AChat Forum

Off-Topic => Quizz, Fav TV, Fav Music, Fav Films, Books... => Topic started by: Janine Dee on October 24, 2010, 09:43:58 AM

Title: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on October 24, 2010, 09:43:58 AM
A short summary for those who haven't heard of the story a NPR newscaster who got fired for comments he made when working his other job on Fox News where he first proclaimed he wasn't a bigot, and then said that he was afraid of people in Muslim garb. They fired him for the bigoted comment and now he (and many other conservative talking heads) are calling it censorship and calling for NPR's public funding to be pulled.

I don't care about NPR, but I don't see it as censorship. I see it as employer/employee relations. You renounce some of your rights when you take a paycheck. It's not unconditional, but it is a fact.

I've worked retail, and if I were to give into the urge to tell all the primped up douche bags to wash their hair once in a awhile, get a grown up hair cut, and shave the damn chin pubes I would get fired, and deservedly so.

I didn't, I realized I don't not have my full freedom of expression and I smiled and wrang up their purchases.

Juan Williams was perfectly happy to take NPR's money, but was not willing to abide by the fact that by taking their money he made himself accountable. I consider it comparable because he was just as much representing his employers as a newscaster as I was as a salesclerk. Now if I had spoke my mind the customer would consider it a reflection on the business as well as on the person.

My employers have always had and will always have the right to expect a certain degree of dignified behavior from me for the simple fact I continue to take their money.

Juan Williams took their money, and ignored their warnings like when they asked the NPR logo to be removed when he was speaking on Fox News. Now that his behavior crossed a line and he was fired he's whining like some sneering nineteen year old who can't grasp that showing up late and leaving early are not acceptable behaviors.

The fact that some of the most visible/vocal members of parties that are supposed to believe in things like character and self-reliance are coming to the man's defense show that what little I thought I could respect about conservatives as a body was a delusion on my part.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Lover on October 24, 2010, 11:07:35 AM
I do not know this special case and I don't talk about American politics and politicians - I have enough to do with the ones in my own country ;)
So my comment is just in general contracts, no matter if its for a job, a sale or any other deal.

In each deal you have rights and obligations. It seems to be human nature, we want to check out how far we can bend our part of the contract, but don't accept this from the other one. We expect, the other one has to comply with its oblogations. "You paid 1$ less, that's not allowed!" But if I leave early, it's ok. You can keep an eye closed. If then we get the bill for our behaviour, we start to cry (we talked about in another topic, just some people wanna take care for their own life). "Uhhh, not fair!"
This I hate. Do (or don't do something) and take responsibility. But it is a typical sign of much too many people. It's one thing to talk about values and another thing to live them.

The problem, if one partner allows bending (expanding) the rights you get a "law". I don't say this is correct, but it's human nature, too. "I was allowed to show this logo 100 times, now you can't prohibit!" even if it was prohibited before.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on October 24, 2010, 03:14:28 PM
The thing is that no matter how well established a rule may be there always seem to be those who figure it applies to everyone else. They are special, they aren't like the people who normally break the rules... it's why lawyers are despised, yet still aren't having any problem finding customers. It's just that the continuing story was pissing me off that a grown man (with white hair even) is behaving so childishly and getting some fairly wide spread support (even from elected officials) that are saying his employers should not have the right to deal with a problematic employee.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Adera on October 25, 2010, 04:10:32 AM
I kinda got caught at the conservative part of Janines post. I've read about Texas deciding to change the content of history textbooks in favour of christianity and that the textbooks used in Texas are widely used across the US. That seem kinda crazy, are they doing anything about that?
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on October 25, 2010, 04:46:43 AM
That happens where ever you go. There was a big flap about Japan editing it's history text books to minimize their WW2 atrocities and the nations that they had committed those atrocities against were understandably upset. It's nationalism, and I can't imagine any text books being truly neutral in their reporting of history.

But that's really a whole other topic.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Adera on October 25, 2010, 05:56:14 AM
Hmm thats right, I forgot about that. Well nationalism is a bad idea.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Bear on October 25, 2010, 09:20:27 AM
Texas issue was a knee jerk reaction to overtones made in some textbooks to paint  a positive spin on the Islamic society while at the same time pointing out certain deficiencies in the Christian society. Honestly to speak of America one has to grapple with religion and it's impact on society, modern American society has taken such a twist it goes out of it's way to attack or silence it's native religion . Thomas Jefferson was adamant about protecting the freedom of choice in religion. Sadly most of his comments are taken up and used as a base for atheism, a fact he would have been abhorred to hear. He was not an atheist, just not enamored by organized religion and the influence that it dictated on European society. His ultimate goal was to establish a society where religion could be actively (or not) participated  without concern. The current atheist movement has taken that point  organized and pressed an absolute segregation on the practice in public places. That flies in the face of American constitutional rights.

Juan Williams points must be taken with a degree of salt. NPR  holds itself to certain standards, and I always thought it meant freedom of speech, obviously that is not true.  Is it a first amendment violation to speak one's mind  if it flies with a tinge of concern that others in a majority here might unconsciously and silently hold. Not having heard his comments I will hold my own opinion in reserve. He is accountable though for his publicly viewed opinions. Any employers is allowed to dictate acceptable practices,...we work at will accepting those standards, not with imbued rights.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on October 25, 2010, 04:37:31 PM
We agree quite a bit Bear.

On the Freedom of Religion issue, as I interpret... one of the things that had the colonists first leaving England was the Church of England. At that point there was one Church allowed, and that was it. The problem that is arising now is that the marriage between the religious and the right is seeming intent on creating a Church of America.

We may end up making this a new thread, but I use the Gay Marriage issue as my example as there ARE churches willing to perform union ceremonies, but other churches are using their political allies to force THEIR interpretation of scripture. While I obviously have a personal bias every time someone says how the Bible defines marriage what they are really saying is how THEY interpret the Bible.

And they are seeking to make their interpretation the law of the land.

The problem is that both sides want to have it all their own way.

On Williams. He ABSOLUTELY had the right to make the comments he made. What he didn't have was the right to demand his employer accept them. That is the crux of my argument here. That the political party that normally is trumpeting the idea of personal accountability is insisting he shouldn't have any.

On NPR itself, they have their own responsibilities to advertisers, to donors, THEY would have bared the greater brunt of blow back over his comments if they had let them stand and kept him on. They seemed to have had a damned if they do, damned if they don't position.

Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Bear on October 25, 2010, 07:14:54 PM
The American fundamentalist movement definitely misses that crucial point. Jefferson's remarks were often directed towards the Christian right who were adamant at that time of creating a state religion. Jefferson wrote some some very persuasive points to dispel that movement,...as he noted America needed,...depended on the fundamental right to believe as you wanted without being dictated to prejudiced against by others. that is a point missing on the attack on religion the courts fail to take into account. In no way was the practice EVER to be prohibited, only that you could not be required to participate. 

but I agree with you on the Williams issue,...personal accountability. NPR has a certain right to make a stance on viewpoint which addresses an attack on anyone's religious viewpoint practice.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on October 26, 2010, 04:06:22 AM
Bear, I think we are demonstrating how this country SHOULD work. I just wonder if we are a minority, or it's just a vocal minority that's in front of the cameras convincing people to act like that?
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Bear on October 26, 2010, 09:24:45 AM
well it's a media station with a set agenda aligned with a political movement. THAT is the fear we all should have. Reeks of mind control...elements which which Europe to disaster 60 years ago. I listen to my ex in-laws spew this nonsense,...cringe and counter-point...

The vocal side is a minority,..but honestly I see their reaction,..as fair,...and a right to voice. Remember it is one station,..with a history and mandate to twist the truth to it's own agenda. Several years ago that station was under fire when reporters were fired for NOT twisting stories,...and fabricating facts to support the company viewpoint.

 The sad part,..there are some shocking revelations of truth they do say,...but mired in the lies they are lost.

You brought the gay marriage issue up,..I have had this discussion at length with a gay friend of mine,too many nights of discussion and I would say that you and I would go on likewise for hours because my viewpoint on this is oriented and slanted towards the religious right.

