All our evils are acquired. It’s like the whole nature vs. nature controversy!
Michael Seewald, who is some relative by marriage to the Duggar family, comes up with some slimy excuses for Josh Duggar’s abuses. The appalling thing is how typical this is for Christians: they have a demeaning vision of human nature dunned into them from an early age, and they think this sort of behavior is normal, and you can only be rescued from it by Jesus Christ.
There are many who seem shocked that a child from a Christian family would do such things. While it is always alarming when we find out about our children’s sins, we should not be surprised. Christians (and many other reasonable people) believe that we are all born with a sinful nature. David, king of Israel spoke of his inborn sin like this when he was repenting of his adultery and murder by proxy: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5. The prophet Isaiah concurs. “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” Isaiah 64:6. While not all of our sins find a way to manifest themselves externally we all know the corruption that is present in each of our hearts. It is a mercy of God that he restrains the evil of mankind otherwise we would have destroyed ourselves long ago. Many times it is simply lack of opportunity or fear of consequences that keep us from falling into grievous sin even though our fallen hearts would love to indulge the flesh. We should not be shocked that this occurred in the Duggar’s home, we should rather be thankful to God if we have been spared such, and pray that he would keep us and our children from falling.
I was raised in a relatively godless household — we went to church, but this whole notion of sinful human nature was most definitely not accepted. I was also the oldest of a large family of six kids, and surprise, I was never even tempted to molest my sisters. I did not have to pray to resist. I was not restrained by religious fears. They were my family, and I saw them as people, friends (sometimes, briefly, annoyances). This corruption that Seewald sees as an intrinsic part of our existence was simply not there.
Likewise, I am now part of a fiercely, loudly godless household, and we raised three kids who almost never went to church, had no interest in religion, and most certainly were not on Jesus’ leash. I can’t pretend to know what was in their heads, but I know how they behaved (one of the advantages of a smaller family is that every one of your kids can get your full attention for a significant amount of time), and there was no abuse going on, and they seem to genuinely like and respect each other as adults.
Why, it’s almost as if there is no correlation between adoration of Jesus and incest and sexual abuse…or even, possibly, a positive correlation.
That claim that it is simply lack of opportunity or fear of consequences
that keeps us from sexually abusing our families echoes the Christian belief that atheists are amoral and that people would be quick to rob, rape, and murder if they don’t have a fear of hell to constrain them. It’s not true. It seems to be important to have a sense of empathy and security in the love of others to motivate people to do good.
I’d also argue that if it is fear of consequences that keeps people in line, why do Christians work so hard to undermine those consequences? Most of Seewald’s babbling is about how the Duggar’s behavior is all OK, because Jesus. Jesus will forgive even child molestation if you ask him to. So where’s the threat? Apparently I can go on a murderous rampage, and still get rewarded with heaven if I profess a love for Jesus. I’ll also be rewarded here on Earth with the approval of the devout.
We can clearly see that fundamentalist/evangelical Protestantism poisons people’s minds with bad ideas. What’s the Catholic church been up to? It seems some people are unhappy about the Irish vote for marriage equality.
The outcome of the landmark referendum has been celebrated across the world as a resounding vote for equality. But Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, reportedly said he was “deeply saddened” by the result.
“I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity,” he was quoted as saying by the Italian news agency ANSA. “The family remains at the centre and we have to do everything to defend it and promote it.”
The Catholic church sees equality and respect for others’ rights as a defeat for humanity
and as something in opposition to Christian principles
.
I think the eventual disintegration of Catholicism and other humanity-hating religions will be a great victory for our species.
Christianity is a disgusting monstrosity…i know we all know this, but it’s never said often enough…
Since sin is a religious concept, so I don’t believe in it. JD didn’t commit a sin. He committed a crime. That is what the religious apologists don’t understand. Until he acknowledges and pays for his crime, he can’t be, and won’t be, forgiven.
Really?
I am getting sick of this whole trope concerning how us evil librul commie atheist muslims (it happens) expect Xtians to be so damn perfect and that it is just unreasonable for us to hold them to such high standards when it is only Big J, himself, who is perfect in every way . . .yadda yadda yadda . . .all boys want to molest their sisters . . .yadda yadda yadda . . .because shut up, that’s why!
Truth is, this is fucking *exactly* the sort of shit we expect from them, unfortunately. I had desperately wanted to be proven wrong about this family, hoping against hope that their ‘quaint’ religious ways belied the fact that there might actually be a decent and healthy emotional environment in their household. Seriously, I even had a conversation with my wife recently, who had taken to watching the show and wanted it not be what we all feared it was, where we commented that it had been on the air for so long that it couldn’t possibly have skeletons in the closet because, well, production crew.
Turns out there is only one thing worse then being proven wrong, that is being proven right. The production crew have played their grubby part in keeping their cash-cow public image sanitised. Learning now about the Duggar’s support and practice of that monstrous ‘To Train Up a Child’, disgusts me to think they were promoting this family as being all about the ‘positive reinforcement’, not the whip ’em til’ you break ’em mentality.
The outcome of the referendum is a ? So the Church thinks gays are not human?
Why, yes, rietpluim. Yes, they do.
If you’re not on your knees, saying hail mary’s, and you don’t believe all the ritualistic mumbo jumbo, neither are you.
The Seewalds and the Duggars may publicly rally around the child molester but deep down they resent the bad publicity he has brought upon them. They all just wish he’d run off and join a monastery or something. His old man is probably already suggesting that ten years of silent contemplation in a cave might really be a good idea. Anything to get the family out of the limelight (which they had previously been so keen to share).
When I heard about this, my first thought was that this is what happens when you are raised in a household, and a religion that says even your own mother is only good for pumping out babies. When you grow up like that, it tends to warp how you view all females, even the ones in your own family. “This isn’t wrong, because this is what god said they’re here for.”
Wow. This is the kind of argument I would say that Christians would be making, if they actually believed what they claimed to believe, as an Argumentum Ad Absurdum against the simultaneous belief in everyone being sinners and getting forgiveness based on being Christian, regardless of the terrible things they do, and the belief that Christianity is the source of an objective moral code, society’s morality, and the best possible morality. I almost can’t believe that someone is displaying that contradiction so clearly.
Also, this is all part of weaving a web of sanctimony in order to ensure that we continue to have a culture that intentionally ties its hands up and promptly washes them off in regards to child abuse, spousal abuse, and sexual abuse, especially in regards to highly religious households. It is fucking horrifying and disgusting. Using “we are all sinners” to excuse and explain away this part of the prominent religious component to rape culture. And the fact that they pull this shit to protect their own in regards to child molestation, but conveniently forget to be so forgiving and dismissive of “sin” when talking about gay people, is just par for the fucking course.
This is a deepity, one frequently trotted out as an attempt to defend the reasonableness of Christianity from the presumed irrationality of secular humanism.
