Interesting and disturbing

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I don't even know how to take this.





U.S. Fundamentalists: Taliban of Tomorrow?


COMMENTARY | Fundamentalism is an epidemic in this country, a vitriolic scourge spreading like a virus of the conscience that could leave the United States looking a lot like Afghanistan post-Taliban. Despite the Constitution's requirement of separation of government and religion,fundamentalists are working hard to codify their intolerance, their misogyny, and their aggressive ignorance. They want to shape our government to conform to their ideology, and claim that those of us who resist, who value our freedom, the Constitution, and the autonomy of women, are somehow "persecuting them" by our refusal to capitulate.
Look, fundamentalists. You've made it clear that there is no compromise, no middle ground, no live and let live. There is your way of life and only your way of life, much like Afghanistan on the brink of the Taliban devolution.
We women will not be sent into some speculative Margaret Atwood world, where our only value is as a tool for breeding. The state of Virginia does not have the right to violate its own rape statute prohibiting forced penetration by object and demand a transvaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion, which accomplishes nothing medically. Women won't be relegated to irrelevant in a discussion of our health, or, if you choose to believe Rep. Issa's (R.-Calif.) "religious freedom" propaganda, irrelevant to a discussion of religious freedom.
Your bigotry and hatred will not claim the lives of more kids who are gay or perceived to be gay. As Rolling Stone reports, evangelism created a climate in Michele Bachmann's district where bullying was the acceptable way to deal with people deemed "wrong." Kids committed suicide as the tragic result. You cannot indoctrinate kindergarteners, as Bloomberg News reports, with "Bible study" in public schools, kindergarteners who are now telling their non-conforming classmates that they're "going to hell."
And then there's the push to equate religion with science. Science is demonstrable. Science has a basis in method and repeatability. Religion is a belief system, that is, by its nature, not provable and not disprovable. As per the First Amendment, it does not have a place in our public schools. Creationism, even if you dress it up in a white coat and call it "intelligent design" is not science, and yet, as high-school student Zack Kopplin in Louisiana has discovered, there is a continual battle to equate it to evolution.
It's fine if fundamentalists choose to disregard evidence. It's fine if they choose to do so in their own religious schools. What is not fine is the attempt to legitimize that ignorance in the form of a public education curriculum, eviscerating the Constitution to do so.
We must remain vigilant, religious and non-religious alike. We cannot shrug off or make light of the fundamentalism that has found its way into the political process. If we stop watching, if we stop speaking, we might suddenly find ourselves in a country very much like post-Taliban Afghanistan, a Stone Age we thought we'd left behind long ago.








http://news.yahoo.com/u-fundamentalists-taliban-tomorrow-201900279.html
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It's not worth taking at all. Obviously, the Yahoo Contributor Network will let any nut case sound off regardless of their level of incoherence.
 

gospelriders

Seasoned Expediter
wow there is so much of those statements that are pure fallacy,it would be nice to sit down with this person to have an educated discussion. mostly to find out who p**d in their cornflakes!
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
To the original poster. Just wondering what parts were interesting and what parts were disturbing to you?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
To the original poster. Just wondering what parts were interesting and what parts were disturbing to you?


I find the fact that it was up on the web, interesting and the entire thing disturbing.

No matter which side of this one comes down on I see nothing good about it.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
I find the fact that it was up on the web, interesting and the entire thing disturbing.

The fact that it was up on the web? I'm not following you on that one :confused:


No matter which side of this one comes down on I see nothing good about it.

I agree, rhetoric like that is counterproductive and doesn't allow for any serious dialogue to take place. Especially when its coming from a political figure or those in the politcal arena.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The fact that it was up on the web? I'm not following you on that one :confused:




I agree, rhetoric like that is counterproductive and doesn't allow for any serious dialogue to take place. Especially when its coming from a political figure or those in the politcal arena.

I find it interesting just how far some are willing to go, on the web or any where else, to destroy this Nation.

Divide, Conquer, Rule.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Despite the Constitution's requirement of separation of government and religion,fundamentalists are working hard to codify their intolerance, their misogyny, and their aggressive ignorance. They want to shape our government to conform to their ideology, and claim that those of us who resist, who value our freedom, the Constitution, and the autonomy of women, are somehow "persecuting them" by our refusal to capitulate.

