What a joke Farnaz says-"The issue is political. Secularists must organize to get the clerics out of Congress and to eliminate nonprofit status for religious institutions."

Good luck. You atheists have nothing to organize yourselves with - you don't believe in the creator , you don't have anything to draw you together, and you don't have anything but posting on this forum to talk, talk talk about "religionists" being so awful and being involved in politics.

Washington said in his farewell address-:Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

---------

You can't get political prosperity when you exclude us believers. And if you think you will be somehow touch our churches tax exempt status, you are on drugs.

It is not going to happen, ever, and the atheistic mindthink will always, ALWAYS be a tiny minority viewpoint in America. You and others around here are on the margins of America, and will never be in the mainstream of american thinking.

Mark,

Article says the youths attended a vocational school in Hicksville.

I suspect their parents don't take the LIRR to Wall Street each morning.
_______________________
And the parents of the fourteen-year-old victim "youth"? I mean what is your point? I don't care where these "youthful" bastards' parents work.

A fourteen-year-old gay was beaten, kicked, stomped on a school bus today in Long Island.
-------------------------------------

Article says the youths attended a vocational school in Hicksville.

I suspect their parents don't take the LIRR to Wall Street each morning.

A fourteen-year-old gay was beaten, kicked, stomped on a school bus today in Long Island.

A hate crime is a hate crime. Indite them as adults and put 'em away.

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2 | October 14, 2010 10:05 PM
-------------------------------------
Prayers answered. Thugs charged as adults with felony assault and aggravated harassment. Message sent.

Homosexuality is a disease just like pedophilia and adultery are.

The problem begins when people want to legalize these diseases.

Nothing wrong with gays joining the military. The problem begins when they want to spread the disease in the military. Imagine a general embracing or kissing his boyfriend in front of the troops.

Yuck.

A Latino speaks out, and look at the position he holds. Maybe, there is hope for this country.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/10/there_are_not_both_sides_to_teen_suicide_issue.html

A fourteen-year-old gay was beaten, kicked, stomped on a school bus today in Long Island.

A hate crime is a hate crime. Indite them as adults and put 'em away.

Ramdas Lamb, Hindu, speaks on gay rights:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/ramdas_lamb/2010/10/what_determines_if_sex_is_good_or_bad.html

Where, oh where, is the good Dr. Schukla?

As for the MOrmons and gay rights, what can one say. There does seem to be small glimmers of hope, but that is about it. The same with some Orthodox Jews; they perceive but through a glass darkly.

Fortunately we (don't) separate Church and state. Fortunately we have the Supreme Court(?).

On gay rights and diversity:

African Americans: A tiny minority of African American clergy support gay rights. Susan Smith is among them, but there are others, and their voices should be heard on this blog.

The only prominent Muslim American I'm aware of who has spoken out loud and clear on behalf of gay rights is Pamela Taylor. If there are others sharing her position, we need to hear from them.

I know of know Hindus in the public domain who have spoken out in support of gay rights.

The issue is largely problematic in the Latino community as well, whether Catholic or Pentecostal.
_________________________
On Chile. Chile, following the CIA sponsored slaughter of Allende and the installation of Death Squad Pinochet suffered hugely. Pinochet, the mass murderer, did improve the economy. Since his departure the nation has done very well, indeed.

The horror of Haiti and our support of the worst dictatorial animals in the world is an old story. It may be the world's poorest nation.

The non-voters will be the other tangentially-involved liberals, who don't understand why society isn't being "transformed" in any useful way.

*******************************************

The non-voters could also be members of ethnic and religious minorities who are dismayed by and despaired of both extremists rightists and leftists who are into "transforming" America either into a full fledge Christian-capitalist state, or socialististic-secular state.

What the mainline, mainstream, centrist sorts on politics, economics, social issues think, one don't quite know, and will have the most impact during elections. For they are also a group with their own despairs on the state of America as a nation and people.

Yes, Chile is an advanced, sophisticated country.

Remember they had an earthquake at the same time Haiti did, and cleaned up and kept going.

*******************************************

- Chile is an OECD member country. Haiti is among the poorest nation in the Americas, if not the world.

- The earthquake epicentre in Chile was not in a heavy populated area or near its capital city, but the one in Haiti was.

- Chile is the Singapore of Latin America...efficient, businesslike and gets things done fast and reliably.

- Not rich or poor country but how the consequences of natural disasters are handled. The impact of Katrina was not well handled politically and logistically in New Orleans.

Where are the Muslim panelists? (Pam Taylor wouldn't count; she's a modern feminist who's adopted a kind of New Age Islam)

For that matter, where are the Hispanics or blacks?

*******************************************

- American Muslims are a smaller minority than atheists (both conservative and liberal), gays (both religious and irreligious), Jews (both secular and cultural) etc.

- Pam Taylor won't count because she does not fit in the cliched notions and perceptions of Muslim women? One who has on a hijab/headscarf and still espouse tolerance and acceptance for gays? Perhaps to suggest to her to burn her bra, nay, her hijab to be truly liberated and modern.

- And what in the world is "New Age Islam"? Meaning Sufis who have been around for centuries now? There are Muslim "modernists" of their time and age through the ages addressing issues of their time and age, including burning books in the age of electronic tablets such as iPads and Nooks.

- As for Hispanics/Latinos and Blacks/African Americans, the former, being largely Catholics, are a religious minority. The latter, being largely non-Caucasian and mostly Protestants, are still an ethnic minority.

- No need to go into divisions and seperations of even African-American and Caucasian churches, such as Baptists here, for much said already.

