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

yanquetino's Profile

yanquetino's Avatar Joined over 5 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by yanquetino

Mormon Apostle's Recent Sermon on Homosexuality - last commented 23 November 2010 05:59 PM

More Discussions by yanquetino

Latest Comments by yanquetino

Go to: South Korea surrenders to creationist demands

yanquetino's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by yanquetino

Geeezus on a Cracker.

All aboard the handbasket! Next stop....

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:10:56 UTC | #945709

Go to: Robert Wright promotes accommodationism, disses Dawkins

yanquetino's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by yanquetino

Wright just doesn’t get it. Such “accommodation,” such a “touchy feely” approach to dealing with others’ beliefs is precisely why religion has persisted through the centuries to this very day. I side with Dawkins on this 100%. It is high time somebody called a spade a spade, and frankly speaking, when something is ridiculous it deserves ridicule. Will ardent believers be offended? Meh. Let them. It’s about time they learned to take on the same level as they give.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:02:00 UTC | #931258

Go to: Adopted or abducted?

yanquetino's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by yanquetino

This hits so close to home for me, but not with the Catholic Church: with the Mormon cult I escaped and its "LDS Social Services."

The shame, guilt, social pressure, condemnation projected on out-of-wedlock pregnancy by such religions is pernicious. I have both a daughter and a son gave up their firstborn children for adoption due to those very judgments. And, of course, I was kept in the dark because of my apostasy and atheism. I would have welcomed those grandchildren into this world, as family, in a heartbeat. But because they were conceived and born in "sin"... I, a "heathen," will probably never know them.

Saddest of all: as it is, I barely know my grandkids who were conceived after wedlock either. Just too "dangerous" for my daughters to risk exposing their children to my heresy on a regular basis.

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 03:15:23 UTC | #930874

Go to: UP w/ Chris Hayes

yanquetino's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by yanquetino

Comment 30 by bigandrewm :

None of us have a perfect grasp on reality, even though we strive to have one. To try to pick apart any particular politician's views whether or not they impact their policies is a waste of time, given that it's so easy to find beliefs that do influence their policies. Pick the battles that matter.

Otherwise - I agree completely.

Oh, I never said that any of us have a "perfect grasp on reality." Good luck with that! This is why we love to learn, gather new data, test hypotheses, expand our horizons, deepen our understanding, hopefully gain a firmer grasp on reality tomorrow than we do today.

I assume, from your comment, that you do not consider a senator believing there is a ghost haunting his basement a "battle that matters." Okay.

But I do. Believing in ghosts, spirits, souls, auras, an afterlife, human existence beyond and outside the body, in the 21st century, after all we have learned about the brain... sure sends up a red flag for me. I just couldn't trust such an individual to truly understand the real consequences of sending people to their deaths --and thus make such decisions accordingly.

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:07:06 UTC | #930677

Go to: UP w/ Chris Hayes

yanquetino's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by yanquetino

Comment 5 by bigandrewm :

Concerning the point about whether or not we should question politicians' religious views, I think that it depends on the politician. If a politician has private beliefs which do not enter the realm of campaigning or lawmaking, then I don't see the problem.

I do see a problem, because --as my psychologist spouse informs me-- for all practical intents and purposes it is impossible to separate "private" beliefs from public attitudes, prejudices, decisions, and behavior.

But if my Senator believes that his basement is haunted, but never makes that a campaign issue and never makes any laws dealing with their basement ghost, it isn't a problem and I don't care about it.

I care about it. It tells me that the senator does not have a firm grasp on reality, an ability to separate fact from fiction, a respect for hard evidence above and beyond supernatural superstition. For example, if he believes in the existence of ghosts, i.e., life after death, you can't tell me it will not have an affect upon his judgment if and when he needs to decide to send men and women in the military to die in war.

Of course, there are certain kinds of beliefs which are extremely difficult for politicians to separate from their public actions. Some religious beliefs are this way, and it should be fine to challenge politicians on beliefs like, for example, their views on euthanasia.

Bingo. And here are some others to consider:

If a person privately believes that black skin is a curse from god for being a "fence-sitter" in a war between Jesus and Lucifer in a pre-mortal existence, and that god has cursed Native Americans with a red skin for their ancestors' wickedness, sin, and idolatry, can I really assume that the person's views and votes on civil rights issues will be free of racial prejudice?

If a person privately deems homosexuality a sin, a choice, a perversion, condemned by god, can I trust that individual to labor to establish equal rights for gays and lesbians, including marriage?

If someone believes that god gave humans "dominion" over the entire earth, to do with as we please, and that the "second coming" in nigh, that Jesus will descend from heaven to cleanse the earth of sinners and rule over the remaining righteous believers for a thousand years in the near future, should I assume that view will not have an affect upon the person's decisions that affect the environment, global warming, even industrial pollution? It won't have any affect on efforts to move to cleaner, renewable sources of energy rather than deciding to "drill, baby, drill" until the fossil fuels are completely gone?

If someone believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that Adam and Eve were how humans came to exist, will it not taint his/her decisions about funding and support for science education in our public schools?

If a person privately believes he is a descendent of Mannaseh, and thus one of god's "chosen people of Israel," will it not affect his public views, influence, and decisions regarding conflicts in the Middle East?

If someone believes that a fertilized egg, an embryo, a fetus is a human being with a "soul," god's ultimate and most sacred creation, will it not affect the person's votes on issues such as stem cell research, contraception, abortion, women's rights to make their own choices about reproduction?

If a person believes that god is a patriarch, who rules over multiple wives, that likewise practicing said polygamy is an eternal requirement to be with him in the afterlife, and that only men can have priesthood power in this life to run administer god's church on earth, can I truly trust that person to fight for and defend absolutely equal rights for women in society via legislation and judicial decisions?

If a person believes in a god capable of intervening in our lives with miracles, whose intervention can be summoned by prayer and supplication, can I trust that person to make tough and difficult decisions to solve problems by relying soley upon human intellect, abilities, and efforts rather than leaving it "in god's hands"?

Sigh.... I could go on and on and on. (And have! You can see that Chris Hayes' hands-off deference to religion really irked me.) My point is that private beliefs cannot help but have public consequences. Like Dawkins and Jamila Bey, I want to know what makes a candidate "tick" before casting my vote. Including "ghosts" in the basement.

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:00:44 UTC | #930563

More Comments by yanquetino