Bad Religion Don't Pray On Me *REACTION!!*
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 01. 2023
- BUY OUR MERCH!🤘🏼🤩🤘🏾🎸
the-village-market.creator-sp...
PODCAST anchor.fm/conversations-with-...
The VillageXchange
www.amazon.com/s?me=A837LP212...
vinand.sori.9
PAYPAL vinandsorimerch@gmail.com
Patreon www.patreon.com/Vinandsori
MAIL US SOMETHING AT
Vin and Sori
P.O. Box 7024
Lewiston, Maine 04243
EMAIL US vinandsori@gmail.com
MIDDLE AMERICA WITH VIN AND SORI
/ @middleamericawithvina...
Website vinandsori.com
Facebook VinAndSori/
Twitter VinAndSori
Instagram vinsoriseven - Hudba
The first verse is about watching the LA riots on television. Y'all got the Rodney King reference; Daryl *Gates* was the LAPD commissioner who resigned in the wake of the riots.
It’s a real treat and a trip to see people dissect these tunes 30 and 40 years later,, back then we used to talk about them at the show and heavily rely on our interpretations ✌🏻
As a secular humanist, the ideas of equality or human rights in general are fairly easy to justify without relying on a deity (which essentially just boils down "that's just the way it is" in any case). I have empathy, knowing and seeing other people experience pain or unhappiness feels bad, which makes me believe that pain and unhappiness are things that should be minimized as much as possible. It is therefore a good idea to have and enforce rights and laws that lead to the greatest amount of happiness in as many people as possible.
As for the abortion issue, I don't believe a fetus can be considered a person until it's developed enough to be sentient. Before that point it's just a collection of cells that has the capacity to become a person in the future, not meaningfully different from sperm or egg cells. I think it's also worth pointing out that there's a pretty obvious distinction between abortion and pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state. A non-sentient fetus has yet to experience anything while someone in a vegetative state has. Unlike abortion, pulling the plug is effectively erasing a formerly sentient person along with everything they've experienced, a person that could (slim as the chance may be) be recovered.
Christians (and religious people in general) tend to think that empathy is tied to faith
Not to mention that abortion isn't even ab easy choice to begin with. It's something you do out of necessity and legislation against abortions only makes them less safe and markedly harms everybody's quality of life. There's no good leg to stand on being anti-choice. All you're doing is causing preventable suffering abd forcing people to do things they either can't or don't want to do. To add to his internal inconsistency, he argues it was okay for the Lord, his God to reap the souls of born children because it raised those children to God and punished people. (Rehab is better than punishment anyway and the concept of heaven and hell is fundamentally flawed because a perfect God needn't punish anyone to get them to follow a better path while still giving them free will.
And to make the argument to bodily autonomy, bodily autonomy violations always go a step to far. Forcing someone to carry a fetus to term is a rape and in the context of rape survivors being forced to carry, it is a second rape.
More bad religion pleasee! Hugs from chile! 🇨🇱
South america rules !!!!!
Smart dude!!!!!
Hanson and Hestor are from the scarlet letter
I learned sooo much from watching this!!! Thank you ❤
Religion is bad. Gods aren't real. Just be a good person.
Moral or not a law should be based on civil order only . The needs of the many out way the needs of the few. also name a country that you consider to be "good " because all nations in my opinion are morally flawed making your analogy invalid .
the thing with marilyn- all of those are a play on the "pray/prey" dynamic. "Maybe he did it to Marilyn..." Prayed to/prayed on
I think you misunderstand the criticism of god killing the first bon sons.....to me it seems much more likely that Greg is not claiming ththis is internally inconsistent, so much as hes saying it's morally reprehensible. This pont helps to discredit the myth of god(at least the modern flavors) by putting him at odds with the benevolence aspect of the Epicurean riddle.
I'm glad you guys did this song- known this song by heart since 1993.
So are you telling me that "there isn't a problem to kill children" because you are just sending the kid back to God and the kids kingdom?
Mi canción favorita de BR
Thanx
Greetings from Germany & happy new year first. I would be very happy if you guys would listen to KAVRILA - "Demolish"/"Night" or on MANTAR - "Hang'Em Low(So the Rats Can Get'Em"/"Cross the Cross" sometime. Thanks in advance & keep it up.
Do Under the Spell by Me and that Man.. which is Nergal from Behemoth side band featuring Mary Gore Aka Tobias Forge from Ghost
More punk
So a fertilized chicken egg, is that a chicken right away?
no, it's a fertilized chicken egg.
