A small request
Quite a few comments on this site consist of people challenging one-another's religious views. I really don't think that this is the right venue for that. Can we have a little bit of tolerance? I am myself an atheist but I don't feel any need to "convert" anybody. I defend the right of both atheists and Christians to have and express their views. Is that so hard?
This blog is regularly backed up. See http://jonjayray.com/ttarc.html for an alternative to this site
Posts by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
Background
This is Tongue-Tied 3
"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"
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar; you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” — Tyrion Lannister
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth" - Plato
Only injustice and hate profit by silence
Posts by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
HOME (Index page)
Access past and present backups for all my current blogs
The war on "cultural appropriation" is straightforward racism
Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
Mohammad
The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said
Prof. Feynman: It is a lot better to walk alone than with a crowd going in the wrong direction.
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
ALL Leftist speech is hate speech. They are always talking about something in the world around them that they hate
One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson
"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies.”
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
Why conservatives should not respond to Leftist abuse: "Never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
"Negro" is a forbidden word -- unless a Democrat uses it
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper
Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
Foxy
Email me here (Hotmail address).
DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:
"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart
BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:
"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Recipes"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral reef compendium.
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia
BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED
"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Vodafrauds (vodafone)
Bank of Queensland blues
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)
Some more useful links:
Longer Academic Papers by John Ray
Johnray link
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup for John Ray's writings
General Backup 2
My alternative Wikipedia
Alternative archives for this site
Selected reading
MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM
CONSERVATISM AS HERESY
Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism
Critiques
Lakoff
Van Hiel
Sidanius
Kruglanski
Cautionary blogs about big Australian organizations:
TELSTRA
OPTUS
VODAFONE
AGL
St. George bank
Bank of Queensland
Queensland Police
QANTAS, a dying octopus
BIO
INTERESTING BLOGS
(My frequent reads are starred)
10 o'clock scholar
Agitator*
AMCGLTD
American Thinker
Anthropology & Econ
ASTUTE BLOGGERS
Baby Troll
Bad Eagle
Belmont Club*
Betsy's Page
Bill Keezer
Blackfive
Bleeding Brain
BLOGGER NEWS
Blowhards
Bob McCarty
Booker Rising
Brian Leiter scrutinized
Brothers Judd*
Brussels Journal
Bureaucrash
Candle in dark
Catallarchy*
Classical Values
Clayton Cramer*
Climate audit
Climate science
Colby Cosh
Cold Fury
Common-sense & Wonder*
Conservative Grapevine
Conservative Oasis
Conservative Voice
Conservatives Anonymous
Critical Mass
Cronaca*
Danegerus
Dean's World
Dhimmi Watch
Discover the networks
Discriminations
Dodge Blog
Dr Helen
Dr Sanity
Drunkablog
Ed Driscoll
Eddy Rants
Electric Venom
Endiana
Enter Stage Right
Eugene Undergound
Evangelical Ecologist
Fighting in the Shade
Fourth Rail
Free Patriot
Gates of Vienna
Gay and Right
Gene Expression*
Ghost of Flea
Global warming & Climate
Gold Dog
GOPUSA Alaska
Grumpy Old Sod
Hack Wilson
Hall of Record
Heretical Ideas
Hitler's Leftism
Hugh Hewitt
Hummers & Cigarettes
IMAO
Icecap
Inductivist
Instapunk
Intellectual Conservative
Interested Participant
Jihad Watch
Jim Kalb
Junk Food science
Junk Science
Just One Minute
KBJ
Knowledge is Power
Ladybird Deed
La Shawn
Laudator
Lone Wacko
Lubos Motl
Luskin
Mangan
Margaret Thatcher Foundation
Market Center
Maverick Philosopher
Medicine World
Michelle Malkin
Moderate Voice
Moorewatch
National Center
National Scene
Neo Con Blogger
Never Yet Melted
New Zeal Pundit
Northeastern Intelligence Network
Not PC
On the Right Side
Orator
Overlawyered
Parable Man
ParaPundit*
Pedestrian Infidel
Poli Pundit
Prof Bainbridge
Promethean Antagonist
Qando
Qohel
Random Observations
Rand Simberg
Random Jottings
Red State
Rhodey
Rhymes with Right
Right Nation
Right Thinking
Right Wing news
Roadkill
Ron Hebron
Rottweiler
Schansberg
SCSU Scholars*
Sharp Blades
Sharp Knife
Should Know
Silent Running
Smallest Minority
Squander 2
Steve Sailer
Stop the ACLU
Stuart Buck
Talking Head
Tim Worstall
Two-Four Net
Urban Conservative
Urgent Agenda
Vdare blog
View from Right
Viking Pundit
Vodka Pundit
Watt's up with that
Western Standard
Bill Whittle
What If
WICKED THOUGHTS*
Winds of Change
Wizbang
World of Reason
Education Blogs
Early Childhood Education
Education Bug
Eduwonk
Joanne Jacobs*
Marc Miyake*
Economics Blogs
Adam Smith
Arnold Kling
Chicago Boyz
Cafe Hayek
Econopundit
Environmental Economics
Jane Galt
S. Karlson
D. Luskin
Marginal Revolution
Mises Inst.
