Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[ksen]

And that point seems to be right where they're at. They want this business to not make money and cost however many hundreds of jobs because of their beliefs. That's a point at which their swinging fist has hit someone else's face.

I have no problem respecting someone else's right to have a belief, no matter how stupid that belief may be. When they want other people to alter their actions in order to confirm to their religion, however, they have crossed a line into unacceptability.

I really don't see much of a difference between their position and "We don't want you opening an LGBT bookstore on this street because our community finds your lifestyle to be an abomination" or "A lot of Muslims come to this mall, so take your bikini store elsewhere because your whorish outfits offend our sense of modesty". They're telling other people to stop doing business because that business conflicts with their religious dogma. I am against that sort of practice.

Do you see this tribe doing something different from that and why?

Heaven forbid we tell some people to stop doing some business.

 

[ksen]

When I read the title of the thread, I thought Derec was now mad a Vishnu.

Oh, don't worry. He's probably mad at them too for . . . something.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

When I read the title of the thread, I thought Derec was now mad a Vishnu.

Oh, don't worry. He's probably mad at them too for . . . something.

I am still not sure who is mad at as he hasn't provided any real proof of his assertion in the OP. Or perhaps he did and I missed it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey, thanks for the link. I was basing my responses on a trust of the accuracy of the OP account (I don't click YouTube videos). That was my mistake. The prophecy as a metaphor for the actual effects of the pipeline isn't any kind of problem.

Never mind.

1) How do you know it's just a "metaphor"? It certainly doesn't sound like that to me, especially in light with other nonsense stuff Indians are spouting (sacred mountains etc.) to oppose development they don't like. Do you think their "Sacred Stones Spirit Camp" is also metaphorical?
2) What do you and other pipeline-haters propose to get oil from Bakken to the market? Teleportation?
Obama and Hillary really disappointed with their opposition to Keystone XL by the way.

1) I read what he said. He was pretty straightforward.

2). Who cares? He probably doesn't.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What do you and other pipeline-haters propose to get oil from Bakken to the market?

I can't figure out whether the feces flinging or the assumptions are worse in this sentence.

 

[funinspace]

See for example Thom Hartmann talk about Lakota opposition to the North Dakota pipeline. The reason they are against it? Some ridiculous doomsday "prophecy" of a "black snake" that they identify with the pipeline.
<video>
The kicker? Thom is talking about this silly "prophecy" with reverence and a straight face that he would not have if he was talking about Harold Camping for example. Why the double standard?

Maybe you are just looking for stuff so bad that you find it even when it really isn't even there. With that said, of course there are flakes everywhere, but so what. I read thru 4 recent articles about Lakota opposition and protests regarding the pipeline, and not once was a religious nonsense argument made by the native Americans. They had their reasons, rational or not, but it wasn't because of doomsday...

I tell you what, when native Americans start having the power and desire to impose their religious dogma upon the rest of society in our country, then you will see lots more ridicule of their faith. I don't generally see much ridicule of Sikhism either, seems so strange....

 

[Derec]

I can't figure out whether the feces flinging or the assumptions are worse in this sentence.

How about you answer the questions. If pipelines are so bad (and ecomentalists and Indians oppose all pipelines), what alternative do you propose? Trains? Trucks? Magic?

 

[Derec]

I tell you what, when native Americans start having the power and desire to impose their religious dogma upon the rest of society in our country, then you will see lots more ridicule of their faith. I don't generally see much ridicule of Sikhism either, seems so strange....

They are doing that. They tried to stop Mt. Graham observatory because of their (supposed) religious beliefs in the 1990s (they did manage to convince Bill Clinton to nix federal funds for the project to his great shame). The 'Indians' in Hawaii are still trying to block the Thirty Meter Telescope because of their religion. And in the case of the pipelines, they are imposing their religion on me by making my gasoline more expensive in the long run.

And Sikhs are the ones who want to carry daggers everywhere. They do not deserve special reverence or special treatment either.

 

[Derec]

1) I read what he said. He was pretty straightforward.

It looks to me identical to fundy Christians who believe that the prophecies in Revelation match modern realities and events.

2). Who cares? He probably doesn't.

I care, and so should anybody who uses oil products (i.e. everybody, including the hypocritical Indians and ecomentalists).

 

[funinspace]

I tell you what, when native Americans start having the power and desire to impose their religious dogma upon the rest of society in our country, then you will see lots more ridicule of their faith. I don't generally see much ridicule of Sikhism either, seems so strange....

They are doing that. They tried to stop Mt. Graham observatory because of their (supposed) religious beliefs in the 1990s (they did manage to convince Bill Clinton to nix federal funds for the project to his great shame). The 'Indians' in Hawaii are still trying to block the Thirty Meter Telescope because of their religion.

