I have a slightly askew relationship with the “organized atheism” movement, not so much ideologically but tactically – I think some facets of the movement can be a little petty and mean-spirited sometimes (re: the “you know it’s a myth” billboards that amount to a neener-neener against various faiths during their holidays); and I’m unable to subscribe to the tenet that “All religions are bad.” Sorry, I can’t go there – they’re all a little silly, conceptually, sure… but not only are most self-identified persons of faith either decent or at least harmless; the vast majority of the world’s hundreds of thousands of organized-religions are fairly benign.
That having been said, I’m fairly comfortable in my infrequent calculation that while not ALL religions are bad… between three and four of them (the religions) ARE bad – or, at the very least are a net-negative influence on the modern world as a whole to a degree that is not offset by whatever good is done by individual adherents. And this kind of shit is WHY…
That’s Pastor Sean Harris, rather explicitly suggesting that parents should – upon witnessing their children behaving in homosexual and/or gender-non-normative ways – essentially beat the behavior out of them. Charming.
He has, of course, offered a toothless apology on his blog.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Thinkers and Believers. This fellow, and the cheering/clapping ignoramouses hanging on his every word, are Believers; and that designation has NOTHING to do with their being religious and EVERYTHING to do with the words coming out of his mouth.
Oh, and have you heard? Activision has hired right-wing folk hero Col. Oliver North – convicted (later overturned on appeal) in the Iran-Contra Affair – to do commercials shilling next “Call of Duty” video-game.
Yeah, things are goin’ swell…
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
@Narf
It's called “exaggeration for effect”.
Between bob and this creep, you spend more time calling out bob for daring to suggest there might be an issue with your religion. And you play out this same scenario so often by now you should have notice that the
“Christian does something monumentally evil on camera” isn't exactly rare. But instead of dealing with that, you rush to explain why it's not your fault and that bob shouldn't be bringing this up.
What good does complaining do? Hopefully it draws attention to injustices and wrongdoing. You complain so that problems will be noticed and fixed. In this case the hope is that by publicly shaming a man who suggested beating gay children (or rather, not sufficiently hetero looking) we can show people that it isn't ok, and prevent someone else from doing it. It won't work. His views aren't even terribly extreme. He just got caught on camera saying them.
“Could you, perhaps, elaborate on that?”
Sure. I'd like for the federal government to respect the constitution and remove reference to god from official documents. In god we trust and one nation under god were added in the 50s to piss off the communists and explicitly violate the separation of church and state.
I'd like for Christians in the southern US to accept that abortion is legal instead of forcing women to jump through increasingly degrading hoops/defunding planned parenthood and forcing a series of needless restrictions on abortion clinics that serve no purpose but to make them too expensive to maintain.
I'd like to see school boards not wasting taxpayer money to fight a losing legal battle to keep a religious banner up in the school., I'd like to see christians stop trying to put intelligent design in classrooms (it is merely renamed creationism, and teaching creationism is illegal in public schools) by asking people to 'teach the controvercy'.
I'd like to see christian officers in the armed forces stop using their positions of power to bully and discriminate against people of other faiths.
And while this isn't a legal issue, I'd like the christians that insist on complaining every time they are lumped in with the above to actually fucking do something to stop this if they truly oppose it.
LikeLike
@ Dave
“Between bob and this creep, you spend more time calling out bob for daring to suggest there might be an issue with your religion”
The “creep” doesn't post on this blog, and I don't feel anything's accomplished by calling him names behind his back. Trust me, I DO confront people like that whenever possible, just not here… because they don't come here (or, least I've never seen anyone like that here. I don't always pay especially close attention to the comment sections).
“But instead of dealing with that, you rush to explain why it's not your fault and that bob shouldn't be bringing this up.”
It's not any issue that it's getting brought up. It should be brought up. Hell… I bring this sort of thing up. But, then Bob goes to say that Christianity is bad (or “net-negative influence on the modern world as a whole to a degree that is not offset by whatever good is done)” because of it…
What that pastor said has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Neither the teachings of Jesus or the bible as a whole has anything to say about gender identity issues or promoting heteronormativity. Jesus's teachings were always about loving and accepting everyone regardless of anything. He is just a hatefully man trying to disguise his bigotry as Christianity, and I really shouldn't have to explain that.
We can't treat this as an issue of “Christian bigots” spouting homophobic crap, but as an issue of “bigots, some of whom happen to be Christians” spouting homophobic crap.
“I'd like for the federal government to respect the constitution and remove reference to god from official documents.”
I completely agree with that.
“I'd like for Christians in the southern US to accept that abortion is legal”
At the risk of taking this topic down a completely different track… Abortion is not a “religious” issue. It's not even a moral issue. It's a philosophical one: What makes us human? What distinguishes a person from not a person? Abortion is simply the “real world” consequences of those questions.
Both sides see this as a human rights issue, and both sides are correct… they just have two different ideas of what constitutes a human.
“I'd like to see school boards not wasting taxpayer money to fight a losing legal battle to keep a religious banner up in the school.”
While I agree that Atheists would be completely with in their rights to have the banner taken down, I would disagree that it would be a particularly good idea for them to do so. Weighing the benefit of not having to look at a verse or prayer or whatever every day against the cost of hostile contempt from the rest of the school… It would do more to promote an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance to let the banner slide, and to also get a banner up in some way promoting an Atheistic view of the same idea. If the school were to fight against that, then we would be in agreement that the school is run by assholes.
In my mind, at least, I see tolerance as both sides having to actually tolerate each other views… not mutual censorship. That doesn't benefit anyone.
“I'd like to see christians stop trying to put intelligent design in classrooms (it is merely renamed creationism, and teaching creationism is illegal in public schools) by asking people to 'teach the controvercy'.”
Shouldn't schools be exposing students to every view point?
LikeLike
@Dave from canada: I'd like for Christians in the southern US to accept that abortion is legal
Why? If you don't feel you have to accept the status quo, why should they?
LikeLike
@TheAlmightyNarf:
“I'm fairly certain “Freedom of speech” allows them to do just that. Not that I think they necessarily should, mind you. But, I certainly don't see why preachers should be singled out for political censorship. Why should the church be treated differently than everyone else?”
