So someone turning down a commitment ceramony that would make them uncomfortable due to their beliefs is essentially the same as killing a person????
I don't think you really understand my point. I'm not talking about hardcore conservative cristians here.
It all starts when you treat someone as less than someone else. Then you call them names. Next you decide that they can't live with you and have access to the same services. Then you limit their right to employment and the vote. Finally you end up with pogroms, lynchings, gay bashing etc. Its all cut from the same cloth.
I guess my question to you would be when has sexual orientation had anything to do with race or ethnicity?
No one said that it was however bigotry towards one group is bigotry no matter what the bigotry is based on.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Yes, if there were a law on the books that stated discrimination against members of the KKK was forbidden. But there isn't. Next!
That's easy......Klan Rallies are political in nature.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now show me one where Gays/Non Gays have a Right to a commitment cerimony.
[quote No one said that it was however bigotry towards one group is bigotry no matter what the bigotry is based on.[/quote]
That seems to some up your position on people who disagree with you on this topic. You use the word bigot to describe them. Sounds like bigotry to me.
Besides are all bigots on one side or the other?
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I'm sure you you can find bigots on both sides of this issue. Name callers and finger pointers do nothing to address an issue. In fact it only makes it more difficult for open minded, level headed people to make progress toward reaching a solution.
Not everyone who doesn't think like you is a bigot. Not everyone who thinks like you is not a bigot.
That's easy......Klan Rallies are political in nature.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now show me one where Gays/Non Gays have a Right to a commitment cerimony.
Next!
good Lord give me strength!
OK, it's clear you were never a member of your college debate team. What does our 1st Amendment rights have to do with the question you originally posted?
You suggested that the logic outlined in this thread would allow a black photographer to deny services to the KKK. I replied that if a law existed that specifically protected the KKK from discrimination the photographer would be wrong.
The 1st amendment has NOTHING to do with anti-discrimination. It forbids the government from preventing free speech.
There are no laws that I know of that guarantee gay couples the right to a commitment ceremony but again that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The law in the community in which this couple and the photographer live states, in part, "no service shall be denied based on sexual orientation"
and that's precisely what the photographers did.
If you want to be in business you have to follow the laws. If the photographers don't want to follow the law then they have can follow the example of some of their fellow bigots of the past who choose to close their restaurants rather than serve blacks.
The law is only one aspect of the issue. That is still being discussed in court in NM. Gay rights laws are ambiguous at best and non existant at worst. Go join the military and tell them you are gay. Let me know what the government law makers and enforcers tell you.
You can go to ten cities and be subject to ten sets of laws. Go to ten states......ten countries........go back ten years........go back ten centuries and you will see that laws are all over the spectrum. Look them over and tell me that there has never been a law that was wrong. Then I will look at this from strictly a legal stand point.
Until then I am looking at things from a human rights stand point.
OK, it's clear you were never a member of your college debate team. What does our 1st Amendment rights have to do with the question you originally posted?
You suggested that the logic outlined in this thread would allow a black photographer to deny services to the KKK. I replied that if a law existed that specifically protected the KKK from discrimination the photographer would be wrong.
The 1st amendment has NOTHING to do with anti-discrimination. It forbids the government from preventing free speech.
There are no laws that I know of that guarantee gay couples the right to a commitment ceremony but again that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The law in the community in which this couple and the photographer live states, in part, "no service shall be denied based on sexual orientation"
and that's precisely what the photographers did.
What is so difficult to understand here?
Reread my post. I suggested that a black photographer would not be allowed to deny services to the Ku Klux Klan.
Just saying if a professional photographer must photograph all legal activity that includes a Klan rally. Which is defined as a legal activity by the constitution.
No need for your personal attack on me about whether or not I was on my college debate team.
Is it...no service shall be denied based on sexual orientation or based on sex?
Until then I am looking at things from a human rights stand point.
Marty
Great if you are looking at it from a human rights aspect then you will understand that discrimination is wrong.
If you're looking at it from a legal view then the law in question says discrimination is wrong.
The photographers in NM were wrong from any viewpoint you want to use. Bigots usually are wong no matter what measuring tool you want to use.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
It all starts when you treat someone as less than someone else. Then you call them names. Next you decide that they can't live with you and have access to the same services. Then you limit their right to employment and the vote. Finally you end up with pogroms, lynchings, gay bashing etc. Its all cut from the same cloth.
No one said that it was however bigotry towards one group is bigotry no matter what the bigotry is based on.
Okay then, I give up....you clearly aren't even trying to understand what I am saying here.....all you are doing is throwing the "b" word around like it's a frisbee. I have a feeling that you are the type of person that does not like to debate with an open mind. You have been through and seen so much stuff that it's impossible for anyone to disagree with you.
I am not excusing bigotry here...I am merely arguing that people like my mother-in-law are not bigots because of their religion. As I stated before, she would have any person of any race or ethnic group or sexual orientation live in her own home if they needed a place to stay.....but she probably wouldn't go take pictures of two men or two women being intimate. I don't see the bigotry there.
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
Okay then, I give up....you clearly aren't even trying to understand what I am saying here.....all you are doing is throwing the "b" word around like it's a frisbee. I have a feeling that you are the type of person that does not like to debate with an open mind. You have been through and seen so much stuff that it's impossible for anyone to disagree with you.
I am not excusing bigotry here...I am merely arguing that people like my mother-in-law are not bigots because of their religion. As I stated before, she would have any person of any race or ethnic group or sexual orientation live in her own home if they needed a place to stay.....but she probably wouldn't go take pictures of two men or two women being intimate. I don't see the bigotry there.
I have said from the beginning that the two photographers in NM were bigots. I have said that my mother, father and grandmother were also bigots. It wasn't because they were inherently evil they were just raised with intolerance and could not overcome their earlier indocrination.