LOL...you are funny at times. Do you think Christians would protest if sacred religious sites were going to be defaced in the name of science or modern society, would not protest?

And in the case of the pipelines, they are imposing their religion on me by making my gasoline more expensive in the long run.

Again, a few nuts does not make even a minority. Again, I didn't even see anything about religious fantasy being part of the Lakota opposition.

And Sikhs are the ones who want to carry daggers everywhere. They do not deserve special reverence or special treatment either.

Wow Derec, you have listed 3 item where native Americans or Sikhs are fighting for special treatment.

Think about it: THREE ITEMS

Care to list the number of items from a quick search on Christian or Muslim demands of special treatment, or even more significantly trying to force their morality on everyone else?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It looks to me identical to fundy Christians who believe that the prophecies in Revelation match modern realities and events.

No it's not. It's more like somebody talking about how Prometheus once stole fire from the gods and gave it to man and now my company is doing the same thing with our new solar power array. When he says that, would you believe that the gist of his argument is that he's really worried about an eagle ripping his liver out and eating it every day for the next thousand years because a sky god is pissed off at him for building it? Or would you say that he's using an old story to flesh out the speech he's giving about the solar power array and not professing a belief in the validity of Greek mythology.

Now, what is it that you feel the Lakota have said which doesn't suggest that, but instead suggests an actual belief that this pipeline is the fulfillment of their apocalyptic prophecy? I'm talking quotes from them, not other people's interpretations of what they've said.

 

[KeepTalking]

Different pipeline, same idiocy.

My apologies, like many I avoid arguments made via YouTube, and the pipeline name was not specified prior to my involvement in this thread, so I assumed this was Keystone XL related. On the other hand, this pipeline does seem to be taking much the same route as the proposed KXL pipeline (at least this portion of it).

Oil has to be moved from the fields to the refineries.

Now that I know more about this pipeline, I would disagree. This is oil from fracking. I would just as soon have that shit stay in the ground.

Pipelines are the best method we have to move large quantities of oil overland. Both when it comes to cost as well as safety.
So why this categorical opposition to all pipelines?

I don't have a categorical opposition to all pipelines, but I do have a categorical opposition to fracking. So, while I did not necessarily have a problem with this pipeline initially, now that I know more about it, I do. Thank you for educating me.

 

[funinspace]

Major US political Party VP candidate, and former Governor, Mike Pence speaking about condoms:
From: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progre...ls-were-written-and-the-oldest-copies-we-have

The other part is that, frankly, condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted diseases, and in that sense, Wolf, this was — the secretary of state may be inadvertently misleading millions of young people and endangering lives.
<snip>
The problem is it was too modern of an answer, Wolf. It was — it truly was a modern, liberal answer to a problem that parents like me are facing all over America, and frankly, all over the world.

Yeah, I’ll take a few native American protesters over that….

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have no problem respecting someone else's right to have a belief, no matter how stupid that belief may be. When they want other people to alter their actions in order to confirm to their religion, however, they have crossed a line into unacceptability.

Y'know what? I'll come out and say it. I still won't respect a nutty belief even if it is harming nobody. Why should I? Truth and science have inherent value and there is merit in calling out baseless nonsense just for the sake of it itself.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, that's still not a good reason to give credence to weird religious ideas. There are enough good reasons to oppose bad ideas that we don't need to pretend that bad reasons are valuable contributions.

If you want to oppose a real estate development because it will destroy an endangered species' mating ground, then that's a good reason to be against it. If you want to oppose that development because it will destroy some Wendigo's mating ground then it's a bad reason to be against it. (Wendigos, as you know, are perfectly capable of renting hotel rooms). You don't need to throw the chaff in with the wheat simply because the people who like chaff add some numbers to your side.

It's the same with oil pipelines. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose them. You don't need to undercut legitimate arguments by lumping them in with this dumb black snake crap just because the people behind it want to end up in the same place as you.

So I just watched the video and I'm missing the part where the doomsday prophecy was the reason that they were against the pipeline. The reasons I recall were (1) aquifer contamination, (2) climate change from burning fossil fuels, and (3) damage to historical cultural sites. The imagery about the black snake seemed to be for effect. Surely we don't all think Oppenheimer really believed himself to be a Hindu god?

I don't care to watch the video (and I am at work so can't really) but this is usually the case in situations like this. People come up with all sorts of nutty reasons to object to things when the real reason is actually NIMBY reasoning over property values etc.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Which is bullshit of the highest order. Either they should be sovereign, and be responsible for themselves as all sovereign countries are or they should be treated as Americans, "no more, no less". Under current configuration they get to double dip and claim America when it suits them and sovereignty when that suits them.

