"Calling on ALL people of faith and moral conscience"

[yallerdawg]

ACT to End Racism rally -- Awaken : Confront : Transform

“We cannot be those who merely love the tombs of the prophets,” said the Rev. William Barber II. “We do not celebrate assassinations and killings of our prophets. We find the place they fell; we reach down in the blood; we pick up the baton and carry it forward. And we must.”

[Voltaire2]

1. So people without faith should stay home.

Or is it that we can’t have a moral conscience so this does not apply to us?

[yallerdawg]

2. Try following the "11th Commandment."

[MineralMan]

22. There is no 11th Commandment for this group.

You keep referring to it. It was just a misbegotten whine from someone.

IT DOES NOT EXIST!

[dameatball]

27. I don't know that one. Was it "Thou shalt not grab p**ssies?"

[guillaumeb]

73. NOT THE 11TH COMMANDMENT!!!!!!!!!

[guillaumeb]

72. And you read that where?

Perhaps you can point out your reasons for making this assertion.

[Voltaire2]

91. The title.

Let me help you.
“Calling on ALL people of faith and moral conscience”.

Would you agree that the people he is calling on must have both of the qualities of: “faith” and “moral conscience”?

[guillaumeb]

97. It could just as easily be read as an either/or call.

But if anyone needs to see it as exclusionary, that is their own need and does not prove anything about Reverend Barber's intent.

[Voltaire2]

101. Oh so Barber was calling for people of faith

with no moral conscience?

[guillaumeb]

104. Nice try.

But a failed attempt just the same.

[Voltaire2]

106. You do not appear to understand your own argument.

Your claim was that the phrase “people of faith and moral character” was not using “and” in its primary conjunctive meaning of “both”, but instead “either”.

This would include people of no faith who have moral character, people of faith who have no moral character, and people of faith who have moral character.

Except of course you cannot admit that the original argument that the phrase excluded the non-religious was correct, but you also cannot accept the reality that your assertion that it was an “either/or” usage implies that reverend was calling on people of faith with no moral character, so you are in a bit of a pickle and all you can do is sneer and posture.

Please continue.

[guillaumeb]

107. You are demonstrating something,

and I believe that it is based on the 11th Commandment.

[Voltaire2]

108. Provide an argument in defense of your claim

that the phrase was meant in the either/or sense instead of the both sense that excludes people of faith with no moral character, or admit you were wrong.

Or continue to engage in deflection and dishonesty.

Your choice.

[guillaumeb]

109. Interesting reply.

The 11th Commandment is certainly strong in some sectors.

[yallerdawg]

113. People of faith is fairly inclusive.

People with a moral conscience is fairly inclusive.

ALL people is fairly inclusive.

Now, it may be true we don't want people with no moral conscience. Who does?

[guillaumeb]

114. It certainly sounded inclusive to me,

and Barber is currently working with atheist groups in his efforts.

But the 11th Commandment requires much of its followers.

[Voltaire2]

115. You arent even trying to make a coherent argument.

[yallerdawg]

116. You and I disagree.

Now, how do you get an either/or argument out of THAT?

[Voltaire2]

120. So, no defense of your claim upthread?

Why not just admit you were wrong?

[guillaumeb]

125. If I were, I would.

I might ask the same of you.

[Voltaire2]

128. Offs.

A and B. Both A and B must be true for the statement to be true.

A or B. The statement is true if A is true, if B is true, or if A and B are true.

Now see if you can apply this to your either/or claim.

Or continue to deflect, prevaricate, dissemble, etc.

[guillaumeb]

130. Keep reaching.

The 11th Commandment is a demanding one, is it not?

[Voltaire2]

134. Boole had a sad.

[guillaumeb]

135. A very demanding precept.

[yallerdawg]

136. This is ridiculous, isn't it?

I guess they identify this as discussion.

[guillaumeb]

137. Yes, some apparently do.

The alternative is that actual discussion is not desired by some.

[Voltaire2]

138. In case youve forgotten what your argument was.

Here it is again:

It could just as easily be read as an either/or call.

That would interpret “Calling all people of faith AND moral character” as “Calling all people of faith OR moral character”.

In the “or” interpretation there are three sets of people “called”.
1. People with both faith and moral character.
2. People with no faith but with moral character
3. People with faith but with no moral character.

Your turn.

[guillaumeb]

139. Searching for something, anything, to buttress an argument.

I understand.

