A victory for intolerance

April 6th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Tech workers in Silicon Valley are debating whether Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich got the comeuppance he deserved or was himself a victim of intolerance when he resigned under pressure this week amid outrage over his opposition to same-sex marriage.

It was intolerance. He wasn’t a campaigner or political activist. He dared to make a $1,000 donation in 2008 to a cause that is now unpopular – and got hounded out of his job for it.

Mozilla co-founder Eich, who invented the programming language Javascript, donated US$1000 in 2008 to support Proposition 8, which sought to ban same-sex marriage in California. Voters approved the measure, but it was struck down last June by the US Supreme Court.

In 2008 Barack Obama was also against .

When I blogged on this issue a week or so ago, some moron on Twitter did a comparison to someone who is a member of the KKK. Yes to some on the left, not being a supporter of same sex marriage is just like being a supporter of the KKK and lynching black people.

I’m a right winger who campaigned hard for same sex marriage. I’m thrilled it has been introduced in NZ. But I don’t judge those who had a different view.

On Friday, news of Eich’s departure prompted a backlash on Twitter. Many suggested Silicon Valley was intolerant of people with views outside northern California’s liberal mainstream.

Even Rarebit’s Hampton Catlin said he had not anticipated the issue’s escalation and was saddened by Eich’s resignation.

“We absolutely believe people should be allowed to have personal opinions, but we also believe that we are allowed to disagree and to try and change someone’s mind by expressing our own personal story,” the Catlins said in a statement.

I think it is horrific that Eich was forced out of a job after two weeks – not for anything he did in the job or since being appointed. But due to a six year old donation. It was a victory for intolerance.

Tags:

182 Responses to “A victory for intolerance”

  1. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    That tweet is ironic considering the Democrats had KKK member and recruiter Robert Byrd as a senator up until 2010.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (8,809 comments) says:

    No different to calling people who didn’t support marriage redefinition in NZ “bigots”, which is what Cameron Slater on his Progressive Nat Party blog Whaleoil has done from go to whoa on this issue.

    No doubt he’s happy to see the Firefox CEO get the bullet which may be why he’s had no articles that I have noticed condemning this cowardly campaign.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    Says more about San Francisco that anything else. People rave about, but I find in general most have never been there.

    I personally find it liberalism to the extreme and that the place is actually a dirty, homeless infested, cold, boring place.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    Next I guess will be a CEO forced out of his job for being a climate change denier because they refuse to donate to Greenpeace.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    The gaystapo and Homofacism has no place in any society.

    People are entitled to their views and entitled to express those views. We don’t tell gays to shut up – infact, we like them to keep talking so we can then see all the lies and utter rubbish.

    It’s the gays who damand that people shut up!

    Yet gays arn’t private, they hold a near naked march up Queen st and a Big Gay out amongst hundreds of press releases, and they also have a Victorian society – where if you talk about aspects of gay sex that are inappropriate to the ’cause’ – they then get all Victorian on you and demand that you stop ‘being mean’.

    Well gay sex is good enough to be talked about – or it isn’t good enough to act out on! They can’t have it both ways.

    I reject the entire homo thing. It’s all crap. It really is. :cool:

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    So… talking of intolerance…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    I don’t get it. Is this not just the market at work? Those developers are within their rights to pull the plug on developing their app. for Firefox – if they want. That website is within its rights to pull the plug on visitors with Firefox – if they want. Mozilla are within their rights to assess whether or not those people withdrawing will hurt its viability and pull the plug on the CEO – if they want?

    This is the new market – consumers have the ultimate power – just like shareholders. Get used to it, things will continue to go this way – it won’t all be about money. Those with insight realise that, everyone else complains.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Yeah, Harriet’s along to make that case for a more tolerant society…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Southern Raider (1,829 comments) says:

    Harriet seems to be confused. She rejects people who don’t allow other people to have counter views and in the same breath decries people who do have counter views to herself.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    ‘”No different to calling people who didn’t support marriage redefinition in NZ “bigots”

    Quite so.

    It would be nice if this new incident made them reconsider their own unbridled intolerance, yet we can be sure that all those blinkered anti gay-marriage bigots are simply going to post their outrage about what is simply the other side of the same coin.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (8,809 comments) says:

    “Is this not just the market at work? ”

    Its a lynch mob you brain damaged drongo.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    itstricky
    I have a little problem with that chain of reasoning. It seems to me that could equally justify dismissing say, an opponent of racism, on the grounds of not wanting to upset racist customers.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    As I noted on the previous post on this issue, the other side of this debate is just as prone to organise consumer boycotts of any business that they consider ideologically impure. Note anti-abortion group (???) Right to Life who advocated that conservative Christians boycott Starbucks because of its social conservative ideological impurity when it came to marriage equality. Look up the American Family Association to see what I mean, as well as the Conservative Political Action Conference and the centre-right US LGBT group GOProud on Wikipedia.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    “…..Harriet seems to be confused. She rejects people who don’t allow other people to have counter views and in the same breath decries people who do have counter views to herself….”

    Fucken rubbish. You’re getting confused. Demanding that people stop talking about someting is not a view – but more of a demand. I’m not demanding that anyone shut up.

    People are entitled to talk. Gays can say what they like. But gays often vigorously demand that others stop talking about aspects of gay sex – and I don’t see why that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    I certainly don’t want Hurriut to shut up. She summarises the intellectual and emotional status of her side of the LGBT debate so well already … :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    “…..Yeah, Harriet’s along to make that case for a more tolerant society…”

    That’s exactly right milko!

    If we tolerate what gays actually do – then they have to tolerate us talking about what they do.

    Talking and abuse are two differant things.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Urban_Redneck (86 comments) says:

    We can all be as diverse as we want as long as we all think the same way. Activists are about to step up the push in regards to “trans-gendered” propaganda too.

    Modern liberalism and its incessant destruction of our culture knows no bounds. I was reading an article by renowned psychiatrist Dr Judith Reisman recently about this very matter. In her article, she points out that within the sex education curriculum in the US State of Hawaii, public school students are taught that the anus as a part of your “genitalia”, [seriously] that it’s normal for children of any age to have sex and that addiction to pornography is impossible.

    http://barbwire.com/2014/04/03/theyre-hypersexualizing-kids/

    It would be interesting to see how much of this poison has seeped it’s way into our education system here in NZ. I’d wager it is well on the way already.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Half the Mozilla board resigned following Eich’s appointment and the other half were getting complaints from employees about him so perhaps his bigotry was the rope used to hang him.

    .

    The real mystery here, then, is not why Eich stepped down but why he ever got hired in the first place. His unquestioned technical ability notwithstanding, this was a candidate who divided the board, who had already been controversial, and whose promotion was guaranteed to generate reams of bad publicity. In that VentureBeat interview, Eich said of the C.E.O. job, “I was asked to put my hat in, and at first I didn’t want to.” Everyone involved would have been better off if he’d just listened to that impulse.

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/04/how-mozilla-lost-its-ceo-brendan-eich.html

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/report-half-mozillas-board-resign-new-ceo-choice/#!CS7SS

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Redneck
    You know that Judith Reisman is a wingnut freak who writes for WorldNetDaily, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Urban_Redneck (86 comments) says:

    Let’s not forget how this was started. It was the Internal Revenue Service which leaked “traditional marriage” donor lists to the gay enforcers at the “Human Rights Campaign”. That’s likely how it was discovered that Eich had donated to Prop 8.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/03/irs-must-be-held-responsible-for-leaking-national-organization-for-marriage/

    The IRS has become totally degenerate in the hands of the Obama administration. It is being used regularly now to punish and intimidate political opposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    I have a little problem with that chain of reasoning. It seems to me that could equally justify dismissing say, an opponent of racism, on the grounds of not wanting to upset racist customers.

    In that case you’d hope they’d get to point (b) – “would losing racist customers hurt our viablity?” and always answer No because they would intrinsically realise that associating themselves with racist customers, whilst possibly positive for the spread of their browser, may not be the best thing in terms of public opinion of their product. You’d also hope you wouldn’t reach a point in which greater than 50% of the population were “racist” customers and it therefore becomes the norm.

    This is a turning point, companies will start to be judged, like people, for their actions – it’s not soley about the profits anymore. And it’s judged by collective morality. Apple’s recent environment policy shows that, as well. Don’t bother investing in us, they essentially said. That’s pretty ballsy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    Yes, and the Indecent Publications Tribunal that was submitted her claims to rather scathing cross-analysis by Dr Rosemary Barrington before it was merged into the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Reisman may be a subcultural luminary, but she doesn’t have any credible mainstream standing as a real social scientist. Or, to use another meaningless term,
    erototoxins!

    :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    I certainly don’t want Hurriut to shut up. She summarises the intellectual and emotional status of her side of the LGBT debate so well already …

    That would be:

    He summarises the intellectual and emotional status of his side of the LGBT…

    Right?

