A comment following my earlier facebookspacester posting of the MLK “I have a dream” speech video with related commentary (already posted here). I kind of knew this guy might reply with something like this.
Kevin why do you think Hope,faith and Charity is hatred and helping the children of fallen soldiers (our Hero’s today) is a bad thing. Alva King is now a racist, and the two people singing the pledge of allegiance are racist as well. Kevin open your heart again I remember you were once a great catholic gentleman what changed you??
After I *facepalm*ed… Here’s my reply, wherein I try to restrain myself from being terribly insulting or needlessly replying to some of the false and irrelevant queries/blatherings these teabaggers bring into their arguments/replies/spew: (miniscule edits)
I didn’t say faith, hope and charity were hatred. Faith is irrational and thoughtless. Hope and charity can be had without faith or religion and are best when done without an ulterior motive of salvation. (Likewise, helping wounded vets and… fallen vets’ kids can be done without going to a rally.)
Hope you don’t like your church separated from your state cause here’s Michelle Bachmann leading a convention hall in prayer.
Dear Lord, in your heavenly wisdom, may you bless these, the Republican Talking Points, lest they perish from the earth at the hands of those sinful buckwild Democrats, amen.
-Joe
“I wonder if you might indulge me and join me in a little prayer. To my God. Mine. I don’t give a shit if you don’t worship my God, because like I asked, just indulge me, okay, you heathen assholes? NOW BOW YOUR FUCKING HEADS AND LET’S PRAY TO MY GOD. I mean, only if you want, we’re all Republicans here! NOW PRAY, FUCKERS.”
And please, Lord, as is fitting with an all-knowing, loving, gracious and charitable deity such as yourself, please, please smite all who are not us?
Strike them down like so many lambs that their liberal blood may flow and that we may sail our ships upon it to prosperity!
Spread freedom at gunpoint to those who would tax our corporations!
Liberate with a sword those who would have us, the affluent, depart with a mere tuppence of our gold in the name of humanitarianism!
Shine thy heavenly light down with burning strength upon the meek, teeming hordes who are not like you and I so that they may see the error of their ways for just a moment before vanishing into a pile of ash!
Suffer a thousand cuts upon the ill and disabled who would have equivalent healthcare to ours at reasonable prices!
Imprison and castrate those who would have sex without our permission or have sex differently than we want them to though we may practice similar acts ourselves!
Bring vengeance upon the teachers, unions, artists, atheists, philosophers, egalitarians, feminists, scientists, socialists and all who champion a better life for those making less than serious six-figure salaries!
Spill thy fossil fuel riches upon our oceans so that we may be coated in thy bounty!
Wipe the minds of those with dangerous thoughts and revoke their library cards. Destroy that which is not purported to be your word, oh God! Shake and tumble the very foundations of their places of learning until all know only what we want them to know!
We ask this of you, oh Lord, our great decider in the sky who favors the already privileged and devotedly selfish.
Guns and Amen.
(Source: stfuconservatives)
I just voted down Rick Perry’s “Strong” commercial at YouTube and then proceeded to flag it as inappropriate due to it containing hate speech regarding sexual orientation. In the space to provide specific complaints to speed addressing the matter, I indicated “The ‘gentleman’ in this video uses several untruths to discredit the President of the United States, promote state-sponsored religion and to spread homophobia.”
Me commenting on some moron’s insistent splattering of idiocy at a HuffingtonPost.com article related to Christopher Hitchens that isn’t worth linking here:
“You lack a grasp of logic and don’t even understand what you yourself are saying, Harley.
You’re claiming not having proof of something somehow positively supports what you have no proof of. That’s absolutely idiotic. If you are a believer in something, the burden of proof is upon YOU, not those who don’t share your belief. You must demonstrate the validity of what you are proposing. It is simple logic!
Science indicates what there is proof of and doubts what there is no proof of. It refines or restates matters as evidence is either further validated, invalidated or unavailable. Science doesn’t ‘believe’. It tests. It verifies. It postulates and extrapolates based upon existing knowledge and then seeks to prove it or disprove it.
There is no proof of what you most likely appear to believe in. If there were, it would be fact and demonstrable by science and supported by repeatable, verifiable evidence. This is how reality works, Harley.
I’ll repeat: Not knowing something does not support in any way the existence of it AT ALL or discredit those who do not believe in it. What there is no evidence of, most probably doesn’t exist.
I know there is no evidence of unicorns. It is therefore reasonable to say there are no unicorns. It doesn’t matter whether I don’t ‘know’ if there are unicorns or not if there simply is no evidence of unicorns.”
*lesigh* I really don’t even care how the person replies. The limits of their IQ has already been demonstrated.
When does stupid season start? (ala duck/rabbit season)
Why are Republican prudes still desperate to control your sex life? (via Alternet.org)
My understanding of Paul’s stand on abortion and his hypocrisy therein:
He’s opposed to abortion despite being a supposed libertarian. Then he claims the states not the feds should decide abortion law despite his being opposed to abortion in the first place. So, someone going from one state to another for an abortion would be okay with him so long as the states get to decide.
He claims the federal government allowing abortion is tyrannical and tantamount to the Nazis committing holocaust against certain races, the feeble, handicapped etc. But allowing the states to decide is A-okay either way.
He claims a fetus at any stage is a viable person, which is biologically (and philosophically) incorrect which you would think he’d understand with a medical degree under his belt and having delivered so many children. His Christian fundamentalism is obviously overriding his alleged libertarianism and knowledge of science here. He’s a theocrat and it shows in his opinions on a few other hot-button matters the linked article touches upon.
