Moore ousted as Chief Justice

[Firestarter 0]

Moore's Law by Christopher Hitchens - a solid and entertaining article on the sometimes immoral, sometimes obvious, sometimes irrelevant, sometimes myopic, and always just plain silly Ten Commandments.

 

"One is presuming (is one not?) that this is the same god who actually created the audience he was addressing. This leaves us with the insoluble mystery of why he would have molded ("in his own image," yet) a covetous, murderous, disrespectful, lying, and adulterous species. Create them sick, and then command them to be well? What a mad despot this is, and how fortunate we are that he exists only in the minds of his worshippers."

[Guest Brian]

George Carlin does a nice job with the ten commandments.

[Firestarter 0]

Yeah, I love that skit.

 

"And now we're down to two."

 

Here's another article on the Commandments farce, this time from Quin Hillyer at the National Review - you might expect it to defend Moore, but it doesn't. It very rightly criticises him and his actions, and proves beyond all doubt that this is not a man of faith first and foremost, but an ambitious grandstander, a would-be martyr, and a dishonest, cynical, manipulative demagogue. It also shows how a good jurist acts - to wit, Alabama Attorney-General and Presidential nominee to the 11th Circuit Bill Pryor, whose conduct has been unexceptionable, and whom the Democrats should clearly see would never attempt legislate from the bench, as they claim to fear he will. But, of course, that argument is predicated on a belief in Democratic honesty, and that's rarely a good idea.

Edited November 14, 2003 by Cancer Marney

[Guest SP-1]

Wow Marney. Did I implicate that at all here?

 

No. No, I didn't. In fact, I wasn't even replying to you, as I recall.

[Guest SP-1]

By the way, Hitchens, judging from that quote, has no grasp on theology. If he's going to criticize a document rooted in theological morality, he might want to check into that.

[Firestarter 0]

Wow Marney. Did I implicate that at all here?

Implicate what at all in where?

 

No.  No, I didn't.  In fact, I wasn't even replying to you, as I recall.

As I said before: if you don't like my replies to you, don't post on this board and send your PRIVATE replies to other people through the PRIVATE messaging system. I don't care if you're replying to me or not. I'll respond to you when I feel I have something to say about your arguments on any procedural or substantial point. Get used to it.

 

By the way, Hitchens, judging from that quote, has no grasp on theology. If he's going to criticize a document rooted in theological morality, he might want to check into that.

I'll let him know next time he's reading the boards.

 

If you take issue with something in his article, why not say so, cite chapter and verse, if you'll pardon the expression, and present your counterpoints, instead of just whining?

[Guest JMA]

George Carlin does a nice job with the ten commandments.

I love Carlin. And I remember his Ten Commandment skit quite well. Very funny stuff.

[Guest SP-1]

*sigh*

 

Marney, quiet down. I don't have the time to bow before the requirements of an argument with you. Especially when I didn't go out of my way to pick it. Feel free to reply however you want, I'll feel free to ignore you when you're being stupid about something that wasn't even directed at you.

[Firestarter 0]

Marney, quiet down.

Nope.

 

I don't have the time to bow before the requirements of an argument with you.

Whatever.

 

Especially when I didn't go out of my way to pick it.

You don't have to. All you have to do is continue spouting ignorance and stupidity and bigotry.

 

Feel free to reply however you want, I'll feel free to ignore you

Somehow I doubt that.

[Guest SP-1]

Especially when I didn't go out of my way to pick it.

You don't have to. All you have to do is continue spouting ignorance and stupidity and bigotry.

There's generally one way to end this:

 

Especially when I didn't go out of my way to pick it.

 

You don't have to. All you have to do is continue spouting ignorance and stupidity and bigotry.

 

Prove it. Until you show me being a bigot who doesn't offer any kind of argument (with evidence, please), kindly stop wasting bandwidth with your own special brand of ignorance, hostility, and bigotry.

[Firestarter 0]

Prove it... show me being a bigot who doesn't offer any kind of argument (with evidence, please)

"Ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full."