The next assignment is to research the phrase "all men are created equal".

[Voltaire2]

140. It was your argument.

You failed to consider the implications.
And as always when your failures are made plain here you fall into insults, deflections, and collegial snarkery with your pal.

[guillaumeb]

141. Your attempt to find an issue was noted.

I understand that need, and the motivation behind it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

143. If it's either/or

it is EXACTLY appropriate to say that people of faith with no moral conscience are included. You can't have it both ways if it is either/or.

Oh, wait, maybe it's all just a metaphor.

[Voltaire2]

146. Good luck getting an actual defense of

his poorly thought out “it’s either/or” argument. I tried repeatedly and got back gibberish. I guess he recognized the blunder and knows he can’t defend it.

[Fix The Stupid]

3. "prophets"?

"prophets"?

[yallerdawg]

4. Rev. Barber, founder of the Moral Monday movement...

said this at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis yesterday, site of Dr. King's assassination.

This you mock?

"11th Commandment" - Thou shalt not make any positive references to religion, religious beliefs, or theists in this group.

[Fix The Stupid]

5. ...

[Mariana]

6. Yes, people who disagree with you get to post here, too.

How unspeakably awful that must be for you.



I applaud what Rev. Barber is trying to do, but it's a shame he and this group feel the need to use such exclusionary language.

[yallerdawg]

7. I know you have no faith.

No moral conscience, either?

Or are you just applying the "11th Commandment?"

[marylandblue]

8. Is calling someone a prophet exclusionary?

It has a secular as well as a religious meaning. A great visionary or moral leader can be called a prophet.

[Voltaire2]

9. The title of the op is explicitly and intentionally

exclusionary.

And in the context “prophet” was used in the religious sense.

[marylandblue]

10. I don't think the OP intended it that way

But I can see why you might think that.

[yallerdawg]

11. The title of the rally.

Memorializing the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Rev. King.

Didn't feel the need to watch the video, to seek understanding, to be informed?

"11th Commandment." Of course.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

12. You do know that the wording, as is, reads as exclusionary very easily. Probably most correctly.

Maybe they didn't intend that. Maybe they did.

We have a prepositional phrase "of faith and moral conscience" which is acting as an adjective modifying people. Certainly there is no disagreement there.

So the next question is what kind of people does this phrase make those people. This is where there is a lack of clarity. These are people of faith. That much is clear. And they are people of moral conscience. Also clear. Now along comes "and" and mucks it all up. Normally what you would do with a prepositional phrase like this is that these are BOTH requirements of the "people." They need to be people of "faith" AND "moral conscience."

Certainly you are arguing that this sign is actually saying that they are calling on all people of faith and all people of moral conscience. Maybe that's what they meant. Maybe it's not. AS WRITTEN, it's unclear at best and exclusionary at worst.

Know how they could have made it more clear? Pretty simple. "Calling on ALL people of faith and of moral conscience." Now we know they mean it's "either/or" and not "both."

But, again, as is--I read it as exclusionary very clearly and very grammatically. And that interpretation is valid.

So stop it with your "11th Commandment" nonsense.

[yallerdawg]

13. Are you kidding me?

The ONLY way you can interpret this as exclusionary - on THIS day - by THESE people - in memory of THAT man - is in rabid, virulent support of the "11th Commandment" as stated.

Nonsense is certainly recognizable.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

14. So you don't want to discuss the possible misinterpretation?

You don't want to admit that the wording is unclear. Because it is. Especially if it means what you say it does. If it is exclusionary, the wording is just fine.

But, sure, I fully understand why you wouldn't want to discuss it. If you do, I'm still willing.

And, for the record, I talked NOT AT ALL about religion in my post. It was all grammar, writing, and wording. So, again, stop with the 11th Commandment nonsense.

[yallerdawg]

16. So if it said "ALL black people and white people"...

this would be muddled and confused?

Please.

[Mariana]

21. It would be exclusionary. nt.

[yallerdawg]

26. "And" is exclusionary.

"11th Commandment."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

37. Because it just mentions black and white people.

That leaves some out. Are you really that slow on the uptake?

[yallerdawg]

41. An example of how that little word "and" does not exclude either.

Do you think people with "no moral conscience" are being unfairly excluded given the subject?

But pedant on, please!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

32. You know you're supporting my point, right?

Your phrase makes it clear that you mean both. In your sentence, "and" means that you combine them. Put your example to the one in the OP and it means "people" that have BOTH faith and moral conscience.

