tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6153958953273516800..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: McAtheismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26020202757493522692013-08-26T14:44:48.268-07:002013-08-26T14:44:48.268-07:00Nope. A vow is a vow. No politics for me on the in...<i>Nope. A vow is a vow. No politics for me on the internet.</i><br /><br />Your call, Bob, and I won't harass you about it either way.<br /><br />But I want to make clear what I'm offering here. I'm not trying to debate anyone, or prove them wrong for its own sake. My concern here is that sincere Christians on the left and right are needlessly hostile towards each other. I do not think economically left-wing Christians necessarily understand where many economically right-wing Christians are coming from. I want both sides to understand each other better, and that's not going to happen without both sides explaining how they see the other side.<br /><br />So the offer stands. I'm interested in Christians here - believers in God and the resurrection of Christ - first and foremost, because that is where I think common ground exists. And common ground is essential.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69483545846320166572013-08-26T14:30:45.790-07:002013-08-26T14:30:45.790-07:00"Bob Prokop and any other liberal Christians ..."<i>Bob Prokop and any other liberal Christians are welcome to take part in this too, if they so choose.</i>"<br /><br />Nope. A vow is a vow. No politics for me on the internet.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75180053517246402552013-08-26T13:19:59.974-07:002013-08-26T13:19:59.974-07:00Actually, Al, I have a great idea.
I've made ...Actually, Al, I have a great idea.<br /><br />I've made <a href="http://crudeideas.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-post-specifically-for-liberals-who.html" rel="nofollow">a thread just for people like yourself</a> - Christian/Catholic liberals. We can take the politics out of Victor's thread. Bob Prokop and any other liberal Christians are welcome to take part in this too, if they so choose.<br /><br />I've been meaning to do this for a while, so hey, this is as good an opportunity as any.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75206793762273696752013-08-26T12:38:06.568-07:002013-08-26T12:38:06.568-07:00Al,
I never said that Obamacare was a 'compro...Al,<br /><br /><i>I never said that Obamacare was a 'compromise' or a step on the path to subsidiarity.</i><br /><br />I thought you were, since I cited subsidiarity specifically as one reason I opposed Obamacare. Fair enough - withdrawn.<br /><br />But I still await a reply to my other questions.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48535163605405263092013-08-26T12:18:47.699-07:002013-08-26T12:18:47.699-07:00It makes no sense to regard Obamacare as a 'co...<i>It makes no sense to regard Obamacare as a 'compromise' on the path to subsidiarity, </i><br /><br />I never said that Obamacare was a 'compromise' or a step on the path to subsidiarity. Perhaps you might be more careful in interpreting other people's posts.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68732762795794943022013-08-26T12:17:11.560-07:002013-08-26T12:17:11.560-07:00Al,
Let me ask another question.
