"it's not the will of the people! Activist judges! Put it to a vote!" and "We're a persecuted religious minority!"

In the end, it's all about tribal power and drawing self-esteem from exploiting others. Principles are just convenient weapons for them.

Someone just made this really good point about the hypocrisy.

If the government were to come into churches and tell them that they had to perform gay marriages, there would be a meltdown.

From the dictates of people's precious and unquestionable "faith".

the Defenders of the Faith just carve out the bad shit done by people for religious reasons and declare it "not about religion", and then turn around and point out the good stuff done by people for religious reasons and declare it to be proof that religion is a force for social justice.

it is crap, and it is all part of the problem with religion in society.

The bad stuff done for religious reasons shows that religion is inherently bad, but the good stuff done for religious reasons doesn't count because people would still do good stuff without religion.

If it's crap, it's crap when both sides do it, right?

nothing good has ever been done with religious motivations.

It is this: Would X have still happened if not for religion?

We aren't simply assuming that religion is the cause of bad behavior, despite your horseshit claim. We're taking the word of the people actually carrying out the actions that they are motivated by the dictates of their faith. The motivation of the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" is only a mystery to the vacuous or to blind ideologues ("but..it's COMPLICATED!!" is also not an argument with any weight). The usual NTS or "religion is just an excuse" arguments place the burden squarely on those making them.

would look like. What you say here fails as a refutation, because "would x happen without religion" is not the double standard that I discussed. Saying "we're just taking them at their word" is exactly the kind of assumption that the quoted person did not use for good actions motivated by religion.

So fucking what?

You found one person with an inconsistent position. What in the name of Odin's hirsute backside does that have to do with anything?

Does it prove the position in the OP? Does it disprove Warren's rebuttal? Seems to me like you're derailing the conversation by putting people on the defensive rather than taking a clear position yourself.

But that's just me.

as a problem with religion in society. My example of opposition to religion also creating a double standard shows that this is not a specifically religious problem.

He said that this double standard is part of the problem with religion; he didn't say the problem is exclusive to religion.

doesn't meet either, that tells me something about the weight I should give to his criticism. I didn't accuse him of not meeting the standard. I invited him to meet it by asking him to agree that double standards are wrong whether in the service of religion or in opposition to religion.

Obviously you haven't thought about this in any real depth. Taking someone at their word, when they have no good reason not to be honest, is not an "assumption". Claiming that a person should NOT be believed when they say "I did X because of my religion" is what requires assumptions and special pleading.

And let's just get you on record..are you saying that people who do good things and say they are motivated by religion would not have done those things if it hadn't been for religion?

I can't look into alternate realities to see what the same person would do at the same time both with and without religion.

that you are dodging the question, for reasons which are obvious to those who have considered this issue in detail.

Also noted that someone with very thin skin is alert trolling....sheesh!


On Wed Apr 1, 2015, 05:13 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Sorry…another fail
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=190216

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Obviously you haven't thought about this in any real depth" was a gratuitous personal attack that tarnished an otherwise fine post.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 1, 2015, 05:21 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You have got to be kidding me. Stop wasting my time.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not an optimal phrasing, but not anything one shouldn't expect on just about all internet forums.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Pointless whining.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just what does 'discussion forum' mean? Jeez, some people are such 'delicate flowers'. Get thee to a gardening or cooking forum.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Heck I am religious and didn't find this insulting. Just asking straightforward questions really. I thought it was rather politely done in fact.

Seriously? Whoever alerted on this needs to get a life.

But calling it a dodge is a mischaracterization. Have a good night, Scott. I consider the conversation between us finished.