As for your mother-in-law I don't know the lady. I would be uncomfortable taking images of any couple being sexually intimate. I would not be uncomfortable taking an image of any two people showing love and affection for one another though. Now if your sainted mother-in-law decided to offer her photographic services tot he general public I would expect her to follow the locals of the state she lived in.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Reread my post. I suggested that a black photographer would not be allowed to deny services to the Ku Klux Klan.
Just saying if a professional photographer must photograph all legal activity that includes a Klan rally. Which is defined as a legal activity by the constitution.
No need for your personal attack on me about whether or not I was on my college debate team.
Is it...no service shall be denied based on sexual orientation or based on sex?
Marty
I'm sorry if my comparative illustration of a debate team strategy offended you but here again you prove your inability to exit a circuitous argument.
Using some of the same logic we see in this thread the Ku Klux Klan can sue a black photographer for refusing to photograph a Klan rally. Would the Klan have a legal advantage? Probably. Would it be right outside of being a legal issue? You tell me..........
Marty
You're talking about forcing a photographer to photograph legal activity. Where and when did that enter this equation? It did not, has not and will not. No one is forcing anyone to do anything in this matter.
Free speech is protected in our society (barely these days) but the Klan is not a protected class of citizens. If a klansman walked into my restaurant wearing his robe and hood you can rest assured I'd kick his ass out onto the street and deny him service. He would have no rights in that instance (except perhaps battery because I would beat him to a bloody pulp) but there are no laws protecting his singular status as a racist). But I digress.
Do you not understand the subtle yet significant difference between the terms; "you must provide a service" & "you may not deny a service"?
I am really reaching a boiling point at having this issue repeated infinitum in this thread... The photographers had every right and opportunity to reject the request through various means and with various excuses but they chose to make a religious or political point of it by saying they would not provide the service BECAUSE THE COUPLE ARE GAY!!!
In this moment, in that place, under the existing laws approved by the people of that community, that is unacceptable. Everyone can choose to argue this matter every which way to Tuesday but the facts of the case are simple and finite.
You're talking about forcing a photographer to photograph legal activity. Where and when did that enter this equation? It did not, has not and will not. No one is forcing anyone to do anything in this matter.
I don't know. Your qoute is the first I heard of anyone forcing anyone else into doing anything. I said a black photographer could be sued for refusing services to the KKK.
If a klansman walked into my restaurant wearing his robe and hood you can rest assured I'd kick his ass out onto the street and deny him service. He would have no rights in that instance (except perhaps battery because I would beat him to a bloody pulp) but there are no laws protecting his singular status as a racist). But I digress.
Wow, refusing service and threatening violence to someone with a different belief than yours? Sorry you have just lost all credibility with me.
Do you not understand the subtle yet significant difference between the terms; "you must provide a service" & "you may not deny a service"?
Yes I understand. Have I said something to indicate otherwise?
I am really reaching a boiling point at having this issue repeated infinitum in this thread... The photographers had every right and opportunity to reject the request through various means and with various excuses but they chose to make a religious or political point of it by saying they would not provide the service BECAUSE THE COUPLE ARE GAY!!!
So...it's ok for them to deny services and discriminate as long as they lie about their motives? That is wrong on so many levels.
In this moment, in that place, under the existing laws approved by the people of that community, that is unacceptable. Everyone can choose to argue this matter every which way to Tuesday but the facts of the case are simple and finite.
No, it has been appealed. The only thing simple and finite is a closed mind.
I have said from the beginning that the two photographers in NM were bigots. I have said that my mother, father and grandmother were also bigots. It wasn't because they were inherently evil they were just raised with intolerance and could not overcome their earlier indocrination.
As for your mother-in-law I don't know the lady. I would be uncomfortable taking images of any couple being sexually intimate. I would not be uncomfortable taking an image of any two people showing love and affection for one another though. Now if your sainted mother-in-law decided to offer her photographic services tot he general public I would expect her to follow the locals of the state she lived in.
I by no means called my mother-in-law a saint. I am merely using her as an example of someone that has religious beliefs that would make them uncomfortable in that sort of situation but would never use religion as a scapegoat for being a bigot. IF my mother-in-law were a photographer, and she received the email that the couple from NM received she would probably turn them down in a manner that would not solicit this sort of reaction; however, I do believe the couple worded the email in a manner that did solicit the response they got. They didn't email the photog asking for a price quote or asking if she was available on the day of their ceremony. They asked her specifically if she would be open to that sort of ceremony, she answered the question and she answered it honestly. Does that make her a bigot? Maybe, but you can't know that for sure and that is a pretty strong word to be tossing around like that....even if you apply it to members of your family.
Let me just also say, that by the bit I have gathered from your posts you are not a religious man.....I may be completely wrong and please forgive me if I am. But the fact that you threw in that little "sainted mother-in-law" seems a little condescending to me and if that is the case you might want to look in the mirror....Christians have suffered as a group and are subject to prejudice just like any other group.
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
I by no means called my mother-in-law a saint. I am merely using her as an example of someone that has religious beliefs that would make them uncomfortable in that sort of situation but would never use religion as a scapegoat for being a bigot. IF my mother-in-law were a photographer, and she received the email that the couple from NM received she would probably turn them down in a manner that would not solicit this sort of reaction; however, I do believe the couple worded the email in a manner that did solicit the response they got. They didn't email the photog asking for a price quote or asking if she was available on the day of their ceremony. They asked her specifically if she would be open to that sort of ceremony, she answered the question and she answered it honestly. Does that make her a bigot? Maybe, but you can't know that for sure and that is a pretty strong word to be tossing around like that....even if you apply it to members of your family.
