HOMOSEXUALITY BAD, SEX ED EVIL, ETC

Whoa! Progressive types will be furious about this. Well, they would be, if Christianity was involved instead of Islam.

Posted by Tim B. on 05/29/2006 at 10:42 PM
    1. Yes you can always count on progressives, free speech advocates, feminists etc to be strangely silent whenever the RoP is talked about… rank hypocrites the lot of them….

      Posted by casanova on 2006 05 29 at 10:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. What about goats?

      Posted by kae on 2006 05 29 at 10:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. whoops
      sorry
      I think I was channeling someone else there.

      Posted by kae on 2006 05 29 at 10:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. …if Christianity was involved instead of Islam.

      Got that right.  Hypocrites, indeed.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 29 at 11:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. To be fair, Mr Lefty blogged about this yesterday. The issue of sexual education in schools is a little dubious, anyway – an episode of The Simpsons comes to mind:

      TROY McCLURE: So kids, now that you know how to do it – DON’T DO IT.

      Posted by TimT on 2006 05 29 at 11:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. You’re being unfair again to the religion of hypocrisy.  They’ve got a better solution – allow temporary marriages (4 days) to get all the sex you want and remain devout.  Then of course you can have up to 4 wives at a time, disposable, as long as you can support them (or can find a government welfare scheme to support them for you!)

      Of course, this applies to men only.  But at least their women remain respectable.

      Posted by spyder on 2006 05 29 at 11:10 PM • permalink

 

    1. But, but…minarets are just so damned phallic

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 29 at 11:12 PM • permalink

 

    1. When I mentioned this article to a friend of mine who works in the sex education field yesterday he deadpanned “…that’s right, keep the kids ignorant and fearful until they catch HIV”.  The hypocrisy is just plain appalling.

      Posted by deebee on 2006 05 29 at 11:15 PM • permalink

 

    1. Ummmm, so Class Group Masturbation and/or You Show Me Yours and I’ll Show You Mine, are out, huh?

      Wednesdays will no longer (can one say “longer”) be referred to as “Hump Day”.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 05 29 at 11:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. Otherwise, Muslim teenagers were in danger of forming their attitudes to sex from un-Islamic sources such as newspapers, magazines, television and the internet, the policy said.

      There’s no better way to ENSURE that Muslim teens get their attitudes from magazines, etc., than to enact this policy.

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 05 29 at 11:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sex education in schools is irrelevant anyway. Muslims get their sex education from the internet. (via Evil Pundit)

      Posted by Zoidberg on 2006 05 29 at 11:39 PM • permalink

 

    1. “…that’s right, keep the kids ignorant and fearful until they catch HIV”.

      Or just tell them to avoid needles and being the catcher in anal sex.

      Posted by Dave S. on 2006 05 29 at 11:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. Obviously if they’re that hung up with basic sex ed, its going to take a little longer, say a couple of hundred years, before “Jake and his two dad’s” gets on the reading curricula of these “educational” institutions… easier to slip that into child care centre’s where practically no one gets to speak up against it….

      and i guess to stop magazines, newspapers and tv polluting their minds, these could all just be banned and students could be given an “endorsed” reading list to keep their minds and attitudes pure… it would a be a short list, the Koran obviously….  for a bit of light reading, perhaps the protocols of the elders of zion….  anything encouraging hate of the infidels and the joooooos (actually this i imagine would be a very large collection of publications)….  and maybe for tv a free subscription to Hizbollah’s cable channel???

      that should ensure their minds are well and truly strait-jacketed into conformist, mussie thought patterns….

      Posted by casanova on 2006 05 29 at 11:46 PM • permalink

 

    1. And #11, thats where they get all their propaganda, hilarious head hacking video’s and bomb making instructions, so i wouldn’t be surprised if they also got other stuff from the internet…

      I wonder just what they do get taught at these “schools”???  a slightly modified curricula of roughly circa 1,500s, endorsed by whoever headed up the caliphate back then???

      Posted by casanova on 2006 05 29 at 11:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well, these Muslims seem to have got their sex education from somewhere…

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 12:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. Surely they have to teach the six-year old prospective brides something?

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 12:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. MentalFloss, don’t be unfair.  Aisha was at least nine when she married a certain illiterate shepherd.

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 12:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. #14 By 1500, both Abbassid and Ummayyad Caliphates had failed, shrunk to insignificance, while real power was vested in the institution of the sultanate—chief among the first of which, IIRC, was the Mamluk.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 12:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. The Ottomans were already growing in strength by 1500, and they defeated the Mamluks in 1517.  The Ottomans claimed to “inherit” the caliphate – presumably from the figuregeads that the Fatimids and then the Ilkhanids kept – so you could technically refer to the “caliphate” in the 16th century.

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 12:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Fortunately for women, homosexuality, according to muslims, only happens to men

      But there is good news for the guys. Muslim Sex Education 101:
      1. Although muslims can only marry muslims, once you’re married, you can have sex with your wife whenever and as often as you like.
      2. You can have up to 4 wives.
      3. Wife swapping parties are acceptable, but giving the wife back is frowned upon.
      4. You can have sex with other married women, but only if they are slaves.
      5. Men rule over women, so they cannot deny sexual favours.
      6. But don’t trust women, they are your enemy.

      Hey, who says islam is bad?

      Posted by Zoidberg on 2006 05 30 at 12:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. The truth is that some Muslim men from Guantanamo are brave enough to articulate their various hang-ups.

      We should feel sorry for them, and the way they have been treated by imperialist forces.

      Posted by Kaboom on 2006 05 30 at 12:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. You know did a search on a certain orphaned arab who married a wealthy older woman and had 7/9 children with her.  Just to see how many children he ended up with, cos after she died he took on another 9 wives (a certain god said it was ok for him, but only 4 for everyone else).  Couldn’t see any mention of any more brats.  Interesting that, I think.

      Posted by spyder on 2006 05 30 at 12:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. # 19 Shuk khran, habibi. Kul kalb b’jyomo.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 12:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. What does sex education matter when you’re going to marry your first cousin anyhow?

      Posted by dee on 2006 05 30 at 01:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. #20 “Fortunately for women, homosexuality, according to muslims, only happens to men”

      Nothing new here, Queen Victoria told us all about that in the late 1800’s. She might have disagreed (we are not amused) with the other six points though.

      Posted by Whale Spinor on 2006 05 30 at 01:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. #2- they’ve issued a fatwa banning porno as well, such as this wanton temptress.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 01:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. Habib,

      OMG! I can’t believe you linked to She-Bah of the Seven Bales – you’re going to fry in hell for that one!

      Posted by TimT on 2006 05 30 at 01:41 AM • permalink

 

    1. #23, you just said ‘Thank you my darling’ to a fogey. Surely the purest of civilizations would never refer to men as ‘my darling’?

      Seriously though, is it any wonder that young islamists the world over regard western women as being sluts? As their religion prohibits a proper discussion of sexuality, they get it from porn. Thus they equate pornographic images with the images of most western women.

      Posted by Nic on 2006 05 30 at 01:45 AM • permalink

 

    1. Habib #26

      You may have turned me off curried goat meat for ever. I have to go and bleach my brain now.

      MarkL
      Canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2006 05 30 at 01:57 AM • permalink

 

    1. Young Arab men, good friends one assumes, hold hands as they walk in the bazaar, souk or Western-Style Mall—it is quite common in the ME, as is a kiss, though lip locking is not de rigeur.

      (oh, and I told the estimable fogey that “every dog shall have his day”—my way of saying he’d better pick each nit from now on or I’ll pick them for him…lol…the Ottoman Turk didn’t completely knock off the Mamluk in Syria and Egypt until about mid-1500’s)

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 02:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. also, habibi means “my friend” last time I looked.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 02:04 AM • permalink

 

    1. #24 Dee,
      Touche!.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 05 30 at 02:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. #30 I used “technically” advisedly!

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 02:28 AM • permalink

 

    1. #28, they are taught respect muslim women but not non-muslim women, as muslim women must retain their ‘honour’ until they are married, but any other female is fair-game.

      Islamic sex education classes would not include discussion about “safe sex” – the use of condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases – because it encouraged promiscuity.

      I’m not overly concerned about them wanting teach their moral religious view on sex, but I’m concerned about the outright rejection of ‘safesex’ education, youth sexual activilty will occur and pretending it doesnt happen is just plain ignorant stupidity.

      Posted by darrinh on 2006 05 30 at 02:36 AM • permalink

 

    1. Khomeini used to answer questions from troubled Muslims, and one of them, believe it or not, was whether it is haram (not OK) to eat a goat that you have fucked.

      Angry ex-Catholic that I am, I tried to imagine someone submitting that question to the pope, and I just couldn’t do it.

      And I see from my paper today that Iraqi volunteer sex police shot three tennis players for wearing shorts in Baghdad.

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 30 at 03:12 AM • permalink

 

    1. Tim Blair,

      For the record I think that all religion is a crock of shit, and I’m pretty sure that many lefties agree.

      I believe that the reason Christianity is on the radar for lefties, is because of the fact it is the dominant religion in our society.

      Despite the paranoid ranting of many conservatives, there are no Muslims holding positions of authority within Australian society.  On the other side of the coin, prominent Christians within the parliament (both labor and liberal) are able to alter Australian law so that their religious beliefs are imposed on all Australians.  For example, the outlawing of gay marriage bill that was passed prior to the last election.

      In the United States, the recent debates on Roe Vs Wade and Intelligent design are other examples.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 05 30 at 03:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. #

      Khomeini used to answer questions from troubled Muslims, and one of them, believe it or not, was whether it is haram (not OK) to eat a goat that you have fucked.

      Angry ex-Catholic that I am, I tried to imagine someone submitting that question to the pope, and I just couldn’t do it.