What does “we are all born with a sinful nature” mean? Well, that depends. The meaning morphs. The usual interpretation — the actual Christian interpretation which involves Adam and Eve and perfection and corruption and the vile nature of the flesh as contrasted to the cleansing nature of Jesus’ sacrifice necessary after The Fall — is a steaming, rancid load of bollocks. It easily leads into a justification for atrocities, since, among other ethical crimes, it equates raping your little sister with telling your mother you won’t wash the dishes. In the eyes of God, sin is sin is sin. We are willful. We disobey. One wrong will naturally entail others, without needing much of a causal chain in nature . Expect it.
Garbage.
But a lot of Christians seem to like to flip over to the more reasonable interpretation of Original Sin, in which it simply means that “human beings aren’t perfect.” We don’t always follow our societies standards, or even our own. This is then waved around in the air as being in contrast to the view of secular humanists (and atheists in general) — that human beings are naturally perfect and the only thing keeping us from utopian heights of excellence is someone telling little children “no, don’t do that.”
A deepity vs. a Straw Man.
rietpluim @4:
& Larry @5:
It’s not just the RCC. The current crop of candidates for Republican High-Priest-in-Chief have made it very clear that denying equal rights for gays is in no way in conflict with their love for all people.
It’s simple: (1) All people are loved by me (and God); (2) Following the wishes of my God, I will do what I can to deny gays equal human rights; (3) God and I would never wish to deprive any people of human rights; (4) Conclusion: Gays are not people.
Evidence: The Bible.
I’m failing to see any evidence there for “many other reasonable people” sharing that belief.
Oh, and on the Irish vote, I’ll say the same thing here as I said on FB: Fuck Cardinal Parolin, fuck the Vatican, and fuck the RCC. Well done to the 62% of Irish voters who told that bunch of backwards old hypocrites to take a running jump.
Thank you, PZ. Yours is the first post I’ve seen — in the ordinary course of my reading — that considers the pre shit-hitting-the-fan disclosure role of the parents in this family; their roles and responsibility as parents of a young brood of children, the eldest of whom was abusing his younger sisters and some of his sister’s friends.
I tell myself mom must live in a constant state of physical exhaustion. But dad? I have a hard time imagining him taking night shifts so mom could sleep through. I wonder if they considered the crew ‘adult supervision.’ Where were the parents while this was going on? Where were the parents of the friends? Did no one notice anything about their own children?
Also … body curiosity is normal. And children explore with each other. But an older post pubescent brother, changes the game. I grew up in a pack of kids; almost all older boys. Our parents — all migrated to California from points east — made community with each other. I remember an occasion when I and a few-years-older (probably still prepubescent) boy retired after hours of swimming, to a back bedroom to nap. I heard one of the parents, I think my mother, say something like ‘wait, they are a little old for napping together.’ One of the parents came in and put one of us in another room. No fuss, no blame, end of story. At the time, I was a little disappointed. Now, decades later, I feel protected.
@3 Are you speculating or is there a link for this assertion?
“The production crew have played their grubby part in keeping their cash-cow public image sanitised.”
(I’m having NO success with HTML. Will keep trying.)
HTML examples
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
<b>bold</b>
bold
<i>italic</i>
italic
before I read any of this, I will just add that ORIG SIN was (to me) the _essential_basis_ of Catholicism (Roman style). Leading to GUILT being the main teaching point of the entire Gospel/Bible. (1) This massacree happened cuz these people were guilty, (2) all of mankind was guilty so Gawd wiped us out with his spin-n-span FLOOD, etc, etc ad infinitum. And I believed, that, was the cause of the “schism”; i.e. why Prots see the Caths as Devils, that Jebus is all about luuuvvvv, guilt nowheres. That is what the Caths taught me about Prots; why would they lie? To tell us that Duggar was just an inherent sinner, acting totally naturally when incesting his sisters, so therefore will be SAVED by Jebus Love when he submits to the holiest of all true religions, is excuses all the way, double down. A spouting of Dolly’s advise, while disregarding it (and her context for it) elsewhere: “Don’t judge Duggar, we are ALL sinners!!!!”
[sheesh, I’ll read this thread for context, sheeesh]
He can’t be blamed. He was predestined to do it, by the God who Knows all Things, from an infinite time before the Creation of the World. It doesn’t mean he won’t go to heaven. Only God chooses who goes there, and if you’re not Elect, there’s nothing you can do about it.
Or have Goddsts dropped that bit now, in favour of the wily tempting AntiGod, who can thwart the best laid schemes of the Infinitely Powerful Good God?
[piling on…] “Denying “gay-marriage” is how we show our love for our poor gay brethren, we don’t deny them the right to marry, they can marry any woman they want to [gays are only guys btw], we will never deny them that RIGHT.” “We love the gays. We just tryin to save them from hell, where God will send them, for doin all that man-on-man sex stuff. (not doin the ‘proper’, procreative, sex stuff)”
Which derails me: to remark how, to the Rethugs, sex can NOT be fun and for pleasure (and express love for another person), it can ONLY be done to make a baby, anything else is just sinful hedonism. /derail
I can’t even express just how much I loathe this circular sin concept. When you teach people that they are corrupt, evil beings who must constantly be in thrall to a god in order to be good, the door is wide open for people to do whatever the fuck they want, then, when caught, cry for forgiveness and go on their merry way. *spits*
Christians don’t really care about ‘sin’ as long as they have a get-out-of-hell card which consists of telling they sky that they’re sorry.
The Christian community responds to various kinds of abuse with initial coverups, and then spouting out long-winded quotations of scripture and minimization because we are all sinners and requests for forgiveness and assurance that everyone is going to try to be even more Christian in the future and everyone pray and stop thinking about it and then Amen.
The non-religious community responds to various kinds of abuse with initial coverups and then spouting out nope nope nope nope nope nope nope and minimization and then bashing victims and anyone supporting the victim until everyone stops thinking about it and then Yay Men.
“So let me get this straight: you’re saying the only thing preventing you from being a rape-torture-murder serial killer is that there’s an invisible man in the sky watching you who will punish you if you do it, but you can get away with all the rape-torture-murder serial killing you want as long as you say you’re really sorry and pinky-swear you won’t do it any more. And you say you regularly meet with a large group of people who believe the same thing.”
Because the ultimate goal isn’t for people to stop doing those things, it’s to get people to depend on the church. If people all acted good all the time, the churches wouldn’t get repeat customers.
keithm: only if you are white, otherwise you are a thug that deserves what coming.
I’ve heard the argument “we need to hold on to our Christian religion, otherwise we’ll all be Muslim in a decade” and it never occurs to them that we could all be atheist.
p.s.: I haven’t commented here in a long time and Dutchbaby is now Dutchtoddler and all full of awesome. Anyone who can look at a young child and go “yup, sinner” is sick.
Xians have a Get out of Hell Free card. And they use it often. That is one reason why it isn’t a source of morality.