Let me just also say, that by the bit I have gathered from your posts you are not a religious man.....I may be completely wrong and please forgive me if I am. But the fact that you threw in that little "sainted mother-in-law" seems a little condescending to me and if that is the case you might want to look in the mirror....Christians have suffered as a group and are subject to prejudice just like any other group.
I know that reading is hard but if you actually read the case you will learn that the gay couple requested pricing information.
For the last time I did not call your mother-in-law a bigot. Why you introduced her into this piece is beyond me. Your mother-in-law's comfort level around gays is totally meaningless to the discussion. Unless she is a professional photographer who is offering her services to the public she is totally irrelevant.
Also please don't play the suffering christian routine. The last time christians had a really hard time with prejudice was around the time of Nero. Most christians that I know don't use their faith as a pretext for intolerance. For an alleged christian to us their faith as a rationale for discrimination is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
Finally as for the issue of my religious convictions I can tell you that I love Jesus. I just don't like his frigging fan club.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Just saying if a professional photographer must photograph all legal activity that includes a Klan rally. Which is defined as a legal activity by the constitution.
Wow, refusing service and threatening violence to someone with a different belief than yours? Sorry you have just lost all credibility with me.
give me a break. now you want to defend racists who murder? or did you not hear of the little episode in Texas about 2 years ago where some good ole boy klansmen tied a black man to the back of a pick-up and dragged him across miles of backroads then hung his lifeless body from a tree?
No, it has been appealed. The only thing simple and finite is a closed mind.
An appeal does not change the facts nor the law. It is only that, an appeal. If the result of the appeal effects the outcome of this case or the future of the law as it stands then we have a different discussion.
And as for "a closed mind"... Really? You can't be leveling that charge against me who has consistently argued in favor or openess and acceptance. And before you try to throw my KKK comments back in my face let me finish by quoting Voltaire:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
and Kierkegaard:
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use"
I know that reading is hard but if you actually read the case you will learn that the gay couple requested pricing information.
For the last time I did not call your mother-in-law a bigot. Why you introduced her into this piece is beyond me. Your mother-in-law's comfort level around gays is totally meaningless to the discussion. Unless she is a professional photographer who is offering her services to the public she is totally irrelevant.
Also please don't play the suffering christian routine. The last time christians had a really hard time with prejudice was around the time of Nero. Most christians that I know don't use their faith as a pretext for intolerance. For an alleged christian to us their faith as a rationale for discrimination is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
Finally as for the issue of my religious convictions I can tell you that I love Jesus. I just don't like his frigging fan club.
I was unaware of reading being so hard......If you are going to be resorting to personal attacks; this will be my last response.
You are right, the couple did request pricing information, but they prefaced the request with "If you are open to helping us celebrate our day". Now why would they do that? Again, the photographer answered the question and she answered it honestly.
My mother-in-law was introduced to this discussion because there was mention of religion playing a part in the photographer’s decision not to shoot the ceremony and that incited a few less than pleasant responses against Christians. I don't like to see anyone be discriminated against, even if it's for their religion. I brought her up as a counter to the argument that anyone that would turn this job down, even if based on religious beliefs, is a bigot. I'm aware of the fact that you did not call her a bigot, but you suggested it indirectly.
You stated that for an alleged Christian to use faith as a rationale for discrimination is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and I completely agree. But to say you don't like his fan club is your way of generalizing all Christians into that group when the majority of them are not at fault for the things that make you dislike them. It's the same for homosexuals, a lot of people don't like the lifestyle and flamboyance of just a handful of homosexuals but the entire group suffers because of it. That's type casting and that is wrong IMHO.
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
Sorry i am previously booked for that date. End of story.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I was unaware of reading being so hard......If you are going to be resorting to personal attacks; this will be my last response.
You are right, the couple did request pricing information, but they prefaced the request with "If you are open to helping us celebrate our day". Now why would they do that? Again, the photographer answered the question and she answered it honestly.
My mother-in-law was introduced to this discussion because there was mention of religion playing a part in the photographer’s decision not to shoot the ceremony and that incited a few less than pleasant responses against Christians. I don't like to see anyone be discriminated against, even if it's for their religion. I brought her up as a counter to the argument that anyone that would turn this job down, even if based on religious beliefs, is a bigot. I'm aware of the fact that you did not call her a bigot, but you suggested it indirectly.
You stated that for an alleged Christian to use faith as a rationale for discrimination is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and I completely agree. But to say you don't like his fan club is your way of generalizing all Christians into that group when the majority of them are not at fault for the things that make you dislike them. It's the same for homosexuals, a lot of people don't like the lifestyle and flamboyance of just a handful of homosexuals but the entire group suffers because of it. That's type casting and that is wrong IMHO.
There has been no personal attack on you. Please find one sentence where you were "attacked". I have "attacked" your reasoning but I have not attacked you as an individual. If the above was your last response that would be fine and dandy.
Anyone who would turn down a job because of another person's race, sex, religious beliefs or lack of said beliefs, handicapping condition, or sexual preference is a bigot. If your mother-in-law ever does that I would say she is a bigot.
I am not going to get into a debate with you here on the pros and cons of religion. If you're interested about the other side's view of religion read some of the books by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on the matter.
I would say more but my time is short. There's only 5 months left before christmas and I have to attending the planning sessions for our annual "attack on christmas". :lol4
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
There has been no personal attack on you. Please find one sentence where you were "attacked".
I know that reading is hard but if you actually read the case you will learn that the gay couple requested pricing information.
I personally take that as an attack on my intelligence (suggesting that it is hard for me to read or to understand what I read). I have nothing against you personally, I think you are an amazing photographer and I'm sure you are a good guy, I even agree with a lot of your statements on here. I just think your tact is a little tasteless. Case in point:
I would say more but my time is short. There's only 5 months left before christmas and I have to attending the planning sessions for our annual "attack on christmas.