Yes, because the secular idea that bodily autonomy is the cornerstone right is compatible with eugenics, sure. And to add, an argument for bodily autonomy is not only incompatible with eugenics, genocide, racism, trans/homophobia, xenophobia, and patriarchy, but it is also in incompatible with being anti-choice. A demand for an abortion is when the consent of the parent ends and the rights of the fetus dependent on that parent end. The second somebody doesn't let you use their body to their ends, you ha w no say even if you wanted to speak. This is also why it's not compatible with genocide and eugenics, because genocide and eugenics are violations of someone's bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is the end all, be all of secular human rights.
Forgive me for Incomprehensible English, I'm typing this on a phone that is like., 85% a black screen
Bad Religion have lot of great songs you can react to. Try 21th Century Digital Boy, Dark New Ages, Modern Man...
Destiny for nothing, Epiphany, Candidate, I want to conquer the world. Shout+outs to Bad Religion
i love u guys but kinda sounds like ur defending child sacrifice just a little bit for a minute there
Com auxílio do chat gpt e de vocês
1. **Hanson e Hester**: Referências a personagens de "The Scarlet Letter" de Nathaniel Hawthorne, explorando temas de julgamento, moralidade e punição na sociedade.
2. **Mark David e John**: Possível referência a John Lennon e Mark David Chapman, o homem que assassinou Lennon em 1980.
3. **Jack e Marilyn**: Possíveis referências a John F. Kennedy (Jack) e Marilyn Monroe, explorando temas relacionados à política, escândalos e especulações de relacionamentos extraconjugais.
Essas interpretações são baseadas em possíveis conexões históricas e culturais associadas aos nomes mencionados na letra da música.
Com ajuda de vocês e do chat gpt.
1. **Hanson e Hester**: Referências a personagens de "The Scarlet Letter" de Nathaniel Hawthorne, explorando temas de julgamento, moralidade e punição na sociedade.
2. **Mark David e John**: Possível referência a John Lennon e Mark David Chapman, o homem que assassinou Lennon em 1980.
3. **Jack e Marilyn**: Possíveis referências a John F. Kennedy (Jack) e Marilyn Monroe, explorando temas relacionados à política, escândalos e especulações de relacionamentos extraconjugais.
Essas interpretações são baseadas em possíveis conexões históricas e culturais associadas aos nomes mencionados na letra da música.
The lyrics are all correct except the last line... It's actually everybody's praying, don't prey on me.
6 years later - you react to the video.
He's missing what Greg is saying in that song. he's not saying he's against what God did, he's saying what the bible is claiming is BS.
13:30 Vin's saying human sacrifice to God is cool with him because it's a story in the old testament. If it would be the Aztecs on top of a pyramid though, OMG!
Kinda just messing with you, love ya guys, do more Bad Religion songs, they have like what, 16 albums and a few EP's out there. One of the only old school first wave of hardcore punk band left along with Agnostic Front and maybe Slapshot? Smaller acts do reunion shows and shit but even with NOFX calling it quits after this year (no dates in my part of Canada yet😠, they only been to the west coast here so far, but I heard the live shows might extend into 2024), I want to see them one last time, I guess NOFX's part of that same first wave, they put out their first EP in 84 I think and demos in 83 while really freakin young) BR don't have a date yet set, and it used to be that Fat Mike would disband NOFX only when Bad Religion would retire (they kind of should have after the perfect album True North from 2013, too many important members left between that and Age of Unreason (2019)), now that live shows are a thing again since late 2022 around here, punk won't die.
This is a repeat? You guys okay?
Try live sorrow.
nop, you don't need a compressor 😇 "bolt gun" ...........
So he's not saying God's duty bound. He's saying God isn't real, and the bible is made up, and he doesn't want religion influencing our institutions. It's like saying Santa Clause is duty bound to deliver presents. He's making fun of the bible, or being cynical or something.
Insomnium- White christ 🫸
Gross misrepresentation of the secular position on human rights.
