"The bread and wine representing Christ's broken body and lifegiving blood are replaced with sadomasochistic sex toys in this twisted version of Da Vinci's The Last Supper," CWA said on its Web site.

"'Gay' activists disingenuously call Christians 'haters' and 'homophobes' for honoring the Bible, but then lash out in this hateful manner toward the very people they accuse," said said Matt Barber, CWA's policy director for cultural issues.


Homosexuals Mock 'Last Supper' With Sex-Toys Twist -- 09/25/2007 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200709/CUL20070925b.html)

You didn't know it's OK to mock Christianity? But it's not OK to mock other religions and lifestyles.

I won't say that I am against “Mocking” in every conceivable form; but this,

I don't know, DC.. .

Given your politics (and propensity for game playing), I'm instantly suspicious when you start citing Right Wing 'news' sources.

I can't help but wonder if your motivation is more about incitement than it is about concern for the 'feelings' of Xtians.

I dunno, DC. . .

Given your politics (and propensity for game playing), I'm instantly suspicious when you start citing Right Wing 'news' sources.

I can't help but wonder if your motivation is more about incitement than it is about concern for the 'feelings' of Xtians.
My epistemology is not based on, or derived from, the source of information, not should anyone base a belief on the informational source, but rather from the moral truth as they perceive it. To me, the behavior in discussion is pragmatically destructive. :)

If you would only use this site as an example of what professed atheists use as attacks against Christians or anyone who believes there is God, you would know there is no politeness.

All atheists can rest assured knowing that traditional observant Christians are not fantasy prone to mock their own religious icons, none of which according to their New Testament were homosexuals.


And this coming from a Jew,
Bobby

I have to laugh!

One group oppressed and slandered by all Christian denominations(except just recently not the more progressive Christian denominations) STRIKES BACK at their attacker by pointing out in a satiric manner that the last supper symbolizes an ancient cannibalistic belief(if one eats of the flesh of the noble person, one takes on his characteristics). Eat, for this is my flesh, etc. Christianity is not above attack in America anymore.

Christianity wants to maintian the position it occupied since the beginning of the Republic as being above criticism, however, since the 1970 going forward, Christianity became a political movement trying to force its very negative political agenda upon America's citizens. This agenda I'm referring to is: attack education, attack science, lie about the government and convince the majority of Christians that a CHRISTIAN THEISTIC government is preferable to America's secular Constitution and Bill of Rights. Part of their agenda is to take away individuals civil rights. Christianity is just nonsense to a lot of people in America... now that it is **dangerous nonsense**(religion and government combined), secularists and others are fighting back.

This is just free expression in one isolated place in America... San Francisco's hippist neighborhood, probably. FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH.

:):):)

Choux-

You have a perverse sense of humor. You're not a lesbian (or a cannibal), I don't think, well maybe a cannibal (lol), and I know you're not homophobic, but I was unaware that you so strongly supported the homosexual community. I don't and would not knowingly. Currently secularists have had equal if not more say in the public schools than ever before. This is reason enough, that if affordable, to consider sending children to a private school of choice. Just curious, for those that have children, do you accept or favor curriculum being taught to your child that homosexuality is a normal, healthy, alternative and viable, lifestyle? I don't.



Bobby

I think it is a testament to Christians that we have not rioted ,burned 100s of cars or beheaded anyone over the desecration of one of our "iconic symbols" .

From a political point of view I can say that the pressure from Christians nation wide is already having an impact. Miller Brewing Co. is a sponsor for this blasphemy at the 2007 Folsom Street Fair. The fair is designed to raise funds for local gay organizations ;one of them a group that mocks Catholic nuns (Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, who call themselves "queer nuns.")

The poster entitled 'The Last Straw " is a spoof of DaVinci's 'Last Supper '. It depicts men in drag,men in leather etc... at the Last Supper table which has sex toys and props on it.. The Last Straw is a fitting title in another way . Christians are getting pretty tired of the blank check the popular culture receives to mock our faith . The poster originally had the Miller logo on it ,but the company, coming under increasing pressure mobilized by the' Catholic League ',decided to remove the logo.

But that is not enough . Now the pressure is on for them to drop their sponsorship to the event. The Catholic League is now calling for a boycott of Miller products.

Yes the artists and the groups involved have a perfect 1st Amendment Right to design and display the poster. But Christians also have a perfect right to use the power of the purse to make a political statement of their own by choosing not to patronize Miller products so long as they sponsor such blatant attacks .

Here is the contact information for Miller Brewing Co.

Contact: Miller spokesman Julian Green at [email protected]

Miller Brewing Company
3939 W. Highland Blvd
Milwaukee, WI 53208
(414) 931-2000

I "boycotted " Miller years ago because I thought their product was swill.

Here is the list of Miller products to avoid :
Miller Genuine Draft
Miller Genuine Draft Light
Miller High Life
Miller Lite
Icehouse
Milwaukee's Best
Henry Weinhard's Amber Light
Henry Weinhard's
Blue Boar Pale Ale
Henry Weinhard's Hefeweizen
Henry Weinhard's Northwest Trail
Henry Weinhard's Private Reserve
Leinenkugel's Amber Light
Leinenkugel's Berry Weiss
Leinenkugel's Big Butt Doppelbock
Leinenkugel's Creamy Dark Lager
Leinenkugel's Honey Weiss
Leinenkugel's Light
Leinenkugel's Northwoods Lager
Leinenkugel's Oktoberfest
Leinenkugel's Original
Leinenkugel's Red Lager
Mickey's Malt Liquor
Olde English 800 Malt Liquor
SKYY Blue
SKYY Sport

As for me... it's Oktoberfest time. I think I'll have a few Spaten this weekend.

