Not clear on the concept

[kengr]

Ok, in the last two days a couple of Southern governors have demonstrated that they need to go back to law school. Or take some classes in logic.

First, we have the Governor of Texas responding to the US Supreme Court declaring Texas's latest anti-abortion law to be unconstitutional..

His comment was along the lines "so the court is making themselves the medical board for all of the US".

Sorry, but that's what your state legislators (and those of far too many other states) were trying to do by passing laws that don't really have a medical justification, but are just dodges to restrict abortions even more.

Next we have the governor of Mississippi ranting about a federal court overturning part of a law that would (among a bunch of other things) let county clerks recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

He claimed it was a violation of the first amendment and violated the religious freedom of Mississippians.

Sorry, but freedom to practice your religion does *not* include being able to impose *your* religious beliefs on other people.

Your religious beliefs don't allow gay marriage? then don't marry someone of the same sex. Don't believe in divorce? Don't get one. But neither means you are allowed to fail to do your job.

Comments

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

Yeah; if your religious beliefs don't let you fill out and/or sign marriage licenses for same sex couples, then GET A DIFFERENT JOB.

[xander-opal.livejournal.com]

The clerks already had the option to permanently recuse themselves. If their morals are against performing the duties of that job, they cannot morally continue working that job.

One cannot eat their cake and have it too.

Why do so many politicians and religious-minded folk willfully ignore studies on social and economic issues that lead to high rates of pregnancy, as well as basic biology?

[kengr]

Partly willful ignorance, partly "don't confuse me with facts, I've made up my mind"

Check this post for a horrible example of the ignorance...
https://t.co/XbLcmFChs8

And here's a glaring example of falling for scientific *sounding* BS from folks they trust:

http://www.rhjunior.com/the-probability-bomb-45/
http://www.rhjunior.com/the-probability-bomb-46/
http://www.rhjunior.com/the-probability-bomb-47/

RE: RHJunior

[alex-antonin.livejournal.com]

WTF did I just read?

Re: RHJunior

[kengr]

Oh, it's part of one of his webcomics. Alas, this particular one is based on the idea that life couldn't have evolved naturally, and some "crazy scientist" type is trying something disastrous to prove it can...

He actually writes some decent stuff when he doesn't lot his beliefs get in the way.

Re: RHJunior

[alex-antonin.livejournal.com]

Wait, so that whole nonsensical pseudo-scientific spiel about a young universe was the comic artist's actual beliefs??? o_O I thought for sure that character was intended to be a loony-bin and that all his nonsense was going to get knocked down, they just got interrupted. But you're telling me there's someone who actually believes that malarkey?

Re: RHJunior

[kengr]

There are lots of someone's who do. Mostly because all that stuff is carefully presented to *sound* right.

As an example that bit about the "halos" in rocks is based on a standard con technique. Shifting the subject without appearing to do so.

Rock *formations* may take millions of years to form. But individual hunks of rock, especially the kind that have those "halos" in them *solidify* over fairly short periods. The "halos are used to measure *how long* they've been solid.

Spiral arms in galaxies aren't fixed features.

Gas and oil deposits exist *because* they are trapped under layers of rock that they *can't* leak through.

And so on.

But all that stuff *sounds* like it's poking holes in BS that scientists are trying to "put over" to disprove the young earth/creationist "theories".

But if you know the *actual* science you know where the guys pushing *this* stuff pulled their "bait & switch" tricks.

Try reading that particular comic from the start. There are less than 50 strips so far so it won't take long. And you'll see what he's putting forth as "true". And I'm pretty sure from back when I bothered to argue with him about stuff in one of his other strips, that he's *not* trying to put over a bill of goods on the readers. He just believes what the snake oil salesmen pushing creationism and the like have told him.

Re: RHJunior

[xander-opal.livejournal.com]

The third comic page linked to looks like a visual representation of the Gish Gallop. There's good, scientific counter to each item brought up. By the time even one is explained in a conversation or debate, ten more erroneous pseudo-facts have been brought up.

It gets even better. There are museums and 'theme parks' paid for, or given massive tax breaks by state government, such as in Kentucky, that show things from a young-earth, literal-bible perspective, that further require employees to profess their christianity if they want to be employed.

In one of his books (A Brief History of Time or The Universe in a Nutshell), Dr. Stephen Hawking recounts meeting a pope who had declared that science must not investigate the formation of the universe earlier than a certain arbitrary point, to not thereby look too closely at what god did. Rather too late by the time the declaration was made, and so far, no proof of a cosmic being.

Re: RHJunior

[alex-antonin.livejournal.com]

At least, no evidence of the giant-human-in-the-sky variety. Maybe they saw the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead?

LOL, it would be funny if someone non-Christian tried to get hired at one of those young-earth museums, sued the place for employment discrimination, and it went all the way up to the SCOTUS.