I present to you, the Law of Unintended Consequences:
...OR, we could just allow the Separation of Church and State to become the residing principle by which we protect everyone's Religious Freedom. You know, that way NO ONE will end up saying, "Why are you exposing MY KIDS to this nonsense?" no matter which religion they follow, or don't.
This insanity can end any time you want it to, Christians. What's it gonna be?
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey, guys? The video keeps crapping out on me. Can y'all see it?
ReplyDeleteNo, I can't see it.
Delete"...OR, we could just allow the Separation of Church and State to become the residing principle by which we protect everyone's Religious Freedom."
ReplyDeletePerhaps if we could put that in the Constitution or another OFFICIAL document and not rely on a personal letter from one person to another. If you want to "protect" everyone's religious freedoms perhaps you would let them celebrate on public land instead of having to do it in private. Jeez, you treat religious people (now) worse than the country treated gays (in the past). We have to keep our "freedoms" secret or you whine about it affecting your life. Time to stop being so hypocritical about personal beliefs and who has "rights" for what and where. Gays garnered the "rights" to be as they want in this country while at the same time Christians lost the "right" to do as they want in this country. Please ... please get over yourselves. I don't care what gays do, I just don't think it is Christian of them to do it. And THAT is what makes so many liberals pissed off. You're pissed off that people will exclude gays from public activities, but happy as hell to forbid Christians from public activities.
"You know, that way NO ONE will end up saying, "Why are you exposing MY KIDS to this nonsense?" no matter which religion they follow, or don't."
That will never happen as long as there are people like brabantio around. Some people just get pissed that someone is happy. He seems like that kind of person. And he'll use his (self-proclaimed) religious beliefs to achieve that. Another example is the guy from Sacramento who sued the US in an effort of have "In God We Trust" removed from our monetary system. Perhaps he would prefer: "In Gays We Trust" because that's what it seems like it is turning into. Speaking of "In God We Trust" that is in no way showing our nation is BASED on Christian values. Unless, of course, it starts saying: "In The God Of Christians We Trust". LOL
Liberals are such morons. Sorry, couldn't help that one after the comment you made.
"Perhaps if we could put that in the Constitution or another OFFICIAL document and not rely on a personal letter from one person to another."
DeleteYou keep saying this sort of thing as if the intent of the framers can't possibly be determined from personal correspondence. That obviously makes no sense whatsoever.
"We have to keep our "freedoms" secret or you whine about it affecting your life."
The lack of government sponsorship doesn't mean that anything has to be "secret". You're exaggerating, to put it kindly.
"Gays garnered the "rights" to be as they want in this country while at the same time Christians lost the "right" to do as they want in this country."
Religion is a choice, so why would you have any rights based on that? More seriously, you never lost any rights. What actually happened is that other people asserted their rights, which prevents people like you from pushing your faith onto them and their children in public schools.
"Some people just get pissed that someone is happy. He seems like that kind of person."
You have no basis for that, of course. And you also think that I'm the kind of person who would be from New Jersey, when that's clearly not true. Your assessments have no credibility.
"And he'll use his (self-proclaimed) religious beliefs to achieve that."
Your lies don't have any credibility, either.
"Unless, of course, it starts saying: "In The God Of Christians We Trust". LOL"
Did you notice that you added an article there? "In God We Trust" refers to the Christian god, because it doesn't say "In A God We Trust". It's a proper noun, due to that. Either way, it doesn't belong on currency, because it's not the place of the government to assert the existence of any deities at all. You have no argument to the contrary, of course.
"You keep saying this sort of thing as if the intent of the framers can't possibly be determined from personal correspondence."
DeleteWhy stop at personal letters? Why don't you use their shopping lists and say that is what they meant for all Americans to eat for breakfast and other meals (correspondence from one to another)?
"Religion is a choice, so why would you have any rights based on that?"
So is sexual preference and sexual "identity". Why should they get any rights based on that?
" What actually happened is that other people asserted their rights, which prevents people like you from pushing your faith onto them and their children in public schools."
Of course, you've never explained how it is "pushing your faith" onto anyone. The only thing you can bring is that you don't like it and so it is justified that it be restricted.
""In God We Trust" refers to the Christian god, because it doesn't say "In A God We Trust"."