I an definitely...Al,<br /><br />Let me ask another question.<br /><br /><i>I an definitely not blind to the dangers of it. There is the danger of abuse in any approach to policy.</i><br /><br />Humor me. What are the dangers of the welfare state, as you see them?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42850159472152199582013-08-26T12:08:21.289-07:002013-08-26T12:08:21.289-07:00Al,
I agree with you the the principle of subsidi...Al,<br /><br /><i>I agree with you the the principle of subsidiarity, which the Catholic Church supports, would be ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world with all perfect people. In such a world I'll take the next best compromise, even if this compromise has flaws on its own.</i><br /><br />There is no 'compromise' between subsidiarity and Obamacare. They are poles apart in terms of extremes. It makes no sense to regard Obamacare as a 'compromise' on the path to subsidiarity, anymore than it makes sense to regard full and unrestricted abortion up to delivery as a pro-life compromise.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52616142116743866652013-08-26T12:06:25.342-07:002013-08-26T12:06:25.342-07:00Al,
And yes, I do think that Skep was right on th...Al,<br /><br /><i>And yes, I do think that Skep was right on the money when it comes to the broader cynical game of the Republican Party in fishing 'conservative' Christians.</i><br /><br />I will say it again: if you believe that only one political party engages in cynical games of manipulating people, only one political party uses propaganda, only one political party is beholden to wealthy and corporate interests, then you are deluded. In fact, if you don't believe that both are largely similar to the ultimate degree in which they do both - if you say 'Well sometimes the Democratic are kinda-sorta bad but the GOP is ALWAYS TERRIBLE', yep. You're deluded.<br /><br />I've pointed out the money they receive. I can point at the support they get from the Entertainment industry, among other sections. I can point out quite a lot more.<br /><br /><i>And I stand by my and Skep's claim that many Republican voters do vote against their own economic interests, for the wrong reasons.</i><br /><br />'For the wrong reasons'? See, this is a new qualification. And what are the right reasons? What are the wrong reasons?<br /><br />And 'Republicans undermine free and fair elections'? How? It better not be through the use of corporate money and power, because demonstrably the Democrats use this too. It better not be owing to propaganda, because once more, the Democrats make ample and excessive use of this. It better not be via vote manipulation, because I'll refer to the stories showing democrats involved in such.<br /><br />And I am still waiting for the 3 moral reasons to support the Republican party over the Democrats. Let's hear them. Because again, talk of abrasiveness aside, I'm skeptical that you'll give any.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50999065024050909412013-08-26T11:59:30.780-07:002013-08-26T11:59:30.780-07:00On the flipside, I encounter many Christians who r...<i>On the flipside, I encounter many Christians who regard the only acceptable moral position politically to be 'huge welfare state', and seem blind to the dangers of it. </i><br /><br />I an definitely not blind to the dangers of it. There is the danger of abuse in any approach to policy. I agree with you the the principle of subsidiarity, which the Catholic Church supports, would be ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world with all perfect people. In such a world I'll take the next best compromise, even if this compromise has flaws on its own.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22699744684430002322013-08-26T11:58:42.607-07:002013-08-26T11:58:42.607-07:00Skep,
It is you, my comprehension-impaired friend...Skep,<br /><br /><i>It is you, my comprehension-impaired friend, who insisted in seeing a much broader attack on all things Republican, and responding to arguments that were not being made.</i><br /><br />I made no comment about 'an attack on all things Republican'. Go ahead, blast the party for a variety of its sins. The stupidity was, once again, "And don't even think of claiming that Democrats do the same things."<br /><br />That is insane, and you've been fleeing from that comment - particularly with regards to 'corporate sponsorship - this entire thread after I criticized it. Once again: you're welcome.<br /><br /><i>Spare us your pretensions of intellectual superiority. </i><br /><br />1: There's no 'us' here. I don't claim to be more intelligent than Al, or Victor, or Dan, or most others. You? You're an idiot. Everyone here, with the exception of Linton, is more intelligent than you.<br /><br />2: I'm not the only one who notices this.<br /><br />Go put on a football helmet and play outside, kid. You'll get extra graham crackers if you don't run into a lamp post today. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30661721177142198752013-08-26T11:54:26.962-07:002013-08-26T11:54:26.962-07:00My comments were about the way Republicans are sub...<i>My comments were about the way Republicans are subverting democracy by undermining free and fair elections.</i><br /><br />And that's true too.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21489109302186835972013-08-26T11:52:35.614-07:002013-08-26T11:52:35.614-07:00You supported that without qualification.