- And by the way, the majority faith and/or ethnic group are expected to "tolerate" and "accomodate" ethnic and religious minorities. Bad form in seeming to be complaining about, being oppressive and suppresive by personal attitudes and laws, about minority faith and eth ic group such as Latinos/Hispanics, African-Americans, Jews, Hindus, Mormons etc.

- One should not be dismissive of members of majority ethnic and/or religious group who feel marginalised and are mocked by whom they regard as the more "privileged" members of their religious and ethnic in education, income, opportunities. These political-social-economic-religious minority of the mainline, mainstream majority have a lot of concerns related not only to other ethnic and religious groups in government facilitated access, i.e. immigration and education (affirmatitve action) "taking away" their access and opportunities in education, jobs etc.

- The minority of a majority ethic or religious group i.e. Caucasian and Christian Protestant, is still larger than most ethic and religious minorities in the States, inclunding Catholics, African-American Baptists, Latinos, American Indians, Indian American, East Asian Buddhists etc.

- Do male Caucasian American atheist has it bad compared to Mormons, Indian Americans, American Muslims like Pam Taylor and Eboo Patel etc in the political sphere in the States?

- One should not be surprised if there is lower voter turn-out of American ethnic and religious minorities in the November elections than Caucasian American atheists in terms of actual numbers and percentage of their whole number.

After such an event, Im not sure if a Democratic party would still be relevant at all.

alanr73 wrote "Interesting reading these comments. It reminds me very much how Europe looked, felt and sounded 20/30 years ago.

Since then religion is now a dirty word amongst the northern European countries. People who use religion as a stick to beat the 'morality' bandwagon are basically treated as fools.

It seems the people of the US are becoming more anti-religious. I suspect 30 years from now Atheism/Agnosticism/Humanism will not only be tolerated, but up there amongst the largest Minority 'religious' groups. "

-----------

Very wrong. Less than 20 years from now, Europe and the liberal atheistic part of America will be a pile of dust. Add to that a few more countries who hate the Bible.

When the Bible said it, it's going to happen.

I suspect atheists and secular humanists will be turning out in large numbers on Nov 2, being generally intelligent and informed.

The non-voters will be the other tangentially-involved liberals, who don't understand why society isn't being "transformed" in any useful way.

Posted by: WmarkW
___________________________________________

This secular atheist, the last remaining Yellow Dog Democrat will be pulling the lever for the straight down Democratic ticket. After that gutsy-motor-bike-riding-mama Ann Richards, we will hopefully be having a Democratic governor Bill White.

Mark,

Btw., did you know that the class act Paladino fathered a child "out of wedlock," as it were?

Have you read about the lady and the horse emailing?

Mark,

Re: YOur post

Nope, my bad, moi fears. Evidently, he's Canadian. Life-mate says the name is Sri Lankan. Ah, well.

Not all is lost, however, since Rev. Susan Smith, African American, did write an enlightened essay on the topic.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_k_smith/2010/10/the_flunking_of_religion.html

Is Amarnath Amarasingam African-American?
(say that three times fast)

From his name, I inferred he was Indian or similar.
My bad.

Mark,

Re: Your post on the missing bloggers

Good points, all. You might also inquire about Hindu bloggers, et al.

At all events, there is an African American blogging here on gay rights. He also blogs for the Huffington Post. I have yet to see him take an illiberal (pardon the expression) stance on anything.

Amarnath Amarasingam

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Amarnath_Amarasingam/2010/10/homosexuality_a_main_battleground_in_culture_war.html

I just posted the following on the Main Page, where they're discussing God and Gays. I'll repeat it here, but it is NOT directed at Susan or any commenter here:

Where are the Muslim panelists? (Pam Taylor wouldn't count; she's a modern feminist who's adopted a kind of New Age Islam)

For that matter, where are the Hispanics or blacks?

This is what bothers me about "diversity": it's never directed at getting minority communities to accept each other. It's only about how whites are supposed to be more accepting of every other idea under the sun.

So far only Jay Sekolow has mentioned Islam at all, approving its condemnatory attitude.

Why isn't anyone saying anything like "African-Americans need to accept gays as another oppressed minority" or "Hispanic machismo shouldn't practice hate" or "Islam needs to updates its attitudes."

In the panelists' minds, only whites ever need to practice greater "tolerance,"
because we're the only ones who already do.

I seem to remember a certain "non-partisan" group that just a few years ago worked very diligently to get out the vote. Let's see, what were they called....Oh, yeah. ACORN. And I seem to recall a comment or two about them being primarily Democratic. But those darned right-wing conservatives just have no right participating in a similar practice?

And on a related note: more and more I see the liberals having absolutely nothing nice to say about the conservatives, and vice versa. The whole country seems to be experiencing a bizarre and somewhat irrational fear. "Don't vote for that guy! (Or political party) He/They will destroy us all!"

It's really getting old.

Gee, and here I thought it was because the majority of Americans believe in some sort of God and are sick of the oh-so-rational atheists calling them superstitious and stupid...

In fact, Americans and Europeans participated in this effort, but this nation has yet to credit itself with its contributions.
----------------------------------------

Yes, Chile is an advanced, sophisticated country.

Remember they had an earthquake at the same time Haiti did, and cleaned up and kept going.

Ehhh...and still Ms. Jacoby can't get them atheists and secular humanists to get fired up to vote in reminding them of their minority political status as a voting group. They are disparate anyway, politically and economically.
-----------------------------------------

I suspect atheists and secular humanists will be turning out in large numbers on Nov 2, being generally intelligent and informed.

The non-voters will be the other tangentially-involved liberals, who don't understand why society isn't being "transformed" in any useful way.

