Comments on: Fuck Jesus, Raymond Burke, and Bill Donohue http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/ Philadelphia Phillies baseball analysis that everyone can enjoy. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:22:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: CJ http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1560 CJ Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:19:22 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1560 “Your self-parenting theory aside, how about besides the kid?” *Some factors, to some kids, are more important than others. There’s no set standard. There are few “set standards” for anything. But there are measurable standards. The reason this is important is that you want to drastically remake society. The impact of society on families, and families on society, is the most important measurement of any culture. “You don’t “have” options.” *Sure you do. Nope. You create them. At least in the case of raising your kids. The notion that it’s all a matter of luck is one reason why some parents make such bad choices – they are told their decisions don’t really matter. “The first step toward that is choosing marriage.” *All marriage does is legalize the union. A non-married couple is just as effective for a child than a married couple. Not true: Nearly half of non-married expectant mothers are cohabiting with the father at around the time of their child’s birth. Overall, some 95 percent of non-married mothers express positive attitudes about marrying their new baby’s father in the future. Yet only 9 percent of couples will actually marry within a year after their child’s birth. Within a few years, the relationships of **most of the non-married parents will deteriorate and the mother and father will split up.** http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda0306.cfm *You basically just make it so they have to file a bunch of papers and possibly go to hearings if there’s a dispute over the union or over property. The old “marriage is just a piece of paper” response from the 70s. This is the fatal flaw in your argument, that everything can be reduced to just filing the right papers with a socialist government that can free people of individual responsibility. Religion aside, there is a logical advantage to securing a familial bond if a couple stands up in front of their family, friends and – for the many who are influenced by it – their god and declaring the commitment….vs quietly ‘filing papers’ and sharing the tender moment with the desk clerk. If you want to try to argue that marriage doesn’t benefit children, you’ll lose. Doesn’t kill your overall point, but you will lose that one. *Can you cite this? The education/work factor is pretty obvious, this stuff focuses on the role that marriage plays in preventing poverty. All of these are based on this Princeton study http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/ **The erosion of marriage and the increase in single-parent families are major causes of child poverty and welfare dependence in the United States. Nearly three-quarters of government means-tested welfare aid to children goes to single-parent families.[14] Over 80 percent of long-term child poverty occurs in broken or never-married families.[15] **…from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey.There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of their under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment of the black population that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one population segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Another segment of the white population suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations? The only statistical distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm As Chart 2 shows, 55 percent of the mothers in the Fragile Families Study will live in poverty if they remain single and are employed part-time. By contrast, if the mothers marry, their poverty rate plummets to 17 percent. In other words, the father’s normal earnings, combined with the part-time earnings of the mother, are sufficient to raise 83 percent of the families above the poverty line. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda0306.cfm “Relative to what?” *People. So as I suspected, you don’t really believe there is such a thing as “common decency” or social mores. If you do, list some examples. Otherwise we have to conclude that the concept just doesn’t have a place in your atheist/socialist Vision of Tomorrow. “Homosexuality is not a behavior.” *Yes, it is. Woah. Back to the 70s again. I thought it was agreed it’s an orientation. Genetic wiring. If it was just an act, ‘discrimination against homosexuals’ would be impossible, because you can not “discriminate” against an act. *Grabbing your crotch and showing your underwear and leering at girls “I don’t believe any of these behaviors are “boorish.” No one is hurt by them.” Really? Impeding a person’s right to walk down the street without being made to feel like a piece of meat, or intimidated, doesn’t hurt anyone? I have to call you on this one too, you don’t really believe anything would be “boorish” behavior do you? cursing in public […] acting like a dick a sporting events “Ditto.” See above challenge. *Socialism doesn’t enforce societal standards, despite the name. Socialism is a system of economics. Again, you’re confusing socialism with Communism, which is socioeconomic. No I’m not. The whole point of the socialist economic model is to take more taxes from people and provide more services to people. It is, as I said, a vast expansion of government power into the everyday lives of citizens…much more than a preacher giving a sermon. And you’ve already conceded the only channel for enforcing any code of behavior whatsoever is the government, via laws. Everything else is useless. “you can’t just sit back and “expect” good behavior.” *It depends on what your standards are. No it doesn’t. As soon as you set *any* standard, it has to be encouraged and enforced, or why call it a “standard?” I’m pretty sure your atheist/socialist society just wouldn’t have standards because you don’t believe in them. *When did we establish that the U.S. is becoming full-on socialist? Beats me. We established you feel it is a deeply flawed nation, and that you support socialism. But whatever degree of socialism you’re referring to will require a corresponding degree of seizing “wealth” from citizens and redistributing. “all socialist nations have to enforce against the human instinct to better oneself” *This goes against your argument. It’s a human instinct to be “boorish.” Yet you want that regulated. ‘Better oneself’ refers to making money, furthering ones education in order to make money, developing innovative products for a profit motive, buying their family the biggest house possible, etc. All that stuff that makes U.S. so attractive to outsiders. Those people can be boorish. That’s why we need standards regulated by the people. This all supports my argument. “socialism has to enforce the soul-sucking rule that no one is too successful” *You say this as if it’s a bad thing. Why would you let the government decide what “successful” is? *Socialism = Economic… Communism = Socioeconomic Again, government redistribution of private wealth, and keeping it “properly” distributed, requires, inherently, significant control. I’m not saying it requires gulags. And I haven’t even said the name Chavez yet. “No it isn’t. If that’s “subjective” than so is “oppression.”” *Common decency being subjective != Oppression being subjective. It’s easy to dismiss standards with by declaring: ‘subjective!’ ““Hate” is just as likely socialist democracies with weak religion.” *No. I offered examples that it is. If you have some contrary evidence, go for it. Once again, your confusing human traits with religious/capitalist traits. *Stop being an apologist for religion. I’m not an apologist. I’m not even religious. I just don’t like beating up strawmen. I think most of the same bad ‘religious’ things you cite would have existed without religion. "Of course, human rights is subjective." *Not really. There is an established criteria. See: Geneva Convention. Read it. They’re very subjective. Oppression is subjective. (Some people are genuinely oppressed, some just don’t like rules.) But being subjective doesn’t mean we don’t try to set and enforce standards. And I contend that it’s better when fellow citizens do it as part of a common culture. “but it sounds like they did what two parent households do better than others: protected you the struggles and serious problems so that you would be able to succeed” *Who’s to say a one-parent family couldn’t do that? Logic. Statistics. Of course, many singe-parent families do it. But it’s more like with likely with two, for obviously reasons. *Now that I’m thinking about it, I think the environment in which the child is situated (the parents have a degree of control over this) is more influential to a child’s development than the parents themselves. Yes Bill. And parents have the ULTIMATE degree of control over environment. Every definition of “home environment” would be linked to the parents. “Churches are the last institution to promote individual responsibility.” *No. They’re the most prominent, certainly, but not the last. What other institution does? The largest and most powerful (media and government) promote the opposite. "I’m trying to gauge what you think individual responsibility entails, if anything." *Not killing, stealing, raping, or otherwise infringing on another’s rights. Cursing, having visible undergarments, not holding the door open, etc. do not fall under this criteria. So, again, if the government has not declared it illegal, you can do it and still be considered a responsible person? Question: would living in a community of 1,000 courteous and polite people be any different from living in a community of 1,000 discourteous and impolite people? (In community A people let each other merge on the road, they say Hi, they keep an eye on each other’s kids, they shovel each other’s sidewalks. Community B does the opposite, but respects your rights.) Any difference? *I claimed that the flaws in religion, that you instead attributed to humanity, are one and the same. You concede that humanity preceded religion, right? “Your self-parenting theory aside, how about besides the kid?”

*Some factors, to some kids, are more important than others. There’s no set standard.

There are few “set standards” for anything. But there are measurable standards. The reason this is important is that you want to drastically remake society. The impact of society on families, and families on society, is the most important measurement of any culture.

“You don’t “have” options.”
*Sure you do.

Nope. You create them. At least in the case of raising your kids. The notion that it’s all a matter of luck is one reason why some parents make such bad choices – they are told their decisions don’t really matter.

“The first step toward that is choosing marriage.”

*All marriage does is legalize the union. A non-married couple is just as effective for a child than a married couple.

Not true:
Nearly half of non-married expectant mothers are cohabiting with the father at around the time of their child’s birth. Overall, some 95 percent of non-married mothers express positive attitudes about marrying their new baby’s father in the future. Yet only 9 percent of couples will actually marry within a year after their child’s birth. Within a few years, the relationships of **most of the non-married parents will deteriorate and the mother and father will split up.**
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda0306.cfm

*You basically just make it so they have to file a bunch of papers and possibly go to hearings if there’s a dispute over the union or over property.

The old “marriage is just a piece of paper” response from the 70s. This is the fatal flaw in your argument, that everything can be reduced to just filing the right papers with a socialist government that can free people of individual responsibility.

Religion aside, there is a logical advantage to securing a familial bond if a couple stands up in front of their family, friends and – for the many who are influenced by it – their god and declaring the commitment….vs quietly ‘filing papers’ and sharing the tender moment with the desk clerk. If you want to try to argue that marriage doesn’t benefit children, you’ll lose. Doesn’t kill your overall point, but you will lose that one.

*Can you cite this?

The education/work factor is pretty obvious, this stuff focuses on the role that marriage plays in preventing poverty. All of these are based on this Princeton study
http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/

**The erosion of marriage and the increase in single-parent families are major causes of child poverty and welfare dependence in the United States. Nearly three-quarters of government means-tested welfare aid to children goes to single-parent families.[14] Over 80 percent of long-term child poverty occurs in broken or never-married families.[15]

**…from the Census Bureau’s 2004 Current Population Survey.There’s one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of their under-5-year-olds are poor. There’s another segment of the black population that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one population segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Another segment of the white population suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations? The only statistical distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer

Their parents don’t work much, and fathers are absent from the home.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1796.cfm

As Chart 2 shows, 55 percent of the mothers in the Fragile Families Study will live in poverty if they remain single and are employed part-time. By contrast, if the mothers marry, their poverty rate plummets to 17 percent. In other words, the father’s normal earnings, combined with the part-time earnings of the mother, are sufficient to raise 83 percent of the families above the poverty line.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda0306.cfm

“Relative to what?”
*People.

So as I suspected, you don’t really believe there is such a thing as “common decency” or social mores. If you do, list some examples. Otherwise we have to conclude that the concept just doesn’t have a place in your atheist/socialist Vision of Tomorrow.

“Homosexuality is not a behavior.”
*Yes, it is.

Woah. Back to the 70s again. I thought it was agreed it’s an orientation. Genetic wiring. If it was just an act, ‘discrimination against homosexuals’ would be impossible, because you can not “discriminate” against an act.

*Grabbing your crotch and showing your underwear and leering at girls
“I don’t believe any of these behaviors are “boorish.” No one is hurt by them.”

Really? Impeding a person’s right to walk down the street without being made to feel like a piece of meat, or intimidated, doesn’t hurt anyone? I have to call you on this one too, you don’t really believe anything would be “boorish” behavior do you?

cursing in public […] acting like a dick a sporting events
“Ditto.”

See above challenge.

*Socialism doesn’t enforce societal standards, despite the name. Socialism is a system of economics. Again, you’re confusing socialism with Communism, which is socioeconomic.

No I’m not. The whole point of the socialist economic model is to take more taxes from people and provide more services to people. It is, as I said, a vast expansion of government power into the everyday lives of citizens…much more than a preacher giving a sermon. And you’ve already conceded the only channel for enforcing any code of behavior whatsoever is the government, via laws. Everything else is useless.

“you can’t just sit back and “expect” good behavior.”

*It depends on what your standards are.

No it doesn’t. As soon as you set *any* standard, it has to be encouraged and enforced, or why call it a “standard?” I’m pretty sure your atheist/socialist society just wouldn’t have standards because you don’t believe in them.

*When did we establish that the U.S. is becoming full-on socialist?

Beats me. We established you feel it is a deeply flawed nation, and that you support socialism. But whatever degree of socialism you’re referring to will require a corresponding degree of seizing “wealth” from citizens and redistributing.

“all socialist nations have to enforce against the human instinct to better oneself”
*This goes against your argument. It’s a human instinct to be “boorish.” Yet you want that regulated.

‘Better oneself’ refers to making money, furthering ones education in order to make money, developing innovative products for a profit motive, buying their family the biggest house possible, etc. All that stuff that makes U.S. so attractive to outsiders. Those people can be boorish. That’s why we need standards regulated by the people. This all supports my argument.

“socialism has to enforce the soul-sucking rule that no one is too successful”
*You say this as if it’s a bad thing.

Why would you let the government decide what “successful” is?

*Socialism = Economic… Communism = Socioeconomic

Again, government redistribution of private wealth, and keeping it “properly” distributed, requires, inherently, significant control. I’m not saying it requires gulags. And I haven’t even said the name Chavez yet.

“No it isn’t. If that’s “subjective” than so is “oppression.””
*Common decency being subjective != Oppression being subjective.

It’s easy to dismiss standards with by declaring: ‘subjective!’

““Hate” is just as likely socialist democracies with weak religion.”
*No.

I offered examples that it is. If you have some contrary evidence, go for it. Once again, your confusing human traits with religious/capitalist traits.

*Stop being an apologist for religion.

I’m not an apologist. I’m not even religious. I just don’t like beating up strawmen. I think most of the same bad ‘religious’ things you cite would have existed without religion.

“Of course, human rights is subjective.”
*Not really. There is an established criteria. See: Geneva Convention.

Read it. They’re very subjective. Oppression is subjective. (Some people are genuinely oppressed, some just don’t like rules.) But being subjective doesn’t mean we don’t try to set and enforce standards. And I contend that it’s better when fellow citizens do it as part of a common culture.

“but it sounds like they did what two parent households do better than others: protected you the struggles and serious problems so that you would be able to succeed”
*Who’s to say a one-parent family couldn’t do that?

Logic. Statistics. Of course, many singe-parent families do it. But it’s more like with likely with two, for obviously reasons.

*Now that I’m thinking about it, I think the environment in which the child is situated (the parents have a degree of control over this) is more influential to a child’s development than the parents themselves.

Yes Bill. And parents have the ULTIMATE degree of control over environment. Every definition of “home environment” would be linked to the parents.

“Churches are the last institution to promote individual responsibility.”
*No. They’re the most prominent, certainly, but not the last.

What other institution does? The largest and most powerful (media and government) promote the opposite.

“I’m trying to gauge what you think individual responsibility entails, if anything.”
*Not killing, stealing, raping, or otherwise infringing on another’s rights. Cursing, having visible undergarments, not holding the door open, etc. do not fall under this criteria.

So, again, if the government has not declared it illegal, you can do it and still be considered a responsible person?

Question: would living in a community of 1,000 courteous and polite people be any different from living in a community of 1,000 discourteous and impolite people? (In community A people let each other merge on the road, they say Hi, they keep an eye on each other’s kids, they shovel each other’s sidewalks. Community B does the opposite, but respects your rights.) Any difference?

*I claimed that the flaws in religion, that you instead attributed to humanity, are one and the same.

You concede that humanity preceded religion, right?

]]> By: Bill B. http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1541 Bill B. Wed, 13 Feb 2008 22:33:12 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1541 <i>Your self-parenting theory aside, how about besides the kid?</i> Your question, if you ignore my "there is no overwhelming factor" statement, seems to ignore the gradient, so to speak. You want to know which is "more important," but it's really irrelevant and, once again, subjective. Some factors, to some kids, are more important than others. There's no set standard. <i>You don’t “have” options.</i> Sure you do. <i>The first step toward that is choosing marriage.</i> All marriage does is legalize the union. A non-married couple is just as effective for a child than a married couple. You basically just make it so they have to file a bunch of papers and possibly go to hearings if there's a dispute over the union or over property. <i>Yet statistically accurate.</i> Can you cite this? <i>Relative to what?</i> People. <i>Homosexuality is not a behavior.</i> Yes, it is. <i>Grabbing your crotch and showing your underwear and leering at girls</i> I don't believe any of these behaviors are "boorish." No one is hurt by them. <i>cursing in public [...] acting like a dick a sporting events</i> Ditto. <i>But you’d trust it so establish a socialist government, giving it more control over individuals than ever in history.</i> Socialism doesn't enforce societal standards, despite the name. Socialism is a system of economics. Again, you're confusing socialism with Communism, which is socioeconomic. <i>you can’t just sit back and “expect” good behavior.</i> It depends on what your standards are. <i>It’s the glaring weakness in the godless socialism thing.</i> You don't understand socialism. <i>Since we would be a “transitioning” country</i> When did we establish that the U.S. is becoming full-on socialist? <i>all socialist nations have to enforce against the human instinct to better oneself</i> This goes against your argument. It's a human instinct to be "boorish." Yet you want that regulated. <i>socialism has to enforce the soul-sucking rule that no one is too successful</i> You say this as if it's a bad thing. <i>They both require strict control. It’s just a matter of extremes.</i> No, it's not. Socialism = Economic Communism = Socioeconomic <i>No it isn’t. If that’s “subjective” than so is “oppression.”</i> Common decency being subjective != Oppression being subjective. <i>Show me a socialist culture with “less hate.”</i> Again, socialism has nothing do with social standards. Socialism doesn't advocate or impugn "hate." <i>“Hate” is just as likely socialist democracies with weak religion.</i> No. <i>Many of the wars attributed to religion are actually territorial disputes or ethnic clashes with associated religions.</i> ...based off of religion. You know the dispute over Israel? That's territorial but entirely religious. Ditto most of the wars due to religion. Stop being an apologist for religion. <i>Of course, human rights is subjective.</i> Not really. There is an established criteria. See: Geneva Convention. <i>but it sounds like they did what two parent households do better than others: protected you the struggles and serious problems so that you would be able to succeed</i> Who's to say a one-parent family couldn't do that? Now that I'm thinking about it, I think the environment in which the child is situated (the parents have a degree of control over this) is more influential to a child's development than the parents themselves. Also, consider <a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/522059" rel="nofollow">this</a>, regarding cigarettes and alcohol: "In fact, older siblings may be more influential than parents or friends, according to a new study." <i>Churches are the last institution to promote individual responsibility.</i> No. They're the most prominent, certainly, but not the last. I'd like you to cite this "last" claim of yours. <i>I’m trying to gauge what you think individual responsibility entails, if anything.</i> Not killing, stealing, raping, or otherwise infringing on another's rights. Cursing, having visible undergarments, not holding the door open, etc. do not fall under this criteria. <i>You claimed religion, the US and humanity were “one in the same.”</i> No, I didn't. I claimed that the flaws in religion, that you instead attributed to humanity, are one and the same. <i>I am saying, again, that you are attributing human flaws to the nearest, easiest, most popular targets: The US and Christians.</i> Are religion and the U.S. government not created by humans? Why can't I criticize their flaws? Your self-parenting theory aside, how about besides the kid?

Your question, if you ignore my “there is no overwhelming factor” statement, seems to ignore the gradient, so to speak. You want to know which is “more important,” but it’s really irrelevant and, once again, subjective. Some factors, to some kids, are more important than others. There’s no set standard.

You don’t “have” options.

Sure you do.

The first step toward that is choosing marriage.

All marriage does is legalize the union. A non-married couple is just as effective for a child than a married couple. You basically just make it so they have to file a bunch of papers and possibly go to hearings if there’s a dispute over the union or over property.

Yet statistically accurate.

Can you cite this?

Relative to what?

People.

Homosexuality is not a behavior.

Yes, it is.

Grabbing your crotch and showing your underwear and leering at girls

I don’t believe any of these behaviors are “boorish.” No one is hurt by them.

cursing in public [...] acting like a dick a sporting events

Ditto.

But you’d trust it so establish a socialist government, giving it more control over individuals than ever in history.

Socialism doesn’t enforce societal standards, despite the name. Socialism is a system of economics.

Again, you’re confusing socialism with Communism, which is socioeconomic.

you can’t just sit back and “expect” good behavior.

It depends on what your standards are.

It’s the glaring weakness in the godless socialism thing.

You don’t understand socialism.

Since we would be a “transitioning” country

When did we establish that the U.S. is becoming full-on socialist?

all socialist nations have to enforce against the human instinct to better oneself

This goes against your argument. It’s a human instinct to be “boorish.” Yet you want that regulated.

socialism has to enforce the soul-sucking rule that no one is too successful

You say this as if it’s a bad thing.

They both require strict control. It’s just a matter of extremes.

No, it’s not.

Socialism = Economic
Communism = Socioeconomic

No it isn’t. If that’s “subjective” than so is “oppression.”

Common decency being subjective != Oppression being subjective.

Show me a socialist culture with “less hate.”

Again, socialism has nothing do with social standards. Socialism doesn’t advocate or impugn “hate.”

“Hate” is just as likely socialist democracies with weak religion.

No.

Many of the wars attributed to religion are actually territorial disputes or ethnic clashes with associated religions.

…based off of religion. You know the dispute over Israel? That’s territorial but entirely religious. Ditto most of the wars due to religion.

Stop being an apologist for religion.

Of course, human rights is subjective.

Not really. There is an established criteria. See: Geneva Convention.

but it sounds like they did what two parent households do better than others: protected you the struggles and serious problems so that you would be able to succeed

Who’s to say a one-parent family couldn’t do that?

Now that I’m thinking about it, I think the environment in which the child is situated (the parents have a degree of control over this) is more influential to a child’s development than the parents themselves.

Also, consider this, regarding cigarettes and alcohol:

“In fact, older siblings may be more influential than parents or friends, according to a new study.”

Churches are the last institution to promote individual responsibility.

No. They’re the most prominent, certainly, but not the last.

I’d like you to cite this “last” claim of yours.

I’m trying to gauge what you think individual responsibility entails, if anything.

Not killing, stealing, raping, or otherwise infringing on another’s rights. Cursing, having visible undergarments, not holding the door open, etc. do not fall under this criteria.

You claimed religion, the US and humanity were “one in the same.”

No, I didn’t. I claimed that the flaws in religion, that you instead attributed to humanity, are one and the same.

I am saying, again, that you are attributing human flaws to the nearest, easiest, most popular targets: The US and Christians.

Are religion and the U.S. government not created by humans? Why can’t I criticize their flaws?

]]> By: CJ http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1539 CJ Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:54:33 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1539 “I asked you before what factor is more important to a child’s development than parenting. I don’t you told me.” *The child him or herself. Your self-parenting theory aside, how about besides the kid? *It’s a luxury in the sense that you have the options. There are a lot of people who would love to have your options. You don’t “have” options. You work your ass off to access the options available to everyone. In this case, the first thing you have to do is not cut the number of parents in the household by half. The first step toward that is choosing marriage. Even as a non-religious guy I acknowledge that the church is the only institution left to encourage this logical step in poverty-prevention. “If you do two things, it is virtually impossible to be poor in America” *Way, way, way too simplistic. Yet statistically accurate. *They’re relative. It’s nice to have them but I don’t think they should be enforced at any level. Relative to what? “Without societal norms discouraging boorish behavior, society becomes one big reality TV show.” *What is boorish? Society tends to get these definitions wrong. Many believe pornography is bad and degrading, when neither is true. Many believe homosexuality is a flaw when it’s really an inborn trait. Homosexuality is not a behavior. The fact that I actually have to define boorish behavior argues for, not against, the defense of “common” decency. Grabbing your crotch and showing your underwear and leering at girls and butting in line and cursing in public and cutting off a fellow driver and acting like a dick a sporting events so dads can’t take their sons, that’s boorish. Popular culture used to discourage it. Once the boomers took that over, religion used to discourage it. Once we kill religion, who will? The government can’t. *I don’t trust society to establish anything, they’re usually on the wrong side of it. But you’d trust it so establish a socialist government, giving it more control over individuals than ever in history. *Well, that’s what I’m saying. “Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy” — I’m fine with them being socially expected, as bad as society is on these things. As any parent will tell you, you can’t just sit back and “expect” good behavior. You have to encourage it. Again, it doesn’t come naturally. It’s the glaring weakness in the godless socialism thing. *Technically, they don’t take money from the rich unless it’s a country transitioning from the free market. A clean slate socialist nation won’t have economic classes, so there is no “rich” to take from. Everyone earns about the same amount. Since we would be a “transitioning” country, there’s going to be a lot of serious “enforcing” going on. And then, of course, all socialist nations have to enforce against the human instinct to better oneself. In addition to making sure no one is too poor, socialism has to enforce the soul-sucking rule that no one is too successful. *Similarly, all Communist nations are socialist, but not all socialist nations are Communist. That’s fine. It’s important for would-be socialists to know their cousins, though. They both require strict control. It’s just a matter of extremes. “I’m just demonstrating what happens when common courtesy is not enforced by the people.” *You’re making a broad generalization. As I’ve mentioned, it’s all subjective. No it isn’t. If that’s “subjective” than so is “oppression.” So everything is a matter of opinion. “Lots of things cause hate.” *Not as openly and as effectively (especially given the populations) as religion. Show me a socialist culture with “less hate.” Sweden? Where until recently everyone was pale white, and as soon as people of people of color moved in they experienced the same problems as the U.S.? Welfare states like France and England, where the exact same thing happened? Soviet Union, where ethnic hatred was subdued at the end of a gun, that once lifted retuned to the surface? See Bosnia, et al. “Hate” is just as likely socialist democracies with weak religion. *That’s not what I’m claiming. Religion is responsible for a large chunk of the wars, genocides, murders, slavery, and other forms of oppression in the history of this planet. Again, you seem to just be targeting history itself, not religion. Many of the wars attributed to religion are actually territorial disputes or ethnic clashes with associated religions. *Religion is reflective of humanity’s flaws. But without religion, it’s much harder to get millions of people go to along with gross infringements of human rights. I concede that, to a degree. Of course, human rights is subjective. *What I meant was that there’s a lot parents can’t do to affect the child. For instance, I was brought up in a highly religious, highly “Republican” family. I never had problems with my parents or anyone in my family, I never had struggles as a child, and I didn’t do well in school until I decided to put the effort in. Now, I’m a highly liberal, atheist with a 3.5 GPA. Hard to say, but it sounds like they did what two parent households do better than others: protected you the struggles and serious problems so that you would be able to succeed once you decided to put in the effort. “So the individual responsibility goes no further than supporting socialism and paying taxes. Am I close?” *I don’t understand what you’re getting at. It’s the whole point of the conversation. Churches are the last institution to promote individual responsibility. That’s why I think they serve a role that will need to be filled if they’re gone. I’m trying to gauge what you think individual responsibility entails, if anything. “I’m pretty sure humans predated the founding of the United States.” *Again, what? You claimed religion, the US and humanity were “one in the same.” I say they are clearly not. I am saying, again, that you are attributing human flaws to the nearest, easiest, most popular targets: The US and Christians. “I asked you before what factor is more important to a child’s development than parenting. I don’t you told me.”