Which is funny, because if you did have an annual "attack on Christmas" it wouldn't bother me a bit. Obviously you were trying to poke at me with that statement. Unfortunately, I am not a Bible thumper. I don't attend church every Sunday, I don't discriminate against anyone and use my religion as the reason, and I probably have the same disdain that you have for SOME Christians, but like I said.....to lump all Christians into that same group is wrong, especially if you are belittling them.
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
I personally take that as an attack on my intelligence (suggesting that it is hard for me to read or to understand what I read). I have nothing against you personally, I think you are an amazing photographer and I'm sure you are a good guy, I even agree with a lot of your statements on here. I just think your tact is a little tasteless. Case in point:
I was saying that at worse you were too lazy to read the case before you made an incorrect statement about it.
Which is funny, because if you did have an annual "attack on Christmas" it wouldn't bother me a bit. Obviously you were trying to poke at me with that statement. Unfortunately, I am not a Bible thumper. I don't attend church every Sunday, I don't discriminate against anyone and use my religion as the reason, and I probably have the same disdain that you have for SOME Christians, but like I said.....to lump all Christians into that same group is wrong, especially if you are belittling them.
It was a joke. If I wanted to poke at ya I would have been a lot more direct. I don't belittle most christians I just don't believe in their superstitions. I do object to their efforts to make have their beliefs taught in schools in place of science, to their efforts to make their beliefs the law of the land, and most of all to their theft of our pagan holidays celebrating the winter solstice (most researchers I've read believe Jesus was born in March). I can't find any decent music on the radio down here from mid-November till year's end as all the stations do 24/7 of insipid christmas "music". While I'm on that topic what the hell is wrong with "happy holiday". Last year I had this crazed religionist standing in front of Publix banging on a tambourine and yelling "merry christmas" at everyone entering the store. When I replied "happy holiday" she damned near had a conniption and came close to hitting me with her tambourine.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I was saying that at worse you were too lazy to read the case before you made an incorrect statement about it.
I can understand that, but since I had already read the email before posting what I did, and I knew full well what I was talking about, I took it as an insult. If that's not what you meant by it then I apologize.
It was a joke. If I wanted to poke at ya I would have been a lot more direct. I don't belittle most christians I just don't believe in their superstitions. I do object to their efforts to make have their beliefs taught in schools in place of science, to their efforts to make their beliefs the law of the land, and most of all to their theft of our pagan holidays celebrating the winter solstice (most researchers I've read believe Jesus was born in March). I can't find any decent music on the radio down here from mid-November till year's end as all the stations do 24/7 of insipid christmas "music". While I'm on that topic what the hell is wrong with "happy holiday". Last year I had this crazed religionist standing in front of Publix banging on a tambourine and yelling "merry christmas" at everyone entering the store. When I replied "happy holiday" she damned near had a conniption and came close to hitting me with her tambourine.
You see, I agree with everything you have posted here. I also believe Christmas is a holiday made up by Christians to overshadow the celebration of Winter solstice by the pagan's. I actually know some Christians that won't celebrate Christmas because of it.....I don't think there is anything wrong with "happy holiday" but I also don't see anything wrong with Merry Christmas. I am a firm believer in separation of church and state and I don't think religion of any sort should be taught in public schools. If I want my children to learn about Jesus Christ I will take them to Sunday school or teach them myself......Like I said, I just think your tact is a bit harsh, maybe you don't mean to come across like you do, then again maybe you do. I think we should all be able to live together, respect each others life styles, religions, beliefs, personal tastes, etc,. Unfortunately, there are those extreme people in every walk of life that make that an impossible reality.
Shane
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
Like I said, I just think your tact is a bit harsh, maybe you don't mean to come across like you do, then again maybe you do.
I'm never tactful when I see bigotry, discrimination, etc. It's a societal evil that should be afforded no quarter.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Okay, seriously.....bigotry aside, I was referring to your tact when replying to me.
You should see me when I'm not being tactful. :rambo
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Ha! What A Thread...
Well, sure did get a reaction! Call it 'Bilious Green!'
Gotta join in. I tend to agree with both of you. Josie has a lot of salient points, but Harry: I sure like your style. (I'm not big on fan clubs either.)
Just one thing...
Seems to me Dawkins is just as much of a bigot. His arguments ARE framed as a theology. Difference is, he uses more popular language for his rants and tries to gloss over the fact that he's just a fervent as his opposition.
I do agree with many of his arguments, but that doesn't change my opinion of him as intolerant. And I'd argue he has just as much right to his views as anyone else. So it's not a matter of right vs wrong. It's simply a matter of style. How the picture is framed.
Not sure about the KKK thing, not being from those parts. But theoretically I'd say, just for argument sake, that (unless they are an officially outlawed group) refusing service to someone based upon an official uniform is pretty much the same as refusing someone due to the colour of their skin or the way the part their hair. Is it not?
You may not like it. But the law IS the law. So I guess, in a way, it comes down to whether or not your primary concern is your own personal bile or your respect for the law. Perhaps one should sometimes swallow one's pride in favor of the group?
And perhaps the guy who refused they gays should have offered his services while being up front about his prejudice? My guess is they would still have chosen a different photog.
Seems to me Dawkins is just as much of a bigot. His arguments ARE framed as a theology. Difference is, he uses more popular language for his rants and tries to gloss over the fact that he's just a fervent as his opposition.
I do agree with many of his arguments, but that doesn't change my opinion of him as intolerant. And I'd argue he has just as much right to his views as anyone else. So it's not a matter of right vs wrong. It's simply a matter of style. How the picture is framed.
Oh my, are we going to get into Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens vs. the faithful here? Wide angle, indeed, but since it's one of my favorite topics I guess I'm going to have to respond.
