Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Janx]

I don't know if anyone noticed that some of her grassroots supporters are asking that her deputies be put on trial for issuing licenses...


Well...I don't have an answer beyond "keep talking to them", plus the classic admonishment:

I never subscribed to the heroic "if I kill the bad guy, I'll be just like him" saturday morning cartoon ethics lesson. Sometimes it's pretty clear that the wife beater, the racist and the power hungry deputy are bad guys and you just need to shoot them before more damage happens. Other times, it's not clear or there's a softer approach that'd be better. I suspect the distinction is partly that Merle is here, he is actively a dick, and bang, problem solved. Versus the faceless horde of nutjobs who support a variety of bad ideas.

In any event, the right wing extremists will at some point be more than happy to shoot, poison or blow-up us regular folk. Oh wait, since 9/11, they been the majority of US terrorism already.

It really bums me out that there's not a solution. Shooting them will just escalate them, and talking to deaf people is a waste of breath.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't know if anyone noticed that some of her grassroots supporters are asking that her deputies be put on trial for issuing licenses...


Well...I don't have an answer beyond "keep talking to them", plus the classic admonishment:

An excellent use of that quote. Many vocal Atheists could learn much from those few words. There is no need for attack, when defence speaks volumes.

 

[Janx]

An excellent use of that quote. Many vocal Atheists could learn much from those few words. There is no need for attack, when defence speaks volumes.

On the vocal atheism front, I've got a few friends who are fond of frequently posting "why religion is badwrongfun" type stuff. I just don't see the point of being aggressive on topics like that.

I know the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a minister. And it did not originally have "Under God" at the end. And that Congress added it in 1950-something as an anti-communism PR move.

I don't feel an overwhelming need to correct that situation. I can always leave off "Under God" when I say the pledge if it comes up.

I don't see it as my job or duty to point out all the inaccuracies, contradictions in somebody's religion. It's not appropriate to convert them. It's only appropriate for all of us to act in a way that remains compatible with each other. Which is what the separation of church and state concept helps address.

I've seen the atheism meme around about being against the "Coexist" bumper sticker. This mindset leads to the extremism like we see from religious fanatics and the subject of this very thread. Refusing to adopt a mindset that will allow you to work with, do business with, live near people with differing views/religions/lifestyles places that person in a bucket where they are effectively an enemy of modern cooperating society.

 

[was]

...IMO, the main issue is not about her personal religious beliefs. It's about her being able to fulfill her duties as a government official. As an individual, she's free to hold whatever views she likes. As an employee of the state, she's required to comply with whatever directives are issued by that state. If she feels unable to follow those directives, she is free to seek new employment.

 

[Ryujin]

On the vocal atheism front, I've got a few friends who are fond of frequently posting "why religion is badwrongfun" type stuff. I just don't see the point of being aggressive on topics like that.

I know the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a minister. And it did not originally have "Under God" at the end. And that Congress added it in 1950-something as an anti-communism PR move.

I don't feel an overwhelming need to correct that situation. I can always leave off "Under God" when I say the pledge if it comes up.

I don't see it as my job or duty to point out all the inaccuracies, contradictions in somebody's religion. It's not appropriate to convert them. It's only appropriate for all of us to act in a way that remains compatible with each other. Which is what the separation of church and state concept helps address.

I've seen the atheism meme around about being against the "Coexist" bumper sticker. This mindset leads to the extremism like we see from religious fanatics and the subject of this very thread. Refusing to adopt a mindset that will allow you to work with, do business with, live near people with differing views/religions/lifestyles places that person in a bucket where they are effectively an enemy of modern cooperating society.

Full disclosure: In high school I was "bullied" by Evangelical Christians who told me that I was going to Hell, because I hadn't been born again.

Where things like the contradictions in religion are concerned, I consider that to be the sort of thing that you bring up when you are under attack by religious zealots. For example my response to the "born again" thing, in high school, tended to be something along the lines of, "Well excuse me for getting it right the first time and not needing an ecclesiastical Mulligan." My previous comments regarding the person under discussion being rather selective in which parts of the Bible she chooses to adhere to are in response to her public declarations and I would not otherwise have typed them.

And, as I said, defence is frequently more effective than attack. It's fairly easy to make a foaming at the mouth zealot look the fool. Call it the parry/riposte of the debating world

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I never subscribed to the heroic "if I kill the bad guy, I'll be just like him" saturday morning cartoon ethics lesson. Sometimes it's pretty clear that the wife beater, the racist and the power hungry deputy are bad guys and you just need to shoot them before more damage happens. Other times, it's not clear or there's a softer approach that'd be better. I suspect the distinction is partly that Merle is here, he is actively a dick, and bang, problem solved. Versus the faceless horde of nutjobs who support a variety of bad ideas.

I don't think it is all that cartoonish.

If you shoot evil killer guy #1, how you react to that- regretful, repulsed...exultant- may affect your comfort with use of deadly force. Travel far enough down that path and you become a violent vigilante...which gets you squarely in the sights of law enforcement.