*The child him or herself.

Your self-parenting theory aside, how about besides the kid?

*It’s a luxury in the sense that you have the options. There are a lot of people who would love to have your options.

You don’t “have” options. You work your ass off to access the options available to everyone. In this case, the first thing you have to do is not cut the number of parents in the household by half. The first step toward that is choosing marriage. Even as a non-religious guy I acknowledge that the church is the only institution left to encourage this logical step in poverty-prevention.

“If you do two things, it is virtually impossible to be poor in America”

*Way, way, way too simplistic.

Yet statistically accurate.

*They’re relative. It’s nice to have them but I don’t think they should be enforced at any level.
Relative to what?

“Without societal norms discouraging boorish behavior, society becomes one big reality TV show.”

*What is boorish? Society tends to get these definitions wrong. Many believe pornography is bad and degrading, when neither is true. Many believe homosexuality is a flaw when it’s really an inborn trait.

Homosexuality is not a behavior. The fact that I actually have to define boorish behavior argues for, not against, the defense of “common” decency. Grabbing your crotch and showing your underwear and leering at girls and butting in line and cursing in public and cutting off a fellow driver and acting like a dick a sporting events so dads can’t take their sons, that’s boorish. Popular culture used to discourage it. Once the boomers took that over, religion used to discourage it. Once we kill religion, who will? The government can’t.

*I don’t trust society to establish anything, they’re usually on the wrong side of it.

But you’d trust it so establish a socialist government, giving it more control over individuals than ever in history.

*Well, that’s what I’m saying. “Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy” — I’m fine with them being socially expected, as bad as society is on these things.

As any parent will tell you, you can’t just sit back and “expect” good behavior. You have to encourage it. Again, it doesn’t come naturally. It’s the glaring weakness in the godless socialism thing.

*Technically, they don’t take money from the rich unless it’s a country transitioning from the free market. A clean slate socialist nation won’t have economic classes, so there is no “rich” to take from. Everyone earns about the same amount.

Since we would be a “transitioning” country, there’s going to be a lot of serious “enforcing” going on. And then, of course, all socialist nations have to enforce against the human instinct to better oneself. In addition to making sure no one is too poor, socialism has to enforce the soul-sucking rule that no one is too successful.

*Similarly, all Communist nations are socialist, but not all socialist nations are Communist.

That’s fine. It’s important for would-be socialists to know their cousins, though. They both require strict control. It’s just a matter of extremes.

“I’m just demonstrating what happens when common courtesy is not enforced by the people.”

*You’re making a broad generalization. As I’ve mentioned, it’s all subjective.

No it isn’t. If that’s “subjective” than so is “oppression.” So everything is a matter of opinion.

“Lots of things cause hate.”

*Not as openly and as effectively (especially given the populations) as religion.

Show me a socialist culture with “less hate.” Sweden? Where until recently everyone was pale white, and as soon as people of people of color moved in they experienced the same problems as the U.S.? Welfare states like France and England, where the exact same thing happened? Soviet Union, where ethnic hatred was subdued at the end of a gun, that once lifted retuned to the surface? See Bosnia, et al. “Hate” is just as likely socialist democracies with weak religion.

*That’s not what I’m claiming. Religion is responsible for a large chunk of the wars, genocides, murders, slavery, and other forms of oppression in the history of this planet.

Again, you seem to just be targeting history itself, not religion. Many of the wars attributed to religion are actually territorial disputes or ethnic clashes with associated religions.

*Religion is reflective of humanity’s flaws. But without religion, it’s much harder to get millions of people go to along with gross infringements of human rights.

I concede that, to a degree. Of course, human rights is subjective.

*What I meant was that there’s a lot parents can’t do to affect the child. For instance, I was brought up in a highly religious, highly “Republican” family. I never had problems with my parents or anyone in my family, I never had struggles as a child, and I didn’t do well in school until I decided to put the effort in. Now, I’m a highly liberal, atheist with a 3.5 GPA.

Hard to say, but it sounds like they did what two parent households do better than others: protected you the struggles and serious problems so that you would be able to succeed once you decided to put in the effort.

“So the individual responsibility goes no further than supporting socialism and paying taxes. Am I close?”

*I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

It’s the whole point of the conversation. Churches are the last institution to promote individual responsibility. That’s why I think they serve a role that will need to be filled if they’re gone. I’m trying to gauge what you think individual responsibility entails, if anything.

“I’m pretty sure humans predated the founding of the United States.”

*Again, what?

You claimed religion, the US and humanity were “one in the same.” I say they are clearly not. I am saying, again, that you are attributing human flaws to the nearest, easiest, most popular targets: The US and Christians.