I recommend that from now on, whenever we hold our fists up to heaven bemoaning the moral darkness of our great nation, we think of the Chilean miners.

In fact, Americans and Europeans participated in this effort, but this nation has yet to credit itself with its contributions. That combination of modesty and helpfulness is as American as some of our more distressing faults.

A NASA team helped design the escape capsule, while U.S. companies manufactured parts of the rescue drill, operated by an American engineer who flew in from Afghanistan. A team from Center Rock Inc. of Berlin, Pa. built and managed the piston-driven hammers that pounded open the hole. And there were other Americans involved.

For the first seventeen days, no one even knew if the miners were alive, yet Chile persisted. They were underground for sixty-nine days, the longest anyone has ever survived in such conditions, and the whole world was with them the entire time.
No one was interested in the miners' sexual preference.

When Jews drink wine during ceremonies they toast with the phrase, La Chaim! To Life!

To Life!

Gladerunner:

I second the notion that this is not a medical/metal defect, but a societal problem. One could make the argument that if African-Americans have to endure hardships for being black, why not work on a cure for blackness?
__________________________
Well spoke. That about sums it up. The issue of gay civil rights will ultimately be resolved through the courts, the Supreme Court, I suspect. On civil rights issues it appears that we, the people, cannot see the light.

I can only hope that this current Court can.

Seculargop:
“I suppose I would liken it to deafness. Deaf people endure hardships so implants were invented to treat the condition but we do not force that treatment on anyone who does not want it”
I second the notion that this is not a medical/metal defect, but a societal problem. One could make the argument that if African-Americans have to endure hardships for being black, why not work on a cure for blackness?
Deafness goes well beyond mere social stigmas, it’s an actual physical impairment that endangers one’s safety and ability to communicate. Homosexuals can communicate just fine, they can perform any job/career/task that heterosexuals can. The same can be said for those of a ‘minority’ race. The obvious problem that needs to be ‘cured’ is with those ignorant, hateful folks stigmatizing them, not with those living with the minority attribute.

Sorry for the preceding post: It was meant for Tom Flynn's thread. That would be Tom Flynn, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism and editor of its magazine Free Inquiry.

It is ironic, though, in light of Susan's essay last week commenting on the expected Pew finding that atheists are more knowledgeable than believers on the subject of religion. Tom Flynn fits in with that large mass of cultural and believing Christians who know NADA about Judaism but feel supremely entitled to "opine" on said religion. What (entirely predictable) arrogance and ignorance.

It appears that some prominent atheists are no more literate or intelligent than the least literate and intelligent of the faithful.

Continued:

Unfortunately, early and medieval christian influence on Jews along with other more disgusting historical facts too numerous to go into here led many into the hateful path of rejecting homosexuality, confusing the Tanakh, taking the Christian literalist (and idiotic) reading on some points. This is entirely nonJudaic as many Conservative and Reform Jews have pointed out to their erring brothers, since Judaism is interpretative (non)foundationally. The Bible (Tanakh)is, in fact, internally foundational.

On these grounds, some headway is being made with some Orthodox Jews on the issue of homosexuality.

As an atheist, I value knowledge and accuracy. Kindly consider the value of the foregoing the next time you post.

"If the hardships homosexuals face are real, and we can all agree that they are, why not offer them the option of not having to endure those hardships."

==============

That's what the fight for equal civil rights for gays is all about. Their hardships are caused by an unfair society, not homosexuality. So I agree we should offer them the option of not having to endure senseless discrimination.

I see your point about equating to left handedness or eye color rather than mental illness.

I would also stipulate that I would never force a "cure" onto anyone but I cannot help but think that many people would choose the easier life that would come with not having the genetic variable. I imagine if I were left handed I would either A) want to be right handed since things are easier that way or B) would want at least 50% of the population to be left handed so that group would be catered to.

If the hardships homosexuals face are real, and we can all agree that they are, why not offer them the option of not having to endure those hardships. I suppose I would liken it to deafness. Deaf people endure hardships so implants were invented to treat the condition but we do not force that treatment on anyone who does not want it.

RBPCBP asked: "What I find intriguing is the fear (so called) atheists have of God and any group that believe in God. If God does not exist as they claim, what are they afraid of?"

========

We're afraid of Nothing! *wink*

Ehhh...and still Ms. Jacoby can't get them atheists and secular humanists to get fired up to vote in reminding them of their minority political status as a voting group. They are disparate anyway, politically and economically.

So, voting is for the rabid, rigid religious masses - rabid in organising to vote, rigid on social-cultural-economic issues, religious in end of world scenario if "religionists" don't get their candidates in who are against gays, abortions, evolution etc.

Atheists and secular humanists seem to not be into intelligent design on voting and politics - designing, devising tangible and implementable political tactics and strategies apart from tepid non-shock and non-awe signs on God and religion on side of buses and by highways.

Both atheistic/secular and religious gays are better organised socially and politically than majoritarian atheists and secular humanists in, umm, sexual inclinations and/or preferences.

The "religionists" help in voter registration, in providing transport during election day. Hope they serve up tea, sandwiches and cakes for those who have already voted and while waiting for election results and after the results are out.

There should be an organised effort to send barrels of cheese and crates of wine to those too smart to vote and too minority to win elections as a group. Perhaps to send six packs after six packs of beers and packets and packet of potato chips to rub it in. It would seem discussing voting as a right is better than than the act of voting.

On election day, I intend to come by here to see which Americans are around blogging instead of going to vote and following the elections.

SecularGOP asked: "If it is not a choice and if it is like mental retardation, schizophrenia, or other defects don't we as a society have a responsibility to cure it."