The one thing that this points to is the fight over same sex marriage. After understanding the 'fight' to maintain what some consider a marriage, the commentator seems to get it right, a group of religious people are using the government to dictate to the population at large.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
To the original poster. Just wondering what parts were interesting and what parts were disturbing to you?

Well, for one, much of what's in there is completely backward. It was the immoral and irreligious who forced their will on the rest. Then they portray it as the reverse. Forex, when creationism was the dominant viewpoint, the irreligious said they just wanted a spot at the table to teach their alternate view. When they got it, they then forced out creationists, to the point at which they mock those who merely want to put a sticker inside textbooks saying that macro evolution is just one theory and that nobody was there to witness the start of the universe, so nothing can be proven, and they complain that those who want the sticker applied are forcing religion down everyone's throat, and violating their fictitious wall of separation between church and state.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The one thing that this points to is the fight over same sex marriage. After understanding the 'fight' to maintain what some consider a marriage, the commentator seems to get it right, a group of religious people are using the government to dictate to the population at large.

So is the side fighting FOR same sex marriage. They want to codify THEIR beliefs and use the government to dictate to the population at large. That problem exists because the Federal Government has totally gone outside of it Constitutional bounds.

They did with marriage when they banned 'plural' marriage in the Mormon Church.

Marriage is NOT a Federal matter, regardless who gets married.

There is a reasonable compromise, but few reasonable people. We COULD define marriage as a 'religious' event and take out all civil interest. Then each individual religion could choose to marry according to their own beliefs. All civil things covered by today's 'marriage' can be accomplished by a simple, civil, contract. Those who have no religious beliefs would just make that contract.
 

clcooper

Expert Expediter
not what was posted by
U.S. : Taliban of Tomorrow?

1 THERE is an epidemic in this country, a vitriolic scourge spreading like a virus of the conscience that could leave the United States looking a lot like Afghanistan post-Taliban.

2 Despite the Constitution's requirement of separation of government and religion .THEY are working hard to codify their intolerance, their misogyny, and their aggressive ignorance. They want to shape our government to conform to their ideology, and claim that those of us who resist, who value our freedom, the Constitution, are somehow "persecuting them" by our refusal to capitulate.

3 There is THEIR way of life and only THEIR way of life, much like Afghanistan on the brink of the Taliban devolution.

4 women will not be sent into some speculative Margaret Atwood world, where their only value is as a tool for breeding.

5 The state of Virginia does not have the right to violate its own rape statute prohibiting forced penetration by object
and demand transvaginal ultrasound prior to an abortion, which accomplishes nothing medically.


6 Your bigotry and hatred will not claim the lives of more kids who are gay or perceived to be gay. in Michele Bachmann's district where bullying was the acceptable way to deal with people deemed "wrong." Kids committed suicide as the tragic result.

You cannot indoctrinate kindergarteners with "Bible study" in public schools, kindergarteners who are now telling their non-conforming classmates that they're "going to hell."


It's fine if THEY choose to disregard evidence. It's fine if they choose to do so in their own religious schools. What is not fine is the attempt to legitimize that ignorance in the form of a public education curriculum, eviscerating the Constitution to do so.

7 We must remain vigilant, religious and non-religious alike.

We cannot shrug off or make light of the bigotry and hatred that has found its way into the political process. If we stop watching, if we stop speaking,

we might suddenly find ourselves in a country very much like post-Taliban Afghanistan, a Stone Age we thought we'd left behind long ago.

1 who is the Taliban ? what is the Taliban?

2 all i have to say is what is Obama care ,Patriot Act and the NDAA ???

3 see #2

4 so you believe your wifes and /or gril friends are just a tool for breeding. and they dont have any rights or freedoms either .

5 so it is not ok for you to rape but it is ok for the GOV to rape

6 so it is ok to be bigotry and hatred to somebody who is differant from you that believes in something then you . so it should be ok for them to be bigotry and hatred to you also .

isnt freedom of religion part of the Constitution

7 dont worry about it untill they come after the freedoms you like next will be your guns ,
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
So is the side fighting FOR same sex marriage. They want to codify THEIR beliefs and use the government to dictate to the population at large.