]]> By: Bill Baer http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1534 Bill Baer Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:34:14 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1534 <i>I asked you before what factor is more important to a child’s development than parenting. I don’t you told me.</i> The child him or herself. <i>It’s not a “luxury,” Bill. It’s a sacrifice.</i> It's a luxury in the sense that you have the options. There are a lot of people who would love to have your options. <i>If you do two things, it is virtually impossible to be poor in America</i> Way, way, way too simplistic. <i>It seems you think they don’t.</i> They're relative. It's nice to have them but I don't think they should be enforced at any level. <i>Without societal norms discouraging boorish behavior, society becomes one big reality TV show.</i> What is boorish? Society tends to get these definitions wrong. Many believe pornography is bad and degrading, when neither is true. Many believe homosexuality is a flaw when it's really an inborn trait. I don't trust society to establish anything, they're usually on the wrong side of it. <i>We “enforce” lots of cultural traits in this country without the government.</i> Well, that's what I'm saying. "Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy" -- I'm fine with them being socially expected, as bad as society is on these things. <i>And actually, socialists are the ultimate “enforcers” of compassion</i> Technically, they don't take money from the rich unless it's a country transitioning from the free market. A clean slate socialist nation won't have economic classes, so there is no "rich" to take from. Everyone earns about the same amount. <i>They’re also pretty good at enforcing political views, as the residents of Castro’s prisons will tell you</i> This is a common misconception. Think of Communism like a rectangle and socialism like a square. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Similarly, all Communist nations are socialist, but not all socialist nations are Communist. Cuba is Communist -- it's socioeconomic. <i>I’m not the first to suggest it.</i> I don't get your point (what you said after this). <i>I’m just demonstrating what happens when common courtesy is not enforced by the people.</i> You're making a broad generalization. As I've mentioned, it's all subjective. <i>Lots of things cause hate.</i> Not as openly and as effectively (especially given the populations) as religion. <i>I don’t buy the idea that history would have been all love and sunshine if not for religion.</i> That's not what I'm claiming. Religion is responsible for a large chunk of the wars, genocides, murders, slavery, and other forms of oppression in the history of this planet. Without religion, you'd still have war and genocide and murder and slavery and oppression, but significantly less and it'd have been much harder to get people into agreeing with it. Religion is the ultimate cop-out: there's a supreme being out there, but you can't see him. And if you don't obey him, he'll punish you. That was enough to get primitive people to buy into whatever those in power were selling. And more and more and more people bought into it. <i>I’m sure that religious policy reflected humanity’s flaws at least as much as it dictated those flaws.</i> Religion is reflective of humanity's flaws. But without religion, it's much harder to get millions of people go to along with gross infringements of human rights. <i>I’m sure you don’t really think a 5-year-old is “responsible” for developing traits and skills he doesn’t know exist.</i> What I meant was that there's a lot parents can't do to affect the child. For instance, I was brought up in a highly religious, highly "Republican" family. I never had problems with my parents or anyone in my family, I never had struggles as a child, and I didn't do well in school until I decided to put the effort in. Now, I'm a highly liberal, atheist with a 3.5 GPA. I don't think my parents had a lot to do with my development aside from keeping me alive. <i>So the individual responsibility goes no further than supporting socialism and paying taxes. Am I close?</i> I don't understand what you're getting at. <i>I’m pretty sure humans predated the founding of the United States.</i> Again, what? Christianity isn't just relegated to the U.S. They have and have had significant numbers throughout the world throughout history. I asked you before what factor is more important to a child’s development than parenting. I don’t you told me.

The child him or herself.

It’s not a “luxury,” Bill. It’s a sacrifice.

It’s a luxury in the sense that you have the options. There are a lot of people who would love to have your options.

If you do two things, it is virtually impossible to be poor in America

Way, way, way too simplistic.

It seems you think they don’t.

They’re relative. It’s nice to have them but I don’t think they should be enforced at any level.

Without societal norms discouraging boorish behavior, society becomes one big reality TV show.

What is boorish? Society tends to get these definitions wrong. Many believe pornography is bad and degrading, when neither is true. Many believe homosexuality is a flaw when it’s really an inborn trait.

I don’t trust society to establish anything, they’re usually on the wrong side of it.

We “enforce” lots of cultural traits in this country without the government.

Well, that’s what I’m saying. “Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy” — I’m fine with them being socially expected, as bad as society is on these things.

And actually, socialists are the ultimate “enforcers” of compassion

Technically, they don’t take money from the rich unless it’s a country transitioning from the free market. A clean slate socialist nation won’t have economic classes, so there is no “rich” to take from. Everyone earns about the same amount.

They’re also pretty good at enforcing political views, as the residents of Castro’s prisons will tell you

This is a common misconception. Think of Communism like a rectangle and socialism like a square. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Similarly, all Communist nations are socialist, but not all socialist nations are Communist.

Cuba is Communist — it’s socioeconomic.

I’m not the first to suggest it.

I don’t get your point (what you said after this).

I’m just demonstrating what happens when common courtesy is not enforced by the people.

You’re making a broad generalization. As I’ve mentioned, it’s all subjective.

Lots of things cause hate.

Not as openly and as effectively (especially given the populations) as religion.

I don’t buy the idea that history would have been all love and sunshine if not for religion.

That’s not what I’m claiming. Religion is responsible for a large chunk of the wars, genocides, murders, slavery, and other forms of oppression in the history of this planet.

Without religion, you’d still have war and genocide and murder and slavery and oppression, but significantly less and it’d have been much harder to get people into agreeing with it. Religion is the ultimate cop-out: there’s a supreme being out there, but you can’t see him. And if you don’t obey him, he’ll punish you.

That was enough to get primitive people to buy into whatever those in power were selling. And more and more and more people bought into it.

I’m sure that religious policy reflected humanity’s flaws at least as much as it dictated those flaws.

Religion is reflective of humanity’s flaws. But without religion, it’s much harder to get millions of people go to along with gross infringements of human rights.

I’m sure you don’t really think a 5-year-old is “responsible” for developing traits and skills he doesn’t know exist.

What I meant was that there’s a lot parents can’t do to affect the child. For instance, I was brought up in a highly religious, highly “Republican” family. I never had problems with my parents or anyone in my family, I never had struggles as a child, and I didn’t do well in school until I decided to put the effort in. Now, I’m a highly liberal, atheist with a 3.5 GPA.

I don’t think my parents had a lot to do with my development aside from keeping me alive.

So the individual responsibility goes no further than supporting socialism and paying taxes. Am I close?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

I’m pretty sure humans predated the founding of the United States.

Again, what?

Christianity isn’t just relegated to the U.S. They have and have had significant numbers throughout the world throughout history.

]]> By: CJ http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1533 CJ Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:09:00 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1533 *[Parenting] Overwhelming? I don’t think so. It is a factor, that I am not denying. As I said, I think it’s being overstated. I asked you before what factor is more important to a child’s development than parenting. I don’t you told me. *Not everyone has the luxury to have the schedule you and your wife have. I assume both you and your wife are high school graduates and at least have some college seasoning, no? It’s not a “luxury,” Bill. It’s a sacrifice. You don’t “have” a schedule, you make one. She worked in accounting and put that aside to take lesser jobs in evenings and weekends. Yes, like the vast majority of Americans we are high school graduates. We also went to college. Again, it all took work. Some do it, some don’t. We also waited until we got married to have kids. If you do two things, it is virtually impossible to be poor in America: graduate from high school and get married before you have kids. But you won’t find many “advocates” sharing that nugget, and you won’t find hardly anyone outside of religion to share the second tip. “But they exist, right? Define them how you will, but they matter, right?” *The great thing about what you’ve mentioned — “Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy” — is that they, for the most part, are not enforced. When you start enforcing them, they completely lose their meaning. I asked if you think they matter. It seems you think they don’t. And of course they are “enforced” – by the people. They don’t come naturally. Being selfish is natural. Self-promotion is natural. Without societal norms discouraging boorish behavior, society becomes one big reality TV show. *I’m a moral relativist and, as a socialist, I’m all for civility and compassion and all that. I’m against enforcing it as you seem to want. How did we “enforce” respect for gays and minorities and women in the workplace (to the extent we have)? Through laws, or by encouraging them via culture – films, TV, music, news articles, etc.? We “enforce” lots of cultural traits in this country without the government. And actually, socialists are the ultimate “enforcers” of compassion – they take money from those who have “too “much” and redistribute to those “in need.” (They’re also pretty good at enforcing political views, as the residents of Castro’s prisons will tell you.) “Well, going back to your claim: when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws Can you cite this in any way? It seems like something you just threw out there.” I’m not the first to suggest it. The theater cell phone ban and women-only buses were two examples. Speech and “dating” codes on college campuses are others. Once-unregulated acts now regulated right in the bastions ‘don’t judge others’ campuses. *Do you really need to enforce a “no cell phones” rule? It’s a slipperly slope to authoritarianism. I personally have no problem with cell phones in movie theaters and rarely have a problem with obnoxious talkers, incessant ringtones, and the like. I think you’re just taking a problem and exaggerating it (as others have). I didn’t pass the law. NY City Council did. I’m not for it, I’m just demonstrating what happens when common courtesy is not enforced by the people. Surely you know people who will tell you there are movie theaters they can’t go to anymore because they’ve become too rowdy, beyond phone use. They used to be a place where people could come together. Something changed. “But most of them ARE good people. As good as you or the average person.” *I disagree. Religion warps the mind; it makes people not only hate themselves, but hate others. Lots of things cause hate. They remain, on average, as good as you or the average person. “Name me one centuries-old society or institution that didn’t feature one or all of those sins.” *You’re being an apologist for religion by using the “but everybody else was doing it!” No, I’m challenging your claim that religion is unique regarding women and slavery. I don’t buy the idea that history would have been all love and sunshine if not for religion. I’m sure that religious policy reflected humanity’s flaws at least as much as it dictated those flaws. I could be wrong, but you could be as well. *Children are most responsible for their development. This makes much more sense now that I know you’re a socialist. It relieves individuals – parents – from the bulk of responsibility and shifts it to the collective society. I’m sure you don’t really think a 5-year-old is “responsible” for developing traits and skills he doesn’t know exist. But, a government preschool program would. So the individual responsibility goes no further than supporting socialism and paying taxes. Am I close? “My point is, those things didn’t happen because of religion, or Christianity, or America. They were flaws in humanity.” *They’re one and the same. I’m pretty sure humans predated the founding of the United States. *[Parenting] Overwhelming? I don’t think so. It is a factor, that I am not denying. As I said, I think it’s being overstated.

