Comments on: Thank God for Renew America

By: HairlessMonkeyDK

HairlessMonkeyDK — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:11:04 +0000

“Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger said,

November 10, 2005 at 16:11

Everybody just has to put their two cents in.
”

Yes… and yours are obviously counterfeit.

By: Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger

Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger — Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:11:47 +0000

Everybody just has to put their two cents in.

By: Marq

Marq — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:53:02 +0000

Though her words are simple and few
Listen, listen, she’s calling to you
“Feed the birds, tuppence a bag
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag”

By: Dr. BLT, Song Blogger

Dr. BLT, Song Blogger — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:39:45 +0000

Thanks for your kind words and for including me in the family, madjoey, dysfunctional though it may be. Based upon your comments, it doesn’t appear that you’re any more a hard-core humanist than I am a hard-core right-winger. While those of us who believe in God have taken the liberty of distinguishing between “secular” humanism and a type of Christianity that celebrates humanity in terms of our being created in the image of God, hard-core humanists possess, and diligently follow the rules of their manifesto, or, as you have described it, the “Big Book of Secular Humanism,” they are extremely well organized, and they do meet at least as often as those who are hard-core in their devotion to their faith. As far as power, or, what’s referred to in my field as “locus of control,” secular humanists have a power that they trust in, and turn to in order to attempt to solve life’s problems–the power of the human spirit. It’s an internal locus of control as opposed to either an external locus of control, or something I refer to as an “eternal” locus of control.

By: madjoey, Secular Humanist

madjoey, Secular Humanist — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 05:48:09 +0000

“Religion is concerned about experiences which are regarded as of supreme value; devotion towards a power or powers believed to originate, increase, and conserve these values; and some suitable expression of this concern and devotion, whether through symbolic rites or through other individual and social conduct.” Of course this is only one man’s definition, but it seems to apply to both religion and secular humanism. I would challenge any of you to note one aspect of this definition that does not apply to both religion and secular humanism.

Sure.

The definition you quote a priori assumes the existence “power or powers” to which I should proffer “devotion”; as a Secular Humanist ™, I don’t believe in these “powers.” As a Secular Humanist, when I observe something about the world that I don’t understand, I don’t go to the Big Book of Secular Humanist Answers for an explanation; I make up my own explanation, based on all the inputs that are available to me (my past history, education, culture, parenting, and, yes, S,N! archives). Secular Humanism is not organized; we don’t have a 503(c) exemption; we don’t meet on the Sabbath in buildings dedicated to the worship of “powers”; we don’t read common tracts. We may subscribe to common ideals, but this is distinct from explanations. There is no such thing as a Secular Humanist mythology.

(btw, BLT, that’s the source of all this mischief: People of faith forgot that it’s all made up — it’s not The Truth.)

(ps — To loyal Sadly, No! boggers: I apologize that my cherry-poppin’ post is a response to the nicest troll this side of the Pecos. But he’s a nice troll, part of the family… )

By: Dr. BLT, Song Blogger

Dr. BLT, Song Blogger — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:55:26 +0000

ACG: I appreciate your diligence in making your point. It is an intelligent question, but the point is moot. We live in an age in which our standards are constantly changing, in the direction of being more liberal. Even conservatives, myself included, accept some things conservatives in the past would never have accepted. Some day our standards will shift as it concerns what sorts of pairs will be allowed to marry, to the point in which even you would say, “Wait a minute, I’m not willing to go that far!” Will you consider the argument valid then? Some people use an argument when it is applicable, and some use the same argument when it is not applicable. Also, please keep in mind that when I say that homosexuality is not part of God’s plan, I am not saying that out of a self-righteous attitude. My very nature, as a fallen human being, was never part of God’s plan. The Bible says that all of our righteousness is as filthy rags. I am not a better person simply because I am not gay. I fall under the same category that gays fall under as it concerns God, “Sinner, in need of a Savior.”

By: ACG

ACG — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:19:49 +0000

BLT, it’s really easy to dismiss an argument on the basis that “one argument may be applicable in certain situation, but not in another,” but you’ve given no explanation as to why the racism/anti-miscegenation argument doesn’t apply to gay marriage. So to save you the trouble of scrolling all the way back up the thread, I’m going to give it to you again. Your options are to answer it or to give a good, solid reason why you won’t answer it:

Why are current arguments against gay marriage any different/more valid than arguments against interracial marriage forty years ago?

By: Phoenician in a time of Romans

Phoenician in a time of Romans — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:09:44 +0000

Cultural relativism, or secular humanism if you will, shares the same structural features as a religion, so when others are forced to recognize the new definition of marraige (whose supporters belong to that “religion,)” the beliefs of a minority of U.S. citizens are basically being shoved down the throats of the majority.

I see.

So when it was said that “blacks have the same right to freedom as whites”, this was shoving a belief down the throats of the majority? When it was said that Jews, pagans and Muslims had the same right to religion as Christians, this was shoving a belief down the throats of the majority?

Gays have the same right to marriage as straights. Civil rights are not up for majority vote. If you don;t like gay marriage, don’t marry a gay. It isn’t “shoving a belief down your throat” to mandate equal rights – it’s preventing you from shoving your belief down people’s throats.

