In God We Must

[Eddie Teach]

So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?

[garbon]

So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?

Yeah that seems to be an entirely different issue.

[Martinus]

So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?

It has freedom of speech when it comes to religious people spouting their nonsense, but it doesn't when it comes to atheists criticising religion.

Saying this is not an issue of discrimination of atheists but an issue of a lack of freedom of speech is like saying that gay marriage bans are not an issue of discrimination of gays but an issue of "freedom of marriage". It obfuscates the discrimination at the heart of the problem.

[garbon]

So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?

It has freedom of speech when it comes to religious people spouting their nonsense, but it doesn't when it comes to atheists criticising religion.

Saying this is not an issue of discrimination of atheists but an issue of a lack of freedom of speech is like saying that gay marriage bans are not an issue of discrimination of gays but an issue of "freedom of marriage". It obfuscates the discrimination at the heart of the problem.

The heart of the problem is allowing different standards for free speech by special interest groups.  Are there any other issues you have, if Poland adopted sensible free speech laws?

[Razgovory]

Raz, I'm still waiting for you to explain what "atheists have done" that Gups is apparently being naive about.

[Razgovory]

I'm curious, are there a lot of "Straight" parade?  Have you ever seen "Straight" pride day or something similar?

Actually I did. Next question.

Well, since I posted two questions then don't have to come back to me to ask for another question.

[Neil]

A prominent Catholic journalist here said recently that technically there is no difference between gay marriage and a marriage of a man to a goat - since both are unnatural perversions. He was sued by a gay rights organisation for defamation and won.

Well if it makes the goat-marrier happy, then that's what counts.  Human rights and all that shit, right?

[Razgovory]

At the risk of generalizations (and that is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it?  "The religious" vs. "atheists"), my sense is that most prominent atheists (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and you are a moron for your belief system'.  Conversely, leading respectable Christian figures (e.g. the Pope) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and I hope for the sake of your soul and peace of mind, you change your mind.'

Not really but nice strawman.

Atheists that you mention approach the other side from the perspective of "you are wrong and I hope for the sake of the psychological and physical wellbeing of you and those around you, you change your mind."

An irrational religion mindset can lead to innumerable damage to people - from suicide attempts by gay kids raised as Baptists to inter-religion conflicts to Jehovah witnesses refusing to have blood transfussion.

Really?  Hitchens expressed dismay that he didn't get to see the Pope die before he did.  That doesn't sound very nice.

[Barrister]

Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive.

No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.

I guess those people who legitimately argue that have some plan to enact that then? I mean, beyond discriminating against homosexuals when it comes to adoption. Maybe we're looking at outlawing divorce? Or maybe taking kids away from single parents and assigning them to married couples?

Yi gets into trouble by saying "should be".

I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.

However that's clearly not always possible.  People die.  People get divorced.  People have a midlife crisis and discover their homosexuality.

While a traditional family might be the ideal, government foster care is just about the worst situation imaginable.  Taking children from, say, a single parent and putting them into care would be a disaster.  The single parent might be ideal, but few things in life are, and a single parent can certainly raise a successful and well-adjusted child - as can a same sex couple.  The foster care system on the other hand has consistently shown it has trouble raising successful well-adjusted children.

So absolutely not - kids shouldn't be taken away from parents just because they are not ideal.

However when it comes to adoption it's a different story.  I have no problem with traditional couples being given preference.  However, since I think the system does a terrible job, I certainly wouldn't prohibit non-traditional families from adopting.

[crazy canuck]

The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal . I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that,  or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.

I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.

I would agree with you if political decisions were not being informed by the religious beliefs of the majority.  However, we do not and cannot live in such a world.  Therefore, I think it is important for people, particularly young people, to hear the other side as it were.

[garbon]

I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.

I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post as I actually find it rather offensive.

[crazy canuck]

I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.

I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.

I agree.  The best environment for raising children is a loving caring enviornment.  I see no evidence that two mothers or two fathers are any less able to provide such an enviornment than a man and a woman.  Rather, I think the evidence is to the contrary.

[Jacob]

So let me see if I understand your reasoning Raz...

Gups says he thinks you mischaracterize Dawkins and that even if your characterization is correct, it does not reflect what most Atheists, such as Gups, think.

You respond to that with saying that Dawkins claims to lead the "New Atheist" movement, that that is representative of Atheists and that Gups is naive about what some Atheists have done.

And what you meant by "what some Atheists have done" was "death camps" (I'm assuming that's what your picture is supposed to refer to).

So if I understand what you're trying to say correctly, it is that Gups is naive about Atheists because he doesn't realize that Dawkins supports Nazi death camps? That seems a bit outlandish.

[garbon]

So if I understand what you're trying to say correctly, it is that Gups is naive about Atheists because he doesn't realize that Dawkins supports Nazi death camps? That seems a bit outlandish.

Crazier things have been proven true.

[Barrister]

I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.

I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post as I actually find it rather offensive.

It certainly is a premise that can not be "proven".  It's such a political sensitive topic on both sides of the "culture war" that I think it would be difficult to conclusively establish one way or another.

I certainly agree with CC that the best environment is a loving, caring environment, and that gender / sexuality issues are not the first and last consideration.  Indeed I thuoght I said just that.