Student kidnaps Eucharist - commits mortal sin

[Choobus]

Kamikaze189 wrote

Imagine if we had whites vote on whether or not blacks should be considered people.

you don't have to imagine that. It's how people used to justify slavery to themselves

[Irreligious]

Choobus wrote

Fine, but then why bother with voting in these unfair referendums at all? Should people vote, hope it goes their way and then protest when it doesn't, or just protest at them before the vote to show that they are unacceptable?

Well, interestingly, I didn't vote in a state where any such initiative was on the ballot. I think I would have found it quite demeaning to have my rights put to a vote.

I imagine there were protests when the referendum was first introduced in California, but once the initiative made it onto the ballot, what good would it have done if those who were against Prop 8 had decided against participating in the democratic process? Wouldn't that have been tantamount to a concession from the outset?

Anyway, it was not the gays who put themselves in this position; it was thrust upon them. And why wouldn't you expect them to be upset when Prop 8 passed? It's the very definition of adding insult to injury.

It's too bad no one thought about introducing an initiative that would have banned peddling one's religion door-to-door in California. It would have given the Mormons a taste of their own medicine, at least. And it would have pissed off the Jehovah's Witnesses, too. I never met anyone who wasn't a Mormon or a Jehovie who professed to enjoying their uninvited solicitations. Maybe a majority of the electorate would have passed that referendum, too.

[Eva]

what a good idea!

[Philboid Studge]

Irreligious wrote

Wouldn't it make more sense to foment dissention between the meddlesome faithful instead of coaxing their further enmity towards "minority" atheists? I mean, if you want to do something effective.

Yeah that would frigging rock, but it's a pipe dream (and not the good kind).

You won't be shocked to learn that interfaith alliances are forged when it suits them, while doctrinal and other differences are ignored when inconvenient. The Catlicks, for one, were comrades in douchebaggery with the magic-underwear crowd.

[San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George]Niederauer had made critical inroads into improving Catholic-Mormon relations while he was Bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years. And now he asked them for help on Prop. 8, the ballot measure that sought to ban same-sex marriages in California.

The June letter from Niederauer drew in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and proved to be a critical move in building a multi-religious coalition - the backbone of the fundraising, organizing and voting support for the successful ballot measure. By bringing together Mormons and Catholics, Niederauer would align the two most powerful religious institutions in the Prop. 8 battle.

[Irreligious]

Hmm. Sounds like a very tenuous relationship to me, one that is based on having a common enemy: Heathens.

That's where the atheists and secularists go wrong, in my opinion. That is, making the focus about themselves instead of where it should be: On the theists and their differences and their competing agendas. They are competing religions, after all. The charade that they want to, or could even, share control ought to be exposed. These two groups have some serious doctrinal disagreements, which should be, er, highlighted, and in a very public way. Put them on the defensive for a change.

[Philboid Studge]

Good luck with all that.

I think PZ has it right. Do not discriminate by faith: they're all coo-coo bananas and are thus all correctly the objects of scorn and derision.

[Irreligious]

Sounds like fun but, again, I ask, what does it really accomplish? You piss them off and make them even madder at you. And what have you gained?

[ubs]

Irreligious wrote

Sounds like fun but, again, I ask, what does it really accomplish? You piss them off and make them even madder at you. And what have you gained?

I think you give them pause when you bring the war to their shores. It's easy to sit around in Idaho and fuck up the life of someone in SF or LA, but when they bring their rage to your doorstep...

Not all cooperation is the result of warm and fuzzy feelings. Some of it is a result of self interest.

[Philboid Studge]

Irreligious wrote

Sounds like fun but, again, I ask, what does it really accomplish? You piss them off and make them even madder at you. And what have you gained?

I don't think it's possible to gain anything with these people, and I'm tired of religious people getting a free pass to spout lunacy. Ergo, fuck em.

John Aravosis (Americablog) is talking boycott. I'm of two minds about that.

[Choobus]

Irreligious wrote

Sounds like fun but, again, I ask, what does it really accomplish? You piss them off and make them even madder at you. And what have you gained?

A lot of godidiots get off on this kind of "persecution". I think it makes them feel like they are doing gods work. Although I don't interact much with believers I find a quiet contempt is often quite effective. (However, when they come here and start with their bullshit then that's never enough). It would be good if it was illegal for mormons to leave Utah or communicate with anyone across state lines apart from via the prayers to the angel moroni (or whatever his fucking name is).

[Irreligious]

ubs wrote

I think you give them pause when you bring the war to their shores. It's easy to sit around in Idaho and fuck up the life of someone in SF or LA, but when they bring their rage to your doorstep...

Not all cooperation is the result of warm and fuzzy feelings. Some of it is a result of self interest.

You're talking about protesting outside their places of worship, correct? That's a potentially dangerous endeavor, but I agree with you on the effectiveness of that tack, because it's directly in-your-face confrontational.

But I was referring to PZ Myers's implied suggestion of defiling a pair of magic underwear, for instance. What do you think that does in the minds of those who revere magic underwear? Give them pause or piss them off? Or both?

[ubs]

Irreligious wrote

But I was referring to PZ Myers's implied suggestion of defiling a pair of magic underwear, for instance. What do you think that does in the minds of those who revere magic underwear? Give them pause or piss them off? Or both?

Both. I loved the protest in Salt Lake, but this is also - in my opinion - a justified attack. Let's shine a big light on their beliefs since they've chosen to inflict them on others.

[Irreligious]

Philboid Studge wrote

I don't think it's possible to gain anything with these people, and I'm tired of religious people getting a free pass to spout lunacy. Ergo, fuck em.

John Aravosis (Americablog) is talking boycott. I'm of two minds about that.

If there is nothing to gain, why bother? Unless you think it has some kind of therapuetic value for the person doing the mocking, what's the point?

[ubs]

I think the gay rights movement needs a Malcolm X.

[Irreligious]

Choobus wrote

A lot of godidiots get off on this kind of "persecution". I think it makes them feel like they are doing gods work...

Bingo! It strengthens their resolve instead of making them think. I believe Roman Catholics or Mormons, for instance, should be forced to actually think about what it might be like to live under the tyranny and persecution of the other, or another large religious group. That, ultimately, is the purpose of separating church and state, so no one religious group ever amasses that kind of power.

Once they subdue the secularists, who are they going to go after next? Each other. Cut 'em off at the pass and avoid the specter of holy wars, I say.