======

SecularGOP,

Or if homosexuality is not a choice and if it is like skin color, eye color, and curly hair and all the other genetically determined characteristics don't we as a society have a responsibility to accept it?

Seculargop:
“If homosexuality is a choice then I say people are free to choose it. If it is not a choice and if it is like mental retardation, schizophrenia, or other defects don't we as a society have a
responsibility to cure it.”
---------------------
And if a belief in invisible beings, miracles and life after death is a mental disease, we have a responsibility to cure it.

"America is not hated for its conservative values but because of its liberal atheistic appearance.
Bin Ladin's quest to destroy America actually has roots from a Muslim migrant who was very disappointed with America's liberal and ungodly ways. He wrote a book which bin Ladin embraced"
----------------
Oh, well then, if such a resonable and intellegent man as Bin Ladin doesn't like our values, I suppose we should clean up our act.

Seculargop:
“If homosexuality is a choice then I say people are free to choose it. If it is not a choice and if it is like mental retardation, schizophrenia, or other defects don't we as a society have a
responsibility to cure it.”

Why assume it’s a mental defect? Why can’t it simply be a mental/physical attribute, like left handedness, or musical ability, or patience, or red hair? Your presumption that it is a disease belies your previously stated tolerance. Where’s the evolutionary advantage to being left handed? Should that be ‘cured’? Of course not since, though it may be occasionally awkward as when buying can openers and golf clubs, it really has no deadly downside, so it persists in the gene pool as a rather harmless anomaly.

“it seems unlikely that it would not fade away naturally as have so many genetic variants in the past”
Two thoughts on that.
1. Homosexuals have been shunned and spurned for centuries.(by religion) Even in our modern lifetimes homosexuals have lived in the closet, quite often living married with the opposite gender, procreating.
2. Evolution doesn’t happen overnight… look at your body hair, male nipples, your appendix, your tailbone. . . They serve no genetic ‘advantage’ that we can tell, and they are ‘naturally’ fading away, just not immediately. Evolution is dynamic and often very, very slow, especially with the more trivial things, the things that don’t kill us in great numbers before we can reproduce. We are not as we stand the end product of evolution, just at another point and time in the process.

SecularGOP

You want to spend health care dollars to cure gay people of being gay, when there isn't really anything wrong with them in the first place?

Where is all this money going to come from?

SecularGOP

There is only one thing wrong with being gay; that everyone hates you. Otherwise, there is no problem. Get it? Did a light bulb come on in your head, or anything? I hope so, but I doubt it.

Interesting reading these comments. It reminds me very much how Europe looked, felt and sounded 20/30 years ago.

Since then religion is now a dirty word amongst the northern European countries. People who use religion as a stick to beat the 'morality' bandwagon are basically treated as fools.

It seems the people of the US are becoming more anti-religious. I suspect 30 years from now Atheism/Agnosticism/Humanism will not only be tolerated, but up there amongst the largest Minority 'religious' groups.

Marriage and NASCAR are choices. I believe we are free to choose these things (though that belief wavers whenever NASCAR is on instead of a show I want to watch).

If homosexuality is a choice then I say people are free to choose it. If it is not a choice and if it is like mental retardation, schizophrenia, or other defects don't we as a society have a responsibility to cure it.

and yes since homosexual behavior will not pass along genes it seems unlikely that it would not fade away naturally as have so many genetic variants in the past.

Leading one to believe that it is either a choice or a condition.

"After all, unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality serves no biological purpose"

Neither does marriage....Or NASCAR,
-----------------------------------------

I think he was arguing that if homosexuality was genetic, it would have bred out of the population.

No one suggests NASCAR is genetic; it's an outgrowth of low IQ.

"After all, unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality serves no biological purpose"

Neither does marriage....Or NASCAR, or Reality TV, or Twinkies (the snack cake).
I'm not sure I follow your point.

I am one of those "Ayn Rand" voters who is both a secularist/freethinker/agnostic etc. and, at least as far as the voter registration is concerned, Republican.

In the past I have supported Republican candidates because I believe in their economic policies and I believed those issues to be more pressing. I even supported the TEA party when they were just a group of tax haters.

In November I may find myself "voting my values". I value things like separation of church and state, teaching science in science classes as opposed to mythology, and allowing potentially life saving medical research.

As for a secular reason to condemn homosexuality. . . I believe that one exists. The religious right say it is a choice and use that as a basis for condemning it. I say that if it is a choice no civil government can stop someone from making that choice. If however homosexuality is an anomaly in brain chemistry or DNA then it could be considered a disease/mental illness/condition that should be treated/cured. After all, unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality serves no biological purpose.

As a general rule, I think that it would be impossible for a Christian to vote for a Republican.

Farnaz,

Glad to hear of your love for the Song of Solomon. Great book. If you ever get a chance to attend one of Tommy Nelson's Song of Solomon conferences, you won't be disappointed. I've never laughed so hard!

SJ: "Throughout the twentieth century, American intellectuals of many generations made the mistake of proclaiming that right-wing fundamentalist religion was on its deathbed."

Yes, disparate birth rates mean that every generation has to learn secularism all over again. Demographic data make clear that the more choices women have about how to spend their lives, the fewer will choose multi-child parenthood.

Liberal economic and social policies encourages population growth among non-secular demographics like illegal immigrants and impoverished African-Americans.

Fifth miner on the way up! Chilean prez beaming at site. You go, America! Love your neighbor!

Three Chilean miners up--working on the fourth!

I love America. Please be good--You can do it! You're an EXCEPTIONal nation. Yup, you really are.

America can do the right thing. We've been in Chile for two months with staff and technology to rescue thirty-two trapped miners.

