Here is some general advise for the religious & social right & middle:
1. Put more of your energy into searching for secular arguments to back up the otherwise good & valuable human morality that exists with your cultures.
3. Admit that on the "god" front (including on evolution), the intellectual argument has mostly gone to the side of the left.
4. Many of the moral arguments you make do have value - when made a bit less harsh.
Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea: Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. Fully natural, normal, valuable, and useful human morality can and does exist within religious frameworks. A damn hard thing for a liberal to admit! In fact many liberals are in active denial.
It's no wonder that Steven Pinker has commented about the modern denial of human nature, in his book The Blank Slate.
The left IS in denial, just as the right has been about god & evolution.
Yes we ARE animals, with BUILT IN morals, AND some damn good reasons for ascribing shame (yes shame!) to certain otherwise descructive human behaviors.
I remember when Christopher Hitchens made not of how the left was in denial about Islam and both the right & left about Mother Theressa.
I remember when Daniel Dennett stated "Dennett's Dangerous Idea" (thanks go to me for coining this if no one else has to date!), that: Religion is a natural phoenomenon. Again, this apparent fact cuts both ways. Very inconventient for the social agenda of assholes like P.Z. Myers and the like. The fundie left.
Why all the gay stuff? Because the left worships homosexuality as the pinnacle of liberal sex. No kids. "Cha-ching" they say - "we're helping the environment!" Automatic birth control. Perfect liberal sex. Also perfect liberal marriage.
People trying to "recover" from conservative religion can be and are easily sucked into the abusive fundamentalism of the left.
For example: Atheists of Utah - in my view a fundamentalist religion of the left. Doctrines. Dogmas. Unquestionable paradigms. An ultra-leftist social agenda. Voted by Q Salt Lake as the best religion, and a runner up to being the best social group.
But where's the regular straight families? Where's the children? Where's the people who value good old fashioned healthy happy useful family values? They're actively excluded. They MUST be, because politically correct leftist dogmatism is their core religion.
Boozer parties where high alchohol content liquor is raffled off.
Not only does the conservative emperor have no clothes (eg: Joseph Smith), the liberal emperer has none also (eg: "gay culture"). The latter group are happy about that though, with their constant posting of near-naked photos of themselves on facebook.
Hey, I've seen it all first hand. I've seen the ultra-right AND the ultra-left. Unlike your average muff mouthed muff brained liberal, I've done in depth research into BOTH "ultra" sides. And here's what I've found: BOTH SIDES are nearly equally abusive!
It's sad that scientists claim they're being objective when they're not - on social issues.
They're ok with being mostly-objective when it comes to far off things like planets, or far distant in history things like dinosaurs. BUT, question their ultra-leftist social agenda on things like marriage & family, and by fuck they will revert to the new-ultra-dogmatic-religion-of-the-left as quick as a bat out of hell. Two seconds. Maybe one
"Yes, here on the high pillars of academia, we poo poo and laugh at the poor middle & right leaning religionists, with their views on the existence of god & evolution. BUT, question our social views and we'll quickly show you just how religious WE ARE as scientists - so-called scientists who refuse to be scientists when it comes to social issues."
So, yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, you ARE right to conclude that groups of scientists, AND atheist groups, AND secular groups, most such groups are religions - dogmatic religions of the left.
----------
Both sides, right & left, poison of the well of reasonable discussion regarding natural normal good valuable useful human morality.
Jumping from one extreme to the other is no solution.
Honesty is the answer! Both to dogmatism on the right & the left.
All sides are right (& wrong), liberals, moderates, & conservatives.
All sides are right - all sides have valid points. And all sides are wrong also.
Attention atheist groups: I don't want to be in your religions. I left one religion already. I don't wish to join yours. I don't wish to kiss the ass of your de facto priests. I don't wish to join your chump chorus of ultra-liberalism.
It's been a long hard road. I've examined what goes on with "the left," and I've found it to be just as abusive as what goes on with "the right."
Key background:
1. Spending 26 years in the Mormon Church.
2. Went on a Mormon mission to Alaska.
3. Going to Rick College for a year (now BYU Idaho).
4. Being a temple worker in more than one Mormon temple.
5. Going to BYU in Provo, Utah for a year.
6. Leaving the Mormon Church.
7. Living in Texas.
8. Living in Oregon, checking out the wild Alice-in-Wonderland-style scene there & the fucking hippies.
9. Marrying a woman from China, where they've had pretty much zero exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, & most other churches, and examining what their views are.
10. Hearing from people like Steven Pinker with his book The Blank Slate. Also from Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.
11. Daniel Dennett talking about how religion is a natural phenomenon.
12. Making note of how I had one uncle who grew up in Manti, Utah (ultra conservative Mormon small town). This uncle went to San Francisco to "let it all hang out," to apparently rebel against his ultra-conservative upbringing. He ended up dying of AIDS as a supposedly gay man, leaving his straight family with no father. WTF. A victim of BOTH Mormonism, and the gay freaks of San Francisco. Forced to jump from one side directly to the other. Abused by both!
13. Making note of the drunk bum aunt with no kids I knew as a child, the one who'd often phone my father while drunk. No kids of her own. A dead end largely meaningless life.
14. Making note of my gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty, shallow, and misguided life as an angle reader, and as a guy who readily accepts convicted pedophiles into his network of friends - I saw this first hand. Also making note of my many experiences going out with this nephew to gay bars & parties, and observing first hand the narcissistic messed-up people who tend to show up to such events (friends of my nephew). Truman Capote types. Shallow, sorry, messed up, narcissistic, people.
15. And yet (!) also making note of the service oriented gay people who help us & other people, and whose life work is centered around helping others. Also making note of the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde.
16. Making note of how BOTH ultra conservatism and ultra liberalism are abusive to the progress of humanity.
Before viability (the closer to conception & the further away from viability), the more "choice" there is that can be reasonably allowed.
In the case of the average crack whore pregnancy, or rape, or incest: before viability, the "choice" is still there to help prevent the birth. But, once viability is reached, the point of "choice" has fully & completely passed.
On the whole gay thing:
It's true that a gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage. Gay sex is not the same as straight sex.
Straight sex & straight marriage is inherently more valuable, to humanity, and to the individual, and to human flourishing!
Gay sex is not as inherently valuable as straight sex. Gay sex is inherently a dead end.
Whatever the biological underpinnings are for being gay, because of the nature of how sex works in humans (& other animals), unless you work to avoid it you may end up having a dead end stunted life.
I was a liberal chump about this issue in the past. Now, as per taking a step back and examining what I observed first hand both with my gay nephew & gay uncle, I've changed by views.
And yet: There are service oriented gay people who spend their lives helping others. That's great! And I value the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde!
It's true that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against regarding apartments or jobs! They should be able to have civil unions.
But on the other hand, when we talk about things like adoptions, or having children around, a straight kid growing up in a gay household will not have his or her straightness valued as much - by default. The abusive narcissistic petty dead end shit that goes on in gay culture could well easily mess up any otherwise-normal straight kid growing up around gay culture. So the right does have a point about this!
A certain level of concern regarding homosexuality is good, but on the other hand, the ultra-right goes way to far with their level of concern.
For example, in Mormonism they tell their children that masturbation can lead to homosexuality. Such a claim is child abuse. And of course the stance of Uganda on the issue is abusive. So the right goes way to far in their condemnation.
We shouldn't be as harsh as the right on the issue, nor as open as the left.
Children may NEED a mommy & a daddy, to be healthy, happy, well rounded, and thrive.
So like it or not, both sides are right, to a point, and with appropriate caveats.
On environmentalism, tree hugging, and overpopulation:
How are both sides right?
We do need to work to preserve & protect the garden. Yes that's quite true. Humans DO contribute to global warming. Also true. BUT, on the other hand, population control IS an abusive response!