Thanks for the supporting example.

Additionally, your phrase would have to be worded "all black and white people" to be the same kind of confusion. And since there aren't striped people, it is still clear. Unless you mean mixed race.

[yallerdawg]

42. No, I already won the argument.

Failure to acknowledge the inclusiveness of "and" is not a winning argument, it's just dead-ending.

[Mariana]

46. Black and white people:

[yallerdawg]

50. The moral of the story is...

we don't see a difference.

[Mariana]

55. Sure - as long as everyone is black and white.

Every other color or combination of colors is excluded.

[yallerdawg]

56. OMG.

My example was related to the use of "and" and it's inclusiveness, not divisiveness.

But please go on! Ad nauseum!

[Mariana]

71. Thank you, I shall.

Anyone of a different color or combination of colors have to be excluded in order for that story to convey the message that there is no difference between the characters. If Bele was black and white and Lokai was blue, the story wouldn't work, because everyone would perceive them as obviously different. So, the writer had to exclude from the story any possible characters from Cheron who weren't black and white.

[guillaumeb]

77. Really weak.

[guillaumeb]

81. And by saying people, they are clearly discriminating against

sentient non-humans. What about that one? Now THAT is outrageous!!!!

Speaking of nonsense, my irony meter just exploded.

[Voltaire2]

15. It is the actual meaning of and.

Both assertions joined by “and” have to be true.

But don’t let logic and grammar get in the way. Carry on.

[yallerdawg]

17. Double down on the deliberate distraction.

No, you all don't want to discuss positive, inclusive, uniting messages from religion and faith sources.

This entire comment section is a perfect example.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. But what if it ISN'T a uniting message?

It has been pointed out to you clearly why it can be, correctly, interpreted as an exclusionary statement.

[yallerdawg]

36. I gave the opposite argument.

It's a positive outlook. Obviously, you disagree.

"11th Commandment."

[guillaumeb]

76. We need a dam to contain the nonsense.

It threatens to become a flood.

[guillaumeb]

75. Very weak argument.

Very weak.

[Mariana]

24. "...faith and moral conscience." I have no faith, so I'm excluded.

The word "prophet" is usually used in the religious sense. In this context, it is being used by a clergyman during a speech (sermon?) at a religious event. I think it's reasonable to infer that meaning.

[yallerdawg]

29. "Can I have a taco and burrito?"

I would think people of "faith" and people of "moral conscience" includes just about everyone we want to include.

A reverend using his inspirational messaging in honor of a fallen hero - on the 50th anniversary at Rev. King's memorial site in Memphis - how does that warrant a ridiculous critique?

Except in support of the "11th Commandment."

[Mariana]

38. Can I have tacos with beef and beans?

That is much closer in structure. If you said that, you probably wouldn't be too happy to see chicken tacos on your plate.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

39. You are supporting the other side.

You are using "and" to mean that BOTH are required. If you said "Can I have a taco and burrito?" and I just handed you a taco, you would be confused. Because "and" means both are required. So, by YOUR logic and TWO examples, the phrase in the OP means that it is people that have BOTH faith AND moral conscience. Not one or the other.

[yallerdawg]

43. Keep doubling down!

Keeps you off the point, no negative comments on the rally and purpose.

Just on the pedantics!

[Voltaire2]

69. It is stunning to discover that people

do not understand the difference between “and” and “or” as conjunctives in a phrase.

“I have to shower and change” is quite different from “I have to shower or change”.

The fact that the op thinks “can I have a taco and burrito” means the same as “can I have a taco or burrito” is simply amazing.

[yallerdawg]

70. How inclusive is the word "ALL"?

People of "faith" and people with a "moral conscience."

If you don't have a moral conscience, I guess that would be exclusionary. Rightly so.

But be sure to focus on the important things (11th Commandment)!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

83. Well, according to your argument

having a moral conscience isn't required to be included in that sign as long as you are a person of faith. It's either/or.

[yallerdawg]

84. Y'all seem to be 'beatin' around the bush' a bit.

Are you trying to tell me that people who have no faith also have no moral conscience? They are required to go together?

I certainly wouldn't suggest such a thing, but I've been known to miss such things...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

88. I'm using your analysis of the sentence

I'm sure you can keep up.