    There’s something slightly weird about an personality intolerant of homosexual people writing under a psuedonym of the opposite sex…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    “I think it is horrific that Eich was forced out of a job after two weeks – not for anything he did in the job or since being appointed. But due to a six year old donation. It was a victory for intolerance.”

    Welcome to NZ under a Labour/Green government.

    With Wusel and the ever expanding female co leader of the sticking Greens in power they will make it illegal to speak out against things they deem to be un PC. All of the following will be outlawed…

    1. Highlighting Maori crime, failure rates and child killings.
    2. Doubting man made climate change.
    3. Daring to question the stinking Greens interpretation of the treaty.
    4. Criticising Islam
    5. Criticising the government. (as long as it is a left wing government)
    6. Highlighting anything negative about immigrants, unless they are white skinned immigrants.
    7. Questioning the behaviour of any gay, lesbian, bi sexual or cocks in frocks
    8. Reporting on crimes if they are committed by anybody from the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Sonny Blount (1,782 comments) says:

    itstricky (1,099 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 11:23 am
    I don’t get it. Is this not just the market at work?

    That’s right Tricky, it is the marketplace at work. And so is this discussion and subsequent reaction.

    The marketplace is more than 1 idea, 1 discussion, and 1 reaction. There are multiples of each of these.

    And due to the firing of Eich, we are all within our rights to discuss it and react to it. As I have done by uninstalling Firefox from all my machines since the resignation.

    I suspect that OkCupid did this as a marketing stunt anyway and Mitchell Baker has moronically fallen for it. There are certainly millions and millions of people who have never heard of OkCupid who now know who they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It’d be nice to think you had any evidence for anything on that list, big bruv. But you know you haven’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    That’s how it was discovered that Eich had donated to Prop 8.

    .

    In 2008 the LA times put the proposition 8 data base on line and made it searchable – bingo!.

    Brendan Eich Mozilla Santa Clara, CA, 95051 Support $1,000

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    There is a vast difference between to adult males fucking in a bedroom – and kids being told that it is ‘natural and good’. And that two males is the same as 1 male and 1 female.

    And that there is the problem – gays confuse sexual behaviour with everything else.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Sonny – quite right, I had not considered that aspect of it.

    If you don’t like it, stop using Firefox. Use something else. Then you’ve had your voice heard as well. End of story, really. At the end of the day you’ve got decide which “less evil” browser you’re prepared to use… Chrome (is Google collecting all my details?), Firefox (are they all intolerant?) or IE (well, let’s not go there)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,961 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 7:16 pm
    “….Harriet, Can you point to any evidence, anything outside you own head that supports your assertion on when an individual life begins?…”
    Yeah…..all first year biology books

    Cite one biology text book or any other science text book that specifically states the a new human life begins before conception and I will never again question your spelling, comprehension, intelligence or sanity but until then you are a poorly educated, barely literate imbecile who doesn’t understand logic, believes in fairy tales and tells lies while being obsessed with homosexual behavior

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    “It’d be nice to think you had any evidence for anything on that list, big bruv. But you know you haven’t.”

    Really?

    Try having a chat on here, or anywhere else with a Green and raise any one of those subjects. The stinking Greens are on record as saying they want hate speech legislation, we all know that hate speech legislation will never extend to Maori.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    It’d be nice to think you had any evidence for anything on that list, big bruv. But you know you haven’t.

    Boy there are one topic ravers, aren’t there?

    This is nothing to do with NZ, any Government, or any of big bruv’s list. And somehow we end up with Welcome to NZ under a Labour/Green government.

    I secretly think DPF was fishing for reactions like that with this post… ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    big bruv
    Can you provide any evidence that any such ‘hate speech legislation’ would criminalise discussion of the topics on your list?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Michael (909 comments) says:

    Supporting free speech means you have to tolerate the free speech you don’t like. It’s not supporting free speech for liberal ideals only.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Or he was secretly fishing for even bigger reactions like this one:

    There is a vast difference between to adult males fucking in a bedroom

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    “……Cite one biology text book or any other science text book that specifically states the a new human life begins before conception and I will never again question your spelling,…”

    Life itself is passed on by the parents as everything needed to create life is already alive.

    It depends on what you actually mean as ‘a new human life’ – some people believe that is ‘personhood’. I believe it is what constitutes a ‘new homosapien’ – the dna structure.

    So a ‘new human life’ – I will take it you mean ‘a new homosapien life form’ – starts at conception and is completed shortly afterwards. A new homosapien is what is produced at conception – not something else – dna is what constitutes a ‘new homosapien’.

    ALL SERIOUS biology books state that with regards to dna.

    EDIT# I think you have worded that wrong – a new human life doesn’t live before it is created.

    I’ve never said anything like that in the past Richard – I have always said ‘life is passed on as all things needed for a new life are already alive in the parents to be.’ That is also in all SERIOUS biology texts.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    So full of shit as always Harriet

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    Redefining words to suit your argument is a sign of intellectual dishonesty and I would expect nothing less from you

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ChardonnayGuy (1,206 comments) says:

    We live in a market economy, people. One cannot blame businesses for being careful about backlash from particular market segments, which is why boycotts work. Moreover, they can achieve moral objectives- such as the one against South African apartheid. And I repeat, conservative Christian antigay groups are just as prone to use boycotts against businesses that do not meet their concept of ideological impurity as LGBT rights groups. It’s a legitimate political tactic.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    Expect to see this type of homosexual activism here in the next few years. Whenever a homosexual cause is supported by the public or through legislation, it is the thin end of the wedge.

    Remember Civil Unions ? Not the forerunner to homo marriage – of course not.

    Now, 5 or 6 years later, Hello -o……………

    We must not just agree, we must affirm all homosexual acts and desires as the new normal – heteros are out.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    Firstly, let me thank you for acknowledging that I was right in my assertion that the Greens favour hate speech legislation.

    Now, as for proof, anybody who takes more than a passing interest in politics will be fully aware that the Greens are not fans of free speech. The very nature of hate speech legislation is to silence speech that some may not like or disagree with. The Greens have a long track record of attempting to silence their opponents.
    The normal Green Party modus operandi is for them to label their opponents, the terms most in vogue seem to be “racist”, “homophobic”, “misogynist” or “islamaphobic”

    It is foolish of anybody to take the Greens at face value, they are control freaks, hate speech legislation is simply one way to achieve their goal.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    So, you have no evidence for your assertions then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    RichardX (260 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 12:10 pm
    So full of shit as always Harriet
    Vote: 2 0
    RichardX (260 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Vote: 2 0
    —————————-

    “……Redefining words to suit your argument is a sign of intellectual dishonesty and I would expect nothing less from you…”

    Stop talking shit Richard. I’ve been saying the same thing for weeks now – and you STILL HAVEN’T introduced ANYTHING that says that a ‘new homosapien lifeform is NOT created at conception’.

    Then you accuse me of lying!

    And as usual you end it with further abuse. Only to raise the matter again several days later. And end that with further abuse.

    fuck off for good. I can’t be bothered with you. you are a waste of time.

    I also think you don’t like the truth being said about gays. How very sad – expecting gays to live in a make-believe world. Call me what you like Richard – at least I’m not that fucken low !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    “Gaystapo” and “Homofacism.” Brilliant.

    Thanks Liberalism. So, having set the rules for us, can people who oppose reinventing marriage now sack all CEOs and others who support gay people? . Seems fair. “Equality” an’ all. What’s good for the Goose…is good for the Gander (or is that Gender?)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Andrei (2,643 comments) says:

    Just another symptom of the decline of the USA as it heads towards its inevitable collapse.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    As opposed to Russia, of course, where they know to keep gays in their place.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    And now the good news.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/view/526111/how-the-internet-is-taking-away-americas-religion/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. radvad (765 comments) says:

    The thought of same sex sodomy gives me the shits. That is part of my sexuality, I was born that way and I am proud of it.

    Anyone out there want to tell me to shut up?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Which was stigmatised for a thought crime, it is good to see all the usual suspects supporting such action. To be run out of job because of what you thought, that’s pure fascism or, if you prefer, Stalinism. You WILL think the way we tell you to think, or else THOUGHTCRIME !

    Pity they didn’t apply the same test to old Barack back in 2008 isn’t it ?

    Anyway, I’ve uninstalled Firefox and arranged for it to be marked as a dangerous product on all the work machines so it cannot be used. So far Mozilla’s comments line is running about 1000 to 1 against them, good to see that they WILL suffer a significant backlash. Pity that OK Cupid is a bit harder to attack.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    I read engadget quite a bit. There was a thread about this on there.

    A couple of hundred young yanks adamant he deserved to lose his job. they think he is unemployable.