By: Random Guy

Random Guy — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:25:05 +0000

There are some great points in this thread, especially this gem by Dan Someone:

“Hmm… where would I like to put my penis? In a girl or a boy? I choose… GIRLS!”

Had me laughing for a minute straight.

By: Bill S

Bill S — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:58:48 +0000

Thanks, Marq, I was trying to remember the title.

By: Marq

Marq — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:22:59 +0000

(Raises the interesting question of what kind of porn results when the pizza delivery guy’s car breaks down….)

Bisexual, of course!! And, seconding Bill, I’ve seen plenty of the pizza delivery guy plot device in a number of gay porno films–there was, I believe, an old William Higgins-directed title, “The Pizza Boy, He Delivers,” completely centered around that scenario.
Oh, and in one of my posts higher up this thread, I used “manor” where I should have used “manner.” D’oh!

By: D. Sidhe

D. Sidhe — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:42:03 +0000

I know I’m late to the party, but man.

Hey, Guy. Did you read AOL’s terms of service?
Yes-they-have-a-right-to-read-your-email.
You gave them that right when you signed up for your account.
It’s called a contract. It says right there in the info you clearly didn’t bother to read that they can, and may, do so for any reason. It also says that they will read any email that is forwarded to them as a complaint, regardless of whether it was yours or Al Franken’s.
Okay?

How much bitching do you suppose Guy’d do if he started getting spam urging a protest of some Bush appearance? But, then, that would clearly only be allowed by AOL because they’re, you know, pro-homo. (And if that account was removed from the spam-okay list, it would only be because Real Americans like Guy rose up in righteous outrage and made them ban it. It must be fab when even directly contrary facts all support your argument.)

Hint to Guy: Switch to freaking netzero. Believe me, you’ll be happier there, since you’re not likely to read their terms-of-service, either, where it undoubtedly says the exact same thing.

By: Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger

Dr. BLT, The Song Blogger — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 07:16:47 +0000

Marq, Jesus loves people of all races, ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientations. Not every gay person is gay for the same reasons, and I don’t mean to perpetuate such a myth. I never try to push my views or any particular evangelical agenda on gay individuals when they come to me for treatment. I don’t judge them or try to condemn them. I don’t assume that they are seeking treatment to become heterosexuals and I don’t try to force them to adopt my heterosexual orientation. We talk about what they feel is important to talk about, and we address issues they regard as problematic.

By: Bill S

Bill S — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 04:15:47 +0000

“Pizza, Pizza, Pizza!”
(Oh, and the pizza delivery boy did figure in at least one gay porn flick that I know of.)

By: Timmah420

Timmah420 — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 02:20:07 +0000

Pizza threesome!

By: Timmah420

Timmah420 — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 02:16:47 +0000

Tow truck lesbians!

By: Dan Someone

Dan Someone — Sun, 06 Nov 2005 00:12:29 +0000

Y’know, judging by gay porn, it’s simply amazing how often a standard car repair leads to hot sex!

Marq, that is fascinating. In straight porn, it’s more likely to be pizza delivery. Hot tip for young men choosing a career: If you’re gay, study up on car repair; if you’re straight, the food service industry is for you!

(Raises the interesting question of what kind of porn results when the pizza delivery guy’s car breaks down….)

By: Bill S

Bill S — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:35:32 +0000

“…I’m afraid that any argument I present to you will be taken as a personal condemnation of you…”
Oh, I see. So in other words, if you’re unable to come up with argument that doesn’t insult my intelligence, it isn’t because of any inherent flaw in the argument itself, it’s just because I’m too darned hypersensitive. Got it.
How very convenient for you.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:02:51 +0000

Just to bring back Guy Adams, he actually wrote this at the end of his column:

We’re in it to win ? remember, GOP = God’s Own Party

I’m going to throw up now.

By: Marq

Marq — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 18:50:18 +0000

Oh, and Christ-on-a-stick, BLT, not that gay=sexually abused thing again. I suppose that it hasn’t occurred to you that a person in therapy might be there for a reason? Let us say, and why not?, sexual abuse. Do you, perhaps, believe that you’re providing services to a significant percentage of the gay population in your area? Unless you’re spending more time hanging out in gay bars and clubs than I am, I doubt you’re interacting with any significant portion of the local gay population–at least, not when they’re in full “gay” mode. It’s not unlikly that you interact with gay people every day and just don’t know it, because they don’t feel it’s your, or anybody else’s business what their orientation is. And who could blame them?
Some of the evangelicals claim that gays make up around 1-2% of the population. It’s sort of a hard thing to quantify or study, because if there’s one thing people will lie about, it’s sex, particularly “taboo” sex. And, obviously, population densities are vary from place to place–there will be a higher percentage of gays in a large, urban area like NYC than there would be in a smaller city, like Fargo, ND. But there are some gay people practically everywhere, even in countries where imprisonment or even execution can result from being “outed.” My own rough estimate is in the mid-teens, percent-wise. It could be up into the 20 percentile range, possibly, if you counted the most tangental bisexuals. So, if 40-60 million Americans are not part of God’s plan, well, gee, He isn’t much of a planner then, is He?