Two up in just the last few hours! GO TEAM!

"I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." Gen Douglas McArthur

Part of America is engaged in self-destruction.

America is not hated for its conservative values but because of its liberal atheistic appearance.

Bin Ladin's quest to destroy America actually has roots from a Muslim migrant who was very disappointed with America's liberal and ungodly ways. He wrote a book which bin Ladin embraced.

Also it was Bill Clinton who's the origianl target of Bin Ladin after the Lewisnky scandal.

I love our neighbor's dog, Plautus...?

I don't hate the Bible. Actually, I love Song of Solomon. Might be time to repost it.
Hmmm....

I love goodness, love justice, love lovin' yer neighbor (dependin' of course).

Spidermean,

Thee:
"Im just saying that it's a path to self-destruction."

Yes, it's all their own fault...Heard that one round here before TOO.

Thee:
"Why would you aid in increasing the number of America's enemies?"

America is able to increase the number of its enemies all on its little lonesome. If the Tea Party and their right-Bible-lovin' ilk get seriously somewhere, electorally (as Castellina fulminates below), you'll see just how lonely and loathsome America can get.

And I guess you'll be delighted.

Im just saying that it's a path to self-destruction. Why would you aid in increasing the number of America's enemies?

(guffaws)

Nietsche explains that God is dead and that we now have "The Gay Science." (See his book with that title.) Homosexual Science has replaced God, which is why we now have artificial corn.

More recent revelations: Another blogger revealed that Glenn Beck's real name is Glenn Mohammad Beck. He's a Muslim of German descent. Recent investigations show that he is also a gay transvestite with vacation homes on Fire Island and the gay Riviera. (He dyes his hair.)

Spidermean,

Thee:
"And since America is the only reason Israel exist, hating the Bible by Jews is actually counter productive to their continued existence."

So, they should love "the Bible" to keep their lives?

This is all sounding very familiar...

I know you think Catholicism is Satan-spawned, but your line of thought here is remarkably similar to that of los Reyes Católicos - you know, the commissioners of Señor Colón...

You can take the boy out of Popery, but you can't take the Pope out of the boy...

Msftex,

What't your point? That GLBT folk are not "made in God's image"?

You trying to set up a two-tier species there, Msftex?

WW3 is coming and America will be faced with lots of enemies. These enemies have one thing in common. They all hate the Bible.

I think many Jews hate the Bible because they don't believe in Jesus Christ. In a way they become a stumbling block to America. And since America is the only reason Israel exist, hating the Bible by Jews is actually counter productive to their continued existence.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Spidermean,

Thee:
"If one calls himself a Christian it doesn't always mean he is a true Christian."

Och aye, laddie. No true Scotsman could gainsay that!

Christians don't burn Bibles. Why did the U.S. military burned the Bibles in Afghanistan? It's because they are not directed by Christian values.

If one calls himself a Christian it doesn't always mean he is a true Christian. Catholicism is not Christianity. Liberal Protestantism is also not Christianity.

I suppose Afpak drones are not technically "Christians", but they are stones thrown by the Lamb-lovin'.

Never mind the guilt; bombs away!

Enter top score...go to prayer group...

Spidermean

Thee:
"Wrong. Christians don't kill to inherit and rule the world."

They have and do. Fallujah, Abu Ghraib...and it goes waaay back from there, certes.

Wake up, monoptic cob...

Nietzsche...now there's a needed teacher.

Fröhliche...

Now I'm not calling anybody as fool. It's more general. Those who follow a foolish doctrine, I call them fools. Not necessarily pointing to a single person.

"Hmm, that's what the Qur'an says too."

Wrong. Christians don't kill to inherit and rule the world. Many false religions have tried that approach but failed. It only destroyed them and will continue to destroy them if they continue such path.

This universe is created for the wise to rule and stupidity to self-destruct.

True Christianity means being wise and as a result will inherit the earth. False religions means being unwise and follow a path of self-destruction. Clear and simple.

Science is gay.

(See Nietzsche.)

Spidermean,

You're worshipping your unholy trinity of Fools, Idiots, and Stupid again.

Did you learn nothing from yesterday?

Spidermean,

Thee:
"Destruction to the unbelievers. That's what the Bible says. Doomsday is coming."

Hmm, that's what the Qur'an says too.

Look, if you really must believe in all that extermination, please leave it entirely to God, and don't be tempted to become his, um, instrument or anything.

Why not go for a walk in the park?

Science follow a set of rules. Physics, Chemistry, Math, etc have their set of rules. Darwinian Evolution has no rules because it is not science but a science of fools.

How did the eye, ear, brain, nose, lungs evolve? These idiots have no answer. Of course, because they have no set of rules. It's all random stupidity to them. They just say what they want like stupid babblers.

Castellina,

Thee:
"The truth is that we are fed up with the corruption and immorality shoved down our throat."

That might be your own vatted bile bursting from within.

Thee:
"A new era is dawning come November and you and your fellow atheists will not be able to stop it."

Or an old error.
There's more than a hint of wild-eyed menace there, Castellina. Do atheists, gays, non-Christians et alii have something to fear from your, um, movement?

thatcatdavid,

"First, I reject evolution,..."

You go girl; I reject entropy.

"...Christine O'Donnell was right."

Yes, she is right; she's just like you.

"Have you every seen an over the hill porn star?"

Every time I look in the mirror.

"Believe me you don't want to."

That's it - this conversation is over.

Apostle Paul prophesied that true Christians will inherit and rule the earth.

It will happen whether we like it or not and sorry for those who disagree because God has something in store for them.

Destruction to the unbelievers. That's what the Bible says.

Doomsday is coming.