    It blows me away how PC young yanks are. i can see why their country is falling apart.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Longknives (4,741 comments) says:

    Shut up Radvad you evil bigot! And bend over for your compulsory initiation to our beautiful ‘Rainbow Culture’….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    “So, you have no evidence for your assertions then.”

    There is a mountain of it, the fact that you choose to cover your eyes is not my concern. Are you really suggesting that the Greens are not control freaks, or do not want to curb free speech (aka speech the Greens do not agree with) in NZ?

    If you do feel that way then you are either an idiot or a Green (and therefore a liar), which one is it Mike?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mandk (993 comments) says:

    big bruv: “All of the following will be outlawed…”

    9. Evangelising
    10. Voicing opposition to abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. radvad (765 comments) says:

    Longknives (4,021 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 1:13 pm
    Shut up Radvad you evil bigot! And bend over for your compulsory initiation to our beautiful ‘Rainbow Culture’….

    Are you a rapist?
    Seriously though, how long before it is compulsory to experience it before being allowed to have an opinion on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Are you really suggesting that the Greens are not control freaks, or do not want to curb free speech”

    There is no difference between the Left’s attitudes and your own regarding Christianity. Both are examples of people thinking they are so righteous that they can stomp on other people’s freedom. You and the Greens are cut from the same cloth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. DJP6-25 (1,387 comments) says:

    Goodbye Firefox, hello Chrome.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Mozilla was too weak to stand up for it’s CEO. Tolerance is an incredibly important attribute, and is endangered in an increasingly atheistic society.

    I have replaced Firefox on two of my computers (several more to go including work computers) with Opera Next. And I’ll be replacing Thunderbird with ‘eM Client’. Thanks Mozilla, next month would have been 10 years since I started on Firebird/Firefox 0.6.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. cha (4,010 comments) says:

    Goodbye Firefox, hello Chrome.

    I’m sure Sergey Brin and the other Google employees who opposed proposition 8 will be delighted with your support.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-rare-are-anti-gay-marriage-donations-in-silicon-valley/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Ross, why Opera Next rather than the stable version? I ask because I have been thinking about switching from Chrome to Opera.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    “There is no difference between the Left’s attitudes and your own regarding Christianity. Both are examples of people thinking they are so righteous that they can stomp on other people’s freedom”

    I am sure you did not mean that Shaun, even allowing for your ridiculous belief in the sky fairy the comment you made is laughable.

    Atheists are not the ones looking to stomp on anybody’s freedom. We are the ones who want to be free of religion, we want to be free of idiots like you who think they have a right to “save” us because of what is written in a book of fiction.
    This book that you place so much faith in commands you to go out and teach the word of your god. By the very definition of your religion Shawn you are not allowed to do anything other than stomp on our freedom.

    If you (and the rest of the religious nutters) really want to be free then leave the rest of us alone.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. DJP6-25 (1,387 comments) says:

    Cha 2.04 pm That’s OK. Google haven’t yet fired anyone for having contrary views. I’ve just finished deleting Firefox, and setting up Chrome.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    “….This book that you place so much faith in commands you to go out and teach the word of your god……………….If you (and the rest of the religious nutters) really want to be free then leave the rest of us alone.”

    LOL Big Bigot……….

    In your feverish mind you have confused ‘teach’ with ‘debate’.

    I long ago gave up on any idea at all of teaching you anything – and now you have lowered yourself to the depths of ‘stomping’ on the freedom of others to debate religious matters. It’s an open forum – in the free market.

    Atheist. Totalatarian. Useful idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. mandk (993 comments) says:

    bb, you are free to ignore Christians, but you seem keen to engage with them and refer to them in pejorative terms. Some people might wonder if you are enslaved by your antipathy. Still, best wishes and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Atheists are not the ones looking to stomp on anybody’s freedom.”

    I didn’t say atheists, I said you personally. You proved this yesterday when you insisted doctors be forced to perform abortions, for no other reason than your own little set of skyfairies.

    If you want to force people to do your will, that is no different to the Greens or any other self-appointed fascists. Your notion of “freedom” is no different to the Greens, or the North Koreans.

    A petty bully is a petty bully.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Harriet

    Why are you so afraid of atheists? (genuine question)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Famous atheists who promoted freedom from religion.

    Karl Marx. Vladimir Lenin. Joseph Stalin. Chairman Mao. Pol Pot. The Kims of North Korea.

    How many millions did their ideology kill?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    The mass hallucination of the Godfreaks where they seek to preserve their “freedom” fascinates me.

    What on earth would they know of freedom or freedom of speech? Supposing that it’s missing what would they do with it if they found it? After all, every step of their journey through life has been mapped out for them. They cannot experience any brand of personal freedom because acts or thoughts contrary to those sanctioned by the teachings of their leaders would condemn them to an eternity of hell.

    Whether they have freedom, mourn freedom or aspire to freedom it is all yap…..the concept of freedom is alien to the concept of religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Whether they have freedom, mourn freedom or aspire to freedom it is all yap…..the concept of freedom is alien to the concept of religion.”

    The Western concept of freedom arises from the Christian teaching that all human beings are made in the Imago Dei and thus worthy of of rights and freedoms.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Harriet (4,969 comments) says:

    “…..Why are you so afraid of atheists? (genuine question)…”

    Nature abhors a vaccume, anything then goes in a society without God, and we are starting to see that now with the only value being expressed in the public square being that of ‘tolerance’.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. mandk (993 comments) says:

    @ nasska
    Have you heard of William Wilberforce, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    ….”human beings are made in the Imago Dei and thus worthy of of rights and freedoms.”….

    And according to the Godwhacks what rights & freedoms are they (other than the freedom to waste life worshipping something that doesn’t exist)?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    ….”Have you heard of William Wilberforce, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King?”….

    Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    And according to the Atheists what rights & freedoms are they (other than the freedom to be murdered, starved to death or stuck in a Gulag)?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    “You proved this yesterday when you insisted doctors be forced to perform abortions, for no other reason than your own little set of skyfairies.”

    I realise you are losing badly but at least tell the truth. What I said was that it is not acceptable in 2014 for doctors to refuse to perform a medical procedure based on their stone age beliefs.

    Really Shawn, if you have to tell lies you are losing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    Harriet (3,968 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 12:28 pm
    “……Redefining words to suit your argument is a sign of intellectual dishonesty and I would expect nothing less from you…”
    Stop talking shit Richard. I’ve been saying the same thing for weeks now – and you STILL HAVEN’T introduced ANYTHING that says that a ‘new homosapien lifeform is NOT created at conception’.
    Then you accuse me of lying!
    And as usual you end it with further abuse. Only to raise the matter again several days later. And end that with further abuse.
    fuck off for good. I can’t be bothered with you. you are a waste of time.
    I also think you don’t like the truth being said about gays. How very sad – expecting gays to live in a make-believe world. Call me what you like Richard – at least I’m not that fucken low !!!!

    I don’t know why I bother when you continue to be dishonest and can’t even keep your story straight.

    My life does not revolve around this or any other blog so I will respond in my own time but when I see repeated willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty masquerading as pseudo science, I challenge it. This is because I don’t expect anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation to live in a make believe world

    To recap this particular exchange, yesterday you claimed that

    Harriet (3,968 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    Contrary to popular opinion – life is NOT created at conception – instead life is passed on – where only a NEW homosapien is created – because everything needed to create a homosapien is already LIVING inside the parents and they simply pass that life on.
    The womb nutures the new homosapien AFTER THE MOTHER HAS PASSED ON LIFE TO A NEW HOMOSAPIEN.

    You do know that April 5 was yesterday, not several days ago don’t you?
    I found it hard to believe someone could make such an imbecilic claim so I sought clarification from you on what you were saying
    You came back with;

    Harriet (3,968 comments) says:
    April 5th, 2014 at 7:16 pm
    “….Harriet, Can you point to any evidence, anything outside you own head that supports your assertion on when an individual life begins?…”
    Yeah…..all first year biology books…

    This was yesterday evening, less than 24 hours ago, not several days ago, but if you want to persist with your lies and dishonesty go right ahead
    You may have made equally stupid claims in the past but this all refers to your comments made yesterday. I responded to you on that thread but I gave you the benefit of the doubt in that you may not have seen it which is why I responded this morning
    When I came back with the challenge to actually provide an example of such a book, you decided to indulge in your pseudo science and bullshit. The original question was simple and all you needed to do was to produce one single copy of one single version from all first year biology books that supported your view
    The question is specifically referring to when an individual life begins. Nothing to do with a life form, nothing to do with a new Homo sapiens, nothing to do with personhood
    I have made no claim about when a new individual human life begins but you are the only person I am aware of that has tried to argue that the life of an individual of any species begins before conception. I have certainly made no claim on it being created as I believe that to be misleading terminology

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    The truth is that the sole source of human evil is the human heart. Not Christianity, or religion, or atheism, or socialism, or liberalism, or capitalism, or Jews, or homosexuals, any other group or idea.

