Re: Can men overcome their sexual urges?

On Aug 14, 11:19 am, catbrie...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:26 pm, Ben <ArGe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 13, 5:06 pm, catbrie...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I don't give a damn about manger scenes as long as I am not being
taxed to pay for them.

Two ways to look at that: Either the town or city already owns the
mangers, and therefore isn't spending tax money, or, the majority of
taxpayers not only don't care but are in favor of the manger scenes.
In the first instance, no tax money is being spent year to year, or,
in the second, what we end up doing is allowing the majority to be
held hostage by a perpetually offended minority using governmental
cowardice as a bullying tactic. Or, we could ask citizens to donate
money to erect a manger on the town hall lawn--that way, there's no
taxpayer dollars to fret about.

Like I said - I don't really care about manger scenes. It's a non-
issue.

Perhaps for you, but not for leftists in general.


I refuse to say the "under god" that was added back in the "red scare"
days and wasn't part of the original pledge. I don't care if you say
it.

The point is that too many *do* care who says it, to the point where
they'd have it removed judicially, despite the fact that it was
inserted legislatively. After all, why allow freedom of choice when
you can mandate speech and behavior?

That's what the independent judiciary is SUPPOSED to do! Or have you
forgotten?

You'd prefer that I ignore the concept that the judiciary is not
supposed to usurp the legislative function. Sorry, not gonna happen.


But I am thoroughly offended when gangs of religious nuts shout it out
at a public assembly and hijack OUR pledge for THEIR political
demonstration.

It's their pledge as well. And, no one would have noticed or even
given a *** if you said it or not if the 9th Circuit hadn't conducted
one of its perpetually inane logic torturing sessions. Liberals made
it an issue, then whined when people didn't silently acquiesce.

No - I believe the Religious Reich has been pushing their agenda so
much that people are starting to stand up to them.
Theocracy is unAmerican.

I suppose you have proof that there's a massive push to install a
theocracy (keeping in mind, of course, the definition of a theocracy)?


On the other hand, I adamantly oppose removing historical works of art
because of their religious themes. Art inspired by religion has
always been a feature of our civilization.
It's an entirely different thing when some right-wing "activist judge"
in Alabama (or some other Third-World state) uses tax-payer dollars to
mount the 10 Commandments in a public court house in order to PROVOKE
a church-state confrontation.

Maybe my recollection is flawed, but I believe the 10 Commandments
were already in the courthouse; the judge was merely refusing to
remove them.

It is flawed. The judge himself acted as the sponsor for the object in
question.

So he did.


You may not like me calling these fanatics "activists" - but that is
exactly what they are.

I'd term them more 'reactionary', to the excesses of liberalism. But
you beat up your own argument when you claim it's all right if we
leave religiously-themed works of art on display in government
buildings while we do away with, say, the 10 Commandments, on the
grounds that the art has always been a cultural feature. This country
has a Judeo-Christian foundation that has always "been a feature of
our civilization".

Not the same thing at all.

Of course it is. Are you going to try and claim that the removal of
the 10 Commandments monument was necessary but a painting depicting
Moses holding them is fine in the same building?

What we have inherited as part of our
culture we should never seek to deface.
This country owes more to the secular ideas of the Enlightenment than
to evangelical hysteria.

A few Jefferson quotes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and
inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it,
and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such
principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into
the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty
of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called
personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because
necessary for his own sustenance."

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of
our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of
happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of
reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim
these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King
of Kings."

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed
their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that
these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be
violated but with His wrath?"

One from John Addams:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

There are more, but I'm trying to keep the length manageable. Anyway,
my own readings indicate to me that the Founders went to great lengths
to ensure that the Constitution did not specifically endorse a given
religion, while recognizing the existence and assistance of a supreme
being. I would hardly term that "evangelical hysteria". And I agree
with your observation regarding the Enlightment's influence, but would
note that you seem to imply a mutually contradictory status, which
isn't necessarily so.