I asked you before what factor is more important to a child’s development than parenting. I don’t you told me.

*Not everyone has the luxury to have the schedule you and your wife have. I assume both you and your wife are high school graduates and at least have some college seasoning, no?

It’s not a “luxury,” Bill. It’s a sacrifice. You don’t “have” a schedule, you make one. She worked in accounting and put that aside to take lesser jobs in evenings and weekends. Yes, like the vast majority of Americans we are high school graduates. We also went to college. Again, it all took work. Some do it, some don’t. We also waited until we got married to have kids. If you do two things, it is virtually impossible to be poor in America: graduate from high school and get married before you have kids. But you won’t find many “advocates” sharing that nugget, and you won’t find hardly anyone outside of religion to share the second tip.

“But they exist, right? Define them how you will, but they matter, right?”

*The great thing about what you’ve mentioned — “Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy” — is that they, for the most part, are not enforced. When you start enforcing them, they completely lose their meaning.

I asked if you think they matter. It seems you think they don’t. And of course they are “enforced” – by the people. They don’t come naturally. Being selfish is natural. Self-promotion is natural. Without societal norms discouraging boorish behavior, society becomes one big reality TV show.

*I’m a moral relativist and, as a socialist, I’m all for civility and compassion and all that. I’m against enforcing it as you seem to want.

How did we “enforce” respect for gays and minorities and women in the workplace (to the extent we have)? Through laws, or by encouraging them via culture – films, TV, music, news articles, etc.? We “enforce” lots of cultural traits in this country without the government.
And actually, socialists are the ultimate “enforcers” of compassion – they take money from those who have “too “much” and redistribute to those “in need.” (They’re also pretty good at enforcing political views, as the residents of Castro’s prisons will tell you.)

“Well, going back to your claim: when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws Can you cite this in any way? It seems like something you just threw out there.”

I’m not the first to suggest it. The theater cell phone ban and women-only buses were two examples. Speech and “dating” codes on college campuses are others. Once-unregulated acts now regulated right in the bastions ‘don’t judge others’ campuses.

*Do you really need to enforce a “no cell phones” rule? It’s a slipperly slope to authoritarianism. I personally have no problem with cell phones in movie theaters and rarely have a problem with obnoxious talkers, incessant ringtones, and the like. I think you’re just taking a problem and exaggerating it (as others have).

I didn’t pass the law. NY City Council did. I’m not for it, I’m just demonstrating what happens when common courtesy is not enforced by the people. Surely you know people who will tell you there are movie theaters they can’t go to anymore because they’ve become too rowdy, beyond phone use. They used to be a place where people could come together. Something changed.

“But most of them ARE good people. As good as you or the average person.”

*I disagree. Religion warps the mind; it makes people not only hate themselves, but hate others.

Lots of things cause hate. They remain, on average, as good as you or the average person.

“Name me one centuries-old society or institution that didn’t feature one or all of those sins.”

*You’re being an apologist for religion by using the “but everybody else was doing it!”

No, I’m challenging your claim that religion is unique regarding women and slavery. I don’t buy the idea that history would have been all love and sunshine if not for religion. I’m sure that religious policy reflected humanity’s flaws at least as much as it dictated those flaws. I could be wrong, but you could be as well.

*Children are most responsible for their development.

This makes much more sense now that I know you’re a socialist. It relieves individuals – parents – from the bulk of responsibility and shifts it to the collective society. I’m sure you don’t really think a 5-year-old is “responsible” for developing traits and skills he doesn’t know exist. But, a government preschool program would. So the individual responsibility goes no further than supporting socialism and paying taxes. Am I close?

“My point is, those things didn’t happen because of religion, or Christianity, or America. They were flaws in humanity.”

*They’re one and the same.

I’m pretty sure humans predated the founding of the United States.

]]> By: Bill Baer http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1522 Bill Baer Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:38:27 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1522 <i>Parenting matters. Parents matter. It is indeed the overwhelming factor.</i> Overwhelming? I don't think so. It is a factor, that I am not denying. As I said, I think it's being overstated. <i>In real life, people do what my wife and I do.</i> Not everyone has the luxury to have the schedule you and your wife have. I assume both you and your wife are high school graduates and at least have some college seasoning, no? <i>But they exist, right? Define them how you will, but they matter, right?</i> The great thing about what you've mentioned -- "Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy" -- is that they, for the most part, are not enforced. When you start enforcing them, they completely lose their meaning. <i>Huh? The only people who believe in common decency are “more absolutists?”</i> No. I'm a moral relativist and, as a socialist, I'm all for civility and compassion and all that. I'm against enforcing it as you seem to want. <i>once the stuffy old teacher lets lightens up and drinks Mountain Dew, she’s does back flips and all is well.</i> Well, going back to your claim: <i>when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws</i> Can you cite this in any way? It seems like something you just threw out there. <i>you gotta pay people to enforce what was formerly enforced by societal standards</i> Do you really need to enforce a "no cell phones" rule? It's a slipperly slope to authoritarianism. I personally have no problem with cell phones in movie theaters and rarely have a problem with obnoxious talkers, incessant ringtones, and the like. I think you're just taking a problem and exaggerating it (as others have). <i>But most of them ARE good people. As good as you or the average person.</i> I disagree. Religion warps the mind; it makes people not only hate themselves, but hate others. <i>Name me one centuries-old society or institution that didn’t feature one or all of those sins.</i> You're being an apologist for religion by using the "but everybody else was doing it!" Religion, as a whole, has billions of adherents -- probably between 67% and 75%. Before the last 50 years or so, it was a larger percentage. Thus, a large percentage of the world's population was told to view women as inferior and to embrace slavery. There is no institution that even remotely compares to religion in terms of population. And that's why religion has been and continues to be so dangerous. <i>But combined with you’re refusal to acknowledge that individuals are most responsible for the development of their children</i> Children are most responsible for their development. <i>it seems that you’re just targeting whatever authority symbol you can</i> I think what you're trying to say is that I'm naturally (and correctly) skeptical of anyone who is in a position of power. And that's true. I question the U.S. government almost as harshly as I question religion. <i>My point is, those things didn’t happen because of religion, or Christianity, or America. They were flaws in humanity.</i> They're one and the same. Parenting matters. Parents matter. It is indeed the overwhelming factor.

Overwhelming? I don’t think so. It is a factor, that I am not denying. As I said, I think it’s being overstated.

In real life, people do what my wife and I do.

Not everyone has the luxury to have the schedule you and your wife have. I assume both you and your wife are high school graduates and at least have some college seasoning, no?

But they exist, right? Define them how you will, but they matter, right?

The great thing about what you’ve mentioned — “Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy” — is that they, for the most part, are not enforced. When you start enforcing them, they completely lose their meaning.

Huh? The only people who believe in common decency are “more absolutists?”

No. I’m a moral relativist and, as a socialist, I’m all for civility and compassion and all that. I’m against enforcing it as you seem to want.

once the stuffy old teacher lets lightens up and drinks Mountain Dew, she’s does back flips and all is well.

Well, going back to your claim: when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws

Can you cite this in any way? It seems like something you just threw out there.

you gotta pay people to enforce what was formerly enforced by societal standards

Do you really need to enforce a “no cell phones” rule? It’s a slipperly slope to authoritarianism. I personally have no problem with cell phones in movie theaters and rarely have a problem with obnoxious talkers, incessant ringtones, and the like. I think you’re just taking a problem and exaggerating it (as others have).

But most of them ARE good people. As good as you or the average person.

I disagree. Religion warps the mind; it makes people not only hate themselves, but hate others.

Name me one centuries-old society or institution that didn’t feature one or all of those sins.

You’re being an apologist for religion by using the “but everybody else was doing it!”