I've followed the “Sanctions” move by the Church against Miller since this began and wondered if they would cave, when they didn't I concluded that they decided the Church was less of a market than the opposition.

Have you reconsidered ? I hear the gays like wine better :)

The demographics would clearly favor Christians in this case . The question ;and it appears to be the subject of a few threads here, is if religious based /"values "based consumers/voters are motivated enough to exercise their political clout to affect or reverse the social changes that progressivism has brought.

Have you reconsidered ? I hear the gays like wine better :)

The demographics would clearly favor Christians in this case . The question ;and it appears to be the subject of a few threads here, is if religious based /"values "based consumers/voters are motivated enough to exercise their political clout to affect or reverse the social changes that progressivism has brought.
It’s not just the gays but the community that supports gay rights.:)

I agree.. ”is if religious based /"values "based consumers/voters are motivated enough to exercise their political clout... ”

My argument is that Miller is a very large corporation and decisions like this definitely have to go before the Board, so at some point the Board had to decide where the money was because that is the sole consideration of this large a company, they have so far opted on the side of the gays.

But they did make the concession of taking their name off the poster and that was before this 'Catholic League' reaction grew legs . We will see if a boycott of their products has any clout. My guess is that it will have an impact on their bottom line. Budweiser makes comparable and competitive alternates to their major brands.

One can only speculate what impact it will have. I do not expect it to be in the degree of the Boston Tea Party; or boycott of the Selma bus system ,but hopefully enough to give them pause when they consider supporting the trashing and mocking Christianity. Perhaps it won't amount to a hill of beans dollar-wise. The Disney boycott did nothing to affect them in their bottom line... except in regards to the bad publicity.However... Maybe in the future decisions they make will consider who's ox they are goring .

Again ;this is legitimate protest in the best capitalist tradition. No one is going to burn a brewery . Do I as an individual have a hope of making a meaningful statement by boycotting a product on my own ? Probably not. But working together with like minded consumers I think I could.

One can only speculate what impact it will have. I do not expect it to be in the degree of the Boston Tea Party; or boycott of the Selma bus system ,but hopefully enough to give them pause when they consider supporting the trashing and mocking Christianity. Perhaps it won't amount to a hill of beans dollar-wise. The Disney boycott did nothing to affect them in their bottom line ...except in regards to the bad publicity.However ... Maybe in the future decisions they make will consider who's ox they are goring .

Again ;this is legitimate protest in the best capitalist tradition. No one is going to burn a brewery . Do I as an individual have a hope of making a meaningful statement by boycotting a product on my own ? Probably not. But working together with like minded consumers I think I could.
One other thing that I find interesting is that the Christian Left is quite on the matter.

That also depends . There is a bit of a disagreement about which side of the spectrum us Catholics fall under. Normally Catholic advocates generally are not considered " Christian Right". ;some folks in the so called 'Christian Right' consider us papists devil worshippers.

That also depends . There is a bit of a disagreement about which side of the spectrum us Catholics fall under. Normally Catholic advocates generally are not considered " Christian Right". As a matter of fact ;some folks in the so called 'Christian Right' consider us papists devil worshippers.
True, however I think we are back to “an approximation,” there are what’s termed, Old or Anglo-Catholicism in the C.L. but, I don't believe they are involved in this issue.

DC, it's good to see you're on board in this. We have a member here that enjoys calling us haters if you haven't noticed. These people not only lash out hypocritically, it seems to be an orgasmic experience for them.

ummmm isn't Dos XX a redundancy

Absolutely, but don't ask me why you papist devil worshipper... that's just what they call it (http://dosxx.com/). At least it isn't a double redundancy like "The Los Angeles Angels." :D

Absolutely, but don't ask me why you papist devil worshipper ... that's just what they call it (http://dosxx.com/). At least it isn't a double redundancy like "The Los Angeles Angels." :D

Here's the beer!

Shiner Beers | www.shiner.com (http://www.shiner.com/home.php)



Bobby

DC, it's good to see you're on board in this. We have a member here that enjoys calling us haters if you haven't noticed. These people not only lash out hypocritically, it seems to be an orgasmic experience for them.
I'm sure there are many on the Left who agree with us in regards to this mockery. Don't feel too bad about someone grouping you, we have a couple of members here who attack me personally. :rolleyes:

As the OP puts it:What happened to being polite and respectful?

I'm sure there are many on the Left who agree with us in regards to this mockery. Don't feel too bad about someone grouping you, we have a couple of members here who attack me personally. :rolleyes:

As the OP puts it:What happened to being polite and respectful?


DC- Not everyone will agree all the time, but from my perspective you're just as appreciated sharing your view with regular contributions. Although people can be short with one another once in awhile, that's to be expected when discussing politics. This is a good political board.


Bobby

I have been trying to figure out ever since I heard this on the news
HOW is the artist being "polite and respectful"?
Would Muslims tolerate it if an artist did such a thing using their Allah?

I have been trying to figure out ever since I heard this on the news
HOW is the artist being "polite and respectful"?


It's sadistic and irreverent.



Would Muslims tolerate it if an artist did such a thing using their Allah?!


Muslims have issued death threats over cartoons.





Bobby

Babram
Precisely!

Christians are expected to accept anything and everything no matter how nasty it is.
Yet when the same is done to any other group by anybody the very same ones
Who preach tolerance and diversity get unbelievably offended so very easily.

Well, I will say that I don't think all Christians are homophobes, but I think it's disingenous to claim that our criticism of the religious is the same as their criticism of us. First of all, we have proof that we are not harmful to society, they have a 2k year old book that doesn't even make sense.