- John 16:24

 

In either case, I don't believe it's right because of the scientific reasons stated above. If you paid close attention, I said that it goes against the natural order of things. God created the world to work in a specific way...

Sodom and Gammorah were hosts to sodomy and all sorts of sexual and other sins, but the sexual things were focused on in the account and, IIRC, subsequent sentence for the two cities...

I don't believe the act is right, I don't believe it ever has been, nor will it ever be. Scientifically it doesn't hold weight, and biblically it doesn't hold weight.

I, personally, think that the notion that God is a God of chaos and couldn't have possibly created an order things in perposterous. It's just an easy out so that everybody can pervert the ordered, natural, GOOD world that God created into something that they can bend and abuse at their whim and not feel guilty about it.

Emphases added. These are the "arguments" of a religious bigot, and your "evidence" consists of Just So stories from a moldy old book. No reason. No thought. No logic. No proof. No analysis. Just so.

[Guest SP-1]

If you pay careful attention, I preface both of those statements with, "I don't believe" and, "I, personally, think".

 

Were I making both statements with the hostile train of thought that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, evil, and should be stoned to death for the mere notion of disagreeing with me, I could see how they hold weight with your accusation. Since I clearly did not do so and engaged in a discussion from my own personal convictions (which include serving and loving those around me, not blowing up abortion clinics and waging holy wars), I fail to see how you've painted me as a religious bigot.

 

Try again.

[EricMM 0]

It's not what you do (Not blowing up abortion clinics) it's what you think (that homosexuality is evil and wrong).

[Styles 0]

I had never heard Carlin's take, so I did a google search, found it and it's hilarious. As a service to those that have never heard it, here it is:

GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS

from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special)

 

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

 

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

 

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

 

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

 

Let's start with the first three:

 

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

 

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

 

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

 

Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

 

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

 

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

 

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

 

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

 

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

 

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

 

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

 

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

 

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

 

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

 

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

 

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

 

This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

 

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

 

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

 

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

 

&

 

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

 

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

 

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

[Guest JMA]

That's probably my favorite Carlin rant. And it's so true.

[Guest SP-1]

It's not what you do (Not blowing up abortion clinics) it's what you think (that homosexuality is evil and wrong).

Please, Erik. Don't try to pigeonhole me into that. Do I agree with it? No. Do I think it's genetic? No. Do I love the people in my life who have struggled with it (or are struggling with it)? You bet. I'd lay down my life for them, and that's not simple wordplay. It's the honest truth.

 

But if you want to group me in with killers, murderers, and bigots, that's your choice. I'd rather be the guy who gets blown up trying to shove doctors, nurses, and patients out of the door of the clinic than have anything to do with even the thought process of planting a bomb there.

 

Not agreeing with it is different from hating those who commit the act I disagree with. It's very much what you do and what you think. Simply thinking either way does nothing. Choosing your actions is where the fruit of living lies.

 

But, by all means, judge away.

[EricMM 0]

Clearly I am, as I said I'd do in the past.

 

But I never called you a murderer, I called you a bigot. Please don't confuse the two.

 

Oh and it's very clearly spelled with a C...

[Firestarter 0]

lots of excuses blah blah blah usual crap-filled Christian apologetics blah blah blah whining about being pigeonholed blah blah blah bad grammar blah blah blah

Well, wasn't that special? You love the sinners and just hate the sins! How adorable! I haven't heard that from anyone since, well, what was his name now - oh yes, Tomas de Torquemada.

 

I fail to see how you've painted me as a religious bigot.

Of course, that's precisely the problem.

[Guest MikeSC]

Umm, different question, sort of?

 

Doesn't that fact that Pryor did this disprove the entire notion that somebody is incapable of seperating their personal beliefs from their judicial actions?

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

I haven't heard that from anyone since, well, what was his name now - oh yes, Tomas de Torquemada.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

That reminds me, I really need to watch "The History of the World, Pt. 1" again soon.

[Henry Spencer 0]

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

That reminds me, I really need to watch "The History of the World, Pt. 1" again soon.

 

That's actually from Monty Python's Flying Circus, not The History Of The World Pt. 1.