I don't live in the US yet even I know this. It is against the law for tax exempt institutions (such as churchs) to participate in political campaigning. Some religious groups do this properly by setting up tax-paying political organisations… many just break the law.
If a preacher in a church advises you to vote a certain way due to following religious tenets, he is breaking the law.
Free speech does not supercede seperation of church and state.
“Shouldn't schools be exposing students to every view point?”
In religious studies maybe. Science class should only teach science. Evolution is science, whereas Intelligent Design is an absence of science.
Not all view points have the same value. The Christian desire to have Intelligent Design taught in the classroom is as silly to us as teaching Scientology, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Norse Mythology would be to you.
“[…] In my mind, at least, I see tolerance as both sides having to actually tolerate each other views… not mutual censorship. That doesn't benefit anyone.”
Your viewpoint is very apparant here. We atheists should be tolerant when you Christians break the law and promote religion in schools. We should be tolerant when non-religious children are forced to abide to your religious principles, when the law clearly states this should not happen. For us atheists to object to clear violations of the law is intolerant, and damages relations between the two camps.
Basically, we are atheists are fine and tolerant as long as we say nothing?
Pfft… screw that nonsense.
“We can't treat this as an issue of “Christian bigots” spouting homophobic crap, but as an issue of “bigots, some of whom happen to be Christians” spouting homophobic crap.”
“At the risk of taking this topic down a completely different track… Abortion is not a “religious” issue.”
No. Just no. This is NOT what your Bible says. You need to read it, not just believe the cherry-picked family-friendly bits you hear at church every Sunday.
——
Moviebob may steer clear of calling all religion evil, but I'm not going to. Regardless of your views and morals, while you follow – and prop up – religions that promote hate and social injustice, you are a force of evil in this world.
If you truly believe in social justice, equal rights and so on, you should be FIGHTING the leaderships of these religions that promote the reverse. Either by being OUTSPOKEN within the religion, or by leaving the religion and creating sects that properly convey your true beliefs.
Staying silent in a hate-filled religion is – in my opinion – almost as bad as being a leader or fanatic of that religion who is spewing all the hatred. To maintain general acceptance in society, these religions require numbers, and that's all you are… another number on the “I agree with them” column. If the bigots and the assholes are truly in the minority, you guys to to actually act and fucking show that.
LikeLike
@ Thorbs
“Free speech does not supercede seperation of church and state.”
“Freedom of speech” and “separation of church and state” are the exact same thing. They literally come right out of the same sentence: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” The separation exists to promote free speech, not to quash it. It regulates what the government can do, not what the people can do.
“We should be tolerant when non-religious children are forced to abide to your religious principles,”
No, seriously? We're talking about a fucking banner on the wall… At least in the example Dave gave, no one's being forced to do anything. Non-religious children could just as easily ignore it if they like or, as I pointed out, could get their own banner up.
“For us atheists to object to clear violations of the law is intolerant”
To be intolerant of another's views is intolerance, yes.
“This is NOT what your Bible says.”
I would love to see you back that up by pointing out actual scripture.
“If you truly believe in social justice, equal rights and so on, you should be FIGHTING the leaderships of these religions that promote the reverse.”
Here's the thing I think a lot of non-Christians (and likely many Christians) don't seem to understand about “organized religion”… outside of Catholicism, it's not really all that organized. The majority of churches in the US are non-nondenominational and operate for the most part completely independently, while even in denominational churches, the denomination has almost no control over what's taught in the individual churches.
As far as I can tell looking through the church website from the preacher above… while calling themselves “Baptist”, the church doesn't seem to be part of any larger organization (and, in just the couple minutes it took me trying to find that website, I came across quite a few Christian organizations that were speaking out against him).
At the national level, there really aren't any leaders influential enough to fight. The fighting really has to (and often does) happen at the local level.
LikeLike
@ thorbs. Well you said pretty much what I was going o to the letter.
@ John. Can't help but notice the more I ask you to back your accusations up…the less you post. Almost like you know you've got nothing.
Regarding the driveby point you did muster the courage to make:
I'm not talking about not trying to change existing laws. They are within their rights to do that. I'm talking about when they try and FAIL to change the laws, they instead try to get around the laws by using their political power to harass individuals and organizations who support the existing law.
@ Narf. What he said.
“We're talking about a fucking banner on the wall… At least in the example Dave gave, no one's being forced to do anything. Non-religious children could just as easily ignore it if they like or, as I pointed out, could get their own banner up.”
It's ILLEGAL. interesting how you support the law when you think it helps you but the second it doesn't you are ok with breaking it. Your solution is also…well incredibly stupid because that means that there would have to be a banner for every different group that wanted one. The only way to be fair is to not have any religious
You can easily ignore it when Bob said christanity is a net negative….and yet you throw a fuss every time and he's not breaking the law to do so. Again, you want us to ignore YOUR wrongdoing but won't follow your won advice even when no law is being broken. It speaks to the hypocricy Thorbs and I both alluded to. We have to make special allowance for you, and you get to do whatever you want.
“To be intolerant of another's views is intolerance, yes.”
It's not the views that are the issue, it is the INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE FUCKING LAW. This has been brought up repeatedly and both you and john seem incapable of responding to it. At this point I have to wonder whether you are juts dishonest, or have some bizarre learning disability.
“I would love to see you back that up by pointing out actual scripture.”
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Leviticus 20:13
I mentioned those before because they relate to the original post.
If you'd like I can post the ones about slavery, rape, cutting off a woman's hand for touching her husbands junk, biblical instructions for slavery.
And there is a very easy way to combat these disorgnazied religions of yours. Every time they say something stupid or evil or bigoted, you let them know it's bullshit and you won't go along with it.
You instead have chosen to complain about the people complaining. Despite your best efforts, it's pretty clear where your loyalties lie.
“It's a philosophical one: What makes us human?”
No it isn't. We know scientifically when high brain functions (ie the things that make us more than meat) develop.
The anti choice argument is based on life beginning at conception, in which case god is the greatest abortionist of all time since a considerable number of pregnancies last little longer than that.
There's also the issue where under no other circumstances is anyone expected to surrender bodily autonomy to another being. if I need blood, I don't get to take it form you, even if I will die. You right to bodily autonomy supercedes my right to life.
“Shouldn't schools be exposing students to every view point?”
