Some people are stupid
Like this guy, “andrew”, who posted a comment to my last post.
has nothing to do with this topic, if this is the church of free speech, why is it that u attack mostly Christians who are using that freedom? sounds fishy. yes u can say wut u want but don’t call it free speech when u attack those who use that allowance
First of all, the lack of capitalization and use of Internet shorthand renders me unable to take him seriously. Secondly, why the hell does believing in free speech oblige me to not attack and criticize others’ ideas? This is the kind of complete idiocy I’ve come to expect from a lot of people in this country. They think that because they have the right to do something, their fellow citizens have to put up with it.
Allow me to inform everyone of a very basic principle of the US government. Having the right to do something protects you against the government penalizing you for doing that thing. That’s it. Nothing else. The right to free speech does not mean that everyone else has to shut up when you’re talking. Know why? Because they have that same right. The right to religious expression does not allow for religious beliefs to be legislated into law. Know why? Because other people of other faiths have the same rights.
you don’t believe in creation, it just so happened you have met people who have been thought stupid things. things which are not biblical but just fantasies and all ideas from the pigment of their imagination which later on be ridiculed by atheist like you.
you became atheist because of unfounded arguments of the self-proclaimed christians.
while the creation and the bible itself is so scientific…
Comment by Ronie — 27 November, 2005 @ 11:24 pm
My comment isn’t as directly related to the author of this blog, but to the comment posted by Ronie.
you don’t believe in creation, it just so happened you have met people who have been thought stupid things. things which are not biblical but just fantasies and all ideas from the pigment of their imagination which later on be ridiculed by atheist like you.
>>Ok, Ronie, so you’ve pretty much stated that everyone before you, in wich the author explains about, is wrong, and that from this point on, that YOU are the authority on this topic. No problem, i supose, but let’s continue:
you became atheist because of unfounded arguments of the self-proclaimed christians.
>>I’ve read the vast majority of this authors site, and I have yet to see documentation for the statement. This author didn’t become an atheist because of unfounded arguments, hardly, they became atheists because they saw the blatent contridictions between what has been taught them in Social life, as well as Christian School and that of the hardcore reality of science, and the scientific method.
while the creation and the bible itself is so scientific…
I see no evidance of this point in your post. The bible, even in general, is not scientific. One point to become scientific is to prove that a fact is plausable/not plausable by using the scientific method. The bible doesn’t do this, instead it simply states a fact, and backs it up with threats, and/or punishments if the fact is not carried out in secular practice.
To the credit of the author of this site, I must say that the read has been good. It outlines my basic belief that not everyone in this country or world is a complete moron when it comes to understanding logic. My entire take on most of what you have written on your page is at best positive.
[I do apologize for the passiveness of these sentances, however to use a generalization such as (My entire take on everything) is false because I havn’t read everything, just what i have read to date.] [So passive I may be, but for logical reason
]
To authors like Ronie, whom i can’t even come close to pervading their thoughts, i just can’t understand. Making refutable claims without any claim of proof behind their statements. It really saddens me that this person belives like they do.
The author of this blog wrote:
Secondly, why the hell does believing in free speech oblige me to not attack and criticize others’ ideas? This is the kind of complete idiocy I’ve come to expect from a lot of people in this country. They think that because they have the right to do something, their fellow citizens have to put up with it.
>> The author of this blog is correct in assuming that this type of right is wrong. Indeed, none of us have the right to impeed on the rights of others, but in so doing, none of us have the right to impeed on our own personal rights to NOT listen. Just as the author wrote below:
Allow me to inform everyone of a very basic principle of the US government. Having the right to do something protects you against the government penalizing you for doing that thing. That’s it. Nothing else. The right to free speech does not mean that everyone else has to shut up when you’re talking. Know why? Because they have that same right. The right to religious expression does not allow for religious beliefs to be legislated into law. Know why? Because other people of other faiths have the same rights.
>>The only add I would ever make to a sentence such as this is that the Government, which we have all elected to be OVER us, is indeed not, instead, it needs to be understood that the Government is equal to our rights in every respect. The fact that we elect officials to the varying positions of government is a testement to this fact. We elect citizens of this country to RULE for US and OVER us USING equal MEANS. This means that the Government doesn’t have the ability to stifel anyone’s point of view even if it isn’t in mesh with their own. This also means that the Government doesn’t have the ability to sanction one religon over another because that would be imposing the belief of the Government (first person) on the beliefs of the people (second person) which is a clear violation of the accepted principle of the Seperation of Church and state.
Unfortunatly for most of us, to include christians, the Government operates under these tennants, but doesn’t practice them that often.
One of the largest problems that I have with our government today, is the inability of it to focus on Other aspects of it’s peoples religious beliefs. [Aside here: as our government is so fond of messing with the religious beliefs of it’s people, so I too must conclude that the Government is correct in doing, as the current practice of the Government is in accord with this statment.] I see no governmental sanction of the Pagan belief system, buddist, islam, or what have you. Instead it is the general realitivistic christian belief they are using as a means to create new laws, as well as pass religious intolerance onto the general public. {Aside #2: the fact of religious intolerance, even without directly threatening another religion, is not tolerant in it’s self. Which is a problem i have with our current government.]
In my view, the Government should not be operating on the premise of Religion. Instead it should be operating on the doctrine of working with the people of this country to better our 1. protection, 2. lives, 3. education, and 4. technology. Each one of thsese 4 points has a vast number of sub points, for example: 4. Technology: a. to make our lives better, b. to make our lives more efficient, c. to make our lives safer, d. to make our lives more healty, and e. to ensure we have proper protection against new outbreaks [either medical or physical]. As you can see, none of what i have written is in regards to religion, at least not under these points.
I am a very strong believer that Religion should have NO place in the form of Government. However, I understand the limitations of man, at least to some extent. I understand that we, as a thinking race, tend to be motiviated by what we believe is right, or wrong. And a great deal of what we believe is right or wrong comes from our understanding of our belief. Which is why, in a general sense, a democracy is the best form of government. It entitles us to have quite a few individuals vote on a premise, and eventually come up with either a majority or a minority (positive or negative) result to pass laws, ect. The problem we have today is pressure, both from the inside, and from th e outside by religious lobbiests, and larger entities that have no idea what the consequences of their actions are.
So, to be basic here: The author is correct in what they say about free speach, as i’ve outlined above, however the point pervades much more than free speach. This point is just one of the plethera of adjunct points that we are faced with today, and i hope, no matter how marginal the hope may be, that our government will come to see that they can not sanction the belief of one system, nay of any system, to impeed the rights of the individuals under it. [I hope also that if the governmetn does do this, they provide some form of improvisio rights to those who do not fit the tolerance belief of the government. (aside, i doubt that will ever happen.)]
I’ll end this post here, as I’m becomming quite upset with what i’ve been read as comments in responce to the author of this blog. The Author is correct in many points here, and I have yet to find much fault in what he/she says.
Comment by zackrspv — 28 November, 2005 @ 5:54 am