Theology is predicated on faith. It does not admit evidence, and in fact tells you that if you need evidence it is because you are lacking in faith. Science is based on measurable, testable, repeatable observations that lead to theories which give us predictive powers regarding natural phenomona. It's fine to pray that your flight doesn't crash, if you are so inclined, but deep down inside, I suspect even the most religious people would prefer to fly in an airplane designed by people who are masters of physics rather than one designed by true believers.
These are two world views, but that is all that they have in common. I suppose you are free to call this a matter of style, but IMO this trivializes a profound difference. Both science and theology profess to give us understanding about the world as it exists and its history. Science searches for proof, while theology rejects all testing as irrelevant. To me, science is more persuasive because it can point to its successes and progress. Religion, on the other hand, has a lot of explaining to do.
Oh my, are we going to get into Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens vs. the faithful here? ...
Semantically correct. But my point is not whether what we believe is 'right' or 'wrong.' It's the way we choose to represent what we believe and (more important) whether we are tolerant of what others choose to believe. The topic I was responding to was bigotry -- the tendency to be intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from your own -- so I was attempting to illustrate that it's still bigotry, whether or not our leanings are main stream.
BTW: in it's day, religion was just as 'true' as science is today. 'Proof' was in all natural phenomenon -- the wind howling, snow fall. It was the answer to the 'unexplained,' just a science is today. It's not a matter of right or wrong. After all, what's 'right' today may well be 'wrong' tomorrow.
Semantically correct. But my point is not whether what we believe is 'right' or 'wrong.' It's the way we choose to represent what we believe and (more important) whether we are tolerant of what others choose to believe. The topic I was responding to was bigotry -- the tendency to be intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from your own -- so I was attempting to illustrate that it's still bigotry, whether or not our leanings are main stream.
I fail to see how Dawkins is bigoted. Saying that someone has no evidence to support a claim is not being intolerant when they, you know, like, have no evidence. It is only stating the obvious.
BTW: in it's day, religion was just as 'true' as science is today. 'Proof' was in all natural phenomenon -- the wind howling, snow fall. It was the answer to the 'unexplained,' just a science is today. It's not a matter of right or wrong. After all, what's 'right' today may well be 'wrong' tomorrow.
In science, yes. New evidence causes old theories to be revised and discarded. Some religions have also evolved, largely because the overwhelming success of science has made their claims untenable to so many people that doctrine needed to be "reinterpreted" if the churches were to survive. Other religions have not evolved in the least, and may never do so because they are based on revealed truth, which by definition is not subject to change. None of this to me suggests that religion and science are really all the same. They are not. Not because one is right and the other is wrong, but because they have entirely different criteria for establishing truth.
BTW: in it's day, religion was just as 'true' as science is today. 'Proof' was in all natural phenomenon -- the wind howling, snow fall. It was the answer to the 'unexplained,' just a science is today. It's not a matter of right or wrong. After all, what's 'right' today may well be 'wrong' tomorrow.
I've been reading this thread for a while, but even while this is somewhat OT the scientist in me compels me to speak up here...
I don't know that religion was ever just as "true" as science. Even in early times, there were people looking for better explanations than just accepting that something happens. Religion based "proofs" were suggested to explain natural phenomenon, but that didn't/doesn't mean that Zeus produced lightening when he was mad.
Scientists don't necessarily go out to "prove" something, they work to find evidence to support or contridict a hypothesis. Some hypotheses are more strongly supported than others, but, overall in this day and age, there will probably be little of what we "know" about scientific ideas that will be completely "wrong" and thrown out. Yes, many scientific concepts are still somewhat hazy and we still have a lot to learn, but we build on what we know.
I'm basically saying bigotry is bigotry, whether or not the viewer feels the bigot has a 'truer' argument.
Thing is, many folks only consider something bigoted when they see it as an affront to their own beliefs. And that, to me, is bigotry in it's own right.
Even in early times, there were people looking for better explanations than just accepting that something happens. Religion based "proofs" were suggested to explain natural phenomenon, but that didn't/doesn't mean that Zeus produced lightening when he was mad Let's not forget.
And we have no proof for much of science either, including much of quantum physics and most of string theory. Yet they are excepted science, because they "were suggested to explain natural phenomenon."
Let's not forget that, at least in the Western world, both scientific practice and religious practice CAME FROM the church.
... None of this to me suggests that religion and science are really all the same....
Not trying to say they are the same (though in many ways I suggest they are). Just that there are those who wield "the gospel" of science in much the same manner others wield "the gospel" of religion. Dalkins, to me, preaches his science the same way many of his identified opponents preach religion. In this way, they appear very similar to me -- theologically intolerant.
I fail to see how Dawkins is bigoted. Saying that someone has no evidence to support a claim is not being intolerant when they, you know, like, have no evidence....
I provided a definition for 'bigot' earlier. With that in mind, I believe Dawkins goes much further by actually denigrating theories that do not jive with his. I tend to agree with many of his conclusions, but I try to keep in mind that many of them also remain unproven, according to standard scientific practice. The trend of proof is solidly moving in Dawkin's direction in the past few years, but that does not forgive his apparent intolerance toward those who question his conclusions.
Don't get me wrong. I like most of his science, but he still comes across to me a high-and-mighty and intolerant. Seems to me science has BECOME his religion because his rebuts to criticism read like theology.
Comments
It all starts when you treat someone as less than someone else. Then you call them names. Next you decide that they can't live with you and have access to the same services. Then you limit their right to employment and the vote. Finally you end up with pogroms, lynchings, gay bashing etc. Its all cut from the same cloth.
No one said that it was however bigotry towards one group is bigotry no matter what the bigotry is based on.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
That's easy......Klan Rallies are political in nature.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now show me one where Gays/Non Gays have a Right to a commitment cerimony.
Next!
