HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MrScorpio » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 62,262

Journal Archives

What can you guys tell me about Humanists? I've never dealt with one before.

I ran into one in Raw Story, and maybe I'm wrong, but this guy sounds like an anti-religious bigot. Mind you that I'm not religious myself. But whenever I feel as if I'm being subjected to religious intolerance of ANY kind, whether it be in the name of for or against the belief in any faith, I don't like that shit at all.

Every American has the right to believe, or not to believe, as they see fit, and no one has the right to tell anyone otherwise.

These are the kinds of things that start religious wars in other countries. Check this out and tell me if I'm wrong or not.

Article: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/17/how-to-tell-a-mexican-from-a-muslim-a-guide-for-the-panicky-american/?utm_source=disqus-dashboard

Here in Southeast Michigan, we've made peace with Muslims eons ago. The Potato Farmers have nothing to fear.

"The most potent antidote to religion is education. I am sure many of those people who you call Muslim are not Muslim at all but just people who came from a Muslim ancestry. Keep up the good work and in a generation the mosque will close due to lack of interest."

I have to ask. Do you actually know anything about Southeast Michigan, or was that your standard take on anything said about Islam or Muslims in America?
And why do we need to close Mosques? Do we need to close Temples and Churches too? What's wrong with anyone following whatever religious belief they want to have?
Heck, I may be personally non-religious, but I stand by anyone else worshipping as they see fit in this country. That's called religious freedom, my friend.

"Whoa, calm down fella. My point is not anti-religion but that religion can't compete with education and TV. All religions have to indoctrinate their children. Still even a child that is indoctrinated but is exposed to counter ideas, such as science, history, TV or life without a religion, may not stay in the religion.
That is my point. In the home countries, where the Muslim religion is mandatory and all counter ideas are eliminated, children grow up to be Muslim. In Michigan, even Muslim children are exposed to science, history, TV and the idea life can be lived without religion.
My point is the Muslim religion is no different than other religions. They are losing members. The fasting growing group in America is atheist. No child has to be indoctrinated to be an atheist since that is what all children start with."

No, that's not right. Not all Muslim countries have universal Muslim indoctrination. I take it that you're not aware that there are Christians Arabs and Persians, Jewish Iranians, so forth and so on in this world. Here in Michigan, many of the Arabs are from predominantly Muslim countries, like Iraq, are actually Christians. Go to Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Algeria and Morocco and you'll see something quite different from what you're asserting.
Dude, I'm a retired AF Vet as you appear to be a retired Navy vet. I'm sure that you must have served with other people from different faiths and nationalities and gleaned from them a much better knowledge of the world. Or perhaps you were deployed overseas. But you don't seem to indicating that at all.
Where are you getting this stuff from?

"We are talking past each other. You are correct that many Muslim societies are tolerant of other beliefs, even if the tolerance is only grudgingly allowed and slowly disappearing. I am correct that many countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Northern Sudan, state governments in Indonesia and Malaysia, actively persecute anyone who is not a Muslim or is the wrong type of Muslim.
I am sure many of the outstanding people in Michigan fled their native countries because they were not the right type of Muslim or were not a dedicated enough Muslim.
I am a proud member of the American Humanist Association. ( http://americanhumanist.org/ ) Everyday there are stories about atheists in Muslim countries who are brutally treated, even killed, or imprisoned because they committed the crime of not believing.
Sharia law is rapidly spreading in many parts of the world. In those areas, the worst crime is to question Islam or even worse, not believe in a god.
The reason why sharia law is imposed is because the enforcers know modern life in general and education in particular would destroy their religion if people had freedom.
That is my point, modern life and education is the antidote for religion. Even people who fled sharia law, but are still strong believers, will find their children questioning the faith once they learn there is an alternative, such as atheism.
You try to deny facts and tell me I am somehow wrong for pointing out the obvious. There is a reason atheism is the fastest growing group in America and even in Michigan's Muslim communities.
Oh yea, I spent time in 35 countries and was stationed overseas for nine years in my Navy service. I know a thing or two about other cultures."

OK, let me tell you what I'm finding objectionable in your posts. To me, you seem to be unfairly focused on Islam, to the exclusion of the problems of intolerance imposed from any other religion. It's not as if it's only the Muslims who are causing problems out there, Right? And your point about Sharia indicated to me that you might be concerned that Sharia Law could be imposed here in the US… Which, in my observation is a completely irrational fear, coming exclusively from the Right Wing.
Instead of Sharia law coming to America, I'm way more concerned about the Dominionists who are hellbent on turning this country into a so-called "Christian Nation," bound by some warp interpretation of the Book of Leviticus.
Sure, as Humanist, must have some concern about that, and I right?