Australian Blogs
A E Brain
Brookes News
Catallaxy
Fortress Australia
Kev Gillett
Hissink File
ICJS*
Oz Conservative
Slattery
Tim Blair
WESTERN HEART*
Cyclone's Sketchblog
England
Anglo Austrian
Briffa
Burning our Money
Campaign Against Political Correctness
England Project
Norm Geras
House of Dumb
IQ & PC
Limbic Nutrition
Majority Rights*
Melanie Phillips
NHS Doctor
Oliver Kamm
Policeman
Samizdata
Sean Gabb
Sterling Times
Englishman's Castle
Scotland
Freedom & Whisky
A Place to Stand
ISRAEL
IsraPundit
Steven Plaut
Think Israel
NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here
"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"
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar; you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” — Tyrion Lannister
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth" - Plato
Only injustice and hate profit by silence
Posts by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
HOME (Index page)
Access past and present backups for all my current blogs
The war on "cultural appropriation" is straightforward racism
Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
Mohammad
The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said
Prof. Feynman: It is a lot better to walk alone than with a crowd going in the wrong direction.
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
ALL Leftist speech is hate speech. They are always talking about something in the world around them that they hate
One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson
"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies.”
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
Why conservatives should not respond to Leftist abuse: "Never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
"Negro" is a forbidden word -- unless a Democrat uses it
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper
Why are Leftists always talking about hate? Because it fills their own hearts
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
The naive scholar who searches for a consistent Leftist program will not find it. What there is consists only in the negation of the present.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
Foxy
Email me here (Hotmail address).
DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:
"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart
BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:
"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Recipes"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral reef compendium.
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia
BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED
"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Vodafrauds (vodafone)
Bank of Queensland blues
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)
Some more useful links:
Longer Academic Papers by John Ray
Johnray link
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup for John Ray's writings
General Backup 2
My alternative Wikipedia
Alternative archives for this site
Selected reading
MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM
CONSERVATISM AS HERESY
Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism
Critiques
Lakoff
Van Hiel
Sidanius
Kruglanski
Cautionary blogs about big Australian organizations:
TELSTRA
OPTUS
VODAFONE
AGL
St. George bank
Bank of Queensland
Queensland Police
QANTAS, a dying octopus
BIO
INTERESTING BLOGS
(My frequent reads are starred)
10 o'clock scholar
Agitator*
AMCGLTD
American Thinker
Anthropology & Econ
ASTUTE BLOGGERS
Baby Troll
Bad Eagle
Belmont Club*
Betsy's Page
Bill Keezer
Blackfive
Bleeding Brain
BLOGGER NEWS
Blowhards
Bob McCarty
Booker Rising
Brian Leiter scrutinized
Brothers Judd*
Brussels Journal
Bureaucrash
Candle in dark
Catallarchy*
Classical Values
Clayton Cramer*
Climate audit
Climate science
Colby Cosh
Cold Fury
Common-sense & Wonder*
Conservative Grapevine
Conservative Oasis
Conservative Voice
Conservatives Anonymous
Critical Mass
Cronaca*
Danegerus
Dean's World
Dhimmi Watch
Discover the networks
Discriminations
Dodge Blog
Dr Helen
Dr Sanity
Drunkablog
Ed Driscoll
Eddy Rants
Electric Venom
Endiana
