Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Why do you draw a distinction between impugning a political ideology as a whole based on the actions of some of its adherents, and impugning a religious ideology as a whole based on the actions of some of its adherents?
“I am Darth Umbravon, and I am the darkness, I am the Shadow of the Sith!”
I'm not giving them a pass, what I'm saying is there are some things that go beyond religion. Not killing people is usually universal no matter what you believe. Theft, rape, and molestation should be too. There are things specific to religions, this is not one of them.
So I don't think party matters for Republican child molesters anymore than it matters for a Democrat.
__________________ But we all got a Chicken-Duck-Woman thing waiting for us.
But what I'm saying is that it's extra slimy for the religious Right to hide behind their supposed moral high ground and be molesting children behind closed doors. Like if we found out tomorrow, for example, that Pat Robertson had been molesting children for years when he had the gall to be condemning people in the name of God so blatantly.
The Left [should be] by definition more secular and because of the stronghold that religion still has on the country, the Right still probably likes to think that it has the moral high ground.
Yes, I know to us atheists it sounds ridiculous, but that's our politics. The religious Right has the "moral absolutes," not like us heathen "moral relativists" on the Left. So in that sense the Right has the moral high ground.
A religious person would inherit values while a non-religious one owns and builds their own making them objectively more responsible of their actions. A religious person can be forgiven by a higher benevolent power in a proportion non dependant on the atrocities they may commit too (which are widely dependant on the religious values we are talking about).
I've stumbled into atheists that argue that religious morality is obsolete, thus claiming by extension that they are aware of a superior morality. I don't believe the Left in the US is meant to embody this principle, but you can see similar mentalities in historical parties like the Comunists.
Change "objectively" to "in my opinion" or "subjectively." In fact, it would appear a person who sets their own morals would be more subjective than a large religion that has been changing those morals over long periods of time (averaging moral opinion that, in general, works for the preservation and prosperity of humans as a collective which is really what religion (most of them) is about).
This is a nice segue into this topic because you seem to be leading the topic in this direction:
(please log in to view the image)
I do not agree with this chart.....for the most part.
Last edited by dadudemon on Sep 13th, 2017 at 07:14 PM
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
If you think about it, by him saying that it's worse when the right does it. he is essentially saying that the right are better people and thus should be held to a higher standard.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.