However,.this is a point a definition the government needs to step from, distance because it has taken a religious overtone whether right or not. Issue domestic partner agreements to ALL (I think the French government does this),...leave marriage ceremonies to the churches,...be it gay or fundamental right, those ceremonies are religion at work, and should not be subject to government control.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on October 26, 2010, 04:11:34 PM
Agreed, and there are certainly those gay rights activists who would rather FORCE Churches to perform same sex ceremonies, but they are just the flip side of the coin that wants to deny all same sex partner rights.

The key for me (but you said this too) is that the government issues the same rights to all unions, and Churches perform the ceremonies as they see fit.

Some had wanted to have marriages stand, but give same sex partners civil union's or something like that. Which sounds to me like the "Separate but Equal" (Jim Crow?) laws that were struck down.

As long as the field is equal I'm okay with it.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: tigershark on June 04, 2011, 04:12:13 PM
I remember when Juan got fired....let me say this...if in a post 9-11 world you arent a lil edgy about CERTAIN muslim's appearance...youre braindead...Juan was just honest enough to admit it....keep in mind Janine as Americans we live in a society that branded John Wayne a racist because he killed Indians and Japanese in movies.(in which it was contextually accurate)...he stated he wouldnt vote for a black man until the educational opportunities were equal.....but when it was discussed they left out his equal statement...Fox news is always accused of being partial...that their hosts cut off people they disagree with....I say this with an educated mind....they dont do it anymore than cnbc msnbs or npr...I believe npr should have their funding stripped because in my opinion it is a luxury item and we dont NEED it....its not used in an educational fashion as public tv is.....now to the part that inspired me to post..........nowhere in the consitution are the words ''seperation of church and state''....Jeffersons ideal and the thoughts of the people that approved the constitution was this....we would not have a national religion...BUT...this didnt mean states couldnt have their own state religion...I think its shameful the constant attacks on the christian society...who led the abolitionist movement?....who led the civil rights movement?....wasnt a bunch of atheists...and before anyone thinks of spouting off about all the evil the catholic church did in their abuse of power keep in mind.....vikings raped and pillaged most of the known world at the time...they werent christians....people paint their picture of the world with their choice of brush...nothing will ever change that....
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on June 04, 2011, 04:56:07 PM
So it would be okay for there to be a state religion? Would I be forced to attend? Would I have my legal rights stripped from me over my sexual orientation? While that last one is real I want to define what it is you are saying before I get worried Tiger Shark.

Oh, and if we are going back to the Vikings we could go back to the Crusades. You look back long enough you find violent assholes.

Also on Juan, if someone said that about someone with black skin would it still be acceptable? There ARE black criminals that could be used to justify the comment if I'm understanding your view.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Ardeur on June 04, 2011, 07:07:20 PM
The problem with religion is that the rules it presents are from millennia back. In those days there was no government, so religion filled that niche. The rules they set were, for that time, sensible, as civilization was less complex and established in those days. They present basic rules that make living together in groups doable: don't kill each other, don't rob each other, respect each other, don't mess with someone else's spouse. Nowadays we have laws for that, they comes with civilization advancing and knowledge growing beyond the oldest of superstitions. Most of those laws even make sense, like the commandments did in the time they were given/made up.

However, human nature saw an opportunity in religion, a way to gain more power over others by saying "God/Yahweh/Allah/Buddha/[go on] told me that ...", which is how we ended up with stuff like "it's evil to show your ankles, hair, etc". Cultural developments got sucked into religion, which conditioned it's believers into intolerance of anything that diverged from "their rules". My guess is that burqa's originally had nothing to do with religion, in that time it was simply a way to prevent the beautiful and young women to be easily stolen by raiders or at least to even the odds to the chance that a raider broke his back trying to abduct an overweight mother of 6. However in today's situation it results in the males from that society being less able to deal well with women that do show flesh, hardly being able to realize that those women like looking good instead of like disguised barrels.

Even in modern western countries that have a lawful separation between state and religion religious parties try to force their views and rules into legislation, effectively trying to violate that separation. This, by the way, appears to be more rule then exception.

Before I get kicked off my soapbox and crucified and torched for heresy, I'm not especially anti-religious, but I do believe religion is a private thing, which is the way it should stay.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on June 05, 2011, 04:01:30 AM
Ardeur sweetie, whenever this part of the argument comes up I like to point to Communism/Socialism. While Atheists often adore the "Religion is the opiate of the masses." they tend to overlook the cruelties the doctrine was still able to perpetrate. We've had three "people's utopias" so far and whether it be Cuba, China, or the former USSR people were still treated dreadfully.

