If I hear "inclusive" one more time, I'm gonna fucking hurl. Am I the only one who noticed that prior to Obama giving his speech Tuesday night, some minister went out to the podium to lead the crowd in prayer? Yeah, that's inclusive alright. I wonder if he managed to keep from invoking Jesus, something chaplains in VA and those defending them claim to be an impossible task for Christians (more on this). I wonder if that guy was a proud member of the Obama Prayer Team.
Let's also remember that many went out to vote yesterday in favor of propositions which deny a sizable portion of Americans equal rights. At the time of this writing, propositions to ban gay marriage won in FL and AZ and look likely to win in CA. It absolutely sickens me that the majority of Americans feel their happiness depends upon keeping certain other Americans under heel. Yeah, that sounds inclusive to me alright.
It's easy to be euphoric about the end of many evils of the Bush/Cheney Presidency, but there's still a looooong road ahead for us, and I don't mean the one Obama spoke of, I mean the road towards true inclusiveness, for equal rights for all. This election saw perhaps the highest degree of religiosity than most of recent memory, truly creating a de facto religious test for office. In NC, don't get too excited by the loss of evil cunt Dole who ran ads vilifying Hagan for associating with atheists, since she didn't lose because people were disgusted by fomenting such hatred, division and dare I say persecution of one group based upon their religious opinions. Oh no, instead Hagan made every effort to declare she wasn't an atheist and paraded her Christian credentials like Obama had to. Even the so-called "liberal" media condemned Dole not for her divisiveness, but rather for calling Hagan such a pejorative.
Until "atheist" isn't a generally accepted pejorative, there can be no inclusiveness. Until there's no religious test for office, there can be no inclusiveness. Until the wall of separation between church and state is restored, there can be no inclusiveness. Until all Americans are afforded equal rights, there can be no inclusiveness.
There's an old saying that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with one step. Last night saw an important step, but for many of us, that step hasn't been taken yet. In fact, we may have taken a step or two backwards, so I think we all need to become more proactive today and not wait two or four years from now and then just whine and complain again. No, that journey needs to start today. Please, get involved with local and national groups who are working to advance along that journey (some links are there in the top right of this blog). If this election is truly about inspiring hope, and proving change can happen, then let it inspire us. I too would like to experience a moment of true inclusiveness and victory that can move me to tears like many were moved last night.
Update: A lesson learned.
2008-11-05
"Inclusive", huh?
Give this post a thumbs up
I dig this post
Vote up on The Atheist Spot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
The problem is, at least in California, that the proponents of Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage proposition, simply lied through their teeth and got away with it. They made claims that are blatantly untrue, they implied that failing to pass the proposition would result in all kinds of ridiculous things that aren't even addressed by the proposition at all, etc. So now, we have a state constitution that is in conflict with itself, Prop 8 couldn't change the Equal Protection clauses already existing and now, it's going to be a matter for the courts to re-decide what they already decided once before.
More lame moralising from a naturalist.
When are you going to produce some justification for your moralistic pontifications? I demand evidence that being inclusivist is good. Cite peer-reviewed journals and studies, or admit you're being inconsistent with your stated worldview.
Actually Rho, the only evidence required is the Constitution. There's supposed to be a separation between church and state, there's supposed to be no religious test for office, and rights are supposed to be for all citizens. Unfortunately, those promises are slow to be met. How long before blacks weren't held as slaves, before women and blacks could vote and afforded equal rights? (Some would argue the latter still hasn't been 100% realized.) How long before more glaring contradictions are erased, at state and/or federal level?
So did you order your Palin 2012 paraphernalia yet, Rho?
The Constitution defines what is right and wrong? Or does it define what is legal?
Yet again you refuse to deal with the question.
Of course, the Constitution allowed for slavery and enfranchised only white male property owners.
And no, politics bore me in general. It's apparently much easier for you to label me and thus dismiss me than to answer my questions.
"The Constitution defines what is right and wrong? Or does it define what is legal?"
Ideally, both are one and the same. Sadly, that's not often the case.
"Yet again you refuse to deal with the question."
As a presuppositionalist Rho, you can't fathom, and therefore can't accept, any justification for morals (or just about anything else for that matter) other than your god, so your inquiry is disingenuous. As such, there's no point to addressing it.
It's a rhetorical (not disingenuous) question b/c of my longstanding experience that non-theists can't answer the question.
Thanks for the further confirmation. Again.
You may consider your entire post now a naked assertion, and ignored and rebutted with nothing more than a 2nd naked assertion. Kind of pitiful, when you think about it.
You know what stinks about Blogger's comment system? You can't go back and edit what you just wrote. This is especially frustrating if you notice after the fact that you misspelled a word or left out an important bit. For instance Rho, you left out an important bit in your first sentence. Clearly what you meant to write was:
"...b/c of my longstanding experience that non-theists can't answer the question with the only answer that my presuppositionalist mind is capable of accepting."
Well no worries, pal. I got ya covered. Say, how's the wife doing?
Since you have made no attempt to answer the question, there is no way anyone could know whether what you've said is true.
If not for me, think about the rest of your readers. You think NONE of them care about your answer to the question? Go on, go over my head. Befuddle me with the brilliance and insight of your answer.