      Well Harry, If you were to ask the pope a similar question but with a Catholic spin, you’d have to exchange the word goat, for words ‘little boy’

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 05 30 at 03:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. #36 Presumably, one of the bases for your objection to the imposition of religion is lack of consent.  That applies to all – young Muslim girls who are forced into chadoors and these benighted classes by their overweening patriarchal fathers and cowed mothers are as equally unable to consent as those for whom lefties speak.  On that basis, your point is not particularly strong.

      If something is wrong, it is wrong, whether it affects a minority or a majority.

      The underlying reason why Christianity is on the radar for lefties is their cultural and racial self-absorption.  They don’t seem to give two hoots about oppression wrought by people with more melnanin in their skin than me.  There’s a word for that, beginning with R, and one you know very well, happily spraying it around at other commenters here.

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 03:32 AM • permalink

 

    1. #38 Please, pull the other one.  As far as the Khomeini story is not apocryphal, his fatwa treated the question seriously (and, IIRC, said it was OK insoem circumstances).  As if any Pope would treat the question about screwing little boys seriously, other than to maintain that it was a monstrous sin.

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 03:34 AM • permalink

 

    1. Despite the paranoid ranting of many conservatives, there are no Muslims holding positions of authority within Australian society.

      But some hold positions of authority among those who aspire to be head-hackers, whitey-rapists and suicide bombers. I find that to be a matter of concern.

      I have yet to be told the virtues of physically fighting the enemies of Christendom in any Christian church I’ve yet attended.

      So, Gustov, because religions recommend restraint on your carnal impulses they equal each other in your eyes? So the minister who tells you to stop stealing is equal to the Imam who cuts your hand off for stealing?

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 05 30 at 03:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. As if any Pope would treat the question about screwing little boys seriously, other than to maintain that it was a monstrous sin.

      Don’t treat Gustov like an intelligent human being by trying to reason with him; the shock may kill him!

      Posted by AlburyShifton on 2006 05 30 at 03:39 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gustov, with the narcissistic lefty absorption in consideration of how wondrous is their own self and lack of belief in anything much beyond that, I have often wondered what a dying athiest lefty thinks in the final moments on the deathbed.

      MarkL
      Canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2006 05 30 at 03:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. For the record I think that all religion is a crock of shit, and I’m pretty sure that many lefties agree.

      Marxist drones unite!.

      Despite the paranoid ranting of many conservatives, there are no Muslims holding positions of authority within Australian society.

      Yet strangly, more laws have been changed in the last few years for or because of them than any other group.  They also have sway in the real area of authority – The various ‘social engineering’ departments around the country.  For example, I’m attending an event tonight that will be hosted by Geraldine Doogue, where the racists from south-west Sydney are holding a public forum in the Sutherland Shire to inform us on how we are all isolated racist rednecks living in, god forbid, an ‘anglo enclave’, that consititutes the Sutherland Shire.

      Posted by darrinh on 2006 05 30 at 03:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. #36 – For example, the outlawing of gay marriage bill that was passed prior to the last election.

      You don’t have a clue what you’re writing about. You’re spouting crap, actually.

      The Marriage Act (1961) was amended to codify the common law definition of marriage, viz., that marriage in Australia is the union of a man and woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.  The amendments passed with strong bi-partisan support.

      The definition of marriage was omitted from the 1961 Act because, in the 1950s when the bill was drafted, although inclusion was considered, it was regarded that no one could possibly be under misapprehension as to the nature of marriage.

      The 2003 amendments were specifically to avoid Australia being placed in the position of being required to recognise same-sex foreign ‘marriages’ under the 1964 UN Hague treaty on the celebration and recognition of marriages.

      Posted by walterplinge on 2006 05 30 at 03:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m progressive and I’m outraged.

      http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/05/30/homosexuality-bad-sex-ed-evil-etc/

      Posted by Kimberella on 2006 05 30 at 03:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. #44 In the 1950s…

      Just like Jefferson considered “All men are created equal” did not apply to black people?  Popularity does not necessarily mean something is right, otherwise sharia would be right (and we know it isn’t).

      #45 If you were truly outraged, why did you need to bring Tim into it at all (“sorry to burst your bubble” etc)?  Sounds like a Trojan Horse to me (pun semi-intended).

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 04:14 AM • permalink

 

    1. #45 To give credit where credit is due, condemning this latest ROP wheeze is the right thing to do, even if you had the wrong motives.

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 04:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. Bilious Young Fogey, I think you’ll find that I’ve made similar arguments about same sex education. And I no doubt would have read the story in the SMH in time, and posted on it, but Tim got there before me. I think, given the assumptions in his post, it is worth pointing out that there are people on the left willing to oppose such policies.

      Posted by Kimberella on 2006 05 30 at 04:24 AM • permalink

 

    1. #48 See #47.

      Let’s not get into this whole “Tim didn’t say some progressives” debate, because it is pointless.  Tim’s point as a generalisation stands.  There are too few Orwellites on the left nowadays.  The LPers are more worked up over Iemma’s grandstanding generally than over the real homophobes (given that this was reported on teh SMH yesterday).  I would much rather live with Falwell than Ahmadinejad.  In a world where all resources are scarce, including lefty ire, to concentrate it on GWB and the US speaks of disingenuousness.

      Posted by Bilious Young Fogey on 2006 05 30 at 04:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. Well, I also think the “comparative degrees of outrage” debate is pointless. You can’t necessarily measure it by the number of comments on a thread or when something is posted. And again, if you are a regular reader of left wing blogs, you’d know that there are lots of other things that are discussed other than GWB, even relating to Iraq. For instance, I’ve posted on the evils of the oppression of women under the Islamist regime in Iraq.

      FWIW I could quite happily live with Falwell provided he and his ideas had zero influence on what goes on in public education.

      Posted by Kimberella on 2006 05 30 at 04:49 AM • permalink

 

    1. #49 – I would rather live under falwell also, however given the choice, I would prefer not to live under either.

      But that isn’t the point.  It’s quite reasonable to attack the views of those in our society whom actually hold the power – In the case of Western countries, a majority happen to be Christian.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 05 30 at 04:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. For the record I think that all religion is a crock of shit, and I’m pretty sure that many lefties agree.

      For the record, thank you for the wonderfully nuanced admission of your own atheist bigotry and for the tip-off about the true multicultural sensitivities of most carin’ and sharin’ luvvies.

      I believe that the reason Christianity is on the radar for lefties, is because of the fact it is the dominant religion in our society.

      Dominant religion? Christianity or any other traditional religion is virtually non-existent in the lives of most Australians. Truly dominant religions in Australia are confined pretty much to the footy ground and the bar.

      On the other side of the coin, prominent Christians within the parliament (both labor and liberal) are able to alter Australian law so that their religious beliefs are imposed on all Australians.  For example, the outlawing of gay marriage bill that was passed prior to the last election.

      What utter nonsense to speak of “altering” Australian law and “imposing” religious beliefs. There has never been a law in Australia supporting “gay marriage” that has suddenly been altered. The concept of homosexual marriage is a new “right”, straight out of left field, previously unknown in Australian or British legal history where marriage has always been understood as the union of a man and a woman. Indeed Australian law, like British and American law, has been built on the foundation of Judeo-Christian principles that bigots like yourself condescendingly dismiss as “a crock of shit”.

      Any bill passed in Parliament has to pass by a majority vote of members of both Houses; that’s how representative democracy works, you dummy.  The recent bill, so passed, merely reasserted the historical understanding of marriage that a majority of Australians would ascribe to.

      By your reasoning those laws enacted by our parliaments to which many Christians object, are clear-cut examples of atheists altering laws and imposing their beliefs on all Australians…

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 04:58 AM • permalink

 

    1. Live with, not under Falwell!

      Another progressive blog adds its voice to the opposition to the policy:

      http://weekbyweek7.blogspot.com/2006/05/when-saying-no-is-not-ok-sex-education.html

      Posted by Kimberella on 2006 05 30 at 05:00 AM • permalink

 

    1. For the record, thank you for the wonderfully nuanced admission of your own atheist bigotry and for the tip-off about the true multicultural sensitivities of most carin’ and sharin’ luvvies.

      This may come as a tremendous surprise to you, but just because I happen not to share the religious beliefs of some Australians, doesn’t mean that I don’t support their right to have those beliefs.  That’s the beauty of living in a pluralistic society.

      Any bill passed in Parliament has to pass by a majority vote of members of both Houses; that’s how representative democracy works, you dummy.

      Yes indeed it does, just like what occurred

      here.

      Despite the overwhelming support for Euthanasia, a private members bill was successfully passed through both houses of parliament designed to outlaw the act.

      As demonstrated by the Australian Humanist Society, the votes were cast along religious lines.  Have a look here.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 05 30 at 05:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gustov,

      The problem atheists have is that they think they can somehow escape having a world view (and therefore their prejudices are somehow pure and untainted).

      They can’t. If they don’t believe there is a God who has a plan and to whom all people are accountable, then this will influence their world view when it comes to politics, including how they vote as politicians.

      If I were convinced there were no God (a view that requires no less faith than Christianity) then the only logical conclusion I could come to is that nothing matters. What difference does anything make whether babies are aborted or the sick and elderly are bumped off or whether people live or die on the roads or are free or slaves or rich or poor?

      If we are going to ban religion from politics, then we should ban the deadliest religion of all – atheism. With such proponents as Stalin, Mao etc , who probably over 100 million deaths on their hands, Christianity has a long way to go to catch up with this deadly belief in terms of casualty numbers.

      Posted by Effing & Blinding on 2006 05 30 at 06:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. #55 I don’t think you have a sufficient grasp on what atheist believe based on the pile of shite that you call a post.

      People who are religious do not hold the monopoly on morality

      Have a look at this site.

      “Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.”

      Posted by Zoidberg on 2006 05 30 at 06:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. Amen to that- I’m at best an agnostic, and have little but contempt for most organised religions, but fully tolerate others right to believe their fairy story of choice.