Science & technology are the answers! Nothing else is! NOT forced population control on a personal or country level! That is an abusive response!
There's no such thing as overpopulation in first world countries - this is quite true. And humans DO come first above other animals and plants.
Liberal ideology, prompting you to be childless, may leave you a zero on the great mandala.
From what I've seen: Liberals hate children, normal families, and so on. STFU Parents is the tip of the iceburg. It seems to me that: liberals hate having children, and the normal family structure.
Your average college age kid will go to a liberal college or university & come away convinced that he or she should probably not have kids of his or her own because of concern over the environment. Abusive. Wrong headed. Brainwashing. Just as much braining washing by the left as what goes on with the right.
For the relativist liberal their ideal "family" is a childless one - because then the environment and the Earth is protected - supposedly. Stupid. Abusive. Such wrong headed evil ideology will lead them, and everyone sucked in by such ideology, to be pretty much a zero in the long term. Win or loose now you must choose now. Where will you be the tapestry of life?
To fully accept the equality of gay marriage the left must first assume that having children is not a valuable thing.
It's a good thing that we want to have kids - for many reasons. Not just because we're horny. Children are our future. And the liberal death cult is rather quite similar to the Shakers. The childfree life, and the homosexual lifestyle, is de facto celibacy.
Simply replace the word "god" with "14.5 billion years of evolution by natural selection." I know it's hard, but try to see though the Bible-centered language - through to our incredibly deep history as a species. DOES HAVING NO CHILDREN really honor your own personal billion-year history?
Being childfree is sad, petty, and ultimately a dead end. A death cult, by any other name, is still a death cult.
Leftist relativist brain washing. Leftist dogma that will stunt your life!
No, having a dog or cat around is not the same as a having human child! Not the same in the fucking least. Abused by liberalism, just as much as you may have been abused by conservatism!
Go to the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City. There you will find a congregation of grey haried liberals who don't really value having children, and normal families. Cultural relativists being abused by their own anti-children anti-family leftist ideology.
De facto religions of atheism & humanism are abusive.
Catholicism is also of course abusive when it comes to child raping priests. But, both Mormonism & Catholicism DO have valid points when it comes to abortion & birth control. Yes, you ARE abusing yourself if you exclude the possibility of children from your life!
It's a damn fucking hard truth to realize that very valuable & good elements of positive human morality can be fully rooted within otherwise abusive religion.
HOW can we realize this?
By examining what non-Catholic non-Mormon human cultures do and think!
Here's a hard question for the religion of Judaism:
Is your own promotion of separation from other groups, as part of your religion, in any way responsible for the past expression of fully natural human out-group morality, natural human out-group morality which was expressed in the past?
Forced genital rape of your own children.
Teaching your children that they are better than others.
Such actions naturally caused other groups of humans to more readily express natural human out-group morality in your case. Like it or not.
Examining what happened with Naziism and the Holocaust is rather like staring human out-group morality directly in the face.
The Nazis were fully human, humans expressing out-group morality.
And when your religion promotes separation between your group & others, you could well more easily fall victim to sociopathic nut jobs like Hitler who were able to effectively take advantage of this fully natural readily available negative side of built-in human morality.
Group think. Mob mentality. Survival morality. Nationalism. Provincialism. And even the Old Testament is completely filled with expressions of advocacy for out-group morality.
I don't accept your religion, left or right. Rather I want to be an advocate for science, helpful progress which promotes widespread happiness, well being & health, and survival.
Truth & honestly are required for healthy progress. That means staring our own history in the face and being willing to accept what we see. And to then try to work through what we see clearly.
Mormon Bishops DO abuse children in their care when they teach children that masturbation is evil & may lead to homosexaulity.
And yet, homosexual couples do PERHAPS abuse children by raising them in forcibly-relativist dogmatically politically correct households where straightness is not valued, nor honored, nor supported, nor promoted.
