<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
<channel>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:46:10 MST</lastBuildDate>
<title>Comments re NMMNG post</title>
<link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<generator>BlogDammit!</generator>
<copyright>Copyright 2003-2008 No More Mr. Nice Guy!</copyright>

<description>Recent comments in this blog</description><item><title>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4884cb59#998</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4884cb59#998</guid><dc:creator>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Hi IGH, good to see you again! I'm with you - it's crazy that Christians call an atheist world view "bleak" while believing that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do will be thrown into the lake of fire to scream forever in infinite agony. It doesn't get any bleaker than that!]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:41:20 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Rose (aka Intergalactic Hussy)</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4884cb59#997</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4884cb59#997</guid><dc:creator>Rose (aka Intergalactic Hussy)</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[I also think its sad that anyone in politics has to pander to religious leaders. 

What's so difficult for people to understand about purpose? Yes, we all have OUR own purpose, but not "the" as you said it.

I'm confused sometimes why theists think atheism is so bleak. It's lovely to take in the Earth's wonderful creations and really be a part of something bigger: Evolution. Being trapped in religion's cycle; now that's bleak!]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:58:39 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#996</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#996</guid><dc:creator>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[He was talking about the death threats against the student, rather than the church officials grabbing him and trying to prevent him from leaving the chapel. It seems to me the proper response would have been to tell the guy his actions were offensive and he should leave and not come back.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:24:25 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>db0</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#995</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#995</guid><dc:creator>db0</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[And two sentences below he said:

<blockquote>These types of actions in insanely disproportionate to the crime that was committed.

In fact, it borders on criminal insanity.</blockquote>

He has also written about this more times on his blog to clarify his position. His <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/07/theft-autonomy-and-keeping-peace.html">latest post might interest you</a>]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:36:12 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#994</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#994</guid><dc:creator>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[I don't see where Mr. Fyfe rejects the force. He writes: "The student, in this case, claimed that the use of force was wrong. The student, in this case, was mistaken. If I noticed somebody had entered my home and was leaving with my property, I would be within my rights to use violence in order to prevent the theft. Some people would argue that I would be within my rights to shoot the thief. I would not go that far. However, grabbing the thief as he left my property and demanding by force or threat of force that he leave the stolen property behind would be within my rights – I would not be expected to be condemned for it." I believe I have fairly characterized his position.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:04:31 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Mike Haubrich, FCD</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#993</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#993</guid><dc:creator>Mike Haubrich, FCD</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Thanks for linking this to my post on Hector Avalos' <em>fighting words</em>.  As an aside, he will be a guest on tomorrow's <a href="http://mnatheists.org/content/blogsection/4/32/">"Atheists Talk"</a> radio show. ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:50:10 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>db0</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#992</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/488112c8#992</guid><dc:creator>db0</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[I just wanted to mention that Alonzo did not condone the force of the reaction, indeed he explicitly rejected it. He was only explaining that the act of walking out with the cracker WAS morally wrong but it was also negligible.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:29:16 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Mike Haubrich, FCD</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/485ea7db#991</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/485ea7db#991</guid><dc:creator>Mike Haubrich, FCD</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[I never got tagged by this one, either!

But you make a very good point on your answer to #10.  I didn't "turn" atheist, myself. It was something I recognized, denied and then finally admitted to myself before "coming out."  No one turned me, I had to turn myself through critical self-examination.  I think that the best service we can offer is to support people who are questioning their faith and offer resources for them to examine what they believe.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:38:47 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4858905b#990</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4858905b#990</guid><dc:creator>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[To be absolutely clear, I am not calling for "separate but equal" anything. I'm saying civil unions should be available to gay and straight couples without discrimination.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:02:27 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Mike Haubrich, FCD</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4858905b#989</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4858905b#989</guid><dc:creator>Mike Haubrich, FCD</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[The Civil Union is an important legal right, and should easily be granted on the basis of anti-discrimination laws.  The issue <em>is</em> the word "Marriage."  Defense of Marriage Acts which prevent gays from using the word marriage are discriminatory, and very un-American and I don't think that what you propose is a valid or workable compromise.

No church can be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that disagree with their religion.  Catholic Churches can't be forced to perform marriages if one of the party's is divorced (without annulment) and likewise another church, or the Justice of the Peace, or an atheist celebrant shouldn't be prevented from performing a ceremony consistent with that group's ideology, nor prevent them from calling it a wedding.  And if the JOP can call a heterosexual civil union a marriage, then they can't deny a gay couple the same designation.

