This is what "anti-American" means - Page 5

Sure, unless it's climate science.


Here again I think you're using "Christian" with "Catholic" in many ways. I disagree that the "great majority" of Christians oppose birth control. As for "freedom of sexual identity," the problem here is that like the very Christians you are attacking, you are absolutely convinced you hold the moral high ground on the issue. The implication is that those who oppose gay marriage oppose the freedom of gays to be themselves. This is often not the case.


Is Islam's better? Judaism?


Nice.


Well done, again. Seriously though, you haven't shown he's ignoring mountains of science. What you have done is make some statements that were instantly disapproved. And the questions he's asking are important, as well as unanswered by science.

Now don't get me wrong...while I have many of the same questions, I do not reach the same conclusion Fellows does. I think there is clearly enough scientific evidence to support evolution. But I also think there are enough questions and "oddities" (for lack of a better term) to indicate that an intelligent designer was behind it. That's that conclusion I've drawn, though I realize others may differ. This issue I see is that you cannot accept someone drawing a different conclusion. He must be stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, brainwashed or lying to himself by "ignoring" evidence. That seems to be what you're saying...no strawman intended.

As I believe I've stated before, this does not surprise me. You and many others here have done the same on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. I've looked at the same data, and I've reached a different conclusion. But that's just not acceptable. Nor is that acceptable when we discuss something like alleviating poverty or delivering better healthcare. Anyone that differs from the liberal dogma of handing out money to those that make less as well as providing single-payer healthcare is denounced as poor-hating, greedy, stupid, ignorant, brainwashed and/or corrupt. It's unfathomable to you that there is another way.

Completely agreed. I used to call it Liberal Fascism. I like Liberal Fundamentalism better. And really, Fellows, they do this on almost every issue. Liberals are always smarter, more informed and more compassionate than conservatives. Liberals are never racist, even when they make obviously racist comments. Why? Because their hearts are in the right place, of course? Liberals sex lives have nothing to do with their office, even when they lie through their teeth. But conservatives? They're hypocrites! (It's a clever little trick they've played there...not having any morals means one is never accused of moral hypocrisy!). Liberals are never sexist, even though they assail women with whom they disagree politically---and not because they disagree with them on politics, but because they represent women who don't conform to the Liberal Fundie image. Liberals always support freedom of speech, unless it's someone that wants to say a prayer or wants to espouse conservative opinion--then the First Amendment prevents them from doing so, even though it was created for exactly the opposite purpose. The list goes on.

I can count on one hand the number of discussions I've had with liberals that are issue-centered. In the vast majority cases they begin to make ad-hominem arguments almost immediately. One exception is a good friend of mine...a committed Democrat. I disagree with her on most issues, but we have good discussions and understand each other's points. More importantly, there is no "gotcha" involved. We realize that supporting a particular candidate or person does not mean we agree with each of that person's (or group's) positions (examples: She is an NPR listener, but thinks the decision to fire Juan Williams was completely wrong. I am a Romney supporter, but I disagree with his position on a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman).