"You must respect my religion! You must respect my beliefs!"
I respect your RIGHT to your religion and to your beliefs. If I find things about your religion or beliefs to be objectionable or absurd, I cannot respect those things. BUT I can and do treat YOU respectfully.
"I AM my religion! I AM my beliefs! So to respect ME, you must respect THEM!"
No, you're not. You HAVE your religion and beliefs. They're important to you, but they are not you. You're just trying to force me to respect your religion and beliefs because I want to treat you respectfully. I'm not going to fall for that.
And by the way, the phrase "must respect" is absurd. Respect is only given, never taken. Forced respect is not genuine respect. That would be subservience. Don't expect that from me.
Theists, and especially Christians, tend to equate their religion with their personalities. So, his comments are taken as personal attacks because they are their religion. None of what he said come as anywhere near the vitriol and violent rhetoric we see from many national (or nationally famous) GOP politicians concerning LGBT people or people of color. And there is very little legislative damage he can do to the religious, as opposed to the very real damage the GOP as a whole has done to all minorities and the lower classes.
Unfortunately, this might hurt him, but he may not have had much of a chance to begin with looking at the primary. Perhaps his challenger will find a bigger landline before the election, but I doubt it.
I like this guy! Not enough to move to Kansas City, but I like him none the less. Even thought trying to sort out who was, or was not, a TRUE Christian has spilled enough blood to float the Navy, people still assign the worlds evils to atheism. Christians play the victim any time their sense of privilege is challenged. If Christianity equaled morality, human slavery would have vanished centuries ago, there would have never been a need for the Civil Rights Act, and the Bible-belt South wouldn't have some of the worst social metrics in the country.
Wow, these anti-atheist Christians sure get their dander up when someone speaks truths and refuses to play along with their delusions. Pity those very same Christians don't seem to be able to find that outrage when a Christian politician or pastor (or anyone else, for that matter) says something absolutely vile and hateful about nonbelievers.
They claim to be all about religious freedom, but they don't really mean it.
I am amazed by the difference between our countries. DM's maternal grandfather, an openly atheist, had no trouble joining the town council of R and it was in the 50's* and 60's*.
*From DM childhood memories, I don't know when he started and she is resting right now.
OT: I missed my chance to see Abbott. It was last night. I was hoping it was tonight. I'm angry enough this morning to seriously think about going and confronting him about his murderous campaign against trans kids.
I certainly do think that churches shouldn't get tax exempt status simply BECAUSE they espouse a religion or have religious activities as their primary function. They should be judged in the same way an equivalent non- religious organization would be judged. Suppose there were an organization that had as its primary function giving lectures about collecting thimbles and promoting thimble collecting and sent people around the world to espouse the beauty of thimbles and why everyone should have multiple thimbles in their homes. Should such an organization be taxed? The answer to that question should be the same answer you would give to whether a church should be.
Ordinarily, I would say that Gahagan should own his statements and double down ... but then, THIS is politics. Worse, it's politics in Kansas which, despite its recent endorsement of abortion rights, is still largely RED. Religion in the Jayhawk State is likely borderline sacrosanct, and as such, any candidate for office needs to reflect that status if he or she wants any measure of success.
Terrific ... but the average citizen and certainly the average Republican in Kansas isn't likely to make that distinction. The uphill climb Hemant mentions looks more Sisyphean than anything else to me, and I would be dubious that Gahagan will go much if any further in this particular race.
OT : doctors finally found what's wrong with DM, it's not an allergy, it's a throat oedema. She is forbidden to drink/eat anything cold and sparkling water.
I accepted when I started posting online that I would never be able to run for any public office. Fortunately, I've never actually had any interest in running for public office, so it hasn't been an issue for me.
I think there's a deeper question here. I think what we're really asking is how long do we hold someone responsible for something they said or did that they didn't mean, no longer agree with, or otherwise would not endorse or repeat today? At some point, in order to move forward in life, you have to forgive people and understand that humanity isn't perfect and probably never will be, and letting go of an old hurt or anger is the right thing for both the victim and the villain. That probably doesn't apply in every case, there are some folks who will just repeat the same error over and over again. But when it's pretty clear someone is trying to make amends and be a better person, maybe those past comments or issue should stay where they are - in the past.
Good luck to you, Mr. Gahagan, I hope you win your race.
"Here’s what’s important: As a city council member, Gahagan wouldn’t be in a position to craft laws, much less take sides on culture war issues. Local governments are not where we typically hear religious (or non-religious) arguments for anything. Garbage pickup is garbage pickup. A pothole is a pothole. Your personal and political beliefs generally mean a lot less at the local level. "
What color is the sky in your world, Hemant? Take a look a the current proposition and the current statements by the mayoral candidates for San Antonio's election on May 6th. It is riddled with culture war issues. This is post-COVID precautions and politically there is no middle ground.
I don’t care what their religion is, you need to be respectful of that. And he’s basically saying, ‘I’m anti-religion, period.’ And that’s not OK.”
It's perfectly okay not to respect their religion, particularly if their religion is a hateful bullshit and they are constantly using it to justify their actions. I agree with all of his earlier comments. I would respect him more if he wasn't pandering to get elected.
Religion is absolutely a poison that rots human minds. That's not to say we shouldn't try to save the infected. Let's work on a vaccine, for god's sake!
"You must respect my religion! You must respect my beliefs!"
I respect your RIGHT to your religion and to your beliefs. If I find things about your religion or beliefs to be objectionable or absurd, I cannot respect those things. BUT I can and do treat YOU respectfully.
"I AM my religion! I AM my beliefs! So to respect ME, you must respect THEM!"
No, you're not. You HAVE your religion and beliefs. They're important to you, but they are not you. You're just trying to force me to respect your religion and beliefs because I want to treat you respectfully. I'm not going to fall for that.
And by the way, the phrase "must respect" is absurd. Respect is only given, never taken. Forced respect is not genuine respect. That would be subservience. Don't expect that from me.
Theists, and especially Christians, tend to equate their religion with their personalities. So, his comments are taken as personal attacks because they are their religion. None of what he said come as anywhere near the vitriol and violent rhetoric we see from many national (or nationally famous) GOP politicians concerning LGBT people or people of color. And there is very little legislative damage he can do to the religious, as opposed to the very real damage the GOP as a whole has done to all minorities and the lower classes.
Unfortunately, this might hurt him, but he may not have had much of a chance to begin with looking at the primary. Perhaps his challenger will find a bigger landline before the election, but I doubt it.
I like this guy! Not enough to move to Kansas City, but I like him none the less. Even thought trying to sort out who was, or was not, a TRUE Christian has spilled enough blood to float the Navy, people still assign the worlds evils to atheism. Christians play the victim any time their sense of privilege is challenged. If Christianity equaled morality, human slavery would have vanished centuries ago, there would have never been a need for the Civil Rights Act, and the Bible-belt South wouldn't have some of the worst social metrics in the country.
Wow, these anti-atheist Christians sure get their dander up when someone speaks truths and refuses to play along with their delusions. Pity those very same Christians don't seem to be able to find that outrage when a Christian politician or pastor (or anyone else, for that matter) says something absolutely vile and hateful about nonbelievers.
They claim to be all about religious freedom, but they don't really mean it.
I'll say it again: Christians demand respect yet refuse to grant that same respect to others outside their bible bubble in return.
Let them offer what they themselves expect.
I am amazed by the difference between our countries. DM's maternal grandfather, an openly atheist, had no trouble joining the town council of R and it was in the 50's* and 60's*.
*From DM childhood memories, I don't know when he started and she is resting right now.
OT: I missed my chance to see Abbott. It was last night. I was hoping it was tonight. I'm angry enough this morning to seriously think about going and confronting him about his murderous campaign against trans kids.
Obviously not the most politic of things to say. Now then, can we hear what his (presumably) religious opponents think of atheism and atheists?
I certainly do think that churches shouldn't get tax exempt status simply BECAUSE they espouse a religion or have religious activities as their primary function. They should be judged in the same way an equivalent non- religious organization would be judged. Suppose there were an organization that had as its primary function giving lectures about collecting thimbles and promoting thimble collecting and sent people around the world to espouse the beauty of thimbles and why everyone should have multiple thimbles in their homes. Should such an organization be taxed? The answer to that question should be the same answer you would give to whether a church should be.
Ordinarily, I would say that Gahagan should own his statements and double down ... but then, THIS is politics. Worse, it's politics in Kansas which, despite its recent endorsement of abortion rights, is still largely RED. Religion in the Jayhawk State is likely borderline sacrosanct, and as such, any candidate for office needs to reflect that status if he or she wants any measure of success.
𝐺𝑎ℎ𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑠. 𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 ℎ𝑒’𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑓.
Terrific ... but the average citizen and certainly the average Republican in Kansas isn't likely to make that distinction. The uphill climb Hemant mentions looks more Sisyphean than anything else to me, and I would be dubious that Gahagan will go much if any further in this particular race.
OT : doctors finally found what's wrong with DM, it's not an allergy, it's a throat oedema. She is forbidden to drink/eat anything cold and sparkling water.
PS : I hate Spring !
*Sniffle*
I accepted when I started posting online that I would never be able to run for any public office. Fortunately, I've never actually had any interest in running for public office, so it hasn't been an issue for me.
I think there's a deeper question here. I think what we're really asking is how long do we hold someone responsible for something they said or did that they didn't mean, no longer agree with, or otherwise would not endorse or repeat today? At some point, in order to move forward in life, you have to forgive people and understand that humanity isn't perfect and probably never will be, and letting go of an old hurt or anger is the right thing for both the victim and the villain. That probably doesn't apply in every case, there are some folks who will just repeat the same error over and over again. But when it's pretty clear someone is trying to make amends and be a better person, maybe those past comments or issue should stay where they are - in the past.
Good luck to you, Mr. Gahagan, I hope you win your race.
"Here’s what’s important: As a city council member, Gahagan wouldn’t be in a position to craft laws, much less take sides on culture war issues. Local governments are not where we typically hear religious (or non-religious) arguments for anything. Garbage pickup is garbage pickup. A pothole is a pothole. Your personal and political beliefs generally mean a lot less at the local level. "
What color is the sky in your world, Hemant? Take a look a the current proposition and the current statements by the mayoral candidates for San Antonio's election on May 6th. It is riddled with culture war issues. This is post-COVID precautions and politically there is no middle ground.
I don’t care what their religion is, you need to be respectful of that. And he’s basically saying, ‘I’m anti-religion, period.’ And that’s not OK.”
It's perfectly okay not to respect their religion, particularly if their religion is a hateful bullshit and they are constantly using it to justify their actions. I agree with all of his earlier comments. I would respect him more if he wasn't pandering to get elected.
Religion is absolutely a poison that rots human minds. That's not to say we shouldn't try to save the infected. Let's work on a vaccine, for god's sake!
*edited for improper word choice
There's a new FA article called "Arizona Supreme Court: Mormon leaders don't have to report confessions of abuse."