There is more to it than the legal aspects of property, shared responsibility and medical visitation rights.  There is happiness and love, and while the law has yet to catch up on this concept, it is crucial.

If we allow such a compromise now, then it is a capitulation to discrimination.  It really is time to have a full-blown battle (metaphor, not advocating violence) over the issue.  Sometimes have steps are fine, but as in the case of racial education, "Seperate but equal" is a skank.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:54:59 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Anne</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/485c38cf#988</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/485c38cf#988</guid><dc:creator>Anne</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[And he's only half as smart as Agent 86!]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:45:09 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>JollyRoger</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/485c38cf#987</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/485c38cf#987</guid><dc:creator>JollyRoger</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Agent 43 can't wipe his own ass, or eat a pretzel. He has HIS OWN exit strategy, however. It's called Paraguay.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:35:44 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Greymalkin</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4858905b#986</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/4858905b#986</guid><dc:creator>Greymalkin</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Unrestricted marriage has been around for quite a few years now in my country and no, Dutch civilization has not collapsed yet. The Netherlands has also not been swallowed by a large wave, flooding us for our sinfulness, even though most of the country is below sea level.

I use the term unrestricted marriage because most countries restrict marriage to heterosexual partners. In my honest opinion, there is not, nor should be something like a 'gay marriage'. Marriage should give everyone the same rights and benefits.

So conservatives need to shut up and allow everyone to marry. If marriage is so sacred, divorce should be illegal - how immoral is it to break off something as sacred as a marriage?

Anyway, any two consenting adults should be able to get married. Join us in the 21st century America. It's fun over here. You've not truly lived until you've seen two brides say "I do" to each other (or two grooms).]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:06:55 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>trog69</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/48533ced#985</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/48533ced#985</guid><dc:creator>trog69</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[As a Tucsonan, all it took was seeing Johnson's name in that article to set my teeth on edge. As an atheist, she is my idea of satan!]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:26:13 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/484779ae#984</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/484779ae#984</guid><dc:creator>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Interesting story, thanks for pointing it out. Here's a <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLPqTxd4Fe7e5EymHU-kTUgweRDQD914763G0">link</a>. What a contrast with McCain's lobbyist revolving door express!]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:21:51 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>The Vicar</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/484779ae#983</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/484779ae#983</guid><dc:creator>The Vicar</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Just to give us cynics who disapproved of his pandering to AIPAC whiplash, today Obama and Dean announced that the DNC is adopting the Obama campaign's policy of not accepting PAC money. It's not getting much play in the media, but this is an incredible move -- and it shows that Obama truly IS different from Clinton in ways which matter. Clinton accepted more oil and big pharma money than even the Republican candidates did.

Which brings us to a question: suppose, as the Clinton supporters constantly claim, that Obama is secretly just as slimy as Clinton. (They don't put it that way, but it's what they mean.) Does it matter, if he acts like a decent person long enough to force through a bunch of reforms?]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:30:26 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>The Vicar</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/48465064#982</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/48465064#982</guid><dc:creator>The Vicar</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[I had been feeling good about Obama, and I spent last night being indignant about Clinton.

And then today Obama gave a speech to AIPAC in which he called Iran evil and promised continued unquestioning support. Why did we support him against Clinton, again?]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:48:24 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>Eric</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/482a58b3#981</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/482a58b3#981</guid><dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.nmmng.co.uk/Images/smileys/puke.gif" border=0 alt="puke" title="puke" width="15" height="18" />

I wish <img src="http://www.nmmng.co.uk/Images/smileys/bush.gif" border=0 alt="bush" title="bush" width="22" height="29" /> would go back to eating pretzels.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2008 05:31:21 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/48211296#980</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/48211296#980</guid><dc:creator>No More Mr. Nice Guy!</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Fixed. Thanks for stopping by! It wouldn't be correct to say I "enjoyed" the book, but I found it fascinating and informative, though horrifying.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:24:47 +0100</pubDate></item><item><title>David Cay Johnston</title><link>http://www.nmmng.co.uk/48211296#979</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.nmmng.co.uk/48211296#979</guid><dc:creator>David Cay Johnston</dc:creator><content:encoded><![CDATA[Thanks for the commentary. FYI, there is a "t" in my last name.]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 14:38:27 +0100</pubDate></item></channel>
</rss>