      I’m intelligent enough to establish my own code of ethics- some things are plainly wrong, others less so (genocide, rape, murder, communism, flared pants and the welfare state as opposed to public drunkeness, tax evasion, speeding and swiping bad movies off the ‘net). Any educated person whose IQ is bigger than their hat size should be able to do likewise without the aid of atavistc dogma, unless they’ve got a few Margos in the medulla; however, if people feel the need for some farcial dog and pony show to reasure them that they won’t be just compost when they kark, knock yourselves out.

      When they go beyond their personal beliefs and start trying to impose said beliefs on others, either through coersive force, infiltration or political patronage they can go stick their heads up a dead bear’s bum (and that includes the acquolites of the apocolypse who are passing themselves off as atmospheric scientists and informed planetary pundits).

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 06:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. #51

      In the case of Western countries, a majority [{of those who} actually hold the power] happen to be Christian.

      Oh, get real you poor sad person!  Please!

      I was watching Temptation a couple of evenings ago (my husband requires a period of eye pap after he comes home from work – normally I just hear it but try not to).  There was a “who am I” question.  It went something like this.

      I am the youngest son of Jesse.  I was born in Bethlehem and was a shepherd until I achieved a famous military victory and became an important member of King Saul’s court. …. blah, blah, blah … on and on it went, giving more and more details.  This went on for a minute or so until, finally, the presenter having given so many details of this person’s life that fifty years ago only an anencephalic couldn’t have answered, one of the contestants, face screwed up with doubt, ventured an answer.  It turned out to be right but I was absolutely astonished that out of three, theoretically well educated youngish Australians, only one knew enough to even offer a guess about the identity of this person despite having been given very much more than a sufficiency of clues.

      Do not tell me that Christianity is a major force in our community when 3 out of 3 people who are clever enough to get themselves a spot on a quiz show can’t identify the person referred to above from the details I have given.  Personally I blame the church leaders we’ve had for the last several decades.

      So tell me, gustov.  “Who am I?” Anyone else?

      And #56, zoidberg, as an atheist whatever you say about morality is merely your opinion.  Since it’s merely your opinion there is no reason anyone who has a differing opinion should listen to you.  So go away and think about that, you poor sad person.

      Posted by Janice on 2006 05 30 at 07:22 AM • permalink

 

    1. #55 Well said !!!

      The same old story comes out again and again when atheists believe they are un-biased.  It was the same when lefty-loony Kerry Nettle said to Tony Abbott “get your Rosaries off my ovaries”.  Her presumption is that her worldview is pristine.

      Everybody believes in something. Nettle may think she is more rational because she does not base her decisions on Christianity, but she has just replaced Christianity with another belief system – whatever it is for her. Her actions (and her voting in Parliament) are the result of her beliefs

      Posted by Fleety on 2006 05 30 at 07:23 AM • permalink

 

    1. Muslim teenagers were in danger of forming their attitudes to sex from un-Islamic sources …
      So where do they learn to gang rape skips? From their Dad (who “prayed in the hall all night and did not see any of it happening”)?

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 05 30 at 07:25 AM • permalink

 

    1. Zoidberg,

      It wasn’t my intention to get into a debate about whether there is or is not a God. Happy to do so if you like, but I am not sure if this is the place for it.

      Thanks for your link, but like virtually every atheist I know, the site seems to duck and weave the difficult questions (e.g. what is morality beyond opinion, what does it matter whether we live to 20 or 70 or whether or not we act morally etc). Maybe tucked away somewhere in the site. And I couldn’t find anything on the site listing the ‘Great Atheists of History’ (e.g. Mao, Stalin, and the founder of the world’s first state with atheism as the state religion, President Hoxha of Albania).

      My point was that atheists (at least those who are in a position to influence the rules in our society – e.g politicians, journalists etc) impose their world view just as much as anyone else. And they are deluded to argue otherwise. Carmen Lawrence’s atheism influences her (and has the same impact on the ideas she imposes on the rest of us) no less than Fred Nile’s Christianity does for him.

      Posted by Effing & Blinding on 2006 05 30 at 07:30 AM • permalink

 

    1. #37:

      Well Harry, If you were to ask the pope a similar question but with a Catholic spin, you’d have to exchange the word goat, for words ‘little boy’

      I’m not sure I’d bother to ask the Pope whether it’s OK to eat a little boy. I’m pretty sure his religion frowns upon it.

      Admittedly, I’m not a Catholic.

      Posted by TheRealBigAl on 2006 05 30 at 07:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. #52 What utter nonsense to speak of “altering” Australian law and “imposing” religious beliefs..

      Well put. Marriage in Australia is very different to the US and there are major disimilarities with the UK.

      There is no mention of religion in the Marriage Act at all. It is scrupulously secular.

      There are authorised religious marriage celebrants and authorised civil marriage celebrants. More than 50% of marriages in Australian are civil marriages.  Until the last couple of years it was forbidden to have any mention of religion in a civil ceremony; this is now not so strictly enforced.

      The reason why 50+% of marrying couple choose a civil marriage is because they don’t want God anywhere near their relationship.

      A minor exception is re-marrying divorced couples who are rejected by their Church because, as divorcees, they are second-class and second-rate Christians and not entitled to the holy sacrament.  Catholics and Jews are the worst offenders for this kind of cruel discrimination.

      Posted by walterplinge on 2006 05 30 at 07:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. #62: You’ll have to excuse gustov, he may not actually be that smart to figure it out by himself, too.

      Posted by PW on 2006 05 30 at 07:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. Agnostics and atrhiests always amuse me, for theirs is a deeply (and religious-like) belief system. Most of the athiests and agnostics I know spend more time thinking about God than I (a very poor Catholic) do!

      They often get terribly befuddled when I note this, and remind them that a position either against religion or of studied indifference to religion is still a religious position.

      MarkL
      Canberra

      Posted by MarkL on 2006 05 30 at 07:54 AM • permalink

 

    1. Janice, David is also an important Islamic Prophet.

      Never the less, your example is hardly convincing.  I stated that those in power were Christian – Howard, Costello, Abbott, and Beazley, are all devout Christians.

      I’m not sure about George Bush though.

      #62 – I’m sure that fucking little boys isn’t part of Catholicism either – Unfortunately the message didn’t get through to the priests.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 05 30 at 07:59 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gusty the perennial boy in the bubble…

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 30 at 08:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. #66 great comeback!

      Anyway, all this talk of having sex with animals reminds me of the sex habits of right-wing Christians.

      Very popular too according to the interviewee.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 05 30 at 08:09 AM • permalink

 

    1. #66 great comeback!

      -gustov_deleftUm, #66 was you, gustov. Or one of the voices in your head, anyway.

      Posted by TheRealBigAl on 2006 05 30 at 08:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gustov : re #36

      On the other side of the coin, prominent Christians within the parliament (both labor and liberal) are able to alter Australian law so that their religious beliefs are imposed on all Australians.  For example, the outlawing of gay marriage bill that was passed prior to the last election.

      I’m in partial agreement with you there. Yes, the banning was due to Religious Conservatism. I’m not sure it can be accurately described as a “change”, more a “clarification” of longstanding practice that had been called into question.

      That there is no equivalent form of partnership for same-sex couples is blatant discrimination.

      Worse, the whole situation is a mess. The Federal Government has the power to enact legislation governing Marriage – but arguably does not have the power to do the same for Civil Partnerships. Yet when the ACT government tried to introduce a “Civil Partnership” for couples same-sex or not, similar to the UK model, it was struck down as being “Marriage in all but name”.

      You can’t have it both ways. Either the Federal or the State and Territory Governments have the powers. That such an arrangement governing inheritance, property rights, insurance, next-of-kinship etc for purely secular reasons should exist is manifestly obvious.

      Worse, the situation’s a mess for people like me. Under the Marriage Act an (act of) Marriage between a Man and a Woman is the only kind allowed. But a (state of) marriage between any two people is fine, as long as the marriage was valid when contracted.

      Now according to the Health department, I’m female. I have to be, or I couldn’t have certain medical conditions I’m being treated for. Yet my partner is female too.

      People who are Intersexed, and thus neither wholly one thing nor another, have a problem. Uncertainty. They usually identify, usually strongly, as either M or F (not both), though there are exceptions. They should have a right to marry, but at the moment, that’s doubtful due to this poorly drafted legislation.

      Legality does not match Reality.

      Posted by Zoe Brain on 2006 05 30 at 08:56 AM • permalink

 

    1. On Crikey,Amir Butler says there is tremendous distrust of the government (Australian) among the Muslim Community…
      Why settle here then?

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 30 at 09:17 AM • permalink

 

    1. The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are just that – territories – not states and, even though they have been given by the Commonwealth a large measure of self-governance, they do not possess either the same powers as the states nor the same protections under the Constitution. The territories remain directly subject to the Commonwealth government and thus the Australian Parliament has power to override legislation in them that it does not possess over the states – which it quite legitimately did back in 1997 over the NT’s euthanasia law and more recently over the ACT’s civil partnerships proposal.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 09:40 AM • permalink

 

    1. #65- There’s nothing religious about my belief system, it adapts as situations change and new facts come to light; I try to be utterly rational and reasoned, the two trains of thought that led western civilisation out of the dark ages (a healthy dose of both in the ME wouldn’t go astray, and if it doesn’t work an equally generous dose of gamma radiation would be just ticketty-boo).

      About the only deity I ever give much thought to is the Buddah, and that’s only when I look at my profile in the mirror. The old bearded fart in the kaftan and sandals looks too much like a denizen of Byron Bay to me, most Hindu gods look like the result of a bad batch of clearlight blotters, the Aztec and Toltec boyos who bedeck terrible taco emporiums may provide inspiration for a new series of the X-Files but are less scary than the prospect of prime minister Bob Brown and the prophet that leads the ROP frankly resembles the limp-wristed lead in a rather camp Arabian Nights/Sinbad panto.

      I wouldn’t mind starting my own little corp-o-worship though; the ackers roll in, and tax free an’all. The Mormons have a good idea, but the marketing needs work. I’m thinking of the Church of Boonie and the Latter Day Boozehounds; we stagger from door to door with a couple of slabs, invite prospects to share a few tubes and promise they can chug 50 cans between Sydney and London if they have faith. If they reject the truth, we vomit on them.