He’s opposed to abortion but would allow morning-after pills and an exception to allow for abortions after rape. By his claims of personhood at the moment of conception, why would those exceptions be allowable?
Despite being a libertarian, he obviously doesn’t think women have the right to choose what happens with their bodies (regardless of whether they are pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere inbetween). In fact, he’d prefer to see women legally punished for having abortions, not just restrict their right to have one.
Sadly, on this matter (but obv. not others), Paul seems to be just another hypocritical Christian Conservative Republican who wants to regulate what goes on between people’s legs.
To further explain my perception of hypocrisy in Paul’s platform:
IMHO, the federal govt., by allowing abortion choice is securing freedom that states could/would restrict. It is left to the individual to decide whether they think it is proper to terminate a fetus, as it is their family, life, livelihood and body in question. Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one. It is the same principle by which civil rights are secured by the federal government since certain states would limit them. (Don’t like interracial marriage? Don’t get one!)
It’s not forcing a decision on people but rather securing freedoms and choice in keeping with the larger spirit of the Constitution and the supporting explanatory Federalist Papers.
Paul’s claims, like others, that there are some matters the 9th and 10th amendments wouldn’t allow the federal government to wade into, simply seems to be a way to justify allowing racism, theocracy, legislated morals and more consumer-abusive laissez-faire business practices that are seemingly antithetical to the lip service those politicians pay to liberty, freedom, justice etc.
The majority of what the federal government does isn’t specifically defined in the Constitution but when a politician wants to legislate morality and faith and there are fears profits might be curtailed, suddenly the 9th and 10th amendments conveniently come up in conversation under very narrow definitions.
Yay! Let’s tax the bastards next.
Preaching to the choir here…. The religious types fear true freedom because they’re afraid other people will make choices that they don’t like. Cultural and moral relativism is evil incarnate in their view. They also don’t trust that they themselves will always be ‘delivered from temptation’ (because obviously they aren’t responsible for their own desires and are subject to the influence of others). Therefore it is better to remove any opportunity to choose and simultaneously chalk it up to the supposed dictates of their lord. Despite the supposed gift of free will from their god, it’s better that there be no opportunity to sin rather than there even be the slightest opportunity to choose not to sin.
A reading from the book of Kevbo.
I don’t mind offending on the matter of religion and faith. What is stupid and illogical is stupid and illogical. If the shoe fits in regard to someone’s chosen faith, that’s their problem.
I respect someone’s right to choose to practice a faith (or to of course be faithless), to worship singly or as part of an organized group. I’d never want to see that choice taken away or a choice made for someone.
However, I am in no way obligated to “respect” other people’s chosen religious beliefs. I detest that “you have to respect other people’s beliefs” line people toss around because it’s bullshit. Do you respect poisonous snake handling, self flagellation, human sacrifice, genital mutilation, elephant headed gods with multiple arms, homophobia, racism, violence etc. that are part of some people’s religious practices? No, you don’t (I hope)! I take it further than that by rejecting all religious faith. I respect the idea of benevolence, love and charity toward others and the pursuit of peace. I don’t respect belief in magical sky wizards, vengeful spirits above and below, ghosts and half-gods, virgin births, miracles etc. and all the goofy rituals that tie into all that nonsense and are deemed necessary to support the idea of being good to others.
Magical underwear? I understand what it’s about for Mormons but it doesn’t change my reasoning that it’s silly and worthy of ridicule, like polygamy, golden plates, hearing a god’s voice, baptism, annulments, transubtantiation, miracle healings, canonizations, chastity vows, plenary indulgences, reincarnation and more. There’s just so much hypocrisy towards other faiths by those who demand respect for their own flavor of voodoo. So many religions that claim to love sure do produce a lot of hate.
So these posthumous baptisms are of course just an extra turd on the pile of predominantly anti-intellectual fairy tale band-aid bullshit that is organized religion. But if Mormons expect respect for their wacky beliefs, they need to not engage in acts that would, by the shared collective metaphysical bologna of major world religions, not violate those other faith’s tenets.
If respect is not sought, then go for it. They can baptize all they want. They can baptize me in absentia if they wish in some silly ceremony. They can baptize others to make themselves all feel beneficent and think they’ve done some imaginary soul a service. They won’t be doing me any physical harm or inflicting any emotional trauma. They’ll just be making themselves look ridiculous no matter what their intent.
Just keep your bullshit to yourself and in your own mind and home even if you think your faith is the one proper faith and think that it should be respected. Don’t legislate any of it. Don’t expect others to have to accommodate your rituals or ethics. Don’t go proselytizing or dropping bombs in an effort to rid the world of those who don’t make the same choices as you. Don’t go baptizing people of other faiths. Otherwise, expect your actions to garner ridicule and for people to be offended.
Furthermore, don’t expect respect when there is no existing logic or proof to bolster one’s religion and don’t be surprised when someone calls you out on your idiocy and hypocrisy. Then again, if one’s faith is strong enough and they think their religion to be correct, it shouldn’t really matter what others think, riiiiight?
But based on the discussions across the net in regard to this story, it sure seems like there are a lot of insecure folk out there in the world whose faith isn’t really unshakable, doesn’t it?
What if you changed how you referred to your god?
My reply at the page:
“Well written, sir. One’s god is exactly what one makes it out to be. There are thus billions of gods out there, all reflecting the exact same beliefs as their creators.”
(snipped)
This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.
/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.
^
(mic drop)
Checkmate, bitches.
(Source: drunkonstevphen)