Absolutely... schools are very tolerant of alternative opinions unless you tread on "sacred ground" and even want to intellectually discuss a very wide range of forbidden topics.
Do I really have to list those for you? I'll be glad to. Or give you examples of non-leftist speakers shouted down or physically attacked so that their dangerous ideas can't be heard.
Ask Larry Summers what happens when even making an offhand remark that (1) was likely accurate and (2) could have stimulated some intellectual debate. (The height of irony was the woman professor who said that she feared she'd faint at the very thought he could have said that perhaps women have different inclincations
than men.)
Restrictions on speech (free speech zones), criminalization of hate speech, etc...
I really don't see much debate about it... the Vatican (who doesn't claim to be a venue for intellectual discussions) doesn't fire people for questioning the basic tenets of the religion ( though it might if they act on their non-approved beliefs) and in fact has been known to dramatically change positions on a number of basic issues following discussions (including the ordination of homosexual Priests).
I have yet to see your average (and I did specify "average" in my statement) college campus allow such sweeping discussions/changes.
Asked why a college professor who claimed that tolerance was once of the primary strenghts of her campus would be protesting a conservative speaker's right to speak there answered "Intolerance cannot be tolerated!" I love intellectual irony.
Like a pro-gay group can be funded with college funds but an anti-gay group can't because it's religiously-based.. same for pro-life groups. That's some tolerance for you.
The other intellectual irony I love is that a discussion can go on forever with everyone agreeing with the politically correct side without any question... but at the first "unacceptable" opinion, someone says, "Got any data to back that up?"
Until someone can at least make a reasonable argument to the contrary, my position stands.
;-)
wcelliot wrote:
I really don't see much debate about it... the Vatican (who doesn't claim to be a venue for intellectual discussions) doesn't fire people for questioning the basic tenets of the religion ( though it might if they act on their non-approved beliefs) and in fact has been known to dramatically change positions on a number of basic issues following discussions (including the ordination of homosexual Priests).
Well they can't kick anyone out. They need everyone they can get for their plot to take over the world. It all makes perfect sense, but people act like it's crazy talk. They don't realize that there's this like lattice of coincidence that layers on top of everything. Give you an example, I'll show you what I mean. Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly somebody will say like plate or shrimp or plate of shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point for looking for one either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.
Take South America for example. In South America thousands of people go missing every year. Nobody knows where they go. They just like disappear. But if you think about it for a minute, you realize something. There had to be a time when there were no people. Right? Well, where did all these people come from? I'll tell you where. The future. Where did all these people disappear to? The past. And how'd they get there? Flying saucers. Which are really? Yeah, you got it. Time machines.
I think a lot about this kind of stuff. I do my best thinking on the bus. That how come I don't drive, see.
wcelliot wrote:
My main issue with atheists is that they tend to like to use the Government to enforce behavior rules.
I'm glad Christians don't try to do that.
wcelliot wrote:
My main issue with atheists is that they tend to like to use the Government to enforce behavior rules. Just because they don't believe doesn't mean they've overcome the basic human nature to try and control others. Add to that their often arrogant opinion of their own intelligence and you end up with trouble.
(This is a generalization... some atheists adhere to the principles of individual liberty and capitalism... but really I find more of them to be agnostics than "practicing" atheists)
I don't believe in interferring with other's peoples basic rights and I DEFINITELY do not approve of using the gov't for means of social engineering through tax codes/policies/etc. But there does seem to be a large group of Americans that want to restrict all kinds of behaviour of everyone, and I'm pretty sure the majority aren't Atheists.
I can make all kinds of generalizations about Christians, but it does nothing to further an intelligent debate. It's merely backhanded mud-flinging. So I'll try to refrain from making anymore.
However, I am curious as to what a "practicing" atheist is vs an agnostic?
fast_eddie_72 wrote:
wcelliot wrote:
My main issue with atheists is that they tend to like to use the Government to enforce behavior rules.
I'm glad Christians don't try to do that.
