why not also show skepticism of the secular?

[slingblade]

Hitler's mom told you you were special?

 

[Ladewig]

If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president,

Are you pulling our legs or do you really believe that transgenders are less capable of running a country?


ETA: you do realize that every Western industrialized democracy (except the U.S.) has allowed gays in the military for quite a few years now - and none has really suffered for it.

 

[charles brough]

As mentioned by previous posters, skepticism is regularly applied to the secular: climate, cosmology, astrology, medicine, politics, war, finance, social conventions....

How would this play if you turned your question on its head? When is it NOT alright to have the transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests?

The second part of your statement creates a false dichotomy: it's not equality related, and not a logical outcome of the first part of your statement.

There were questions in my post, not statements. But you raise another good question. In response to turning the question on its head, I would reply that it would for all or even any of that to be "alright" would create a society that could not exist.

 

[charles brough]

I think you are simply pointing skepticism at value judgements here. As others have suggested above.

Yes, but the value judgements are based on the US Bill of Rights and Constitution and the way they are idealized as part of the secular ideology the US has been spreading all over the world. It is the particularly US form of the secular age that grew out of the Age of Reason or Enlightenment.

 

[charles brough]

Mention has been made of "equality" being about "equal rights" and while I only introduced this subject with questions, I add now that I of course also do believe very much in equal rights. But that does not end us up as being equal, as has been pointed out above. But other do say often in our society that "we are all equal and that to deny it is to be a bigot." I would say that some people are a lot more important than others and to dramatize or elect those who are not is destructive to society.

 

[slingblade]

Mention has been made of "equality" being about "equal rights" and while I only introduced this subject with questions, I add now that I of course also do believe very much in equal rights. But that does not end us up as being equal, as has been pointed out above. But other do say often in our society that "we are all equal and that to deny it is to be a bigot." I would say that some people are a lot more important than others and to dramatize or elect those who are not is destructive to society.

Easily explained. You're conflating various usages or meanings of "equal."

In other words, you're equivocating "equality." That's kind of a neat trick, really. But not sound.

 

[Nova Land]

Mention has been made of "equality" being about "equal rights" and while I only introduced this subject with questions, I add now that I of course also do believe very much in equal rights... But others do say often in our society that "we are all equal and that to deny it is to be a bigot."

Perhaps it would be helpful if you would select some examples of people saying this, and ask people to discuss those specific comments.

While there are probably some people who express the belief that all people are equally intelligent, or equally strong, or equally talented in various fields of endeavor, that's not an opinion I've run across commonly. Much more often, when I hear or read a sentence about people being equal, it seems to refer to people being equal before the law (as in discussions of women's rights, gay rights, etc.) I'm wondering if those are the same types of statements you are referring to, and we're simply interpreting those statements differently, or if you are hearing frequently an opinion which I'm not being exposed to.

If you can provide some specific examples of people making the kind of comments you are referring to, it should make it easier for others to discuss the topic you are interested in discussing.

 

[IMST]

In response to turning the question on its head, I would reply that it would for all or even any of that to be "alright" would create a society that could not exist.

A society could not exist not just with a transgender president, but with the concept of one being all right. I can't wait to see you defend that.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. If you are saying that some people are more fit for certain tasks and whatever than others then I agree fully, although of course I disagree strongly with your examples (why would a transgender person be unfit for Presidency, for example?).

Thing is, for a person to be declared unfit for a certain task or position, it's not enough that he or she belongs to a certain group, or has a certain condition. For example, being blind would obviously disqualify you from service in the infantry. Being homoseuxal shouldn't, because it doesn't affect your actual performance.

 

[Jalok]

I admit to not being entirely certain of the purpose of this thread, though I tend to believe the worst, but I have an idea of what he _may_ be referring to; at least in part.

Equality in Law has already been gone over, and skepticism to society mores. Something that comes to mind though, is the equality of men and women. The trend is to say/believe that men and women are created equal, and to infer that one is inherently better than the other is attackable; recalling the professor some years ago who commented that the sexes weren't equal in a variety of areas, and the dust-up that caused including calls for his firing.


jalok

 

[citizenzen]

I would say that some people are a lot more important than others and to dramatize or elect those who are not is destructive to society.

Can you give us an example of what you meanly this?

 

[Ladewig]

There were questions in my post, not statements. But you raise another good question. In response to turning the question on its head, I would reply that it would for all or even any of that to be "alright" would create a society that could not exist.

Perhaps the problem is with the wording. What exactly do you mean by "gay marching army"?

The following countries are a partial list of military forces that allow gays and bisexuals to serve:

Brazil, The Netherlands, France, Spain, Canada, Switzerland, Great Britain, Argentina, Australia, South Africa, The Philippines, Russia (every inhabited continent has at least one country allowing gays in the military). These societies give every appearance of existing in this space-time continuum.

 

[Ladewig]

Quick question: So the transgendered president is not a case of all transgendered people being unqualified to serve in the executive branch, but rather a case of letting a transgendered person serve in the country's highest elected office will send a message to the children (and the rest of society) that being transgendered is completely acceptable?