We, assuming the "we" are also liberal/anarchist (because secularism alone makes no moral/ethical prescriptions beyond the one and only statement that organised superstition shouldn't steer the ship of state or society), don't believe that a state grants us rights, but rather that that there is such a thing as fundamental inalienable rights as a moral imperative and those are tautological - the fundamnetal moral premises of a belief system. Bodily autonomy is the core human and civil right, because without it you de facto cannot have any others. Talking about human and civil rights when there are actual people whose bodily autonomy is being suspended is absolute nonsense. It's grotesquely funny in the same sense a Greek tragedy is funny that a "black" man apparently can't see that (assuming the perception and sentiments delivered in this video are honest, and not a deliberate misrepresentation). Tho there is a way to cure anti-abortion men of their murderous hypocrisy - use them for body parts whenever a child needs one. Let's see how much they believe in their own nonsense.
Now, even if a foetus was a person (and it isn't, because personality is the emergent property of brain processes that need copious amounts of data to develop - a newborn's brain literally learns basic graphical processing shortcuts and patterns as well as sound modulation during its first days of life as the data is now pouring in. This is the 21st century, we understand information theory pretty well at this point, disembodied software is not a thing that can exist under known physics), it still wouldn't have legitimate rights to other people's bodies; again other people's bodies. When you said "valuing some people less", what you did is called projection - you value people with wombs, most of whom are women, less, because you think they should face months of torture, certain mutilation and possible death to maintain a thing that in such a scenario by definition has superhuman rights. Except if those special rights harm only a marginalised group facing an ongoing genocide, women in this case - men surely aren't forced to risk life and limb so that a foetus can be sustained. So, the foetuses don't have actual superhuman rights (they cannot override men's rights to bodily autononmy, bare rare cases of trans men that this patriarchal system doesn't recognise as men anyways), it's that women are treated as lesser. I can't have the state nationalise your liver with or without you still attached to it (tho had the Antebellum South remained ante, that could've been the case at least for one half of Vin and Sori) and put it into the service of preserving my life, not even if you assault me and are the cause of me needing a liver in the first place. Why? Well, because bodily autonomy is a thing.
This, however, begs an important question. Given how much you people "care" about "children", why is it that secular people are far more likely to adopt and also far less likely to harm children? You will selfishly breed despite a plenty abandoned kids to go around, but it's definitely not about misogynistic control and is totally about "saving babies". Hell, we are far more likely to treat cats better than you treat children, for one I don't know a single person who bought a cat from a breeder as opposed to adopting from a shelter or taking in a stray, and I don't think any beat their pets or threaten them with hellfire if they don't submit to Christian patriarchal whims (which often involves sxl abuse, after all we are talking about THE child bride religion, age is apparently just a number if you're the timeless master of the universe at a ripe old age of infinity and a 9-12 years old Palestinian girl will do).
An another question that begs to be considered. Since the 1950's we've had the technology to create a womb-like environment as an entirely artificial system, and given that the capabilities of modern computing (which is cca half a century old at this point, the craft that landed on the Moon had a modern central computer onboard ) are immensely powerful and the hardware is cheap (your cellphone's GPU could ran an entire hospital network, and that's the auxiliary computer on it that costs pennies to manufacture now); at this point the once trickiest part of the system, the precise sensor feedback inputs-regulated automated control, are even more trivial than the rudimentary hydraulic pump mechanical bits (that were already perfected by the 1950's) of the hypothetical fetal life support device. Ask yourself, out of the billions that go into genocidal campaigns against women under the pretenses of "pro-life" (the same people who in general think free healthcare is satanic and AR-15s are divine, BTW), how come that not a dime has been invested in research and development of the relatively simple life support device that remains hypothetical only because people who claim to believe foetuses are people don't want to put a single coin or an ounce of effort where their (totally not disingenuous fascist) mouth is...
I feel like you DO understand the criticism even if you feel obligated to defend it.
In the moral environment lots of kids are raised in when they are taught christianity, the details of the old testmanent can conflict with "common moral sense" and an interpretation has to be understood as they grow and learn and "understand" christianity more. But that actual sense of conflict comes from the flavo0r of morality being uneven, as indeed, there had to be a long string of invention of theology that makes for a coherent philosophy from such a long range of source materials.
Islam deals with this more simply- whatever is useful from the bible it keeps, whatever is not useful is dismissed as alterations.
And indeed, from what you've said before, there does seem to be ethical problems and real differences that arise from this interpretation.
