superduperstition is the insistence that we not only believe, but subsidize..

It's all so confusing...

would that not make them double crossing christians?

So your support, or lack thereof, is irrelevant.

That is a valid point. There are many rights that are not attainable in many places because they lack support. I'm sure you can think of such places.

I'm not saying anything about the rights. I'm talking about my support for them. That is something I can, and do control.

Is it irrelevant? To you, perhaps. It is not irrelevant to me, however.

Thank you for your reply.

Frankly, I am skeptical of anyone whose support of a right is dependent on some sort of personal reciprocity. In the end, that type of support is not worth the pixels it takes to express it.

What is important to you may well not be important to me.

and what you consider important or not important?

Not that it matters to anyone of course.

What is important are rights, not ponderous declarations of who or what you support or why.

Just because you don't use the word "I" in your posts does not mean you are posting from an objective viewpoint. I say what I wish to say. You're welcome to read it or not read it, as you please.

You post other people's words. I post my own. We are different in that way. If you find my posts unappealing or objectionable, you needn't read them. I will post my opinion on DU, when it pleases me to do so. You may post the opinions of others. It's a choice. I don't mind if you object, but it won't influence what I post.

Every opinion you post from somewhere else is someone's opinion. I simply choose to post mine first hand. I'd be very interested to know what your opinion is. You might try posting that from time to time.

First hand or second hand, it's all just opinion.

For example, the melting of the polar caps must be stopped, regardless of your opinion of whether it should or should not. Regarding the topic at hand, rights, and the utter necessity of maintaining them, are completely independent of whether your opinion is to support them or oppose them. Regardless of your opinion, those rights stand.

IMHO.

You say that the melting of the polar caps must be stopped. It is not at all clear that there is a means of doing so.

Rights are often not respected by people. Wars are fought, and millions have died in dealing with that basic question. You may have a firm belief about what are and are not rights of human beings. Others may not share that belief. As we have seen, time and again, the rights of those who have the means to defend them are the ones that remain in force. The rights of those who cannot do not protect them from the former.

Did the aboriginal inhabitants of North America have rights? If rights are objective, then they certainly did. But, the rights of discovery and occupation by those who displaced and murdered them were backed by force and numbers. They believed that they had the right of discovery and occupation, and by force majeur, enforced those rights, despite the natural rights of the existing inhabitants.

Rights are only real if they can be defended. Rights that cannot be defended cease to be rights at all. History is a valuable teacher.

The sordid history you recite is precisely what happens when people assert, as you did, that they will support another's right only if they receive something in return.

What you are really talking about is politics. You're simply attempting to ennoble your political argument by invoking the term "rights". Albeit in an incorrect way.

One thing that came out of the violence of the 20th century is an explicit understanding that there are universal human rights that can be neither bargained away nor violaled with impunity.

http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2007/hrphotos/declaration%20_eng.pdf

There's nothing in there about scratching backs.

The right to vote is conditional; a person in prison has forfeited it, at least temporarily.

While rights may be forfeited, they are not in any sense provisional.

A person can lose the right to vote by committing a felony. That is provisional, no?

Forfeiture of that right is something all together different. It is a post hoc penalty requiring the loss of that right already held, but it is not a prior requirement of having that right.

I don't know what all the words you wrote have to do with it, it's really pretty simple.

You lose your right to vote after you commit a felony.

Simple enough?

That's the same thing I said. You've reversed the wording, not the meaning. And you omitted the words conditional and provisional but you've still described a right being conditional and provisional.

This has been an interesting exchange - because it's puzzling why you resist naming things for what they are.

First you hvae a right (assuming the basic requirements are met).

Then it's yours, you no longer have to claim it.

If an event occurs after that, it might be forfeited but that is by no means stating a right is claimed provisionally or conditioned on good behavior.

First you describe, accurately, that the right can be forfeited if an event occurs (and the event is understood to be bad behavior). Then you say that the right is in no way dependent on good behavior. I'm sincerely puzzled over how someone can posit something so plainly contradictory.

Maybe Google can help you.

Regardless of which type of condition applies to a particular right, the right is still conditional.

And, besides, it's quite easy to think of both types of conditions on a right. For example, the right to vote has a pre-condition of citizenship. Here in Miami we hold citizenship clinics all the time. People who previously did not meet all of the conditions to vote suddenly do. The right to vote is clearly subject to both of your types of conditions. And, of course, even if it was subject to only one of your types of conditions it would still be conditional.

Rights can certainly be conditional. Sorry.

Like citizenship as a condition precedent for voting. You've moved the goalposts, of course, but you're still wrong anyway.

