The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[Jludo]

What do you think gives you the right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t do? I’d hate to live next door to you.

1st ammendment, love it or leave it, why do you hate freedom?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

1st ammendment, love it or leave it, why do you hate freedom?

You can say whatever you want, but you can’t tellme what I can and cannot do based on your opinion. I would say that’s hating freedom.

 

[Alpo]

Im gonna direct you to post 813. You don’t care remember, dude? So don’t try to brush off a comment when you have no reply, then reinsert yourself to the conversation when you think you can make a point. Also, for future reference, try not to use the most extreme of cases to support your argument. Human sacrifice? Oooooook.

Scientific method, dude. The principle of falsification. Your argument does not hold water.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That's an interesting take. So I can't tell ISIS what they are doing is wrong, as I dont adhere to their faith? Sure you can. That's analogous to the Glock owner telling CM that Glocks are better than 1911's. Or I can't have any claim on interpretation of their text because I'm not a believer? This is where it breaks down. This is analogous to telling CM he's not fixing or fine tuning a 1911 because he does it differently than a video the Glock owner watched or an article he read about how to fix/fine tune it.

My answers in red... Interpretations of text vary within the same religion. Baptists don't practice the same as Methodists, Methodists don't practice the same as Presbyterians, Presbyterians don't practice the same as Episcopals, Sunnis don't practice the same as Shiites, etc.. Disagreement between the sects is fine, but it wouldn't make much sense for a Jew (or an atheist) to claim that only the Presbyterians are "doing it right".

 

[Alpo]

An atheist claiming that a Presby is where it's at.


....that requires further thought.

 

[BugI02]

So you're essentially saying that people outside of particular set of beliefs can't admonish those who hold certain beliefs and don't live up to them? Uhhh.... welcome to INGO, how is your first day going.

I believe he is saying such admonitions would carry more weight if the people making them had their own standards, rather than using the standards they impute to Christians with no more than the most superficial knowledge of what being a Christian actually means relative being in the world but not of it

They might as well be trying to shame a Zoroastrian, their knowledge of either appears equivalent (reading about it on wikipedia)

 

[Jludo]

My answers in red... Interpretations of text vary within the same religion. Baptists don't practice the same as Methodists, Methodists don't practice the same as Presbyterians, Presbyterians don't practice the same as Episcopals, Sunnis don't practice the same as Shiites, etc.. Disagreement between the sects is fine, but it wouldn't make much sense for a Jew (or an atheist) to claim that only the Presbyterians are "doing it right".

No offense but I find the analogy more confusing than clarifying.
If we went with the concrete examples, I cant say westboro Baptist is doing it wrong, but if I had said they were doing it wrong 10 years ago when I was a believer, that would be fine?

 

[Alpo]

I didn't read any details, but I thought the priest who refused Biden communion (because of his position on abortion) was one of the more principled acts of recent days.

 

[T.Lex]

How about this - since this is the internet, maybe we all just receive and critically examine any comment/observation/opinion/assertion/fallacy/argument/postulation/premise/theory/mindset/hypothesis/groupthink whatever the source.

Second, why do those hypotheticals never seem to include the notion that the Catholics have the right idea?

ETA:
Stupid Alpo ruining my punch line.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No offense but I find the analogy more confusing than clarifying.
If we went with the concrete examples, I cant say westboro Baptist is doing it wrong, but if I had said they were doing it wrong 10 years ago when I was a believer, that would be fine?

I'm probably not explaining it as well as I should be. You can say that what the WB's are doing is wrong (disrespecting mourners at funerals for example), absolutely. But you can't tell them the proper way to disrespect mourners at funerals unless you agree with them on some level that disrespecting mourners at funerals is okay. Does that make it any clearer? If not, that's okay. I can drop it.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Scientific method, dude. The principle of falsification. Your argument does not hold water.

Ok, so admit you care since you keep coming back.

As far as your extreme examples of “human sacrifice” goes... wouldn’t that be affecting someone else’s freedom? Pretty sure that’s where the line is drawn. You can’t preach the morality of someone’s political decisions based on their faith when you don’t even accept their faith. Try again, dude

 

[Alpo]

I'm probably not explaining it as well as I should be. You can say that what the WB's are doing is wrong (disrespecting mourners at funerals for example), absolutely. But you can't tell them the proper way to disrespect mourners at funerals unless you agree with them on some level that disrespecting mourners at funerals is okay. Does that make it any clearer? If not, that's okay. I can drop it.

 

[Alpo]

Ok, so admit you care since you keep coming back.

As far as your extreme examples of “human sacrifice” goes... wouldn’t that be affecting someone else’s freedom? Pretty sure that’s where the line is drawn. You can’t preach the morality of someone’s political decisions based on their faith when you don’t even accept their faith. Try again, dude

Prayer in school.

 

[Jludo]

I'm probably not explaining it as well as I should be. You can say that what the WB's are doing is wrong (disrespecting mourners at funerals for example), absolutely. But you can't tell them the proper way to disrespect mourners at funerals unless you agree with them on some level that disrespecting mourners at funerals is okay. Does that make it any clearer? If not, that's okay. I can drop it.

Makes it a little bit more clear.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Prayer in school.

Kids are still allowed to pray in school, the school just can’t force kids to pray. Try again, dude.

 

[Alpo]

You missed the 20th Century, I see.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You missed the 20th Century, I see.

Ah, back to your old ways I see. Care to try again, or time for your nap already?

 

[BugI02]

Then what was the point of even bringing this up, then CONTINUING to argue it. (That goes to Kut, too.)

Along those lines, I'll go back to lurking on this particular digression. MANY (definitely a plurality, perhaps even a consensus, maybe a majority of) self-proclaimed evangelicals voted for a man who clearly rejects the morality embraced by that system.

Because reasons.

So, to stretch for an early Christian metaphor, should they be faulted or ridiculed for favoring Claudius over Nero if that was the choice they were given?

 

[mmpsteve]

So, to stretch for an early Christian metaphor, should they be faulted or ridiculed for favoring Claudius over Nero if that was the choice they were given?

This made me think of "Nero vs Clinton, who would you vote for?" What a sick freakin world we live in.

.

 

[Alpo]

Ah, back to your old ways I see. Care to try again, or time for your nap already?

The point, is that just because "Hatin" says it, doesn't mean it is correct in law or by common convention. Prayer is generally not allowed in secular schools because it was litigated.

Persons not of a faith objected to the right to "freely" practice said faith.

It is somewhat humorous to see a protestant rebuking a non-practioner for criticizing their faith when the establishment of their religion was a direct result of criticism of the RCC in 1517.