The plain truth is that the Constitution was
written by men with a deep belief in God and the workings of
Providence, and more than one of them expressed the thought that the
establishment of this country was due to divine intervention. In
fact, isn't God mentioned in the Constitution?

Oh come on! That's a long defunct assertion - as evidenced by the
writings of the founders themselves.

I just gave you some. As I said, there are more.

They were mostly deists and would see today's militant apocalyptic
fundamentalists as kooks - possibly even dangerous kooks.

Yes they would--they'd view Congress the same way.

Jefferson
was basically contemptuous of religious enthusiasm.

Yes he was, partly because of its potential for misuse in governing.

He even rewrote
the Gospels taking out the magic and abracadabra.

As for Britain and its Muslims - this is the inevitable consequence of
imperialism.

No, it's the inevitable consequence of being so afraid to appear
unenlightened or unsophisticated that you're simply afraid to say
"enough", and not only stem the flow, but toss out trouble-makers.

Where did all those people come from? They came from the former
British colonies.
No colonies - no mass migration of colonials. You can't have one
without the other.

Sure you can. Where the hell did you get the idea that you couldn't
have immigration or mass migration unless it was from a former
colony? Was Ireland one of our colonies?


Rome suffered the same fate. We here in the states are also undergoing
a transformation.
We're lucky however - our immigrants are mainly coming from Mexico and
Latin America. They will be easier to assimilate and the synthesis of
Anglo-Latin cultures has been going on out here in the west for
centuries anyway.

They will not be easy to assimilate, since they're refusing to do so.
Google "reconquista" and see what you get.

And I could direct Mexicans, blacks, and Asians to a KKK/White
Supremacist website and try to pass them off as something more than a
gang of kooks too. Same difference.

Not really. We don't have a mainstream educational system pushing the
concept of white supremacism.

Besides, the neo-cons and corporate lackeys WANT all that cheap
immigrant labor in order to undermine free and organized labor in this
country.

But no liberals or Hollywood corporate heads do? Come on, you know
better than that.


OTOH - Mexicans don't wear bee-keeper outfits unless they are keeping
bees.
No one who refuses to show their face should ever be given a driver's
license, a state welfare card, or even a job with where there is even
a minimum requirement for security and identification.
The full burkha thing is antithetical to "western" values.

Agreed.

It's controversial - I catch flak for it. But I refuse to deal with a
person in a full burkha. If they choose to make themselves a non-
person - I will treat them as such.

So called "intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. It is a
subjective opinion, a philosophical assertion, made in the absence of
credible scientific evidence.

The point is, as John C explained to you, that the unbelievable
complexity of DNA design is such that intelligent design can't be
taken off the table at this point.

It is "unbelievable" to someone clinging to "The God Delusion" - but
apparently not so unbelievable to the vast majority of scientists.

Would that be the same "vast majority" swarming around the concept of
global warming and who go to great lengths to drown out dissenting
voices?


Intelligent design doesn't
necessarily have to involve a religious creator--

That's self-contradictory.

How so? If a computer became self-aware, would humans suddenly become
gods?


which science fiction
writer was it who said something to the effect that technology,
sufficiently advanced, would be indistinguishable from magic?

Play on words - at best.

Nope, just an observation.

There is absolutely no evidence for an "intelligent designer"

If you're looking at it as boom, from nothing to full blow existence
in the form we're in today, than yes, I'd agree. But as I pointed out
to you before, the concept of intelligent design does not preclude
evolution. Why, do you have something in the concept of evolution
that absolutely precludes the idea that it was jump-started by
deliberate means? Not that I do, but I'm not aware of anyone else
having anything, either.

therefore you are free to speculate over in the Philosophy Department.
Put that bit right in there with the Giant Spaghetti Monster.

That's where lot's of people used to insist we put the idea of quantum
physics, electricity, radio waves, etc, as well.


Cat



It is more applicable to the Philosophy Department. Send it there so
that it may be discussed alongside other such ontological statements.

Cat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.