Let's take the last, oh, say 4 decades in the US. you give me new behavior rules that have been put in place at the national level by "Christians" and for each one I'll give you 5 secular behavior rules that have been put into place and/or religious ones that have been removed by secualr forces.
See, that's the difference... Christians talk (loudly and incessently) about sin and stuff being wrong, etc... but in reality they rarely try to codify it in law (at least at the federal level)... and even less rarely are successful. And in fact the 4 last decades have pretty much been dismantling of all the religious based laws (blue laws, etc) and replacing them with secular ones.
But leftist athiests rarely ever talk about "right" and "wrong" in moral terms like that... so on the surface they appear less judgemental. But they are the ones who will put behavior rules into place based on "social justice" and the like... the whole nanny state concept belongs to that side...
z31maniac wrote:
However, I am curious as to what a "practicing" atheist is vs an agnostic?
I thought you'd like that! ;-)
wcelliot wrote:
Lots of interesting discussions about atheists over the weekend.
My main issue with atheists is that they tend to like to use the Government to enforce behavior rules. Just because they don't believe doesn't mean they've overcome the basic human nature to try and control others. Add to that their often arrogant opinion of their own intelligence and you end up with trouble.
(This is a generalization... some atheists adhere to the principles of individual liberty and capitalism... but really I find more of them to be agnostics than "practicing" atheists)
In religion, if something is bad, it's a sin. To too many atheists, if something is bad, it should be illegal (or heavily regulated).
Dictators throughout history have either wanted to control the Church or displace it for this very reason.
Outside of a theoracy, I'm allowed to ignore your idea of "bad" until it becomes illegal... and that's why generally atheists are a more intrusive "religion" than the religion they so despise (most often for being intrusive).
Your average US college campus (most typically run unopposed by atheists) is a much more intolerant (of alternative opinions), fascist place than the Vatican... and that's saying something.
What dream world did you slip into? Please explain how you came to the conclusion that atheists in general want the government to control others. Take for example the pro-life movement, the anti-gay marriage movement, the anti-drug movement, prohibition, etc. Everyone of those movements is a religious based movement. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with some of those movements and I am not saying where I fall as far as religion. I am just simply pointing out some facts.
z31maniac wrote:
I don't believe in interferring with other's peoples basic rights and I DEFINITELY do not approve of using the gov't for means of social engineering through tax codes/policies/etc. But there does seem to be a large group of Americans that want to restrict all kinds of behaviour of everyone, and I'm pretty sure the majority aren't Atheists.
I think you're way wrong there... our behavior today is shaped WAY more by secular government law than by religious law...
Even though you listed some of the issues, you still seem to think that all the talk from the religious right is somehow worse than actual action by the secular left. (You're not alone... most "practicing athesists" would agree.)
Tax code, wealth redistribution, regulations, global warming, recyling laws, speech codes, hate crimes, gun laws, etc... versus... these aren't desires... these are REAL. And you better believe that the folks who enacted them want to change folks behavior EVERY BIT as much as the religious right. The difference is THEY ARE DOING IT!
The primary danger to our freedoms aren't the gay-bashing radical religious right (who haven't been able to enact any behavior changing laws in decades...) it's the fascist secular left with all the new rules, regulations, taxes, etc that are changing our lives.
See the recent letter from the Health Czar to the insurance lobby? Chilling.
Bill
96DXCivic wrote:
<
What dream world did you slip into? Please explain how you came to the conclusion that atheists in general want the government to control others. Take for example the pro-life movement, the anti-gay marriage movement, the anti-drug movement, prohibition, etc. Everyone of those movements is a religious based movement. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with some of those movements and I am not saying where I fall as far as religion. I am just simply pointing out some facts.
See my previous post. You've listed the top two that everybody lists... pro-life and gay marriage.
I'll give those to you. One completely unsuccessful for the past 3 decades and the other not changing any past behavior... just fighting the changing of past behavior.