Or consider how many Americans are willing to enact the same kind of religious-based indoctrination here that they find so repulsive in the Middle East.

In any event, the left wing extremists will at some point be more than happy to shoot, poison or blow-up us regular folk. Oh wait, since 9/11, they been the majority of US terrorism already.

Umm...you mean right wing, don't you?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...IMO, the main issue is not about her personal religious beliefs. It's about her being able to fulfill her duties as a government official. As an individual, she's free to hold whatever views she likes. As an employee of the state, she's required to comply with whatever directives are issued by that state. If she feels unable to follow those directives, she is free to seek new employment.

That is it in a nutshell.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't think it is all that cartoonish.

If you shoot evil killer guy #1, how you react to that- regretful, repulsed...exultant- may affect your comfort with use of deadly force. Travel far enough down that path and you become a violent vigilante...which gets you squarely in the sights of law enforcement.

Or consider how many Americans are willing to enact the same kind of religious-based indoctrination here that they find so repulsive in the Middle East.

Umm...you mean right wing, don't you?

Ah, yes. That ever so narrow line between doing what needed to be done based on the situation, and falling into the "he done needed killin'" mindset.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Full disclosure: In high school I was "bullied" by Evangelical Christians who told me that I was going to Hell, because I hadn't been born again.

Where things like the contradictions in religion are concerned, I consider that to be the sort of thing that you bring up when you are under attack by religious zealots. For example my response to the "born again" thing, in high school, tended to be something along the lines of, "Well excuse me for getting it right the first time and not needing an ecclesiastical Mulligan." My previous comments regarding the person under discussion being rather selective in which parts of the Bible she chooses to adhere to are in response to her public declarations and I would not otherwise have typed them.

And, as I said, defence is frequently more effective than attack. It's fairly easy to make a foaming at the mouth zealot look the fool. Call it the parry/riposte of the debating world

I was just reading an article a couple days ago wherein the writer- a Mormon- listed incidents in which religious conservatives berated his children for not being the right kind of Chrisitans...and this was done by someone who was actively evangelizing for converts.

Clearly, someone was unclear on the concept of who can be called for conversion (namely, anyone) and how best to do it (don't insult them, at least).

In my own past, I had run-ins with fellow Chrisitians. My HS- a private Catholic* all-boys school- made national news back in the early 1980s when a Baptist private school decided they were not going to play us anymore because we were Catholics...nevermind they had been playing us for years, and that the fact of our Catholicism was easily discernible since the school's name is one that goes back to the roots of the monastic tradition and has only ever been associated with Catholicism.

IOW, Gandhi had us pegged.

As for your methodology...well let's stipulate that I'm a typical American Catholic: my reading of the bible has been limited to chunks here & there. But despite my not reading it cover-to-cover, my scholarship over what I HAVE read is good enough that when I get drawn into debates, the aphorism about the Devil quoting scripture often gets lobbed in my general direction.

I had some Word of Faith devotees- you know, those who followed televangelist Bob Tilton?- approach me (and some of my fellow HS grads) one night. By the time I was finished arguing with them about the Gift Of Tongues, they were in full, stammering retreat.









* as in, owned & operated by Catholic monks, but open to boys of any faith.

 

[Janx]

Clearly, someone was unclear on the concept of who can be called for conversion (namely, anyone) and how best to do it (don't insult them, at least).

It is against my religion to convert anybody. To do so is to have the hubris to assume that you have chosen a religion more rightly than somebody else's choice. Somebody wants to learn about my religion, they can ask. And I sure don't want to hear about theirs unless I ask.

In my own past, I had run-ins with fellow Chrisitians. My HS- a private Catholic* all-boys school- made national news back in the early 1980s when a Baptist private school decided they were not going to play us anymore because we were Catholics...nevermind they had been playing us for years, and that the fact of our Catholicism was easily discernible since the school's name is one that goes back to the roots of the monastic tradition and has only ever been associated with Catholicism.

Something like this happened to a friend of mine out your way in Denton when he was a teen. His baptist church got it in their head to write letters to Catholics because "they weren't Christians." Which considering the Catholic church pretty much saved the day getting the religion past the dark ages, I call BS on the baptists just for that nonsense. He told them where to stick their letters.

As for your methodology...well let's stipulate that I'm a typical American Catholic: my reading of the bible has been limited to chunks here & there. But despite my not reading it cover-to-cover, my scholarship over what I HAVE read is good enough that when I get drawn into debates, the aphorism about the Devil quoting scripture often gets lobbed in my general direction.

I had some Word of Faith devotees- you know, those who followed televangelist Bob Tilton?- approach me (and some of my fellow HS grads) one night. By the time I was finished arguing with them about the Gift Of Tongues, they were in full, stammering retreat.

One of those weird stats I heard is that atheists score higher on "bible knowledge" than Christians do. As NBC says, "the more you know..."

I don't mean that as a diss on the religion, but it seems the folks doing the worst behavior sure don't really know what's in their own book.