Should we teach astronomy AND astrology? Should we teach that the holocaust may have happened or may be part of an international jewish banking conspiracy? Should we teach both psychology AND scientology?
Sorry, just because your religion wants it to be true, doesn't mean that we should be teaching it people without any evidence.
LikeLike
@TheAlmightyNarf
“[…] The separation exists to promote free speech, not to quash it. It regulates what the government can do, not what the people can do.”
True. Free speech is not, however, a trump card that be played to excuse you breaking the law. For instance, you could not claim the government was restricting your rights to free speech if you were arrested for giving away state secrets.
I also fail to see why you are argueing that one line without any reference to the context in which it was given. Are you argueing semantics just for the sake of it, or in an attempt to invalidate the point I was making? Because I'm afraid it still remains illegal for tax-exempt organisations to be involved in political campaigning:
“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity”
“No, seriously? We're talking about a fucking banner on the wall… At least in the example Dave gave, no one's being forced to do anything. Non-religious children could just as easily ignore it if they like or, as I pointed out, could get their own banner up.”
I agree, a banner isn't a big thing, but it DOES violate seperation of church and state. And once every school has covered all their walls with Christian paraphernalia, what's next? Organised school prayer during assemblies, or before sporting events? Regular sermons from the local pastor? The children being taught Intelligent design, that the Earth is 6000 years old, homosexuality is a sin, women should be subservient to men, sex is bad, and if you don't believe in Jesus you'll burn in Hell for eternity? I mean, they're only breaking the law… what's the problem? /facepalm
And no, the atheists/buddhists/muslims etc can't get their own banner put up. Firstly, because I bet the school that defends that banner would be the first to object to the presence of a non-christian banner. But mostly because IT'S AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW.
LikeLike
continued…
“To be intolerant of another's views is intolerance, yes.”
So basically everyone is intolerant of everyone they disagree with, by your definition. Your definition of intolerance has now become so broad it's a total waste of time to argue against, as you clearly believe that athiests are being intolerant just by speaking.
Martin Luther King was clearly intolerant when he argued for civil rights. The suffragettes were obviously being intolerent of male privilege when they asked for equal rights. The Bastards!
“I would love to see you back that up by pointing out actual scripture.”
I'm not going to trawl through the hateful screed that is the bible just to win an internet arguement, so to google we go!
Homosexuality is obviously an easy one.
Abortion is not mentioned in the bible. This does not however stop Christians from saying that the bible forbids it.
However, abortion is only brought up as an issue by the religious as a means to subjegate women, of which the bible has plenty to say.
In honesty though, it'd be easier to list those parts of the bible that AREN'T sick and twisted.
“[…] At the national level, there really aren't any leaders influential enough to fight. The fighting really has to (and often does) happen at the local level.”
I could possibly agree to this point if it wasn't for the pope, and the cardinals, and every other religious special interest group using your combined numbers to give their voices extra authority, and being allowed to get away with it, and to interfere in US government policy in the process.
We had demonstrations and petitions denouncing the pope last time he visited the UK (not enough though). Whereas in the US, you had many religious organisations working to keep the media in check during his whole visit.
I see very little opposition to the pope's outdated views from within the religious community. The media doesn't speak out, because they'd be crucified for doing so, and would get very little support from the supposed moderates if it did. All we atheists can infer from the overwhelming silence of the “relious moderates” is that they don't care enough to actually act on their beliefs.
LikeLike
Aside from his politics (which I don't happen to disagree with, usually), the thing I remember Col. Ollie North for most was the pretty awesome military history shows he narrated on History Channel. That and the William Shatner “Mute Marine” SNL skit.
(Ironic, considering that the man does have a helluva voice for narration. I don't think people give the people who happen to be right-wing folk heroes enough credit for their performing chops, sometimes.)
LikeLike
@ Dave
“It's ILLEGAL. interesting how you support the law when you think it helps you but the second it doesn't you are ok with breaking it.”
I never supported the banner being up. I never said it was “ok” for the school to break the law like that. I'm just suggesting that suing the school to have it taken down perhaps isn't the wisest way of dealing with it. It's not “wrong” for Atheists to do that, it just seems short-sighted to me.
You and Thorbs have got to stop putting words in my mouth because it really makes your complaints seem like little more than hyperbole.
“…there would have to be a banner for every different group that wanted one.”
Would that be so bad?
“It's not the views that are the issue, it is the INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF THE FUCKING LAW.”
Well, I have trouble seeing this as just an issue of Christians following the letter of the law. I mean, the law is malleable, and hardly absolute in it's interpretations. I'm trying to look past the letter of the law to the outcome you want the law to lead to. If all you want is for Christians to not be breaking the law any more, than the easiest solution would be to change the law to legalize that sort of behavior. Would that make you happy? Of course not.
I think we can take it as a given that most Christians are not happy with the 1st amendment being used to censor them. Whether they are right or wrong to think so isn't really the point here. They, like you, are fighting a status-qua that they're not content with (again, whether they are right or wrong to do so isn't really the point… which apparently I need to clarify ever time I'm not condemning them). But, I don't think the ends they want and the ends you want are necessarily mutually exclusive from one another.
Lets go back to the banner again. Is this really nothing more than an issue of Christians breaking the law? If you have nothing against the banner itself, perhaps we could come up with a compromise that could make both sides happy.
“Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Leviticus 20:13”
Well, those verses don't have anything to say on gender identity or promote heteronormativity. But, beyond that I don't have a particular good reply for them, so I'm just going to leave that for now (reserving the right to bring it up again later after I've thought about it for a while).
“No it isn't. We know scientifically when high brain functions (ie the things that make us more than meat) develop.”
So, it is your personal belief that brain function constitutes human. There are those who see the simple virtue of being alive as enough to qualify as human. There are those, like myself, who see brain function as just another chemical reaction of the body and that it doesn't actually make you any more than meat, and that there is no objective qualifier. That one is no more or less human as a single cell than they are as a fully grown adult.
“There's also the issue where under no other circumstances is anyone expected to surrender bodily autonomy to another being.”
Well, once the fetus attaches to the uterus, they're not really autonomous anymore, are they? This isn't an issue of surrendering autonomy, but one of taking it back after it's already been lost. It's more akin to someone wanting to take their blood back after it's already been donated.
Though, I expect we're only a couple decades away from medical science making that a moot issue anyway.