You've never been able to prove that either. You opinion carries no weight. Sorry, giant failure on your part.
" It's a proper noun, due to that. Either way, it doesn't belong on currency, because it's not the place of the government to assert the existence of any deities at all. You have no argument to the contrary, of course."
Then you should start crying about other government documents (DOI: Nature's God and Creator). You didn't think this one through at all did you? How is "Nature's God" a representation of Christianity only?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
"Why stop at personal letters? Why don't you use their shopping lists and say that is what they meant for all Americans to eat for breakfast and other meals (correspondence from one to another)?"
DeleteThat's a slippery slope argument. Try to focus. Why wouldn't personal correspondence be relevant to understanding of intent?
"So is sexual preference and sexual "identity"."
I'm aware of your beliefs, which is why I asked the question that you dodged.
"Of course, you've never explained how it is "pushing your faith" onto anyone."
How what, organized prayer in public schools? I'm pretty sure that I've explained it before, but "you don't like it" and so pretend otherwise. Obviously, that's pressuring children to conform to belief. How you believe anything else is a mystery.
"You've never been able to prove that either."
What part of my statement are you disputing? The lack of an article makes it a proper noun.
"Then you should start crying about other government documents (DOI: Nature's God and Creator)."
The DOI isn't a binding document.
"How is "Nature's God" a representation of Christianity only?"
I didn't say it was. The "nature's" part is a modifier, such as an article would be. You didn't think about that at all, clearly.
"That's a slippery slope argument. "
DeleteThus the end of your arguments. You've got nothing and so you rely on your fall back statements.
"I'm aware of your beliefs, which is why I asked the question that you dodged."
Which question did I dodge?
"The DOI isn't a binding document."
And neither is a personal letter from on person to another. Yet ... for some reason you rely on that to get your "separation of Church and State". Thanks for admitting you have nothing to base your fear of religion on.
"I didn't say it was. The "nature's" part is a modifier, such as an article would be."
But it's capitalized, you've said God spelled with a capital "G" ONLY refers to the Christian God. Now we also have Nature's God. Is Nature's God the Christian God? You also didn't think about that.
"Thus the end of your arguments."
DeleteHow is pointing out your fallacy supposedly a negative for me?
"Which question did I dodge?"
Why would religious people have rights, since you're so obsessed with "choice"?
"And neither is a personal letter from on person to another."
I didn't say that it was, but it's still a basis for interpretation.
"But it's capitalized, you've said God spelled with a capital "G" ONLY refers to the Christian God."
That would be "God", not "Nature's God". The modifier makes a difference.
"Is Nature's God the Christian God? You also didn't think about that."
No, it isn't. Obviously, I did think about that, because I already know that it doesn't support your argument.
Video is fixed now. William, I suggest you watch it before being so quick to insist that everyone should be able to distribute religious material to public school students.
Delete"How is pointing out your fallacy supposedly a negative for me?"
DeleteWell, if you can't address simple discussion topics without relying on illogical responses then you have ended your attempt at making a logical argument to support your case. Get over it and stop crying about it.
"Why would religious people have rights, since you're so obsessed with "choice"?"
Because we live in America, too. Duhh
Are you saying that religious people have no rights? I didn't think so, and that means your tactic is illogical and dishonest. People who CHOOSE their lifestyle still have rights, they just don't have them BECAUSE of the CHOICE they make.
"I didn't say that it was, but it's still a basis for interpretation."
So, the letter I wrote to my mom is basis for setting national law? You're funny. Do you have ANYTHING other than your bigotry to base your hatred of religion on? I didn't think so. Move along, little man and give up trying to use your illogical cry-baby antics to excuse the way you are.
"The modifier makes a difference."
That means you are admitting that a religion is what our nation is based on. Thanks for that. You clearly didn't think that one through.
"No, it isn't. "
What religion is it? Pagan, Atheist, Muslim? Tell me, oh wise man from Jersey.
ROTFLMAO@U
Watched it, Eddie. I especially liked the part where they grouped Christianity, Atheism and Satanism together as religions. And to think Barby keeps denying his beliefs are religious. But, to your point, I have no problem with other religions being offered in public schools. I have a problem when the forbid Christianity only.
DeleteI'll bet you didn't expect that answer.