Proibition left the building a long time ago and the anti-drug laws were more political and rascist in nature than religious... so you can't blame those on the religious right today.
Now look at my list above at what the secular left has DONE, not what they's talked about... and the effect on our everyday lives.
Not even close.
Good points, no doubt about it.
But because I don't believe in God, does not mean I automatically subscribe to all manner of idiocy that spews from the left.
About the only one of those topics you mentioned, I'm OK with recycling laws. Granted, philosophically whether its a good idea/policy/etc, it's still forcing a behavorial change on people.
wcelliot wrote:
Proibition left the building a long time ago and the anti-drug laws were more political and rascist in nature than religious... so you can't blame those on the religious right today.
This is absolutely true. Marijuana was originally a problem in Southern border towns, particularly Texas.
Cocaine was originally outlawed to protect white women from those "evil black jazz musicians" and such.
However, even though I wasn't there/alive for these battles, I can almost certainly say they would have been presented with at least some of "corrupting our national values" type crap that you hear so often.
wcelliot wrote:
Until someone can at least make a reasonable argument to the contrary, my position stands.
;-)
yeah.. At my college we had a really strong LBGT group and an equally as strong Christian worship group.... Both got equal funding from the student government and college. (There were tons more members involved in the LBGT due to my school having a very strong art program. I call both groups equally strong based upon observations about their events. )
How do I know, I was the group they both hated cause I got a $100k budget from the school. Gotta love SAE Mini Baja.
wcelliot wrote:
z31maniac wrote:
I don't believe in interferring with other's peoples basic rights and I DEFINITELY do not approve of using the gov't for means of social engineering through tax codes/policies/etc. But there does seem to be a large group of Americans that want to restrict all kinds of behaviour of everyone, and I'm pretty sure the majority aren't Atheists.
I think you're way wrong there... our behavior today is shaped WAY more by secular government law than by religious law...
Even though you listed some of the issues, you still seem to think that all the talk from the religious right is somehow worse than actual action by the secular left. (You're not alone... most "practicing athesists" would agree.)
Tax code,e wealth redistribution, regulations, global warming, recyling laws, speech cods, hate crimes, gun laws, etc... versus... these aren't desires... these are REAL. And you better believe that the folks who enacted them want to change folks behavior EVERY BIT as much as the religious right. The difference is THEY ARE DOING IT!
The primary danger to our freedoms aren't the gay-bashing radical religious right (who haven't been able to enact any behavior changing laws in decades...) it's the fascist secular left with all the new rules, regulations, taxes, etc that are changing our lives.
See the recent letter from the Health Czar to the insurance lobby? Chilling.
Bill
Yes there have been laws pasted by the left that restrict personal freedom but in general the people that are most willing to take away personal freedom are people that are religious in nature.This is solely based on personal observations and I was responding on a personal level not making wild statements about whole parties. Also "fascist" is generally considered to be on the far right. I think the word you were looking for is socialist.
@z31maniac
I mentioned before that not all athiests types were on the left (I've not mentioned my personal religious beleifs here either)...
But the majority of athiests (and especially the actively "anti-religion" types) tend to reside there...
100 years ago things were a lot different and both of what we would call "left" and right" today were acutely religious. The secular left has only been in power for the last 40-45 years or so... so you have to look at their efforts and accomplishments since then.
wcelliot wrote:
it's the fascist secular left
Ohh god really.. You conservatives really need to get this correct..
Facists are extreme conservatives..
Communists and socialists are liberals.
[rant]So anyone calling obama a facist is basically admitting they haven't bothered to do any research and should really go back to their day job serving me a small twist cone at the Tastee Freeze. [/rant]
Wait what? you got 100k for your mini Baja project !?!?
Damm our formula SAE guys would have killed for that kind of funding...
Capt Slow wrote:
Wait what? you got 100k for your mini Baja project !?!?
Damm our formula SAE guys would have killed for that kind of funding...
Yup built three cars, raced in Brazil, South Africa and Three us races..
We were berkeleying pimps.