LikeLike
@ Thorbes
Wow, has that law ever actually held up in court? Because it's pretty blatantly unconstitutional.
“And once every school has covered all their walls with Christian paraphernalia, what's next?”
A “slippery-slope” argument is a complete non-argument. You have absolutely nothing to base that on.
“So basically everyone is intolerant of everyone they disagree with, by your definition.”
tol·er·ance – a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
“I could possibly agree to this point if it wasn't for the pope, and the cardinals,”
I did say “outside of Catholicism”.
“and to interfere in US government policy in the process.”
Well, the inherent issue with living in a democratic country that people you disagree with will have a say in it.
Something to keep in mind is that in many areas of the US (and in the UK too if I recall) Protestantism and Catholicism are very much so seen as 2 completely different religions that share about as much in common with each other as they do Judaism or Islam. So most “Christians” aren't going to speak out against the pope mostly because they don't really see him as being representative of their religion at all.
LikeLike
@TheAlmightyNarf
“Wow, has that law ever actually held up in court? Because it's pretty blatantly unconstitutional.”
Yes, many times, including in the Supreme Court (Regan v. Taxation With Representation). The intent is to prevent the federal government from subsidising political speech, not to stifle free speech.
“A “slippery-slope” argument is a complete non-argument. You have absolutely nothing to base that on.”
I have nothing to base that on, except for the habit of Christian-filled school boards to continually push for these things in total ignorance or disdain for Seperation of church and state. There was no exaggeration in my statement… those are all things that various school boards have tried to do in the past.
Also note that in this case the only reason the school board was sued was because they refused to remove the banner after a complaint was made by a parent, and after the ACLU sent them a letter saying the banner was clearly in violation of the Establishment Clause.
No fuss was made until after the meeting where the school board decided they would fight to keep the banner despite the law being clearly against them. Who was making the fuss? The Christians, who were outraged at being called out for breaking the law. Atheist outrage was only sparked when Jessica Ahlquist started to receieve death threats from these pillars of the community.
“tol·er·ance – a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.”
Notice the words “fair” and “objective”. I can have a fair, objective and permissive attitude towards your opinions without sharing them. The clue is in that bit at the end that says “that differ from one's own”.
You, however, only appear to be tolerant of those who share your views. Do not project your biases onto others.
“Something to keep in mind is that in many areas of the US (and in the UK too if I recall) Protestantism and Catholicism are very much so seen as 2 completely different religions that share about as much in common with each other as they do Judaism or Islam. So most “Christians” aren't going to speak out against the pope mostly because they don't really see him as being representative of their religion at all.”
It's funny bacause all 4 of those religions you mention appear very alike to me. They all say they are the ONLY true faith. They all try to suppress human, civil and equal rights. They all demand special privileges against being criticised. And not a single one has a shred of evidence behind it.
LikeLike
Correction to Anon #109: North narrated “War Stories with Oliver North”, a military history show for Fox News, not History Channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Stories_with_Oliver_North
LikeLike
@ Narf
I won't bother with the bits Thorbs has so expertly handled but I'm honestly getting the distinct impression that you don't care about pesky things like rule of law or even reality itself because the sheer amount of double talk and what HAS to be intentional ignorance doens't support any other conclusion.
“I think we can take it as a given that most Christians are not happy with the 1st amendment being used to censor them….They, like you, are fighting a status-quo that they're not content with “
Firstly, it isn't being used to censor them. It's being used to prevent Christians (well everyone, but only one group is really trying) from forcing their beliefs on others (an in effect, censoring THEM).
They are allowed whatever beliefs they want. They are not allowed to use government institutions to preach said beliefs, or harass people who disagree. They want to CHANGE the law, and since they can't get that they are breaking it.
We just want them to obey the laws that already exist.
“Well, those verses don't have anything to say on gender identity or promote heteronormativity. But, beyond that I don't have a particular good reply for them, so I'm just going to leave that for now (reserving the right to bring it up again later after I've thought about it for a while).”
Are you proud of that? No seriously I’m curious, are you proud of that level of intellectual cowardice on display here? Or are you so monumentally mentally deficient that you don’t see the direct connection between the bible saying you should kill gay people, the bible saying you should kill disobedient children, and a pastor saying you should physically abuse children who appear gay. Unfortunately, I can’t think you are that superhumanly moronic. You know damn fucking well what those verse have to do with what the pastor said. You know damn fucking well that you don’t have a comeback and that the both myself and Thorbs have displayed a far better command of scripture in this regard than you, and instead of having an iota of integrity and admitting you were wrong (or even using some of the preexisting apologetics), you are clumsily sweeping it aside and hoping we don’t notice.
So I have to ask….does that make you feel good about yourself?
“There are those, like myself, who see brain function as just another chemical reaction of the body and that it doesn't actually make you any more than meat, and that there is no objective qualifier.”
Yet another attempt to weasel out of making a definitive statement. Brain function is what makes us who we are. Every shred of scientific evidence we have indicates that the brain is the only thing responsible for our memories, personality and thoughts. So aside form all the parts of your body which are rapidly becoming more and more obsolete as technology advances, the one part that can’t be replaced without making a new person, is the brain. That means that muscles, skin, nerves, don’t matter. The only thing separating a fetus from a benign tumour is brain activity. The only thing that makes it life worthy of preserving is brain activity. And unless you are more ignorant than you are dishonest, you already know that.
The only other argument is the one form the soul…which is a religious argument and thus has no value.
“Well, once the fetus attaches to the uterus, they're not really autonomous anymore, are they? This isn't an issue of surrendering autonomy, but one of taking it back after it's already been lost.”
au•ton•o•mous
-existing and functioning as an independent organism
– not subject to control from outside
Wow, that seems to completely contradict what you were saying. The only thing that isn’t autonomous is the fetus…and that’s why it doesn’t get a vote. The woman is capable of making decisions, the fetus is not.
LikeLike
Almost missed this one:
“So, it is your personal belief that brain function constitutes human. There are those who see the simple virtue of being alive as enough to qualify as human. There are those, like myself, who see brain function as just another chemical reaction of the body and that it doesn't actually make you any more than meat, and that there is no objective qualifier. That one is no more or less human as a single cell than they are as a fully grown adult.”