[Guest SP-1]

I love it when Marney completely discounts someone's views, ideals, and ways of operation simply because she is incapable of performing those same actions.

 

Yet, I, apparently, am the judgemental one here. *shrug*

 

And Erik, when your argument is reduced to a spelling mistake in a post from someone who is in no way notorious for not having a grasp on the English language, what does that amount to? Think about it.

[MrRant 0]

Hmmm... same shit from another 10 million threads.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

SP, if homosexuality is an abherration, or what have you, then what should be "done" about it? I'm not suggesting planting bombs, or going back to the inquisition, or what the fuck ever, but, if it's truly some sort of problem, how does it get fixed?

[Firestarter 0]

I love it when Marney completely discounts someone's views, ideals, and ways of operation simply because she is incapable of performing those same actions. 

 

Yet, I, apparently, am the judgemental one here.  *shrug*.

You're a joke, SP. A bad, repetitious, incoherent joke. I'm "incapable of performing" what "same actions," precisely? "Completely discount[ing]" your "views, ideals, and ways of operation?" I thought that's exactly what I was doing, only more cogently. Or am I "incapable of performing" your "views, ideals, and ways of operation?" Well that would make sense in a sort of viciously ungrammatical way, wouldn't it? I don't share your hidebound views, I don't share your immoral ideals, and your blanket condemnations, your willful ignorance, and your stubborn refusal to acknowledge evidence, analysis, or reason disgusts me. How the hell do you "perform" a view or an ideal, anyway? What do you hope to accomplish by inviting people to prove your bigotry, and then denying what little meaning your own words possess when they're quoted back to you, verbatim? What's your point? What are your arguments? Just what in God's name are you trying to say?

 

Could you please take a course in basic English before your next post?

[Firestarter 0]

And Erik, when your argument is reduced to a spelling mistake in a post from someone who is in no way notorious for not having a grasp on the English language, what does that amount to?

A horrific example of a mutated, toothless double negative, inbred for three generations, infected with a comical, clumsy wordiness, and repeatedly bashed over the head with a metal shovel.

 

Think about it.

I did. It's mildly amusing that you still can't get his name right.

[Guest SP-1]

SP, if homosexuality is an abherration, or what have you, then what should be "done" about it? I'm not suggesting planting bombs, or going back to the inquisition, or what the fuck ever, but, if it's truly some sort of problem, how does it get fixed?

I believe it's a psychological condition. A fetish, a reaction to a traumatic event, etc. The way you handle it is simple: love and support whomever is in the middle of struggling with it, or recovering from it, or questioning it, or flat out refusing to see it any other way. What will hate accomplish? What will stoning them accomplish? I've struggled with suicidal tendencies, homosexual tendencies, and various other sexual sins. I certainly can't sit and cast a stone, verbally or physically. Nor am I called or commanded to as a Christian. Jesus laid out living well in two simple commands: Love God and Love Your neighbor. Including when your neighbor is gay. I've seen several friends (one of my best friends is a recovering lesbian), and I've seen myself healed when I looked to God for it. Healed in so many ways, including the wounds that sent me looking for the male sexual approval that manifested in homosexual desires, mild acts, and a bisexual view.

 

There's no simple answer. Well, there is (Jesus), but the process of healing is a path that few go down. I sincerely wish they would. I went from a massively depressed bisexual dropout to a healthy young man who is in love with the greatest girl in the world, earning a degree in ancient languages at University.

 

I "deal with it" like I do everything else. I love God because he's good, I love the people around me, and I see what He does when He's called on. Somehow, that equated to bigotry, hatred, and being grouped with 9/11 hijackers to some people. *shrug*

[Guest fk teale]

And plenty of people have gone from being repressed christian burger flippers crying over their yellowed sears catalogues with the menswear pages stuck together, to prancing happy as queer little clams into the cruisiest toilets at Harvard on their way to a PhD in Awesomeness (M.F.A. in Being Successful, B.Sc. Kicking Your Ass). We can trade shopworn clichés and anecdotes all day, sir.

