutrality in the secular sense doesn't only benefit atheists, it benefits everyone.

Are you sure you want your kids to attend a government school that starts each day with a Muslim prayer? Or will you be angry if the school principal stops your children from eating pork because the school canteen happens to follow a strict halal code?

Being neutral is about not taking sides, so that everyone can co exist without the sort of sectarianism that plagues countries torn by religious rivalry. Everyone benefits.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast:

1) you are absolutly hilarious! Since when is Wikipedia authoritative? Wikipedia's information is as authoritative as the majority. Why don't you give proper primary scholarly sources?

2) Without your humanism, you have nothing to stand on either. NEXT!

BEAST FCD said...

"Whoever said that gays do not have equal rights and treatment? They have the same right to marry a patner of the opposite gender as all other citizens! They are forbidden to marry a person of the same gender, as are all other citizens."

Daniel, I have already refuted this argument of yours as complete nonsense, and you repeat your nonsense again.

If you do not like carrots, and the waiter serves you carrots, will the argument "carrot or non carrots, it is still food" suffice?

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

I wonder who is dense, you or me. LOL

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

>Being neutral is about not taking sides

Correct, which means not taking sides for or against secular humanism either. NEXT!

PuritanReformed said...

>Daniel, I have already refuted this argument of yours as complete nonsense

You refuted nothing! Mere assertion does not an argument make!

BEAST FCD said...

"Being neutral is about not taking sides

Correct, which means not taking sides for or against secular humanism either. NEXT!"

When I speak of being neutral, I am talking about being secular.

Please do not take my words out of context.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"Daniel, I have already refuted this argument of yours as complete nonsense

You refuted nothing! Mere assertion does not an argument make!"

Please read my comments again. I am refuting your statement that saying gays are allowed to marry women is not a choice, since gays are not attracted to women. That is not an assertion, that is a fact. And since gays are not attracted to women, they are highly unlikely to marry women, and saying that they are allowed to marry women is the same thing as a waiter giving the customer something he or she does not want.

Clearly, you have reading problems. But it is ok. I am a patient man.

Beast FCD

Munchy said...

I said “Yes, that illustrates just how incompatible the concepts of atheism and morality are with each other”. My point is that atheism and evolution with morality is a strange, irrational concept. I am not saying that atheists do not attempt to be moral, neither am I attempting to make the point here that morality is absolute vs relative (although obviously I believe there are absolute morals while you do not believe in any)

Even if right and wrong is relative… that still does not explain how morality came into being (origin of right and wrong), and it does not explain why man thinks in terms of morals. Why do you think in terms of morals?

On what basis are your morals based on? Social norm (like the examples of animals you cite)? Your subjective/personal experience and views? Or are you amoral?

Next, do you live consistently with your morals and worldview (evolution)? E.g. if morality is all relative do you hold any moral absolutes?

“Yet, the bishops from the Vatican did.” Sorry if you want to look at the council of Nicea, yes the link you posted, you will not find the ‘bishops from the Vatican’ anywhere. So much for reading your sources… hmph…

As usual you continue (in virtually every point you make) to hurl many dubious propositions as facts without backing them up in order to make up some argument when you have (probably) no case
(in the interest of giving you a chance to prove yourself here, I will email you for your sources on gay animals, Christian hitlers, and dawkins being well received in every university by christians)

“Without the bible, you have absolutely nothing to stand on.” How true, without the bible, neither do you

Munchy said...

Beast, you say "Neutrality in the secular sense doesn't only benefit atheists, it benefits everyone."

"Being neutral is about not taking sides, so that everyone can co exist without the sort of sectarianism that plagues countries torn by religious rivalry. Everyone benefits."

Then you say, in an explanation of context: "When I speak of being neutral, I am talking about being secular."

If I replace the words neutral with secular, this means that you are saying
1) secularism benefits everyone
2) secularism is about not taking sides, so that everyone coexists

1)Secularism does not benefit everyone.
2) you take sides!

BEAST FCD said...

1) you are absolutly hilarious! Since when is Wikipedia authoritative? Wikipedia's information is as authoritative as the majority. Why don't you give proper primary scholarly sources?

Please check the links attached to the wikipedia post. Wikipedia may not be true, but the links are fine. I have personally checked them myself.

The Council of Nicaea is a fact, and it was the first attempt by the church to standardize reading material for the faithful. There is no denying that.

In short, the bible you are holding today is largely made possible by the Catholics. Without them you'd probably have a different set of biblical hogwash to read, stuff like the Gospel of Thomas, just to name one.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Munchy:

When I speak of relative morals, I speak of morals as a comparison of values.