Either the and means you have to have both or it means you can have either. You are arguing it means either and doesn't excuse atheists. So that means you can be a person of faith with no moral conscience and still be included.

Note: I didn't say that all people of faith have no moral conscience. But I see people on DU all the time say that Republican Christians lack a moral conscience. So they are clearly still included, using your analysis, in the sign in the OP.

[guillaumeb]

74. Exclusionary language?

I missed it. Perhaps you can point it out.

[Mariana]

94. Don't be lazy, Gil.

That's already been done by several different posters on this thread, with clear explanations as to why the language is exclusionary. The explanations may be difficult to understand for people who are accustomed to interpreting Bible passages to mean the opposite of what they say.

[guillaumeb]

99. I would say that the word lazy describes much of the "analysis" I have read here.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

144. So actually discuss the analysis and not just "that's stupid."

Explain your point. Make a counter argument. I realize your first one of "it's either/or" didn't go the way you wanted because you didn't think about the other "or" option it creates, but if what has been proposed is so lazy, have at it. I'd gladly discuss the grammar of this sentence which leads to the interpretation.

[MineralMan]

18. I don't use the word "moral." I prefer

"ethical compass" to "moral conscience."

I was active in the civil rights movement in the 1960s as an atheist. Nobody seemed bothered by my lack of faith then.

I'd have worded that as "faith or moral conscience." That would be inclusive, rather than exclusive.

I don't have morals. I have ethics.

[yallerdawg]

19. Nothing.

Nothing about MLK.

Nothing about racism.

Nothing about calls for unity, spirit, action.

Nothing positive.

A desire for pedantic argument over common words.

Absolutely "11th Commandment."

[MineralMan]

20. As I wrote in the post you replied to, I was active in civil rights work

while MLK was alive. I heard him give his "How Long?" speech in person in Alabama. I was there. Were you? If you think my discussion of wording is inappropriate, I don't really care. I worked for civil rights in the 1960s. I was on the scene.

Don't assume. Read.

Feh!

[yallerdawg]

23. Feh back at you.

This OP isn't about you.

We have plenty of other ones for that!

Where you get to espouse your views without my comment!

[MineralMan]

25. No, it is not about me.

I can reply to any post here. And I did.

THERE IS NO 11TH COMMANDMENT IN THE RELIGION GROUP. IT DOES NOT EXIST.

I will respond to any post I wish, and in any way I wish.

[yallerdawg]

28. Refer to the comment section of this OP.

Perfect example of the "11th Commandment" which absolutely exists in the Religious group.

[Mariana]

31. None of your posts have been hidden.

You haven't been blocked from the group. You haven't been banned from DU. No one has threatened any action at all against you as a result of your posts. Yet, you keep going on like you're prohibited from posting stories you consider positive. Where is this ridiculous delusion coming from? That's just bizarre.

[yallerdawg]

34. It gets tried.

I've been advised to self-delete under threat.

One person insists on repeatedly calling me a liar! That's pretty annoying.

[Mariana]

40. You should report such threats to the administrators.

If you lie, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when someone calls you a liar.

[yallerdawg]

45. So your saying...

contrary to DU rules of civility, if someone judges another DU'er to be worthy of nasty, vicious accusations, the rules don't apply.

Interesting.

[Mariana]

52. Which rules? nt.

[yallerdawg]

54. No personal attacks or flaming

Do not personally attack, insult, flame, threaten, bully, harass, stalk, negatively call-out, ascribe ugly ulterior motives to, or make baseless claims about any member of this community. Do not post in a manner that is hostile, abusive, or aggressive toward any member of this community.

[Mariana]

57. LOL, you break those rules all the time.

You've done it in this very thread, over and over and over. Every time you spammed about your mythical "11th Commandment" you "ascribed ugly ulterior motives" to one or more members of the community.

[yallerdawg]

58. Merely an observation.

"Thou shalt not make any positive references to religion, religious beliefs, or theists in this group."

Check out the entire comment section related to this OP.

[Mariana]

62. The comment section related to this OP

in which you made positive references to religion, religious beliefs, and theists in this group.

You're pointing to the evidence that proves your ridiculous imaginary commandment doesn't exist.

[guillaumeb]

80. How would you know?

Referring to your first comment?

Do you receive updates on every action taken here?

[MineralMan]

44. There is no "comment section"

This a discussion forum. OPs are simply the first post in a discussion. They get replies, which constitute the discussion.

You seem to be confused about what discussion means.