I understand what you are saying but there is a bit of a difference.

I use the same sex marriage thing as just a quick example but I can tell you another - Islam.

But taking my original example, it is in a long line of issues that present the problem when a religious organization uses the separation clause on one hand but then lobbies for changes to prevent people from using their rights. On the opposite side of the coin, the idea that the church has to provide contraceptives to their employees is an issue that illustrates their wanting to be special and not follow the rules that others have to - point in case, there are states that require this already.

That problem exists because the Federal Government has totally gone outside of it Constitutional bounds.

That is a completely different issue, it is one that has to do with the people allowing it. As I said in other threads, there is a problem with people who don't think when they vote and even here holding a nose when voting or voting for the less of two evils is the same as voting for someone because of their color.

They did with marriage when they banned 'plural' marriage in the Mormon Church.

actually don't care, the Mormons seem to be nice people and if they want men to marry four or ten women, I don't care because it is a right that their state should allow or disallow, not the feds or other churches.

Marriage is NOT a Federal matter, regardless who gets married.

True but here is the reason I am for it, or at least opening up the idea of having the government the hell out of our lives, when you have issues that have to do with money, property or what ever, it is a spousal relationship that matters. I could give you some very true (non-gay) examples but instead I think that if I want someone in the hospital room with me who is not my family, or have someone handle my financial affairs, then IT IS MY choice. SO civil unions, marriage or what ever, it is a subject that goes beyond the religious and into the point of the sovereign individual.


There is a reasonable compromise, but few reasonable people. We COULD define marriage as a 'religious' event and take out all civil interest. Then each individual religion could choose to marry according to their own beliefs. All civil things covered by today's 'marriage' can be accomplished by a simple, civil, contract. Those who have no religious beliefs would just make that contract.

I think you should not look at it as a religious thing but as a civil issue. If a church doesn't want to accept members that are the same sex who have committed themselves to each other, then they don't have to but if they do, so what. This isn't about the bible thumping people who tell everyone they have to accept their way or everyone will burn in hell but rather a point that our system is screwed up and the commentary you posted illustrates what a lot of people here and overseas sees wrong with the country.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The problem is that marriage is NOT a Federal issue. It is, at best, a State issue. It SHOULD be a PERSONAL issue, with NO government involvement at any level.

The Federal government SHOULD repeal ALL laws pertaining to marriage.

No need for a marriage license either. Inter-racial marriage is common place now.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
And I agree but until we as a people get the idea that we dont need those in churches dictating to us, we won't get back to where we need to be.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The problem is that marriage is NOT a Federal issue. It is, at best, a State issue. It SHOULD be a PERSONAL issue, with NO government involvement at any level.
Exactly.

And I agree but until we as a people get the idea that we don't need those in churches dictating to us, we won't get back to where we need to be.
I'll take it a step further:

We - the citizens of this nation - don't need anyone dictating to us .... it ain't what we're about ....
 

copdsux

Veteran Expediter
Charter Member
So, if all of you that have posted so far, take issue with the article LOS posted, then, in turn, I guess it's ok if I am vehemently opposed to Rick Santorum trying to dictate to me a moral/religious code that I don't agree with.

The Republicans are always talking about small government. We now know that they want it to be small enough to fit inside a female's private parts.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
The hyphenated surname is usually a good indication.
While I might tend to agree with the sentiment expressed in some instances, the difficulty here is that it's apparently not the surname that is hyphenated ..... but rather her given, or Christian, name .... ;)
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
So, if all of you that have posted so far, take issue with the article LOS posted, then, in turn, I guess it's ok if I am vehemently opposed to Rick Santorum trying to dictate to me a moral/religious code that I don't agree with.
Absolutely .... and I'm quite willing to lend a hand .... to keep any potential frothiness at bay .....

The Republicans are always talking about small government. We now know that they want it to be small enough to fit inside a female's private parts.
Well .... someone of them probably do (Bible-bangers) ..... but not all .....

Some of 'em do all kinds of wild and crazy things ..... just like the Dems .....
 
Top