Your leaps of logic are truly galactic. I point out people are fleeing sharia law overseas but you claim I am worried about American government imposing sharia law here in the United States.
You fancy yourself a liberal but what you did was out-Limbaugh - Limbaugh. Limbaugh did the same thing to Sandra Fluke. She testified about the need for health care and Limbaugh claimed she wanted government to pay her for having sex.
I agree the Muslim religion isn't the only religion that has intolerant believers. There is an old saying in America, "Jesus protect me from your followers."
The difference is our Constitution protects us from religion. If it wasn't for the Constitution, we would have a Christian version of sharia law in many parts of our country. The same hate and ignorance found in fundamentalist Muslim areas is also found in fundamentalist Christian areas here, fundamentalist Hindu areas in India and even in African tribal religions.
If it wasn't for the rule of law, Americans would see the same religious based killing that Iraqis woke up to when Dubya liberated them from peace and tolerance.
Even though you invented things I never said or implied, I still point out that freedom to get an education is incompatible with religion, be it Michigan or Tehran.

OK, Bro., I took some time to reassess this conversation we're having and I've come to the conclusion that I've misjudged you.

I apologize for that. I guess that miscommunication is something that's inherent in this this process.

Frankly, I think that you and I have more in common that we have apart. Your point about us talking past each other was correct.

Can we call a truce?

Agreed, we are both knowledgeable on why intolerance is destructive to society in general and to the victims in particular. I enjoyed your replies. Please keep up the good work.

All done!

Linus Sings The Police

Laurel and Hardy dancing to Santana...

Grey's Anatomy star: People should be outraged

The Good Bad Guy Strikes...

We need to rewrite a basic rule in this country...

To: "Whereas, if ANY money is involved, never trust ANY market to regulate itself."

The same goes for any industry.

It's time to break up the banks:

Break up the media:

We must raise worker's wages, and tax the top marginal earners progressively, create a nationalized pension system and scrap market oriented retirement plans, reduce the size of the wasteful military/intelligence/congressional complex, rebuild the infrastructure, bolster all public institutions and bring all corporate power under control.

If we don't reverse the path that we're on, our lives, the lives of those who come after us and everything else will be owned by someone like these guys:

They're already trying to turn Detroit into a RoboCop scenario…

AS we go, so will go the rest of America.

Don't turn America into a RoboCop scenario.

The Democrats must have a primary, especially if Hillary becomes our nominee

And every single one of those other-than-Hillary candidates must be as leftier/more liberal/super progressive as possible.

Hell, they all should be downright Democratic Socialists.

The point being is that a primary presents the best opportunity to bring a leftward, more populist shift to the Democratic Party. The only people who can accomplish this are the rank and file, labor-based, civil, economic, social progressive wing of the party.

We need to force the eventual nominee to lead a strong force against the corporate money based wing of Democrats, who keep shifting the party rightward.

Sure, this is definitely Hillary's show to run. But she has to be told, in no uncertain terms, that any Democratic candidate for president in 2016 will be representing the cause of fundamental progressive policy and will not end up being Republican lite, as long as we have something to say about that.

Bring on a Democratic Primary!

Giant Bunny is stripping her way through college...

How to Create a Thug

Mychal Denzel Smith on February 11, 2014 - 2:39 PM ET

“I’m not trying to be racist…”

Last night, a stranger started a “conversation” with me using those exact words. There was nothing positive that could have come out of this exchange.

“I’m not trying to be racist, but do you know where I can score some coke?”

I heard him. It was a pretty noisy bar, but I heard him loud and clear. Still, I wanted him to say it again.

“What?” He repeated himself. My gut reaction? Punch in the face. I didn’t.

“So, what you’re saying is, because I’m black, you picked me to come ask to help you find cocaine?”

“Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I’m not trying to be offensive…”

No need to try. He succeeded without it.

“OK, I’ve lived in New York for five months…”

“I don’t give a fuck where you’re from, I’m just trying to get some coke.” He cut me off before I could finish telling him that in my five months, this was one of most racist things that had happened to me, but still didn’t rank that high on a lifetime scale. He wasn’t worth my time. He could get the fuck out of my face.

After my friends told him to leave, repeatedly, he did so while saying over and over again, “I wasn’t trying to be offensive, I’m sorry if I offended you.” Hollow, drunken apologies. He came back to the table with a friend. Immediately, we told them both to leave. They offered us drinks. We didn’t want them. I didn’t want them. The friend said, “He’s just an asshole, he was trying to be funny.” No, he wasn’t. He was trying to be racist. He made that abundantly clear.