"God can do what he wants and we cant judge him plus its not really a punishment"- well, it was clearly meant to be a COLLECTIVE punishment on the people of Egypt despite the fact there was no voting or democracy or any agency egyptians had in their own societies. The story had its own purposes but it was composed based on a vague hiostorical memory which was meant to compare a supposedly ancient historical situation tyo the babylonian captivity, and through the faith in the Jewish God, the people would be free. The notion of a distinct, specifically Jewish monothesitic God was likely solidified during the captivity as a unification of two deities, the war/storm god YHWH and the paternal god EL.
At any rate, throughout the bible, not only the actions of the deity himself, but the commands of the deity to his followers, suggest an idea that a nation is collectively responsible for its sins. This idea fits in with the "pray/prey" dynamic that is being critiqued here.
That is SUCH a stretch on the death of the first born. God HARDENED the Pharaohs heart and made or happen.
The hoops Christians go through to justify their beliefs is ridiculous. Maybe if god came down and said it instead of the many interpretations given to us by men.
You thought you made a man, you better think again before my role defines you.
And having your children murdered by God because HE made the pharaoh not give in is not the same as a parking spot. I'm sorry, but that whole conversation is the reason there is no hate like Christian love. Maybe if YOUR kid was killed you might think different. But then again, the indoctrination into the christian religion is so deep it can break a person's empathy.
I spent 21 years studying the bible, I was an apologist and true believer. What you say is what I used to say, and it is wrong and it is the cause of much suffering.
For me it’s a bodily autonomy issue. It’s granting fetuses superhuman rights, as we don’t allow others to connect to humans for their needs.
There isn't a single interpretation of scripture or "christianity". At the time the story was created, God was very much the God of the hebrews, and was about justice for the chosen people, not so much everyone else who had no covenant.
There's been a long time of the establishment and evolution of christianity and doctrine to make the morals consistent, but the reality is the bible is a compilation of different things written by different people at different times with different purposes and different moral messages.
Its important to understand what different people who believe in a religion actually believe and how they justify those beliefs, but, especially in poetic terms, its not necessary to steelman any opposing belief.
With that particular line, knowing a bit about the writer, Brett Gurewitz (Bad Religion has two songwriters who compete) he makes reference to that specific event in his own understading of religion. Gurewitz describes himself as a conditional non-interventionist deist with a personal sense of spirituality, Graffin as a secular humanist.
Gurewitz references the passover in Generator "Oh yeah, like the blood on my door"
Examining the mythology and views of the culture he was raised in, that his descendents were singled out for protection by the mark of blood, what that is interpreted to mean versus what it personally means for him, the idea of being an individual with this unique history, and both he and greg write about how these ideas have centrally infliuenced the culture and evolution of the west.
Im not entirely sure you can make the comparison with a child that has been born. Tough topic though. Point of sentience is definately hugely important, as well as the fate that the child will eventually have. For what reasons would abortions be valid, and at which point is it. It is an important question to be considered, because we face it wether we like it or not.
Firstly to clarify, i have always disliked the final verse of this song, because i find it needlessly offensive - and that it will easily turn people off because they are just a little religious, even if the message of the song in general would resonate with most people - or atleast make them think. But again, American culture is quite different from Scandinavian, so i may be off the beaten path here.
No one in their right mind would think it is okay to kill a child that has been born. You can be completely against abortion - for whatever reason you want (i dont know if you are - it was a bit unclear to me). But science does, for the people who are pro abortion, add more points to the debate to be discussed than the particular species. Point of sentience should be part of the discussion, can we reasonably measure it - when does it happen. Other important matters are consequences of unwanted childbirth for mother, child, siblings and other relatives - i.e. possibilities of the mother dieing, unclean D.I.Y. abortions, situations as the one example you suggested yourself - rape, and likely a lot more. Is it possible to point out situations where non-abortion likely to bring more consequences than simply childbirth and motherhood? Science cannot answer whether this is okay, nor to what extend it is okay, or even if it should be legal. It can however give nuance to the debate. Philosophy is what helps us answers the question, even though the question may have no good answer.
It is just like the economic and political sciences. It is very reasonable as well as mathematically sound to argue that taxes in general cause a welfare loss for society in terms of reducing the amount of workhours, as well as inhibit trade that cause both loss of revenue and "consumer surplus". It is usually a central argument for free markets or limiting governmental interferance. However, that standpoint completely ignores what the collected revenue could be/is used for, and what that choice may do to societal welfare. Philosophy will answer wether the tradeoff between taxes and government spendings is reasonble, and if the tradeoff is reasonable, then to what extend. Science can't answer the question, but it does create a more nuanced debate.