By that rationale a sperm is human. So is an unfertilised egg.
When I take a dump, about a third of the waste material consists of living bacterial cells. Does that make my poop human?
If my appendix or my tonsils become inflamed, a doctor will cut them out and throw them away. As these organs consist of great masses of living cells, does this mean the doctor has just performed an abortion?
Far more zygotes spontaneously miscarry before the mother is even aware she is pregant, than are ever carried through to term. Doesn't that make God the biggest abortionist of them all if those zygotes are human?
Your arguement for personhood is far too simplistic and ill-informed to ever be logical or useful. I'd advise you to read up on some developmental biology before trying again.
LikeLike
@ Thorbs
“The intent is to prevent the federal government from subsidising political speech,”
Then shouldn't that only apply to subsidized organizations? Because, I imagine very few (if any) churches actually receive government subsidies.
those are all things that various school boards have tried to do in the past
Then draw the line there. When some one actually being victimized. To draw the line at a banner makes you seem unreasonable.
I have to admit that I haven't being paying any attention at all to the Jessica Ahlquist case. It's a local issue that needs to be dealt with locally, and really shouldn't be getting so many people involved that have no business being involved. I can't be bothered to get invested in something that has no effect on me at all.
My arguments have been based only on how Dave worded his example.
“You, however, only appear to be tolerant of those who share your views.”
How do you figure that?
“It's funny bacause all 4 of those religions you mention appear very alike to me.”
And you wonder why you have few allies among moderate or progressive Christians?
LikeLike
@Dave from canada
“au•ton•o•mous
-existing and functioning as an independent organism
– not subject to control from outside”
Don't worry, the religious are working on women being subject to their control, so they can no longer be classed as autonomous.
LikeLike
@ Thorbs
Continued, I guess…
“By that rationale a sperm is human”
A sperm is technically not alive. It can't metabolize, nor can it reproduce on its own. It's very similar to a virus in that regard, which are also not considered alive.
Admittedly, when it comes to multi-celled organisms like humans it can difficult to determine what constitutes a unique organism and what does not, especially when you introduce the idea of super-organisms.
My personal definition would be that one is a “person” if they are (A) genetically homo-sapien, (B) a complete organism unto themselves, and (C) are alive.
LikeLike
@TheAlmightyNarf
“Then shouldn't that only apply to subsidized organizations? Because, I imagine very few (if any) churches actually receive government subsidies.”
As I've stated before, this is for tax-exempt organisations. Churches automatically qualify as tax-exempt organisations. Tax-exemption is considered a subsidy.
“Then draw the line there. When some one actually being victimized. To draw the line at a banner makes you seem unreasonable.”
I draw the line at breaking the law. At promoting your religion in a school. Your position is unreasonable to me. The thing is… the law is on my side, not yours.
“How do you figure that?”
Everything you have said to this point has told me that. You have pretty much straight out said that you consider atheists to be intolerant purely for speaking out against religion.
“And you wonder why you have few allies among moderate or progressive Christians?”
You assume I want them as my allies. I'd be happy if they were the enemy of my enemy.
I don't need validation here. They don't need to agree with me. They merely need to stand up and do the right thing.
LikeLike
@TheAlmightyNarf
“My personal definition would be that one is a “person” if they are (A) genetically homo-sapien, (B) a complete organism unto themselves, and (C) are alive.”“
So at around 23+ weeks then? I wouldn't consider a fetus to be a complete organism unto themselves until they are capable of living outside the womb. Otherwise I'm afraid a sperm would still qualify by your criteria.
LikeLike
@ Dave
Sorry, missed your post in the middle of all the other ones…
“Firstly, it isn't being used to censor them.”
I like how you took out the part where I said I didn't necessarily think they were and that it really wasn't important whether it was true or not.
Again, I'm not defending what they did. I've reiterated that in pretty much every post I've made. Perhaps my argument seems like “double-talk” because you keep trying to pretend I'm saying things I'm not?
“We just want them to obey the laws that already exist.”
Fair enough. I just don't think anybody on either side would really be happy with that.
“Every shred of scientific evidence we have indicates that the brain is the only thing responsible for our memories, personality and thoughts”
Perhaps this is just my nihilism peaking through, but I just don't really see what difference any of those things have.
“And unless you are more ignorant than you are dishonest, you already know that.”
Because I disagree with you, I must be ignorant or dishonest?
LikeLike
@ Thorbs
“You have pretty much straight out said that you consider atheists to be intolerant purely for speaking out against religion.”
No, I consider YOU intolerant. I can distinguish between one bigot and and entire community.
LikeLike
@ Narf
“I like how you took out the part where I said I didn't necessarily think they were and that it really wasn't important whether it was true or not.”
I ommitted it because it wasn't relevant. The law is the law. I don't care why they want to break it, the fact is they are. The law does not stop counting for us based on whether we like obeying it.
“Again, I'm not defending what they did. I've reiterated that in pretty much every post I've made. Perhaps my argument seems like “double-talk” because you keep trying to pretend I'm saying things I'm not?”
I’m aware you never say the words “I am defending what they did”. But your actions speak otherwise. Everything you have posted has been either an excuse for your people breaking the law or an attack on those who want the law enforced. Your claims to not fdefending them have all the credibility of a person saying “So I have this…friend who may have had something embarassing happen to him…”
“Fair enough. I just don't think anybody on either side would really be happy with that.”
I’d be happy with that. Also, it doesn’t matter if they are happy. It’s the law.
“Perhaps this is just my nihilism peaking through, but I just don't really see what difference any of those things have.”
I don’t actually believe you when you say that.If you seriously don’t get why the brain is important then I may have been wrong when I said you weren’t superhumanly moronic. The brain is where the personality, the self resides. It’s what makes you a person. Is a person with prosthetic legs less of a person? What about a pacemaker? What about the inevitable
“And unless you are more ignorant than you are dishonest, you already know that.”
Now whose putting words in another’s mouth? No, not because you disagree with me. Because the reasons you give reveal you to be either incredibly ignorant or dishonest.
Your entire argument with me and Thorbs(who you now call a bigot for disagreeing with you, incidentally.) has consistent of you:
Not knowing what the laws are
Not understanding why breaking the law is bad
Not understanding why someone would want to uphold a law
Not knowing what the bible says
Not knowing how passages related to killing your children and gays could possibly be related to someone abusing their children for being gay
Not knowing elements of basic biology
Not knowing why BRAINS are important.
