HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 28, 2005 Oh, alright. I'll respond. You pulled my teeth, Michael, sheesh! Teddy (the killer) Kennedy has to take the
liberal stick out of his butt and stop drinking away
what’s left of his alcohol preserved cranium.
Let me be brutally honest. Usually, that gets one into trouble, but here goes. Michael claims to despise political correctness – we all say we do, don't we? I would rather have Kennedy as a drunk than someone who ditches the bottle with the help of Jesus, and then wants to force the rest of us to share in his personal cure ;) Tom Delay thinks the government is here to make more of us pray. Michael, you mix politics with religion when you write. If the Bible is a source for your political leanings, then the Bible and what your faith preaches are also on trial. I think this is fair, no? More below. You don’t think that last comment will cause a
debate; do you?
Indeed you are powerful, having the ability to manipulate me ;) And I admire Fred Smith’s continual attempts to
pick a debate.
When Liberals, Democrats, atheists/humanists get trashed, I tend to respond, yes [and I'd wager that if I counted, I'd find that they get trashed in at least 2/3 of your 400+ articles]. Liberals are often cast as wimps when we don't respond, and cast as being Nazis or anti-American when we do. I'm here to bring balance to the Force ;) I don't take you out of context, Michael, but I don't feel like quoting your whole piece either. You seemed to realize in that article that most Americans are Christians – this weakened your case to blame humanists, but you tried anyway, and for that, I gave you credit – twice now. You speak truth – there aren't enough atheists/humanists to be a political force or to account for all of the missing fathers. You can't gloat at the lack of political might that free thinkers have, while at the same time, attempt to blame them for the ills in the nation. Further, you can't ignore that in some parts with more secularism, these social issues are better. Finally, you can't ignore the fact that church-going Christians are more likely to get divorced, no matter how that fact may rattle you. If you want to deduce from this that all atheists are grand, be my guest ;) That would be contrary to my attempt at classifying secularists, but, whatever works for you...
In the Atheistic Half-Truth of the Week Category Mr.
Smith wrote: “Arrogant atheists such as myself want to
let everyone believe what they will, provided none of
us step on each other's toes.”
Clever ;) This is a good example of taking someone out of context, perhaps instead you can give an example of where you were taken out of context. For those not familiar with the piece, found here, I explained not only why I italicized that word, but also why I chose that word. Now, all in all, not a bad attempt on your part, but if you would have combined that with a real example of where I took you out of context, it would have made some readers say, “OOOH!”. He is so blinded by his various hatreds he does
not see that I agree that religion and government do
not mix. He totally and completely ignores the fact
that faith is completely an individual exercise. Faith
in God and eternal salvation is not gained through any
religious exercise; nor is it gleaned by creating any
sort of theocracy.
Actually, the geographic area into which you were born is the primary factor determining 'faith in God'. You agree that they should not mix – couldn't tell from your articles, but, great! We need more like you. Take this quiz: Judge Moore snuck a 2.5 ton statue into a court room. He was: A) Wrong. B) Right. C) I choose not to answer for fear I will humiliate myself. Judge Moore was asked if he would support monuments to other faiths in court rooms. He said “NO”. He was: A) Showing his clear bias for Christianity, which violates the Establishment Clause. B) A hero that we should all emulate! Just say no to 2.5 ton Hindu statues! C) I choose not to answer for fear I will humiliate myself. For the record, this quiz is sarcasm only. Ok, ok, I admit – it was childish. But hey, I thought it was funny. I'm the one advocating nuance, and here I go acting like everything is cut and dry, right? See, I italicized that, so you can quote it in one of your future articles, similar to the “arrogant” quote that you showed above. Back to the point - maybe you can give me an example yourself of a specific policy point where you side with secularism? Since you think I somehow wanted to bring you into a debate, why not pick the “debate” up where it left off? I'd like a response to my hypothetical police officer thought experiment in this article, and why you feel that your ilk should be allowed to censor free speech. Would you defend that bastard, as he spews insulting speech, if in uniform? If no, explain, if yes, explain. Finally, taking a page from Mr. Smith’s
template; in the spirit of free-thinking, atheistic,
liberal democratic left-wing so-called Christian
religionists; as your leader Howard Dean or Dick
Durbin might say: “I hate you.” “None of you have ever
done an honest day’s work in your life.” “You are all
socialistic Nazis.” Have a nice day.
The real quotes I gave from you and others on that side of the isle in my recent ”...Nazi...” piece I thought were more clever, but, all in all, not a bad attempt. Now, is this the part where we both write more articles about non-political topics for a while in an attempt appear less extreme to the UK regulars? Whatever the current mood is, just send me a memo in case I can't pick up on it ;) Being a bit of a dork, I sometimes don't tune in to these kinds of things right away... ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
