I come here every day to read a Classically Liberal POV but your blog has degenerated into a daily attack on those with a faith in God.
One can be a Classic Liberal and have faith in God. They aren't mutually exclusive, it simply requires that the believer not want to use Gov't to impose his beliefs on others.
It seems to me that a part of being a Classic Liberal is respecting others and their beliefs, especially when they are in conflict with your own.
DEKE01 -- What in this post is an atack on people who are theists? I mention that Tillman was not one and that some theists attacked him (the chaplain) and his family (the investigator) because of it.
The sources for the information are listed and you are free to check out if what I wrote is factual. But nothing in this article attacked a religious person for being religious. It did criticize people who attacked Tillman for attacking him but not for being religious.
Or are you implying I shouldn't mention that Tillman was an atheist and that merely mentioning people are not is an attack on religion? I'm not sure precisely what you find in this post that is an attack on people for being religious.
This blog has never attacked religion for being religion. It has attacked theocracy. It did mention the fraud of the so-called Prophet Joshua (and you can find many Christian web sites which say the same thing about him).. I have mentioned that I'm an atheist. I have discussed theocrats who are hypocrites The Harry Potter discussion again didn't attack people for being religious but for wanting to ban the Potter books on one way or another -- and even that was in response to reader who claimed it wasn't the case and imnplying I wasn't telling the truth -- so I laid out the evidence which was substantial.
As for Tammy Faye, who was very religious, I actually had praise for her. Or maybe because I said I'm not religious that means it is really an attck?
I think this blog pretty much sticks to going after people for what they do. What they, or you, believe is of no concern to me. How people treat one another or what sort of impositions they wish to make on others does concern me.
You can see the difference when I said that Jim Bakker's sex life was no one's business because he never tried to impose his morality on others. But the theocratic politicians who got caught doing that which they legislate against did get attacked by me. I make that distinction very clearly.
You said, "Certainly Tillman had concluded that the US government had lied about the war. He had become an opponent of the Iraqi invasion."
That's an interesting statement, and one that I've not heard before. Do you have a source for it?
His mother. She said it during a recent interview that I watched. Tillman's words were supposedly "fucking illegal" to describe it.
Sadly, it's our own biases and bigotry to which we are most blind.
"DEKE01" wrote:
Sadly, it's our own biases and bigotry to which we are most blind.And this, ladies and gentleman, is what you get when someone has absolutely failed to make their case.
Deke, if you have a case to make, make it. We could go back and forth about the fallibility of man vis à vie cognitive biases. In the end, however, it is necessary to note this: You stated he is biased, but when asked to provide even one instance of bias, you simply retort that he is blind to those biases.
Make your case, or accede the falsehood of your claim.
Deke and Ian: First to clarify. Originally Deke said I was engaging in “daily attacks” on people who are religious. The implication was that I was attacking them for being religious. I argue I didn’t do that and asked for evidence I said I criticized peopel who were theocrats, bigots, or totalitarians but not for being religious -- in fact I had nice things to say about Tammy Faye when she died. I presume Deke thinks that if I state I’m an atheist that is an attack on his beliefs. That is insecurity.
But in his most recent email, where he failed to offer up evidence to back his accusation, he actually changed it somewhat. It was then said that I was biased and bigoted, not that I made daily attacks on religious people -- his actual original accusation.
I am biased. I don’t hide that. I’m biased for reason, for logic, for science, for individual rights and human liberty. I am biased against irrationality, superstition of all kinds, totalitarianism, crime, rape, and bad breath, among other things. I state my biases up front and explain why I have drawn the conclusions I have. The difference between biases is that some are realtiy based and some are fantasy based. I will at least offer arguments for mine. And mine are the results of thought not just mere whim.
As for bigotry I don’t know what he means by it. If it means I want to deny religious people their equal liberty and rights, I don’t. If it means I think they are full of nonsense then I’m guilty. If it means I think some of them (not all) are dangerous to a free society, then guilty. But would I strip them of any right I claim for myself or others? Nope. I even think they have the right to marry -- just like any gay couple.
I might even hire one if they didn’t pester other people with it or expect special privileges. If they think they should spend work time promoting their faith they ought to work for someone else. If they assume that I am required to “respect” their beliefs then are bonkers. No one is required to respect anythng just because someone else believes it. I don’t respect lots of beliefs ranging from fascism to Scientology to astrology, etc. But I respect people right to belive dumb things provided they leave other people alone.
I would rather not get into a silly flame war so I'll not spend the time to go thru dozens of posts to show the many examples I see on a frequent, if not daily basis. If either of you want to declare victory because I backed away from “daily” so be it. But here's one example from July 29 in an article about masturbation and the abuse of Gov't power in Broward Cty. I lived there a dozen years ago so I found the story somewhat amusing and memorable.
I agree the state and that guard named Veal abused their power. It's an abuse of power no matter why Veal was offended, assuming Mr. Aroused didn't intentionally engage in lewd behavior with the intent of offending.
But here’s where CLS goes, “I would also bet doughnuts she’s a religious nutter. Just a guess on my part, however, but it fits the profile.” That’s bias and bigotry against those with faith. I point this out only because I so often agree with the anti-big Gov't, pro-liberty stand of CLS that I hope he'll raise the tone so that this blog doesn't just preach to the choir but rather actually converts the sinners.
DEKE: Actually the woman was performing an exorcism on her daughter. She and her husban physically attacked the girl, ripped her clothes and pour oil all over her. The girl was bruised. That qualifies as a nutter. I didn't say I bet she's religious but a religious nutter which clearly indicates that thet there are religious people who are not nuts.
There are even some fundies who are not nuts just woefully wrong. Some are not vicious -- but many are.
CLS, thank you for this engaging post about the Pat Tillman issue. It may be the very best I've read on the topic!
These comments are a riot too. (It's obvious why the "most blind" DEKE hides his own blog!)
...
Thanks, Free Thinker.
Commenting by HaloScan