I have great trouble conceiving of even a small child who wouldn’t get at least some of this. That leaves me with the conclusion that you are either remarkably unintelligent for an adult…or being willfully dishonest.
LikeLike
@ Dave
Well, when you can't accept I actually believe the things I'm saying, that pretty much ends the discussion there, doesn't it.
LikeLike
@ Narf
Sorry but I'm not letting you off the hook that easy.
And if you think I'm being unfair then explain.
What is so difficult about any of these concepts that you find them so incomprehensible?
LikeLike
And thus is shown the problem with belief.
Belief is not a virtue. When you are pre-disposed to accept things as true without a shred of proof, no amount of honest discussion or evidence will ever sway your opinion.
As for calling me a bigot? My only response is that for the most part it has been a pleasure having this discussion with you, but I certainly won't waste my time talking to you further.
LikeLike
@ Dave
You've given a pretty reasonable (and very entertaining) argument up until now. So, I'm going to give this another go. Let me try and step back and re-explain my position.
You and I have fairly close to completely polar opposite world views… You're an absolutest and a rationalist. I'm a relativist and occasional nihilist depending on my mood. We use completely incompatible forms of reasoning to reach our conclusions. So, let's just accept right now that you and I are never going to agree on any sort of philosophical matter and that neither of us needs to be “ignorant” or “dishonest” for that to be the case. Because, for the sake of this discussion, I'm hoping we don't actually have to agree philosophically.
Let's go back to the abortion thing for a second. I'm not trying to convince that my position is right, or that your position is wrong. Simply that my position exists independently from religion. Again, I'm a relativist… the idea that a position is either “right” or “wrong” doesn't really play into my thought process. Those positions simply exist for me, and I really don't care if you agree with mine or not.
So, the banner… When I say that “it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong”, I mean that quite literally. Think of it like software piracy. It really doesn't matter whether you think it's right or wrong or whether you think game developers are in the right or wrong to try to stop it… it simply exists and always will. People trying to push the boundaries of what's legal and committing civil disobedience against laws they disagree with simply exists… It does not matter if it's right or wrong.
But, that doesn't mean we have to just accept it. We can turn this into a mutually beneficial situation. The goals of Atheists and at least Progressive Christians are not mutually exclusive. After all, laws are not absolute… they can be passed, amended, overturned, reinterpreted and repealed, and they are so all the time. Laws are tools, and nothing more. And they are tools we can use here.
What I want to find is a compromise that can make both sides happy. Because even in some remote off chance that you could get every Christian to stop pushing the boundaries, you're just stopping the symptom and not addressing the underlying causes of what's going on. Any solution that has both sides still in mutual contempt at the end isn't a solution at all.
LikeLike
@ Narf
If you are arguing that the law is as optional as you seem to be then there's really nothing to discuss.
I care whether things are right or wrong. I care whether things are legal or not. If I disagree I try to get the law changed, but I don't break it out of raw petulance.
There IS no compromise between people willing top break the law to get what they want and people who want the law upheld.
LikeLike
“If you are arguing that the law is as optional as you seem to be then there's really nothing to discuss.
I care whether things are right or wrong. I care whether things are legal or not. If I disagree I try to get the law changed, but I don't break it out of raw petulance.
There IS no compromise between people willing top break the law to get what they want and people who want the law upheld.”
Hello, Thrasymachus.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
@ Dave
“If you are arguing that the law is as optional as you seem to be then there's really nothing to discuss.”
*sigh*
No!
Read the fucking words that I type!
“People trying to push the boundaries of what's legal and committing civil disobedience against laws they disagree with simply exists… It does not matter if it's right or wrong.”
I'm not saying it's ok! It doesn't matter if it's ok! It simply will happen and there is fuck all anyone can do to stop it! Reality is never going to simply morph to match your idealism… reality doesn't give a fuck about your idealism!
Reality is what it is and you have have to make the best of the situation that exists.
God, I can't believe I have to lay that out for an Atheist.
“There IS no compromise between people willing top break the law to get what they want and people who want the law upheld.”
Tell that to all those people who've fought for civil rights through civil disobedience that you seem to want so much to be in solidarity with.
LikeLike
@ narf
I am reading them. I'm just taking them to their logical conclusion.
You are suggesting that when a group doesn't get its way, and then breaks the law to get around the fact that they didn't get their way through legal channels we should just 'compromise' and give them SOME of what they want.
Why not let bank robbers get away with SOME of the money?
Why not make only ever second rape a crime. That's a nice compromise and if the laws aren't changed people are going to do those things anyway.
The fact that people will still try to break the law does not mean the law should be changed.
The current LEGAL situation works for everyone. Everyone has the right to their beliefs, and no religious beliefs are to be given any more weight than any other. That ensures equality.
There is no compromise between equality and discrimination, which is what they are after. At the very least they want the government to positively discriminate in favour of THEIR religion.
You keep going on and on about how you don't support them breaking the law or you don't support favouritism, and you keep making excuses for them nonetheless.
“Tell that to all those people who've fought for civil rights through civil disobedience that you seem to want so much to be in solidarity with.”
Those civil rights people were fighting against the very compromise YOU seem to be in favour of. Coloureds only facilities, separate but equal WAS such a compromise.
What I am talking about is not civil disobedience. They aren't protesting to change the law. There's nothing wrong with that. They are actively trying to IGNORE the law.
MLK's dream wasn't about tricking white people into not noticing black people had rights. It was about getting legal recognition of said rights.
If we are to keep the comparison going, they are acting much like the southern educational staff who stood in front of their school with baseball bats to keep black students out, even when the laws had been changed to let them in. Don't like the law? Change it. Can't change it? Shut the fuck up and deal with it until you can.
LikeLike
@ Dave
“I'm just taking them to their logical conclusion.”
Acknowledging that a cause for a problem can't be removed is not the same as supporting that cause.
I acknowledging that one can't be cured of Alzheimer… that doesn't mean I support Alzheimer.
“Those civil rights people were fighting against…”
Blah, blah, blah… Your entire argument up until now as clearly not allowed for any such exception.
LikeLike
@Dave from canada:
“They are actively trying to IGNORE the law.”