Thankfully, my readers are not so ignorant as to discredit a slam dunk because a receipt for the purchase of the basketball is not on display.
Rhology:
Now that you're not campaigning with Sarah Palin any more, can we assume that you'll be back here spouting nonsense on a regular basis?
Yay!
There must be a god, after all. Things couldn't be this good without her.
(Note: In my presuppositionalist system, there's a big-busted hot-babe goddess named Ginger. I can prove she exists because she sends me email all the time, wanting to know if I'm lonely and if I'd like my penis to be bigger just for her. If you don't believe in Ginger, don't bother responding, because there won't be any way you can prove that what you say is true. However, regardless of whatever silliness you believe in, you will still get a puppy -- along with all other Americans.)
Par for the course - it's always easier to mock and label people than to answer tough questions. Especially when you're obviously unwilling even to attempt to answer the question.
Here's a hint to make it easier, since you apparently need a tutorial: Explain how Ginger's existence defines what morality is and is not.
Then, in order to be honest, explain how your atheistic worldview justifies making moral statements.
It's pitiful how hard it is to wring decent answers out of you. I can't imagine whom you're trying to impress.
I don't see it that atheists are excluded. Do you feel very excluded by holding a rational belief? I sure don't feel excluded. In fact, I feel like the religious are semi-fairly having games played on them, at their own exploitable and gullable expenses. Does Obama truly believe that Jesus was resurectioned on the cross, or is it just a political ploy to win more votes? I think it's just exploiting people's emotions, I really do. So the thing is, how can anyone feel excluded from that?
Actually, stepping back here, being excluded from any kind of exploitation is a good thing, and luckily it is a mental choice when it comes to being excluded from gullability. Please, if at all possible, exclude me from pyramid schemes, socialism, torture, and going to war too.
I would be interested in knowing what the "atheistic world view" is.
Then I'd like to know more about this Ginger. ;)
Rhology-
"Not including" people is "excluding" them. You want us to tell YOU that excluding people is bad? Can't handle morals on your own? Laws, ideally, are written to provide the means to enforce a good moral system.
How are YOU justified in making moral statements? Because you read it in some peculiar translation of an old book?
I'm really pissed off about the anti-gay marriage bills. Why the fuck should I care about what consenting adults do with each other? What possible effect could their private activities have on my marriage? Nosiness and gossip are two of the three great Christian sins. The greatest, of course, is intolerance.
Scott,
A few things.
1) B/c if my worldview is true, it makes sense to make moral statements.
I cover this here.
2) Conversely, if atheism is true, I've been asking for the justification for moral statements. Haven't gotten an answer yet, but I've been treated rudely. It's a poor substitute.
3) To say "translation"... you probably meant version or transmission, not translation. The text is there - translating it is not the hard part. Just FYI.
Scott: Let me try and spare you the grief of going to his site. Rhology is a presuppositionalist, meaning under no circumstances, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, can his beliefs not be true, and because his beliefs are always true, anything contrary must be false. The fatal flaw of that kind of thinking was humorously explored in the comments section here.
Rhology's obsessive hobby is to accumulate points. For what, I don't know, and why, I don't know, but he enjoys it. It doesn't matter how trivial the issue is. It could be over the misuse of a word. Regardless, I can only guess that incomplete and insecure in his beliefs, he must compensate by scoring points on those who don't share his beliefs. Magically, this validates his belief and he can then continue believing and feeling good about believing. In case he can't score a point (which is often), he'll berate, antagonize, and pretend he's won a point anyway and then scurry away.
No doubt he'd make for a fascinating thesis for some psychiatric study.
Yeah, I gathered he must be a returning "star." Thanks for sparing me.
I've been reading your blog for a while now - good stuff! Thanks again!
I don't believe Rhology is real. I can't empirically prove it. Therefore god created him.
Rho:
More lame moralising from an aGingerist.
When are you going to produce some justification for your moralistic pontifications? I demand evidence that being Christian is good. Cite peer-reviewed journals and studies, or admit you're being inconsistent with your stated worldview.
Well, uncle had a funeral today that was held in a Mosque since he was a Muslim (that eerie muslim monk music and those somber chants in aramaic), my dad is Lutheran, his sisters are Catholic, and I think that one of my dead uncle's friends was Jewish there, I was the only atheist there and the religious tensions were so crazy that I thought a war was going to break out or something. Seriously, everybody in that crowd was thinking that my dead uncle was going to hell (except me), and they were all trying to exploit or promote their own religion by doing their own individual death rituals or by glaring at each other as if they just happen to have the right one and everybody else is going to burn if they don't decide to convert. I was sort of laughing to myself about this goofiness the entire time.
Yeah I was disappointed about the Prop 8 vote. I thought America was beyond that.
Well Quantum, yeah, funerals are like religious aphrodisiacs. They get them all aroused and looking to get others aroused. When that arousal doesn't get its required outlet, then it comes out in other ways, just like how sexual frustration leads to violence. Anyway, sorry to hear about your uncle. I've recently had several aunts and uncles hit their expiration dates. It sucks.
Sean, what can I say? There's still a lot of ugliness in America.
I had to add a link to this as an update to the post.
Post a Comment