Just faith that jesus is god is necessary for Salvation. (Some add in Good Works as well.)
Even the ancient Roman Pagans noticed this and commented on it. Everything we say today was said millennia ago. And nothing has changed.
Child sexual abuse is common in fundie and other authoritarian xian households.
Studies show membership is Oogedy Boogedy cults is the second highest correlation and is causal to child sexual abuse. The first is drug and alcohol use by the father.
Even a lot of xians know they have huge social problems.
A common saying is, Xians aren’t better just forgiven!!!
Not right either though. The fundie perversion is quite a bit worse than the general population based on any factual metrics you care to name including child murder rates.
Dutchgirl:
Their trick is that “sin” can just mean disobedience and will say that any time a toddler has a tantrum or doesn’t listen is Sinful Nature at work. Yes, it is transparent bullshit, but that is just how the use the word “sin”: It means a small trivial thing when they are on the defense, it means a big serious terrible thing when they are on offense.
Hey, sometimes Christians do bad things, and Christian culture is not perfect.
But I never cease to be amazed that atheists who critique Christianity-when-ascendant seem to have so little interest in atheism-when-ascendant.
Atheism has been tried. Intensely. There are relatively secular countries–Sweden, Switzerland, etc–but they all have long Christian histories and likely to some extent live off the fumes of the Church. There have been quite a few explicitly atheist countries in the 20th century–the Soviet Union, Communist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, North Korea.
Why are atheists so uninterested in the ethics and politics of nations that have explicitly adopted atheism? If Christians are held to account for fundamentalists and the Inquisition and the Crusades, why aren’t atheists held to account for the gualg and the killing fields and the People’s Republic of North Korea?
We’ve got the Duggars, you’ve got the Kims.
Not really. Too much hold over from delusional fools like you, who believe in phantasms, and books of mythology/fiction you claim are special. Not.
Typical of delusional fools like you, you haven’t noticed NK is a religious state. The religion is Kimism, and they believe they are gods. They are in your court, not ours.
theDukedog7:
Secular countries don’t count because of Christian histories.
Communist countries do count, who cares about their histories (or the communism (unless the post is about politics, in which case definitely focus on the communism)).
The special pleading is obvious.
(Also, I thought this idiot got banned? Or was just one comment wiped?)
theDukedog7 .
Atheism isn’t a religion.
We are not united in identical beliefs about a single Book and single God.
Like you Christians.
Really dumb stuff from the latest troll.
We’ve got science and reason, they’ve got Hitler and the Holocaust. A pure xian invention start to finish.
Hitler was a Catholic. Himmler didn’t allow atheists in the SS so they were all Catholics and Lutherans. It started in the NT and Martin Luther drew up the plans.
A lie. Up until a few centuries ago, atheism was a death penalty offense. There weren’t many open atheists.
Hitchens: Xianity lost its best defense when it lost the power of the noose, gun, and stack of firewood.
Without the ability to burn to death whoever they want on stacks of firewood, they’ve got nothing but lies, hate, and mythology.
Dukedog7 has been stinking up Dispatches with his anti-gay bigotry. The commenteriat there believe he is Egnor and usually address him as Egnorance.
Quite simple.
Because you ARE the fundamentalists, the Inquisition and the Crusades. There are still some decent Christians out there, but even many of them support or simply do not oppose you, the fundamentalists, inquistitors and crusaders.
But most atheists are not totalitarians.
That’s stupid. Totalitarian regimes need either to use a (preexisting) state religion as a tool of totalitarian oppression (ISIS), or to ban religion as a “counter-revolutionary” or otherwise state-opposed institution (USSR; N. Korea, Khmer Rouge).
In a secular, nominally democratic (but in any case non-totalitarian) society, atheism “has,” in the sense you mean, the atheists who participate in the civic and cultural life of the society, and Christians “have” the Christians who do. So, in addition to the special pleading anteprepro cogently identifies, you’re claiming that Christians should only have to answer for private citizens in their own society (the Duggars), while atheists should have to answer for a totalitarian regime (the Kims). It’s an entirely unreasonable double-standard.
I see theDukedog7 still believes his delusions are reality.
Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore on the Duggars:
Scroll down for video.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jon-stewart-larry-wilmore-josh-duggar
Cthulhu, this guy is stupid.
We aren’t responsible for the Gulag any more than xians are responsible for WWII.
Xians started WWII after all. Xians fought on both sides. So why isn’t xianity blamed for a war that killed 50 million people.
Because people do things for other reasons than religion. WWII was about territory and the Gulags were about totalitarian communism. Stalin was motivated by atheism, he was motivated by power and control.
If you want, we will own the Gulag. If xians own every war in Europe all the way back to the fall of the Roman Empire. Which was destroyed by…Germanic xians.
Advertisers are fleeing the Duggar brand. I can only assume that the advertisers are not really good christians like Michael Seewald.
General Mills
Payless Shoes
Choice Hotels
CVS
Allstate Insurance
Pure Leaf Iced Tea
Behr Paint
Walgreens
Ace Hardware
H&R Block
Keurig
So, Russia doesn’t have a long history of Christianity, but Sweden does?
Yeah, that’ll get filed in the “don’t know the first thing about history” bin.
@28 theDukedog7 .:
Replace “Christian” with “human” and you have a statement I think everyone on the planet would agree with. The difference is, Christians often claim they have the One True Way to Be Good…and many of them continue do bad things, almost as if what they said isn’t particularly reflective of reality. Interesting, isn’t it?
Please support this claim. Please define what “good” things these relatively secular countries must have gotten from their Christian histories, as opposed to “good” things that came about in response to those same histories, if not in spite of them. And please explain why you left Japan off the list, given that it is a rather secular country with functionally zero Christian history, some horrible events in its recent history, and a currently quite high standard of living.
You know what else those explicitly atheist countries all have in common? You must, since you are claiming — actually, scrap that, you’re not claiming, you’re hinting since you’re not actually interested or brave enough to actually make a claim you’d have to support — that it’s atheism specifically that lead to these countries all being horrible places. So please, since you’ve thought about this so deeply, explain why everything else these countries share historically and sociologically cannot possibly have been the cause of whatever horrors have gone on in them.
militantagnostic: He has claimed to be Egnor here at least once before. Or signed off as “Michael Egnor”. Perhaps both.
anteprepro
Signed of. And multiple signs point towards the same person: eg in denial of much of science, including AGW, and also being a catholic.
He is getting really tiring leaving his dropping all over multiple threads both at Dispatches and here. And he is totally clueless about any topic he wants to discuss about. Well, discuss, regurgitate the same old nonsense over and over again is a more apt description.
This may have already been said up-thread (TL;DR), but no, I’m not shocked at all. In the Christian world I grew up in, it was often said that the children of preachers were the biggest hell raisers. I might add that I wouldn’t be shocked if even worse came out about the adults in the family.
Nerd @ 2
Indeed! And so did his parents. What they did brings to mind terms like abetting a crime and obstruction of justice.