 

Marney might be a bit overboard in recommending a basic English class to you (although the first reaction to many of your posts does seem to be a resounding NIGGA WHAT, which perhaps bears addressing), but in the course of your ancient languages degree (at a University), have you taken any classes on rhetoric? argumentation? introductory composition, even? Because, uh. Look. I'm not trying to be insulting here (seriously) (really) (I actually mean it this time): you're making a horrible fucking mess of every point you try to argue on this board and you need to stop or change something. You don't want to bow to the requirements of argument with Marney? Don't sound so fucking proud when you say it. Her requirements are reason and evidence - the selfsame mainstays of academic discourse, the basis of any tolerable epistemology, and the skills you need to convince your ladyfriend to tool you in the pooper (I am mostly guessing on this one). It's why Marney and Tyler are respected here, and respected even by that half of the board which views him or her as its particular bête noire - even if you think they have their head up their Sarven, at least they have a point and try to support it with - and here's the clincher - objectively verifiable evidence. Contrast, if you will, with this:

 

If you pay careful attention, I preface both of those statements with, "I don't believe" and, "I, personally, think".

 

You haven't tried to offer support we can check. You don't even seem to conceive of the need for it. What's utterly awful about you can be summed up in the fact that you offered that sentence as a standalone rebuttal, as if the fact that you believe something or that you, personally, think it, is justification enough for us to take it seriously. We don't want to hear about your personal convictions anymore. WE HAVE HAD OUR FILL. We want to hear the reasons for them, and we want those reasons not to dead-end in "my unique relationship with God has made me realize it," because that is utterly fucking irrelevant and groundless to everyone but you. Is that so hard to do? I am really asking you this. I am basically one step away from pleading. Could you please say something interesting that the rest of us can talk to you about without running into this horrid deafmute biblical colossus of a persona you've constructed out of the rainbow fragments of your former gloomy cockslut self?

 

If you were the only Christian I knew, I think I would have contempt for the religion. You're unwounded, you're unashamed. Well, cheers. A little healthy shame might suit you - God knows you wound your faith harshly enough by representing it as you do: smugly complacent, unamenable to secular debate. I want to stuff a sweatsock down your big rapeable throat and it's not an awesome feeling.

Edited November 18, 2003 by fk teale

[BX 0]

What the fuck is up with you and adjectives, Teale? I mean seriously, get a room.

[Guest SP-1]

My rebuttal on that was all I needed, Teale. The remark it was in response to was claiming that I consider everything I say to be law and untouchable. I was pointing out that I approach my posts from the standpoint that it's my view and my addition to the conversation from that view. That was the context of the reply. The evidence I needed to support my rebuttal was in the quote used against me in the first place. Where better to disprove the evidence than a flaw of reasoning pulled from the evidence itself?

 

By the way, your assumptions are unfounded. If you read my post carefully I mention that I'm in no position to cast a stone. I'm not perfect. I'm not unwounded. I have battled some things and won with Christ. I battle other things now. I will battle still other things in the future. Being a Christian doesn't make you perfect in this life, and anyone who claims otherwise needs to spend a little more time investigating what they're talking about. It's also something that those who like to think they know Christianity like to spout off about, and only further display their lack of knowledge.

 

I don't mind an intelligent discussion. I also leave the academic writing in the classroom, where I do it well. It's not my natural, fiction-writer's style, and merely serves to rob a work of passion. I'm far too passionate to stay in that mode of thinking and writing.

 

To let this thread get back on track, I'll say that I'll gladly chat with anyone here about Christianity, the problems that some raise with it, the answers that are available if you dig a little, and the true way of love that Christ laid out for us to live with Him. But I'm done with it here. I'll continue to post my views and reasons in other threads because it's a valid viewpoint from an established people group's way of thinking, believing, and living. But I'm not going to argue with Marney and Co. about spelling mistakes and mud-slinging instead of tackling the heart of the discussion.

 

Anyone want to discuss? I'd be happy to. PM me for my AIM SN.

 

Want to mud-sling and flame? No. Enough of that goes unchecked here as it is and I don't wish to be a part of it any further.