That seems to some up your position on people who disagree with you on this topic. You use the word bigot to describe them. Sounds like bigotry to me.
Besides are all bigots on one side or the other?
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I'm sure you you can find bigots on both sides of this issue. Name callers and finger pointers do nothing to address an issue. In fact it only makes it more difficult for open minded, level headed people to make progress toward reaching a solution.
Not everyone who doesn't think like you is a bigot. Not everyone who thinks like you is not a bigot.
Marty
good Lord give me strength!
OK, it's clear you were never a member of your college debate team. What does our 1st Amendment rights have to do with the question you originally posted?
You suggested that the logic outlined in this thread would allow a black photographer to deny services to the KKK. I replied that if a law existed that specifically protected the KKK from discrimination the photographer would be wrong.
The 1st amendment has NOTHING to do with anti-discrimination. It forbids the government from preventing free speech.
There are no laws that I know of that guarantee gay couples the right to a commitment ceremony but again that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The law in the community in which this couple and the photographer live states, in part, "no service shall be denied based on sexual orientation"
and that's precisely what the photographers did.
What is so difficult to understand here?
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
The law is only one aspect of the issue. That is still being discussed in court in NM. Gay rights laws are ambiguous at best and non existant at worst. Go join the military and tell them you are gay. Let me know what the government law makers and enforcers tell you.
You can go to ten cities and be subject to ten sets of laws. Go to ten states......ten countries........go back ten years........go back ten centuries and you will see that laws are all over the spectrum. Look them over and tell me that there has never been a law that was wrong. Then I will look at this from strictly a legal stand point.
Until then I am looking at things from a human rights stand point.
Marty
Reread my post. I suggested that a black photographer would not be allowed to deny services to the Ku Klux Klan.
Just saying if a professional photographer must photograph all legal activity that includes a Klan rally. Which is defined as a legal activity by the constitution.
No need for your personal attack on me about whether or not I was on my college debate team.
Is it...no service shall be denied based on sexual orientation or based on sex?
Marty
Great if you are looking at it from a human rights aspect then you will understand that discrimination is wrong.
If you're looking at it from a legal view then the law in question says discrimination is wrong.
The photographers in NM were wrong from any viewpoint you want to use. Bigots usually are wong no matter what measuring tool you want to use.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Okay then, I give up....you clearly aren't even trying to understand what I am saying here.....all you are doing is throwing the "b" word around like it's a frisbee. I have a feeling that you are the type of person that does not like to debate with an open mind. You have been through and seen so much stuff that it's impossible for anyone to disagree with you.
I am not excusing bigotry here...I am merely arguing that people like my mother-in-law are not bigots because of their religion. As I stated before, she would have any person of any race or ethnic group or sexual orientation live in her own home if they needed a place to stay.....but she probably wouldn't go take pictures of two men or two women being intimate. I don't see the bigotry there.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
I have said from the beginning that the two photographers in NM were bigots. I have said that my mother, father and grandmother were also bigots. It wasn't because they were inherently evil they were just raised with intolerance and could not overcome their earlier indocrination.
As for your mother-in-law I don't know the lady. I would be uncomfortable taking images of any couple being sexually intimate. I would not be uncomfortable taking an image of any two people showing love and affection for one another though. Now if your sainted mother-in-law decided to offer her photographic services tot he general public I would expect her to follow the locals of the state she lived in.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Here's what you origianlly said:
You're talking about forcing a photographer to photograph legal activity. Where and when did that enter this equation? It did not, has not and will not. No one is forcing anyone to do anything in this matter.
Free speech is protected in our society (barely these days) but the Klan is not a protected class of citizens. If a klansman walked into my restaurant wearing his robe and hood you can rest assured I'd kick his ass out onto the street and deny him service. He would have no rights in that instance (except perhaps battery because I would beat him to a bloody pulp) but there are no laws protecting his singular status as a racist). But I digress.
Do you not understand the subtle yet significant difference between the terms; "you must provide a service" & "you may not deny a service"?
I am really reaching a boiling point at having this issue repeated infinitum in this thread... The photographers had every right and opportunity to reject the request through various means and with various excuses but they chose to make a religious or political point of it by saying they would not provide the service BECAUSE THE COUPLE ARE GAY!!!
In this moment, in that place, under the existing laws approved by the people of that community, that is unacceptable. Everyone can choose to argue this matter every which way to Tuesday but the facts of the case are simple and finite.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I don't know. Your qoute is the first I heard of anyone forcing anyone else into doing anything. I said a black photographer could be sued for refusing services to the KKK.
Wow, refusing service and threatening violence to someone with a different belief than yours? Sorry you have just lost all credibility with me.
Do you not understand the subtle yet significant difference between the terms; "you must provide a service" & "you may not deny a service"?
Yes I understand. Have I said something to indicate otherwise?
I am really reaching a boiling point at having this issue repeated infinitum in this thread... The photographers had every right and opportunity to reject the request through various means and with various excuses but they chose to make a religious or political point of it by saying they would not provide the service BECAUSE THE COUPLE ARE GAY!!!
So...it's ok for them to deny services and discriminate as long as they lie about their motives? That is wrong on so many levels.
In this moment, in that place, under the existing laws approved by the people of that community, that is unacceptable. Everyone can choose to argue this matter every which way to Tuesday but the facts of the case are simple and finite.
No, it has been appealed. The only thing simple and finite is a closed mind.
Marty
I by no means called my mother-in-law a saint. I am merely using her as an example of someone that has religious beliefs that would make them uncomfortable in that sort of situation but would never use religion as a scapegoat for being a bigot. IF my mother-in-law were a photographer, and she received the email that the couple from NM received she would probably turn them down in a manner that would not solicit this sort of reaction; however, I do believe the couple worded the email in a manner that did solicit the response they got. They didn't email the photog asking for a price quote or asking if she was available on the day of their ceremony. They asked her specifically if she would be open to that sort of ceremony, she answered the question and she answered it honestly. Does that make her a bigot? Maybe, but you can't know that for sure and that is a pretty strong word to be tossing around like that....even if you apply it to members of your family.