[yallerdawg]

48. You are commenting.

Does "K & R" constitute a discussion?

Back to pedantics.

Keep defining everything for me. Wonderful discussion.

[MineralMan]

61. When did I post K & R?

I didn't. My replies in discussions are clear and to the point. Yours was irrelevant, since I did not post K & R.

You are making little sense, now.

[yallerdawg]

65. I'm just pointing out...

the vast majority of us post comments in support of our shared ideals and values, often from sharing reputable news and articles from a variety of sources.

"Kick and recommended" has to be the greatest comment in number of usages! We want to share the news!

If someone posts something I don't agree with, most often I move on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[MineralMan]

68. OK. Here's a question for you.

In an earlier reply, I mentioned that I heard MLK give his "How Long" speech in Montgomery in 1965. I asked if you were there. I asked because your profile says you live there. You did not answer my question. I was there as a 19 year old young man. It was the beginning of my civil rights activism. I drove there from California, specifically to be there.

I am an atheist, so I don't have "faith." I have an ethical compass.

In this thread, which has to do with civil rights, you ignored what I said and bickered childishly with me over words. Again, were you there for that speech? Did it inspire you, as it did me?

Do you discount my civil rights activism? Do me the courtesy of answering my questions, please.

[Mariana]

30. You don't think it's positive

that MineralMan was active in the Civil Rights movement back in the day? I think it's awesome.

Is your church supporting Rev. Barber's organization? Have you had a special collection for it, or anything like that to raise money for them?

[yallerdawg]

35. MM speaks for himself - elsewhere.

I'll inform you of anything about me personally that I believe you need to know.

Clearly personal information is repeatedly used to express contempt and ridicule towards those persons.

It's very easy for individuals to profess they believe in nothing - there is nothing to divulge.

[MineralMan]

47. No. I speak for myself here.

In this thread which you began. I speak in other threads, too, and often begin threads. I speak with my own words, and as I please. You are always free to do the same. When you do, others can reply as they please. This is DU.

[yallerdawg]

49. And your comments...

in no way require a discussion.

I don't step all over your OP's. You're entitled to your own opinion.

But when you adhere to the "11th Commandment" there is apparently a compulsion...

[MineralMan]

51. My "replies" to an open discussion.

One you opened with someone else's words.

The discussion continues.

[yallerdawg]

53. Comment:

a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction.

Reply: a verbal or written answer.

Discussion: the action or process of talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

What does this "comment section" least resemble?

[MineralMan]

59. Oh, for goodness' sake!

Silliness.

[Tanuki]

64. Did you deem MLK's organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,

exclusionary? If you would take the time to educate yourself about Rev. Barber, whom you recently said you had never heard of, you would understand that he would not be "bothered by" your atheism either.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/william-barber-and-mlks-legacy-of-church-based-activism.html

..." 'Not long ago I was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher, with one of America’s most prominent atheists. Wearing my clerical collar, I realized that I stood out among his guests. So I decided to announce to Bill that I, too, am an atheist. He seemed taken aback, so I explained that if we were talking about the God who hates poor people, immigrants, and gay folks, I don’t believe in that God either. Sometimes it helps to clarify our language.'

Recapturing the language of morality from conservatives remains one of Barber’s chief preoccupations. It is often jarring to progressives accustomed to a less fraught rhetoric of gradual social and economic progress to hear someone describe contemporary conservatives as deeply immoral people who are motivated by greed and who are making a mockery of their professed religious convictions. But while the Moral Movement was fully underway before Donald Trump executed his takeover of the GOP and the conservative movement, it now seems even more appropriate to describe the right as seized by a frenzy of immoral greed when it’s headed by the great narcissist and business pirate whose campaign was fueled by cultural resentments and hatred of “losers.” But Barber won’t let Republicans hide behind Trump:

'Trump is a symptom of a deeper moral malady. And if he was gone tomorrow or impeached tomorrow, the senators and the House of Representatives and Ryan and McConnell and Graham and all them would still be there. And what we have found, Amy, when we look at them, no matter how crazy they call him or names they call him or anger they get with him, it’s all a front, because at the end of the day, they might disagree with his antics, but they support his agenda.'

