Alabama Governor offends just about every religion that's not Christianity.

[werepossum]

Actually it does make sense, the capital letter is meant for proper nouns as far as I'm aware, not just nouns, so when you are talking about gods in general, as a concept for example then it's the same as saying horses, you don't need capital letters, if you are talking about a horse called Horse then it needs a capital. So unless you are talking about a specific god then it needs a capital, like Charlie the unicorn. needs a capital C but not a capital u.

Oh, I understand that, I'm just saying that the concept that it is improper to write "God" (that being the given name of our supreme deity and therefore disrespectful) but okay to write "god" because that's generic doesn't make sense - even though I generally do it.

 

[HAL9000]

Oh, I understand that, I'm just saying that the concept that it is improper to write "God" (that being the given name of our supreme deity and therefore disrespectful) but okay to write "god" because that's generic doesn't make sense - even though I generally do it.

I agree, but I don't think that it being considered improper is valid any more and depending on your philosophical stance you shouldn't capitalise given that you have no more respect for that word than any other, this is the reason that I don't capitalise god.

 

[bfdd]

States rights, BABY!

that's a very poor argument against states rights since the only reason it was allowed was because the federal government themselves allowed it. if the feds were protecting all citizens equally like they were supposed to states would not have been able to do that. what you see there is not a problem of states rights, but of ignorant systemic racism of the past.

 

[werepossum]

I agree, but I don't think that it being considered improper is valid any more and depending on your philosophical stance you shouldn't capitalise given that you have no more respect for that word than any other, this is the reason that I don't capitalise god.

But I do have more respect for that word than for most any other. I'm just admitting that writing "G-d" is not something greatly rooted in principle or logic, merely a habit picked up in reading those whom I greatly respect.

 

[HAL9000]

But I do have more respect for that word than for most any other. I'm just admitting that writing "G-d" is not something greatly rooted in principle or logic, merely a habit picked up in reading those whom I greatly respect.

That makes sense, so you are a theist?

 

[werepossum]

That makes sense, so you are a theist?

More of a deist actually, although in its broadest terms I suppose theism would fit me. I'm a believer in G-d and Christ, but not an attender, too suspicious of people who tell me they know what G-d wants me to do and whom He wants me to hate. And while I wouldn't presume to tell anyone that G-d does not cause every little illness, calamity, natural disaster and winning lottery number as part of His bizarre and unknowable but divine plan, I tend to believe that the vast majority of stuff is just "shit that happens." I cheerfully admit that I might be completely wrong though, so your mileage may vary.

 

[Zargon]

lol at what happened here.

:thumbsup:

 

[Fern]

... but everyone already know that if you don't believe in Jesus Christ then you are an enemy of God ... of the Satanic forces ... and must be eliminated. Watch out Jews, atheists and Buddhists and Muslims ...

I will be the spear of God that cleanses this wretched of non believers ...

Uh, no. You've got that completely wrong.

The christians are supposed to introduce these people to Jesus, not "eliminate" them.

Fern

 

[DominionSeraph]

but THATs logical? the percent of people that so wackass religious they wont take kids to doctors is so extremely low, and those arent crazy enough to 'let god drive their car'

It's called, "disproof."
The insinuation was made that demanding that people act atheistically is out of the ordinary. I pointed out that we do it all the time. But because it is so damned ordinary most people can't see that we do it because there isn't sufficient contrast, so I use extreme examples as perfect examples to illuminate the stage.
Using examples where the religious basis is more clouded because there are alternate paths through wider cultural conditioning and apologetics doesn't well illustrate the point.

If you want to prove that we can demand logic actions, you show where we disallow clearly illogical ones.

you have problems dude, seriously.

if you changed 'christian' to 'black' and 'atheist' to 'white' in your opinions here, you would be a grand dragon of the KKK.

buts its OK because you can hate on christians right?

There seems to be a beam in thine eye:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Christian+Persecution+Complex

Take a few deep breaths, blink a few times, and look again.

I am merely running probabilities. The lens through which the threads are being run is the Governor's worldview inferred from his words. His words indicate that his worldview is exclusionary of nonchristians. The label of "Christian" is an appropriate descriptor for his beliefs, and for his ingroup. Because it isn't likely for anyone to think that he is grouping with anyone other than Christians, "Christian" is also the appropriate descriptor for those who would consider that he considers them to be a part of his ingroup.
Now, those in the outgroup are necessarily perceived differently from those in the ingroup (there must be a boundary otherwise you have only one group). There is a wide scale of possibilities in how they may differ, but the human ego being the way it is, the outgroup is not typically on the high side of things.
Given that this particular grouping is centered on a set of beliefs themselves, and given that a belief that is perceived as lower than an opposing belief falls to that belief, it would be a very odd proposition to suggest that the Governor's particular grouping elevates nonchristians. His particular choice of words seems to indicate that he believes nonchristians to be inferior, which would be in line with this. And historical actions of Christians, being in line with this interpretation, also add weight to this interpretation.
With nonchristians being perceived as on the low side, without awareness of the impropriety of this imbalance and forced correction, the behavior that would naturally ensue would be to give nonchristians the short end of the stick.
As a nonchristian I am not happy with the idea that I may be treated worse than a Christian for no reason but that I do not believe that particular fairy tale. My relevant behavior should determine how I am treated, not my beliefs (or lack thereof.) I should not be held over the coals, either figuratively or literally (those Christians again!) in an attempt to coerce me to change my beliefs.
It is a generally held principle that the mind is sacred unless it causes problems through behavior. The Governor's behavior of his very insinuation that his mind will cause behavioral problems increases the possibility that other minds will bank off that likelihood and cause behavioral problems. This isn't Massachusetts we're talking about, it's Alabama. Entrenched racism is not likely to be limited to the Governor. So he doesn't even need to act on it -- just the thought that he would might be enough to open up a can of racism that the federal courts have been trying to put a lid on for the last 100 years.
This is why I have a problem with his behavior of uttering the insinuation itself.


Now stop jumping around with your emotional nonsense. It's irritating.
I recognize that my being significantly smarter than you will cause you difficulties in modeling, but you can at least learn the basics of control.