Bring it up with colonials and the Supreme Court. Liberals have nothing to do with this.

The rules ARE different for them because they are supposed to be.

Liberals are supposed to advocate same rules applying to everybody equally. To abandon that principle because it favors a group you like and support is no better than Jim Crow. Treating certain ethnic groups better than others does not become righteous if that group is on top of the progressive stack.

Once again, bring it up with the colonials and the Supreme Court. One set up this system, the other enforces the treaties.

So unless you are talking about breaking YET ANOTHER TREATY with them, you can drop all of the boo-hooing about casinos, reservations, etc.

I think all these treaties should be null and void. Either they become part of America same as everybody else or they can seek independence. This double-dipping is bullshit.
And with the exception of wildly wealthy casino Indians, most Indians are not doing too well under this policy of preferential treatment that has been going for the last 50 years or so. Perhaps it is time to rethink that.

What you think doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has ruled again and again on these matters.

 

[funinspace]

Well, that's still not a good reason to give credence to weird religious ideas. There are enough good reasons to oppose bad ideas that we don't need to pretend that bad reasons are valuable contributions.

If you want to oppose a real estate development because it will destroy an endangered species' mating ground, then that's a good reason to be against it. If you want to oppose that development because it will destroy some Wendigo's mating ground then it's a bad reason to be against it. (Wendigos, as you know, are perfectly capable of renting hotel rooms). You don't need to throw the chaff in with the wheat simply because the people who like chaff add some numbers to your side.

It's the same with oil pipelines. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to oppose them. You don't need to undercut legitimate arguments by lumping them in with this dumb black snake crap just because the people behind it want to end up in the same place as you.

So I just watched the video and I'm missing the part where the doomsday prophecy was the reason that they were against the pipeline. The reasons I recall were (1) aquifer contamination, (2) climate change from burning fossil fuels, and (3) damage to historical cultural sites. The imagery about the black snake seemed to be for effect. Surely we don't all think Oppenheimer really believed himself to be a Hindu god?

Oh for fucks sake....I didn't bother to watch the video, as I figured there could easily be a few loose native American nuts. So we are simply within the feverish dreamy mind of Derec....sigh....

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think all these treaties should be null and void. Either they become part of America same as everybody else or they can seek independence. This double-dipping is bullshit.

Interesting idea. And you would support their bid for independence, including sovereign land that American citizens need a passport to enter, if they want to let you in at all, etc? You'd be cool with them forming their own militaries, etc? That wouldn't be a problem for you? How much of their traditional lands would you give back to them? Would you close down euro cities to do it?

 

[funinspace]

I don't care that you would like treaties void...

So unless you are talking about breaking YET ANOTHER TREATY with them, you can drop all of the boo-hooing about casinos, reservations, etc.

I think all these treaties should be null and void. Either they become part of America same as everybody else or they can seek independence. This double-dipping is bullshit.
And with the exception of wildly wealthy casino Indians, most Indians are not doing too well under this policy of preferential treatment that has been going for the last 50 years or so. Perhaps it is time to rethink that.

What you think doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has ruled again and again on these matters.

Native Americans are fully part of America. Additionally, native American reservations are similar to a state within the federal govt, which is largely why states can't tell them that they can't have gambling. And most state have at least one form of gambling, so it isn't about "gambling", it is about regulation of gambling. So reservations, as a quasi-state get to regulate gambling as they see fit.

Derec, show me a state that doesn't have a lottery, general gambling, or dog/horse race gambling? Then, I'd say a state might have an argument against a reservation in their state having casinos.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So unless you are talking about breaking YET ANOTHER TREATY with them, you can drop all of the boo-hooing about casinos, reservations, etc.

I think all these treaties should be null and void. Either they become part of America same as everybody else or they can seek independence. This double-dipping is bullshit.
And with the exception of wildly wealthy casino Indians, most Indians are not doing too well under this policy of preferential treatment that has been going for the last 50 years or so. Perhaps it is time to rethink that.

What you think doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has ruled again and again on these matters.

Native Americans are fully part of America. Additionally, native American reservations are similar to a state within the federal govt, which is largely why states can't tell them that they can't have gambling. And most state have at least one form of gambling, so it isn't about "gambling", it is about regulation of gambling. So reservations, as a quasi-state get to regulate gambling as they see fit.

Derec, show me a state that doesn't have a lottery, general gambling, or dog/horse race gambling? Then, I'd say a state might have an argument against a reservation in their state having casinos.

And then now we are getting into the realm of native politics. There's big money involved in a lot of state legislatures.