I saw one poster claim that it's a miracle that Christians haven't stood up to those who hate them. I'd like to point out that in all of the Americas, Europe, large portions of Africa and Asian, and in Australia, Christians are not a marginalized religion. It's so annoying that you try to act like victims when an artist that nobody really pays attention to creates something disparaging. Yet you think it's okay to lump homosexuality in with pedophilia and zoophilia? You have church leaders, who influence the thoughts of millions, claiming that our quest for the equal protection of our rights is an attack on the family, but you still think that some artist is a huge threat?

Seriously, you Christians need to get real. You hold the power, so quit acting the victim. SHAMELESS!!

Oh, by the way, I don't hate Christianity itself, or any other religion for that matter, I hate the hypocrisy of Christians, especially evangelical ones who claim they just want to save me. I don't want to be saved by a belief in something that doesn't exist.

Oh, by the way, I don't hate Christianity itself, or any other religion for that matter, I hate the hypocrisy of Christians, especially evangelical ones who claim they just want to save me. I don't want to be saved by a belief in something that doesn't exist.

It's funny, I was raised Southern Baptist, and in most ways still identify with that upbringing, but I do see your point about having others, namely Evangelicals, try to foist their version of their faith onto you.

In my neighborhood we're constantly pestered at home by the 'Born Again's' and the 'Jehovah Witnesses' -- So much so that I had a doormat made that reads 'Born Okay The First Time'.

I was raised Catholic, and believe it or not, had a great experience in the Church. I just don't believe in a higher power. What I like about the Catholic church is that instead of trying to convert people, it uses its resources to tangibly help people. Evangelism just infuriates me SO MUCH!! How is my believing in a your god going to help me when I'm starving, or have diptheria, or malaria, or AIDS, or when I'm homeless on a cold night?

I agree americangayboy
I in no way was implying to single out gays nor any one particular group but rather any and all groups who this Christianity while upholding their own 'rights' whether it be the ACLU, PETA or whatever. It just drives me crazy that 'they' do things like scream separation of church and state---no prayer in school, no this and no that then they go out of their way to accommodate other religions and so forth and don't give equal opportunity to the Christian group. For example airports are making pray rooms and foot baths for Muslims but God forbid that there be a Christian prayer room.

Christian but definitely NOT homophobic

Well, I will say that I don't think all Christians are homophobes, but I think it's disingenous to claim that our criticism of the religious is the same as their criticism of us. First of all, we have proof that we are not harmful to society, they have a 2k year old book that doesn't even make sense.

I saw one poster claim that it's a miracle that Christians haven't stood up to those who hate them. I'd like to point out that in all of the Americas, Europe, large portions of Africa and Asian, and in Australia, Christians are not a marginalized religion. It's so annoying that you try to act like victims when an artist that nobody really pays attention to creates something disparaging. Yet you think it's okay to lump homosexuality in with pedophilia and zoophilia?! You have church leaders, who influence the thoughts of millions, claiming that our quest for the equal protection of our rights is an attack on the family, but you still think that some artist is a huge threat?

Seriously, you Christians need to get real. You hold the power, so quit acting the victim. SHAMELESS!!!!
The only thing that I found offensive was that the artist included sadomasochistic sex toys in depicting the last supper... a questionable event... the tendency to derive sexual gratification or general pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others. It is however no less acceptable as Gays tied to pedophilia and zoophilia

Well, airports are (often) private entities that can do whatever they like... if the market asks for foot baths and prayer rooms, there will be foot baths and prayer rooms. I don't see the utility in a prayer room, people can pray out in the open, but hey, ask and you shall receive. Also, I'm sure Christians could use the prayer rooms that they're putting in airports.

The ACLU, for as much crap as it is given, always errs on the side of expanding personal rights. You should be thankful that they're around because they might just help you out one day... look at Sen. Larry Craig.

As for people ganging up on Christians and not others, let me remind you that it was organized prayer that was taken out of schools, not all prayer. As an extreme example: why should a Satanist be forced to engage in a Christian prayer? What if the table was turned and the Christian was being forced to participate in a Black Mass? Even less dramatic, would you as a Christian want your children to be taught that Buddism was the "correct" religion? The best policy is to leave religion where it belongs: in people's personal lives.

I'll agree that Christianity gets a lot of flack, but Christians are often the agressors in arguments. Going back to the gay rights issue, the GLBT community has lobbied congress using research to support it's claims, then the Christians come and scare people into thinking gay marriage will bring the fall of society. They have no evidence for this (except when they intentionally misinterpret correlational studies) and then whine when we call them out on it. To heck with them. If they spread lies about me, I have no problem telling them the truth, something many religious people can't handle and view as an attack.

Well, it's art, who cares. It offends you, so don't look at it. It's a bad idea to tell people they can't express themselves just because people are offended by it. How many devout Christians, the type who would be offended by this display, are actually going to this fair and looking at this art? If they are going, it's because people have made such a stink about it and they want to protest it. I have no sympathy for those who are whining about this subject: we live in a free country and it's not Speaker Pelosi's or the governator's place to decide what is and is not too offensive (in fact, I believe it would be unconstitutional for them to pass a law against sex-toys in art).

Well, it's art, who cares. It offends you, so don't look at it. It's a bad idea to tell people they can't express themselves just because people are offended by it. How many devout Christians, the type who would be offended by this display, are actually going to this fair and looking at this art? If they are going, it's because people have made such a stink about it and they want to protest it. I have no sympathy for those who are whining about this subject: we live in a free country and it's not Speaker Pelosi's or the governator's place to decide what is and is not too offensive (in fact, I believe it would be unconstitutional for them to pass a law against sex-toys in art).
It is not sex toys, it is the concept, “derive sexual gratification or general pleasure from inflicting pain, and suffering” that offends me and not the object... it should offend any normal person... that is a reflection of a very troubled person. And so it is I don't have to view it to understand the concept.