Let me just also say, that by the bit I have gathered from your posts you are not a religious man.....I may be completely wrong and please forgive me if I am. But the fact that you threw in that little "sainted mother-in-law" seems a little condescending to me and if that is the case you might want to look in the mirror....Christians have suffered as a group and are subject to prejudice just like any other group.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
I know that reading is hard but if you actually read the case you will learn that the gay couple requested pricing information.
For the last time I did not call your mother-in-law a bigot. Why you introduced her into this piece is beyond me. Your mother-in-law's comfort level around gays is totally meaningless to the discussion. Unless she is a professional photographer who is offering her services to the public she is totally irrelevant.
Also please don't play the suffering christian routine. The last time christians had a really hard time with prejudice was around the time of Nero. Most christians that I know don't use their faith as a pretext for intolerance. For an alleged christian to us their faith as a rationale for discrimination is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
Finally as for the issue of my religious convictions I can tell you that I love Jesus. I just don't like his frigging fan club.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
to me, "must" = "forced"
give me a break. now you want to defend racists who murder? or did you not hear of the little episode in Texas about 2 years ago where some good ole boy klansmen tied a black man to the back of a pick-up and dragged him across miles of backroads then hung his lifeless body from a tree?
Unfortunately Marty, yes! Just about everything.
No, not in my book but such is life. Better than to break the law and be drawn into a quaqmire.
An appeal does not change the facts nor the law. It is only that, an appeal. If the result of the appeal effects the outcome of this case or the future of the law as it stands then we have a different discussion.
And as for "a closed mind"... Really? You can't be leveling that charge against me who has consistently argued in favor or openess and acceptance. And before you try to throw my KKK comments back in my face let me finish by quoting Voltaire:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
and Kierkegaard:
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use"
.
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
I was unaware of reading being so hard......If you are going to be resorting to personal attacks; this will be my last response.
You are right, the couple did request pricing information, but they prefaced the request with "If you are open to helping us celebrate our day". Now why would they do that? Again, the photographer answered the question and she answered it honestly.
My mother-in-law was introduced to this discussion because there was mention of religion playing a part in the photographer’s decision not to shoot the ceremony and that incited a few less than pleasant responses against Christians. I don't like to see anyone be discriminated against, even if it's for their religion. I brought her up as a counter to the argument that anyone that would turn this job down, even if based on religious beliefs, is a bigot. I'm aware of the fact that you did not call her a bigot, but you suggested it indirectly.
You stated that for an alleged Christian to use faith as a rationale for discrimination is completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and I completely agree. But to say you don't like his fan club is your way of generalizing all Christians into that group when the majority of them are not at fault for the things that make you dislike them. It's the same for homosexuals, a lot of people don't like the lifestyle and flamboyance of just a handful of homosexuals but the entire group suffers because of it. That's type casting and that is wrong IMHO.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
Sorry i am previously booked for that date.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
There has been no personal attack on you. Please find one sentence where you were "attacked". I have "attacked" your reasoning but I have not attacked you as an individual. If the above was your last response that would be fine and dandy.
Anyone who would turn down a job because of another person's race, sex, religious beliefs or lack of said beliefs, handicapping condition, or sexual preference is a bigot. If your mother-in-law ever does that I would say she is a bigot.
I am not going to get into a debate with you here on the pros and cons of religion. If you're interested about the other side's view of religion read some of the books by Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins on the matter.
I would say more but my time is short. There's only 5 months left before christmas and I have to attending the planning sessions for our annual "attack on christmas". :lol4
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I personally take that as an attack on my intelligence (suggesting that it is hard for me to read or to understand what I read). I have nothing against you personally, I think you are an amazing photographer and I'm sure you are a good guy, I even agree with a lot of your statements on here. I just think your tact is a little tasteless. Case in point:
Which is funny, because if you did have an annual "attack on Christmas" it wouldn't bother me a bit. Obviously you were trying to poke at me with that statement. Unfortunately, I am not a Bible thumper. I don't attend church every Sunday, I don't discriminate against anyone and use my religion as the reason, and I probably have the same disdain that you have for SOME Christians, but like I said.....to lump all Christians into that same group is wrong, especially if you are belittling them.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
I was saying that at worse you were too lazy to read the case before you made an incorrect statement about it.
It was a joke. If I wanted to poke at ya I would have been a lot more direct. I don't belittle most christians I just don't believe in their superstitions. I do object to their efforts to make have their beliefs taught in schools in place of science, to their efforts to make their beliefs the law of the land, and most of all to their theft of our pagan holidays celebrating the winter solstice (most researchers I've read believe Jesus was born in March). I can't find any decent music on the radio down here from mid-November till year's end as all the stations do 24/7 of insipid christmas "music". While I'm on that topic what the hell is wrong with "happy holiday".
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I can understand that, but since I had already read the email before posting what I did, and I knew full well what I was talking about, I took it as an insult. If that's not what you meant by it then I apologize.
You see, I agree with everything you have posted here. I also believe Christmas is a holiday made up by Christians to overshadow the celebration of Winter solstice by the pagan's. I actually know some Christians that won't celebrate Christmas because of it.....I don't think there is anything wrong with "happy holiday" but I also don't see anything wrong with Merry Christmas. I am a firm believer in separation of church and state and I don't think religion of any sort should be taught in public schools. If I want my children to learn about Jesus Christ I will take them to Sunday school or teach them myself......Like I said, I just think your tact is a bit harsh, maybe you don't mean to come across like you do, then again maybe you do. I think we should all be able to live together, respect each others life styles, religions, beliefs, personal tastes, etc,. Unfortunately, there are those extreme people in every walk of life that make that an impossible reality.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
I'm never tactful when I see bigotry, discrimination, etc. It's a societal evil that should be afforded no quarter.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Okay, seriously.....bigotry aside, I was referring to your tact when replying to me.