"Well, if you can't address simple discussion topics without relying on illogical responses then you have ended your attempt at making a logical argument to support your case."
DeletePointing out your logical fallacies doesn't qualify as "illogical responses", though. Your comment applies to your behavior, not mine.
"Because we live in America, too."
Then gay people have rights, whether you say that it's a "choice" or not.
"People who CHOOSE their lifestyle still have rights, they just don't have them BECAUSE of the CHOICE they make."
Then how do religious people have rights because of the choice that they make?
"So, the letter I wrote to my mom is basis for setting national law?"
Are you one of the Founding Fathers, now? More accurately, can someone's intent be interpreted because of a letter that they sent someone? Obviously, that's entirely possible, and you have no argument to the contrary.
"Do you have ANYTHING other than your bigotry to base your hatred of religion on?"
You've never shown any "hatred of religion" on my part, and no "bigotry" either.
"That means you are admitting that a religion is what our nation is based on."
No, it doesn't. You forgot to explain your reasoning.
"What religion is it? Pagan, Atheist, Muslim?"
Atheism isn't a religion. And "Nature's God" was an expression consistent with deism.
"Tell me, oh wise man from Jersey."
Says the liar who claimed that he doesn't care where I actually live. Remember, I said where I live prior to your "Jersey" claim, which you still can't explain. Keep embarrassing yourself.
"I especially liked the part where they grouped Christianity, Atheism and Satanism together as religions."
DeleteThat never happened. The phrasing separated religion from atheism by putting "and" between them. As far as the viewpoints in a religious discussion, atheism can still be mentioned without it being a religion, because it's still the lack of a religion.
"Then gay people have rights, whether you say that it's a "choice" or not."
DeleteSure they have rights, but not the right to tell me (or other business owners) who to do business with. I know, as a Christian, I have no right to tell you that you MUST do business with me BECAUSE I'm Christian. Maybe some day you'll understand that simple (yet important) distinction.
"Are you one of the Founding Fathers, now?"
And, neither is Roger Williams. Because it is clear what Thomas Jefferson is saying and it isn't as liberals have misinterpreted it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
"You've never shown any "hatred of religion" on my part, and no "bigotry" either."
But, since you didn't answer the actual question, I will fly with the answer being "no".
"That never happened. "
Sure it did. Watch Eddie's video. You probably haven't yet. It even has subtitles.
"I know, as a Christian, I have no right to tell you that you MUST do business with me BECAUSE I'm Christian."
DeleteYour phrasing makes it sound as you think that I'm saying that a business might not provide a service for any group and they "MUST" then do it "BECAUSE" of some distinguishing factor. Why would you accept a business accepting Muslims but then discriminating against Christians? You would say that they "MUST" do it because they provided service to another group, not because of your designation.
"And, neither is Roger Williams."
Jefferson is the one whose phrasing is being interpreted. Yet again, why would personal correspondence not be relevant to understanding Constitutional intent?
"But, since you didn't answer the actual question, I will fly with the answer being "no"."
Wrong. Your question had no basis, so it doesn't get an answer as if it was valid. When you can demonstrate "hatred of religion", try again.
"Watch Eddie's video."
I did, as evidenced by my specification of its wording. Obviously, you know that you have no argument to the contrary.
"Your phrasing makes it sound as you think that I'm saying that a business might not provide a service for any group and they "MUST" then do it "BECAUSE" of some distinguishing factor."
DeleteActually, I'm phrasing it to show how idiotic it is for gays to force business's to allow use of their offerings BECAUSE they are gay. No other reason. Gays say: because I choose to be gay you must now do business with me and if you don't I'll sue you.
In my obviously simple comparison to Christianity a Christian could just as easily say: because I choose to be Christian you must now do business with me and if you don't I'll sue.
Was that simplified enough for you?
"Yet again, why would personal correspondence not be relevant to understanding Constitutional intent?"
Because it isn't part of the official document. It isn't anywhere close to being in the official document. The only thing in the official document is that the government won't establish a national religion. Which it never has done. Even while kids said the pledge of allegiance in elementary school. Your ilk is so hate-filled towards Christianity that you'll make any kind of misinterpretation you need to in order to demand and force your will upon all others.