For example, murder. Murder, by itself, is a negative value: If conducted in a massive scale, it causes mayhem and pandemonium, and is not encouraged. However, under certain circumstances, murder is not wrong. If someone tries to kill you, then you are obliged to kill him first before he kills you. Or during times of war, killing is necessary and even a moral duty.

This is the relative morality that is practical and does not need any bible to teach. In fact, morality in this case may not even be applicable at times. Ethics might be a better word.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"As usual you continue (in virtually every point you make) to hurl many dubious propositions as facts without backing them up in order to make up some argument when you have (probably) no case
(in the interest of giving you a chance to prove yourself here, I will email you for your sources on gay animals, Christian hitlers, and dawkins being well received in every university by christians)"

Interestingly, there has been many researches done on animals who are gay, chief being Roy and Silo, the gay penguins in a New York zoo.Google it.

Hitler is definitely a Catholic and a Christian. Read Mein Keimpf.

As for dawkins, there are plenty of Dawkin's videos and lectures on youtube. You can watch them for yourself.

In sum, the truth is out there. Forgive me if I am not spoonfeeding you with evidence. You guys are not nursing babies. Besides, any links I post will be deleted by some imbecile anyway. That's the sort of jealousy imposed by religious fools who cannot tolerate people who are not of their own creed.

Beast FCD

Larro said...

Daniel, unlike Beast, I am not here to "defeat" you in any debate. That is not my tack on this issue (and most issues regarding religion...that's just me). I really want to understand the flip-side.

I do take issue with your defining atheism or secular humanism as being a "religion" though. I don't follow any "atheist leader" as most people of faith follow their leaders in the church. Granted, I recognize that most lay Christians (and Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) are looking for the "message" that most priests, pastors, etc provide to their flocks. In a way this is not so different from me picking up a book written by Dawkins, Harris or Hitchens.

But there is one key difference and I only bring it up to outline that those of faith have such a very deep-seated notion of how laws put forth by the state should accord with their scriptural tenets.

Atheists by-and-large are much more universal in applying their ideologies to state legislation (or lack thereof). And is often-times (in my case at least) universally ethical.

If it were up to me I would eliminate state sanctioned marriage altogether and let the churches deal with it themselves with no state intervention. Essentially I would eliminate marriage altogether from the States tax codes and "next of kin" requirements as is often the case regarding state sanctioned marriage but, well, I'm in no position to do so.

I completely agree that marriage is a religious institution and should stay that way. And that the state get out of the "marriage business".

You are right in asserting that religious ideologies are hard to reconcile when it comes to politicians making decisions based on there ideologies (religious or otherwise) but should we not hold a high standard in electing officials that recognize and represent ALL of their constituencies? Rather than representing a select majority that, may or may not, adhere to their particular religious ideology?

It's about fairness, and with the gay marriage issue aside, I would admire and vote for any politician that recognizes that their religious ideology is second only to his representing the whole of his or her constituency.

Which leads me back to my question (that I need to rephrase): Do you believe that the state and it's elected officials should be averse in applying their ideologies to state legislation? That the state should remain neutral?

I don't buy the "neutral = chaos" argument, that's baloney. So let me expand: being neutral means being unbiased. Bias is harmony? So should the state adhere to a bias in regard to religious ideology? For the sake of "harmony"?

There will always be at least one individual unrepresented if your answer is in the affirmative. How is that harmonious?

Munchy said...

"The Council of Nicaea is a fact, and it was the first attempt by the church to standardize reading material for the faithful. There is no denying that." What Daniel and I are taking issue with here is your attributing the Council of Nicaea to the Vatican, which is nonsense

If you refer to 'catholic' in the universal sense, ie. the entire body of believers, yes then they did help put the bible together. If you are talking about the Roman Catholic church we know today, that is another matter entirely

"When I speak of relative morals, I speak of morals as a comparison of values." uh huh.. now for the all questions i asked concerning morals in that post, just change the word 'morals' to 'values'... you have not addressed any of those questions yet (such as, on what basis are your values based upon?)

"Besides, any links I post will be deleted by some imbecile anyway."
A cop-out, I have emailed you and you will not send me anything cuz you have no credible sources.

By your manner of argument I might as well tell you this. The truth is out there, God exists, Jesus came as the Son of God, was crucified, and resurrected. Google it yourself. Satisfied?

Then you will prob jus say you read and know it all and its a farce. Well, I can say the same to you to. So prove it with your sources. I am able to prove mine, can you do so without copping out?

Munchy said...