It's my opinion that it has nothing to do with any certain code though. People look for a reason to command/kill/ treat each other dreadfully, the codes are just the excuse they use rather then admit it's just some deep failing in their character.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Adera on June 05, 2011, 11:19:53 AM
I'm not much for religion since I see it kinda like how Ardeur put it, though I'm fine with people believing in a higher power because it consoles them. It can be quite hard to accept the harsh quite possible truth of Stephen Hawkings words on religion for people, which isn't surprising. But... I really don't like the old, outdated and conservative religions people want to follow adamantly since they tend to be so socially restricting.

Anyway... like Janine says I'm afraid no religion or ideology will stop the terrible things some will do to gain power as long as inequality and jealousy is present. If I'm where to brag I'd say the Swedish... or well Nordic welfare system works really well in making things more equal but at the cost of high taxes of course... nothing is perfect.

Hope I'm not making an ass of myself now. :-\
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Bear on June 05, 2011, 11:56:41 AM
I have pondered my responses on that... and could easily take my turn there on the soap box...
@ Tiger the first amendement reads

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

it has exploited by atheists for years... and quite frankly the fact the utterance of the concept of "god" being forbidden.. rears now of a violation of the rights of free speech...but to counter your point a state cannot exceed authority of the federal law.

@Ardeur... just because a concept is old does not invalidate its underlying truth. Each person does indeed have a unique perspective of this universe... but I find that people are too wrapped up in the flash and swirl of life to truly ever ponder the fundamental concepts let alone embrace them. It is far easier to cast them aside or be told what to think, then focus a bit on their truths and impact,... how even the Decalogue is as pertinent today as it was in antiquity. Too many turn away at the first mention of "God" or Lord",  think rather of the universal singular...

@Adera...*grins* not making an ass.. as brilliant a mind as Hawkings has... it still can be a manner of how you are squinting when looking at the universe. Think I said it before... trying to explain what the higher power is... is a little like trying to wrap your mind around the concept of the square root of negative one.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on June 05, 2011, 04:30:03 PM
Actually one thing I always found fascinating is that if you take the description of the Big Bang and Genesis, and account for  different terminology the process described is not dissimilar.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Adera on June 05, 2011, 04:37:24 PM
I'd rather see a religion which accepts science and evolves with it... well it can evolve with society too imo.

One of my biggest problems with religion though is heaven... I mean... your supposed to be there forever... do the people wanting to go there really understand the meaning of forever? Forever is a veeery long time and I think even heaven could turn boring with enough time. No, hell on the other hand seems quite kinky, exhilarating and challenging at least. ::) :P
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Ardeur on June 05, 2011, 04:56:07 PM
@ Bear : You're right and I'm not denying that it is, but over time people took religion and added little rules here and a few adjustments there and that's where the problems arise as those adjustments accumulate and people (opportunists) find more small adjustments to implement that have nothing to do with the actual basics just so they can have more power over others. That is were I have problems with religion, not with prayers and belief, but with the abuse where people press their own personal beliefs/morals that have nothing to do with the actual core of religion onto others that look up to this person for spiritual guidance. How many christians/muslims actually follow the teachings of jesus/mohammed instead of a bunch of centuries worth of interpretations and adjustments of those words?
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Bear on June 05, 2011, 07:10:34 PM
@Ardeur a viewpoint I sit arm in arm with you on...

@Adera interesting view though I am reluctant to embrace any joy in the hell side...I lost my virginity to an older woman... a very spiritual sort... who defined hell as a cruel mistress... one to bring you continually to the brink... and deny eternally... until the act of the continued deprivation of that sweet released is nothing but a lasting prolonged pain in the soul. >:(

 She saw heaven as the ultimate orgasm...the soul riding its wave as it ripples thru eternity. :P