Religion, as a whole, has billions of adherents — probably between 67% and 75%. Before the last 50 years or so, it was a larger percentage. Thus, a large percentage of the world’s population was told to view women as inferior and to embrace slavery.

There is no institution that even remotely compares to religion in terms of population. And that’s why religion has been and continues to be so dangerous.

But combined with you’re refusal to acknowledge that individuals are most responsible for the development of their children

Children are most responsible for their development.

it seems that you’re just targeting whatever authority symbol you can

I think what you’re trying to say is that I’m naturally (and correctly) skeptical of anyone who is in a position of power. And that’s true. I question the U.S. government almost as harshly as I question religion.

My point is, those things didn’t happen because of religion, or Christianity, or America. They were flaws in humanity.

They’re one and the same.

]]> By: CJ http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1519 CJ Sun, 10 Feb 2008 22:23:12 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1519 Damn. I responded to this a couple days ago and it didn’t take. Have to do it again…Fuck “Meaning, what’s more important? Money?” *I don’t believe there’s one overwhelming factor that positively or negatively influences a child’s development. I think you’re up against science on this one Bill. Parenting matters. Parents matter. It is indeed the overwhelming factor. It just sucks that we can’t protest bad parents, or throw money at the problem. “One income vs. two, for starters.” *Aren’t two-income families worse, since the child is never around the parents? That seems to go against your theory. On TV maybe. In real life, people do what my wife and I do. She works nights and weekends. The kids are always around a parent, and we’re able to earn two incomes. (1.5 really.) She sacrificed a lot to do that. “Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy, etc…just let ‘em die?” *All those are subjective. But they exist, right? Define them how you will, but they matter, right? “There’s a reason it’s called *common* decency and *common* courtesy. They are expected to be shared traits.” *Well, I guess you’re a moral absolutist then? I’m a moral relativist. Huh? The only people who believe in common decency are “more absolutists?” “Funny thing is, when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws.” *Irony at its finest. Actually, it’s not “irony,” since the results are totally expected. It’s just “surprising” because it doesn’t follow pop wisdom: once the stuffy old teacher lets lightens up and drinks Mountain Dew, she’s does back flips and all is well. “Holy Jeebus, NYC had to pass a LAW to get people to turn off their cell phones in movie theaters.” *That’s pathetic on the legislators’ part. The movie theater could’ve just enforced a “no cell phones” rule and had a couple people in each room. You’d think. But you acknowledge the challenge: you gotta pay people to enforce what was formerly enforced by societal standards. (And good luck finding the teenage help able to intimidate obnoxious adults into turning off their phones.) “There aren’t enough laws to keep Mexican men from groping women on buses anymore, so the guvment had to start a women-only bus service.” *Is this in Mexico? If not, I don’t see the significance of their being Mexican. Of course it’s in Mexico. Google it. It’s a capitalist democracy, like us, that had to resort to absurd measures when it realized there aren’t enough police to cover for a population that used to be able to police itself. “You minimize the tens of millions of dollars in charity provided through the years, and flat-out deny the rest.” *If I acknowledged that the money they’ve raised for different causes makes them good people, it’d basically be like allowing them to buy their way out of their wrongdoings. But most of them ARE good people. As good as you or the average person. *I’m sorry, but endorsing slavery, misogyny, the mistreatment of animals, and genocide is something that no amount of money will ever erase. Name me one centuries-old society or institution that didn’t feature one or all of those sins. *I don’t argue against religion as an atheist; I argue against religion as a human being. My atheism, rhetorically, has nothing to do with being anti-religion. That’s reasonable. But combined with you’re refusal to acknowledge that individuals are most responsible for the development of their children, it seems that you’re just targeting whatever authority symbol you can. *While I would like to see organized religion fade away, I would like to stress that I wouldn’t want this to happen legislatively, i.e. by restricting or banning religion. I think that’s what you’re alluding to and that’s not what I’m supporting. I don’t think you support that at all. It’s clear religion will fade away, mainly because people can’t buy into a supreme being or an afterlife. I’m with you on a lot. First, the whole god thing. Second, and more importantly to you, the role religion played in a lot of bad stuff throughout history. My point is, those things didn’t happen because of religion, or Christianity, or America. They were flaws in humanity. If you can accept that modest suggestion, you’ll be able to consider that maybe the religious finger-waggers served a non-religious purpose that we should step up to fill. The Phils are on their way to Fla. Damn. I responded to this a couple days ago and it didn’t take. Have to do it again…Fuck

“Meaning, what’s more important? Money?”

*I don’t believe there’s one overwhelming factor that positively or negatively influences a child’s development.

I think you’re up against science on this one Bill. Parenting matters. Parents matter. It is indeed the overwhelming factor. It just sucks that we can’t protest bad parents, or throw money at the problem.

“One income vs. two, for starters.”

*Aren’t two-income families worse, since the child is never around the parents? That seems to go against your theory.

On TV maybe. In real life, people do what my wife and I do. She works nights and weekends. The kids are always around a parent, and we’re able to earn two incomes. (1.5 really.) She sacrificed a lot to do that.

“Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy, etc…just let ‘em die?”

*All those are subjective.

But they exist, right? Define them how you will, but they matter, right?

“There’s a reason it’s called *common* decency and *common* courtesy. They are expected to be shared traits.”

*Well, I guess you’re a moral absolutist then? I’m a moral relativist.

Huh? The only people who believe in common decency are “more absolutists?”

“Funny thing is, when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws.”

*Irony at its finest.

Actually, it’s not “irony,” since the results are totally expected. It’s just “surprising” because it doesn’t follow pop wisdom: once the stuffy old teacher lets lightens up and drinks Mountain Dew, she’s does back flips and all is well.

“Holy Jeebus, NYC had to pass a LAW to get people to turn off their cell phones in movie theaters.”

*That’s pathetic on the legislators’ part. The movie theater could’ve just enforced a “no cell phones” rule and had a couple people in each room.

You’d think. But you acknowledge the challenge: you gotta pay people to enforce what was formerly enforced by societal standards. (And good luck finding the teenage help able to intimidate obnoxious adults into turning off their phones.)

“There aren’t enough laws to keep Mexican men from groping women on buses anymore, so the guvment had to start a women-only bus service.”

*Is this in Mexico? If not, I don’t see the significance of their being Mexican.

Of course it’s in Mexico. Google it. It’s a capitalist democracy, like us, that had to resort to absurd measures when it realized there aren’t enough police to cover for a population that used to be able to police itself.

“You minimize the tens of millions of dollars in charity provided through the years, and flat-out deny the rest.”

*If I acknowledged that the money they’ve raised for different causes makes them good people, it’d basically be like allowing them to buy their way out of their wrongdoings.

But most of them ARE good people. As good as you or the average person.

*I’m sorry, but endorsing slavery, misogyny, the mistreatment of animals, and genocide is something that no amount of money will ever erase.

Name me one centuries-old society or institution that didn’t feature one or all of those sins.

*I don’t argue against religion as an atheist; I argue against religion as a human being. My atheism, rhetorically, has nothing to do with being anti-religion.

That’s reasonable. But combined with you’re refusal to acknowledge that individuals are most responsible for the development of their children, it seems that you’re just targeting whatever authority symbol you can.

*While I would like to see organized religion fade away, I would like to stress that I wouldn’t want this to happen legislatively, i.e. by restricting or banning religion. I think that’s what you’re alluding to and that’s not what I’m supporting.

I don’t think you support that at all. It’s clear religion will fade away, mainly because people can’t buy into a supreme being or an afterlife. I’m with you on a lot. First, the whole god thing. Second, and more importantly to you, the role religion played in a lot of bad stuff throughout history. My point is, those things didn’t happen because of religion, or Christianity, or America. They were flaws in humanity. If you can accept that modest suggestion, you’ll be able to consider that maybe the religious finger-waggers served a non-religious purpose that we should step up to fill.

The Phils are on their way to Fla.