I made this comment on FaceBork today (in response to a share of the RawStory piece on how JD sued Arkansas when they started investigating him for sexual assault):
“Gimme that old time religion…so I can stuff it in a Hefty-bag, double- triple-bag it and haul it out to the damned dumpster. I’m so outta patience with liars and abusers for [whatever name said liars/abusers use for their deity].”
and it got #notallChristians-ed within 5 minutes. *sigh* At least the friend-of-a-friend didn’t go full metal No True
ScotsmanChristian…@ Raven #25 &26 – got any citations on that? I would LOVE to have some studies/polls to throw at my fundie relatives/co-workers…..
@raven:
[Up until a few centuries ago, atheism was a death penalty offense.]
No really. Heretics were executed, but mostly atheists were unmolested, mainly because people thought they were crazy and that it would be cruel to execute an insane man.
The first time atheists assumed real power was in France in 1792, and then the atheists showed no hesitation whatsoever to kill people for their beliefs, and trend that has continued unabated.
No ideology has rivaled atheism for concentrated violence and cruelty.
rietpluim @4:
The first thought that sprung to my mind upon reading that line [defeat for humanity] was “If they think this is a defeat for humanity, they clearly don’t view the millions of LGB people on this planet as human beings”.
Your unevidenced word is dismissed as fuckwittery. Either supply a link or you are a proven liar and bullshitter DukeDog. Your intellectual immaturity is becoming tiresome. Links, or you lie and bullshit.
DukeDog is too stupid to understand atheist = heretic. What an intellectual loser.
Estimates are that the Inquisition killed 3,000 people in 300 years.
In the 20th century, atheists killed that many people every week. (100 million total)
Atheist family history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism
theDukedog 7:
I hope you’re not commenting here thinking you’re going to change peoples’ minds with your bald-faced assertions, lies, and distortions of the truth. Buzz off you fucking bigoted shitstain.
Yawn, never heard the category error of dictators versus your hundred years wars? Or that WWI and WWII were started by theists. What an intellectual lightweight lightweight, liar and bullshitter DukeDog is….
theDukedog7 @47
Ever hear of the 30 Years War? If you knew some history, you’d know this war between Catholics and Protestants in the 17th Century killed about one-third of the population of Germany and Bohemia. In 1631 the German city of Magdeburg was sacked by the Catholic army under Count Tilly. The city’s population went from 30,000 to 5,000. No atheists were running armies during the war.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find atrocities committed in the name of atheism (whatever the hell that would mean). The examples cited by Cap’n Bigot are not examples of atrocities committed in the name of atheism. Meanwhile, atrocities committed in the name of a deity are plentiful. Nevertheless, some people (like our resident bigot) think they can retcon history and no one will be the wiser. Such smug arrogance combined with profound ignorance. So sad.
@Tony!
I have no illusions about changing minds.
Truth just likes to stretch its legs on occasion.
Citation please.
Citations please.
Citation…fuck, I’m not going to ask nicely. Either cite your sources or shut the fuck up you repugnant asshole. Personally I’d rather you just shut up and stop commenting. Hopefully PZ will ban your ass soon (and Ed needs to do the same thing as your uneducated comments have infected his comment threads for far too long now).
The TRUTH is that you are a bigoted intelectual lightweight without evidence, but heavy on opinions, burdened by the twin fallacies of believing in imaginary beings, and a book of mythology/fiction is meaningful.
You have nothing rational to base your claims upon. So, you are just seen as an ignorant unevidenced troll without any redeeming facts, knowledge, or EVIDENCE.
Total abject trollery. Typical of those who are divorced from reality.
theDukedog 7 @56:
Given the ignorant comments you’ve made between here and Dispatches, it’s clear you wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and smacked you on your hateful and hatefilled noggin. Why don’t you wander off somewhere else? Go worship your genocidal, homophobic, misogynistic, sex-obsessed deity why dontcha!
@Al:
[Ever hear of the 30 Years War?]
A cataclysm.
I’m not referring to war, though. Wars are violent. Such as when Hitler and his atheist former ally went at it–bloodiest war ever, made possible Hitler’s prior alliance with the largest atheist nation in the world at the time.
I didn’t count the WWII dead in atheism’s tally, although I could. Soviet atheists killed a lot of people in that war.
What’s remarkable about atheism is that atheism killed 100 million of its own people, in peacetime.
@Tony!
Pretty happy about Ireland, heh?
Further to militantagnostic’s comment @33, here is info on Michael Egnor:
On creationism:
On dualism and non-materialist neuroscience:
If theDukedog 7 is Egnor, then in addition to his supreme ignorance on evolution and irrational adherence to creationist bullshit, he’s added anti-gay bigot to his resume.
Nope, only in your delusional mind, full of phantasms and other things without reality
Loser.
Theist against theist, and still going, just at a very level. What miserable people theists are. Like you…Delusional and irrelevant, but noisy.
Yes, as are all decent human beings.
@Dukedog7: I think the honorable thing to do now, soldier, is turn your stupidity-barrel on yourself and blow yourself in another direction. Landover Baptist is seeking military men, I hear…
Your Ireland nonsense will hopefully get you tossed out of this area.
Nerd @63:
I’m sure he’ll regale us with a ton of citations to show that all the atrocities he’s mentioned were done in the name of atheism, rather than atrocities performed by people who were atheists.
@Tony:
[Pretty happy about Ireland, heh?
Yes, as are all decent human beings.]
A lot of folks are celebrating. You should take someone to court to make them bake you a cake.
Funny how the normal people in most communist countries still followed religion. Examples are seen in the gay bigotry of Russia, which comes from the church, not the atheist teachings that all men are equal….Delusional fools like DD7 don’t understand context.
Why? Why not you bake that cake…Or do you have problems with gays? Like all delusional bigots?
theKookyidjit7 . @67
Unlike you, gay people don’t need to take anyone to court to receive love and attention from people who value their existence. Pretty sad that that’s the only way you can get cake, Projectionist.
@Nerd:
“the atheist teachings that all men are equal”
Goodness gracious that’s funny.
Ever read Descent of Man? Atheist prophet talking about exterminating the inferior races…
DukeDog, please provide conclusive third party evidence (not been done to date), how the Redhead’s cousin marrying his long time partner (and I was the one that said they sounded like an old married couple, to many wide finally understanding eyes), hurts the 40+ year marriage of the Redhead and myself.
I await evidence, not opinion.
@Nerd:
[Or do you have problems with gays?]
I like gays. It’s plaintiffs I’m not so fond of.