Oh, I guess I misunderstood. That's something you'll just have to live with. There will always be people who derive pleasure from others' pain. Others just like the aesthetic aspects of S&M. It's a fact of life that you have no way to control.

Almost forgot: if people didn't make such a big deal about this, you'd have never known. Also, S&M isn't that repugnant... I can think of far worse things than that to offend you.

It's funny that you mention that. When I was in high school, this group of Christian students came into my place of work (inappropriately I might add) and started asking us, and our customers, if they've been saved by Jesus. When I told them I was Catholic, they got all pissy talking about how I don't worship god BLAH BLAH BLAH. I kicked them out and their leader came in and tried yelling at me for being intolerant... and this was when I was actually Catholic, not just Catholic by default. Oh well, they left after they got it off their chests.


That also depends . There is a bit of a disagreement about which side of the spectrum us Catholics fall under. Normally Catholic advocates generally are not considered " Christian Right". As a matter of fact ;some folks in the so called 'Christian Right' consider us papists devil worshippers.

americangayboy
In reply to your comment to my post:
That is because you and your friends are not the type that are in the liberal organizations that politicalize everything. You are the 'normal' ones. I hear of many average gay people saying they are sick of how some organizations turn things into a political agenda telling America what their group wants, whether it be gay or whatever, when it isn't necessarly what they want.

Also my rating to you I hit the send button before I was done

N0help4u agrees: That is true. I think the main point of the problem is people any more are taught political correctness to the point they are offended much too easily why do people get offended that someone says Merry Christmas or God Bless you yet they think you should accept 'art' of urine on their cherished religious icons.
You are right the media draws attention to these things and that is a lot of the problem right there in itself.

americangayboy
I hear of many average gay people saying they are sick of how some organizations turn things into a political agenda telling America what their group wants, whether it be gay or whatever, when it isn't necessarly what they want.


I'm not quite sure I understand this, but if you mean we're sick of being politicized, your damn right! I'm sick of being used as a political tool. We're not trying to hurt anyone's marriage, corrupt their children, destroy society, etc. yet conservatives spin it that way to motivate their base. I really think it's a stretch to say that these politicians actually care about gay marriage when there is no evidence, or probable cause, to suggest allowing gay marriage would hurt society in any way. Also, I don't like it when politicians insincerely support our causes (many talk the talk, but don't walk the walk).

Please let me know if I didn't discuss what you meant. I really am unclear about what you meant.

DC,

I am curious. What is it that offends you about sadomasochistic sex practices? It's between two concenting adults isn't it? As far as they are concerned, they LIKE the pain. That would be their choice, wouldn't it? What makes that more offensive to you than gay sex?

I am not trying to support either gay sex or sadomasochistic sex. I am just trying to understand what your objection to one, but not the other, is. Aren't they both just examples of different lifestyle choices than the one you have chosen for yourself?

Elliot

DC,

I am curious. What is it that offends you about sadomasochistic sex practices? It's between two concenting adults isn't it? As far as they are concerned, they LIKE the pain. That would be their choice, wouldn't it? What makes that more offensive to you than gay sex?

I am not trying to support either gay sex or sadomasochistic sex. I am just trying to understand what your objection to one, but not the other, is. Aren't they both just examples of different lifestyle choices than the one you have chosen for yourself?

Elliot
Any attempt in philosophy to understand morality or evaluative thought generally leads subjectivism. The idea, in a word, is that values are “subjective,” that questions of value are not questions with “objective” answers. What they all have in common is the thought that there are no evaluative facts. So we are left with only pragmatics as a method for evaluating goodness, or badness of a thing or a course of action is not something that belongs to the world as it is in itself, independently of us.
I believe history has shown that it is pragmatically harmful to a society that holds to the belief that inflicting pain, or suffering is a good thing.

DC, now you're stepping out of the bedroom into bigger things, which isn't a bad thing. A state that supports sadistic behavior definitely is a bad thing, but S&M isn't national policy, it's a fetish indulged in by very few people.

I don't think people's sexual kinks are anything to be worried about. If anything, allowing S&M gets it out of their system! As the wolverine pointed out, as long as it's between consenting adults, who cares? Does somebody getting spanked really affect you that much?

DC, now you're stepping out of the bedroom into bigger things, which isn't a bad thing. A state that supports sadistic behavior definitely is a bad thing, but S&M isn't national policy, it's a fetish indulged in by very few people.

I don't think people's sexual kinks are anything to be worried about. If anything, allowing S&M gets it out of their system! As the wolverine pointed out, as long as it's between consenting adults, who cares? Does somebody getting spanked really affect you that much?
I’m not sure that that is what wolverine had in mind. Never the less, the artist [not me] brought it out of the bedroom, just as activist brought homosexuality out of the bedroom not many years ago, and I don’t believe we can equate the two. However, by the artist bringing it out, and people accepting it as normal, we all enter a ‘slippery slope,’ just as we did with homosexuality.

Yeah I think that ET was beginning to illustrate the slippery slope argument. Is there any sexual activity to be taboo ?

Tom,

That is PART of where I was going with my point. However, I am also really just trying to understand DC's position on the issue from a logical point of view.

He essentially stated in his answer to me above that the position isn't logical but emotional... that any attempt to understand his position would require subjectivism rather than objectivism. Or to use other words, in order to understand his position, one would have to make a PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE decision between what is right and what is wrong, rather than having an objective standard of right and wrong. This

In other words, Evan Sayet was right when he said that modern liberal thought eliminates any standards of what is right and wrong, good and bad, in favor of the "right to think and act differently from others" because such thoughts and actions are all equally valid and equally "right". This is the basis of moral relativism in a nutshell.

