Secular folks should worry.

[MG 2.0]

Well, I call BS on these pornography claims until evidence is produced.

I don’t think you’ve read all of my comments throughout the thread.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Might as well repost the link:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/02/15/ ... ata-shows/

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, I call BS on these pornography claims until evidence is produced.

This is from a book called Gender Queer, and was purportedly found in “multiple Florida schools.”:



And This Book is Gay, same claim as above:



This was from a book called It’s Perfectly Normal, listed as ‘Ages 10 and Up’:



The Daily Signal article MG linked doesn’t name any schools, school districts, nor officials who approved this material. If true, I find the material too degenerate and inappropriate for a non-college or university educational setting.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

malkie has come closest to admitting that there may be a problem.

I’m the one, however, that is pointing to the rising tide of non and/or anti theistic worldviews that have gradually crept in to societies with GenZ being the canary in the goldmine that we, including secular folks, need to take a look at what might or might not constitute a civil society looking into the future.

Reading Res Ipsa’s recent post causes me to think there is a gross misunderstanding on his part as to where I’m even coming from.

The divide seems to be wide, at least on the part of one secular anti theist.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

malkie has come closest to admitting that there may be a problem.

I’m the one, however, that is pointing to the rising tide of non and/or anti theistic worldviews that have gradually crept in to societies with GenZ being the canary in the goldmine that we, including secular folks, need to take a look at what might or might not constitute a civil society looking into the future.

Reading Res Ipsa’s recent post causes me to think there is a gross misunderstanding on his part as to where I’m even coming from.

The divide seems to be wide, at least on the part of one secular anti theist.

Regards,
MG

If your church was so good at instilling morals, why do so many Mormon men “F” kids, and then are protected by other Mormon men so they can continue to “F” kids? Literally groomers.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

This is a crystal clear example of the bigotry that permeates your worldview.

We are definitely not on the same page as to what constitutes bigotry.

And this is what we call dishonest quotation. My comment was not made in response to the one you put it just below. This is the level of dishonesty you have to employ to defend your bigotry.

From the Oxford Dictionaries:

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Your bigotry is especially extreme because you make up a group that you call “secularists” and then demonize them by accusing them of wanting pornography in school libraries. The shoe fits.

It's fairly obvious that you have no definition whatsoever for "secularism" other than "people who do not believe in MG 2.0's God.

No, incorrect.

I’ll happily stand corrected if you supply me with a definition.

You use it solely as a pejorative label.

No, incorrect. It’s a descriptive label.

That’s not responsive to my comment. Try again.

That is the very essence of bigotry.

You definitely have a way with twisting words to make them say what you want them to say even if that’s not what others are actually saying.

You’re a lawyer, right?

And that’s a classic add hominem fallacy. But you knew that before you typed it.

I quoted a definition of bigotry that is consistent with common understanding. In summary, this is why I contend that your worldview is permeated with bigotry.

1. You create a group called “secularists,” even though they have nothing in common other than the absence of religious belief.

2. You assert that they have a philosophy comparable to, but in opposition to, your religious beliefs.

3. You claim that their philosophy leads them to approve of putting pornography in schools;

4. You portray these “secularists” as an existential threat to civil society.

5. You use these “secularists” as a scapegoat for everything evil you see.

6. You use “secularist” as a negative stereotype.

7. Demonizing individuals based on their membership in a group, let alone a group that you made up and assigned them to, fits squarely into the definition of bigotry.

No twisting of words or sneaky lawyering involved. Just an accurate description of what you do and a dictionary definition.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This Mormon man who went to a nightclub, tried picking up another man’s wife, who was escorted out of the club for being belligerent, who followed the woman and her group to an after party, and shot her to death after getting into a fight received 43 letters on his behalf and was granted bail as such:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/03/19/ ... ng-judges/

Instead of “civility” and “morals” we see tribalism and the absolute travesty that this dude is going to walk around free u til his trial, despite having killed a beautiful single mother. This is the morality MG seems to think that sets his faith apart from “secularists”, whatever that means.

- Doc

[drumdude]

This Mormon man who went to a nightclub, tried picking up another man’s wife, who was escorted out of the club for being belligerent, who followed the woman and her group to an after party, and shot her to death after getting into a fight received 43 letters on his behalf and was granted bail as such:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/03/19/ ... ng-judges/

Instead of “civility” and “morals” we see tribalism and the absolute travesty that this dude is going to walk around free u til his trial, despite having killed a beautiful single mother. This is the morality MG seems to think that sets his faith apart from “secularists”, whatever that means.

- Doc

Was he excommunicated?

[Res Ipsa]

…fear and hatred of your fellow humans permeates your worldview.

My word. How could I even live with myself if this was true? I’ve spent my life trying to follow the teachings of Christ. Even when I didn’t believe. I’ve never been on a ‘hate train’. Where have I even given any indication that I hate you or any other human beings? I may dislike what they represent. But that’s a whole other thing.

How, indeed. I’d bet my chips on denial.

Here's how I think a person interested in promoting civil society would approach the library book issue you described. The vast majority of people would agree that not all books that have ever been and will ever be written are appropriate for a public elementary school's library. Also, it is not possible to stock every elementary school library with every book ever written, someone must decide which books will be contained in the library. We call them librarians.

Each librarian is a person, and although they educate themselves about children's literature, they are individuals who will make different decisions about which books to include in a library. Some books may be in nearly every library, while others may not.

A librarian being a human being, it is entirely foreseeable that they may include a book in an elementary school library that is inappropriate. In a civil society, someone who thinks a book in the library is not appropriate would raise the issue with the librarian, explaining why they thought the book is in appropriate and asking why the librarian selected the book to be in the library. That gives both individuals the chance to hear what the other person has to say and perhaps resolve the issue through mutual agreement. If not, there is a person who is in charge of the school, who we call a principal, who can get input from interested parties and decide the issue. And from there, one could go to the school board, the state's education department, or even the legislature. In a civil society, at each stage of discussion, there would an opportunity for discussion, including listening to and taking into consideration the viewpoints of others.

One could label this the "running to government" approach. It seeks to deprive each student of the school of the ability to check out the book from the library.

This is a reasonable path to take. Democracy at work.

Yes. But when those evil secularists do the same thing, you rail against “Big government” and shame them for their “victim mentality.”

Another approach would be for a parent to take interest in the books that their child checks out and reads from the library and discuss it with them. They could even require their child to let the parent read a library book before the child reads it. If the parent becomes aware of a title that they do not want their child to read, they can tell the child.

Or they could send their child to another school or even home school.

One could label this the "self-reliant" approach. The parent takes responsibility for what their child reads and works with the child to make sure the child only reads "appropriate" books. The solution to the problem does not involve depriving anyone else's liberty or freedom.

But the pornography then still makes its home in the library where innocent children have access to it without their parent’s permission. You did look at the content of these books, right?

Yes, self-reliance means solving the problem yourself without using the government to restrict anyone else’s freedom. That’s your generally preferred solution to society’s problems, right? As for books, when someone gives me a title and reliable evidence that the book was, in fact, available for checkout in a school library without parental permission, I’ll read them, research why the person responsible felt the book was appropriate, and form an opinion. Frankly, your cited article didn’t do that.

And there a host of other solutions that people interested in promoting civil society could arrive at that would allow the library to provide a wide range of reading materials while still allowing parents to exercise the degree of control over their children's reading that they choose.

In a civil society, we would call this "solving a problem." Disagreements between or among people will arise in a civil society. A civil society should anticipate that those disagreement will arise and provides mechanisms to resolve them.

This is what has been occurring.

No, it’s not. What has been happening is mobs of angry people trying to intimidate school personnel, including death threats against them and their families. In this case, the bigoted label is “woke.”

“Pornography” is also just the most sensational aspect of what is going on. The lists of inappropriate books include books that simply mention the existence of LBGTQIA+ folks in any kind of positive light and books that even mention slavery in connection with US history. One history textbook created to comply with Florida law talks about Rosa Parks without mentioning race.

What’s happening in no way resembles problem resolution in a civil society. It’s not based on a civil examination of each book and discussing the merits of each. It’s a holy/culture/political existential war waged against real flesh and blood people portrayed as existential threats.

However, that requires an understanding by the citizens of a civil society that they will not always get their way in any disagreement and agree that having a civil society is more important than winning any specific disagreement. above all, a person who supports civil society does not respond to not getting their way by trying to destroy the very things that allow a civil society to exist.

So pornography’s existence on the shelves of schools where young people attend is the solution to having a civil society?

How in the world did you get that out of me listing a whole list of options for Problem solving? My post wasn’t limited to pornography. It was about whether a given book is appropriate for inclusion in a library. Again, there is nothing in your made up “secularism” that would argue in favor of actual pornography in a public school library. So, something that meets the actual definition of “pornography” isn’t going to be appropriate.

Here is what a person who believes in and promotes civil society would not do with a disagreement over library books: whip up an angry mob to try and intimidate librarians and other school officials into getting their way.

That’s called democracy.

No, angry mobs, intimidation, and threats are not democracy. That’s a stunningly ignorant statement from a citizen of a democratic republic.

They would not not make anonymous threats to the life and safety of librarians, teachers or principals.

I agree. Just as I’m sure you would agree that the attacks on Women’s Centers that help and provide ways for pregnant women to carry their babies to full term would be comparable. Physical attacks and/or damage to a person or place of legal business are never warranted in a civil society.

Agreed. Just as I am sure you would agree that murdering a doctor that provides abortion services while he was attending church services is never warranted in a civil society.

They would not engage in histrionics to inflate the types of disagreements we should expect to arise in civil society into extential crises that amount to declaring war (holy or cultural) against those with different points of view.

GreenPeace and BLM comes to mind along with many other examples in which human beings become highly agitated and either attack verbally and/or physically those that disagree with them. It’s never the right thing to do.

Whataboutism noted.

You aren't just waging war against ideas floating around in the ether. You are waging war on fellow humans, flesh and blood people just like yourself, and the harm I described above is a direct consequence of your holy war.

I’m disagreement with a philosophical school of thought that I believe would lead towards an uncivil society. One controlled by those that my or my not have the best interests of the masses at heart. This is not ‘waging war’ it’s simply fighting for the supremacy of ideas. People have done that throughout history. Unfortunately with the rise of media and those that would like to control and/or point the populace towards more liberal views we are seeing an unfair battlefield, if that’s what you feel comfortable calling it.

I’m becoming more and more convinced that what I’m hearing is political war wrapped in a thin tissue of religion.

Clashes of ideas are fine. But that’s not what you are doing. You aren’t presenting reasoned arguments for why theism is a superior idea. You’re just asserting the Panglossian position that some past world you imagine is the best of all possible worlds. You’re afraid of change. That’s common. But you’ve turned that fear into bigotry.

You made up something you call secularism. Then without asking me a single question about what I actually believe, you labeled me a secularist and told me what I believe. Including that I favor putting pornography in school libraries. And that’s just the latest example of you telling me what I believe based on your labeling of me as a secularist. That’s not debating competing philosophies. That’s you creating an enemy.

As I mentioned to malkie, Canadians, even if their society has become more secularized, in practice, as a result of governmental control and its historically entrenched views/inclinations towards less liberty and freedom in comparison to what our founding fathers envisioned (those that carried the day anyway), still carry the principles and ideas taught in the religious teachings of their forefathers in their hearts/consciousness.

Religious belief is neither necessary nor sufficient for liberty and freedom.

Secular humanists that are non and/or anti theists being in charge of nations do not have a good track record in regards to liberty and freedom.

Ah, the old chestnut. Every secularist would be Lenin if put in a position of leadership. Every secularist would be a mass murder if given the opportunity. And you still claim not to be bigoted?

Because of religious bigotry in the US against the non-religious, it has been impossible for people like me to be elected to national office. When there is some track record of democratically elected non-believers in the US we can look at, then we can talk. Given the existence of countries headed by religious believers such as Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Mohdi in India, it’s fair to say that religion is neither a sufficient nor a necessary requirement for authoritarian government.

[MG 2.0]

…“secularists”, whatever that means.

- Doc

absence of religious belief per Res Ipsa.

Regards,
MG