    Trying to explain human evil by projecting the evil in our own hearts onto some other group is the original sin within us all, the need to blame and scapegoat is the source of all historical evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    “How many millions did their ideology kill?”

    Is that the best you can do Shawn?, trying to tie all atheists in with communism. You really are losing badly.

    I wonder how many millions (and it will be far more than the commies) have been slaughtered in the name of religion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “What I said was that it is not acceptable in 2014 for doctors to refuse to perform a medical procedure based”

    Which sounds like wanting to force them.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Fletch (6,374 comments) says:

    After all, every step of their journey through life has been mapped out for them. They cannot experience any brand of personal freedom because acts or thoughts contrary to those sanctioned by the teachings of their leaders would condemn them to an eternity of hell.

    A train is also bound to keep on the tracks that it is bound to follow, but it is free to go to the destinations of its choice.
    If it leaves the tracks though, it is likely to lead to destruction.

    God made us, and knows what is best for us. God’s laws are immutable and, like it or not, you were born into a universe governed by those laws. You might not like it, but that is the true reality. It’s like you were dumped into a version of the game Monopoly. It may be a game that you do not want to play, but you can’t change its rules.

    And those rules are placed there only for your good, although you might not think so – but they are. And you can best progress and achieve happiness by following them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,308 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 3:09 pm
    Famous atheists who promoted freedom from religion.
    Karl Marx. Vladimir Lenin. Joseph Stalin. Chairman Mao. Pol Pot. The Kims of North Korea.
    How many millions did their ideology kill?

    You do know that atheism was not their ideology don’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Harriet

    “Nature abhors a vaccume, anything then goes in a society without God”

    Another blatant lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Is that the best you can do Shawn?, trying to tie all atheists in with communism.”

    It is exactly the tactic you use in relation to Christianity. I know not all atheists are communists or wanting to exercise power over others, yet you cannot apply the same reasoning to Christians.

    POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Fletch

    “God made us, and knows what is best for us”

    Prove it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    ShawnLH

    “yet you cannot apply the same reasoning to Christians”

    True, I simply cannot apply the same reasoning because your own religious teachings do not allow you to leave the rest of us alone.

    For you to suggest otherwise is another blatant lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    ….” I know not all atheists are communists or wanting to exercise power over others”….

    Yet every bloody Godflogger on these forums presumes to have the authority to push their Skydaddy’s views on abortion, gay marriage & euthanasia ad nauseam even to the extent of altering the laws of the land.

    IOW you want to exercise power over me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Fletch (6,374 comments) says:

    “Without God, everything is permitted” ~ Dostoevsky

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Fletch (6,374 comments) says:

    “God made us, and knows what is best for us”

    Prove it.

    Are you asking me to prove that God exists (another question entirely), or to prove that God wants what is best for us? One only has to look at the Bible and the sacrifice of the Cross – the torture that God went through, and took on our behalf.

    Go and look at the Cross, and know that Jesus died in that horrible, excruciating pain, for you, and for all mankind.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Yet every bloody Godflogger on these forums presumes to have the authority to push their Skydaddy’s views on abortion, gay marriage & euthanasia ad nauseam.”

    It’s called freedom of speech. Are you opposed to freedom of speech?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Fletch.

    I am afraid that you will have to come up with a better argument as to the existence of your god than to cite the bible or a cross. There is no evidence that Jesus was the son of god and no evidence that he did anything at all for me.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    ….“Yet every bloody Godflogger on these forums presumes to have the authority to push their Skydaddy’s views on abortion, gay marriage & euthanasia ad nauseam.”….

    You missed the bit about altering the law of the land to accommodate your hallucinations. I’m all for freedom of speech & democratic government.

    You & your ilk use that same freedom to restrict my freedoms….just like the Muslim brotherhood use democracy against itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. SHG (316 comments) says:

    Go and look at the Cross, and know that Jesus died in that horrible, excruciating pain, for you, and for all mankind.

    When you’re immortal, dying for something ain’t much of a sacrifice is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “You missed the bit about altering the law of the land to accommodate your hallucinations.”

    Not all Christians want to do that as you well know. We are back to the “all atheists are murderous communists” style of argumentation.

    Try again, without your own hallucinations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    I always think of a spoiled brat running back to daddy after the first look into the world proved more challenging than hanging with dad the ineffable one in heaven

    All right jesus run back to daddy and the nice safe nest up on cloud 1.

    Letting your followers push humanity into a dark age for 1700 years

    good on ya son.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    ….”Not all Christians want to do that as you well know.”….

    Those that do make plenty of noise…..sufficient to drown out the thinkers & moderates.

    Sufficient even to form a political party to drag NZ society back in time to a Godfearing age & reassert the power of the churches.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Fletch (6,374 comments) says:

    When you’re immortal, dying for something ain’t much of a sacrifice is it?

    SHG, we’re ALL immortal. Our souls are, anyway, and go on after we’re gone.
    Are you saying it doesn’t matter in what way you die? Whether peacefully, or in extreme torture?

    That reminds me of a joke actually, attributed to wit Will Rogers.

    “When I die, I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming and terrified like his passengers”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Fletch (6,374 comments) says:

    Letting your followers push humanity into a dark age for 1700 years

    Actually, it is widely known that the Church was the only one who kept the flame of knowledge burning in the so-called “dark ages”. If not for the Church much of the knowledge we have today would have been lost.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Fletch (6,374 comments) says:

    During the period of European history often called the Dark Ages which followed the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Church scholars and missionaries played a vital role in preserving knowledge of Classical Learning. While the Roman Empire and Christian religion survived in an increasingly Hellenised form in the Byzantine Empire centred at Constantinople in the East, Western civilisation suffered a collapse of literacy and organisation following the fall of Rome in 476AD. Monks sought refuge at the far fringes of the known world: like Cornwall, Ireland, or the Hebrides. Disciplined Christian scholarship carried on in isolated outposts like Skellig Michael in Ireland, where literate monks became some of the last preservers in Western Europe of the poetic and philosophical works of Western antiquity.[60] By around 800AD they were producing illuminated manuscripts such as the Book of Kells, by which old learning was re-communicated to Western Europe. The Hiberno-Scottish mission led by Irish and Scottish monks like St Columba spread Christianity back into Western Europe during the Middle Ages, establishing monasteries through Anglo-Saxon England and the Frankish Empire during the Middle Ages.

    Thomas Cahill, in his 1995 book How the Irish Saved Civilization, credited Irish Monks with having “saved” Western Civilization:[61]

    “ [A]s the Roman Empire fell, as all through Europe matted, unwashed barbarians descended on the Roman cities, looting artifacts and burning books, the Irish, who were just learning to read and write, took up th great labor of copying all western literature – everything they could lay their hands on. These scribes then served as conduits through which the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian cultures were transmitted to the tribes of Europe, newly settled amid the rubble and ruined vineyards of the civilization they had overwhelmed. Without this Service of the Scribes, everything that happened subsequently would be unthinkable. Without the Mission of the Irish Monks, who single-handedly re-founded European civilization throughout the continent in the bays and valleys of their exile, the world that came after them would have been an entirely different one-a world without books. And our own world would never have come to be. ”

    According to art historian Kenneth Clarke, for some five centuries after the fall of Rome, virtually all men of intellect joined the Church and practically nobody in western Europe outside of monastic settlements had the ability to read or write. While church scholars at different times also destroyed classical texts they felt were contrary to the Christian message, it was they, virtually alone in Western Europe, who preserved texts from the old society.[60]

    As Western Europe became more orderly again, the Church remained a driving force in education, with Cathedral schools beginning in the Early Middle Ages as centers of advanced education, often evolving into the medieval universities which were the springboard of many of Western Europe’s later achievements.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Western_civilization

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    SHG, we’re ALL immortal. Our souls are, anyway, and go on after we’re gone.

    If by “souls” you mean bits of our DNA, or the matter we were made up of at the point we died, this is certainly true. If, on the other hand, by “souls” you mean our memories and personalities, it’s not so much “true” as “the apotheosis of wishful thinking.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. mandk (993 comments) says:

    nasska: Yes

    Then you can’t credibly argue that the concept of freedom is alien to the concept of religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    …anything then goes in a society without God

    Speak for yourself. Worrying that you might anger an invisible supernatural policeman may be the only thing keeping you from making other people’s lives a misery, but don’t assume it about the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. mandk (993 comments) says:

    RichardX: “You do know that atheism was not their ideology don’t you?”

    But their anti-theism certainly was.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Fletch:

    Actually, it is widely known that the Church was the only one who kept the flame of knowledge burning in the so-called “dark ages”. If not for the Church much of the knowledge we have today would have been lost.