Enter Stage Right
Eugene Undergound
Evangelical Ecologist
Fighting in the Shade
Fourth Rail
Free Patriot
Gates of Vienna
Gay and Right
Gene Expression*
Ghost of Flea
Global warming & Climate
Gold Dog
GOPUSA Alaska
Grumpy Old Sod
Hack Wilson
Hall of Record
Heretical Ideas
Hitler's Leftism
Hugh Hewitt
Hummers & Cigarettes
IMAO
Icecap
Inductivist
Instapunk
Intellectual Conservative
Interested Participant
Jihad Watch
Jim Kalb
Junk Food science
Junk Science
Just One Minute
KBJ
Knowledge is Power
Ladybird Deed
La Shawn
Laudator
Lone Wacko
Lubos Motl
Luskin
Mangan
Margaret Thatcher Foundation
Market Center
Maverick Philosopher
Medicine World
Michelle Malkin
Moderate Voice
Moorewatch
National Center
National Scene
Neo Con Blogger
Never Yet Melted
New Zeal Pundit
Northeastern Intelligence Network
Not PC
On the Right Side
Orator
Overlawyered
Parable Man
ParaPundit*
Pedestrian Infidel
Poli Pundit
Prof Bainbridge
Promethean Antagonist
Qando
Qohel
Random Observations
Rand Simberg
Random Jottings
Red State
Rhodey
Rhymes with Right
Right Nation
Right Thinking
Right Wing news
Roadkill
Ron Hebron
Rottweiler
Schansberg
SCSU Scholars*
Sharp Blades
Sharp Knife
Should Know
Silent Running
Smallest Minority
Squander 2
Steve Sailer
Stop the ACLU
Stuart Buck
Talking Head
Tim Worstall
Two-Four Net
Urban Conservative
Urgent Agenda
Vdare blog
View from Right
Viking Pundit
Vodka Pundit
Watt's up with that
Western Standard
Bill Whittle
What If
WICKED THOUGHTS*
Winds of Change
Wizbang
World of Reason
Education Blogs
Early Childhood Education
Education Bug
Eduwonk
Joanne Jacobs*
Marc Miyake*
Economics Blogs
Adam Smith
Arnold Kling
Chicago Boyz
Cafe Hayek
Econopundit
Environmental Economics
Jane Galt
S. Karlson
D. Luskin
Marginal Revolution
Mises Inst.
Australian Blogs
A E Brain
Brookes News
Catallaxy
Fortress Australia
Kev Gillett
Hissink File
ICJS*
Oz Conservative
Slattery
Tim Blair
WESTERN HEART*
Cyclone's Sketchblog
England
Anglo Austrian
Briffa
Burning our Money
Campaign Against Political Correctness
England Project
Norm Geras
House of Dumb
IQ & PC
Limbic Nutrition
Majority Rights*
Melanie Phillips
NHS Doctor
Oliver Kamm
Policeman
Samizdata
Sean Gabb
Sterling Times
Englishman's Castle
Scotland
Freedom & Whisky
A Place to Stand
ISRAEL
IsraPundit
Steven Plaut
Think Israel
NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here
40 comments:
Sounds like you want to placate the religious right.
Sounds like a lot of damn liberal "multi-cultural" claptrap to me!
So I guess he got the message perfectly middle of the road!
;-)
Anonymous said...
"Sounds like you want to placate the religious right."
Or the anti-religious Left?
The Left = intolerance.
Great gobs of Gravy! People should be free to believe any silly thing they choose, and be left alone to do so unless it impacts others.
Don't let your karma run over someone's dogma.
Does "challenge" mean discuss or debate? Why not? Nobody's views are sancrosanct or above criticism. Only Muslims seems to think theirs are, and should have laws to enforce it. The Christian laws of blasphemy have largely been abolished and rightly so.
As far as religion goes, I only chime in when people make blanket statements about all religions.
I don't care if someone believes or not, but I won't let them get away with claiming all religions are a certain way when they have no credible basis for backing up such a statement.
Beyond that, believe what you like.
I'm shocked at how many leftists this site attracts.
Smoking Ban Outrage: UMass goes 100% Tobacco Free.
http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/2011/04/smoking-ban-outrage-umass-goes-100.html
"When you make the accusation of intolerance, be sure to have all the facts and compare real examples to anecdotal evidence."
I expect the right to do the same. I will probably be disappointed.
I am a liberal, i do not support gay marriage nor do i support abortion, i am a Catholic and that overides my political beliefs.
liberals come to this site because they cannot post on most sites they're censored.
Jon,
From the previous comments it appears.....
We have lift off!
Regards,
Fellow religious tolerant (except with Islam) Atheist.
