This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

lordfenriz's Profile

lordfenriz's Avatar Joined almost 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by lordfenriz

More Discussions by lordfenriz

Latest Comments by lordfenriz

Go to: Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

lordfenriz's Avatar Jump to comment 103 by lordfenriz


The American architects were believers in militias and government not having standing armies. It's ridiculous for us Americans to think that the so-called right to bare arms was about the weapons themselves...


Hmmm . . . many famous quotes, mainly from Thomas Jefferson, seem to contradict this. Are you saying that those quotes are fraudulent and not traceable back to primary sources?


. . . it was about being able to defend property and lives when our government had no ability to do it for us. If these same "architects" saw the state of our country today, it is my belief they would be against citizen ownership of fire-arms.


I'm no historian, but isn't it also true that the founding fathers lived during a period of government tyranny? Isn't it true as well that throughout the centuries prior to the American Revolution rulers controlled populations by preventing the "common people" from keeping arms? The history of Europe prior to the American revolution seems to suggest that the right to bear arms was meant to protect citizens from tyrants. I could be wrong though.

I'm just asking. I'm not committed to any particular position in this debate. It does, however, often times seem like anti-gun supporters use some of the same tactics arguing against the right to bear arms that some religious individuals use to undermine church/state separation: mainly clever sophistry involving "misinterpretations" of the constitution. For example, the argument that the establishment clause is meant to keep government out of religion, but not religion out of government. An absurdity to anyone who really thinks about it.

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:08:00 UTC | #199339

Go to: PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

lordfenriz's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by lordfenriz

Email sent:

President Bruininks,



I fully support Professor PZ Myers and his recent blog post that condemns the ridiculous antics of the Catholic League. Professor Myers' blog, Pharyngula, provides a refreshing drop of reason into the reeking and stagnant pool that is the American public square, which is overflowing with religious superstition. Professor Myers is an important voice. Religious fanatics, emboldened by our country's rights concerning freedom of conscience, seem to confuse respect for an individual's right to follow his/her conscience with respect for the ideas formed by his/her conscience. This common misconception shelters dangerous ideas from criticism and is the essence of the privacy and liberty fallacies discussed in Austin Dacey's great book, "The Secular Conscience." According to Dacey, "The result of these misconceptions about privacy and freedom is a culture unwilling or unable to sustain a real public conversation about religion, ethics, and values. What culture can survive without that conversation?"



Wolf S. von Pankow

Palo Alto, California

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:10:00 UTC | #197476

Go to: Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

lordfenriz's Avatar Jump to comment 136 by lordfenriz


We are going around in circles, So how am I dishonest if I knowingly interpret the bible because I genuinely believe that the Bible is meant to be understood in its proper context and that revelation is ongoing which speaks to our time?


Ah...progress. The question is: do most moderates really believe this, or is it just a convenient excuse? Even if it's correct that the bible is primarily metaphor, do moderates come to this conclusion due to study and reflection, or because they want to reduce cognitive dissonance? My bet is on the latter.

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:54:00 UTC | #141777

Go to: Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

lordfenriz's Avatar Jump to comment 88 by lordfenriz

Let me start by stating that all of you (Bonzai, Riley, SteveN, and Steve Zara) have made excellent points at times. I just want to add one little bit.


Why is it dishonest for a contemporary Christian to acknowledge that 16th Century theologians were wrong? This should be applauded.


Perhaps it is dishonest because these individuals should know better than to believe any of it. The fact that they use metaphor and interpretation isn't necessarily the dishonest part. It's why they use it. Although I have no data to support this and recognize it is purely anecdotal, it does seem that many liberal Christians, such as McGrath, want to have the best of both worlds. They value logic and evidence with respect to everything else in their lives, but give religion a free pass because they want it to be true. If a scholarly Christian wants to look for metaphor because he/she thinks that is the best approach as an academic and truth seeker, I don't see a problem with it. If, however, the same individual looks for metaphor to keep religion free from scrutiny, to continue the nauseating, tiresome, never ending act of moving the goal posts, then he/she is being intellectually dishonest.

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:50:00 UTC | #141716

Go to: Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

lordfenriz's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by lordfenriz


A private company has the right to rent to whoever they please, and refuse to rent to whomever they please. It is not a free-speach issue.


If a private company decides not to rent to an individual because he is black, does this argument still hold?

No, it doesn't. I don't know about the UK, but here in the US a company can't discriminate against another group based upon race, religion, etc.

In other words, companies can't, in fact, do whatever they want in every situation.

I'll cede the point, of course, if there is a US lawyer on the forum who knows differently.

This quote is from legalzoom.com:


Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:28:00 UTC | #138824

More Comments by lordfenriz