    Haha! Actually, Fletch, its well-established that the Muslisms preserved ancient Greek learning and we picked it up from them.

    By around 800AD they were producing illuminated manuscripts such as the Book of Kells, by which old learning was re-communicated to Western Europe.

    Seriously? The Book of Kells qualifies in your world as “old learning”?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    mandk (667 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 4:50 pm
    RichardX: “You do know that atheism was not their ideology don’t you?”
    But their anti-theism certainly was.

    That would be more accurate than Shawn’s original comment but I believe it was tool they used rather than an ideology and certainly should not be confused with atheism as many here would have you believe

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    The Ten Commandments of Christianity explicitly reject freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Andrei (2,643 comments) says:

    Haha! Actually, Fletch, its well-established that the Muslisms preserved ancient Greek learning

    Ha ha display your ignorance have you never heard of Byzantium? Do you prefer myths to facts in order to slag Christian civilization even though you are a product of it?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    Andrei, do you prefer myths to facts in order to slag Greek civilization even though you are a product of it?

    Christianity wasn’t the first civilisation and many of the laws we know today pre-date Christianity.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    mandk

    …”Then you can’t credibly argue that the concept of freedom is alien to the concept of religion.”….

    They were religious men who did good yet they were products of times where the power of the church reached into every corner of life. Therefore whether their inspiration was a result of religion is unknowable.

    I would point out that many church leaders fought against the liberation of slaves in America…..the church as a body has little reason to take the high ground now.

    Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. mandk (993 comments) says:

    @ RichardX

    I just found this” Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism” V.I.Lenin

    ShawnLH was correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    RichardX

    Most aspiring dictators & totalitarians are not well disposed towards the religious, especially their leaders.

    They hate the competition.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Andrei (2,643 comments) says:

    I’m slagging Greek Civilization?

    Really?

    I’ve always been taught Byzantium was a Greek city

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “I’m slagging Greek Civilization?”

    Inadvertently. Your Christian values, morals and laws are lifted from elsewhere. You are less a product of Christianity as you are those that came before it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    Cha, don’t. Be obtuse. I can’t speak for others, but I’m not down of Mozilla because Eich donated to proposition 8 and I am supposed to support that, I’m down on them because they gave in to fascistic bigots who basically accused Eich of a thoughtcrime, and Mozilla supported them. If they’d made a principal led stand and told the fascists to fuck off regardless of Eich’s support (which was in 2008, and as I’m sure you know was in fact the same position as Barack Obama took that year, and AGAINST the position of Dick Cheney) then I’d have no reason to be disgusted with the company.

    There is one good result out of this though, it does reveal the true nature of the activist JGBT lobby, fascist in word and deed.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Andrei:

    Ha ha display your ignorance have you never heard of Byzantium? Do you prefer myths to facts in order to slag Christian civilization even though you are a product of it?

    Not sure of your point here. Are you disputing the muslim influence on Bacon and other european thinkers, or are you disputing that muslims saved a lot of greek texts, or something else?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    mandk (668 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 5:16 pm
    @ RichardX
    I just found this” Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism” V.I.Lenin
    ShawnLH was correct.

    Nice try but Marxism is not a natural and inseparable part of atheism so atheism is not their ideology

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    chiz (1,088 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 5:36 pm
    Andrei:

    Ha ha display your ignorance have you never heard of Byzantium? Do you prefer myths to facts in order to slag Christian civilization even though you are a product of it?

    Not sure of your point here. Are you disputing the muslim influence on Bacon and other european thinkers, or are you disputing that muslims saved a lot of greek texts, or something else?

    Byzantium was in fact originally Constantinople, the eastern Empire of Rome. In the east, the predominant language and culture was Greek, ans as the western Roman empire collapsed – which left the Catholic Church the only ordered body to maintain order and prevent chaos, the eastern church and the Byzatine empire became the centre of learning and development.

    It wasn’t so much the muslims, as the Arabs who had a developed culture and sophisticated society – the muslims tended to destroy it in the 8th century through to the 12th. century. It was in fact the Byzantine empire which preserved the culture and texts of Christianity and philosophy, which, as the muslims wore down the Byzantium empire, all those texts and the learning of that culture was taken to Rome by the 14th. century. The Byzantine empire collapsed in the 15th. century.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. mandk (993 comments) says:

    @ RichardX

    But Lenin makes it clear that atheism is fundamental to them. It drove what they did. What else does “natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism” mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Andrei (2,643 comments) says:

    Not sure of your point here. Are you disputing the muslim influence on Bacon and other european thinkers, or are you disputing that muslims saved a lot of greek texts, or something else?

    Let me give you a history lesson then

    This happened about the time Roger Bacon was born

    The abysmal state of modern education, Andrei shakes his head at the abysmal ignorance of the so called “moderns”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    mandk (669 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 5:55 pm
    @ RichardX
    But Lenin makes it clear that atheism is fundamental to them. It drove what they did. What else does “natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism” mean?

    Atheism is not what drove what they did, Marxism is what drove what they did. It means you can still have atheism without Marxism hence atheism is not the ideology being followed

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. mandk (993 comments) says:

    Yes, you can have atheism without Marxism, but you can’t have Marxism without atheism.
    Atheism was part and parcel of everything that that Stalin and the rest did.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I think it is asafe to say that one can adhere to a murderous ideology both with or without religion to guide one.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    mandk (670 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Stalin was a Stalinist, he actually created his own form of communisim, like Lenin, after marxism became corrupted. But yes you are correct, you can be an atheist without being a Marxist, but not the other way round. I’m not sure that everything Stalin did was influenced by atheism, I think a lot of it was influenced by egotism.

    I wonder if anyone has ever measured the number of people murdered by atheists, and the number of people murdered by those that believe in some form of God?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    mandk

    Early Marxists opposed religion because the church was about the only organisation that could have organised resistance to a communist uprising.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Johnboy (16,516 comments) says:

    You should be asking how many folk were murdered by atheists that thought they were Gods Judith! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. mandk (993 comments) says:

    @ TheContrarian: “The Ten Commandments of Christianity explicitly reject freedom of speech and freedom of expression”

    Would you care to expand on that? The Commandments say you must not blaspheme and you must not bear false witness, but I can’t see that this rejects freedom of expression.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. mandk (993 comments) says:

    Sorry to duck out, but I’m off to the pub :-)
    Have a good evening everyone.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostradamus (3,320 comments) says:

    125 comments and counting. This is one of those topics that brings out entrenched views on both sides… or maybe not… let’s see.

    So here’s a question: who read the original post and comments and then changed their mind on this issue?

    *Crickets chirping*

    Yes, as I was saying, this is one of those topics that brings out entrenched views on both sides.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. wreck1080 (3,906 comments) says:

    “I’m a right winger who campaigned hard for same sex marriage. I’m thrilled it has been introduced in NZ. But I don’t judge those who had a different view.”

    There is a significant group of nasties who judged those on the other side of the debate. Many were at geekzone too and the moderator basically allowed those on the other side of the debate to be called bigots etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Most aspiring dictators & totalitarians are not well disposed towards the religious, especially their leaders.”

    Such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao……

    The form of totalitarianism that killed the most people in the 20th century was led by atheists.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ShawnLH (1,319 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    and before the 20th Century?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. TheContrarian (1,085 comments) says:

    “@ TheContrarian: “The Ten Commandments of Christianity explicitly reject freedom of speech and freedom of expression”

    Would you care to expand on that? The Commandments say you must not blaspheme and you must not bear false witness, but I can’t see that this rejects freedom of expression.”

    Commandments 2, 3 4 expressively dictate what one can and cannot say as well what can or cannot do in free expression – in light of punishment for doing so.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    mandk (672 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 6:34 pm
    Yes, you can have atheism without Marxism, but you can’t have Marxism without atheism.
    Atheism was part and parcel of everything that that Stalin and the rest did.

    Another analogy is that you could not have had Birkenau without trains. Are trains part and parcel of the holocaust. Even if they were, what does it tell you of the nature of trains?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    mandk (672 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 6:34 pm
    Yes, you can have atheism without Marxism, but you can’t have Marxism without atheism.
    Atheism was part and parcel of everything that that Stalin and the rest did.

    A better analogy would be, you can’t have pedophile priests without the church. The church is part and parcel of everything they did.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Andrei:

    Let me give you a history lesson then

    Nope, still no idea what relevance the Fourth Crusade to the point I was making. Perhaps you should go back and read the comment by Fletch that I was responding to.

    Don the Kiwi:

    It wasn’t so much the muslims, as the Arabs who had a developed culture and sophisticated society – the muslims tended to destroy it in the 8th century through to the 12th. century. It was in fact the Byzantine empire which preserved the culture and texts of Christianity and philosophy, which, as the muslims wore down the Byzantium empire, all those texts and the learning of that culture was taken to Rome by the 14th. century.