In any case, the point has been made. DC's position, while I respect it, is not based on either morality or logic, but rather on his subjective feelings and emotions vis-à-vis sadomasochistic sex and gay sex. That's fine. And at least he has the guts to admitt that. I respect him for that. A lot of guys (and girls) state their opinions on such issues as if they are completely logical, and when holes are punched through their "logic", they get defensive about it and start calling us homophobes and bigots. DC states quite openly that to understand his position requires subjective thinking and "pragmatism", and he's not afraid to admitt that. That takes guts.

Elliot

Sorry DC, I should've been more clear. I meant your taking the S&M out of the "bedroom" and putting it in the realm of society. I didn't mean that you single handedly made the country aware of S&M.

As for your comment on queer activists bringing gay sex out of the bedroom in the 60's, I want to remind you how it all got started. The gay-rights movement was the product of years of persecution. Gay men and women were often arrested just for gathering (you can read a little about the Stonewall riot of 1969). Before Stonewall, the GLBT community was quiet and scared and did, in fact, mind their own business.

I also want to talk about the "throwing it in my face" argument that I often hear. I think, and I may be wrong, that this argument is really about flamboyancy and willingness to disclose personal information. Flamboyantly gay men really make some straight men uncomfortable. I get that, and there's nothing I can do about it BUT, being flamboyant is being one's self, not throwing something in your face. Should I take it as you throwing your marriage in my face when you talk about your wife? I've had the experience that even when asked about my dating life, people (straight men in particular) get uncomfortable. Why is it okay for you to talk about your family/dating life, but I can't... even when asked about it? I think this is one of the most ignorant arguments there is in the GLBT realm. You're saying you hate us, but don't want to be pegged a hater.

Tom,

That is PART of where I was going with my point. However, I am also really just trying to understand DC's position on the issue from a logical point of view.

He essentially stated in his answer to me above that the position isn't logical but emotional... that any attempt to understand his position would require subjectivism rather than objectivism. Or to use other words, in order to understand his position, one would have to make a PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE decision between what is right and what is wrong, rather than having an objective standard of right and wrong. This

In other words, Evan Sayet was right when he said that modern liberal thought eliminates any standards of what is right and wrong, good and bad, in favor of the "right to think and act differently from others" because such thoughts and actions are all equally valid and equally "right". This is the basis of moral relativism in a nutshell.

In any case, the point has been made. DC's position, while I respect it, is not based on either morality or logic, but rather on his subjective feelings and emotions vis-a-vis sadomasochistic sex and gay sex. That's fine. And at least he has the guts to admitt that. I respect him for that. A lot of guys (and girls) state their opinions on such issues as if they are completly logical, and when holes are punched through their "logic", they get defensive about it and start calling us homophobes and bigots. DC states quite openly that to understand his position requires subjective thinking and "pragmatism", and he's not afraid to admitt that. That takes guts.

Elliot
You are right Elliot, I don’t accept either Bush or Osama Ben Laden’s view of morality, both are Bible based and that is only one small example of the grief and suffering that that sort of Morality has caused in the history of man.

What Evan Sayet doesn’t give us is the truth, and that is we do have a basis for determining morality, and that is based on the history of events through the flow of time.

DC, I don't understand what you're getting at. Does something have to be truthful to be legal? Does it have to be truthful to be moral? Just throwing it out there.

I do agree with you that Judeo-Christian morality is not an end all to the morality debate. I think religious texts often have good lessons, but by no means are they absolute. I think it's sick what people justify with the Bible or the Koran. Apparently, torture and mass murder are a-okay if done in the name of god. Also, it's somehow OK to crap on poor people as long as you don't support abortion, etc. I don't get it.

DC, I don't understand what you're getting at. Does something have to be truthful to be legal? Does it have to be truthful to be moral? Just throwing it out there.

I do agree with you that Judeo-Christian morality is not an end all to the morality debate. I think religious texts often have good lessons, but by no means are they absolute. I think it's sick what people justify with the Bible or the Koran. Apparently, torture and mass murder are a-okay if done in the name of god. Also, it's somehow ok to crap on poor people as long as you don't support abortion, etc. I don't get it.
In philosophy what is true or false are propositions, statements that are representative of what is so, or not so, and what is at issue is whether the truth is absolute or if there is a possibility that it is not. Lawyers and judges do not trade in propositional truth-statements; rather, they deal in facts, evidence, arguments, and burdens of proof. The word “truth” only arises in American legal practice in two contexts: testimony under oath and the associated crime of perjury, and the defense to a charge of defamation (defamation requires that the statement be false). Fact-finding by the courts is not an attempt to determine “the truth” in some absolute sense, but to make a finding based on the weight of evidence actually admitted. Legal rulings by the courts do not decide the truth or falsity of legal claims; they apply existing case precedents and applicable statutes, if any, to the case at bar.

P.S. EDIT…American Law is based on pragmatics.

Sorry DC, I should've been more clear. I meant your taking the S&M out of the "bedroom" and putting it in the realm of society. I didn't mean that you single handedly made the country aware of S&M.

As for your comment on queer activists bringing gay sex out of the bedroom in the 60's, I want to remind you how it all got started. The gay-rights movement was the product of years of persecution. Gay men and women were often arrested just for gathering (you can read a little about the Stonewall riot of 1969). Before Stonewall, the GLBT community was quiet and scared and did, in fact, mind their own business.