Openly gays in the military? It could be a sign to Christians in the military to leave before they will be destroyed.

ThatCatDavid,

Thee:
"First, I reject evolution, Christine O'Donnell was right."

The first clause is defensible, if myopic; the second is volcanically risible, and instantly renders null (and entirely comical) all of the subscriber's subsequent argument.

Thee:
"Also, was it misfortune that the dinosaurs evolved into birds and not into a more intelligent creature?"

There are plenty of dinosaurs still around, such as the lumbering Baptosaurus; the Presbyteriodon, with its spiky armour; the stealthily predacious Catholiceratops, and the very ravenous Velociracist. Yes, ThatCatDavid, it is indeed unfortunate that such creatures have still not evolved beyond their cold-blooded peanut-minds and thick skulls, toward something better. Even bird-brains would be a step forward!

Thee:
"It is a fact that men and women have sexual organs that compliment one another"

Although I'm sure both Tonk and Minge partake of pleasant intercourse of a sort, I have never heard them actually saying nice things to each other. But clearly, you have, and who am I to question your pudendal aurality? I imagine it went something like:
"My, my Mr Tonk, you're well turned out today!"
"Why thank you, Miss Minge; and may I just say what a joy it is to see your lovely smile."
"Oh, Mr Tonk, you're making me blush!"

Well Ms. Jacoby, we religious people love God, love the Bible and will turn out in droves to vote in November. Of course you think we are all brainwashed and do what our churches tell us to do. The truth is that we are fed up with the corruption and immorality shoved down our throat. We are sick and tired of being called bigots and intolerant by people who want to impose their corruption on us. A new era is dawning come November and you and your fellow atheists will not be able to stop it.

"While a minority of atheists are right-wingers in the tradition of Ayn Rand--you can read a few on this thread--the majority of secular voters are humanists, civil libertarians and economic liberals."

Ayn Rand is complicated. Schaum, our great Ayn Rand champion, is a gay atheist secular humanist lefty. (Think civil libertarian and human's great ability to "transcend.")

"No secular organization is capable of mounting anything like an organized, church-funded campaign to recruit new voters."

This is the big, big problem. Until secularists recognize once and for all the danger into which religionists are placing democracy, they will continue to oppress us all.

When you have the "bishops" and Fundies legislating health care, when you have faith based programs, when you have, on religious grounds, denial of full citizenship to gay Americans, you have an violation of the Establishment Clause.

The issue is political. Secularists must organize to get the clerics out of Congress and to eliminate nonprofit status for religious institutions.

Whatever it takes....

WmarkW,

"That's where I'm not going."

Wow, that's really scary; and it totally could happen.

Do you have a newsletter that I could subscribe to?

I'd also like to make a donation.

i don't think your gene-splicing theory follows...

also "right to biological reproduction"? should homosexual infertile people be "allowed" to marry?
-----------------------------------

We allow just about any two people of the opposite sex to marry because we don't want a governmental entity to have to decide which marriages make sense to permit, so we permit (with very minor exceptions) all of them. Most homosexual marriages would probably resemble DINK (double income no kids) marriages; we permit heterosexual DINK marriages, but DINKs are not the reason marriage exists.

Marriage exists principally so:
a) a homemaking partner is considered equal to an earning partner in terms of common assets and responsibilities;
b) the two become each others' next-of-kin;
c) children are equally attached to both parents

a) and b) can be covered with contracts, WHICH I DO SUPPORT. There are instances in which people of the same sex, not necessarily romantically linked, share housing and most their non-working time. Like two elderly women who live together after their husbands died. I support creating a "designated next-of-kin" arrangement, so anyone can choose a special friend who's not a blood relative to perform that function.

The line we cross by calling it a marriage is the equal right to pursue having children. If two gay men approached a fertility clinic and said "we'd like to have a baby." The doctor would say "One of you can fertilize a donor egg." The couple says "We want the baby to be the offspring of BOTH of us."

Doctor: That's impossible.
Couple: Can't you strip the DNA out of the donor egg, and replace it with Jim's DNA, which Joe's sperm would fertilize?
Doctor: In theory, but it's never been done.
Couple: Well, we're a married couple and therefore have the right to attempt reproduction. We want to splice our genes into an egg to create a biological child.
Doctor: My name isn't "Frankenstein."
Couple: But you'd be denying our Constitutional civil rights if you don't try, and we'll sue you.

That's where I'm not going.

"First, if you know anything about evolution, you must know that nature, alas, is no more of an intelligent designer than any god. Yes, male and female "body parts" are the only ones that can be used for reproduction--but nature has provided us, male and female created she them, with a lot of pleasure-giving body parts that have nothing to do with reproduction. I hate to break it to you, but there are all sorts of conjunctions between men, between women, and between the two sexes that work quite well to provide such pleasure..."

First, I reject evolution, Christine O'Donnell was right. Sharks have lived on earth longer than man but they did not evolve. Also, was it misfortune that the dinosaurs evolved into birds and not into a more intelligent creature? Second, eating is necessary, it can be pleasurable but one should not exploit their bodies by over eating for sheer pleasure or because they are emotionally suffering. Sexual organs should not be abused for sheer pleasure either. Have you every seen an over the hill porn star? Believe me you don't want to. I am surprised that Mrs. Jacoby would see this simple premise concerning the obviously complimentary sexual organs between men and women to be anything less than rational. It is a fact that men and women have sexual organs that compliment one another, the rational conclusion is that they were made for each other. I can't see how that can be construed as anything but rational. I was disappointed that she would meander about in her final paragraph invoking the basic ploy of the secularist, the presupposed dangers of not knowing something, in this case evolution which is probably truly unprovable. Particularly as the basis of a scientific platform, it is more convenient than substantial.She also makes reference to the Old Testament with "male and female she created them.." which seemed to be a bit of a cop out if you are proudly proclaiming your an atheist. People use Catholic and biblical references all the time to lend gravitas to their claims although they're mysteries but what the atheist and homosexual claim steadfastly is their dedication to rationalism and "science alone", superior they say to God and religion. All one needs is to be armed with common sense and faith in God and he will make more sense than both the current atheists and homosexuals who want to indulge in far fetched speculations in order to maintain belief and way of life. Mrs. Jacoby, I do believe you are finally seeing the light, Hallelujah!

dang it! i meant to say,
"also "right to biological reproduction"? should HETEROsexual infertile people be "allowed" to marry?"