Yeah, folks trying to get the rights they should have without going to court. Still losing loser.
theDukedog 7 @ 67:
Nah. Not planning on getting married any time soon. Of course if I were, at least I wouldn’t have to worry about a baker citing “sincerely held religious beliefs” to justify their refusal to serve me because I’m black, since y’know, that’s covered under anti-discrimination statutes. I’d still have to worry about them pulling the “sincerely held religious beliefs” card to justify refusing to serve me on the basis of my sexuality, thanks to bigots like you who have fought to prevent sexual orientation (and gender identity) from being added to non-discrimination ordinances.
theDukedog 7 @73:
Ah, so you don’t like it when gay people turn to the courts to enforce anti-discrimination laws. What do you have against anti-discrimination laws Mr. Bigot? They serve to protect classes of people who have been oppressed and discriminated against. Do you rail against African-Americans who turn to the courts to sue companies who discriminate based on race? What about women who sue corporations who discriminate based on gender or sex?
Or do you only dislike it when gay people use the courts to enforce the anti-discrimination laws?
No need to respond, as I’ve read more than enough putrid comments from you to know how you’re likely to answer. I already know you don’t view LGBT people as full human beings with the same right to access public services and accommodations as everyone else. To you, we’re second-class citizens who don’t deserve the protection of the state. I know this because you wear your hate on your sleeve.
Good points all, Tony!
It seems that I’m the incarnation of all the slights of your life.
I am a fervent supporter of gay rights. Right to freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms, right to trial by jury, all of that.
Those are the rights I support. Special privileges–like forcing a devout Christian to bake your gay wedding cake–not so much.
I like the kind of that rights everyone has, not just special privileges claimed by victimology-obsessed SJW’s.
theDukedog7 . @77
Is forcing a devout Christian to bake an interracial cake also one of those things you have on your pet peeve list?
Ah, in other words loser, anybody who should know their place in society below you, and accept that without complaining.
Asshole, I’m a 65 year old white male, well educated, decent income. I also remember this from a trip to Florida in the early sixties. It showed with prima facie evidence that folks like you are nothing but liars and bullshitters. You lose again loser.
Grow up intellectually. Don’t presume we will swallow your tripe. Presume we have evidence to refute your tripe.
theDukedog7 @ 71:
You do understand how utterly stupid it is pairing those two words together, don’t you?
If you do, then you’re being deliberately deceptive in your arguments by attempting to characterise atheism as religion in a different suit. Freudian rebuffs are shitty debate tactics.
If you don’t, then you really should just stop talking.
@Duck:
I don’t like forcing folks to do stuff. Maybe that’s your thing. It’s not mine.
If a business refused service on account of race, I would never patronize that business and I would encourage others to never patronize that business. I detest racism.
I have problems with the government forcing folks to do stuff. I think it is defensible to use government force to prevent racial discrimination. You Democrats gave us slavery and Jim Crow and the KKK and segregation, and we have a responsibility to undo what Democrats have done to our nation.
I oppose the government forcing businesses to accommodate gay weddings. Free Exercise of Religion trumps any anti-discrimination law.
I wouldn’t patronize any business that refused to serve gays (for non-wedding business). I don’t like anti-gay discrimination, but I respect freedom of religion.
@Nerd:
That sign was posted by Progressive Democrats, who were the segregationists in the South.
What party do you vote for?
theDukedog7 @ 777:
So you would have no issue with gay business owners refusing to deal with xianist clients and would in no way see that as being an unjust discrimination? Because I keep hearing xianists crap on about this supposed “war” against them whenever people don’t kowtow to their beliefs…
@Matthew:
[So you would have no issue with gay business owners refusing to deal with xianist clients and would in no way see that as being an unjust discrimination?]
No problem. I don’t like to force people to do stuff. If I thought the business owners had real animosity against Christians, I wouldn’t patronize them (and they probably wouldn’t want my business.)
Live and let live.
There was hundreds of examples bigot. You know that. You expect nobody to notice your lies and bullshit. Everything you say is subject to extreme skepticism, since, being a delusional fool who believes in phantasms, you have no idea of reality. Whch is why you are a loser every time you post here. Nobody believes a word you say….
It is true that regimes that were avowedly atheist (which is pretty much the same thing as saying communist regimes) have an exceptionally horrific record of atrocities. These atrocities weren’t necessarily committed because of atheism, but I think that they are a strong argument against the idea that atheism makes for superior morality and ethics.
FWIW, I think that the most important difference isn’t between religion and atheism or secularism. The most important difference is between people who are willing to hurt others who believe differently from them, and people who are not willing to do this. Every religion, plus atheism and secularism, has both types of people.
This nincompoop…
The oft-defeated propagandic canards are just oozing from your bilious hole tonight.
If you can’t do your fucking job without discriminating against people for their race, sexuality, gender and so on, then don’t go into that line of work. Maybe look into hosting private clubs for shitty people or something.
Totally love that bullshit tactic though. Calling someone a “victimology-obsessed SJW” – for actually being a victim of discrimination and, instead of shutting up about it, claiming your equal right to service. How dare those gay dudes demand the “special privileges” that majority groups already have(that’s what makes them so special! They won’t be special anymore if everyone has those rights, dammit). To be truly strong and worthy you have to ignore it when people discriminate against you, because they don’t make you into a victim by actually victimising you, you do it to yourself for recognising the discrimination!
Fuck
@Nerd who flunked history:
Nearly all segregationists were Democrats, and the Progressive wing of the party was virulently segregationist.
The first Democrat Progressive president was Wilson, who was a spitting racist who re-segregated the federal government after the Republicans desegregated it.
Progressive Democrats own segregation. Here’s your history lesson for today:
http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/when-bigots-become-reformers
Who do you vote for?
The ones still trying for Jim Crow are the rethuglicans. Who freed the slaves post Civil War. Politics change over the years. Stupid people don’t. Stop being stupid.
theDukedog 7 @77:
Ha ha ha.
Special privileges.
Like the “special privileges” accorded to women and African-Americans that prohibit discrimination based on gender or race? A devout Christian who runs a bakery open to the public would have to serve women or black people, even if they claim their “sincerely held religious beliefs” prevent them from doing so. You and other bigots engage in special pleading when you support anti-LGBT discrimination from bigots who run public businesses. They can’t legally discriminate on the grounds of sex, gender, national origin, race, age, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof, which I’m sure pisses off ignorant theists such as yourself). But you think its A-Ok to discriminate against LGBT people. Why are you ok with Christian business owners being forced to comply with anti-discrimination laws in all cases except sexual orientation and gender identity? Why are those two the exception?
Politics change loser. You are stuck in the past with your bigotry, which is being called out today. Today’s rethuglicans are for bigotry. The democrats, no so much. Who do you vote for loser? No doubt the rethugicans, since they back your ability to discriminate based on religion. You know, your imaginary deity….which makes you a delusional fool….,
@Rumtopf aka SJW:
[If you can’t do your fucking job… you do it to yourself for recognising the discrimination!
Fuck]
It looks like I forgot to give you your trigger warning. Sorry for the microaggression.
Here’s a safe place, snowflake.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sully_aka__wstera2/2251155626
@Sastra #9
I thought the reasonable explanation was that people don’t create perfect deities. With due respect to Mr. Deity (and Lucy!!!).