I also want to talk about the "throwing it in my face" argument that I often hear. I think, and I may be wrong, that this argument is really about flamboyancy and willingness to disclose personal information. Flamboyantly gay men really make some straight men uncomfortable. I get that, and there's nothing I can do about it BUT, being flamboyant is being one's self, not throwing something in your face. Should I take it as you throwing your marriage in my face when you talk about your wife? I've had the experience that even when asked about my dating life, people (straight men in particular) get uncomfortable. Why is it okay for you to talk about your family/dating life, but I can't...even when asked about it? I think this is one of the most ignorant arguments there is in the GLBT realm. You're saying you hate us, but don't want to be pegged a hater.
In the 60’s, I was in my 20’s. My wife and I lived in Laguna Beach, and near the corner of Haight & Ashbury, San Francisco during some of those times. Most of our friends were gay and they, for the most part, were very open in their behavior. We happened to be in the heart of West Coast activism because I was a painter, and she an activist poet. I say that only to point out that my knowledge of gay activism is first hand, and not from what I have read.

If you would only use this site as an example of what professed atheists use as attacks against Christians or anyone who believes there is God, you would know there is no politeness.Apparently you have blocked out all the posts from those lovely christians that condemn everyone who isn't like them and tell them how wrong they are.

What Evan Sayet doesn’t give us is the truth, and that is we do have a basis for determining morality, and that is based on the history of events through the flow of time.

So there is an historical aspect to morality, is there? I tend to agree with that. However, there is a large part of our community that is trying to change all the historical norms of society and create a "new" sense of morality. Simply put, if "XYZ" was wrong throughout most of history, why has it suddenly become okay in the 20th and 21st centuries? If there is an historical component to morality, why is that historical definition of morality being ignored?

That is what Sayet is saying in his argument... we have thousands of years of history to define what is right, good and moral, vs. what is wrong, bad, and immoral. Along comes the "modern liberal" and says "Those old definitions no longer apply, we are in a new world, the old definitions never really worked anyway, they caused wars, poverty, etc. and we should ignore morality so as to make sure that nobody is 'right or wrong', just different, and in that way eliminate war, poverty, etc." So the whole historical component of morality is ignored by the modern liberal in favor of indescriminateness and moral equivalence. If anything, your statement that there is an historical component to morality strengthens Sayet's argument.

Again, not an accusation of you. I am just trying to understand your position. You say there is an historic component to morality. What is that component, and how do you reconcile your definition of morality with the definitions that have existed for the past (roughly) 5,000 years?

Elliot

Elliot

The only historical aspect of morality is Religious and that was the claim to infallibility. What Liberal epistemologists have done is say, no, morality is not made-up of infallible truths that are absolute for every society now and forever. Let me remind you that the Christian Left does not hold to that. So yes, the old definitions do not apply any longer except for folks like Osama Ben Laden and in America people who are of the same stripe. You read my justification regarding the acceptance of B&D so you must be aware that I don't hold to the concept of moral equivalence. That is no more than a Fundamentalist strawman. The historical morality that Paine espoused regarding human rights was based on reason and history, not some Scriptures.

What happened to being polite and respectful?

They were gunned down in a drive-by, the main suspects were rudeness and disrespect

I think it's a GREAT thing to reevalutate morality and tradition. Some "morals" are completely stupid, others not. Some things that are considered immoral are completely benign.

Should morality be up to individual discretion? I find that scary dangerous. For one person perhaps adultery is acceptable, yet another murder. How about stealing? Lying? I said, "lying?!" Oops! There goes the politicians (lol). But seriously, where does it end or better yet where does that lead? I prefer, above anything else, a system of conduct. Personally, although I may not be as traditional as others, I do recognize the Torah as that (Master) blueprint. But I realize that's not for everybody, more specifically non-Jews, but let's not forget that the Noachide laws and the Decalogue (Ten commandments) are used throughout most major societies to some degree as applied to everyone. Many justice systems around the world, even if loosely based, are examples. As for the original intent or thought of the US founding fathers, I think there must had been a mixed bag of ideas. For certain we had some inference religious thought, but on the other hand, the country ended up having to resolve it's on abusive immoral power when finally getting around to the Emancipation Proclamation a century later.



Bobby

Should morality be up to individual discretion?! I find that scary dangerous. For one person perhaps adultery is acceptable, yet another murder. How about stealing? Lying? I said, "lying?!" Oops! There goes the politicians (lol). But seriously, where does it end or better yet where does that lead?! I prefer, above anything else, a system of conduct. Personally, although I may not be as traditional as others, I do recognize the Torah as that (Master) blueprint. But I realize that's not for everybody, more specifically non-Jews, but let's not forget that the Noachide laws and the Decalogue (Ten commandments) are used throughout most major societies to some degree as applied to everyone. Many justice systems around the world, even if loosely based, are examples. As for the original intent or thought of the US founding fathers, I think there must had been a mixed bag of ideas. For certain we had some inference religious thought, but on the other hand, the country ended up having to resolve it's on abusive immoral power when finally getting around to the Emancipation Proclamation a century later.



Bobby
Your mind is a flower…your thoughts are the seeds…
The harvest can be either flowers or weeds…

Of course your morality is an individual discretion…so long as you have free will.

DC,

If "the only historical aspect of morality is Religious and that was the claim to infallibility", then what did yopu mean in your prior post when you said "we do have a basis for determining morality, and that is based on the history of events through the flow of time"? These two statements would seem to be contradictory. Can you please clear that up?



What Liberal epistemologists have done is say, no, morality is not made-up of infallible truths that are absolute for every society now and forever.


