Mark Levin "schools" an intolerant atheist

Post Reply New Topic

Funny, I did not get from that narrative that Mark Levine "schooled" anyone. Why is it that anytime some right wing talking blow hard says something to a caller or a guest that one of his worshippers agree with, it is always said that your idol "schooled" someone? Right wing talk show hosts are some of the most disgusting, intolerant, obnoxious and arrogant specimens of the human race that exist on this planet. These people exist for no other reason than to manipulate the emotions of people who have emotional addictions to conflict and discord. Levine, Savage, Limbaugh and all the rest, make a living by spewing incendiary, inflammatory rhetoric to people who have no idea they are being emotionally yanked around like an elliptical yo-yo. And these are the people who claim to be the moral mouthpieces of Christianity.

You people are so full of camel kaka......

Err... right but that doesn't always turn out well.

I don't know much about British history, but this much is true: just because someone believes God is on their side, that doesn't mean He actually is. Its disheartening that so many only think about people of faith in relation to terrible events more associated with hypocrisy or greed. God alone has the ultimate right to declare what's right or wrong, and it is our responsibility to obey Him if we truly love Him. We don;t always succeed, but we're still supposed to keep trying. When those who hate God use events like the Crusades to say God or His followers are evil, that's still assuming a standard beyond humanity exists. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, "something used to measure two options is inherently different from either".

I'm well aware of the first, and the second was not my intent.

The only reason human dignity even exists is because we're made in the image of a loving God. Without that, we're nothing but mindless drones or animals, and shouldn't be affected one bit by even the worst tragedies. If anything is or has ever been 100% right or wrong, then God exists.

And just because somebody thinks that God endorses their politics doesn't mean that it's true.




As a non-believer, I find that empathy is just as good a moral compass as any.

I find human life to be a tremendous value, both in the concrete (in the form of my family and friends) and in the abstract. No deity is involved or desired.

And you don't think animals experience emotions? Seriously, have you ever even met a dog?

By "PC wind" I presume you mean any tolerance given to aspects of society that do not fit within your incredibly narrow and ignorant world view. Exactly who in the US public eye is terrified of addressing religious concerns for fear of losing funding, you are after all talking about a State who will only fund charities if they are Faith based, are you suggesting that because you cannot happily dictate the lives of others, that, for example, if you go on a anti homosexual rampage, people will take offence and in the process make you look like an intellectual simpleton, that you are somehow oppressed and those who support views contrary to yours are just whining about equal rights that they do not deserve.

Thing is Moviefan, considering the the level of ignorance displayed by most of your views you should be happy you live in the US. If you lived in many European countries or here in Australia, most people would not argue with your world view, rather they would laugh at it. I don't laugh at it because I do not see your type of fundamentalism as benign, it has been well defined as American Taliban.

As to your almost ahistorical understanding of the founding fathers, I think that has been well addressed by others.

Precisely.



Perhaps you should look into Jefferson's "christian" beliefs. He was not a biblical literalist at all, and was quite open about the fact that he did not believe the miracles in the Bible actually took place.



How exactly was the Constitution violated? And as for being offended, being force fed someone else's religious beliefs with the consent of the government should offend you.



When hiring for Mount Vernon construction, Washington wrote, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."



I would not use him as an example of tolerance as he was a fierce advocate of enacting laws to prevent catholics and atheists from holding offece.



from the Treaty of Tripoli (1797): "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

From the US Bill of Rights (1791): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"



Webster did not become devout until 1808, after which he made statements about any education not based on the Bible as being useless. Prior to that (at the time of the founding of the nation), he was considered to be quite the free thinker and accepting of new ideas.

And by the way, after his religious conversion to Calvinism, he became a whole hearted supporter of strict authoritarianism with a christian basis.



T. Roosevelt was not an adult until well after a century of the founding of the nation. And he was also the person who set the foundations of a national welfare program.



I never said tolerance was the solution for everything. I have said before (and will again) that intolerance solves nothing and spreads misery and hate.

I believe that there are some things that are right and wrong for everyone. Religion is not one of those things. The fundamental flaw of those who see religious bigotry as a fight against tyrannical PC-ness is that they will defend religious bigotry to the death.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 20 Mar 2014, 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Something interesting about the 1802 Jefferson letter:

Jefferson actually initially wanted his message to be even more secular than the final letter.

The final letter contained the famous phrase "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

However, the draft contained the following: "thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State."

Sources (Library of Congress):
Draft: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html
Final letter: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Furthermore, Hugo Black's interpretation of the Establishment Clause (I assume you are referring to Everson v. Board of Education) was unanimously agreed upon by all Supreme Court justices. The 4 judges who dissented from Hugo Black's 5-4 opinion didn't do so because they disagreed with his separation of Church and State interpretation of the 1st Amendment. They dissented because they believed that Hugo Black did not go far enough in separating Church and State.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... 30&invol=1 (see the Jackson and Rutledge dissenting opinions)

As such, the Devil is in the details... He too, however, has no business getting involved in the US government due to the Establishment clause.