So, if this is all you got, I take you're finished. Nice playing with you. Don't let any bricks hit you on the head on the way out the door.
"In my obviously simple comparison to Christianity a Christian could just as easily say: because I choose to be Christian you must now do business with me and if you don't I'll sue."
DeleteYour scenario presumes that Christians were being discriminated against. Why would you find that acceptable?
"Because it isn't part of the official document."
So what?
"Your ilk is so hate-filled towards Christianity that you'll make any kind of misinterpretation you need to in order to demand and force your will upon all others."
You haven't demonstrated any misinterpretation. The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that public school prayer is unconstitutional. You might also want to look up the phrase "tyranny of the majority", because allowing Christians to push their faith onto others obviously qualifies, and therefore is a violation of the freedom of religion of other individuals. Also, you can still exercise your faith without any interference or influence upon it whatsoever. Nothing is being forced on you. You aren't a victim, so stop your whining.
"Don't let any bricks hit you on the head on the way out the door."
Didn't you already admit that wasn't a threat? Your comments are so often random.
"So what?"
DeleteGeorge Washington wrote a letter to the slave traders saying he needed more slaves. Should slavery be allowed because one of the "founding fathers" wanted more slaves? Ah ha ha ... the best rebuttal you got is "so what?". I wonder how many SCOTUS cases have been won and lost with that excuse. But, if that the best you can do ... so be it.
"Didn't you already admit that wasn't a threat?"
No, I've never made that admission. You have, though. But, not me.
"I have a problem when the forbid Christianity only."
DeleteI would also have a problem with that, Will. Generally, though, this isn't happening. I do realize that there have been some exceptions, and yes, I take issues with those.
Personally, when it comes to the use of public land, I'll generally err on the side of INCLUSION. Let everyone put up their displays, etc... As long as they're not being funded with taxpayer money, I don't have a problem with it. (And even Christmas LIGHTS, wreaths, etc... being put up by the town... yeah, whatever. They're not overtly "Christian" so that's not the hill I'm willing to die on.)
But schools are different. And religious texts have no place in public education outside of the Theology, and in some narrow cases, Philosophy classrooms. I don't want my kind being proselytized to by Muslims (or Satanists) any more than you do, I'm sure. And any teacher who requires religious concessions for a grade should lose their teachers certificate permanently. I've only really seen this in PRIVATE schools - which I have to concede have more leeway to do this - but I still find it despicable. Largely because I ACTUALLY DO respect a family's right to bring up their children in whatever faith they wish to (or none) and I ACTUALLY DO respect every individual's right to practice and believe as they wish. (Or not.)
But please excuse me snorting into my sleeve in an effort to suppress my indignant laughter when a Pro-"Life", Anti-Gay Marriage Conservative says the same.
"I have a problem when the forbid Christianity only."
DeleteI would also have a problem with that, Will. Generally, though, this isn't happening. I do realize that there have been some exceptions, and yes, I take issues with those.
Personally, when it comes to the use of public land, I'll generally err on the side of INCLUSION. Let everyone put up their displays, etc... As long as they're not being funded with taxpayer money, I don't have a problem with it. (And even Christmas LIGHTS, wreaths, etc... being put up by the town... yeah, whatever. They're not overtly "Christian" so that's not the hill I'm willing to die on.)
But schools are different. And religious texts have no place in public education outside of the Theology, and in some narrow cases, Philosophy classrooms. I don't want my kind being proselytized to by Muslims (or Satanists) any more than you do, I'm sure. And any teacher who requires religious concessions for a grade should lose their teachers certificate permanently. I've only really seen this in PRIVATE schools - which I have to concede have more leeway to do this - but I still find it despicable. Largely because I ACTUALLY DO respect a family's right to bring up their children in whatever faith they wish to (or none) and I ACTUALLY DO respect every individual's right to practice and believe as they wish. (Or not.)
But please excuse me snorting into my sleeve in an effort to suppress my indignant laughter when a Pro-"Life", Anti-Gay Marriage Conservative says the same.
"George Washington wrote a letter to the slave traders saying he needed more slaves. Should slavery be allowed because one of the "founding fathers" wanted more slaves?"
DeleteWhat would that be used to interpret, in this scenario? An amendment that came about after his death?
"Ah ha ha ... the best rebuttal you got is "so what?"."