    Maybe this is some kind of weird Christian form of historical ignorance at work here – First Fletch, then Andrei, then Don. For the record muslims began saving greek texts under the Abbasids. One of the Caliphs even offered bounties for greek texts and built up quite a library.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “A better analogy would be, you can’t have pedophile priests without the church.”

    You certainly can have paedophiles without the Church, and in fact most institutional paedophilia has occurred in secular institutions. Ask the BBC.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,320 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 7:27 pm
    “A better analogy would be, you can’t have pedophile priests without the church.”

    You certainly can have paedophiles without the Church, and in fact most institutional paedophilia has occurred in secular institutions. Ask the BBC.

    Surely you’re not trying to slip through a bit of intellectual dishonesty there

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Another analogy is that you could not have had Birkenau without trains.”

    Rubbish. Atheism was a major part of Marxist ideology, central, along with other ideas. I know atheists are desperate to absolve themselves of the sins of their fellow travellers, but it doesn’t wash. It’s just selectively cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Another criticism of atheism is that it is a faith in itself, as a belief in its own right, with a certainty about the falseness of religious beliefs that is comparable to the certainty about the unknown that is practiced by religions.[28] Journalist Rod Liddle and theologian Aliester McGrath assert that some atheists are dogmatic

    In his book First Principles (1862), the 19th-century English philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer wrote that, as regards the origin of the universe, three hypotheses are possible: self-existence (atheism), self-creation (pantheism), or creation by an external agency (theism).[32] Spencer argued that it is “impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence” in any of the three hypotheses,[33] and concluded that “even positive Atheism comes within the definition” of religion.

    Talal Asad, in an anthropological study on modernity, quotes an Arab atheist named Adonis who has said, “The sacred for atheism is the human being himself, the human being of reason, and there is nothing greater than this human being. It replaces revelation by reason and God with humanity.” To which Asad points out, “But an atheism that deifies Man is, ironically, close to the doctrine of the incarnation.”

    Evangelical Christian writer Dinesh D’Souza writes that “The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth.”[86] He also contends:
    And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a ‘new man’ and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,321 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 7:30 pm
    “Another analogy is that you could not have had Birkenau without trains.”
    Rubbish. Atheism was a major part of Marxist ideology, central, along with other ideas. I know atheists are desperate to absolve themselves of the sins of their fellow travellers, but it doesn’t wash. It’s just selectively cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty.

    Your desperate attempt to tar atheists is depressing but at least you have moved on from calling them satanists
    Atheism is a tool Marxists used. It has been stated that Early Marxists opposed religion because the church was about the only organisation that could have organised resistance to a communist uprising.
    It has been explained to you many times that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. What people then do because of this lack of belief is nothing to do with atheism. Do you blame christianity for pedophile priests?

    Have you read the wiki on criticism of religion?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Dawkins Is Not Great

    “On March 24, 2012, Richard Dawkins beneficently smiled down at congregation of adoring atheists before him.”

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/11/21/Harvard-Dawkins-damaging/

    “There are two reasons to reject the oppositional anti-theism of Richard Dawkins. First, stridency alienates both religious and non-religious communities. When this critique is raised, atheists indignantly respond that we are allowed to be vocal and opinionated in all other spheres of life. The problem with that response is not one of factual inaccuracy but rather of a profound lack of empathy for the subjective importance of faith. This importance does not categorically exclude the possibility of religious criticism but it renders strident criticism counter-productive.

    Religious critiques that are not sensitive to this understanding are perceived as violent assaults on the values that religious people hold most dear. It drives religious communities to insularity by vindicating the claims of extremist pedagogues that religion is under threat. On the atheist side, it commands non-believers to view the religious—their family, friends and neighbors—as stupid and immoral. Insofar as the atheist movement can be a force for good, it must have currency and support. This cannot be achieved through insult and verbal abuse.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Atheism starts its megachurch: Is it a religion now? The non-religious Assembly is perhaps the fastest growing church in the world — and it’s coming to a mall near you.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/09/22/atheism_starts_its_megachurch_is_it_a_religion_now/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    RichardX uses a classic strawman to defend his POV.
    “Pedophile Priests” for starters, is a total misnomer – they were homosexual.
    Secondly, pedophiles, by your definition are much greater in other areas – medical prfoession and schoolteachers; and if you’re branding the Catholic Church, as many on this blog do, check the Jay report – you will find that the problem was worse in other communities, religious or otherwise.

    The basis of Marxism, with all its offshoots – communism. socialism – you name it – waa that mankind did not need religion, or belief in a God, to achieve what one might call human perfection. So all brands of Marxism excluded God – and I seem to think that that is called……umm……what is it?

    Oh yes, thats right, its called Atheism.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    The Religion of Atheism.

    Creed
    No God, anti-God, pro-homosexuality, anti-Christianity.
    Atheism is a belief. I know that many atheists will disagree with this, but the atheists gathered around a common belief of no God, or lack of God, and the need to increase what they perceive as separation of church and state in America.

    Crisis
    Created a problem and offered a solution. The problem was religious oppression in society with atheistic ideals as the solution.

    Assemblies
    Gathered in groups with meeting times. Atheists don’t meet nearly as frequently as Christians do in their churches, but they do have state meetings, national meetings, and regular gatherings.

    Pulpit
    The lectern from which speeches were made, their ideas were promoted, and their reasons for their belief system were validated.

    Evangelistic
    The atheists sought converts to their cause. They frequently spoke about getting the idea of atheism out into society, and to move people away from theism.

    Celebration over converts
    Rejoiced when converts to their belief system were announced. There was applause and excitement when there were announcements about people who had “come out of the closet” and announced their atheism.

    Zealous for their cause
    They wanted their cause and belief system expanded to the extent of changing America to reflect their thinking.

    Exclusive
    Only they have the truth. The atheists repeatedly spoke of how atheism was the truth, and that theists and deists were ignorant of facts and reason.

    Us against them mentality
    There was a profound description of the division between atheism and theism, with the atheists being the ones who were defending themselves against the intrusive theists.

    Concerned about public image
    This is normal. They were very concerned with how they were perceived and wanted to change their negative reputation.

    Lack of critical thinking
    This is common everywhere. Though they thought they were rational, by far most of the arguments and comments weren’t.

    Misrepresentation of opposing views
    Again, another common trait among people who gather in groups, have a common ideology, and see others as being less enlightened.

    Voting block
    The atheists mentioned voting as a group in order to progress their cause in society.

    Infighting
    This is normal for groups. We don’t all see eye to eye. But, they all held to atheism even though they had disagreements about some particulars.

    Money
    They didn’t have tithing, but there were plenty of things for sale. And, let’s not forget to mention how they sought donations to help cover the costs of promoting atheism, paying speakers, renting facilities, etc.

    http://carm.org/religion-of-atheism

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Atheism Is a Religion: Or at least it requires a God for you not to believe in.

    http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/atheism-is-a-religion

    “Newberg and his late partner Eugene D’Aquili mapped various parts of the brain showing activation in specific areas when people were undergoing certain religious rituals or experiences, such as a shaman being in a trance or a Buddhist entering a mystical state. Regardless of the religion, the brain function was the same. Something was happening when these people experienced their version of religious phenomena, and the scans lit up like Robert Redford’s suit in The Electric Horseman.

    This does not prove God exists, but it does show humans are wired or biologically predisposed to believe in something. When I interviewed him for this article, Newberg said his research demonstrates that “we are wired to have these beliefs about the world, to get at the fundamental stuff the universe is about. For many people, it includes God and for some it doesn’t. Your brain is doing its best to understand the world and construct beliefs to understand it, and from an epistemological perspective there is no fundamental difference.”

    So, whether you make sense of the world as an atheist and don’t require the God postulate to complete your understanding, or you are a theist and your feelings and experiences tell you something greater is there, biologically speaking, that big blob of gray Jell-O in our skulls is like a giant arrow pointing us in the same direction. I believe that is delicious. And religious.

    When atheists rail against theists (as many did on my Facebook page), they are using the same fervor the religious use when making their claims against a secular society. By calling atheism a religion, I am not trying to craft terms or apply them out of convenience. I just see theists and atheists behaving in the same manner, approaching from opposite ends of the runway. The entire discourse about religion stems from those who think they know more than the other guy. But what we really know is that we don’t know much. And we seem to share the same mechanisim in our brains that drives us to make claims of faith and rationalism as a way of making sense of the great unknown.

    You can call atheism a belief system, which Newberg guardedly does, or you can make a stronger assertion and say that atheists and theists, who have conveniently developed hate-tinged froth and vitriol for one another, are quacking and waddling in the same way in different ponds. Either way, they are ducks and atheism is a religion. At least it is in the hands of those who are so religious about their disbelief that they place the weight of the argument on the feathery shoulders of their believing brothers and sisters.