Yes, that is what Sayet argues the liberals have done. But he takes it further by arguing that in order to accomplish that, modern liberals will "invariably choose wrong over right, bad over good and immoral over moral". (His words, not mine.) He uses examples of liberals who trash the troops as baby-killers and mass murderers while at the same time supporting the rights of terrorists held in Guantanimo, liberals who demand free speech for those who trash the Bible and religion in art while at the same time protesting statues of the Ten Commandments at court houses, liberals who demand higher taxes for the "rich" in order to "punish success" while supporting welfare programs that "reward failure", liberals who support sex education and free condoms for minors but decry any discussion of sexual abstinence as an option for those same minors, etc. In all of these cases and many others, modern liberals choose the path that is directly contrary to the historical norms of morality in favor of a stance that follows moral equivalence (all choices are equal and none are "good" or "bad").

So if we are to take Sayet's argument to its logical conclusion, modern liberal epistomology is no longer based on logic and a desire to find what is right and good, but rather it is based on a desire to eliminate morality as a concept and replace it with moral equivalence. It's not a bad argument, given the number of cases in evidence where that is the final outcome.

Elliot

Elliot

Hegel would not call it a contradiction; he would call it dialectic. We know the tree by its fruits, and however we judge the fruit, we cultivate it.

What Sayet argues against is a silly strawman that don't really exist. Certainly I have read accounts of people writing such nonsense as “the troops are baby-killers and mass murderers.”
To portray all liberals as having that sentiment is simply dishonest when it is quite clear that the great majority of liberals support the troops.

People have the right to trash the Bible and religion, (frankly I can't understand why people believe it, but hay, it's their right) protesting statues of the Ten Commandments at court houses is fine by me, it is unconstitutional to have them on government property.

Sure people demand higher taxes for the "rich," but it is not to "punish success," that would be counterproductive. I support sex education, free condoms for minors, and discussion of sexual abstinence as an option, so what, it sounds reasonable to me; especially in such places as Los Angeles, Detroit, and Atlanta. In all of these cases and many others, modern liberals choose the path that is directly contrary to the historical norms of Religious morality in favor of a stance that follows progress.

There's that moral equivalence strawman again; it is obvious as the hair on my head that Liberals do not believe all values to be equal.

Your mind is a flower…your thoughts are the seeds…
the harvest can be either flowers or weeds…

Of course your morality is an individual discretion…so long as you have free will.


You reap what you have sown because you were given a life of free will. By what perimeters and whose standards do you abide by, your own?


Bobby

Elliot

Hegel would not call it a contradiction; he would call it dialectic. We know the tree by its fruits, and however we judge the fruit, we cultivate it.

Very poetic, but it doesn't really answer my question. How does your statement that "we do have a basis for determining morality, and that is based on the history of events through the flow of time" reconcile with your other statement that "the only historical aspect of morality is Religious and that was the claim to infallibility"? Talking about judging and cultivating fruits doesn't really answer the question, does it?

As for your statement that Sayet's arguments are strawmen, you seem to say that a lot whenever you don't want to answer specific points. You say that it is a strawman, that not everybody believes or follows that particular point of view, and therefore there is no reason to answer the argument. I don't buy it.

Cindy Sheehan, who has become a defacto leader of the modern liberal anti-war movement has made some very unsupportive comments about the troops, at the same time that she has demanded civil rights for Guantanimo detainees. Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, and others have accused the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the guards at Gitmo of horrendous acts... none of which have been proven, by the way... and in the same breath have demanded rights for Gitmo detainees. These are NOT isolated cases by joe schmoe on the street. These are the leaders of Modern Liberalism, and they have made these comments numerous times, not just once. And I won't get into comments made by George Sorros (the main money-man of liberalism today) and Michael Moore (their main cheerleader and PR guy).

I could do the same excersize for every topic and issue. I could point out Planned Parenthood's pro-condom/anti-abstinence stance. I could point to Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's attempts to increase the taxes on oil companies as a PUNITIVE ACTION FOR THEIR BEING SUCCESSFUL (says so right there in their own statements--- they want to tax the oil companies because they are making "too much money"), while at the same time pushing increases in welfare programs. In every issue, I can point out what the leadership is actually saying and promoting to prove that they are deliberately adopting the position that is contrary to historical norms of morality. But I think you get the point. The point is that these are NOT isolated incidents by a bunch of nobodies. These are the official positions of the leaders of liberalism on each of these issues.

So even if there are SOME lierals who do not believe these things, it seems clear to me that the leadership DOES. The strawman lies not in these arguments, but in an attempt to claim that "not everyone believes this stuff". It doesn't matter if everyone believes it, since the LEADERSHIP does.

Therefore, the arguments of Evan Sayet are valid, and attempts to call them "strawmen" are the real strawman of this topic... an attempt to present the oppositions argument in a weak light by claiming that "not everyone believes that".

Elliot

You reap what you have sown because you were given a life of free will. By what perimeters and whose standards do you abide by, your own?


Bobby
Given by whom::)



http://www.religioustolerance.org/varrel.gif




Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism

Elliot

I'm certain the people on the list below will be interested in your assertions, why don't you e-mail them your vision of truth.

• Jimmy Carter, humanitarian and former President
• Robert Casey, former Pennsylvania governor
• Bill Clinton, former President
• Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement cofounder, Wobbly
• Diane Drufenbrock, nun, Socialist Party USA
• John Edwards, Former United States Senator and current Presidential candidate
• Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States and activist
• Thomas J. Hagerty, founding member of IWW
• Ammon Hennacy, Wobbly
• Hubert Humphrey, Former Vice President of the United States
• Jesse Jackson, politician and civil rights leader
• John Lewis, U.S. congressman and civil rights leader
• Barack Obama, junior senator from Illinois, and current presidential candidate
• Walter Mondale, Former Vice President of the United States
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President
• Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America presidential candidate
• Al Sharpton, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and civil rights leader
• Harry S Truman, President

Given by whom

Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism


DC-

Nice graphics, but like Elliot has pointed out, you are becoming a champ of avoiding the questions. I asked, "By what perimeters and whose standards do you abide by, your own?"