      Any takers?

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 09:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. Habib,

      You’d better brush up on your religion 101 before you stake your claim as an expert on religion.

      The Buddha was not a deity – but then again that’s probably why you might like him…

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 09:52 AM • permalink

 

    1. Gustov, I am a Christian. I don’t support gay marriage (although I won’t try to cut your head off if you and your lover choose to do so). I don’t believe in sex outside of marriage, but I won’t honor kill your girlfriend if you do it.  I don’t like cartoons depicting Jesus in blasphemous way, but I won’t go out and burn down your neighborhood if you draw one.  The big difference between my viewpoint and the Islamist is I believe God doesn’t need my help, I need His. The Islamists evidently don’t give allah the same credit.

      Posted by Texas Bob on 2006 05 30 at 10:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. 26 evil Habib

      they’ve issued a fatwa banning porno as well, such as this wanton temptress.

      That BITCH!  I KNEW she was cheating on me!

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 10:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. 36 Leftist deGuft

      In the United States, the recent debates on Roe Vs Wade and Intelligent design are other examples.

      Who was it won those debates, Gusty?

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 10:50 AM • permalink

 

    1. #75, well said, Texas Bob.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 30 at 11:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. 42 Mark L

      I have often wondered what a dying athiest lefty thinks in the final moments on the deathbed.

      Probably pretty much the same assortment of stuff as a dying atheist conservative, I bet.  If it matters to you that much, I’ll tell you all about it in detail after we’re both dead, okay?

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 11:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. 55 Effing

      If I were convinced there were no God (a view that requires no less faith than Christianity) then the only logical conclusion I could come to is that nothing matters.

      If religious faith is the only thing between you and nihilism, then you have a problem.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 11:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. #77, Stoop Davy Dave:

      Who was it won those debates, Gusty?

      It’s not who won those debates, SDD.  It’s that people had the gall to even debate the matters.  You know, a form of crushing dissent…..simply by disagreeing with the likes of Gusty.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 30 at 11:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. 59 Fleety

      The same old story comes out again and again when atheists believe they are un-biased.

      Good, then you’ll have lots and lots of examples that you can point to, of atheists claiming to be “un-biased.” Maybe you should post them.

      61 Effing

      I couldn’t find anything on the site listing the ‘Great Atheists of History’ (e.g. Mao, Stalin

      Two words for ya:
      Pat Tillman

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 11:35 AM • permalink

 

    1. 81 TRJ

      It’s not who won those debates, SDD.  It’s that people had the gall to even debate the matters.  You know, a form of crushing dissent…..simply by disagreeing with the likes of Gust

      It IS who won those debates.  The policy outcomes of both of those issues favored the traditional American secular approach to government, that is, the alleged “theocrats”(*) lost, both times.  So if Gust is concerned that those people are gaining influence and power, in this decade or in this new century, he’s worried too much AND about the wrong things.
      .
      (* to adopt the overly dramatic terminology of the folks who worry about such things)

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 11:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. Stoop

      Religion is indeed the only thing between me and nihilism.

      If we just go back to the soil when we die, logically, what matters?

      Stoop, if you can explain, please be my guest. But please, no waffle, circular arguments, and get to the point.

      Had a look at the Pat Tillman site. Not sure what your point is. I was earlier making a point about the role of atheists in big government. How that relates to a young, dead and largely unfamous atheist soldier has missed me – can you perhaps explain.

      The only point I got from that site is that Pat’s brother seems to share his dead brother’s beliefs and understands the logical consequence of that belief – Pat has done nothing more than add to the soil.

      The logic I don’t understand is why you would bother to risk your life in the military if you think there is nothing beyond this life – seems like a pointless thing to do, unless you were doing it for the money (i.e. couldn’t get a better job) or you got some weird thrill from it.

      Posted by Effing & Blinding on 2006 05 30 at 11:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. 58 Happy Jolly Janice

      as an atheist whatever you say about morality is merely your opinion.  Since it’s merely your opinion there is no reason anyone who has a differing opinion should listen to you.  So go away and think about that, you poor sad person.

      Hmm.  And that makes his opinion different from yours … exactly how?

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 12:00 PM • permalink

 

    1. 84 Blinding

      If we just go back to the soil when we die, logically, what matters?

      Everything we do and say up UNTIL then matters.  Every kind and unkind deed, every brave and craven action, every smart and dumb move.  Actions have consequences, with or without invisible magical spirits decreeing it so.

      Stoop, if you can explain, please be my guest. But please, no waffle, circular arguments, and get to the point.

      Bite me.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 01:38 PM • permalink

 

    1. Some interesting old claims have resurfaced.

      A minor exception is re-marrying divorced couples who are rejected by their Church because, as divorcees, they are second-class and second-rate Christians and not entitled to the holy sacrament.  Catholics and Jews are the worst offenders for this kind of cruel discrimination

      I think that they are rejected from receiving this sacrament because they do not qualify for it. If they walked up to a church and simply filled out a form, and/or paid over some money for an indulgence, you’d have cause to complain that the Church was being hypocritical. Since the Church is being faithful to its theology, it is engaging in discrimination. Nice, and tactically amusing, but hardly an honest position.

      As for the use of the word ‘cruel’, I agree with Mark Steyn that, in a civilized society, words must have meaning. When a survivor from the massacre at Beslan referred to being frightened, and an English columnist refers to being ‘frightened’ of the re-election of George Bush, one of the two is cheapening the meaning of that word.

      Posted by Blue Hen on 2006 05 30 at 01:57 PM • permalink

 

    1. As for Zoe’s comments, you provided a laundry list of worthies that have been left out. Curiously, you referred to the number of participants as being two. Is this not also a problem? Are you not contributing to the discrimination of somebody, or rather, sombodies, when you decline to pull down this restriction? And that is exactly what that is. And, I doubt that it came from a secular viewpoint, but rather from those espousing Judeo-Christian principles, such as those who drafted the US constitution.

      I should note that the same Canadian court that found for same sex marriage there is now hearing just such a case.

      How exactly is this evidence that the eeeeeeevil theocrats, especially the Catholic Church, is ‘dominating’ anything?

      In short, I should have the choice of what my children will be exposed to, since the state requires me to send my children to school. By imposing secular values upon me and mine, AND requiring their attendance, the notion of tolerance of varying views and personal beliefs is a fiction.

      Posted by Blue Hen on 2006 05 30 at 02:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. Holy Office explains Christian theocracy:

      Orthodox
      For many years, American scholars believed the Orthodox were, like leprechauns, unicorns, and Eskimos, purely the product of the fanciful imaginations of medieval writers. Recent evidence leads us to tentatively conclude, however, that Eastern Orthodoxy may have somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million adherents. Protestants tend to see the Orthodox as “Catholics with beards,” while Catholics confess to a haunting sense that they are simply “Orthodox without beards.”

      Posted by 68W40 on 2006 05 30 at 02:25 PM • permalink

 

    1. The shrillness over at Larvatus Prodeo is most amusing. Check this bit of idiocy out:

      “There’s a lot more agreement, michael, between Islamists and conservative Christians, than meets the eye. It’s just a pity that secular rationality doesn’t stand somewhere in between this clash of minority civilisations, and speak loudly – halt, think again!”

      So, you see, even an issue having strictly to do with islam, such as the subject of the thread, is somehow the fault of christians, and if not, then christians, particularly CONSERVATIVE christians are just as bad and would do the same if not worse, if only given half a chance….blah, blah, blah…….

      Posted by JerryS on 2006 05 30 at 02:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. Conversations about atheism and religion aside, we will see what the Islamists have to say ten years hence when a generation of their young ignoramuses are suffering from unprecedented levels of HIV and STDs.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 30 at 04:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. “I bleme Booosh!”
      That’s what they’ll be saying.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 30 at 04:21 PM • permalink

 

    1. RebeccaH, thanks for bring the thread back to topic. However, can I just briefly make a point about Judaism and the concept of Deity (without pontificating)?

      Please jump in and disagree, or lambast me if I get something wrong—remembering all belief systems are very personal, individual things—even when practiced in congregation.

      So, “Baruch Atah Who…?” is the question for Jews, I think. There is an old joke:

      “Q: What do you call a Jew who doesn’t believe in God? A: A Jew.”

      On a theological basis, one of the differences between Judaism (as a religion) and Christianity is that belief is extremely important in Christianity. One must BELIEVE to participate in the religion, and that’s about all one need do. Moral behaviour is preferred, of course, but one who behaves immorally but than repents and comes to BELIEVE is forgiven and accepted. Christianity thus modelled itself as a religion for the world, where anyone can join by professing BELIEF.

      Belief, however, is almost irrelevant to Judaism. Abraham is not told to BELIEVE in God, but to walk with God. What is important to Judaism is action, not belief. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is viewed as sinful (or at best, ambiguous) in Christianity; but in Judaism, doing the right things for the wrong reasons still means you’ve done the right things. Thus, being Jewish is not about believing in God, but about doing the right things. (I decline to get into the discussion of what the “right” things are, since different sects of Judaism have different thoughts on this issue.)

      So, in general, formulations of Jewish principles of faith do not require a belief in God (despite what one might read into Judaism’s paramount prayer, the Shema). In many modern movements in Judaism, rabbis have generally considered the behavior of a Jew to be the determining factor in whether or not one is considered an adherent of Judaism.

      It is possible for a Jew to strictly practice Judaism as a faith, while at the same time being an agnostic or even an atheist. It is also worth noting that Reconstructionism, for example, does not require any belief in a deity, and that certain popular Reform prayer books, such as Gates of Prayer, offer some services without mention of God.

      Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, first Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in pre-state Israel, held that atheists were not actually denying God: rather, they were denying one of man’s many images of God. Since any man-made image of God can be considered an idol, Kook held that, in practice, one could consider atheists as helping true religion burn away false images of God, thus in the end serving the purpose of true monotheism.