"Set the Gear Shift for the High Gear of Your Soul"
You should see me when I'm not being tactful. :rambo
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Well, sure did get a reaction! Call it 'Bilious Green!'
Gotta join in. I tend to agree with both of you. Josie has a lot of salient points, but Harry: I sure like your style. (I'm not big on fan clubs either.)
Just one thing...
Seems to me Dawkins is just as much of a bigot. His arguments ARE framed as a theology. Difference is, he uses more popular language for his rants and tries to gloss over the fact that he's just a fervent as his opposition.
I do agree with many of his arguments, but that doesn't change my opinion of him as intolerant. And I'd argue he has just as much right to his views as anyone else. So it's not a matter of right vs wrong. It's simply a matter of style. How the picture is framed.
Not sure about the KKK thing, not being from those parts. But theoretically I'd say, just for argument sake, that (unless they are an officially outlawed group) refusing service to someone based upon an official uniform is pretty much the same as refusing someone due to the colour of their skin or the way the part their hair. Is it not?
You may not like it. But the law IS the law. So I guess, in a way, it comes down to whether or not your primary concern is your own personal bile or your respect for the law. Perhaps one should sometimes swallow one's pride in favor of the group?
And perhaps the guy who refused they gays should have offered his services while being up front about his prejudice? My guess is they would still have chosen a different photog.
Oh my, are we going to get into Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens vs. the faithful here? Wide angle, indeed, but since it's one of my favorite topics I guess I'm going to have to respond.
Theology is predicated on faith. It does not admit evidence, and in fact tells you that if you need evidence it is because you are lacking in faith. Science is based on measurable, testable, repeatable observations that lead to theories which give us predictive powers regarding natural phenomona. It's fine to pray that your flight doesn't crash, if you are so inclined, but deep down inside, I suspect even the most religious people would prefer to fly in an airplane designed by people who are masters of physics rather than one designed by true believers.
These are two world views, but that is all that they have in common. I suppose you are free to call this a matter of style, but IMO this trivializes a profound difference. Both science and theology profess to give us understanding about the world as it exists and its history. Science searches for proof, while theology rejects all testing as irrelevant. To me, science is more persuasive because it can point to its successes and progress. Religion, on the other hand, has a lot of explaining to do.
Semantically correct. But my point is not whether what we believe is 'right' or 'wrong.' It's the way we choose to represent what we believe and (more important) whether we are tolerant of what others choose to believe. The topic I was responding to was bigotry -- the tendency to be intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from your own -- so I was attempting to illustrate that it's still bigotry, whether or not our leanings are main stream.
BTW: in it's day, religion was just as 'true' as science is today. 'Proof' was in all natural phenomenon -- the wind howling, snow fall. It was the answer to the 'unexplained,' just a science is today. It's not a matter of right or wrong. After all, what's 'right' today may well be 'wrong' tomorrow.
In science, yes. New evidence causes old theories to be revised and discarded. Some religions have also evolved, largely because the overwhelming success of science has made their claims untenable to so many people that doctrine needed to be "reinterpreted" if the churches were to survive. Other religions have not evolved in the least, and may never do so because they are based on revealed truth, which by definition is not subject to change. None of this to me suggests that religion and science are really all the same. They are not. Not because one is right and the other is wrong, but because they have entirely different criteria for establishing truth.
I've been reading this thread for a while, but even while this is somewhat OT the scientist in me compels me to speak up here...
I don't know that religion was ever just as "true" as science. Even in early times, there were people looking for better explanations than just accepting that something happens. Religion based "proofs" were suggested to explain natural phenomenon, but that didn't/doesn't mean that Zeus produced lightening when he was mad.
Scientists don't necessarily go out to "prove" something, they work to find evidence to support or contridict a hypothesis. Some hypotheses are more strongly supported than others, but, overall in this day and age, there will probably be little of what we "know" about scientific ideas that will be completely "wrong" and thrown out. Yes, many scientific concepts are still somewhat hazy and we still have a lot to learn, but we build on what we know.
now back to the topic at hand
C.
***********************************
check out my (sports) pics: ColleenBonney.smugmug.com
*Thanks to Boolsacho for the avatar photo (from the dgrin portrait project)
Thing is, many folks only consider something bigoted when they see it as an affront to their own beliefs. And that, to me, is bigotry in it's own right.
And we have no proof for much of science either, including much of quantum physics and most of string theory. Yet they are excepted science, because they "were suggested to explain natural phenomenon."
Let's not forget that, at least in the Western world, both scientific practice and religious practice CAME FROM the church.
Not trying to say they are the same (though in many ways I suggest they are). Just that there are those who wield "the gospel" of science in much the same manner others wield "the gospel" of religion. Dalkins, to me, preaches his science the same way many of his identified opponents preach religion. In this way, they appear very similar to me -- theologically intolerant.
I provided a definition for 'bigot' earlier. With that in mind, I believe Dawkins goes much further by actually denigrating theories that do not jive with his. I tend to agree with many of his conclusions, but I try to keep in mind that many of them also remain unproven, according to standard scientific practice. The trend of proof is solidly moving in Dawkin's direction in the past few years, but that does not forgive his apparent intolerance toward those who question his conclusions.
Don't get me wrong. I like most of his science, but he still comes across to me a high-and-mighty and intolerant. Seems to me science has BECOME his religion because his rebuts to criticism read like theology.
Here here! But just what was that, topic anyway? Something about personal belief and professional practice?