So BOTH sides are being abusive, ok?
The answer to conservatism is not liberalism. Instead it's honest science, observation, and tying into ALL of what it means to be human (including being willing to shame & blame & judge where appropriate & useful - !!!). A VERY VERY fucking hard thing for an ex-conservative-religionist to accept! Damn hard.
-----
Thank goodness the Internet is expanding our in-group morality.
There is hope though. In all religions people are becoming less abusive. It just takes time.
And, let me say there's aspects of ALL cultures & religions which I personally value.
I'm PRO-human. Pro-happy-human. Pro-true-and-honest-naturalism, in as much as being for those natural parts of us which can help us be happy. But, I'm also pro-honesty. Falling into naturalistic fallacies is also a consideration.
We have to be willing to look ourselves in the mirror, and to help promote what looks good, and remove the pimples which don't. That's all.
---
Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right: Liberals & Conservatives
Social conservatism. Social liberalism. Politics. Etc.
1. My gay uncle who died of aids leaving his straight family with no kids.
2. My gay nephew who leads a petty, shallow, dead-end type of life.
3. However and also: gay people I know who spend their lives helping others, in service oriented lives.
4. Gay people like Stephen Fry, who I largely admire.
5. The crappy crazy warped & perverse sexual morality in Mormonism & Catholicism.
Religion is a natural phenomenon, and so, like it or not natural human morality can be rooted in religion, even if religions also have built-in lies that their members are forbidden to speak against. And religions can go overboard, such as via equating masturbation with being gay.
Back in my fat bastard days I held up the book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl.
But politically correct liberals engage in the naturalistic fallacy when they state that homosexuality is "ok" because it's natural. So what.
So, things ain't quite so easy to sort out as either side would have you believe.
Seeing first hand how things work can change your views. Yes it's quite true that the Mormon Church abuses children via their sexual masturbation interrogation interviews. But, there's also child abuse that happens at Stonewall centers too. Both sides are too extreme, too exclusive, too rigid, too dogmatic.
No I'm not gay. But I've been to enough gay parties & bars, and around the petty shallow stunted narcissistic friends of my nutty gay nephew to state that the "gay lifestyle" ain't all it's cracked up to be. But, don't change back to a fucking Mormon or Bible Beating Christian either - if you feel inclined to change.
And if you live a largely-abuse-free service oriented largely happy life as a gay man, that's ok too I suppose. Just don't cheat on your straight wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father. That's my advise to you.
The original facebook poster added words on the bottom of the image stating how they were outraged that the picture on the right was reportedly sometimes censored on facebook, and yet the image on the left was widely shared with no problem.
Well, facebook is no panacea. Here's my response though to both photos being combined and posted together:
Hey liberal: The first picture leads to the second picture - and it should!
Hey conservative: Don't be afraid of either picture!
I only barely knew about the VMA's before hearing about the incident on the BBC.
The apparent wildness of sex leads to the beauty of a child. Whodathunkit. It's not one or the other - it's both intertwined.
We apparently need sex ed for both sides of the social & political spectrum...
Hey liberals: have kids - it's a good thing!
Hey conservatives: Sex is fun, and it should be. Sex can free you from your made up gods. And: don't be too hung about about masturbation or oral sex. And if you're a Mormon woman, stop wearing your garnments during sex. Ok...
Commentary on our visit to the LDS Church History Museum and to Temple Square. We saw the new Boy Scout exhibit at the museum, the golden plates, the angel Macaroni (I mean Moroni), and so on.
Built in human morality fully exists within religions, and also in less religious societies like China. How can we separate the useful facts of human morality in religion from the lies? It's hard work.
Mormonism is a modern cult - a cult in a suit and a tie. But new atheist and humanist groups are religions also - where you have lies you cannot question, and where you have to be politically correct for fear of not being a "genuine" atheist or humanist.
