Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

Christophobes March On

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 9:47 AM
Every time I hear men like David Limbaugh talk about discrimination against Christianity, I cringe because I know it's going to be framed in the context of absurdity. What men like Limbaugh and many Christians like him fail to understand is that when Christians complain about discrimination, they come off as Donald Trump would if he were to complain about not getting welfare checks. Christians are still the majority in this country. They exercise a huge amount of influence and political power. Most politicians are Christian. Most judges and leaders are Christian. Nearly every level of power is dominated by Christians. Yet they still claim discrimination? This is yet another reason why young people are turning away from religion entirely. Now without having read the book that this man published, it's difficult to judge why it warranted suspending him. But if it was inflammatory, hate-filled, and full of false information like the information propogated by the Family Research Council, then there are grounds for suspension. States that have anti-discrimination laws can do this. Now I think it's worth arguing the merits of these anti-discrimination laws. I think it could be argued that they infringe on free speech and free association. However, this isn't the argument Limbaugh makes. He just whines about discrimination and ignores anything of actual substance. And so long as men like him keep doing this, Christianity will become less and less relevant because more people will associate it with intolerance and bigotry. And a religion like Christianity doesn't deserve that.
I think it's a good thing that the culture wars don't infect the 2016 campaign. It almost always leads to a complete misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the issue. It also brings out the worst in candidates and their supporters. It turns men like Todd Akin into anti-woman misogynists and men like Mike Huckabee into anti-gay religious zealots. These issues will sink conservatism if they become relevant. The younger generation is much more tolerante and accepting. They are also much less religious and much less likely to agree with religiously motivated policies. If conservatives really want to win, they have to let go of issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. They will only further alienate a new generation of voters that has come to see conservatives as anti-gay, anti-fun, anti-woman, anti-freedom, pro-censorship, pro-torture, and racist.
In response to:

Muslim go BOOM!

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 15, 2014 12:23 PM
Name-calling and labeling is exactly what Matt Barber is doing. Both sides do it to some degree. That doesn't make either side's arguments valid. It only detracts from the actual substance of an issue like extreme religious dogma.
In response to:

Muslim go BOOM!

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 15, 2014 9:31 AM
There are some very legitimate criticisms of Islam and the Muslim world. But when men like Matt Barber throw around conspiracy theories about the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, or Christians who don't share his same rigid interpretation of Christianity (which is demonstrably wrong), those criticisms are lost. Mr. Barber only seems capable of angry ranting that has no basis in fact. He would rather embrace hatred rather than truth and that's not a very Christian tenant. It's not even an Islamic tenant. It's only a tenant of wannabe tyrants.
In response to:

Slaughtered 'Sons Of Anarchy'

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 12, 2014 8:50 AM
I don't know what Mr. Bozell thinks he can accomplish with this article. What is the point? What's his endgame? Does he want this show censored? Does he want all shows like it to be censored? Does he not think the first amendment should apply to stuff he doesn't like? All he ever seems to do with anything that relates to violence or sexuality is whine. When in the history of mankind has whining ever accomplished anything? Shows like this disturb some, but it's probably worth noting that despite the presence of these shows and others like it, crime is at record lows. People today are generally less deviant than they were in decades past. Research and crime statistics bear this out. And if things are getting better, then why keep whining? It makes no sense and Mr. Bozell simply has no points to make.
In response to:

The College Rape Club

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 11, 2014 9:41 AM
Rape is a serious crime, but one that's difficult to quantify because the effects and injuries aren't always visible. If a woman shows signs that she's been beaten up and assaulted, then it's a much clearer case. But when there are no such signs, it's difficult to prove. I think the problem is that vicitimzation is too easy to embrace. It's a lot easier than just making a choice that is later regretted. It can also be difficult to measure the effects because psychological trauma is so vague in its scope and scale. Physical wounds do heal. Psychological wounds take a lot longer. So it's hard to get a reasonable response from a victim, real or perceived. The media sure doesn't help either. In recent years, they've been way too eager to report on a rape story without gathering all the facts. They're also too eager to side with the victims, even if their story isn't credible. It creates a flawed perception of this crime and one that discredits actual rape victims.
Abortion laws are not the same as laws governing theft. The hypothetical you just posed is a complete non-sequiter. It does not make a point. A better question to ask is when does the purposeful destruction of a certain arrangement of cells constitute murder? That's a question that needs to be answered in order to make a reasonable conclusion on this issue. It's a question that's difficult to answer and one that has many differing viewpoints. That's what makes it so emotional and contentious. And framing it in an inaccurate way only distorts that.
Comparing the divinity of Jesus to the concept of personhood is not a logical or valid comparison. It's a false equivilency. One has nothing to do with the other. Science says nothing about "personhood." It does not define when a fertialized egg becomes a person in the same way it does not define when an adult has become "elderly." Simply having human DNA is not an appropriate criteria for personhood. It's an identifying marker of heredity, but not a definitive state of personhood. If it were, then identical twins would, by this definition, constitute one person. There are too many flaws in using conception as the criterion for personhood. Claiming that science is on the side of pro-life only misses the point by attempting to subvert opposing views. Ironically, there many of the same extremely religious pro-life groups are also against evolution. It leads me to question whether they really care about science at all.
I agree with Mr. Hawkins to a degree. People make choices and they should have to live with those choices, especially when it comes to decisions pertaining to the law. Someone who gets too many tattoos, has kids they know they can't afford, or takes out loans without having a plan to pay them back should have to deal with the consequences. Where I disagree is the circumstances of some of these choices. Not everybody is going to be in the same position to make the necessary choices. Research has shown time and again the minorities are at a major disadvantage, as revealed by the extent to which minorities are targeted by police. This isn't an American problem either. That research applies to many other countries as well. And it cuts both ways as well. If people want to make these choices, then the government, through action or inaction, has to make it so those choices carry weight. And I think most would agree that there's plenty of room for improvement in that area.
I think these restrictions you listed are reasonable and would whole-heartedly support them if they were included in an assisted suicide law.
These are all valid questions to ask. But these are questions none of us can answer if we're not in intractable pain from terminal illness. And until one of us is in that state, then any attempt to answer these questions will result in an invalid answer.
Previous 21 - 30 Next