And yes...<i>You supported that without qualification.</i><br /><br />And yes, I do think that Skep was right on the money when it comes to the broader cynical game of the Republican Party in fishing 'conservative' Christians. Which does not take away the fact that there may be some Christians who vote Republican for well-thought out reasons, and the fact that there may be a few Republican politicians who are actually honest in their social conservatism.<br /><br />And I stand by my and Skep's claim that many Republican voters do vote against their own economic interests, for the wrong reasons. If you really find their economic model the right one, after thoroughly having thought about it, that's a different story.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17081667215193586882013-08-26T11:50:30.182-07:002013-08-26T11:50:30.182-07:00"This conversation turned political when I sa..."This conversation turned political when I saw an intelligence-challenged Cultist of Gnu babble on about a broad list of political sins, who then said 'And don't even think of saying the Democrats do the same things'."<br /><br />What we have here is failure to communicate. My comments were about the way Republicans are subverting democracy by undermining free and fair elections. It is you, my comprehension-impaired friend, who insisted in seeing a much broader attack on all things Republican, and responding to arguments that were not being made.<br /><br />With regard to making judgments about conversations you have not even followed, it's actually worse than that. You don't follow the discussions you are involved in. Spare us your pretensions of intellectual superiority. They only serve to show what a buffoon you really are.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83743708865045370782013-08-26T11:47:47.219-07:002013-08-26T11:47:47.219-07:00Fair enough. Maybe I am too much burned by fundie ...<i>Fair enough. Maybe I am too much burned by fundie right-wing Catholics, and thus have an overly strong reaction.</i><br /><br />I have no doubt that there are people, Christians and not, who regard anything short of full-blown laissez-faire capitalism as evil. On the flipside, I encounter many Christians who regard the only acceptable moral position politically to be 'huge welfare state', and seem blind to the dangers of it. But either way, it happens.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63298011000311316262013-08-26T11:42:17.296-07:002013-08-26T11:42:17.296-07:00Short version: I'm open to disagreement betwee...<i>Short version: I'm open to disagreement between Christians on these subjects. But abrasive, broad attacks on very large classes of Christians makes it difficult not to respond abrasively in turn.</i><br /><br />Fair enough. Maybe I am too much burned by fundie right-wing Catholics, and thus have an overly strong reaction. In any case, those Catholics have gloriously achieved the opposite of what they wanted, they drove me more firmly into the 'other camp', instead of 'converting me from my sins and erroneous ways' (no joke, that's what their stated mission was).Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30770069066460680422013-08-26T11:20:38.848-07:002013-08-26T11:20:38.848-07:00Al,
You are awfully quick to make judgements abou...Al,<br /><br /><i>You are awfully quick to make judgements about discussions that you have not even followed.</i><br /><br />It was a question, not an judgment. Because frankly, that's often what 'they were completely impervious to rational discussion' ultimately cashes out to when it comes to politics. Granted, that was one snarky question, but a judgment it was not. Feel free to provide a link to the site, and I will see what happened.<br /><br /><i>But perhaps you could be more open with respect to opinions of your religious brethren in things they disagree with you, without right away questioning their rationality. I am not a fundie like many (not all) atheists here.</i><br /><br />Al, look at this from my perspective. This conversation turned political when I saw an intelligence-challenged Cultist of Gnu babble on about a broad list of political sins, who then said 'And don't even think of saying the Democrats do the same things'. You supported that without qualification. I will be frank: I think anyone who insinuates that it's only one party that is beholden to corporate interests or the interests of the wealthy (among other things) has hit a point of delusion, or deception. Tell me that only one party is the party of gun ownership or 'reproductive rights', and I'll just question the analysis and point out issues of qualification. Tell me that only one party is favored by a sizable number of billionaires and corporate/business interests, and I think we have a larger problem.<br /><br />And I am very much open to fellow Christians who disagree with me, particularly on politics. What makes me bristle is Christian left-right hostility, where the Christians who vote Republican are clearly a bunch of deluded saps (and I maintain that 'voting against their economic interests' is a rotten standard, particularly for Christians, to use to measure this), or the Christians who support liberal economic policies and welfare state initiatives are a bunch of closet communist atheists. The former showed up in this thread, so I reacted to it. We are being played by *both* parties on that front.