Secular folks should worry.

[Doctor Steuss]

So, legislating against the liberty and freedom of institutions of higher learning, is ok because the administrators are generally more liberal?

Yikes.

I said:

The government DOESN’T dictate the comings and goings (and political leanings) of college/university administrators.

I did say that administrators themselves are having an impact on college/university campuses. Please read my entire post as it is written without contextually mutilating the meaning.

One Marcus is enough. I could name some others but I won’t. She is the most obvious example.

This has been a common tactic used to distort the truth by naysayers. And it’s easy to get away with because most people won’t go back and look at full context and meaning.

Regards,
MG

My apologies for assuming, when quoting me, that you were replying to what I said, instead of using it to say something unrelated.

[Marcus]

So, legislating against the liberty and freedom of institutions of higher learning, is ok because the administrators are generally more liberal?

Yikes.

I said:

The government DOESN’T dictate the comings and goings (and political leanings) of college/university administrators.

I did say that administrators themselves are having an impact on college/university campuses. Please read my entire post as it is written without contextually mutilating the meaning.

One Marcus is enough. I could name some others but I won’t. She is the most obvious example.

This has been a common tactic used to distort the truth by naysayers. And it’s easy to get away with because most people won’t go back and look at full context and meaning.

Regards,
MG

Lol. You left out the part of your post Steuss was responding to:

The government DOESN’T dictate the comings and goings (and political leanings) of college/university administrators. But the fact is, two thirds of those folks consider themselves to be somewhere on the leftest/liberal spectrum. Those folks dictate to a large extent what happens on their campuses and what can and cannot be said/taught. Who can and can’t visit their campuses to speak, etc.

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/20 ... ty-members

There are some long term ramifications of this situation (which has existed for a while now) which I’m sure you can see. Those ramifications might even be inline with your hopes and dreams for GenZ and future generations.

There are many folks, however, who would like to see free thought and expression/discussion be the norm on college/university campuses.

It’s possible that the fate of our Republic depends on it,....

To which Steuss responded, quite appropriately:

So, legislating against the liberty and freedom of institutions of higher learning, is ok because the administrators are generally more liberal?

Yikes.

"Please read [the] entire post as it is written without contextually mutilating the meaning."

Said someone, in the midst of a highly ironic mutilation of another's post, a "common tactic" this poster uses, forgetting that others WILL "go back and look at full context and meaning."

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tucker Carlson is Episcopalian.

Should he be cancelled? Oh yeah, he was. And the gals on The View had a heyday. Excluding Whoppi, much to her credit.

Would you have him cancelled because you don’t agree with him? I don’t agree with some of the things he says, but I’m not in favor of cancellation of his voice.

If ‘the other side’ has arguments which are superior to his in truth/value then let them speak! That’s the nature of a free and open society.

Some would like tighter regulations on thought. The Thought Police.

Cancellation is one tactic that is used. Intimidation and name calling is one of a number of tactics used. It’s done on this very board.

Regards,
MG

He was fired, not cancelled, you daft muppet. Good Lord, this idiot votes.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

Tucker Carlson is Episcopalian.

Should he be cancelled? Oh yeah, he was. And the gals on The View had a heyday. Excluding Whoppi, much to her credit.

Would you have him cancelled because you don’t agree with him? I don’t agree with some of the things he says, but I’m not in favor of cancellation of his voice.

If ‘the other side’ has arguments which are superior to his in truth/value then let them speak! That’s the nature of a free and open society.

Some would like tighter regulations on thought. The Thought Police.

Cancellation is one tactic that is used. Intimidation and name calling is one of a number of tactics used. It’s done on this very board.

Regards,
MG

A business fired an employee. Carlson was not canceled.

ETA: just noticed Cam said the same thing just before this post. What Cam said.

[honorentheos]

83 pages confirming what was known for a long time now. That being, MG has a worldview built on Mormon cosmology and rightwing culture war positions that he asserts as fact to the point he is unable to entertain different perspectives sincerely. He masks this with statements about agreeing to disagree, or asserting the systemic problems caused by religious culture and the current authoritarian impulses on the American political right aren't meaningful as he just dismisses them as the acts of a few bad apples exercising their agency. There is a creator god that looks like God the Father per Mormonism. The US is and always has been a Christian nation, and Christianity is the basis for all things good in the world. Lurkers need to know this is true and the apostate secular liberal humanists socialists leftists just dig themselves deeper holes when they attempt to engage him.

Good time.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

On another episode of GenZ Drag Queens Raping People:

https://www.wowktv.com/news/west-virgin ... uch-worse/

tl;dc - GenZ drag queens running the West Virginia State Police academy were filming women, to includes minors in their locker room, and in some cases drugging and raping them. It’s a massive crap show.

Literally institutional misogyny, sexism, misuse of public funds, and cover ups.

Is this civil society?

- Doc

[Doctor Steuss]

Rupert Murdoch firing Tucker Carlson is the fault of leftists, and an attack on the First Amendment.

Math checks out.

[Manetho]

Here in Utah, the State Board of Education had ~6 hour debate whether or not to teach The Flood.

As per my last post, those debates SHOULD happen. Not be exorcised because one group makes a decision that the debate can’t even be brought to the floor.

Neither schools nor legislatures have infinite amounts of time. It is not necessary to debate whether the theory of bodily humors or the existence of the lost continent of Lemuria should be taught in school. These ideas are wrong. People are free to believe in them if they choose, but neither our governing bodies nor our education system should be wasting time on them. The biblical flood is no different, except that it has support from a vocal minority of the public.

As American conservatism grows increasingly detached from reality, it grows ever more attached to an interpretation of "free speech" under which conservatives have the right to use every possible platform to spread lies.

[Morley]

Tucker Carlson is Episcopalian.

Should he be cancelled? Oh yeah, he was. And the gals on The View had a heyday. Excluding Whoppi, much to her credit.

Would you have him cancelled because you don’t agree with him? I don’t agree with some of the things he says, but I’m not in favor of cancellation of his voice.

If ‘the other side’ has arguments which are superior to his in truth/value then let them speak! That’s the nature of a free and open society.

Some would like tighter regulations on thought. The Thought Police.

Cancellation is one tactic that is used. Intimidation and name calling is one of a number of tactics used. It’s done on this very board.

Regards,
MG

Okay, MG 2.0, I'm trying to keep track. But finally, here it is: your second example. You've laid out two specific beefs that you say point to the decline of civil society, as it is being taken over by progressive GenZers.

1) The gay wedding cake case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission) that was ultimately decided in favor of the cake shop.

and

2) Conservative conspiracy huckster, Tucker Carlson, who was fired by his also politically conservative employer, Fox News's Lachlan Murdoch. You're calling this an act of cancellation.

[Nimrod]

I doubt, MG, that you'd like anything more than that your faith approach (hope for something devoid of supporting evidence) be considered alongside propositions for which there is empirical evidence and results from logic applied to such evidence. However, they are not comparable. Faith is unreliable, and not even in the same league of value to mankind. Look at this tabled list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... tic_events) of predicted apocalyptic dates in the past that came and went without the event having ocurred. It did not matter how many people believed--the dates just came and went without the predicted event.

I see "where you are coming from." You have deluded yourself into acting on hopes, barren of empirical data and logic therefrom. Just because I "see" how you've deluded yourself does not mean that I (nor anyone else) should consider it on a par with empirical observation/logic, nor "god forbid" act upon it.

Even a Pascal's Wager is a folly of wasting one's life. Of the thousands of different religious iterations, it's a blind dart throw as to which one to follow. Get the wrong "god" and it's, "close but no cigar." Just a life wasted denying yourself.

In your thousands of posts here, you've not moved the needle. It is still on empty.

Hi Nimrod,
First let me say that in a country founded on the rights of free speech and free exercise of religion and/or no religion you are able to say what you want and practice/do what you want within the confines of the law. You can remain godless and point out what you believe to be the profound perceived weaknesses of those that choose to maintain a faith/belief in a creator God to whom we are accountable for how we live our lives.

You make an interesting comment in saying, “Just a life wasted denying yourself”. This philosophical position presents a slippery slope. It is that slippery slope and the feelings that you directly express towards those that believe in a God who is our Father in Heaven that concerns those that see God as the creator of all things.

If you and those of your particular persuasion of non theism and even critical views towards religion and those that believe were able to hold sway in our culture/society/government where would that potentially lead?

It would lead to a more enlightened society no longer dependent on myths spun around an unseen, unheard super being. Society would be more focused on understanding the natural world and mankind, and leveraging those understandings to better utilize the world's resources and preserve those resources, and better understand the nature of mankind and how to file off its rougher points.

To a certain extent that may be an unknown.

No more unknown that the theocracy that would ensue if all or nearly all of mankind bent their knees to your mythical super being.

But believers are concerned.

Non-believers have much more to be concerned about with their believing counterparts. We don't need another era of Dark Ages.

Thus, the point of this thread as I brought up the trends of GenZ to move towards non theism and/or movement away from organized religion. As it is, the freedoms and liberties to take that path protect them from any kind of government interference.

Freedoms and liberties have nothing to do with religious belief; in fact, you want all to believe as you? No freedom, no liberties in that.

Would those same protections remain in place if folks of your philosophical views towards life were to become the majority?

Yes, as those rights have been protected since 1791 by the secular (non-theocratic) government of the U.S.

Would you want to stamp out belief in God believing you are doing humanity a favor?

Stamp out? No. Enlighten away, yes, it would be a big favor for humanity. No more religious wars, no flying planes into skyscrapers for Allah, etc.

That is the great unknown. History does show the dangers of leaders who are atheistic (or became atheistic) and gained power over the masses.

And how many people have been killed in all the "holy" wars?

Res Ipsa and others don’t seem to take them seriously. They simply shrug it off and mock believers and traditional conservatives by countering with saying “Stalin” as though that demonstrates…what?

Ever heard of the Inquisition? How about the wars involving Christianity?

Res Ipsa takes this all personally.

What makes you think that?

You may as well. But the fact remains that we are moving into what may be uncharted waters as a large and diverse nation.

We've been a diverse nation for hundreds of years.
What about diversity scares you?

If the “nones” and the atheists and/or secular humanist progressive liberals were to become the majority and think along similar lines as you in regards to those that practice religious belief and/or believe in God…where might that trajectory lead us?

Ever heard of the marketplace of ideas? It would enhance and encourage such, rather than having religions stifling it. The best ideas would survive; the weak ones fall by the way side.

Would free exercise of religion and belief in God remain in place?

For those that stubbornly remain deluded, they would continue to be practice their religion. You seem to assume that secularism equates with or leads to totalitarian regimes. Where's your evidence for that? There are many secular democracies, including the U.S.

Would proselytizing by various faiths be allowed to continue?

Who specifically is threatening to stop it?

That/those is/are the million dollar question(s) that is/are essentially being shrugged off by those that are taking offense and shouting out “bigot!”

Pointing out your intolerance does not make me intolerant of you or others. Perhaps you ought to look inward and consider why it is you bristle when those of opposing opinions express their views about you.

It’s a lot more complex and complicated that simply taking offense and calling out the other as being a bigot or some other slur.

As long as there is a human frailty towards blind allegiance to religious and political leaders and/or dogma, the enlightened will be offended by the ignorant and bigoted conduct of those acolytes.

But that’s the day we live in.

Regards,
MG