"Second 'pleasure' is certainly an evolutionary advantage. It is also derived from more than just acts of procreation. 'Sweet' brings me pleasure, a kind of pleasure that is identical, though less strong than sexual pleasure. Our taste buds discern that sweet fruit is ripe, bitter fruit is not."

Pleasure for pleasure's sake, however, is not justified by any adaptive argument. "Sweet" leads to more calories. More calories equates to greater reproductive potential. It is difficult to justify pleasure as adaptive if it leads to lowering that potential.

There obviously had to be adaptive significance to homosexuality for it to exist. However, ginning up those scenarios that could account for such selective pressure requires some imagination and reliance on group selection.

Science flies man to the moon.
Religion files planes into buildings.

I'm enjoying this dialogue. By the way, "On Faith" is supposed to be a conversation about politics and religion, and that is why I deal with so many political issues. Since I am a liberal, I deal with both religious and political issues from the standpoint of a politically liberal atheist. But I am not, as any regular reader of this blog knows, a liberal "multiculturalist" who confuses respect for freedom of conscience (required by our Constitution) with respect for religious beliefs themselves.

Anyone who doesn't like reading about my liberal and secular views is welcome to seek out those two or three politically right-wing and scientifically ignorant atheists who don't understand the difference between evolution by means of natural selection and "design."

WmarkW, you said,
"MacDonald's longer piece makes the point that calling gays married implies the expectation of the right to biological reproduction. That would imply the right to gene-splice two men's DNA into one sperm, for example, so they could have a kid who's biologically both of theirs. I'm not willing to go there."

i don't think your gene-splicing theory follows...

also "right to biological reproduction"? should homosexual infertile people be "allowed" to marry? what if they only find out after marriage that one of them is infertile - do they have a mandatory divorce?

The right has been flat out rejecting facts since 1980 and voodoo economics. They'll never change and the religious fundamentalists are an important part of the denial, so the right will never stop panderaing to them. Stupidity has been winning and it looks like it will continue to win.

RBPCBP,

"...what are they afraid of?"

Oh, I don't know; maybe of people who hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings, people who strap bombs to their bodies and blow up trains, buses, and markets, people who kill doctors for providing medical care to women, people who feed poisoned beverages to their "flocks", people who attempt to prevent other people from getting the medical care that they need, people who attempt to prevent people from marrying because they disagree with what they do with their "dirty" parts, people who sexually molest young boys, people who help the people who sexually molest young boys...

For a start.

"What I find intriguing is the fear (so called) atheists have of God and any group that believe in God.
If God does not exist as they claim, what are they afraid of?"
It's not your god we fear, it's you 'so-called' Christians. (specifically of the fundamentalist right wing fringe) You guys are allowed to vote and even to run for public office . . . that's scary. We're not really afraid of you, we are simply at odds with your ideals, politics and philosophy, as well as your mythology.

"Pleasure is incidental to the reproductive potential of intercourse in Darwinian terms and justifying anything on the basis of pleasure is on shaky ground for a Darwinian."
First, I'm not a 'Darwinian', I'm not even sure I know what that means. Darwin propsed a theory, scientific research has found merit with much of it. Was he absolutely right about absolutely everything, of course not, he was a scientist not a supreme being.

Second 'pleasure' is certainly an evolutionary advantage. It is also derived from more than just acts of procreation. 'Sweet' brings me pleasure, a kind of pleasure that is identical, though less strong than sexual pleasure. Our taste buds discern that sweet fruit is ripe, bitter fruit is not. This is an evolutionary advantage. The act of intercourse/copulation brings us pleasure, those that do so with the opposite sex produce offspring, those that do so only with same sex do not, those that do so with both, create offspring as well. But there is nothing that categorically limits intercourse/reproduction to only a preferred partner. Is it a smaller number? Of course, thus it is a minority trait.

The inerrant nature of religion and religious belief motivates all the right wing noise in favor of government of, by, and for the wealthy that MAY (only MAY) punish sinners as defined by the Southern Baptist Convention. Most bothersome to American authoritarians is sin related to human sexual expression. God hates Gays, Fred Phelps asserts. Hence, to be godlike, YOU must hate gays, too. Fine. Adopt all the two thousand year old philosophies you like. But also give up modern medicine, and modern technologies like automobiles, the banking system, the corner offices for you and your sons, and war on demand.

What I find intriguing is the fear (so called) atheists have of God and any group that believe in God.
If God does not exist as they claim, what are they afraid of?

edbyronadams,

You appear to be confusing your own faith-based version of "Darwinian" evolution with the currently understood theory of evolution that is based on scientific evidence.

"First, if you know anything about evolution, you must know that nature, alas, is no more of an intelligent designer than any god."