      Ok, have at me, and I hope I have not offended.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 05:16 PM • permalink

 

    1. Oh, and for the record, I believe in the Deity in the same way I believe in quantum physics. In fact—to me there really is no difference between me and the mouse button except I can click it and it can only be clicked.

      But that is a big difference—my clicking or not clicking can be an act of faith, a “sin” or a good deed, or utterly meaningless.

      I think the universe is just grand! Don’t you?

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 05:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’m hoping I can serve a bit as the devil’s advocate here, or perhaps operate with the tongue planted in cheeck regarding so-called sex education.

      When did out of wedlock births and sexually transmitted diseases, including herpes and HIV, explosively grow out of proportion to the prevailing levels?

      Before widespread adoption of sex education in public schools, or after?

      How many millenia did mankind propagate before discovering the “need” to add the art and craft of procreation to the mandatory educational curriculum of government-run schools?

      If it’s a “good thing” that public schools instruct in the topic of sex education, what measurable outcomes demonstrate this to be the case?

      Posted by Forbes on 2006 05 30 at 06:07 PM • permalink

 

    1. #93, Mental Floss, you would make a great Buddhist.  You just explained the essence of Buddhism.

      #95, Forbes, I’m not sure which side of your question you find yourself on, and I can’t speak for others.  All I can say about sex education in public schools (which didn’t exist except as a cursory health class when I went to high school) is this:  my best friend in high school asked me, at the age of sixteen, whether it was possible to get pregnant merely by lying on the back seat of a car and kissing a boy.  No actual sex, mind you.  Just necking.  If ever there was a reason to have sex education in public schools, that’s it.

      Fortunately, having had slightly more liberal parents and an acquaintance with the habits of dogs and farm animals, I knew the answer.  Just barely.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 30 at 07:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. #74- I think you’ll find Buddhists regard the Buddster as a deity, even if you don’t. If I was going to adopt a religion, it’d be a toss-up between voodoo and snake handling; I wouldn’t mind a copule of compliant zombies, and rattlesnake juggling would be a killer schtick for busking- any tight prick who didn’t cough up would find some fangs in his pencil neck.

      I left out Aboriginal, Islander and African deities, as they’re mainly a bit gay; some reptile that looks like the Sydney mardi gras parade and scrawny hottentots with perpetual stiffies don’t float my boat.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 07:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. #56
      “An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.”

      Zounds Zoidberg!
      That atheist creed sounds like a parody of a parody – sort of like the atheist Desiderata. It reeks with religious sentiment, only of the socialist utopian kind of religious fervour so beloved of Leftists.

      Here’s an adage you might consider:
      you can take the man out of the religion but you can’t take the religion out of the man

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 07:43 PM • permalink

 

    1. I guess it all depends on what you (or Buddhists) mean by “deity” doesn’t it, Habid, but if you make a connection between “deity” and “god”, then the Buddha wasn’t a god.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 08:31 PM • permalink

 

    1. RebeccaH, that might explain the extraordinary number of “JuBu”s

      Sort of a “One God Clapping” koan…lol.

      (wow, “koan”, “cohen”—coincidence?)

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 08:47 PM • permalink

 

    1. My Mother is Jewish, my Father was Irish—which might explain the incredible guilt I feel about the sad state of my liver.

      Kidding aside, Mum was a Lab Tech for an OB-GYN, and a very practical woman. I was about 12 when while waiting in her office for a ride home, she moved away from the microscope and invited me to have a look.

      What I saw scared me shitless: a vast collection of barbed, fanged, whip-tailed monstrosities roiling in mass of tearing, rending frenzy.

      I said, “Wow, this person must be really sick!”

      “No”, said she, “This is a slide taken from perfectly healthy vagina. Here, have a look at this one if you really want to see something”.

      Thus did my “sex education” commence.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 09:02 PM • permalink

 

    1. For the record, Bhuddism is a philosophy, not a religion.

      Posted by Daniel San on 2006 05 30 at 09:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. Hi MentalFloss,

      Dismissing the Shema would, by any measure, represent a radical reinterpretation of Judaism.

      I read the Straight Dope mailbag, too, but what is presented is an idiosyncratic – if well-presented – view of Judaism from an “avowed agnostic”. Of course one can be Jewish “ethnically” and thus qualify as an “atheistic Jew” in that sense. But in the religious sense, Godless Judaism is a non-sequitur. However, just like uber-liberal Christians, uber-liberal Reformed Jews may have no real commitment to the the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but realistically they have departed from the faith of their fathers.

      Belief as mere “mental assent” rather than trust or commitment, is not the teaching of Christianity or its scriptures. That kind of “faith” is worthless and condemned in the NT. Christians, no less than the Jewish people of the OT are told to “walk” in step with their God for “faith without works is dead”. The term “walking” implies faith in action.

      I enjoyed your post, but still think it is theologically dubious.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 09:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. #102

      I was waiting for someone to say that.

      While I don’t necesarily disagree, there is much debate about whether Buddhism constitutes either a) a philosophy, or b) a religion, or c) a combination of both – even among Buddhists.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 09:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. Bilious / 38

      The underlying reason why Christianity is on the radar for lefties is their cultural and racial self-absorption.

      That plus cowardice.  Christians make a big point about not believing in payback.  Muslims however do not.

      Young / 46

      Just like Jefferson considered “All men are created equal” did not apply to black people?

      It’s kind of open to question whether he believed exactly that or not.  But even if he didn’t believe it, he sure as hell let it get written into the record that all men are created equal, and ever since his time, us Americans have done a continuously- improving job of holding ourselves to that ideal.  And had he not come along in history when he did, and not said what he said, then we wouldn’t even HAVE that ideal. So whoever wants to call him out about it, they’d better consider the alternative.  A non- post- Jeffersonian universe has no chance of being an improvement over this one.

      Posted by Huck Foley on 2006 05 30 at 09:13 PM • permalink

 

    1. MentalFloss / 93

      Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, first Chief Rabbi of the Jewish community in pre-state Israel, held that atheists were not actually denying God: rather, they were denying one of man’s many images of God.

      I feel bad about this but I still have to say it:  Rabbi Kook is wrong.  He’s obviously kinder than me and very likely much smarter than me, and still wrong.  We, or at least I, actually do deny God: that is, we don’t believe in magic, of any kind.
      Not speaking for all atheists, me, but not keeping quiet this time either.

      Posted by Huck Foley on 2006 05 30 at 09:32 PM • permalink

 

    1. Well since MarkL has pontificated that non-belief (the church of don’t know, don’t care) is in fact a belief, I might as well join something. The Big Bud looks good, but the clothes are so 60s, so it’s gotta be Habib’s Sect Of The Slab. Can Stoop write the charter? He’s got all bases covered.

      Posted by Henry boy on 2006 05 30 at 09:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. #100, exactly, MF.  There have been reams written about why so many Jews turn to Buddhism, and I think you expertly outlined the affinities.

      As for the “deity” thing, there are many buddhas, and there is no adequate translation in western languages for what they actually are.  Gods, they are not, and Gautama Buddha (the original one) expressly denied that he was divine.  The worship of Buddhist deities is more an expression of ancient Asian culture than it is of classical Buddhism.  Sort of like Christians whose prayers to God are like requests to Santa Claus.

      And here I’ve gone off topic.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 30 at 09:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Mentalfloss,

      I find a lot of what you write very interesting.  I’m especially intrigued by your previous comment that you majored in Ancient Near East history.  It’s a hobby of mine, one I wished I had studied in college.

      You wrote:

      On a theological basis, one of the differences between Judaism (as a religion) and Christianity is that belief is extremely important in Christianity. One must BELIEVE to participate in the religion, and that’s about all one need do. Moral behaviour is preferred, of course, but one who behaves immorally but than repents and comes to BELIEVE is forgiven and accepted. Christianity thus modelled itself as a religion for the world, where anyone can join by professing BELIEF.

      I suppose it depends on what brand of Christianity you’re looking at.  For many charismatic and fundamental churches, you can only reach heaven if you’re born again.  This requires yes, a strong and sincere belief in God and Jesus.  But it also requires leading a “good life”, which I suppose is one with as few sins as possible.

      My mother is a born again Christian.  As is my sister.  My older brother.  And my younger brother.  So I tend to get the “word of God” spoken to me a great deal at family functions.  Which is OK I guess.

      But I really haven’t a clue whether there is a God or not.  For some reason I feel that maybe if I read more Ancient Near East history and get a handle on the neolithic period stuff, maybe I’ll figure it out.  The only thing I’ve figured out so far is man probably started growing wheat so he could make more beer.  Of course, that’s probably a religion of a sort.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 05 30 at 10:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Getting back to Gustov #54

      Despite the overwhelming support for Euthanasia, a private members bill was successfully passed through both houses of parliament designed to outlaw the act.

      Your comment is either ignorant or deluded. Firstly, you misunderstand what representative democracy means.

      Our party system of representative democratic government operates not through newspaper polls, talk-back radio shows, letters-to-the-editor, public opinion surveys, or protest marches (though all have their place as a means of free expression in our society) but through the ballot box every three years. This may be a less than ideal situation but anything else is impractical. You must know Churchill’s famous quip: Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.

      Members of Parliament are elected by the voters to serve as their representative and to exercise voting rights in making laws. No one member can vote in accordance with the personal wishes of every individual elector, but electors who are unhappy with their representative can vote against him at the next election. This is what is meant by representative democracy, not that members must be beholden to public opinion as the bottom line, but that he “stands in” for the people of his electorate, always knowing that if he does not perform appropriately he can be voted out at the next election.

      Public opinion is notoriously fickle; and public opinion surveys are based on such small samples that they cannot be considered authoritative. The very form of the questions asked often dictates the kind of responses obtained. Only the vote of all electors at the ballot box counts.

      There has been NO overwhelming support for euthanasia demonstrated through the ballot box, before, or in the decade since that decision.

