Just keep it up, you sanctimonious religious ponces. Keep piling on homosexuals, gender-queers, and everyone who isn’t exactly like you. That’ll prove your religion is the religion of peace and understanding and enlightenment.
This time, Bryan Fischer of the AFA misapplies Martin Luther King Jr.’s quotes to justify bigotry against gays. How, you might ask? Apparently, by saying that being judgmental of them is appropriate, because you’re judging them for the “content of their character”.
The problem with this is, first you have to say that being gay is somehow an immoral character choice, and not a happenstance of genetics like, say, skin color. And you should probably try to prove that homosexuality is immoral without using your holy book — if you can — while mentioning MLK, considering how many passages from the very same books used to condemn homosexuality are also used to condone slavery of certain classes of people. You’re not going to twist your way out of this while still using your holy book, but I’d probably enjoy seeing you try.
Just another self-righteous asshole with an inability to empathize with people who are not exactly like themselves. Only this one has a radio show and a following.
This literally made me sick to my stomach. No hyperbole, I physically choked on my bile over this.
Can we end this gender role shit now, please?! Seriously, here’s a guy who pretends to have better morality than the rest of us, advocating hitting kids for not acting like their societally prescribed gender roles. As though these kids are somehow evil for liking different things. As though liking wearing a dress means the boy is de facto gay, when this kid could be completely heterosexual otherwise. As though being gay is a bad thing to begin with.
This is just fractally wrong.
The preacher in question is Sean Harris, Senior Pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, NC. What say we express our outrage via Twitter?
Hat tip Joe.My.God.
There’s still a lot I need to unpack from this article at Kotaku about gamifying religion. I wanted to get a few thoughts out about the base idea of creating a “morality hub”, a sort of user-driven voting scheme like Reddit where people can submit ideas about what morals should be followed and let the crowd vote up and down what should be prioritized. The corollary idea that the most popular morals become the most valuable (points-wise) morals to express is a bit disturbing.
First, there’s the ever-present fear of people gaming that sort of system, where on the internet, with anonymity, people give in to their baser ideals. Look at those places where giving offense is considered the highest virtue. The integrity of the voting system and the integrity of the submission system is quesitonable from the outset.
Second, there’s the very idea of competing with one another for the ability to do certain “moral” deeds. Must we elbow one another out of the way to tackle the little old lady looking to cross the street? And what of “grinding” certain low-level, easy to complete positive moral actions?
Third, is it really decent morality if you’re doing it for some (earthly or otherwise) reward? If you stop a mugging just because it’ll win you twenty points, is that a net good for society, or would people look for more altruistic reasons to stop that mugging before it’s considered moral?
Gamifying religion seems to suffer from every poor outcome and exploit that video game karma systems do. It might have some benefits in the real world, though. What do you folks think?
Yup, pretty much spot on. Considering the full-throated Republican and evangelical assault on gay marriage claiming that “traditional marriage” is between one man and one woman, Betty Bowers, “America’s Best Christian”, goes back to the source materials to show that the common conception of traditional marriage is one that is very much at odds with the one written in everyone’s favorite source for morality.
Our close blog-buddy DuWayne Brayton has been published in a philosophy publication covering morality called Moral Relativism Magazine. I can only assume the purpose of the publication is to retake a label that the evangelical crowd has turned into a slur, considering that moral relativism is far more nuanced than “we should do whatever we want because all morals are relative”. DuWayne sent along a preview copy of the article, so I could pimp his writing, and I figure there’s no harm in giving you a sample of the first two paragraphs so you can gauge whether you’re interested in the full thing.
A mere fifty years ago it was generally accepted that people who had different colored skin getting married was so immoral it was illegal in most states in the U.S. Even today, the few states allow same sex couples to marry and such marriages aren’t recognized by the U.S. federal government. Less than fifty years ago people who engaged in homosexual sex could be imprisoned in several U.S. states. In Kenya, Uganda and Nairobi homosexuality can still be cause for imprisonment, in some cases inducing a life sentence. Homosexuality is a capital crime in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Nigeria. Most people in most cultures worldwide consider monogamy the default assumption for romantic relationships. Even many atheists find polyamorous relationships morally ambiguous at best.
Yet there has been miscegenation since people of different colors have been in contact with one another. Homosexuality would not be illegal or otherwise frowned upon if it had not existed for all of history in a myriad of cultures. Polygamy and polyamory, not to mention the assumption of cheating have been accepted in innumerable cultures throughout history. All of these also occur and have occurred in cultures that generally consider them immoral. While it can be argued that every culture has ethical frameworks, parts of which are considered moral axioms to the majority of individuals within that culture, it is absurd to assume that everyone in a given culture accepts all of that framework as moral truth.
The full magazine is $8 per issue, which is good considering it’s a relatively (heh) new and self-published startup providing actual physical copies for each issue, operating primarily through Lulu. The best part is, it’s a paid gig for DuWayne, and the more people buy this magazine and support their efforts, the more likely it will stick around to provide a revenue stream for DuWayne and other philosophers like him. If you’ve got the change and are interested in this sort of thing, it might be worth your while to support these folks.
C0nc0rdance has made a thorough and balanced video outlining the case for and against routine circumcision. What do you folks think?
Continue reading “Are there good arguments for male circumcision?”
Cripes on toast. John Loftus moved to FtB recently. His blog is live now — has been for a few days in fact. I even helped him migrate Debunking Christianity from its old Blogspot host, and in doing so, only managed to get the first 150 megs of his blog before Blogspot crapped out on the download. And that was the biggest export I managed to squeeze out of Google’s servers, in fact. Evidently there’s a script processing limit that I was hitting repeatedly. No wonder — the largest I managed to grab was an order of magnitude larger than anything else I’d helped migrate into FtB up to this point. I am a very tiny fish in a very large pond, swimming with some whales, pretending that I’m just as important.
Loftus posted this video by QualiaSoup, a Youtube philosopher whom I absolutely adore and have linked a number of times in the past, so I’m nicking it for some easy and brainy content.
Continue reading “What Kant meant by the is/ought divide”