12 States have enacted laws which revoke from felons the righ to vote, 10 of those have provisions for reenstatement of the voting right, 2 do not. 2 States allow felons to vote while still in prison, and most States do not, but they get the right to vote after serving time.
Not allowing felons to vote is highly controversial, and it is far, far from universal in this country, much less the world. Many people, and the majority of States, feel it is Unconstitutional to revoke that right permanently as punishment for felony.
Actual, real world details can be learned here:
http://www.aclu.org/map-state-felony-disfranchisement-laws

Until 1921, women in the United States were not deemed to have the right to vote. Today, we recognize that they do and they vote. Until that recognition, the right to vote in this country was conditioned on being white and having a penis.

When I was 18, I did not have the right to vote. Today 18-year-olds are recognized as having that right. Society, again, decided what the conditions under which people could exercise their rights were. You have no rights that you cannot exercise, since being unable to exercise them means you do not have them.

Rights are not conditional, but societies put all sorts of conditions on those rights. Often the battle to use one's rights are difficult and can be deadly. All rights are conditional and the conditions are set by the society. While one may have a theoretical right to do something, actually exercising that right can lead to severe consequences, including death.

Theoretical assessments of rights are interesting, I suppose, but they're of little practical use if your own rights cannot be exercised. I'm not much on theory when it comes to individual rights. I'm more of a practical person. A right you cannot exercise is no right at all.

My support of someone's rights is inconsequential in terms of anyone's actual abilities to exercise those rights. However, it is something I can provide or withhold. It is a right I have. My failure to support someone's rights will have no effect on them in reality, but it is my right to withhold that support.

I'm not going to create a list for you on request. This thread is about a specific right, which I support conditionally. I will write other posts about other things at other times.

I wonder if that is the only right you support conditionally. Now why would that be?

I'm not going to expand it any further here, rug. This is the religion forum. I am posting something regarding religion. That is the purpose of the forum. Thank you for your attention.

Surely you've noticed.

Those examples he gave that are a matter of action, such as forcing or outlawing abortion or shuttering churches, are not.

how is the decision made, rug? Conflicts between equal rights have no reasonable resolution. Your right to worship is equal to my right not to be forced to do so. I cannot support your right if you will not support mine. Such are clashes that create history, and not pleasant history, either.

Has anyone held otherwise?

Surely your knowledge of history is not that deficient.

Do tell.

Haven't you? I'm old enough to have had teachers lead prayers in a public school class, where I was compelled to speak that prayer aloud. The Lord's Prayer is worship, pure and simple. So, yes, I have been compelled to worship, and lacked the ability to refuse to do so, due to my age at the time. Does that still take place? It certainly does, although less often these days, and rarely in most parts of the US. It did, however take place within my lifetime.

That was too easy a question, rug, and the answer should have been obvious to you.

Has that ever happened to you as an adult?

But, that is not the question you posed, rug. I answered the question you posed.

So, since I did, I'll ask you a question: Do you think it's OK for a government agency to compel children to worship a particular religion? If so, why do you hold that opinion?

Of course they are.

We (humans) made them up. Each society... which humans make up.... has rights. As far as the natural world is concerned, you have the "right" to do what you must to survive and pass on your genes. And that's it.

All other rights are conditional. The only reason one would think you have a "right" to worship as you please is because you live in the US and the Founding Fathers made it up and put it in the Constitution. It is not a "right" in many other places and hasn't been a "right" for most of history.

Nature is indifferent to what "you" want or think is a "right".

But since we live in human communities, such made up rights are important to humans.... and should be. But let us remember in the back of our minds that humans are not the do-all and end-all of everything, nor are "Western" notions of "rights".

He must have been mistaken when he said they are inalienable.

No... he was mistaken about "endowed by their creator". And that "god of nature" stuff.

But, y'know, it was the 18th century....

But you say they are conditional.

... they are "given" by whatever government the human society in question has determined them to be.

Since I am a US citizen I think that process should be democratic and fair.... as much as possible. And indeed "fair" trumps "democratic" sometimes.... because it's the man made society that we are addressing here.

They are different you know.

I answered that already


Try to keep up.

Honey..... you're the only one who doesn't know what I clearly wrote way up in the posts.

You always have to repeat things for the slow or trouble-making students....

I have often said the same things.
Thanks.

or to the right people, since all of the things mentioned by the OP are still rampant. Atheists are already there...when are the religionists going to join the party in any meaningful way?

I read you as saying, "I will support your right to do as you will, but only in so far as you behave in a fashion that I deem acceptable."

as long as religious people do not interfere with the rights of others. My support is not really of any importance, but it might make people think. Each of the things I mentioned has to do with the rights of others. Why should I support the rights of people who trample on the rights of others? It's something to think about.

PROVIDED the believers act in ways you approve of. They shouldn't pray where you can hear them. They should not speak of their beliefs to you. If they believe that abortion is murder, they should not voice this belief or attempt to act on this belief. If they oppose gay marriage, they should not voice this belief. Houses of worship should be closed if the congregation does not act in a way you approve of.

