Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
142 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Is the government overreaching. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: RFW's [+] [View All]
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With the numerous stories of late involving a clash between the government and peoples religious convictions, does this mean that the government is starting to go into areas they really shouldn't?
If they can't avoid religious conviction blow back, should the government just take a step back and think harder about what they are trying to dictate?

Has the government gotten too far into peoples lives?
Or do you all think they need to go even further and crush the religious viewpoints that are deemed hateful?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
For BJ.....
Avatar
mb
I dont think the government is overreaching. Kim Davis was jailed for contempt of court, not her beliefs.

That said, if government did start going after religious minorities, Id oppose that.

But what is occurring with Davis is not government persecution. Its show boating to drum up support.

Darilian
21 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
I dont think the government is overreaching. Kim Davis was jailed for contempt of court, not her beliefs.

That said, if government did start going after religious minorities, Id oppose that.

But what is occurring with Davis is not government persecution. Its show boating to drum up support.

Darilian


What about mandating companies provide birth control that they do not want to based on religious principles.
And bakeries....
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, no more that DOMA was an overreach, or the first amendment, or fighting to keep evolution out of schools.

The only difference is instead of using the government to en force their morality others are using it to enforce morality on them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
No, no more that DOMA was an overreach, or the first amendment, or fighting to keep evolution out of schools.

The only difference is instead of using the government to en force their morality others are using it to enforce morality on them.


There is a difference between citizens whining about school curriculum, and the GOVERNMENT invading areas of society that they shouldn't.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ron Preisach
United States
East McKeesport
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No, no more that DOMA was an overreach, or the first amendment, or fighting to keep evolution out of schools.

The only difference is instead of using the government to en force their morality others are using it to enforce morality on them.


There is a difference between citizens whining about school curriculum, and the GOVERNMENT invading areas of society that they shouldn't.
I also note how you ignored the rest. Maybe if certain groups had not used government and the courts to enforce their view of morality then we would not live in a world where they damage they have done now needs to be rectified.

There is nothing more obnoxious than someone whining about how unfair people doing top them what they used to do to other people is.

If you do not want these things done, step one...do not do them
1. Abuse a public position to enforce your morality on your community
2. Trying to influence laws that ban people from acts that do not affect you. In fact stop using the law to enforce your moral codes
3. Trying to define what a given public (and secular) institution is

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No, no more that DOMA was an overreach, or the first amendment, or fighting to keep evolution out of schools.

The only difference is instead of using the government to en force their morality others are using it to enforce morality on them.


There is a difference between citizens whining about school curriculum, and the GOVERNMENT invading areas of society that they shouldn't.
I also note how you ignored the rest. Maybe if certain groups had not used government and the courts to enforce their view of morality then we would not live in a world where they damage they have done now needs to be rectified.

There is nothing more obnoxious than someone whining about how unfair people doing top them what they used to do to other people is.

If you do not want these things done, step one...do not do them
1. Abuse a public position to enforce your morality on your community
2. Trying to influence laws that ban people from acts that do not affect you. In fact stop using the law to enforce your moral codes
3. Trying to define what a given public (and secular) institution is



Just because something doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it is ok for people to do.
You SEEM to be trying to justify all this with, well they are doing this, so we can do this back to them even though it is not ok.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.
29 
 Thumb up
0.26
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


Try not to look at the events individually.
Look at how there are an increasing number of instances like this. People are feeling infringed upon. And why?
The government is going into new territory with Obamacare.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
No, no more that DOMA was an overreach, or the first amendment, or fighting to keep evolution out of schools.

The only difference is instead of using the government to en force their morality others are using it to enforce morality on them.


There is a difference between citizens whining about school curriculum, and the GOVERNMENT invading areas of society that they shouldn't.
I also note how you ignored the rest. Maybe if certain groups had not used government and the courts to enforce their view of morality then we would not live in a world where they damage they have done now needs to be rectified.

There is nothing more obnoxious than someone whining about how unfair people doing top them what they used to do to other people is.

If you do not want these things done, step one...do not do them
1. Abuse a public position to enforce your morality on your community
2. Trying to influence laws that ban people from acts that do not affect you. In fact stop using the law to enforce your moral codes
3. Trying to define what a given public (and secular) institution is



Just because something doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it is ok for people to do.
You SEEM to be trying to justify all this with, well they are doing this, so we can do this back to them even though it is not ok.
NO, I am saying it is hypocritical that now it's a problem, but when these people were (and are) doing it it is not a problem.

Moreover whereas most of the laws they (and you?) supported affected things that no one was doing to them, the laws they object to (and are subject to) prevent them doing something to someone else.

I would be more inclined to have sympathy if it were not for continued support for things like DOMA or statements like "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law." (will you take the chance to condemn this?).

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


I think Daishi that what we are seeing is people who had their personal religious,beliefs previously enshrined in the goverent as a matter of course coming to terms with the fwct that things are changing.

This doesn't mean care should not be taken, it should always,be taken and in fact many of these changes are halpening because more care and more neutrality is being used than was previously. The old standard of white male christian being the defsult and all othdrs fslling in line no longer holds as completely as it did.

Which specific case would you like to tackle first? Lumping Davis and Hobby Lobby together is not really helpful for addressing either very thuroughly.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


Try not to look at the events individually.
Look at how there are an increasing number of instances like this. People are feeling infringed upon. And why?
The government is going into new territory with Obamacare.


I spoke to the why - Christianity has enjoyed an elevated status and privilege, largely for historical reasons. That is changing, many more people are living without particular religious affiliation, and the cultural power diminishes. Most people can handle that. Some can't.

For every person who feels infringed, there are 50 who are interested in profiting of them, financially or otherwise. Magnifying each and every occasion of this does not indicate a trend of religious persecution. It indicates we are not smart enough to separate important issues from spectacle, and we are in age of people who will exploit that.
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


So your justification on why this is all stupid, is that religious people are anti intellectual immature idiots?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Metal Undivided, Chaos For All
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I also don't think this is a new phenomena of people's worldviews clashing and the Government having to be the arbiter that ensures that basic rights are protected. Religious rights that are discriminatory in nature will always have to bend to basic civil rights. It's not new, the internet/media just makes everything seem bigger. We can go to multiple examples of this throughout U.S. History if you want. So, I can't accept your premise, I don't think this is a big government thing. I think it is government trying to do it's job.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


So your justification on why this is all stupid, is that religious people are anti intellectual immature idiots?


In both of my previous posts, I describe most Christians as being able to understand and handle changes. I stand by that. Some good examples of idiocy though:

- Claiming that having to put a signature on a piece of paper stating one is opting in to a religious exception giving an organization permission not to follow parts of the Affordable Care Act
- Failing to recognize that citing God's law in defiance of a federal court order represents forcing one's religious belief on others
- Your very post in which you ignore any detail in what you have read and vomit up a Sean Hannity-worthy question that has no relevance to anything previous

I honestly can't decide what's worse. That you're cynical enough to artlessly deploy an absurd logical fallacy, or that your reading comprehension is such a damn shambles that you pulled that out as a conclusion.
20 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


So your justification on why this is all stupid, is that religious people are anti intellectual immature idiots?


In both of my previous posts, I describe most Christians as being able to understand and handle changes. I stand by that. Some good examples of idiocy though:

- Claiming that having to put a signature on a piece of paper stating one is opting in to a religious exception giving an organization permission not to follow parts of the Affordable Care Act
- Failing to recognize that citing God's law in defiance of a federal court order represents forcing one's religious belief on others
- Your very post in which you ignore any detail in what you have read and vomit up a Sean Hannity-worthy question that has no relevance to anything previous

I honestly can't decide what's worse. That you're cynical enough to artlessly deploy an absurd logical fallacy, or that your reading comprehension is such a damn shambles that you pulled that out as a conclusion.
Not that he has not in fact condemned DOMA, or other attempts at government overreach?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


So your justification on why this is all stupid, is that religious people are anti intellectual immature idiots?


In both of my previous posts, I describe most Christians as being able to understand and handle changes. I stand by that. Some good examples of idiocy though:

- Claiming that having to put a signature on a piece of paper stating one is opting in to a religious exception giving an organization permission not to follow parts of the Affordable Care Act
- Failing to recognize that citing God's law in defiance of a federal court order represents forcing one's religious belief on others
- Your very post in which you ignore any detail in what you have read and vomit up a Sean Hannity-worthy question that has no relevance to anything previous

I honestly can't decide what's worse. That you're cynical enough to artlessly deploy an absurd logical fallacy, or that your reading comprehension is such a damn shambles that you pulled that out as a conclusion.


People had complaints about certain things, ie, Hobby Lobby did not want to provide certain kinds of birth control based on their religious convictions.
YOu describe that as, "They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony."
I can only interpret this as, you place NO VALUE on peoples religious views.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


So your justification on why this is all stupid, is that religious people are anti intellectual immature idiots?


In both of my previous posts, I describe most Christians as being able to understand and handle changes. I stand by that. Some good examples of idiocy though:

- Claiming that having to put a signature on a piece of paper stating one is opting in to a religious exception giving an organization permission not to follow parts of the Affordable Care Act
- Failing to recognize that citing God's law in defiance of a federal court order represents forcing one's religious belief on others
- Your very post in which you ignore any detail in what you have read and vomit up a Sean Hannity-worthy question that has no relevance to anything previous

I honestly can't decide what's worse. That you're cynical enough to artlessly deploy an absurd logical fallacy, or that your reading comprehension is such a damn shambles that you pulled that out as a conclusion.


People had complaints about certain things, ie, Hobby Lobby did not want to provide certain kinds of birth control based on their religious convictions.
YOu describe that as, "They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony."
I can only interpret this as, you place NO VALUE on peoples religious views.
Or maybe he is responding to one half of your OP and not the other. That is what happens when you try to combine two different debates into one.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Parsons
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


So your justification on why this is all stupid, is that religious people are anti intellectual immature idiots?


In both of my previous posts, I describe most Christians as being able to understand and handle changes. I stand by that. Some good examples of idiocy though:

- Claiming that having to put a signature on a piece of paper stating one is opting in to a religious exception giving an organization permission not to follow parts of the Affordable Care Act
- Failing to recognize that citing God's law in defiance of a federal court order represents forcing one's religious belief on others
- Your very post in which you ignore any detail in what you have read and vomit up a Sean Hannity-worthy question that has no relevance to anything previous

I honestly can't decide what's worse. That you're cynical enough to artlessly deploy an absurd logical fallacy, or that your reading comprehension is such a damn shambles that you pulled that out as a conclusion.


People had complaints about certain things, ie, Hobby Lobby did not want to provide certain kinds of birth control based on their religious convictions.
YOu describe that as, "They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony."
I can only interpret this as, you place NO VALUE on peoples religious views.


No, you could have interpreted that in any number of ways but you chose the most hyperbolic and divisive interpretation and ran with it. I suggest that you apply a less black and white approach to your reading and see the nuance that exists in most people's replies to you.

To answer your initial question. No, I don't believe that the government is overreaching any more than they ever had. I believe it's exactly the opposite. The perception of overreach that some people seem to see is merely the lessening of government intrusion into religious control. The people who historically had the power of their religion in the governmental arena are pushing back now that they see their power diminishing.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
batman wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
edgerunner76 wrote:
Why are all of your statemequestions the rhetorical equivalent of divide by zero?


What is rhetorical about asking, are there a growing number of instances of people claiming religious persecution because the government is reaching too far?


The answer to your original question is no, the government is not overreaching. The events you cite are not the justified grievances of a persecuted minority suffering under tyranny. They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony.

Most religious individuals do just fine because they can both accept change and accept that they aren't the center of the world. This fringe adopts a view that they are the center of the world, that the rest of the world has some form of spiritual contamination or another, and that any time the world doesn't recognize their special status, the world is at fault.


So your justification on why this is all stupid, is that religious people are anti intellectual immature idiots?


In both of my previous posts, I describe most Christians as being able to understand and handle changes. I stand by that. Some good examples of idiocy though:

- Claiming that having to put a signature on a piece of paper stating one is opting in to a religious exception giving an organization permission not to follow parts of the Affordable Care Act
- Failing to recognize that citing God's law in defiance of a federal court order represents forcing one's religious belief on others
- Your very post in which you ignore any detail in what you have read and vomit up a Sean Hannity-worthy question that has no relevance to anything previous

I honestly can't decide what's worse. That you're cynical enough to artlessly deploy an absurd logical fallacy, or that your reading comprehension is such a damn shambles that you pulled that out as a conclusion.


People had complaints about certain things, ie, Hobby Lobby did not want to provide certain kinds of birth control based on their religious convictions.
YOu describe that as, "They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony."
I can only interpret this as, you place NO VALUE on peoples religious views.


No, you could have interpreted that in any number of ways but you chose the most hyperbolic and divisive interpretation and ran with it. I suggest that you apply a less black and white approach to your reading and see the nuance that exists in most people's replies to you.

To answer your initial question. No, I don't believe that the government is overreaching any more than they ever had. I believe it's exactly the opposite. The perception of overreach that some people seem to see is merely the lessening of government intrusion into religious control. The people who historically had the power of their religion in the governmental arena are pushing back now that they see their power diminishing.


How do you interpret, "They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Parsons
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
batman wrote:


No, you could have interpreted that in any number of ways but you chose the most hyperbolic and divisive interpretation and ran with it. I suggest that you apply a less black and white approach to your reading and see the nuance that exists in most people's replies to you.

To answer your initial question. No, I don't believe that the government is overreaching any more than they ever had. I believe it's exactly the opposite. The perception of overreach that some people seem to see is merely the lessening of government intrusion into religious control. The people who historically had the power of their religion in the governmental arena are pushing back now that they see their power diminishing.


How do you interpret, "They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony."


I can tell you I didn't see anything in there about Doc Mage saying he had NO VALUE of other people's religious views. He wasn't offering his opinion of their views. He was basically saying the same thing that I said in a more insulting manner.

Try this experiment. Take out the words "immature" and "anti-intellectual" and see if you can make that sentence mean anything even close to him expressing his opinion about other people's religious views. That's simply not what he is saying.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Parsons
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
"They are the immature cries of an anti-intellectual fringe that can only respond instinctively and loudly to a cultural shift away from a hegemony."


See, I read that and automatically assume it's about left-wing SJWs.


You could read a shampoo bottle and automatically think it's about left-wing SJWs.
11 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
I can only interpret this as, you place NO VALUE on peoples religious views.


No, they're fine with Iran's religious views.

 
The next Republican candidate

10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.