I commend the jurors who stood their ground to convict Dunn of Jordan Davis' murder

They didn't buckle under and make the immediately convenient and subsequently regretful decision to find him not guilty in count one. Those jurors, have served the interests of justice in the long run. By causing that count to mistrial, they have impelled prosecutors to retry Michael Dunn on the charge of First Degree Murder. We are looking for justice, and that he's convicted for his killing of Jordan Davis, an innocent young man.

Good luck with that, Florida. You still have a way to go.

That being said… This thing is not over and yet again, we have a situation that exposes the degree of potential for America to do the right thing in regards to the question of race. Only a fool would claim that race played no part in any of this. Race was all OVER the situation.

Race gave Michael Dunn the legitimacy of his claim, to some, that he essentially had to "defend" himself from the inherent and imminent threat of Jordan Davis' own blackness. Because, we all know, right off the bat, that Dunn could see, without any shadow of a doubt, that Jordan Davis was Black. Dunn didn't know anything else about the young man and simply depended upon his own well-established predisposition to judge Jordan Davis negatively and fearfully, simply because of his Blackness.

There, to Dunn, was the most immediate threat, nothing else… But his prejudicial belief that all young, Black men are inherently violent.

The only problem was, that the only inherently violent person in that situation was the very person who consciously and methodically used a firearm to shoot at and kill another person… Dunn was that violent person.

Which is why his entire "the Black 'sonuva bitch' had a shotgun" argument was total bullshit. If there was a shotgun being brandished by some inherently violent "thug," he wouldn't be playing peek-a-boo with the damn thing, he would be using it thusly and there would be no doubt about it whatsoever:

But we all know that there was no shotgun. We know this because, except in Dunn's imagination, there was no proof whatsoever of any shotgun and he was left with grasping for straws by being the only violent person who brandished and used a firearm and killed an unarmed person that day. His own slightly-induced feelings of guilt drove him to flee and to act in ways that only a guilty person would act. His guilt even drove his argument that he was justified to take Jordan Davis' life. His guilt, arrogance and racist beliefs were all on display and he had to dream up a fantasy world, which one or more of the jurors seemed to swallow in his favor.

So, what else, other than race can account for the lack of basic justice in the case of Jordan Davis' apparent murder? We really don't have a lot of options to choose from here. And it's not like we don't live in a world where some people think that it's OK to shoot young, unarmed men, simply because they are Black. Both HLN's Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew have been running a three-ring circus around one of these disgusting individuals: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024503666 AND through his own written words, Michael Dunn was shown to be one of these people as well. So that's simply the kind of people who are both walking around and who can also end up serving on jury duty at any given time.

The idea that justice can be served, without regard to the matter of race is still an honorable and wholly achievable goal… Apparently, we as a society, have not yet arrived at that place. I say this, simply because if a jury believes that there was no shotgun and that Davis never left the backseat of the Dodge Durango, then what justifies Dunn shooting him, where they felt that he was NOT justified in any of the other counts? Again, we are left with the powerfully driven concept of the inherent and immediate threat of Blackness in the minds of some White people.

You should understand that both Black people who have witnessed and have been the victims of injustice still generally believe that we can arrive at a place and time where one's race does not predetermine whether or not what kind of justice will be applied. There are people of all creeds and colors working for and waiting for that day. It's seen as an eventuality that the day will come, otherwise any belief in the entire system would be abandoned. The system, however broken, it still a valid work in progress.

To anyone who argues that simply because Dunn was found guilty on the other counts and will apparently spend the rest of his miserable life in prison: I say to you that, in regard of the life taken from Jordan Davis, justice has not yet been served. What we have here is a demonstration that we are not yet ready to go the additional step to afford a completely impartial coverage of justice for everyone in this country. That not all of the jurors, could find Dunn guilty on the count of murder, when they voted unanimously on all the other counts, speaks to fact that the concept of an innocent young victim's Blackness being an immediate and imminent threat is still holding us back.

The picture is incomplete. Simply, the jury is still out on whether or not armed White people retain carte blanche to shoot and kill unarmed and non-threatening Black people at will.

So, don't expect me, or anyone who's working toward and expecting as well that we can have completely impartial justice in America to settle for half-assed impartial justice instead. That's not going to happen. It's not happening because we've had jurors for the Dunn trail declare, from their unyielding stance, say that we CAN potentially go all the way. All we have to do is live up to their example that says that the potential still exists.

Lastly, I need to say that I had two different essays that I was going to write, based on the outcome of the trial. Obviously, this is not the one I wanted to write. It has pained me to do so.

But it's not like I have given up any hope that I will eventually write the other one… I'm sure that I will.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 ... 455 Next »