"Daniel, unlike Beast, I am not here to "defeat" you in any debate. That is not my tack on this issue (and most issues regarding religion...that's just me). I really want to understand the flip-side."
:)

"I completely agree that marriage is a religious institution and should stay that way. And that the state get out of the "marriage business"."

Is marriage something that only came about with the institution of religion esp christianity? Or is it something that has been around all throughout recorded human history? Is marriage something that we observe with just about every culture regardless of religious belief?

For this marriage issue, it is one thing if you dont like the idea of it and dont agree with it. But the reality and history and pervasiveness of marriage throughout human history is something to keep in mind. It is more than just an artificial religious construct

Larro said...

Munchy, regardless. Religious or otherwise, should the state have any sway or interference in the religious affairs of marriage?

Larro said...

Munchy said...

"Is marriage something that only came about with the institution of religion esp christianity? Or is it something that has been around all throughout recorded human history? Is marriage something that we observe with just about every culture regardless of religious belief?"

I really could care less to be honest. What I care about is how the state and it's elected officials represent ALL of it's citizenry.

As a small example I will cite "Sunday Laws" in which I can't go buy beer before noon on a Sunday or on all of Christmas Day. Granted I most often won't see the need to buy beer before noon on a Sunday but there is no escaping the fact that these laws were instituted because of religious ideology which do not apply to me at all. Are these laws representative?

Larro said...

Please!!!

This comment system is driving me nuts.

Daniel, I entreat you to try out (http://www.intensedebate.com) Intense Debate's comment system.

Give it a whirl and if you don't like it you can remove it from your blog.

PuritanReformed said...

Beast:

your sources are indeed "very interesting". Let me guess, you knoiw next to nothing about the writings of the Church fathers before Nicea on the issue of the Canon. I'm sure the name of the most notorious person on this issue, Marcion, would not ring a bell also.

With regards to the rest, Munchy has adequately refute your assertions.

BEAST FCD said...

"A cop-out, I have emailed you and you will not send me anything cuz you have no credible sources."

I have not received your email. Did you send it to the right address?

soul_686@yahoo.com

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Larro:

Christians are not supposed to have any "leaders" in the sense of having popes with ex cathedra authority. That was one of the points of the Reformation - that nobody can claim to speak for Christianity except if what he says conforms to the message (kerygma) in the Word.

I think you will find that also in Buddhism, with the exception of Tibetan Buddhism (which came from a theocracy - Tibet, before China conquered it).

>But there is one key difference and I only bring it up to outline that those of faith have such a very deep-seated notion of how laws put forth by the state should accord with their scriptural tenets.

In the sense that they believe that their scriptural tenets is a true description of what is right, how is that different from atheists/secular humanists who also wants laws put forth by the state to be in accord with their humanistic philosophical tenets, which they think is universally right?


>Atheists by-and-large are much more universal in applying their ideologies to state legislation (or lack thereof). And is often-times (in my case at least) universally ethical.

That is the point of dispute: whether the athiests' ideology is indeed universally ethical. Take the example of homosexuality and I think my case is proved.

>Which leads me back to my question (that I need to rephrase): Do you believe that the state and it's elected officials should be averse in applying their ideologies to state legislation? That the state should remain neutral?
>
>I don't buy the "neutral = chaos" argument, that's baloney. So let me expand: being neutral means being unbiased. Bias is harmony? So should the state adhere to a bias in regard to religious ideology? For the sake of "harmony"?

Can I surmise that you believe in limited government theory then? That is the only way you can be neutral without having anarchy. If so, I can agree with you. Trouble is, both Republicans and Democrats in the US, and most certainly the ruling party in Singapore, will not practice limited government at all. Neither will the homosexual agenda, who wants big government to ram acceptance of homosexuality down everybody's throat whether we like it or not!

PuritanReformed said...

OK, I will try out the system. It'll take some time though; don't expect me to implement it immediately.

PuritanReformed said...

Larro:

the system is installed for all new posts only. I am not going to change the comment layout for all my previous posts.

Munchy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Munchy said...

Larro

IMO states should have laws governing and pertaining to marriage. If a religion requires other aspects of marriage which are out of what the state has sanctioned, then they should manage those aspects by themselves within the context of their religion, preferably legally. (e.g. If a religion has marriage laws which are equivalent to child prostitution, the state should step in!)

Your 'sunday law' sounds really dumb to me. If it were up to me I would abolish it as it makes no sense to me. Such laws would not be representative of everyone. They are not even representative of Christianity. IMO such religion originated laws are created by people who create their own laws apart from, and not specified by, the bible.

Its a bit like the pharisees in the bible who create all kinds of extra laws while missing the point of the laws they followed. They also failed to obey even some of the basic laws to which they were commanded to follow.