Religions do have some good ideas, but you wouldn't realize that unless you: a.) spent several years checking out all the hippie crap, and b.) going to gay bars & parties with your gay nephew, and c.) making note of how a convicted pedophile was gladly accepted back into your nephew's friend group after leaving prison, and d.) going to Portland and seeing what people do there via an Alice in Wonderland style journey, and e.) marrying a woman from China - where they never heard of Joseph Smith and very little of Jesus. Also making note of how your gay uncle died of AIDS leaving his regular normal family with no father will help expand your perspective. So, in spite of their bullshit, the Mormon & Catholic churches do have some very good ideas and ideals.
Why do religions have to support themselves with lies? Even the atheistic versions of religions have lies? Lies about the negative impacts of the ultra-left agenda.
The crazy ideas are mixed in with some good and useful truths. It's all integrated together. So, how can we separate out useful fact from harmful fiction? Perhaps one key way is this: refusing to be politically correct!
Maybe China is showing us the way: family values! They don't believe in Jesus or Joseph Smith, and yet they have a great deal of good valuable down home family values. They aren't perfect either, but they do value family.
But: Shhh! In atheist & humanist groups have to be very quiet about what you really think - and so such groups are religion also. So watch out!
Reject political correctness and embrace family values.
Story in "Q Salt Lake:"
Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers
"The owner of the pornographic site, MormonBoyz.com, says their site was under a denial of service attack late Sunday night and that the IP addresses of the servers being used to implement the attack were traced to being housed in a ZIP code that only contains the blocks of Temple Square, the LDS Church Office Building and the LDS Conference Center."
...as from http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2013/08/05/porn-site-claims-attack-by-lds-church-servers
Taking a step back, the verbiage reportedly used on the site in question is a bit disconcerting.
"These guys are every bit as sexual as other boys their age, but are also wonderfully innocent and wholesome. And actually, you might even say that because of their deprivation, these boys are pent up and starved for release, and that makes them even more sexual...”
...Sounds like 11 or 12 year olds to me. What do you think?
The use of the term "boys" may be popular in homosexual culture & circles, but I wonder if it's really appropriate or useful - or telling? I have a homosexual nephew and have been to homosexual bars and parties. So I'm quite familiar with what goes on.
I have no special allegiance, and I don't particularly care about being "blacklisted" by fellow homosexuals since I'm not one. So, let me say that while it's a bit strange that they received a denial of service attack possibly from Mormon HQ, the use of the term "boys" is also strange. How about sexymormonmen, or mormonmen. But the use of the boy term tempts me to assume that sex with underage children is more associated with homosexual culture than some would otherwise like to admit.
Try to excommunicate me for saying so, but there is a crappy creepy underside to "gay culture" which is not politically correct (in "progressive" circles) to talk about.
For example, the man referenced in the following page was readily accepted back into the "gay community" after serving prison time for child rape (I was a first hand witness to this acceptance):
The propensity for my own nephew to constantly post near naked pictures of himself in his underwear on facebook, while at the same time being supposedly "involved" or somewhat committed relationship to another man is telling, don't you think? And the use of the term "boy" this and "boy" that as homosexual men ogle other "men," or dare we say, "boys," in gay bars & parties is also telling.
Maybe there is biological exuberance in the human form of sexual expression known as homosexuality. But on the other hand just because something is "natural" doesn't mean we have to accept 100% of all that goes on. We don't. There's all sorts of human activities which we could be described as natural but which should nevertheless be curtailed. It's a balancing act and everyone draws the line somewhere. I would just like to suggest that people who engage or advocate for, explicitly, or implicitly, sex with underage children, deserved to be called out for what they are: child rapists & apologists for such.
Are Catholic priests who rape young boys "straight?" Doesn't sound like it to me, not according to the verbiage used by the owners of MormonBoyz.com, and not according to verbiage frequently used in gay bars and parties.
