By the way, I can't stand him. He's a charlatan with the best of them.

I am curious though that so many religious movements were begun during the burnt-out period during the 19th century in New York: Seventh Day Adventism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witness, LDS and several other movements which would take pages and pages to enumerate.

Which of them have the monopoly of truth?

Why do you hate him? How is he a charlatan?

Parsing words a bit, but no one organization or person can have sole possession of the truth. Truth by nature is available for everyone to posses. This is one of the reasons that Mormonism's, One True Church idea makes no sense.

As for Bill Maher, how specifically is he a fraud? He seems to me to be unapologetically forward with his opinion. I cannot fathom how he is trying to deceive me. He might be wrong but he isn't a charlatan.

He who laughs at his own one-liners laughs the loudest.

Bill Maher recently proved himself very badly at any empathy towards transgender people with the recent bathroom laws.

Again, Bill Maher's favorite fan is Bill Maher himself.

I don't think that just because someone is against trans-gender people having access either bathroom means they aren't empathetic to their plight.

I am a woman and I wouldn't feel comfortable urinating in a stall with someone less than 2 feet away from me doing the same who still has a penis and the attendant testosterone levels to match.

I personally do not feel that trans-gendered people should be allowed access to the bathroom that doesn't match their sexual organs at birth until after they complete realignment surgery.

But that doesn't mean I don't have empathy for trans-gendered people.

Trans-gendered people should have their rights protected. And they do have the right to go into a public bathroom.

But everyone else also has the right to feel comfortable when they go to the public bathroom as well.

I also think that most people are their own favorite fan. I know I'm my favorite fan.

CateS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think that just because someone is against
> trans-gender people having access either bathroom
> means they aren't empathetic to their plight.

It is not about either bathroom. It is the right to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

> I am a woman and I wouldn't feel comfortable
> urinating in a stall with someone less than 2 feet
> away from me doing the same who still has a penis
> and the attendant testosterone levels to match.

You would not even know who was in the next stall. So, how would you feel uncomfortable. Would you feel more comfortable as a woman to see someone in the bathroom dressed like a man who was there because he had female genitalia?

> I personally do not feel that trans-gendered
> people should be allowed access to the bathroom
> that doesn't match their sexual organs at birth
> until after they complete realignment surgery.

Your paranoia betrays religious indoctrination, not reality.

> But that doesn't mean I don't have empathy for
> trans-gendered people.

Yes, it does. You feel bad because they are not "normal" by your definition, and you refuse to take their rights seriously.

> Trans-gendered people should have their rights
> protected. And they do have the right to go into
> a public bathroom.

O.K. Which one? You want a female dressed male to go into the women's room, and a male dressed like a female to go into the men's room. Now, that won't create any problems.

> But everyone else also has the right to feel
> comfortable when they go to the public bathroom as
> well.

You will never know if a female dressed person in the woman's restroom is transgender. Newsflash. Transgender people do not go into the bathroom to show off their genitals. Just give it a rest.

> I also think that most people are their own
> favorite fan. I know I'm my favorite fan.

I like Bill Maher. He is not perfect, but he at least has the courage to state what he thinks. And most of the time, he is spot on, in my opinion.

Anonymous Today Wrote:


> It is not about either bathroom. It is the right
> to use the bathroom of the gender they identify
> with.

Why is it about the right to use the gender they identify with beyond you just saying so? Why do you get to decide what it's about?


>
> You would not even know who was in the next stall.
> So, how would you feel uncomfortable. Would you
> feel more comfortable as a woman to see someone in
> the bathroom dressed like a man who was there
> because he had female genitalia?

How do you know I wouldn't know who's in the next stall? Have you ever been in a woman's bathroom? Do you allow that it's possible that there could be trans-gendered women who have not even begun taking female hormones yet they dress as women and feel they have the right to access to a women's bathroom who would obviously present as men dressed as a woman?
Yes. I have no problem with people dressing in drag. I do not want to go the bathroom with someone who has a penis standing a foot and a half away from me while I am in a very vulnerable position.
I also do not want my 10-year-old daughter who insists on going into the bathroom alone in that position with a physically sexually-intact man in the bathroom with her. There is no other way to practically identify the sexes beyond genitalia. This is why I have no problem with a trans-gendered person entering the bathroom their genitalia matches. Currently (and historically) genitalia has been the main method of identifying gender.
Gender Dysphoria and Gender Identify Disorder are classified as disorders by the American Psychiatry Association.

> Your paranoia betrays religious indoctrination,
> not reality.
>

I'm an atheist. Please cite your credentials for diagnosing my "paranoia."


>
> Yes, it does. You feel bad because they are not
> "normal" by your definition, and you refuse to
> take their rights seriously.

I didn't determine the definition for defining gender (see above.) You've contradicted yourself. First you say I have no empathy then you say I feel bad. Make up your mind. I have a problem with your use of the word "normal" so I will ignore it. I think more appropriate language would be consistent with the majority of the population. Trans-gendered is not consistent with the majority of the population. It's very unusual.
I take everyone's rights seriously, including trans-gendered. Again, I would welcome them in the women's bathroom once they complete their reassignment.

>
> O.K. Which one? You want a female dressed male to
> go into the women's room, and a male dressed like
> a female to go into the men's room. Now, that
> won't create any problems.

Again, my position is that people whose genitalia is male should go into the men's room and those with female genitalia should go into the women's room. I don't care what their clothing is. I don't care if they have facial hair and I don't care if they're taking hormone shots.

>
>Just give it a rest.
>
You're rude and dismissive and judgmental. You just told me to shut up.

By signing this "Anonymous Today" you just traded away your credibility as far as I'm concerned. You apparently think that by hiding behind the "anonymous" moniker you have the right to judge, insult, diagnose me and tell me to shut up. Until you stop insulting me, cite your credentials for diagnosing my mental illness and tell me your name, I have nothing more to say to you. How boorish.

There are places in the world where a toilet is a toilet and gender really doesn't matter. IMHO it is a non issue. Who cares?

None of them even have the St. Charles Place of "truth," let alone "monopoly."

BTW, I don't agree with everything Maher says. Not by a long shot. However, that he has his own opinions that may differ from mine doesn't make him a "fraud." Neither does lacking empathy. It might make him mean and lacking empathy, but that's not the same thing as fraud or charlatan.

I think he has more of heart than most church leaders therefore I kinda like him and hes funny.

My biggest problem with Maher by far is his opinions on vaccinations. Unless those have changed in the past year so, my understanding is he has bought into the beliefs of the anti-vaccination crowd that vaccinations can cause illness and autism and so forth. When famous people who have opinions that are taken seriously by other people make these kind of statements, I can't help but feel a chill run up my spine. It strikes me as reckless.

Obviously he is entitled to his opinion. Perhaps he should do a better job of having informed opinions based on facts instead of whimsical and scientifically disproven notions about vaccines.

Sorry, I don't mean to start an argument on vaccination laws, but I also don't wish to engage in an argument about transgendered rights, two topics that I think have been exhausted on this forum.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2017 02:44PM by midwestanon.

I think the nineteenth century religious movements/churches mentioned by rogermartim in his opening post would probably all be classified by scholars as in some sense, "restorationist movements." They all in different ways were trying to get back to what they considered to be the purity of earliest Christianity before it became corrupted or changed with the passage of time.

I think the idea of "restoration" has been very powerful for many people, and in all sorts of areas. For example, today the idea of restoring the past "greatness" of America seems to resonate with a lot of people.

I think he's great. He's the only reason I subscribe to HBO! Wouldn't miss him.