ETA: second quick question. Are you joking with us or are you serious?

 

[Ladewig]

I admit to not being entirely certain of the purpose of this thread, though I tend to believe the worst, but I have an idea of what he _may_ be referring to; at least in part.

Equality in Law has already been gone over, and skepticism to society mores. Something that comes to mind though, is the equality of men and women. The trend is to say/believe that men and women are created equal, and to infer that one is inherently better than the other is attackable; recalling the professor some years ago who commented that the sexes weren't equal in a variety of areas, and the dust-up that caused including calls for his firing.


jalok

I read the assertion as heterosexual couples who raise children are necessary to society. Therefore, people who do not have kids should not be considered equal to straight couples that do have kids. I suspect it is the old if-everyone-were-gay-then-society-would-die-out argument.


I apologize if I have completely misconstrued your meaning, Citizen Brough. I eagerly await clarification.

 

[charles brough]

I would ask Mr. Charles Brough why he thinks the courts or legislatures should treat him as an inferior person? Do you really think it is "unreal and impossible" for democratic institutions to consider what their people have to say rather than consider what they are?

Of course not! I only asked questions in the first post. You seem to have made assumptions from it . . .

People are not equal in importance to the nation and society but we should treat each other as if they were, but of course, no one does even though they think they do. We should have equal rights to the law and a primary education as well as more education if we can pay for it. I believe that is the way it works now. But do we or should we have equal rights to a job? If you were an employer, would you hire a person who was unreliable because even uinreliable people have rights?

 

[charles brough]

While I think there is a generally greater tendancy among skeptics to demonstrate more skepticism towards topics of a religious, spiritual, or supernatural nature, secular topics are certainly not excluded from skepticism. A good example pointed out earlier was alternative medicine.

I agree. I think we should recognize that our secular system is an ideology and that a people's ideological system determines how they think. Our secular ideological system functions to adjust attitudes in a way that enables the ideological system itself to survive by continually moving towards achieving its goals---i.e. such as individualism, freedom, equality, etc. One way it functions is by adjusting attitudes by continually changing the definition of "biggot" and what is "politically incorrect."

 

[Travis]

For example, why not take the ideal of "equality." We are all "equal." It is the ideal, but does an ideal that is unreal and impossible to achieve be justified or of value? If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president,

Sure, why not?

a gay marching army,

This implies an army segregated into gay and not-gay components. I would not be in favor of that.

"Mister fattest man" contests,

Isn't this already happening? And if someone wants to do that all the power to them.

and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

What? How about portraying people as they want to be portrayed?

Is anything really equal to anything else? And do we even have "equal rights"?

Things are not all equal. That does not mean we should give one person more rights than another.

Mention has been made of "equality" being about "equal rights" and while I only introduced this subject with questions, I add now that I of course also do believe very much in equal rights. But that does not end us up as being equal, as has been pointed out above. But other do say often in our society that "we are all equal and that to deny it is to be a bigot."

No, they said that to deny one person equal rights or to think they deserve unequal rights is to be a bigot.

I would say that some people are a lot more important than others and to dramatize or elect those who are not is destructive to society.

That is a value judgement. I'd rather have an intelligent and empathic person as President but that is my subjective judgement that intelligence and empathy makes them "important."

 

[charles brough]

.

Why I raised the issue in post #1 is that we agree people should have equal rights but disagree on what they should be. We say we should all have a right to equal education, but to what level? Does that mean the state must pay for university expenses? And should equal before the law mean that past crimes, age, sex and the insane should all get equal treatment and punishment? And we claim to have equal rights to vote, but then why do we all hate politics and the people we elect? Is it because people do not chose well who they vote for?

This is a subject that justifies objective thinking, not the old "politically correct" way of knee-jerk reacting that is so normal to us.


Peace

 

[Ladewig]

Why I raised the issue in post #1 is that we agree people should have equal rights but disagree on what they should be. We say we should all have a right to equal education, but to what level? Does that mean the state must pay for university expenses? And should equal before the law mean that past crimes, age, sex and the insane should all get equal treatment and punishment? And we claim to have equal rights to vote, but then why do we all hate politics and the people we elect? Is it because people do not chose well who they vote for?

This is a subject that justifies objective thinking, not the old "politically correct" way of knee-jerk reacting that is so normal to us.


Peace

If this is your point then why the **** did you did you ask if it was alright to have transgendered president in the first post?

 

[LSSBB]

Perhaps the problem is with the wording. What exactly do you mean by "gay marching army"?

The following countries are a partial list of military forces that allow gays and bisexuals to serve:

Brazil, The Netherlands, France, Spain, Canada, Switzerland, Great Britain, Argentina, Australia, South Africa, The Philippines, Russia (every inhabited continent has at least one country allowing gays in the military). These societies give every appearance of existing in this space-time continuum.

Now you can add "United States" to that list. One more "inequality" has been erased (for the most part - their domestic partners can't come along for the ride).