      The supposed “overwhelming support” for euthanasia you allude to is a figment of your imagination. Since the Parliament of Australia voted 88-35 in the House of Reps and 38-33 in the Senate to oppose euthanasia, all the polls that count have seen the return of the Liberal-National Coalition at each subsequent election. This, despite newspaper polls, survey and commentators proclaiming they were out of favour with the electorate as a whole. In fact, no pro-euthanasia bill has been successfully passed in any parliament in Australia, either federally or in the Labor-dominated States.

      Your link to the Australian Humanists proclaims:
      In the meantime supporters of voluntary euthanasia can work for the repeal of the Andrews Bill. They can call for a referendum on the subject. They can also lobby the six State Parliaments to pass legislation similar to that enacted in the Northern Territory – the Federal Parliament cannot override State legislation in the way it can override Territory legislation. Even if only one State moved in this way then this would be a great step forward.

      Humanists, like Christians can exercise their vote in accordance with their beliefs and worldviews. The casting of votes by this exceedingly small but noisy pressure group obviously has not affected the outcome of federal elections since 1997, nor has it resulted in legalisation in favour of euthanasia in any State.

      No such legislation has been passed in the Australian parliament or any State parliaments in the last 10 years. Period.

      According to Gustov’s logic, in 1997, 126 members of the federal parliament were motivated by their religious views in voting for a bill prohibiting euthanasia, while only 68 were free of such “evil” beliefs. Sorry, that’s democracy.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 10:03 PM • permalink

 

    1. Tertius, your points are well taken. In posting as I did, my intent was to add some disputatious commentary to the discussion—without foisting my personal beliefs in any revelatory fashion.

      That having been said, when I recite the Shema, it is not a sea cucumber, a wave function (though wave/partical duality is, for me, a wonderful example of the immanent yet transcendent nature of deity), a place or a person (or entity) to whom/which I address myself and my faith—it is to “god-everywhere”.

      I guess that makes me a pantheist, but no less a Jew.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 10:09 PM • permalink

 

    1. #110- that whole tawdry exercise was a classic piece of parliamentary pandering and ostrich impersonation; people on their last legs get a help-along all the time, usually by increasing dosage of pain blockers until they stop breathing. The only point of formalising this is to limit the liability of sawbones to prosecution/civil action for doing the right thing. I’ve had to make the hard decision for two very old hounds that were like family to us in the last twelve months, and it’s been the hardest decision I’ve ever made. I’d like to be able to do likewise for myself if I’m totally kippered, without some pompous, god-bothering turd telling me I’m off to the hot place for such selfishness, and anyone who helps me out should be banged up with perverts.
      Pontificate all you like- I think you’ll find the vast majority of Australian are pragmatic enough to want the right to pop their clogs when they choose, with some dignity rather than suffer agony to plactate some pack of pricks with faces like a cats arse.
      Why do you think this has never been put to a referendum? It illustrates the failure of party democracy, where large parties are beholden to small, noisy and marginal-seat populating dingbats.
      Bring on a canton-based system anytime.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 10:30 PM • permalink

 

    1. Huck, I follow what you are saying, but disagree with the “magic” part. I see “magic” everywhere, though I interpret it as “phenomena” and yet remain in awe.

      I remember the first time I saw a meniscus on a full glass of water—so, maybe it didn’t rate as a religous experience, but once I learned about surface tension and molecular bonds, I was even more amazed and awestruck. I can’t help it, rationality does not exclude spirituality in my world view.

      wronwright, I concur with you in every respect, and admit that after much study and soul searching—I DON’T HAVE A CLUE EITHER.

      And my knowledge of the New Testament and Christianity is far to sketchy for me to have made the broad generalisation in my original post.

      Was it Abelard who said “I doubt so that I might believe?”

      Doubt is useful. We can doubt destructively or constructively and doubt does not negate belief. To believe in something is not to not doubt it.

      It seems paradoxical to say that you believe in something that you doubt, but differing degrees of doubt allow for a healthy sort of doubt which results in a deeper living in response to whatever part universe you happen to encounter during your existence.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 30 at 10:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. Wrightwrong / 109

      My mother is a born again Christian.  As is my sister.  My older brother.  And my younger brother.  So I tend to get the “word of God” spoken to me a great deal at family functions.  Which is OK I guess.

      There’s no smooth way around it, whether or not it’s OK.  Hurting their feelings or alienating them would not help.  Finding out they’re wrong isn’t going to help them either, but they are wrong.
      Them being wrong isn’t the problem, any more than you being right is the solution.
      Fundamentalism itself is the problem.

      But I really haven’t a clue whether there is a God or not.  For some reason I feel that maybe if I read more Ancient Near East history and get a handle on the neolithic period stuff, maybe I’ll figure it out.

      But then if the Odinists turn out to be right, you’ll have screwed yourself.

      The only thing I’ve figured out so far is man probably started growing wheat so he could make more beer.  Of course, that’s probably a religion of a sort.

      There is a problem, but religion, itself, ain’t it.
      Fundamentalism is the problem.
      All fundamentalisms are probably equally wrong, philosophically, but lately, Islamic fundamentalism is turning out to be way more wrong, in practical terms, than Judeo OR Christian fundamentalism.
      Islamist fundamentalism is more wrong than competing philosophical systems of wrongitude, if only by dint of being more aggressively wrong.
      But.
      There are a whole lot of gods that you probably don’t believe in, right?  Vishnu, Wotan, Pan, et al, they’re just myths and legends, right?  So if you think about your presumably very good reasons for not believing in THOSE gods, for too long, watch out, you might end up not believing in any of them.

      Posted by Huck Foley on 2006 05 30 at 10:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. #101
      It does make you a pantheist and I have no doubt you identify yourself as Jewish; whether it has anything to do with the worship of YHWH (sorry) as set forth in the Jewish scriptures is another matter. But, hey, to each his own.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 10:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Fortunately, having had slightly more liberal parents and an acquaintance with the habits of dogs and farm animals, I knew the answer.  Just barely.

      RebeccaH — So, um, what is the answer?

      Hey, they have that digital censoring crap on Japanese subway porn, what they hell do I know?

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 30 at 10:42 PM • permalink

 

    1. Richard m, the answer is that it takes a little more than furtive fumbling and a kiss.  Either it’s that, or the answer is forty two.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 30 at 10:49 PM • permalink

 

    1. I’ve always believed that faith that has been questioned and found sufficient is far stronger than faith that has never been doubted at all.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 05 30 at 10:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. #112
      To summarise your post: You believe in euthanasia, though you don’t distinguish between its voluntary and non-voluntary forms.

      OK, others disagree. What are you going to do, kill them?

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 10:52 PM • permalink

 

    1. #114 Huck —

      I don’t agree with you about fundamentalist Christianity.  Almost every fundamentalist Christian I’ve met were very good people who would give you the shirt off their back if you were in need.  Most of the criticism I’ve read about fundamentalists appear to come from people who do not understand what or where their beliefs come from.  Some of it is outright bigotry.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 05 30 at 10:58 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Norse gods are all too much like outlaw bikers to me- a bit hard to take seriously some obese, middle-aged fart with a ponytail. I reckon you could score some shit-hot crank off them though.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 30 at 10:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. Mentalfloss / 113

      disagree with the “magic” part. I see “magic” everywhere, though I interpret it as “phenomena” and yet remain in awe.

      I don’t claim that this is not an awesome universe.  It’s awesomely old, complex, and dynamic.  It produces incredible phenomena all the time, with way much of it surpassing my understanding in a big way.  It’s awesome no matter what, maybe inescapably so.
      That’s not the same as claiming that it has a personality, or an agenda, or a dress code.  Religion is the process of claiming that the awesome universe has those things, and that they oddly enough happen to match up with the personality, agenda, and dress code as the purveyors of those religions.
      … I’m sorry, what was the question? … oh! …
      If there’s an important distinction to be made between “magic” and “the supernatural” then here’s your chance to make it.

      Posted by Huck Foley on 2006 05 30 at 10:59 PM • permalink

 

    1. #112
      I’d like to be able to do likewise for myself if I’m totally kippered, without some pompous, god-bothering turd telling me I’m off to the hot place for such selfishness.

      The reason “god-bothering turds” as you so charitably put it, have grave concerns about euthanasia has nothing to do with “hot places” but from alarm at the danger of the slippery slope in which fundamental respect for life and the protection of the weak are eroded into political and personal expediency. Your recall of enforced euthanasia in Nazi Germany must have taken a holiday from reality.

      You disappoint me Habid, with the increasingly rabid nature of your posts.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 11:05 PM • permalink

 

    1. Wrightwrong / 120

      I don’t agree with you about fundamentalist Christianity.  Almost every fundamentalist Christian I’ve met were very good people who would give you the shirt off their back if you were in need.

      FundamentalISTs aren’t the problem.
      FundamentalISM is the problem.
      There are very likely a lot of fundamentalist Jews and even fundamentalist Mohammedans or even NONfundamentalist Christians and even conceivably nontheistic persons who on any given day might give you any given shirt, if they happen to meet up with you under the right circumstances.  I ain’t ruling out human decency; and I especially ain’t ruling out any religious tradition having a good record OF it; although, admittedly, I am ruling out the idea of any particular religion having an exclusive monopoly on it.

      Most of the criticism I’ve read about fundamentalists appear to come from people who do not understand what or where their beliefs come from.  Some of it is outright bigotry.

      Agreed.  Thing is, bigotry builds walls.  Other thing is, fundamentalism builds bigotries, from without and from within.

      Posted by Huck Foley on 2006 05 30 at 11:22 PM • permalink

 

    1. #77 Good point, though I understand that North Dakota has recently imposed some fairly severe restrictions on obtaining an abortion.

      #75 Texas Bob.  I’m pleased that you wouldn’t resort to violence in the event that your beliefs were contradicted.  I hope that you would also appreciate that a majority of Muslims feel the same way.

      Posted by gustov_deleft on 2006 05 30 at 11:24 PM • permalink

 

    1. Sex & religion. What was I thinking? Blair must be going for the 1k comment milestone. I feel so… so used…

      Anyway, comment 123 has Nazi in it, so we’re finished.