I see theDukedog 7 is ignorant about the Southern Strategy and the Dixiecrats. Can he really be so ignorant to not know that the Democratic Party and the GOP of today are not the same parties they were 75 years ago?
Absolutely, nothing ever changes in DukeDogs mind, since his imaginary deity is eternal. So most be political parties and their policies. Notice the lack of evidence to show that is the case….
@theDukedog7:
As it turns out, I have never once voted for Woodrow Wilson. Not for any office: executive or legislative, federal, state or local.
Weird, huh?
@Nerd:
[Politics change loser.]
Yea. In 1964, there was a magic switch, and the party that championed slavery and Jim Crow and the KKK and segregation just turned into an integration-loving interracial-hugging multi-racial lovefest. Just like in a fairy tale.
In the 1960’s, Democrats realized that blacks were more useful as government-handout-dependent voters than than they had been as tree ornaments for the first 150 years of the party of slavery.
Democrats are, and have always been, the party of race-baiting. Race is a tool for the Democrats.
No link, dismissed as lying and bullshitting from a confirmed bigot. You lose again loser.
THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING YOUR BIGOTRY. IT IS ESTABLISHED FOR ETERNITY HERE AT FTB.
Learn your fucking history theDukedog 7:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-rubino/democratic-and-republican-ideologies_b_3432210.html
The GOP was once a liberal party, while the Democrats were conservative, but those roles switched in the 20th century. Do try to keep up.
So basically this asshole’s all about the: “wah wah why are you discriminating against my religious right to discriminate against others”
Fundies, man.
I don’t think he is capable of questioning his unevidenced beliefs…..Which someone of even moderate intellectual capacity would be doing with new evidence. That you for confirming you are an intellectual lightweight DukeDog.
@Tony!
[Can he really be so ignorant to not know that the Democratic Party and the GOP of today are not the same parties they were 75 years ago?]
Yea. Democrats have been such a blessing for blacks. Just look at all of the prosperous safe well-governed cities Democrats have provided for their black constituents–Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, East St Louis.
Every place in America where black Americans are shot and robbed and poor is governed by Democrats.
A black American voting for a Democrat is like a Jew voting for a Nazi. You might like the current iteration of their social programs, but they have a history.
@theDukedog7:
So… you’re against “rights” not extended to everyone? You mean like the right to be served by a public establishment regardless of your religion/religious views/religious sins or virtues and/or the establishment owners’ religion/religious views/religious sins or virtues?
As I remember it, it’s actually illegal for a queer person to refuse to serve a Christian because the Christian believes queer sex is a sin. But this has been turned into a “special right” by Christians who have convinced the courts that they aren’t required to reciprocate to the queers who violate Christian religious codes.
So, how often have you railed against Christians and their “special rights”, precisely? How much time have you spent on that? How many words? How many stories have your read, outraged, that a devout Hindu baker was forced to sell a wedding cake or pay a civil penalty when the customer was an admitted muslim? an admitted Christian? an admitted Presbyterian?
I would love to read your erudite opposition to these injustices.
No one from the GOP, given that their party platform is anti-LGBT, anti-anyone who isn’t white, anti-women, anti-human rights, anti-science, anti-education, anti-poor, anti-union, anti-working class, anti-immigrants, and denies climate change. Additionally, they’re warmongers who support sending troops overseas to fight and die, but don’t support them when they return home. They’re also pro-capital punishment and pro-unregulated firearms.
There is literally nothing in the GOP party platform that is good for this country (or the world). The party is filled with theocratic minded reactionaries opposed to any and all efforts to improve the quality of life for USAmericans as well as people around the globe.
It’s laughable that you support such a vile party. Worse, that you actually think it’s reasonable to do so.
theDukedog 7 @103:
Fixed that for you to make it more accurate since the GOP is the party opposing any and all efforts to eradicate racism in this country.
@Tony! the misinformed!
Eisenhower desegrated the Little Rock schools. Republicans passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1958, 1960, and 1964 over furious Democrat opposition, and Republicans passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Nixon, not Johnson, desegregated public schools in the South. Nixon started Affirmative Action, which was started to prevent Democrat trade unions from excluding blacks in Philadelphia. Nixon created the Civil Rights Commission. 23 of the 26 Dixiecrats remained Democrats all their lives, and some were still serving in Congress in the 1970’s. J William Fullbright, Bill Clinton’s beloved mentor, was a rabid segregationist.
Democrats own racism. They changed tactics a bit in the 60’s when the political wind began blowing the other way. They suck all the juice they can from racial fear and hate. Still do. Al Sharpton. Need I say more?
@Tony, the confused Democrat:
[… GOP, given that their party platform is anti-LGBT,]
Actually, Obama and Hillary both “opposed” gay marriage until a year ago. Such bigots! You didn’t vote for bigots did you?
Of course they weren’t lying or anything.
Hillary has been described, aptly, as a well-lubricated weather-vane.
Relevant
It’s interesting that he doesn’t cite any sources for the numerous claims he’s made. It’s also funny that he thinks I’m a Democrat.
@Tony! the Rick Santorum supporter.
[It’s interesting that he doesn’t cite any sources for the numerous claims he’s made.]
Here, let me google it for you…
[It’s also funny that he thinks I’m a Democrat.]
Yea. I don’t blame you. I’d run away from the Party of Corruption and Jim Crow as fast as I could. Your presidential candidate this time around is a shameless gangster in the money-laundering business who has trouble saving her e-mails.
Not unless it’s to say “As it stands today, the GOP is a party of racist, retrograde fuckwads, in ways similar to how the Democrats used to be.”
@Tony! who’s confused about Republicans
[“As it stands today, the GOP is a party of racist, retrograde fuckwads, in ways similar to how the Democrats used to be.”]
Yea. Republicans today support slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation.
Oh…wait….wait…!
I don’t see any link. Did you forget how to copy/paste a link to support your assertions? Or are you unfamiliar with the burden of proof? You made the claims. You support them with citations. If you can’t do that-and you have yet to do so-your claims will be dismissed. Which is what pretty much everyone here is doing.
I assume you’re talking about Hillary. She’s not “my” candidate. If it were up to me, Bernie Sanders would be President. In any case, you left out the part where you mention that Hillary is still a better candidate than the dozen+ clowns aiming for the GOP nomination. She is far from perfect, but at least she isn’t scum of the earth like Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, or Ted Cruz.
@Tony!:
This is what Republicans say, and have always said: “Content of character, not color of skin”.
Pandering and race-baiting is for Democrats.
Because supporting slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, and segregation is all there is to racism. You have much to learn young Padawan.
Once again, no citation for your assertion. Given that one can turn on FOX “News” and find race-baiting and pandering, it’s amusing that you think this is a hallmark of Democrats.
