Comments on Secular Humanist Extraordinaire - mikebdot: Anti-religious dogma is not the same as racism or ...

back to a point here...does making personal statem...

2007-08-30T06:51:00.000-06:00

back to a point here...

does making personal statements warrant firing? this is a pretty critical issue, because its a free-speech argument. can a private institution, independent of government, make any stance against the spoken views of an individual outside of their scope of professional life? absolutely not.

however, once that individual is representative of the institution, or is to be seen as one by proxy (i.e. the CEO or another title where the individual and the occupation are inexplicably intertwined), it can be fair to say that the views of the institution rule over those of the individual. i mean, shit...you (royal) chose to work there didn't you? if you knew they were assholes and wouldn't tolerate your George Carlin-style humor, why did you apply?

My second point, is that folks on the inter-web feel they can say whatever they wish and get away with it...like no one can track them down or something. Look, blogs ARE free-speech, except when they are not. That includes the aforementioned examples, and when your language is so jesus-dick-sucking-fuckface-wife-beating nasty that it gets moderated. so don't get pissed when it happens to you. if you want free speech, and you want to [re]write the pornographic bible, get your own damn blog (right mB?)

that is all...

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, only def...

2007-06-22T07:14:00.000-06:00

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, only defending my right to ridicule or seriously challenge religious thought and not be fired from my job because of it, even if that job were working for a political campaign or being a political candidate. The media does a terrible job "holding people accountable" for actions that don't require accountability. Some actions don't matter at all.

I respect a person's beliefs when I feel those beliefs are in good faith, but if I make the judgement that they are not then I'll point it out any time I'm asked or have a reason to or am trying to be amusing.

It's very difficult for someone to convince me to eat a shit sandwich, even if they claim to think they're selling you roast turkey with mayo, mustard and pickles (I hate pickles and mustard too though, so perhaps the metaphor is too strained).

I don't think there is anything wrong with pigeon-holing, but the second you try to make friends with me or have some sort of relationship or convince me of something, you better turn all that off and offer me a bit of respect (the royal "you", not you specifically). That is something I struggle with as well, but it's not a novel struggle I'm sure.

"It means you pigeon-hole people immediately and a...

2007-06-22T06:39:00.000-06:00

"It means you pigeon-hole people immediately and argue against the strawman that you have created in your mind when talking to said person. That being said, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with having certain prejudices..." Way to take a non-stand! If you remove the cloak of evil that has been draped across the shoulders of the word "prejudice" you get "opinion". So now I am trying to determine, if, based upon what you replied with, is that you agree with me or you do not agree with me. Because I think your prejudice (i.e. opinion) is that folks that are religious and base some/many/all of their prejudices (i.e. opinions) on that religion creates some cloud of absurdity that surrounds them and you cannot fathom or respect where they are coming from.

We are all individuals inasmuch that we have different DNA. My point of calling your anti-religion religion WAS to defeat the purpose and shine a little light on the absurdity we all inject into our lives by pigeon-holing, typecasting and being far too judgmental of others than we should be of ourselves.

I am as guilty as hell of this and am working to be less this way. Unless it works as a good punch line.

"To each their own as long as it does not interfer...

2007-06-21T08:43:00.000-06:00

"To each their own as long as it does not interfere with my non-religion religion." Is this not the same position as my position? Are you now prejudiced against those which would like to interfere with your anti-religion religion? No, that would be absurd. Prejudice doesn't mean "I disagree with your positions because I don't think they benefit mankind, in fact I think they do a disservice to my fellow man". It means you pigeon-hole people immediately and argue against the strawman that you have created in your mind when talking to said person. That being said, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with having certain prejudices, especially if you don't really take them seriously and have a sense of humor about the absurdity of your own views, because, let's face it, most personal ethos can be ridiculed endlessly, especially prejudices.

Calling my view on life "[My] anti-religion religion" defeats the whole purpose. It's like the kids that all get tatoos and piercings and wear black to be an anti-conformist.

I won't deny there are kindred spirits who have similar views to my own, but I don't necessarily want to tap those spirits for my own personal use or to further some agenda, I just want people to realize that we exist and we are generally good people.

Anti-religion? Then I think there is prejudice, m...

2007-06-21T07:15:00.000-06:00

Anti-religion? Then I think there is prejudice, matey. You choose not to have a religion so you are therefore on a quest of anti-religion? Does this make you an anti-zealot?

I have no religion but my own, but that does not qualify me as being anti-religion. To each their own as long as it does not interfere with my non-religion religion.

Your anti-religion religion is the radical right of the Non-Religious Non-Conservatives.