    Here you have the atheistic religion in a nutshell: superhuman agency, devotion, self-selecting groups of people. Add to that the intense—even religious—zeal with which many atheists defend their claims. Let me tell you: The angriest ones can be as malicious as a coven of Westboro Baptists at a veteran’s funeral.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    You are absolutely batshit crazy!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    chiz.

    Thank you for confirming my point.

    What I am saying is that it was the Arab culture, rather than that which was totally overtaken by Islam that preserved the learning of the Arab intellectual elite. Of course during the 7 th century Islam started to have an influence, but did not yet totally dominate Arab thought. Of course the Abbasids accumulated Greek texts – they were still fascinated by the Jewish and Christian scriptures, which Mohammed had plagiarised in part, to form his teaching of submission to the will of God – Allah – which is Islam.

    But with a major intellectual Islamic theological schism in the 11th. ? century, Islam adopted the current theolgical mindset, instead of one – that prior to the schism – fell partly in line with the Christian philosophical and theological viewpoint.

    Its actually very interesting history.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Secular Fascism.

    “The New Zealand Association of Rationalist Humanists (“NZARH”) has a statement of aspirational ideals for the New Zealand state on their website. Entitled “The Tolerant Secular State” it is anything but.

    http://www.mandm.org.nz/2010/12/the-nzarh-and-the-privileging-of-secularism.html

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Dawkins and the atheist abuse of history.

    http://www.bethinking.org/truth/dawkins-and-the-abuse-of-history

    “It is in the relationship with believers that one can see historically, and contemporarily, the capacity a certain form of atheism has to be deadly. Although many liberal atheists respect the right to religious belief and have no objection to spiritual moral values playing their part in public discourse, secularising atheists are more militant and wish to see religious beliefs no longer receive a privileged status vis-a-vis other world views, or even excluded altogether from the public domain and confined to the private. Dawkins’ brand of atheism would fit into the latter category. ‘Total atheism’, which may be defined as an ideological interfusion of despotic political structures, an absolute conviction that a godless universe is the truth, and the desire to proselytise this message, is the form that is lethal to the godly. Atheism, therefore, mixed with other noxious ideas, is an essential part of the motivation to persecute believers, and it is this form that Stalinism manifested. Atheism was not therefore incidental to the Soviet regime’s ill treatment, suppression and murder of believers, but a core belief that lay beneath the process.”

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. chiz (1,144 comments) says:

    Huh? In what way am I confirming your point? The Abbasids started accumulating greek texts because one of the Caliphs had a dream about someone (Ptolemy I think, but I might be misremembering it). It had nothing to do with religion. And I’m not talking about scripture of any kind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Don the Kiwi (1,750 comments) says:

    chiz.

    Note that I did say philosophy – in which the Greeks led the world for a thousand years – as well as theology. So I am not seeking an argument, because I mainly agree with you – but we approach this, no doubt, from differing viewpoints.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Christianity enhanced the notion of political and social accountability by providing a new model: that of servant leadership. In ancient Greece and Rome no one would have dreamed of considering political leaders anyone’s servants. The job of the leader was to lead. But Christ invented the notion that the way to lead is by serving the needs of others, especially those who are the most needy.”

    “The life of West, Nietzsche said, is based on Christianity. The values of the West are based on Christianity. Some of these values seem to have taken a life of their own, and this gives us the illusion that we can get rid of Christianity and keep the values. This, Nietzsche says, is an illusion…Remove the Christian foundation, and the values must go too.”

    “I now want to examine a second major feature of Western civilization that derives from Christianity. This is what philosopher Charles Taylor calls the ‘affirmation of ordinary life.’ It is the simple idea that ordinary people are fallible, and yet these fallible people matter. In this view, society should organize itself in order to meet their everyday concerns, which are elevated into a kind of spiritual framework. The nuclear family, the idea of limited government, the Western concept of the rule of law, and our culture’s high emphasis on the relief of suffering all derive from this basic Christian understanding of the dignity of fallible human beings.”

    “Not only is religion thriving, but it is thriving because it helps people to adapt and survive in the world. In his book Darwin’s Cathedral, evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson argues that religion provides something that secular society doesn’t: a vision of transcendent purpose. Consequently, religious people have a zest for life that is, in a sense, unnatural. They exhibit a hopefulness about the future that may exceed what is warranted by how the world is going. And they forge principles of morality and charity that simply make them more cohesive, adaptive, and successful than groups whose members lack this binding and elevating force.”

    “Today courts wrongly interpret separation of church and state to mean that religion has no place in the public arena, or that morality derived from religion should not be permitted to shape our laws. Somehow freedom for religious expression has become freedom from religious expression. Secularists want to empty the public square of religion and religious-based morality so they can monopolize the shared space of society with their own views. In the process they have made religious believers into second-class citizens.”

    “Visiting America in the early nineteenth century, Alexis de Tocqueville observd that ‘the sects that exist in the United States are innumerable,’ and yet ‘all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God.’ Tocqueville termed religion the first of America’s political institutions, which means that it had a profoundly public effect in regulating morality and mores throughout the society. And he saw Christianity as countering the powerful human instincts of selfishness and ambition by holding out an ideal of charity and devotion to the welfare of others.”

    ― Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Dinesh D’Souza? Seriously?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    When did the debate become a google fest?

    So the biggest complaint in the Harvard article is that atheists are being too tough on theists to gain any support. Boo fuckin hoo

    The atheist church in East London is an interesting development. It is not proof that atheism is a religion and it will be interesting to see what form it will eventually take. There have been various gatherings by atheists in various countries at various times but none have previously felt the need to label themselves as a church.

    You think I would believe any assertion from the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, even if they made any sense?

    To keep Don happy I will rephrase to homosexual priests or better yet sexual predator priests but it does not negate the argument. The analogy is that every sexual predator priest is a christian. If you are telling me that atheism is the root cause of Marxism or the actions of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc then the same logic states that Christianity is the root cause of priests who are sexual predators
    It is irrelevant the not all sexual predators are Christian as not all atheists are megalomaniac dictators

    Did you actually read the whole of the reason article?

    I can’t really be bothered responding to any item you can find through google but if you believe that means you are winning the debate, feel free to believe what you choose to believe as you always do.

    One last question though. I know your wife and you have a lot vested in Christianity but why the double standard in evidence required for the existence of a god or gods and any of Reid or UT’s claims?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Is God Real? Does Science Answer “Is There a God?”

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

    Is Christianity True? Evidence for the Truth of the Christian Religion

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_christianity_true.html

    Missing the Obvious

    http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/obvious.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “I can’t really be bothered responding”

    Quelle surprise! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Psycho Milt (2,412 comments) says:

    It does your heart good to see how much Dawkins annoys religious fanatics. But what about Hitchens? Doesn’t he get a look in?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,333 comments) says:
    April 6th, 2014 at 9:08 pm
    “I can’t really be bothered responding”
    Quelle surprise!

    More dishonesty Shawn…. I thought you called yourself a christian

    I stated “I can’t really be bothered responding to any item you can find through google…”
    You appeared to want to make many points through google rather than actually argue any point on its own merits or in your own words. Such a scattergun approach when I doubt you read and comprehend what you are linking to is a waste of your time as well as mine. I could do the childish response of googling things like criticism of religion, or posting various articles from rational wiki but it is pointless if you are not prepared to debate without being intellectually dishonest

    Does this mean I can add argument from authority to your argument from ignorance?
    Maybe you should google logical fallacies and criticisms of religion while you are at it.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    Yes, as I was saying, this is one of those topics that brings out entrenched views on both sides.

    Exactly what I said at the beginning. DPF went fishing… …and he hooked a big one. I mean look at it now – religious debate. KA——CHING!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. tom hunter (4,822 comments) says:

    I liked these pieces on the Eich issue:
    William Saletan:

    Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.

    Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them.

    But I also liked another that went further:

    But why stop there? According to Wikipedia, 7,001,084 people voted for Prop 8. Why do any of those people still have jobs? Shouldn’t they all be forced to resign? And why should they have the privilege of living in California at all? I say round them up and move them someplace where they won’t do any harm.

    Bye bye Firefox – from my computers anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. tom hunter (4,822 comments) says:

    And I especially like linking these two comments related to gay marriage. The first is from John Hinderaker at Powerline:

    What we see here is, I think, a harbinger of things to come. The Left is mobilized and on the march, and has no intention of taking any prisoners. Anyone who thinks some kind of accommodation or compromise can be reached with these people is mistaken. They are vicious bullies, and must be dealt with accordingly.