@Tony! who doesn’t like Ben Carson:
[scum of the earth like Ben Carson, Rick Santorum, or Ted Cruz.]
I have the greatest respect for all three. I know Ben personally–he is most assuredly not scum.
So much hate Tony. Sad.
The Republican Egnor is trying to tar Democrats for racism committed over 40 years ago while refusing to acknowledge the racism of present-day Republicans. Why am I not surprised that a know-nothing creationist hasn’t kept up with politics since the 1960s?
Today’s Republicans are a lot different from those of 100, 50, even 25 or 30 years ago. There isn’t much room in today’s Republican party for someone with views like Eisenhower, who supported raising taxes in order to balance the budget and pay for major infrastructure improvements, or Nixon, who started the EPA and supported affirmative action. Even Reagan would probably be seen today as not conservative enough. Today’s Republican party seems to be mainly about unlimited faith in unrestricted free markets, conservative Christianity, military intervention abroad, and making it as difficult for immigrants as possible. Of course, even those things sometimes conflict, so they sometimes need to fudge a little.
What they say is irrelevant.
What matters is what they DO.
They lie.
Fixed that for you unevidenced liar and bullshit, and total abject intellectual lightweight.
Whereas you have no hate bigot, and supporter of bigots? What an intellectual bankrupt fool you are. It starts with believing in imaginary deities. Try being intelligent, and questioning your presuppositions. You are unable to do so….
And yet black Americans consistently vote for Democrats at a rate of about 85-90%.
Why is that?
I’m afraid that I don’t have the comparable statistics for Jews during the Wiemar Republic, but my guess is that less than 50% of them voted Nazis. Hell, I’d bet my car that the rate was under 5%.
Or even the Weimar Republic.
What is obvious to everybody but the oblivious DukeDog, is that he succumb to political dog whistles from the Rethugs. Being the bigot he is….He doesn’t think they are bigoted, although any rational person (which leaves DukeDog out), knows better.
theDukedog 7 @118:
A look at his views on multiple issues support my contention, not yours.
On abortion:
He believes women should be forced to carry unwanted children to term, which means he is opposed to women having full control over their reproductive anatomy. Which means he doesn’t believe women have the full range of human rights.
On welfare and poverty:
Ignorant of the people who are starving on the streets-men, children, women, black, white, young, old, gay, lesbian, transgender. Doesn’t care enough about the suffering of people in this country to rectify his ignorance.
Also ignorant of the fact that charities are not equipped to meet the needs of the poor, a fact that is even more noticeable in rough economic times.
On their own eh? Shows how little he cares about people once again, especially the children who would suffer if their parents were unable to use government assistance. Also shows that he assumes that some unknown number of people who don’t want to work, but doesn’t provide any evidence that this is the case.
On civil rights:
He supports continued discrimination against LGB people based on religious reasons. As someone looking to serve this country as POTUS, he should know that religious beliefs are not the foundation of laws in this country, nor should they be, as we are not a theocracy.
On foreign policy & poverty:
Demonstrates that he has a poor grasp of the realities of poor people in the US.
Also plays the Dear Muslima game in an attempt to diminish the impact of poverty on USAmericans.
Yeah, he’s pretty damn scummy.
DukeDog7, I try to read your comments but your misattempts at html make them illegible.
To blockquote someone else’s words, using [ ~quoted text~ ] does not produce your desired result.
To do so correctly, is to type <blockquote>quoted text</blockquote> to produce:
providing a link, is only a little more complicated:
<a href=”www.google.com”>link text</a> to produce:
link text, being a link to the google site. Instead of http://www.google.com, to link to some other site, just copy the url box from your browser and paste it between the quotation marks in the href=”” portion.
Is this too complicated, DukeDog7? It would help remove one impediment to reading your comments here.
Pukedog7, way up thread somewhere
Here, let’s try the sound of this…
Atheist prophet
Not working, try again…
Atheist prophet
Still doesn’t work, category error failure.
Ye non existent gods, you’re projecting so hard, I’m amazed you have a functional hand for typing. You really are
Eignorant.Still trying to explain reality to pukedog, huh. Might as well try and explain the concept of Friday to an amoeba. Pukedog is too stupid to get it.
@Tony! who’s confused about abortion
[He believes women should be forced to carry unwanted children to term, which means he is opposed to women having full control over their reproductive anatomy]
Ever hear of the “Roe Effect”? The Roe Effect is the suppression of black population growth by abortion since Roe v Wade. Black children are aborted at a rate 2-3 times higher than white children: 20 million black lives have been terminated since 1073 by abortion.
Planned Parenthood started out as a eugenic organization called the “Birth Control League”. It’s motto was “To breed a race of thoroughbreds”
Tony: you aren’t one of the thoroughbreds they were talking about.
Planned Parenthood’s founder was Margret Sanger. She was a rabid eugenicist and racist. Planned Parenthood sited its clinics heavily in minority neighborhoods–ever wonder why?
Abortion is a black holocaust.
I see the fucking creationist idiot has derailed the thread completely.
Dukie boy, it is just utterly precious that you felt compelled, when faced with a fellow American and fellow Christian molesting children, and faced with other fellow American and fellow good Christian men covering that shit up, to shriek “but…but…but…STALIN!!!!”. Doing that to dismiss the significance of the thing we are actually discussing.
What I have yet to hear is an actual rebuke of the thing that is actually the topic. What I have yet to hear is a rebuke of those covered it up. What I have yet to hear is a rebuke of the good fellow Christians who further dismiss the significance of it all with the excuse of “we are all sinners”. What I have exclusively seen are all distractions. Odious, idiotic distractions. Transparent attempts to divert attention from the issue at hand, because Communist Dictatorships and Abortion.
You are a fucking scumbag, Dukie.
theDukedog7 .
Was meant to be funny?
DukeDog liar and bullshitter. Nobody is forcing abortions. The fact that poor women have them at higher rates than those with good health care and ready access to birth control is typical. Poor white women have higher rates too. All you have are lies, bullshit, and distortions of reality that fit your delusions. Typical lightweight intellectual loser talk. You should know better.
Fascinating, the talking point about Democrats being The Real Racists. Because, unless The Real Racism is the precious “reverse racism” that so flusters the typical white Republican asshole, the Republicans accusing the Democrats of being the Truly Racist Ones are saying that the 80% or so of African Americans who affiliate with Democrats, and the 95% who vote for Democratic presidential candidates, have just been fooled and misled and don’t know racism when they see it.
Obviously, there is nothing racist at all with that mindset either…..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/139880/election-polls-presidential-vote-groups.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx
http://blackdemographics.com/culture/black-politics/
Dukedog @ 131 – you need to present some sources for those stats, son, and nice attempt at redirecting but you didn’t address the fundamental problem that your “buddy” Ben Carson thinks its fine for the government to force women to stay pregnant against their will and give birth against their will.
Also, an organization that offers low or no cost medical care places its clinics in locations close to people who are living in poverty? What a vast racist conspiracy.