Damn lucky to have experienced such a women,... and to find words that lent itself to forming my spiritual journey thru these years.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Adera on June 06, 2011, 04:07:38 AM
Joking about that Bear, I'm actually fine with the thought of ceasing to exist... to me that would be resting in peace and I wouldn't have to exist forever and ever.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on June 06, 2011, 09:48:09 AM
As I see it defining Heaven and Hell by mortal perceptions of time is using concepts that quantum physics has come to show unreliable and tied to mortal flesh, something I can just not see as the sum of existence, something that quantum physics seems to support.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Adera on June 06, 2011, 10:09:51 AM
Well I don't think or worry myself too much about it... everything is just guesses anyway but quite interesting to discuss, I like other views on the subject. :)
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Adera on June 06, 2011, 10:42:15 AM
This is one of the things that REALLY scare me: http://youtu.be/7RxgSAEmlWE
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Ardeur on June 06, 2011, 04:09:44 PM
That's one sick wo... individual. Angry at the world for casting her out (which exercise and a normal upbringing might have prevented) and taking it out on reasonably innocent and impressionable children. I didn't even care to watch it to the end, it's abuse pure and simple.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: tigershark on July 28, 2011, 05:18:25 PM
I have pondered my responses on that... and could easily take my turn there on the soap box...
@ Tiger the first amendement reads

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

it has exploited by atheists for years... and quite frankly the fact the utterance of the concept of "god" being forbidden.. rears now of a violation of the rights of free speech...but to counter your point a state cannot exceed authority of the federal law.

@Ardeur... just because a concept is old does not invalidate its underlying truth. Each person does indeed have a unique perspective of this universe... but I find that people are too wrapped up in the flash and swirl of life to truly ever ponder the fundamental concepts let alone embrace them. It is far easier to cast them aside or be told what to think, then focus a bit on their truths and impact,... how even the Decalogue is as pertinent today as it was in antiquity. Too many turn away at the first mention of "God" or Lord",  think rather of the universal singular...

@Adera...*grins* not making an ass.. as brilliant a mind as Hawkings has... it still can be a manner of how you are squinting when looking at the universe. Think I said it before... trying to explain what the higher power is... is a little like trying to wrap your mind around the concept of the square root of negative one.

Dear Bear....a state can have a state religion...it was discussed when the Constitution was written...if you dont want to participate in said religion you are free to move to another state...I dont agree with this attitutde Im simply stating that it IS constitutional.....as fpr anything out of Hawkings mouth....Hes considered one of the smartest people alive...yet when he(an outspoken atheist) hosts an upcoming show on creation...he stupidly name it....Did God Create the Universe?...nothing wrong with the title you say?....kinda like a newspaper with the headlines....ARE THE REPUBLICANS GONNA SCREW US AGAIN?....and then spouting for 48 minutes on how screwed up the right is....if youve already said there is no god...why ya gonna name your show after him? got an agenda mr hawkings?  btw ya sound like gorp...hire a translator
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Bear on July 29, 2011, 11:48:48 AM
It was heavily debated before and long after.

Thomas Jefferson was adamant on defending the right of an individual to have their own personal beliefs. Any atheist website which carries a Jefferson quote is selective and ignorant. When pressed by Christian groups about States rights years after the signing, Jefferson was  specific in reply that this nation should be welcoming to all regardless of beliefs. Jew, Muslim and Christian named specifically in his reply, though clear he meant to address all religions. He did not want the European concept that was prevalent  at the time of State Religions. He debated this with  John Adams (a devout man) for years, and one casual remark when they were discussion Calvinism, Adams asked him specially about Calvin and  God. Jefferson replied "I believe in God , just not his God."

 The 14th amendment besides abolishing slavery, gave the right of an individual to live without persecution of his beliefs, and enforces the State to recognize that fact .
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on July 29, 2011, 04:29:16 PM
An entirely unrelated point that I remembered as I was reading this is how disappointing it is to me to have scientists "disproving" God. I use the quotes because even the man who earned the nickname "Darwin's Pit Bull"  (Richard Dawkins) can only say God "probably" doesn't exist. Yet still scientists are willing to jump from "Well we have no evidence at this point." to "We have no evidence at this point, and will never have any in the future." without any seeming ground in between.

On a purely logical level it just seems sloppy. I admit I have faith, for me that's what fills in blank spots. Yet science would mock me for that faith while leaving those spaces blank.