That's the response your comment warranted, since you had no explanation for why personal correspondence couldn't be relevant to understanding intent.
"No, I've never made that admission."
Then why did you accept Eddie's clarification?
"That's the response your comment warranted, since you had no explanation for why personal correspondence couldn't be relevant to understanding intent."
DeleteIntent of a personal letter? You mean to form governmental laws? There already is a law in that document that says this nation cannot form a "national religion". So, his intent is in the document and your ilk have expanded that intent to include your personal fears of religion. That's all I'm saying. The intent is there, you people have misinterpreted the intent to achieve your own goals.
This is to Eddie:
"But schools are different."
Do you think the current wars of the world should be taught about in public school? If so, how do you handle the situation that Islam is the instigator in most wars currently going on and basing their battlefield decisions on what their religion tells them to do. Did you see the latest slaughter of non-Muslim students (in Africa) by Islamic extremists? I'm very tempted to stop calling them extremists since most military actions are direct result of the many followers of Islam.
If the religion is truly tolerant, then why are there so many that feel they are interpreting it properly while murdering Christians and other non-Muslims? And, I still don't see much of an outcry from the truly tolerant Muslims world-wide. Why can't they stand up for their own religion?
So, how do you handle teaching the kids that the current wars going on in the world are a direct result of ONE religion and those who follow it? It would be like teaching about the murders that Christians performed (during the Crusades) centuries ago and saying that it was Christians only who performed those murders. (BTW, Islam was involved in that war time scenario also). I'm sure the schools are more than happy to teach about how Christians murdered during the Crusades, I just hope they are just as happy to teach about the murders caused by Muslims. Or do you prefer that schools just not teach about history?
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspx
I noticed that Christians stopped (pretty much) murdering people on such a large scale based solely on an improper interpretation of their religion, while Islam has not learned anything from history and continue murdering in the name of their religion up to and including TODAY.
"You mean to form governmental laws?"
DeleteI mean to interpret the Constitution. How do you lose track of so much?
"So, his intent is in the document and your ilk have expanded that intent to include your personal fears of religion."
His intent can be evaluated based on personal correspondence. You haven't said one word to explain why anyone should believe otherwise. Nobody is afraid of religion; there needs to be separation between church and state in order to maintain the rights of the minority. You're just throwing a tantrum because you don't like it.
"I mean to interpret the Constitution. "
DeleteThat's what the courts are for. How do you lose track of so much?
"Nobody is afraid of religion; there needs to be separation between church and state in order to maintain the rights of the minority."
That isn't the reason and you know it. It was to keep the government from being controlled by the Church.
"That's what the courts are for."
DeleteWhere did I say anything to the contrary?
"That isn't the reason and you know it."
Of course it is. Again, look up "tyranny of the majority". Without freedom of and from religion, the rights of the minority are infringed upon. It seems more ethical to me to place the rights of all citizens over the desire to promote your own faith, but surely you have a comprehensive argument for the opposite view. Right?
"Where did I say anything to the contrary?"
DeleteWhen you said: "I mean to interpret the Constitution.", you are saying that personal letters are to interpret the Constitution. You're wrong, the courts do that, not personal letters.
"Of course it is."
Well, again, you are wrong. Separation of Church and State is to prevent the Church from telling the government how to run their country. And, that letter states nothing different.
"When you said: "I mean to interpret the Constitution.", you are saying that personal letters are to interpret the Constitution. You're wrong, the courts do that, not personal letters."
DeleteThe courts can use personal letters in order to interpret the Constitution. What other meaning are you asserting, since the phrase "basis for interpretation" has already been used?
"Separation of Church and State is to prevent the Church from telling the government how to run their country."
You can believe that all you like, but the SCOTUS has consistently disagreed with you. Obviously, you don't have any argument as to why your desire to promote your faith should trump the rights of the minority, after all. What a surprise.
"You can believe that all you like, but the SCOTUS has consistently disagreed with you."
DeleteYeah? You bring that proof. The facts are that separation of church and state is exactly as I say. You got proof of otherwise then bring it.
"The courts can use personal letters in order to interpret the Constitution."
You asked me earlier (when I used an example of a letter from my mom) if I was a "founding father", does that mean ONLY founder father letters are acceptable?