<br /><br />Yeah, I'm abrasive. But I purposefully strive to maintain a civil tone with theists and non-cult atheists generally, and Christians particularly, when disagreements are reached. This is not made easier by broad-stroke bashing of theists on the other side of a political spectrum, or who largely vote for one of the two unfortunately 'major' parties.<br /><br />Short version: I'm open to disagreement between Christians on these subjects. But abrasive, broad attacks on very large classes of Christians makes it difficult not to respond abrasively in turn.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37175237023696098652013-08-26T07:45:53.945-07:002013-08-26T07:45:53.945-07:00I had said:
Not here, but on a prominent Catholic...I had said: <br /><i>Not here, but on a prominent Catholic website that turned out to be rather right-wing.</i><br /><br />Crude:<br /><i>What does this matter to this conversation? And does 'impervious to rational argument' simply mean that they ultimately disagreed with you?</i><br /><br />You are awfully quick to make judgements about discussions that you have not even followed. No, I don't have problems with people disagreeing with me, but I do have problems with people who, in a fundamentalist manner, claim their way to read certain Church documents is the only one, when it can be shown with certainty that this is not the case and there are alternative readings possible because these documents are *purposefully* ambiguous in places. <br /><br /><i>Here's a good test for your rational argument meter: do you think it's possible to oppose Obamacare and to have any intellectually and morally justified reasons to do so? Because if not, yours is the rationality I question.</i><br /><br />Yes, I think it's possible to oppose Obamacare and to have any intellectually and morally justified reasons to do so. And no, you don't need to question my rationality. By the way, I admire and appreciate the way you defend theism against (the in many cases hollow and uninformed thinking of) atheists here, and I even approve of your abrasive tone when appropriate. But perhaps you could be more open with respect to opinions of your religious brethren in things they disagree with you, without right away questioning their rationality. I am not a fundie like many (not all) atheists here.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6473996963900190632013-08-25T11:04:38.220-07:002013-08-25T11:04:38.220-07:00No worries. I'm sure it was an accident.No worries. I'm sure it was an accident.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29639783876698413382013-08-25T10:49:11.998-07:002013-08-25T10:49:11.998-07:00crude finally says something true.
And there you ...<i>crude finally says something true.</i><br /><br />And there you have Skep's mental process in a nutshell, folks. Is the statement something he likes or approves of? Truth, truth, it's the truth!<br /><br />Is the statement something he dislikes or disapproves of? Lie! Lie! It's gotta be a lie!<br /><br />Such is the quivering of the non-skeptical. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42760115445093427032013-08-25T10:30:37.778-07:002013-08-25T10:30:37.778-07:00"Believe it or not, self-identified liberal C..."Believe it or not, self-identified liberal Christians can be suckered by religious appeals just as much as conservatives can."<br /><br />crude finally says something true.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43030557450172430182013-08-24T15:32:52.895-07:002013-08-24T15:32:52.895-07:00By the way, the idea that it's only the GOP th...By the way, the idea that it's only the GOP that uses religion to advance its aims is a laugh. We see some of it in this thread - treating Christianity as the justification for one program or another.<br /><br />We've seen it with the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. We see it in black churches, we see it in the immigration debate, we see it just about everywhere when it happens to align with one or another cause.<br /><br />Invoking God's will when it comes to Kermit Gosnell is, apparently, quite distasteful. But for Obamacare? Totally different story. Believe it or not, self-identified liberal Christians can be suckered by religious appeals just as much as conservatives can.<br /><br />Oh, and the best part? There should not BE a liberal-conservative divide among sincere believing Christians. Even if we disagree, we should be able to discuss these things amongst each other. But people who are hostile to Christianity and who value their political party and political views over religion in general are more than happy to drive a wedge between both sides - and both sides are packed with people dumb enough to fall for it.