Dukedog @ 115
Did you really just attempt to claim that an MLK Jr quote is somehow a Republican mantra?
Of course you did. It’s the racist white person’s favorite MLK quote, since cherry picked and completely without context it seems like it supports some bs “bootstraps” “I don’t see race” version of reality.
For some context:
I swear Dukie might as well be a bot. They only have three arguments in their arsenal.
1. Libruls are bad because a small handful of Big Cities are in poor condition!
2. Atheists are bad because Communist Dictatorships!
3. Democrats are Teh Real Racists because I refuse to acknowledge that political parties changed dramatically during the Civil Rights Movement!
And then just insert additional smug, inflammatory remarks, like the shit about gay wedding cakes, and that is DukeDog.
Also: I see What a Maroon already provided information I linked to in 135. Whoops.
Also also: Anyone want to place bets on Dukie actually going back, addressing the OP, and making a clear statement that they oppose and will not make any excuses for Christian child molestors and the people who cover that shit up? I know I wouldn’t bet on it.
No worries; can’t hurt to see it twice. And I’d like to see how theDukedog7 space period explains away the voting patterns if they’re not willing to admit that black Americans are right to see the Democrats as the lesser of two evils.
theDukedog 7 @131:
I’m not confused at all. All women should be able to have full control over their reproductive anatomy at all times. Full stop. No exclusions.
Learn. To. Fucking. Blockquote.
You said:
First off, your typo actually makes this one of the funniest things you’ve said, given that there were no African-Americans (indeed, no Americans of any sort) in the year 1073.
Secondly, it doesn’t matter to me how many fetuses-black, white, asian, hispanic or any other race-are aborted. What concerns me is that pregnant women of all races and ethnicities have access to abortion services if they want to make use of them. If that results in 20, 90, or 100 million aborted fetuses, that doesn’t matter to me. The rights of extant, autonomous human persons with rights is what matters. Between a fetus and a pregnant woman, only the latter is an extant, autonomous human person with rights. So they are the ones who matter.
Thirdly, it is true that the abortion rate among African-American women is higher than among white women. But you, like others, distort the truth to suit your own purpose. From Guttmacher:
Bolding mine.
Moving on to your next piece of unevidenced bullshit, you said:
It’s no secret that Margaret Sanger identified with broad elements of the eugenics movement, but she believed reproductive choices should be made on an individual basis. Moreover, she did not believe in and repudiated any racial application of eugenics principles:
In addition, the quote you attribute to Sanger was not hers. It came from Dr. Edward A. Kemf, and has been distorted as well by people like you (from the same link as above):
And regarding your comments about Sanger’s Birth Control League, once again, you’re wrong. It wasn’t a eugenics organization. It was a reproductive rights organization:
Note: I find the idea of sterilizing people with mental illness or disabilities a vile idea.
You said:
She did have racist beliefs and did agree broadly with some of the principles of eugenics. That that is true does nothing to support any of your other assertions, which I’ve shown to be distortions in the above cases, and lies in the remaining few.
Case in point. You said:
No, I don’t wonder why, because it PP clinics were not heavily in minority neighborhoods during Sanger’s time:
Nor are todays PPs concentrated in black neighborhoods:
Finally, you said:
False. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Many black women-like women of other races-elect to terminate their pregnancy. You seem to think that millions of women choosing to terminate their pregnancy equals a holocaust. Sorry, that’s not how it works. Women who elect to have an abortion procedure do so bc they made the choice to do so. You would rob them of the right to make that choice themselves. You would deny women the right to bodily autonomy. You would enslave half the human populace because you want to control their bodies. That’s one of the many reasons you’re a disgustingly putrid human being.
Damn. Looking back, I see that your comment @131 is deeply, massively, wrong on pretty much all fronts. You ought to be embarrassed to hold the beliefs you do. It took me longer to create this comment than it did to find and refute your bullshit, which means that you could have done the same if you were actually interested in supporting your opinions with fact. But clearly you’re not. Like other fundamentalist, conservative, theocratic, misogynistic, homophobic bigots, you aren’t interested in facts. So sad.
Ah, I suppose I should have split that last comment up. It’s a bit long.
Oh well.
Damn Tony! Bravo. Well researched and a damn good and thorough refutation.
Tony, bravo! May I buy you a drink?
Applause Tony, applause. DukeDog won’t read or understand it (it doesn’t fit his prejudices), but the lurkers will see DuckDog for the quack he is.
Nerd @144:
I won’t lie. There’s a small part of me that hopes he’ll read the response and actually attempt to comprehend it.
A. Really. Small. Part.
The main reason I wanted to refute his bullshit is for the benefit of others, such as lurkers.
What utter scum you are, Egnor, using the victims of the Holocaust to prop up your stupid lies. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of black Americans who vote, vote Democrat. So in making this ludicrous comparison, you are not only insulting the Jewsih victims of the Nazis by using their suffering in your dishonest rhetoric, insinuating that the vast majority of black Americans who vote are as stupid as Jews would have been to vote for the Nazis.
Now, since you insist that an organization remains responsible for everything it has done at least for a century, and since you have introduced the topic of the Nazis, let’s consider the role of the Catholic Church in relation to them. It was, of course the Pope, the leader of the Catholic Church – and not the leader of the Democratic Party or of any atheist organization, who signed a concordat with Hitler – following on from the one signed with Mussolini. The Church was also instrumental in helping leading Nazi war criminals escape at the end of the war. It was the Catholic Centre Party which gave Hitler the majority he needed in the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act which gave him dictatorial powers. Hitler’s puppet ruler in Slovakia was a Catholic priest, Josef Tiso. The Church took no action against him. Never did the Pope or the German hierarchy call for resistance against the Nazis, nor was any Nazi leader ever excommunicated or threatened with excommunication for their crimes. And:
Now, I suggest you shut your lying mouth, you hypocritical racist pile of stinking filth.
Tony@140,
Brilliant work! That really nailed the liar!
Nick Gotts @46
The only Nazi leader excommunicated was Dr. Josef Goebbels. His sin was marrying a divorced Protestant.
Typical. I post a beautifully concise, pithy response, only to be overshadowed by Tony’s brilliant tour de force.
Thanks, Tony.
I doubt Mr Smegnor will change his mind even if you spent the next decade swamping him with citations, the insufferably stupid never do. Good post though Tony.
I nominate Tony! for an OM.
Niiiiiice, Tony. A saying about pearls and pigs comes to mind, but that was epic.
Egnoramus, on the off chance you’re still here, get it through your thick goddamned skull that those so-called “atheist regimes” didn’t commit their atrocities in the name of atheism, while your religious nuts specifically did theirs because of their religion. I see this strawman every-damn-where and it’s rage-inducing.
Bearing false witness is a sin, so unless you wanna burn so hard your ashes scream for their mother to bring them water, you better cut it out, capisce?