Evolution in action, however, is a ruthless design critic and that applies doubly to any matter involved in reproduction since the active process of evolution involves leaving more copies of genes in succeeding generations than other members of the same species. Clearly homosexuality on the face of it is not adaptive. One is forced to construct elaborate explanations for why the behavior exists at all.

Pleasure is incidental to the reproductive potential of intercourse in Darwinian terms and justifying anything on the basis of pleasure is on shaky ground for a Darwinian.

Finally, regarding churches and politics, I find it ironic that traditionally African American churches have been involved in politics for generations without complaint and still dodge the arrows of those who see some great threat in such muddying of a church state separation.

blasmaic,

"I just don't get why the Washington Post permits someone like Jacoby with such weird, paranoid conspiracy theories to write a blog."

Many people think that same about George Will and Charles Krauthammer.

What are you going to do?

"Here are articles by John Derbyshire and Heather MacDonald, both contributors to SecularRight.org, opposing gay marriage"
Yes, against gay marriage,(for reasons I personally disagree with) a political issue but not necessarily anti-gay, as the thunder mouthed fundies on these pages generally are.
The slippery slope stance is nonsensical to me. We're talking about the legality of who can or cannot enter a contractural agreement/relationship. Last I checked, children and farm animals cannot could not. If the line is simply 'between informed, consenting adults' then what's the problem? All other legal contracts require nothing more than consenting, informed adults. A marriage license is not a license to have sex, a mandate to reproduce, or a schematic of sleeping arrangements, it's not even a guaranty of fiscal and emotional well-being. It's a simple legal agreement/filing for financial/tax and legal purposes.

WmarkW,

I'm guessing that you have had... how should I put this... an "interesting" life.

I do not envy you.

One of the many drawbacks of Web anonymity is that you never really know whether people are what they say they are; ie., an atheist, an African American, a woman, or whether they are simply making up stories (and political positions) to make mischief.
-------------------------------------------
The articles on this blog aren't anonymous, but they spend about half as much time on atheism as on pro-Democratic party politics.

I think it's quite significant that one almost never sees anti-gay rhetoric among atheists and other secular writers who stand by their words under their own names.
------------------------------------------
Here are articles by John Derbyshire and Heather MacDonald, both contributors to SecularRight.org, opposing gay marriage:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/the-secular-case-against-gay-m.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229057/reengineering-family-heather-mac-donald

Derb's objection is that the "what right does society have to say who can marry" could just as easily be used to justify polygamy.

MacDonald's longer piece makes the point that calling gays married implies the expectation of the right to biological reproduction. That would imply the right to gene-splice two men's DNA into one sperm, for example, so they could have a kid who's biologically both of theirs. I'm not willing to go there.

Non-religious voter registration is found everywhere throughout America.

The motor-voter bill, along with other laws, have made it easier than ever for the casual citizen to get onto the rolls.

Advertising through the Ad Council and various public service messages promote voting and registration without regard to politics. I particularly remember an ad featuring Madonna that ran on MTV plenty of times.

I just don't get why the Washington Post permits someone like Jacoby with such weird, paranoid conspiracy theories to write a blog. Susan, regardless of what happened to you at home as a child, the regular people of America aren't united in a grand conspiracy to take your right to register and vote away from you.

One of the many drawbacks of Web anonymity is that you never really know whether people are what they say they are; ie., an atheist, an African American, a woman, or whether they are simply making up stories (and political positions) to make mischief.

I think it's quite significant that one almost never sees anti-gay rhetoric among atheists and other secular writers who stand by their words under their own names.

WMarkW, truly sad that you have swallowed falsehoods and made them your own. Homosexuality is both a sexual endeavor and a demographic, otherwise such things as Prop 8 in California would never have seen the light of day. To use a trait, whether that be skin color, handedness, or sexual oriention, to deny equal access to things you feel you are intitled to is clearly an unwarranted and unconstitutional violation.

Forcing people to not be monogamous is condoning promiscuity. It is promiscuity and not homosexuality that encourages transmission of contagious disesase. Not one disease that gays contract is not contracted by straights. Arguing that homosexual behavior is responsible is the height of ignorance.

Civil rights are not just Black Rights. TO argue that they are also speaks to poor understanding of Civil Rights.

I find your remarks to be offensive on both rational grounds and spiritual ones.

The Tea Party is the ideological flip side of ACORN and MoveOn. Those organizations operated voter drives on the implicit slogan "Don't skip voting just because you're unhappy with the political process; change it." More power to all of them for increasing citizen involvement.

It's difficult to organize secularists because it's hard to organize any group defined by non-interest in a subject. I'm sure the internet is full of Britney Spears Haters Clubs, but it's unlikely they're very active or do much of anything. Secularist values in government aren't usually a democratic (small d) position that are typically voted in; they generally require judicial enforcement through the First Amendment to overturn things like school prayer that are democratically popular.

The respect for Constitutional principles started going downhill when the advocates for what we now call Diversity claimed the Constitution was designed to enforce a racist and sexist system, and didn't have to be interpreted to mean what it said if it violated their view of the good society. The Constitution does guarantee everyone political equality, but not economic or social equality. So when forced busing for integration or elimination of employee tests that had disparate impact on the less able, were declared violations of Constitional provisions, it became common to think that it needn't be interpreted as standing in the way of a desirable societal goal.

What can someone who purports to be a rational thinker be thinking when he says that "it is absolutely true that nature designed male and female body parts to be used together in a way that male-male parts are not."
------------------------------------------
Homosexuality is a sexual practice; not a demographic group.

The language and concepts of civil rights, used to argue that it should be illegal to deny someone a job/apartment/choice-of-spouse based on skin color, does not directly translate into making it illegal to deny those things based on participating in a behavior known to encourage transmission of contagious diseases.