]]> By: Bill B. http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1445 Bill B. Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:38:51 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1445 <i>Meaning, what’s more important? Money?</i> I don't believe there's one overwhelming factor that positively or negatively influences a child's development. <i>One income vs. two, for starters.</i> Aren't two-income families worse, since the child is never around the parents? That seems to go against your theory. <i>Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy, etc…just let ‘em die?</i> All those are subjective. <i>There’s a reason it’s called *common* decency and *common* courtesy. They are expected to be shared traits.</i> Well, I guess you're a moral absolutist then? I'm a moral relativist. <i>Funny thing is, when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws.</i> Irony at its finest. <i>Holy Jeebus, NYC had to pass a LAW to get people to turn off their cell phones in movie theaters.</i> That's pathetic on the legislators' part. The movie theater could've just enforced a "no cell phones" rule and had a couple people in each room. <i>There aren’t enough laws to keep Mexican men from groping women on buses anymore, so the guvment had to start a women-only bus service.</i> Is this in Mexico? If not, I don't see the significance of their being Mexican. <i>You minimize the tens of millions of dollars in charity provided through the years, and flat-out deny the rest.</i> If I acknowledged that the money they've raised for different causes makes them good people, it'd basically be like allowing them to buy their way out of their wrongdoings. Their wrongdoings are far, far, far worse than anything positive they've done. I'm sorry, but endorsing slavery, misogyny, the mistreatment of animals, and genocide is something that no amount of money will ever erase. <i>You’re well-versed on the oft-cited bad stuff, but you must think that acknowledging anything positive will weaken the atheist argument</i> I don't argue against religion as an atheist; I argue against religion as a human being. My atheism, rhetorically, has nothing to do with being anti-religion. <i>or slow the demise of organized religion.</i> While I would like to see organized religion fade away, I would like to stress that I wouldn't want this to happen legislatively, i.e. by restricting or banning religion. I think that's what you're alluding to and that's not what I'm supporting. Meaning, what’s more important? Money?

I don’t believe there’s one overwhelming factor that positively or negatively influences a child’s development.

One income vs. two, for starters.

Aren’t two-income families worse, since the child is never around the parents? That seems to go against your theory.

Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy, etc…just let ‘em die?

All those are subjective.

There’s a reason it’s called *common* decency and *common* courtesy. They are expected to be shared traits.

Well, I guess you’re a moral absolutist then? I’m a moral relativist.

Funny thing is, when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws.

Irony at its finest.

Holy Jeebus, NYC had to pass a LAW to get people to turn off their cell phones in movie theaters.

That’s pathetic on the legislators’ part. The movie theater could’ve just enforced a “no cell phones” rule and had a couple people in each room.

There aren’t enough laws to keep Mexican men from groping women on buses anymore, so the guvment had to start a women-only bus service.

Is this in Mexico? If not, I don’t see the significance of their being Mexican.

You minimize the tens of millions of dollars in charity provided through the years, and flat-out deny the rest.

If I acknowledged that the money they’ve raised for different causes makes them good people, it’d basically be like allowing them to buy their way out of their wrongdoings. Their wrongdoings are far, far, far worse than anything positive they’ve done.

I’m sorry, but endorsing slavery, misogyny, the mistreatment of animals, and genocide is something that no amount of money will ever erase.

You’re well-versed on the oft-cited bad stuff, but you must think that acknowledging anything positive will weaken the atheist argument

I don’t argue against religion as an atheist; I argue against religion as a human being. My atheism, rhetorically, has nothing to do with being anti-religion.

or slow the demise of organized religion.

While I would like to see organized religion fade away, I would like to stress that I wouldn’t want this to happen legislatively, i.e. by restricting or banning religion. I think that’s what you’re alluding to and that’s not what I’m supporting.

]]> By: CJ http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1418 CJ Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:11:18 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1418 “It’s overstated only if you think the effect of parenting is overstated when it comes to a child’s intellectual development” *I do Meaning, what’s more important? Money? Other things are more important, the ones that individuals can be excused of being responsible for? I think research is on my side here. “if you think the effect of income-earners is overstated in household poverty.” *What, specifically? One income vs. two, for starters. *The assumption here is that behavior needs to be regulated. In extreme cases — murder, rape, theft — it does, but in cases you cited — polygamy, foul language — behavior regulation is not needed in the least. Really? All those things that the guvment can’t regulate: Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy, etc…just let ‘em die? Because they don’t exist if society doesn’t have the balls to insist on them. There’s a reason it’s called *common* decency and *common* courtesy. They are expected to be shared traits. They don’t just happen. (Polygamy?) Funny thing is, when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws. Holy Jeebus, NYC had to pass a LAW to get people to turn off their cell phones in movie theaters. When free people say they don’t want to police each other’s behavior, it doesn’t mean the behavior doesn’t have to be regulated, or that people are suddenly OK with people acting like dicks. It just means the government has to do it. There aren’t enough laws to keep Mexican men from groping women on buses anymore, so the guvment had to start a women-only bus service. That’s what you get when free people refuse to policy themselves. This explains why you won’t acknowledge that the church does anything worthwhile. You minimize the tens of millions of dollars in charity provided through the years, and flat-out deny the rest. You’re well-versed on the oft-cited bad stuff, but you must think that acknowledging anything positive will weaken the atheist argument, or slow the demise of organized religion. I think it’s just the opposite Bill. “It’s overstated only if you think the effect of parenting is overstated when it comes to a child’s intellectual development”

*I do

Meaning, what’s more important? Money? Other things are more important, the ones that individuals can be excused of being responsible for? I think research is on my side here.

“if you think the effect of income-earners is overstated in household poverty.”

*What, specifically?

One income vs. two, for starters.

*The assumption here is that behavior needs to be regulated. In extreme cases — murder, rape, theft — it does, but in cases you cited — polygamy, foul language — behavior regulation is not needed in the least.

Really? All those things that the guvment can’t regulate: Civility. Humility. Compassion. Courtesy, etc…just let ‘em die? Because they don’t exist if society doesn’t have the balls to insist on them. There’s a reason it’s called *common* decency and *common* courtesy. They are expected to be shared traits. They don’t just happen.

(Polygamy?)

Funny thing is, when you stop enforcing common courtesy, you don’t get a more free culture, you get more rules, and more laws. Holy Jeebus, NYC had to pass a LAW to get people to turn off their cell phones in movie theaters. When free people say they don’t want to police each other’s behavior, it doesn’t mean the behavior doesn’t have to be regulated, or that people are suddenly OK with people acting like dicks. It just means the government has to do it. There aren’t enough laws to keep Mexican men from groping women on buses anymore, so the guvment had to start a women-only bus service. That’s what you get when free people refuse to policy themselves.

This explains why you won’t acknowledge that the church does anything worthwhile. You minimize the tens of millions of dollars in charity provided through the years, and flat-out deny the rest. You’re well-versed on the oft-cited bad stuff, but you must think that acknowledging anything positive will weaken the atheist argument, or slow the demise of organized religion. I think it’s just the opposite Bill.

]]> By: Bill Baer http://crashburnalley.com/2008/01/23/fuck-jesus-raymond-burke-and-bill-donohue/comment-page-1/#comment-1389 Bill Baer Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:47:17 +0000 http://crashburnalley.com/?p=71#comment-1389 <i>It’s overstated only if you think the effect of parenting is overstated when it comes to a child’s intellectual development</i> I do. <i>if you think the effect of income-earners is overstated in household poverty.</i> What, specifically? <i>I guess we disagree on the meaning of “useful.”</i> What I mean is that religion provides nothing unique. <i>Again, I wouldn’t mind replacing a religious myth with some regular societal pressure, but we don’t pressure people to behave anymore.</i> The assumption here is that behavior needs to be regulated. In extreme cases -- murder, rape, theft -- it does, but in cases you cited -- polygamy, foul language -- behavior regulation is not needed in the least. <i>It doesn’t come naturally, and I see no evidence that any institution outside of religion will do the work.</i> Knowing that it's wrong to kill, rape, and steal doesn't come naturally? Of course not, but again, do we need religion to enforce this? Absolutely not. It’s overstated only if you think the effect of parenting is overstated when it comes to a child’s intellectual development

I do.

if you think the effect of income-earners is overstated in household poverty.

What, specifically?

I guess we disagree on the meaning of “useful.”

What I mean is that religion provides nothing unique.

Again, I wouldn’t mind replacing a religious myth with some regular societal pressure, but we don’t pressure people to behave anymore.

The assumption here is that behavior needs to be regulated. In extreme cases — murder, rape, theft — it does, but in cases you cited — polygamy, foul language — behavior regulation is not needed in the least.

It doesn’t come naturally, and I see no evidence that any institution outside of religion will do the work.

Knowing that it’s wrong to kill, rape, and steal doesn’t come naturally? Of course not, but again, do we need religion to enforce this? Absolutely not.

]]>