Even as Democrats fight to thwart Trump and his party in the 2018 midterms, the Poor People’s Campaign will be seeking to set a higher standard for what comes after Trump and how voters measure both parties. Barber calls the organization that will be running that campaign Repairers of the Breach, which aims at nothing less than “to redeem the heart and soul of our country.” That means convincing people used to thinking of “morality” as about enforcing sexual codes and keeping women under control to instead think first about how Americans treat the poor and oppressed. It’s hardly the first such effort, as we will recall during commemorations of Martin Luther King’s life and legacy. But it’s a psychological tonic for all those who read sacred texts and long for prophetic voices seeking justice for the afflicted rather than comfort for the powerful."....(more)

[yallerdawg]

78. Great article!

The "Moral Monday" groups are off-and-on active in Montgomery, meet up at both the State Capital and the State House.

Hasn't caught on like in North Carolina - but it is getting warmer now! And churches got out the vote in the US Senate election back in December. Church groups here have always been politically active!

Barber’s most original contribution to the new PPC — and arguably, to the King legacy —is his focus on action at the state and local levels, which of course is where the modern civil-rights movement really began more than a half-century ago with the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

https://poorpeoplescampaign.org/index.php/fundamental-principles/

[spicysista]

60. Rev. William Barber II !

This is important work. Rev. Barber's mission to reclaim the "moral" argument is much needed and is actually starting to work. It's the GOP's worst fear: poor and working whites aligning with blacks and all minorities of all levels of the economic strata. It's really hard to be against feeding the hungry, tending to the sick, treating everyone as you'd treat yourself, and assisting the poor. Our progressive ideals are on sound biblical doctrine. The religious left has been a part of this country's most progressive movements. It will be a big help if the national media takes notice of this movement.
Thanks for a great post. More people should seek to be like Rev. Barber......... be a part of the solution. President Obama said, "be the change you seek".
This is a call to action! Let's all get to work!

[yallerdawg]

63. It has been a tumultuous, soul-searching couple of years!

The voices we heard yesterday across the country honor and memorialize Dr. King and remind us we can all "pick up the baton!"

[spicysista]

66. It's an exciting time, right!?!

There's pain, hurt, and all kinds of sorrow. But, there's also hope springing from all of it. The tide seems about to turn. Here's to hope and keeping the faith!



We will always be stronger together.

[yallerdawg]

67. "Stronger together!"

Absolutely!

[guillaumeb]

79. All people?

Does that exclude sentient non-humans?

How dare Reverend Barber reject and exclude all sentient non-human species from this event?


I really liked the ones that claimed that prophets in Barber's quote is a religious reference, when it clearly refers to Dr. King and others, including A. Philip Randolph, another prophet and hero of the civil rights movement.

[yallerdawg]

82. I thought this would be a quietly respectful, even encouraging OP.

I can't believe how spot-on your '11th Commandment' observation would be.

Stunning.

[guillaumeb]

85. marylandblue posted an excellent one tonight.

But yes, the same thing happened. Habits can be ingrained.

[marylandblue]

95. Thanks, but I think it is all in the presentation

I didn't talk about the 11th commandment. I just spoke my mind and let others speak theirs. Not all the responses were positive, but some of the people that are negative here were more positive there.

[guillaumeb]

100. True.

Why that is might be subject to interpretation.

[marylandblue]

103. There is no why. It just is.

[Voltaire2]

92. This thread is a demonstration of the blindness

of religious privilege.

[Mariana]

96. And of the mental gymnastics the religious will engage in

in order to pretend it doesn't exist, so they can continue with the fantasy that they're being persecuted.

[guillaumeb]

98. It seems to me to demonstrate the focus of those who search for a reason to be

offended.

[Voltaire2]

102. That is because you are blind to

religious privilege in America.

[guillaumeb]

105. Is that the new song?

[uriel1972]

86. I do not have faith or a "Moral Consciense"

So I am not welcome?

[yallerdawg]

87. It's an interfaith group!

You would be most welcome!

You'd get even a bigger earful!

[Cuthbert Allgood]

89. So why didn't they just put a period after ALL?

[yallerdawg]

90. Why aren't they just an irreligious secular group?

Perplexing mysteries of our lives!

[Voltaire2]

93. Glad youve come around to agreeing

that the quote in the title excludes the non religious.

[guillaumeb]

112. The 11th Commandment, even being left off of the tablets,

is still much observed among a certain group.

[guillaumeb]

111. Are you familiar with the expression "grasping at straws"?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

142. If you care to comment on the grammar of the sentence in the OP

I would be happy to have that discussion with you. I have explained quite clearly how the wording makes the sentence unclear at best.