      Posted by Henry boy on 2006 05 30 at 11:29 PM • permalink

 

    1. Huck Foley, Habid … and others

      Suddenly the comments section of Tim Blair’s blog is taking on the flavour of an atheist bleat sheet. I am under no illusions that many who post here are either agnostics or atheists, but many others hold a range of religious views; indeed many are Christians. However, most posters here, apart from trolls, share a common concern with the detrimental effects of liberal bias in the media, academia and education and the folly and dangers of Leftist ideology along with its self-destructive embrace of the seemingly opposite ideology of Islamism.

      While there is a link between conservatism in religion and conservatism in politics, the same close link does not exist with religion and libertarianism; so all you right-leaning atheist and agnostic libertarians will find themselves in disagreement at times with religious moral and social conservatives here.  But let’s keep our eyes on the main game. One can disagree vigorously with those who have opposing beliefs while still respecting them as persons.

      The question of the nature and existence of God is not the purpose of this blog. Vicious attacks on God rather than upon extremists who take the name of their God in vain will soon cause blog comments to degenerate into the kind of self-obsessed hate-filled screeds that appear on so many extremist religious AND atheist, infidel and “rationalist” web sites.  If you hate God so much, don’t bring your emotional burdens here. If you hate those who don’t serve your God, pull your head in. Agree to disagree and stand with those who share the broader “classical liberal” or conservative worldviews and who oppose those ideologies that would undermine the freedom and liberty of our Western democracy and its classical and Judeo-Christian heritage.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 11:41 PM • permalink

 

    1. That’s not the same as claiming that it [the universe] has a personality, or an agenda, or a dress code.  Religion is the process of claiming that the awesome universe has those things, and that they oddly enough happen to match up with the personality, agenda, and dress code as the purveyors of those religions.
      … I’m sorry, what was the question? … oh! …

      I’m sorry, too that you won’t stop with the childish and ignorant rants about religion. Ok? Enough, now… with the “awesome universe” thing, too.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 30 at 11:53 PM • permalink

 

    1. Tertius / 127

      While there is a link between conservatism in religion and conservatism in politics, the same close link does not exist with religion and libertarianism; so all you right-leaning atheist and agnostic libertarians will find themselves in disagreement at times with religious moral and social conservatives here.

      Yeah, so?  Most of the religious moral and social conservatives here have more than held up their own end of the humorosity and insightfulacallit of this here blog here.  Not to mention being MOST LIKELY more tolerant of opinional differentiation than their leftizoid counterparts would be.  If they (our hosts and resident critics) are part of the cost of admission, they’re also a part of the entertainment value.  I have no complaint.

      But let’s keep our eyes on the main game. One can disagree vigorously with those who have opposing beliefs while still respecting them as persons.

      Vehemently disagreed but go ahead.

      The question of the nature and existence of God is not the purpose of this blog. Vicious attacks on God rather than upon extremists who take the name of their God in vain will soon cause blog comments to degenerate into the kind of self-obsessed hate-filled screeds that appear on so many extremist religious AND atheist, infidel and “rationalist” web sites.  If you hate God so much, don’t bring your emotional burdens here.

      If hatred of God is the problem, then … wait, what were you saying?

      If you hate those who don’t serve your God, pull your head in. Agree to disagree and stand with those who share the broader “classical liberal” or conservative worldviews and who oppose those ideologies that would undermine the freedom and liberty of our Western democracy and its classical and Judeo-Christian heritage.

      Ha!  I thought we had a problem, but when it came time to identify the problem, I couldn’t!  Well written!

      Posted by Huck Foley on 2006 05 31 at 12:01 AM • permalink

 

    1. #123- what part of voluntary don’t you understand?

      I invoke Godwins Law, so sucks and big jobs to you.

      No-one is talking about compulsory euthenasia; you can set up a defacto status in your will (I have) with a no resusitation clause. All anyone wants is the right to be switched off when you’ve cashed your chips and not hang around like a fart in a phonebox, tying up a hospital bed and either utterly beyond concious thought or in great pain.

      No-one has the right to rob you of that- whose carcass is it? I turn quite nasty when people start spouting about “protecting the powerless” etc when they really are pushing their own beliefs and agendas on others, when it’s none of their bloody business.

      Why should a quack be hauled up in front of the beak for helping some poor sod kark it when they are totally buggered and specifically request that assistance? I’d use a shotgun personally, but JWH swiped them all to improve the efficiency of PNG’s raskols and their wealth redistribution activities. A few extra grams of morphine’s a lot less messy.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 31 at 12:42 AM • permalink

 

    1. O/T

      There is a protest in the ITEE (Information Technology and Electrical Engineering) building of UQ about the Scram Jet.

      Some well-dressed people* are in the corridor filming around the Boeing display….

      er, the scramjet is on another campus, apparently they are in the wrong place. Scram jet = rocket science.

      Watch the news tonight to see more!

      *ie: not students and definitely lost/misplaced.

      Posted by kae on 2006 05 31 at 01:08 AM • permalink

 

    1. #131
      Maybe it’s got something to do with this Alternative ‘Old News’

      Posted by kae on 2006 05 31 at 01:11 AM • permalink

 

    1. Good one Tim!

      Posted by Brian on 2006 05 31 at 01:16 AM • permalink

 

    1. #120 You must move in different circles from me, wronwright. The ones I know (listen to ‘To Every Man an Answer,’ the apologetics program of the fastest growing Fundamentalist religion in the US, for example) order spouses to leave their mates if the mates persist in refusing to believe in, for example, the efficacy of prayer.

      They also believe that disease is caused by demons and that all Buddhists are going to burn in hell forever.

      They can keep their fuckin’ shirts.

      Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 05 31 at 01:43 AM • permalink

 

    1. This is one thread on which I regret ever having posted.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 31 at 01:51 AM • permalink

 

    1. #130
      I invoke Godwins Law, so sucks and big jobs to you.

      Invoke away, if it makes you feel better.

      This is what you say now:

      No-one is talking about compulsory euthenasia; you can set up a defacto status in your will (I have) with a no resusitation clause. All anyone wants is the right to be switched off when you’ve cashed your chips and not hang around like a fart in a phonebox, tying up a hospital bed and either utterly beyond concious thought or in great pain.

      This is what you said in an earlier post #112:
      people on their last legs get a help-along all the time, usually by increasing dosage of pain blockers until they stop breathing. The only point of formalising this is to limit the liability of sawbones to prosecution/civil action for doing the right thing. I’ve had to make the hard decision for two very old hounds that were like family to us in the last twelve months, and it’s been the hardest decision I’ve ever made.

      You claim that you had to make “the hard decision for two very old hounds” – dogs, you mean? So from your dogs’ point-of-view you were engaged in involuntary euthanasia, or did they specify it in their wills?

      Seriously, What has this to do with the 1997 legislation about euthanasia of people?There is no debate here about animal euthanasia; that’s another issue altogether – prior to Peter Singer it has never even been considered a serious moral issue. Are you a vegetarian, then? Why are you equating human life with that of an animal? I too am fond of my dogs and I would hate to be placed in the position of having them euthanised, but much as I “love” my dogs I don’t consider them to share the intrinsic value of a human life.

      Secondly, You don’t seem to understand the definition of euthanasia: What you describe about the action of the “sawbones” in giving increasing doese of pain blockers does not constitute euthansia. Surely you realise that. There is no law against an easeful death.You have a very flexible definition of the concept. It is very difficult deciding exactly when someone who is not actually dead has really “cashed their chips”. A “no-resuscitation” clause is not euthanasia. (I assume you are referring to life support systems are turned off when you are clinically brain-dead.) It’s called letting nature take its course.

      Have you really considered all the issues involved in the debate or are you going to just keep firing from the hip, Habid?

      PSs Just this last week, my wife and I have sat beside the bedside of her brother as he succumbed to cancer. He was a fighter to the end but was given very strong doses of morphine to ease the pain. He died in his sleep, quite peacefully. Are you going to invoke another Internet law because I have brought up my brother-in-law’s death in this discussion?

      Hounds? Please.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 31 at 02:03 AM • permalink

 

    1. I lived with my dogs from pups to 18 yrs old, and prefered their company to the vast majority of humans; I had to do like you with my dad a couple of years ago. I think you find that death caused by respitory failure due to an overdose of analgesic is euthanasia, not natural causes. Dogs are thinking, feeling creatures who may not have full conciousness but nonetheless have worth, particularly to their adoptive families. We bump them off when their lives are no longer of quality, yet insist on making humans linger on as long as possible due to bizarre sanctity beliefs.
      I find the whole argument illogical, and anti-euthenasia activists insensitive and intrusive. No-one’s making you take part, so mind your own bloody business. And spell my name correctly.

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 31 at 03:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. I find the whole argument illogical, and anti-euthenasia activists insensitive and intrusive. No-one’s making you take part, so mind your own bloody business. And spell my name correctly

      You,in turn could reciprocate by spelling euthanasia correctly. See how childish this becomes.

      May I remind you that it is you who comes across as an offensive and insensitive bigot with comments like:
      “pompous, god-bothering turd”
      “pack of pricks with faces like a cats arse”
      “some farcial dog and pony show to reasure them that they won’t be just compost when they kark”
      “The old bearded fart in the kaftan and sandals”

      A really, sensitive, tolerant chap, you are.

      And examine the kind of logic you employ here:
      1.No-one’s making you take part
      2.so mind your own bloody business

      Let me get this straight: No one is making me take part in this exchange (true) so therefore I have no right to part in this exchange. That’s the kind of logic that forms the basis of your worldview? Smacks of Islamofascism to me, Habib…

      What it translates as is this: No one has a right to disagree with me because by disagreeing with me they are scum(or some other more appropriate term from your collection of sleazy putdowns.)

      Habib, I don’t need your permission to post here.

      And the Buddha was still not a god.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 31 at 03:53 AM • permalink

 

    1. Tertius, reading your posts here today I went from respect to admiration to agreement in whole to agreement in principle to disagreement to concern to shock and finally, pity.