What's wrong with that?
LikeLike
@ Zeno?
Are you seriously asking me what is wrong with people choosing to disobey the laws they don't like?
@ Narf
That's a terrible analogy. Just because you don't have a cure for something yet doesn't mean you don't try.
And If you are going to just dismiss arguments, at least try to do so in a method that isn't quite so seinfeldian? Becauuse this blah blah business really undercuts your claims to wnating honest discussion. Though granted, calling Thorbs a bigot for no reason while still playing at a congenial attitude with me already did that.
LikeLike
The guy is obviously a tool. But there's a way to prevent, or at the very least marginalize this kind of crap.
I think a lot of the problems in this country would be solved if people started *discussing* issues. As it is now anyone who states the slightest bit of apprehension toward LGBT issues like same-sex marriage is almost instantly barraged with “OMG Y U SO HOMOFOBICK?!”
As soon as a confrontational statement like that is made, people tend to close off. Once that happens, they're no longer amenable to changing their stance.
That leaves the two diverging groups to set up their own camps and fling potshots at one another. As for the rest, they pretty much look at the stupidity from both sides, throw up their hands and stop giving a shit. Hence, there is stagnation, and we die a little as a culture.
All because no one bothered to stop and ask “Oh? Why do you feel that way?” then actually talk it out. I'm not saying you're going to convince everyone, but you'll likely convince *enough* people.
LikeLike
@Dave from canada:
“Are you seriously asking me what is wrong with people choosing to disobey the laws they don't like?”
Yes.
LikeLike
@ zeno
You mean aside from them being the entire foundation of human society.
LikeLike
@Dave from canada:
Let's say that that statement is true. What does it even mean? Are you saying that if laws don't exist “human society” doesn't either? If that's the case then I don't see how illegal activity is immoral because laws exist whether of not people “break” them. Without further explanation your statement is a non sequitor and doesn't answer my inquiry.
This is of course, ignoring the questions of what “human society” is and whether its existence is moral or not, which are very important in their own right and my usual line of attack, but I've gotten bored of that.
LikeLike
@ Zeno
It means that our civilization only works because we have laws. Guess what happens if murder is no longer illegal? Guess what happens when theft is no longer illegal?
And more than that, you are required to abide by them whether you like them or not. That's the price you pay for loving in said society.
Never thought I would seriously have to explain to a non toddler why we need laws.
LikeLike
@Dave from canada:
“It means that our civilization only works because we have laws.”
And again you completely fail to answer my question, which pertains not the the existence of laws but people's observation of them.
“Guess what happens if murder is no longer illegal? Guess what happens when theft is no longer illegal?”
I don't have to guess; They aren't.
“And more than that, you are required to abide by them whether you like them or not.”
“Required”? It's certainly physically possible to break the law. Laws would be unnecessary if that weren't the case. If you mean required by a standard of ethics than specifing and proving said standard would answer my question.
“That's the price you pay for loving in said society.”
If laws reflect virtuous conduct why should following them be paying a price? If they don't then why should we follow them?
“Never thought I would seriously have to explain to a non toddler why we need laws.”
Life is like a box of chocolates.
LikeLike
@ zeno
OK well you clearly have no interest in any conversation and are just going to spew nonsense. By aall means, try robbing a bank and put that “law's don't matter” idea of yours to the test.
LikeLike
@Dave from canada:
I never said that laws don't matter.
LikeLike
@ Dave
“Just because you don't have a cure for something yet doesn't mean you don't try.”
But, does not trying mean one “supports” the disease?
Let me ask you this, then: If I choose to abstain from voting in the upcoming election, am I supporting one of the candidates by doing so?
“And If you are going to just dismiss arguments, at least try to do so in a method that isn't quite so seinfeldian?”
The point was that this entire topic, and even after you replied to me, you continued to persist that one must obey the law always, under any circumstance, with out exception… But, then you support civil disobedience of oppressed minorities.
How do you reconcile that? It seems very paradoxical to me.
LikeLike
@ Nard
“But, does not trying mean one “supports” the disease?”
If you actively attempt to stop people from finding a cure, yes.
“Let me ask you this, then: If I choose to abstain from voting in the upcoming election, am I supporting one of the candidates by doing so?”
One tortured metaphor is enough per conversation, i think.
The bottom line is that whenever someone criticizes the excesses of your religion, you attack them. You may begrudgingly admit the excess exists, but you always attack the person pointing it out. You actively attempt to discourage people from taking issue with members of your religion. That is the same as supporting the excess. I could say that even doing nothing lends them tacit sup[port as you are letting them peak for you, but you actively attack those attacking them.
“How do you reconcile that? It seems very paradoxical to me.”
Instead of perpetually trying to weasel out of any personal responsibility here, how about you do something shocking and make a definitive statement, how about YOU tell me when laws should and should not apply and when they do and do not count. You have a line to the supreme arbiter of right and wrong after all.
So instead of asking spurious loaded questions, YOU answer me this:
-Should people obey the law?
-Is religious discrimination alright?
Yes or no. No equivocation, no evasions, no terrible metaphors. Answer the questions.
LikeLike
@ Dave
“If you actively attempt to stop people from finding a cure, yes.”
You're not trying to find a cure, though. You're attacking the symptoms.
Ok, I may need to explain that metaphor a bit better…
Christians putting religious symbols in places they probably shouldn't isn't the problem in and of itself. It's just a symptom of the larger problem that Christians tend not to understand why they shouldn't be overtly religious even if they're not hurting anyone in the process.
That's the problem you're not really doing anything about. Or at least Atheism as a community isn't doing anything about. You just keep playing whack-a-mole.
“but you always attack the person pointing it out”
I've only made a single personal attack this entire debate, and that was against Thorbs because he was twisting we words even worse then you do, and it was getting on my nerves.
“You actively attempt to discourage people from taking issue with members of your religion.”
I discourage people from attacking the religion as a whole, when the act was committed by a single person.
“Instead of perpetually trying to weasel out of any personal responsibility here…”
As you completely avoid my question…
“Yes or no. No equivocation, no evasions, no terrible metaphors. Answer the questions.”
See, the idea that something is absolutely “right” or absolutely “wrong” is a completely alien concept to me that I can not even comprehend. I can not force myself to see black and white when everything is so clearly grey. You're asking me to deny the universe around me for the sake of idealism and I just can't do that.