But, go ahead and just toss out one-liners rather than actually addressing the argument being made. That seems more your style.

[guillaumeb]

110. You do not have a consciousness about morality?

Really?

[uriel1972]

117. As far as I'm concerned morality does not exist...

It's all down to what feels right to you, it's an aesthetic choice.

[guillaumeb]

118. So there is no concept of morality?

Other than personal whim?

[uriel1972]

119. There is a "Concept" of morality...

However what we regard as "Moral" is simply personal preference.

[Voltaire2]

121. Not sure I agree with that.

Ethical concepts like “fairness” seem to exist in many species and seem to be pretty much universal within those species.

In humans there are basic ethical concepts that are so universal that violating them puts one outside society everywhere. If it were simply “personal preference” there would be more variation.

[guillaumeb]

123. But what constitutes "fairness" often varies.

[Voltaire2]

124. Not in lab experiments.

The tests are identical. The results are pretty impressive- most primates behave the same.

As I said elsewhere in human society we differ primarily on when it is permissible to violate the core universal standards. Those differences can indeed be huge and are clearly cultural.

[guillaumeb]

126. Self preservation and species preservation are universal.

[Voltaire2]

127. You arent paying attention.

I’ll try again. Many primates demonstrate a behavior that is clearly equivalent to the ethical concept of fairness. This is not a simple case of species or self preservation.

If you are still unclear about this I can google it for you.

[marylandblue]

129. Species preservation is non existent, except for humans and self preservation is not universal

[guillaumeb]

131. Herd behavior is an example of non-human species preservation.

[marylandblue]

132. No it's not.

[guillaumeb]

133. I understand your apparent need to defend your assertion, however:

Elephant and Buffalo move their young into the middle of the herd at any sign of danger and in so doing present a show of strength and predators will seldom attack animals when presented with such a show of strength. However Lions, and even Hyenas, have been known to mock charge herds in attempts at stampeding the individuals, and getting at the vulnerable young.

http://www.botswana.co.za/Botswana_Wildlife_Behaviour-travel/protection-of-young.html

No matter what purpose these species have, they share one very important social characteristic – they are herd animals! The herds may take on species-specific names, such as a “flock” for sheep or “clutch” for chicks. No matter what their herd is called, they are still a group of the same animals existing together as a cohesive unit. These groups may not be permanent because there is always transition into or out of the group. Animals die, new animals are born and other may be kicked-out, depending on the social structure, age and sex of the particular species.
One of the most important features of a herd is that individual members benefit from group living for many reasons

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/why_do_animals_do_what_they_do_part_2_a_herd_is_good

I could continue, but scientists are well aware of how herd behavior contributes to species protection.

[marylandblue]

147. You are confusing cooperative behavior with a nonexistent thing called "species preservation"

Animals in social groups do cooperate to protect the group, hunt for food, raise young etc. But they do so because such behavior generally increases the chances of survival for the individual or close relatives, thereby increasing the likelihood of passing on their genes to the next generation. The animals don't try to preserve "the species" if they are even aware of such a concept. Only humans think about "the species" in the abstract, and even then, it's simply an extension of our tribal behavior (which you always are quick to point out) except the tribe consists of all humans.

On edit: Constantly saying that you understand my need (or anyone else's need) to defend this or that statement is rude, condescending and frankly idiotic. No, you do not understand me. You do not know anything about me, my life, my experiences, my education except what I choose to reveal on this site. And I have never revealed any such information. But I will tell you this. I have more expertise on animal behavior than you can get from an internet search, so don't tell me what scientists know. There is no animal behavior called "species preservation." That's what scientists know, and you do not. Understand now?

[guillaumeb]

148. OK

[uriel1972]

145. We don't "Choose"...

what we feel is "Right" or "Wrong", it's inbuilt proclivities mediated by the environment (society, etc.).
The "Inbuilt Fairness" reinforces not negates my premise.
I don't have morals or a conscience, these are excess verbiage and lead to confusion.
I burn for justice in a way that's almost fanatical and have from as long as I can remember, despite the world's best efforts to dissuade me, yet others do not (Hello Mr. Trump, I'm looking at you). This suggests inbuilt varience.

And yes, I am a materialist. Being a materialist doesn't make me "Bad" or "selfish" any more than religion makes people "Good" or "benevelant".

[guillaumeb]

122. And societal preference?