Here's a short list:
The right is intolerant of gays marrying.
The right is intolerant of a women's reproductive choice.
The right is intolerant of any religion but their own.
2:53 AM
1. There is no such thing as "gay" marriage. It's hard to be against something that cannot exist.
2. A woman's reproductive "choice is made when she decides to spread her legs or say no. Since the Supreme Court diecided otherwise, all most of us want is for our tax dollars to not pay for their poor choices.
3. Religous intolerance is mostly emanating from muslims and left wingers like Westboro Baptist Church. Yes, he is a Demoncrat!!
1. So you just define "gay Marriage" as you please. Legal marriage between adults of the same gender on the same basis as of opposite genders is possible in some countries and jurisdictions.
2.Sexual intercourse is not always voluntary on the woman's part. It can be rape or coersion or marital "duty".
3. Catholic dogma is quite intolerant. Just comparing things with the worst cases (ie. Islam) doesn't excuse it.
Jon asked that people stop challenging one another's religious views, and be tolerant - and suddenly the commentators are challenging one another's religious views, and accusing the other of being intolerant!
This is a blog about freedom of speech, you know - not about religion.
Religion and "freedom of speech" have always been closely linked. And if Jon brings in items about that very thing, then of course there's going to be discussion, but discussion doesn't equal "challenge" unless someone feels threatened by having their stated opinions examined or criticized.
" discussion doesn't equal "challenge" unless someone feels threatened by having their stated opinions examined or criticized."
How can you feel threatened when just about everyone here anonymous? If people feel threatened here, they must be a paranoid delusional.
I think that Jon posted this article because some thin skinned religionist went crying to him. "Protect me from the big bad atheists."
Well, that generated a bigger discussion than any of my recent news items!
The Christian Religion is probably one of the most "intolerant" religions. It is certainly very judgmental. The claim of Jesus Christ that "no one comes to the Father except through ME" is a very exclusive, intolerant claim.
However, we are talking SPIRITUAL versus SOCIAL, POLITICAL, and PHYSICAL tolerance. Some people (atheists included) seem unable to grasp the separation of these four spheres.
Just because I believe you're going to hell does not mean I won't let you have your say, behave the way you want, and pretty much respect your right to be left alone after I've fulfilled my obligation to tell you that, according to my beliefs, you're going to hell.
However, my belief that you're doomed to hell and my desire to help you avoid that fate apparently makes me as "intolerant" and "dangerous" as the Muslim who would behead you or blow myself up in a crowded bus over the same belief.
If you can't see the difference between Mother Theresa and Osama Bin Laden, then I really can't have a rationale discussion with you.
1. So you just define "gay Marriage" as you please. Legal marriage between adults of the same gender on the same basis as of opposite genders is possible in some countries and jurisdictions.
>No, you're the one attempting to redefine it. Marriage has alway been a union between a man and a woman since the inception of time. It is the homosexuals trying to change something, not us.
2.Sexual intercourse is not always voluntary on the woman's part. It can be rape or coersion or marital "duty".
> I am aware of that. There are always exceptions to the rules, but millions of abortions have been done. Probably better than 98-99% are done for birth control and no other reason.
Lastly, churches have theor rules. I you don't like their rules you don't have to be a member. I don't see any Christian groups forcing their beliefs on others. The only ones I see doing that are muslims. And when someone burns a bible or sticks a crucifix in piss, you don't see us committing murder in his name. So stick your intolerance mantra where the sun don't shine.
"Marriage has alway been a union between a man and a woman since the inception of time."
There were no humans at the inception of time (big bang). Humans came billions of years later. Get your facts straight.
"I don't see any Christian groups forcing their beliefs on others. The only ones I see doing that are muslims. "
Muslims do not come to my door. Jehovah's Witnesses do. Again, get your facts straight.
2:42 AM Yes there are exceptions to the rule, and as I stated "gay marriage" exists as a fact in several countries, regardless of what you think marriage ought to remain. Yes things change even if you don't.
Gays don't force christians to marry people of the same sex, but Christians campaign to stop non-christian people marrying who they want. Christians campaign to have their biblical beliefs taught as "science" in non-christian public schools. Christians campaign to stop non-christian women having legal abortions. Christians campaign to have such research as stem-cell research stopped for everyone because it doesn't conform to their own beliefs. And so it goes on, and someone here said Christians don't force their beliefs on anybody - yeah rite!