See, this is what I was trying to explain earlier when I said that your were an absolutist and I was a relativist… I will never see the world the same way you do. Can we get past that at least?
I will say that in my opinion religious discrimination as wrong, I just don't consider a banner on the wall religious discrimination.
LikeLike
@Dave from canada:
“If you actively attempt to stop people from finding a cure, yes.”
Do the ends justify the means?
“So instead of asking spurious loaded questions, YOU answer me this:
-Should people obey the law?”
As if that wasn't loaded. Please tell me you wouldn't equivocate a “no” answer to that with an affirmative support of law-breaking for law-breaking's sake.
LikeLike
“Christians putting religious symbols in places they probably shouldn't isn't the problem in and of itself. It's just a symptom of the larger problem that Christians tend not to understand why they shouldn't be overtly religious even if they're not hurting anyone in the process.”
Wrong. No one is saying they can’t be religious as they want to be. They don’t get to FORCE THEIR BELIFS ON OTHERS. I don’t care if they want to be fundamentalist. But when they start inserting their religion into public policy then they’ve crossed a line. That’s the issue, stop trying to make it something else. It’s not that they don’t understand, it’s that they don’t care.
“I discourage people from attacking the religion as a whole, when the act was committed by a single person.”
A single person following the dictates of your religion’s holy book. Which has been explained to you and you keep conveniently forgetting.
“As you completely avoid my question…”
Oh please, I’ve answered far too many of your evasive questions already. Even now you refuse to actually make a definitive statement because then you aren’t free to reinterpret things to suit your purpose.
“ I can not force myself to see black and white when everything is so clearly grey.”
It isn’t grey. One group is breaking the law. One is not. There is no grey area here. The only variable is whether you support the people breaking the law, or the ones upholding it.
Make a definitive statement. Stop trying to avoid having to tell me what you stand for and stand for something. This has nothing to do with relativism or absolutism. This has to do with a basic understanding of the rules of society. The law applies whether you like it or not. So the question is whether you think a person’s religion should let them break the law or not.
If you do, they which religions get this treatment, and where does it end and why should anyone go along with it. If not then you admit that you have no real case here. Take your bloody pick but don’t try to obfuscate the issues.
“I will say that in my opinion religious discrimination as wrong, I just don't consider a banner on the wall religious discrimination.”
Then you don’t know what discrimination is. And you should, because it has been explained to you multiple times. But you know that. And that’s why I think you’re dishonest. You aren’t actually interested in law or fairness, you are interested in getting as much for your side as possible regardless of whether it is legal or just and will go to great lengths to try and excuse any wrong doing on their part.
I cannot conceive of a person who seriously needs to have so many things that are this bloody simple explained over and over again and it has long since become obvious that you have no interest in any kind of reasonable discussion. The only real point in arguing with someone willfully dishonest is to make sure that they aren’t giving anyone else bad info. I’m confident anyone who cared has moved on.
Unless you can man up and actually state a position that isn’t just an amorphous mass of noncommittal phrases, and can answer the questions I asked honestly instead of avoiding them, my duty to the truth has long been satisfied.
LikeLike
@TheAlmightyNarf
I said I wasn't going to respond to you any further, but I think you've raised a very valid point that bears some discussion.
I'll attempt to hold off on my pedantic dickweed-ery this time. 😛
In my defence, I was getting annoyed at you evading the whole context of what I wrote, and just picking at little nippets of what I was saying.
“You're not trying to find a cure, though. You're attacking the symptoms.
Ok, I may need to explain that metaphor a bit better…
Christians putting religious symbols in places they probably shouldn't isn't the problem in and of itself. It's just a symptom of the larger problem that Christians tend not to understand why they shouldn't be overtly religious even if they're not hurting anyone in the process.”
This I think is very good explanation of the problem. I'm not sure I fully agree with everything you say (I'll need some more time to mull it over), but I think it does get down to the meat of the issue.
I think a lot of us atheists believe that the reason many Christians are constantly trying to push their religion down our throats is a lack of understanding of “Freedom of Religion”. We assume that they are thinking “the constitution tells me I have freedom of religion, so why aren't I free to create prayer groups in school, or proudly display tokens of my faith?”.
As a result of this, I think our method of combating this is to rely on the courts to hammer the point home that that's not what “Freedom of Religion” means.
Possibly this is not the best method of addressing the issue. I'm not entirely convinced though that we immediately jump to getting the ACLU involved. I think we do try to resolve these issues with discussion first.
What would you suggest is a better approach?
Also, would you concede that much of the time the Christians get so defensive when we point out they are violating seperation of church and state, that we are left with little choice but to go the legal route?
LikeLike
@ Dave
Ok, I've been thinking about this a bit today and I think I've come up with a good answer… or, more accurately, I'm going to rephrase the question as one of formal logic.
Is the statement “Everyone should always obey the law” true?
For a statement to be true it would need to always be true in all cases. I don't think this statement is. For instance, I don't think even you would argue that disenfranchised minorities shouldn't commit civil disobedience against laws that discriminate against them. There are clearly at least some instances where that statement is not true.
Therefor, the statement “Everyone should always obey the law” is false.
@ Thorbs
Oh my God, someone is actually willing to find common ground with me! Perhaps progress can be made!
That's actually almost exactly the point I was making way back when I got into the discussion. Atheists may be fully in the right to sue over this sort of thing, but it's not really helping them.
So, I have to return to the same question I was asking then… what is it exactly Atheists want? I mean, last I checked we all agreed that the banner itself was a non-issue. What want to find is a compromise that would allow Christians to be overtly religions (in as non-discriminatory a way as possible), but would make Atheists and non-Christians in general happy as well.
“Also, would you concede that much of the time the Christians get so defensive when we point out they are violating seperation of church and state, that we are left with little choice but to go the legal route?”
I would wholly agree that there are occasions that it really is the only option available. Though, I do think it tends to be over-used… as law suits in general are.
But, I think the reason Christians get so defensive is that many, including myself occasionally, get the impression that some Atheists would out right ban religion if they could, but schools and government buildings are jut the only places the law is behind them. And this is not helped by the (what I'm willing to assume is a very small minority) Atheists who say they want exactly that.
LikeLike