Bobby

DC-

Nice graphics, but like Elliot has pointed out, you are becoming a champ of avoiding the questions. I asked, "By what perimeters and whose standards do you abide by, your own?"
Bobby
Bobbie, am I on trial?
My point was who gave me free will? You said I was given free will, well, who did?

P.S. EDIT I did answer the question: “Of course your morality is an individual discretion…so long as you have free will.”

My point was who gave me free will? You said I was given free will, well, who did?.


DC- I already summarized to the whole board, on this very post (on thread six), that I recognize the Torah as the guideline. In fact you quoted me earlier on that. I don't think there are any guesses as to my Faith. I've been answering questions on Judaism boards for almost a decade now, including this one since July 18th.



P.S. EDIT I did answer the question: “Of course your morality is an individual discretion…so long as you have free will.”


Actually you brought up the subject of free will: to quote you, "so long as you have free will." I'm just trying to understand you, especially when you appear to contradict yourself and that's not just my own reasoning, but I see others noticed that as well. And BTW, you also appear to be getting defensive again. I've told you already that I respect your contributions on this board.



Bobbie, am I on trial?.

Now, if it were a trial, your lack of attention to detail would be scrutinised even by a beginner law clerk. Besides not answering the questions you are not spelling my name correctly, twice in the past week. Do you do that on purpose or is polite and respectful not on your personal moral list?



Bobby

Elliot

I’m certain the people on the list below will be interested in your assertions, why don’t you e-mail them your vision of truth.

• Jimmy Carter, humanitarian and former President
• Robert Casey, former Pennsylvania governor
• Bill Clinton, former President
• Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement cofounder, Wobbly
• Diane Drufenbrock, nun, Socialist Party USA
• John Edwards, Former United States Senator and current Presidential candidate
• Al Gore, Former Vice President of the United States and activist
• Thomas J. Hagerty, founding member of IWW
• Ammon Hennacy, Wobbly
• Hubert Humphrey, Former Vice President of the United States
• Jesse Jackson, politician and civil rights leader
• John Lewis, U.S. congressman and civil rights leader
• Barack Obama, junior senator from Illinois, and current presidential candidate
• Walter Mondale, Former Vice President of the United States
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President
• Norman Thomas, Socialist Party of America presidential candidate
• Al Sharpton, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and civil rights leader
• Harry S Truman, President

First of all, let's eliminate Truman and FDR. They aren't MODERN liberals, they are old school liberals. Sayet's observations apply only to MODERN liberals... ei: those who have become the leadership since the late 60s and early 70s.

Jesse Jacksson and Al Sharpton are perfect examples of what I'm talking about... they are the epitome of preaching for increased welfare and more taxes on the rich. Their entire agenda DEPENDS on rewarding bad behavior with welfare and punishing good behavior with increased taxes to support the welfare programs.

Clinton and Gore are two more examples... Gore especially. Here's the guy who pushes a global warming agenda (designed to hurt American industry) by flying around in private jets and owning a home with one of the largest footprints in the entire USA. His bad behavior should be rewarded, but the good behavior of industry in producing what the nation needs should be punished via increased regulation.

And Clinton believes that his actions as president should leave behind a good legacy... in other words, his name should be rewarded, despite his outright lies and infedelities and lack of action against terrorists... but BUSH should be taken to task for defending the country. Good is punished and bad is rewarded.

Jimmy Carter is simply a bigot... he believes that Israel, the only stable democracy in the entire Middle East, and the only country that warns civilians before attacking an enemy position in wartime, should be punished, but the PA, which fields terrorists, funds terrorists, hides terrorists, and is in fact run by terorists, should be rewarded.

Diane Drufenbrock and Norman Thomas push a system that eliminates any sort of reward for good behavior and treats those with bad behavior as no different from anyone else. That is, in fact the very hallmark of Socialism. Those who are most productive are punished by being held back to the same level as everyone else, and those who are least productive to society are rewarded by being pulled up to the same level as everyone else.

I don't have time to go on with the list you provided, but I think you get the point. The very people you list prove my point for me. THEY may not see it from that perspective, but that is the result of their positions on the issues. They reward bad behavior, immorality and evil, and punish good behavior, morals and right-thinking.

I will speak more with you on this topic next week after the Jewish holidays are over.

Elliot

Clinton and Gore are two more examples... Gore especially. Here's the guy who pushes a global warming agenda (designed to hurt American industry) by flying around in private jets and owning a home with one of the largest footprints in the entire USA. His bad behavior should be rewarded, but the good behavior of industry in producing what the nation needs should be punished via increased regulation.

Interesting point on Gore that I had not considered. I have to take time here to credit Bush for pushing car manufacturers to search alternative fuels, especially when he first got into office. In fact that's why we have so many hybrid cars on the market in the US now.




Jimmy Carter is simply a bigot... he believes that Israel, the only stable democracy in the entire Middle East, and the only country that warns civilians before attacking an enemy position in wartime, should be punished, but the PA, which fields terrorists, funds terrorists, hides terrorists, and is in fact run by terrorists, should be rewarded.

I suppose if we can define bigot, as hypocritical; he's certainly shortsighted. And that's sad for one of my more favorite Presidents when it comes to humanitarian efforts where in the US he's been a champion. However, as you pointed out, Carter just fails continuously to understand the dynamics concerning Israel and the Middle East. You'd think that after 9/11 he would had re-thought his stance.




I will speak more with you on this topic next week after the Jewish holidays are over.

Sukkot/Shemini Atzeret. I think I'll take a few days off from the board as well. Everybody have a good day.



Bobby

Happy Simchat Torah / Sukkot guys