Calling creationism “lies” and a “con” without anything to back that up is not an argument.
When Mr. Faircloth demonizes the mentality of “the inside group vs. the outside group”, he should be aware that he is also demonizing himself. I doubt he would accept that the position he holds is inferior to or even equal to opposing positions. He excludes outside views just as everyone else does.
Did Romney really say “treat gay people unfairly” in his Liberty U speech? Or is that Mr. Faircloth's interpretation? Discrimination is something everyone does every day, and it's necessary. To make a claim that certain discrimination is done unfairly, you should quantify what you mean by unfairly. Military chaplains and others who oppose homosexuality are considering (or should be) behavior of an individual, not their skin tone—which is fair. The author's comparison at 5:20 is rooted in the false premise that such behavior is no more under a person's control than skin color. Religious liberty is the freedom to follow moral convictions, exactly what Mr. Faircloth does in discriminately condemning religious people based on his own moral convictions.
Faircloth is Director of Strategy & Policy with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, U.S., as is clearly annotated in the video's description. He speaks from RichardDawkins.net, at which creationism as lies and a con are amply discussed, as is the 10-point vision for a secular America.
As for your comment about chaplains: You seem to be under the false impression that sexual orientation is a choice, whereas Faircloth is on solid scientific ground when he points out it is not.
Thank you for your continuing interest in this blog and in the topics of creationism and sexual orientation.
I post articles to this blog because many friends were interested in the things I talk about and have asked me frequently for leads to sources where they could learn more, and posting to this blog is easier than sending multiple email messages to dozens of people throughout the day. With that as the context, I trust you will understand when I say that I will not post your second or any further comments from you on this subject because they are argumentative, and as such, do not fit the purpose of this blog. Nor do I have time to argue every point you assert; if you genuinely want to know, the information is out there, the evidence presented, the literature abundant; you can research it just like I did. Instead, it appears you have a strong desire to argue your particular point of view. There are already myriad Web sites and YouTube channels dedicated to your purpose, and this blog is not one of them.
As to the documentation or scientific basis for the points made in this particular post or any others in this blog: I don't feel compelled to defend any of the points made by the authors of the articles I post. In fact, I may or may not agree with them myself. That is not the point. The point is, they interest me and the people who know me. If you are one of those people, great. If not, you are bound to be frustrated. If you genuinely desire to learn how these positions are supported, you can pursue the links in the articles to which I point (which is why I post them to begin with), or Google them. If you need help finding something, I would be happy to oblige to the extent I have time, and to the extent I am convinced you really want to learn something new -- but let's be honest, that really isn't the case, is it? I will not engage in debate, and I will not allow you to use this blog as a forum to wage battles for your own point of view.
It's not fair, I know. But that's life around here. You are always welcome to visit, though. Thank you for understanding.
Calling creationism “lies” and a “con” without anything to back that up is not an argument.
ReplyDeleteWhen Mr. Faircloth demonizes the mentality of “the inside group vs. the outside group”, he should be aware that he is also demonizing himself. I doubt he would accept that the position he holds is inferior to or even equal to opposing positions. He excludes outside views just as everyone else does.
Did Romney really say “treat gay people unfairly” in his Liberty U speech? Or is that Mr. Faircloth's interpretation? Discrimination is something everyone does every day, and it's necessary. To make a claim that certain discrimination is done unfairly, you should quantify what you mean by unfairly. Military chaplains and others who oppose homosexuality are considering (or should be) behavior of an individual, not their skin tone—which is fair. The author's comparison at 5:20 is rooted in the false premise that such behavior is no more under a person's control than skin color. Religious liberty is the freedom to follow moral convictions, exactly what Mr. Faircloth does in discriminately condemning religious people based on his own moral convictions.
Faircloth is Director of Strategy & Policy with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, U.S., as is clearly annotated in the video's description. He speaks from RichardDawkins.net, at which creationism as lies and a con are amply discussed, as is the 10-point vision for a secular America.
ReplyDeleteAs for your comment about chaplains: You seem to be under the false impression that sexual orientation is a choice, whereas Faircloth is on solid scientific ground when he points out it is not.
Mikeoramy:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your continuing interest in this blog and in the topics of creationism and sexual orientation.
I post articles to this blog because many friends were interested in the things I talk about and have asked me frequently for leads to sources where they could learn more, and posting to this blog is easier than sending multiple email messages to dozens of people throughout the day. With that as the context, I trust you will understand when I say that I will not post your second or any further comments from you on this subject because they are argumentative, and as such, do not fit the purpose of this blog. Nor do I have time to argue every point you assert; if you genuinely want to know, the information is out there, the evidence presented, the literature abundant; you can research it just like I did. Instead, it appears you have a strong desire to argue your particular point of view. There are already myriad Web sites and YouTube channels dedicated to your purpose, and this blog is not one of them.
As to the documentation or scientific basis for the points made in this particular post or any others in this blog: I don't feel compelled to defend any of the points made by the authors of the articles I post. In fact, I may or may not agree with them myself. That is not the point. The point is, they interest me and the people who know me. If you are one of those people, great. If not, you are bound to be frustrated. If you genuinely desire to learn how these positions are supported, you can pursue the links in the articles to which I point (which is why I post them to begin with), or Google them. If you need help finding something, I would be happy to oblige to the extent I have time, and to the extent I am convinced you really want to learn something new -- but let's be honest, that really isn't the case, is it? I will not engage in debate, and I will not allow you to use this blog as a forum to wage battles for your own point of view.
It's not fair, I know. But that's life around here. You are always welcome to visit, though. Thank you for understanding.