96DXCivic wrote:
Yes there have been laws pasted by the left that restrict personal freedom but in general the people that are most willing to take away personal freedom are people that are religious in nature.This is solely based on personal observations and I was responding on a personal level not making wild statements about whole parties. Also "fascist" is generally considered to be on the far right. I think the word you were looking for is socialist.
The irony of your statement is wonderful. You admit that the left has actually been passing laws that take away personal freedom, but claim the right is more willing to. Not quite sure how you look at the data and arrive at that conclusion. ;-)
No, fascism and socialism are both far left... philosophically and functionally more similar than dissimilar and the only real distinction bewteen them has been when they fight each other... and they are fighting for the same philosophical ground.
Only the left (and those indoctrinated by the left) considers fascism to be at the opposite extreme... it gives them a straw man to fight against.
Individual liberty/capitalism is at the other extreme from both.
wcelliot wrote:
But the majority of athiests (and especially the actively "anti-religion" types) tend to reside there...
Data? Or you're just whining...
wcelliot wrote:
No, fascism and socialism are both far left...
This is entirely incorrect. If you are going to base your arguments on unsound and incorrect information then you can't be taken seriously..
ignorant wrote:
wcelliot wrote:
it's the fascist secular left
Ohh god really.. You conservatives really need to get this correct..
Facists are extreme conservatives..
Communists and socialists are liberals.
[rant]So anyone calling obama a facist is basically admitting they haven't bothered to do any research and should really go back to their day job serving me a small twist cone at the Tastee Freeze. [/rant]
Man are you WAY off.
How dare you call me a conservative? I'm a classical liberal. Liberalism is small Government, individual rights.
The term was stolen by American leftists to cover their socialist programs. Liberalialism and communism exist at the extreme ends of the scale... philosophically completely opposed to each other. they have always tried to equate the American right with Hitler when in fact FDR was particularly impressed with the early economic policies which were very successful.
Your chart was drawn by leftists and is philosopically incorrect. Fascism does differ in several ways from socialism, but when compared to the differences between either and capitalism, you see that both belong on the same end of the scale.
Capitalism/individual liberty isn't even an option on your scale... if it were added it would be the point of an triangle about 10x as far above the current line as the line is long...
And I've not called our President anything here, but as I said there are differences between socialists and fascists and those differences can be applied to see which philosophies best line up with current administration policies. But by somebody else...
I can expound if necessary....
ignorant wrote:
wcelliot wrote:
No, fascism and socialism are both far left...
This is entirely incorrect. If you are going to base your arguments on unsound and incorrect information then you can't be taken seriously..
Have you ever taken a course in political philosophy? Do you understand the basics?
The left has misappropriated terms for their own use... socialism and fascism are philsophically two different sides to the same coin... some differences, yes, but both leftist collectivist economic philosophies...
If you want to use another term to describe it, that term would be "statism". You would be correct that Fascism would be defined at the "right" end of statism and communism at the "left". But both belong to statism and as a grouping are at the opposite end of capitalism....
Hmmm. Atheist with conservative small government leanings... man I must be a real rare bird. 
wcelliot wrote:
ignorant wrote:
wcelliot wrote:
it's the fascist secular left
Ohh god really.. You conservatives really need to get this correct..
Facists are extreme conservatives..
Communists and socialists are liberals.
[rant]So anyone calling obama a facist is basically admitting they haven't bothered to do any research and should really go back to their day job serving me a small twist cone at the Tastee Freeze. [/rant]
I can expound if necessary....
Look, I'm really glad that the "teabaggers" are now more involved in government. we need more involved citizens from all parts of the spectrum. Seriously, no sarcasm involved.
But this whole idiotic bullE36 M3 about trying to define yourselves as not this but an offshoot of that is very Highschool. It all smacks of the punk scene at my school where the real scene kids would always make fun of the posers, but then the posers would develop something new and then the hip kids had to quickly redefine themselves so that others wouldn't think they were not hip..
define it as you want, but youre a conservative