 
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Adera on July 29, 2011, 05:48:02 PM
Kinda hard to put any hard evidence for or against the idea of a god since you can't experiment to see if your right. The people claiming to have seen heaven in near death experiences can also be our brain releasing endorphins so we'll see what we want to see.

Btw... I wonder how the notions that god created us in his image, his glory and that we're the chosen ones would be affected if we encountered an alien race more advanced than us and that didn't look like us. There are a few things like that which would make for quite interesting theological consequences. :D
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Bear on July 29, 2011, 06:41:47 PM
"Image" is something actually misinterpreted.  The Hebrew word I believe was "Bara"  which is "to fill...or filled" or ... "formed" .Miscommonly interpreted as physical image from Hebrew to Greek to into to English . Hopefully whatever species is out there has that figured out and see us as something worthy to straighten out on that. The correct interpretation is to be "filled with his essence".

Dawkins is a tool...a forefront scientist who equate that knowledge is wisdom..incapable of bridging that in their roots they are totally  different concepts. Knowledge impart is different from understanding... which is different from wisdom.

All science does is unravel the physical side of the universe.

As I mathematician I now you have to define something to disprove it.  I was not aware "god " had been defined in absolutes. All which has happen is that there is a failure of the definition.
Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: Janine Dee on July 30, 2011, 09:50:17 AM
Actually for me that "image" is more akin to what Bear just said. For me I short handed it to the capacity for reason.

The funny thing for me with Dawkins is that he talked about a preponderance of evidence, like in a court case, but right now we have cases that were tried before DNA was discovered being re-tried.

So the principle that near death experiences are just the brain's biochemical responses could eventually wind up with spontaneous generation that saw maggots on meat and assumed they just formed there since at that point microscopic things hadn't been discovered.

It is the need to insist that since they can not find their proof they must be right. From my understanding it's the same principle that once had people believing the Earth is flat. "Look that way as far as you can see...flat. Look the other way as far as you can see... flat. Look in any direction you can travel and you see the world is flat! Therefore this fanciful notion of a round world is ridiculous and without any supporting evidence!"

The irony as I see it is belief without proof is almost a text book definition of faith. Even if that faith is in the idea that faith is a fallacy.

Title: Re: Janine's Soap Box: Juan Willam's Whining
Post by: tigershark on August 02, 2011, 04:01:45 PM
I need to clarify some things here...these are not my original ideas, they are things Ive learned....in his book "The End of Racism" Dinesh D'Souza presents this...a young black man, dressed in ''gangsta attire"(abridged to get to the point) waves down a taxicab at 3 am...just past this young man is another black man of approximately the same age dressed ''very nicely''.  The cab driver passes by the first and picks up the second man.  When questioned about it...the cab driver says...look at him...look at who I picked up....which would you pick up?  The term escapes me...yes its a prejudice but not based on race but appearance.   The cab driver was a black man as well.

Fox news has been accused of a lot of things...much like the tea party was accused of calling a black congressman n*****, all networks carried the story, not one retracted when the video was shown and the word was not said nor was the congressman spit on as alleged...you show me a non-biased news agency in the US and I'll show you a 22 inch penis that dances and sings in greek.

As for the state religion thing...The US Constitution promises that we will have no Federal religion, they didnt so much mean religion as they did what we call denomination these days....the Founders all acknowledged the existence of a Supreme Creator...so for all the pushing of all things spiritual or religious out of our society is an affront to the people that formed this great country.  States on the other hand MAY have a state religion, that is dependent upon the state's constitution.  Does it violate one's rights? Not sure, BUT, you are also free to leave that state.  A state having its own chosen religion in no way violates the US Constition based solely on that, the choice, dont like the religion of one state...move to one you do.  That actually was a big factor in how the colonies were divided into states.  Recently a judge ruled that the NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER is unconstitutional, Im not a judge but I can tell you thats just ridiculous, I've NEVER in my life been forced to pray.
If others find strength and comfort in prayer whats the problem?

Hello Mr Primitive Human....2 million yrs ago this gas caused a large explosion, creating the known universe....I didnt come from no monkey, but Genesis was told in a way someone then could understand.  In the original Hebrew...it would be read as....Man and Woman....not Adam and Eve...Adam and Adammah

and the definition of faith is...belief without proof