      What brought me to this last was this statement “ Enough, now… with the “awesome universe” thing, too.”

      How can you separate God from His creation? And who are you to dictate to others?

      How does one find anything un-miraculous and mundane about creation—whether you believe it have occured ex nihilo 5766 years ago with “Fiat Lux!”, or from nucleosynthesis of the quark-gluon plasma (1.37 × 10¹º) years ago?

      Those who believe in God yet reject the world might as well not be alive.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 31 at 04:06 AM • permalink

 

    1. I’m not refering to this exchange, I’m talking about the issue of voluntary euthanasia; no one wants it to be compulsory, they want the right to make their own choice, at a time of their choice.

      The reason this matter has never been put to a referendum is that both sides of government know full well that it would get up, and upset a number of small, noisy and powerful interst groups.

      Give me a good reason based on logic, compassion, reason or concern as to why anyone, or government, has the right to dicatate to an individual as to how they pop their clogs when they are suffering great pain. And don’t give me any of that palliative care bollocks either- one of my best friends is an ICU specialist and deals with this every day, and it doesn’t work.

      All most people want is for government and those who think they know what’s right for everyone else to fuck off and mind their own business; not too much to ask in my books.

      I await your reason with baited breath (and this is now completely O/T, so it’s the last I’ll have to say on the matter).

      Posted by Habib on 2006 05 31 at 04:19 AM • permalink

 

    1. MentalFloss,
      How can you separate God from His creation? And who are you to dictate to others?
      How does one find anything un-miraculous and mundane about creation

      There is nothing mundane or unmiraculous about creation and no one with a religious perspective would make such a claim, least of all me.

      I believe you have not understood the context of my remark in reply to Huck Foley. In his posts he posits an atheistic view – against the “supernatural” and “magic” – yet he uses a word “awesome” which has religious roots to describe the universe. Perhaps Huck meant the word in the modern colloquial sense of “excellent” or “wonderful” or “amazing” but its original sense referred to “dread mixed with veneration” in referring to God. I made play on this use of awesome because Huck clearly does not express dread mixed with veneration of God. He specifically says the universe has no “personality, or an agenda, or a dress code” yet it remains an “awesome” universe.  He then goes on to state that “Religion is the process of claiming that the awesome universe has those things, and that they oddly enough happen to match up with the personality, agenda, and dress code as the purveyors of those religions.” Thereby confounding the play on awesome while denying awesomeness.

      Of course there is no “creation” without “a creator”; it just is, in and of itself, there. And there is no awe, because whence comes awe and what evolutionary purpose does it have in a materialist clockwork universe?

      As to your point about seperating God from his creation: The three great monotheistic religions all posit very strongly that God is separate from his creation, but that as he is responsible for that creation, it is “very good”. At the same time of course Christianity for example does claim that God is both transcendent and immanent in the creation. Eastern religions, on the other hand, tend to posit, not so much a personal transcendent God but a totally immanent one – thus pantheism. Perhaps this is closer to your position.

      In the Christian Greek texts of course there are several important shades of meaning of “kosmos” – “world”: some which have positive and some negative connotations. All God’s creation is good but there is a sense in which the world has also been infected by evil.

      I am not dictating anything to others. What my comment post was trying to do was make the kind of verbal explosion so beloved of commentators here that this talk of religious issues was not appropriate on this forum – which by the way this reply isn’t either but it is a way I can respond to your comments.

      Posted by tertius on 2006 05 31 at 05:10 AM • permalink

 

    1. The folly of the left and those in the media who lean that way is such that it supports this by reducing the resolve of our countries to confront it. I have said before that you need to be tough to win in the new world of thugs. Follow the link for some more graphic evidence.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2006 05 31 at 06:55 AM • permalink

 

    1. Re: Sex education
      It should be single sex.  My sons were hideously embarrassed to have listen to talk about erections and wet dreams etc when there were GIRLS in the room.  These are boys whose father started talking to them about sex as soon as they started asking any questions on topic – probably around 5.  Also, on average boys and girls don’t begin to mature sexually at the same age so standardising the curriculum so boys and girls both get sex education at roughly the same age is just plain wrong-headed.

      On the basis that sex is about relationships just as much as it is about mechanics and disease prevention:

      1. It should include information about the harmful psychological effects of having multiple sex partners.

      2. It probably wouldn’t hurt to include information about the high failure rate of marriages between men and women who’ve had a de facto relationship with some fellow(s) other than the one they married.  As far as I know the data isn’t in yet for marriages where the man had a de facto wife, or wives, before.

      Re: Euthanasia
      Finally someone has done some research to show that the emotional and psychological effects on the participating physician can be substantial.

      I’ve never had any sympathy for people who think that one segment of the population should be required to brutalise themselves by murdering members of another segment of the population just because the latter group are too scared/queasy to murder themselves or want an open casket or don’t want one of the Ted Bundys of the world to do the job.

      Re: #85, SDD
      that makes his opinion different from yours … exactly how?

      Wrong question.  I’ve been an atheist.  It was a long time ago but I remember very clearly how, in those days, I decided between right and wrong.  Partly it was childhood training.  Partly it was social & educational indoctrination.  The rest was my own choice based on my own opinions (based on the previously mentioned factors) about what would serve me best, +/- the hard lessons of experience.  So back then, when I was an atheist, I had my own opinions about right and wrong just like this fellow now does.  Now I know that I’m not omniscient so I don’t have such opinions.  I just accept what the omniscient Creator of human beings has told us is right and wrong.

      Probably the clearest example is adultery.  God says it’s wrong but lots of atheists take a different view. I knew some of them.  When they were blathering on about the benefits of “open” marriage I’d already learned how painful and destructive a betrayal adultery is.  Soon enough they learned the same lesson.  It would have been better for them, and for their children, if they’d refrained from the act(s) simply on the basis that God says it’s wrong.  But they were atheists.  So they had nothing but their own opinions to guide them and their own opinions were dismally wrong.

      Re: #135, MentalFloss
      I was really hoping you’d say something about gustov_deleft’s post at #66.  “David is also an important Islamic prophet.” But you haven’t and this is way too long already so I’m just going to say, “No, he was an Israelite prophet and king”.

      Posted by Janice on 2006 05 31 at 07:13 AM • permalink

 

    1. #143 Janice, I refute the Q’uran in its entirety as wholly non cupatory. I chose therefore not to address any detail of a tradition from which I resile.

      #141 Tertius, your measured response is appreciated. Would there were more time, I could perhaps explain what I mean by immanent trancendence, or rather, what it means to me.

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 05 31 at 08:37 AM • permalink

 

    1. #95 Increase in s.t.d.s could also be linked to the release of the contraception pill into the general population.
      However I do feel that there is too much preoccupation with sex-so much so that the subject (not the act) becomes boring and people who wish to shock get worse and “worser”.

      Posted by crash on 2006 05 31 at 08:46 AM • permalink

 

    1. 135 Mentalfloss

      This is one thread on which I regret ever having posted.

      Reading over it, I note that your contributions have been pretty much the most lucid comments appearing here.  More light than heat, innuddawoids.
      Right now, I’m in pretty much the opposite mood, and shall take a nice recess.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 05 31 at 04:45 PM • permalink

 

    1. #138: you’re suggesting Habib expunges the best bits of his prose! Lighten up, it’s a style of speech, not personal abuse. (Old-timers on this site will be aware of this.)

      blogstrop: thanks for the link. We need to be frequently reminded of the hideous degradation of humanity that we’re up against.

      Posted by Henry boy on 2006 05 31 at 05:11 PM • permalink

 

    1. I read tertius’ post and thought
      “Don’t get off your bike, I’ll pick up your pump.”

      I get you Habib.

      #147 I agree, Heinrich VT – this place without Habib’s flowery embellishments would certainly be tame.

      Sex education? Noooooo, don’t do it, once the kids know about it they’ll want to do it, too.*

      Posted by kae on 2006 05 31 at 05:54 PM • permalink

 

    1. who said that no one should conduct any sort of sex ed, anywhere? Several people have said they had concerns about curiculum, the setting and the age. Some of those conerns are yes, based upon religious beliefs.

      I’m one of those benighted people.

      But then it’s far easier to treat such concerns as being signs of backwardness or of a hatred of knowledge.

      To others, such as Habib, it excuses bigotry. According to him, fundamentalism is an “external cause of bigotry”. Not willful ignorance, or irrational fears or prejudices, which are acted upon. The KKK would be delighted to learn that its hang ups are the fault of those whom they profess hatred.

      Posted by Blue Hen on 2006 06 01 at 01:33 PM • permalink

 

    1. 141

      In his posts he posits an atheistic view – against the “supernatural” and “magic” – yet he uses a word “awesome” which has religious roots to describe the universe. Perhaps Huck meant the word in the modern colloquial sense of “excellent” or “wonderful” or “amazing” but its original sense referred to “dread mixed with veneration” in referring to God. I made play on this use of awesome because Huck clearly does not express dread mixed with veneration of God. He specifically says the universe has no “personality, or an agenda, or a dress code” yet it remains an “awesome” universe.  He then goes on to state that “Religion is the process of claiming that the awesome universe has those things, and that they oddly enough happen to match up with the personality, agenda, and dress code as the purveyors of those religions.” Thereby confounding the play on awesome while denying awesomeness.

      This is Vantillian chicanery.  These emanations and penumbras you ascribe to the word “awesome” are bollocks.  “Presuppositionalist” bollocks, specifically.  The gag here is to disallow the opponent’s vocabulary while still retaining use of it oneself, a specialized form of “special pleading.”

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 06 03 at 02:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. You know, I should probably post some links to explain the outre terminology in the above post, but let’s face it, everybody who cares about it is most likely already familiar with the terminology.
      But don’t let me get between you and Google, hypothetical reader.  Whoever is curious about this stuff already knows what to do.

      Posted by Stoop Davy Dave on 2006 06 03 at 02:26 PM • permalink

 

Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.