As I said, you believe that they have the right to practice their religion, but only if they do it in a way that you, personally, approve of. In other words, you do not believe in freedom of religion.

Now, I am not saying that there are not legitimate restrictions on freedom of worship, just as there are legitimate restrictions on freedom of speech. I oppose the teaching of creationism in public schools, for the reasons given in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) and McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982) . I oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments on the walls of public school classrooms. But not allowing believers to pray aloud? Come on now.

are those that take place somewhere I am compelled to be. There are very few such places or occasions.

You are still saying that you only support freedom of religion if believers act in a way that you, personally, approve of. In other words, you do not support freedom of religion.

Why aren't you honest enough to admit it?

Freedom of all religion. As long as the religions do not step on the rights of those who do not share their beliefs, I have nothing against religion at all and support their right to worship as they please.

One person's rights do not include the right of violating another person's rights. It all has to work both ways, you see. Most rights are conditional in that regard. As I said, you need to read my original post more carefully. You appear to have missed the second part of each statement.

and posting ignorant bullshit about us all across the right wing internet. You were an active promoter of some of the memes which are most damaging to the fight for equality, including 'gays should not be around kids'. You started threads to say these things which indicated you were then an atheist. Here is a great, great post from you there, I will quote it:
"I don't think homosexual men should be in positions of trust with boys. Or lesbians with girls. That's simple. However, not all pedophiles have exhibited their tendencies. Yes, some homosexuals prey on kids. No question."
Here is how you signed that post " posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 9:18:43 AM by MineralMan (godless atheist)"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1303549/posts

So would you say that your right to atheism, like other's right to religion, should be conditional and revoked if the person opposes or steps on the rights of others? If the person foists lies and baseless hate speech, should their rights be conditional? Should your rights still be subject to such conditions, or did that end when you 'changed your mind' or is your view that only religiously expressed bigotry is bad, bigotry that says 'godless' is a dandy way to spend the day?
I don't know any religious people who spent time going around posting bullshit about gay people on right wing sites for sport. I do know one atheist who did so, that's you. So the high horse routine, as always, is simply not a good choice for you, with your acknowledged spotty history. That's my opinion. You criticize the religious for doing what you yourself did for many, many years using only personal bigotry and ignorance as motivation. At least religious people think God told them to propagandize against gay people, you seemingly were a free will volunteer to such work.
Hypocrisy just gets to me. And this OP is hyper hypocritical.

I apologized for my poor understanding some years ago, and have learned the truth. Anyone can click on my DU journal to read that apology. They can also click on the link in my signature line to the DFL precinct website where I am the chair here in Minnesota and read my call for support of marriage equality.

I learned of my error and corrected myself. When I am in error and I learn the facts, I do not hold onto my erroneous beliefs. I am a supporter of equal rights for all, including marriage equality. That is my belief. That is what I support.

As many times as you reference things I wrote six years ago, and that I have repudiated, I will simply direct people to my journal and the precinct website. I will not discuss that further with you, but will simply refer people to those things.

I was ignorant of the facts. Now I'm not. It makes all the difference.

The hypocrisy of that fact in light of your verbal abuse towards others is breathtaking.

You say that you "support freedom of religion, across the board", yet you put multiple conditions on your support. As I said, CORRECTLY, you support freedom of religion but only when religious people act in ways that you, personally approve of. Thus, you clearly do NOT support freedom of religion, except on your own terms.

as detailed in numerous Supreme Court decisions. Freedom of religion isn't absolute, and that doesn't have anything to do with MineralMan's, my, or your approval. Or do you think the religious have the right to use the power of the state to foist their beliefs upon others?

That little snippet kills the deal.....They can't pull that off.....

Many Christian denominations manage to be tolerant of other belief systems, or at least not to trash them publicly. Others, though, do seem incapable of tolerance.

Some religions, like Buddhism, are tolerant of other belief systems as well. However, religion in general appears not to be very capable of tolerance. "We're right and everyone else is wrong" gets in the way, it seems.

Ah.....I understand fully,now....Like the tolerance YOU display in your reply to me....STFU.....

Not equal rights for gays for one.



And given the general unwillingness to consider Muslims or atheists as viable political candidates, it is certain that Christians - a vvast majority, are also intolerant of such candidates too.

is a fairly dramatic shift in the Christian community, with a majority now favoring equal marriage, a shift of 4 percentage points over a year. The holdouts are the white evangelicals and African American Protestants, both of which groups heavily promoted Prop H8 in California.

I'm not sure what "unaffiliated" means here. Unaffiliated Christians? Or the religiously unaffiliated in general? Or people who are not affiliated with Christianity but may be with another religion?

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)

You sir, are a hypocrite. How can you advocate for tolerance, while at the same time telling someone to shove it up their ass?

to keep your superstition out of my face! Case closed!