You just keep digging a deeper hole all the time. Because now you're saying that ANY letter can be used as long as the SCOTUS agrees with it. Make up your mind.
"You bring that proof."
DeleteYou're not aware of decisions on public school prayer? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale
"The Court explained the importance of separation between church and state by giving a lengthy history of the issue, beginning with the 16th century in England. It then stated that school's prayer is a religious activity by the very nature of it being a prayer, and that prescribing such a religious activity for school children violates the Establishment Clause. The program, created by government officials to promote a religious belief, was therefore constitutionally impermissible."
"The facts are that separation of church and state is exactly as I say."
It's actually your opinion, which seems to be based purely in emotion.
"You asked me earlier (when I used an example of a letter from my mom) if I was a "founding father", does that mean ONLY founder father letters are acceptable?"
It means that you aren't relevant to the interpretation of the Constitution.
"Because now you're saying that ANY letter can be used as long as the SCOTUS agrees with it."
I didn't say that at all. What does "agrees with it" supposedly mean, there? It's about relevance to intent, not agreement with it. Do you have anything to explain why you think that personal correspondence written by the people who founded the country shouldn't be used to determine the intent behind that foundation?
"So is sexual preference and sexual "identity". [A choice] Why should they get any rights based on that?"
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't. You confuse orientation with behavior. They're not the same thing. And in any case the rights they get are not based on either. Rather they don't lose their HUMAN rights simply becuase they are gay or trans.
"People who CHOOSE their lifestyle still have rights, they just don't have them BECAUSE of the CHOICE they make."
Correct: they have the RIGHT to choose side lifstyle, based on their INNATE orientation and do not LOSE their Rights becuase of this. No one is getting psecial treatment here. (Excpet Christians who want a special right ot discriminate.)
"Sure they have rights, but not the right to tell me (or other business owners) who to do business with."
Wrong. The law DOES in fact do this very thing. And laws such as those in Indiana will ultimately be struck odwn as unconstitutional.
Sorry, Eddie, none of what you say is worthy a response. If you fly with your emotions then I'm not going to follow along.
DeleteSo... You got nothing then?
Delete"No, it isn't. You confuse orientation with behavior."
DeleteOk, Eddie, you want me to respond? When you cry and moan about republicans and right-wingers is that a learned behavior or were you born that way? Another one: while you whine and cuss at right-wingers and republicans did you learn to do that or is that your orientation from birth?
The behavior is learned. The motivation behind it - my being a decent human being who can't abode seeing others made to suffer needlessly? That's innate. Any other questions?
DeleteThe behavior is learned. The motivation behind it - my being a decent human being who can't abode seeing others made to suffer needlessly? That's innate. Any other questions?
Delete" The motivation behind it - my being a decent human being who can't abode seeing others made to suffer needlessly? That's innate. Any other questions?"
DeleteYes, just one more question. Does that mean you are saying that indecent human beings are born that way? For instance: murderers, rapists, child molesters, racists, REPUBLICANS, ect... who don't mind seeing others made to suffer needlessly (also the cops you point out) ? Because if YOU'RE decency is innate, so is their indecency. Which would mean they are protected by constitutional rights covering discrimination because of the way they are born (according to what you say) . That IS what innate means, right?
Religion is a learned behavior. Nothing more, nothing less. Sexual preference/identity is a learned behavior. Nothing more, nothing less. Human decency is a learned behavior. Nothing more, nothing less. All those learned behaviors are choices one makes throughout their lives.
You're learning! NOW you seem vaguely aware that there is a debate going on between FREE WILL and DETERMINISM. That's good. You've taken your first step into a larger world.
DeleteNow, am I saying that all of those things are in fact innate? *I* am not. But there IS a debate going on about that very thing. Hard Core Determinists (of which I am not) WOULD in fact argue, that is is wrong to punish murderers, molesters, etc... because they truly had no choice in their behavior. PERSONALLY I thinks that's idiotic. I stubbornly hold on to the notion of FREE WILL, even though anyone who does will lose every single philosophical debate on the subject. (And don't bother arguing that with me here, go find a philosophy board and argue with an actual Determinist if you find that idea to be so offensive.)