I know there's men who are rather highly genetically predisposed to be homosexual. Perhaps the shallow and childish nature of my own nephew was a misnomer? I imagine there are some "family values" homosexuals out there who don't spend 100% of their free time ogling "the boys" at bars & parties, and parading around in front of each other near naked on forums like facebook. Certainly there's slutty crazy straight people who're also selfish & largely a bunch of wastrels (particularly those who choose to not have kids & be "child free").
But again, one thing about straight sex is that it naturally leads to responsibility and growing up. Gay sex doesn't, and the results are sometimes a near permanent petty childhood state. I've observed this state first hand, and I believe it deserves to be commented on, particularly when convicted child rapists are not directly ostracized and confronted in the "gay community" when they get out of prison.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has stated that everyone is a little bit racist & I agree. Maybe everyone is a little bit of a eugenicist also. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, apparently wrote a rather distasteful article on the issue. Check out page 107 of the following document:
And a more readable version: http://hawaii.edu/religion/courses/sanger.htm "The main objects of the Population Congress would be: a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.
c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.
g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives..." ---end of quote
Well, isn't that nice. All the good old fashioned family values we've come to expect from rather famous eugenicists. I guess what pops into the brain of one totalitarian zealot who had only one testicle can easily somehow pop into the pretty brain & eyes of another - the second person having no testicles at all. What's up with that? Was advocacy for eugenics just a 1932 "thing," or was this all just a coincidence?
I am reminded of the crazed hysteria on the left revolving around overpopulation, a hysteria which has caused some people, sadly, to not have children of their own. "Those people in the third world have a lot of babies & so therefore I should have none." Crazy & stupid in my view.
In looking at source documents by Margaret Sanger, it appears that she was an amoral fuck also.
Women raped, and all women up until the baby is viable, should be able to get abortions if they want them. But I also agree that the procedure should, in general, be highly discouraged.
Not everything is equal. Sanger & Singer are in rather the same boat - a boat I prefer not to be in.
In response to the story here, the following comment was posted & then censored by the BBC:
Crazed old virgins have no appreciation for human nature. Mass child rape, enabled by the institutions they foster. Locking women up for being 'too pretty,' in Ireland (Magdalene asylums). These men have an abusive relationship with existence, and the institutions they lead and foster show it.
What's up BBC, is the truth too much for you? Are you willing to tell the truth? Yes, we're 'shocked,' so 'shocked' that a man who helped protect pedophiles is deciding to resign.
Everything isn't equal.
A trimmed down version was published by then later however. In any case, who do crazed old farts get to run abusive religions? Cults of personality, a religions run by men who exist in their own little self-supporting bubble. Everyone loves them. They have their own terminology. People who're critical on the outside are considered devils. It's all par for the course for such systems.
The Salt Lake Valley Atheists group held their monthly Utah Atheist Bunch, on Sunday February 3rd, 2013. Here's a clip from that meeting,
and then subsequent commentary added on from the 5th and 6th:
The talk at the meeting regarded whether atheism is a religion. At the front of his talk the speaker stated that "evangelical atheism" is just as bad as other forms of evangelical religion, and he said that atheists should not be "moral busybodies."
After his talk the speaker took a more conciliatory tone to some extent and said that he was mainly concerned about tactics. Also during his talk he said that it may be appropriate to respond to other religionists if they were procreatory.
Is atheism a religion? Not in the traditional sense. In religions usually there's leaders who cannot be questioned. Atheists tend to value science & try to reject dogma. Scientists get ahead in science by actually disproving, overturning, or adding to previous theories. Usually religious organizations reject and resist change and challenges to their core leaders & doctrines.
There is a lot of provocation going on from regligionists. Mormons send out their missionaries, they interrogate children and adults about masturbation,necking,petting,sex outside of marriage, and even oralsex in marriage. Catholic priests rape children en masse, and Catholics & conservative Anglicans have thrown their pretty women and women who had sex outside of marriage into asylums. Islamic people require that their women live in the prison of the burqa, niqab, and hijab.