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11747400969796137992013-08-24T15:14:33.399-07:002013-08-24T15:14:33.399-07:00When it comes to politics as long as you try to fo...When it comes to politics as long as you try to follow & apply the moral law it is pretty much up to your prudent rational judgement.<br /><br />There is no dogma that says I must be for or against Obamacare(sans the fascist component to force Catholics to provide birth control & abortion to the heathen).<br /><br />There is no Catholic teaching that says I must be for or against big government or "taxing the rich".<br /><br />Now having said this my prudent judgement tells me liberalism for the most part sucks more than anything that has ever sucked before. (Well maybe some things suck more but it still sucks a lot)<br /><br />Bob doesn't have to agree with me.<br /><br />Crude most likely mostly does.<br /><br />But the three of us are brothers in the Faith.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35647975011973399122013-08-24T14:48:55.748-07:002013-08-24T14:48:55.748-07:00Skep,
Quiver, quiver. ;)
Al,
Not here, but on a...Skep,<br /><br />Quiver, quiver. ;)<br /><br />Al,<br /><br /><i>Not here, but on a prominent Catholic website that turned out to be rather right-wing. </i><br /><br />What does this matter to this conversation? And does 'impervious to rational argument' simply mean that they ultimately disagreed with you?<br /><br />Here's a good test for your rational argument meter: do you think it's possible to oppose Obamacare and to have any intellectually and morally justified reasons to do so? Because if not, yours is the rationality I question.<br /><br /><i>The USCCB voting guide rather urges to weigh all issues against one another</i><br /><br />That's nice. Let's see what we have here:<br /><br />On the one hand, the universal opposition by Catholic bishops - who range from left to right on the political and even religious spectrum - to Obamacare as it currently stands.<br /><br />On the other hand, we have your interpretation of a voting guide written *BY* the USCCB.<br /><br />Exactly which sentiment carries greater weight here, Al? This is a little like someone telling me that they've interpreted the American Heart Association's pamphlet to be A-OK with eating a <a href="http://www.bbqaddicts.com/blog/recipes/bacon-explosion/" rel="nofollow">Bacon Explosion</a> on the grounds that it mentions 'some amount of bacon can be part of a healthy diet', and who keeps referring to the pamphlet as a defense when it's pointed out that all the doctors in the AHA regard it as, believe it or not, unhealthy.<br /><br />Here's my own personal take, one that sets me against both parties: I am increasingly convinced by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)" rel="nofollow">subsidiarity</a>. That means that while I may favor a mixed various of health care initiatives (including a combination of charity and government run options), I prioritize the smallest, most local options over the rest. Therefore, I can't support a sprawling federal answer to the problem - I think there are better ways to handle it, in addition to concerns I have about the size and power and reach of the federal government.<br /><br />Let me guess: I'm a sinner, crushing the windpipe of the poor under my goddamn heel, because I don't blindly support the political solution to the problem that you do? Tell me what Catholic principles I betray by my position.<br /><br />And by the way - I'm still waiting to see those moral justifications for voting Republican or Democrat. Because frankly? I think that was a bluff. I suspect you'd be loathe to give any moral reasons to vote for the party you despise, or moral reasons to oppose the party you favor, despite there being ample reasons for both.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58663509459069637202013-08-24T14:00:35.012-07:002013-08-24T14:00:35.012-07:00Did someone give that argument here?
Not here, bu...<i>Did someone give that argument here?</i><br /><br />Not here, but on a prominent Catholic website that turned out to be rather right-wing. Many of their members were impervious against rational argument, including argument that used weighty documents by the Catholic Church itself. The discussion was rather exasperating, as you can imagine. The fact that I had a few Catholics on my side was but a mild consolation.<br /><br /><i>And again, how about the USCCB's view of the current health care plan? Do you agree with them?</i><br /><br />I understand their moral concern, yes. However, the question is if that moral concern should be overriding all other considerations. The USCCB voting guide rather urges to weigh all issues against one another in one's own conscience, and as I pointed out, warns against being 'single-issue' voters.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78795315068128517082013-08-24T13:38:28.029-07:002013-08-24T13:38:28.029-07:00"My entire contribution to this thread has be..."My entire contribution to this thread has been to be laughing at defenses of the Democratic Party..."<br /><br />As I said, crude has a reading comprehension problem.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com