Luke you ignore the whole point…
No, I did not. I repeat…
…accurately follow their religion's teachings…
Those words "accurately" and "teachings" are there precisely because I am not ignoring those who disobey what they've been taught.
So how do you account for the Christian religion consisting of countless branches, denominations, sects and cults, etc. all believing they are following the religion of Christ accurately. They can't all be right and probably none of them is. Many wars and struggles have taken place over what the correct message of Christ/Jesus is. Any dictionary definition is obviously too vague, and your own is only peculiar to you.
So you don't want us to say anything bad about muslims that are trying to kill us Americans all over the world. Say What! Your running a freedom of speaeh site if you hadn't noticed. I know they arn't going to stop but we should shut up, is that how it is. I had grate respect for you up until now. Stormewaters
There were no humans at the inception of time (big bang). Humans came billions of years later. Get your facts straight.
4:10 AM
You're assuming that theory is fact. Were you there when it theoretically happened?
Were you there when God allegedly created the world in 6 days?
"You're assuming that theory is fact. Were you there when it theoretically happened?"
Sorry, I do not debate morons.
I didn't expect it but I am pleased to have started such a big discussion
Sorry, I do not debate morons.
11:27 PM
Typical leftist! When you have no facts to back your story, the namecalling begins.
"When you have no facts to back your story, the namecalling begins."
And where are YOUR facts?
And where are YOUR facts?
5:06 AM
The creation and Jesus' birth and resurrection are in the bible along with other stories. More and more of the bible gets proven true each year. As for the creation and Jesus' story, I just have to take it on faith. That's what we do. And no, I don't believe the earth is around 10,000 years old or any of the other stuff you people throw at us to try and trip up Christianity. God's time is not our time and I am also aware the bible, although the word of God, was written by men and translated many times over. You know what happens to a story that gets repeated often as well as changing languages. I am not a "devout" Christian but I cannot get up every morning and not believe that a higher power created all this around us. It could not have been an accident. Maybe your "Big Bang" theory is partly correct but who or what made that happen? You cannot create something from nothing. Ridicule it all you want, we will both be answering for a lot of things soon enough.
Many Christians do believe the World is only 6-10,000 years old and argue accordingly, so that is not something non-christians or atheists "throw" at christians.
You admitted that belief in the Bible stories relies on faith. Science investigates facts of nature and then develops hypotheses to try to explain them or a wider pattern behind them. The most satisfactory hypotheses are called "theories" as in the Atomic Theory, Theory of Gravity and Theory of Evolution. No faith is required and would be unscientific to have faith in any particular theory beyond considering it likely to be true.
Not sure what you mean by more and more of the Bible being proved every year. Some gets disproved, such as the exodus story not meeting archaelogical investigation by Jewish archaelogists. Likewise tombs found in Jerusalem, etc. And ultimately no physical evidence can prove that Jesus was divine. No human can know for sure how or why the Universe was created and making assumptions or speculating doesn't get you very far. Better to admit the limitations of the human brain and not live in a fantasy world with a religion that's so patently anthropomorphic, with obvious social origins.
Science investigates facts of nature and then develops hypotheses to try to explain them or a wider pattern behind them.
>Since the global warming scam, I don't have a lot of faith in science either. Scientists have a political agenda thee days. And their biggest agenda is to keep the money flowing. I have heard nothing about the Exodus being disproven. In fact, there was a TV show some years ago that attempted to explain how natural forces combined to make it possible. The theory of evolution is another that must be taken on faith if one is to believe it. There ae too many missing links to make the case even somewhat conclusively. Bottom line is that I have no problem having the faith in believing there is a God. None of this (world, universe)could have happened without one.
Well that is a simplistic definition of "God" - just whatever was behind the creation of the Universe. It could have been an advanced civilization in another dimension creating new universes through black-holes for all you know or anyone knows. Perhaps we unknowingly do the same with our sub-atomic particle collidors.
"Missing-links" is a very old-fashioned red-herring. Evolutionary science doesn't rely on fossils alone. Genetics (DNA)and other fields provide any "missing-links".
God is everything that we do not understand. God is getting smaller every day.
No, God is who created all of this, even that which we do understand.
'God' is thus just a vague and empty word merely to describe what we don't know or ever can know, since we have a poor
perception of reality through our mammalian brains.
"No, God is who created all of this, even that which we do understand"
Blabber from a creationist.
Post a Comment