BUT... The fact of the matter that we DO have some personality traits that are innate. Sexual preference is one of them. This is fact, this is science, and this is not up for debate. The overwhelming majority of LGBT's were keenly aware of differences between themselves and their piers before they knew anything about actual sex or sexuality. Arguing otherwise suggest that that you know them better then they know themselves. Again, that's idiotic. And I'm not going to debate that with you further. This is not *my opinion* is the result of half a century's worth of social science research. Go argue with THEM if you want to.
As to the rest of your categories? REPUBLICAN? No. No one is born into a political party, largely because of ideological drift. Prior to 1964 the Democrats were far more Conservative and the Republican's far more progressive, than either party is today. To prove that, all one has to do is look at how the party's geographic trends have changed since then. Again this is a matter of fact, not opinion, so I'm not going to argue it further. BUT had you asked if people are born CONSERVATIVE? In what has come to be the modern sense of the word? Yes, there is in fact much evidence that points to certain innate personality traits that lend someone to be more open to the Conservative or Liberal message. That doesn't tell the whole story of course... If it did there would be no point in having created Fox News or AM Talk Radio. These exist to INFLUENCE people, and there ARE certain innate traits that make one or or less susceptible to their message. The biggest one, I would submit, is the need for certainty and clarity vs. one's comfortableness with uncertainty and more nebulous, free-flowing ideas. (Basic intelligence as well, but there's no need to get nasty here, so I'll go with that one.)
Racism is also somewhat innate. Babies for example demonstrate a preference for other children that match the race of their mother. (Probably a holdover evolutionary trait so that a baby chimp could tell the difference between other Chimps and, say a Baboon.) That's a far stretch from joining the KKK, but it's THERE and it's been observed. What separates racists from non-racists? That the racist chooses to embrace this baser instinct and BEHAVE in a certain way, while the non-racist RESISTS this and acts like a decent human being? Again, many of those personality traits ARE innate. AND many of those behaviors are taught as well. AND (I believe) that people still have a choice to make in how they’re going to treat other people, even given BOTH of those factors. For example: I reject the bigotry and political Conservatism of my parents. I'm also adopted. So my PERSONAL experience tends to lean towards nature over nurture: I'm a Liberal in spite of my upbringing, not because of it. And I was more Conservative at one point myself. So while one anecdote is hardly conclusive, I think I make a pretty good example of ALL THREE: Nature, Nurture and Free Will.
(con't)
con't)
DeleteNow... Child Molesters. I'm glad you mentioned that. I'm going to put up a cracked article in a future post that will really give you something to think about here. Short version though? There are people who are sexually attracted to young kids. Far from all of them ACT on it. MANY struggle against it. So again: MOLESTATION, which is a behavior, is chosen. But the underlying attraction is NOT. They have it whether they act on it or not. Why don't we protect THEIR "orientation?" Because it does harm to others. And even THEY understand that. (Again, let’s table any debate on that until I have a chance to post the cracked article, OK? I do really want to hear EVERYONE’s thoughts on that, just not in this thread.)
So, full circle, back to gays: Having sex with a man wouldn't' make you gay. A straight person co DO it, and a Gay person could NOT. THOSE are choices. But behavior does not define Orientation. Orientation influences behavior. I'm not going to argue with you any further that we don't get to choose what turns us on. I can look at my own attractions, repulsions, kinks, fetishes and phobias, realize that some might be considered unusual, have no explanation as to why they cause (or destroy) a sexual response in me. So I shrug my shoulders, understanding that we don't get to chose what will turn us on (or off) and then go and CHOSE to do those behaviors that make me happy, within the bounds of "safe, sane and consensual." And what OTHER people do within those bounds? None of my business really. None of yours either. And certainly none of the STATE'S.
To put the gay question away, once and for all: Their only :"choice" is to live happy despite that fact that you don't approve, or live miserably in order t make you happy. So who's REALLY doing harm here?
To address your argument of Nature vs. Nurture? The funny thing is that BOTH are deterministic. I reject both if you want to put either one up as the end all and be all of human behavior, because I still believe n FREE WILL which trumps BOTH. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that both exist, and that both have great influence on us. In the end? We DO choose how we behave. We do choose what we DO. And we DO NOT choose those factors that INFLUENCE our choices, whether they come from NATURE or NURTURE.
Do you agree?