    You think that’s over the top? Then read this from Kiwipolitico on the passing of the gay marriage bill here in NZ just a few months ago:

    Kevin Hague’s measured words and calm delivery obscure a stark and clear-sighted analysis: This is war. The enemy does not regard us as human, and they never will, so we must defeat them utterly. When it comes to GLBTI people, adherents to this creed of brimstone will be satisfied with nothing less than extermination and erasure: they are an existential threat.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    From your first link tom:
    ‘…we’d better get cracking on the rest of the list. Otherwise, perhaps we should put down the pitchforks.’
    Amen to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    I wonder if this “rule” about the evil of opposing homosexual “marriage” in 2008 in the US is to be applied equally ? That would make Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President in 2016 a bit of an issue would it not ? I mean, like, this sort of bigoted fascism wouldn’t be applied unequally would it, I mean, against one’s ideological enemies but not ones ideological “friends” would it ? Wouldn’t that tend to imply that the whole “outrage” was simply manufactured in the first place ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Fentex (972 comments) says:

    Atheism Is a Religion

    Exactly like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    Mind you there is an aspect of language about the phrase “Atheism is a religion” that makes it not entirely untruthful – to have the property of being a-theist and to be an Atheist (capitalism important) are two different things.

    To notice a person has the property of being a-theist (without gods) is a simple and trivial observation that says nothing more about them, but to claim they are a member of the class Atheist immediately invokes issues of definition, allegiance and debate over what is meant – and if you’re defining Atheism as a religion then because you’re incapable of accepting anything else then that’s just drawing the lines of a battlefield.

    I notice when reading online that this is all subject of vigorous debate in the U.S where religion has a strong public presence and the meanings and implications of definitions is very much to the fore where some people call themselves “Movement Atheists” among many terms bandied about. And the fine parsing of meaning can get very comical, and bitter, when argument crashes into social convention.

    For instance Skeptic societies that want to concentrate on debunking silly urban myths can get very defensive when asked to apply their scepticism to religion. The debates that rage can get quite silly when it’s simply a clash of personal interests.

    So when a person writes “Atheism is a religion” it’s just an invite to play a game of definition. The first use of it in these comments was someone apparently claiming religion is a neurological condition common to atheists as well as theists. I don’t think many theists would really want to agree with it if they realised it meant agreeing their religion was just a trivially measurable (and therefore presumably manipulable) neurological condition.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “You appeared to want to make many points through google rather than actually argue any point on its own merits”

    You assumed, wrongly, that I was debating with you. All I was doing was providing alternative information (all of which I did read by the way) to the usual atheist drivel, and your assumption that I should have been debating with you instead is rather narcissistic. Get over yourself. Your not the centre of the universe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. stephieboy (3,026 comments) says:

    I think that whilst the fate of Brenden Eich is to be deplored this kind of thing also needs to be denounced,

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/01/a-gay-businessman-fires-back-at-mississippis-far-right-as-legislature-passes-anti-lgbt-law/

    ttp://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/the-ten-scariest-republicans-heading-to-congress#adams

    Intolerance is part of the human condition but our far rightwing nuts here a seriously deluded with their typical glow of self righteousness that is the unique preserve of liberals or the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Brendan Eich, culture war casualty.

    “We tend in journalism to overuse the term “chilling effect,” but I just want to mention one other footnote to this story is that Brendan Eich’s donation to the National Organization for Marriage became part of the public record after the Internal Revenue Service leaked that information to gay activists. … But now it’s a public issue, and that is truly something that has a chilling effect on political speech.”

    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/04/brendan_eich_culture_war_casualty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    The New Pitchfork Persecutors: Eich and others who opposed same-sex marriage, even years ago, are being punished.

    Eric Dezenhall, who heads a prominent crisis-communications firm in Washington, D.C., told Forbes magazine: “There is a very specific narrative today on certain issues, and if you step an inch out of bounds, you’re going to get fouled or worse. [Eich] stepped on one of the three great land mines: gay rights, race, and the environment. You don’t have to have made flagrantly terrible statements to get into trouble now.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375159/new-pitchfork-persecutors-john-fund

    The Liberal Gulag: The Brendan Eich case brings out the nature of liberal fascism.

    The word “liberal” has taken a beating over the last few days: A Mozilla executive was hounded out of his position at the firm he co-founded by left-wing campaigners resolved to punish him for having made a donation to a successful California ballot initiative that defined marriage in traditional terms; Adam Weinstein, whose downwardly mobile credibility has taken him from ABC to Gawker, called for literally imprisoning people with the wrong views about global warming, writing, “Those malcontents must be punished and stopped”; Mr. Weinstein himself was simply forwarding a dumbed-down-enough-for-Gawker version of the arguments of philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello; Katherine Timpf, a reporter for Campus Reform, faced a human barricade to keep her from asking questions of those attending a feminist leadership conference, whose organizers informed her that the group was “inclusive” and therefore she was “not welcome here”; Charles Murray, one of the most important social scientists of his generation, was denounced as a “known white supremacist” by Texas Democrats for holding heterodox views about education policy; national Democrats spent the week arguing for the anti-free-speech side of a landmark First Amendment case and the anti-religious-freedom side of a case involving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; Lois Lerner, the Left’s best friend at the IRS, faces contempt charges related to her role in the Democrats’ coopting the IRS as a weapon against their political enemies; Harry Reid, a liberal champion of campaign-finance reform, was caught channeling tens of thousands of dollars to his granddaughter while conspicuously omitting her surname, which is also his surname, from official documents, cloaking the transaction, while one of his California colleagues, a liberal champion of gun control, was indicted on charges of running guns to an organized-crime syndicate.

    The convocation of clowns on the left screeched with one semi-literate and inchoate voice when my colleague Jonah Goldberg, borrowing the precise words of one of their own, titled a book Liberal Fascism. Most of them didn’t read it, but the ones who did apparently took what was intended as criticism and read it as a blueprint for political action.

    Welcome to the Liberal Gulag.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375138/liberal-gulag-kevin-d-williamson

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Yes, because being sacked for espousing a cause at odds with your company’s public profile is EXACTLY like being sent to a Gulag.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    It’s called a metaphor Mike. Don’t get your knickers in a twist. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I assume you agree it was a poorly chosen one then.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    No, I think it’s a very good one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    So how do you think being fired for advocating beliefs at odds with your employer is like being sent to a Gulag? It’ll be interesting to see if you can answer without disrespecting the memory of millions who suffered in Gulags.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “So how do you think being fired for advocating beliefs at odds with your employer”

    He was fired for offending political correctness. Marxism in Communist countries and the cultural Marxism of Liberal political correctness display the same intolerance for freedom of thought and speech, and for the same reasons. They are both totalitarian ideologies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Avoiding the question of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    I though that was a pretty good answer to the question. How did I avoid it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. RichardX (326 comments) says:

    ShawnLH (1,345 comments) says:
    April 7th, 2014 at 11:19 am
    “You appeared to want to make many points through google rather than actually argue any point on its own merits”
    You assumed, wrongly, that I was debating with you. All I was doing was providing alternative information (all of which I did read by the way) to the usual atheist drivel, and your assumption that I should have been debating with you instead is rather narcissistic. Get over yourself. Your not the centre of the universe.

    So it wasn’t a debate yet you felt the need to respond to my comment that I wasn’t going to debate your copy & paste efforts. That smacks of yet more intellectual dishonesty. If I believed in a christian god I would be worried about your sins.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “So it wasn’t a debate yet you felt the need to respond to my comment”

    You presented an opportunity to wind you up. Couldn’t resist. :)

    You really should learn to relax a little. Have you tried deep breathing exercises?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Even if you held the delusional belief that political correctness (being polite) was an actual ideology, you are still a world away from making a comparison between firing someone or sending them to a Gulag.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    “Even if you held the delusional belief that political correctness (being polite) was an actual ideology”

    PC is an outgrowth of cultural Marxism, which is an ideology.

    “you are still a world away from making a comparison between firing someone or sending them to a Gulag.”

    ‘Adam Weinstein, whose downwardly mobile credibility has taken him from ABC to Gawker, called for literally imprisoning people with the wrong views about global warming’

    Did you read the whole thing or just the bit at the bottom. Is not calling for the imprisonment of people who disagree with AGW exactly the same thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    You’ve got a long way to go to convince anyone that the Eich case is an example of ‘liberal facism’ (an oxymoron BTW). Let alone the other outlandish claims in the article you posted.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. griffith (1,111 comments) says:

    Actually the call is to prosecute those who knowingly generate false information in a premeditated effort to confuse the issue and stop any action. a world away from a genuinely held belief

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. ShawnLH (4,999 comments) says:

    Most conservatives would agree with the label. So I’m not alone. And Left-Liberalism certainly has fascist leanings.

    Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, by Jonah Goldberg

    In the book, Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. He claims that both modern liberalism and fascism descended from progressivism, and that prior to World War II, “fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Hah! Jonah Goldberg! Ever looked up the term ‘Jonanism’?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote