• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

USA Nones now 26%, says Pew

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
PruePhillip said:
Appreciate that Penguin. See if it pans out.
Click to expand...
As long as none of the members of the House hire any non-binary relatives, the change will have "panned out."

That's all this change was about: it's just about the rule that says certain government officials can't hire relatives. The language has been changed to make it clear that it applies to all close relatives, not just relatives who fall on a gender binary.

Unless - for reasons that escape me - you think that nepotism for genderfluid people is okay, I really don't see what you would think you need to object to.
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
PruePhillip said:
On Sunday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Democratic majority proposed to eliminate “father, mother, son, daughter,
brother, sister” and all other language deemed insufficiently “gender-inclusive” from House rules. They would be
replaced with terms like “parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling” and so on.

“Mother” — among the most important concepts in human life — would be erased from the lexicon of the US
House of Representatives. It’s important to recognize how radical this is. And no, it isn’t akin to updating federal
law to replace “policeman” with “police officer,” a rational corrective sought by feminists for generations.

Sorry, Pelosi: Eliminating official use of ‘mother’ isn’t inclusive — it’s waging war on women (nypost.com)
Click to expand...

A mother is no more than any woman that has a child. She can be a natural mother, a mother by adoption. A step mother, a divorced mother, a mother in law. A surrogate mother. Even a mother by accident. As to sexuality a mother can have almost any identity you care to think of. None of these suggest that she is a good or bad mother, or loves, hates dotes on or rejects her offspring. It says nothing at all about the family condition.

Many of the families that you look back on and idealise, were abusive traps for both men women and children.
 
P

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Terrywoodenpic said:
A mother is no more than any woman that has a child. She can be a natural mother, a mother by adoption. A step mother, a divorced mother, a mother in law. A surrogate mother. Even a mother by accident. As to sexuality a mother can have almost any identity you care to think of. None of these suggest that she is a good or bad mother, or loves, hates dotes on or rejects her offspring. It says nothing at all about the family condition.

Many of the families that you look back on and idealise, were abusive traps for both men women and children.
Click to expand...

We have a new "abusive trap", the single parent.
The single parent is the source for many social problems, including poverty and crime.
I think about 3/4 of all African American children come from this situation.
 
Martin

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
That reminds me, I must buy some more candles for my Saint Dawkins shrine. :p
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Meerkat said:
You disrespect the Prophet?! :p
Click to expand...
I think theologians call it "playing along".

But NOT the exploding ones. As scripture (I forget which) says. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an atheist saint. Especially the humorless one.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Audie said:
You guys must be closet fundys, for lo,
who but they bother to read him or talk about him here??

Gotcha
Click to expand...
Yup, ya got me. I 'fess up.

I read The Blind Watchmaker many years ago and The God Delusion some fewer years ago. The latter has reasonable arguments against the existence of God (though it never addresses the far more basic problem of what it is that atheism doesn't believe in), and makes claims against religion that are accurate in listing various atrocities in the name of religion, but in my view are off the mark otherwise ─ I don't think religious belief is of itself pernicious, though like most other kinds of understanding it can take pernicious forms (think eg of evolution, Adolf and the Master Race, and similar arguments in the US, not least in the South).

It was when I saw Dawkins in debate on a TV program that I grocked his lack of a sense of humor.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
blü 2 said:
Yup, ya got me. I 'fess up.

I read The Blind Watchmaker many years ago and The God Delusion some fewer years ago. The latter has reasonable arguments against the existence of God (though it never addresses the far more basic problem of what it is that atheism doesn't believe in), and makes claims against religion that are accurate in listing various atrocities in the name of religion, but in my view are off the mark otherwise ─ I don't think religious belief is of itself pernicious, though like most other kinds of understanding it can take pernicious forms (think eg of evolution, Adolf and the Master Race, and similar arguments in the US, not least in the South).

It was when I saw Dawkins in debate on a TV program that I grocked his lack of a sense of humor.
Click to expand...

I got bored right away, it was stuff I know or have thought about.
And have scientifically proved its all of it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top